I can't believe Pixie actually started a thread on this and exposed his gross ignorance and incompetence to an even broader audience than a post buried in an 18 page thread would have.
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
About Psalm 137
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jesse View PostCorrect. You used this passage in a morality thread. That is why I commented. You might as well of posted musical lyrics with harsh themes. I bet you find those morally wrong too.
On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.
I explained what it meant. But you still pretend it wasn't. I can't help you there. I still have yet to see where God is blessing anyone in that passage. The only thing I can think of here, is that you think the psalmist and God are the same person. Nothing else makes any sense.
Now if your position is that the Bible is just people's opinions of what they think God has done and said, that I agree.
And this proves what? That you still can't read the passage correctly?My Blog: http://oncreationism.blogspot.co.uk/
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View Post
On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.
This whole side derail that you got into about the Psalms passage, and your constant complaint that Seer thinks that killing is good, or whatever, is just a distraction from Seer's main point, which is that, theists have an answer for why morality exists, and atheists don't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostI was thinking that many Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, what is written in the Bible is what God wants to be written there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostWhen people around here throw around the phrase "fundy atheist" it kinda irks me because its usually just a mindless insult. But the reason the term was coined is because, in their zeal to stick it to the person they're arguing with, some skeptics will quote the Bible in a fashion that only the most narrow-minded King James Onlyist type of fundamentalist might even consider, but even then will probably reject. Most Christians read their Bibles with a little bit more consideration and thoughtfulness than you're giving them credit for. So, you can wipe your brow, and stop being so absurd.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
I don't think it's "stupid" to find this verse problematic --- I am not in any way "comforted" by it, but it was, in fact, a record of the reaction of Jews in exile, crying out to God.
It is not anything like God telling us to go kill babies.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostHmm, you all keep saying how stupid it is to find that verse problematic. I consider myself a reasonable person and none of you have come close to convincing me. Are you saying the verse is prophetic hyperbole? If so, how do you know?
By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
when we remembered Zion.
There on the poplars
we hung our harps,
for there our captors asked us for songs,
our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
they said, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!”
How can we sing the songs of the Lord
while in a foreign land?
If I forget you, Jerusalem,
may my right hand forget its skill.
May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
if I do not remember you,
if I do not consider Jerusalem
my highest joy.
Remember, Lord, what the Edomites did
on the day Jerusalem fell.
“Tear it down,” they cried,
“tear it down to its foundations!”
Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks."As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Herein lies the problem:
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostI am just an ignorant atheist, but to me the Bible is saying that God blesses people who smash kids against rocks.
You have to read the whole chapter in context, which includes who is speaking, what is the background, to whom is the speaker speaking, the culture, etc...
You really can't get "God bless(ing) people who smash kids against rocks" out of that text.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostHerein lies the problem:
It is not God "speaking" telling us to dash kids against rocks, NOR is it God "blessing" us for doing that.
You have to read the whole chapter in context, which includes who is speaking, what is the background, to whom is the speaker speaking, the culture, etc...
You really can't get "God bless(ing) people who smash kids against rocks" out of that text.
Comment
-
Originally posted by pancreasman View PostOk, but you can get the 'people of God' in extremis saying how nice it would be to kill their babies. They're angry, I get it. They have an excuse, I get that. But if you believe that God had a guiding hand in selecting and inspiring the texts to be included in the verse, why choose this psalm?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
I found this on the subject over at Tektonics.
Given how often you hear phrases like "I'm going to kill him!", from someone who is really upset, even today, I don't see how this is much different. Although, I can see, like the quoted material, how heartless such a verse may seem, especially in print only, and not how it likely* would have originally been understood.
*I think that the argument for the peoples of the OT and NT had a very different society, and therefore would have understood these things differently to be a very strong one.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cerebrum123 View PostI found this on the subject over at Tektonics.
Given how often you hear phrases like "I'm going to kill him!", from someone who is really upset, even today, I don't see how this is much different. Although, I can see, like the quoted material, how heartless such a verse may seem, especially in print only, and not how it likely* would have originally been understood.
*I think that the argument for the peoples of the OT and NT had a very different society, and therefore would have understood these things differently to be a very strong one.
The bit about David's sin, I actually get. The Bible records the heroes of God often had clay feet. Paradoxically, I think that's a positive message. But this writing is a Psalm, presumably a song used in worship, included in the Bible, ostensibly by God. Does the inclusion of this psalm indicate that God is ok with 'God is on our side' justifications for cruel words against an enemy or possibly even cruel action?
Comment
-
Originally posted by The Pixie View PostSure, but no one around here is saying they should unthinkingly follow musical lyrics with harsh themes.
On the other hand, seer was indicating that he knows what is right and wrong only from God via the Bible. And when the Bible says bashing kids on rocks is okay sometimes, I think that that is a problem.
I was thinking that many Christians think the Bible is the word of God. Therefore, what is written in the Bible is what God wants to be written there.
Now if your position is that the Bible is just people's opinions of what they think God has done and said, that I agree.
No, it is okay. I get it now. The Bible is just written by people. It is not God's word, it was not written by God, it was not inspired by God, or at least some of it was not. God was not able to or unwilling to copntrol it so that it only contains what is true.Last edited by Jesse; 11-20-2014, 06:41 PM."Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostWhat do you mean by problematic? It's an emotional expression. Like a certain NWA song whose name I can't quote here. AFAIK Dr. Dre never actually caused a cop bloodbath. You can see this much by reading the whole thing instead of one isolated verse:"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
186 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,517 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment