That's a Biblical value too.

I do recall stoning a woman (but not the man) for adultery being in the Bible, but Jesus halted the stoning by challenging the man who was without sin to to throw the first stone.

In that story, Jesus was writing in the ground as he spoke, but the Bible never says what he wrote that got them all to put down their stones.

Talk about burying the lead!

The LORD then gave these further instructions to Moses: 'Tell the people of Israel to keep my Sabbath day, for the Sabbath is a sign of the covenant between me and you forever. It helps you to remember that I am the LORD, who makes you holy. Yes, keep the Sabbath day, for it is holy. Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community. Work six days only, but the seventh day must be a day of total rest. I repeat: Because the LORD considers it a holy day, anyone who works on the Sabbath must be put to death.' (Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)

Anyone who desecrates it must die; anyone who works on that day will be cut off from the community.

Being put to death for disrespecting Saturday is reasonable? WTF?

Last edited Mon Nov 12, 2012, 03:05 PM - Edit history (1)

It comes from something called "the levitical code" sometimes called "the holiness code." It has never been recognized outside its narrow perimeters as authentic Biblical ethics. Of course there is in the religious tradition always a band of fundamentalists--even today. But they have never been in the mainstream. They flare up and disappear. In the US their number is already in decline. What I listed in my post is what the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition has identified as Biblical values. In and out of religion that is what ethicists of all sorts have held.

Christians who were not Jews before becoming Christian are not required to observe all the commandments of the Old Testament. This was a controversy between Paul and Peter.

Hence, most Christians do not, for example, keep a kosher home or build an outddor shelter on Succoth, or have Passover seders, etc.

Edited to add the words "to the effect" in the subject line.

"to the effect" - meaning, you need to do some interpreting. It isn't directly said that you can just ignore the parts of the OT you don't like or that you don't think you need to follow anymore. Correct?

You get to pick and choose which parts of the Bible to believe and which parts to ignore.
If you were not a Jew before then you can ignore the Ten Commandments? Were, specifically, did Jesus say that?

If you want to reflect solid Biblical scholarship, why not take seriously what progressive Bible scholars say, and not parrot fundamentalists. Unless the point you want to make is easier if you think like the fundies.

i.e. cherry-picking the parts of the Bible that you like and are comfortable obeying, and finding erudite excuses to dismiss the rest. No "Biblical scholarship", solid, shitty or otherwise can tell you what dictates in the Bible are really the word of a god that actually exists.

Trying to make sense out of it is a fool's mission.

It has never been recognized outside its narrow perimeters as authentic Biblical ethics.

Does this "heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition" happen to match up perfectly with what you believe the "Judeo-Christian tradition" is all about?

when his defense of the Viet Nam war, was that we were fighting "Godless Communism"

But I have one problem with it.
I do not believe Billy really supported Willard.
Did anyone outside of the inner circle say those words of support for Willard??
I believe Franklin spoke for his father and it was Franklin's support.
Until I hear Billy say these words then it is Franklin's endorsement ............


Again a very good post

You are probably right. It came from Franklin--although the image on the full page was Billy. Pardon my ignorance, but who is Willard?

What I am saying is there anyone outside of the Franklin and Willard circle that heard what was said??

You travel in religious leader circles, when have you or anyone else you know hear Billy say anything??
Is Billy still of sound mind or is franklin feeding him things to say??

I still say Franklin is the one talking and not Billy

But what he purportedly said was consistent with where he had been all along.

and just after the announcement it was scrubbed

The Bible is clear that sexual acts in which the powerful dominate the weak—such as grown men sexually abusing little boys, or men abusing women—is immoral.

who put aside their feelings for their faith and join others on the common ground of national identity to bring justice and parity to all, regardless of their own conception of divinity.

you will find the opposite. The important fact is that the religious and the non-religious thankfully come out at the same place and obviously borrow from each other. The chicken or the egg is not important--at least to me.

which was a response to the outrageous demands religion put on cultural progress. You know, that whole First Amendment thing.

If you want to continue the historical imprimatur of religion on how societies are organized, you have to own its barbarous excesses. Are you prepared to do that? Or do you have some new interpretation of divinity that derives its identity from the scientific advances of that last few hundred years? If so, you will have to own the barbarous excesses of science and technology.

Your call.

Barbarous excesses abound. While the enlightenment grew out of basic religious history and ancient religious texts, it still had to sluff off the crud that always accompanies religion. That job is not just the task of secularists. it is what many of us in the religious tradition spend our time doing. While the rottenness is also ours, cutting the rot from the apple is a major task. But you don't just discard the apple. Isn't that the job of all scholarly applications to whatever discipline is at hand? Scientists do the same thing--and historians and everyone else in a serious discipline.

describe your God.

How many times have I done this here. Instead of hearing what was said, sometimes people just want another target. Go back and check a dozen posts I have made in the past.

I realize you're a VIP and all, but perhaps you might favor us with a clue. At least until you get your own TMO group.

Because no two believers will agree - nor can they generally persuade each other - on just what part is rot.

I also have to question your understanding on the origins of the Enlightenment - but your desired explanation definitely fits your pattern of wanting to claim every single success in history for religion. Even the movements that rose up against it! LOL

of the god-centered idiocy of religion, not a continuation of it.

You just never get tired of making shit up to meet your needs, do you?

is responsible for all that is good and decent in the world. So thus even when progressive movements arise to combat and defeat his religion in a certain area, it was really the "good" elements in his religion vanquishing the bad ones all along. Isn't that convenient?

Owning slaves
Slaughtering infants
Not cooking a young goat in its mothers milk
Not eating pork
Forcing victims to marry their rapists
Taking your child to be sacrificed (Abraham) then doing it (Jephthah)
Beating your children
Fathering a child on your dead brother's wife
Impregnating your daughters whilst drunk
Considering menstruation unclean
Not being able to fight iron chariots
Talking to donkeys
Mutilating your boy children
Killing a swineherd's entire herd of pigs
Cursing fig trees
Disowning your parents
Selling clothes to buy weapons
Raising zombies (in Matthew it wasn't just Jesus that rose up)

Yes, you can find lots of pretty, glittery words in the Bible but these are just the normal morality practised by the bulk of humanity with or without this Holy garbage. The Bible is a book of tales some good but many more bad and if you accept the Bible as a guide you have to accept the thoroughly evil or nonsensical parts as well.

Your proof texts are mainly related to a code I referred to in an earlier answer. Take a look.

You are falling into the same trap as the fundamentalists. They can take texts--snippets--totally apart from their meaning and hold them as proof. It is a stupid way to do honest Biblical research, and nobody with much sense of meaning uses it.

You are entitled to your opinion in the last paragraph--except that if you think that the "bulk of humanity" has lived by the values I have listed, you had better ask you money back from your history teacher. Historians realize that religion has been that thin veneer of civilized living over the jungle. I'm no talking about religious scholars or historians, but secular ones who all come to the same opinion.

Without religion, he evidently believes we'd all run around like crazed lawless animals, raping and murdering each other.

Oh wait, we do that WITH religion... and often in the NAME OF religion. Oops!

The need to feel empathy and understanding with others is a theory of mind. Religion is just one way among many to get people to cooperate - for good or evil.

Firstly don't you mean Abrahmic ethics? You are implying that all religion follows the Biblical example. Sorry, but it does not.

Now, you say that I take "... texts--snippets--totally apart from their meaning and hold them as proof," They are not proof except of the falsehood of your blind assertions. They are just some of the obvious counterexamples that you are busy trying to ignore.

It is yourself who is removing the glittery, nice parts of the Bible from their context as part of a whole that includes all that I have identified and more. You are like Disney, gutting the horrifying elements from the tales gathered by the Grimms and Perrault into some saccharine pabulum and saying that this is the real story.

The Bible is a story book about a vindictive, irrational God who, by the account you want us to believe, turns his own son into a scapegoat and allows that child to be tortured to death, offering no comfort to the poor deluded man in agony on the tree.

You are welcome to your prejudices, but they don't allow for conversation.

I am not being vituperative towards you but towards the bowdlerised deity you want us to follow.

Looked up the meaning and you used it very appropriately.

that doesn't support your conclusion. This is a consistent pattern in your behavior during your entire tenure here - you put forth a topic that promotes your religion, and then tell everyone that not only will you refuse to listen to those who disagree with you, it's highly disrespectful of them to even bring up an opposing viewpoint. ("Vituperation"? Really?)

It's his Ego, trotsky. It must be fed.

e.g. #III “Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.”

Leviticus 20:13
New International Version (©1984)

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Leviticus can't be read literally because we don't live in the same context.

Leviticus also establishes that aliens living in a country are to be treated justly, as the native population is. It has all kinds of statements in it.

Bashing the religious tradition of more than 80% of the population is a really lousy political strategy.

And if something cannot be read literally, then each individual reader can have their own interpretation, which makes it like a Deepak Chopra book.

anyone can decide what they find of value in it and reject other things in it.

Anti-religious bigotry will do nothing to make Democrats a majority party and liberalism achieve effective power. It is a hindrance to progress.

even as they spew their bigotry.

It is really easy to post links so we can all view and evaluate this "anti-religious bigotry" your humble self says exists here.

Your further reluctance to do so will show all that you pulled that nonsense right out of your rectum. Judging by the smell of it, it would seem that is exactly where it came from. But feel free to prove me wrong.

Oh, yes.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/123011428

"If President Obama were to do this (as he should, IMO), the religious noise machine would explode, while the moderate believers stood idly by and watched the fallout."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/121854580

You have been following me around, responding to posts not addressed to you, with nothing but more passive-aggressive nonsense. Well done.

Now, would you care to address your own bigotry, which you constantly demonstrate? Do you really fail to see how distasteful it is?
You flatter yourself by suggesting I "followed you around", when you are in everyone's face with your despicably ugly and offensive posts. Do you think for one moment that we don't all see them for what they are?
Now you have an opportunity to turn over a new leaf and start treating those who choose to believe differently with some respect.
Again, let me say how refreshing it is to see that you too are able to show some humility.

about you being a bigot.

Now stop stalking me, put me on ignore, and improve your life.


And have a really, really, nice day.

First you say I'm not a bigot "you've failed to show bigotry" and now you want to talk about me being a bigot. WTF is wrong with you? Me stalking YOU?
I have considered putting you on ignore. Others claim it improves their DU experience, but I've never liked bullies and hypocrites, so I'll be checking in occasionally to see how you're behaving. Meanwhile, feel free to ignore me.
You too have a really nice day.

I suggest seeking professional help.

You are going to jump in on this thread in support of the McCarthy guy? Seriously? That's who you are going to hitch your wagon to in this discussion.

That speaks volumes about you. None of them good, in my opinion.

McCarthy guy? Who's that? And what does it have to do with cleanhippie's bigotry?

Maybe you are.

The subthread YOU RESPONDED TO was a discussion between cleanhippie and Mr. McCarthy. And that you decided to not say a SINGLE WORD about what McCarthy was spewing and to go after cleanhippie is just ridiculous. I mean McCarthy used "you people" to talk about atheists, which I presume includes you too. YOU PEOPLE. I don't have to get much past that at all to know there are some problems with that language. But, hey, go after cleanhippie. It's par for the course with your family.

It's on this thread. I told you the poster. Just scroll down a bit and see if you can find it.

Must be an age thing. Anyway, yes, I don't have any issue with McCarthy. I agree that the bible is a pastiche of old stories, all or mostly parables. Nobody in his right mind takes any of it literally, whether he's a believer or non-believer.
Nothing bigoted in his posts that I can see. Maybe I'm missing something. Meanwhile, cleanhippie is his usual insulting, bigoted self. No surprise there. There is a difference between going after someone and calling him on his bullshit and nastiness.
You seem obsessed with my family, which is funny because I'm the only one in my household who even sees your posts or cleanhippie's, or trotsky's or the rest of your little gang. Nice attempt at smearing though. Par for the course, as you might say.

Oops. If there was nothing bigoted in his posts, why is he gone now? Pardon me if I don't think you are a very good judge of what is bigoted and what isn't!

I read 2 of his posts. Your gloating is pretty fucking rich after supporting one of the most bigoted, hypocricital and obnoxious trolls of all time, your much loved laconicsax, who for some inexplicable reason, still adorns the walls of your basement hangout.

I understand what laconicsax did to get PPR'ed, it was a single act whereby he thought he was going to teach someone a lesson but he stepped over the line. It was correct to PPR him for that, and I don't defend his action.

You, however, insisted you saw nothing bigoted in your buddy's posts and were defending him even as the hammer fell on his bigotry.

Again, you have displayed absolutely no ability to judge bigotry - and the DU system confirms that. Sorry that burns you up so much. You need to let go of the hatred and anger, like I've told you before.

they don't have anyone on ignore, but simply refuse to respond to them, they're lying?

I mean, saying things one knows isn't true IS lying, right?

it was so awesome when Ann Romney said "you people." It didn't represent a repulsive, elitist attitude at all. Your's either.

Oh, wait...

It makes me giggle every time he posts.

Whatever Leviticus said about "aliens living in a country are to be treated justly, as the native population is"--the god of the OT countermands it. Or do we forget that the Israelites came upon the land of Canaan, and were given permission *by god* to not only take that land away from its native population, but slaughter that native population. God tells them in fact, not to let a single man, woman or child remain.

Do we understand this? in the bible, god commands his followers to murder not enemies trying to kill them, but sleeping, innocent civilians, down to babies in the womb, toddlers, little girls, old men. Every...last...native of that land is killed so that the Israelites can have it.

Never mind what the Bible *SAYS*, look at what people do and are allowed to go and are even commanded to do. THAT tells me what the Bible's values are.

I don't. Sounds like nationalistic clap trap to me. It's not history or science or newspaper reporting.

What people have done within my lifetime is make excuses for and deny the millions of murders committed under atheist regimes and to go on and on and on about things like stoning people because of Leviticus when people who take Leviticus seriously aren't doing that. I used to do that kind of crap myself, until I realized that the people killed by supposedly leftist, materialist regimes were just as dead as the ones killed by the Nazis.

...but if one is going to use the Bible to dictate what one's values are, rather than listening to one's own moral compass, then one has to accept that there is one AND ONLY ONE thing the god of the Bible wants--New and Old Testament combined.

The one and ONLY thing god keeps telling everyone in that book, the one moral value you MUST have is: "Do what god says."

That's it. If god says, as he does to Abe, "Kill your son," well, Abe does (he doesn't know god's just punking him). He doesn't say, "Gosh, god, that sounds immoral, I don't think so." When god tells King Sol "Kill all your enemies, men, women, children and their animals, don't let any remain." King Sol doesn't say, "Gosh, god, it doesn't seem fair or just to kill little kids. I really can't ethically do that..." He does it--but, of course, gets greedy and decides to keep the animals.

And what happens? god turns from him and gives his favor to David. Why? Because Sol did the one thing no one, according to the Bible, is allowed to do: Disobey god.

Is that really a moral code to live by?

I'm not surprised you don't get the story of Abraham and Issac, seeming to miss the point that God didn't let him go through with it.

Someday a blog atheist will come up with something new and I'll pass out from shock. But that day isn't today and I doubt it's going to be tomorrow or next year. Atheists don't seem to have said anything new since c. 1885.

Now go away. Please.

I think he did get it perfectly. You are the one confused.

Abraham DID intend to follow god's commands. The point was to see how far that tool Abraham would go. God didn't let him finish, but the loyalty at all costs...even you son's life... is clear.

Of course it's fucking nationalistic! What else is the Bible but nationalistic propaganda? Look at the 10 Commandments. #1: "Thou wilt have no other god but me..." (Reason: "I"m a jealous god.&quot Okay. Now if there is only ONE god then this makes no sense at all. Imagine Stephen King getting mad at a bunch of Richard Bachman (his pen name) fans. Saying to them, "You shall worship no other horror author than me! Down with Bachman!"

This is absurd! Getting jealous of yourself! Stephen King would smile and say, "Glad you like Bachman, I do, too." Every worshiper of every god is worshiping the same god if there is only one so Commandment #1 is irrelevant and pointless. UNLESS...the Hebrews there--and their Bible believes that there are many gods. Then it all starts to make sense; if that's true, then the whole deal of the OT is to prove that theirs is the biggest, baddest, coolest god of all. He beats out the Egyptian gods (remember the priests of those gods can turn their staves into snakes, but Moses does the same and his snake eats theirs...talk about un-subtle Freudian messages!).

And then there's the "east of Eden" bit--the OT god apparently created humanity with other gods (and god created man and woman), then created his own special guy and gal (adam & eve) and kept them all safe in the garden. When they disobeyed him (see other post), he kicked them out. And when son Cain had to leave home, he went "east of Eden" to find a wife. Meaning, a woman belonging to another people who worshiped another god.

So, is the bible nationalistic propaganda? You betcha. And this is the reason that the wandering tribes can TOTALLY ignore Commandment #6 and #8 when it comes to the folk in Canaan. Because all those laws apply ONLY to those in the 12 tribes. You don't get to kill your fellow Hebrews, or steal from them. But the followers of other gods? You can slaughter them down to the last baby and the last camel. And if you want to remain on good terms with the Hebrew god, you'll do just that.

like a 13 year old.

and picking up on one modifying word out of 400-500 words is responding like a 13-year-old.

I'm 50 years old, a college teacher with nine years of higher education, and I use "fuck" quite a lot, for a variety of reasons.

In addition, people have been using that word freely at this web site since I first started reading it in late 2003 and there are no rules against that kind of "profane" language. Indeed, if their were, I would quit posting here.

I'm a number of years older than you are and I've taught on the college level as well, to which I would say, big deal.

If you think there was a substance to their argument you must specialize in micro-chemistry.

I say it like an adult.

I'd put the numbers of people stoned to death in the manner of Leviticus in the past century against those who were killed by anti-religious governments to see who has made progress in getting past that kind of thing. I wish I had a dollar for everyone who brushed aside the tens of millions of murders by Stalin, Mao, and other champions of "scientific" materialism, the excuses for that I've heard among alleged liberals and lefties during my life.

I'm pretty sure that killing every living thing on the planet in a worldwide flood wins the prize.

But you keep pushing that tired, worn-out, christian apologist bullshit. Although I don't think it is very humble of you.

So the millions of people killed by anti-religious regimes in the past century and this one mean nothing but the virtually non-existent stoning of people after Leviticus condemn those who don't support stoning anyone.

Remind me of why I should take you people to be liberals or lefties?

Are you here from Freeperland?

who are religious from the Democratic party.