An Atheist Reads the Bible - 1 - Lot's Daughters

thebouldwhacker

But that brings us back to the point of why would god have his message metaphoricalised (is that a word?).

The 10 commandments are pretty straight forward (and multi religious) how can man say god doesnt want us to do this word for word. If you bought a washing machine, the instructions are very precise, why would god fudge the book that is ment to guide all his children to eternal happness esp as the cost of not doing his will is eternal sulphur flames???

thebouldwhacker

@ Dades; if only he would......:mad:

Flamed Diving

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

@ Dades; if only he would......:mad:

Has the magic handshake worn off?

thebouldwhacker

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Has the magic handshake worn off?

Thats what I want to know??? first thing in this morn, now this.... anyway I havent been bullied off a thread yet and I'm not starting now.

@CDfm

Some early Greek fossil hunting Christian made the point about having to accept what he saw with his eyes(I cant remember who)

I know who you are on about but I cant remember his name:mad::mad: I'm gonna do some digging later cos thats gonna bug me for the evening....:pac:

thebouldwhacker

OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »

It's easy to know when you're not supposed to take Bible stories literally, or when they have some other 'meaning' only knowable to those who accept Jesus into their hearts - when God's morals seem non-existent or fail to measure up to ours (of 2009). That's when.

So you make it up according to your own societies value system which in your post is very much ruled by time= specfic society.

Surly by that logic everything is relitive and on a long enough time scale anything is allowed.

CDfm

thebouldwhacker wrote: »

But that brings us back to the point of why would god have his message metaphoricalised (is that a word?).

The 10 commandments are pretty straight forward (and multi religious) how can man say god doesnt want us to do this word for word. If you bought a washing machine, the instructions are very precise, why would god fudge the book that is ment to guide all his children to eternal happness esp as the cost of not doing his will is eternal sulphur flames???

Well you get lots of people debating this one too.

All part of the literalist vs allegorical debate.

Christianity is not law and has a certain philosophy of religion thats practical in seperating Church and State (though they are often not mutually exclusive) and you have the Render unto Caesar passage.

So up until then you had Mosaic Law (Law of Moses) like the stoning of the woman story & Jesus etc. Part of Christianity was not adopting Mosaic Law. Theres a bit about "Judge not lest ye be Judged " etc and forgiveness.You also have free will and individual morality.

So i reckon that Christ had a bit to do with a more tolerant attitude.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Well you get lots of people debating this one too.

All part of the literalist vs allegorical debate.

Christianity is not law and has a certain philosophy of religion thats practical in seperating Church and State (though they are often not mutually exclusive) and you have the Render unto Caesar passage.

So up until then you had Mosaic Law (Law of Moses) like the stoning of the woman story & Jesus etc. Part of Christianity was not adopting Mosaic Law. Theres a bit about "Judge not lest ye be Judged " etc and forgiveness.You also have free will and individual morality.

So i reckon that Christ had a bit to do with a more tolerant attitude.

Right, so Jesus tells those who'd like to stone to death an adulteress that whoever among them that is without sin should "cast the first stone." Good advice -- but it directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament (Lev.20:10). If that wasn't a good law then, why did God make it? Has he since changed his mind? If so, shouldn't it then be removed (along with most of the OT) from the bible?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Everyone has the right to post in the same way everyone has the right to ignore other posters.

Though deciding to ignore posters is usually best achieved by not telling the other poster you are about to ignore them. That way you avoid the inevitable retaliatory post that can't be ignored. :pac:

You are probably right, but hey, different strokes and all that. Either way, job done really. I think I'm invading on a 'God is a pr!ck' thread anyway. Here i am expecting balanced reasoning. I really am the fool here.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the bible was written by people who would not have thought twice about a god who was prepared to genocide an enemy to let them get their land, or who would kill the children of their enslavers. this would all have seemed perfectly normal to these people who lived with war and hardship and were used to brutal rule from kings and tyrants.

the issue for christians today is that they do have a problem with a cruel and evil god because they are living in a time where modern ethics and morality (I would point out building upon greek and Roman notions), so they try and find some way to square the circle as it were because they don't want to believe in a cruel and evil god they want to believe in a loving and caring god (and a lot of them already believe before they come to look seriously at the Old Testament).

it is like someone who doesn't hate Jews and doesn't think Hitler would have hated Jews trying to find a way to make Mie Kamp fit with that frame work.

so you end up with some rather ridiculous explanations as to why all the horrific killing raping and genocide in the Old Testament was actually carried out by a loving a caring God (a concept that is pretty modern and fits with modern expectations of what a god should be like)

Wicknight - you are wasted here you should probably be setting the theology exam papers in Maynooth.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Not really as you are taking a literalist reading of the bible as fundamentalists do and you should argue with someone who holds those beliefs.

: picardfacepalm :

Seriously. Jesus. I'm not taking a literalist reading. I'm talking about it purely as a metaphor. It doesn't make sense as a metaphor.

I'm so sick of thinking for religious people.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I'm so sick of thinking for religious people.

Maybe you are thinking for yourself

CDfm

JimiTime wrote: »

You are probably right, but hey, different strokes and all that. Either way, job done really. I think I'm invading on a 'God is a pr!ck' thread anyway. Here i am expecting balanced reasoning. I really am the fool here.

The thread meant to be provocative so you need to relax.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

The thread meant to be provocative so you need to relax.

And no one needs to post here if they dont like it.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Maybe you are thinking for yourself

Ok, well answer me this so we can be clear: Do you now understand why the Churchill/Germany God/Sodom comparison makes no sense?

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, so Jesus tells those who'd like to stone to death an adulteress that whoever among them that is without sin should "cast the first stone." Good advice -- but it directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament (Lev.20:10). If that wasn't a good law then, why did God make it? Has he since changed his mind? If so, shouldn't it then be removed (along with most of the OT) from the bible?

Its based around the concept of the new covenant as Im sure you know.

Very similar to the Euthyphro dilemma which itself is a headwreck.

Pompey Magnus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right, so Jesus tells those who'd like to stone to death an adulteress that whoever among them that is without sin should "cast the first stone." Good advice -- but it directly contradicts the teachings of the Old Testament (Lev.20:10). If that wasn't a good law then, why did God make it? Has he since changed his mind? If so, shouldn't it then be removed (along with most of the OT) from the bible?

Don't worry too much about this passage, it didn't actually happen. Its a nice story but it is a later forgery not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Ok, well answer me this so we can be clear: Do you now understand why the Churchill/Germany God/Sodom comparison makes no sense?

I can understand what you are saying but I dont see it that way.

Flamed Diving

CDfm wrote: »

Its based around the concept of the new covenant as Im sure you know.

Very similar to the Euthyphro dilemma which itself is a headwreck.

No, I wouldn't be familiar with the covenant seeing as I'm not a Christian. I know that Christians say that by Jesus coming along, many of the old laws were made redundant because he was now taking the burden of our sins or some nonsense, but it completely fails to address how a perfectly moral god can change his mind about what is moral and what is not.

This is a logical impossibility.

Anyway, this thread is about good videos, so here is another.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmjFVP6qkiI

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

I can understand what you are saying but I dont see it that way.

Ok, can you explain why in a way that makes sense in the real world? Please ensure that you address the paradox of an omnipotent being causing unintentional collateral damage.

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Anyway, this thread is about good videos, so here is another.

Thats me theologied out for a month.

You are surpassing yourself today:pac:

thebouldwhacker

CDfm, your playing a cracker:D

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Ok, can you explain why in a way that makes sense in the real world? Please ensure that you address the paradox of an omnipotent being causing unintentional collateral damage.

It is a difficult issue and I am not a theologan.

I read it as God not being afraid to confront a society or ideology that was truly evil and the lesson being that man shouldnt be afraid to either. The collateral damage being for the greater good and being an issue which has to be confronted.I can see a non-believer having to reconcile the same issues ethically and using the same logic.

The similarity to Nazi Germany being as depraved as you can get and why I included it.

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

Very similar to the Euthyphro dilemma which itself is a headwreck.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is only headwrecking (and entirely irreconcilable) if you assert that there's an omnipotent deity out there who mandates certain classes of behaviour. It evaporates immediately if you drop either of these two fundamental tenets of christianity.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

The collateral damage being for the greater good and being an issue which has to be confronted.

See there's that "collateral damage" term again. How can an omnipotent being cause collateral damage? Exactly what he wills to happen happens, no more, no less. If children got melted in Gomorrah then it is because God chose to melt them.

(Of course reading this as an allegorical story not a literal event that occurred)

Zombrex

In my view it is one of the greatest ironies of Christianty that a lot of Christians really don't seem to believe or understand that their God is supposed to be omnipotent at least not in the sense that they really understand the consequences of such an assertion.

I don't think someone could truly be a Christian and truly believe that God is omnipotent, and I've never met a Christian who actually did. Claims of the all powerfulness of God are just meaningless sound bites. It just sounds good. The consequences of what that would actually mean if it were true are either ignored or totally misunderstood.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

In my view it is one of the greatest ironies of Christianty that a lot of Christians really don't seem to believe or understand that their God is supposed to be omnipotent at least not in the sense that they really understand the consequences of such an assertion.

I don't think someone could truly be a Christian and truly believe that God is omnipotent, and I've never met a Christian who actually did. Claims of the all powerfulness of God are just meaningless sound bites. It just sounds good. The consequences of what that would actually mean if it were true are either ignored or totally misunderstood.

I'm intrigued.

MrPudding

Húrin wrote: »

I'm intrigued.

I hope I am understanding what Wicknight means here. There have been threads about this before. Christians seem to need to impose limitations on the abilities of their supposedly all powerful god.

I can understand why, I suppose. A lot of the stuff does not really add up. For example, the whole evil existing thing. You god is all powerful and all knowing, yet he was not capable of making humans without the ability to do evils whilst retaining free will. Personally I feel that this should be well within the abilities of an all powerful superbeing.

At the end of the day, none of it makes any sense at all. Why does an all powerful super being need to subject his creations to a trial of up to 100 years to decide if they are worthy of eternal life? Why? He is all powerful and all knowing. He should already know. Let’s not even get into the fact that the trial is perversely cruel for a large portion of the worlds population many of whom will never get the chance to hear “the word” and thus, according to some Christians, will burn in hell for eternity.

Then we have the new one. Collateral damage. I actually like this one. I have to admit I do chuckle at the “the allies had collateral damage, so what’s the big deal?” Again, if I were an all powerful all knowing super being, who is also apparently merciful and just, I would find a way of punishing the people that deserved punishment and not punishing the innocent. That would be the merciful and just thing to do.

I also often wonder why an all powerful, all knowing, infinity just, infinity holy, infinity good super being that exists outside of time seems to posses many of the personality traits that we see as negative when display by a mere mortal. He is jealous, petty, childish, cruel, small minded, attention craving, to name but a few.

I supposed that without these follower imposed limitations this rubbish that you follow would make even less sense. By deciding that your all powerful god's hands are tied in certain things, or even shifting the blame to us wicked puny humans, you can rationalise away that fact that you god, if he did exist, is anything but good.

Atheists seem to have a higher opinion of what a god should be. Your god is worthy of nothing.

MrP

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

The Euthyphro Dilemma is only headwrecking (and entirely irreconcilable) if you assert that there's an omnipotent deity out there who mandates certain classes of behaviour. It evaporates immediately if you drop either of these two fundamental tenets of christianity.

Is it really that easy as a model on what is moral(legal) vs what is ethical ???

Im not an atheist but Im sure some atheists could come up with a few ethical dilemmas in medical and science issues for certain situations.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

See there's that "collateral damage" term again. How can an omnipotent being cause collateral damage? Exactly what he wills to happen happens, no more, no less. If children got melted in Gomorrah then it is because God chose to melt them.

Exactly wherever did you get the idea He was cutesy?

I suppose the question is do atheists want to believe in a Santa Claus and get disillusioned when its not so?

CDfm

Charco wrote: »

Don't worry too much about this passage, it didn't actually happen. Its a nice story but it is a later forgery not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of the Gospel of John.

Conspiracy theorist.

(Ive wanted to post that for ages)