What Failure Do You Think the Bible's God Has had?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One would think so.

Given its narratives and subject matter that can be compared with an endorsement of genocide, human slavery, dehumanizing of women as a type of property, or bargaining chips just to name a few things. It would come to reason that book deserves the kind of response that people make about it.

It's not the kind of book that's very pleasant for which people hold in high esteem and dear to their hearts.

It's a bizarre contradiction and irony to even see that kind of approval for what the Bible contains in its narratives. Even if the violence and degradation has stopped,. People just don't condemn it like some condemn other books for what it's written within its pages.

Agreed. This isn't the kind of book that we would expect from a deity. There isn't a sentence in it that couldn't have been written by someone from the first century.

Furthermore, anyone today could easily improve on it.

So what does it say when anyone can improve on the Bible (and Qur'an), but almost nobody can improve on a book by Stephen Hawking?


From R. G. Ingersoll on the subject of what a book of divine origin would be like:

It should be a book that no man -- no number of men -- could produce.

It should contain the perfection of philosophy.

It should perfectly accord with every fact in nature.

There should be no mistakes in astronomy, geology, or as to any subject or science.

Its morality should be the highest, the purest.

Its laws and regulations for the control of conduct should be just, wise, perfect, and perfectly adapted to the accomplishment of the ends desired.

It should contain nothing calculated to make man cruel, revengeful, vindictive or infamous.

It should be filled with intelligence, justice, purity, honesty, mercy and the spirit of liberty.

It should be opposed to strife and war, to slavery and lust, to ignorance, credulity and superstition.

It should develop the brain and civilize the heart.

It should satisfy the heart and brain of the best and wisest. ​

 

[Quintessence]

Hearing religion from an appeal angle makes it seem like some product being marketed to the masses.

That's not quite what I was going for, but I suppose if you want to interpret it from a capitalist framework, the comparison isn't entirely off-base. I would say it transcends economic philosophies and is grounded in something far simpler - something has to be interesting to us or appeal to us to warrant engagement with it. If we don't find something inspiring, we don't investigate it or make it part of our lives. You don't need any sort of marketing effort for this to be the case. Humans are simply creatures of passion, and we follow our muse. When we follow things that don't inspire us, it's a real drag.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So in order to understand the Bible, one needs to do research? Maybe they shouldn't be handing them out to random people...

That's right. The Bible was translated to English as a move of desperation and as a political move, and it was done against the objection of most anyone who understood it at the time except those who were so overwhelmed by the excesses/corruption of the church that they were looking for just any kind of damage that they could effect. Many who objected probably did so foreseeing the kinds of problems we are having today. We have 'Bible churches' that handle snakes. At the time of translation people were not sure what would come of its translation, but at minimum it should never have been marketed like it has been. It is a library of books that has been wrongly proclaimed a single, unified book, with damaging consequences. Handing someone a Bible is analogous to handing a starving ignorant peasant a Geography book and saying "There. Now you have no excuse for being poor and ignorant."

Then the creationists come parading through with their attacks on science and scientists, which is pretty irrelevant to unbelievers - they can go ahead and remain ignorant of science and shield their children from public schools and disesteem universities at no cost to me. In fact, both od my children work in the sciences, and such attitudes only make it easier for them - less competition. The harm is that it predisposes such people to be deceived by the climate deniers.

I have no objection to debates about creationism and science and think its great that the discussion is happening. I object to targeting a religion on RF like its the root of all evil. That's really something for other sites. We should want religious people to come here and meet one another, primarily because its a good idea to help people from such different niches know each other. I applaud the efforts off all involved in these discussions about science and creationism. I consider this Switzerland for religions. Ok, a lot of people were not happy with Switzerland during the war; but it did serve a purpose.

Then you have the atheophobes with their lies about atheism and its predisposition to lead to brutal, authoritarian, murderous regimes.

Yes this is part of what I think RF is for; to dispel rumors but not just about atheists. Rumors grow up when people stay in their circles and don't interact outside of them. To create an environment where rumors get dispelled we don't let people express contempt for other users, though I wish we could sometimes. We need people to like it here. Sometimes it just feels like somebody needs a bonk on the head, but that accomplishes nothing here. Usually nobody listens to anyone but themselves. An effective argument causes a person to overcome their internal laziness and read/consider. If someone really cares about you they'll listen to you, so that's another way to get people to learn. If people think atheists are bad, then you are here to show them you aren't. I don't think you can argue them down on it, but if through arguing you are able to demonstrate that you aren't evil then you win.

Then there are the homophobes, fighting tooth and nail to shame homosexuals and prevent them from enjoying the dignity and legal protections afforded others.

Often this is more of a case of misunderstanding, brainwashing or naivete. Still, the goal of getting people to listen requires winning them over rather than subjugating them. Its a matter of relationships and not simply a matter of providing information. I'm not saying that's ideal, but its because of how people are.

Many of us want this kind of thing gone from the world. This is what the "war" is about. This is what leads to what is being called Bible bashing. Sorry that it is so unpleasant to you. And I realize that these other people make it harder and more unpleasant to be a Christian. They also make it harder and more unpleasant to be a non-Christian.

I grok I think. I view your efforts as positive and don't want to cause you problems. What I think though is that you have a problem with reaching Christians as you do not have clarity about the Bible, so really you cannot address our problems. For example if you bring up a scripture verse but do not seem to understand its context and invoke it as a charm for some side you represent then it fails to connect with me. I feel unreached and like you aren't trying to reach me. If I bring up an objection "You are misunderstanding this," but you're dismissive then I feel I'm talking into a well. I see this happen frequently between different groups, not just atheists and christians. Ever see a republican and a democrat talk about economics? No progress is made. I think things do not have to be like that if there is a human touch, a diplomatic guesture. For example I apologize that this post is long and kind of boring.

 

[suncowiam]

That's not quite what I was going for, but I suppose if you want to interpret it from a capitalist framework, the comparison isn't entirely off-base. I would say it transcends economic philosophies and is grounded in something far simpler - something has to be interesting to us or appeal to us to warrant engagement with it. If we don't find something inspiring, we don't investigate it or make it part of our lives. You don't need any sort of marketing effort for this to be the case. Humans are simply creatures of passion, and we follow our muse. When we follow things that don't inspire us, it's a real drag.

It is a marketing effort for those that want more followers or believers. Its simple sellers versus buyers.

So maybe, we can term it marketing from a seller's perspective and appeal from a buyer's perspective.

 

[suncowiam]

Yes, the God of the Christian Bible is said to be perfect:

[1] "As for Jehovah, his way is perfect - 2 Samuel 22:31

[2] "As for God, his way is perfect: The LORD's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him." Psalm 18:30

[3] "His work is perfect, for all his ways are just. A trustworthy God who does no wrong, he is righteous and straight." - Deuteronomy 32:4

[4] "Be therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect" - Matt 5:48​

Yet at the same time, He is imperfect. He makes mistakes and regrets them:

[5] "And the LORD was sorry that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart." - Genesis 6:6​

Add in all of the imperfections already named on this thread, and you have the imperfect perfect god, the married bachelor of the Christian Bible. This is how we know that this book is not authored solely by an omniscient god, but either entirely by or with the help of a collection of ancient people who contradicted one another and possibly the deity

To the Christians:

Let's say that a god exists, the one you call "God," and He helped to write that book. We have to guess why such a god would let unsophisticated men contaminate His word, or leave us to guess which words He wrote and which words simple ancients wrote.

Let's suppose that a deity wrote some of the words. Who wrote that the god was perfect? The four scriptures above refer to God in the third person. Who wrote that the Lord was sorry and grieved? It's also in the third person. Did God write either? If so, which one? Which one is correct? Why believe either even if one is correct? On what basis? What can you say that you know about such a god? And why should a person base their lives on such a book?

Now you're really confusing me with all this conflicting evidence. My head is going to explode.

 

[Apologes]

I believe in God's providential ordering of the word so there can't really be any failures.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

We think that we do understand the messages, but others are free to explain why they think that the words don't mean what they say.



You just tried to explain why "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones" doesn't mean what it appears to mean, but your answer did nothing to dispel my opinion about what those words mean or how I feel about them.



So in order to understand the Bible, one needs to do research? Maybe they shouldn't be handing them out to random people. People will just read that killing babies makes one happy.



Yes. Also his other qualities. Isn't this what this thread is about?

*****

Let me add this: For me, this is not about Christians, but about the effect that Christianity has on Christians, and how that affects the lives of them and others. Both you and Brickjectivity are Christians (I believe that that is correct) that I mostly agree with and find have excellent characters and dispositions insofar as one can judge such a thing through the lens of RF.

You're the kind of people that are likely drawn to the gentle god of the New Testament. People like you absorb the positive teachings, and more or less reject the ones that a different kind of believer is drawn to, the one that prefers the angry, vengeful, judgmental god of the Old Testament.- the kind that tell the rest of us what is right and wrong, how we should live, what the prevailing societal values should be, and would impose those values on the rest of us using the might of government.

That person reads the same words that you do, but sees a very different message, one that many of us find destructive and unjust when it becomes the prevailing opinion or a socio-political force to be reckoned with. We are presently witnessing the damage that Christianity is doing in America. You probably know that 81% of white evangelical Christians found Trump acceptable, and according to recent polling, a similar number find Moore acceptable. The rest of us look on in shock and horror.

Then the creationists come parading through with their attacks on science and scientists, which is pretty irrelevant to unbelievers - they can go ahead and remain ignorant of science and shield their children from public schools and disesteem universities at no cost to me. In fact, both od my children work in the sciences, and such attitudes only make it easier for them - less competition. The harm is that it predisposes such people to be deceived by the climate deniers.

Then you have the atheophobes with their lies about atheism and its predisposition to lead to brutal, authoritarian, murderous regimes.

Then there are the homophobes, fighting tooth and nail to shame homosexuals and prevent them from enjoying the dignity and legal protections afforded others.

Many of us want this kind of thing gone from the world. This is what the "war" is about. This is what leads to what is being called Bible bashing. Sorry that it is so unpleasant to you. And I realize that these other people make it harder and more unpleasant to be a Christian. They also make it harder and more unpleasant to be a non-Christian.

Everything you complain about Christians in your comment are the same as I have complained about repeatedly.
IMO, nothing you say is incorrect.
I have totally lost any respect I may have had for Christianity as it exists in this world, as well as many Christians. Christianity has been hijacked by evil from very early on.
I cannot attend a Christian church any longer. I have tried plenty of them.
I read the Bible and understand the God of the Bible and his son, Joshua quite well. Since the election of Trump my eyes have been opened to the rot in the Christian churches. I was at odds with churches from way back, though, since I find no teaching in the Bible that would justify the actions of the so-called Christians regarding same sex marriage, and their love affair with the Republicans, who for the most part are not at all like Jesus, IMO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Regardless whether God exists or not and whether biblical story real or not, by looking at the story in bible, what failure do you think God has had?

Frankly, I don't think it makes sense to judge the god of the Bible in those terms.

That entity is just way too obviously a creature of fable. It is not fair to expect him to actually exist. You might as well discuss the fashion sense of the puss in boots.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

What story in the Bible? There's a lot of them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I view your efforts as positive

Thank you for that. I'm surprised to read it, however.

What I think though is that you have a problem with reaching Christians as you do not have clarity about the Bible, so really you cannot address our problems.

With all due respect, when discussing Christianity, I am not trying to address the problems of Christians. I am trying to address the problems of secularists dealing with an invasive institution that has insufficient respect for the rest of us. I'm speaking principally as an American now. Christianity manifests differently in different cultures. I don't imagine that the Australians or Canadians have the same problems.

I understand that Australia just passed a same sex marriage law without the seismic response we saw in America. That's how it should be. That's the church being a good neighbor and accepting that many of the people around them don't share their values, some are gay, and should be free to live as good lives as they can make for themselves without the reaction that American same sex couples got from the American church - refusing to bake wedding cakes, refusing to issue marriage licenses, blaming natural disasters on tolerance of homosexuality, making slippery slope arguments invoking bestiality, vowing to stack the courts to re-impose Christian values on non-Christians, etc..

Those are the kind of problems I'm addressing, and perhaps you can understand why the problems of Christians like that are low on my list of priorities.

But having said that, you are not that kind of person, and I will be happy to discuss with you whatever problems you would like.

For example if you bring up a scripture verse but do not seem to understand its context and invoke it as a charm for some side you represent then it fails to connect with me.

Likewise. If you interpret a scripture differently from me, and cannot demonstrate why I should accept your reading of the words, that doesn't resonate with me. I'm not sure why you mentioned that.

If I bring up an objection "You are misunderstanding this," but you're dismissive then I feel I'm talking into a well.

Have you gotten that from me? If not, once again, why are we discussing this now?

By dismissive, you don't mean not agreeing with you or not accepting your position, do you? Open-mindedness only requires a fair appraisal of an idea, not its acceptance. You probably know that and agree with it.

Or perhaps by dismissive you mean rejecting claims of authority in biblical interpretation from believers. If you can show me additional words that modify that meaning substantially, I pledge to consider them impartially and with the willingness to be convinced by a compelling demonstration ad argument.

That's the authority the believer has: the power of reason applied to evidence. Simply saying, "You are misunderstanding this" accomplishes nothing. The skeptic routinely rejects such claims. He who makes an existential claim that wants to be believed assumes a burden of proof with the skeptical thinker.

Is any of that what you are referring to?

Incidentally, there is no burden of proof for he who wants to express an unsupported dissenting opinion and doesn't care if he doesn't convince others. Dissent noted.

Anyway, continued thanks for your good-natured discussion of these matters. It is not my intention to offend, although I am aware that it is nearly impossible to be critical of that which others hold dear and sacred without agitating some of them, a price those who come to discussions must be willing to pay if they want to take the other side in such a discussion for the purpose of promoting their religious views in a mixed forum.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Everything you complain about Christians in your comment are the same as I have complained about repeatedly.
IMO, nothing you say is incorrect.
I have totally lost any respect I may have had for Christianity as it exists in this world, as well as many Christians. Christianity has been hijacked by evil from very early on.
I cannot attend a Christian church any longer. I have tried plenty of them.
I read the Bible and understand the God of the Bible and his son, Joshua quite well. Since the election of Trump my eyes have been opened to the rot in the Christian churches. I was at odds with churches from way back, though, since I find no teaching in the Bible that would justify the actions of the so-called Christians regarding same sex marriage, and their love affair with the Republicans, who for the most part are not at all like Jesus, IMO.

I understand.

As I indicated, many of you Christians seem like kind, decent, tolerant, constructive people. You have a different disposition and nature, are drawn to the positive and healthy aspects of Christianity, and manage to reject the kinds of things that I've been describing that we see in so many people cut from a different cloth that so many non-Christians find just as objectionable as you do. They were unable to defend themselves from a pernicious influence.

We can coexist with the neighborly Christians, the ones who understands that their beliefs are meant for them and them only. They seem to be just like the rest of us. They accept diversity and are tolerant.

And unfortunately, they have to experience some of the negativity that the other kind of Christian creates in the minds of outsiders looking in.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Regardless whether God exists or not and whether biblical story real or not, by looking at the story in bible, what failure do you think God has had?

Failure by whose standards? Mine? Or God's?

Assuming we're speaking of the God of Abraham...

If by God's, before one answers, one has to understand God's intent. Perhaps he meant for everything to happen as it played out. Perhaps he didn't. But I think before one can understand God's intent, one must understand God.

If by mine, I don't think this server has enough bandwidth for me to list them.

 

[Faithofchristian]

What failure do you think the bibles God has had.

As for Unbelievers they no understanding or knowledge what the Bible actually does say or Supports.
So many that has no knowledge or understanding, will come up with all kinds of things.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Unbelievers they no understanding or knowledge what the Bible actually does say or Supports.

I find exactly the opposite to be true. It is the unbeliever that comes to scripture with an open mind and no need to make the words say other than what they do.

How can you understand what the words say when you have already decided in advance that they are all correct, all meaningful, and are the thoughts of a perfect and good god? You're reading them through a faith based confirmation bias.

The believer is forced to sanitize and rationalize what you read. I am not. If the god is depicted making a moral or intellectual error, I don't have make excuses for it or come up with some reason for why the absurd or obscene is really perfection. The believer does.

I can look at two contradictory scriptures and call it a contradiction. The believer must make one appear not to be saying what the words say. He must de-emphasize one of the two, and tell me that one of them is allegory, or that perfect doesn't mean perfect, circle doesn't mean circle, or day doesn't mean day, or that the words have to be understood in the light of some vague centuries older scripture from Ezekiel or Habakkuk that bears no perceptible relation to the matter.