Monday, March 21, 2011

The Bible REALLY Says That - Part 1

Let's set this one up before exposing it, just to give it context.  David had killed a man and taken his wife for his own. 

Thus says the Lord: 'I will bring evil upon you (David) out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.'

Then David said to Nathan,

"I have sinned against the Lord."  Nathan answered David: "The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die.  But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die." 
-2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB

So the punishment for David killing a man and taking his wife?  To have his innocent wives raped, and to kill his innocent child. 

How is this a moral story, and how is any book that contains it supposed to be informative of our (or our children's) morality?

It was clearly a book written by iron age sheep herders based on their own skewed "morality".

It's time to recognize this book for what it is.

What is it?

Read up, and YOU decide.

The pic is from "Nothing is Sacred" 


  1. Numbers 35:18 doesn't say that. It talks about weapons, and the penalty for murder. I did a search in 4-5 different translations for phrases you cite, and found nothing. That looks like KJV, but I did several of those phrases, partial and whole, found nada.

    Did you check your source?

    1. When are you going to fix the mistake... or are you busy evolving

    2. The reckless mistake on my part was fixed years ago. It is now replaced with a different scripture that illustrates the point just as clearly. Obviously you aren't paying attention... or you are just in denial.
      I say denial because your last comment makes you look like a science denier. Don't "believe" in evolution (no one does btw, we just accept good science) then not being able to recognize honesty in accepting a mistake in a post while correcting it within the half hour is very low on your priority list. You need to read up on science and logic before you return.

  2. What did you "correct", and where did you note it?

    I'll probably address this amazing hermeneutic at some point as well, but I'm simply flabbergasted that *making up a verse of Scripture, in public* warrants, in your eyes, a simple "noted, corrected".

    Is this what passes as moral in your worldview? This is akin to accusing your wife of adultery, her asking for proof of such, and the answer being returned as "noted, corrected."

  3. Wrong again, this was tantamount to hearing that my quote was wrong, choosing a different and properly referenced quote and rewriting the post. It is what passes as moral to me yes.

    Thanks to the person who discovered my error, a retraction publically, and then a better researched rewrite given.

    What else is there?

    Your continued accusations of purposeful deceipt are ridiculous and childish in their motives. With literally hundreds of verses from which to choose, why would I take the time to make up my own? It boggles the mind that you refuse to accept, in fact continue to attack like a bulldog someone who has offered you THANKS for revealing his mistake.

    As for hermeneitics? Don't hurt yourself with the big words. There is no interpretation needed for MURDER and RAPE.

    There is no context that is moral for those acts either, and it is very telling of your ulterior motives that you find a poorly referenced verse more offensive than the content of the corrected post.

    Sad, and immoral.

    If your moral world consists of ways to explain away child murder and rape of innocent women in public, then I take no offense at your judgment of my morality.

    As it holds no water in reality.


  4. If your moral world consists of ways to insert "rape in public" and "murder" into texts with neither included, I'm wondering what "reality" means to you?

    I don't take offense at your judgment of "my' morality, either - because Scripture tells me precisely what you're going to do. Call evil good, and good evil.

  5. Scrupture tells you what to do? Frightening! I am an atheist. Scripture tells you to kill me.

    What time should I expect you?

    As for Murder, what do YOU call it when God strikes a child with deadly illness for the purpose of killing him?

    Rape? What do YOU call the neighbor lying with his wives in broad daylight against their will?

    You must have different words for the terrible immoral things in the bible than the rest of it.

    Or are they not crimes to you merely because God demanded it?

    Either way. Immoral.



    And if you defend them.

    So are you.

  6. 1) Scripture doesn't tell me to kill you. You are misinformed.

    2) I call it the effects of the curse in operation. By your standard you use here, every death is "murder" - which is unintelligible.

    3) I call that gross negligence in your reading of the text - as I argued in my second post.

    Lastly, your constant harping on "immoral" as if it has any sort of meaningful foundation in your naturalistic, subjectivistic worldview is, frankly, utterly baffling.

    If you'd like to offer objections, please offer intelligible ones.

  7. Look up the word "intelligible" please.

    Morality simply can't be objective. The fact that you think that is illogical, irrational, and not surprising. Objective morality is merely obedience. That isn't moral.

    Morality MUST be subjective in order to actually achieve its end.

    You can argue as many posts as you want Razor. But if you can't read your own book, and see that it commands the death of MANY different groups. Some are commanded by your own hand (like atheists) then I am afraid that arguing is unproductive, because you have a lot of reading to do first.

  8. Here is something that you should read before talking about objective morality.