Happy Atheist Forum

Hello, I am a Christian and I wish to present my views of Christianity and atheism, and I look forward to you sharing yours too!

On existence:
Although abiogenesis is a tested hypothesis, and by definition, intelligent design is not testable, abiogenesis does not scientifically disprove that there is no creator/designer. Abiogenesis is proven: yes, it can happen, but it is not testable in a sense that it did happen. There is no way to scientifically prove that either creation or abiogenesis happened, and therefore, the choice remains open to the inquiring mind.

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.

On accuracy of scripture:
   Increased knowledge has also supported parts of the Bible. For example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the world. In actual fact, the original Hebrew version reads God created “heaven and earth”, which is a contradiction because the earth (land) was created on the third day. However, the Hebrew words for heaven and earth had connotations of “space”, and “stuff” â€" matter. Therefore, translated scientifically and according to original context, the first line of the Bible reads: at t = 0, a great source of energy blasted forth space and matter, which doesn’t sound as odd with our knowledge of modern science. Secondly, we come to the question â€" why does matter have to be created so early? If God is energy, He should be able to create matter right when He wants without this previous batch of matter. We come to our second point â€" God creating by speech. Although it would sound ludicrous a few centuries ago, now we know that sound energy to matter is not at all odd. Also, this explains the previous batch of matter that was needed, as sound energy is compression of matter. Moreover, it fits how matter is viewed by the string theory â€" not as points but vibrating. Conclusively, according to the Bible itself (Daniels), the times have not yet come and the mysteries are yet to be completely unlocked.

On evil:
The Bible has an extremely simple answer for the evils on this world: God gave the most neutral thing one can give, free will. God respects us as individuals and therefore, a lot of suffering and evil does not hold God accountable but rather human beings. God simply respects our choices. However, there will be a time when God gives us the justice we long for; therefore, Judgment Day is not some terrifying event as portrayed in movies, but a day of joy. Finally, I am human and of course I wish that we could see justice on a daily basis and of course I want God to protect me from pain inflicted by others â€" and that is why Christians long for the day Jesus comes again.

On religious evil:
There is no doubt that many churches are evil. However, the Church is not Christ Himself, and therefore in some ways it must be imperfect. Secondly, as we all know, religion is powerful. The name of Christianity, along with other religions, can become tools in hands of evil people. Therefore, there are more fake churches/religious organizations than we think. This does not prove anything about Christianity or religion, only that there tends to be a weakness/need in mankind that many of us look to fill.

On heaven and hell:
Who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is up for God to decide, not Christians. We can only hold onto the promise that God gave us, but we do not have the authority to condemn people to hell. Here are my apologies for immature Christians who ever spread this message (of course, I’ve spread that message, too). Premature judgment is the exact sin of eating the fruit, so the Bible does not support the simplistic message that “If you are Christian you will go to heaven, if you are not you will go to hell.” In the gospels, Jesus describes many who performs miracles in His name as unrecognized by Him. In the end, it is faith in that Jesus died for our sins that counts. Why does that count? Here is the logic: if we want to live with a righteous and just God we must be righteous so we do not diminish in the justice of the God. Therefore, God came to die for our sins, and at once all the sins of mankind are cleansed, and as long as we don’t say “no, that hasn’t happened”, then it is true to us and we will be saved.

What about those people who have never heard of the Gospel, or have heard twisted versions, or are disabled, etc.? The Bible clearly states through the parable of the three servants that God will only expect as much as He has given. Therefore, if we are not given a chance to know, God definitely will not expect us to know.

Overall, conclusion:
People generally dislike the Bible being used by Christians as scientific or logical text, because that is bringing faith to the level of science and logic, mixing them together. It is the same with using logical or scientific arguments to disprove God, because that is bringing logic and scientific data to the level of faith. 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!

abiogenesis
n : a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter

Most atheist do not believe in abiogenesis. Things don't exist just because some impulse of nonexistance ceases. Everything has a cause and effect. Now most people have said "Well, what caused the universe to exist then?". Well, something has to exist. "Nothing" can't exist, because if it did, what would have started it all? God? What started God? Why would something so intelligent exist by it's self? Is God a product of abiogenesis?

QuoteIn the beginning the Earth began as a twinkle in the Solar Nebula's eye some 4.5 billion years ago and it - along with the rest of the planets, asteroids, meteors, comets - formed, it is thought, through the tendency of matter to clump together, ever more until finally there were substantial bodies, the planets and their moons, sweeping up all left-overs in their orbits. During this era, approximately one billion years long, the newly-borning Earth was pummeled mercilessly by these left-overs. This was the so-called "Hadean Period" (and well named at that!), a "hell-ish" time indeed when the Earth's surface was periodically broiled, flash-fried so to speak. Incoming asteroids of sufficient size would actually vaporize, themselves and the part of the surface they impacted and this would turn into a seering plasma that would tsusami around the globe - not a pretty picture.

No contradictions, see?

Your explanation in "On accuracy of scripture" sounds too far fetched to me. Genesis and all other parts of the bible  don't provide anything that is scientifically useful.

to erinos: if God had a creator, than that creator would be God. In your successive statement, you are talking about the beginning of earth, and the Bible the beginning of the universe.

to Tom: true, and it's not presented as support.

see ya!

The "on accuracy of scripture" paragraph about Genesis, reminded me about a short story of Isaac Asimov, called "How it happened". For those of you who are interested, here is a link http://www.sumware.com/creation.html (http://www.sumware.com/creation.html)

Quote from: "saukhasi"Hello, I am a Christian and I wish to present my views of Christianity and atheism, and I look forward to you sharing yours too!

Nice to meet you, you're welcome here as long as you behave. I'd suggest looking up onlyme's post and seeing what "not behaving" is in case you are curious.

Quote from: "saukhasi"On existence:
Although abiogenesis is a tested hypothesis, and by definition, intelligent design is not testable, abiogenesis does not scientifically disprove that there is no creator/designer. Abiogenesis is proven: yes, it can happen, but it is not testable in a sense that it did happen. There is no way to scientifically prove that either creation or abiogenesis happened, and therefore, the choice remains open to the inquiring mind.

Not true at all my friend. Creationism cannot be used as science because one cannot create a deity in the lab and make it create things like some sort of freakish science experiment. We may never find out what happened in the begining but the scientific ideas sure sound more logical than someone magically making everything

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

Those things feel good because they're wired into us as positive stimuli. In reality they just give off an odor, create friction, and have a nice lot cast on the electromagnetic spectrum. The good thing about it being wired into us is that it ensures survival. If you don't eat, have sex, use flowers to get sex, etc. you and the species will die off.

Quote from: "saukhasi"On accuracy of scripture:
   Increased knowledge has also supported parts of the Bible. For example, Genesis 1:1 says that in the beginning, God created the world. In actual fact, the original Hebrew version reads God created "heaven and earth", which is a contradiction because the earth (land) was created on the third day. However, the Hebrew words for heaven and earth had connotations of "space", and "stuff" – matter. Therefore, translated scientifically and according to original context, the first line of the Bible reads: at t = 0, a great source of energy blasted forth space and matter, which doesn't sound as odd with our knowledge of modern science. Secondly, we come to the question – why does matter have to be created so early? If God is energy, He should be able to create matter right when He wants without this previous batch of matter. We come to our second point – God creating by speech. Although it would sound ludicrous a few centuries ago, now we know that sound energy to matter is not at all odd. Also, this explains the previous batch of matter that was needed, as sound energy is compression of matter. Moreover, it fits how matter is viewed by the string theory – not as points but vibrating. Conclusively, according to the Bible itself (Daniels), the times have not yet come and the mysteries are yet to be completely unlocked.

Oh? Which study did this come from? Is it peer-reviewed (did other scientists look at it and do their own examination on it?) or is it just something the Creationist crowd decided to put out?

Quote from: "saukhasi"On evil:
The Bible has an extremely simple answer for the evils on this world: God gave the most neutral thing one can give, free will. God respects us as individuals and therefore, a lot of suffering and evil does not hold God accountable but rather human beings. God simply respects our choices. However, there will be a time when God gives us the justice we long for; therefore, Judgment Day is not some terrifying event as portrayed in movies, but a day of joy. Finally, I am human and of course I wish that we could see justice on a daily basis and of course I want God to protect me from pain inflicted by others – and that is why Christians long for the day Jesus comes again.

I'm not understanding your exact purpose on this forum. Are you here to preach or witness? Just a shocker for you but most of us were Christians before we deconverted and became atheists. And read clearly, Judgement day is supposed to be a scary day because it states only 144,000 people will be saved (12,000 from each tribe of Israel, as in JEWS). It talks about burning in a lake of fire just for not believing in an outlandish story.

 

Quote from: "saukhasi"On religious evil:
There is no doubt that many churches are evil. However, the Church is not Christ Himself, and therefore in some ways it must be imperfect. Secondly, as we all know, religion is powerful. The name of Christianity, along with other religions, can become tools in hands of evil people. Therefore, there are more fake churches/religious organizations than we think. This does not prove anything about Christianity or religion, only that there tends to be a weakness/need in mankind that many of us look to fill.

Well it doesn't help it at all. That's not the reason most of us left Christianity. I left because the bible has clear examples of God being cruel to children, slaves, women, non-Hebrews, etc. Some examples are:

1.) Noah's flood! Imagine how many children were killed on that day, for what? Some sinful thing their parents did? Noah wasn't that better, he got drunk and naked and let his son see him that way. Man of God: 1.

2.) Ismael's mother, Hagar. She was a slave girl and was basically raped and when she has a kid, her mistress is jealous and beats her (probably quite horribly seeing as those sheep herders don't have medical knowledge so I'm sure her wounds had little or no treatment). So Hagar does what anyone who loves freedom (and doesn't follow the Bible's teachings on slavery, which it clearly says it is okay, more on that in a second) and runs off. God sends her back telling her that her son will be a bloodthirsty savage and so will his children and their children. Uplifting for someone who was raped and beaten and force to have a child. Men (and Women?) of God= 2.

3.) David was an adulterer and a murderer (Bathsheba, remember?). God forgives him but kills a baby. What did the child do? Why doesn't God do that to all children born out of wedlock if it pisses him off so much? Men of God= 3.

4.) The Old Testament laws are rather hilarious. Clothes of two fibers? Yoking an Ox and an ass on the same Yoke? Eating Ham, Shellfish, Shrimp, etc is bad (why did God create them then and why were there pigs in Israel to begin with? That's a pretty sadistic God). The point I'm getting at is this guy makes the universe in all of its infinite wonder and amazing splendor, but he cares what you had for breakfast? What the hell is that? And the laws are still in effect for you. Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill the law, not destroy it.

5.) Back to the baby killing, so Moses (who was also a murderer, big time) is told by God to free his people (which there has been no historical evidence for Hebrew enslavement except the biblical account) and to do this, he'll torment the people of Egypt, who didn't elect the Pharaoh and probably hated the living shit out of that lazy asshole. So God turns the river into blood for a week. This raises some eye-brows here. How do you survive in the Sahara Desert without water for a week? Sure they had reserves, but I dought not for that long. That would have killed them pretty quickly before the week was over. Now let's fastforward and get to the part where God kills kids again. The Angel of Death goes and kills the first born of every home except the Jews who smear blood on their door. Makes me wonder why such a deity couldn't just know who was who. Also makes you wonder what those children did to God to begin with. So God kills them and finally the Pharaoh (whose heart was hardened by God to make these punishments happen) let's the Jews go.

I'd go on but this is long enough.

Quote from: "saukhasi"On heaven and hell:
Who is going to heaven and who is going to hell is up for God to decide, not Christians. We can only hold onto the promise that God gave us, but we do not have the authority to condemn people to hell. Here are my apologies for immature Christians who ever spread this message (of course, I've spread that message, too). Premature judgment is the exact sin of eating the fruit, so the Bible does not support the simplistic message that "If you are Christian you will go to heaven, if you are not you will go to hell." In the gospels, Jesus describes many who performs miracles in His name as unrecognized by Him. In the end, it is faith in that Jesus died for our sins that counts. Why does that count? Here is the logic: if we want to live with a righteous and just God we must be righteous so we do not diminish in the justice of the God. Therefore, God came to die for our sins, and at once all the sins of mankind are cleansed, and as long as we don't say "no, that hasn't happened", then it is true to us and we will be saved.

Question: Why does an all-powerful creator of the universe need to send himself for himself to die (which wouldn't be a big deal to such a powerful being) to change something he did to begin with?

Quote from: "saukhasi"What about those people who have never heard of the Gospel, or have heard twisted versions, or are disabled, etc.? The Bible clearly states through the parable of the three servants that God will only expect as much as He has given. Therefore, if we are not given a chance to know, God definitely will not expect us to know.

Okay but what happens to deceived people? God doesn't say they're going to be okay, he says anyone who doesn't accept his son goes to hell. It's that simple, there is no other way to interpret it. There is no wiggle-room. None!

Quote from: "saukhasi"Overall, conclusion:
People generally dislike the Bible being used by Christians as scientific or logical text, because that is bringing faith to the level of science and logic, mixing them together. It is the same with using logical or scientific arguments to disprove God, because that is bringing logic and scientific data to the level of faith. 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!

The burden of proof for God is on you. Science isn't having a theory about "The Pink invisible Zombies that may not inhabit Pluto" it makes tests and theories based on what is here and now and testable. God is not testable, he even says not to test him. So scientifically God is a flop unless he shows up and starts talking to us and telling us to vote Nader.

We don't have faith in religion honey. And we don't have faith in Science. We have knowledge of Science and can work it out so we can trust it a lot better. That's a rather rude assumption.

"I left because the bible has clear examples of God being cruel to children, slaves, women, non-Hebrews"

- here is the answer: read the Bible in context. if you read everything in context, then things will be more clear to you. Now, about God taking lives away: He is the sustainer of life. To take a life away is no more than stopping His mercy. So He is called murderer? Also, if you read the Bible in context, it's not like after they die everything ends, or they'll be sent to hell for sure.

I would love to go on, but please give me some time. I would encourage you to read the Bible in context, not just react negatively to anything that doens't pass your logic on first attempt, because we humans are limited. here's just one more to show you what I mean:

" only 144,000 people will be saved " - yes, saved from the tribulation, not saved from hell.  Other Christians have been raptured and therefore will not be there for the period of tribulation, so this in no way would mean only 144000 jews are going to heaven.

I get a little tired of this "out of context" claim.  In what context can you say the bible says no such thing about slavery being okay.

I have read the bible probably more thoroughly than you have. There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?). Maybe I'm wrong about the Revelations part (doubtful but I'll give you that because I'm not in the mood to kill brain cells and read the buy-bull right now).

The reason we are "limited" when it comes to the buy-bulls logic is because deep down we (except for the hard core, inbred, stump jumping, goat humping hicks) all know it is patently stupid and insanely stupid.

If you leave out all the bad parts of the bible, only one or two pages remain. Truth is that the bible is more about hate, violence, intolerance, cruelty, racism, stupidity, etc. etc. than love.

Exactly. That and there's so much rape in it, what the hell is that about? It's like a soap opera to trump all soap operas. Or it's the General Hospital or Days of our Lives of religions

"There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?)."

- these people are not perfect. If they were all perfect you'd be complaining about the validity of the Bible too.

- these people will be judged. If GOd specified all the judgements and lessons He had planned for them, you'd be complaining about the Bible focusing on punishments too much too.

- for Ishmael, it is a prophecy that he will be a wild man. Where in the Bible can you find support that "he will be a wild man" is due to God and not his own free will? It is not some kind of judgment God just imposed on him. Hence I say, read the Bible in context. I have read the Bible 12 chapters a day for several months. ANd I have to say, the more I read the more think make sense - just as you would expect with a book that has lasted for so long. If it just didn't make any sense, we Christians would probably be making changes or additions to it a long long time ago.

But thank you all for your honest replies, and I hope we continue this wonderful discussion!

Quote from: "saukhasi""There are countless stories where men of wanton violence, lust, gluttony, idolatry, racism, etc. are glorified for their sinful actions and God magically forgives them but not people who disobeyed unjust things (such as Hagar) or Ishmael (what the helll did he do to deserve a fate of being a wild man?)."

- these people are not perfect. If they were all perfect you'd be complaining about the validity of the Bible too.

- these people will be judged. If GOd specified all the judgements and lessons He had planned for them, you'd be complaining about the Bible focusing on punishments too much too.

- for Ishmael, it is a prophecy that he will be a wild man. Where in the Bible can you find support that "he will be a wild man" is due to God and not his own free will? It is not some kind of judgment God just imposed on him. Hence I say, read the Bible in context. I have read the Bible 12 chapters a day for several months. ANd I have to say, the more I read the more think make sense - just as you would expect with a book that has lasted for so long. If it just didn't make any sense, we Christians would probably be making changes or additions to it a long long time ago.

But thank you all for your honest replies, and I hope we continue this wonderful discussion!

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 Pauline 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.

Deal?

(edited to correct typo)

I'm not even sure what is meant by "in context."  Sometimes when you read a verse in context it ends up conflicting with what is said elsewhere in the Bible.  By reading "in context" would that mean that when these conflicts occur you pick which one you like better or which one is supported more often in the Bible and go with that interpretation?  For example, this came up in a discussion the other day, 1 Tim 4:10 seems to conflict with Romans 10:9 (and other verses).

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.

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.

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!

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..."

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:

QuoteWhy 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.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

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”.

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.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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:

QuoteThe 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.

QuoteFinally, 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.

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.

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.

Quote from: "McQ"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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

This girl is almost as bad as Crazy Christian Girl that I speak with on YIM, just no reasoning with her. "Who are you to judge GoD?!" is exactly what we're getting from this conversation.

donkey: if there was a God creator of human beings, He will definitely be able to control human beings enough to provide His message, all the way from being written to being voted to being translated.

Bigmac: I believe i've actually shown you you cannot judge God as I've pointed out misconceptions of yours.

You pointed out nothing. The bible is meant by it's authors to be taken literally for the most part. The parts that aren't literal are obviously: Job (which is acknolwedged as a fable to give the moral of having faith in hardships), Song of Solomon (which is a sexual sounding poem), and Tobit (in the Catholic bible). There are a couple of others I may have missed. You have shown me nothing new or interesting, only frustratingly for hte amount of bullshit you make up to defend your buy-bull. The bible teaches slavery(Ephesians 6:5   Colassians 3:22   1 Peter 2:18 ) , sexism (Deuteronomy 22:20,21     Deuteronomy 22:13,14    1 Corinthians 11:13-15   1 Corinthians 14:34), bigotry, homophobia (try denying that one), violence (Elisah sends two she-bears after KIDS for the crime of MAKING FUN ON HIS BALDNESS! II Kings 2:23-24), rape (Deuteronomy 22:23-27   Leviticus 19:20), and God punishes people that didn't elect their leaders such as the Egyptians(Exodus 12:29 Exodus 9:22-25 Exodus 9:11).

Also this is just pushing the limit: Holding the sun still (which is technically hold the earth still which would probably cause bad reactions in the core)  Joshua 10:12-13

Or how about this jewel, God's weakness is apparently iron.....Judges 1:19

That's enough for right now. There is no way to read these out of context, they spell out the actions I have described. Now you can keep going on and on like a broken record (which you are doing) but the Bible was basically meant to be taken literally. Back then people believed this kind of shit happened naturally through God.

Quote from: "saukhasi"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.

The issue of it being a collection is not that it was written by numerous people.    The main issue is that anything talking about Jesus was written well after his death by people who weren't even around to be witnesses.  On top of that there isn't a single contemporary (from the time of Jesus) secular account of Jesus...you'd think that the Son of God would make a rather large impact wherever he went but not a single person of that time thought he was worth mentioning.  At best, writings about Jesus are second hand accounts so there was plenty of time for exaggeration of the events to be included in any of the verbal accounts which were written.

Of course it wouldn't make sense to write them BEFORE Jesus was alive...that wasn't anything near what I was talking about previously.  What doesn't make sense is to wait 50+ years to write anything about him.

Basically, for this and many other reasons, there is absolutely nothing that convinces me that the Bible should be taken on faith as true while rejecting other religious texts.  It it wasn't for the Romans adopting Christianity as an official religion, it could have just as easily been viewed just as we do the Greek gods and Egyptian gods today...a forgotten religion of the past.

1. Slavery is something that was already happening. If you were living at that time and age and the Bible didn't have some kind of teachings and consolation about slavery you'd be complaining too.
2. Male and female are to have equal status but different roles - though some may take that as offensive, we must also look at things in historical context.
3. The Bible doesn't teach "homophobia" - it says it is a sin like heterosexual lust (which is emphasized many more times), but it does not teach that we should fear, or hate homosexuals in any way, but rather - love others.
4. if you would read your own biblical quotes carefully God distinguishes adultery from rape. So I don't see how this supports your statement on how rape is taught.
5. For Elisha - unless you can prove that the children (some say youths) did not know what they were doing (bald doen't cut it), there is insufficient evidence to judge whether or not it this preaches violence.
6. I don't get the arguments in the others, but for the iron chariots, when it referred to "they" it was the Israelites and not God.

Quote from: "saukhasi"if there was a God creator of human beings, He will definitely be able to control human beings enough to provide His message, all the way from being written to being voted to being translated.

So, let me get this straight, God gave you free will, but also controls what you do.

Quote from: "saukhasi"1. Slavery is something that was already happening. If you were living at that time and age and the Bible didn't have some kind of teachings and consolation about slavery you'd be complaining too.

Yes, it was already happening and it being condoned in the Bible was what many American Southerners used to defend their use of slavery.  The Bible was the perfect time for God to inspire people to speak out against slavery.

Quote2. Male and female are to have equal status but different roles - though some may take that as offensive, we must also look at things in historical context.

Again, perfect time for God to inspire more equality.  I don't find women being told to keep quiet in church to be giving us equal status.  Also, women are treated as commodities in numerous parts of the Bible rather than equals.

Quote3. The Bible doesn't teach "homophobia" - it says it is a sin like heterosexual lust (which is emphasized many more times), but it does not teach that we should fear, or hate homosexuals in any way, but rather - love others.

Leviticus 18:29  For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.

Leviticus 20:13  If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

"their blood shall be upon them" is also used in places in the bible where followers are told how to handle murderers, witches (Lev. 20:27) and adulterers.

These people certainly think homosexuality is a deadly sin and are certainly homophobic because they believe the bible says to be that way:  http://www.godhatesfags.com/ (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

Quote4. if you would read your own biblical quotes carefully God distinguishes adultery from rape. So I don't see how this supports your statement on how rape is taught.

Right, if the woman is in the city and does not cry out loud enough to be heard then it is adultery...if she is heard then it is rape.

It is also okay to rape the women of captive tribes.
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm (http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm)

Quote5. For Elisha - unless you can prove that the children (some say youths) did not know what they were doing (bald doen't cut it), there is insufficient evidence to judge whether or not it this preaches violence.

Either way....being attacked by a bear is a little over the top for just making fun of some bald guy.  It would be more appropriate to make them go bald or simply make them publicly announce that it is wrong to make fun of people for how they look.

Quote from: "saukhasi"1. Slavery is something that was already happening. If you were living at that time and age and the Bible didn't have some kind of teachings and consolation about slavery you'd be complaining too.

So did the Emancipation Proclamation go against the word of God? THe bible states clear rules regarding slavery and willingly condones it to a heavy point. WHy don't you go get some tire chains and try to get a black person you know to be a slave again? Let's see how well that pans out.

Quote2. Male and female are to have equal status but different roles - though some may take that as offensive, we must also look at things in historical context.

So could you explain why Solomon had 1,000 women to basically submit to him? Different indeed, equal indeed not. That goes back to the whole segregation spill in Plessy v. Ferguson. Seperate but Equal is not attainable. Women are not equal in the bible. There are guidelines to how to sell your daughter either in marriage (dowries) and slavery. I'm curious if you are a male or female and what sect you follow.

Quote3. The Bible doesn't teach "homophobia" - it says it is a sin like heterosexual lust (which is emphasized many more times), but it does not teach that we should fear, or hate homosexuals in any way, but rather - love others.

Yeah the whole "Hate the sin, not the sinner" spill doesn't work. The OT clearly spells out why and how to kill Homo's. If that's not homophobic, why don't you tell that to Michael Shepherd's parents and see how well that pans out.

Quote4. if you would read your own biblical quotes carefully God distinguishes adultery from rape. So I don't see how this supports your statement on how rape is taught.

He does to a small extent but this "test" is the equivalent of a Salem Witch trial. What if the rapist gags the woman's mouth? It basically comes down to her word (a woman's word, which is inferior, remember?) to a man's word (who will be sided with if this passage is taking literally). I think it shows a loophole on how to rape a woman if you are crafty enough.

Quote5. For Elisha - unless you can prove that the children (some say youths) did not know what they were doing (bald doen't cut it), there is insufficient evidence to judge whether or not it this preaches violence.

Regardless of their age it says they merely MOCKED him for being BALD. How does this warrant the use of She-Bears to maul and kill them? You are really brain-washed to ignore such a violent passage.

 

Quote6. I don't get the arguments in the others, but for the iron chariots, when it referred to "they" it was the Israelites and not God.

It does refer to Gawd, indirectly. God helped the Israelites out many times by making wasps attack their enemies, teaching Gideon how to use psychological warfare, making the day last longer, and letting the Israelites win a battle as long as Moses arms were up. So what good does iron chariots do against such a formidable ally?

You are perfectly fine with these passages?

I have another question. You think homosexuality is a sin, but do you keep kosher? Do you wear clothes that are of two different fabrics (everyone has worn a polyester/cotton shirt before, don't bullshit this one), been around a woman who gave birth within a week at least? If so then you have broken the rest of God's wonderful laws. And don't try to say Jesus changed them because he specifically says that he did not.

You have yet to convince anyone with these tried and failed methods of witnessing to us.

L and Big Mac.

there are tons of other verses that teach respect and love. To single those out is exactly “reading out of context” and therefore that only shows it is very dangerous of read out of context. Same with slavery, sexism, and homosexuality. If those people read the Bible in context they would know that the summation of law is love God and others, and in different situations there are different expressions of that law (which for the Jews, who had exceptional privileges of seeing God’s miracles and manifestations and the exclusive responsibility of  preserving God’s way, was proportionally tough). (Unless you are willing to prove that all expressions of love remain the same in every single circumstance). So I don’t keep kosher. Jesus came to fulfill the law â€" that is because He has died for our sins so we can stand before God’s presence and have no gap between us and other believers â€" which is love that has never been before (after the fall that is). That is why He can save a woman from being stoned, because His completion of the law brings on a new covenant (a different circumstance). Or else that would be one of the most prominent contradiction in the Bible and we would have taken it out years ago. And if those Christians weren’t hypocrites, they’d be out stoning everyone who has sex with someone other than a spouse, checking them out. All this shows is that reading the Bible out of context is extremely dangerous, especially for Christians.

why can't the young women of captive tribes were raped and not treated nicely?

Being attacked by a bear: there is no way to know if the children were really making fun of baldy or disrespecting a prophet (which they would likely understand given the prominence of Elisha and Elijah) with stupid slurs as young people still do today with our lack of vocabulary. That they were mauled by bears would suggest the latter, and not necessarily that God was evil. This isn’t brainwash, it’s thinking of all the possibilities.

Wow, saukhasi, you are a shining example of why I left Christianity. This mindless speaking you jabber on about is an attempt to cover your god's ass. The bible is self-serving, it does not preach justice. You fail to convince anyone but the naive into your psychotic cult. Christianity is a cult. A cult will have a charismatic leader who you are not to question and who will shoulder the world's burden in unverifiable acts that no one else mentions historically and is contradicted by history. Do you think Jesus was the only one crucified? No! Thousands of people were to set an example of Rome.The only reason your religion survived is because of Constantine converting to Christianity. Had he not, we would see Christianity in history text books for what it really should be: a passing, faddish cult of our ignorant past.

Yes the bible preaches love, but it pales in comparision to hate it has in it. Not to mention the violence it perpetuates and shows in its passages. Take your head out of your ass and read it word for word without  your religious bias. I'm just going to come out and say it to you. YOU'RE A FUCKING MORON FOR THINKING THESE LAME POSTS WILL CHANGE ANYTHING. Harsh? So is the bible in its stupidity.

The problem is that those bad verses are just as in context as the verses which seem warm an fuzzy.  You can't say that something is "out of context" just because it doesn't fit well with your idea of what God is like.  What you are doing is picking through the bible for verses which fit into your view of Christianity and using them to figure out ways to reconcil conflicts with the less pleasing parts.

Until you realize that we are smart enough to read a book in context and that we just aren't agreeing with your strange idea of context...then I don't think this conversation will get very far.

Your default position is that God is evil – and when being shown that there are other ways to interpret what you take as absolute evidence of God being evil, you still hold on to those beliefs which can now rightfully be called dogmas. You can come up with more contradictions for me to solve, but jumping to conclusions like that is what keeps the discussion from going.

To see what I mean by "in context" is simple = while you point out one incident, or sometimes even one verse or one words in one verse, I take into account other verses which give background information. This isn't to brag, but if you could add verses to support your position that would be really helpful. And I am not making any references to your intelligence. I don't assume things like that.

Oiy, you are insulting us. We're not isolating these texts, there are tons of examples and we've picked out a few. It's all in pretty clean-cut references. Slaves, rape, violence, etc. is justified. Why didn't God have them preach peace and love instead of invading Canaan and killing everyone? Makes you wonder, doesn't it? An almighty being couldn't present peace to the world early on? Gee, some almighty being.

Stop with the context argument, no one is buying it and no one should, it's stupid.

Quote from: "saukhasi"Your default position is that God is evil â€" and when being shown that there are other ways to interpret what you take as absolute evidence of God being evil, you still hold on to those beliefs which can now rightfully be called dogmas. You can come up with more contradictions for me to solve, but jumping to conclusions like that is what keeps the discussion from going.

To see what I mean by “in context” is simple = while you point out one incident, or sometimes even one verse or one words in one verse, I take into account other verses which give background information. This isn’t to brag, but if you could add verses to support your position that would be really helpful. And I am not making any references to your intelligence. I don't assume things like that.

Did you not read my earlier post regarding the background of some of us here? Come on, try to show a little better judgement than to think that you are the only one who has ever studied the ENTIRE bible!

Picking out verses to point out contradictions is no more taking the bible out of context than picking out verses that support the position of faith. It's what WE did as christians! I have memorized and studied hundreds of verses for the sole purpose of leading other people to christ. If you are the christian you claim to be, then so have you. In these examples, if you want to say that I'm taking the bible out of context to show the contradiction in Judas' death from two different gospels, then I'd also be taking the bible out of context to use passages to lead someone to christ.

Examples of taking verses out individually for the purpose of supporting the bible and salvation (grab your bible....New American Version to make it easy):


Romans 3:23
Romans 6:23a
Titus 3:5

John 3:16
Romans 5:8
Acts 5:30-31

Acts 3:19
Ephesians 2:8
Romans 10:9

2 Timothy 1:9-10
2 Corinthians 6:2

I took every single verse "out of it's context" to do that. But you would say I did not.

Now, how did Judas die?

Matthew 27: 3-10
Acts 1:16-19

I have taken the ONLY two full accounts of Judas' death that exist in the ENTIRE bible. No missing context here. But they are in contradiction with one another.

So, which is it? Do you understand how we are not taking the bible out of context here, but if anyone is, you are? And I used to, as a christian too.

The only person here who is being disingenuous is you, saukhasi
I'd be happy to go toe to toe with you on bible apologetics any time. The problem is that I was willing to let the real truth show me what was what and you aren't. At least not yet.

Quote from: "saukhasi"if you could add verses to support your position that would be really helpful.

Is there a formula for this?  Exactly how many verses do we have to present before you'll accept that the less warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible are in context?  If we use your approach apparently we just have to claim your view is out of context without mentioning the verses which show why (you haven't cited a single verse other than what we have mentioned)

Quote from: "laetusatheos"

Quote from: "saukhasi"if you could add verses to support your position that would be really helpful.

Is there a formula for this?  Exactly how many verses do we have to present before you'll accept that the less warm and fuzzy parts of the Bible are in context?  If we use your approach apparently we just have to claim your view is out of context without mentioning the verses which show why (you haven't cited a single verse other than what we have mentioned)

Well, let's see if thirteen verses are enough. I kind of doubt it though.  :wink:

I am not accepting the warm and fuzzy verses "more" - I am looking at the warm and fuzzy and the not-warm-and-fuzzy to see if they can be reconciled, and they can, as they both are part of the Bible.

Well, saukhasi, thanks for not responding twice now to my posts.  :roll:

I won't bother to waste any more time or energy putting anything together for you. Thanks for stopping by.

So....how do you know to always reconcile the parts you don't like in favor of accepting the warm and fuzzy view?

Again...what kind of formula do you use for determining context...from what I can tell you just pick out parts of the Bible you agree with and use them in reference to those you don't agree with.  To me that's just covering up a contradiction rather than admitting they exist.

Please respond to McQ's posts...I'd like to hear your response too.

I would also like to hear your response as well. So far you have jack-rabbited out of a lot of stuff and I find it irritating and insulting. You have yet to respond to McQ and you have done poorly in responding to me.

For anyone interested in other directions this thread could have gone...I've ran across two (no, I didn't use google):

http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic ... sc&start=0 (http://www.atheistnetwork.com/viewtopic.php?t=15785&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/vie ... php?t=3179 (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3179)

to add to the list...one found through the AN thread:  http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187307 (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=187307)

(on a side note...you seem to be spreading yourself a little thin...that's a lot of posts to respond to...feel free to come back later when you aren't so busy; it will make for a better discussion)

Oh, and if anyone was wondering...the 125 things we can't answer yet is from:  http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/ (http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th/)

Saukhasi:  I saw in the AN thread that you don't understand how to use quotes.  It's really so easy that a cave man could do it:  http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic203.html (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/ftopic203.html)
Just click on expand above the box with green text and it make the box larger so you can easily see the way quote tags work.  If that doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll figure out another way to explain it.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"If that doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll figure out another way to explain it.

Can we use Muppets or dolls?

laetusatheos, that would explain the lack of response I get, from saukhasi. Same stuff on other forums. Oh well. Thanks for the heads up. I won't hold my breath waiting for a response.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE GOD DAMN MUPPETS? THINK OF THEM FOR ONCE YOU ASSHOLES!!!

McQ: sorry for the late reply -"http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qjudasdie.html" - this is for Judah, so although I thought that was weird too I don't think it's a direct contradiction.

All the other verses you've taken out - are you trying to illustrate that is what Paul does, taking specific verses? Note that 1. he has a faith in the general message of Christianity, as opposed to trying to say that God is evil (which is directly contradictory to the rest of the Bible). 2. He always elaborates or makes connections - he does not list the ones with the "keywords" and leave it at that.

Sorry, I didn't see your post as relevant - which I apologize. Please let me know if I've misinterpreted your post.

Quote from: "saukhasi"All the other verses you've taken out - are you trying to illustrate that is what Paul does, taking specific verses?

He was demonstrating that Christians have a tendency to take verses out of context in order to support their views.

No, have you read my post? I said explicitly, Paul never comes up with a bunch of verses with the key words he wants - he always elaborates and makes connections.

Did you read mine?...I said he wasn't talking about Paul; just Christians.  He doesn't even mention Paul in his post.

Don't assume I haven't read your post...If I hadn't read it I wouldn't respond to it.

Saukhasi, you are a fucking moron. I'm sorry but you have to be almost as dumb as onlyme. In fact, you and him share similiar qualities: dumb as shit and constantly ignoring good points.

Dear God,

Please let this topic die.  Amen.

p.s. I'd like a pony, so let Santa know.

Ok, twice now I've posted to this particular thread, saw that the response was posted properly, even made edits to a post, and IT HASN'T SHOWN UP when I come back later to read the thread!

laetusatheos could you please see if you can find out what happened? This last post I put on here took me a while, and I already feel like I'm wasting my time with saukhasi to begin with. It's doubly frustrating to take the time and have it disappear into cyberspace.

Thanks!

McQ...sorry, that's odd.  It may have been a mess up in the database that fixed itself on it's own...that happened on another site not too long ago.  I'm not really sure how to figure out what happened but will take a look...let me know if it happens again.

Quote from: "laetusatheos"McQ...sorry, that's odd.  It may have been a mess up in the database that fixed itself on it's own...that happened on another site not too long ago.  I'm not really sure how to figure out what happened but will take a look...let me know if it happens again.

Thanks. I'll let you know if it happens again, and what exactly I did prior to the post, etc.

Sorry, I misunderstood McQ's post then.

Here is the answer, and it can be found in the very first post of mine: the BIble does not support the simplistic message.

Therefore, those Christians ARE taking it out of context, and therefore what they say is incomplete. However, they usually do not interpret the verse any more than they can, unlike some posters here who make the illoigcal leap to "God supports evil" and "God is evil".

The flood, if it actually happend (which it didn't), is evil if for no other reason that animals who presumably don't go to heaven were killed without cause.

Laying out rules for slavery is condoning it..that's supporting evil.

Allowing verse which condone viewing women as weaker is evil since it supports the long held view that women aren't as capeable leaders as men...a view which should long have been a belief of the past.

QuoteIsaiah 45:7. I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things.

This, tells us that God created evil.  The type of evil this verse is talking about is debateable but there is nothing in the context to lead us to believe he wasn't talking about natural disasters, disease, and hell.  I consider all three to be evil (hell isn't really all that evil if it is viewed a the person ceasing to exist at death rather than going to heaven, but is extremely evil if viewed as an eternal lake for fire for non-believers).  Even if you accept the verse as just talking about disease and disaster then it's still evil.  I don't think there is any textual reason to associate these things with the fall either...they would have existed before but just not in Eden.

Quote from: "saukhasi"Sorry, I misunderstood McQ's post then.

Here is the answer, and it can be found in the very first post of mine: the BIble does not support the simplistic message.

Therefore, those Christians ARE taking it out of context, and therefore what they say is incomplete. However, they usually do not interpret the verse any more than they can, unlike some posters here who make the illoigcal leap to "God supports evil" and "God is evil".

Ok, this is going to sound weird, but I'm genuinely asking you this, saukhasi. Is English not your first/primary language? I'm having great difficulty understanding you and you seem to be having trouble understanding me (and others) here.

As for "those christians" taking the bible out of context when they use the bible to support their beliefs....ummmmm....what do you mean? How are "those christians" different from you? What kind of a christian are you? What denomination? And why can't christians use verses to support their arguments for belief in god?

Are you saying that if you quote the bible, you have to quote the entire thing every time? See you can't have it both ways. You can't say that people are taking the bible out of context when they do it to support their positions, because you use scripture verses to support your positions. Do you not?

And when will you acknowledge that people here don't make the illogical leap from god supports evil to god is evil? We don't make that leap because we don't believe (at least the atheists) in any god. How can we attribute evil to something we believe doesn't exist? The arguments for the things that were brought up using that example were brought up as if laetusatheos was saying "if" there is such a thing as the god you're talking about, then this is the argument for that god being evil, creating evil, or condoning evil."

1. You cannot see a Biblical flood without a Biblical definition of death: death is simply a transition point to eternity. Personally, I don’t think there is a reason to believe that the animals have been treated nicely by the humans.

2. Is working for a boss considered slavery? I don’t think so. When you mean slavery, I suppose you don’t mean “work for”, but treating with disrespect. That is why the Bible does not say “slavery” is bad, because the underlying problem is not “slavery” but “disrespect”. In your definition, slavery means disrespect, but that is not so â€" the Bible simply suggests carrying out work such as cleaning â€" should we expect the Bible to condemn those people for not getting a job in an office? That underlying problem is not carrying out lowly work, but being treated lowly, and the Bible addresses the problem right on track without going overboard.

3. On women, the problem is deeper than that. Let’s take for example, the trinity. Jehovah, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are equal as Gods (in Christianity at least), but there carry out different tasks that have a certain order of let’s say “prestige”. That does not rank their very “nature”. The Bible does not either, and teaches submission â€" which is NOT teaching disrespectful treatment, but just that â€" submission. It is because in the human world power is often abused that we naturally assume men in the Bible have to abuse women, which is not true. Now, if you want to ask why women have to submit and not men the Bible actually has an answer for that too. When Eve was created, she was created to help Adam â€" “help” does not mean carrying out tasks at greater speed or convenience â€" if we look at the word in Hebrew, the same word applies to God “helping” Israel â€" and used exclusively for a higher power giving ABSOLUTE NECESSARY aid. Does that mean women are considered as goddesses compared to men? In one sense yes, because the Bible uses “man” to refer to human beings as if women are something different (in this light, of a higher, more divine form, not lower). In another sense, NO, because women are required to submit. Love in equality is easy (due to the common enemy logic of human beings), but to love someone different from you is true love â€" and that is what the Bible teaches.

4. The Isaiah verse: if you look at the whole verse, you will see there are contrasting things â€" the antonym of peace is not “evil”, but most likely “calamity”. Some may argue other wise, but we have to keep in mind words have different connotations in different ages of time. If it were truly “evil”, then the Bible would most likely say I create “good” or I create “love”.

5. Evil: if you think about it, disaster and disease is simply nature carrying out its laws, and therefore if we could not be harmed â€" these things won’t be considered “evil”. Now, the problem turns into “did God create flawed/weak bodies?” The answer, according to the Bible is no. Taking into account that Eden was a drastically different environment (so different that people actually think there are two creation accounts), human beings must have deteriorated when they could no longer live in God’s presence. Not to mention human beings have polluted this environment greatly. The fitness of an organism has a direct relationship with the environment that it was raised in â€" that is not debatable. For things like the tsunami, it was a lack of ability for human beings to detect an evade that made it disastrous (and according to some, authorities did know of such a disaster but chose not to have panicking tourists.)

McQ

1. There is a difference between a Christian who simply preaches “believe in God or go to hell” and one who offers the a more comprehensive Biblical message.

2. We can all quote scripture to support our positions, but I think we all know we aren’t just here babbling about our position â€" we are judging the validity of the position OF THE BIBLE. Therefore, when I can come up with Biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view, is that my problem?

3. I acknowledge you for one have not been suggesting an evil God, but when I’m talking to others I’d appreciate it if you’d acknowledge that you’re not my audience.

Quote from: "saukhasi"McQ

1. There is a difference between a Christian who simply preaches “believe in God or go to hell” and one who offers the a more comprehensive Biblical message.

Ok, what is it? Explain in detail how that answers my questions of how they are different from you. You haven't answered that or what denomination/faith you are.

Quote from: "saukhasi"2. We can all quote scripture to support our positions, but I think we all know we aren’t just here babbling about our position â€" we are judging the validity of the position OF THE BIBLE. Therefore, when I can come up with Biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view, is that my problem?

You are the one using the bible and using scripture to support the bible itself. Using the bible itself to support the truth of the bible is circular reasoning and therefore, not valid. And you have not yet shown that you come up with biblical quotes that provide a more comprehensive view (whatever you mean by that). Please provide proof of that assertion.

Quote from: "saukhasi"3. I acknowledge you for one have not been suggesting an evil God, but when I’m talking to others I’d appreciate it if you’d acknowledge that you’re not my audience.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

Now, why don't you get around to directly addressing the things I've asked about and stop being so evasive? I provided plenty of biblical references, verses, etc. You have acknowledged nothing, even the question of whether or not English is your native language.

mcq:
1. you asked what’s the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.
2. I am not “supporting” the Bible, so I’m not using circular reasoning â€" I’m simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven’t even touched.
3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like “young women”, “evil”, etc.
4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs â€" like you said, it’s a public forum.
5. English is not my native language.
6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too â€" we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the rest of the Bible) â€" which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

Why should we make assumption that the Bible is Right, that God is Love?

I did not believe in god.
I have not read the whole bible, because i have difficulty reading it.
I made the assumption the bible god is good since everyone talks about a good god and everyone celebrates his birth, and I keep seeing "god is love" stickers/quotes.
but I got to hear christians talk of eternity in hell, and I got to read about the hardening of the pharoh's heart. These things confusses me.
Even if I dont believe in god, (because i believed in science and i love astronomy) and even if what i got to read of the bible confused me, I still made the assumption that the god in the bible is a good and loving god.

Then I found forums in the internet that points to the bible and show to me a cruel and evil god.
I realized why I was confused,
what was wrong is that I made the assumption tha god in the bible is good, that god is love.

How is it possible that we people, the receiver of the message from god, be the one defending and explaining the message of god so that we may know what the meaning of the message is?

Ok, we'll try this again, saukhasi. You did answer one question clearly, about English not being your primary language. I appreciate that, because it explains why your posts often don't make clear sense. That gives me the ability to offer some latitude in trying to interpret what you are saying. I was not trying to offend you with the question, just to clarify. I know I wouldn't be able to answer clearly in German or Italian, both of which I can speak. Now, onwards:

Quote from: "saukhasi"mcq:
1. you asked what’s the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.

Actually you did not answer it clearly because I think you misread my meaning in the question. All you did was say that there was a difference between two types of people. You didn't say what it was, or answer the second part of my question, which asks you what kind of a christian you are.
What kind of christian says "believe or you're going to hell"? What kind of christian "offers a more comprehensive bible"?
There's really no difference except for the method of delivery of the message. In each case, christianity is still based on salvation through christ alone. In each case the alternative (according to all christians) to not accepting christ is eternal separation from god.

So I ask you again: which are you, and what is the difference? The answer is that there is no difference as I said, but for the method of delivering the message. You have again failed to accept the fact that some others here, including me, have read, studied and accepted the bible and jesus christ in our lives at some point. I know the whole bible. I understand it. I taught it.
 

Quote from: "saukhasi"2. I am not “supporting” the Bible, so I’m not using circular reasoning â€" I’m simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven’t even touched.

If you are not supporting the bible, what are you doing? Let's be clear on our definitions here. You have said things like people have misinterpreted what the bible says. Are you the only one who has interpreted it correctly? Who tells you that you interpret it correctly and others don't? How do you know I haven't interpreted it correctly?

And touching on whether the bible is right or wrong is central to the "Christian Response to Atheism", which is of course, the title of this thread. We have touched on it somewhat. You in fact touch on it when you say that people have misinterpreted it. That makes the assumption that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the bible, which logically, means that it must be "right" about something. Or you wouldn't bother being here now would you?

Quote from: "saukhasi"3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like “young women”, “evil”, etc.

You may think that it is obvious, but I guarantee no one else here thinks so. I haven't seen you provide proof yet that you "factor in" more verses for any stance you've taken. You've simply asserted that you do it, and expect us to just believe you.

Quote from: "saukhasi"4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs â€" like you said, it’s a public forum.

What's your point here? Are you upset that someone you didn't address (i.e., me) directly responded to you in a public forum? I've been a member here a little while, and I don't recall laetusatheos ever telling anyone that they couldn't respond to someone posting here. Your words are fair game, like it or not. And that's your problem, not mine. By not responding to direct questions asked of you, or posts made directly to you, you only prove that you are rude and evasive. Not a good start to a newbie on any forum, wouldn't you say?

Quote from: "saukhasi"5. English is not my native language.

Thanks for letting me know. It makes a genuine difference in how I read what you write.
 

Quote from: "saukhasi"6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too â€" we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the rest of the Bible) â€" which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

I haven't tried to "come up" with anything, but I have tried to respond to your posts and hold you accountable for the assertions you make. My main argument has not even been heard here yet. My point on taking verses out of context came directly from your own accusation that atheists take the bible out of context in order to argue against it. I clarified what "taking out of context" was, and showed you that it is not taking something out of context to quote from it. And I showed that christians do just that when it suits them or furthers their arguments or biblical apologetics. Every bible I own has a full concordance. I own a Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance and I've used it for decades. I do not take verses out of context to suit an agenda.

You have not shown that anything I've said is irrelevant although you apparently think you did. Quoting verses or taking them out of context is not irrelevant. Nice try though.

And lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

I don't demand anything from you, saukhasi. But I do wish you'd stop trying to be so disingenuous. It doesn't suit a "christian". Kind of makes you look evasive and untrustworthy.

And at this point, I see no further need to debate with you because of your lack of veracity. Good luck with the others here, as they are not always as forgiving of prevaricators and dodgers.

McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

Quote from: "saukhasi"McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

That is what I said, saukhasi. Show me where I whined and asked why I couldn't respond to you. Your continued lying and evasion only makes you look worse. Straw man arguments don't cut it. Besides, you don't tell me what I can and can't do here.

Thank you for helping me make my point about you. You responded with not one substantial comment. Did I accuse you of something? You bet I did: evasion, prevarication, and disingenuousness. All accusations true and substantiated by your own words. You are a nothing but a "troll for christ" and you have no logical or well-reasoned argument to state whatever it is that your case is.

If, by some amazing chance, you do, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be interested in anything substantial coming from you. It would be a welcome change.

To others on the forum: does saukhasi remind you of anyone else? Someone from the past? Ahhh, the good old days....

Quote1. You cannot see a Biblical flood without a Biblical definition of death: death is simply a transition point to eternity. Personally, I don’t think there is a reason to believe that the animals have been treated nicely by the humans.

Do animals go to heaven? If not, then death is not a transition point for them.  Humans weren't near as mobile then as they are today....there would probably have been more animals living apart from human civilization than in it.  Care to rethink your response?

Quote2. Is working for a boss considered slavery? I don’t think so. When you mean slavery, I suppose you don’t mean “work for”, but treating with disrespect.  

Of course slavery isn't just working for someone...slavery is holding an individual against their will for the purpose of gain to the owner (this gain would commonly be finincial or sexual).  Slavery is far worse than disrespect...I never even said slavery is equateable directly to disrespect...you assumed that's what I meant.  Next time ask for a definition...I don't care much for words being placed in my mouth.

Quote3. On women

I've heard the biblical arguments for the separate yet equal view of men and women.  Do you think a minority would accept those same arguments are reasons for them having to go to, for instance, a seprate school from the white kids?  

You see...in order to intelligently read a text which claims to provide knowledge you must also be willing to see if the arguments and truth claims of that text fit in with what is known about the world...if it doesn't you then have to ask which is  right, current understandings or what you are reading.  

Quote5. Evil: if you think about it, disaster and disease is simply nature carrying out its laws, and therefore if we could not be harmed â€" these things won’t be considered “evil”. Now, the problem turns into “did God create flawed/weak bodies?” The answer, according to the Bible is no. Taking into account that Eden was a drastically different environment (so different that people actually think there are two creation accounts), human beings must have deteriorated when they could no longer live in God’s presence. Not to mention human beings have polluted this environment greatly. The fitness of an organism has a direct relationship with the environment that it was raised in â€" that is not debatable. For things like the tsunami, it was a lack of ability for human beings to detect an evade that made it disastrous (and according to some, authorities did know of such a disaster but chose not to have panicking tourists.)

I don't know about you...but if just wild animals were harmed by those natural events then I'd still consider it evil if a God designed such destructive forces knowing that living things would be harmed or killed.  Is your God not omnipotent?  If so, claiming the fall the culprit for this evil is just side stepping who would have to put the means for it to occur in the first place.  As for your view of the shape of humans in Eden...eden would have been a very easy environment to live in, thus requiring little to no survival skills...we'd be more likely to see an increase in the strength and intelligence of organisms living outside of an Eden than those inside....there is simply no reason for the body to waste energy on such things when they aren't needed for survival.

QuoteAnd lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

Right...it's a fairly common glitch on forums...I just don't know how to track down the cause or fix it.  I would have to learn how to do so if the problem appeared permanent, but usually the issue works itself out in less than a day.  Computers are finicky creatures...great when they work a migraine when they don't.

lae:

humans were extremely intelligent and mobile according to the Bible.
on slavery: you've made your argument weaker - when does it imply that God says they can treat them badly?
on women: when did I ever suggest they should go to separate schools?
on Eden: they were to take care of the world, not just survive.

Oh...My.....God, saukhasi's right,

Oh Lord, allow me to repent for my evil ways.  All these years I've been wrong.  I wanna be saved.
Also, Leviticus 15:16 "And if any man's seed of copulation go out from him, then he shall wash all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even."
Is this retroactive if I convert, because I'll be taking lots o' showers?
I mean seriously, who has the energy to take a shower everytime you nut?

Sauk, I  had a response written and my computer ran out of power (laptop) just before sending it.  It may be this weekend before I re-write it because I'm not feeling well and have a very important final.

that is totally fine- I thank you for putting time into your response and I look forward to it!

Quote from: "saukhasi"lae:

humans were extremely intelligent and mobile according to the Bible.
on slavery: you've made your argument weaker - when does it imply that God says they can treat them badly?
on women: when did I ever suggest they should go to separate schools?
on Eden: they were to take care of the world, not just survive.

Of all the apologetic lines I find contemptable in christianity, the slavery = happy volunteer butler line is the most vile. The simple fact that a christian can compartmentalize to that degree just defies belief.

You can't honestly compare a bronze age slave to a modern day office worker. I am free to quit my job at ANY time. I get PAID for my labor. If my boss tried to hit me with a rod, or tried to give my children away in his will, we'd come to some serious violence.

God doesn't "imply" that you can treat slaves poorly, he flat out says it, no implication necessary.

QuoteAnd if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. - Exodus 21:20-21

This passage is not in any way out of context. It is a free standing passage. The passages surrounding it have nothing to do with it, so it is a straight forward interpretation. The implcations are, a slave is your property. You own another human being. If you beat that human being with a rod and he dies, you will be punished. If you beat your slave to the point that they can't move for a few days, but don't kill them, it's no big deal, they are your property after all.

QuoteBoth thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. - Leviticus 25:44-46

This passage is also stand alone. Any straight forward reading of the passage should make it abundantly clear that you can buy any heathen, and said heathen is now your property. If that heathen has children, those children become your property. If you die, your children inherit them. They are just property, after all.

Now, the common christian counter argument is that this was common practice in those times, so we have to frame them in that context. I'll agree to that. Slavery was common. Heck, slavery exists in modern times. But the question we have to ask is, is it moral or right to take someone as your property. Any human with an inkling of compassion would have to answer "no". It also puts lie to the common christian claim the the bible is relevant to all generations, as the passages about slavery are not relevant to the 20th and 21st centuries. If these concepts aren't relevant, which other parts of the bible are safe to ignore?

The fact that you can't aknowledge this practice as reprehensible speaks directly to your humanity.

The second question we have to ask ourselves is, if we fallible humans can see the act of slavery as vile and contemptible, why can't god? God could have just said in Leviticus "You will not take any person as bondservent, except to pay debt voluntarily, or for reparation of criminal acts, but you will not abuse them" easily. He is god, nu?

I would also ask that you drop the whole "Atheists believe god is evil" line of argumentation. Atheists don't believe in god, so his goodness and evilness are irrelevant. However, for the sake of discussion, I will say that the god as depicted by the Jewish/christian writ appears to be evil, as evil as any other evil fictional character.

To the other regulars...I'm back :-) Did you miss me?

Wb MikeyV, I had wondered what happened to you.

Sauk, Mikey responded with what I was intending on getting around to write about slavery (actually more than what I was going to say, which is good)...so consider his response mine as far as that topic goes for now.

on the mobility of humans...unless you think all the little creatures on the earth were only located within the same general area of humans and not overseas somewhere in remote locations, then no amount of the mobility available to them at that time would have allowed them to be able to potentially abuse most animals.  Basically, it's a very weak explanation for why it would be ethical for God to kill all the innocent animals in a flood.

on women...I never said you suggested they should go to separate schools.  I said that the way you were arguing for "separate but equal" rules for the treatment of men and women is no different from those used by white people on black people during the time of segregation.

on Eden:  I don't think you got what I was saying there.  The main point was that it was easier for humans to survive in an Utopian environment like Eden was claimed to be than it would be to survive outside of that environment.  Humans living in peaceful environments would not need as much strength, skill, or intelligence as those having to battle the elements to survive in harsh environments.  Because of this, it makes little sense to argue that humans were made stronger in Eden but yet their bodies decreased in survival capacity after being exposed to harsher environments (thrown out of Eden)...if that was the case we'd be extinct a long time ago.

Very well-argued, now allow me to make a few points.

Property - it is true that these people are their master’s “property” - it is an agreement. When you became a slave back then you knew that you were saying that “you need to provide for me (and my family) as if I belonged to you.” So the verse does not actually suggest that these people were to be treated as if they weren’t human - it was just stating a fact - that those people “belonged” to their masters.

Secondly on beating - there is a tendency to assume a bunch of things when we are given a law, which I suppose originates from our insecurity. But the thing is that this verse can simply be read as - if the master intended to kill the slave, he/she will be punished, but if not, then no, because the intention was not to kill a person. Why the Bible does not put it in that way is not hard to guess - a master would simply say “I didn’t intend” and given the law, no one could say a thing. But given some outwardly signs then it would be much safer (same with the rape thing). But as we all know some people say this means the Bible says it’s okay for a master to slowly torture or rape a person who is too weak to make a sound, but even if it were true that those people were not punished by their peers, God will be the one to do it and He has way more power.

Also, it does NOT suggest that beating for no reason was okay - again, the summation of law is love. So even if these verses were not complete, the law “fear God” would probably make up for the rest. Indeed, the list of laws is long enough for the OT and I don’t think adding all the annotations would be necessary, as long as we understand the idea. So what I’m saying is - if a person obeyed the law “fear God”, when they are beating for an irrational reason they would see that they owe their life to God as well and refrain.

Finally, there are verses talking about how a slave becomes part of family - so for people to single out one part of the Bible to support slavery is dangerous and same with taking out one verse to suggest that God is evil.

Ps. I do not argue “atheists think God is evil” - posters here show me that naturally. I don’t even have to find evidence for that and I do not use it to make a point - so it really isn’t my argument.

lae :

1. What makes you think they had very low mobility? Secondly, we don’t need to punch every animal to inflict pain - we simply have to ignore the environment. Thirdly - the land was in one piece. Fourthly - why is it not a transition point for animals? If I were an animal I’d rather die any time given that I have to live with humans. God has taken care of them, so I don’t think their non-existence on this material world means anything - which is my main argument.

2. Maybe that what they used, but they’re taking things out of context, which as you know I am just maniacally against.

3. I get what you were saying - the thing is, like I said, they were to take care of the land. Eden was where they were nurtured, but their strength, intelligence, and skill most certainly were required in Eden as well. The only difference before/after Eden is that human beings were no longer in their preferred environment, which ultimately would lead to detrimental changes. Yes, I think we would’ve been extinct a long time ago too, but God has mercy on all living things.

saukhasi:

Click on the word "expand" to view the entire reposting that you failed to respond to earlier.

Quote from: "McQ"Ok, we'll try this again, saukhasi. You did answer one question clearly, about English not being your primary language. I appreciate that, because it explains why your posts often don't make clear sense. That gives me the ability to offer some latitude in trying to interpret what you are saying. I was not trying to offend you with the question, just to clarify. I know I wouldn't be able to answer clearly in German or Italian, both of which I can speak. Now, onwards:

Quote from: "saukhasi"mcq:
1. you asked what's the difference, I gave you the difference clearly.

Actually you did not answer it clearly because I think you misread my meaning in the question. All you did was say that there was a difference between two types of people. You didn't say what it was, or answer the second part of my question, which asks you what kind of a christian you are.
What kind of christian says "believe or you're going to hell"? What kind of christian "offers a more comprehensive bible"?
There's really no difference except for the method of delivery of the message. In each case, christianity is still based on salvation through christ alone. In each case the alternative (according to all christians) to not accepting christ is eternal separation from god.

So I ask you again: which are you, and what is the difference? The answer is that there is no difference as I said, but for the method of delivering the message. You have again failed to accept the fact that some others here, including me, have read, studied and accepted the bible and jesus christ in our lives at some point. I know the whole bible. I understand it. I taught it.
 

Quote from: "saukhasi"2. I am not "supporting" the Bible, so I'm not using circular reasoning – I'm simply telling people that they misinterpreted what the Bible says. Whether what the Bible says is right or wrong we haven't even touched.

If you are not supporting the bible, what are you doing? Let's be clear on our definitions here. You have said things like people have misinterpreted what the bible says. Are you the only one who has interpreted it correctly? Who tells you that you interpret it correctly and others don't? How do you know I haven't interpreted it correctly?

And touching on whether the bible is right or wrong is central to the "Christian Response to Atheism", which is of course, the title of this thread. We have touched on it somewhat. You in fact touch on it when you say that people have misinterpreted it. That makes the assumption that there is a right way and a wrong way to interpret the bible, which logically, means that it must be "right" about something. Or you wouldn't bother being here now would you?

Quote from: "saukhasi"3. By more comprehensive, I think it is obvious that I factor in my arguments a lot more verses, Biblical ideas than just the right key words I want, like "young women", "evil", etc.

You may think that it is obvious, but I guarantee no one else here thinks so. I haven't seen you provide proof yet that you "factor in" more verses for any stance you've taken. You've simply asserted that you do it, and expect us to just believe you.

Quote from: "saukhasi"4. I am used to people reading, but people responding to them is not my problem but theirs – like you said, it's a public forum.

What's your point here? Are you upset that someone you didn't address (i.e., me) directly responded to you in a public forum? I've been a member here a little while, and I don't recall laetusatheos ever telling anyone that they couldn't respond to someone posting here. Your words are fair game, like it or not. And that's your problem, not mine. By not responding to direct questions asked of you, or posts made directly to you, you only prove that you are rude and evasive. Not a good start to a newbie on any forum, wouldn't you say?

Quote from: "saukhasi"5. English is not my native language.

Thanks for letting me know. It makes a genuine difference in how I read what you write.
 

Quote from: "saukhasi"6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too – we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn't fit the rest of the Bible) – which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

I haven't tried to "come up" with anything, but I have tried to respond to your posts and hold you accountable for the assertions you make. My main argument has not even been heard here yet. My point on taking verses out of context came directly from your own accusation that atheists take the bible out of context in order to argue against it. I clarified what "taking out of context" was, and showed you that it is not taking something out of context to quote from it. And I showed that christians do just that when it suits them or furthers their arguments or biblical apologetics. Every bible I own has a full concordance. I own a Strong's Expanded Exhaustive Concordance and I've used it for decades. I do not take verses out of context to suit an agenda.

You have not shown that anything I've said is irrelevant although you apparently think you did. Quoting verses or taking them out of context is not irrelevant. Nice try though.

And lastly, regarding your snide comment about my post mysteriously disappearing. I personally don't give a shit if you believe me or not. I was letting laetuseatheos know that something happened twice when I posted, as a matter of courtesy to her and her forum, and of frustration for taking a long time to put together a message only to have it launch into oblivion.

I don't demand anything from you, saukhasi. But I do wish you'd stop trying to be so disingenuous. It doesn't suit a "christian". Kind of makes you look evasive and untrustworthy.

And at this point, I see no further need to debate with you because of your lack of veracity. Good luck with the others here, as they are not always as forgiving of prevaricators and dodgers.

To saukhasi:
Want to give these a try or not? Here's some more too:

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "saukhasi"McQ, you are the one who seems to hae troubles with English - I said SOME posters here, you automatically assumed it included you, and accused me of accusing you - then I said go ahead, respond to it if you like, and you start whining about "why can't I respond??????????" Did I not just say you could?

Anyway, I feel the same way - if you don't think it's worth continuing a discussion with me, bu all means leave your accusations to yourself.

When you are "talking to others", you can address them directly, as you did here in this post. But understand that this is a public FORUM and anyone can respond to anything you say. Get used to it.

That is what I said, saukhasi. Show me where I whined and asked why I couldn't respond to you. Your continued lying and evasion only makes you look worse. Straw man arguments don't cut it. Besides, you don't tell me what I can and can't do here.

Thank you for helping me make my point about you. You responded with not one substantial comment. Did I accuse you of something? You bet I did: evasion, prevarication, and disingenuousness. All accusations true and substantiated by your own words. You are a nothing but a "troll for christ" and you have no logical or well-reasoned argument to state whatever it is that your case is.

If, by some amazing chance, you do, then let's see it. I'm sure we'd all be interested in anything substantial coming from you. It would be a welcome change.

To others on the forum: does saukhasi remind you of anyone else? Someone from the past? Ahhh, the good old days....

Or are you not talking to me? I just want to be sure. Let's see if you can stick to the actual topic or not.

Another question for saukhasi:

Are you by any chance a Jehovah's Witness?

McQ: no I am not Jehovah's witness; why? I don't think they would bother calling themselves Christian unless they were trying to be tricky. However, that's not the first time i"ve been asked that.

Sorry, but your posts seemed to be just a rant on my writing abilities, so I wouldn't know how to respond. If you remain unconvinced, please let me show you - while any one can see that I was given a set of verses, I added verses to make make a more ocmprehensive interpretation. You go on to say that anyone can see I didn't do that and I just expect people to believe me. Please, I hope I'm not misunderstanding you but have you been looking at the posts?

Finally, you were extremely sensitive and I prefer to leave those emotional counterarguments alone first until you really want to discuss and not just express yourself- I NEVER suspected that you were lying about posts disappearing - in fact every time I log in the forum goes blank and I have to go back to make a post. So if you do wish for a reply please go through and filter those posts again, thanks!!!

Wait, I just realized something.

She said this about slavery: "It didn't say to treat them badly!"

Slavery is bad NO MATTER what it is. Sure there were plantation owners who were quite decent to their slaves but they were still slaves. They toiled in fields that were hot in the summer and cold in the winter, they had constant fears of their families being torn apart any day if their masters were in economic need or just in the mood for wanton cruelty to sell them. SLAVERY IS EVIL! I am not a slave, I bow to no man or woman. I am equal to all who that I see. My job sucks, but they can't enslave me. Like another person mentioned before, I too can quit whenever I damn please, I'll have to find another job or get myself a sugar-mommy but I still need money. Slaves earned no wages, merely toiling to fatten their masters and their imperialistic systems. If you think slavery can treat people decently then please, go tell that to a black man or a holocaust survivor. I'm sure you'll get your ass totally kicked and even me (a staunch free-speech advocate) may see it as justified.

And I am BOBA FETT!  BWAHAHAHA!

That is exactly what I'm thinking. Slavery is evil. There is no agreement between the master and the slave, the master owns the slave and can do everything with the slave whatever he wants. These lame christian excuses that slavery is not necessary slavery makes me feel sick.

"Slavery is bad NO MATTER what it is."

- have you not been reading? Lae and Mike have and that is why they didn't just "realize" something now. Slavery is what I have previously posted. it's just that kind of work. Therefore, God has no reason to ban slavery - which was a way to survive. There WAS an agreement - the slave can choose to die right away or work for a living.

Masters can be very good to their slaves - which God teaches.
Masters can be very bad to their slaves - which God will punish one day.

So how is God evil?

Quote from: "saukhasi"Slavery is what I have previously posted. it's just that kind of work.

I don't think anyone has agreed with your definition of slavery.  Nor have we agreed that only what appears to be indetured servitude is the type of slavery referred to in the bible.  Outright slavery occurs in the Bible, arguably no different than the enslavement of Africans (or is that okay too since some of the tribes sold people for beads?) by the Americans.  For the believer they have two options in approaching these verses, argue that it isn't slavery/isn't actually bad (an approach that won't get anyone brownie points in most circles) or argue that slavery in the bible is not the direct word of God but an example of what not to do.

saukhasi, how is slavery as a way to survive a good thing? Why would a good god allow it in any form?

And I have already elucidated my points individually in the other posts I've made, yet you continue to evade answering directly. You've answered two things directly. 1. You speak English as a second language, which is why I give you a lot of leeway in interpreting what I read from you. 2. You are not a Jehovah's Witness.

Other than that , you continue to evade direct posts to you. What are you so afraid of? I reposted everything, all in context, with your quotes and mine, so you wouldn't have to go searching for them.

I have not "ranted" at your writing ability. I have indicated twice that I allow for leeway in trying to interpret your words as a non-native English speaker/writer. That means that I am impressed that you can communicate in a foreign language. As far as being "sensitive" goes, I am simply responding to the following post of yours:

6. What have you come up with? Your main argument is simply that some Christians do take verses (of course, I take verses too â€" we add stuff to it, not single them and interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the rest of the Bible) â€" which I have shown to be irrelevant. Unless your post mysteriously disappeared again -  please do post again if you demand an answer.

In English, we call that sarcasm. In the context in which you put it, your words indicate lack of belief in my assertion that the post disappeared.

Now, as I said before, I don't really care if you personally believe me, but since you made the comment, I thought I'd follow it up.

I have read every post you've made, and tried to make sense of each one. I seriously doubt you have done the same. If so you wouldn't continue to answer with your vague posts that are tangental to what is being sent to you.

lae, you'll need to come up with evidence to find that slavery is anything other with bilical quotes to assert that the Bible says its otherwise. stop referring to africans - not to mention God never said it was okay it is also rude as a constant reminder.

i'm afraid of you - mcq. you are reading too much into things while writing virtually nothing. just what kind of questions have you raised? please enlighten me. go see if you can pick arguments out of your own posts.

Quote from: "saukhasi"lae, you'll need to come up with evidence to find that slavery is anything other

Slave (slavery is the practice of owning slaves):
1.   a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2.   a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
3.   a drudge: a housekeeping slave.
4.   a slave ant.
5.   Photography. a subsidiary flash lamp actuated through its photoelectric cell when the principal flash lamp is discharged.
6.   Machinery. a mechanism under control of and repeating the actions of a similar mechanism. Compare master (def. 19).
â€"verb (used without object)
7.   to work like a slave; drudge.
8.   to engage in the slave trade; procure, transport, or sell slaves.
â€"verb (used with object)
9.   to connect (a machine) to a master as its slave.
10.   Archaic. to enslave.

[Origin: 1250â€"1300; ME sclave < ML sclāvus (masc.), sclāva (fem.) slave, special use of Sclāvus Slav, so called because Slavs were commonly enslaved in the early Middle Ages; see Slav]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave)


Is the common usage of the word good enough for you?  I'm sticking with the dictionary.

Quotewith bilical quotes to assert that the Bible says its otherwise.

Plenty of those have been provided throughout this thread.  Specifically that which describes how it is okay to beat a slave under specific conditions.

Quotestop referring to africans

I found it relevant.

Quotenot to mention God never said it was okay

So God didn't inspire the Bible?  Or are you saying that since the Bible doesn't specifically mention Africans that there was no condoning of that specific instance of slavery even though it was used as a basis for the practice?

Quoteit is also rude as a constant reminder.

Maybe you need to be remided about how bad slavery is and that recent forms of slavery weren't much different from that written about in Biblical times.

Hell recent slavery is pretty bad, possibly even worse. Imagine being chaine to a table and at gunpoint made to make sneakers. They don't call them sweatshops for nothing.

Evil prevails when Good men fail to act. God is good, right? God ignores the plight of many enslaved, so therefore God performs evil through compliance and condonement. Your God, if he exists (which I doubt and am 99.9% sure he doesn't), is cruel and sadistic and evil.

Quote from: "saukhasi"i'm afraid of you - mcq. you are reading too much into things while writing virtually nothing. just what kind of questions have you raised? please enlighten me. go see if you can pick arguments out of your own posts.

That's good, Ms. Ostrich, bury your head in the sand and go "LALALALALLALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

You are....a fucking moron....

”Is the common usage of the word good enough for you? I'm sticking with the dictionary. “

And just where in the dictionary does it suggest slaves must be treated horribly all the time? Is that supposed to be some kind of evidence?

Did I say they had to be treated horribly "at all times"...no, i didn't.

Know what...I give up, you are impossible to discuss with and I doubt we'd find common ground if we continued this discussion for a life time.

Quote from: "saukhasi"i'm afraid of you - mcq. you are reading too much into things while writing virtually nothing. just what kind of questions have you raised? please enlighten me. go see if you can pick arguments out of your own posts.

Ok, I thought you were just a troll. Now know what your issue is: you're certifiable. That means "insane" in English. I couldn't have been clearer, and you couldn't possibly obfuscate any more than you are doing. Do your own reading. I already pointed out what I needed to, virtually line by line.....TWICE.

I'm in TOTAL agreement with Big Mac on you.

"That's good, Ms. Ostrich, bury your head in the sand and go "LALALALALLALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

You are....a fucking moron...."

You are a moronic, crazy, troll. And you are one of the very saddest examples of a christian I have ever seen. If I were you, I wouldn't tell my friends about this embarrassing episode.

She'll see it as a badge of honor that she talked with heathens and "won".

mcQ and big m- actually any logical person who reads this will see that you are the ones who have repeatedly failed to read and provide supported arguments. And my friends are logical. So good day.

lae- how does the dictionary definition support that slavery is evil? if not, how does God not banning it support that He is evil?

we had a pretty good discussion until you decided to agree with Big M -whose claims are extremely difficult to hold.

Hit a nerve there? I'm sure your "logical" friends will  be just as smart as you. God bans murder, though he commits it, why not slavery? Why don't you go and try to purchase some slaves then.

Go to hell basically, you are too stupid. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. We have provided, VERBATIM, what the Bible says immorally about certain subjects.

Sauk...if you don't understand why taking away a human's basic right to freedom is wrong...then I don't know what to say.  I thought that was something even children could grasp.  Same thing goes for not understanding why ignoring saying not to do something is condoning that action.

Whew, what a thread.  Only one thing remains to be said:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard.  At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even cloe to anything that could be considered a rational thought.  Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.  I award you no points, and may god have mercey on your soul.

Quote from: "Amor Fati"Whew, what a thread.  Only one thing remains to be said:

Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things i have ever heard.  At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even cloe to anything that could be considered a rational thought.  Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.  I award you no points, and may god have mercey on your soul.

Amen, brother!  :wink:

lae: have you not been reading either? masters didn't just "take away a basic freedom" - the servant agrees to belong to the master in that the master has to provide for the servant. Joseph was a servant too, and even one of a heathen - yet he lived a darn good life. Not to mention the one of King Saul. If the master did something bad - God certainly would have punished. But becoming a servant was a way to survive - why would God strip that away? Why do you think servants MUST HAVE their rights stripped away? What can't you understand about a master treating a servant nicely? Just because the African's weren't treated nicely? Well I can assure you that those white people wouldn't be treated to nicely after death either.

Plus, it's not like God forbids helping poor people and require all to become slaves- read the story of Ruth.

McQ - can you not even pick out arguments from your own posts? Can you do it or not? Can you at least try?
Big Mac - can you not even read? Can you at least try?

I don't care if you've *taught sunday school or not - I can see why you left your church: what kind of church would be so stupid to let people like you teach?

Quote from: "saukhasi"lae: have you not been reading either? masters didn't just "take away a basic freedom" - the servant agrees to belong to the master in that the master has to provide for the servant. Joseph was a servant too, and even one of a heathen - yet he lived a darn good life. Not to mention the one of King Saul. If the master did something bad - God certainly would have punished. But becoming a servant was a way to survive - why would God strip that away? Why do you think servants MUST HAVE their rights stripped away? What can't you understand about a master treating a servant nicely? Just because the African's weren't treated nicely? Well I can assure you that those white people wouldn't be treated to nicely after death either.

Plus, it's not like God forbids helping poor people and require all to become slaves- read the story of Ruth.

Yeah, lae....what's the matter with you? You can't read either! Geez. Nobody but saukhasi can interpret the bible. Don't you get it? I mean, don't go bringing African slaves into all this. Or slaves from anywhere else for that matter. And stop quibbling about the definition of slavery. It's not like the slaves in the bible had it rough. They CHOSE to be slaves, you know? It was a lifestyle choice, like being a martyr. It was pretty cushy. They had to be treated nice or else...

I'm so glad that we have someone here....apparently the only human fit to interpret the bible for us....to help us out. Otherwise, laetusatheos your forum would fall apart.   :roll:

Quote from: "saukhasi"McQ - can you not even pick out arguments from your own posts? Can you do it or not? Can you at least try?
Big Mac - can you not even read? Can you at least try?

I don't care if you've *taught sunday school or not - I can see why you left your church: what kind of church would be so stupid to let people like you teach?

 :lol:

You've got to be kidding! Oh man, this just gets more and more fun. saukhasi I'm only bothering to reply to you because it's so enjoyable to watch you fall apart in here. With each post you hit new levels of stupidity, all the while thinking that everyone else is wrong, and you alone are right. I'll have to look in the DSM VI to see how many of the criteria for Narcissistic Disorder that you meet (I'm guessing at least 6 of 9, maybe more).

If you can't find the things that I already posted twice, it is YOUR problem, not mine. I'll bet real money that anyone else in this forum could pick out what I'm talking about except you. But just in case you're still having trouble, here it is:

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost4465.html#4465 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/fpost4465.html#4465)

But by all means, keep posting. This is much more fun than the same old thing. And don't forget to ask yourself, "WWJD?"

Lastly, suakhasi what is your purpose here anyway? To teach, preach, convert? What is it? And you've still never answered what denomination or affiliation you are. Afraid of something?

(edited to fix DSM VI)

Shame on me for actually reading the parts of the Bible which don't support this voluntary and friendly master slave relationship.  (Of course someone could serve as a servant and be treated well, there were even cases of that occurring with American slavery.)  Shame on me for finding it unethical to restrict the freedoms of an innocent human being.  Shame on me for thinking it is wrong for a man to have to stay in slavery just to remain with his family.  Shame on me for thinking a god should know there are better ways to help the poor than slavery.  Shame on me for thinking it's wrong to take the captive women of tribes as wives only to be tossed aside if they aren't pleasurable enough.  Shame on us all for being humanitarians...that's anti-God.

Quote from: "saukhasi"McQ - can you not even pick out arguments from your own posts? Can you do it or not? Can you at least try?
Big Mac - can you not even read? Can you at least try?

I don't care if you've *taught sunday school or not - I can see why you left your church: what kind of church would be so stupid to let people like you teach?

My dear retard, of course I can read. I read perfectly fine what you wrote. I will not give you lee-way because of English being your second language. If you didn't want to be treated harshly, don't stick your head out and make stupid ass comments. It's not a complex formula, dear. If you think being a slave can't be bad, why don't you surrender yourself to me immediately. I'll be a nice master but you'll do whatever I say because I own you, got it? Why do I have a feeling you wouldn't jump onto that? Any takers on that one?

"Shame on us all for being humanitarians...that's anti-God."

- support what you say.

sauk, everyone, everywhere you've posted this thread, has supported what they say.  In fact, the statement you quoted was a conclusion, supported by previous sentences (as well as previous posts).  Just because you don't read what people are writing doesn't mean they aren't writing it.  More than anything I've seen anywhere before, your arguments depend upon redefining words that are in common useage so they support your arguments, and twisting other people's perfectly plausible arguments in such a way to indicate deliberate misunderstanding on your part.  It's almost like quotemining, only in a Forum.  

Slavery in the bible is different from servitude, just as it was in recent past, and just as it is today.  It doesn't take a whole lot of thought to understand that being owned like an object and being hired to perform a job are entirely different things.  If you're really convinced that they're the same, I'm sure there are a number of places here in the US with predominantly African-American populations who'd love to hear you lecture on how blessed their ancestors were to be well-loved and highly-regarded servants.  You might even live to repeat the lecture after they let you out of the hospital.

"sauk, everyone, everywhere you've posted this thread, has supported what they say."
- provide support. You are contradicting yourself right there.

"Slavery in the bible is different from servitude"
- I never said they were the same. You are the one who seems to assert that God will not punish bad masters - where did you get that from? if it is not supported by the Bible, how does your argument "God is evil' stand? If you cannot answer neither of those questions, then you've just contradicted yourself again by asserting that everyone has provided support.

Sauk,

Just so you don't think I haven't been following this thread, I will reply.

I'm sorry that I can't post responses to you anymore. You see, I don't associate with evil or immoral people. The simple fact that you can't aknowledge that slavery is wrong means you are either evil, immoral, or both.

Just because a book endorses something, doesn't mean you have to follow suit. The thread has devolved into something disgusting that I won't take part in anymore.

I'm left with several conclusions that could be drawn. You have no problems with slavery. If that's the case, I know a couple of white power churches you might feel right at home in. Or, you are so deluded by the "good books (there's a contradiction in term if I ever heard one)" that you will justify any human indignity. Or, you are not understanding what is being said. Or, you are just stupid. Or, you are a troll.

Whichever it is, don't bother responding, as this is the last you will hear from me on this topic.

Well folks, saukhasi has been reduced to the internet equivalent of sticking her fingers in her ears and saying, "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOU!"

She also has forgotten how to use the quote feature, or is too lazy to do it. Shame.

It's also interesting that she keeps telling us to support what we say. No, not interesting...incredibly ironic.

saukhasi, you've asked me to pick out arguments from my posts. When will you:

a. come out with some kind of (any kind) logical argument, or for that matter, any kind of statement, declaration, point or purpose?

b. go read the items I re-re-posted for you, since that answers your request for what I have stated?

c. Learn to use the "Quotes" feature of this forum?

d. Stop trolling and make a statement that we can discuss rationally?

e. Answer my question as to what your purpose is here in the first place (kind of redundant, but I wanted it to get through to you)?

mcQ - please, show me which one of a to e is supposed to be an argument?

Quote from: "saukhasi"mcQ - please, show me which one of a to e is supposed to be an argument?

saukhasi, here's a better idea:

YOU respond directly to my previous post. Every point, a through e. I never claimed any of them were an argument. That would be an attempt to create a  straw man on your part. If I were you, I'd get cracking on it. You're about to get a new avatar, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Unlike you, I am actually trying to see where it is you are coming from in an effort to try to have a rational discussion now. You can work with me on it, or not. I don't care.

actually, it's not ahrd to see who's "sticking her fingers in her ears and saying, "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOU!" "

Just let me ask you this: when are you going to give an argument that is relevant and supported?

Quote from: "saukhasi"actually, it's not ahrd to see who's "sticking her fingers in her ears and saying, "I CAN'T HEEEEAAAR YOOOU!" "

Just let me ask you this: when are you going to give an argument that is relevant and supported?

Last chance saukhasi. I've tried to reopen dialogue. Here it is one last time:

Quote from: "McQ"saukhasi, here's a better idea:

YOU respond directly to my previous post. Every point, a through e. I never claimed any of them were an argument[/color]. That would be an attempt to create a  straw man on your part. If I were you, I'd get cracking on it. You're about to get a new avatar, unless I'm gravely mistaken.

Unlike you, I am actually trying to see where it is you are coming from in an effort to try to have a rational discussion now. You can work with me on it, or not. I don't care.

That's your option. Take it or leave it.

"I've tried to reopen dialogue"

- you have never opened dialogue. you do not want to present logical arguments; you do not want to respond to logical arguments. The only one you've come up with I've answered in detail (on reading in "context), and you replied with "any one could see I didn't do that". So you can start giving arguments relevant to the discussion; if that's not what you want to do it's not hard to see who's avoiding arguments. By the way, I still haven't seen you supported counter argument to the one I made.

Quote from: "saukhasi""I've tried to reopen dialogue"

- you have never opened dialogue. you do not want to present logical arguments; you do not want to respond to logical arguments. The only one you've come up with I've answered in detail (on reading in "context), and you replied with "any one could see I didn't do that". So you can start giving arguments relevant to the discussion; if that's not what you want to do it's not hard to see who's avoiding arguments. By the way, I still haven't seen you supported counter argument to the one I made.

I'll take your response as the pitiful copout that it is. You are an ignorant troll and deserve whatever comes your way. And I repeat that you are a sad example of xtianity. You do nothing to emulate your lord and saviour.

Have fun trying to get anyone else to listen to you, troll.

Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Troll! Where's that first stone when you need it?

Wow. I'm sorry I missed this train wreck. I just wanted to mention something from the first page said by this cute fuzzy troll: You should read the Bible assuming it is right (as opposed to assuming it is wrong). That's a false dichotomy (you can look that up on Wikipedia), because I don't read ANY books assuming they are true or false. I've found very few books that are wholly one of the other. I enter all books assuming nothing about them, except what I can gather from the title, author, and jacket. That's your problem with reading the bible. I've read it sparcely assuming it was right when I was a Christian, then I read it mostly through without assuming anything. Guess what happened? I became an atheist. That's how most people do, a thorough reading of the Bible WITHOUT assuming anything at all.

I know I probably won't get an intelligible answer to this, but I had to say it anyhow.

Eh, if you get a response it will probably be along the lines that since the Bible is the word of God it gets special treatment in that it has to be read as if it is true.  But, that would mean we'd have to do the same for any other book that is claimed to have holy origins.

No, my response is: then try coming up with evidence that God is evil from the Bible WITHOUT any reference to Africans - God never said He agreed with those white masters and WITHOUT going - you're just evil blah blah blah because though I may be that still does not prove the BIblical God is evil.

Quote from: "Court"I know I probably won't get an intelligible answer to this, but I had to say it anyhow.

Wow, Court! You were clairvoyant!  :lol:

(BTW, nice to see you back posting again!)

saukhasi's reaching maximum density, I think.  Watch out for an explosion.  So many people are disagreeing with her, she's confusing them with each other (I know she flung accusations at me for stuff that was never said by me - that's where quoting comes in handy, for future reference!)

Saukhasi, I'm not going to quote 40-something pages of arguments to support the fact that the same thing is going on in at least 4 different atheist forums.  You post a supposition that the bible is true.  People point out evidence that it is not.  You claim that the question was not answered.  People answer your question.  You claim the question was misinterpreted and ask a question of your own that is a non-sequitur at best.  You overcome logical arguments by ignoring them, and refute disgreements with your statements with redefinitions of words and phrases.  

I can understand the frustration at finding yourself universally opposed everywhere you've attempted to garner support.  However - a logical, rational person under these circumstances would assume one of two things.  First, "perhaps I am wasting my time here and should move on." this is an easy way out, but it solves the problem of your frustration as well as removing yourself from future irritation.  Second, "perhaps the fact that I have found not a single person who agrees with me indicates that my position is fallible?"  This is the more difficult of the two, since it involves some serious thinking, deep self-analysis, and an ability to process criticism and come out from it a better person.  It is, however, a good practice if you want to learn to be a truly open-minded person, willing to improve yourself, listen to new ideas, and be good society in general.

Or you can continue in the same course.  That's cutting off your nose to spite your face, but. . .whatever.

mcQ, you mentioned earlier that the two accounts of Judas' deaths were contradicting each other. Indeed, it is true that they are different but perhaps you aren't seeing the whole picture? In Matthew it says that Judas hung himself, in Acts it says that he fell and his intestines fell out. But maybe these aren't so different. Perhaps it is as it says in Matthew, that he hung himself, and then at some point, could be several days later. Judas's weight makes the rope break, causing him to FALL, and causing his intestines to fall out.

(yes I am aware I misspelled my name, supposed to be "theist" my bad)

Quote from: "Thiest"mcQ, you mentioned earlier that the two accounts of Judas' deaths were contradicting each other. Indeed, it is true that they are different but perhaps you aren't seeing the whole picture? In Matthew it says that Judas hung himself, in Acts it says that he fell and his intestines fell out. But maybe these aren't so different. Perhaps it is as it says in Matthew, that he hung himself, and then at some point, could be several days later. Judas's weight makes the rope break, causing him to FALL, and causing his intestines to fall out.

Hello Thiest. Welcome. I appreciate your comment. I have definitely been over this ground before though, and know that I'm not missing the big picture here. When I was still a fundamentalist xtian in a southern baptist church, I went round and round with this topic and others.
 
There is nothing in the bible to suggest that both the hanging and the broken branch theory happened. Why would the authors create a seeming contradiction? So people could surmise that they meant something else? No, I'm afraid that it simply is a contradiction. If what you suggest had happened had actually happened, then it is much more likely that both authors would have stated it that way. Even so, it would be a highly unusual form of death, to hang yourself from a tree branch over a field, have the rope break and your bowels gush out.

In this case it is clear that it is a contradiction. The theory that the authors knew what each would write and didn't want to sound redundant by writing the same thing is fallacious too, if you go there. It would be out of character with much of the rest of scripture anyway.

Hope this clears up where I am on this.

Quote from: "saukhasi"No, my response is: then try coming up with evidence that God is evil from the Bible WITHOUT any reference to Africans - God never said He agreed with those white masters and WITHOUT going - you're just evil blah blah blah because though I may be that still does not prove the BIblical God is evil.

Here you go. Right from the bible, without any reference to Africans:

Judges 21:10-24 NLT
Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Judges 11:29-40 NLT
Exodus 21:15 NAB
Leviticus 20:9 NLT
Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT
Deuteronomy  22:20-21 NAB
Hosea 9:11-16 NLT

People in this forum have been over this before, and naturally, you won't put the time or mental effort into a cogent answer. But I thought I'd give you that anyway, since I had a few rare minutes of spare time.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Court"I know I probably won't get an intelligible answer to this, but I had to say it anyhow.

Wow, Court! You were clairvoyant!  :lol:

(BTW, nice to see you back posting again!)

I know, I have a gift.

Yeah, WWGHA and finals were keeping me too busy. Glad to be back  

merry Christmas everyone!

Faylen: could you please show me where I've "misquoted" you? I don't try to garner support - I'm looking for good atheist aguments. Are you saying that you have one? Actually, show me just one; you don't have to quote all. Quote the best one. Go ahead and try.

McQ: Did you just get the list from evilBible.com? That's not proof, that's taking a bunch of verses out of context. Show me precisely, how you're not simplifying everything. Let's take your post to theist for example: you said

'There is nothing in the bible to suggest that both the hanging and the broken branch theory happened."

One said hanging, one said broken branch - what do you mean there is nothing?

"Even so, it would be a highly unusual form of death"

Actually no, there are many more ways to die than this. Does that mean people don't get hit by a flying brick on the highways?

basically, you have no evidence - you only have your inerpretations, your faith in that your theories are correct.

Quote from: "saukhasi"merry Christmas everyone!

Faylen: could you please show me where I've "misquoted" you? I don't try to garner support - I'm looking for good atheist aguments. Are you saying that you have one? Actually, show me just one; you don't have to quote all. Quote the best one. Go ahead and try.

McQ: Did you just get the list from evilBible.com? That's not proof, that's taking a bunch of verses out of context. Show me precisely, how you're not simplifying everything. Let's take your post to theist for example: you said

'There is nothing in the bible to suggest that both the hanging and the broken branch theory happened."

One said hanging, one said broken branch - what do you mean there is nothing?

"Even so, it would be a highly unusual form of death"

Actually no, there are many more ways to die than this. Does that mean people don't get hit by a flying brick on the highways?

basically, you have no evidence - you only have your inerpretations, your faith in that your theories are correct.

Dear troll. Put your evidence where your mouth is. Go back answer every post required of you and then you can ask questions. And shame on you for continuing to behave in opposition to your lord.

saukhasi, if you didn't have the same thread going in so many places, you wouldn't have to skip so many posts.  That's what it looks like is happening, because you seem to be missing a lot of what's being said, and not quite paying a hundred per cent attention to who's saying what, either.  

You see, when I said you misquoted me, it was immediately after you misquoted me.  Only a couple of pages back, that shouldn't be too hard.  In fact, if it had been more than a few posts removed, I would have taken into account your short memory and used the quote feature, but since both posts could be viewed even on the same screen, I didn't think it was necessary.  So,since you can reply to my statement that you misquoted me, you should also have been able to see, right there, just above it, your post misquoting me.  

See, if you're trying to hold a discussion, win a debate, make a persuasive argument, you need to do a few things:

Support your arguments.
Answer the arguments that oppose your point.
Remember who said what.

Without these very, very basic tools, it's like a gerbil on a wheel, running and running and getting nowhere.

"You see, when I said you misquoted me, it was immediately after you misquoted me."

Please show me how I ave misquoted you so I can make it up.

Let me restate my argument one last time: to argue the the Bible is evil, you must support absolutely that your interpretation IS the meaning of the BIble, ie. fits with the other messages of the Bible (what I meant by "in context'). If not, simply claiming there's a contradiction only shows that you have FAITH in your interpretation. So when I can refute your interpretation  by adding verses and you can only argue with quotes taken from evilbible.com, that is rather telling.

Quote from: "saukhasi"Let me restate my argument one last time: to argue the the Bible is evil, you must support absolutely that your interpretation IS the meaning of the BIble, ie. fits with the other messages of the Bible (what I meant by "in context'). If not, simply claiming there's a contradiction only shows that you have FAITH in your interpretation. So when I can refute your interpretation  by adding verses and you can only argue with quotes taken from evilbible.com, that is rather telling.

Troll (saukhasi), read what faylen wrote just above here. Remember who said what. Show me where I said the bible is evil.

Now go back and do what was requested of you before trying yet another dodge. Or just leave, because your welcome was worn out long ago when you decided to not abide by the rules of the forum.

Saukhasi, please try and listen to what they are saying, even if you disagree. If you are truly a Christian as you say, I'm sure you'll recall the importance of humility (I'm not saying atheists aren't humble). Don't repeat yourself, you've made your point, make some new ones if you must but it's unneccesary to repeat yourself.

"yet another dodge"

to what exactly mcQ?

Quote from: "saukhasi""yet another dodge"

to what exactly mcQ?

Oh, you know....this, that, the other thing. General dodgy, troll stuff.  :lol:

Quote from: "Troll"One said hanging, one said broken branch - what do you mean there is nothing?

All it said is that he went into a field and his bowels burst asunder. Please explain how the fuck that means a broken branch. You lose...again!

Quote from: "Troll"Actually no, there are many more ways to die than this. Does that mean people don't get hit by a flying brick on the highways?

I grew up in a little town called Goliad, Tx. We have a famous tree on the town square called the "Hanging Tree". Over 160 men lost their lives to the tree, up to 6 of them at a time. Not one recording shows a man's bowels bursting asunder or the branch breaking. Judas must have picked a pretty weak branch in order for your interpretation to have taken place. If so, the hanging would have never been effective. The tree still stands in Goliad's town square, next to our beautifully revitalized courthouse. A lot of trees were cut were cut down but this one is protected as a historical tree. You guys should visit it if you are ever in the South Texas area. It is a truly wonder for the history/military buff. Lots of battles and ghost tales and old buildings for the kids and grown-ups to enjoy. In fact, there is a full-blown reenactment of the battle that had Colonel Fanin and his men executed at the end of it. Takes place in March, really enjoyable if you are into battle recreations.

Quote from: "Troll"basically, you have no evidence - you only have your inerpretations, your faith in that your theories are correct.

I think you just said something that would make Bizarro sport a massive boner over.

"All it said is that he went into a field and his bowels burst asunder. Please explain how the fuck that means a broken branch. You lose...again! "

Ask McQ.

QuoteAll it said is that he went into a field and his bowels burst asunder. Please explain how the fuck that means a broken branch. You lose...again!

Read the book of Matthew's account of Judas' death. It says he hung himself in a field. Hanging usually involves a branch and a rope. After a certain period of time, the rope or the branch would break because of the constant strain of Judas' hanging corpse, causing him to fall, possibly causing his "bowels to burst asunder" Thereby not making the two accounts, Acts and Matthew a direct contradiction but possibly giving another explanation.

What I want to know is, what gives you the literary license to "combine" the two stories? Just because they're about the same event? I used to wonder this when I was a Christian about the Christmas story. Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives and make them one? God?

Quote from: "saukhasi""All it said is that he went into a field and his bowels burst asunder. Please explain how the fuck that means a broken branch. You lose...again! "

Ask McQ.

Big Mac, I don't know about you, but I think what saukhasi has done with her hair is just wonderful. Don't you think?

It's also ironic that the title of this thread is "A Christian response to Atheism". We've certainly seen the very "best" that christianity has to offer, haven't we? Notice how the further the thread goes, the less saukhasi responds to the repeated requests to adhere to forum rules, learn how to use the "Quotes" feature, and most of all, fail to respond to things asked of her from pages back? Yep, this is the paragon of christian virtues here, for certain.

Well, we can always hope, can't we? Maybe she'll see the error of her ways and go back and actually read this thread from the beginning, and respond accordingly.


Nah.

I just love what she's done with her hair. Makes her even more of a sexy yet guarded Christian girl!

Did I mention the branch used is very very small and nearly touches the ground? If six full grown men, who would be bigger than the people back in biblical times due to better nutrition (including more meat) and still didn't break the branch after repeated use, yet one guy on a branch breaks it. Note it never says how long he stayed there. Did the apostles go and actually watch his bowels burst asunder? Did they merely just watch his rotting corpse lay in a field with all their Christian love? What's the point of even mentioning it in a story about a guy who is very loving? I personally think Judas, if he existed, was merely doing what Christ asked of him: Make him into a martyr!!! Also, I have yet to hear someone's bowels from hanging.

There was a case in the old west where they measured a guy when he was 30 pounds lighter before his hanging. He sat in the jail eating and doing nothing but getting fatter and fatter. They then hung him and his head went clean off and his body slammed into the ground below the gallows, not a single word mentioning his bowels bursting out.

"Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives"

Who told YOU that they were two completely different narratives?

Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death. They bound him, led him away and handed him over to Pilate, the governor. When Judas, who had betrayed him, saw that Jesus was condemned, he was seized with remorse and returned the thirty silver coins to the chief priests and the elders. "I have sinned," he said, "for I have betrayed innocent blood." "What is that to us?" they replied. "That's your responsibility." So Judas threw the money into the temple and left. Then he went away and hanged himself.  (Matthew 27:1-5 NIV)

In those days Peter stood up among the believers (a group numbering about a hundred and twenty) and said, "Brothers, the Scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke long ago through the mouth of David concerning Judas, who served as guide for those who arrested Jesus--he was one of our number and shared in this ministry."  With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.  (Acts 1:15-18 NIV)

Read as written these obviously conflict with each other...one says hanging and the other says he fell.

I happened to have found what seems to be the most likely charitable explanation for why these verses were written differently....one of them is metaphorical.

http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/JudasDeath.htm (http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/JudasDeath.htm)

QuoteThe key to understanding what Luke wanted us to understand is found in the following passage:

“And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.” (Luke 5:37)

Old skins cannot expand to accommodate the gases released from still-fermenting new fine, while new ones are still elastic enough to accommodate the release of gas. Luke was expecting his readers would see that Judas was holding on to the old law, the old way of thinking, and was unable to accommodate the new teachings of Jesus; thus, the Judas with the old ideas burst open just as does an old wineskin filled with new wine. Luke clearly never meant for his readers to take his description of Judas literally.

The only place in the New Testament (NIV) where the words "burst" are used are in the three parallel verses dealing with wineskins, and the one place in the rest of the New Testament where the word is used to describe what happened to Judas. Here are the references:

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men pour new wine into old wineskins. If they do, the skins will burst, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins, and both are preserved."

Mark 2:22 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, he pours new wine into new wineskins."

Luke 5:37 And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. If he does, the new wine will burst the skins, the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.

Acts 1:18 Acts 1 Acts 1:17-19 (With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field; there he fell headlong, his body burst open and all his intestines spilled out.

This is not a coincidence, I believe; Luke is telling us in Acts that just as old wineskins burst when new wine is poured into them, so did the one with old ideas and beliefs (Judas) "burst" when new teachings (from Jesus) tried to enter him.

That's just the charitable explanation...

Now, note that in one account Judas throws the coins in the temple and with that money the potters field is purchased: hence being named the field of blood since it was purchased by someone other than Judas with blood money which was not clean to go into the treasury.

In the other account Judas himself purchases the field and somehow his guts burst there, so his spilt blood causes the potters field to be call the field of blood.

Considering that both sets of passages seem to be meaning to give a straightforward account of how Judas died (the metaphorical explanation seems to go out the window as plausible when we take into account that Luke was also describing what Judas did with the money he got from betraying Jesus.....why give a literal account then suddenly start using metaphors?) we can go with a more likely explanation of why they contradict; because the Bible was placed together by a committee who was apparently not concerned with making sure the text didn't have any contradictions...they were just combining the texts most commonly used by contemporary churches of the day.

btw, saukhasi, I suggest that if you want to stay around here much longer that you put some thought into your responses.  If someone disagrees with what you have to say that means you should find a new approach to getting your point across OR seriously rethink your own position.  I've read over a few of the other threads you've started on other forums and you post the same thing over and over again despite numerous reasons why what you have said may not be the best explanation.....If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others.

Quote from: "saukhasi""Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives"

Who told YOU that they were two completely different narratives?

Have you READ them? They don't even tell the same story, except that Mary has a baby. That's nearly the only defining characteristic.

lae: good to see your reply. Now allow me make a few comments:

"Read as written these obviously"

- not really. When Judas went out to hang himself, read as written it only presents an action. It does not say how he died. So presumably he went out to hang himself and did, the priests followed and they purchased the land he hanged himself on (which we can assume is a useless piece of land given that no one stopped the suicidal trespasser) while he was still alive (hence it literally was his land), and somehow he fell from where he was hung onto (probably very rocky ground?) (or that he was already rotting and therefore was prone to sliding and bursting) and ended up as acts described. Peter, when he was talking, would refer to the horrible death part to make his point and not the hanging part which was most likely known by those who would care to listen to him. So why the Bible records these two accounts separately and incompletly is to show part I and part II of the death without any overlap (since Peter was preaching, not narrating).

"If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others."

When people make remarks on my intelligence instead of presenting valid counter arguments like you have done, that tells me something else.

I really don't see how it; one verse can say he threw the coins at the temple then left...then the other says that HE bought the land; can in any way be interpreted to mean that the church elders bought the land but Luke decides to say Judas bought it since it was his money originally.  

Also, if he was hanging himself on some plot of land than we can assume was vacant of tall buildings since it was available for purchase....we can be safe to assume he was hanging himself from a tree.  It doesn't seem that people tend to climb very high just to hang themselves because just getting up higher than you are tall is sufficient.  So, if whatever rope he used happend to break when he first hung himself it would be rather unlikely that an impact from a fall would be strong enough to cause his guts to burst open.  He would have had to do something stupid (or purposely) like hang himself over a very sharp stake or something else pointy and sharp.  Btw, how can a person who hung themselves in any was that would cause death allow the body to fall headlong...doesn't head long mean head first?  edit:  I looked up the meaning:  http://www.answers.com/topic/headlong (http://www.answers.com/topic/headlong)  head first is one of the meanings, uncontrollable speed, and rashly...archaic is steep/sheer.  Considering that the immediate context of the word in acts seems to make more sense if we read it as saying he was being rash and feel bursting his guts open; then it especially doesn't fit with the hanging story.  Maybe whatever Greek word was translated to headlong means something else...but that would open a whole other can of worms (ie do we have to learn Greek to understand what the Bible intended to say?)

So, it's pretty safe to assume that the actual hanging killed him and any possible bursting of bowels was just an after death thing (personally I still find the explaination involving metaphors to make much more sense).  I'm really not sure why they would have left him hanging there for long enough for his body to reach a state at which falling would burst him right open....after all, if the church elders knew enough about the hanging to purchase land then I think they'd remove the body after he died.

Maybe most of the issue here is that acts was written by Luke who was trying to remember what Peter said....ever played telephone; a game where the teacher tells a student a short story that is pretty easy to remember then that story is retold to the next student and so on down a line of students...by the time it gets to the last student the story hardly resembles what the teacher first said.  In fact, usually the story gets changed when the student who got the story from the teacher tries to repeat it to the next student.

Quote from: "saukhasi"lae: good to see your reply. Now allow me make a few comments:

"Read as written these obviously"

- not really. When Judas went out to hang himself, read as written it only presents an action. It does not say how he died. So presumably he went out to hang himself and did, the priests followed and they purchased the land he hanged himself on (which we can assume is a useless piece of land given that no one stopped the suicidal trespasser) while he was still alive (hence it literally was his land), and somehow he fell from where he was hung onto (probably very rocky ground?) (or that he was already rotting and therefore was prone to sliding and bursting) and ended up as acts described. Peter, when he was talking, would refer to the horrible death part to make his point and not the hanging part which was most likely known by those who would care to listen to him. So why the Bible records these two accounts separately and incompletly is to show part I and part II of the death without any overlap (since Peter was preaching, not narrating).

"If I was you, that would tell me that I need to re-evaluate my position in order to make it more internally compatible and find a way to better represent my views to others."

When people make remarks on my intelligence instead of presenting valid counter arguments like you have done, that tells me something else.

Where is your evidence for this pathetic interpretation? EVIDENCE!

 :bs:

Oh man, when I said I liked this because you were falling apart, I didn't think you'd come completley unglued. "Somehow he fell"...."or that he was already rotting"...... HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

You amuse me, saukhasi. You really do.

When are you going to get around to those old posts anyway? Or are you still trying to ignore me? Troll.

Saukhasi do you do yoga? Because, honey, you are really pulling a stretch on this.

lae:

"I really don't see how it; one verse can say he threw the coins at the temple then left...then the other says that HE bought the land; can in any way be interpreted to mean that the church elders bought the land but Luke decides to say Judas bought it since it was his money originally."

are the ;'s cutting things off? I don't understand this, but let me remind you again Peter was preaching - Peter could be making the point that Judas got for his reward a graveyard of a horrid death.

"headlong"

I find this a rather good point; he fell fast. He doesn't need to be high up. Can he not burst due to two other possbilities? By the way church leaders do not have the time to unhang people they don't care about (i'm sure they viewed it as unclean) - they did that for Jesus because it was a passover, and I don't think Judas died on a special occasion (and I think they told the army guys to do it for them with Jesus and his companions).

it is hardly possible for the two stories to be changed to another - and I believe the apostles kept in touch for a while - if there obvious errors like that it would have been corrected long before their deaths.  Let me tell you why I think my interpretation is less absurd:

1. Rocky land would fit with how judas can trespass the land.
2. Judas hanging himself on that land would fit with how church leaders would want to get rid of the blood money (as opposed to letting it just lay there in their holy place)- most likely they would follow Judas, and given that he is going ot hang himself the land he was on was the most obvious thing to get for him.
3. Peter's speech would have been heard and corrected (if needed) by Matthew since the apostles were all together in the beginning of acts I believe.
4. The way the second account is focused fits with the fact that Peter was preaching.

Are these all coincidences? I don't have any evidence - I don't NEED any evidence. But given your interpretation and mine I don't see how i need to forgo more reason and logic to keep mine interpretation.

OK, sack.

But Jesus told the disciples that what goes into the mouth of a man does not make him unclean. Also he told one of the apostles (the name escapes me but being a GOOOOOD christian that you are, I'm sure you know which story I'm talking about) he tells them never to say anything HE made to be unclean.

Also, what about that love thy neighbor crap he preached? Guess it doesn't apply to true sinners and such. Makes me sooo want to buy into the Christian myth.

WOW saukhasi!  I finally got to see what you look like.  

It's not fair to the other boards which you've posted this thread on, that you don't show yourself off.

If I was an apologist I'd still prefer the metaphor explanation of why the verses give differing accounts because it requires fewer assumptions.  IMO, someone screwing up the story seems more likely though.

I found a description and time frame for a rotting body.  It's not a very pretty read but death really isn't either:

QuoteBy a week after death, gases produced by bacterial and chemical processes begin to cause bloating of bodies. Internally, the bacteria that all humans live with every day, such as those found in the digestive tract, continue working on. But instead of the friendly bacteria's food source being what humans eat for food, it is now the dead human body itself
which is consumed. Internal organs begin to liquefy. Within two weeks from onset of death, there is a bloody purge of putrefying liquid from the mouth, nose, anus, or any other opening. The stench from the rotting corpse is overwhelmingly powerful, if within an enclosed space. Soon, within weeks, the body bursts open under pressure, spilling its contents.

http://adipocere.homestead.com/chemistry.html (http://adipocere.homestead.com/chemistry.html)

They would have had to leave him hanging for a week or two before the body would reach a state where guts would be falling out.  That's a very long time to leave a body just hanging there... I also don't see how anything aside from a fairly long fall onto a very rocky surface would cause the body to rip in a manner which caused guts to spill before this stage of decay.

I remember reading somewhere that the holy men were required to remove a dead body before nightfall or something similar to that.  They would have considered the body of a sinner to be unclean but there are rituals they can perform afterwards if touching it is necessary for removal.

The church elders he threw the money at were the same ones responsible for sentencing Jesus to death...so I don't think they'd actually view him as a sinner until after he hung himself (what sin would he really have in their view?)  Which leads to this:  What I really don't understand about your explanation is that it requires these church elders to follow a man who they know is going to commit suicide....and they didn't try to stop him.

"so I don't think they'd actually view him as a sinner until after he hung himself "

i don't suppose anything at at all - judging by their nonchalant response to Judas they simply did not care about anything but getting rid of blood money from their holy temple. So whether or not he is a sinner to them wouldn't really matter. I really don't remember reading anything about unhanging people - they did that for people they respected (like saul, though he wasn't really hanged) or on special occasions (perhaps your nightfall concept comes from this? on special days like passover these things are not to be left around), in other cases, I don't think anyone at that time would simply go take someone down. would you?

'Which leads to this: What I really don't understand about your explanation is that it requires these church elders to follow a man who they know is going to commit suicide....and they didn't try to stop him."

1. It does not say that they didn't. Secondly, I don't know where you get the idea that religious leaders back actively opposed suicide. Is it because chuches now are against suicide? Remember that the churches now were not in the temple at that time but were scattered and afraid.

Wow.....what a shitty response. Great job kid, another worthless attempt to dodge a serious conversation.

Quote from: "Big Mac"Wow.....what a shitty response. Great job kid, another worthless attempt to dodge a serious conversation.

That's putting it... mildly.

Wow, I didn't realize that the death of Judas was such a huge raging controversy!  I mean who cares about all of that, has anyone seriously considered the end of the world may be coming in only about 5 years??  It's all there in the Mayan calendar!

http://www.survive2012.com/ (http://www.survive2012.com/)

You do realize that the entire Gospel is a fairy tale and we all know that Fairy Tales are worth killing each other over.

Quote from: "Court"What I want to know is, what gives you the literary license to "combine" the two stories? Just because they're about the same event? I used to wonder this when I was a Christian about the Christmas story. Who the hell told my preacher he could take two completely different narratives and make them one? God?

I am well aware that I have not been on this site for quite some time, and it's possible that the person quoted above has left within that time. But if you will kindly excuse my beating a dead horse, I would like to respond.

I am not "combining" the two stories as you put it, what I am doing is simply being aware that the two gospels are essentially the same story, but from a different perspective. Take newspapers for example, two papers receive the same story but for obvious reasons they are not written identically. First of all, they are written by two different journalists and therefore those stories also carry some hint of what that journalist perceived as happening, a bias if you will. Secondly, the stories were likely written at different times where new facts and information may have been released, in which case the story would be altered accordingly. Is it impossible that one account was written later on, therefore changing the way it was written? Would it not be redundant to keep repeating the same story over again, exactly the same? Therefore there must be some differences.