A Christian response to atheism

[saukhasi]

1 tim 4:10

He is the Saviour of all men, He already did what He could do and He does not restrict that to a certain group. However, those who don't believe mean they don't take this to be true, and therefore it is a rejection of this grace. So this verse is actually quite careful in its wording to add "especially..."

[Whitney]

So..basically you are saying if two seemingly conflicting passages exist then you reinterpret one of them to fit with the other passage.

Like with the 1 tim 4:10 example.  It says:  For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe

Now, nothing in the immediate context of that passage indicates that it shouldn't be read as stated.  If I was reading any other book that stated the above I would think the last part indicates that the living God is the savior of all men but has special favor in those who believe.  Considering that some Christian take it to mean that all will be saved eventually, how is your contextual understanding of the verse more valid than theirs?

I don't know what you are trying to say in the following, it seems like you are saying they were sent to kill in order to prove their faith:

Why send Israel to kill for God? because it requires faith in that the God of the other tribes are fake. This is a direct choice for Israelites, so it would be fair that this "chosen people" do not get special privileges. And also, it is faith in that God will protect them, because they were a lot weaker than those tribes.

[McQ]

Here is what I mean by reading in context:

There needs to be an assumption that the Bible is right. (Why assume it has to be wrong? If it is assumed to be wrong why read?) So when something doesn't makes sense, you find other verse that would relate to the topic, or pick out similar key words. Then you synthesize a conclusion based on the Bible being about a God who is love.

Talk about taking things out of context!

The assumption is fallacious. In fact, it makes you assume a context that is not correct, at least not agreed upon by all christian theologians. So taking that stance puts you "out of context" of the bible from the start.

You need to assume a neutral position prior to reading it. It's not a matter of the bible being "right" in order to read it. That would assume that it is trying to make true/false statements throughout, which it is not. You need to read the metaphors as metaphors, the allegory as allegory, the literal parts as literal, and see how they match up with historical documents, scholarly papers, and archaeological sources.

Now, all that said, I have read the bible in the context in which you have said is necessary. Several times. I find it lacking when it comes to being taken as a literal, divinely inspired tome.

[Big Mac]

Here is what I mean by reading in context:
There needs to be an assumption that the Bible is right. (Why assume it has to be wrong? If it is assumed to be wrong why read?) So when something doesn't makes sense, you find other verse that would relate to the topic, or pick out similar key words. Then you synthesize a conclusion based on the Bible being about a God who is love.

So basically you shouldn't question anything you read? Why don't you pull up a nice little copy of Mein Kampf with that attitude. You should question every book you read. You must actually ask yourself the validity of such books and their worth.

For example (in case you think I'm just trying to be didactic):
Many people read the part about God ordering murder of the tribes of Canaan, but they have not read that one verse where it says 'God will wait, as their sins have not reached the degree of punishment', before they concluded God was an irrational murderer of those who simply did not worship Him. By the way, that wait was more than a hundred years. And you could clearly see the degree of evil from the story of Sodom; they weren't just heathens. Then some would say oh that's unfair to Abraham then, just because God wants to wait they have to be slaves. Well, God is actually bringing Israel into one of the most nourishing civilization at that time to grow from 70 people to however many thousand. So why become slaves? it is obvious in the Bible israelites did no want promise land, a better place God had for them. There had to be some way to discourage them before they mingled with the Egyptians and their idols. then why the 10 disasters, and why hardening of the Pharoah and killing of sons? Again, show weakness of Israel AND give Egypt a full demonstration of Jehovah's powers to save them from the deception of Satan, which actually could manifest fully in the physical world. And if you take the Bible to be true death is simply a transition point, and there is no indication whatsoever that those first born sons are sent to hell. They will be judged on what they were given. There is no indication of them going to heaven either, just in case one of you wants to argue. And why kill the weak of the Canaan tribes? Again, death is a transition point, and it is much better to live and grow up to be a person who burns your own children, or live among the people you know have killed your entire race. Why send Israel to kill for God? because it requires faith in that the God of the other tribes are fake. This is a direct choice for Israelites, so it would be fair that this "chosen people" do not get special privileges. And also, it is faith in that God will protect them, because they were a lot weaker than those tribes.

What you just said basically condones racism and ethnic cleansing as a decent action as long as you have faith in "god". If you disagree then please show me where I got this incorrect by reading it "out of context" as you say.

So there you have it. I hope you can understand what i'm trying to say. There are even those who think only 144000 Jewish people will be going to heaven when right after that the Bible says there are countless from many nations and races to thank God for His salvation. Anyway, I have more, but just in case you haven't noticed I was not so rude as to come in here to give you all a lecture on the Bible. my point was to show that if you actively deny atheism, you need to acknowledge some faults in the aguments in the faith you have in the completeness of your evidence and our intelligence to interpret. thanks!

Oh believe me hun, I understood where you were coming from since the beginning. You're a naive little child who blindly follows the bible and believes every word of it. We don't actively deny atheism, whatever that means. And please repeat the last part, this time without the incoherent parts out.

[saukhasi]

Let me tell you first I’m so glad this is the kind of discussion we are getting; it is much better than what we have on other forums. Anyway, let me clear up what I tried to say.

If I were to read an essay and miss one sentence, it is likely that I will misinterpret or just plain don’t understand many other things that the essay tries to tell me. I will get many ideas wrong, and until I read that part, then things would make sense. If we immediately eliminate one sentence that we don’t understand in the Bible, it will cost us in a sense that we will misunderstand even more things. The point here is I have to take certain parts to be true, as the argument builds upon itself. Therefore, yes, you can always try to read from a neutral perspective, but you will have a really hard time, and that will probably lead you to prematurely conclude that the Bible is contradictory, the Bible is racist, the Bible is whatever that a loving God would not claim.

So we need to have faith in the Bible. That is not “out of context”. That is trying to understand. After you’ve read and understood, then you are free to conclude for yourself. So far, for people like Big Mac, none of you could provide scientific or logical proof that you have complete understanding. So your conclusion of the Bible, is at best, based on a faith like mine.

“actively deny atheism” â€" sorry, that is a mistake on my part. It is “actively deny theism”.

[Big Mac]

On faith eh? God orders them to kill people and then says in one of his commandents "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Explain the lack hypocrisy, please. On your same accord have you read every Hindu book put out there? If not then you reject them on faith by your own logic. The Bible also is just archaic and draconian when it comes to education.

Your analogy of the essay is incorrect. A well-written essay will have a safety net from misunderstanding. It will be easy to read and understand and will generally not contradict itself. It will be easy to get the basic idea from it even if you miss out on a sentence here and there. It flows seamlessly, allowing you to read the reinforcement of its idea. Understand? Probably not. And I'm not the only one here who disagrees with you strongly, so why don't you try to avoid pinning it all on me, okay?

I'm not even going to bother giving the Bible an ounce of credibility by trying to debunk it. Like the old saying goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Please provide evidence of a guy walking on water, raising  the dead, healing people with his magic jebus power, and other miracles and maybe I'll listen. Otherwise I will merely ignore the same style that those crazies at the airports put out.

Tit for tat, you have yet to fully justify the parts of the bible where my accusations have held true. You keep claiming I'm reading it out of context, but you are not reading your bible fully, it seems.

[Squid]

Secondly, if we are knowledgeable about nature, nature can be very good. Fruits smell great. Flowers look nice. Sex feels good. Although none of these are significant, they pose the question: why are some things in nature so wonderful? Darwin's question on how flowers evolved remains one of the 125 scientific questions to be solved today.

Why is it that everyone opposed to evolutionary theory always thinks it involves the origin of life or of the universe even, within its explanatory framework?  Flowers are so great a mystery.  Some of the genetics responsible for the morphological specialties we call flowers have already been elucidated:

The homeotic gene AGAMOUS (AG) has dual roles in specifying organ fate and limiting stem cell proliferation in Arabidopsis flowers. We show that the floral identity protein LEAFY (LFY), a transcription factor expressed throughout the flower, cooperates with the homeodomain protein WUSCHEL (WUS) to activate AG in the center of flowers. WUS was previously identified because of its role in maintaining stem cell populations in both shoot and floral meristems. The unsuspected additional role of WUS in regulating floral homeotic gene expression supports the hypothesis that floral patterning uses a general meristem patterning system that was present before flowers evolved. We also show that AG represses WUS at later stages of floral development, thus creating a negative feedback loop that is required for the determinate growth of floral meristems.

Source - Lohmann, J., Hong, R., Hobe, M., Busch, M., Parcy, F., Simon, R. et al. (2001). A Molecular Link between Stem Cell Regulation and Floral Patterning in Arabidopsis. Cell, 105, 793-803.

Also, there's a book that will be released in January by Lawrence D. Harder and Spencer C.H. Barrett titled The Ecology and Evolution of Flowers which will detail the current scientific knowledge of the evolution flowers.

Finally, there is no way to scientifically or logically prove that 1. Our findings of scientific evidence are complete and 2. That our knowledge is absolute enough to draw absolute conclusions from incomplete data and evidence. All in all, to believe these conclusions about there not being a God as absolute would require scientifically untestable belief in that our findings/data/evidence are complete and faith in that human knowledge is complete enough to draw absolute conclusions that will need no further modification with time. Some may choose to have faith in the Bible instead of that. Therefore I look forward to more discussions between the two parties of faith, and thank you for your time!

Negative Ghostrider, tentative conclusions are made all the time based upon available data.  This is why science changes and shifts over time, it is constantly changing to compensate for new data that arises, the conclusions change based upon the available evidence - pointing the finger to the most likely conclusion and not the one we have predetermined that we like better only to go back and make the evidence fit, religion works that way, not science.

You will notice that atheists often get tossed into one of two major divisions "strong" or "weak" or another wording would be "agnostic" and "gnostic".  The only difference is one maintains a more absolute conclusion and the other holds a tentative one.

[saukhasi]

To big mac:

reading the Bible in context, the law is not set in certain rules, and God was going to kill the canaan tribes anyway. Why then the Jews were given the ten commandments is to set a basic moral structure at that certain time and place - the summation is STILL love your God and others. This is reinforced by the idea with laws about eating things - they are God's protection to the Jews at that time. Is it bad? No. But it is not to be obeyed MISSING the point that we should love God and others. You can say then the Bible contradicts itself, but no, the law is love God and love others, and in different circumstances there are different expressions - the reasoning is simple - it is the intention that counts. That is why Jesus being crucified is the summation - for His love to God and us, human beings as a race are reconciled with God and one another. Does that mean people should crucify themselves now? likewise, no.  

On your written essay argument - this is really your opinion. And even if it were right (I do agree to it, but not absolutely), there is no scientfic/logical whether or not the Bible is written poorly or our current findings are leading us in the wrong direction. And as I've pointed out, there are tons of misconeption people tend to have when reading the Bible, because they automatically eliminate parts which don't make sens to them at first but are supported in larger scope when put into context.

I don't try to pin it on you, but you provide relevant arguments that are directly contradictory to my beliefs. Thank you for your posts.

[saukhasi]

To laetusatheos:

Like you said, there seem to be contradictions in that sentence. However, put into my interpretation, there are no longer contradictions. I am NOT trying to say what I'm saying is absolutely correct, but this is exactly what I mean by putting into context. We don't reinterpret to fit something -  we find all the relevant verses and synthesize a logical conclusion - and it has always been possible for the basic ideas of Christianity. For those regarding the revelations millenium where there is simply a lack of verses for us to make a definite conclusion, many of us don't.

[MommaSquid]

You know...you keep telling us to read the bible in context like we're morons or something. You have already been told that many of us here have done just that.

Some of us have studied the bible and taken classes in Paulian Theology. Some of us have read through the ENTIRE bible several times, studying it carefully.

Some of us have taught bible study in churches.

Some of us may have even gone to college for theology.

Now, has it sunk in yet that some of us have already read the bible IN CONTEXT?

As for your assertion that the bible hasn't been changed, you are sadly mistaken. It was pieced together over time, and there is more than one version out there. I don't mean more than one translation, I mean more than one version.

And the more I studied it, the LESS it made sense with the real world.

We can have a "wonderful discussion" as you put it if you pay attention to what people here have said to you. Try not to ignore the responses given you and repeat the same assertions over and over.

Good advice!  Too bad saukhasi isn't taking it.

[Whitney]

saukhasi...your interpretation involves more or less ignoring verses which don't fit neatly into the overall picture you think the Bible intends to provide..it doesn't get around the contradiction it just does a better job of hiding it.  I'm not sure what your reasons are for arguing that contradictions don't exist...but if it's to show that the Bible is an inspired work then that leads to the question of even if we can figure out a way to reinterpret these apparently contradictory verses into something that works into the whole...why didn't God inspire the writers to word that verse in such a manner that it isn't conflictory at all.

For example,

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe

Could just as easily be written:  

For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who came to be the Saviour of all men, but only those who learn and believe of this gift can be saved.

Now, if we can accept that the Bible is the work of men who weren't inspired directly by God...we can overlook the unclarity of verses like that as simple human error.  But if your intent on removing contradictions from the Bible was to somehow argue that it is directly inspired..then we have issues with why God isn't very good at getting his point across clearly.

The reason why these contradictions exist is because the Bible (NT) was not written at one time by people who knew Jesus.  The various books were written over a rather long time frame and resulted from what people heard verbally about Jesus (after the fact)...which accounts for the contradictions since when you try to write down something you hear it usually doesn't come out the same every time.  To add to the problems...the texts used as part of the NT were placed together by a council who had preconceived ideas of what Christianity was meant to teach (so works that didn't fit with their ideas didn't make it into the Bible).

Knowing that we know how your Bible was put together...an approach other than telling us to read it in context is advisable.  You are faced with the problem of proving that despite it being a work which has been patched together by men over the years that it is in some way valuable to us today as something other than just an ancient collection of writings.

[Tom62]

I just keep wondering what parts of the NT were left out by the council of Nicea.

[saukhasi]

laetusatheos: wonderful post!

1. The verses we ignore you describe as not fitting neatly - and finding a way to fit them all together is what I'm trying to do and talking about. Not fitting neatly shows a gap in our understanding, not necessarily a flaw in the Bible.

2. Why the Bible doesn't state it in your way I cannot know, but what you've modified is explained in thorough detail throughout the Bible, to an extent that people actually think God loves sending people to hell. So this isn't an unclarity as I've pointed out in adding "especially".

3. I know the whole countil thing is more difficult to accept, but if God can inspire people to write He can inspire people to tell which people have been inspired. Also, the council did not act only by their own views and interpretations of Christianity - from the surviving texts of "the others" you can see for yourself if they would fit into the Christian message.

4. Whether or not is is simply a collection is irrelevant - it is faith in God that matters. Even if it were written by one person, we can still find many ways to deny it. Finally, I think it is much better the Bible is written this way so that it grows to a limit - for example, if all the Gospels were written out before Christ was born any one would be able to act out the script. The letters to the churches wouldn't really make sense either. And the Revelations probably won't do OT prophets any good - although there are prophecies (like in Daniel) either way.

[Whitney]

I don't have much time right now, but my point before is that the use of "especially" in that verse is what makes it confusing.  For instance, a child says she loves all of her pets, especially her cat.  This implies that she takes special favor in that cat although she loves all of her other pets.

[donkeyhoty]

I "especially" like the, "It's about faith, baby" argument.  You gotta take it on faith that a bunch of dudes 2000 or so years ago left out or put in what "God" wanted us to read.  
Oh wait, isn't that tantamount to reading something out of context?