Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[BilliardsBall]

The passages to which you refer don't apply to the ones cited. The cited passages contradict the others. Nowhere do they say anything about the woman screaming or resisting having any bearing. That would be expected if they were captives.

Why won't you own the passage? Why do you keep deflecting to contradictory passages. The biblical position on rape is defined by considering them all collectively. As usual, it offers a menu of choices. Pick the scripture that most suits your needs and try to explain why the others don't mean what they say.

I think you hit the nail on the head with your question!

I won't one the passage as condoning rape because I've looked at hundreds of passages under fire from skeptics. I've been down this road hundreds of times, and for decades. God has never been the ******* that skeptics make him out to be. Please learn this.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you think I want to get into any kind of conversation with you, you are sadly mistaken. You asked a specific question which I answered, nothing more.

Good, I'm glad we haven't been having a conversation. That would imply that you are gracious and kind, and I cannot have my atheists being gracious and kind, it screws up my Christian worldview.

All along, I thought we were challenging one another, testing, learning, growing. So glad to know yet another mean person is NOT on the side of the angels.

 

[ArtieE]

I think we're going in circles. I agree with your moral judgements, just not about what to call such ideas. To me, all of this is fundamentally subjective, and therefore, the word objective doesn't apply. It all requires making a judgment call. There is no external standard to turn to in moral judgments. We can only look to ourselves and one another for answers.

I don't look to myself or others when I make moral judgments. I look to the objective standard set by evolution and natural selection when it evolved organisms with instincts like the survival instinct. Is the act beneficial to the well-being and survival of my society and/or its citizens? Then the act is objectively moral. Is the act detrimental? Then it's objectively immoral. Wouldn't matter if I subjectively was of a different opinion.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You roam over a number of points above, some of them contradicting others.

Disagree.

Why no rebuttal? You probably know this trusim by now:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I meant intervention from God, not interpretation. The Law of C&M is considered inviolate except for when it wasn't, at the time of the Big Bang. It is admitted that there was no universe as we know it, then there was.

Admitted? Science doesn't admit, It declares. And it's very tentative about the origin of the universe. The present theory can only be extrapolated back to the end of the Planck era at about 10^-43 seconds. For all we know, the universe had been expanding infinitely back into time, and the singularity eternal. There is new evidence to support this hypothesis. It's too soon to discuss origins except speculatively and considering at least six different hypotheses.

This is called by theologians creatio ex nihilo.

Yes, I know.

If you're assuming that our universe came into existence from nothing, you're assuming too much. That is just one of several viable origins hypotheses.

I'm not particularly tied to the Big Bang. I believe in the Genesis account. Fortunately for us, however, in most all points, Big Bang theory aligns with Genesis beautifully.

I don't think so. The two accounts have almost nothing in common.

Genesis says that the universe had a beginning, and correctly anticipated exactly nothing else from the Big Bang theory. Genesis missed the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation with the release of the the cosmic background radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight.

Genesis also missed the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon-creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, the formation of the oceans heavy bombardment of the earth with water containing comets and asteroids, and the evolution of life over deep time.

Genesis got only one thing right just like every other creation myth - a first moment. The Vikings got that right and nothing else. The Australian aborigines got that right and nothing else. The ancient Mesopotamians got that right and nothing else. Behold:

"The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat's body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." Myth, How Marduk Became King of all the Ancient Babylonian Gods - Mesopotamia for Kids

If your point was to show that Genesis anticipated science, and in so doing, indicates that it's author had knowledge about the origin of the universe, I don't think you accomplished your goal. I think you did the opposite.

What you are showing is that Genesis contains a typical creation myth suggesting that its origin is the same as all of the others - human imagination.

You also tacitly imply that science is the final arbiter of truth. You didn't say that science failed to identify the six days of creation or the manufacturing of mankind from dust and a rib, which would have been the correct response if the scriptures were being treated as authoritative.

But you didn't. You deferred to the scientific account when you said what essentially amounts to, "See, we got something right" while ignoring all that was wrong or missed.

Did you want to rephrase, "I believe in the Genesis account. Fortunately for us, however, in most all points, Big Bang theory aligns with Genesis beautifully" or at least try to defend it from this rebuttal? How goes Genesis align with the Big Bang, and does it do so better than the Tiamat creation myth?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I did answer the question. But you disliked the answer.

Jesus was tortured, bled and died for the sins that both the rapist and rape victim have committed and will commit.

Your question was "why didn't God intervene or respond"?

He did.

That was the answer to my question about why the god of the Bible sits idly by as children are raped and murdered? Sorry, but I didn't recognize that as being related to my comment at all.

But now that you have said that it was your answer, I agree: I don't like it. That's an inadequate response. It still constitutes sitting idly by and watching. Doesn't do the children much good, does it? And of the murderer repents before they inject or fry him, he gets heaven.

It's also a violation of the Golden Rule. I doubt this god would want somebody to save it from pain and terror if needed, especially if it could be done with a thought.

We're judging the ethics of the god depicted in the Christian Bible just like you do when you call it a good and loving god. We challenge those assessments based on the conflicting evidence, and therefore question the existence of this god. We're telling you that those are the ethics of ancient, brutal people that created a god in their own image, and that we have progressed beyond that today.

Actually, they did it twice, once in the Old Testament, where they created a fierce, harsh,angry, intolerant, judgmental god that orders genocides, and condones rape and slavery, and again in the New Testament, where the god is depicted as kinder and gentler with far fewer legalism, but still supportive of slavery and the idea that keeping a soul conscious after death just to torture it is acceptable behavior for anybody,much less a loving god.

You should notice the difference between the way somebody on the outside looking in views Christian scripture and doctrine, and how a believer processes it. These two methods are competing methods for determining what is true. They are radically different, and lead to contradictory positions that can't both be correct.

 

[Thumper]

Disagree.

Why no rebuttal? You probably know this trusim by now:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

Admitted? Science doesn't admit, It declares. And it's very tentative about the origin of the universe. The present theory can only be extrapolated back to the end of the Planck era at about 10^-43 seconds. For all we know, the universe had been expanding infinitely back into time, and the singularity eternal. There is new evidence to support this hypothesis. It's too soon to discuss origins except speculatively and considering at least six different hypotheses.

Yes, I know.

If you're assuming that our universe came into existence from nothing, you're assuming too much. That is just one of several viable origins hypotheses.

I don't think so. The two accounts have almost nothing in common.

Genesis says that the universe had a beginning, and correctly anticipated exactly nothing else from the Big Bang theory. Genesis missed the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation with the release of the the cosmic background radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight.

Genesis also missed the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon-creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, the formation of the oceans heavy bombardment of the earth with water containing comets and asteroids, and the evolution of life over deep time.

Genesis got only one thing right just like every other creation myth - a first moment. The Vikings got that right and nothing else. The Australian aborigines got that right and nothing else. The ancient Mesopotamians got that right and nothing else. Behold:

"The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat's body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." Myth, How Marduk Became King of all the Ancient Babylonian Gods - Mesopotamia for Kids

If your point was to show that Genesis anticipated science, and in so doing, indicates that it's author had knowledge about the origin of the universe, I don't think you accomplished your goal. I think you did the opposite.

What you are showing is that Genesis contains a typical creation myth suggesting that its origin is the same as all of the others - human imagination.

You also tacitly imply that science is the final arbiter of truth. You didn't say that science failed to identify the six days of creation or the manufacturing of mankind from dust and a rib, which would have been the correct response if the scriptures were being treated as authoritative.

But you didn't. You deferred to the scientific account when you said what essentially amounts to, "See, we got something right" while ignoring all that was wrong or missed.

Did you want to rephrase, "I believe in the Genesis account. Fortunately for us, however, in most all points, Big Bang theory aligns with Genesis beautifully" or at least try to defend it from this rebuttal? How goes Genesis align with the Big Bang, and does it do so better than the Tiamat creation myth?

Have you seen "The Yahweh-Tehom Myth"? -- The Yahweh-Tehom Myth on JSTOR

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

Your only credentials here are your posts -your words and ideas. You're going to have to try to make your case and address rebuttals on the merit of your arguments.

I collect comments like that one from you - attempts to disqualify the unbeliever's interpretation of scripture without actually rebutting his argument. You just made the list. Here are several of the entries from the beginning and end of the list:

[1] You took the scripture out of context. Stop scripture mining.

[2] You don't understand literary criticism

[3] It's an allegory, not literal.

[4] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.

[5] Scripture is understood with a child's perspective

[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars

[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit

[8] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.

[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"

[11] Scripture always interprets scripture

[12] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?

[13] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[14] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture

[15] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[16] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[17] Even Satan can quote scripture.

[18] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?
...

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

The answer to all of these is that there is no special knowledge of scripture. It means what it says. What's the hard part? Sometimes, scripture is vague or ambiguous, in which case the words have no clear meaning. Poetry and song lyrics can be deliberately vague to allow each reader or listener to bring his own interpretation to the matter - a sort of verbal Rorschach test. Much of the Bible is vague in this sense. It means whatever the reader wants it to mean, and nobody's interpretation vetoes anybody else's.

But in other places, the language is clearer. There is only one meaning that can reasonably be assigned to the words, such as the story of Noah. It's pretty straightforward to understand. It's significance might be debatable, but the words as written aren't too cryptic.

The other is making a case from one witness statement, "Verse X says rape!" and is ignoring witness two, "Put male rapists to death"..

You need to read my post again. I acknowledge both of those. I said that all relevant scriptures needed to be considered collectively even of they contradict one another. Do i need to show you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I believe what happens [in the lake of fire] is best described in Luke 16. Have you read it yet?

Three times in its entirety.

So you intend to ignore the scriptures that tell of intense suffering?

The point is the same as the last post. To properly understand the Bible doesn't take knowledge of ancient languages or any type of protracted study. One merely need collect all of the scriptures addressing a single issue and consider them collectively - not just the ones you like that resonate with your preferred beliefs. If the scriptures are contradictory, so be it. There is no need to go in and do damage control with arguments trying to reconcile the contradictions unless you need the scriptures to support your preconception that they don't contradict one another.

I have no such need, which makes my interpretations different than yours.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Secular humanism seeks the best of all possible worlds through the use of reason and empathy. There is no claim that such a world will be utopian, just better than this one. Isn't that good enough?"

I'm offering a look at a utopian world.

No, you are repeating a promise that doesn't have to be kept. Nor do we know that it can be kept. That's not really offering much.

In the meantime, how about supporting the humanists as they try to make this a better world, utopian or not?

No, it isn't good enough on Earth because secular humanism hasn't reduced crime rates or anything else.

It put an end to witch burnings. Does that count? And it ended the crime of blasphemy.

How has Christianity been doing at reducing crime? Have you seen the statistics comparing more religious countries and more religious American states with less religious countries and less religious American states? We're doing better than the church. Humanism wins hands down.

Would you like to see the studies? I'm not going to bother to list the links again if you aren't interested in looking at data, but will gladly do so it you are.

Could a worldview be any more nihilistic or pessimistic?

You do paint a horrible picture there, except this is wrong: "According to the Christian narrative, the world is a horrible place and getting worse, a place which one should not be too involved."

I'm fully involved, as they say at Firehouse Subs. Did you read the gospels? Jesus was more than fully involved. Jesus's disciples are to all be fully involved. Give me true premises and I'll try to answer your questions better. I know atheists are indeed pessimistic, but Christians, optimistic. Both perspectives are backed by worldview for sure.

Sorry, but you're out of compliance with your Bible:

Romans 12:2 - "Do not conform to the pattern of this world"

John 15:19 - "The world would love you as one of its own if you belonged to it, but you are no longer part of the world. I chose you to come out of the world, so it hates you."

1 John 2:15 - "Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them."

But good for you for being a part of the world anyway.

The Christian is to be a steward of the environment. Adam and Eve were stewards of creation. Revelation says God will punish men in part for "the harm they have done to the Earth".

That doesn't seem to be the message the Christians are getting. They've more or less taken over the new American president's cabinet, and their first order of business includes dismantling almost everything they can to protect the environment, including restrictions on coal mining and funding for climate science study and education. The Bible says that the world will be destroyed soon. That removes all incentive to preserve it. Their actions are consistent with that belief just as James Watt's was, who I quoted earlier

How do you feel about those two issues?

And thank you for answering the questions asked.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Jews = All Jewish people.

Me = A Jew.

The word "some" would make this post less hurtful to my feelings.

You say "the Jews" because you are outside. I say "we Jews" from the inside.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

So, no comment on the discrepancy between Old Testament messianic prophecy and Jesus, and why the Jews apart from a handful like you reject the Christian claim that Jesus was their messiah?

Know this--all the NT authors were Jews. They believed and died.

The Jews that didn't believe also died.

 

[Thumper]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

So, no comment on the discrepancy between Old Testament messianic prophecy and Jesus, and why the Jews apart from a handful like you reject the Christian claim that Jesus was their messiah?

The Jews that didn't believe also died.

That's one of the 3 religious truths. --

1. Jews don't recognize Jesus as the messiah.

2. Protestants don't recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian faith.

3. Baptists don't recognize each other at the liquor store.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you hit the nail on the head with your question!

I won't one the passage as condoning rape because I've looked at hundreds of passages under fire from skeptics. I've been down this road hundreds of times, and for decades. God has never been the ******* that skeptics make him out to be. Please learn this.

Learn what? What you believe by faith?

I've already told you that we have different uses for evidence and different ideas of how truth is discerned. If you want to convince a skeptic, you'll need more than a claim. Remember the Hitchens quote?

 

[Thoran]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

You know, I was sooooo close to having respect for you. I was *this close* to having respect for a Theist. When you said "Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box." I was thinking; Good! An open-minded Theist! A Christian who has nuanced beliefs, one who understand that opinions can vary. Good, maybe this one isn't as brainwashed as the rest."

Then you said "This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief."

*sigh*

Just as narrow-minded and incapable of learning as any creationist.

 

[1137]

You know, I was sooooo close to having respect for you. I was *this close* to having respect for a Theist. When you said "Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box." I was thinking; Good! An open-minded Theist! A Christian who has nuanced beliefs, one who understand that opinions can vary. Good, maybe this one isn't as brainwashed as the rest."

Then you said "This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief."

*sigh*

Just as narrow-minded and incapable of learning as any creationist.

A narrow minded creationist Christian, huh? That's hysterical . As always here we have an atheist who can do literally nothing but chastise and insult, providing absolutely nothing to support their position.

 

[Thoran]

A narrow minded creationist Christian, huh? That's hysterical . As always here we have an atheist who can do literally nothing but chastise and insult, providing absolutely nothing to support their position.

You hypocrite! He accuses us of being as narrow-minded as him, I point it out, and you complain about ME being insulting.

By the way; MAN UP! Only Toddlers cry because someone hurt their feelings.

 

[1137]

You hypocrite! He accuses us of being as narrow-minded as him, I point it out, and you complain about ME being insulting.

By the way; MAN UP! Only Toddlers cry because someone hurt their feelings.

Oh don't worry, I'm not hurt. I'm effected by things like reason and evidence, not childish trolling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Disagree.

Why no rebuttal? You probably know this trusim by now:

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens



Admitted? Science doesn't admit, It declares. And it's very tentative about the origin of the universe. The present theory can only be extrapolated back to the end of the Planck era at about 10^-43 seconds. For all we know, the universe had been expanding infinitely back into time, and the singularity eternal. There is new evidence to support this hypothesis. It's too soon to discuss origins except speculatively and considering at least six different hypotheses.



Yes, I know.

If you're assuming that our universe came into existence from nothing, you're assuming too much. That is just one of several viable origins hypotheses.



I don't think so. The two accounts have almost nothing in common.

Genesis says that the universe had a beginning, and correctly anticipated exactly nothing else from the Big Bang theory. Genesis missed the singularity, the expansion of the universe, the inflationary epoch, symmetry breaking, particle condensation, nucleosynthsis, the decoupling of matter and radiation with the release of the the cosmic background radiation, the hundreds of millions of years before the first starlight.

Genesis also missed the 9 billion year delay before the formation of the sun and earth, the moon-creating impact event, the cooling of the earth with crust formation, the formation of the oceans heavy bombardment of the earth with water containing comets and asteroids, and the evolution of life over deep time.

Genesis got only one thing right just like every other creation myth - a first moment. The Vikings got that right and nothing else. The Australian aborigines got that right and nothing else. The ancient Mesopotamians got that right and nothing else. Behold:

"The mighty Marduk took his club and split Tiamat's body in half. He placed half of her body in the sky and made the heavens. He created the moon to guard the heavens, and set it moving back and forth, on endless patrol. With the other half of Tiamat's body he made the land." Myth, How Marduk Became King of all the Ancient Babylonian Gods - Mesopotamia for Kids

If your point was to show that Genesis anticipated science, and in so doing, indicates that it's author had knowledge about the origin of the universe, I don't think you accomplished your goal. I think you did the opposite.

What you are showing is that Genesis contains a typical creation myth suggesting that its origin is the same as all of the others - human imagination.

You also tacitly imply that science is the final arbiter of truth. You didn't say that science failed to identify the six days of creation or the manufacturing of mankind from dust and a rib, which would have been the correct response if the scriptures were being treated as authoritative.

But you didn't. You deferred to the scientific account when you said what essentially amounts to, "See, we got something right" while ignoring all that was wrong or missed.

Did you want to rephrase, "I believe in the Genesis account. Fortunately for us, however, in most all points, Big Bang theory aligns with Genesis beautifully" or at least try to defend it from this rebuttal? How goes Genesis align with the Big Bang, and does it do so better than the Tiamat creation myth?

Good questions, again, and good reasoning overall. I give it an A grade, your last post!

1. Sitting down and reading in the same session the Genesis account and any other ancient account is an eye opener. The eloquence of the Bible creation myths speaks volumes and remains in our zeitgeist.

2. To wit, rather than the despondent ramblings of the possessed or the high (see the Qu'ran!) I read Genesis 1 as if God takes Moses to see a film shot from just above the Earth and Moon (and before that, the singularity of the Big Bang). Then we zoom in, then we have chapters that retell the Creation. Two-tellings are common in the Bible and Hebrew literature and from two perspectives. Overview - Gen 1. People (who need saving) - Gen 2 and 3 .... and on!

3. The Bible speaks with authority. What are its first words? There's no apologetic or tee-up but rather, "In the beginning [of the universe and linear time based on light] God made all . . . "

4. Even a lay perspective of BB Theory aligns with the Genesis account:

*darkness than light (both being SEVERELY understated in the often-understated Genesis) - we're talking primal absolute darkness than a universe of magnificent light

*creation accounts that closely follow the evolution narrative from lower to higher flora and fauna

*creation in the void (the break in the inductively observed conservation of matter and energy law - the sum of all matter and energy remains constant since the Bang, but all entered the universe from the expansion)

*matches the rest of the OT - the OT says AT LEAST six times from SIX different authors "God expanded/expands the universe" - and contrary to the presumptions of scientists before red shift and etc. technology the "explosion" is RAPIDLY expanding - moving faster and faster apart

*anywhere you look (like hypothesized dark matter covering 70% of the universe to explain God's gravitational pull on all mass and energy) we see the POWER

*etc.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That was the answer to my question about why the god of the Bible sits idly by as children are raped and murdered? Sorry, but I didn't recognize that as being related to my comment at all.

But now that you have said that it was your answer, I agree: I don't like it. That's an inadequate response. It still constitutes sitting idly by and watching. Doesn't do the children much good, does it? And of the murderer repents before they inject or fry him, he gets heaven.

It's also a violation of the Golden Rule. I doubt this god would want somebody to save it from pain and terror if needed, especially if it could be done with a thought.

We're judging the ethics of the god depicted in the Christian Bible just like you do when you call it a good and loving god. We challenge those assessments based on the conflicting evidence, and therefore question the existence of this god. We're telling you that those are the ethics of ancient, brutal people that created a god in their own image, and that we have progressed beyond that today.

Actually, they did it twice, once in the Old Testament, where they created a fierce, harsh,angry, intolerant, judgmental god that orders genocides, and condones rape and slavery, and again in the New Testament, where the god is depicted as kinder and gentler with far fewer legalism, but still supportive of slavery and the idea that keeping a soul conscious after death just to torture it is acceptable behavior for anybody,much less a loving god.

You should notice the difference between the way somebody on the outside looking in views Christian scripture and doctrine, and how a believer processes it. These two methods are competing methods for determining what is true. They are radically different, and lead to contradictory positions that can't both be correct.

Good points all, again.


I DO recognize when God does nothing (rather than seemingly does nothing). We are in a special court today, judging a murder based on determinism and the divine. Your honor, IAN So, I present the facts of the case:

a) Billy shot Sharon to death

b) Sharon failed to duck fast enough from Billy's premeditated bullet

c) God failed to knock the gun from Billy's hand


Your honor IAN So, who should we hold responsible for this heinous act?

a) Billy moved from free will

b) Sharon didn't move quickly

c) God didn't move from His free will


Before you answer, consider that is reasonable for ANY person to COMPLETELY be cross with Billy and hold him responsible.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your only credentials here are your posts -your words and ideas. You're going to have to try to make your case and address rebuttals on the merit of your arguments.

I collect comments like that one from you - attempts to disqualify the unbeliever's interpretation of scripture without actually rebutting his argument. You just made the list. Here are several of the entries from the beginning and end of the list:

[1] You took the scripture out of context. Stop scripture mining.

[2] You don't understand literary criticism

[3] It's an allegory, not literal.

[4] When you read scripture, one has to discern WHO that particular verse was written to..The believer or the Non believer. If we cant understand that then YES, the bible would seem to be very contradicting.

[5] Scripture is understood with a child's perspective

[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars

[7] You are not filled with the Holy Spirit

[8] Sorry, but attending a church for a few years doesn't make you any sort of Biblical expert.

[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.

[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"

[11] Scripture always interprets scripture

[12] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?

[13] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek

[14] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture

[15] You're only making a fool out of yourself trying to argue over something that you are not Blessed to understand.

[16] You have to be familiar with the technical terminologies in the bible before you can comprehend it.

[17] Even Satan can quote scripture.

[18] You're asking me to give you a four year bible study course on Topix?
...

[44] Your lack of belief in God coupled with your lack of experience with God means you are not qualified to comment on God.

[45] He believes he is qualified on the basis that he has been inside a church and picked up a bible.

[46] The word of God can not be understood no matter how many times it is read without the help of the Holy Spirit.

[47] Out of context arguments are presented by narrow minds that refuse to take in the bigger perspectives and the greater all encompassing truths.

[48] You are a heretic with little if any understanding of Scripture. If you did study the Bible it was in a Laurel and Hardy College in Tijuana

[49] You can't just read the Bible to understand it, you need to study the scriptures.

[50] Your ignorance of the Bible, its laws and customs and what applies to Christians today is embarrassing. You should be red faced for making this comment in public.

[51] If you are going to quote Scripture for support for your claims then you need to tell me what the context is.

[52] Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend.

[53] You have no biblical expertise, your word on the Bible is strictly a layman's opinion.

[54] You want to convince me you have knowledge of the Bible. 1) Provide 5 examples of slave liberation in the Old Testament. 2) King Saul was merciful to the merciless and subsequently merciless to the merciful. Explain.

[55] I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

The answer to all of these is that there is no special knowledge of scripture. It means what it says. What's the hard part? Sometimes, scripture is vague or ambiguous, in which case the words have no clear meaning. Poetry and song lyrics can be deliberately vague to allow each reader or listener to bring his own interpretation to the matter - a sort of verbal Rorschach test. Much of the Bible is vague in this sense. It means whatever the reader wants it to mean, and nobody's interpretation vetoes anybody else's.

But in other places, the language is clearer. There is only one meaning that can reasonably be assigned to the words, such as the story of Noah. It's pretty straightforward to understand. It's significance might be debatable, but the words as written aren't too cryptic.





You need to read my post again. I acknowledge both of those. I said that all relevant scriptures needed to be considered collectively even of they contradict one another. Do i need to show you?

I agree almost 100%! I HATE when "Xians" use some of these "proofs".

Here IS what's valid to me:

1) I've studied Greek and Hebrew - surely there is NO text where we would say the translation to another language is more authoritative than the original language?

2) I have a relationship with God. We talk about the scriptures often.

3) I've read the entire Bible with care, the same way you read a lover's letter with care, over and again, savoring the words. I don't need Google to look up references, much of the time, not because I'm some genius, but because I've studied the Bible and ancient culture with care and love studying it. If I said we have now one verse condoning rape and one not condemning rape, or even if I said there are a dozen passages where the Bible condones rape--we've discussed some of them here--I still have thousands of verses on the love and mercy of God. It would be like me or my parents condoning rape--or you--all of us are too loving for that--so is God.

4) Psychology is the underpinning of textual study--I know you agree if you accuse me of confirmatory bias--but Bible study tends to go smoothly with a concerned Christian who asks me about rape in the Bible, and less smoothly with "Do you admit God condones violent rape or not, dammit?!" If you say you are free of biases against the Bible, I'll believe you--if you will likewise admit I have no confirmatory bias.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Three times in its entirety.

So you intend to ignore the scriptures that tell of intense suffering?

The point is the same as the last post. To properly understand the Bible doesn't take knowledge of ancient languages or any type of protracted study. One merely need collect all of the scriptures addressing a single issue and consider them collectively - not just the ones you like that resonate with your preferred beliefs. If the scriptures are contradictory, so be it. There is no need to go in and do damage control with arguments trying to reconcile the contradictions unless you need the scriptures to support your preconception that they don't contradict one another.

I have no such need, which makes my interpretations different than yours.

1) It's fun to try to reconcile conflicting passages. I'm likewise an apologist for Lucas's original trilogy, for example. I like to sit around and see if we can make Jar-Jar the central figure of Phantom Menace and etc.

2) I AGREE there ARE conflicting passages until you add the following:

*original language study--surely it's reasonable to see if Hebrew and Greek were put in English poorly or not - I mean the Bible is a LARGE volume of writing

*context--the Bible says there is no god! After all, the context is "Immoral people say there is no God. God sees this in Heaven and laughs." I know YOU hear about context often from born agains as if it's ONLY important to the scriptures. Context is important in all human communications. Even smiley face icons have completely different meanings in China than the US. Let's get passionate about semiotics. Example: Romans 12 says feed a hungry enemy, in so doing, you place burning coals on his head.

I should get TICKED OFF reading that! WHO DOES GOD THINK HE IS TO HAVE ME PUT FIERY COALS ON MY ENEMY'S HEAD!

Five minutes of Google searching or reading the right texts demonstrates--taking near-extinguished coals from a colder, older fire--you know, the black and white coals not aflame on the old grill--then placing them in a towel on a neighbor's head--was like giving a person with a bad back a warm water-filled bottle. It's a kind gesture to make to an enemy.

Here's the problem, however--when I first read Romans 12 and for years after, I thought, "what the heck?" But knowing the rest of the scriptures, I just kind of let it sit in the back of my mind. I might have prayed about the verses, I don't know. You can imagine how dumb I felt reading coals on the enemy's head is like taking my enemy out for a three-course gourmet dinner!

I think you can get there regarding rape, Creation, genocide, anything in the Bible. The question is am I in some cult? Am I a totally insane doofus? I don't deny the moon landings. I don't deny a spheroid planet Earth. Heck, I even considered voting for HRC when Trump won the nomination! But I'm not a moron.

I'm just some dude who has learned over MANY experiences that God's ways are indeed higher (more moral, more just, more loving, more ethical, more logical) than yours or mine.