Is the Bible uncomfortable for Christians?

Author: RoderickSpode

Posts

Total: 37
Topic's author
#1
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
Of course I can only speak for myself. But to be honest, it can be. But not in the way some people think.

I think most of the suggestions of the God of the Bible being a tyrant revolves around laws. And since there are numerous laws presented in the Bible, it would stand for reason that many people would take this view since man-made laws produce conflict all of the time.

The misconception would be an assumption that Christians are uncomfortable with biblical laws (or whatever else) due to embarrassment. This  however is not the case. For instance, even if I agree with every American law in principle, it doesn't mean I won't face a certain amount of discomfort. For instance, I want to make a U-Turn at a stop light, but the sign reads "No U-Turn", so I have to drive further down the road until I can make a U-Turn, or make a left turn into the shopping center to make a turn around in there. I know I have enough room to make the U-Turn, but unless I break that law, I'm going to lose time. So due to that law, I'm faced with an uncomfortable, or certainly inconvenient situation. But.....I'm not embarrassed by the law. I trust that there's a good reason for not allowing U-Turns at that stop light, and know that it's not placed there to aggravate me.
#2
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Well if there are aspects in the Bible where there is a command or law to endorse or follow and it goes against our moral code and conduct that creates an uncomfortable reaction. For example there are several laws in the OT I have no intention of carrying out lol, but I don't look for perfection in the Bible either I look for content that is usable and applicable so it doesn't really affect me personally. Just because there is some unusable content in the Bible doesn't mean it's all unusable either. 

I understand that the Bible is a giant mixture of culture, opinions, tradition, archaic ways of thinking and living and of course a lot of spiritual content. The Bible was written in an age where culture and spirituality were woven together and you have that mix in the Bible, and the OT in specific was written with the intention of it dictating their way of life and culture. So you have laws and codes of conduct intended for their specific tribes and clergymen. That was a long, long time ago when the way of life as we know it was drastically different.
They didn't have a Government and police force overseeing everything so their culture and laws were much more harsh and they wanted to keep purity and stabilization within their societies and desired to enforce what they considered moral and proper through harsh consequences. I think back then there was a lot of fear that their societies would be infected or disrupted so they kept the laws tight and the consequences brutal as to not have any rebellion or disruption and for good reason. 

As you can see from history there were some flipped out cultures and peoples, there was much more barbarity, wars and rebellion back then and that is reflected in scripture. This is why you see the God of war, God of justice, the God of law, the God of retribution, God of vengeance ect ect......all this was a reflection of their ways of life, it was brutal and life was much more fragile, vulnerable and unpredictable. There was no separation of Church and state it was all mixed together and so what the writers experienced in life is what you see in their content. It was a time of extreme war where they could have been annihilated at any moment and so God was expressed as a God of protection and war. The time period was intense and so God was intense. 

We're not OT Jews and we aren't forced to live their way of life so their cultural content is not applicable for us in that way. So when reading the Bible one should be aware of that, and that not everything within in it is relevant to us now. It's okay to gain from the Bible what is usable and discard what is unusable, otherwise one could get arrested lol. But seriously, there is valuable content in the Bible but people insists on emphasizing the content that is unusable. Part of that problem is because of religious people and organizations, that every part of the Bible must be perfect and must be believed when that is not so. 

No one is required to believe in things they don't agree with, or to accept the whole Bible to have relations with God. 

This is sort of a different angle than what you are suggesting, I'm suggesting that just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it is right or that it's suited for every soul. I think that is unnecessary to begin with. Having said that when I was younger I found no faults with the Bible, but I wasn't really looking to discredit it either so I focused primarily on what I could actually use from it. Having got older and thinking much deeper I realized that not everything within the Bible needs to be accepted, and that if I don't agree with something it doesn't effect my relations with God either. In other words the Bible doesn't dictate my connection with God, but at the same time the Bible has useful information. 

I think that if unbelievers could approach the Bible having some individuality and their conscience intact, having some flexibility and not the threat of hell hanging over their heads we'd have better discussions. At least not so hostile.
And I'm not a new age believer either lol, I'm an old school guy but spirituality is much more flexible than people know. It's the fundamentalist approach that causes so much conflict. God exists independent of the Bible, and while the Bible has useful information it's not a perfect book, it was compiled by imperfect men and cultures. It's okay that there are imperfections in the Bible, God still exists. 

#3
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
So to answer the question I'm not really uncomfortable with the Bible because I'm also not looking for perfection out of it. 
#4
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
etrnlview is right
Topic's author
#5
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Great points as always!

I might have some disagreements, but it's kind of hard to tell because everything you're saying makes sense logistically in terms of time-period, culture, the harsh society, not having separation of church and state, etc. And....I don't look for disagreements with you.

Where I might disagree though, to avoid coming across as a yes man to everything a Christian says on this forum, is your statement:

and that not everything within in it is relevant to us now

But even there, it really may depend on what you mean.

As an example, there was that man put to death in Numbers 15:32-36 for gathering sticks on the Sabbath Day. Which could easily have been a candidate for the God Is Evil franchise threads of this forum. It's not significant today in terms of practice, because as you've indicated, we'd be imprisoned if we tried to carry that out. But, today we do have something similar in the form of Capitol Punishment. The Israelites at that time were at war. And for the Israelites, military and civilian life was more communal than it is now where civilian and military life are kept separate. So today,

the penalty for, say, going AWOL for a soldier would be different than that of an employee of a company. The penalty for a soldier would be much harsher. The employee wouldn't go to jail for not showing up for work. They may get fired at worst. Someone being put to death for gathering sticks on any day seems incredibly harsh. But if a soldier runs from battle, he would be executed. And it could be argued that at least the soldier wasn't really defiant, but overcome by uncontrollable fear. The person who gathered sticks was given warning, and it was probably unnecessary to do so. So since there was no heavy burden to carry in not gathering sticks, the person was evidently defiant. And that would have posed a threat in terms of war time allegiance with a nation that was prone at times to mingle with the enemy. And that's something considered relevant today, although maybe not as much as say during WWII where citizens were warned to be careful what they said to strangers.

So while I would agree that that particular text may not be relevant today in terms of practice, like putting someone to death for working on a Sunday (I'd be put to death for one thing), there is some significance to it even today. I believe that every allegation of evil that atheists commonly use from OT laws, we actually practice today, one way or the other.




Topic's author
#6
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I think for the most part you're correct. I noted a disagreement, but it's  more a pending one. Not even that really, as it's not even under scrutiny.
#7
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
No. I dont infer my own understanding when reading it. Only time it becomes uncomfortable is in application to myself. Like giving up selfish habits and obeying God, lest what happened to those who rebelled should happen to me.
#8
Melcharaz
Melcharaz's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 780
2
5
8
Melcharaz's avatar
Melcharaz
2
5
8
-->
@EtrnlVw
I disagree with most of what you said. Culture had little to no impact in scripture. The bible tells us to be perfect (not sinless) and to disobey a rule is invoking disobedience to God.
God made rules to protect us, when we disregard them, we literally spit on God and disregard his loving protection. I think you should reconsider your view of scripture, as im sure you dont want to be judged as a hypocrite or an unbeliever.
Topic's author
#9
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Melcharaz


No. I dont infer my own understanding when reading it. Only time it becomes uncomfortable is in application to myself. Like giving up selfish habits and obeying God, lest what happened to those who rebelled should happen to me.
That's pretty much what I was getting at, particularly for myself.
Topic's author
#10
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Melcharaz
Culture had little to no impact in scripture.
I don't agree with that. But, it may depend on what you mean, so I leave that open.

For instance, when Saul's kingdom was taken over by David, God, as spoken through Nathan the prophet was given Saul's wives. This was a cultural practice for that time period's culture. Of course that didn't change God's law against polygamy. Just that as becoming the new king, all property was handed over to him. The knee-jerk reaction from bible skeptics would be that God condoned polygamy, and would have turned His face away from any sexual activity involving David and Saul's former wives. The same applies with concubines which were a product of that era's culture. David always had the option to conduct his governmental kingdom within God's laws pertaining to monogamy and sexual purity, even though the cultural practice of the day was to have sexual relations with multiple women under the king's umbrella.

In today's American and western culture this wouldn't apply. If a president was impeached, the new president would inherit the impeached president's room in the white house, but not his wife.

So I don't think it's fair to say culture had no, or even little impact.

#11
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Keeping in mind.
Every Christian is in the top 100,000 at scripture translations FULL STOP


#12
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode

I think most of the suggestions of the God of the Bible being a tyrant revolves around laws. And since there are numerous laws presented in the Bible, it would stand for reason that many people would take this view since man-made laws produce conflict all of the time.

The misconception would be an assumption that Christians are uncomfortable with biblical laws (or whatever else) due to embarrassment. This  however is not the case. For instance, even if I agree with every American law in principle, it doesn't mean I won't face a certain amount of discomfort. For instance, I want to make a U-Turn at a stop light, but the sign reads "No U-Turn", so I have to drive further down the road until I can make a U-Turn, or make a left turn into the shopping center to make a turn around in there. I know I have enough room to make the U-Turn, but unless I break that law, I'm going to lose time. I'm faced with an uncomfortable, or certainly inconvenient situation. But.....I'm not embarrassed by the law. I trust that there's a good reason for not allowing U-Turns at that stop light, and know that it's not placed there to aggravate me.

I have read the above three times now looking for the words  - actions of .  Look at your title again.


Is the Bible uncomfortable for Christians?
You for some reason have concentrated only  on gods laws in the bible and pointed to only this as to what you believe may  make some Christians uncomfortable. 

Not once have you mentioned  that the bible makes Christians uncomfortable because of the vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE.  There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make  Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.

All of the above are problematic not to mention embarrassing for Christians,  and when these prickly sticky awkward points are raised and highlighted , as I often do , I can see how uncomfortable Christians become. this is not to mention how dismissive of the facts they are, even biblical ones. 

I find it quite strange that you have only concentrated on one tiny aspect of THE BIBLE and not mentioned any its dire faults that are most definitely an  uncomfortable embarrassment to Christians. 
Topic's author
#13
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen


I have read the above three times now looking for the words  - actions of .  Look at your title again.

Why were you looking for the words actions of? Why would I have to look at my title again?


You for some reason have concentrated only  on gods laws in the bible and pointed to only this as to what you believe may  make some Christians uncomfortable. 

Not once have you mentioned  that the bible makes Christians uncomfortable because of the vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE.  There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make  Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.

All of the above are problematic not to mention embarrassing for Christians,  and when these prickly sticky awkward points are raised and highlighted , as I often do , I can see how uncomfortable Christians become. this is not to mention how dismissive of the facts they are, even biblical ones. 

I find it quite strange that you have only concentrated on one tiny aspect of THE BIBLE and not mentioned any its dire faults that are most definitely an  uncomfortable embarrassment to Christians. 
One thing at a time is the best way to approach it. Rather than link some list from the evilbible.com site, why not address the example I gave? Was that not a good enough example? If you think the example I gave is not an example of evil, then I suppose I can move on to another.

I'm assuming you're referring to the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. Is that correct?
#14
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode

I have read the above three times now looking for the words  - actions of .  Look at your title again.

Why were you looking for the words actions of?

Because there is more for Christians to feel "unconfortable" about in the Bible than just " biblical laws" that you seem to be addressing as some great uncomfortable concern for Christians..  I have shown my points above, but you must have missed them.

from my post #12 above

"The  vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of  your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE.  There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make  Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.


Why would I have to look at my title again?

Because your only concern about THE BIBLE is to do with the  laws laid down by god and you have failed to address the bible as whole. You title does ask

 
"Is>>>> the Bible<<<<< uncomfortable for Christians"?  <<<<<<<<<<< Did you miss that? That is YOUR title, not mine. It says " is THE BIBLE" ? 



So yes the bible is or should be uncomfortable for Christians and for the reasons I have pointed out to you above. And I have shown why Christians should not only feel uncomfortable with THE BIBLE but should also be down right embarrassed by it! Example :

"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".Psalm 137:9.

That vile verse above - one of hundreds -  embarrasses me as a human being never mind if I was  a member of any religious ideology.  But Christians wouldn't think twice about adding to their own embarrassment by trying to defend this barbarity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  that is something else they should feel uncomfortable about.

One thing at a time is the best way to approach it. [...................] , why not address the example I gave?
What more do you want? I addressed and answered your question and gave my reasons why.   I don't need to address what you say or think about god and his laws.  I have addressed "THE BIBLE" and why it should be "uncomfortable for Christians".



Topic's author
#15
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Stephen

Because there is more for Christians to feel "unconfortable" about in the Bible than just " biblical laws" that you seem to be addressing as some great uncomfortable concern for Christians..  I have shown my points above, but you must have missed them.

from my post #12 above

"The  vile, indiscriminate and murderous actions of  your "loving god". This is not to mention all of the double standards and contradictions shown in THE BIBLE.  There's also the ambiguous half stories and the secrecy and lies. <<<< These are what I believe should make  Christians uncomfortable when highlighted.
It may be hard to believe, but when I started this thread, I wasn't thinking about Stephen's top 10 scriptures on what allegedly makes Christians uncomfortable.


Because your only concern about THE BIBLE is to do with the  laws laid down by god and you have failed to address the bible as whole. You title does ask


 
"Is>>>> the Bible<<<<< uncomfortable for Christians"?  <<<<<<<<<<< Did you miss that? That is YOUR title, not mine. It says " is THE BIBLE" ? 
Why do you think I have to list everything you think makes Christians uncomfortable?


For the record, I actually do like to start out on these types of atheist concerns with examples that might be considered less dramatic. Like the whole slavery issue. The topic will usually start with an overall allegation that the Bible condones slavery. Then it's commonly pointed out by a defender of the faith that the 7 year stretch
for an Israelite slave (translates to servant) is actually voluntary servitude, and is generally a preferable circumstance rather than imprisonment. The offender of the faith will often immediately jump to "Ok, but what about foreign slaves, women slaves, beating slaves, etc....". My response to that is, back up. Let's address the Israelite first before jumping ahead.


You seem to like to drown a topic by going all over the map with multiple allegations. If they're copied and pasted from a website, then we don't really know your
understanding of each item listed.



So yes the bible is or should be uncomfortable for Christians and for the reasons I have pointed out to you above. And I have shown why Christians should not only feel uncomfortable with THE BIBLE but should also be down right embarrassed by it! Example :

"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".Psalm 137:9.

That vile verse above - one of hundreds -  embarrasses me as a human being never mind if I was  a member of any religious ideology.  But Christians wouldn't think twice about adding to their own embarrassment by trying to defend this barbarity. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<  that is something else they should feel uncomfortable about.
That's in the book of Psalms. That's not a quotation from God. The book of Psalms are songs where people are expressing their human emotions. What you're reading is a psalm from someone who would have been a captive during the Babylonian exile, who probably witnessed Israelite children dashed against rocks. The bible is full of quotations from individuals that are not from God.

You're going to say something like "apologists always reinterpret the words of the bible to avoid embarrassment".


Feel free to copy and paste that to save time in your response.



What more do you want? I addressed and answered your question and gave my reasons why.   I don't need to address what you say or think about god and his
laws.  I have addressed "THE BIBLE" and why it should be "uncomfortable for Christians".
Well your not going to take control of this thread. You can cap and bold print all you want. I'm not playing by your rules.

I specifically provided one example, that actually is considered a major evil allegation against God by atheist drama queens. Whether it's in your personal top 10 is not my concern. So, feel free to start there so we don't run all over the map.


Do you have a problem with the text concerning the man gathering stones? If so, why?



#16
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
if you take the bible at face value, i dont know how a sane person wouldn't be uncomfortable by the bible. it looks like God tortures people in fire for eternity if they aren't good enough or christian. isnt this disturbing? yes, to any sane person. God relentlessly killing children and relatively innocent people in the old testament. ie noah's flood, the spirit that killed the first born if you didn't smear blood etc.

only brainwashed people can find these things not troublesome.

and yes i'm a christian, but no where near being a fundamentalist. 
Topic's author
#17
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
if you take the bible at face value, i dont know how a sane person wouldn't be uncomfortable by the bible. it looks like God tortures people in fire for eternity if they aren't good enough or christian. isnt this disturbing? yes, to any sane person. God relentlessly killing children and relatively innocent people in the old testament. ie noah's flood, the spirit that killed the first born if you didn't smear blood etc.

only brainwashed people can find these things not troublesome.

and yes i'm a christian, but no where near being a fundamentalist. 
Eternal punishment is disturbing, which is why one should avoid that circumstance. Hell is separation from God. So the torture would actually involve a situation where the individual is subject to it's conditions.

Our legal system uses eternal punishment as well. We don't call it eternal punishment because we know prison convicts won't live forever. We call it life imprisonment. Theoretically, if someone is sentenced to life imprisonment, as long as they live, as long as the prison housing them remains, they have an eternal sentence. And they're vulnerable to whatever harsh conditions inside the prison. Do you have any idea how tormenting isolation is?

As far as killing children, what would you suggest in this hypothetical?

Guernsey Island rebels against Great Britain. They've acquired a bomb that could blow the UK out of existence, and pointed right at
London.

Great Britain has the means to react faster in avoiding the devastation. So they have 2 choices. The first is to drop a bomb on Guernsey Island which unfortunately will kill everyone, including women and children. The second option is to avoid killing innocent people, and allow Guernsey Island to bomb them instead.

Which would you choose?

#18
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
no one deserves to be tortured for eternity. that's sadistic. yet that's what the most straight forward view is from the bible. 
Topic's author
#19
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi

no one deserves to be tortured for eternity. that's sadistic. yet that's what the most straight forward view is from the bible. 
Do you think a 20 year old who will live a normal lifespan doesn't deserve, under absolutely any circumstances, to be sentenced to life imprisonment in solitary confinement? Keeping in mind of course how mentally tormenting that is. So, 60, maybe 70 years in complete isolation.


#20
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
no a life in solitary confinement is too cruel. if people lived forever, putting them in an empty small cell would be too cruel too. i can see isolating people, but give show them some humanity. 

are you really trying to justify physically torturing people for eternity? 
Topic's author
#21
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
no a life in solitary confinement is too cruel. if people lived forever, putting them in an empty small cell would be too cruel too. i can see isolating people, but give show them some humanity. 
What would you suggest they do with someone like Hannibal Lecter? Or anyone who would try to kill anyone who comes near them?


are you really trying to justify physically torturing people for eternity? 
What do you mean by physically torturing people? There's a difference between a judicial system torturing someone by sentencing them to life in prison where the convict's person is removed from the courts presence; and directly torturing them by placing them in an iron maiden. In other words, do you think God is taking part in the torturing?

#22
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
even the worst of criminals do not deserve to be tortured. isolated, yes. 

according to the way fundamentalists talk, God allows satan to torture people for eternity. or, God sentences them to a fire pit. are you seriously trying to justify God allowing that? 
Topic's author
#23
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
even the worst of criminals do not deserve to be tortured. isolated, yes. 
Being isolated is a horrible torture. It can drive someone into agonizing insanity.  There isn't any way around it. To some, that might even be worse than physical torture. Do have any idea how torturous isolation is for long periods of time? People commit suicide from sheer loneliness alone in civilian life. You can't downplay isolation.



according to the way fundamentalists talk, God allows satan to torture people for eternity. or, God sentences them to a fire pit. are you seriously trying to justify God allowing that? 
Are you justifying a court system allowing an 18 year old to be sent to a place where he will most likely be sexually abused indefinitely?
#24
n8nrgmi
n8nrgmi's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,499
3
2
3
n8nrgmi's avatar
n8nrgmi
3
2
3
-->
@RoderickSpode
every criminal deserves social time and recreation time. if they are too violent, maybe they can watch TV instead of socilize. as time goes on, they should get more freedoms if they behave. 

are you trying to justify physical torture for eternity or not? it sure looks like u r. but u appear to be trying to rationalize it. u appear to be emotionally stunted, as are most christians who try to rationalize a literal bible. 
Topic's author
#25
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@n8nrgmi
every criminal deserves social time and recreation time. if they are too violent, maybe they can watch TV instead of socilize. as time goes on, they should get more freedoms if they behave. 
And if they never behave?



are you trying to justify physical torture for eternity or not? it sure looks like u r. but u appear to be trying to rationalize it. u appear to be emotionally stunted, as are most
christians who try to rationalize a literal bible. 


I would say I'm not trying to justify, or rationalize it any more than you are trying to justify our legal system. I don't think you could possibly be serious about the TV thing. That makes as much sense as sitting a child next to a TV as a replacement for human contact. So I'm assuming you're making light of the severity of isolation to corner me into the eternal torture justification.

Like I said, eternal spiritual torture is very disturbing. And so is lifetime imprisonment in a physical confinement, and physical placement among violent people with little to no protection. It's actually disturbing that there would be a need for it.

I'm not sure if you really understand that solitary confinement is torture. It may not sound like it to someone in a bad marriage, or one with a horrible roommate.


What are the effects on prisoners?
In short, not much better. Stuart Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist and a former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in solitary confinement. In one study, he found that roughly a third of solitary inmates were “actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal.” Grassian has since concluded that solitary can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome, characterized by hallucinations; panic attacks; overt paranoia; diminished impulse control; hypersensitivity to external stimuli; and difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory. Some inmates lose the ability to maintain a state of alertness, while others develop crippling obsessions.


You can't come down on fundamentalists, unless maybe they enjoy the idea of eternal punishment, and just ignore relatively equivalent sentencing we practice on earth.


#26
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@RoderickSpode
It depends entirely upon what one does with it.
 

Metaphorically speaking:

If one throws it upon the fire it will be warming and comforting for a while.

But if one hits oneself about the head with it, it soon becomes very uncomfortable.





#27
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@RoderickSpode




It may be hard to believe, but when I started this thread, I wasn't thinking about Stephen's top 10 scriptures on what allegedly makes Christians uncomfortable.

I am clearly aware of what the thread is about.  The title, your title, that you seem to have forgotten is a question which I have addressed and answered. You don't seem to  like that at all yet would be the first to complain that I hadn't even addresses it, if I hadn't done so. What's the matter with you man. 



 Why do you think I have to list everything you think makes Christians uncomfortable?

 I don't. But  I presented my own reasons why Christians should "uncomfortable with THE BIBLE.  But YOU  keep forgetting it was THE BIBLE that YOU have brought into question and have concentrated on one aspect of. I am simply saying that there is more than one aspect of THE BIBLE that Christians have to feel uncomfortable and embarrassed an ashamed about.


For the record, I actually do like to start out on these types of atheist concerns with examples that might be considered less dramatic.

You are discussing the BIBLE. Do you not understand your own title?  You asked a question>>>> "is  THE BIBLE uncomfortable for Christians"?  I have said yes and stated why. 




You seem to like to drown a topic by going all over the map with multiple allegations.

No. I answered your question and pointed out that Christians have much more to feel uncomfortable about than the laws of god which you have already highlighted. 


If they're copied and pasted from a website,

There is nothing copied and pasted in my first post #12,  I gave my take and nothing more, IE, I addressed your question..  It wasn't until my second post #14 that I felt that  I had to give an example  of what and why Christians  have to be more uncomfortable with. I haven't Copied and pasted a single thing with this exception. >>>>>"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".Psalm 137:9. Yes I copied that little violent verse from the bible hub as just one single example why Christians should not only feel "uncomfortable" but also downright ashamed and embarrassed,   and for the simple reason that is was quicker to do so than to type it out.https://biblehub.com/psalms/137-9.htm 










"Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks".Psalm 137:9.


That's in the book of Psalms. That's not a quotation from God.

Yes and tell me, is the book of Psalms IN THE BIBLE!!!!!!? The very book that you ask "is uncomfortable for Christians"?  The very book we are supposed to be discussing? What the hell is the matter with you you man!

If you wanted to discuss what GOD has to say and why Christians should be "uncomfortable with what GOD has to say then you have titled you thread wrong , haven't you?


Well your not going to take control of this thread.

I didn't come onto this thread to take over it. I came on to answer YOUR question that YOU posed to the whole forum, and I have done so. It is up to you if you take what I have had to say any further, but don't think I will not respond to anything you say in response to my own or anyone else's comments. I remind you again. This is a religion discussion forum, not a religious pulpit.


I specifically provided one example, that actually is considered a major evil allegation against God by atheist drama queens.

OK. So what? And I have simply addressed your question and give my reasons why.  Stop whining











#28
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@RoderickSpode


RoderickSpode wrote: I think most of the suggestions of the God of the Bible being a tyrant revolves around laws.’’
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maybe so, but I think it has less to do with Biblical laws (whether they are embarrassed by them or not) and more to do with the inherent nature of the God described in the bible, especially the Old Testament.
In Hosea 13:4, 9, 16, God destroys the pregnant woman and foetuses of those that do not worship him. In Isaiah 13:9–16, Babies are slaughtered and wives raped. In Judges 18:1–28 god approves the massacre of a peaceful people so one of his tribes could have a place to live. In Judges 11:30–39, a daughter is burned as an acceptable sacrifice to God. In Psalm 137:8–9, God wants you to be happy to dash babies against rocks, and the list goes on and on.......
The depiction of God’s character in the Old Testament is sufficient enough to accuse him of tyrannical behaviour, without having to consider his laws and orders.
___________________________________________________________

RoderickSpode wrote: ...it would stand for reason that many people would take this view since man-made laws produce conflict all of the time.
______________________________________________________________

They do for some and they don’t for many. And it’s based on what specific law you are talking about. We, on the large majority will never kill, steal, or drive without car insurance, and these constraints produce largely no conflict at any time.
On the other hand, a few laws may be treated with more resistance either because there they are novel (e.g. connecting to unsecured WiFi), misunderstood (e.g. peeing outside, copyright infringement) or perceived by some people as nonsensical (e.g. playing poker for money at home, copyright infringement, not getting an animal license, etc....). 

Topic's author
#29
RoderickSpode
RoderickSpode's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,044
2
2
2
RoderickSpode's avatar
RoderickSpode
2
2
2
-->
@Marko
I don't know if it would be worth responding. How long do you expect your account to last?
#30
Marko
Marko's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 93
0
0
2
Marko's avatar
Marko
0
0
2
-->
@RoderickSpode
On a first hand, and for reasons beyond my knowledge, you fail to identify the dynamics at play in your own topic, and then simply brush off my points by using off handed remarks verging on the ad hominem. 
My post isn’t worth responding to if you really have nothing to respond to it with.