Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by jokerthief, Jun 21, 2013.
When atheists try and get cute this way they just end up looking as ignorant as fundamentalist Christians. I don't think that any Christian who knows what they are talking about would argue that all those Old Testament verses are out of context. They just don't apply in any way to Christians.
There are two parts of the Bible - the Old Testament and the New Testament. They are very different.
The New Testament defines Christian behavior. It is largely a book of peace and forgiveness. Christians are told to forgive those who wrong them, to live in peace, and to treat others how they want to be treated.
The Old Testament in no way defines Christian behavior - in fact, people like Jesus and Paul repeatedly and explicitly say that Christians are not supposed to follow the rules in the Old Testament (seriously, Paul spends a lot of time talking about whether or not foreskins should be chopped).
Basically, as soon as some atheist gets all self righteous and starts spouting stuff from Old Testament books like Leviticus, you can roll your eyes and dismiss them just like you can when a conservative Southern Baptist gets going. Different sides of the same coin really.
That's not to say that everything in the New Testament is great by modern standards. Paul is pretty misogynistic for example. But you can pretty reasonably invoke historical circumstances there. But really, atheists have to resort to nonsense to really get at Christians by going Old Testament (which has nothing to do with Christian behavior) instead of actually going with what that Jesus guy actually said.
Also, I'm quite aware that many fundamentalist nuts like to try and extract Christian behavior from the Old Testament when it suits them (but ignore it when they want to eat lobster). But the idiots in a group don't necessarily represent the group even if they make the most noise.
Of course it's probably out of context
See the thing is that the bible is either the word of god or it is not. That is what one needs to decide. In my mind the word of god has to be perfect for it to be reasonable to believe it has any ontological significance. It's clearly not, as you admit. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. It's an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It's simply not rational to come to any other conclusion that an imperfect book must have been written and conceived by man, not God. If that's the case, I'm not interested in what iron age men who didn't even know that the earth revolved around the sun had to say on ontology.
believers want it both ways, they want to be allowed to use the Bible as God's perfect word and how anyone that doesn't follow God's laws are going to hell, but wen you quote the bad things in the Bible they you are taking out of context.
God's perfect word should not so easily be taken out of context. mention Slavery, out of context, different time. really like Slavery in the Bible should be one line, "You are not allowed to own Someone", easy simple because what Good God would support Slavery?
Superman > Jesus.
The same God that gave us the gift of cancer.
- - - - - added to post - - - - -
Superman is more likely to help you out of a tight spot than Jebus is.
View attachment 2226
Unfortunately, not all arguments should be resolved by appealing to a false dichotomy.
There are lots of perfectly reasonable space between "word of god" and "not". For example, maybe substantial parts of the Bible are simply the (biased) recordings of the word of God years, or even centuries, after the fact. This is perfectly reasonable given that we know the Bible was written well after the events that it describes.
This means that the Bible might be the best recording we have of God's word, but it is not necessarily accurate in all parts. In fact, it would be reasonable to be most skeptical of the parts of the Bible that were written the longest after the fact...like say, the Old Testament.
Nobody claims that faith is rational. In fact, things like the dictionary and myself say the exact opposite. In a space where you have no way to falsify any hypothesis, you have a pretty wide selection of ways that you can arrive at "truth".
Fine. But if you don't care about about it, don't run around bashing it. Just let it go and do your own thing.
I mean, you see your good old fashioned Southern Baptists running around with a persecution complex while refusing to really learn about science or any other views that might conflict with their beliefs. And thats silly. But you are doing the same thing - bashing something while simultaneously showing no interest in learning about it.
Pick and choose Christians are fascinating.
Every time you try this one and get crushed, you look more and more pathetic.
The Bible is full of figurative language. Given that Jesus repeatedly preached peace and repeatedly spoke against violence, even if defending oneself or one's religion, it is pretty clear that this is not a literal statement.
Jesus is saying that his teachings will cause division, where some people will believe him, and some won't. The different opinions will cause pretty intense disagreements. Using the image of a sword is a common way of metaphorically expressing this - he is starting a theological or philosophical war, not a literal war.
You are convoluting two different viewpoints that don't go together.
Some Protestants will try and push the Bible as God's perfect word. However, such protestants generally do not teach the doctrine of good works, and therefore don't believe that those who don't follow God's laws are necessarily going to hell.
Catholics, on the other hand, might say that not following God's laws results in hell. But they generally don't push the Bible much as God's perfect word (whether or not Catholics officially even consider the Bible as inerrant is something of an open debate - read the wikipedia article on Dei Verbum if you want a start on it).
- - - - - added to post - - - - -
Its perfectly consistent with how any reasonable person interprets anything.
For example, if you hand me a history book, I will consider some parts more believable than others. Recent events that are well documented, or at least documented soon after the fact, will be relatively believable. Historical events with little to no primary sources, where our only knowledge comes from sources writing centuries after the fact, are less believable. This is "DUH" level reasoning.
So why do atheists insist that all Christians have to read the Bible in a completely different way than how intelligent people ready any document?
Good to see karl posting
The problem is when someone says "a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household" that's pretty strong words, enemies in you own household doesn't sound to peaceful to me, what would you be saying to a family member that would make them your enemy?
- - - - - added to post - - - - -
Then there is this story, how can anyone worship a man that compares peoples to dogs
21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to Him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession.”
23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to Him and urged Him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” 24 He answered, “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.”
25 The woman came and knelt before Him. “Lord, help me!” she said. 26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs.” 27 “Yes, Lord,” she said, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
27 Then Jesus answered, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed from that very hour.
Has anyone ever been swayed in these threads?
is that the only point to an argument?
Did I imply it was the only point to an argument?
has anyone ever figured out what the only point to an argument is in one of these threads?
Go back and actually read what it says. Jesus didn't compare anybody to dogs - the woman did. And its metaphorical language anyway. If you want the theology on what is going on in that conversation, read some of Paul's stuff - he goes over the Jews versus Gentile stuff in a lot of detail.
In any case, you have to be careful about figures of speech in the Bible. While it is obviously a very insulting figure of speech today, it is hard to know what was and wasn't really insulting in the Middle East 2000 years ago. Some of the stuff that sounds benign today was apparently really insulting then, and some of the stuff that sounds bad today wasn't considered bad then. There really are a lot of weird euphemisms in the Bible.
interesting response to me saying something is fascinating.
I agree it was okay to have slaves back then, today we abhor such things. The difference between us is you have faith and can believe in things even though you know they are unprovable. To me truth and evidence is more important then faith or belief or the need to be spiritually fulfilled.