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.

You are claiming that this god of yours exists well prove it.

Where did I say that?

Skinny Puppy wrote:
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 <beverage> book of little or no value when it can hold such an influence over society and how many of its citizens are treated.

Can't the same be said of beer?

<emphasis, mine>

PensivePenny wrote:

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

And then there's the whole moneychangers' "overturning the tables" bruhaha... One more example and we have a bonafide history of anger

There is the “I am going to subject you to eternal torture if you don’t believe me” thing.

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.

double post deleted

I have no desire to confront, convert, or otherwise fart about with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Rastas, Hindus, or any other flavor of self-deluded "believers". I do wish they'd return the favor.

I have read the Babble, though. Most of it, anyway, but I still don't want to talk to them. I've also read all the Harry Potter books (don't judge). I also have no desire to discuss "fan theories" with Potterheads. That's pretty much what religion is, God fan theories.

OlivierK wrote:
>snip>
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.

The Bible is the word of God (to Christians). What would a Christian use besides that? The Bible is the undisputed authority regarding everything that a believer needs to know in order to live a life in harmony with their god. To them it isn’t a work of disputed worth. While unsupported doctrine may seem to be an odd position to hold, that’s where faith comes in.

<snip>

OlivierK wrote:
[…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.]

How does one say, your doctrine explicitly tolerates bullshit, if one isn’t familiar with it? To knock it or to say it’s worthless requires that one must know it.

Charles Templeton (an evangelist and contemporary of Billy Graham) wrote a book when he left Christianity. He used the Bible to basically tear the Bible apart. Here are a few quotes from it.

“If God's love encompasses the whole world and if everyone who does not believe in him will perish, then surely this question needs to be asked: When, after two thousand years, does God's plan kick in for the billion people he 'so loves' in China? Or for the 840 million in India? Or the millions in Japan, Afghanistan, Siberia, Egypt, Burma •.. and on and on?

Why would a God who 'so loved the world' reveal his message only to a tiny minority of the people on earth, leaving the majority in ignorance? Is it possible to believe that the Father of all Mankind would select as his Chosen People a small Middle Eastern nation, Israel, reveal His will exclusively to them, fight alongside them in their battles to survive, and only after their failure to reach out to any other group, update His plan for the world's salvation by sending His 'only begotten son,' not to the world but, once again, exclusively to Israel?”

― Charles Templeton, Farewell to God: My Reasons for Rejecting the Christian Faith

It's not worthless. It has literary value as some of the first human fiction, so there is that at least.

But, it's a lot like having faith that Gandolf was gay and arguing it as fact. Using the text to argue against the text is pointless. Oliver's point is that the goal post can be so easily moved, that the only real basis for argument are the facts of the real world. Of course, that won't be satisfactory to believers because to them, a lack of faith, rather facts, are worthless unless they can alter their interpretation of their bible to accommodate said facts.

Skinny Puppy wrote: What would a Christian use besides that?

Their brain? And all the resources they could possibly bring to bear?

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Sent from my Kindle

How about Ephesians 6:5-8?

or
1 Timothy 6:1-2?

scott1328 wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

scott1328 wrote:He cursed a fig tree for failing to bear fruit even though it was out of season, and it withered and died. I am detecting anger issues.

And then there's the whole moneychangers' "overturning the tables" bruhaha... One more example and we have a bonafide history of anger

There is the “I am going to subject you to eternal torture if you don’t believe me” thing.

And the 'I am going to punish people who aren't even born yet, for the crimes of their 100s times removed ancestors' thing.

romansh wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote: What would a Christian use besides that?

Their brain? And all the resources they could possibly bring to bear?

Not all Christians are like the ‘Night of the Living Dead’ zombies without a functioning brain. Here’s just one example.
My highlighted text.

John Charlton Polkinghorne KBE FRS (born 16 October 1930) is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer and Anglicanpriest. A prominent and leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, when he resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996.

Polkinghorne is the author of five books on physics, and 26 on the relationship between science and religion; his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009).[1] The Polkinghorne Reader (edited by Thomas Jay Oord) provides key excerpts from Polkinghorne's most influential books. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the £1 million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

Skinny Puppy wrote:

romansh wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote: What would a Christian use besides that?

Their brain? And all the resources they could possibly bring to bear?

Not all Christians are like the ‘Night of the Living Dead’ zombies without a functioning brain. Here’s just one example.
My highlighted text.

John Charlton Polkinghorne KBE FRS (born 16 October 1930) is an English theoretical physicist, theologian, writer and Anglicanpriest. A prominent and leading voice explaining the relationship between science and religion, he was professor of mathematical physics at the University of Cambridge from 1968 to 1979, when he resigned his chair to study for the priesthood, becoming an ordained Anglican priest in 1982. He served as the president of Queens' College, Cambridge from 1988 until 1996.

Polkinghorne is the author of five books on physics, and 26 on the relationship between science and religion; his publications include The Quantum World (1989), Quantum Physics and Theology: An Unexpected Kinship (2005), Exploring Reality: The Intertwining of Science and Religion (2007), and Questions of Truth (2009).[1] The Polkinghorne Reader (edited by Thomas Jay Oord) provides key excerpts from Polkinghorne's most influential books. He was knighted in 1997 and in 2002 received the £1 million Templeton Prize, awarded for exceptional contributions to affirming life's spiritual dimension.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Polkinghorne

All you managed to do is present an example of a Christian not using their brain when it comes to their religious views. In other words you've just provided support for romansh's point.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:

Fallible wrote:I'm not sure what perfectly moral would look like. Morality is subjective.

Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Sent from my Kindle

How about Ephesians 6:5-8?

or
1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Going back a few years ago, just a few houses down from us, lived a couple who were both professors of theology. The wife taught at a college and the husband at university. We became very good friends with them and they’d come over here for supper and we did the same at their house.

They knew that I was an atheist, but they respected my position as I did theirs. Many times we’d all sit in my front yard and shoot the breeze. My wife talked with his wife and I talked to him. He and I talked quite a bit about the Bible, but I was always careful to not insult him or his beliefs.

Anyway, one day when we were all sitting in the sun I asked him this:

‘Since Jesus is the Son of God and the authority on moral values, why didn’t he condemn slavery?’

He had no answer for that and simply replied, ‘I don’t know.’

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

LucidFlight wrote:
Also, compared to today, standards of personal hygiene would have been much lower. I suspect that he might have presented as being quite scruffy, with unkempt hair — which is fine, because had it been overly-preened, he may have been perceived to have too much of what one might call a sense of pride, a quite sinful thing in itself. Inevitably, there is some level of imperfection and dirtiness at the microscopic level, particularly when considering unavoidable presence of bacteria — and combined with the conditions of living in a dry and dusty environment, it would be impossible to be perfectly clean. On the basis of cleanliness alone, it would have been impossible for Jesus to reach perfection. But then, what is perfect cleanliness? What if cleanliness is not a measure of perfection, but of sin?

No. Read Mark 7:15

Sent from my Kindle

How about Ephesians 6:5-8?

or
1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Going back a few years ago, just a few houses down from us, lived a couple who were both professors of theology. The wife taught at a college and the husband at university. We became very good friends with them and they’d come over here for supper and we did the same at their house.

They knew that I was an atheist, but they respected my position as I did theirs. Many times we’d all sit in my front yard and shoot the breeze. My wife talked with his wife and I talked to him. He and I talked quite a bit about the Bible, but I was always careful to not insult him or his beliefs.

Anyway, one day when we were all sitting in the sun I asked him this:

‘Since Jesus is the Son of God and the authority on moral values, why didn’t he condemn slavery?’

He had no answer for that and simply replied, ‘I don’t know.’

And that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? Knowing stuff isn't high on the list of priorities.

ETA: So how is me knowing the Bible in order to intellectualize arguments with christians going to help them or me if 'not knowing' is a perfectly acceptable state of being?

The Babble is worse than worthless—it's fucking malignant! As is the Quran and most if not all religious texts.

PensivePenny wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:
No. Read Mark 7:15

Sent from my Kindle

How about Ephesians 6:5-8?

or
1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Going back a few years ago, just a few houses down from us, lived a couple who were both professors of theology. The wife taught at a college and the husband at university. We became very good friends with them and they’d come over here for supper and we did the same at their house.

They knew that I was an atheist, but they respected my position as I did theirs. Many times we’d all sit in my front yard and shoot the breeze. My wife talked with his wife and I talked to him. He and I talked quite a bit about the Bible, but I was always careful to not insult him or his beliefs.

Anyway, one day when we were all sitting in the sun I asked him this:

‘Since Jesus is the Son of God and the authority on moral values, why didn’t he condemn slavery?’

He had no answer for that and simply replied, ‘I don’t know.’

And that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? Knowing stuff isn't high on the list of priorities.

ETA: So how is me knowing the Bible in order to intellectualize arguments with christians going to help them or me if 'not knowing' is a perfectly acceptable state of being?

Because, as Skinny pointed out previously, there's a certain fear or respect of people who know how to counter Bible arguments. I don't think it's too hard to see why that's probably a more effective way of getting through to people than the "the Bible is stupid and so are you" method. You're right that there's always the get out of jail free clause: God moves in mysterious ways, so you can't know everything even if you know the Bible inside and out. But I'm willing to bet that Skinny's question had an effect on him.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

How about Ephesians 6:5-8?

or
1 Timothy 6:1-2?

Going back a few years ago, just a few houses down from us, lived a couple who were both professors of theology. The wife taught at a college and the husband at university. We became very good friends with them and they’d come over here for supper and we did the same at their house.

They knew that I was an atheist, but they respected my position as I did theirs. Many times we’d all sit in my front yard and shoot the breeze. My wife talked with his wife and I talked to him. He and I talked quite a bit about the Bible, but I was always careful to not insult him or his beliefs.

Anyway, one day when we were all sitting in the sun I asked him this:

‘Since Jesus is the Son of God and the authority on moral values, why didn’t he condemn slavery?’

He had no answer for that and simply replied, ‘I don’t know.’

And that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? Knowing stuff isn't high on the list of priorities.

ETA: So how is me knowing the Bible in order to intellectualize arguments with christians going to help them or me if 'not knowing' is a perfectly acceptable state of being?

Because, as Skinny pointed out previously, there's a certain fear or respect of people who know how to counter Bible arguments. I don't think it's too hard to see why that's probably a more effective way of getting through to people than the "the Bible is stupid and so are you" method. You're right that there's always the get out of jail free clause: God moves in mysterious ways, so you can't know everything even if you know the Bible inside and out. But I'm willing to bet that Skinny's question had an effect on him.

I'd give odds he didn't... but I'm a skeptic.

PensivePenny wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

PensivePenny wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Going back a few years ago, just a few houses down from us, lived a couple who were both professors of theology. The wife taught at a college and the husband at university. We became very good friends with them and they’d come over here for supper and we did the same at their house.

They knew that I was an atheist, but they respected my position as I did theirs. Many times we’d all sit in my front yard and shoot the breeze. My wife talked with his wife and I talked to him. He and I talked quite a bit about the Bible, but I was always careful to not insult him or his beliefs.

Anyway, one day when we were all sitting in the sun I asked him this:

‘Since Jesus is the Son of God and the authority on moral values, why didn’t he condemn slavery?’

He had no answer for that and simply replied, ‘I don’t know.’

And that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? Knowing stuff isn't high on the list of priorities.

ETA: So how is me knowing the Bible in order to intellectualize arguments with christians going to help them or me if 'not knowing' is a perfectly acceptable state of being?

Because, as Skinny pointed out previously, there's a certain fear or respect of people who know how to counter Bible arguments. I don't think it's too hard to see why that's probably a more effective way of getting through to people than the "the Bible is stupid and so are you" method. You're right that there's always the get out of jail free clause: God moves in mysterious ways, so you can't know everything even if you know the Bible inside and out. But I'm willing to bet that Skinny's question had an effect on him.

I'd give odds he didn't... but I'm a skeptic.

I don't know the answer to that. We did have many conversations, but they've since moved away.

One can plant a seed, whether it works or not is anyone's guess. However, without a knowledge of the Bible I wouldn't have been able to even ask that question.

Speaking of planting seeds. I've tried this many times on different people and the result is always the same. It goes like this (not verbatim):

Me: 'You've seen witches riding a broom before, right?'

Other person: 'Yes, many, many times.'

Me: 'Did you ever think that her broom is really a phallic symbol?'

Other person: 'No! The thought never even crossed my mind.'

Me: 'I bet it will now.'

PensivePenny wrote:
I'd give odds he didn't... but I'm a skeptic.

I'm a skeptic too, but I also at least a little familiar with how one starts to question, and eventually discard, cherished irrational beliefs.

Skinny Puppy wrote:
One can plant a seed, whether it works or not is anyone's guess. However, without a knowledge of the Bible I wouldn't have been able to even ask that question.

Well put.