Originally posted by Palynka
There you go again. That it is not a "monument to morality" (if I'm interpreting you correctly) it is still a hugely important break from the OT. The OT is virtually ridden with violence effected by direct punishments by God himself. The NT is incomparably less, even if not an expression of some form of supernatural "moral perfection" if that's what you mean ...[text shortened]... can see religion being a good influence on some individuals and a bad one in others.

The strange thing is that I agree with you on all of that. But all that I'm saying is the the NT has a lot better reputation than it deserves. Being better than the OT is hardly something to brag about in my book.
"I'm more moral than Stalin." Good for me, I guess...

And Jesus himself said that the break wasn't that big:

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.

But please show me where I've went to the position "as moral as the OT".

Originally posted by adam warlock
I didn't understand on what you want me to elaborate.
[...]
Clearly you're using the word showed in a very lax way, aren't you? And isn't th Spinoza God different from the Biblical God?

'Jesus appeared to me as a spoiled brat, a bully, and a sociopath'

/

Only fundamentalists insist on treating the Bible as the literal word of God.

Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is a corrective for every open-minded fundamentalist.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Read it. Now what?

For one thing, according to the Rabbis, Elisha was punished for this wrathful action. For another -- according to the Rabbis -- the mockers weren't children.

Originally posted by adam warlock
The strange thing is that I agree with you on all of that. But all that I'm saying is the the NT has a lot better reputation than it deserves. Being better than the OT is hardly something to brag about in my book.
"I'm more moral than Stalin." Good for me, I guess...

And Jesus himself said that the break wasn't that big:

Think not that I am c ...[text shortened]... ill.

But please show me where I've went to the position "as moral as the OT".

Ok, I accept that you did not go as far as saying it was the same, but even your Stalin quote shows you think it's not that different. So the question is then how close the NT is to the OT, is it not? So let's get on to it.

You keep judging things with present standard. "An eye for an eye" had been the norm in the region and Europe since Hammurabi (at least). So the mere defense of rules such as "turning the other cheek" or "the Golden Rule" were indeed something to brag about. Yet you seem happy to cherry-pick passages (always the same one?) which are not representative of the NT, even if I accept your interpretation which I don't.

Should I base my moral preferences on the NT? No, I don't think so because I'm an atheist. But that doesn't mean great portions of the NT aren't appealing.

Originally posted by Palynka
Ok, I accept that you did not go as far as saying it was the same, but even your Stalin quote shows you think it's not that different. So the question is then how close the NT is to the OT, is it not? So let's get on to it.

You keep judging things with present standard. "An eye for an eye" had been the norm in the region and Europe since Hammurabi (at le se I'm an atheist. But that doesn't mean great portions of the NT aren't appealing.

Firs of all you misunderstood my Stalin comparison: Stalin is the OT, so just saying that the NT is better than the OT isn't saying much.The question is how better.

Jesus himself said that he stood for what's on the OT.
As for historical comparison: don't just compare it with the bad stuff. That's cherry picking.
Of course that I'm not judging things by present standards. A quick read through our joint blog would tell anyone that I value the contextual vision of history and not the anachronistic one. If you are under the delusion the during the OT everybody was killing themselves a barbarically as the "Chosen Ones", or if you are under the delusion that Jesus brought anything radically new with his teachings that's just that: a delusion!
Cherry picking is pointing out only the bad behavior which is worst than the bad behavior condoned in the Bible. Cherry picking is ignoring the other things that said equivalent things to the so called radical new teachings of Christ. Let us also ignore that Buddha, Laozi and Confucius predate Jesus by centuries. That's not cherry picking.
On the other hand saying that Christianity has good things and bad things. Saying that Christ had good teachings and bad teachings. And pointing out the bad things in both is cherry picking. I guess that's logic for you. But it isn't for me.

This "out of context", "anachronistic analysis", "cherry picking" accusations I always made by people that only talk about one side of the Bible, that never care to mention the multitude of good things and good teachings that happened at the same time that all of these things. I call that nervy, lazy and ignorance at best or frauds at worst.

And who are you to say what's representative of the NT? I certainly don't see myself on that position. All that I'm saying is that the NT and Jesus have a lot better reputations than what they deserve. I never said a thing (nor implied) to what's representative or not. Because just like I said: I see it as a human creation and so it has to have good things and bad things.

Please read what I write and attack my positions not some ghost positions that have very little to do with me (and maybe have a lot to do with some other people you are used to when discussing these issues).

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
For one thing, according to the Rabbis, Elisha was punished for this wrathful action. For another -- according to the Rabbis -- the mockers weren't children.

So the first thing you're saying agrees t what I'm saying: if he was punished than that means that the ones that punished him had the decency to see his actions for what they were.

As for the second part: The sequence of words used to describe the 42 people that "insulted" the prophet are only used in the Bible when it is pretty clear that there are children involved.
Anyway In don't see it the slaughter of 42 non believers as something much better than the slaughtering of 42 children. Do you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
'Jesus appeared to me as a spoiled brat, a bully, and a sociopath'

/

Only fundamentalists insist on treating the Bible as the literal word of God.

Spinoza's Theological-Political Treatise is a corrective for every open-minded fundamentalist.

Are you under the delusion that I treat the Bible as the literal word of God?
I don't think that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, I believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken seriously. The moral and the immoral. If that makes me a fundamentalist in your eyes than so be it.

Originally posted by adam warlock
So the first thing you're saying agrees t what I'm saying: if he was punished than that means that the ones that punished him had the decency to see his actions for what they were.

As for the second part: The sequence of words used to describe the 42 people that "insulted" the prophet are only used in the Bible when it is pretty clear that there are ...[text shortened]... of 42 non believers as something much better than the slaughtering of 42 children. Do you?

Well, it was supposedly God that punished Elisha (with leprosy), so I'm not sure if that clears things up or muddies them further ...

As for the children -- the Rabbis disagree! You've got the lungs to argue with a Rabbi?! Take the floor, I'll watch ... But clearly the slaughter of the 42 was not considered a good thing, as the aforementioned leprotic chastisement must show. Anyway: my tiny point here is that the 'slaughter of 42 children' is not endorsed by Jews as 'good', let alone an accurate reading of the text.

But I would argue this stuff with a Rabbi -- the Jewish viewpoint (which is not at all self evident from the text) would become clearer. Might not clear up the confusion, but ...

Originally posted by adam warlock
Are you under the delusion that I treat the Bible as the literal word of God?
I don't think that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally, I believe that everything in the Bible is to be taken seriously. The moral and the immoral. If that makes me a fundamentalist in your eyes than so be it.

Ha ha ha! No, I'm not, don't worry. I'm trying to understand you. So please indulge my curiosity and explain how you came to view Jesus as a sociopath (etc). It would make my day! You might well convince me, too -- after all a great many messianic personalities have been sociopaths.

Originally posted by adam warlock
Firs of all you misunderstood my Stalin comparison: Stalin is the OT, so just saying that the NT is better than the OT isn't saying much.The question is how better.

Jesus himself said that he stood for what's on the OT.
As for historical comparison: don't just compare it with the bad stuff. That's cherry picking.
Of course that I'm not judging thin ...[text shortened]... to do with some other people you are used to when discussing these issues).

*sigh*

You do all the mistakes you accuse me of.

How am I cherry-picking comparisons when I allude to the principles behind the legal systems of the time and region? Buddha, Laozi and Confucius did not live in the same region or shared much of their culture. It's ridiculous to bring them up.

It's cherry picking when you accuse the character of Christ by a single passage which nobody has yet agreed with you on its interpretation. Did you mention any good things? All I saw was you making claims about how bad it is. Call it what you will.

And you make claims about the nature of the morality in the Bible and the NT in particular but now claim you take no position on that? BS. Try that elsewhere, but here it won't fly because anyone can see what you wrote before.

Ghost positions? Yawn.

Originally posted by Palynka

Ghost positions? Yawn.

Ha ha ha! You swallowed a ghost!

Originally posted by Palynka
*sigh*

You do all the mistakes you accuse me of.

How am I cherry-picking comparisons when I allude to the principles behind the legal systems of the time and region? Buddha, Laozi and Confucius did not live in the same region or shared much of their culture. It's ridiculous to bring them up.

It's cherry picking when you accuse the character of Chr ...[text shortened]... but here it won't fly because anyone can see what you wrote before.

Ghost positions? Yawn.

It is only ridiculous to bring them up because they undermine your position. I certainly didn't accuse the character of Christ for only a single passage, but if that's you want to believe I won't even bother.
But there there were a lo of good things happening in the region before and during Christ's time and they weren't related to him in any way. Just ignore that and keep burying your hand under the sand that Jesus was a total break from the OT and the prevailing attitudes of his age and region.

Why don't I mention the good things: because I don't need to. I'm sure most people know all about the good things in the Bible and about Christ. I'm also sure that most people don't know about the bad things. That's I choose to focus on the later.
That's also why I don't make many critiques about the Quran. I don't need to people in the western know all about the bad things in the Quran (even the ones that aren't there).

And I always say that there are good and bad things on the Bible so that accusation of yours will just be ignored. Besides claims I also made quite a few quotations, didn't I. So don't try to spin like that. That's cherry picking.

Once again I'm led to conclude one of two things: either you don't read what I write, or I express myself terribly. What I said is that I don't make any claim to what's representative of the NT. I never said that I didn't make any analysis of the morality and ethics of the Bible. In fact I said quite the opposite. And thinking that analyzing the morality and ethics on the Bible is equivalent to asserting what's representative or not is just irrational and illogic.

Yawn all you want, but please be kind enough to address my positions. Just like I'm addressing yours.

Originally posted by adam warlock
It is only ridiculous to bring them up because they undermine your position. I certainly didn't accuse the character of Christ for only a single passage, but if that's you want to believe I won't even bother.
But there there were a lo of good things happening in the region before and during Christ's time and they weren't related to him in any way. Just be kind enough to address my positions. Just like I'm addressing yours.

It is only ridiculous to bring them up because they undermine your position.
No, I already explained why. Maybe you should try reading?

But there there were a lo of good things happening in the region before and during Christ's time and they weren't related to him in any way.
And did I say otherwise? Good things were happening. So? How does that mean that this wasn't an important shift?

keep burying your hand under the sand that Jesus was a total break from the OT and the prevailing attitudes of his age and region.
There you go with the "total break". Is that what you meant by ghost positions? I said an "important break". And it was.

And thinking that analyzing the morality and ethics on the Bible is equivalent to asserting what's representative or not is just irrational and illogic.
It's funny how quick you are to contradict me in the statement that it was an important break, yet you somehow claim you abstain making analysis of its morality. Let's name that the Cake Have-Eat Syndrome.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well, it was supposedly God that punished Elisha (with leprosy), so I'm not sure if that clears things up or muddies them further ...

As for the children -- the Rabbis disagree! You've got the lungs to argue with a Rabbi?! Take the floor, I'll watch ... But clearly the slaughter of the 42 was not considered a good thing, as the aforementioned leprot ...[text shortened]... lf evident from the text) would become clearer. Might not clear up the confusion, but ...

I wouldn't argue with a Rabbi, I'll just point out that whenever those two words appear sequentially they clearly deal with children. I'd just like to see the historical proof, or analysis that led them to conclude that the 42 weren't children after all.
And again: does it make any better if instead of 42 children they were 42 non believers?
Good thing that some people don't see it as a good thing, but in this thread those actions were already defended.

Originally posted by adam warlock
I wouldn't argue with a Rabbi, I'll just point out that whenever those two words appear sequentially they clearly deal with children. I'd just like to see the historical proof, or analysis that led them to conclude that the 42 weren't children after all.
And again: does it make any better if instead of 42 children they were 42 non believers?
Good thi ...[text shortened]... eople don't see it as a good thing, but in this thread those actions were already defended.

I already showed you the argument from the Jewish Encyclopedia. Clearly, though, you're a better Talmudist than any Rabbi! I answered the other question too. You're hard work!