According to the Apostle Paul:
If your goal is to please people, you are not a servant of Jesus.
Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.
Galatians 1:10
Try to please everyone in everything you do.
I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved.
1 Corinthians 10:33
Tags: God, Bible, Jesus, Christian, Teaching, Conflicting, Flawed, Paul, Contradictory, Aposlte
July 31, 2009 at 12:21 am |
Only conflicting in the mind of the simpleton, i.e. someone who doesn’t understand how to interpret simple passages from ancient near east documents because they haven’t studied how to interpret. Rather they pull statements out of contextual meaning (cultural, socio-economic) and read it like it was the NY Times. Ofcourse the NY Times is written simply so anyone with a 2nd grade education can understand it. The bible is not meant to be read like a newspaper any more than your Will is meant to be read like the menu at Taco Bell.
July 31, 2009 at 12:59 am |
Well, thing about the Bible is, it doesn’t matter if you’re a simpleton or not. It’s based on the word of God, and as you know, he moves in mysterious ways and cannot be fully understood.
Learning and studying how to interpret the Bible doesn’t actually mean you’ll get it right, which is why there are many legitimate separate branches of Christianity and God Worship, instead of just ONE.
Even the Pope, a person who supposedly has learnt and should understands the texts the most, gets it wrong – remember how he declared Christians as “not true Christians”?
By the way, you’ve basically thrown an argument that loops into itself. It basically goes “Don’t ask any questions, unless you understand what cannot be understood – because if you understand you don’t need to ask anyway.” <_<
July 31, 2009 at 1:09 am |
God does move in mysterious ways and cannot be fully understood. I agree with that because those are concepts observed in the bible. However He gave is His Word according to His Word so we could understand several things about him.
Most tenets observed in the bible I would argue ARE simple enough to ‘get it right’. Many require much more study.
The Pope is an entirely different can of worms in my opinion.
My point doesn’t loop on itself. My point is, I don’t assert quantum physics are foolish and untrue because I don’t understand them. Likewise, someone who doesn’t understand what appears to be a contradiction declares Christianity is for the brain dead. Thats been my unfortunate experience in that regard.
July 31, 2009 at 1:20 am
It’s equally as unfortunate that, when I do ask the servants of God about any contradictions, I rarely get the “I honestly don’t know” response.
More often than not, I get:
1. Accused of being unenlightened enough to even ask
2. Accused of questioning God and his Will, and having no faith in him
3. Answered in the form of a similar question, i.e being indirectly told i’m supposed to answer my question and clear doubts on my own.
4. Answered with direct quotes from the bible, which themselves lead to other questions – endlessly.
You have to forgive people for regarding religious folk as “brain dead”. Rarely do they take the time to even assuage the seeker – they pass the buck to either God or back to the person asking the question. >_>
July 31, 2009 at 1:28 am
Hey, no arguement from me here. No one is free from making mistakes or from acting like a human. The difference for those of ‘faith’ is when the hard questions come do you have a relationship with God thats is challenged by the questions so you learn more -or- do you crumble under the weight of them because you either never really cared for God in the first place or want an excuse to live according to your own standards – either of those means one didn’t really KNOW God. For me, those questions are like weights at gym, building me up for some they are like boulders they can’t wait to get out from under. But then again, we don’t choose God, He chooses us.
July 31, 2009 at 1:05 am |
That has seriously got to be one of the lamest defenses I have ever read. Sorry but, man. No-one in history has ever gotten it right, so that cannot possibly be your defense. There are so many versions of the books that make up the bible and most of them differ so much that they are totally irreconcilable. The oldest known copies don’t even mention the virgin birth, the flight to egypt or the slaughter of the children by Harod and many other things.
LOL. I am sorry but your defense has me rolling on the floor.
July 31, 2009 at 1:16 am |
Here is a guy who proves my point earlier. Don’t comment like you are an authority if you haven’t actually studied what you are talking about. People like you get no passes from me nor any benefit of the doubt.
“There are so many versions of the books that make up the bible and most of them differ so much that they are totally irreconcilable.” Completely False. On the contrary there are not so many versions and they do not differ beyond what is expected for ancient documents.
“The oldest known copies don’t even mention the virgin birth, the flight to egypt or the slaughter of the children by Harod and many other things.” Again, not true and totally irrelevant from a biblical scholar’s perspective regarding ancient literature.
People like this find the trendiest post on their favorite atheist website and shotgun blast them like they know what they are talking about. No scholarship, no research, NO STUDY.
July 31, 2009 at 7:50 am
I was a devoted believer in Christ for 30+ years of my life. I’ve read and studied the Bible many times over. I worshipped and prayed daily like a good Christian should. Yet today I no longer believe. How is this possible?
Research and study leaves two possible conclusions. The book is a man-made piece of fiction because it is far too flawed to be divinely inspired, credible or truthful. Or it’s true because the Bible tells me so.
July 31, 2009 at 9:12 am
Its possible because your faith was not founded on bedrock of truth but rather experience or tradition is my guess.
There are no “flaws” from the bible which disproves the truth of it.
To understand bible pasages with seem tough, ie contradictory, you HAVE TO STUDY more about the ancient near east culture. My favorite website to help you with this if you were serious is http://www.tektonics.org
July 31, 2009 at 9:53 am
Just like yourself, my faith was founded on faith. Believing the unseen, unprovable and illogical. I spent my entire life doing so.
The bedrock of “truth” you speak of is the very reason I no longer believe. Christian theology and Biblical texts simply do not hold up unless you are convinced they are God’s words. More people would agree with me if they weren’t terrified to do so. Just in case God is real, they continue to go to church every week and pray to their God. Christianity in America is somewhere between an eternal life insurance policy (just in case it’s real) and/or a pacifier to deal with the fear of death.
July 31, 2009 at 10:11 am
You don’t have to admit that you reject God because you want to live by your own standards. But its still true. This is a tired arguement and you should perhaps read up on your unprovable, illogical assertions. God is provable and I don’t believe in anything illogical. What is illogical is someone who doesn’t believe in God yet still operates their life with some moral framework. If you have no absolute authority on which to base your morals, yet operate by them and see a value in living is totally illogical. But hey, good luck and I hope you come around because living life with a genuine relationship with God is better than the highest high I ever had before it.
July 31, 2009 at 10:35 am
If God is provable, you’re welcome to prove it to me.
The idea that morality is a Christian invention is laughable. Why are there moral people in the 70% of the world that is non-Christian? Morality is a human and cultural invention, not a god’s invention. Man-made religion has certainly played a large role historically in the definition of morality. Fear of a god’s wrath is very effective to keep people in line.
July 31, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Hey, TheBeattitude, I know this is your discussion with nocodad but I hope you don’t mind me butting in for a bit.
nocodad,
You don’t have to admit that you reject God because you want to live by your own standards. But its still true.
You don’t have to admit that you accept God because you want to suck up to him to get to heaven. But its still true.
If you’re gonna play the you-don’t-have-to-admit-it-but-its-true card, then so be it. But don’t expect anyone to take your word for it.
You don’t have to accept that there are mile long pink elephants flying on Pluto either but its true.
——————————————————————–
This is a tired arguement and you should perhaps read up on your unprovable, illogical assertions.
Oh, you mean this?
You don’t have to admit that you reject God because you want to live by your own standards. But its still true.
——————————————————————–
God is provable and I don’t believe in anything illogical.
Go on…I’m all ears!
——————————————————————–
What is illogical is someone who doesn’t believe in God yet still operates their life with some moral framework.
Errr….why?
——————————————————————–
If you have no absolute authority on which to base your morals, yet operate by them and see a value in living is totally illogical.
You don’t have to have an absolute authority to base your morals.
In order for one to be moral and nice towards others, one simply needs to come to see others as being the same as oneself; with oneself’s full capabilities to feel pain, sadness, to be happy, to have dreams and children, to love, to sympathise.
Once one has done that, they would naturally treat others as they would like others to treat them.
If you agree that, in the absence of God, you would commit robbery, rape, and murder, you reveal yourself as an immoral person, then we would be well advised to steer a wide course around you. You and I would then have to make a trip down to the police station which only one of us would be making the return trip back.
If, on the other hand, you admit that you would continue to be a good person even when not under divine surveillance,you have fatally undermined your claim that God is necessary for us to be good.
If you’re really going to go commit suide in the abscence of God, go ahead; I’ve got better stuff to do with my life.
——————————————————————–
But hey, good luck and I hope you come around because living life with a genuine relationship with God is better than the highest high I ever had before it.
Reminds me of this picture:
http://wallpaper4god.com/wallpapers/thumbs/339_270.jpg
July 31, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Yeah, Butterfly, that’s what bothers me the most.
Christians don’t have a monopoly on morality. Morals don’t come from God. If that was the case, then the world would be in utter chaos. This, of course, is absurd. Less and less people, proportionally, believe in God and, yet, we seem to be making moral progress.
As opposed to what you probably hear from your pastor (I know I heard it a lot when I was a Christian), the world is actually becoming a nicer place to live. There are no “good old days.” There are only idealized visions of the past.
If we go back 50 years, it was still okay to force minorities to go to shoddy schools and use vastly inferior public services, nor could they vote.
If we go back 100 years, more than half of the population couldn’t vote.
150 years ago, we were breaking treaties with the Native Americans and willfully giving them small pox when we weren’t brutally slaughtering them with military campaigns.
200 years ago, slavery was very much in full force.
As a society, we have tremendous strides and we haven’t needed the Bible to do it. Where does the Bible say anything against owning slaves? The Old Testament condoned it and Jesus certainly never said anything about it, even while chumming it up with a slave-owning centurion. If he really was a great moral teacher, you think he would have said “Hey, I know it’s accepted during this time, but don’t you have qualms about owning another human being? I’ll heal him and everything, but seriously, that’s kinda messed up.”
Face it, the Bible isn’t some ground-breaking standard of morality. People have had written laws about not killing and stealing since before Mosaic law. Look up Hammurabi’s Code sometime, it actually made more sense and was more specific than the 10 Commandments.
July 31, 2009 at 1:25 pm
@James…
Actually, I would argue that the state of questionable moralities has NEVER changed throughout the ages. The presence of God and Atheism, and the belief in thereof, has not changed a single thing.
Same as how the more technologies we have, the more wisdom we gain, and the more things change – the more they remain the same.
July 31, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Maybe they don’t vary much for ancient documents, but they do vary an awful lot for being the supposed revealed Word of God. And there have been over 450 ENGLISH versions of the Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible
July 31, 2009 at 7:44 am |
If I have misunderstood or pulled out of context please enlighten me. Rather than making accusations and not backing them up.
I have a question for you. Why would God require a person to study how to interpret “ancient near east documents” to understand contextual meaning of his divine book? Christians are required to become theologians? Most Christians don’t even read their Bible. If God inspired the words of the Bible, he’s not impressing me with his omnipotence.
July 31, 2009 at 9:08 am |
You have misundersod because you pulled out of context.
‘Rather than making accusations and not backing them up.” That is precisely what you do when you claim a contradiction without further study.
‘Why would God require a person to study how to interpret “ancient near east documents” to understand contextual meaning of his divine book?’ The only thing God requires is to love Him with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and to love your neighbor as yourself.
‘Christians are required to become theologians?’ Not sure what YOU mean by theologian, but someone who loves God should study to show themselves approved to be able to know the scriptures well enough to understand something that looks like a contradiction is not some faith crushing proof to live life without God.
‘Most Christians don’t even read their Bible.’ Maybe this is true, maybe its not. Its impossible for you or me to know.
‘If God inspired the words of the Bible, he’s not impressing me with his omnipotence.’ You want to ignore God so you can live according to your own standards. Good luck with that!
July 31, 2009 at 10:00 am |
My own standards of loving my family and helping those around me will always trump God’s standards. A god that condoned slavery, rape, kidnapping, murdering children and babies, killing homosexuals, punishing women who have been raped, etc.
But I have to ask why I would live according to a God that required a bloody human sacrifice and animal sacrifices to earn his forgiveness? I’m supposed to treat my own children this way?
You can have your god, my standards are much better.
July 31, 2009 at 10:16 am |
30 years you studied the scripture? After reading your comments I can see giving you the benefit of the doubt was a mistake. Your comments below sound like you just read through the bible yesterday. You really don’t understand what is written in them. You read it like a news paper and if you keep doing that then you will drawn the false conclusions as you have. If you were serious, which I suspect you’re not, all of your questions just posted can be cleared up at http://www.tektonics.org.
July 31, 2009 at 12:03 pm |
Are you saying that God didn’t endorse wholesale slaughter of women and children?
Are you disputing the claim that God didn’t condone the murder of homosexuals?
Are you claiming that, under Mosaic law, virgin women who were raped weren’t punished?
I’m sorry, but that’s all very much in the Bible and it’s all declared to be the law that God, Himself, handed down to Moses.
Go ahead and tell theBEattitude that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about all you want, I’m sure you’re not offending him any more than anyone else who comes here in does that. You still haven’t reconciled his concerns. Everything he just mentioned is very much in the Bible and God explicitly states that it is His will.
So go ahead. Justify those passages in the Bible. If not, kindly stop telling people that they’re wrong.
July 31, 2009 at 1:42 pm |
Are you saying that anyone not taught to properly interpret the bible can never really know what it says. If it is the guide to live a proper life why would it need special training to understand it? If you have a personnel relationship with god why do you even need the bible?
July 31, 2009 at 3:38 pm |
I dare say that a person with a typical modern 2nd grade education knows more of the world and how it works than the dark age schizos who convinced the uneducated and superstitious that non-existent gods were dictating directly to them.
Read the gospels/bible horizontally and the same fables don’t even match up on fundamental tenets of christianity.
By the way, it’s not even a good read. Very badly written. I’d have thought that GOD, the creator of everything, would be able to write a bit better. Maybe he should take a creative writing class and try a revision.
July 31, 2009 at 4:37 pm |
God is more of a lawmaker than an author. Writing isn’t one of his spiritual gifts.
July 31, 2009 at 8:45 pm |
Why wouldn’t God want his gospel accessible to all mankind? It seems like an omnipotent deity – who desired our company in heaven – could figure out a way to make his wishes and his character more easily understood.
July 31, 2009 at 11:00 pm |
@nocodad
“Ofcourse the NY Times is written simply so anyone with a 2nd grade education can understand it. The bible is not meant to be read like a newspaper any more than your Will is meant to be read like the menu at Taco Bell.”
… and yet, those of who were raised in the Christian Church, were taught that we should have “faith like a child” and that God made it simple, so simple that anyone could understand it (i.e. all that matters is John 3:16). If both of these are true, shouldn’t the Bible be written for all, from a 2nd grader to an 80 year old?
Also, if God wants this religion to be spread throughout the world, to all people, then that would mean he would absolutely need to write a document that can be understood by the “simpleton”, as you put it. It should not require people to “understand how to interpret ‘simple passages’ from ancient near east documents by studying how to interpret.”
From your comments, you sound like a lot of others I’ve known in my life. You spent a lot of time and energy on your faith, and possibly a lot of money on biblical education… so now you’re unable to look at reality.
July 31, 2009 at 2:25 am |
They’re really not conflicting, because they speak to different circumstances.
“Obviously, I’m not trying to win the approval of people, but of God. If pleasing people were my goal, I would not be Christ’s servant.
Galatians 1:10″
This is about the reason we do the things we do. In modern terms, are we going to the alter to worship or to please the Pastor and impress the congregation? When we tithe do we make sure the envelope is face up so everyone can see how much we’re giving or do we keep it between us and our God? Are we truly serving God or just our fellow Christians?
“I, too, try to please everyone in everything I do. I don’t just do what is best for me; I do what is best for others so that many may be saved.
1 Corinthians 10:33″
This one is about how we relate to the unsaved world, being upright and approachable. If your visiting a poor neighborhood, it’s probably best not to dress like you would for a night out at the opera. If you’re visiting someone who is sick, be ready to help out. Taking the time to think about the needs of others and meeting those needs is one of the best ways to share the love of Christ.
BTW There isn’t anything wrong with asking questions, especially if you listen to the answers with an open mind.
July 31, 2009 at 3:33 am |
Of course, even without the contradictions the Bible could not actually prove anything, since it’s just a collection of books.
I could write a contradictory book that says I am God, but that wouldn’t prove anything either.
July 31, 2009 at 9:52 am |
So why do people insist that the Bible is flawed because it does not contain a comprehensive set provable facts?
July 31, 2009 at 12:37 pm |
And why do the very people who insist that the bible is not flawed, shirk the responsibility to have to prove it?
July 31, 2009 at 1:08 pm |
Unprovable facts, eh? Paul M?
Tell me that wasn’t the best oxymoron ever!
July 31, 2009 at 1:25 pm |
It’s flawed because the main character murdered everyone on earth save for a handful of people and then ordered more mass murders from his chosen people. Just to name a couple reasons why.
Of course, the lack of anything like provable facts is just icing.
If you actually take an objective look at the Bible, you’ll realize that it reads like something that goat herders just made up to keep people in line. There’s absolutely nothing earth-shattering or ground breaking about it.
July 31, 2009 at 7:20 am |
Paul’s goal is to please God not others. He pleases others so that they may come to have the same goal……….QED (smug, not me!)
July 31, 2009 at 9:50 am |
Exactly.
July 31, 2009 at 10:07 am |
Nocodad, You evangellical christians got it wrong.
“Thus the Bible is an organizational book and belongs to the Christian congregation as an organization, not to individuals, regardless of how sincerely they may believe that they can interpret the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be properly understood without Jehovah’s visible organization in mind.”—The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587
“We all need help to understand the Bible, and we cannot find the Scriptural guidance we need outside the ‘faithful and discreet slave’ organization.”—The Watchtower, February 15, 1981, p. 19
You guys are only using human interpretation.
July 31, 2009 at 9:06 pm |
Aw, how come I don’t get JWs on my blog? So far I only have evangies and Mormons.
July 31, 2009 at 10:43 am |
Science Story of the Week
Gravity waves, as predicted by Einstein, have never been observed. From Physics arXiv Blog:
“Six years and nearly 400 million dollars later, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) still hasn’t turned up the evidence for gravitational waves. Gravitational waves are predicted by fundamental Einstein general relativity theories, but we haven’t been able to detect them. Is it because the first generation laser interferometers are not sensitive enough? Is it because LIGO needs more time to see through the cosmic noise to root out the gravitational wave signature? This is a deeply worrying non-development for physicists as a null result means that something isn’t quite right. We are certain (in theory) that these waves should be rippling through space-time (after all, massive objects are colliding and exploding all the time throughout the Universe), but if we can’t detect the things in our own cosmic back yard, something must be awry. In a recent publication, LIGO scientists have discussed the lack of evidence for gravitational waves, but remain upbeat that they can still be found…”
Looks like faith in action…
July 31, 2009 at 12:55 pm |
1. There’s a difference between “It’s real. Full stop. Let’s move on.” and “It’s real. This bears further study.”
2. There’s a very fine line between “We can never understand. So stop asking and just believe.” and “We can never understand. But let’s keep at it, and maybe one day we will.”
3. there’s a difference between “It’s God’s Word. No questions.” and “It’s theory.”
Granted, there are as many questionable scientists as there are servants of God who are misguided, but a quick look at the standard responses used by both camps shows one camp happily passing the buck to God, and the other camp admitting their own lack of knowledge.
I don’t get why the faithful always try to bring failed or incomplete science experiments into arguments. God has already shown us that Copernicus was right. Let there not be a return to the middle ages where being humble enough to believe that the Earth is not the center of the Solar System, or the Universe – or being curious enough to find out how the universe that God makes works – can be punished by excommunication or worse.
(If you seek a return to those ages, tho I don’t blame you. It’s a simpler time. Absolutely nobody questions God – tho it’s out of fear and not out of respect. <_<)
July 31, 2009 at 1:11 pm |
There is a huge difference between ancient folklore and scientific theory. Scientists perform testing and research to build scientific theories. Then they continue to research and test to prove or disprove these theories.
Religion claims absolute truth with no evidence. You either believe it or you don’t. And the Bible threatens you if you dare worship a different god or no god at all.
Apples to oranges. Science strives to discover, religion claims to have all the answers and uses fear tactics to convince people.
July 31, 2009 at 1:27 pm |
It really just boils down to that clever juxtaposition.
Science: Here are the facts, what conclusions can we make from them?
Religion: Here’s the conclusion, what facts can we make to support it?
July 31, 2009 at 2:32 pm |
“Apples to oranges. Science strives to discover, religion claims to have all the answers and uses fear tactics to convince people.”
Precisely.
So why keep pointing out the factual failings or the logical contradictions of the Bible – they don’t matter.
Science, by its nature, must be allowed to fail. You can’t ask that of religion – it deals in certainty even in the absence of evidence. Where you see fear, I see God giving us hope. If you want to be scared, science has come up with all sorts of ways to allow our condition of sin to destroy us.
So when are we gonna move on from this Einstein fiction? Looks like it is unprovable after $400 million spent on a useless “gravity wave” detector.
Or are you gonna keep the faith?
July 31, 2009 at 2:54 pm |
What version of Christianity do you practice exactly? If the stories of the Bible are not credible, the religion has absolutely no foundation. Without validity of scripture, there is no validity to Jesus. What is your basis for faith in a Jewish guy from 2,000 years ago if you don’t believe the stories about him are true?
July 31, 2009 at 5:26 pm |
@ theBEattitude
“What is your basis for faith in a Jewish guy from 2,000 years ago if you don’t believe the stories about him are true?”
I do believe that the stories are true. But I believe because of my faith, not because there is an airtight scientific case for it.
The same old problem: acertaining truth is not limited only to the methods of science and logic.
July 31, 2009 at 9:12 pm |
@ Paul – Ascertaining truth *is* dependent on logic and reliable methods, like the scientific method. Believing something does not make that thing true; faith doesn’t lead you to truth, just certainty.
Believing because of your faith simply means “I believe because I believe.” It’s a circular argument, and essentially means nothing. You have no REASON to believe in Jesus (especially since you don’t even hold the Bible as true). Where do you think the Jesus stories *came from*?
August 1, 2009 at 7:47 am |
I’m curious, Paul M…
If you’ve enough faith in you to believe that there’s an invisible man in the sky who watches everything you do every minute of every day.
Then why don’t you believe that there are mile long pink elephants on Pluto that speak Spanish?
August 1, 2009 at 1:28 am |
Over the past few weeks I have tried to find a way to get Paul M to understand that atheism does not involve faith, and in the course of some extended exchanges, learned something of how he thinks. Now I am going to be presumptuous and try to express his view in secular terms as I understand it.
Every system of thought needs to start somewhere. In mathematics, a system starts with an axiom, a thing which simply exists with some set of properties. An axiom is just defined and described: there is no reasoning about its existence nor proof about its properties. An example is that basis of geometry, the point: described as having no dimension or size, existing in infinite quantity, etc. A system of thought usually has more than one axiom and some definitions. Everything else in the system is derived from these axioms and definitions by means of logic.
Paul M has been saying for weeks that God, Jesus, and Faith are the axioms of his religious system. They have definitions and descriptions, but they are not derived from any other more fundamental concepts by any kind of reason or rule; in the religious sphere, these are his fundamental concepts. Indeed, generally, if any specific thing is in conflict with these axioms or any tenet derived from them, that thing is wrong.
So, in answer to theBEattitude’s question “What is your basis for faith … ?“, Paul M’s answer is “Nothing”. The faith stands on its own with no support. As an axiom. In particular, it comes ahead of, before, the Bible.
So, for Paul M, because the Bible is not one of the axioms, if some passage in the Bible is contrary to the system he derives from his axioms, then that Bible passage is wrong. He does, however, find useful details about God and Jesus in the Bible, which he calls revealed truth, sprinkled about among the other stuff that he considers myths, folklore, fables, and jumbled historical legends. But the acceptance of these “revealed truths” comes from his faith — the faith does not come from the “revealed truths”.
I find this a completely alien way of thinking. But recognizing it is key to understanding what Paul M says, especially why he keeps saying that the flaws of the Bible are irrelevant. I imagine that Paul M finds equally alien the idea of living without any faith. That is why he keeps ascribing faith to scientific endeavors, as here, or to atheism, as he did in another discussion a few weeks ago.
I do not know what good it may do to recognize and understand these things. But there must be something more interesting and fruitful to do than exchanging the same unresponsive arguments with, and continuing to be perplexed by, the same correspondents day after day.
OK. Paul M is not likely to give up the comfort he gets from religion: “[R]eligion … deals in certainty even in the absence of evidence. Where you see fear, I see God giving us hope.“. Atheists are not likely to accept the notion that “acertaining truth is not limited only to the methods of science and logic.“. But atheists could acknowledge that Christians are not a monolithic group and, in particular, that some do not regard the Bible as 100% literal word of god. Paul M could acknowledge that atheism does not involve faith. Fewer electrons would be wasted on repetitive haranguing.
Maybe the information would even be helpful in responding to other, less reasonable Christians who show up here from time to time with fundamentalist views. To some extent, I think their thought systems resemble Paul M’s although they are a lot messier. The mainstream Christians who appear occasionally would also be less offended if they were not automatically lumped with fundamentalists. Atheists pride themselves on dealing with fact and reality. Variation of thought and dogma among Christians is a fact. That fact ought to be reflected in atheists’ response to each individual.
July 31, 2009 at 1:10 pm |
ANOTHER SURFACE LEVEL CONTRADICTION!
Instead of an attitude which says “let’s discuss these things openly”, we have a blog which is an anti-Christ parade.
Context, context, context! The former is in reference to not side-stepping the real gospel (laid out in Gal 3:6-14) in order to gain the acceptance of man. For instance, Joel Olsteen never talks about the offensive true gospel, neither does Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Rob Bell, and Donald Miller!
The latter is in reference to setting aside traditions of men in order to find common ground among believers in order to share the gospel to them. For example, the 7th Day Adventist believes it’s wrong to eat pork. Yet, if a non-believer or even a new believer does know this and brings pork chops to the luncheon, they they’re going to wonder why no one likes them, because their being judged for something legalistic. Heb 8 says the old covenant is now obsolete, and if they put their man made traditions then that person would be more accepted.
July 31, 2009 at 1:16 pm |
Well, doesn’t help that Christianity by default looks down on people who disbelieve. Or believe someone else.
You know how it feels when you approach someone and tell them – “Hey, I know you don’t realize it, but you’re on the way to hell. Got this good friend of mine who can help you out of it. You just gotta believe, cuz if you don’t believe in him, you’re going to hell.” ?
The bias is pretty obvious both ways.
July 31, 2009 at 1:31 pm |
How are we not discussing these things openly? If I didn’t want to discuss it, I would block your comments.
Paul loved to teach how the old covenant was obsolete. If he had actually met Jesus, he would understand that Jesus did not want to make Jewish law obsolete.
Since you are a better Christian that Rick Warren, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyers, Rob Bell and Donald Miller, does that mean you will get special treatment in heaven? Just curious.
July 31, 2009 at 2:28 pm |
As with most alleged contradictions, it is only a defeater if it is *necessarily* contradictory. In other words, if one can think of a reasonable interpretation of the two passages you list above that renders them non-contradictory then there is no good reason to consider it a defeater.
Comparing the two passages, in Galatians Paul is teaching that the primary motive of his ministry is pleasing God and not people. That does not mean one cannot please people at all, because in I Corinthians he is teaching that pleasing people is an important factor in bringing people to a saving knowledge of Christ.
As usual, a proper understanding of context eliminates any semblance of contradiction.
July 31, 2009 at 4:23 pm |
People ask for “proofs” of God. Here is pre-question to that: What evidence would you accept as proof of God? I suspect there is no evidence you would accept.
‘Are you saying that God didn’t endorse wholesale slaughter of women and children?’ Endorse it? No He ordered it. Explain your problem with God commanding the Israelites to wipe out people who practiced child rape and sacrifice. Why, because God is mean?
Are you disputing the claim that God didn’t condone the murder of homosexuals? Condone, no. Command, yes. God wanted to keep his people the Israelites set apart. God set up death as punishment for any sin which would have a great detrimental impact on the community. In ancient near east (ANE) culture this was by humane compared to the child sacrifices of the other heathen nations.
Are you claiming that, under Mosaic law, virgin women who were raped weren’t punished? No, they were not punished. Actually marrying the rapist was very merciful rules in the ANE context. It’s actually what the society and the woman of that time and culture would want.
These are all things written in great detail about by many scholars over the years and easy to research and learn about. I even provided you a link to make it easy. Bottom line for you guys is you reject God who is the source of ALL morality. You guys are the furthest things from freethinkers. You only believe what you want verses proving what you think again the kind of resources I have pointed you too. If anyone who hates God can deem their own morality than the one with the biggest stick wins. Reference Nazi Germany, Japan, Italy etc for that one.
You critics view the bible through the jaded lens of the 20th century Westerner. I bet you don’t even understand the concept of honor in present day Japanese culture. How could you possibly understand why God did many things 3-4000 years ago without careful and deliberate study of that culture? You don’t understand something so you dismiss it out of hand and in any situation that is foolish.
The key to understanding difficult bible passages is learning the context. I wouldn’t attempt to understand a complex legal document without first learning some background in law and for many documents it requires a 4 year degree. The bible is a collection legal documents, treaties, epistles, poems, proverbs, etc. God designed it easy enough to understand His main message but complex enough to warrant years of study to understand more. Here is my final word: You can point to biblical errors, contradictions, the harshness of God all day long but until you actually study the ANE culture you are ill-equipped to discuss any of these matters.
July 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
We criticize because God is supposedly perfect and unchanging.
If God is the sole authority on morality, then He shouldn’t be allowing things “just because that’s the way things were then.” That’s absurd. If God is where morality comes from, then slavery, mass murder, and forcing women to marry their assailants should never have even been an option. These aren’t just imperfect human solutions, these were imperfect human solutions from thousands of years ago. That’s the sort of thing we look back on as a society and say “thank goodness we’ve moved past that.” To say that God was involved with that is to say that God is at LEAST as imperfect as humans are.
July 31, 2009 at 4:44 pm |
I did a blog post on the subject:
http://thebeattitude.com/2009/06/02/what-would-it-take-for-me-to-believe-in-god/
It is comical that you think of yourself as a freethinker. You believe in ancient theology because someone told you to. You are not allowed to doubt or question it or you’ll burn in hell for eternity. So you do what you’re told and believe in the unseen and unprovable. Not exactly a freethinking way to live.
I view the Bible through the lens of the 20th century because we live in the 20th century. The Bible is primitive and irrelevant, let’s move on.
July 31, 2009 at 8:40 pm |
@nocodad. Oh boy – that’s one big head of “bearing false witness to the glory of God” there.
[["‘Are you saying that God didn’t endorse wholesale slaughter of women and children?’ Endorse it? No He ordered it. Explain your problem with God commanding the Israelites to wipe out people who practiced child rape and sacrifice. Why, because God is mean?
Are you disputing the claim that God didn’t condone the murder of homosexuals? Condone, no. Command, yes. God wanted to keep his people the Israelites set apart. God set up death as punishment for any sin which would have a great detrimental impact on the community. In ancient near east (ANE) culture this was by humane compared to the child sacrifices of the other heathen nations."]]
God is asking people to sin. So sinning is correct just as long as it is ordered by God, who is good, and who does not tempt and test mankind beyond their abilities? Who, through the sacrifice of his son, has forgiven all sins?
The best I can think about these is that God ordered the killings and bias to test our ability to think for ourselves, and use or free will. The fact that we persecute and kill on his order shows that we fail. >_>
The alternative means that God regards some people as more equal than others. And that is evidence that God is not good after all.
[["Are you claiming that, under Mosaic law, virgin women who were raped weren’t punished? No, they were not punished. Actually marrying the rapist was very merciful rules in the ANE context. It’s actually what the society and the woman of that time and culture would want."]]
And why would that be merciful, pray tell? It’s merciful to the rapist. It’s torture to the innocent girl who unfortunately lost her free will to choose whom to love – as a result of something God allowed.
Also, women of that time and culture – if you recall the history – were never given free will. The olden times were a male dominated society where the voice of women – and children for that matter – were drowned. Sounds like someone fabricated a poll and implemented a law based on that fabricated poll.
Y’know, at first glance I’d say the Bible is DECEPTIVELY simple to understand. The faithful are the ones who scratch the surface and take things word for word. The more faithful are the ones who read between the lines. >_>
July 31, 2009 at 9:19 pm |
Hi – I’m a woman. I don’t care if it’s “ANE” or BCE or whenever; I guarantee you marrying my rapist would be punishment. How on earth you think that has changed over time baffles me. Rape is rape is fucking RAPE. *grrrrrr*
You have a profound misunderstanding of what being a freethinker means. Not being constrained by religious or new age superstition, studying the world around us, and being open to new ideas and new research – that’s what being a freethinker means. It does not mean proving to YOU that your god doesn’t exist. Why don’t you prove that he does exist first, okay?
August 1, 2009 at 4:24 pm |
People ask for “proofs” of God. Here is pre-question to that: What evidence would you accept as proof of God? I suspect there is no evidence you would accept.
You sound like my local pastor.
If there’s one thing that you fundies are good at, its finding ways to avoid answering a question.
Like accusing 6% of the American population of 307,059,500 people of being dead brained idiots.
————————————————————————————
‘Are you saying that God didn’t endorse wholesale slaughter of women and children?’ Endorse it? No He ordered it. Explain your problem with God commanding the Israelites to wipe out people who practiced child rape and sacrifice. Why, because God is mean?
Yeah, because there’s such a gigantic difference between ordering something and endorsing it, right?
I’m very curious as to how did women and children practiced child rape and sacrifice, nocodad.
The last time I checked, the children at my nearby kindergarten were not sadistic Satanists hell bent on raping their classmates. Maybe they’ve changed in the meantime. Who knows.
————————————————————————————
Are you disputing the claim that God didn’t condone the murder of homosexuals? Condone, no. Command, yes. God wanted to keep his people the Israelites set apart. God set up death as punishment for any sin which would have a great detrimental impact on the community. In ancient near east (ANE) culture this was by humane compared to the child sacrifices of the other heathen nations.
You seem to have a very great disability in grasping the fact that one would have to condone something before they command it.
Generally, the society of today would want to keep serial rapists and murderers away from the general public.
With the exception of you, it is not considered by today’s society to kill people who have “sinned”.
You fundamentalists also appear to bear the impression that homosexuality is a sin. I’m curious as to why that is, nocodad. Your primary concern here appears to be that your God would take offense at a certain act that certain people of the same sex would do while naked. Incidentally, this act appears to be rather harmless and no “detrimental impact” on society has yet to be recorded in the history of this species of animals called Homo Sapiens that is caused by this act.
Perhaps this might have been “humane” in your Bible coated glasses, nocodad, but it is nowhere near being human in the eyes of the general public. If God’s sole intention of killing homosexuals were to separate them from the Isralites, then he is offically retarded.
I can think of a billion and counting more “humane” ways of separating people that does not involve murder. A billion and one now.
Wanna hear them? I think your God would.
————————————————————————————
Are you claiming that, under Mosaic law, virgin women who were raped weren’t punished? No, they were not punished. Actually marrying the rapist was very merciful rules in the ANE context. It’s actually what the society and the woman of that time and culture would want.
You’ve officially crossed the line between stupidity and brain-dead.
nocodad, how many times have you read in the newspaper about a womening jumping up in joy about marrying her rapist?
I’ve been thinking this for a while but you appear to have a very special definition of the words “morality”, “merciful”, “humane” and “endorsement”.
You think the wholesale killing of innocent women and children are moral.
You believe the slaugthering of homosexuals is humane.
You consider forcing a women to marry her rapist is merciful and the right thing to do.
Is there no limit to how twisted someone can become?
————————————————————————————
Bottom line for you guys is you reject God who is the source of ALL morality. You guys are the furthest things from freethinkers. You only believe what you want verses proving what you think again the kind of resources I have pointed you too. If anyone who hates God can deem their own morality than the one with the biggest stick wins. Reference Nazi Germany, Japan, Italy etc for that one.
The source of all morality?
You mean killing innocent children and women? I agree.
I have already addressed this “all atheists are immoral dickheads” issue in my previous post which you conveniently ignored. I shall not repeat myself here.
————————————————————————————
You critics view the bible through the jaded lens of the 20th century Westerner. I bet you don’t even understand the concept of honor in present day Japanese culture. How could you possibly understand why God did many things 3-4000 years ago without careful and deliberate study of that culture? You don’t understand something so you dismiss it out of hand and in any situation that is foolish.
So, the PERFECT and INFALLIBLE word of GOD cannot be viewed through the “jaded lens” of the 20th century?
You need to UNDERSTAND the meaning of the words PERFECT and INFALLIBLE.
————————————————————————————
Here is my final word: You can point to biblical errors, contradictions, the harshness of God all day long but until you actually study the ANE culture you are ill-equipped to discuss any of these matters.
Oh ho! What have we here? A God who adheres to the culture of his people and acts according to their morals?
How interesting…
August 2, 2009 at 11:39 pm |
“You seem to have a very great disability in grasping the fact that one would have to condone something before they command it.” — Rather, nocodad understands that well enough. Those expressions indicate emphasis: that nocodad’s god was even more forceful than had been suggested:
“Endorse it? No He ordered it.” means “He did not merely endorse it. In fact, He ordered it!”
“Condone, no. Command, yes.” means “He did not merely condone. In fact, he actively commanded!”
This is consistent with nocodad’s apparent approval of that added forcefulness.
I like your summary of nocodad’s answer: God adheres to the culture of his people and acts according to their morals.
August 2, 2009 at 11:56 pm |
nocodad: I am trying to determine whether there is logical consistency in your own statements.
You have used some phrases in comments on this page which suggest that you regard your god as the foundation of a single universal standard of behavior, e.g.: “absolute authority on which to base your morals” and “God who is the source of ALL morality“.
But you also assert that the various events, rules, and laws related in the Bible must be understood in terms of “ancient near east (ANE) culture” rather than “through the jaded lens of the 20th century Westerner“.
You have not indicated how these concepts might be integrated into a consistent system. There seem to be at least three possible ways.
1. Are you saying that the behaviors ordered in the Bible are also ordered for the 21st century because they reflect your god’s single universal standard? Do you seriously expect modern people to behave according to the Biblical “standards” that commenters here have challenged, the “standards” regarding genocide, rape, etc.?
2. Are you saying that the standards are universal, in the sense of applying to everyone at any given time, but may change from time to time; that the behaviors commanded in the Bible were appropriate for that time but that your god orders different behavior now which is suitable for our times? How does anyone know your god’s modern rules?
3. Do you have some idea, which you have not stated, that your god has a single set of principles (known only to himself) which he applies to different conditions; that those different conditions cause the universal principles to require different behavior at different times? How then is anyone to understand your god’s single universal standard by reading the documentation actually provided by his religion? It does not seem reasonable to expect all people or even a large fraction of the population to be scholars of ancient culture. It seems even less reasonable to expect that modern people can infer the constant principles from the behaviors ordered for ancient people in the light of ancient culture, that we can then can apply those inferred principles to our own circumstances, and that we can thereby know what are the orders for our times. Is this nonetheless what your god requires?
Unless you are saying that your god adheres to the culture of his people and acts according to their morals (as Butterfly observes) or you claim that we should retain Biblical standards of behavior, you need a logically consistent explanation for why the “absolute morals” are different in modern times than in Biblical times.
August 3, 2009 at 2:57 pm |
This, of course, seems to be where we are all going with this topic of conversation.
How are we supposed to know what God wants when, obviously, the book that we’re gleaning these supposed morals from is not just antiquated, but abominable by today’s standards? If the book, as a whole, is obviously not for our time, then why do we continue to act as if it is?
Sure, there are things in there that are good, but the problem is that humanity does need the Bible to tell us they’re good. It is common knowledge within the civilized world not to do evil to each other. It is common philosophical knowledge that it is better to treat everyone with respect, even your enemies. Cultures that have developed independantly of Christianity or Judaism have come up with similar principles.
The fact of the matter is, if God is the source of morality and the Bible is how He supposedly handed these morals down, then how do you explain the emergence of analogous, if not better, moral teachings from people whose cultures had nothing to do with the Bible?
Morality isn’t supernatural. It doesn’t have to be. Humans are fully capable of regulating their own actions and determining what is and what isn’t acceptable. You don’t need to attribute a human invention to a mystical source to validate your own sense of right and wrong.
February 1, 2010 at 1:55 pm |
o
o
o But you also assert that the various events, rules, and laws related in the Bible must be understood in terms of “ancient near east (ANE) culture” rather than “through the jaded lens of the 20th century Westerner“. – Yes, you say it correctly.
You have not indicated how these concepts might be integrated into a consistent system. No one has asked me until this post.
1. Are you saying that the behaviors ordered in the Bible are also ordered for the 21st century because they reflect your god’s single universal standard? Do you seriously expect modern people to behave according to the Biblical “standards” that commenters here have challenged, the “standards” regarding genocide, rape, etc.? No, I am saying in order to understand why something in our modern view appears barbaric, one must first study that time/culture. Isn’t it arrogant to assume that our culture is better because we do things differently?
2. Are you saying that the standards are universal, in the sense of applying to everyone at any given time, but may change from time to time; that the behaviors commanded in the Bible were appropriate for that time but that your god orders different behavior now which is suitable for our times? How does anyone know your god’s modern rules? The laws of the Old Covenant are not for application today. This was established by Jesus and the New Covenant which is for today. That said, without study it can be difficult to discern what is a command and what is something fluid based on a cultural context. I recommend the Handbook of Biblical Social Values by Pilch and Malina for further study.
3. Do you have some idea, which you have not stated, that your god has a single set of principles (known only to himself) which he applies to different conditions; that those different conditions cause the universal principles to require different behavior at different times? How then is anyone to understand your god’s single universal standard by reading the documentation actually provided by his religion? It does not seem reasonable to expect all people or even a large fraction of the population to be scholars of ancient culture. It seems even less reasonable to expect that modern people can infer the constant principles from the behaviors ordered for ancient people in the light of ancient culture, that we can then can apply those inferred principles to our own circumstances, and that we can thereby know what are the orders for our times. Is this nonetheless what your god requires? All people are without excuse to recognize the Creator of all life. Its up to each person individually to seek Him. To what level or depth they seek him, again that’s their choice. Hence you have people who attend church on Sunday, you have pastors, hence you have scholars and everything in-between. God require that we love Him above all else and treat our neighbor as ourselves.
Unless you are saying that your god adheres to the culture of his people and acts according to their morals (as Butterfly observes) or you claim that we should retain Biblical standards of behavior, you need a logically consistent explanation for why the “absolute morals” are different in modern times than in Biblical times. Absolute morals are not different in modern times. God commanded specific rules for specific times (cultural and dietary laws). Specific laws for all time. (the 10 commandments). If you really wanted to learn more you can: tektonics.org, any books by Bruce Malina, John Pilch, Richard Rohrbaugh.
July 31, 2009 at 4:45 pm |
“until you actually study the ANE culture you are ill-equipped to discuss any of these matters”
Says you nocodad. Says you.
“Most tenets observed in the bible I would argue ARE simple enough to ‘get it right’. Many require much more study.”
COnflicting messages from nocodad; how biblical. Let me guess now…the ‘tenets’ that require much more study must be the ones that are really conflicting? How convenient.
August 2, 2009 at 1:38 am |
The two statements are perfectly compatible.
Striving for someone’s approval is usually not a good thing, while doing what’s best for others is the very definition of “good”.
The two things are quite different.
Lest not being mistaken by something else but the filthy god-denier that I am, here’s good ol’ Thunderf00t movie about morality in social animals (ie, without God) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyd6om8IC4M for our nocodad.
August 3, 2009 at 7:11 pm |
Absolutely hilarious, and totally shocking. I didn’t realise just how much absurdity there was.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
December 17, 2009 at 2:19 am |
Totally taken out of context! haha….just like how the muslims bash christianity…. take a few verse and then bash christians… Just like for example…. Obama saying: “I’m stupid”. Then the press goes on quoting Obama saying himself as stupid. Without taking into context that Obama was saying he is stupid enough to take the leap to do something that other people doesn’t even dare of thinking of doing it.
nuff said