Skinny Puppy wrote:Scot Dutchy wrote:What a complete load of bollocks. The bible has no purpose why discredit something of no worth. You are claiming that this god of yours exists well prove it. I dont have to prove a thing.
Actually the Bible does have a purpose to well over 2 billion people. It can shape government policy, public policies and so on. It is not some pointless little book of little or no value when it can hold such an influence over society and how many of its citizens are treated.
It doesn’t matter whether it is 100% bull or not, however, if many wish to trample it under foot and get its adherents onto their side, then one has to know it thoroughly since it’s difficult to argue against something one has very little knowledge about. Knowing why people believe what they believe is the first step, using science and logic, the second.
I kind of agree. While it's not necessary to take the bible seriously, it's important to take Christianity seriously due to its track record of centuries of social control of large numbers of folk. And I think one of the important ways to take Christianity seriously is to expose that it is, in fact, simply a construct designed for social control. Biblical justification is always post hoc, and always possible for any stance, given the massively self-contradictory nature of the source. Want to promote homophobia? There's a passage for that! Want to argue against homophobia and for equality? There are passages for that, too! The entire business of biblical rationalisation is to cloak one's positions, any positions, with an authority that's socially unacceptable to question, mock, or flat out disregard. People believe because they're conditioned to dismiss doubt, and to champion uncritical acceptance of doctrine by the doctrine itself.
It's perfectly reasonable, therefore, to respond to people quoting chapter and verse with the question: "If you're right, surely you can muster support for your position from something other than a single 2000+ year old work of disputed worth?" If all someone has is unsupported doctrine from a doctrine that does not attempt to scrutinise the truth value of its own claims, then it's worthless, and we can move on.
Scot Dutchy's approach may be blunt, but it's a more sensible approach than attempting to criticise doctrinal statements from a doctrine that effectively includes the rule that "even when Christianity looks wrong, it's right"
from within that system. If Christians accept that, then inviting people to debate Christians
on Christian terms is pointless. The first order of business needs to be "your doctrine explicitly tolerates bullshit (counterfactuals, clear self-contradiction) and so is worthless as a arbiter of truth". Then everyone can move on to more interesting discussion, if they're able.