Scriptural literacy

[Radrook]

originally Posted by RandFan
Of course, in those days, many women died during childbirth. Not very inteligent design but that's another discussion. Think of all the lives god could have saved by making procreation a sin.

Thanx for the excellent example of what I explain below.

The above objections to well-known Bible basics or Christian common ground is similar to gathering misunderstandings from hundreds of misunderstanders of a well-known rule of chess and based on this claim that it's open to any interpretation. Then proceeding to endlessly ask: "Ummm how do we know? After all, ummm, just look how many ways it can be understood!" whenever the legitimately recognized explanation is given. Or like attempting to teach literacy to an illiterate who stubbornly insists on defending it by claiming that grammatical rules are totally a personal matter. That's why such conversations or discussions or invitations to debate aren't worth the time.

One way to recognize scriptural illiteracy

First, a sincere scripturally but misguided illiterate individual will assume that there are no agreed-upon rules restricting what can and cannot be proposed as biblical doctrine.

Second:
A sincere scripturally illiterate person will ignore context, be it historical, immediate textual, or the more extensive textual biblical one which are all essential to accurate understanding.

Third

Based on the above they will then feel qualified to challenge anything or everything
put for as biblically accurate.

All well and good except for the fact that their modus operandi is seriously flawed.

1. First There are agreed-upon rules which prohibit all and any interpretation on crucial Christian doctrine.

2. SecondContext is essential to understanding and must never be ignored if we are to avoid error.

3. Third Persons unfamiliar with those requirements are NOT qualified to propose ANYTHING on biblical doctrine much less to be requesting to discuss or debate such matters on those flawed grounds.

Indeed, what these individuals do qualify for is biblical instruction in order to dispel such erroneous ideas and eventually qualify them to discuss the Bible intelligently and not from an untenable easily refuted or worthy of being ignored position of profound ignorance. Until then, however, it should not be at all surprising if those who are familiar with the biblical literacy requirements and who have invested valuable time in acquiring a solid understanding of basic biblical exegesis avoid to engage such individuals in fruitless discussions where there is no common ground.

Tactics of the godless

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

Last resort chortling, and heckling,

Mutual admiration commentary

Irrelevant personality-type insults

Irrelevant group-type insults

Immediate thread-deviation accusations wnen insults are responded to.

thread-deviating insults.

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of atheistic ideas while:

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefs

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideas

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy

Use of Equivocation

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.

Split from this thread.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[RandFan]

Your dissonance is showing. You are hiding behind fallacy.

One way to recognize scriptural illiteracy

{tap dance snipped}

Your post was one big fallacy and a waste of your time.

Here are some facts that you can't dispute or explain away with apologetics and spin:

• Killing someone for working on the sabbath is immoral whether it was 2000 years ago or yesterday.

• Killing someone for working on the sabbath is immoral whether that person is/was/could be/ a Jew, Gentile, Christian or Mormon.

No Bible literacy needed. No appeals to authority warranted. A child knows these facts. You know these facts. Everyone reading this post knows these facts.

You can dance and sing all you want but the facts won't change.

Your bible is full of immorality perpetrated and/or sanctioned and/or condoned by your god.

 

[Radrook]

I limited my list of biblical interpretational requirements to those which
are necessary for an objective evaluation of all types of literature-not just
the Bible. So those objecting to these well-known rules are actually going contrary to the required and accepted method of evaluating all literature.

Again we can make an analogy with chess. Not everyone is qualified to evaluate chess positions as equal, favorable or unfavorable for either of
the two players involved. Positional as well as tactical principles must be
well-understood. Of course some positions are more easily evaluated than others because of the scarcity of pieces involved. Such ones are often used
as training tests for beginners. In fact, inability or inaccuracies in evaluating and solving such simple positions immediately identifies the player as unqualified to teach others chess oo to attempt to expound on the deeper things of chess.

So too the Bible. Crass errors in doctrinal, historical or contextual basics immediately indicates a comprehension deficiency which disqualifies the erring person as an authority in biblical matters and makes any bravado attempts at posturing as such and demanding debate from a position of ignorance seem pathetically silly.

===============================================================

 

[plumjam]

Post 1 Nominated, Radrook.
I particularly enjoyed "Tactics of the Godless"

 

[Moochie]

I limited my list of biblical interpretational requirements to those which
are necessary for an objective evaluation of all types of literature-not just
the Bible. So those objecting to these well-known rules are actually going contrary to the required and accepted method of evaluating all literature.

Again we can make an analogy with chess. Not everyone is qualified to evaluate chess positions as equal, favorable or unfavorable for either of
the two players involved. Positional as well as tactical principles must be
well-understood. Of course some positions are more easily evaluated than others because of the scarcity of pieces involved. Such ones are often used
as training tests for beginners. In fact, inability or inaccuracies in evaluating and solving such simple positions immediately identifies the player as unqualified to teach others chess oo to attempt to expound on the deeper things of chess.

So too the Bible. Crass errors in doctrinal, historical or contextual basics immediately indicates a comprehension deficiency which disqualifies the erring person as an authority in biblical matters and makes any bravado attempts at posturing as such and demanding debate from a position of ignorance seem pathetically silly.

===============================================================

A book that requires a committee of thousands to interpret it? What kind of a book is this?


M.

 

[JoeEllison]

A book that requires a committee of thousands to interpret it? What kind of a book is this?


M.

Not only that. After it takes thousands to interpret, it is assumed that the interpretation that Radrook has arbitrarily chosen as correct is 100% valid, and the more we vary from Radrook's interpretation, the more wrong and possibly evil we are. And, of course there's no way we should take the Bible literally when it contradicts ethical rules that even small children understand but the Bible authors didn't.

 

[RandFan]

I limited my list of biblical interpretational requirements to those which are necessary for an objective evaluation of all types of literature-not just the Bible. So those objecting to these well-known rules are actually going contrary to the required and accepted method of evaluating all literature.

Let's for a moment accept your special pleading argument.

Please to explain how it is moral to kill a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath.

Even if you are right that there are special interpretations requirements which are necessary that wouldn't obviate your ability to explain why or why not killing a man for gathering sticks is immoral.

You will do anything to preserve your precious and fragile world view. You are likely experiencing cognitive dissonance and you don't know how to deal with it so you tell yourself that smarter people than yourself have looked at this scripture and figured out some justification for it so everything must be alright with your world view.

Tell us this justification Radrook?

 

[JoeEllison]

I limited my list of biblical interpretational requirements to those which
are necessary for an objective evaluation of all types of literature-not just
the Bible. So those objecting to these well-known rules are actually going contrary to the required and accepted method of evaluating all literature.

Again we can make an analogy with chess. Not everyone is qualified to evaluate chess positions as equal, favorable or unfavorable for either of
the two players involved. Positional as well as tactical principles must be
well-understood. Of course some positions are more easily evaluated than others because of the scarcity of pieces involved. Such ones are often used
as training tests for beginners. In fact, inability or inaccuracies in evaluating and solving such simple positions immediately identifies the player as unqualified to teach others chess oo to attempt to expound on the deeper things of chess.

So too the Bible. Crass errors in doctrinal, historical or contextual basics immediately indicates a comprehension deficiency which disqualifies the erring person as an authority in biblical matters and makes any bravado attempts at posturing as such and demanding debate from a position of ignorance seem pathetically silly.

On the other hand, we can easily interpret certain chess moves as inherently incorrect; for instance, if someone takes their knight and hops it around the board like a checkers piece and yells "King ME!" we know that their move is incorrect. By the same token, there are many examples in the Bible of things that are beyond interpretation, because they violate basic rules of logic and/or decency as even small children understand them.

You can attack and insult people all you want when their accurate descriptions of the Bible contradict your illogical faith, but the flaw lies with you and the Bible.

 

[JoeEllison]

Please to explain how it is moral to kill a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath.

Or how about stoning your children to death if they get mouthy? Or killing all the men of a tribe and taking their women as sex slaves? How shall we interpret those "moral directives"?

 

[RandFan]

Or how about stoning your children to death if they get mouthy? Or killing all the men of a tribe and taking their women as sex slaves? How shall we interpret those "moral directives"?

Don't forget killing witches or the children of your enimies.

Special interpretation skills? Really? That's not an answer.

 

[juryjone]

Why is it the atheist's responsibility to provide context? I have never had a discussion with a Christian, in which the Bible was quoted by the Christian, where context was provided by the Christian - unless I tried to pin him down. Quotes are provided by Christians all the time, with no history lesson.

Please provide the "context" for the directive RandFan referred to.

Luke 6:41 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

 

[RandFan]

After all, ummm, just look how many ways it can be understood!" whenever the legitimately recognized explanation is given.

What explanation? You've given no explanation for killing a man for gathering sticks. You at least ought to be able to give us this explanation.

Or like attempting to teach literacy to an illiterate who stubbornly insists on defending it by claiming that grammatical rules are totally a personal matter. That's why such conversations or discussions or invitations to debate aren't worth the time.

Stop dancing. What is the excuse for killing a man for gathering sticks?

First, a sincere scripturally but misguided illiterate individual will assume that there are no agreed-upon rules restricting what can and cannot be proposed as biblical doctrine.

What rules of literature would make it ok to kill a guy for gathering wood on the Sabbath?

Second:
A sincere scripturally illiterate person will ignore context, be it historical, immediate textual, or the more extensive textual biblical one which are all essential to accurate understanding.

What context makes it ok for god to order the stoning to death of a guy gathering sticks?

Look, if there is some special context we are not aware of then simply let us in on it.

Third
Based on the above they will then feel qualified to challenge anything or everything put for as biblically accurate.

I'm not making any claims that I'm qualified. I'm asking you to tell us why it's ok to kill a man for gathering sticks?

Why is it so damn hard to explain why god thinks it's ok to kill a guy gathering sticks?

 

[Civilized Worm]

Post 1 Nominated, Radrook.
I particularly enjoyed "Tactics of the Godless"

OMG mutual appreciation commentary!!!!


Perhaps plumjam or Radrook could do us the favour of providing examples of the atheist posters here using these "tactics of the godless". This is a sceptics forum remember, if you're going to make claims you should be prepared to present evidence.

 

[plumjam]

OMG mutual appreciation commentary!!!!

I noted long ago that people can't stand it when a theist praises a fellow theist here. Pretty funny.
On this forum it is customary, when nominating a post, to state so in the relevant thread; which is what I was doing.
Even if it is to be classed as mutual appreciation commentary, it's more justifiable from our side, seeing as typically it's one theist arguing against a gathering throng of the Godless, amid the onset of dusk, raised torches, much grunting, clattering of pitchforks, and demands for the strange-talking incomer to be taken up to the castle and questioned by The Igor.

Perhaps plumjam or Radrook could do us the favour of providing examples of the atheist posters here using these "tactics of the godless". This is a sceptics forum remember, if you're going to make claims you should be prepared to present evidence.

This is one of those silly demands for evidence made by someone in the full knowledge that to provide corroborative data (in this case 16 points) would entail the provider having no life whatsoever, particularly as the points are not central to the main topic of the thread. Thus one can make such demands with 90% assurance that the demands won't be met.
Which frees up the demander to follow up with something smug like "Evasion noted."
So it's another dishonest tactic which should perhaps be added to the 16. Perhaps as "Unrealistic/tedious/pointless demands for evidence on footling matters, designed to portray one's target as generally without evidence in argument"

It's an easy tactic to employ. Too easy; which is why I never do.

On the other hand the forum is there for you to read, if you really want the "evidence".

Go on. Now say something smug.

 

[D'rok]

Killing someone for working on the sabbath is immoral whether it was 2000 years ago or yesterday.

I don't think this is a true statement. Morality changes. The very fact that the authors of the OT chose to write that rule down and to give it revelatory authority suggests that it was moral 2000 years ago (or whenever it was written/applied). Particularly so if the society of believers followed that rule en masse.

What I think you mean to say is that, by our current moral standards, killing someone for working on the sabbath is immoral whether it was 2000 years ago or yesterday.

Still, that doesn't excuse Christians for tap-dancing around the passage or hand-waving it away.

 

[JoeEllison]

OMG mutual appreciation commentary!!!!


Perhaps plumjam or Radrook could do us the favour of providing examples of the atheist posters here using these "tactics of the godless". This is a sceptics forum remember, if you're going to make claims you should be prepared to present evidence.

Maybe first they should answer RandFan's question, instead of offering so many evasions.

 

[Arthur Denton]

Tactics of the godless

Thread-deviation attempts via straw man in order to bring in irrelevancies.

That can be also said of your arguments in the mentioned thread. i.e. on lots of ocasions when you're asked to deliver a secular argument and you fail to produce it, you will just present another comment to diverge from the topic at hand, or at least I feel that way about your posts.

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

I know that we do not possess the ultimate codex of wisdom, and even though the gargoiles at Ultima do, we're more... prone to failure, but ok. Tell me: How are your many talks to God and many studies to the Bible and your theology classes, sociology classes and anthropology classes - or thesis - going? Because, honestly, that goes the same way back to you. I suggest that next time you make a new thread, you insert the following advice:

WARNING: EXPERTS THREAD ONLY. KEEP OUT, WANNABE.

Or:

WARNING: BELIEVERS THREAD ONLY. KEEP OUT, HEATHEN.

Last resort chortling, and heckling,

That's not really my style, but yes, I tend to do that, so, I apologize. But I won't refrain from doing it, if that's what you want to know.

Mutual admiration commentary

I haven't seen many, but they will always happen. People agree and group, specially against unreasonable people. There's an attempt to reason, then an attempt to reason by outnumbering, then the thread dies, eventually, or derails into trolling.

Irrelevant personality-type insults

Can you quote some?

Irrelevant group-type insults

Again, can you?

Immediate thread-deviation accusations wnen insults are responded to.

Gimme the insults, the topic, the group type thingie, we'll discuss this more.

thread-deviating insults.

Again?

Presentation of scientific credentials and logic as proof of atheistic ideas while:

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe or consider ID feasible.

What do you mean? That we ignore the scientific credentials of believers? yes, when it comes down to explaining creationism, which is just blatant self chosen ignorance. The religious theories about it are just hollow, can't be proven unless god himself comes down from celestia and shows his powers. While he won't do that, I'm grouping with the skeptical fellows, who are at least trying to work with reason.

Ignoring scientific credentials of those who believe in God

Repeats itself.

Ignoring common logic if it threatens godless beliefs

Where? Can you point it? Common logic as common, not educated folks have, such as myths?

Blatant self-contradictions in logic in support of atheistic ideas

Well, just point them, the contradictions, I think it's pretty valid that you do so, in order to organize the thoughts of the nonbelievers. In fact, when I have such problems and people point it to me, I'll rethink what I've said and maybe even apologize.

Appeals to bandwagon fallacy

Same as you do. The Bible, the morals of the christians, they're all a bunch of frauds. I do not admire fallacy, it's true, and I try not to use it, but that's also used in several arguments we read everyday on forums that discuss religion.

Use of Equivocation

Can it be used? Holy fart, I thought to be equivocated meant something else altogether.

Feigning incomprehension to justify crass misrepresentations via misstatements of opposing view.

Dude, you need to believe to comprehend many things you do. But there's just no logic in the answers that lead to those that the priests/bible/whatever want to pass down our throat. It is hard to understand why someone doesn't accept gay marriage if it wont harm himself, or to accept assisted suicide, or euthanasia, as tools at human disposal. It's not asking you to do it - it's allowing it to be there for you in case you change your mind or we can prove godlings doesn't exist, and if they do, they don't give a kwack about us.

Is this a compendium that you're making, of the possible ways we can disqualify your answers? I mean, that's a thing, but we'll never agree because we are prone to accept logical thoughts, and faith is just illogical. Pretty much like love. You love but there's no reason for it. You believe, with no reason for it. That's where you'll fail every time: You can't explain the logic of something without a logic point of view. It's like mathematics and crap.

But that gay marriage thread was really burning, and it was nice. Peace, man!

 

[ntropy]

A believer and philologist in one! A believer describing the symptoms of erroneous interpretation--a believer interpreting!--A believer believes. A believer interpreting from an independent point of view is self-annihilating. As much as Radrook tries to give his arguments a scientific flavor, his "interpretation" must point at a certain direction.

 

[Mashuna]

I noted long ago that people can't stand it when a theist praises a fellow theist here. Pretty funny.
On this forum it is customary, when nominating a post, to state so in the relevant thread; which is what I was doing.
Even if it is to be classed as mutual appreciation commentary, it's more justifiable from our side, seeing as typically it's one theist arguing against a gathering throng of the Godless, amid the onset of dusk, raised torches, much grunting, clattering of pitchforks, and demands for the strange-talking incomer to be taken up to the castle and questioned by The Igor.


This is one of those silly demands for evidence made by someone in the full knowledge that to provide corroborative data (in this case 16 points) would entail the provider having no life whatsoever, particularly as the points are not central to the main topic of the thread. Thus one can make such demands with 90% assurance that the demands won't be met.
Which frees up the demander to follow up with something smug like "Evasion noted."
So it's another dishonest tactic which should perhaps be added to the 16. Perhaps as "Unrealistic/tedious/pointless demands for evidence on footling matters, designed to portray one's target as generally without evidence in argument"

It's an easy tactic to employ. Too easy; which is why I never do.

On the other hand the forum is there for you to read, if you really want the "evidence".

Go on. Now say something smug.

Evasion noted.

 

[ddt]

I don't think this is a true statement. Morality changes. The very fact that the authors of the OT chose to write that rule down and to give it revelatory authority suggests that it was moral 2000 years ago (or whenever it was written/applied). Particularly so if the society of believers followed that rule en masse.

What I think you mean to say is that, by our current moral standards, killing someone for working on the sabbath is immoral whether it was 2000 years ago or yesterday.

I agree with that. Morality also differs between societies, even if they're quite similar. For example, the US finds it moral to impose the death penalty on certain crimes, whereas European nations do not. This is not meant as a moral judgement, just as an example.

I doubt that the Israelite society followed those rules en masse at the time that Leviticus first was conceived. AFAIK, current research indicates that Jahweh up to the time of the Babylonian captivity still had quite some competition from other gods in the popularity ratings among the Israelites.

Still, that doesn't excuse Christians for tap-dancing around the passage or hand-waving it away.

Completely agree. Radrook posed in the OP as if he was here the authority on explaining scripture. RandFan posed a very simple, and excellent, question in post #7:

Please to explain how it is moral to kill a man for gathering sticks on the sabbath.

and Radrook thus far has declined to give that explanation. Now, Radrook, come on with that explanation!

Or explain to us, naive atheists, why that rule doesn't apply today. Sola scriptura, of course.