Scriptural literacy

[Toke]

Whether a morality is or isn't good for our present time has to be judged not in accordance with when written but instead on its inherent morality or immorality.

What happened to context?
Should you not follow the bible instead of making moral judgment of what you feel is "inherently" moral or immoral?

 

[joobz]

Ummmm God raped Mary! So there! [A real humdinger which needs no refutation since it shows profound scriptural illiteracy.]

You do realize that by saying this you invalidate the argument you were making when this first came up, right?

In another thread you used analysis of zeus myths to claim an invalidation of his worship. But now, by mischaracterizing my argument and by claiming only 1 interpretation is valid, your original point "that you can assess between which gods are true or not" is completely invalid. All you are doing is applying confirmation bias.

How do tell the difference between true and false accusations against god?

Familiarity with that particular God's personality. If you told me that Zeus was vehemently against rape and adultery I would reply that he is depicted as raping human women while he was married. So that would be false in reference to Zeus.

Or if you told me that that Mars or the Aztec gods were peace loving I'd have to consider that statement false.

In the same manner, if I am told that the biblical God respects rapists-I would have to say that is false because of my familiarity with how the biblical God is described.

From a theological standpoint, the real question is whether such beliefs are misunderstandings of scripture or even non-biblically derived additions. If indeed they are unjustifiable additions, then they constitute mere misguided human opinion and cannot legitimately be used to for biblical evaluation purposes.

It is a sincere, unbiased, skeptic's responsibility to determine this before passing judgement. Otherwise he is as gullible as any other unprincipled person.

By this standpoint, one could also claim your interpretation of Zeus and astec religions is merely unjustified, missguided interpretations.

I don't accuse Zues of raping or being an adulterer. The writings of his worshippers describe him that way.

bolding mine
=============================================================

Since they do-then how does one avoid reaching the conclusion that he raped and commited adultery when it is clearly stated that he did?

Care to explain?

Your only source said he "may" have raped. Most stories regarding Zeus' liasons were of willing partners. I'd say that the ones which claim rape are simply "misunderstandings of scripturemythos or even non-biblicallyunofficial derived additions".

Secondly, you've added now adultery to the mix, which wasn't a point being discussed. We were referring to the rape. In any regard, Was god married to Mary when he inpregnated her?

The point here is that you are applying strict interpretation of other faiths as proof against them, yet allow only your interpretation to be considered acceptable for the bible.

If we use your same method of analysis leveed against the Aztecs and greek mythology, we must also do the same for the bible. In which case, it becomes clear that god is rather indifferent toward the murder and slaughter of children. And that he will use the murder of children as punishment toward the parents.

BTW
Now comes the droning statement of still holding breath while waiting because they still don't see.

beams and motes.
beams and motes.

 

[Paulhoff]

Paul

 

[Piggy]

Inanities proving Biblical Illiteracy

Ummmm, Man wasn't given work until he sinned. [ignores context]
Ummmm, There's nothing to do in heaven except drink wine. [ignores context]
Uummm Claiming to be a Christian makes you one. [ignores context]
Ummmm God tells us he can't be understood. [biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Christians are supposed to follow Mosaic Law. [Profound biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Jews knew nothing about restoration prophecies. [assumes to know]
ummmm How do you know they knew? [assumes it's impossible to know if they knew or not]
Ummmm How do you know Jesus knew? [Silly question showing profound ignorance of Jewish historical context]
Ummmm I see no reason to conclude they knew! [Understandable in view of sloppy scholarship]
Ummmm Where in the Bible does it say they Knew? [Assumes that the exact words They knew! are needed for us to know they knew.]
ummmm The only way the prophets could prophecy that way is of they were drug addicts. [false premise]
ummmm Diversity of opinion means the original work had no opinion. [false premise]
ummmm Anything written during that time is worthless. [false premise]
Ummmm Moral standards are better now because they approve gay sex. [subjective evaluation]
Ummmm No one has a right to tell me what to do! [false premise]
and

Ummmm God raped Mary! So there! [A real humdinger which needs no refutation since it shows profound scriptural illiteracy.]



BTW
Now comes the droning statement of still holding breath while waiting because they still don't see.

Where are you seeing these? Did you just make them up?

I mean, yeah, there are always yahoos out there you can pick on.

But I've never heard the prophets called drug addicts, for instance.

Even if someone does, that's hardly a mainstream argument.

I agree with you that there's a lot of scriptural illiteracy out there.

But based on your statements in other threads, I would have to count you among the scripturally illiterate, I'm afraid.

Sorry to have to say that, but there it is.

And for you to call me scripturally illiterate... that makes no sense.

So what have I said which leads you to your conclusion there?

 

[Piggy]

Sure! They calmly coherently and collectively agree to cooperate with the godless in discrediting the Bible at every turn possible. Those aren't really theologians-they are quacks in the service of Satan.

See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Radrook believes that scholars who disagree with his modern interpretation of scripture are out to discredit the Bible.

Radrook, what is your opinion of scholars who conclude that the book of Daniel was composed after the events which are purported to be prophesied in the text?

And what is your opinion of scholars who conclude that Matthew and Mark are not the authors of the gospels which bear their names, that Isaiah was written in 3 parts over a long time period, and that Paul is not the author of the pastorals?

 

[Radrook]

An example of godless irrationality

False premise

1. All biblical interpretations are equally valid.

Let's consider exactly what such an absurdity entails.

Let's propose that:

Christians are under Law not grace or

That the NT doesn't teach salvation via forgiveness of sins based on the
Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus.

Or that the Bible teaches God isn't the source of all life.

Or propose that it teaches proclaims Satan is mankind's benefactor.


If indeed any and all interpretations are equally valid-then there
shouldn't be a problem with the ones proposed above-now should there?


But there is.

[This is where the quizzical looks of astonishment arise and claims of
incomprehension are deployed. ]

What is the problem? The problem is umm, that the Bible PLAINLY
teaches otherwise. Plainly? Yep! Plainly and anyone claiming it doesn't
immediately identifies himself as biblically illiterate since he chooses to deny
an undeniable fact. Which as I said previously, makes productive discussion
impossible due to the person's ulterior motives which convinces him he
must besmirch at all costs and emboldens him to posture without the needed credentials.

[Umm now the credential statement becomes an issue. Watch!]


BTW
Before the godless start going off on the biblical infallibility tangent
again let me remind you that is not what the discussion is about.

Ever try playing Ping-Pong with someone who claims everything goes?

Yikes!

 

[Radrook]

What happened to context?
Should you not follow the bible instead of making moral judgment of what you feel is "inherently" moral or immoral?

I don't know? What happened to it? I haven't discarded it. Have you?

 

[D'rok]

So, if I were to attempt to sum up this thread....

Radrook will never address moral criticism of the bible from atheists because atheists are scriptually illiterate.

So we have an entire thread devoted to a premise which is an ad-hominen at best, false at worst, and disgustingly dishonest either way.

Only a coward without the courage of his convictions would resort to such tactics.

 

[Radrook]

What is of "less moral worth" change with the times, what what was good in the iron age can be evil now.

Alot of "inherent morality or immorality" change from society to society.

A god that was good 2000 years ago are quite evil nowadays.

Unless of cource your "Spawns of satan theologists" spend their time modifying the teachings to fit society.
They also spend some time working with the contradictions in the bible.

Modern Ethics, which is the study and determination of what constitiutes morality and immorality, holds that moral principles are derived from the human condtion. The human condition of mortality or ability to die, ability to suffer pain mentally and physically, ability to reason, and need for social structuire for survival doesn't change. Otherwise we would cease to be human. Therefore moral duties remain intact regardles of time or societal variations because our humanity remains unchanged. That's a basic ethical given.


BTW
A discussion of ethics requires at least a rudiment in its basic precepts. Your intial statements make it plain thayt you are lacking in that area. : )

As for the other unrelated issues you strive to inject into the discussion, I consider them irrelevant.

 

[Mark Felt]

An example of godless irrationality

False premise

1. All biblical interpretations are equally valid.

An example of Radrook's illogic

Strawman

1. Take argument, replace with crap

 

[Radrook]

An example of Radrook's illogic

Strawman

1. Take argument, replace with crap

When unable to refute the godless do tend to-toot!

 

[Mark Felt]

When unable to refute the godless do tend to-toot!

The problem with your thinking here is that you believe that you're in the right.

This leads me to believe that you are scriptually illiterate, based on my perception that you are only functionally literate in general terms, in that you can read and write but can't necessarily understand the context of what you read. (And write.)

My assumption was that your post that I quoted was related in some way to Piggy's since it was the last post in the thread and both were basically in the same general ballpark.

However, even if they weren't my post still stands as correct given what you've posted in this thread. You are actively engaging in the fallacy of the Strawman. This is where you attribute to the other guy a statement, show that statement to be wrong, and declare victory. The fallacy is that the other guy never held that view.

What you have posted as examples of scriptural illiteracy in these bulletin lists are things that are obviously false, and then you say that these are our views, and then you say that we are obviously wrong.

Do I need to use smaller words, or are you getting the gist of it?

 

[Toke]

Modern Ethics, which is the study and determination of what constitiutes morality and immorality, holds that moral principles are derived from the human condtion. The human condition of mortality or ability to die, ability to suffer pain mentally and physically, ability to reason, and need for social structuire for survival doesn't change. Otherwise we would cease to be human. Therefore moral duties remain intact regardles of time or societal variations because our humanity remains unchanged. That's a basic ethical given.

According to that those "inherent moral values" are unchanging over time and society.

The bible endorses slavery, stoning and so on, that is illegal nowadays.

Is the bible wrong, or have we simply left the true path of god?

Try give a clear answer for once.

 

[joobz]

An example of godless irrationality
[snip text]

Why not actually debate the points that have been raised instead of creating strawmen. Currently, you are only debating yourself.

Ever try playing Ping-Pong with someone who claims everything goes?

Yikes!

Are you certain you want to use another game analogy????

Radrook has compared biblical interpretation to playing chess. I think that this is a very fair and accurate comparison.

Chess is a game. Games have a set of rules which must be agreed upon and followed in order to play.
The rules to games are effectively arbitrary, in that there is no externally verifiable governing principle deciding how to play each game. For instance, there is no explicitly universal reason why chess is played the way it is. It could easily have been invented to be played with all knights except a king.

If you change the rules you have a variation of the game. You may even call it by another name. Replace all pieces with red and black discs which move and attack like pawns but can do it multiple times and you have checkers. But you still have a game.

Biblical Interpretation is exactly like this. You must agree upon a set of ground rules to accept the interpretation as valid. With each set of ground rules, you end up with a different denomination of christianity.

The difference comes in when each game player claims that their game is the only one true way to play games and that all other games are evil and false.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to prove which game IS the true game. It's not like in physics, when things are forced to work by only one set of rules. We can not experiment to find the "true game".

To people who do not play the games, it is clear that the rules are arbitrary and that all games are equal in this feature.

 

[joobz]

Radrook, what is your opinion of scholars who conclude that the book of Daniel was composed after the events which are purported to be prophesied in the text?

And what is your opinion of scholars who conclude that Matthew and Mark are not the authors of the gospels which bear their names, that Isaiah was written in 3 parts over a long time period, and that Paul is not the author of the pastorals?

Radrook, you have ignored very direct, very clear questions. Piggy has challenged your claim of expertise and your avoidance of his questions substantiates his challenge.

 

[MIKILLINI]

Inanities proving Biblical Illiteracy

Ummmm, Man wasn't given work until he sinned. [ignores context]
Ummmm, There's nothing to do in heaven except drink wine. [ignores context]
Uummm Claiming to be a Christian makes you one. [ignores context]
Ummmm God tells us he can't be understood. [biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Christians are supposed to follow Mosaic Law. [Profound biblical illiteracy showing]
Ummmm Jews knew nothing about restoration prophecies. [assumes to know]
ummmm How do you know they knew? [assumes it's impossible to know if they knew or not]
Ummmm How do you know Jesus knew? [Silly question showing profound ignorance of Jewish historical context]
Ummmm I see no reason to conclude they knew! [Understandable in view of sloppy scholarship]
Ummmm Where in the Bible does it say they Knew? [Assumes that the exact words They knew! are needed for us to know they knew.]
ummmm The only way the prophets could prophecy that way is of they were drug addicts. [false premise]
ummmm Diversity of opinion means the original work had no opinion. [false premise]
ummmm Anything written during that time is worthless. [false premise]
Ummmm Moral standards are better now because they approve gay sex. [subjective evaluation]
Ummmm No one has a right to tell me what to do! [false premise]
and

Ummmm God raped Mary! So there! [A real humdinger which needs no refutation since it shows profound scriptural illiteracy.]


BTW
Now comes the droning statement of still holding breath while waiting because they still don't see.

Where in the world did you find these interpretations? These seem to be made up intentionally.

 

[Hokulele]

But I've never heard the prophets called drug addicts, for instance.

This is probably a reference to John of Patmos and the people who suspect he was fond of mushrooms.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

An example of godless irrationality

False premise

1. All biblical interpretations are equally valid.

Let's consider exactly what such an absurdity entails.

Let's propose that:

Christians are under Law not grace or

That the NT doesn't teach salvation via forgiveness of sins based on the
Ransom Sacrifice of Jesus.

Or that the Bible teaches God isn't the source of all life.

Or propose that it teaches proclaims Satan is mankind's benefactor.


If indeed any and all interpretations are equally valid-then there
shouldn't be a problem with the ones proposed above-now should there?


But there is.

[This is where the quizzical looks of astonishment arise and claims of
incomprehension are deployed. ]

What is the problem? The problem is umm, that the Bible PLAINLY
teaches otherwise. Plainly? Yep! Plainly and anyone claiming it doesn't
immediately identifies himself as biblically illiterate since he chooses to deny
an undeniable fact. Which as I said previously, makes productive discussion
impossible due to the person's ulterior motives which convinces him he
must besmirch at all costs and emboldens him to posture without the needed credentials.

[Umm now the credential statement becomes an issue. Watch!]


BTW
Before the godless start going off on the biblical infallibility tangent
again let me remind you that is not what the discussion is about.

You obviously have no clue what a strawman fallacy is, or are willfully ignorant of basic logic. I don't mean this as an insult; it's a fair description of your tactics. Is there a problem with quoting and responding to arguments people have actually made? Nobody ever claimed that all biblical interpretations are equally valid, though perhaps that's all you heard when you were told that YOUR biblical interpretations were less valid. If you're going to make idiotic statements such as how killing children is putting them to sleep for the resurrection, you'd best be prepared to have your interpretation torn apart.

Ever try playing Ping-Pong with someone who claims everything goes?

Yikes!

I hope you realize that the proper way to serve the ball does not include inserting it into a posterior anatomical orifice and then forcibly ejecting it onto the table, since that seems to be the way all your arguments are formulated.

 

[Piggy]

Radrook, would you care to address these questions?

These are legitimate questions which are actually contested across the dividing lines of academic versus confessional interpretation.

I'd like to know your answers, please.

What is your opinion of scholars who conclude that the book of Daniel was composed after the events which are purported to be prophesied in the text?

And what is your opinion of scholars who conclude that Matthew and Mark are not the authors of the gospels which bear their names, that Isaiah was written in 3 parts over a long time period, and that Paul is not the author of the pastorals?

 

[Brian-M]

There are sections of Proverbs and of Job which are much closer to Plato than to Homer.

And there are sections of Joshua and Jonah which are much closer to Homer than to Plato.

And there are sections of Exodus and Revelation which bear precious little resemblance to either.

It's very difficult to make any statements about "the Bible", in fact.

Point taken. Foolish of me to generalize.