Anti John 3:16

[DangerousBeliefs]

I keep seeing this on billboards, posters, bumper stickers extra...

John 3:16

which says:

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. "

I've been trying think of a truly stupid or embarassing bible quote to start using.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Proverbs 1:7 should be the Creationist Credo

Maybe Genesis 9:21 - He (Noah) drank some of the wine and became drunk, and he lay uncovered in his tent.

[sparklecat]

How about Ezekiel 32:6?

I will drench the land with your flowing blood
all the way to the mountains,
and the ravines will be filled with your flesh.

This is God talking btw...

[DangerousBeliefs]

Ok, how about Exodus 22:16...

When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

[sparklecat]

And of course, one for the new Christians...

1 Timothy 6:20b

Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs
Ok, how about Exodus 22:16...

When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married, and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife.

Emphasis mine... its hardly rape. Not that bad of an idea, actually, as the woman wouldn't be able to marry anyone else after that.

[nyarltep]

here are a couple

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
-- Ezekiel 23:20

My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
-- Song of Solomon 5:4

[neutrino_cannon]

I like Psalms 137:9 myself.

It makes so much sense now, the LRA really does follow the bible.

Oh oh! How about 2Kings 9:37?

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by sparklecat


Emphasis mine... its hardly rape. Not that bad of an idea, actually, as the woman wouldn't be able to marry anyone else after that.

Well, thankfully the Bible keeps plugging at this subject:

Deuteronomy

22:28 If a man encounters a virgin girl who is not betrothed and is caught raping her,
22:29 then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver. He must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.

[sparklecat]

All of Ezekiel 23 is pretty bad...

http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=EZEK+23&language=english&version=NIV

I remember my roommate and I coming across that verse when studying for a test last year... that sort of thing is really good for association and helping you remember details at least...

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

22:28 If a man encounters a virgin girl who is not betrothed and is caught raping her,
22:29 then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver. He must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.

Ugh

Found another one that I've hated for awhile...

Ezekiel 24:15-18
The word of the LORD came to me: "Son of man, with one blow I am about to take away from you the delight of your eyes. Yet do not lament or weep or shed any tears. Groan quietly; do not mourn for the dead. Keep your turban fastened and your sandals on your feet; do not cover the lower part of your face or eat the customary food of mourners ."
So I spoke to the people in the morning, and in the evening my wife died. The next morning I did as I had been commanded.

[rdaneel]

Mathew 7:21 would be a good one to put up, it directly contradicts John 3:16.

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

So much for getting in by faith alone.

[sparklecat]

Originally posted by DangerousBeliefs

22:28 If a man encounters a virgin girl who is not betrothed and is caught raping her,
22:29 then the rapist must give the girl's father 50 [shekels] of silver. He must then take the girl he violated as his wife, and he may not send her away as long as he lives.

*blinks*

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?postid=1375104#post1375104

[Gregor]

Sparklecat

The Ezekiel 23 chapter is not a literal story of two sisters who became prostitutes. It's a figurative story of Judah and Israel.

The language is coloful, I'll grant you.

[LFTKBS]

1) I like the part in II Kings about the she-bears who kill the boys who make fun of Elisha or Elvis or whatever his name is. It's like chapter 22, but I'm too lazy to verify.

2) I looked at the RR link above, and I don't know if I'm more shocked at their attitude toward sex and marriage, or the fact that their sigs can take up to 40% of the window.

[Dancing David]

Numbers 31, ..you can keep the virgins but kill the rest...


I never did understand the whole Yeshuah the son of god thing, I feel that jesus taught we are all god's children so his followers totaly messed up the message.

[bjornart]

Exodus 4. Prime example of "The Lord" being a viscious bastard.

21 The LORD said to Moses, "When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. 22 Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son, 23 and I told you, "Let my son go, so he may worship me." But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son.' "


And of him being plain weird:
24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone.

[arcticpenguin]

I like the one about how you should do your praying in private, instead of making a public show of it. Sorry, I don't have the chapter & verse.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I like the one about how you should do your praying in private, instead of making a public show of it. Sorry, I don't have the chapter & verse.

Matthew 6:5-6

"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

[sackett]

"Give wine unto him that be heavy of heart, and strong drink unto him that be ready to perish, that he may drink, and forget his woe."

Teetotalism ain't what it used to be.

I need a drink.

[sparklecat]

Gregor- yes, very colorful!

David- only way they could have messed it up would be if they also attributed things to him that he never said, as well as making up the resurrection and pretty much all of Christianity. Which I'm sure some think they did.

bjornart- that second passage actually has some long strange story behind it that explains, but I can't quite remember it off the top of my head...

[Disbeliever]

Here's a slew of 'em: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

My personal favorite is "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." - Jesus, in Revelations 22:16

Hmmm.... let's think about what "morning star" refers to in the Bible.... is J.C. supposed to be Lucifer? Not that I really care.... I don't buy any of it anyway.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by LFTKBS
1) I like the part in II Kings about the she-bears who kill the boys who make fun of Elisha or Elvis or whatever his name is. It's like chapter 22, but I'm too lazy to verify.


I don't have any problem with this bit. Don't picture 40 little boys, picture 40 menacing yobbos yelling "Hey Baldy!".

The geezer prayed for deliverance and the bears happened by.

If you had been observing from a distance with your rational attitude, your interpretation of events would certainly be different from that of the geezer.

But can you deny that the yobbos deserved it?

:p

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Disbeliever
Here's a slew of 'em: http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/DarkBibleContents.htm

My personal favorite is "I am the root and offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." - Jesus, in Revelations 22:16

Hmmm.... let's think about what "morning star" refers to in the Bible.... is J.C. supposed to be Lucifer? Not that I really care.... I don't buy any of it anyway.

Another good site is skepticsannotatedbible.com

Of course Jesus is Satan. How else would he get his laundry done?

[/random nonsense]

[Martin]

Originally posted by sparklecat
This is God talking btw...*bows down*




.....oh.

[sparklecat]

Thanks a lot. I got juice up my nose :p

[T'ai Chi]

I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

Explain to me how I might view the Genocide depicted in the OT in a reasonable manner... I'm sure this will help me rethink my position on the European holocaust during WW2, and more recent events in Cambodia, Kosovo and Rawanda, to name a few..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Explain to me how I might view the Genocide depicted in the OT in a reasonable manner... I'm sure this will help me rethink my position on the European holocaust during WW2, and more recent events in Cambodia, Kosovo and Rawanda, to name a few..

I guess you'll have to be more specific for us.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I guess you'll have to be more specific for us.

Maybe for you..


Let's try this...

Assuming there are depictions of Jehova directed Genocides in the Bible, explain to me under what circumstances you feel there would be a reasonable explanation for such behavior..


That done, I will bother to take the time, to drag out some quotes for you...

Fundies like to explain these things away with statements like:

" Well, times were much harsher back then, and you had to disembowel children and pregnant women, to let em' know you really meant business.."


Perhaps you can do better than that?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

I don't doubt it. I think a good deal of the appeal of the Bible (and thus Christianity as a whole) is that by picking and choosing how you want to interpret things (i.e. taking some things literally and others figuratively) you can make the bible say just about anything you want. If you want a nice, warm, fluffy God, you can interpret things to back up that view. If you want a stern, lighting bolt throwing God, you can back that up too. It's all in the interpretation...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


I don't doubt it. I think a good deal of the appeal of the Bible (and thus Christianity as a whole) is that by picking and choosing how you want to interpret things (i.e. taking some things literally and others figuratively) you can make the bible say just about anything you want. If you want a nice, warm, fluffy God, you can interpret things to back up that view. If you want a stern, lighting bolt throwing God, you can back that up too. It's all in the interpretation...

Yeah, but if you are going to take the ' figurative ' route, you still have to explain all those missing Amorites ...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Yeah, but if you are going to take the ' figurative ' route, you still have to explain all those missing Amorites ...

True enough, but i have heard all manner of rationalizations by believers for things like that, unsurprisingly, these rationalizations are always in keeping with that particualr believers view of God.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

Read Numbers up to and include 31!

The children of israel have been pillaging the land of midian... the big guy told them to kill all the inhabitants, which they do for a while...the blood lust starts to wear off and some start to keep women and various animals that they find...leader sees this and says 'oh crap, the big guy is going to be pissed'...so he goes to Aaron who is the big guy's mouthpieve and asks for help...Aaaron gets the big guy on the phone... at first he is pissed but then relents and says that they must kill verything but thgey can keep the virgins.

Now is that really reasonable?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Read Numbers up to and include 31!

The children of israel have been pillaging the land of midian... the big guy told them to kill all the inhabitants, which they do for a while...the blood lust starts to wear off and some start to keep women and various animals that they find...leader sees this and says 'oh crap, the big guy is going to be pissed'...so he goes to Aaron who is the big guy's mouthpieve and asks for help...Aaaron gets the big guy on the phone... at first he is pissed but then relents and says that they must kill verything but thgey can keep the virgins.

Now is that really reasonable?

If you're the one keeping a virgin or two it is...:D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Let's try this...

Assuming there are depictions of Jehova directed Genocides in the Bible, explain to me under what circumstances you feel there would be a reasonable explanation for such behavior..

That done, I will bother to take the time, to drag out some quotes for you...

Fundies like to explain these things away with statements like:

" Well, times were much harsher back then, and you had to disembowel children and pregnant women, to let em' know you really meant business.."

Perhaps you can do better than that?

I mean could you give me a specific place in the Bible to read from start to finish, a place that illustrates one of the genocides you are referring to?

[Graham]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I mean could you give me a specific place in the Bible to read from start to finish, a place that illustrates one of the genocides you are referring to?

I can't give you chapter and verse but wouldn't the killing of the Egyptian firstborn before the Exodus count as Genocide?

Graham

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I mean could you give me a specific place in the Bible to read from start to finish, a place that illustrates one of the genocides you are referring to?

Sheesh....

Genesis
7:21
And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

7:22
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

7:23
And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Sheesh....


Yeah, I guess some people get annoyed when you ask for actual evidence.

I'll try and Google to find apologetic stuff that addresses claims of genocide by God, etc., in the Bible.

I'll just note for now that it always amuses me that atheists necessarily don't believe that God created life, but yet believe, at least in terms of Biblical excerpts, that God ended the lives of these people. They view it like God had nothing to do with their life, but caused their death. :P

[Sindai]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I'll just note for now that it always amuses me that atheists necessarily don't believe that God created life, but yet believe, at least in terms of Biblical excerpts, that God ended the lives of these people.

Atheists necessarily don't believe that God killed anyone either. he can't if he doesn't exist. The point behind finding unpleasant Bible quotes is to make Fundamentalists who believe it's inerrant and hould be followed to the letter think twice.

They view it like God had nothing to do with their life, but caused their death. :P

I realize you don't assert this here, but it seems implied: are you saying that it would be okay for God to kill everyone if he did create them?

[Zep]

The Skeptics Annotated Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/) is always a handy reference for subjects like this.

[Gregor]

Tai Chi

With this masterful bon mot:

"I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner."

Welcome to the "ridiculous" list. A few more, and you qualify for the "ignore" list.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I'll just note for now that it always amuses me that atheists necessarily don't believe that God created life, but yet believe, at least in terms of Biblical excerpts, that God ended the lives of these people. They view it like God had nothing to do with their life, but caused their death. :Pogetic stuff that addresses claims of genocide by God, etc., in the Bible.

Which has nothing to do with your assertion that:I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

Your request:I mean could you give me a specific place in the Bible to read from start to finish, a place that illustrates one of the genocides you are referring to?

It was provided , and now we are waiting for you to explain how destroying millions of innocent people can be considered reasonable in any rational context.


No, Atheists do not believe God created or destroyed anything. We are asking people who believe he did, to explain how the obviously immoral behavior of their God can be rationalized; how they can condone ( supposed ) behaviour from a God, that they would not ( ....or would they? ) condone from fellow human beings..

We are waiting for your reasonable explanation..
I suspect we will continue to hear the sound of crickets chirping..

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I'll just note for now that it always amuses me that atheists necessarily don't believe that God created life, but yet believe, at least in terms of Biblical excerpts, that God ended the lives of these people. They view it like God had nothing to do with their life, but caused their death. :P [/B]

Nice little strawman you built there.

An atheist doesn't blame god for anything. In order to blame god would require one to believe in the existance of a god. By definition an atheist does not believe in a god and therefore cannot blame him for anything, good or bad.

I, and many other atheists I know, don't trot out the nasty parts of the bible in order to blame god for them, they trot them out for a variety of other reasons, sometimes to counter the argument used by some Christians that the bible is a great guide for how to run ones life, sometimes to show hypocrisy and/or contradiction within it, etc. There are probably as many reasons as there ar atheists. Yes sometimes they are used in silly and/or strawmannish arguments from the atheist side too, but your assertion that atheists blame God for the bad things but give him no credit for the good things is absurd. It also borders on being insulting as well since it implies that we are hypocrites who actually DO belive in god but just don't like him.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Gregor
Tai Chi

With this masterful bon mot:

"I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner."

Welcome to the "ridiculous" list. A few more, and you qualify for the "ignore" list.

Wait a sec.. I didn't say I agreed with the apologetics. I simply reported that I've seen apologetic writings on basically every Bible criticism.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Wait a sec.. I didn't say I agreed with the apologetics. I simply reported that I've seen apologetic writings on basically every Bible criticism.

And we are waiting for what you would consider to be a reasonable explanation for God comitting or directing genocide..

The tone of your earlier posts suggested you had a wealth of material on tap, as soon as we gave you a specific example...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

And we are waiting for what you would consider to be a reasonable explanation for God comitting or directing genocide..

The tone of your earlier posts suggested you had a wealth of material on tap, as soon as we gave you a specific example...

You are impatient.

I have done several Google searches for apologetic material about what you posted from Genesis. I'll sifting through the best ones and will post them later tonight.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Wait a sec.. I didn't say I agreed with the apologetics. I simply reported that I've seen apologetic writings on basically every Bible criticism.

Ah, but that is not what you said here:

I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.



have you read Judges thrity one yet, I was very specific!

[Ladewig]

T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.


How about bjornart's reference to Exodus 4:24-26

24 At a lodging place on the way, the LORD met Moses and was about to kill him. 25 But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off her son's foreskin and touched Moses' feet with it. "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me," she said. 26 So the LORD let him alone.

The Lord spends 17 verses trying to convince Moses to go to Egypt on a mission from God, and as soon as Moses loads up the family and hits the road, the Lord tries to kill him.

[T'ai Chi]

Here are some apologetic pages that I've found. Enjoy(?)!

http://hometown.aol.com/kingdavid10/FAQs/GodKillPeople.html
http://www.bible.ca/f-death-why-did-god-kill-my-loved-one.htm
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/otkillergod.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_god01.htm
http://www.shakinandshinin.org/WhyDoesGodAllowWar.html
http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/qa.asp?StudyID=294
http://www.truthwalk.com/Q%20and%20A/judgmentot.html
http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq309.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html

And make sure to check out tantrums in the opposite direction while you're at it: http://www.killgod.net/tractsintro.html :)

And please, please, don't be stupid and argue against the strawman of me believing in the contents of the above pages. I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
http://hometown.aol.com/kingdavid10/FAQs/GodKillPeople.html
http://www.bible.ca/f-death-why-did-god-kill-my-loved-one.htm
http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/otkillergod.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/moral_authority.html
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/genocide.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_god01.htm
http://www.shakinandshinin.org/WhyDoesGodAllowWar.html
http://www.bible.org/docs/qa/qa.asp?StudyID=294
http://www.truthwalk.com/Q%20and%20A/judgmentot.html
http://www.raptureready.com/faq/faq309.html
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t023.html
I've gone through all of these, and to sum them all up, they all go about like this:

People suffer because this is not a happy place, and you must accept the consequences of living here.

"Innoncents" dont really suffer, no one is innocent as we are all born with original sin.

Humans ourselves, being so ignorant, cant possibly judge the actions the God. God is the ultimate authority, he can do no "evil".

Although there is a lot of evil in the bible, there is also a lot of good stuff too!

The nations condemned in the Bible have been sinning for years, and God has in fact given them "second chances".

Good people die young, which is actually a gift from God because you have pleased him. By dying young, you wont be polluted by evil.

As the Book of Job makes it clear, sometimes God will deliberately allow someone to suffer to test their faith.

God allows evil to happen not because he is punishing the people, but the people punish themselves for their lack of faith.

Basically, of the very few successful "refutations" a Christian can use to argue against the "why would God allow suffering" is to either accept that the Christian God is not omnibenevolent, or notice that the words "why would God allow suffering" is a strawman and therefore not a reason to deny the existence of God (of course, it is reason to deny the "good nature" of God... but there are intellectually dishonest ways to get around that also). Of course, it would just be easier for a Christian to say the stories were not written by God or should not be taken literally. Or I could go out on a limb and say God doesnt exist or something...

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible.

Actually, you said:

"I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner".

There are two ways to take this:

1) Every Bible quote can be given some sort of explanation while using a civil tone of voice. And Hannibal Lecter was very civil when killing and eating people. If this was your intention, it's obviously correct, and has no relevance to the thread topic.

2) Every Bible quote can be given a reasonable explanation. If this is the case (more likely, I suspect), you must give us a reasonable explanation of the quotes presented to you. You have not done this. You posted a list of links. The first such link says that God can kill people because he created them. I don't consider this reasonable; do you? If not, please indicate what explanation you consider reasonable.

Thanks.

[Skeptical Greg]

Thanks for the links T'ai Chi, now tell me why YOU think any of those explanations are a REASONABLE explanation of why we should condsider the destruction of millions of people and other life forms, as an acceptable form of behavior from a God or anyone.


A link to the 'Skeptics Annotated Bible " was not acceptable to you, so I think it is only fair that you be more specific.


In case you have forgotten, you said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you can suggest that the story of Noah sounds O.K. to you, that God can do as he damn well pleases ( a God's prerogative )or that maybe there really is some bad stuff in the Bible..

What do you think?


I quoted the Noah story because it is well known and a favorite subject for children's stories and coloring books.. I have been patiently waiting the scratch and sniff version that includes the tons of rotting corpses..

After you critique ' Noahs Ark ' we could move on to ' Bears Mauling Children', and ' Disemboweling Pregnant Women '...

[Gregor]

Not to pile on, Tai Chi, but you chose to describe apologetics as reasonable. Your definition of reasonable and mine are apparently dramatically different.

I reviewed many of the links and found them ridiculous or purportedly knowing the mind of God. For example, one addressed the death of Amelkite children at the hands of Israel.

__________________

"Why were the children killed, if they weren't guilty? Apparently, they were considered as morally neutral, since they weren't yet old enough to be held accountable or to have done much right or wrong. While not as corrupt as their parents, they were part of the society that was judged, and shared its earthly (though not its eternal) fate.

"It's worth noting that being killed with a sword (perhaps beheaded) was at the time one of the quickest ways for the children to die (as opposed to suffocation/strangulation, starvation, disease or being torn apart by wild animals."

_________________

How bloody reasonable is that? The site said children aren't punished for the sins of their parents on one line, then says they are on another line. The site says "well, beheading wasn't so bad." The author forgets to note that God did the other three bad acts, too.

[Skeptical Greg]

We must keep in mind that the process of rationalization doesn't confer rationality...

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.

1 Samuel 18:10
"And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied..."

What does this mean to xians? I know what it means to me: this was written before Satan was introduced as an entity. The only explanation for evil was God since God was everything. So evil was explained in this way - an "evil spirit from God". Once Satan came onboard, then everything was hunky-dory - God was good, Satan was bad. However these verses still remain. I would love to see this verse explained in a reasonable manner.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy


1 Samuel 18:10
"And it came to pass on the morrow, that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied..."

What does this mean to xians? I know what it means to me: this was written before Satan was introduced as an entity. The only explanation for evil was God since God was everything. So evil was explained in this way - an "evil spirit from God". Once Satan came onboard, then everything was hunky-dory - God was good, Satan was bad. However these verses still remain. I would love to see this verse explained in a reasonable manner.

Thanks Triadboy, I'm off to The Readers Digest Soul Discussion (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@46.5gV0apRYtVT.4@.efe9a79/2783) with that one..


Get me some more...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Thanks for the links T'ai Chi, now tell me why YOU think any of those explanations are a REASONABLE explanation of why we should condsider the destruction of millions of people and other life forms, as an acceptable form of behavior from a God or anyone.


You missed this, apparently:

"And please, please, don't be stupid and argue against the strawman of me believing in the contents of the above pages. I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible."

Diogenes, you seem to argue all the bad stuff that God has done, but you never mention the good stuff. Why is that? Let us know.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Thanks Triadboy, I'm off to The Readers Digest Soul Discussion (http://communitytalk.rd.com/webx?50@46.5gV0apRYtVT.4@.efe9a79/2783) with that one..


Get me some more...

Diogenes: As I re-read the post - I noticed something that should be changed:

"The only explanation for evil was God since God was everything."

Of course, God wasn't everything at that time. There were other gods watching over their own people (Marduk, Baal, etc). And the creators of Yahweh fully recognizes this in the 10 commandments and other places.

Not only did 'good' come from God, but 'evil' too.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

"I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible."

There are people who believe the Earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and we didn't land on the moon. Craziness abounds!


Diogenes, you seem to argue all the bad stuff that God has done, but you never mention the good stuff. Why is that? Let us know.

I would love to hear an example of 'good stuff' done by God.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You missed this, apparently:

"And please, please, don't be stupid and argue against the strawman of me believing in the contents of the above pages. I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible."

Diogenes, you seem to argue all the bad stuff that God has done, but you never mention the good stuff. Why is that? Let us know. [/B]

Are you saying that any explanation is reasonable?

You seem to be saying that, since you refuse to address the questions of why the explanations you linked to are 'reasonable' explanations and not just explanations.

You most certainly did NOT just ".. merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible."

You also claimed that they are 'reasonable' apologetics. Can you please provide what definition of 'reasonable' you are using? Because you seem to be saying that any and all explanations are reasonable ones.

So if someone asks "How can an all-good God let children die in Natural Disasters?" a reasonable explanation for you would seem to include something like "He was out taking a dump that day", is that an accurate assessment?

Adam

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You missed this, apparently:

"And please, please, don't be stupid and argue against the strawman of me believing in the contents of the above pages. I merely stated that there is, in fact, apologetic material on every possible criticism of the Bible."

Diogenes, you seem to argue all the bad stuff that God has done, but you never mention the good stuff. Why is that? Let us know. [/B]

But that was not your original assertion.. I will repeat one more time:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You have failed to respond to the counterpoints..


I do not feel compelled to respond to your red herring... But the quick answer ( and already stated in this thread ) I do not feel God is responsible for anything. But for the sake of argument; sure, I'll give God credit for letting people live in the Bible, as well as the credit for the ones he killed...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by triadboy


Diogenes: As I re-read the post - I noticed something that should be changed:

"The only explanation for evil was God since God was everything."

Of course, God wasn't everything at that time. There were other gods watching over their own people (Marduk, Baal, etc). And the creators of Yahweh fully recognizes this in the 10 commandments and other places.

Not only did 'good' come from God, but 'evil' too.

That is an interesting point.. It is hard to get Christians to recognize that the Israelites never pretended there was only one God.. Even more Glaring, is that old Yahweh ( as portrayed ), never pretended so either...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

(I said)
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.


Yeah I said that, so? I think that some explanations are reasonable. I may not agree with their content, but they seem reasonable. For example, if there is a God, we probably couldn't understand its actions at all-- even though we may think we do from our extremely limited point of view. That, to me, seems very reasonable. I'm not so egotistical to think I could understand a God or its actions if one or many exist.


You have failed to respond to the counterpoints..


You have failed to offer anything substantial..


I do not feel compelled to respond to your red herring... But the quick answer ( and already stated in this thread ) I do not feel God is responsible for anything. But for the sake of argument; sure, I'll give God credit for letting people live in the Bible, as well as the credit for the ones he killed...

So you don't feel God is responsible for anything, yet you argue that if God did this bad thing or did this bad thing, etc. ? So isn't that a little odd?... You don't feel God is responsible or even exists, yet you are critiquing based on all of this bad stuff God supposedly did (that you don't really think he did). OK.

If you have no problem critiquing all of God's bad stuff from what is written in the Bible, you surely must acknowledge all of God's good stuff too. You know, those extremely minor things like creating the universe and all life that is in it, an afterlife, creating love, puppies, smiles, peace, babies, causing people to recover from injury, free will, etc. etc. etc.

Do skeptics focus only on the bad for arugments sake like true believers only focus on the good?? Nah, couldn't be. :D

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by triadboy
Originally posted by T'ai Chi

There are people who believe the Earth is flat, the holocaust never happened, and we didn't land on the moon. Craziness abounds!


Yeah... and.. ... ... ... ?

There are also people who claim no god(s) exist is a fact, arguing against ideas about god proves that no god exists in reality, and a whole host of other stupid things.


I would love to hear an example of 'good stuff' done by God.

I guess creating everything that there is? Yeah, just minor stuff like that.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There are also people who claim no god(s) exist is a fact, arguing against ideas about god proves that no god exists in reality, and a whole host of other stupid things.

There isn't a rational reason to claim a god exists. There is only personal incredulity. Once you get over that hump, you will REALLY see the light.


I guess creating everything that there is? Yeah, just minor stuff like that.

Where did you read that?!

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

Do skeptics focus only on the bad for arugments sake like true believers only focus on the good?? Nah, couldn't be. :D

Once again it sounds like you are arguing that atheists really DO believe in god, they just don't like him. Is this what you are saying? Because it sure sounds that way to me and it's a bullsh!t, bogus argument.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by triadboy
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
[B]
There isn't a rational reason to claim a god exists.


Perhaps so. However, it isn't rational either to argue from ignorance, or from writings about god(s), and conclude that because you have no evidence, or because you find some contradiction in a text that therefore said god(s) don't or can't exist in reality.

As skeptical as you are, you still must entertain the idea to be non-dogmatic.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep

Once again it sounds like you are arguing that atheists really DO believe in god, they just don't like him. Is this what you are saying?


I merely pointed out that atheist, skeptics, etc., seem to only focus on the bad things god(s) did in their arguments. Why don't these freethinkers focus on the good things god(s) did while they are at it?

Do you know why they behave like that? Let me know. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Yeah I said that, so? I think that some explanations are reasonable. I may not agree with their content, but they seem reasonable. For example, if there is a God, we probably couldn't understand its actions at all-- even though we may think we do from our extremely limited point of view. That, to me, seems very reasonable. I'm not so egotistical to think I could understand a God or its actions if one or many exist.

[/b]

You have failed to offer anything substantial..



So you don't feel God is responsible for anything, yet you argue that if God did this bad thing or did this bad thing, etc. ? So isn't that a little odd?... You don't feel God is responsible or even exists, yet you are critiquing based on all of this bad stuff God supposedly did (that you don't really think he did). OK.

If you have no problem critiquing all of God's bad stuff from what is written in the Bible, you surely must acknowledge all of God's good stuff too. You know, those extremely minor things like creating the universe and all life that is in it, an afterlife, creating love, puppies, smiles, peace, babies, causing people to recover from injury, free will, etc. etc. etc.

Do skeptics focus only on the bad for arugments sake like true believers only focus on the good?? Nah, couldn't be. :D [/B]I'll try this one more time, pretending that you are not ignoring it.

Give me a reasonable explanation ( reasonable for you ), for a God to destroy every living thing except one family and a few animals.

I promise I won't ask again, and we will pretend you didn't say:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I haven't seen a supposedly bad Bible excerpt yet that couldn't be explained in a reasonable a manner.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We will pretend it was mutterred by an idiot wearing a sandwhich board that reads " The End is Near "..

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I merely pointed out that atheist, skeptics, etc., seem to only focus on the bad things god(s) did in their arguments. Why don't these freethinkers focus on the good things god(s) did while they are at it?

Do you know why they behave like that? Let me know. :) [/B]

I am sure the reasons are nearly as varied as the people making the arguments. Some of the most common reasons I think are
to counter the theist argument that the bible (or whatever holy book is under discussion) is a good source of inspiration of how to live your life.
to point out he hypocracy involved when theists accuse atheists of being immoral
to point out how little theists often know about their own holy books.
to point out contradictions, i.e. when one part of the bible tells you to "love your neighbor as yourself" but another part says "happy is he that dasheth the little ones against the wall"
to show how religion can be used to justify bad behavior in human beings


That's just off the top of my head, I am sure I could think of many more if I were to sit and ponder it for a while. Some of them, admittedly,are not the best examples of logic but I am not saying anything about how good the arguments are, I am only relating the arguments themselves to show that they do not involve blaming a non-existant entity for anything.

Also, do not make the mistake of confusing blaming god for things with blaming religion for those same things. I do not believe in God any more than I believe in Santa and no more blame or credit him for anything than I hold Santa responsible for my gifts at Christmas. However, religion does exist and I, for one, am willing to blame it for plenty.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

I merely pointed out that atheist, skeptics, etc., seem to only focus on the bad things god(s) did in their arguments. Why don't these freethinkers focus on the good things god(s) did while they are at it?

Do you know why they behave like that? Let me know. :)

I think that would be because there is a certain type of believer who can not get enough about proclaiming how wonderful Jesus is, that God never let's anything bad happen, and that all the bad things that happen are either sinful man's fault who was created in God's image or Satan's. Or something.

And things like flood stories, disembowelling and raping in the name of God, and suchlike don't go too well with a superbenevolent God type.



Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah I said that, so? I think that some explanations are reasonable. I may not agree with their content, but they seem reasonable. For example, if there is a God, we probably couldn't understand its actions at all-- even though we may think we do from our extremely limited point of view. That, to me, seems very reasonable. I'm not so egotistical to think I could understand a God or its actions if one or many exist.

Yeah, perhaps we just cannot understand God's actions. Who knows? And yet we are supposed to follow His commandements which mainly are being spread by people who, after the above reasoning, neither can understand God's actions. Or are we to assume that the Word of God is literal? Oh, please

;)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
However, it isn't rational either to argue from ignorance, or from writings about god(s), ...

I try not to argue from ignorance. I have studied this subject for many years and understand exactly what I am saying. The lock bet would be to say you've never read the Bible. Most xians have never read it and aren't aware of many of the stories and passages.

...and conclude that because you have no evidence, or because you find some contradiction in a text that therefore said god(s) don't or can't exist in reality.

There is no evidence of a "god". All you have to prop your belief are the Bible and your personal 'feeling' there is a god.

As for "some contradiction in a text" - there are many!! [As an experiment - flip through the bible and stop where your finger points - and then post the passage.]

We're not talking about a clerical error. We are talking about moral and scientific hogwash. If there were a god, the bible would be an insult to Him.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
For example, if there is a God, we probably couldn't understand its actions at all-- even though we may think we do from our extremely limited point of view. That, to me, seems very reasonable. I'm not so egotistical to think I could understand a God or its actions if one or many exist.

I see. So, am I correct in inferring that you think "God works in mysterious ways" is a reasonable explanation for all/many Bible quotes?

Explanation is "the act of clearing from obscurity and making intelligible". I don't think this qualifies. Your explanation has not provided us with any insight for a given quote; it is simply non-clarifying statement that explains nothing. Perhaps it cannot be explained (as God's mind is so unimaginable); in this case, you should be honest and say "I don't know" or "There is no reasonable explanation that anyone has come up with".

For example, there are many odd phenomena involving subatomic particles. A reasonable explanation for this is not "The universe works in mysterious ways". There is no reasonable explanation; it is yet to be found. A reasonable response is "I don't know why they do that".

Any fool can make a reasonable response. It takes knowledge to make a a reasonable explanation.

I ask again: Have you actually seen reasonable explanations for every Bible quote presented? If so, please provide some for the quotes presented in this thread. If not, please concede that your original claim was overly ambitious.

Thanks.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes
I'll try this one more time, pretending that you are not ignoring it.

Give me a reasonable explanation ( reasonable for you ), for a God to destroy every living thing except one family and a few animals.


You obviously didn't read any of the links I found and already posted. They give several possibilities. I'm not going to copy and paste from those links and do your work for you.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You obviously didn't read any of the links I found and already posted. They give several possibilities. I'm not going to copy and paste from those links and do your work for you. [/B]




Chirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Chirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp..

You continue to ask for reasons. I posted links to pages with reasons. What are you failing to comprehend?

No, wait, I don't care. :)

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You obviously didn't read any of the links I found and already posted. They give several possibilities. I'm not going to copy and paste from those links and do your work for you.

I did. Kindly respond to my posts.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


You continue to ask for reasons. I posted links to pages with reasons. What are you failing to comprehend?

No, wait, I don't care. :)

Ya, just keep dodging. Whatever you do, don't admit you made a mistake, maybe you can be just like Billhoyt and keep dancing and changing the subject long enough that it will just go away :rolleyes:

The simple facts are:

You claimed you had seen a reasonable explanation for every 'bad' bible excerpt brought forth.

You posted some examples of explanations by linking to a number of sites.

Some people brought up examples they did not believe were reasonable explanations.

You have refused to give the definition of reasonable you are using and show how these explanations fit under that definition.

And you've tried to water down your claim a few times now by saying you've seen apologetics for every problem in the bible. Nice try, that's not what you claimed.

So, can you back up your claim and show how the explanations taken from your links are actually reasonable under whatever definition you are using for reasonable?

Or can you be a man and just say that you worded it poorly and don't necessarily think every possible explanation is a reasonable one?

Adam

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

Whatever you do, don't admit you made a mistake, maybe you can be just like Billhoyt and keep dancing and changing the subject long enough that it will just go away :rolleyes:


Ouch, comparing me to Bill. That was low!! :)


You claimed you had seen a reasonable explanation for every 'bad' bible excerpt brought forth.


Yes. And I've already said that I consider the 'we cannot possibly understand god of its thoughs/actions, if such a god exists' explanation as reasonable.


You posted some examples of explanations by linking to a number of sites.


Yes, I did. Thank you for acknowledging that. I posted links to sites that had apologetic explanations. Yes. I did. Yes. Yet people still keep asking me for explanations..


You have refused to give the definition of reasonable you are using and show how these explanations fit under that definition.


If you don't know the definition of 'reasonable' you'll need to consult a dictionary.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ouch, comparing me to Bill. That was low!! :)


Well you know.... if the shoe fits, shove it on the guy ;)

Yes. And I've already said that I consider the 'we cannot possibly understand god of its thoughs/actions, if such a god exists' explanation as reasonable.

I see. So then, I would guess you would say that "God was taking a dump that day" is a reasonable explanation for the question "Why does God allow little children to die in natural disasters?". As I asked before, is that accurate?

Yes, I did. Thank you for acknowledging that. I posted links to sites that had apologetic explanations. Yes. I did. Yes. Yet people still keep asking me for explanations..

Yes, because those apologetics are not reasonable, so they asked for explanations as to why you think they are reasonable, something you continue to avoid answering.

If you don't know the definition of 'reasonable' you'll need to consult a dictionary.

I know what definition I would use :) But who can tell what one you are using... you refuse to give any explanation yourself as to why you think a particular explanation is reasonable or not.

As I said, it seems that to you any explanation at all is reasonable.

Since you refuse to comment or back up your claim in any way what-so-ever, I'll assume from now on that any explanation of any sort is 'reasonable' for you. Which means that the definition of reasonable you employ is totally vacuous.

I'll remember that you believe such nonesense when reading you in the future :)

Adam

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


.....................................


If you don't know the definition of 'reasonable' you'll need to consult a dictionary.

The question is not what reasonable means, but why the murder of innocents is reasonable to you..

You haven't answered that yet..

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes. And I've already said that I consider the 'we cannot possibly understand god of its thoughs/actions, if such a god exists' explanation as reasonable.

What, am I chopped liver? I explained why that isn't a reasonable explanation.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by slimshady2357

So then, I would guess you would say that "God was taking a dump that day" is a reasonable explanation for the question "Why does God allow little children to die in natural disasters?". As I asked before, is that accurate?


I have no idea what you mean by "taking a dump". If you could be more specific, that would be great.


Yes, because those apologetics are not reasonable, so they asked for explanations as to why you think they are reasonable, something you continue to avoid answering.


I've answered. You are being irrational for continual demanding of an answer when one has been given.


I know what definition I would use :) But who can tell what one you are using...


There is a standard definition of reasonable. Use that one.


you refuse to give any explanation yourself as to why you think a particular explanation is reasonable or not.


My opinion.


As I said, it seems that to you any explanation at all is reasonable.


Nope. I already posted the explanation I think is reasonable:

"Yes. And I've already said that I consider the 'we cannot possibly understand god of its thoughs/actions, if such a god exists' explanation as reasonable."

I don't know if it is true or not, but it seems reasonable, assuming god(s) exist.


Since you refuse to comment or back up your claim in any way what-so-ever,


See above.


I'll assume from now on that any explanation of any sort is 'reasonable' for you. Which means that the definition of reasonable you employ is totally vacuous.


See above.


I'll remember that you believe such nonesense when reading you in the future :)


I'll remember I still don't give a s&it about your strawmen. :)

[Stereolab]

I hate to admit this, because DangerousBeliefs ticked me off in another thread, but I find this idea hilarious. The idea of someone holding up a sign at a sports game with some obscure Bible passage...people figure it's something about the love of God, but in actuality it's about getting drunk with harlots or something...I don't care what your religious convictions are, that's just funny.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

The question is not what reasonable means, but why the murder of innocents is reasonable to you..

You haven't answered that yet..

It seems reasonable to me because my definition of reasonable matches the dictionary definition of reasonable, obviously.

You still haven't understood that yet...

Let it also be noted that, according to some apologetic sites, they don't think it was murder (killing yes, but not murder), or that the people were innocent (sin and all). Again... "according to the sites", not me.

Cheers

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by aerosolben

What, am I chopped liver? I explained why that isn't a reasonable explanation.


Explanation is "the act of clearing from obscurity and making intelligible". I don't think this qualifies. Your explanation has not provided us with any insight for a given quote;


Not my explanation, a common apologetic explanation. I do not own it or necessarily believe it.

Take any quote. Then realize that you might not be able to understand it in human terms (as you think you do) because you aren't smart enough (your hardware is necessarily limited) to understand the multidimensional creator of the universe, its actions, purposes, and methods (if one exists that is).

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Not my explanation, a common apologetic explanation. I do not own it or necessarily believe it.

Take any quote. Then realize that you might not be able to understand it in human terms (as you think you do) because you aren't smart enough (your hardware is necessarily limited) to understand the multidimensional creator of the universe, its actions, purposes, and methods (if one exists that is).

But many people ( some with the reasonable explanations you subscribe to ) who say we cannot understand God, say we must know him in order to be saved from eternal torture. Explain how it is reasonable to demand that someone know you, while remaining un-understandable..

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Diogenes

But many people ( some with the reasonable explanations you subscribe to ) who say we cannot understand God, say we must know him in order to be saved from eternal torture. Explain how it is reasonable to demand that someone know you, while remaining un-understandable..

Heck if I know! Good question. I'm neither an apologetic Christian or a Christian, so you'd have to ask them.

Let us know what they say. :)

I'm sure you could Google search and find some reasonable apologetic material on that topic though..