If GOD wants belief in him based on faith...

krudler

liamw wrote: »

For the parts that are nonsensical/contradictary/unethical by modern standards, man misinterpreted god's word. For all other parts, it is directly god's word. I learned this from talking to Jakkass and PDN.

this basically, anything thats insane or utterly hokum= well man just misheard god, the other batty sh1t, thats yahweh himself talking.

philologos

liamw wrote: »

For the parts that are nonsensical/contradictary/unethical by modern standards, man misinterpreted god's word. For all other parts, it is directly god's word. I learned this from talking to Jakkass and PDN.

I wonder where you got this from

The Bible is God's inspired word revealed to prophets. God didn't write the Bible with his own hand, but He certainly did reveal it to mankind. In that I'm saying all of it. One has to take into account cultural context and other factors to get the best reading of it, just as much as I need to read about ancient Athenian culture to get the best reading of Plato.

And yeah a lot of the time we can pluck things out of context on both sides of the God debate and its an awful reading of the Bible leading to misunderstanding.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder where you got this from

The Bible is God's inspired word revealed to prophets. God didn't write the Bible with his own hand, but He certainly did reveal it to mankind. In that I'm saying all of it. One has to take into account cultural context and other factors to get the best reading of it, just as much as I need to read about ancient Athenian culture to get the best reading of Plato.

And yeah a lot of the time we can pluck things out of context on both sides of the God debate and its an awful reading of the Bible leading to misunderstanding.

Isnt that basically saying the bible isnt relevant to modern society? or can we neatly adapt gods 2000 year old given divine word to current time?

philologos

krudler wrote: »

Isnt that basically saying the bible isnt relevant to modern society? or can we neatly adapt gods 2000 year old given divine word to current time?

It is still relevant. It is only by understanding the context that one can see what is actually being communicated so that one can apply it to life in the 21st century. The Bible has plenty to say about this century as well as those previous.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder where you got this from

Who were Adam and Eve?

Are all humans alive today descended from Noah, a Middle Eastern farmer?

Did Moses lead a slave revolt in ancient Egypt?

Is slavery moral?

etc etc etc...

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

It is still relevant. It is only by understanding the context that one can see what is actually being communicated so that one can apply it to life in the 21st century. The Bible has plenty to say about this century as well as those previous.

well thats handy then.

b318isp

Jakkass wrote: »

God didn't write the Bible with his own hand, but He certainly did reveal it to mankind.

That's an opinion. My opinion is that it is fully man made.

Jakkass wrote: »

In that I'm saying all of it. One has to take into account cultural context and other factors to get the best reading of it, just as much as I need to read about ancient Athenian culture to get the best reading of Plato.

And yeah a lot of the time we can pluck things out of context on both sides of the God debate and its an awful reading of the Bible leading to misunderstanding.

So, it doesn't sound much use for moral guidance for most people.

What bothers me is why all of this needs to be so complicated. If God really revealed himself to humanity, why doesn't he do it more often? If the bible should reflect his thoughts for humanity, why isn't it a lot simpler?

It would take one simple clear act of God to nullify all discussion.

philologos

b318isp wrote: »

That's an opinion. My opinion is that it is fully man made.

I was clarifying liamw's post about what I believe.

b318isp wrote: »

So, it doesn't sound much use for moral guidance for most people.

It contains timeless truth as far as I would see it. It contains things that I can refer to throughout my life. Work, family, friendships, etc. Although, it is not only a book of morality.

b318isp wrote: »

What bothers me is why all of this needs to be so complicated. If God really revealed himself to humanity, why doesn't he do it more often? If the bible should reflect his thoughts for humanity, why isn't it a lot simpler?

I don't believe it is very complicated. Most Christians would believe that God also guides reading of Scripture. When I read Jesus' parables I read them as parables. When I read about Moses' Law of Moses, I read it in respect to the context of the Israelites. When I read the Gospel I read it in respect to Jesus' fulfilling (satisfying on our behalf) that law by grace.

b318isp wrote: »

It would take one simple clear act of God to nullify all discussion.

Why is nullifying discussion good? Indeed, what does God owe us? Absolutely nothing as I see it. He's not a one trick pony or a puppet, He'll do what He wills. I don't expect Him to do everything that I want. That would make God feeble. I submit to Him because He knows what is best.

krudler

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is nullifying discussion good? Indeed, what does God owe us? Absolutely nothing as I see it. He's not a one trick pony or a puppet, He'll do what He wills. I don't expect Him to do everything that I want. That would make God feeble. I submit to Him because He knows what is best.

You'd think he'd by now just come down here and sort all the arguing of his existence out, if not only to stop the "my god is better than your god" crap between warring countries. He wont reveal his existence to us but is quite happy to allow people to be murdered in his name.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

I wonder where you got this from

The Bible is God's inspired word revealed to prophets. God didn't write the Bible with his own hand, but He certainly did reveal it to mankind.

So how do you determine which parts are accurately describing god's word and which aren't? What is your cross-referencing source?

sponsoredwalk

Honestly this video never gets old :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

b318isp

Jakkass wrote: »

I was clarifying liamw's post about what I believe.

I realise that, but you did say "He certainly did reveal it".

Jakkass wrote: »

It contains timeless truth as far as I would see it. It contains things that I can refer to throughout my life. Work, family, friendships, etc. Although, it is not only a book of morality.

Ok, and it also contains a lot of rubbish and contradictions.

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't believe it is very complicated.

Fair enough. However, I think many people do - this is why there is such debate. See the point above.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why is nullifying discussion good? Indeed, what does God owe us? Absolutely nothing as I see it. He's not a one trick pony or a puppet, He'll do what He wills. I don't expect Him to do everything that I want. That would make God feeble. I submit to Him because He knows what is best.

Not that I said it was or wasn't good, but fine if you offer that God doesn't have to explain anything. It just makes no sense to me that it is required that we have to honour and adore something which is so intangible.

The best leaders I have direct experience of were specifically good at clearly setting expectations; providing regular feedback, direction and encouragement. Why doesn't God act for success?

sponsoredwalk

liamw wrote: »

So how do you determine which parts are accurately describing god's word and which aren't? What is your cross-referencing source?

Ah you see it appeals "so convincingly to the intellect", to quote respected
philosopher, physicist & religious person Albert Einstein, that by the beauty
of nature it only follows that god's genocidal commands are to be interpreted
in the context of what sodomites were doing back then and as such it is
totally moral.

So while it may not appear, at first, convincing to your frail & prone to err
human mind with the helpful guidace of a scholar fluent in all dialects of
Ancient Hebrew & Greek verses such as "Do not allow a sorceress to live",
"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the
good and gentle but also to the cruel" & this fun one will soon begin to
make perfect sense - all you need is a human who isn't prone to err in
this particular area my son, they do indeed exist. I'll just remind you to
keep Deuteronomy 17:12 in mind as you listen to this errless person...

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Honestly this video never gets old :

It does very quickly :pac:

Anyone looking at any ancient text will be told that one has to know what is happening in and around the passage in order to make sense of it.

For example Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and just before he does it he stops. What we can know about Middle Eastern cultures at that time is that they actually did advocate human / child sacrifice. So by God stopping just as Abraham was to do this, God was demonstrating clearly that He was opposed to it.

Now, if I didn't know the context and what was happening in that part of the world, I could ignorantly say that it was pointless for God to do this.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

For example Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and just before he does it he stops. What we can know about Middle Eastern cultures at that time is that they actually did advocate human / child sacrifice. So by God stopping just as Abraham was to do this, God was demonstrating clearly that He was opposed to it.

So what you're saying is, god is a tease?

philologos

b318isp wrote: »

Ok, and it also contains a lot of rubbish and contradictions.

Your opinion :pac:

b318isp wrote: »

Not that I said it was or wasn't good, but fine if you offer that God doesn't have to explain anything. It just makes no sense to me that it is required that we have to honour and adore something which is so intangible.

There is no burden on God to do anything for us other than what He has done freely of His grace. To say there is a burden is to say that God is inferior to man.

b318isp wrote: »

The best leaders I have direct experience of were specifically good at clearly setting expectations; providing regular feedback, direction and encouragement. Why doesn't God act for success?

Indeed, I believe Jesus through His example sets our expectation and accepts our feedback. Just because you believe that God is a by-gone relic doesn't mean He is.

All my opinion :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Anyone looking at any ancient text will be told that one has to know what is happening in and around the passage in order to make sense of it.

And when this gets inconvenient Christians ignore this.

What is happening with the flood of Noah? Or the death of the first born in Egypt, two events that have zero historical evidence to support them (their are hundreds more but these are the two big ones).

Most people looking at any ancient text, particularly those that are describing supernatural religious events, are happy with the notion that a lot of it can be made up. You can study a book on Pandora's jar without thinking that is where women came from.

Christians can't. They already believe it is infallible and interpret it with that notion through out.

When it suits them they invoke the magical "context". Oh its not a science book, oh it is concerned with the message not the details, oh that context is "clearly" meant to be taken in a non-literal sense.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

For example Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and just before he does it he stops. What we can know about Middle Eastern cultures at that time is that they actually did advocate human / child sacrifice. So by God stopping just as Abraham was to do this, God was demonstrating clearly that He was opposed to it.

"Happy shall they be who take your little ones and dash them against the rock!" (Psalm 137:9)

“Treat the Midianites as enemies and kill them, because they
treated you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and
their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was
killed when the plague came as a result of Peor.”

"whoever rebels against your word and does not obey your words,
whatever you may command them, will be put to death. Only be strong
and courageous!" (Josh 1.18)

"and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you
have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty
with them, and show them no mercy." (Deut 7.2)

“Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry
out the LORD’s vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men
from each of the tribes of Israel.”

Clearly you're lying to us when you tell us that god was opposed to anything
like this. No doubt you're well aware there are plenty more verses I could
pull up that are in accordance with what I'm saying.

It's like arguing that because a nazi gas chamber operator, on finding
that one Jew survived the gas chamber, let this person live they were
clearly opposed to murder. I ask you how could god be opposed to any
kind of sacrifice/murder if the good book is full of this stuff directly
because he had to open his heavenly mouth and call for it?

---

So, to ask you the question that you're obviously bored of hearing (the
one asked in that video) in what context is any of this moral? In what
context is any of this justified by any kind of god - whether it be the
neutered god some religous people are arguing for in one of the threads
in this forum or the moral god you are trying to apologise for?

I guarantee that you just can't answer these questions without point
blank apologising for the most foul kind of murder, purely disgusting stuff.

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

What is happening with the flood of Noah? Or the death of the first born in Egypt, two events that have zero historical evidence to support them (their are hundreds more but these are the two big ones).

I'd love to know how any christian can even think of the concept of
morality when these two, among many, horrendous acts are part of the
historico-religious narrative they consciously accept (if that other thread
is to be believed ) whether as metaphor or literal truth. It just doesn't
compute...

Improbable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO129-RfhVE

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd love to know how any christian can even think of the concept of
morality when these two, among many, horrendous acts are part of the
historico-religious narrative they consciously accept (if that other thread
is to be believed ) whether as metaphor or literal truth. It just doesn't
compute...

Never mind the morality, they didn't happen :pac:

When faced with these facts Christians assert that they are not meant to be taken literally. That though isn't supported by the text itself. So it is Christians imposing a context on the text in order to keep them in line with Biblical infallibility, rather than simply admit that these text are wrong/inaccurate.

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

For example Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and just before he does it he stops. What we can know about Middle Eastern cultures at that time is that they actually did advocate human / child sacrifice. So by God stopping just as Abraham was to do this, God was demonstrating clearly that He was opposed to it.

So God only is for child torture and mental anguish. Thats ok then :P

The Christian response to this is that God can do what he likes with us. Which makes it some what puzzling when Christians go Look look he didn't actually have him killed, he clearly thinks this is wrong. What if he did have him killed? Christians would have justified that as ok. The whole thing is pointless. It is convoluted nonsense, before we get to the fact that none of it actually happened. God is good because he doesn't make us suffer except when he does make us suffer which is good anyway.

oldrnwisr

Jakkass wrote: »

It does very quickly :pac:

Anyone looking at any ancient text will be told that one has to know what is happening in and around the passage in order to make sense of it.

For example Abraham and Isaac in Genesis 22. God tells Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, and just before he does it he stops. What we can know about Middle Eastern cultures at that time is that they actually did advocate human / child sacrifice. So by God stopping just as Abraham was to do this, God was demonstrating clearly that He was opposed to it.

Now, if I didn't know the context and what was happening in that part of the world, I could ignorantly say that it was pointless for God to do this.

Firstly, in relation to your example, there is almost no archeological evidence of widespread child sacrifice in that region at that time. In fact, in the story in Genesis 22, Isaac is confused by his father's actions:

"And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?" (Gen. 22:7)

This indicates that the common practice was an animal sacrifice and not a human one. Documentary evidence alone can be unreliable given the bias of the writer. One example in this context is the reports of widespread child sacrifice in Carthage. The only sources which document such practices were Roman ones, who were at war with the Carthiginians and thus inclined toward propaganda against their enemies. The same conclusion can thus be drawn from documents detailing the Ammonites sacrificing their children to Moloch.

Also, it is made clear from the start of the Binding of Isaac that there never was an intention for human sacrifice so the intervention of the angel is of little consequence to the overall message of the story which was the extent of the faith of Abraham.

The larger point here though seems to be about context and dividing the myth from the literal truth using archaeological and other scientific evidence. Since scientific investigation is an ongoing process, there are parts which the church and christians in the past said were absolutely true but have since been shown to be false. So how do you now know that the parts that you claim as literal truth are actually true?

One example, to clarify my question:

"And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill, whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong." (Luke 4:28-29)

Now we know from geographical evidence that there is no hill in Nazareth and there never was, at least not in the last 400 million years. We also have no archaeological evidence that there was ever a synagogue there. So in the cold light of the evidence, the truth of the story is no longer reliable. So is it a metaphor (in which case, what is the message of that passage) or is it just plain wrong?

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

The Christian response to this is that God can do what he likes with us. Which makes it some what puzzling when Christians go Look look he didn't actually have him killed, he clearly thinks this is wrong. What if he did have him killed? Christians would have justified that as ok. The whole thing is pointless. It is convoluted nonsense,

Which is why I posted quotes of Him (:rolleyes:) explicitly calling for murder or
being accomplice to it to try to avoid any more of that deceitful evading of
the point.

If we were to map this conversation to any other subject than religion
then what just occurred in the conversation there would be known as a
contradiction but here it's simply the signal that a different loophole must
be appealed to until someone points out the flaw with that, then repeating
this process inductively, a new way to bring back the old loopholes
under a different cloak must emerge.

I thought it would have been painfully obvious to someone who has read
the good book that closely that trying to argue He was against any form
of murder just doesn't hold, but there you go

sponsoredwalk

Wicknight wrote: »

God is good because he doesn't make us suffer except when he does make us suffer which is good anyway.

Haha just noticed that now!

krudler

Wicknight wrote: »

So God only is for child torture and mental anguish. Thats ok then :P

The Christian response to this is that God can do what he likes with us. Which makes it some what puzzling when Christians go Look look he didn't actually have him killed, he clearly thinks this is wrong. What if he did have him killed? Christians would have justified that as ok. The whole thing is pointless. It is convoluted nonsense, before we get to the fact that none of it actually happened. God is good because he doesn't make us suffer except when he does make us suffer which is good anyway.

I wish I could thank this a few more times, it really shows the utter lunancy of these beliefs. god can do no wrong and even when he does, then its not wrong cos god did it. :rolleyes:

himnextdoor

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I thought it would have been painfully obvious to someone who has read the good book that closely that trying to argue He was against any form of murder just doesn't hold, but there you go

It just goes to prove that automatons can have free-will.

sponsoredwalk

himnextdoor wrote: »

It just goes to prove that automatons can have free-will.

What do you mean?

philologos

Wicknight wrote: »

What is happening with the flood of Noah? Or the death of the first born in Egypt, two events that have zero historical evidence to support them (their are hundreds more but these are the two big ones).

Actually I would say that there is local evidence of Noah's flood. I agree with you on the death of the first born in Egypt in respect to archaeology with a caveat, we don't have any yet.

Wicknight wrote: »

Most people looking at any ancient text, particularly those that are describing supernatural religious events, are happy with the notion that a lot of it can be made up. You can study a book on Pandora's jar without thinking that is where women came from.

True. Although context is still important even in reading texts such as Pandora's Box I would imagine, and indeed many of Plato's fictional dialogues.

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians can't. They already believe it is infallible and interpret it with that notion through out.

I believe there is a strong case to say that the general thrust of the Biblical text is likely, that's why I'm a Christian. It wasn't as I just assumed all of these things prior to being a Christian despite whatever pop-psychology people wish to do.

Wicknight wrote: »

When it suits them they invoke the magical "context". Oh its not a science book, oh it is concerned with the message not the details, oh that context is "clearly" meant to be taken in a non-literal sense.

Nonsense. I've already told you that in the study of any ancient text this happens. Including Plato which is probably one of the more common texts that I read. There is simply more value in reading when you understand the world around the people at the time, or more simply where the passage lies. Understanding context makes things much clearer. A huge huge proportion of atheist quotations of the Bible in this forum simply ignore the text around the passage that is plucked. Christians can do the same as well, but it has been really prevalent to me in defending Christianity on this board. Many, not all take a google and pluck out the first passage that comes up without even considering what goes around it. Funnily enough Richard Dawkins' makes this same mistake in the God Delusion in respect to Jesus and His birthplace.

You would simply fail to make a decent reading in any situation of a text where you didn't adequately think of the culture that it was written in. Especially in philosophy or classics. I would say the same is true of a lot of other more modern but yet old texts too.

himnextdoor

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What do you mean?

Someone told Wicknight that God gave us free-will because without free-will we would be automatons. It seems to me that, ironically, religion can turn free-will off.

It takes just one act of free-will to submit to faith and after that there is never again a need to question beliefs. It must be a cozy feeling though.