Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
At bare minimum, I believe...
#51

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 11:55 AM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-23-2019, 04:25 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-23-2019, 04:20 PM)julep Wrote: I think you have skipped a couple of turtles.   

"Salvation" may be a distinguishing feature of your belief, but to accept that salvation is a thing people should be seeking, it seems that you would need to believe, at a minimum, in god, heaven, hell, and the devil.  So: do you believe in those things, and is it correct to call them "supernatural"?

Yes, and yes. (I won't quibble about the necessity of believing in Hell and the Devil).

Since there are so many ways to interpret the Bible, and so many variations of belief among people who believe in God, how do you know which interpretation is correct? Why do you think God made things so confusing in terms of interpreting his Word—especially since it’s one of his major ways of communicating with us?

That would go to God's purpose in his revelation. Seems to me there is a basic purpose (God created, man is fallen and in need of redemption, God provides a way) and it is pretty clear. From the basic purpose, we get a basic message. So, if a basic message can be agreed upon, your point then is that there are various ways to interpret individual doctrines. I think this is more of an internal technical debate and that at the end of the day, most Protestant Christians don't think a position on xyz doctrine is of eternal value as long as you don't sacrifice the basics message of salvation. The Catholic Church is different in that they have added to the Bible (not interpreted it differently).
Reply
#52

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 11:55 AM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-23-2019, 04:25 PM)SteveII Wrote: Yes, and yes. (I won't quibble about the necessity of believing in Hell and the Devil).

Since there are so many ways to interpret the Bible, and so many variations of belief among people who believe in God, how do you know which interpretation is correct? Why do you think God made things so confusing in terms of interpreting his Word—especially since it’s one of his major ways of communicating with us?

That would go to God's purpose in his revelation. Seems to me there is a basic purpose (God created, man is fallen and in need of redemption, God provides a way) and it is pretty clear. From the basic purpose, we get a basic message. So, if a basic message can be agreed upon, your point then is that there are various ways to interpret individual doctrines. I think this is more of an internal technical debate and that at the end of the day, most Protestant Christians don't think a position on xyz doctrine is of eternal value as long as you don't sacrifice the basics message of salvation. The Catholic Church is different in that they have added to the Bible (not interpreted it differently).

But if there was just that basic purpose brought to us by God: He created, man is fallen, we are in need redemption, God provides a way--then why didn't God just create/god-breathe a pamphlet that said just that? Why the need to add things into the Bible that can create the potential of chaos, violence, etc. etc.  The Bible has been used to advocate slavery and as a vehicle for others to condemn those who are different from them. It has also caused families to disown their own family members. Differing of belief due to its words has also brought about the torture and death of fellow humans (e.g. Spanish Inquisition).  It seems irresponsible of a god to allow such ambiguity to flow throughout the pages of his special book.
The following 2 users Like Jenny's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, brunumb
Reply
#53

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 10:09 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:59 AM)mordant Wrote:
(05-23-2019, 05:16 PM)SteveII Wrote: Why not? To deny either one of those things seems to be special pleading. You believe TONS of things based on written accounts and testimony.
False equivalence. The extraordinary and fantastical claims of scripture must pass a high bar. To be accepted that the dead are raised and donkeys talk there would have to be extensive verification from independent and preferably objective or even hostile sources. Personal subjective testimony is not equivalent to sworn testimony in a court of law; no one's inner experience can be substantiated. You just try to testify in a court of law that god revealed to you that the defendant isn't guilty, and see how far it gets you.

The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence. What you are demanding is MORE evidence. That is subjective--which is easily proven by the fact that billions of people do not require MORE evidence.
The consequentiality and believability of the claim raise the bar.

The other day a guy came to clean our dryer vent out and when he asked what I do for a living I told him I'm a software developer. He then claimed he used to work for the NSA. I'm dubious that a former NSA operative is cleaning dryer vents for a living, but whatever. So long as he does the job right for a fair price it's no consequence to me if he wants to embellish about his past glories. For purposes of conversation I didn't challenge him. He went on his way and I went on mine.

On the other hand if the same guy had come to my door ("open the door! NSA!") and demanded to seize all my computing equipment I'd ask to see his credentials and court order. I'd ask for more evidence. Probably while surreptitiously dialing 911. Because if someone takes the extraordinary step of demanding to enter my private residence and take away things that belong to me without resistance, then I'm going to ask for an extraordinarily large amount of substantiation. The evidence is still evidence; its significance has just changed.

That is what is going on with the claims of religion. In the case of Christianity, if you tell me you believe the tenets of Christianity as you understand them I won't challenge you and it's live and let live. On the other hand, suppose you're telling me that I am a dirty sinner who must repent and be forgiven and give fealty to an invisible sky wizard who decided that I'm a sinner and mediates my forgiveness by incarnating himself to be sacrificed to himself for the things he decided are bad. In that event, you can bet that on that score you're going to have to give me something more than your say or the say of an ancient scroll or the fact you have friends that believe as you do, or that people have believed it for a long time, or that perhaps if you're in the right area, that most people in my community believe substantially as you do. You'd have to demonstrate to me that (1) all those people aren't simply engaging in social manipulation and confirmation bias and (2) that my own three-decade run, which I determined to be just what I said in (1), was in fact not that. You'd have to not only evidence your claims sufficiently, but you'd have to reverse my own considered conclusions on the matter.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus, brunumb, Unsapien
Reply
#54

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 01:09 PM)Jenny Wrote: But if there was just that basic purpose brought to us by God: He created, man is fallen, we are in need redemption, God provides a way--then why didn't God just create/god-breathe a pamphlet that said just that? Why the need to add things into the Bible that can create the potential of chaos, violence, etc. etc.  The Bible has been used to advocate slavery and as a vehicle for others to condemn those who are different from them. It has also caused families to disown their own family members. Differing of belief due to its words has also brought about the torture and death of fellow humans (e.g. Spanish Inquisition).  It seems irresponsible of a god to allow such ambiguity to flow throughout the pages of his special book.
Here is the way it's supposed to work:

GOD ==> Human author ==> Reader

The way it actually would work:

GOD ==> Human author ==> author's comprehension ==> document ==> scribal copies ==> translation ==> reader ==> reader's comprehension

And that ignores the input of society / culture / tradition on the whole thing. Today's reader frames their understanding based on a whole lot of stuff that wasn't even present in the original revelation. All sorts of assumptions and context that the original author could rely on would be absent.

Written revelation is actually a very poor means of communication and exactly what an all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent deity would NOT choose to convey truly important information with allegedly eternal consequences. Such a deity could simply install the correct understanding of the correct information in everyone at birth, or arrange personal revelation of some other kind for each person, with sufficient validation. Such a deity could LITERALLY "walk with me and talk with me" as the old song has it. Such a deity could LITERALLY have an ACTUAL relationship with me. Could LITERALLY be "a friend that sticks closer than a brother".

Instead, like the Wizard of Oz, he's just a bunch of humans hiding behind a curtain, for anyone with eyes to see.

Indeed, evangelical Christianity implicitly acknowledges this problem by spinning a value proposition that offers this:

GOD <==> you

And that is of course the claim that is most easily verifiable as horse shit. The trouble is that people want it so badly, all that has to happen is a few people claim it's true for them and CAN be true for you and you will pretend your way until you've convinced yourself. The human capacity for self-deception is nearly limitless, at least in the context of deeply felt need for social reciprocity and belonging.
The following 3 users Like mordant's post:
  • Jenny, Thumpalumpacus, brunumb
Reply
#55

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 01:09 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 11:55 AM)Jenny Wrote: Since there are so many ways to interpret the Bible, and so many variations of belief among people who believe in God, how do you know which interpretation is correct? Why do you think God made things so confusing in terms of interpreting his Word—especially since it’s one of his major ways of communicating with us?

That would go to God's purpose in his revelation. Seems to me there is a basic purpose (God created, man is fallen and in need of redemption, God provides a way) and it is pretty clear. From the basic purpose, we get a basic message. So, if a basic message can be agreed upon, your point then is that there are various ways to interpret individual doctrines. I think this is more of an internal technical debate and that at the end of the day, most Protestant Christians don't think a position on xyz doctrine is of eternal value as long as you don't sacrifice the basics message of salvation. The Catholic Church is different in that they have added to the Bible (not interpreted it differently).

But if there was just that basic purpose brought to us by God: He created, man is fallen, we are in need redemption, God provides a way--then why didn't God just create/god-breathe a pamphlet that said just that? Why the need to add things into the Bible that can create the potential of chaos, violence, etc. etc.  The Bible has been used to advocate slavery and as a vehicle for others to condemn those who are different from them. It has also caused families to disown their own family members. Differing of belief due to its words has also brought about the torture and death of fellow humans (e.g. Spanish Inquisition).  It seems irresponsible of a god to allow such ambiguity to flow throughout the pages of his special book.

The Bible has a progression in what it is revealing about God. It started in Genesis with basic principles of God, the universe is a created object, some early history as it was passed down in a oral tradition, and then gets into the structure of a Theocracy. This is important. A Theocracy is a government run by a god or the rules of a god. That was ancient Israel. Then came some middle history books and some major and minor prophets with a message to ancient Israel. A 400 your break and then God's revelation culminates in the person of Jesus, the means of redemption (the NT).

Some of your points stem from a lack of understanding by "Christians" that a Theocracy that existed in a greater culture context that would have swallowed up Israel had then been left to their own devices is NOT God's purpose or final revelation--just a step in the thousands of years process. God's overall purpose and final revelation instructs people, in no uncertain terms, to act with repeated themes like love-your-neighbor, humility, charity, generosity, respect, kindness and repeated admonitions against hating, violence, pride, lust, disrespect, etc. When you examine your complaints, they are actually violations of this last and greatest revelation. If they are violations, then it is not Christianity that is to blame for them, it is people--whether through misunderstanding or malice.
Reply
#56

At bare minimum, I believe...
deleted--double post
Reply
#57

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 01:40 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:09 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 12:46 PM)SteveII Wrote: That would go to God's purpose in his revelation. Seems to me there is a basic purpose (God created, man is fallen and in need of redemption, God provides a way) and it is pretty clear. From the basic purpose, we get a basic message. So, if a basic message can be agreed upon, your point then is that there are various ways to interpret individual doctrines. I think this is more of an internal technical debate and that at the end of the day, most Protestant Christians don't think a position on xyz doctrine is of eternal value as long as you don't sacrifice the basics message of salvation. The Catholic Church is different in that they have added to the Bible (not interpreted it differently).

But if there was just that basic purpose brought to us by God: He created, man is fallen, we are in need redemption, God provides a way--then why didn't God just create/god-breathe a pamphlet that said just that? Why the need to add things into the Bible that can create the potential of chaos, violence, etc. etc.  The Bible has been used to advocate slavery and as a vehicle for others to condemn those who are different from them. It has also caused families to disown their own family members. Differing of belief due to its words has also brought about the torture and death of fellow humans (e.g. Spanish Inquisition).  It seems irresponsible of a god to allow such ambiguity to flow throughout the pages of his special book.

The Bible has a progression in what it is revealing about God. It started in Genesis with basic principles of God, the universe is a created object, some early history as it was passed down in a oral tradition, and then gets into the structure of a Theocracy. This is important. A Theocracy is a government run by a god or the rules of a god. That was ancient Israel. Then came some middle history books and some major and minor prophets with a message to ancient Israel. A 400 your break and then God's revelation culminates in the person of Jesus, the means of redemption (the NT).

Some of your points stem from a lack of understanding by "Christians" that a Theocracy that existed in a greater culture context that would have swallowed up Israel had then been left to their own devices is NOT God's purpose or final revelation--just a step in the thousands of years process. God's overall purpose and final revelation instructs people, in no uncertain terms,  to act with repeated themes like love-your-neighbor, humility, charity, generosity, respect, kindness and repeated admonitions against hating, violence, pride, lust, disrespect, etc. When you examine your complaints, they are actually violations of this last and greatest revelation. If they are violations, then it is not Christianity that is to blame for them, it is people--whether through misunderstanding or malice.

You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.
The following 1 user Likes Jenny's post:
  • Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#58

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 01:17 PM)mordant Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 10:09 AM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:59 AM)mordant Wrote: False equivalence. The extraordinary and fantastical claims of scripture must pass a high bar. To be accepted that the dead are raised and donkeys talk there would have to be extensive verification from independent and preferably objective or even hostile sources. Personal subjective testimony is not equivalent to sworn testimony in a court of law; no one's inner experience can be substantiated. You just try to testify in a court of law that god revealed to you that the defendant isn't guilty, and see how far it gets you.

The old "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

There is no such thing as extraordinary evidence. Only evidence. What you are demanding is MORE evidence. That is subjective--which is easily proven by the fact that billions of people do not require MORE evidence.
The consequentiality and believability of the claim raise the bar.

The other day a guy came to clean our dryer vent out and when he asked what I do for a living I told him I'm a software developer. He then claimed he used to work for the NSA. I'm dubious that a former NSA operative is cleaning dryer vents for a living, but whatever. So long as he does the job right for a fair price it's no consequence to me if he wants to embellish about his past glories. For purposes of conversation I didn't challenge him. He went on his way and I went on mine.

On the other hand if the same guy had come to my door ("open the door! NSA!") and demanded to seize all my computing equipment I'd ask to see his credentials and court order. I'd ask for more evidence. Probably while surreptitiously dialing 911. Because if someone takes the extraordinary step of demanding to enter my private residence and take away things that belong to me without resistance, then I'm going to ask for an extraordinarily large amount of substantiation. The evidence is still evidence; its significance has just changed.

Would you demand "extraordinary" evidence from the NSA officer? No, you demanded more regular, every day evidence until you were satisfied. For instance, what if you had met the guy before at Fort Meade and new he was an investigator? Would you demand the same "more" evidence? Probably not. Why? Because now you have additional reasons you are using to evaluate his claim that he is there to seize your computers.

Quote:That is what is going on with the claims of religion. In the case of Christianity, if you tell me you believe the tenets of Christianity as you understand them I won't challenge you and it's live and let live. On the other hand, suppose you're telling me that I am a dirty sinner who must repent and be forgiven and give fealty to an invisible sky wizard who decided that I'm a sinner and mediates my forgiveness by incarnating himself to be sacrificed to himself for the things he decided are bad. In that event, you can bet that on that score you're going to have to give me something more than your say or the say of an ancient scroll or the fact you have friends that believe as you do, or that people have believed it for a long time, or that perhaps if you're in the right area, that most people in my community believe substantially as you do. You'd have to demonstrate to me that (1) all those people aren't simply engaging in social manipulation and confirmation bias and (2) that my own three-decade run, which I determined to be just what I said in (1), was in fact not that. You'd have to not only evidence your claims sufficiently, but you'd have to reverse my own considered conclusions on the matter.

I have never claimed to have proof that Christianity is true. I present reasons why I think it is. This is the definition of an opinion. If you do not think my reasons compelling, then that is your opinion. I have never said your opinion on the question "does God exist" is wrong. I think it is wrong and have reason to think it is wrong, but I cannot prove that you are wrong, so I don't say you are wrong.

This works the other way too.

SUPER IMPORTANT: My point is that I am not trying to convince you with what convinced me. I am fully aware that they cannot be the same. When I make statements as to my beliefs I am simply defending myself.
Reply
#59

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:40 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:09 PM)Jenny Wrote: But if there was just that basic purpose brought to us by God: He created, man is fallen, we are in need redemption, God provides a way--then why didn't God just create/god-breathe a pamphlet that said just that? Why the need to add things into the Bible that can create the potential of chaos, violence, etc. etc.  The Bible has been used to advocate slavery and as a vehicle for others to condemn those who are different from them. It has also caused families to disown their own family members. Differing of belief due to its words has also brought about the torture and death of fellow humans (e.g. Spanish Inquisition).  It seems irresponsible of a god to allow such ambiguity to flow throughout the pages of his special book.

The Bible has a progression in what it is revealing about God. It started in Genesis with basic principles of God, the universe is a created object, some early history as it was passed down in a oral tradition, and then gets into the structure of a Theocracy. This is important. A Theocracy is a government run by a god or the rules of a god. That was ancient Israel. Then came some middle history books and some major and minor prophets with a message to ancient Israel. A 400 your break and then God's revelation culminates in the person of Jesus, the means of redemption (the NT).

Some of your points stem from a lack of understanding by "Christians" that a Theocracy that existed in a greater culture context that would have swallowed up Israel had then been left to their own devices is NOT God's purpose or final revelation--just a step in the thousands of years process. God's overall purpose and final revelation instructs people, in no uncertain terms,  to act with repeated themes like love-your-neighbor, humility, charity, generosity, respect, kindness and repeated admonitions against hating, violence, pride, lust, disrespect, etc. When you examine your complaints, they are actually violations of this last and greatest revelation. If they are violations, then it is not Christianity that is to blame for them, it is people--whether through misunderstanding or malice.

You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.

Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out. Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.
Reply
#60

At bare minimum, I believe...
I'm just going to venture my opinion, because I probably won't elaborate further at this point. In my opinion, the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" maxim can be readily sourced from the basics of Bayesian probability. Many religious commentators have argued the opposite, that Bayesian probability actually debunks this maxim, and what they have to say is certainly relevant, and I encourage all who are interested to read their criticisms. However, I think they've overlooked an interpretation in terms of Bayesian probability that is legitimate and instead focused on an interpretation which is unfavorable to the maxim. If that's the case, then this is simply another example of the religious using motivated reasoning to derive a conclusion that is useful to them, and little more. I think many people have a common sense intuition about the maxim which is not refuted by the fact that one specific interpretation of Bayesian probability does not support the maxim. And since the same commentators are often sympathetic to reformed epistemology, I'm going to use that as justification for dismissing their rational analysis in favor of the intuition. You reap what you do sow.
Mountain-high though the difficulties appear, terrible and gloomy though all things seem, they are but Mâyâ.
Fear not — it is banished. Crush it, and it vanishes. Stamp upon it, and it dies.


Vivekananda
Reply
#61

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 02:28 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: The Bible has a progression in what it is revealing about God. It started in Genesis with basic principles of God, the universe is a created object, some early history as it was passed down in a oral tradition, and then gets into the structure of a Theocracy. This is important. A Theocracy is a government run by a god or the rules of a god. That was ancient Israel. Then came some middle history books and some major and minor prophets with a message to ancient Israel. A 400 your break and then God's revelation culminates in the person of Jesus, the means of redemption (the NT).

Some of your points stem from a lack of understanding by "Christians" that a Theocracy that existed in a greater culture context that would have swallowed up Israel had then been left to their own devices is NOT God's purpose or final revelation--just a step in the thousands of years process. God's overall purpose and final revelation instructs people, in no uncertain terms,  to act with repeated themes like love-your-neighbor, humility, charity, generosity, respect, kindness and repeated admonitions against hating, violence, pride, lust, disrespect, etc. When you examine your complaints, they are actually violations of this last and greatest revelation. If they are violations, then it is not Christianity that is to blame for them, it is people--whether through misunderstanding or malice.

You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.

Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

A reading of the OT will quickly showcase that those items are in there and to full extent and were decreed by God.  While the Bible says love and do good...it simultaneously has evil within its pages and evil conducted by God.  You can't say that is a red herring when a book like that is revered by believers and used by many to make decisions that involve the lives of other people. 

The Bible does say if you come across an Amalekite kill him (it probably didn't feel the need to add "from here on out" because the idea was to kill them all):

1 Samuel 15:3:  Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
The following 3 users Like Jenny's post:
  • epronovost, Thumpalumpacus, brunumb
Reply
#62

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.

Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

You are both ''sort of right there'' in my opinion. It's true that all Christian societies share several characteristics in common which draw from typically biblical notions. For example, they are all deeply patriarchal, with strong hierarchies, anti-democratic and all possess pretty much the same bagage of ritual to rythm the life of people (baptism, marriage, burial, etc.). There isn't much ambiguity there. Where ambiguity arises is that, while Jesus might have commanded people to love one another, there were condamnation and appeal to hatred toward people belonging to certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. A command of universal love seems to be severely undermined by appeal to hatred and contempt toward others.
The following 3 users Like epronovost's post:
  • Jenny, Dānu, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#63

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 12:28 PM)SteveII Wrote:  If someone sees an event (say the healing of the paralytic in Luke 5) and relates what they saw, that is the only evidence that we could have.

Luke is not an eyewitness account.  It's dated to around 80 to 90 AD.  Some even date it later.  It's written anonymously.  

 
Quote:Your demand for extraordinary evidence MUST be for more. More of what? Regular everyday evidence.

Yes! More evidence is neccessary when the physics of the universe are defied in some stories told over many decades before someone wrote it down.  Extraordinary evidence is required when all known laws of thermodynamics are reversed by the claims of peasants living in the desert.

Quote:....when Jesus heals the paralyzed man in front of a lot of people....
 

 You mean when Jesus ALLEGEDLY healed a paralized man.   

Quote: If however I have a whole bunch of reasons (which are also evidence) to think the story was related accurately, well then I begin to have a justified belief. No extraordinary evidence needed--only regular evidence.

Nope.  WRONG!  First of all, you book is not evidence.  

If I tell you that my old cat caught a bird,  that might be a little unusual for an old cat but it's not out of the ordinary.  When an EXTRA-  ordinary event, such as a Hindu god performing miracles (and there are many alleged claims among Hindus believers) then one needs EXTRA-ordinary evidence and  confirmation from many unbiased sources.  No religion has unbiased sources.  They all rely on confirmation bias and storytelling.  

None of the gospels are eyewitness accounts. None of your sources even have ordinary evidence, much less extra-ordinary evidence. They're anecdotal stories at best and wouldn't hold up in any court of law in any civilized country in the world.
                                                         T4618
The following 2 users Like Dancefortwo's post:
  • brunumb, SYZ
Reply
#64

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 02:47 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:28 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote: You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.

Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

A reading of the OT will quickly showcase that those items are in there and to full extent and were decreed by God.  While the Bible says love and do good...it simultaneously has evil within its pages and evil conducted by God.  You can't say that is a red herring when a book like that is revered by believers and used by many to make decisions that involve the lives of other people. 

The Bible does say if you come across an Amalekite kill him (it probably didn't feel the need to add "from here on out" because the idea was to kill them all):

1 Samuel 15:3:  Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

I wrote this a week or two ago on the same topic:

1. Regarding the conquest of Canaan, Egyptians, etc. do you even believe that that happened (ironically, most atheists are skeptical or even adamant that it did not happen)? The God described in the vast majority of the OT is one of love, compassion, patience, justice, etc. So your question is really, could the God described in the rest of the 99% of the Bible have issued those commands? What if we cannot reconcile the 1% to the other 99% description? At most it's a question of inerrancy (of at least the book of Joshua-which was written some 600 years after the events that it describes)?

2. But what if it did happen (which neither of us know if it did)? The adults deserved judgement. There is no principle that says that God has to let you die of natural causes to pass sentence on the consequences of your own sin. The children would have become adults and been doomed to the same fate eventually. Why was it not merciful of God to spare them that and instead have an eternal life of no suffering? It is more than ironic that your ENTIRE argument here is that God should be doing more to avoid human suffering and then complain when he does.

3. The eventual arrival of the atonement for all sin was immeasurably more important than letting the people of a wicked culture live out their child-sacrificing days in peace. The nation of Israel had to form and survive for the events of the first century to unfold as they did.

BUT, your point was that Christians could use these stories as a basis for decisions today. Obviously not killing Amalekites. What specifically?
Reply
#65

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 02:57 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 01:40 PM)SteveII Wrote: You are right, there are some nice things in the Bible.  But there are also passages that discuss "God decreed" war, famine, disease, murder, and rape.  Those are dangerous things to include in a book that you want people to live by and not take in an ambiguous fashion.

Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

You are both ''sort of right there'' in my opinion. It's true that all Christian societies share several characteristics in common which draw from typically biblical notions. For example, they are all deeply patriarchal, with strong hierarchies, anti-democratic and all possess pretty much the same bagage of ritual to rythm the life of people (baptism, marriage, burial, etc.). There isn't much ambiguity there. Where ambiguity arises is that, while Jesus might have commanded people to love one another, there were condamnation and appeal to hatred toward people belonging to certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. A command of universal love seems to be severely undermined by appeal to hatred and contempt toward others.

That is patently false. Show me where the NT says to hate "certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. "
Reply
#66

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:21 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:57 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:18 PM)Jenny Wrote: Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

You are both ''sort of right there'' in my opinion. It's true that all Christian societies share several characteristics in common which draw from typically biblical notions. For example, they are all deeply patriarchal, with strong hierarchies, anti-democratic and all possess pretty much the same bagage of ritual to rythm the life of people (baptism, marriage, burial, etc.). There isn't much ambiguity there. Where ambiguity arises is that, while Jesus might have commanded people to love one another, there were condamnation and appeal to hatred toward people belonging to certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. A command of universal love seems to be severely undermined by appeal to hatred and contempt toward others.

That is patently false. Show me where the NT says to hate "certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. "

Is there not a mention in Paul's preaching of him making pretty much the same declaration then in the Leviticus prohibiting homosexual acts?

It's in his letter to the Romans if i'm not mistaken.

That's if you want to go only in the NT, the OT is also important for Christian and clearly condamn homosexual to death (as well as witches and transgender people). All Christian societies had strong prohibition against those acts with severe penalty that ranged from death to incarceration and torture.
Reply
#67

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:19 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:47 PM)Jenny Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:28 PM)SteveII Wrote: Even if I grant that it includes all those things (which I don't), there is a difference. It does not say anywhere that whenever you may run across an Amalekite, kill him and his donkey from here on out.  Not at all. What it does say is love your neighbor, do good to them that despise you...for all time. To claim "confusions" as to how we should live after reading the Bible seem like a red herring.

A reading of the OT will quickly showcase that those items are in there and to full extent and were decreed by God.  While the Bible says love and do good...it simultaneously has evil within its pages and evil conducted by God.  You can't say that is a red herring when a book like that is revered by believers and used by many to make decisions that involve the lives of other people. 

The Bible does say if you come across an Amalekite kill him (it probably didn't feel the need to add "from here on out" because the idea was to kill them all):

1 Samuel 15:3:  Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

I wrote this a week or two ago on the same topic:

1. Regarding the conquest of Canaan, Egyptians, etc. do you even believe that that happened (ironically, most atheists are skeptical or even adamant that it did not happen)? The God described in the vast majority of the OT is one of love, compassion, patience, justice, etc. So your question is really, could the God described in the rest of the 99% of the Bible have issued those commands? What if we cannot reconcile the 1% to the other 99% description? At most it's a question of inerrancy (of at least the book of Joshua-which was written some 600 years after the events that it describes)?

2. But what if it did happen (which neither of us know if it did)? The adults deserved judgement. There is no principle that says that God has to let you die of natural causes to pass sentence on the consequences of your own sin. The children would have become adults and been doomed to the same fate eventually. Why was it not merciful of God to spare them that and instead have an eternal life of no suffering? It is more than ironic that your ENTIRE argument here is that God should be doing more to avoid human suffering and then complain when he does.

3. The eventual arrival of the atonement for all sin was immeasurably more important than letting the people of a wicked culture live out their child-sacrificing days in peace. The nation of Israel had to form and survive for the events of the first century to unfold as they did.

BUT, your point was that Christians could use these stories as a basis for decisions today. Obviously not killing Amalekites. What specifically?

1%? I think your percentages of God's evil doings are a bit off there. There are stories upon stories in the OT of God's temper and wrath of what he would and did do to his chosen people if they did not comply and worship him.
The following 2 users Like Jenny's post:
  • mordant, brunumb
Reply
#68

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:26 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 03:21 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 02:57 PM)epronovost Wrote: You are both ''sort of right there'' in my opinion. It's true that all Christian societies share several characteristics in common which draw from typically biblical notions. For example, they are all deeply patriarchal, with strong hierarchies, anti-democratic and all possess pretty much the same bagage of ritual to rythm the life of people (baptism, marriage, burial, etc.). There isn't much ambiguity there. Where ambiguity arises is that, while Jesus might have commanded people to love one another, there were condamnation and appeal to hatred toward people belonging to certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. A command of universal love seems to be severely undermined by appeal to hatred and contempt toward others.

That is patently false. Show me where the NT says to hate "certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. "

Is there not a mention in Paul's preaching of him making pretty much the same declaration then in the Leviticus prohibiting homosexual acts?

It's in his letter to the Romans if i'm not mistaken.

That's if you want to go only in the NT, the OT is also important for Christian and clearly condamn homosexual to death (as well as witches and transgender people). All Christian societies had strong prohibition against those acts with severe penalty that ranged from death to incarceration and torture.

So you make the leap from prohibiting homosexual acts to hating? How does that work exactly? Paul mentions fornication, idolatry, lying, and like 20 more sins (some in the same sentence as homosexual acts). Are we to assume we should hate them too? Setting aside that you felt the need to drag the OT into a comment about the NT, I do not live in a Theocracy run by judges in the middle of a bunch of hostile cultures--so I don't feel the need to hate someone because I can't kill them.
Reply
#69

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:42 PM)SteveII Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 03:26 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 03:21 PM)SteveII Wrote: That is patently false. Show me where the NT says to hate "certain class, homosexuals, transgender or ''witches'' to name just a few. "

Is there not a mention in Paul's preaching of him making pretty much the same declaration then in the Leviticus prohibiting homosexual acts?

It's in his letter to the Romans if i'm not mistaken.

That's if you want to go only in the NT, the OT is also important for Christian and clearly condamn homosexual to death (as well as witches and transgender people). All Christian societies had strong prohibition against those acts with severe penalty that ranged from death to incarceration and torture.

So you make the leap from prohibiting homosexual acts to hating? How does that work exactly? Paul mentions fornication, idolatry, lying, and like 20 more sins (some in the same sentence as homosexual acts). Are we to assume we should hate them too? Setting aside that you felt the need to drag the OT into a comment about the NT, I do not live in a Theocracy run by judges in the middle of a bunch of hostile cultures--so I don't feel the need to hate someone because I can't kill them.

The NT "evolved" from the OT.  As such, referencing that as a point of origin is relevant.  You say you don't live in a theocracy anymore, so therefore what was written in the OT no longer applies to you. It still doesn't erase the fact that those things still exist in a book you live your life by.  It still doesn't change that a being you worship decreed many of those horrendous things.  Now that the NT comes along, you can't just pretend the OT never existed.
The following 2 users Like Jenny's post:
  • mordant, brunumb
Reply
#70

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:42 PM)SteveII Wrote: So you make the leap from prohibiting homosexual acts to hating? How does that work exactly? Paul mentions fornication, idolatry, lying, and like 20 more sins (some in the same sentence as homosexual acts). Are we to assume we should hate them too?

Indeed, we could say that Christian hate and punish accordingly liars, idolaters and fornicators. Also, unlike these ones, homosexual harm no one (at least their homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone) and didn't choose their sexual orientation while liars, idolaters and fornicators did chose to do so. That makes the prohibition hateful, much more so then those against lies, fornication and idolatry. You literally make some people existence criminal through no fault of their own, while they represent no threat to yours.
The following 1 user Likes epronovost's post:
  • brunumb
Reply
#71

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:19 PM)SteveII Wrote: The eventual arrival of the atonement for all sin was immeasurably more important than letting the people of a wicked culture live out their child-sacrificing days in peace. The nation of Israel had to form and survive for the events of the first century to unfold as they did.
Which begs the question, why all these elaborate machinations over thousands of years? It could have been spoken into existence. It could have been prevented to begin with.

As a designer, I must say, god always goes for the uneconomical, complex, fragile solutions.

This bears all the hallmarks of force-fitting history to comport itself with an alleged / imagined Master Plan.

Reminds me of the cartoon where God has his Plan all spread out before him on zillions of sheets of paper ... everything from the periodic table to quantum mechanics. And he says, "Hm .... if Tommy's dog is run over by a car RIGHT HERE ... it might all just work!"
The following 4 users Like mordant's post:
  • julep, brunumb, SYZ, Dancefortwo
Reply
#72

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 04:13 PM)epronovost Wrote: You literally make some people existence criminal through no fault of their own, while they represent no threat to yours.
Ah, but it DOES represent a perceived existential threat to that sort of believer. Because they believe in corporate guilt:

1) God (supposedly, by their lights) condemns homosexuality as sin
2) Society "condones" homosexuality
3) God judges and punishes the society and everyone in it, including the Christians who agree with god

So ... to keep that from happening, they have to control the behavior of people outside their group.

Corporate guilt is, on its face, an irrational and unjust concept, but hey ... god says it, I believe it, that settles it ...
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Jenny, brunumb
Reply
#73

At bare minimum, I believe...
Re the OP: I seriously doubt there is any bare minimum belief required to be a Christian which everyone identifying as a Christian will agree to. I'm guessing this thread was intended to examine what theists on this website considered to be the minimal Christian beliefs. Just from my own experience with believers online I don't expect perfect uniformity in all cases. However there probably is conformity for the great majority since religious institutions seem to work toward that end.
"Talk nonsense, but talk your own nonsense, and I'll kiss you for it. To go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's. 
F. D.
Reply
#74

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 03:58 PM)Jenny Wrote: The NT "evolved" from the OT.  As such, referencing that as a point of origin is relevant.  You say you don't live in a theocracy anymore, so therefore what was written in the OT no longer applies to you. It still doesn't erase the fact that those things still exist in a book you live your life by.  It still doesn't change that a being you worship decreed many of those horrendous things.  Now that the NT comes along, you can't just pretend the OT never existed.
In addition most Christians of the sort Steve is, declare that god is immutable. If god never changes, then his statement that those who dash the babies of certain condemned tribes against the rocks and derive joy in doing so, is exactly the same god they now worship.

My particular tribe got around this (or tried to) using a system called dispensationalism ... which in essence states that god doesn't change, but the deal he has with humanity changes. Not at all an effective circumlocution. It's not even subtle.
The following 2 users Like mordant's post:
  • Jenny, Thumpalumpacus
Reply
#75

At bare minimum, I believe...
(05-24-2019, 04:13 PM)epronovost Wrote:
(05-24-2019, 03:42 PM)SteveII Wrote: So you make the leap from prohibiting homosexual acts to hating? How does that work exactly? Paul mentions fornication, idolatry, lying, and like 20 more sins (some in the same sentence as homosexual acts). Are we to assume we should hate them too?

Indeed, we could say that Christian hate and punish accordingly liars, idolaters and fornicators. Also, unlike these ones, homosexual harm no one (at least their homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone) and didn't choose their sexual orientation while liars, idolaters and fornicators did chose to do so. That makes the prohibition hateful, much more so then those against lies, fornication and idolatry. You literally make some people existence criminal through no fault of their own, while they represent no threat to yours.

I suppose "you could say" that. But is has no basis in the NT. Nowhere does not call anyone to "hate or punish". In fact, Jesus warns not to call out a speck (a sin) in someone else's eye when there is a board (plenty of sin) in yours. Or, "judge not, lest you be judged". You are not going to find what you think is in there.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)