Total posts: 1,720
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.There are some people who were indoctrinated to believe God is an angry deity who they have to measure up to. Many of these believers left that view when they decided to find out about God by themselves. And just the further study of scripture reveals that God is not the tyrant that even some believers make him out to be.
The average believer sticks pretty closely to what they were taught by their parents/religious leaders (and not necessarily the Bible ) - appealing to the fringe believer isn't going to make your point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do you think religion itself is dangerous?
No, not necessarily. I personally think it is dogmatism that is dangerous, especially when coupled with fundamentalism. Even this requires qualification- dogmatic adherence to fundamentalist Janism isn't generally going to be dangerous to society...
I think we're on the same page here. But...there are people that label another innocent non-personality of being guilty of possessing human inadequacies......intelligent design.There's a woman who went on a diatribe about what intelligent design is around the Dover trial, attaching labels one would only do with a personality, or human organization.Would you agree that that is wrong as well?
No. Intelligent design is a product of humanity built from bias and science/scientism.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Why do you say that?
You understand atheists to be pro-atheism or anti-religion (the same thing in your eyes), but I think that is overly simplistic. An atheist who is anti-religion is an anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-religion (or "Pro-atheism"). Furthermore, someone can be a believer *and* be anti-religion. The way that you have represented atheists is without crucial nuance.
I'll check it out.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting an absolute rule, but a reference directed at a seeming normative believer. This norm can be demonstrated by the numerous denominations as well as the numerous understandings of the Christian God from one believer to the next.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
This statement might be meant to reflect the disconnect between the typical conceptualization of the Christian god and the god found in the pages of the Bible. No doubt, you'll want to argue there is no disconnect. However, I'll point out god-concepts are most-often formed by upbringing and reinforcing passages long before an objective reading of the text can occur. (Ie. Indoctrination)
In short, the conceptualization is given priority and textual dissonance is wrongly dismissed as tone-deafness in the reader or critic. This is ironic since the text (not the personal conception) is alleged to be the literal word of god.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
By your understanding of atheism, there can be no option other than totalitarianism and communism.
If I'm not forced to operate under such an ignorant understanding, a US based society with a majority atheist (it wouldn't be an "atheist America"), I see religious pandering in politics going down and issues where religion was a primary basis for rejection or endorsement finding a new equilibrium.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Science doesnt support racism. The scientific view is that there is one race - the human race.
Can science be twisted? Sure, but that's not an issue with the conclusions or the methodology - that's a quirk of human nature from which no ideology (including religion) is immune.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
...an argument against the virtue of innocence if ever I heard one! 😝
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too.
<br>
I agree. More to the point, so does God. An innocent has no need of repentance. However, the only true innocents are children who do not understand, yet, the distinction of good and evil. once that knowledge is had, innocence may be claimed, but no one after that knowledge is had can legitimately claim it. They've done something wrong, and must be able to admit and correct.
Jesus is said to be an innocent, no?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Sometimes I wonder if some atheists ever think. If an alien were to listen to an atheist, he would be dumbfounded when he found out the actual performance of the book they so denegrate!It's like listening to some idiot claim that a flavor of ice cream is terrible, yucky, hated by reasonable people, and bitter, and then find out that the flavor is vanilla and is the most popular flavor by far!
The Bible being the infallible word of a god is like preference for a particular ice cream flavor? Interesting. I agree. It's not a matter of objectivity, but personal preference - at least for those who consider it to be perfect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So, spiritual corruption equates to bad deeds, and good deeds are individual based? In other words, bad actions are due to a spiritual chasm, but anyone can do good deeds regardless of the spiritual distance from god?
That might be plausible if "there is no one that does good" wasn't written regarding non-believers. After all, you've agreed atheists do good things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Deeds = actions
The original verse you cited from the Bible explicitly contradicts your understanding. Switching to a different (and weaker) translation to avoid this is disingenuous:
When the bible says, "they are corrupt, and do not receive the love of the truth", it isn't talking about actions, it's talking about a state.They are corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good.”
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists?
Hello Skep!
I would like to see it pointed out.
Hello, Roderick!
Keep in mind the context of this statement. I was not suggesting the actions of atheists are necessarily better or worse than believers.
As Ethang conceded, the Bible gives examples of each. King David sent Uriah to die so that he may have Delila. The good Samaritan was a non-believer.
In modern times, Priests rape altar boys (and the church covers it up). If for some reason you reject Catholics are Christian, then Southern Baptists have ~700 victims of sexual abuse they've tried to cover up.
On the other side, there are individuals like Bill Gates who through his foundation seeks "enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty globally, and, in the U.S., expand educational opportunities and access to information technology" [1] Then there are groups of atheists working to make the world a better place in various ways through organizations such as Foundation Beyond Belief, Atheists Helping the Homeless, Non-Belief Relief, etc.
This is not to say believers do no good or non-believers do no wrong - it is a given this is not the case. I simply challenge the connotation that believer should be seen as good and atheist should be seen as bad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus.
I reject that notion. In fact, I reject a relatively common model of some Christians using the confessional like a revolving door
So do I, but then again, I reject laying blame on an innocent person too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
No. The Christian model is one can be as sinful as they like BEFORE they accept Jesus.
That is the wonder of Jesus, there is always forgiveness and redemption as long as there is life in you.
Unless it is your contention that those who accept Jesus are perfect or that they cannot be forgiven for sins done in this acceptance (which I dont think you believe), rejecting Jesus so that one might 'live in sin' is unnecessary. Believers are no more righteous (or no less depraved - however you want to look at it) than non-believers. Accepting Jesus does little to prevent awful people from being awful.
Also, the verse you cited in the OP was in reference to non-believers, not all humanity. However, I accept the Bible holds humanity to be depraved, so I'll not quibble over this. As pointed out above (and conceded by you) believers and non-believers are capable of good and bad actions. This conflicts with the Biblical characterization of atheists: "They are corrupt; their deeds are vile;” So which is it? Atheist can be righteous or is there "no one who does good"? You can't sit on the fence on this one. Either the Bible is wrong or atheists do no good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
It is a lack of righteousness that leads a person to reject belief in God.
Per the Christian model, one can be as sinful as they like so long as they accept Jesus. He died so that their sins - no matter how heinous or frequent - could be forgiven. Not believing in god for a "lack of righteousness' is nonsensical.
Secondly, the Bible says non-believers are "corrupt; their deeds are vile; / there is no one who does good." Where is the demonstration of this? Do I really need to point out the "sins" of religious people and the righteousness of atheists? The fact of the matter is that people, religious or not, commit crimes and do the right things too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Did you know that concepts made popular in science fiction were first in the bible?
The Bible has some of the best fiction. 😉
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
To me, it seems dubious to label things which are not (well) explained by science as "miracles". That is a god of the gaps argument...or is it 'miracle of the gaps'? Also, assuming atheists have "faith" in these things...so what? I mean what's the point? Is it 'atheist are just as irrational as believers"? I don't think that strengthens the pro-belief view like you might imagine. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
"You are arguing that perception of design equates to design. This is fatally flawed in 2 ways."no i am not
I encourage you to re-evaluate your argument. You are not providing objective evidence of design (ie. Something that can be verified and validated by a disinterested third party), but rather an opinion of design that is very much dependent on bias.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Simple, and ineffective. It completely discounts human nature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You are arguing that perception of design equates to design. This is fatally flawed in 2 ways.
1. If we we are to take beneficial aspects of biology as signs of design (and a designer) then shouldn't we also take negative aspects of biology as evidence of non-design? Any possible perceptions of design can be canceled out by perceptions of non-design.
2. The appearance of X is not X. For instance, the appearance of magic (say, by an illusionist) is not magic. It is the same with design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It is telling that instead of providing evidence, the strategy has been all about explaining what evidence is. I'm interested in more than definitions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
You're posting links rather than supporting your position. If you have reasonably reached your position, then you should understand the evidence well enough to explain it yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
The more dynamics involved the more likely there is a Creator than not, even in the case of aliens and a simulation.
This means nothing to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Evidence would be something that strongly points to a single conclusion. Nothing you have mentioned rises to this level.
In other words, the appearance (or perception) of design is not design.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
Have they increased the time limits on debate on this site? I thought it was 72 hours per round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
I'd love to have a formal debate on abortion again. My schedule is very busy, but I would make time for you should you be interested.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
What is the evidence for intelligent design? I don't personally subscribe the the notion that we were created by aliens or that we live in a simulation, but even still, these would not necessarily demand a deity - only a pre-existing and/or a more advanced civilization of natural beings.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@YeshuaBought
Yes, of course, a Christian can be pro-choice. I'm sure you can find supporting verse in the Bible.
Created:
Posted in:
I would be interested in debating abortion (or some derivative) should anyone be interested. I'm pro-choice. Send me a message if interested.
Created:
Posted in:
What could better illustrate contradictions in the Bible than a thread full of believers arguing over dissonant passages in the Bible?
That being said, I think this topic gets much too much attention from the newly de-converted atheists and the entrenched believers. There are contradictions - so what? Most have very little significance to Christian theology. It is hardly worth a discussion, imo.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
That's why you need to establish clear Standards-of-Evidence (common-ground).
True, and an unqualified claim of no evidence is not the way to do that.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
FWIW, I think your opponent was right to object to your blanket statement that there is "no evidence". There is crappy evidence for theistic gods ...just like there is crappy evidence for alien abductions. Crappy evidence is still evidence.
You're giving your opponent (or the audience) an easy way to dismiss your argument (or you) as irrational.
Created:
-->
@PressF4Respect
Real life picture of Thor. He exists...QED.
Seriously though, you are using a very narrow understanding of 'evidence' (theistic arguments). A believer might point to anecdotal or physical evidence. Your thread title (as-is) could be shown false by weak evidence like "revelation" or an empty tomb.
Created:
Posted in:
That's much better than declaring identity on behalf of others, but, ..whatever - you've answered my question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
But since there are so many people who tell me to lesve, I just don't see it.
I've not seen anyone asking you to leave, but assuming this has happened often...are these "people" all atheists?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This is the church and religion forum.If anyone is out of place here it is the atheist. Yet for some reason, so many atheists want the board to themselves. Strange indeed.
Isn't it funny that the presence of atheists in this forum is often objected to by theists (and not the other way around), yet....somehow, atheists want the board to themselves?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
If we struggle against something, we fight against it. Mosaic law integrated tribalism into law. It's sort of like the old joke 'Crazy doesn't run in my family - it sits in the corner and laughs maniacally'....just replace crazy with tribalism and family with religion. 😆
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The story of the good Samaritan shows that we are supposed to be neighbors even to those who do not share our faith.
Mosaic law would have been around for ~1500 years at the time of this story. Have you ever wondered why a lawyer (someone who would be very familiar with law and the term "neighbor") would need to ask "who is my neighbor?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Indeed. It is very much like that at times. Here is a skit I've always enjoyed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The law was given for a nation. The spirit of the law was to direct those under it towards love of The Truth and love for their neighbor.
Agreed. Unfortunately, many conflate 'neighbor' with peoples not under the law and not part of the nation of Israel.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dynasty
It's Christian values.
Define "It's".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
However, every chapter directly laying out the law has moments of human circumstance just like every other chapter in the OT like Psalms and Job.
There is no Biblical expert worth his salt that would confuse Psalms or Job with law. The 613 commandments in the Torah are given specifically as law unlike Job/Psalms.
This is another motte. You're attempting to suggest books outside the Torah were written as law so you can avoid admitting things modern Christians hold as immoral are not necessarily that way in the law.
It occurs to me I may be pushing you to admit something you haven't (and may never) realize, and no good can come from continuing this conversation. We'll talk another time, friend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The post above was also relevant."It was stated at the synod of Constantinople in 1872 that "racialism and nationalism are foreign to the tradition of the Orthodox Church.""
I don't recognize claims of orthodoxy. Plus even if I did, this proclamation occurred thousands of years after Mosaic Law and decades after the founding of America. The relevance is overstated.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Relevant in particular to this topic is the understanding that we don't hold those who do not belong to our faiths to the same standard.
Thank you for your honesty.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity.Job didn't seem to think so.
Job could speak for no one but himself. The law speaks to an entire nation.
This seems to coincide quite nicely withMatthew 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
This verse is certainly more progressive, but it was written in a completely different time. Mosaic law would have predated the gospels by ~1500 years. The link between the two is tenuous - especially given the contrasting theologies.
Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.That poor woman who was almost stoned to death in the Book of John I'm quite sure wouldn't agree.You seem to be the one suggesting a contradiction.
I should have said sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and is not always looked down upon. That being said, I generally avoid discussions about Biblical contradictions (or perceived contradictions). It has been my experience people interested in discussions on this topic are generally much more passionate about winning than truth. I prefer not to be one of those people.
Obviously you believe this was made up. Why would you have a problem with the authors of the Pentateuch making up a story of a super moral God who demanded complete purity towards all women, domestic or foreign? Keep in mind, this wouldn't harm your position one bit. If the Israelite authors make up such outlandish claims of an entire sea parting, why would you insist that they didn't make their God out to be a super humanitarian who even cares for foreigners?
The words of the OT do not suggest a super moral god - it is story of a powerful, capricious, petty, ignorant tyrant who happened to prefer the Hebrews. As the saying goes,"If Moses and Yahweh had both been angry with the Israelites at the same time, not one of them would have survived!" To argue that this same god is/was a super humanitarian is absurd to the Nth degree. Mosaic law was crafted with this god in mind or by this god (as the case may be), and it shows.
As far as a disconnect, I would agree that once a conversation ends up to be a "You say tomato, I say tomawto" standoff, the conversation will become fruitless.
If the difference between Psalms and Mosaic law is not clear to everyone, I don't see how you a conversation strictly about Mosaic law could be had. That being said perhaps you'll find this amusing (as I did), a disagreement on how to say the name of a fruit is not actually fruitless... ;-P
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly....but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.First off, the word silly was an inappropriate word to use on my part. I think what you're saying is a misunderstanding of the texts, but not silly.Yes. concubines were part of their culture. That's why it was so difficult to keep that part of the law.
The gymnastics are not needed if we accept 'sex outside of marriage' was not prohibited as it is in modern Christianity.
I think you're mistaking in thinking that the scripture is claiming that David only disobeyed once means sinning only once. That's not what it's about. David sinned numerous times.
Sin by definition is 'disobeying god', so either David sinned only once or you're suggesting there is a contradiction in the Bible. Either way, sex outside of marriage in the Bible is undeniable and kosher.
Being a soldier doesn't make one a slave. However, chattel slavery obviously existed within the military in some nations, including the Southern army in the Civil War.Chattel slavery may have existed within Israelite society. But if it did, it was in opposition of Israelite law.
I am satisfied you've acknowledged military service does not equate to slavery and at least the possibility of chattel slavery in Israel. I think I'll have to be content with this for now.
In your claim about rape in the passage in question, are you implying that the scripture is actually instructing rape? Or is just sort of assumed (allowing for rape) that due to human nature, it has to be a tolerance for rape by default?
The passage in question certainly strongly implies rape. I think it is quite reasonable that a woman who recently had her family murdered might not want to have sex with (or be married to) her family's murderer. Yet, there is no accounting for this - a man can have sex and be married to his spoils of war after 30 days - whether she (read "it) is willing or not.
Of course the whole Bible is about the law....but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.There's really nothing pointless when it comes to comparing scripture with scripture. It seems a number of your complaints center around my referencing other portions of scripture, and comparing them with a scripture(s) in question. Do you think that the method (comparing scripture with scripture) is not valid for some reason?
If you told me the general principle of the Gospels was X, and I pointed to Genesis and asked why it didn't follow your principle...what would you think? You'd think I didn't understand your point, I was dancing around the issue, or maybe I was being malicious. I've said the general principle of "the law" is that it is directed to the nation of Israel and does not extend protection to non-believing foreigners (the law prescribes chattel slaves are to come from foreign nations and not Israel). You've brought up Psalms -which is not law -and adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. This leads me to peruse the possibilities ignorance, willful ignorance, willful and malicious ignorance? Clearly, there is a disconnect between us.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
A convert wouldn't necessarily believe after conversion because an Israelite wouldn't necessarily believe in Yahweh themselves.
This is about the third tangent you've taken regarding "converts". Suffice to say, the law considered converts to be part of Israel. I'm not interested in this rabbit hole.
Of course the whole Bible is about the law.
...but the whole Bible is not the law (eg. The Torah....a.k.a. "The Law") as I specified. This is another pointless tangent.
Why do you find the passage in question abusive?What passage? We've discussed quite a few. Exodus 20:16 was a passage brought up (not by me) in an ignorant attempt to refute (the bad kind of) slavery in the Bible.I'd have to go back and look (and I'm lazy). Do you think it's something important enough for me to go back and retrieve to discuss further?
If you can't remember the conversation (and can't be bothered to refresh your memory), I encourage you to drop whatever point you're attempting to make - it can't be that important.
What is leading you to believe that the scripture is instructing Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period (which doesn't even necessitate rape)?
Where did I suggest scripture instructs Israelites to have sex before the one month mourning period? I think I understand why we disagree on what this passage says if your understanding of my words is any indication of your average reading comprehension.
I don't think this scenario is any different than American war brides.
This an attempt to retreat to safe ground by equating American War Brides with Biblically sanctioned rape. In other words, this is a motte, and a poor one at that.
First off, it's actually not true that the Bible says that David disobeyed once.
I was going by what the Bible says in 1 Kings 15:5:
[...] because David did what was right in the sight of the Lord, and had not turned aside from anything that He commanded him all the days of his life, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite.
Secondly, Abraham was known to have concubines. And he didn't commit adultery until he was instructed to by his wife to go into Hagar his servant.
I guess you forgot what this part of the conversation was about. Your contention was that sex outside of marriage was not in any way condoned by Yahweh in the Bible. Abraham is another example of Biblical sex outside of marriage. 😏
The idea that the Bible has to state "And it displeased the Lord" after every sin referenced in the Bible is silly.
...but not so silly when the Bible says someone (who had concubines) disobeyed god only once...and that sin had nothing to do with concubines. What is silly to think is that a modern Christian view of acceptable sexual relationships should somehow limit an ancient culture's view of the same.
I never equated soldiers with chattel slavery.
If you've been paying attention to the conversation, you'd know I've been consistently objecting to chattel slavery in the Bible. Making a comparison between soldiers and slavery would naturally be understood in this context.
However, you do realize that chattel slaves were used in the Civil War, right? Obviously against their will (at least in the South).
This is, without a doubt, an equivocation of soldiers and chattel slavery. (another attempted motte) As should be painfully obvious at this point, I object to any chattel slavery. Additionally, being a soldier doesn't make one a slave.
Created: