Pretty sure this is a price mistake
Sells for 3 times the price everywhere else.
CamelCamelCamel.
@vikvance: What a cruel God. Saving them because they did not commit fornication. Watch the video, my friend, I'm not a scholar. Paul Cohen covers similar objections in the video.
@gto21: fornication? No, he just wanted to save the young unmarried girls. It is usually translated as "virgin".
@bargaino: If they are virgins that means they did not fornicate. That's common sense mate. You just prove my point by saying they are virgins.
That's common sense mate.
Genocide? I can't believe you are defending Numbers 31. Its like watching Prince Andrew say what a great bloke Epstein was.
@bargaino: I can't believe you believe that God should not judge the wicked.
And when God does not do it, People ask why so much suffering, evil, and war.
If God brings judgement it's wrong, if he does not it's wrong. Doesn't matter what God do you will say it's wrong.
The Moral Argument
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
Making Sense of the Old Testament God (Paul Copan). Is God a Moral Monster?
@gto21: Disturbing stuff you don't agree with - hyperbole.
Disturbing stuff you want to agree with your perspective - parable.
Stuff that directly supports your perspective - immutable.
Cognitive dissonance 101.
@Molloch: The Bible have different literary styles. I never heard anyone believes it's only one style. Not even by non-Christians. If you want to interpret it that way it's up to you. You're free.
@gto21: Also, Babylon's geology is sandstone, limestone and gypsum, and the city was constructed of mud bricks and pavers.
@Molloch: Let even assume you know more than the scholar. It's the word of the psalmist not a command from God in this verse. If you don't want to believe it's fine. I'm not interested in a debate with someone who already made up his mind. For those interested, I posted a video. I might post other videos later.
@gto21: Well said. To try to extract the meaning of the more archaic and controversial parts of the bible takes a lot work to say the least. Certainly not what cherry-picking atheists are interested in doing.
@rokufan: As opposed to the cherry picking Christians? Surely if God wants us to follow his word he’s not turning his main instruction book into a puzzle book; if you relax and look at it this way you will see the 3D image. Even amongst religious people there are arguments against how things should be interpreted in the Bible and there is a lot of debate on how things might have been misinterpreted in translation. Happy for you to stay in your bubble, as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others, but talking about Cherry picking atheists is a joke.
@try2bhelpful: You don't want discrimination. Even if we use the atheist interpretation. The psalmist is asking for justice.
I'm going, to be honest, it's easy to see that many atheists don't know much about what they are quoting.
I answered one objection, but someone else thought I responded to him. This clearly indicate to me that he doesn't know the context of both passages. The one he quotes himself and the second one.
@try2bhelpful: Cherry picking atheists is most certainly a thing. There are those who take verses out of context to try make aspects of Christianity look bad. But often these cherry picked verses lack the context of the surrounding versus and historical background.
For instance Leviticus is often quoted to portray how silly the traditions are (ie one must not blend two types of fiber in clothing) but most would exclude the context Leviticus was written for the priests of the time and not how a general Christian should act.
@Mixhael: Jonathan Pageau is quite good if you like to study symbolism.
Mixing Linen and Wool — The Deep Symbolic Meaning of Purity Laws in The Bible https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDDDS3Q2XxU
Even amongst religious people there are arguments against how things should be interpreted in the Bible and there is a lot of debate on how things might have been misinterpreted in translation.
My point exactly. It's complicated.
Happy for you to stay in your bubble, as long as it doesn’t negatively affect others
I'm not religious nor in a bubble.
but talking about Cherry picking atheists is a joke.
Hahaha.
@rokufan: the more I hear you guys talk the bigger the Religion looks like a Ponzi scheme. The guys at the bottom have to believe what the guys at the top are telling them because it is all too complicated for their little minds to understand. “I don’t care what it says this is what it means. Yeah, well it didn't mean that back then but, trust us, it means that now”. I don’t know why atheists might be having trouble? Personally, I’m agnostic. It is hard to believe a benevolent God would allow so much suffering in the world, particularly when so much of it is done in his name. However, I’m sure you will tell me this is just complicated. You guys are in a bubble, you keep referencing back to people who think like you do. They, also, find ways to twist the words so they are interpreted as they want them to be. So lets start with the Bible saying homosexuality is wrong; this is just a complicated misinterpretation. Open the churches to same sex couples.
So lets start with the Bible saying homosexuality is wrong; this is just a complicated misinterpretation.
What makes you think that?
@ozhunter: Because he is now doing what he is accusing Christians of: "“I don’t care what it says this is what it means."
@ozhunter: So the Bible is only misinterpreted and complicated when you say it is?
https://theconversation.com/a-thousand-years-ago-the-catholi…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_New_Testa…
And a bunch of other similar articles where the Greek words are open to interpretation as intemperate behaviour. Funny how we haven’t seen a bunch of religious people picketing against adulterers or divorcees being allowed to marry?
It is interesting how religious people have moved on from so many of the rules but this one just seems to stick. It isn’t even one of the seven deadly sins or the Ten Commandments. Of everything I wrote you decided to jump on this one. Things that make you go hmmmm.
So the Bible is only misinterpreted and complicated when you say it is?
No, it can misinterpreted and complicated but on the issue of homosexuality, I'd say it's crystal clear. The six verses that refer to it say it's wrong plus all the other times the Bible talks about husband and wife.
Funny how we haven’t seen a bunch of religious people picketing against adulterers or divorcees being allowed to marry?
The church teaches adultery is wrong. Remarrying after divorce is questionable. Ultimately it's up to the person whether they choose to do it or not.
It is interesting how religious people have moved on from so many of the rules but this one just seems to stick.
It's at least imo undoubtedly clear on its position on it.
@try2bhelpful: Sorry, having faith and understanding takes effort.
Sorry, it's not simple enough for you.
Sorry, you have free will in a world that has uncontrolled random events.
Sorry, Christian beliefs do not bend to the fashionable values of the times.
@rokufan: I love the way you guys continue to cherry pick the Bible to bolster your own arguments but argue that Atheists can't; it smacks of "it's my book and you aren't allowed to play with it". I also love how you talk about how people are allowed to "choose to do things or not" but up until, very recently, gay people weren't allowed to marry, were refused the right to their partners superannuation, etc all because they were gay and religion said this was not acceptable. Religions refused to give them that choice even though religion was not remotely part of these people's lives. Religion is, currently, being used as a justification to kill people around the world and this is being done by people who are, hopefully, misinterpreting what the religious tomes are telling them. I'm not going to try to discuss this with your guys anymore because you just don't want to listen. If it wasn't for the influence that religion has around the world, including in this country, I wouldn't give a rats how you decide to interpret it; but religion does have that influence so all I can do it try my best to minimise the harm it is doing. If my posts cause one Gay kid to go, "their interpretation is wrong, and God loves me as I am" then I have done my job here. The religious organisations around the world have too much blood on their hands to be given free reign to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives. Go read your books, and interpret them the way you like, whilst the rest of us will continue to show the world how they contain some good but they also contain some really bad stuff.
…I love the way you guys continue to cherry pick… but argue that Atheists can't; it smacks of "it's my book and you aren't allowed to play with it".
Straw man. No one's saying that. But Christians, as they should, call out mischaracterisations which are incorrect or dishonest.
gay people weren't allowed to marry, were refused the right to their partners superannuation,
Civil unions with similar rights to traditional marriage have existed for decades. Also, until about 5 minutes ago (historically speaking) a majority, religious and secular, was against SSM. Literally every notable high-profile public figure is on the record at some stage supporting traditional marriage, leaders from both left and right. Not so long ago: Obama, Clinton, Gillard, Wong, were for traditional marriage before switching.
free reign to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives.
Western countries have had separation of church and state for centuries.
The rest of your comment is the usual atheist shtick, speaking of all religions as a homogeneous mass - and of course, they are mostly bad.
I love the way you guys continue to cherry pick the Bible to bolster your own arguments but argue that Atheists can't; it smacks of "it's my book and you aren't allowed to play with it
It's not the most simple book to understand especially if taken out of context. If you're genuinely interested in actually understanding how Christians think, this is a good website to start with https://www.gotquestions.org/whats-new.html
very recently, gay people weren't allowed to marry, were refused the right to their partners superannuation, etc all because they were gay and religion said this was not acceptable.
I've said it before, any person could marry. The requirements were the same for everyone. Could always form a civil union if you didn't want to follow those requirements and push for things like a partner's super if you wish. There was no need to change the definition of marriage at all.
Religion is, currently, being used as a justification to kill people around the world and this is being done by people who are, hopefully, misinterpreting what the religious tomes are telling them.
I take it as you're referring to something other religion other than Christianity?
If my posts cause one Gay kid to go, "their interpretation is wrong, and God loves me as I am" then I have done my job here.
From a young age attending Sunday School, we're constantly told that God loves us.If anything, the Bible as a whole could be seen as a love letter to mankind. It also doesn't mean that we are free to do as we please without consequence.
The religious organisations around the world have too much blood on their hands to be given free reign to dictate to the rest of us how to live our lives.
Again, are you referring to Christianity? I don't think it dictates it at all. You can consider them guidelines in how to live. As always, you're free to not follow any of it.
@rokufan: To be fair both side like to cherry-pick.
Although I've always been puzzled by Christians (follower's of Christ) who quote the old testament, it is at such odds with the gospel/teachings of Jesus.
Having read the bible, my fav is John 8:7
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Both sides should remember that.
No rocks in Babylon
You be trippin my man. Two seconds on google
"Some [Babylonian] monuments [were] built and/ or sculptured from rocks. Usually, the nearby exposed rocks were used; however, locally rocks were transported from few tens of kilometers"
@Ozybargdias: You must be tripping if you think I'm the scholars who said that. I gave the source. I'm not an expert, I quoted people who are viewed as an expert.
It will take me two seconds to find the sky is orange on google.
If you're going to quote a source. Please just quote it as it is, you don't need to insert word like Babylonian in brackets if the text does not say it.
Here what your own article actually says when it gets to the section about Babylon. You obviously did not even read it.
"Since there are no exposed rocks in this province; therefore, all archeological sites were built from bricks, although locally, tar and/ or tree leaves were used with the bricks. Many examples are given hereinafter. -Babylon:Babylon was originally a small SemiticAkkadian city dating from the period of the Akkadian Empire circa 2300 BC"
The first thing it says when speaking of Babylon. Your two-second google search ends up proving the scholar point. The article must be tripping my man.
And we get accused of misinterpretation. When other people just copy-paste on google thinking they have a point.
Thank you for putting Boney m into my head…
are you from the future?
Some people still be thinking Jesus is coming back "soon."
no, they believe in kylie jenner
It’s year 9012,
Do you have a sign on your gate "Beware of the God" ?
does young people really believe in religion?
Nowadays, I believe they get their beliefs from pornhub.
Buy now. Pray later.
😂😂
I know it's early, but I'm calling it now
Comment Of The Day
after pray
…bought with Praypal
My cup runneth over
two girls will do that…
One of my favourite fictional books to read! Love the parts about human sacrifice and slavery, very cool!
Yes, stories of ancient peoples and their brutal practices - not an instruction to follow those practices.
I love the part how it shaped our entire western society. Make fun of it all you like though.
The only mistake is buying this.
Moderators should either accept or reject deals.
I am not religious, so don't care about this 'deal'. But it is disappointing to see moderators accept deals and then for click-bait reasons ?? allow the deals to be trolled.
Unlike our government, this community is secular. The comments are fact based (unlike the book)Just because you disagree with the comments,it doesnt mean they are trolls
I believe the moderators (or site owner) are religious. So the community is quite possibly in the wrong place.
OK boomer
NPC detected
They do… they accept deals that are deals and reject deals that aren't by removing them.
This is 3 times cheaper than anywhere else making it a deal so it stays. Whats the problem?
What kind of religion puts a dead animal skin on its teachings…
Should sit next to other fiction like Necronomicon from Evil Dead
Not to forget this is a 'New Revised Standard Version' mainly for Ecumenical and Protestant Christian denominations. Other older Christian denominations such as Oriental Orthodox or Armenian Apostolic (dated back to 4th century) don't use dead animal skin on any Bible. Also this "new revised" version is missing book from the original version. Target your comments to Protestant denomination and not all Christian denominations.
i failed my history
i thought there is only 2 variants
new testament VS old testament
Who cares, they're all inherently evil and have caused and continue to cause untold amounts of human suffering. There really is no difference between any of the denominations when it comes down to it.
You might want to check your closet for your own dead animal skins. Jeans, jackets, belts, shoes.
You missed the point… I'm not a religion or claiming to be holy, sacred, preaching stuff.
No I didn't. Nothing sinful using animal skin as you suggested, unless the religion is veganism.
@rokufan: No one (except you) said it's sinful. Isn't the bible preaching love, kindness etc. Why use animal skin when there are plenty of other materials that do the same job.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
@cmyk: That was your commment's implication, which you confirmed again by saying: "Why use animal skin when there are plenty of other materials".
The goat would have been killed for its meat, and if the skin wasn't used for other products it would have been wasted.
@rokufan: Yeah sure, try to justify it to make yourself feel good.It would be foolish to assume it’s simply a by-product. There is an important economic interdependence between factory farming and the leather trade, and thus farmers do not sell every single part of each animal to minimize waste but instead to maximize revenue and profit. For that reason leather is an animal product much like any other: produced to meet consumer demand while lining the pockets of those within the respective businesses. Just Google it.
By the way, my comments was implying that it's hypocritical to preach love etc but use the skin of an animal to wrap a book. (So your comment about my wardrobe makes no sense!)
@cmyk: Choose an argument.
No one (except you) said it's sinful.
You implied twice it was wrong, and then gave a spiel about how terrible factory farming is.
And yes, it is hypocrisy to criticise others for a standard you do not hold yourself to.
why do you wear dead animals? Do you sit next to Necronomicon from Evil Dead? How does it feel to see Maccas offers every day on Ozbargain?
@gto21: Who said anything about wearing dead animals? Does your god teach you to make straw man arguments?
@cmyk: It's not a strawman argument since I'm asking questions to understand your position. I have not made the argument yet. It was your opportunity to clarify your position. So that I don't misrepresent you.
It's obvious you wear dead animals and probably eat dead animals. Since you won't answer the question. Do you have a comfortable seat next to Necronomicon?
I was just joking with you.
@gto21: I think strawman is a new word for them, they used it twice incorrectly, maybe itching to try out their new vocabulary despite the lack of relevance.
Jeans
what kind of jeans are you wearing :/
You got me. I meant pants.
Maybe Chaps :/
I honestly believe this collection of writings should be restricted to adults only due to the descriminatory contents, hate of minorities, child abuse and genital mutilation, justification of rape, animal cruelty and vivid descriptions of violence.
So we need to ban any book for kids that talks about your listed topics?
Restrictions vs ban.
Tryagain
Semantics
@hugh: Can you enlighten me then to the major differences between restricting something to adults and banning it for kids!
@tryagain: There are numerous valid reasons children are protected in our society and I personally agree with this stance.
What you as a person may choose to believe is up to you and no one will stand in your way.
If you are truly interested in the reasons why children are protected in Australia, Google is your best friend.
@hugh: That's not even remotely close to answering my question, it's an answer to something I didn't actually ask.
@tryagain: Master Ryutan. "You are like this cup; you are full of ideas. You come and ask for teaching, but your cup is full; I can't put anything in. Before I can teach you, you'll have to empty your cup."
@hugh: Righto, looks like I really need to simplify this for you, what do you think I "failedagain" at.
@hugh: And then I'll help you out
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/context
I never claimed there wasn't a difference
And I repeat
Can you enlighten me then to the major differences between restricting something to adults and banning it for kids!
@tryagain: better you help yourself out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
obviously you felt hurt when you were corrected:
take a deep breath and see that you are anonymous, no permanent harm done.
suggest you relax and move on because it is not worth letting it fester in your subconscious.
after all, the best religions teach people that no one is perfect and above others
obviously you felt hurt when you were corrected:
Bemused would be an accurate description, and no, you haven't corrected me at all, you have simply posted links to outside sources that don't really address anything, it's a bit like a game of whack a mole but with red herrings instead.
As you still haven't answered the basic question I have now posed a number of times, it appears you realise you were wrong, but are trying to deflect constantly deflect.
I was originally going to point out the likely hypocrisy in your original comment, but if you can't even bring yourself to address something on a really basic level it would appear a bit pointless.
suggest you relax and move on
We can agree with the move on a bit, it was fun for a bit but then got tedious. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
@tryagain: Hugh several comments ago ran out of argument and is now using condescension and obnoxiousness.
@tryagain: How are you struggling to grasp this concept? Can't you picture in your mind a 10 year old kid going into Big W and trying to buy a copy of A Clockwork Orange? Or Dan Murphy's for a bottle of Vodka?
The only way I can see why you would find 'banning it for kids' to be an affronting concept is if you're equating it with burning books in Nazi Germany or something lel.
@tanabe88gg: I wouldn't be opposed to a classification system similar to what we have for TV shows and movies for ALL literature based on an objective standard in regards to the appropriateness of its content.
But I never hear people advocating for that, instead, I hear about people wanting to restrict/ban something in isolation, not based upon studies showing it causes harm or anything objective, but based on their own subjective opinion. Usually, it is something that they haven't read, or at best just quote mined, then taking those things out of context and then conflating descriptive with prescriptive.
With that all in mind, I view it as a pretty slippery slope.
oh, and your hypothetical's are a pretty obvious case of oranges and apples.
Not everyone has the same comprehension difficulties that you do, however.
It also has vivid descriptions of sex. Definitely not suitable for children.
Ezekiel 23:20
https://biblehub.com/ezekiel/23-20.htm
She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey’s and emissions like those of a horse.
thanks, I'll add bestiality to the mental list.
Seriously! how do you conflate that to get Beastiality?
@tryagain: It's a description of the worship of false God. But somehow people think it's teaching Beastiality. By not knowing the context you can conflate it into Beastiality.
@gto21: Hmmm … Ok ..
But, the following seems quite literal.
Numbers 31:14 to Numbers 31:18
https://biblehub.com/numbers/31-14.htm