Good point. What’s important to realize about the Jews is that they have essentially been wandering the earth for the last few thousand years. They were persecuted almost everywhere they went and that’s what kept the Diaspora going. In some countries they succeeded. But what is important is that they made it into every nation on earth. This small semitic group, who also are members of the worlds oldest religion and are probably the most persecuted group in history, had a presence in every country in the world.
The regathering into the Holy Land brought Jews from every country in the world. Not every Jew but Jews from every country. The floodgates opened in the WWI/WWII era and the Jews are still continuing to return to the Promised Land. All countries took notice of this prophetic fulfillment.
I am not an expert on Biblical language but I think the significance is that Israel would have one ruler.
Also, I don’t think the Jews were much concerned with the prophecies at the time. They seemed too concerned with the Holocaust and were determined to end the wide-spread persecution against them.
Fact is that the USA has a larger Jewish population than any country in history, including Israel. Despite regretable anti-semitism we still are more accepting to their rights than any other country has ever been, with the possible exclusion of Israel.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure the Old Testament played very little role in the creation of a Jewish state in the same spot as the traditional Holy Land. In fact, I bet they didn’t even consider it, and it’s there because of a huge coincidence.
I’m sorry if what i said may seem ignorant, but it’s hard for me to beleive a religion is not hypocritical when everyone who follows it is a hypocrite. Christians may denounce the crusades now (im just assuming most do because the crusade were a horrible thing), but it doesn’t change what happened back then.
Well, the Zionist movement did consider establishing a Jewish Homeland in Uganda (not to mention Galveston, Texas), but then they decided that the climate was nicer in Palestine, plus they figured there might be cultural clashes with all those cowboy-boot-wearing Texans, whereas in the Middle East there were only Arabs, and since Jews and Arabs are all brother Semites, everyone was expected to get along just famously…
**Advice on how severely to beat a slave; it’s okay if they recover in two days (Exodus 21:20-21)
*
The above shows the context in which the statement was made about beating the slave and that it was not just about the beating.
Is this version supposed to make it somehow less offensive? I do not respect the beliefs the Bible fosters or the wars it has caused.
As long as your beliefs do not cause harm to anyone else and it helps you get through life you should be able to believe whatever you like.
Quoted from above This sounds harsh at present, but back then slaves could be beaten to death without punishment.
Not only that but God gives you specific instructions?
You should not need a bible to be your guide to what is right or wrong. You should already know instinctively. If what you are doing causes pain or grief for someone else it is probably wrong.
I believe the original question was why should I respect the Bible?
You can respect the person without respecting the book.
It puts it into context of being a law, at the time. It is offensive to us today, but was progressive at the time. If you are looking for value in it, then it shows you that you should improve the conditions for those who are less fortunate than you.
This all rests on the belief that things have progressed in the last 2500 years. If you believe that we have not progressed or that we don’t need to progress farther, then I guess it has nothing to say to you.
You don’t respect any of the ten commandments? You don’t respect Jesus saying “Love thy enemy” or “Do unto others?”
You don’t respect any of the Psalms?
Wars, wars, wars. Most of the crusades were economically inspired and religion was only the excuse used. If it hadn’t been available then some other excuse would have been used. In Desert Storm we said we were fighting to free Kuwait. We were fighting to keep oil (economics).
Tell me who said any different and I’ll help you diss them.
I am not a literalist, so if the instructions don’t seem to come from God, they probably didn’t. Only you can make that determination.
Man is naturally good, all he has to do is follow his instincts. I personally do not believe in original sin, but naturally good is swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side. I’m sorry but we have to have laws and ethics or else even you and I wouldn’t be listening to that little voice.
"Probably wrong"? So I guess if I can find a way to justify what I do, there it will be O.K.
Are you saying that you can still respect me despite the fact that I respect the bible? If so, Gee Thanks.
It means that, after Israel was conquered by the Babylonians in 587 or 586 B.C., the Babylonians treated the Israelites just as badly as the Israelites had previously treated their enemies. I.e. the Israelites were exiled from Israel/Palestine and taken into Babylon as slaves. And of course, the Israelites resented it and wished for all sorts of bad things to happen to the Babylonians in retribution.
It seems that everything you get from the Bible is something you already have through common sense, empathy and man made laws.
Actually I AM a little leary of the first 4 commandments. Why would an all powerful one and only God be worried about these things?:
I. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
II. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
III. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain.IV. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
I ask this because I am truly curious not to try to make you defensive or disrespect you personally.
And how can He be an all-loving God one moment and teaching this the next::I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.::
I thought jealousy was a sin? At least that is what I always thought was meant by coveting.
Yes, I take it literally because I know of no other way to form an opinion. If God did not want us to understand he would not have given us intelligence or curiosity or the ability to reason and solve problems. It is not wrong to question things that I do not understand and my questions certainly have nothing to do with you they have to do with the Bible.
I was hoping for someone to tell me their ideas on the subjects not take a defensive stance. I am only stating some of the things I have been unable to come to terms with that are written in the Bible and therefore keeps me from respecting it. To me it is a book and that is all. I would not go into your home and throw it on the floor. That would be disrespecting you.
It is not natural because of my opinions, however, for me to treat it as any other book written by men that lived thousands of years ago. The same way I would treat books on Greek mythology.
I DID NOT SAY::
Man is naturally good, all he has to do is follow his instincts.
YOU SAID:
I personally do not believe in original sin, but naturally good is swinging the pendulum all the way to the other side.
MY RESPONSE:
I agree that man is not naturally good. Only that he has instincts or empathy that would help a reasonable person understand right from wrong.
I SAID:
IF what you are doing causes pain or grief to someone else it is probably wrong.
YOU SAID:
“Probably wrong”? So I guess if I can find a way to justify what I do there it will be O.K.?
MY RESPONSE:
Yes, it is ok to cause grief to, say, a criminal as punishment or to protect yourself from enemies. This was another common sense thing. The word PROBABLY was included to point out there are exceptions not to give yourself excuses for being evil… Had I not put it there you would be arguing that I don’t think it is EVER right to cause grief to ANYONE no matter what the circumstance.
I SAID:
You can respect the person without respecting the book.
YOU SAID:
Are you saying that you can still respect me despite the fact that I respect the bible? If so, Gee Thanks.
MY RESPONSE:
That is exactly what I am saying. And you are welcome.
The simplest way to say it is that many apparent followers of Christianity have been hypocritical. It is not fair to make generalizations about any group especially one as diverse as the Christians. I’ve met many Christians who lead very good, simple lives. They are some of the people I trust the most. They all insist that in the Bible they find the source that defines their lifestyle. I don’t believe all Christians have that kind of success with the Bible because the Bible is not a daily presence in all their lives. Those who are true adherents are the ones who best represent the Bible not those who contradict the Bible regularly.
first off I would say that the basis of Christianity is hyprocritical from the get-go… The simple fact taht a Christian says “I’m going to heaven and you are not” or “My beliefs are right and yours are wrong” while on the other hand saying “you’re just blind” to somebody who says the same to them is hypocritical… and many Christians may not say this in so many words… but that doesn’ change it… As people have said, a religion HAS to say these things by its very nature, which is precisely why it’s all so vindictive/hypocritical.
Saying “all humans inherently know right from wrong” is just as dumb as saying “all humans inherently know there is a God”… Babies don’t share, and many “primitive” tribes kill and rape. Our sense of right and wrong is built up over time by listening to society and occassionally our own survival instincts (ie: “i shouldn’t kill cause then I might be killed”)
What do you mean by “worried”? There’s no implication in these commandments that G-d thinks that disobeying these commandments is a threat to him. The point is that obeying these commandments would be good for the people.
Ever hear of “tough love”?
“Jealousy” and “covetousness” are not exactly the same thing. In the original Hebrew as well, the words used are different. While this is an oversimplification, I will in the most simple sense address the question by saying that “jealousy” (in the Biblical sense; please do not respond to this by pulling definitions from a modern dictionary) is about zealously guarding what is yours, and “covetousness” is about desiring that which belongs to others.
The first sentence is where I’m having a problem. Because a religion belief system requires that it be viewed as the only true path does not mean it is vindictive or hypocritical. Christian’s believe they are saved because they believe in Jesus, not because they are better than others. The Christian claim isn’t that we’re living up to the standards set by the Bible, it is that we are actively trying to live by the Bible. Nothing wrong with that.
I could just as easily say that all atheists are hypocrites because, although they claim to avoid generalizations, they assume that all believers in religion are illogical and irrational. Is that a fair statement?
Until you’ve met every Christian, don’t make a statement concerning all of them.
