The Bible is barbaric. Applying modern standards to it isn’t “anachronistic”; it’s just an acknowledgment that we’ve advanced far beyond what is written in it morally as well as technologically.
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:62, topic:544812”]
If you say so.
Of course it is.
I don’t see anything written in the bible that does not continue to happen today. Just how advanced are we?
Talking snakes don’t happen today. Resurrections don’t happen today. Miracle healing doesn’t happen today. Prophecy doesn’t come true today.
Of course, those things never *actually *happened, so this isn’t much of a surprise.
Actually, I thought that the whole Limbo thing was declared null and void back during Vatican II. My mother used to tell me how she was taught about it, and I never ever heard a word about it when I was in school. (Nine years of Catholic school)
I was referring to your claim of the violence in the Bible, and your purposeful vapidity is noted.
You acknowledge its barbarism when you insist that modern standards not be applied to it.
Advanced enough that people like yourself who try to defend it feel compelled to demand that we not apply modern moral standards to it. And certainly even ignoring the impossible occurrences, it’s full of barbarous behavior that is now only an aberration being practiced as the norm.
Does “Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks” sound like normal present behavior?
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:67, topic:544812”]
You
That’s just simply prudent when studying ancient cultures. It’s not a tactic reserved for the Bible.
I’m not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the violence we read about in the Bible was the norm? Can you give me some evidence for this claim?
You seem morally outraged by this. Where does this moral indignation come from?
I’m not even bothering to answer here, Skald, I see the thread’s already in the shitter. I’ll PM you.
Did I make a claim about violence in the bible? In any case, if you mean something say it. I, like God, cannot read minds.
Anyone surprised by that fact hasn’t been here long enough.
Actually, I don’t remember who wrote it. If it wasn’t you, sorry.
Do you think that the Bible is inspired by God? Do you think that David wrote the Psalms (or at least most of them) and was able to communicate with God? Would you be happy to remove parts of the Bible that you think are immoral? Do you think that there was a literal flood which caused the deaths of almost every living being on Earth?
I just want to answer what my biblical reading is on this question. Here’s the verse I use:
This scripture appears to be saying that a child born to two non-Christian parents is unclean, which would mean that said child would not be able to go to heaven. Only the children born to at least one Christian parent would be by default clean. If we thus assume the pro-life position that the conceived yet unborn is no different from the actually born, this would apply to embryos and fetuses as well.
It’s quite convenient for those who believe in the Rapture, as they don’t have to worry about bodies being torn out of women’s wombs in that time. Though it does seem to create a system that allows for becoming a Christian by marriage.
For another data point, Mormons believe that until the age of eight, you’re golden - if you die before then then you get a free trip to the best heaven without even having to pass go. So forget infanticide, elementary-school shootings are a more efficient way of finding all your innocents gathered together for you.
Note: Most Mormons don’t go on elementary-school shootings.
No one is saying that we should look at other ancient cultures as a moral guide.
So you think that soldiers smashing infants against rocks in front of their mothers is just fine? You probably do in fact; you are anti-choice, which is about tormenting women. Forcing them to give birth against their will or killing the children they do want both cause women to suffer, so on that level anti-abortionism and killing children in front of their mothers are basically the same. Same goal, different method.
I’m religious but I have a problem with the idea that ensoulment occurs at conception; too me it seems a bit ludicrous that a two-celled organism could have a full fledged soul. I haven’t decided when ensoulment occurs, whether before, at, or after birth, but before that time obviously nothing happens. That doesn’t mean I think abortion is right, just that it doesn’t necessarily send a soul to wherever.