Social Question

rockfan's avatar

How do you handle debating social issues with someone who only quotes verses of the bible?

Asked by rockfan (8966points) December 19th, 2013

Do you think it’s even worth trying to have a converstion with people like this?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

74 Answers

zenvelo's avatar

It’s a waste of breath to try to debate somebody like that. My response would be,“sorry, we’re having a conversation, Add some original thought or be quiet.”

ragingloli's avatar

Get your hands on a Satanist’s bible.

tom_g's avatar

I don’t.

Nor do I debate economic issues with someone who only quotes verses from Harry Potter.

MadMadMax's avatar

Cherry picking verses is a bore. If I do it, then I’m” taking it out of context.” They do it and it’s the literal word of a god.

Some of that stuff is so disgusting and evil it respells me.

KNOWITALL's avatar

Just ask them to use another source.

Seek's avatar

I quote some right back at them. And when they try to argue with me that XYZ doesn’t count anymore, I quote some more. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever; Do not think I came to abolish the Law (meaning, the rules Moses put down, everything from the Ten Commandments to don’t eat shrimp or wear poly-cotton blends) but to fulfill it.

It’s actually kind of fun to teach people what their Bibles say. You want to know why I’m not a Christian anymore? Because I read all the verses. Not just the ones they wanted me to see.

It’s ultimately useless in the short term, but I just love sowing discord among the brethren. (Proverbs, 6:16–19)

Rarebear's avatar

I’m with Seek. I start quoting versus of the Bible, the ones about stoning your daughter and stuff. You’re not going to get them to change their mind but you can bring to light the cognitive dissonance.

jerv's avatar

Fighting scripture with scripture is the only thing that has even a chance of having a possibility of working, as no argument other than the Bible can even come close to being considered even remotely valid in the minds of such people. Though the more Liberal ones might consider Fox News to be the Third Testament….

Personally, I prefer so save my efforts for dealing with those that have more intellectual flexibility and capacity. Like houseplants.

elbanditoroso's avatar

It’s not worth the effort. Quoting scripture generally means that they can’t think for themselves.

MadMadMax's avatar

@elbanditoroso I agree.

The sad thing is, if they think this way and live in this insular bubble, they aren’t addressing the problems of the real world. They are eagerly awaiting an endtime that they’ve been waiting for endlessly for thousands of years.

They are setting us back culturally, intellectually and internationally. It’s a real problem.

filmfann's avatar

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

syz's avatar

I don’t hang out with people who quote Bible verses. I also don’t hang out with people who are so intellectually limited that they can’t think for themselves.

ibstubro's avatar

Noun 1. debate – a discussion in which reasons are advanced for and against some proposition or proposal; “the argument over foreign aid goes on and on”.

You’re not debating. A quote can be used in support of an argument, but not substitute for the argument itself.

Are you debating in person, or on-line. If you’re debating with someone on-line, it would be fun to find an electronically searchable Shakespeare text and use nothing but Shakespearean quotes to respond.

I’ve actually done that with a Biblical quote engine, and it was fun for a while, but you can bet that it will quickly devolve into you incorrectly stating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Tropical_Willie's avatar

Remind him/her that the Devil quoted Scriptures to Jesus too!

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t. But, if you know a lot of the bible and can quote verses, that would be the best game plan in my mind as other mentioned above. I have a feeling they win’t want to talk about it for too long, because their world would start to crumble. @Seek_Kolinahr and the other jellies that mentioned that strategy probably know best what usually happens in those cases, I am just guessing.

kritiper's avatar

Nah. Ignore them and move on to a more rewarding conversation!

KaY_Jelly's avatar

If evil were music then this would be like evil.

If a composer were evil and that composer loves to play music for you and sometimes with you, if you allow it.

The evil composer could even just steal your most valuable guitar and smash it and send you the pics if you’d like.
Encore!

RocketGuy's avatar

The Bible has phrases for any occasion. You can argue anything if you know the right ones.

SwanSwanHummingbird's avatar

The moment someone says something like, “god says” or “according to the Bible” the conversation has ended. Reason cannot argue with faith.

Seek's avatar

@JLeslie – It usually ends with them saying “I didn’t come here to argue the Bible with you!”

Which is where I say “You knocked on my door, didn’t you?”

JLeslie's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I didn’t quite see that coming. LOL.

antimatter's avatar

Here’s one quote the Bible back “there’s a time and place for everything”. And now is not the place for Bible studies.

ETpro's avatar

I’m in @Seek_Kolinahr, @Rarebear, @jerv, @RocketGuy, and @antimatter except that I note in advance that I do not accept the Bible as the authoritative word of The Creator, and I try to point out that the verse/s I quote directly conflict with the one/s they quoted, and that this should not be possible if we were both using a holy book divinely guided or directly written by an omniscient, omnipotent God.

RocketGuy's avatar

The “do good to other people” parts are fine to me, but there are justifications for slavery, murder, incest, etc.

rojo's avatar

Pure and simple, the answer you are looking for is “No” it is not worth your time or effort to try to have a productive conversation with someone like that.

DWW25921's avatar

I think it could be very enlightening! How does anyone expect to overcome an enemy that they don’t understand? Understanding your opponents position is the best position to be in! Don’t even try to fight it, throw out some bones and see what the cat drags in. That way, if you have a real altercation you’ll have your ducks in a row.

glacial's avatar

@DWW25921 I have no idea what you just said.

josie's avatar

I guess it depends on which social issue you are talking about.
If you want to defend gay marriage and abortion on demand, you might as well change the subject.
If you want to defend “social justice” and wealth redistribution, you are at the source.

Seek's avatar

^ I don’t know, god is pretty OK with dashing infants’ heads against the stones, as long as those infants’ heads aren’t Jewish. (Psalm 137: 8,9)

and David and Jonathan were a little more than friends, I’d wager. (2 Sam 1:26)

MadMadMax's avatar

Abortion:

Hosea 9:11–16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Numbers 5:11–21 The description of a bizarre, brutal and abusive ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

Numbers 31:17 (Moses) “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

2 Kings 15:16 God allows the pregnant women of Tappuah (aka Tiphsah) to be “ripped open”. And the Christians have the audacity to say god is pro-life. How and the hell is it that Christians can read passages where God allows pregnant women to be murdered, yet still claim abortion is wrong?

Infanticide:

1 Samuel 15:3 God commands the death of helpless “suckling” infants. This literally means that the children god killed were still nursing.

Psalms 135:8 & 136:10 Here god is praised for slaughtering little babies.

Psalms 137:9 Here god commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.

RocketGuy's avatar

God is so vengeful!

KaY_Jelly's avatar

The bible uses symbolism.

Of course literally some people see that as hitting babies with actual rocks.

God is a rock. A rock is a strong, stable foundation on which great empires can be built.

Imho, God is commanding that babies be filled with the faith of the lord, because that gives them a strong stable foundation. Not actually hit babies with rocks!

Ironically though people seem to have issue with that with no proof of him actually smashing babies heads with rocks,and even though they don’t believe in His word, why take that literally then and let it bother you?

And people seem to cherry pick that but not the barbaric humiliating way Jesus was murdered and quite a few people actually believe there was a man named Jesus and that he died on a cross, but just do not believe that he came from God and accomplished things it says in the bible because the bible is apparently a ‘fairytale’.

Jesus the man must of been real, otherwise people are rewriting history and pretending Pontius Pilate, never existed, but he did.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/pontiuspilate/g/PontiusPilate.htm

RocketGuy's avatar

They never told me that in Sunday school…

glacial's avatar

@KaY_Jelly “God is commanding that babies be filled with the faith of the lord, because that gives them a strong stable foundation. Not actually hit babies with rocks!”

This just might be the most extreme case I have ever witnessed of someone rationalizing what is essentially a biblical horror story to turn it into something that is morally acceptable.

ETpro's avatar

@glacial That is the kind of Christian it’s utterly pointless to debate the Bible with. Their Bible says whatever they want it to say, and the words in it are irrelevant. It justifies their particular sectarian belief, and proves conclusively that all false Christians (no true Scotsman fallacy) interpretations are dead wrong, regardless of what the dictionary and study of the ancient languages the original codices were written in might actually mean.

Seek's avatar

@glacial Seriously.

Short version of that particular Psalm: David is peeved because Babylonian people have acted in hostility against the Jews. So he writes and sings a song about how happy both he and God would be to murder all the little babies of the Babylonians in retaliation by beating their heads against sharp rocks.

Yep. Murdering the babies with the faith in the Lord. Hallelujah.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Uh actually no.  I am not making it up.  If you look at translated and dated documents from that time, you would see that they indeed talked similarly to that.

Here’s an interesting quote from The Annals written by Tacitus in 109 A.C.E:
I just want to point out I’m not making this stuff up.

“For myself, Senators, I am mortal and limited to the functions of humanity, content if I can adequately fill the highest place; of this I solemnly assure you, and would have posterity remember it.  They will more than sufficiently honour my memory by believing me to have been worthy of my ancestry, watchful over your interests, courageous in danger, fearless of enmity, when the state required it.  These sentiments of your hearts are my temples, these my most glorious and abiding monuments.  *Those built of stone are despised as mere tombs*, if the judgment of posterity passes into hatred.  And therefore this is my prayer to our allies, our citizens and to heaven itself; to the last, that, to my life’s close, it grant me a tranquil mind, which can discern alike human and divine claims; to the first, that, when I die, they honour my career and the reputation of my name with praise and kindly remembrance.”

The Annals are an amazing historical read, I suggest taking the time to read them.

Seek's avatar

You’re about two thousand years off in your comparison, love.

Also, nothing about violently slaughtering infants with faith in that selection.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr The least you could do is stop spreading ignorance and blaming me for it, I gave you all the information you needed to research it all, but now I have to correct your mistakes.

The Annals are an account written by Tacitus of what happened throughout out the historical years.
The paragraph that I have given was from the time AD 23–28 that is a time frame when Jesus could of been alive since calculations put Jesus on earth between AD 0–33.

Even if you had of read them you would find out the speech is in reference to the fact that Spain sent a Representative to the Senate with a request to erect a temple in honour of Tiberius and his mother. The quote I gave was Tiberius responding to the rumor. He also makes note further in the reading that:

But though it may be pardonable to have allowed this once, it would be a vain and arrogant thing to receive the sacred honour of images representing the divine throughout all the provinces, and the homage paid to Augustus will disappear if it is vulgarised by indiscriminate flattery.

In the Annals Tacitus continues with:

Henceforth Tiberius even in private conversations persisted in showing contempt for such homage to himself. Some attributed this to modesty; many to self-distrust; a few to a mean spirit. “The noblest men,” it was said, “have the loftiest aspirations, and so Hercules and Bacchus among the Greeks and Quirinus among us were enrolled in the number of the gods. Augustus, did better, seeing that he had aspired. All other things princes have as a matter of course; one thing they ought insatiably to pursue, that their memory may be glorious. For to despise fame is to despise merit.”

But the fact that Tiberius did not want to build a temple because “These sentiments of your hearts are my temples, these my most glorious and abiding monuments.”

Like I personally can only think of the Garni Temple as an example at this moment of a standing archeological monument dedicated to the Roman God of the sun.

“Those built of stone are despised as mere tombs, if the judgment of posterity passes into hatred.” He basically sees no use of comparing himself to a stone structure which in the future is of no importance other than a tomb because he himself is a mortal with functions of humanity and the sentiments of the heart are his temples which are his most glorious and abiding monuments, For to despise fame is to despise merit. Which basically proves the symbolism I was talking about because Gods were compared to stone structures. If you can’t see it you are even more ignorant than I thought.

Well you won’t so I will just end up giving you the link lol but why not look up the symbolism on stone in the bible if you are so interested?

Tacitus completes the leg of this part of the book by giving his opinion on Tiberius throughout his reign as emperor which he states:

“On his return from Rhodes he ruled the emperor’s now heirless house for twelve years, and the Roman world, with absolute sway, for about twenty-three. His character too had its distinct periods. It was a bright time in his life and reputation, while under Augustus he was a private citizen or held high offices; a time of reserve and crafty assumption of virtue, as long as Germanicus and Drusus were alive. Again, while his mother lived, he was a compound of good and evil; he was infamous for his cruelty, though he veiled his debaucheries, while he loved or feared Sejanus. Finally, he plunged into every wickedness and disgrace, when fear and shame being cast off, he simply indulged his own inclinations.”

IMHO, After I have read the bible, it sounds to me like Jesus actually knew what he was talking about in that time and was a well educated man and someone which I now know was to be justifiably feared at that time, heck I have extensively researched this, so I am not going into this with my eyes closed so to speak, and have found evidence that, for me, backs it up.

I am actually offended that non believers take such low level attacks on Christian individuals as myself who are not here to proselytize but I am doing nothing more than educating.

I actually believe that there are Christians out there who do this, those are the ones who speak in bible quotes or go knock on doors but the non believers are just as to blame of the offense discussed in the question, the only difference for the non believer is to gain other non believers, otherwise why would there be literal ignorance of the history of Jesus other than to cast your cause at the ‘heads of babies’.

Oh no I said it and it’s now on the internet so that must make it barbarically true.
Atheists just want to make babies ignorant?

Ignorance is bliss in the Jesus department after all.

Also, considering what I just said..@glacial if you want to scrutinize me for “rationalizing”, so be it. I will take that as a compliment. LOL.

@ETpro “That is the kind of Christian.” I actually thought we got through all this personal attack stuff on Christians and you wanted to communicate with them, and that you were willing to move on and forward from this, but I can see that will be an uphill battle for you, I forgive you, God gave me that greatest gift.

We have a choice, that is my point.
I am not making anyone choose.
If the evidence is overwhelming that is not my problem.
If you are reading between the lines, that is also not my problem.
If you have no clue and are just responding to get a rise, that is also not my problem it can become my problem depending upon how I choose to respond.
If you don’t like my response that is not my problem.
Again, ignorance is bliss isn’t it?

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom.
Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired.
~Tactius, The Annals

Yes killing Christians in this brutal way please don’t forget to mention that non believers!
So far along with the fact that, even though as non believers, who don’t even believe in the bible, seem to have no issue ‘cherry picking scripts’ from it as their own personal gain to their own ignorant stance!
Wow. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
And still in the historical text I haven’t found anything on bashing babies heads with rocks.

ATHEISTS ROCK!!! Another pun.

Seek's avatar

Sweetheart – the Bible verse about dashing babies’ heads against rocks comes from Psalms, which was attributed to David, several thousand years before Tacitus was a twinkle in his mommy’s eye.

I have no idea what Tacitus has to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread, and thus will not bother reading the rest of that over-formatted rant.

ETpro's avatar

@KaY_Jelly No, we actually got to the point where I said I would respond to what you say more often than directly to you because you interpret scripture based on your own personal beliefs and ignore all of the scriptures that conflict with such beliefs, or claim we are under a new dispensation which is never defined in your holy book, but which you are privy to. In essence, I decided discussion on those terms was pointless. I’m happy to talk with you about things where religious dogma doesn’t get in the way, but not subjects like this till you start engaging in real debate an abandon pontificating. It would also be neat, as @Seek_Kolinahr points out above, it you could confine yourself to the topic and not try to confuse the issue by digressions. If you learn to actually debate a single issue around what the Bible actually says, I’ll reengage in that sort of discussion, but not until.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I am giving you an account of a time when Jesus was actually alive, you are giving a time when Jesus was not alive. If you do not believe in God how can you, sweetheart, ever attribute the bashing of babies heads to Him??????? Does the time frame actually matter anyway, this is another thing we have gone through. If Jesus was God and God became Jesus then God technically was alive in the time of David and Tacitus so the symbolism still applies.

But you are doing this for your cause.

Also, I like how you have this idea of being happy and writing a song about being that and being ‘peeved’ all at the same time, you are still confused.

@ETpro Yes you have decided to pretend like I am not in the room, funny little pretender you are, you who doesn’t believe in fairies or unicorns, look at you pretending.
You do however sometimes get tired of pretending and seem to like to throw peanuts at me from the gallery whenever you get the chance, since I am the “elephant” in the room and you don’t like my act, which as a living sentient being, should extend beyond regardless of the skin, and I know that is something that you do care about and if this was a real circus and I was a real elephant you may have different views.

Also, it may be ‘neat’ if I could do that, not just for you but for myself, but I do have brain issues, laugh away if you like, but if I could go through any question on here without some sort of drifting I would, but I can’t, and if that’s a problem then I might as well get my account shut down, or cut my brain out because it isn’t going to happen anytime soon or ever.

ragingloli's avatar

We can discuss the plot of the Spiderman comics without believing that Spiderman is real.

ragingloli's avatar

By the way, the Spiderman exists.

Seek's avatar

Wow. Just wow.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Well honey wow is right. Nice argument btw. Funny thing is though, it’s not easy to argue with God, even in the Roman times that was their difficulty, so to try to put an end to Christianity they decided to torture and kill the them, including their leader “Christus.”

@ragingloli sure all this coming from the mouth of babes who have been hit with rocks from oblivion.

Seek's avatar

Kay. You are arguing against the wrong part of the Bible.

How many times can I say it?

The scripture referenced in PSALMS is referring to DAVID killing BABYLONIAN children. Not people killing Roman Christian babies in the first century AD.

You are not this stupid.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

I’m not arguing about a part of the bible.

The Annals are not the bible.

I’m not arguing the script.

You are.

You seem to have an issue that Jesus couldn’t be God and God couldn’t be Jesus, not me.

That is the only issue here.

Therefore when David and God were making ‘songs’ it is no different than when Tiberius, who was in the time of Jesus, did not want a stone monument built in his honour.

Because it is a well known fact that stone temples were built to honour God’s and people of high importance.

I was giving you a reference, not from the bible because you believe that is hogwash anyway, but from actual historical documents.

We can either say things with good intentions or not.

God’s intention was to fight evil not make war with peace.

Jesus came in peace. And to say otherwise is a deliberate and ignorant act against who He was and is to people who do love Him.

If you don’t want to understand the symbolism just stop spreading ignorance it’s easy.

You are not this stupid.

So now I have to remind you that maybe you need to actually think before you speak because belittling me for your own selfish purposes isn’t going to accomplish much and it looks as well as sounds very uncool on your side.

Seek's avatar

Still have no idea what this has to do with the thread.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Of course. You brought up bashing babies heads with stone so you tell me!

Seek's avatar

That was relevant to the discussion re: Biblegod and abortion. Talking about the symbolism of rocks used to build a temple is completely out in right field.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Lol.

I was clearing up the ignorance.

Symbolism is used in the bible and that’s the problem why people such as yourself and even Christians alike just throw around verses like the air they breathe, and that, as much as you do not want to admit it, because it does not help your cause, is relevant to the question, thank you very much.

Seek's avatar

Except that your interpretation was off base and blatantly incorrect, and demonstrated no knowledge of the source material, much less its intricacies and potential symbolism.

ragingloli's avatar

Yep, whenever you do not like something that the bible says, just claim it is “symbolism”.
An exercise in intellectual dishonesty, and not one iota different from other christians, that you try to distance yourself from.

ragingloli's avatar

Tell me, what is the “symbolism” in “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.”

KaY_Jelly's avatar

Lol!

First you claim I’m stupid, that I have no idea what I’m talking about now you want my knowledge into a scripture!

I have no time for your games.

Again with the ignorance, if you want to know it so bad look it yourself.

And the fact that you cannot see the symbolism or even put together the points that I am referring to make me realize why you fight for your cause and I for mine.

At the end of we are no different.

I just choose to fight my cause slightly different than some of the average in your face Christians who seem almost militant, but I actually feel like you are just a version of that only without God fighting for you, because ironically you guys are still using bible scripts even though the OP wants to know “How do you handle debating social issues with someone who only quotes verses of the bible?”

So I’m done here on this question.

You guys can continue being ignorant and decisively making the choice to handle those social issues by just continuing to quote back bible verses to the ignorant, since that was your original answer and you are holding up your end of the bargain, even when someone is not quoting verses and using knowledge instead of ignorance.

I have not given one quote from the bible here so you are overdoing yourself on the path to your cause.

I can either keep doing this or not, I continue to not.

ragingloli's avatar

In other words, you have no answer, because your “it is just symbolism” excuse is hole-ier than a spacetime singularity.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I’m looking Raggy. I can’t find any symbolism in the phrases either,

MadMadMax's avatar

@KaY_Jelly “Therefore when David and God were making ‘songs’ it is no different than when Tiberius, who was in the time of Jesus, did not want a stone monument built in his honour.

Because it is a well known fact that stone temples were built to honour God’s and people of high importance.”
_________________

Pilot was more than the governor, he was a prelate and he did have a stone temple built for his gods in his name. He had no interest in the local religions and would never have gotten involved in a tiff between Jews/

These were all citizens of Rome. No citizen of Rome could be executed; only those who were seen to have committed treason against Rome. Political treason.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

If that is your argument, OK, so be it.

How facetious of you.

Even though I want to something tells me not to back down. Of course that is who I am.

I certainly do not like the way you are trying to bully me into answering the specific question you had, even though you believe I have no knowledge on the subject.

I said I wasn’t going to continue, but I keep staring at the screen at a few people I keep encountering on the religion questions. The group I am talking about always gets slightly flamey with me. So I suppose the ultimate answer is for me to be silenced.

So, no, @ragingloli I am not going to answer your specific question, not because I can’t, but because I do not want to.

And I can’t even believe that after all the information that I have given on this thread alone and seeing as you are still whining about me giving you more, that you think I have none..that is baloney and a circumstantial ad hominem if anything.

Sorry but I do not take well to strangers demands!

If you want bible verses I’ve got them. I’ll try it you’re way!

I can give you bible verses!

But I am not answering your question just because you think you can command me to do so.

So now I will actually leave you with bible verses!

Symbolism at its best!

A sword is not to ‘literally’ fight with but is the word of God.

Ephesians 6:13–17
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

And just to remember that lord did not permit to hit with ‘actual stone’:

Numbers 35:17
And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die, and he die, he is a murderer: the murderer shall surely be put to death.

Here is another about worshiping God’s as stone.
Deuteronomy 28:36
36 The Lord shall bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

More talk about “the stone”:
Joshua 24:27
27 And Joshua said unto all the people, Behold, this stone shall be a witness unto us; for it hath heard all the words of the Lord which he spake unto us: it shall be therefore a witness unto you, lest ye deny your God.

Another:
John 1:42
42 And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.

Ephesians 2:18–22
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Nope, I apologize, I just can’t seem to cherry pick verses like they mean nothing and be ignorant about, it’s not in my nature. Put on your helmet of salvation, your choice of course, or you may get yourself “stoned” by other God’s of wood and stone. lol

glacial's avatar

@KaY_Jelly No one is trying to convince you that rock and/or stone has not been used as metaphor in the bible. We all know that it has; that is very clear.

All that we’re trying to say is that the passage which describes infants being dashed against rocks is not this kind of imagery. Sometimes a rock is just a rock. In that passage, the rock was just a rock. It was not the faith of the lord.

I understand that you disagree with me and others here who believe that it was a rock. But giving examples of rock being used as metaphor does not show that the rock in this passage was a metaphor. It only shows that rock can sometimes be used as metaphor.

I think that if we can’t convince you that this passage was talking about actual, physical rock, perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and let it go.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@glacial

“All that we’re trying to say is that the passage which describes infants being dashed against rocks is not this kind of imagery. Sometimes a rock is just a rock. In that passage, the rock was just a rock. It was not the faith of the lord.”

Imagination can be a very versatile thing.

Christians are continually harassed for their ideas which non believers say are based on fairy tales, or pink unicorns, FSM blah blah blah and now you want to talk about imagination.
O_o

So now this is where I must insist you give me acceptable, objective moral standard by which we can all criticize biblical morality!

I told everyone what my honest opinion was, but that actually is just an opinion and to hold it to such high standards is ridiculous it does not mean it is true. “Imho, God is commanding that babies be filled with the faith of the lord, because that gives them a strong stable foundation. Not actually hit babies with rocks!”

I do not have proof that God or Jesus did any of the things that are claimed in the bible, and neither do you or anyone else, that of course is the issue here isn’t it???

If you want to believe that God was vengeful that is your prerogative, I do not.

I happen to have something maybe you do not. Faith.

So therefore you are right I won’t be convinced that it was a vengeful act on Gods part because we all have a choice.

I didn’t say I can’t be convinced that the passage is talking about actual rocks.

If we want to look at through your way I can rationalize that as well. lol.

There really is nothing to say that God indeed approved any of the barbarity.

It is true that the old testament records many barbaric acts, that is not what I am questioning.

When you read the scripts it is obvious that the palmist of that time may of wished for revenge since he was in exile and probably witnessed similar acts against his people but revenge was a common theme in that time and a main reason why God said:
Exodus 21:24
24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

It won’t stop everyone, but I personally would think twice about acting on revenge if I knew that.

There is also nothing that states that what the palmist wrote or what we read in the scripts was actually approved by God.

And so it’s now you and the cause you fight for that are actually taking the bible as actual historical text, otherwise which God allowed this again and why is it even an issue?

We are done here I am clicking unfollow. Cheeky voice added for sarcasm.

Seek's avatar

David was the man after god’s own heart…

… just saying.

It is an issue because some people (not to mention names) hold this particular deity as the ultimate source of morality, when any reasonable person (KaY included, would be so shocked at the idea that the bible says what it does, that they would spend two days trying to rationalize it away, lest they be forced to accept that the god they worship not only condones, but ordered and delighted in the mass murder of the offspring of neighboring tribes.

Any unschooled barbarian recognizes that living children are precious and not to be harmed. Only genocidal maniacs and sociopaths hurt children.

And surely your god isn’t genocidal or sociopathic, because then you couldn’t hold him as your ultimate source of moral judgment, and you’d be forced to think for yourself, and before you knew it you might even decide that people are pretty good at this morality thing all in their own, and gods tend to muddy the playing field a bit.

glacial's avatar

@KaY_Jelly “I didn’t say I can’t be convinced that the passage is talking about actual rocks. If we want to look at through your way I can rationalize that as well. lol.”

I have no doubt. Thank you for being honest about that. This is exactly what I find scary about religious faith.

rojo's avatar

Thought that this article on the belief that the bible is the literal word of god by the various religions might be of some interest.

rojo's avatar

FWIW:

My personal belief is that it is the clitoral word of god and the message you get depends upon your skill at massaging it.

Seek's avatar

And don’t worry – I sent her a message with a copy of my last post, so she won’t miss out.

KaY_Jelly's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Since you want to play games with me and continue to cherry pick through my posts, I’ll ask you again..

I must insist you give me acceptable, objective moral standard by which we can all criticize biblical morality!

If you like I can start whipping up a logical form of it, I’ve brought this up around here before:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

You are going on in this irrational confused state. Under the logical argument if atheism were true, then there would be no objective values and duties.

And atheists for example would not care about babies heads being bashed especially by a God that doesn’t exist.

Same holds for everyone, but we do have objective morals and values don’t we.

If a lion was overcome with guilt because he just murdered a zebra, that may change their outlook on life, don’t you think?

Thus the argument is logical, and you are still as confused as always.

You can argue with logic all you want but there is no flaw in it.

So to drag me through here is very unbecoming on your part, you’ve got quite the streak for vengeance, havent you, that’s ironic, since you choose not to suit up in God’s armour.

ragingloli's avatar

both premises are unsubstantiated

Seek's avatar

^ Agreed.

Moral values are all subjective.

Even God’s “objective” values aren’t consistent. “Don’t commit murder! Unless I say so

rojo's avatar

I think you are starting with an, as @ragingloli indicates, unsubstantiated premise. First you need to address why objective moral values and duties ONLY exist if there is your particular god. Only then can you proceed.

Dutchess_III's avatar

If objective moral values and duties exist and were created by God and therefore God exists, shouldn’t the morals be the same across every culture?
But they aren’t. That’s because man creates morals that fit his culture and beliefs.

ragingloli's avatar

Regarding “god’s” morality:

1. God dictates its morality, because its morality is inherently moral, or
2. God’s morality is moral because God dictates them.

If 1 is true, objective morality exists independently and without God.
If 2 is true, God’s morality is arbitrary, not objective.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther