Why I'm not an Atheist

[Chuee]

Also, God does kill innocent people. He kills innocent first borns in Egypt. There is also mention of bashing babies' heads on rocks.

Also, to add on, II Kings 2:23-24 where 42 children are mauled by bears for making fun of a bald man.

 

[Oasis_S]

Also, to add on, II Kings 2:23-24 where 42 children are mauled by bears for making fun of a bald man.

I hope those kids said "Your head is looking a little... bare. "

 

[Vermanubis]

The question of density rather than relative quantity is completely arbitrary and doesn't excuse the Christian God from immoral practice. The only way you can excuse him is if you the play the 'who are you to judge God?' or 'you can't know God's morality'. Both of which are fallacies in this context.

I don't see where you keep going with these. We were just talking about reasons for God's wrath, and now we're shifting to qualifying it as immoral? The point stands that in small tribes, retribution is much more plausible under the premise that God does not kill the innocent. That's why in the day where the corrupt and righteous are mixed, there is no way, and no contextual need for direct retribution.

As far as its alleged immorality, such a thing is a modal moral concept. If you defend someone you love's life by harming the one trying to take it, that's not immoral as demonstrated by multiple Hebrew distinctions between murder and killing. That's essentially the explanation for each instance of wrath.

Also, God does kill innocent people. He kills innocent first borns in Egypt. There is also mention of bashing babies' heads on rocks.

It states, explicitly, in God's exchange with Abraham about Sodom, that God is willing to even spare the wicked to save the righteous. In regards to killing children, that's an easy answer. Consider two things: God promises infants salvation since they're incapable of making moral choices. Secondly, if the wicked were exterminated, what would become of the child? If left with someone wicked, the child would be condemned as they grew, and if abandoned, it'd suffer to death. Each instance of of putting a baby to death can be explained.

Now, this was indeed hard for me to grasp, too, as the imagery is enough to make anyone's blood curdle. However, it does make express sense that with the promise of salvation, that putting infants to death in a context where they'd otherwise suffer horribly from either sickness or starvation is merciful. For example, I didn't like running over that squirrel the other day, but before I ran him over, he was already hit and suffering. I cringed at the thought of doing it, but I knew it was the right thing to do to spare it.

There are more ambiguous cases of innocence too. For example the soldiers he killed at at the Red Sea could be considered innocent because they were just following orders.

A parallel scenario: could Nazi soldiers be considered innocent, even if they didn't mastermind Semitic genocide? Of course, even in the context of WWII, an "as close to innocent as a part of the SS can be" soldier, it'd be right to show mercy and take 'em as prisoners. However, these guards can't be conjectured as "might've been innocent;" they were murderous slave-drivers who wanted the Jews' blood.

The children of the sinners killed by the flood in the Noah's Arc story.

See above.

The people who he said to stone to death if they try to seduce you away to other Gods could be innocent in that they may have no ill-intention. They could be genuinely seeking truth. Ironically, the Christian justification for faith would allow then to believe in these Gods that are worthy of the death penalty.

To seduce from God in that context meant to join the ranks of Pagans who sacrificed children, openly ***** women, animals, and so forth. I don't think it was referring to some well-wishing travelling philosophers who wanted to conjecture as indicated by the word "seduce," which unequivocally means to lure and deceive. It's hard to see justification for such things, until you understand the kind of people to which were being referenced in said passages.

Even if these people aren't innocent, the first borns and babies most certainly were.

See above.

The fallacies were the ones I mentioned before, like believing in something conceivable without showing why it's the most reasonable belief. Things like epistemic circularity in appealing to theology to justify theology as an authority etc.

There're plenty of reasons to believe it as the most rational, some of which were given in the links I provided earlier (which I do want you to read, still, if you haven't.) There're supporting pillars from all fields of science, including archaeology, anthropology, carbon-dating, etc. Aside from minor translational errors which can be corrected by hearkening to a Hebrew or Greek edition, the Bible is the most unique and consistent holy text.

I never said faith vs deeds was the only divide, but there is a divide there.

Also, with the intentional sinner it's different if he says 'maybe God exists/ I know God exists, but I don't care I'm going to live a life of sin anyway'. The man I'm talking about says 'God, I know you exist, and my faith is so strong in you that I trust that you will save me, no matter what deeds I do'.

Then that man's out of luck, because that's not faith in the Christian God. To accept God and Christ, you have to commit yourself to upholding Christian law, and to know Christian law, you have to read the Bible, which states too explicitly, too many times that leading a life of sin without genuine, spiritual repentance will put you at the back of the line when it comes to entering Paradise. As I said before, it's not possible to accept Christ, then intentionally violate Christian law, as acceptance is contingent upon that commitment. So that example is vacuous.

Also, to add on, II Kings 2:23-24 where 42 children are mauled by bears for making fun of a bald man.

The word used was actually "youths" which referred to a mob of young men hexing Elisha with an epithet that basically let someone know just how welcome they were. They weren't little kids, and the term "baldy" in that context was akin to walking into a KKK meeting, daring you to come closer while they call the person a racial pejorative.

 

[Dre89]

Verm- A lot of the justifications you used for God's killing would still apply today, yet we never see him commit these acts anymore.

As for the firstborns and the children of the flood victims, Christianity believes a child will automatically be sent to heaven up until the age of 7. There would have been plenty of kids past this age.

Also, there are plenty of kids who suffer now, and have miserable lives a head of them, but they're not spared.

And so if these acts were good, then why did God stop doing them in the NT? Before you said there is no longer any need for them. So you're saying that at that time, there was need for killing kids with miserable lives ahead of them and sending them to heaven, but there isn't now?

As for evidence, as I said before, the amount of evidence required to validate the Bible soars through the roof because the Bible claims the supernatural, which is by definition the most improbable phenomena claimable.

The problem with evidence debates is that there is supposedly evidence against the Bible too. For example, you refer to carbon dating, yet many Christians have tried to prove that carbon dating is faulty to refute evolution theory.

There are plenty of Biblical scholars who believe the Bible is not historically reliable. Take the number one contemporary biblical scholar, Bart Ehrman for example. He has learned the original languages the Bible was written, and has read every Christian text in the 500 years after Jesus' death. He went into the profession as a believer, but has since become a skeptic due to what he has learned.

We also know that the Bible incorporates far more poetic techniques than historical ones. The names of most characters in the Bible are symbolic or poetic. Many events mentioned in the Bible never actually happened, but simply reflected Jewis traditions.

Take for example the releasing of Barabarus (however you spell his name). His name actually means 'son of man' which poetically aligns with Jesus, who is the son of God. The Bible says that the Romans had a custom where they would let the public choose to release one of two men. The Romans never did this. In fact this is simply just a spin-off of a Jewish custom done with goats. The one that is released is to be claimed in the wild by the devil or evil spirits, and the blood of the one who is sacrificed cleanses the spirits of the people. That's why Barabarus is portrayed as a wicked man, and you can see the part that Jesus plays.

That's just one of countless examples.

Ultimately, you have to bend too much to believe the Bible is the word of God for it to be considered reasonable belief.

 

[MuraRengan]

I've been reading this and I agree mostly with Verm, though I'm not versed enough in the Old Testament to really defend it.

However, I'd like to argue more toward the credibility of the New Testament (specifically the evidence of Christ's life) with extra-biblical refrences to Jesus, that is, people who were not Christian and had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible recording details about Jesus.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

 

[Chuee]

However, I'd like to argue more toward the credibility of the New Testament (specifically the evidence of Christ's life) with extra-biblical refrences to Jesus, that is, people who were not Christian and had nothing to do with the writing of the Bible recording details about Jesus.

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

 

[Vermanubis]

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm

I like this game.

 

[Chuee]

http://www.bethinking.org/bible-jesus/the-historicity-of-the-new-testament.htm

I like this game.

It was mostly to respond to the accounts of Josephus, Tacitus, and friends.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I've been reading this and I agree mostly with Verm, though I'm not versed enough in the Old Testament to really defend it.

If you're not going to learn his dad's awesome origins story, how the **** are you gonna...what.

You might as well play Mass Effect 2 before playing Mass Effect. Then go "this plot is stupid" and get bored of it.

And you'd be perfectly right by doing so.

 

[Shadic]

OP seems to be: Science can't explain everything ever with 100% certainty so I'm going to use a book written by a bunch of dehydrated, angry desert folks from 2000 years ago as a valid alternative.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I love how typical this is. "Oh I can't defend the Old Testament but Jesus was cool".

Yeah, but Jesus is in the same book for a ****ing reason. He's the supposed son of the same ****ing God in the Old Testament telling us TO BELIEVE AND WORSHIP THAT. ****ING. GOD. Then you go and read the Old Testament and you go "OHOHOHOHOHOH NOOOOOOOOOOOO, NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOO."

Or hey maybe that was just me.

 

[Vermanubis]

I love how typical this is. "Oh I can't defend the Old Testament but Jesus was cool".

Yeah, but Jesus is in the same book for a ****ing reason. He's the supposed son of the same ****ing God in the Old Testament telling us TO BELIEVE AND WORSHIP THAT. ****ING. GOD. Then you go and read the Old Testament and you go "OHOHOHOHOHOH NOOOOOOOOOOOO, NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOO."

Or hey maybe that was just me.

Or you actually <read> the Old Testament and see that every passage with alleged "killing" or "cruelty" was with purpose, like those I stated and cited in my posts.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Or you actually <read> the Old Testament and see that every passage with alleged "killing" or "cruelty" was with purpose, like those I stated and cited in my posts.

Notice how I never said the alleged killing or cruelty wasn't with purpose.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Yeah, having a purpose is immaterial. Me murdering a bunch of people isn't justified by me having a purpose for doing it.

 

[Dre89]

The bigger problem with the killings are that the justifications for those killings arise today but we never see God act in the same way.

The other problem is that these justifications aren't evident to the neutral reading the Bible. They've been formulated in external theology, meaning the neutral doesn't really have any reason to believe that they're the most reasonable beliefs.

God certainly could have conveyed his reasonings clearer, and just have given his doctrine much more clarity. Especially considering the fact he's omniscient and would have foreseen future ambiguity.

 

[Pluvia]

I hope those kids said "Your head is looking a little... bare. "

"Oh believe me children, this scene is about to get a lot more grizzly."

 

[Chuee]

Or you actually <read> the Old Testament and see that every passage with alleged "killing" or "cruelty" was with purpose, like those I stated and cited in my posts.

It's not only killings, he also commands things that in today's society would be considered cruel and immoral.
He allows slaves (as long as they aren't your fellow Jewish people).
He allows beating your slaves as long as they don't die (within 3 days I think?)
He doesn't allow a woman to hold authority over a man.
He calls for a ***** women to be married to her rapist.
He calls for stoning as a punishment for small crimes (a man found picking sticks [iirc] on the Sabbath was stoned by God's command).
Other ridiculously sexist laws (a man can divorce a woman simply because she doesn't please him [Deuteronomy]
He calls for parents to beat their children (with a 'rod') as punishment [though some would advocate doing this in today's time]
A marriage isn't legitimate unless the woman is a virgin.
Stoning a child who rebels against their parents
@Dre: *insert video of people claiming Japanese earthquake was from God*

 

[Oasis_S]

"Oh believe me children, this scene is about to get a lot more grizzly."

I have felt true happiness.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I just don't believe God is responsible for much killing, directly. People killed for their religion, and prophets, but that's only for power.

Sure, there is this whole Noah thing, but afterwards God said to Noah iirc that he wouldn't do anything like that anymore. So yeah, gotta believe that.

 

[Chuee]

I just don't believe God is responsible for much killing, directly. People killed for their religion, and prophets, but that's only for power.

Sure, there is this whole Noah thing, but afterwards God said to Noah iirc that he wouldn't do anything like that anymore. So yeah, gotta believe that.

The Old Testament clearly outlines instances where God directly commands his people to kill others.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I guess, but I don't know the story behind it so...

 

[Chuee]

I guess, but I don't know the story behind it so...

Well, surely you know the story of Moses and the Egyptians, and how God cast 10 plagues on the Egyptian people, the final plague being the murder of all firstborn Egyptian children.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I didn't yet actually, but I feel I should read up Exodus soon anyway...

 

[Vermanubis]

Yeah, having a purpose is immaterial. Me murdering a bunch of people isn't justified by me having a purpose for doing it.

Let me rephrase: justified.

The bigger problem with the killings are that the justifications for those killings arise today but we never see God act in the same way.

Which I've explained. God's wrath was in the OT was to protect the Israelites from sin. Once the prophecies of the OT were fulfilled and Christ died, there was no longer an immediate need to punish sin, since it would no longer hinder the original mission and prophecies.

The other problem is that these justifications aren't evident to the neutral reading the Bible. They've been formulated in external theology, meaning the neutral doesn't really have any reason to believe that they're the most reasonable beliefs.

You repeatedly bring up "neutrals," but you can't validate that an alleged neutral wouldn't come to these conclusions. If a neutral is interested in analyzing the Bible and contemplating reasons for certain events, then he/she will most definitely come to the same conclusions I have. Most people defect from reasoning out the OT because it conflicts with their emotions too much, and they don't consider the context which isn't "external theology," rather, it's plainly visible under the premises that the Bible lays out.

God certainly could have conveyed his reasonings clearer, and just have given his doctrine much more clarity. Especially considering the fact he's omniscient and would have foreseen future ambiguity.

Then there wouldn't be such a thing as having faith. His doctrine is plenty clear if a person takes the time to study the Bible. I can guarantee from your repeated incorrect invocations of Christian doctrine that you haven't studied the Bible, which is what God asks followers to do. The Bible isn't meant to be an Almanac, wherein you open up to the page with relevant passage and disregard the rest. Even many Christians don't read the Bible or seek to reconcile unanswered questions. It's not meant to leap out at you and be flagrantly apparent on the first read.

It's not only killings, he also commands things that in today's society would be considered cruel and immoral.

I'll provide you with links; I encourage you--nay--challenge you to read them. As I said to Holder, you can't Google "Why God is evil" or something and be done with it--to be a true "free thinker" one has to be able to pendulate between both sides of the argument.

He allows slaves (as long as they aren't your fellow Jewish people).

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

He allows beating your slaves as long as they don't die (within 3 days I think?)

See above link.

He doesn't allow a woman to hold authority over a man.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

He calls for a ***** women to be married to her rapist.

If a woman were deflowered in such a time, she'd never find a husband and would thus be left to struggle as a single outcast in impoverishment. The passage states not that the woman is obliged to marry the rapist, rather, the woman is the rapist's responsibility for the rest of his life and that he's to care for her.

He calls for stoning as a punishment for small crimes (a man found picking sticks [iirc] on the Sabbath was stoned by God's command).

The mere breaking of the Sabbath alone wasn't was wrought a stoning, rather, to break the Sabbath was indicative of a depraved individual who'd work on the Sabbath to take advantage of others' dormancy.

Other ridiculously sexist laws (a man can divorce a woman simply because she doesn't please him [Deuteronomy]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. The only instance in the OT where divorce is acceptable is in the case of adultery.

He calls for parents to beat their children (with a 'rod') as punishment [though some would advocate doing this in today's time]

This is a societal discrepancy between our time and theirs. While I wouldn't encourage this particular method, it taught the kids that actions have consequences. And by "beat" it doesn't literally mean to beat as it's commonly connoted today; it means simply to strike; to spank.

A marriage isn't legitimate unless the woman is a virgin.

Because this is marriage under Christians predicates. Under Christian predication, it's a sin to fornicate (sex before marriage). She had given herself to another man and the man to another woman. You can't interpolate popular societal doctrines into a Christian doctrine and vilify Christianity for it.

Stoning a child who rebels against their parents
@Dre: *insert video of people claiming Japanese earthquake was from God*

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. 'He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Note the bolded part. It wasn't just a misbehaving child. It meant a son or daughter who'd rebelled so much that they became a threat to the wellbeing of the Israelites.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Let me rephrase: justified.

None of your attempts to explain why stoning, plagues, child beating, etc. have been morally justified. I'd stone, plague, and beat someone who had that type of thinking if I didn't already hate the idea of all three of those things.

 

[Dre89]

Verm- The Bible being clear wouldn't remove the choice of faith, it'd make it slightly more reasonable to believe in. Having clarity doesn't change the fact you still need to choose to believe it's actually the word of God.

So the Bible's ambiguity does nothing to compromise the virtue of choice, except for the fact that less people are likely to make that choice due to the ambiguity.

I myself haven't studied the Bible extensively, but I've read people who have, both sceptics and believers. I also know a lot about the theology.

Random question, why did God wait something like 90 000 years into human existence, to send a person down to one country?

 

[JTsm]

I'll provide you with links; I encourage you--nay--challenge you to read them. As I said to Holder, you can't Google "Why God is evil" or something and be done with it--to be a true "free thinker" one has to be able to pendulate between both sides of the argument.

Because being a true thinker forces you to read such garbage? Ok.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Hmmmm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html

If a woman were deflowered in such a time, she'd never find a husband and would thus be left to struggle as a single outcast in impoverishment. The passage states not that the woman is obliged to marry the rapist, rather, the woman is the rapist's responsibility for the rest of his life and that he's to care for her.

Ohhh so since both the rapist and the outcast are scum, it's ok for both of them to marry each other. Makes sense.

The mere breaking of the Sabbath alone wasn't was wrought a stoning, rather, to break the Sabbath was indicative of a depraved individual who'd work on the Sabbath to take advantage of others' dormancy.

So if I worked harder than one guy because he doesn't work on Sunday and I do, does that really justify him to kill me?

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. The only instance in the OT where divorce is acceptable is in the case of adultery.

1st passage.
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0524.htm

This is a societal discrepancy between our time and theirs. While I wouldn't encourage this particular method, it taught the kids that actions have consequences. And by "beat" it doesn't literally mean to beat as it's commonly connoted today; it means simply to strike; to spank.

And yet, people still do it.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/201...-beat-child-to-death-for-mispronouncing-word/

Because this is marriage under Christians predicates. Under Christian predication, it's a sin to fornicate (sex before marriage). She had given herself to another man and the man to another woman. You can't interpolate popular societal doctrines into a Christian doctrine and vilify Christianity for it.

Sure you can. Why aren't you for freedom of speech or criticism?

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. 'He is a profligate and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death." - Deuteronomy 21:18-21

Note the bolded part. It wasn't just a misbehaving child. It meant a son or daughter who'd rebelled so much that they became a threat to the wellbeing of the Israelites.

ONE kid is threatening the well being of the Israelites? What is he doing? Pulling pranks? Killing civilians? The bible doesn't really say a whole lot of what the kid did. Why are you so sure? All it says is 'He is a profligate and a drunkard.' without giving an explanation. So basically the bible gives justification for beating and killing your kids for misbehaving.

 

[Chuee]

I'll provide you with links; I encourage you--nay--challenge you to read them. As I said to Holder, you can't Google "Why God is evil" or something and be done with it--to be a true "free thinker" one has to be able to pendulate between both sides of the argument.



http://godandscience.org/apologetics/slavery_bible.html

Well, notice the verse it gives for the OT states that for a kidnapped man.
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. -Exodus 21:20-21

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. -Leviticus 25:44-46

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. -Exodus 21:2-6

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. -Exodus 21:2-6

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. -Exodus 21:7-11

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. -Exodus 21:20-21

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/sexism.html

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.
-1 Timothy 2:12-14
The women should keep quiet in the churches, for they are not authorized to speak, but should take a secondary and subordinate place, just as the Law also says. -1 Corinthians 14:34
Women also can't be Priests, Bishops, or Pope in the Catholic Church.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that. The only instance in the OT where divorce is acceptable is in the case of adultery.

I can't find the passage I was looking at where it says that, I'll look for it tomorrow.

@Dre: Not to mention of all the possible ways to reveal himself to world he does it through a book, in a time period where writing wasn't very advanced (versus that of China). That and apparently he works miracles which surprisingly stopped happening long, long ago.

 

[Vermanubis]

None of your attempts to explain why stoning, plagues, child beating, etc. have been morally justified. I'd stone, plague, and beat someone who had that type of thinking if I didn't already hate the idea of all three of those things.

Well, when repeatedly taken out of context to be capricious, yeah, they're horrible, but you're demonstrating a difficulty in understanding that the world wasn't always modern and have modern societal contracts. Back then, a profligate drunkard who haphazardly disregarded God's Law (which, in a great many ways, can be seen as synonymous with standards of hygienic and civilized conduct in a world where such measures were not obviated by technology), posed a serious threat to people in a small society.

Now consider the alternatives: try to tame an out of control drunkard with next to zero resources to do so, while compromising the wellbeing of your tribe, or taking necessary measures to preserve the greater good? It's not pleasant, but, again, the world was not always a modern one where everything had a pleasant alternative. Morality possesses modality. In today's world, these things would be immoral, because other measures are available, but then, it was the only alternative. Don't mistake me for someone who thinks these things are okay without express reason and a lack of alternatives. I'd also like to point out that it'd be wise not to say such strong things as you'd stone me, regardless of attempts to equivocate by saying "if you didn't already hate such things." It's puerile behavior.

As for the plagues, the same goes for what I said earlier that keeps getting ignored: the Egyptians were murderous, depraved and debaucherous. Being God's chosen people, the Israelites were protected, much like a mother defending her child. As for firstborns and babies being killed, let's employ some good old Aristotelian logic in such a pervasively Platonic subject.

If the God of the Bible is responsible for the plagues and destruction of cities and civilizations, then this very same God also promises Paradise to infants. If infants are caught up in destruction, they're without blame and achieve salvation, as opposed to being left without care and suffering a long and horrible death.

Verm- The Bible being clear wouldn't remove the choice of faith, it'd make it slightly more reasonable to believe in. Having clarity doesn't change the fact you still need to choose to believe it's actually the word of God.

That's a claim that's heavily subject to contention. Intensionality and extenstionality in language is a metaphysical constant, and translating a text into a variety of languages will inexorably contain extensional disparities. The only lack of clarity to be found in the Bible is in a small minority of translations that raise an eyebrow with words that bear negative connotation. The alternative would be to provide a broad context for each passage, which would be impractical. There's an impasse between those who can, if I may say so without sounding elitist, read between the lines, and those whose demands obviate the concept of faith almost entirely.

So the Bible's ambiguity does nothing to compromise the virtue of choice, except for the fact that less people are likely to make that choice due to the ambiguity.

See above.

I myself haven't studied the Bible extensively, but I've read people who have, both sceptics and believers. I also know a lot about the theology.

While I won't at all call your intellect into question, I do call your knowledge of Christian theology into question at points, though.

Random question, why did God wait something like 90 000 years into human existence, to send a person down to one country?

My answer would be that our particular species underwent micro-evolutionary changes until they became fully sentient and capable of commanding the metaphysical. Adam, from what I've gathered from anthro/archaeo/etc., was the emergent individual that had access to the Platonic realm of the abstract, if you will.

Because being a true thinker forces you to read such garbage? Ok.

Oh boy, here we go.

Hmmmm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/Bbl/Sexism/Sexism.html

I've read that article before, as it's the first site that comes up in every anti-Christian Google search query. That entire article takes passages out of context and unfairly expounds on them, wherein my article provides context regarding the Biblical equality of men and woman.

Ohhh so since both the rapist and the outcast are scum, it's ok for both of them to marry each other. Makes sense.

I know it's probably a far-fetched notion, but ancient Israel wasn't America. In the eyes of people back then a woman was not viewed as scum, rather, one who was extremely undesirable at the prospect of one who was still a virgin. God explicitly states that the ***** was to be pampered by the rapist and to be cared for, as she was now his responsibility.

So if I worked harder than one guy because he doesn't work on Sunday and I do, does that really justify him to kill me?

Ugh.

Instead of subscribing to what seems to be an ironically strong cognitive bias while reading what I'm saying, try to take it at face value and not distort its meaning. The person wasn't to be stoned because he was a hard-worker; it was because if a man was in a Covenant with God, the only reason he/she'd break the Sabbath was to take advantage of everyone elses' observance of it.

1st passage.
http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/0524.htm

Oh, come on, man. You're giving me hell for being Christian, yet you're trying to tell me that a blatant reference to adultery or fornication, which is what my point was, rebukes my point?

"When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house." - Deut. 24

That's the exact exception that I said the Bible made. Chuee prevaricated the passage to say it said "if the man doesn't like the woman." This is what I mean by actual thinking past a cognitive bias, which is what we Christians seem to get the most hell for. I'll probably get some vehement backlash for this, too.

And yet, people still do it.
http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/201...-beat-child-to-death-for-mispronouncing-word/

That's a biased sample, and is fallacious logic; something you'd no doubt say my faith is based on. One sick, addled pair literally beating their kid to death doesn't reflect on the Bible, nor our times as a whole. If you're going to enter a discussion of this magnitude, you should know better than to take a stab at such an unreasonable coup.

Sure you can. Why aren't you for freedom of speech or criticism?

Not quite sure if I'm being trolled now. By saying that we can interpolate current societal standards into a moral system from thousands of years ago and compare the two side-by-side, is like saying the Israelites were subhuman for not taking dumps in toilets with running water. The parallel here, in case it's not obvious (which I fear it may not be at this point) is that Christian Marriage does not reflect all other marriages. You cannot apply current marital standards to another tradition. I honestly don't know what backfired in that melon of yours to make you think freedom of speech has anything to do with the fact that if a Christian book mandates Christian standards for a Christian ceremony, it's fully within its rights to ignore other people's ideas of how that ceremony should be done.

Ironically, to suggest otherwise is antithetical to free speech, as it's not allowing those of the Christian faith to practice their beliefs without interference.

ONE kid is threatening the well being of the Israelites? What is he doing? Pulling pranks? Killing civilians? The bible doesn't really say a whole lot of what the kid did. Why are you so sure? All it says is 'He is a profligate and a drunkard.' without giving an explanation. So basically the bible gives justification for beating and killing your kids for misbehaving.

Well, profligate's a pretty strong word, and there're only so many directions in which it can go. The definition is: recklessly extravagant or wasteful in the use of resources. Someone who wastes then-precious resources, creates discord and jeopardizes a small society. Like I said before; ancient middle-east wasn't America. Kids weren't stoned to death for being pranksters. Young men and women who compromised the well-being of the tribe were stoned. How am I so sure? Well, it's pretty hard not to be with such clear word choice and knowledge of how humble and fragile these Israeli tribes truly were. What're people who pose major threats to society done in most states? They're given lethal injections. I know, that reality check is profound, but back then, they didn't have sterile utensils, blades or otherwise. All things considering, stoning was a quick and immediate death compared to either starving them, bludgeoning them to a pulp or otherwise.

 

[Dre89]

Verm- I feel bad posting against you when so many other people are too. I know how that feels because I'm normally the outnumbered one, so I'll try and keep this short and simple to answer.

Firstly, with regards to my credentials, the only thing on which I've perhaps made a misinformed claim is the nature of the Prot's notion of faith and deeds. But this is because there is a divide between Caths and Prots, a divide of deeds vs faith respectively, so if Prots need deeds too then I'm not exactly sure what the divide is.

Also, how would you explain how culturally contextual the Bible is?

The Bible is written in Israel, and let's look at some facts-

-The OT God, whether his actions are justified or not, certainly acts very similar to Gods that were floating around at the time. He has many characteristics similar to Greek gods in his temperament. You may not like that analogy but any neutral would consider it fair.

-The Israelis are God's chosen people.

-The Egyptians are the enemy, and are killed in large numbers.

-People are allowed to have slaves, except if they're Israeli.

-Favouritism towards men (Adama coming first, 'neighbour's wife' commandments, the passages mentioned in Chue's post etc.) which was promiment at the time.

-No mention of any countries that Israelis did not know about at the time, or just anything in general Israelis didn't know about.

-Things like this:

We also know that the Bible incorporates far more poetic techniques than historical ones. The names of most characters in the Bible are symbolic or poetic. Many events mentioned in the Bible never actually happened, but simply reflected Jewis traditions.

Take for example the releasing of Barabarus (however you spell his name). His name actually means 'son of man' which poetically aligns with Jesus, who is the son of God. The Bible says that the Romans had a custom where they would let the public choose to release one of two men. The Romans never did this. In fact this is simply just a spin-off of a Jewish custom done with goats. The one that is released is to be claimed in the wild by the devil or evil spirits, and the blood of the one who is sacrificed cleanses the spirits of the people. That's why Barabarus is portrayed as a wicked man, and you can see the part that Jesus plays.

That's just one of countless examples.

For something that's meant to be the word of God, it's very culturally similar to Israel, which is where it was made.

I personally think if it actually was the objective word of God, you'd think there would be some passages which detail something that Israelis weren't aware of at the time.

Also, the differences in the NT aren't an example of counter-culture. Remember, the earliest NT scriptures were written decades after Jesus' death, so if Jesus did exist (merely as a historical figure) and was as influential as the scripture suggests, then decades is plenty of time for his work and philosophy to influence the scripture.

If anything, I think that explains the difference between the OT and NT Gods the greatest. The OT God is much like a Greek God, and the NT God behaves much the same as Jesus does in the NT. I think the NT God is modelled off the historical figure of Jesus.

That's certainly a far more reasonable explanation of the difference between the OT and NT Gods than the idea of Jesus coming down and fulfilling the OT, which somehow warrants almost a complete change in God's behaviour.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, when repeatedly taken out of context to be capricious, yeah, they're horrible, but you're demonstrating a difficulty in understanding that the world wasn't always modern and have modern societal contracts. Back then, a profligate drunkard who haphazardly disregarded God's Law (which, in a great many ways, can be seen as synonymous with standards of hygienic and civilized conduct in a world where such measures were not obviated by technology), posed a serious threat to people in a small society.

How is God constricted to the culture back then? Isn't God good ALL the time, that is the saying is it not? It just doesn't make sense that God can't supersede the poor morals you can see until the humans come up with better ideas. Nonsense I say.

Now consider the alternatives: try to tame an out of control drunkard with next to zero resources to do so, while compromising the wellbeing of your tribe, or taking necessary measures to preserve the greater good?

He is an omnipotent God... he can make him not a drunkard, he can take him elsewhere, etc. Such a being would have unlimited options surely. It could even be argued it would be morally better if he was simply left alone, but that is beside the point.

It's not pleasant, but, again, the world was not always a modern one where everything had a pleasant alternative.

Again, we aren't the ones that grant God options, we don't limit his behavior to our actions, he'd be lesser than we are if that was the case.

Don't mistake me for someone who thinks these things are okay without express reason and a lack of alternatives. I'd also like to point out that it'd be wise not to say such strong things as you'd stone me, regardless of attempts to equivocate by saying "if you didn't already hate such things." It's puerile behavior.

You seem to be someone who has a sense of morality about you, which is why I am confused you pretend to have an understanding of such a poor form of it. If you were a God and you lacked the imagination to come up with better ideas than people who had very poor concepts of morality, then that is a poor job, anyone could say see that. So please explain why you condescend.

Also, you don't have the morality I spoke of, do you? You wouldn't ACTUALLY stone someone, and think it justified? This is a joke right?

As for the plagues, the same goes for what I said earlier that keeps getting ignored: the Egyptians were murderous, depraved and debaucherous. Being God's chosen people, the Israelites were protected, much like a mother defending her child. As for firstborns and babies being killed, let's employ some good old Aristotelian logic in such a pervasively Platonic subject.

I still wouldn't plague them. We wouldn't even use atomic bombs on places like that nowadays. Also, explain about the firstborns for me and how it is justified?

 

[GwJ]

I didn't yet actually, but I feel I should read up Exodus soon anyway...

You probably shouldn't be commenting on much if you haven't read the bible.

 

[Orboknown]

Also, to add on, II Kings 2:23-24 where 42 children are mauled by bears for making fun of a bald man.

That man was a prophet of God.By insulting God's messanger you insult his message.

OP seems to be: Science can't explain everything ever with 100% certainty so I'm going to use a book written by a bunch of dehydrated, angry desert folks from 2000 years ago as a valid alternative.

A book that has been reprinted millions of times since then.

It's not only killings, he also commands things that in today's society would be considered cruel and immoral.
He allows slaves (as long as they aren't your fellow Jewish people).
He allows beating your slaves as long as they don't die (within 3 days I think?)
He doesn't allow a woman to hold authority over a man.

Every 7th year i believed every slave had to be set free with some form of repayment.
@the bolded-Almost no one in society did until the late 20th century.

You probably shouldn't be commenting on much if you haven't read the bible.

So much this.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That man was a prophet of God.By insulting God's messanger you insult his message.

Yeah, I agree. We should send bears to kill people who insult his message, that is the ultimate answer.

 

[Orboknown]

In a country where God's word was literal law, then yes it was.

 

[Chuee]

That man was a prophet of God.By insulting God's messanger you insult his message.

Right, insulting him surely warrants being mauled by a bear as punishment.

A book that has been reprinted millions of times since then.

That doesn't change the fact that it's still a book.

Every 7th year i believed every slave had to be set free with some form of repayment.

It's still slavery. I'm trying to point out that the morality in the bible reflects the morality of the time period it's in, not the perfect morality one would expect from God.

@the bolded-Almost no one in society did until the late 20th century.

see above

In a country where God's word was literal law, then yes it was.

Right, it's not disgustingly cruel in any way, shape, or form to have someone ripped apart by a wild bear for insulting you.

 

[Arcansi]

Sorry about not reading the whole thread, but this seems to be on topic so...

1. If God exists, why did he do everything only back then?

2. I remember from my brief time in church that I was taught god has a plan and to rely on it.

This brings up a few inconsistencies.

1. God punishes us for our ancestors actions (for some reason, this is very illogical) but he was the one who planned those actions.

2. The concept of free will does not exist if god has a plan and it will fulfill itself, so why would he act like it does?

Also, I'm sure many of you have heard this quote before, so just link/quote/write whatever response you probably already have planned for it, so I can understand.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Thanks for your time.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

In a country where God's word was literal law, then yes it was.

I can't believe what people try to justify; and these are people who believe humans must be moral, since when did I become the prudent one with an amoral mindset?

 

[Dre89]

They justify it because they believed it was the word of God before they were aware of those facts.

Everything they say is logically possible, but there's no reason to believe it over the fact that the Bible is simply flawed.

That's why no non-believer thinks any of this is reasonable.

You never see non-believers who say 'I can see how God's behaviour is reasonable, but I don't believe in the Bible because of X'. What you see is people saying 'I don't believe in the Bible because of X, and because God's behaviour is totally unreasonable'.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I guess that would be called "Kenosis". Emptying out one's own will and filling it up with God's. In the context of the Bible, that is suppose to be a good thing.