Biblical rebuttals

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well its hard not to get ones ass kicked on the Christianity forum because if one bothers to stay around arguing their point long enough rather than simply running away when challenged, then get the inevitable circling of the wagons that you guys love to do and the barrage of charges of being argumentative or an atheist troll

Originally Posted by pH
Just to be clear, as well as PDN's trolling in A&A, his personal insults are now not just tolerated here but applauded? Or is there some new rule whereby adding a pacman smilie makes it all OK?

Terrific stuff guys.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Keep circling the wagons!

PDN

seamus wrote: »

There's also nothing which indicates the age of the people who were attacked.

That little snippet invalidates everything else in your post. Since you have conceded that they were not necessarily children, but could equally have been young men, then any argument that is based on children becomes invalid as a rebuttal.

seamus

PDN wrote: »

That little snippet invalidates everything else in your post. Since you have conceded that they were not necessarily children, but could equally have been young men, then any argument that is based on children becomes invalid as a rebuttal.

You misunderstood me. There's nothing in your links which indicates the age of the people involved.

The text provided by Zillah:

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

The word "little children" here is pretty clear, is it not?

Even to take the typical, "Oh you can't be sure" argument of the Hebrew word referring to any young male, I think it's fair to assume that a "young male" in biblical times refers to any person under 14 years of age.

Substitute "small child" with "young adolescent" in my post and it remains valid.

Trying to argue that somehow it's more likely that they were all full-grown young males is a typical denial exercise of moving the goalposts. Next you'll be trying to claim that people lived to hundreds of years old back then and a "young male" is anyone less than four centuries old.

Notwithstanding, your scientific links are still useless here. If you can find me a link detailing injury rates for bear attacks (which actually involve aggression and some form of "charging" from the bear) where the human(s) involved is completely unarmed, then you might be onto something.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

For two of them to tear 42 young men into pieces in a single attack they must have been super ninja mutant transformer bears!

But they were sent by god to do a specific job. When god sent them he knew there was 42 protagonists involved, for a start he knows everything and he was responding to a specific cursing so might have checked to see what was needed before hand. Why would he send bears that were not up to the job?

PDN wrote: »

For those who are interested in real science rather than pseudoscience:


Here is a report of a real-life bear attack, along with a photograph of the scratches that a black bear (neither a koala nor one of Zillah's mutant killer bears) inflicts during a mauling: http://news.aol.com/article/bear-mauls-boy-father-in-tennessee/96818

And here is a listing of death by bear in North America:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade

So what? I will allow that all bear attacks are not fatal or do not result in catastrophic injury if you will allow that sometimes they can.

PDN wrote: »

You guys crack me up.

The feeling is most definitely mutual.

MrP

Doctor DooM

PDN wrote: »

That little snippet invalidates everything else in your post. Since you have conceded that they were not necessarily children, but could equally have been young men, then any argument that is based on children becomes invalid as a rebuttal.

To be fair PDN... If I found out god sent bears to attack 42 of the most nasty people in Dublin because one of his followers cursed them, I would still be fairly outraged, whether they were 4 or 104.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

For two of them to tear 42 young men into pieces in a single attack they must have been super ninja mutant transformer bears!

Fron one of your quotes I notice it says that the average brown bear encounter is 22 times more dangerous than an encounter with a black bear. The children in this case would have been attacked by a Syrian Brown Bear.


"Brown/grizzly bears are incredibly more dangerous than the other 2 species"

"Of the 11% fatalities (56 deaths) brown bears were responsible for 86% (48)."

The Syrian Brown bear is larger than the grizzly bears mentioned in this study by the way.

These are massive, muscular beasts. They have powerful arms with six inch claws. If a child is attacked by one then it will experience worse injuries than a few scrathes. You urge us to use science, do you really think it likely that a brown bear (the most agressive of the bear species) can attack a group of children with its sledgehammer-like arms and ferocious jaws and yet not kill any of them?

Flamed Diving

:pac:

Zillah

This is now the bear attack thread.

--amadeus--

And despite a series of posts he hasn't addressed the (many) serious points, just fixated on defending bears...

Looks like bible rebuttal works!

Zillah

There really is a lot of circling of the wagons though

aidan24326

It really is bizarre to me that a religion that claims itself to be a kind loving religion holds up as it's holy book a book that contains an extraordinary amount of violence, murder, rape and plain nastiness, not to mention it being riddled with contradictions. It's like the script of some really bad gorefest of a movie where the hero of the hour spends much of his time killing for fun. If the god of the bible was a real person he'd be up in front of the international crminal court on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity!

BrianCalgary

aidan24326 wrote: »

It really is bizarre to me that a religion that claims itself to be a kind loving religion holds up as it's holy book a book that contains an extraordinary amount of violence, murder, rape and plain nastiness, not to mention it being riddled with contradictions. It's like the script of some really bad gorefest of a movie where the hero of the hour spends much of his time killing for fun. If the god of the bible was a real person he'd be up in front of the international crminal court on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity!

No real different from a society that holds itself up as being tolerant and loving yet every newspaper reports the killings and violence that happen evryday in our cities.

Biblical accounts just show that no matter what man's heart is evil because he kills and rapes and taunts. Even God's people are guilty of the same.

Just today our weapons are more sophisticated, yet the heart has not changed.

BTW we get annual bear maulings in our neck of the woods. First off a bear only attacks if it feels that it is in danger or if it is a she and feels her cubs are in danger. A bear attacking a crowd of people just doesn't happen because th ebear understands when it is out numbered. So for two bears to come out and attack 42 people is really not natural.
Also with 42 people about the bears would be pretty easily beaten off with only a few being injured, and the few would suffer some nasty gashes to be sure, but death would not be imminent. Few bear attacks end up in death.

Flamed Diving

BrianCalgary wrote: »

No real different from a society that holds itself up as being tolerant and loving.

Which society would that be?

Pompey Magnus

BrianCalgary wrote: »

BTW we get annual bear maulings in our neck of the woods. First off a bear only attacks if it feels that it is in danger or if it is a he and feels her cubs are in danger. A bear attacking a crowd of people just doesn't happen because th ebear understands when it is out numbered. So for two bears to come out and attack 42 people is really not natural.
Also with 42 people about the bears would be pretty easily beaten off with only a few being injured, and the few would suffer some nasty gashes to be sure, but death would not be imminent. Few bear attacks end up in death.

Would 42 children easily fight off a grizzly bear that charges at them?

Dades

The Bible wrote:

23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Ah, here we are. The finest [sic] minds on Boards, debating the 21 century terminology of bear attacks as they relate to an obscure passage in book we all believe to be fables.

Frustrating as the responses may be in the Christianity forum, that doesn't make a "which biblical passage is the most oppressive" type thread any more worthy, or even relevant to the A&A forum. Perhaps the OPs intentions were light-hearted, but it seems the thread now simply mirrors the Christianity versions in point scoring and tediousness.

Yawn. (Yes, I am sleep deprived)

--amadeus--

The sleep deprivation gets worse as the kids get older!

FWIW I agree that the conversation has sunk down a bit of a rabbit hole with the whole bear thing.

But my original idea was to get some examples of either blatant contradictions or "unholy" behaviour from the bible so that the next time I am told by a door knocker that I only reject god because I don't understand and that the truth and answers to every question lies in the pages of the good book. It's not about "finding oppressive verses" it's about finding the flaws in an argument through investigation and critical comment.

On that basis I welcomed PDNs contribution because (in the finest survival of the fittest way!) he was showing which arguments were weak and which were strong. If that's not suitable for A&A I'm not sure what is?

PDN

seamus wrote: »

The word "little children" here is pretty clear, is it not?

It is only clear that a 17th Century translation used those words. If we allow it here then we should also allow Creationists to argue their points according to 17th Century scientific theories and ignore eveything that has been discovered since.

You can certainly, on the basis of the words 'little children', argue that the King James Version of the Bible is not infallible - an argument where I will happily support you.

I think it's fair to assume that a "young male" in biblical times refers to any person under 14 years of age.

On what basis can you make that assumption? The word na'ar can simply mean a young man. Can you quote a source that demonstrates that it applies to under-14s? Or are you just plucking numbers out of thin air?

Trying to argue that somehow it's more likely that they were all full-grown young males is a typical denial exercise of moving the goalposts. Next you'll be trying to claim that people lived to hundreds of years old back then and a "young male" is anyone less than four centuries old.

That is a rather sad substitute for rational argument. There are no goalposts to move since the Bible never said they were children in the first place.

Notwithstanding, your scientific links are still useless here. If you can find me a link detailing injury rates for bear attacks (which actually involve aggression and some form of "charging" from the bear) where the human(s) involved is completely unarmed, then you might be onto something.

I can give you the rates for documented bear attacks where two bears killed 42 people. Zero, zilch, nada.

sink

PDN wrote: »

I can give you the rates for documented bear attacks where two bears killed 42 people. Zero, zilch, nada.

Interesting that you are willing to use modern statistics to argue your point when necessary. When they go against your beliefs you refute the applicability of modern statistics or other known facts.

CPT. SURF

Bears don't kill people, rappers do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2.


Rappers who do not believe in the lord of course. (people who believe in god do not kill people, duh!)

Dades

CPT. SURF wrote: »

Bears don't kill people, rappers do. I seen it in a documentary on BBC2

CPT. SURF - stay on topic please.

This issue of bear attacks has been ignored too long in the minefield that is the world of biblical rebuttals.

--amadeus--

One last, desperate attempt to get past the whole bear issue...

PDN - or any other biblical scholar - could you please explain why the bible traces Jesus's lineage from David through Joseph when there is no biological link? I am working on the assumption that an adopted son is not satisfying the prophesy. Likewise why are there different lineages given in a book that is infallible?

Also could someone explain the John the Baptist baptismal of Jesus? My understanding is that JTB baptised to absolve sin. Why would Jesus - who is sinless - need baptising?

ChocolateSauce

The bible? Ugg....I've never actually been told to go read it. Thankfully most people these days realise it is...*ahem* questionable to say the least.

"I've done everything the bible says! I've even done the stuff that contradicted the other stuff!" - Ned Flanders

Zillah

Brian Calgary wrote:

A bear attacking a crowd of people just doesn't happen because th ebear understands when it is out numbered. So for two bears to come out and attack 42 people is really not natural.

The bears were sent by God though, right? Is that not the implication in the story?

PDN

--amadeus-- wrote: »

One last, desperate attempt to get past the whole bear issue...

PDN - or any other biblical scholar - could you please explain why the bible traces Jesus's lineage from David through Joseph when there is no biological link? I am working on the assumption that an adopted son is not satisfying the prophesy. Likewise why are there different lineages given in a book that is infallible?

Genealogies in the Ancient Near East did not give a comprehensive account of someone's descent. It was common to miss people out (ancestors you were embarrassed of for instance) or just to concentrate on the more illustrious ones. This is, BTW, one of the reasons why I disagree strongly with those who argue for a young earth on the basis of genalogies.

People could also trace their genealogy through their mother or their father. In the case of Jesus, if the Bible's claims of a virgin birth are correct, his genealogy through his mother would be his only biological lineage. However, since Joseph was his legal father (even if not biological) then Jesus would be a valid heir and son.

The Old Testament had prophesied that the coming Messiah would be 'the Son of David'. So, in order for Jesus to be the Messiah he had to have legal descent from David. Therefore the legal lineage of jesus is important, not just the biological.

Also could someone explain the John the Baptist baptismal of Jesus? My understanding is that JTB baptised to absolve sin. Why would Jesus - who is sinless - need baptising?

Because the reason for Jesus coming to earth was to die for the sins of mankind. Theologians refer to this as the doctrine of penal substitution - that Jesus willingly paid the penalty due for our sins.

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Jesus was baptised by John as an act of identification with a sinful humanity - looking ahead to this substitutionary atonement.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

The Old Testament had prophesied that the coming Messiah would be 'the Son of David'. So, in order for Jesus to be the Messiah he had to have legal descent from David. Therefore the legal lineage of jesus is important, not just the biological.

In all honesty though, does that not strike you as sounding a bit like they're trying to shove a square piece into a circle hole?

"The Messiah is born! Born without sin to a virgin mother!"
"Hang on, the Messiah is supposed to be descended from David, how can that be if his father is God?"
"Oh, er, I'll think of something!"

PDN

sink wrote: »

Interesting that you are willing to use modern statistics to argue your point when necessary. When they go against your beliefs you refute the applicability of modern statistics or other known facts.

I am happy to use statistics in an debate with people who claim to base their beliefs purely on the basis of evidence such as statistics. Then, if they choose to ignore the statistics, it exposes their hypocrisy as it becomes apparent that their position is really just faith-based.

However, as I have pointed out on other threads, for an atheist to argue with someone like a creationist on the basis of probabilities is pointless, since the creationist believes in a god who is not bound by probability.

If you stop to think about it, we all use different criteria toward others than apply to ourselves because we don't share the same presuppositions. So, for example, if you wanted to challenge my opinion on a particular subject then it might be effective for you to point out what the Bible says on that subject (providing you can quote the Bible properly, not like some of the poor examples in this thread). That would be an effective line of argument to use because I see the bible as an authority. However, it would not be profitable for me to cite the Bible as a 'clincher' or authority when debating with an atheist. Nor would it be necessary for you yourself to see the Bible as an authority in order to cite in in an argument against me.

I know my schooldays were a long time ago, but don't they teach basic debating skills in schools anymore? This all seems rather basic.

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

In all honesty though, does that not strike you as sounding a bit like they're trying to shove a square piece into a circle hole?

"The Messiah is born! Born without sin to a virgin mother!"
"Hang on, the Messiah is supposed to be descended from David, how can that be if his father is God?"
"Oh, er, I'll think of something!"

That depends entirely on your presuppositions.

If you approach it with your mind made up that God doesn't exist then it would seem more likely that people used the genealogies to try to solve thart problem. (Indeed, there was another problem in that David's descendants through Jeconiah were prophesied never to come to the throne).

However, if you approach it with a mind that is open to the existence of an omniscient God then it would seem more likely that God planned things in a way that avoided the problem in the first place.

Because we start off from different starting points we reach differenrt conclusions.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Because we start off from different starting points we reach differenrt conclusions.

It seems a bit silly to start off with the conclusion that this prophecy must be real, then find a fudge to get it to be real (he was his legal son) and then take the prophecy as justification that Jesus was the son of God.

Would the correct way to approach the issue not be - Jesus must fulfil the prophecy to be the son of God, he doesn't really fill the prophecy, he therefore isn't the son of God.

Rather than - Jesus is the son of God, therefore he does fulfil the prophecy, on the face of it he doesn't therefore we must reinterpret the prophecy so that he does and ah look now it fits once we change that to this and this to that, thus demonstrating that Jesus is the son of God. Praise Jesus.

A lot of is made on the Christian forum of Jesus fulfilling the prophecies of the Old Testament (how could he do that if he wasn't genuine!!), but if one has to fudge that prophecies to get that to happen it seems to make the prophecies irrelevant. You can only look at them after one has already decided that Jesus must be the son of God and then retroactively fudge them to make it work.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

However, if you approach it with a mind that is open to the existence of an omniscient God then it would seem more likely that God planned things in a way that avoided the problem in the first place.

Because we start off from different starting points we reach different conclusions.

I'm always a little confused when an omniscient God designs his plans so that they look exactly as if it were a bunch of normal haphazard crap.

Let me guess, he made the whole Messiah thing so circuitous and counter intuitive to test our faith, right?

Zombrex

Zillah wrote: »

I'm always a little confused when an omniscient God designs his plans so that they look exactly as if it were a bunch of normal haphazard crap.

Good point. Almost as if people are just making this stuff up as they go :eek:

Zillah wrote: »

Let me guess, he made the whole Messiah thing so circuitous and counter intuitive to test our faith, right?

I imagine the response will either be it isn't counter intuitive if you really look at it, or don't question God :pac: