What do the christians say?

[Anarcho-Rebel]

Firstly I'd like to say hi, as a new agnostic member im not sure if i'll fit in well. Im not trolling, though perhaps you could say im looking for a debate, that's not entirely true, really I just like reading the absurd responses that people come up with to defend their Gods.

As the title suggest im going to discuss Christianity. Riddled with complete inconstancy, contradictions and absurdity.

Things like the fact that God created light and separated light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day (1:14-19). 1:3-5

He made the stars also." God spends a day making light (before making the stars) and separating light from darkness; then, at the end of a hard day's work, and almost as an afterthought, he makes the trillions of stars, and the rest of the universe. 1:16

Also, when Lot's nameless wife looked back, God turned her into a pillar of salt. 19:26. Thats all very well, but if my scientific education has taught me anything; its that you cannot physically convert the atomic structure of a human into salt. Let alone instantly.

Many of the characters in the bible live ridiculously long lives, Abraham lived to be 175 years old. 25:7 and Ishmael lived 137 years. 25:17


In one part of the bible (Exodus?) God shows Moses some tricks that he says are sure to impress. First: Throw your rod on the ground; it will become a snake. 4:2-9 Then grab the snake by the tail and it will become a rod again. 4:4 - Do i need to say anything?

The Eighth plague: locusts that are so thick that they "covered the face of the whole earth." (Even over Antarctica?) 10:4-5 thats just stupid. And in any case, why does God send plagues? So that people can get to know him better. 9:14

Moses goes without food or water for 40 days and 40 nights. 34:28 ....how?

Clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations to God. 11:10-12

God tells the Israelites that the fruit from fruit trees is "uncircumcised" for three years after the trees are planted. 19:23, so he sure knows what he's talking about.


But it doesn't stop there, there's also plenty of injustice.


Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

Anyone with a "flat nose, or any thing superfluous" must stay away from the altar of God. 21:18

God is angry. He decides to destroy all humans, beasts, creeping things, fowls, and "all flesh wherein there is breath of life." He plans to drown them all. 6:7, 17


Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

Women are not to wear men's clothing -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord." 22:5, define men's clothing.

Jacob has two wives and two concubines, continuing the biblical tradition of polygamy. 32:22

If a man dies before his wife has a child, then the widow must marry her husband's brother -- whether she likes him or not, and whether she wants to or not. 25:5

The feet of strange women "go down to death," and "her steps take hold on hell." 5:3-5


Well, im going to end it here give the christian camp time to digest and reply. I'll check back soon.

 

[Scott1]

Hmmmm.... you begin your post by insulting the intended readers..... brilliant first post..... welcome to Religious Forums..... hope your future posts have a little less rhetoric..... carry on.

Scott

 

[michel]

Hi Anarcho-rebel;
That's quite some 'handle'. The forum caters for all different faiths as you can see, and we question one and other quite freely. Hope you can share your thoughts and get responses that answer some of your questions.
Good luck!!

 

[Halcyon]

I assume your aiming your post at fundamentalist christians, i.e those who believe in the inerrancy of the bible. I'm not sure how many there are here, but it seems a waste of your time to me, you will change no-ones mind, all you will get are angry posts full of bible quotes, posts which will not benefit you in the least.

You make valid observations of the abserdity (from a modern point of view) of some portions of the bible, but you must remember that the book has been mashed beyond recognition by nearly 2 millenia of church editing, i believe a lot of the original meaning has been changed and lost, and thus appears gibberish.

Also some of the quotes you site are clearly the result of the cultures of the time, i don't think it is right to mock anyone's culture, even if it seems strange and ignorant by todays western standards. Who says our way is the right way?

 

[linwood]

Hello Anarcho.

I too find some enjoyment in the scriptural gymnastics of theists but some of what you`ve posted has perfectly understandable and logical reasoning behind it.

For example we must remember who this book was written for and it should be taken into account that it was written over many millenia for a multitude of purposes.
Much of it`s supposed contradictions can be understood if we take the book at face value instead of doing as the evangelical theist, and simply "believe" in it`s inerrancy.

For example, these assertions...

Clams, oysters, crabs, lobsters, and shrimp are abominations to God.

God tells the Israelites that the fruit from fruit trees is "uncircumcised" for three years after the trees are planted. 19:23, so he sure knows what he's talking about.

If reading the Torah (OT) while realizing it is in fact a guidebook as well as history book one can perhaps see why these rules make sense or could make sense under the right conditions

The edict against shellfish is most probably due to the probability that many people died from eating shellfish.
I live on the Gulf of Mexico and I can tell you eating shellfish with a high mercury content due to red tide or pollution can make you incredibly sick or kill you.
A society of ancient goatherders would know nothing of the science behind these things and would simply ban shellfish eating when many people became sick or died.

The 3 year rule on fruit trees could be nothing more than the necessary time it takes for a tree to self fertilize in order to produce sweet fruit.
The fruit of citrus trees when grown wild or with no intentional fertilization by man are bitter to the taste, tangerines taste like lemons.
The fruit that drops from these trees will rot and eventually self fertilize the tree.
By picking the bitter fruit before it drops the tree is unable to self fertilize and will always bear bitter fruit.

The rest of your post... I also await the entertainment.

Welcome.

 

[No*s]

We'll be happy to respond and discuss when you decide that you won't take everything absolutely literally and address people with a modicum of respect. The fact that you opened your post by asserting you aren't trolling tells me that you know what it reads like.

You can always simply reword your post, and you'll get more of a response.

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Wow... I've never tried welcoming someone while also being insulted. (I'm assuming you're referring to everyone who believes in a diety and not just Christians.)

perhaps you could say im looking for a debate, that's not entirely true, really I just like reading the absurd responses that people come up with to defend their Gods

Good for you. Strangely enough, I'd rather talk to people that are willing to listen to me. My responses are no more 'absurd' than yours.

 

[Saw11_2000]

Hmmm...the part with the

absurd responses that people come up with to defend their Gods

seemed a bit harsh. Not exactly the way I would have worded it.

 

[pearl]

>As the title suggest im going to discuss Christianity. Riddled with complete inconstancy, contradictions and absurdity.>

The 'absurdity' of which you write is due to your childish approach to the Bible.
Literary forms
Literary forms, whether ancient or modern, are the commonly accepted patterns or ways of writing used by writers of a given age and culture to express their ideas and at the same time indicate to their audience the purpose for which they are writing. As with all fundamentalists you get hung up in the details and the
how of things and have no knowledge of purpose. The messge or measure of truth of what an author writes is determined by his purpose, and his purpose or intention is known principally from his literary form. It is for this reason that an author does not tumble at random into a literary form but chooses the one that best suits his purpose.
If the author, for instance, intends to write a techinical historical treatise, he will hardly use a poetic literary form. A lover in communication with his fiance will certainly not use a textbook language. Among the modern literary forms subconsciously recognized and understood by anyone with a fair amount of education are the novel, the poem, the essay, the satire, various types pf plays as the tragedy, the comedy, and the musical, and various kinds of historical writing such as the popular, the edifying, the entertaining, and the so-called strict research history. Literary forms have a history. They do not appear as finished and perfect literary methods. They originate in an imperfect state, develope over a period of time, reach a peak, and then either become classical, fall into a decadence and disuse, or undergo adaption to some new and different literary purpose.

By his recognition of the literary form, the reader understands immediately the purpose the author has in writing and guides himself accordingly in the interpretation of what has been written. He judges poetry by the accepted norms for poetry and editorials by the accepted norms for editorials. When he reads Carlyle's History of the French Revolution and Dickens' The Tale of Two Cities, he knows from the literary form that one is to be judged according to the norms for professional history, the other according to the norms for the historical novel. When he reads an historical romance as Tolstoy's War and Peace, he knows immediately from the literary form that the author intends to give him part history and part fiction. He must not accuse
the author of an historical romance of lying when he fictionalizes, not of deliberately distorting the facts of history when he subordinates them to the entertainment value of his work.

What is true of modern literary forms is true of ancient literary forms. The
message or measure of truth in any ancient book must be determined by the purpose of its author. What the reader of the Bible must understand is that the human author of the Bible, though writing under divine inspiration, used the established literary forms of their day and age.

St Paul said, 'when I was a child I played with the things of a child, when I
became a man, I put away the things of a child.' When you learn how to read the
Bible, by all means come back and play with the grown-ups.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I Corinthians 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

[Mister Emu]

Given your first paragraph this post does not deserve the time it takes for a look over, yet I will go ahead and issue some of those "absurd responses that people come up with to defend their Gods".

Thats all very well, but if my scientific education has taught me anything; its that you cannot physically convert the atomic structure of a human into salt. Let alone instantly.

I feel sorry for you, I thought everyone knew how to turn people into salt.

It is a miracle, when you read the Bible you will read about many more.

Many of the characters in the bible live ridiculously long lives

I am suprised you went for Abraham and Ishmael on this one. and is 137 really a rediculous age, I had thought there was a Brazilian woman who lived to around 117 or something and I thought she claimed 125. Perhaps conditions at this time were more beneficial to humans and thus produced longer lifespans.

If you want really long lives though look at Genesis 5. People were living 900+ years.

Do i need to say anything?

No. Mircales friend, miracles.

The Eighth plague: locusts that are so thick that they "covered the face of the whole earth." (Even over Antarctica?) 10:4-5 thats just stupid.

Earth as in land, they covered the whole of the land.

If a man dies before his wife has a child, then the widow must marry her husband's brother -- whether she likes him or not, and whether she wants to or not.

In ye olde tymes when this was written widows had about no chance of getting married again, this was done to protect the woman, to make sure she had a roof, and food and drink ect.

 

[Pah]

If you want really long lives though look at Genesis 5. People were living 900+ years.

In ye olde tymes when this was written widows had about no chance of getting married again, this was done to protect the woman, to make sure she had a roof, and food and drink ect.

I was thinking of Adam and Noah at 900 years of age. But, in your largess, you didn't answer the point based on 900 years.

I understood the marriage (and it was a second marriage) of Onan was to secure a heir to the widow. She was already considered a daughter to the parents of the deceased when she married and had no need for further "security".

 

[Anarcho-Rebel]

I feel sorry for you, I thought everyone knew how to turn people into salt.

Firstly, I thank you for actually having the courage to reply. Before I start, be aware of two things: I am not an atheist, and I respect your right to freedom of religion. anyway now the pleasantries are out the way...

It is a miracle, when you read the Bible you will read about many more.

Right, see, forgive me if I don't fall to my knees.

I am suprised you went for Abraham and Ishmael on this one. and is 137 really a rediculous age, I had thought there was a Brazilian woman who lived to around 117 or something and I thought she claimed 125. Perhaps conditions at this time were more beneficial to humans and thus produced longer lifespans.

Im more interested in your last line that conditions may have been more beneficial to humans. This simply cannot be true. If you research the time periods many thousands of years BC you would see that the standards of living for the poor or working class in the middle east, would not be ideal for you body. In fact, the human body is only biologically designed to live to around 30, after this time it degenerates. I forgot the exact age, but its simply impossible to live past 100-and-something.

If you want really long lives though look at Genesis 5. People were living 900+ years.

Exactly.

Earth as in land, they covered the whole of the land.

From north america to singapore...where are the remains of this phenomenal swarm. And where were they breeding? for how long?

In ye olde tymes when this was written widows had about no chance of getting married again, this was done to protect the woman, to make sure she had a roof, and food and drink ect. {/QUOTE]

I never challenged that, I just said it was wrong. Forcing a woman to marry, whether the law is holy or not, is in my eyes unjust.

 

[Mister Emu]

I understood the marriage (and it was a second marriage) of Onan was to secure a heir to the widow. She was already considered a daughter to the parents of the deceased when she married and had no need for further "security".

My bad, I had thought it was for security

I am not an atheist

You are agnostic, correct?

Right, see, forgive me if I don't fall to my knees

Never expected it.

From north america to singapore...where are the remains of this phenomenal swarm. And where were they breeding? for how long

The land of Egypt

 

[true blood]

Right, see, forgive me if I don't fall to my knees.

You will one day. If not in this life then in the next.

 

[Anarcho-Rebel]

You are agnostic, correct?

Mainly. Though I believe that God is a collective conscience, an inevitable fabrication of the collective human imagination, and a tool for fear in maintaining power.

The land of Egypt

I've never heard of any archaeologists digging up mass remains of fossilised locus, or even any historical reference (other than the bible) which documents this.

 

[Anarcho-Rebel]

You will one day. If not in this life then in the next.

Ever heard the quote "I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees"? well I find it inspirational. I reject ideas and philosophies which force men to their knees in self pity.

 

[Mister Emu]

I've never heard of any archaeologists digging up mass remains of fossilised locus, or even any historical reference (other than the bible) which documents this

Egyptians are not noted for their objective histories, if the History channel is to be believed.

Also look at:

http://www.fao.org/news/global/locusts/web04/040405mau1-tb.html

and watch the first video of:

http://www.fao.org/news/global/locusts/Outbreakvideo.htm

 

[Melody]

You will one day. If not in this life then in the next.

Oh heck....it won't let me frubal you until I spread it around some more. I'll try and remember.

 

[true blood]

I reject ideas and philosophies which force men to their knees in self pity.

I agree, most would. However, we will see what happens come the day of vengeance of our God with the prophecy of Revenlation when Christ will return as King of Kings and Lord of Lords with all the power of God. If this happens all former ideas and philosophies of men may pass away.