From: locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Scott Locklin )
Subject: Re: Violence in the bible?
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 04:18:46 GMT
X-Posted-From: titan.ucc.umass.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Dec28.225017.872@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.181231.1671@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.004645.15537@prime.mdata.fi> iikkap@mits.mdata.fi (Iikka Paavolainen) writes:
>>}Thanks. Dammit, just a day too late (not your fault, though, I posted a bit
>>}late). I just had a debate with a very religious relative of mine, and one
>>}thing she said is that there is no God-commanded violence in it.
>>
>>Guess she doesn't know the bible very well...
>
>Actually, most of the Christians I've met don't either. This makes me wonder...

Here is a nifty example of some fundie biblical knowledge. He was never able 
to formulate an answer to this post. He claims that he does not answer because
my post used a "PC mantality" hence it was unworthy of comment. (I am a
Libertarian BTW)

-Scott (aka Lupo)


*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Rebuttal (: mandatory Marshall flame)
Summary: 
Expires: 
References:
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Campus Crusade for Cthulhu
Keywords: Sumanabitch; I KEEL YOO!!!!!!

In article <1992Oct28.150328.8218@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.180641.10442@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, locklin@titan.ucc.umass.edu () writes:
>> In article <1992Oct26.213317.8135@iscsvax.uni.edu> marshall1198@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>> 
>>>> Allright, its a start (pathetic as it may be).
>>>> Could you enlighten me as to what the rest of the old testament has to do with
>>>> christianity? 
>>>
>>>The Law, even though we are not saved by the Law, is still relevant in many
>>>instances.  It is written that the Christ was now sent here to abolish the Law.
>>>
>>>> All that numbers/deuteronomy/leviticus gorp? 
>>>
>>>Ya, the Law is contained in places there.
>> 
>> Which places. I asked if _all_ the laws in these books were relevant & why are
>> these particular ones relevant & not others. For example Deut 21:1-9 has an
>> interesting way to absolve an unsolved murder, 
>
>What these verses talk of how to purge the guilt of innocent blood from you
>midst.  (Deut 21:9)

Right, by sacrificing a "draft animal". Is this relevant anymore? Why Not?

>> the next 4 verses talk about the
>> proper thing to do after you've raped a female captive. 
>
>Actually the proper way to take a captive woman as your wife.  (Deut 21:11)

see verse 14 of this passage. it says "However, if you should loose your liking
for her you should give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you should not 
sell her or enslave her since she was married to you under compulsion" Now, 
"marriage" under compulsion is called R-A-P-E where _I_ come from. Basically 
this rule adds a little guilt absolving ritual for the rapist before the act &
preserves the general order by prohibiting on-the-battlefield rape while giving
a way of releasing such human tensions. It  also gives the would be "husband"
a one-month waiting period, presumably to make the act that much better when
consumated (& check for diseases I would imagine)

>
>> In numbers 31:13-18
>> there are some instructions to massacre all the non-virgin women of an
>> enemy (why not the virgins is left to the readers imagination) & later some
>> instructions on division of booty. 
>
>The situation was that these women (in particular) were told by Balaam to make
>Moses' men turn against the Lord.  This brought a plague unto them.  So, Moses
>had his men kill all the women (and the young men), but not the virgins, for
>they were to be taken.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!! Thats a good comeback "they were to be taken" for what
praytell? Prime pieces of meat no?

>> What about Levit 11 which gives instructions
>> on what is lawful to eat. 
>
>True, but Romans 14:2 (new Covenant) descibes people being able to eat all.

Indeed, but Jesus NEVER said this. What are you? A Paulian or a Christian?
Was Paul ever even a Jew? Maybee he just didn't like Kosher food.

>> What about levit Ch7:1-10 which gives a (seemingly
>> "satanic") reitual for absolution from guilt? I could go on for days... 
>
>No, this was the way that God set up for those people.  Now that we are under
>the New Covenant of Christ, this is not necessary.

Which brings me back to my original question. Why the hell aren't these books
apocryphal if they are no longer relevant in their laws? The revisionists
had no problem hacking Daniel to pieces. Why not these books? As far as the new
covanent & whatnot, there are no comprehensive rules & regs in the N.T. like 
the O.T. so whats the deal?

>> Ah, so the christian needs no laws? Just "grace".
>
>Matt. 5:17,18  "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the
>Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.  I tell you the
>truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least
>stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is
>accomplished."
>
>John 1:17 "The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came through
>Jesus Christ."

Aha! these two passages say nothing about the revision of the O.T. law! In fact
the first one is VERY specific in stating that "the Law" is still in place, 
therefore all this pentabarf is still "the Law" according to J.C. himself.

>Romans 11:6 "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works,
>otherwise grace would no longer be grace."

Define grace. I suspect translational difficulties. Also, this is not the words
of J.C., but our 'ol friend Paul, who was severely lacking in "works"

>Ephesians 2:5 "even when we were dead through our trespasses, God made us alive
>together with Christ - by grace you have been saved"

Ditto

> >>> Does it have relevance to the
>>>> way christians live (i.e. do xtians have to obey all the rules & regs in these
>>>> books)? 
>>>
>>>It should.  It contains much wisdom.  Much widsom is contained in Proverbs, and
>>>some of the best praises are in Psalms.  Ezekiel also contains a lot of
>>>relevant teaching.  Man, the whole O.T. has good stuff in it.
>> 
>> I especially enjoyed the genocide in the pentatuch.
>
>In what part of the Pentateuch, so that I might look it up?

Well. Where shall I start? The passages I mentioned above are applicable.
I especially like the heading for Num 32 "extermination of the Madianites"
Num 21:21-35 is also a nice example of "god" urging his people on to 
exterminate two races "untill not a survivor was left to him"
Shit, this is just 2 pages apart; I could cite pages of examples.
What about the "great Flood" (not that I believe in such nonsense)?
The fact that this genocide is condoned by "god" means only that it was
god-condoned genocide (worse, god ordered genocide)

>>>No, parts of the Apocrypha are very much truthful, but they weren't necessarily
>>>needed to give the history of Christianity or needed to improve a Christians
>>>walk with God.
>
>First of all, these are some of the reasons why the Apocrypha was never added
>to the protestant Bibles and why they are not canonical:
>(This is from Unger's Bible Dictionary)
>
>1. "They abound in historical and geographical inaccuracies and anachonisms."

What about genesis? You beleive all that gorp? Implying a flat earth could be
considered a geographical innacuracy, no? (Gen1:1-8)

>2. "They teach doctrines which are false and foster practices which are at
>        variance with inspired Scripture."

What exactly defines "inspired scripture:?

>3. "They resort to literary types and display an artificiality of subject
>        matter and styling out of keeping with inspired Scripture."

Well, if you don't believe in genesis' literal truth it would fall in this
category.

>4. "They lack the distinctive elements which give genuine Scripture their
>        divine character, such as prophetic power and poetic and religious
>        feeling."  99/70

This is so vague as to mean nothing. Basically it says,"If we don't like the
way it is, we'll get rid of it"

>The Apocypha was never even added to the Catholic Bible until 1545-1563 at the
>Council of Trent.

This is GROSSLY incorrect. They were included in the Latin (catholic) as long 
as there was one. The eastern bishops didn't like them for various reasons 
having to do with the differences in the canons of Alexandrian and Palestinian
Jews. THIS is what makes them (the majority of them) apocryphal, not any of
the gorp you mentioned above.
Don't beleive me? Check out "Apocrypha and Psuedepigrapha of the Old Testament"
by Charles (an anglican)

>> What is the significance of the Pentatuch? 
>
>It contains must history of the Jews and contains the Law.

Which you have stated (and Matthew {presumably jesus}5:17,18 disagrees with) is
no longer applicable (hence extraneous and removable)

>> What do all those silly rules have
>> to do with christianity? 
>
>See Matthew 5:17-20

Shit, I just did, and it contradicts everything you said about it! Can't you 
read your own quotes?

>> You have still not answered why some books are 
>> significant & others are not.
>
>All the books of the Old and New Testaments are significant.

As a history of ignorance prejudice and fear

>We don't exactly know what criteria the early church used to choose the
>canonical books.  But there were five guiding principles (as recorded by
>Geisler and Nix):

Bullshit. I have just explained to you the "guiding principles" which are
synonymous with politics

>1.  Is it authoritative - did it come from the hand of man?
>2.  Is it prophetic - was it written by a man of God?
>3.  Is it authentic? (the fathers had the policy of "if in doubt, throw it
>        out."  This enhanced the "validity of their discernment of
>        canonical books.")
>4.  Is it dynamic - did it come with the life-transforming power of God?
>5.  Was it received, collected, read and used - was it accepted by the 
>        people of God?
> 
[Evans witnessing a "healing" deleted]

>> My mom is a hospice worker. She had a patient that underwent spontaneous
>> brain-tumor (and Liver cancer) revision. She claims it was due to the healing
>> methods she learned in "Silva Mind Controll", a non-christian occult science.
>> There are many cases of spontaneous revision of cancer. Its relatyion to 
>> any supernatural power is doubtful. 
>
>I looked up "revision" in the Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary and it
>said revision is "the act or result of revising".  Do you possibly mean
>"remission"?

You should look up the FAQ on net-etiquet. Spelling flames are unacceptable

>She had exploratory surgery and they could find no trace of the cancer that had
>been there before.
>
>> I would argue that if god can do something as complex as cure cancer, than it
>> should be no problem to do a little demonstation, like say alter the trajectory
>> of an elementary particle or something. Presumably this power would be 
>> available to the same folks who do faith healing.
>
>It is written in Deut 6:16 "Do not test the Lord your God..."

I fart in "his" general direction (I am waiting for the lightning bolt)

>> On my earlier comment about the ex-minister who debunked the "Born again"
>> movement, his name was Marjoe Gartner. There is a nice article about him
>> in the book "Snapping" (metioned in the FAQ) and a biography called "Marjoe"
>> by Steven Gaines. Marjoe's assertion is that the whole Born-Agin movement
>> is a form of entertainment, conducted by the minister. He got out of the
>> busness when he saw some of the intolerance & hatred it breeds & works the 
>> lecture circuit (as well as working for Jerry Brown's campaign) debunking
>> the techniques used by revivalist ministers.
>
>There are some screwed up ministers in the world (look at most of the TV
>evangelism).  But the Born-Again movement is real.

Unfortunately so. It was started in 1901 by a looney by the name of Charles
Parham. I suppose it could be traced back to the original xtain fanatic, Paul.

>> Retoric, examples please.
>
>like the Beatitudes, for example.  He blesses those who follow his teachings:
>"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
>"Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted."
>(Matt 5:3,4)

Who conforted the tribes the Israelites wiped out?

>How about when Jesus heals the sick (Matt. 4:23-25)  That is the nature of God.

Inconmsistant with the O.T. writings. That "god" was not very nice at all.

>when Jesus drives out an evil spirit (Luke 4:31-37), also this "new authority"
>is also His nature.

You don't seem to be having much success driving out the evil spirits here.

>when He healed the person on the Sabbath (Luke 6:1-11).
>
>When Jesus raised the little girl from the dead (Luke 35-43)
>
>when He prays for all His people (John 20-26)

Again, all this stuff is inconsistant with the Old-testament genocide, and
Jobian tests of faith. Is this the same charachter we are talking about?

>>>A great many others have the same beliefs.  EVERY orthodox Christian church
>>>either does share my beliefs or once did, but they have fallen away.
>> 
>> Bullshit. What about the Jehovas Witness, a modern cult? 
>
>They were never associated with orthodox Christianity.  Ever!  So yes, a modern
>cult.

Oh, of course not. What about baptists, pentacostals, seven day adventists?
Lots of stuff in these groups (barring, perhaps the Baptists) that do not
agree with your little theology, and never did.
Here's a glaring example, The Mormons.
All of these belong to the Council of Churches

[jehosa-fat deleted for lack of relevance]
>>>
>>>Baruch, Esdras, Judith, Maccabees, Susanna, Prayer of Azariah, etc.
>> 
>> Suzanna is in no catholic bible as an independant book, neither is the prayer
>> of azirah. These are bits the protestants lopped off of the book of Daniel.
>> I am curious why they did not remove the parts supposedly predicting the birth
>> of J. (not really).
>
>You're right, they actually aren't part of the Apocrypha, but are some of the
>Deuterocanonical writings.

All the bibles I have called them "apocrypha" including the Apocrypha reference
I mentioned. Your new term is as of yet undefined and useless.

>Also, where is this predicting of the birth of Jesus, so that I can look?

You missed the "not really"

>> As you can see I have done my homework.
>
>Thank you for that.
>
>I'm sure we'll both get a lot more discussed now.

I doubt it. So far you have done a better job of flaying your theology than
I ever could have. thank you for the Matthew ref.

>> Hah! cop out again! I still have not heard one hell reference from you.
>
>Deut 32:22, 2 Sam 22:6, Job 11:8, Jonah 2:2, Matt 5:22, Matt 10:28, Luke 12:5,
>2 Peter 2:4, Rev 1:18, Rev 20:14 ...
>
>Just to name a few.  (the word for Hell in the Hebrew was Sheol, by the way,
>and the Greek for Hell is Gehenna and Tartaros, also Hades)

No, it is only gehenna (and only sometimes). All the other words meant death
or the old underworld, which was a place of rest for all, not torment for
the wicked. Bone up on your ancient languages, and read my post on this.
>
>Love and peace in Christ.
>Evan

May Hecate give you the Blow-job you are so desperately in need of...

-Lupo (the Butcher)








Xref: sparky alt.atheism:24240 alt.sex.wizards:4106 soc.men:21734 misc.kids:31068