Using the Bible as an excuse for bigotry

[jeremyp]

If you are discussing the Bible as a fictional work, then the development of the God character from sneaky, violent trickster to "just" and "merciful" (debatable, I know) is relevant.

There's a third option. You might think the Bible is an imperfect reflection of a misunderstood (by people at the time).

If you think the Bible is a true reflection of a real God, however, you're stuck with the psychopathy.  The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity.  Jesus died for our sins, remember?  A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.

If you want to end a debate with Christians about accepting the gift of eternal life, I find a good answer is to point out that I didn't ask Jesus to die for me and that I find the idea of somebody else taking the rap for my wrongdoing to be morally abhorrent and no thanks but I'll accept the consequences of my mistakes.

If the Bible has anything to do with an omnipotent and benevolent being, why not make it wholly good and relevant regardless of time or culture?  Why, it's as if it was written by humans struggling to understand existence.  Bizarre.

Even when I was a Christian that used to confuse me. The world around me was proof that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My God had limitations and I didn't understand  why other Christians felt the need to assert the omnis. 

[Nearly Sane]

Even when I was a Christian that used to confuse me. The world around me was proof that God cannot be omnipotent and omnibenevolent. My God had limitations and I didn't understand  why other Christians felt the need to assert the omnis.

What sort of limitations did your god have in your view at the time?

[jeremyp]

And this is why your analogy with Voldemort doesn't really work: a writer such as J.K. Rowling may create a single character who is evil and hypocritical, and a good writer will always create characters full of moral ambiguities. But these characteristics are presented as the writer's own personal view of their own personal creation. In that sense, you can discuss the merits or defects of a non-existent character.
However, God as referred to by the various prophets is not like this at all, whether IT exists or doesn't exist. In fact, it doesn't require an in-depth examination of the way the prophets each refer to God to realise that many of them were deliberately reacting to and correcting the views of other prophets, so different these images of God can be seen to be. In a significant instance, it may well be that a lot of them were not aware of the Adam and Eve story at all, since they never refer to it. If they were aware of it, they obviously didn't consider it of any significance. (Richard Elliot Friedman in "Who Wrote the Bible" gives a very persuasive argument of how some prophets deliberately reacted to accounts of God's requirements and actions written by other prophets)

I don't accept your assertion that a fictional character has to be the invention of a single author in order to discuss its merits and defects without conceding that it is real.

Yes, LR's posts are more pronouncements than discussion points and they may be over simplistic, but she doesn't need to believe God is real to make them.

[jeremyp]

I know it's verging on heresy in the baby-eating circles, but I just don't find Hitchens to be up to much.  His arguments are so logically unfounded it's a wonder he's put in the same category as some of the other atheist thinkers.  Even Professor Dawkins who is not the best debater in the world actually makes his points from a first principle, admits the limitations of his own field... Hitchens, it seems to me, just makes an appeal to consequence and seems to get by on a reported charisma that I've failed to notice.

O.

The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything  in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.

Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.

[Outrider]

The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything  in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.

Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.

Maybe that was it, I primarily read rather than watching or listening...

O.

[Spud]

If you want to end a debate with Christians about accepting the gift of eternal life, I find a good answer is to point out that I didn't ask Jesus to die for me and that I find the idea of somebody else taking the rap for my wrongdoing to be morally abhorrent and no thanks but I'll accept the consequences of my mistakes.

If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?

[jeremyp]

What sort of limitations did your god have in your view at the time?

Having created the World, he clearly couldn't intervene except in certain limited ways. God wasn't omnipotent, just extremely powerful. He also wasn't infallible.

[jeremyp]

If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?

As I said, I accept the consequences of my actions. I will not have Jesus' blood on my hands.

Besides, I have no fear of being dead. An eternity in which I don't exist isn't a problem for me.

[Nearly Sane]

If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?

Yes because I don't worship Mafia bosses

[Nearly Sane]

Having created the World, he clearly couldn't intervene except in certain limited ways. God wasn't omnipotent, just extremely powerful. He also wasn't infallible.

Was your god all loving?

[Nearly Sane]

The thing about debates is that they are a show. They don't mean anything  in terms of getting to the truth. Watch William Lane Craig in a formal debate: he usually wipes the floor with the opposition, but if you sit back and analyse his arguments out of the context of the debate, they are all bogus.

Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.

Yes, it always amazed that Alien late of this parish used to set such store by the debates of Craig. It's all about technique and familiarity with the style. Craig is effectively a professional debater so wins that way. I don't think Hitchens ever really debated - it's more public speaking, which while related is in many ways a different style.

The Hitchens/Fry debate against Widdecombe/Bishop of Somewhere or Other was a mismatch and it's not surprising that most people thought H & F won. That said  W and Bish were fairly lamentable in the arguments as well but it's just not something that really helps determine truth.

[Dicky Underpants]

If you understood the punishment for rejecting Jesus' sacrifice to be eternal separation from God and all goodness, symbolized by eternal darkness or torment, would you still reject Jesus' death?

Not an improvement on Micah, I'm afraid. Just "Walk humbly with thy God" - and stop making threats.

[Spud]

If you are discussing the Bible as a fictional work, then the development of the God character from sneaky, violent trickster to "just" and "merciful" (debatable, I know) is relevant. 

No it isn't, because God was merciful from day 1, allowing Adam and Eve to live rather than die that day. He also allowed his Son to be killed violently in AD 30, and punished a nation violently in AD70. So his mercy and violence is constant.

If you think the Bible is a true reflection of a real God, however, you're stuck with the psychopathy.  The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity.  Jesus died for our sins, remember?  A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.

It's because God loves us that he allowed Jesus to be our substitute.

If you steal an i-pad from your boss and get found out, but the boss doesn't press charges against you, so you don't get a criminal record, but makes it clear that he will if you are caught again. That i-pad was used to facetime his son in outer Mongolia. So his son is cut off from him.

If the Bible has anything to do with an omnipotent and benevolent being, why not make it wholly good and relevant regardless of time or culture?  Why, it's as if it was written by humans struggling to understand existence.  Bizarre.

(What The Buddha Taught is far more universally relevant and far less likely to lead to genocide, I think.  It's a bit of a turgid read, but I expect that's good for me.)

Yes because I don't worship Mafia bosses

He isn't the Mafia boss, he's the king.

As I said, I accept the consequences of my actions. I will not have Jesus' blood on my hands.

Remember, Jesus is given back his life. Still don't take his offer?

Besides, I have no fear of being dead. An eternity in which I don't exist isn't a problem for me.

Aren't you making a dangerous assumption there?

[Dicky Underpants]

Similarly, I find Christopher Hitchens quite entertaining to watch and I tend to get caught up in his argument, but are his arguments any good? I find it hard to judge, because I agree with his broad views on religion. However, I read "God is not Great" and found it really disappointing. It was really just a stream of anecdotes and there were no substantive arguments.

Have to agree with you there. Besides, he based his views almost entirely on the picture of "God" as given in the early part of the Bible (with no doubt a few nods to minor psychos such as Zephaniah), but didn't address the obvious matter (to me) that "God" develops, and you could say, improves.

[Dicky Underpants]

  The innocent suffering for others' wrongdoing is at the heart of Christianity.  Jesus died for our sins, remember?  A morally bankrupt concept if ever there was one.

And a concept which Isaiah the 1st and Micah tried to do away with.

[Spud]

What is just and merciful in murdering innocent children? You worship a thug.

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

[Dicky Underpants]

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

But not merciful. And certainly not forgiving up to 70 times 7.

[Outrider]

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

And this is your 'perfectly good' source of all morality, is it?

O.

[Nearly Sane]

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

Good old Mafia Boss god killing innocent children as a lesson.

[Roses]

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

Do you really believe a god who could do a terrible thing like that to innocent children is good?

[SteveH]

Have you ever attended a pentecostalist church? Their core message is the unpleasant, 'you must be 'saved' or else', dogma.

Have you attended every Pentecostal church? If not, how do you know they're all like that?

[Roses]

Have you attended every Pentecostal church? If not, how do you know they're all like that?

Have you ever attended one?

[jeremyp]

Was your god all loving?

Yes.

[jeremyp]

This:

No it isn't, because God was merciful from day 1, allowing Adam and Eve to live rather than die that day. He also allowed his Son to be killed violently in AD 30, and punished a nation violently in AD70.

is the exact opposite of this:

So his mercy and violence is constant.

Remember, Jesus is given back his life. Still don't take his offer?

He was still crucified. Would you let somebody go to prison in your place even though you know they are going to live through the experience?

Aren't you making a dangerous assumption there?

Everybody dies. I don't think it's dangerous to assume that.

[jeremyp]

It's a tit-for-tat concept. The firstborn has a unique relationship to the parent. By killing all the male babies, the Egyptians tried to exterminate the Hebrews, who God had adopted as though they were his firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23). So he wanted Egypt to taste what he had experienced.

But that's rather unfortunate for those first borns who had to die to give their parents a taste of what he had experienced. Not only that, but the killing was pretty indiscriminate. It wasn't just the Egyptian first borns that died but those of everybody in Egypt and the animals too.