Scriptural literacy

[Safe-Keeper]

Unjustifiable self-proclaimed expertise.

Damn you! By inflicting more than 255 Irony Points on your OP you overflowed the counter and now the game crashed!

:returns to debugging program, muttering:

 

[Civilized Worm]

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.

Dramatise much? Anyway, special pleading.

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.

If you're not prepared to provide evidence don't make such claims.
This is a sceptics forum.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

This would be a very fair response if we were arguing on the basis of the Bible that the ancient Israelites were worse, morally speaking, than other cultures of their era (by our standards), but that's not the argument being discussed.

The problem theists create for themselves is that they endow their imaginary creator with moral perfection and unchanging nature, so God's laws as reported in the Bible have to have been morally perfect even two thousand years ago if their story is to be plausible.

If God's supposed laws as of two thousand years ago conflict with modern morality, then it follows that from the modern perspective God is evil and always has been, which is a conclusion theists need to tap-dance around.

 

[This is The End]

Why is History in the same forum as Literature and the Arts, yet Religion and Philosophy are in a seperate forum? Is anyone else completely confused by this?

Shouldn't History be in a seperate forum, with the others being in one?

 

[D'rok]

This would be a very fair response if we were arguing on the basis of the Bible that the ancient Israelites were worse, morally speaking, than other cultures of their era (by our standards), but that's not the argument being discussed.

The problem theists create for themselves is that they endow their imaginary creator with moral perfection and unchanging nature, so God's laws as reported in the Bible have to have been morally perfect even two thousand years ago if their story is to be plausible.

If God's supposed laws as of two thousand years ago conflict with modern morality, then it follows that from the modern perspective God is evil and always has been, which is a conclusion theists need to tap-dance around.

I agree. But the apologetics spin response that I've heard before is that God is morally perfect and so are his laws - it's just that we weren't ready for the fully developed version back then. God gave the ancient Israelites precisely the moral guidance that was warranted given the moral/spiritual development of humans at that time. Christian historicism, I guess.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

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.

I find it ironic that you would arbitrarily agree with and advocate the stance of another member solely on the basis that he or she is another theist, or is 'sticking it to the godless heathens.' This carries the assumptions that all theists must be in perfect agreement, or all nonbelievers must be in perfect agreement, both of which are false. Given that Radrook was using such a venomous, hypocritical, arrogant, and ad hominem laden post to shelter himself from criticism after he argued that "TEH LAWS" justified executing people for silly reasons, latching on to this post of his doesn't help the "theist side" look any more credible.

Is the "theist side" so desperate for support that it will suck up to anything and everything that remotely appears to be attacking the godless? I can say right now that I've spoken with atheists who were racists, truthers, or simply idiots, and I certainly wouldn't class myself together with them as the "atheist side" of things.

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.

If there's a shortage of rational minded theists willing to engage in reasoned debate in a skeptical community, whose problem is that? Or to put it another way, whose fault is that? Also, your analogy is flawed. It's more like a couple of angry torch-waving villagers on a self-righteous quest to rid the lands of the unholy demonic werewolf they blame for terrorizing the countryside, only to find they've stumbled into a den full of werewolves who are sleeping peacefully, aren't the least bit interested in a fight with the humans, and turn out to be completely innocent. But rather than admitting their mistakes, the villagers insist on flailing their torches around, setting fire to things left and right, all the while claiming that they're the victims here.

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."

No, a breach of any of the rules of the membership agreement, which Radrook's post seemed to accuse people of doing, would indeed require evidence. He was using these accusations in order to lend support to his claim that he was being persecuted, and using the persecution complex to stave off criticism of his arguments. The request for evidence is more than fair, especially considering he made these ridiculous claims, many of which were personalized in nature, in the first place.

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"

He made the claims, therefore it should be no sweat to provide examples. If he had the time to devote to piecing together a post like that, he should have the time to dig up evidence to back it up. If on the other hand the post was an ass-pull, then it doesn't do you any good to defend it.

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.

Likewise, Radrook's hateful bigoted murder-advocating posts are there on the forum if you really want evidence.

 

[RandFan]

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.

The point, as Kevin Lowe makes so well, is that we are talking about the morality of a deity. Does god consider stoning someone to death for gathering sticks moral?

I'm more than willing to judge these people by the light of their times but don't tell me that they got their morality from god. Further don't tell me that we need to judge homosexuals based on bronze age morality (that was the context of the discussion to begin with).

You can't have it both ways. Either we need to view the behavior and rules of ancient civilizations in context of their times and understanding and conclude that they were making it up as they went along like the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Celts, Persians, etc., or we need to conclude that god told the Jews to perform acts that are considered today to be crimes against humanity. In short, immoral.

 

[D'rok]

The point, as Kevin Lowe makes so well, is that we are talking about the morality of a deity. Does god consider stoning someone to death for gathering sticks moral?

I'm more than willing to judge these people by the light of their times but don't tell me that they got their morality from god. Further don't tell me that we need to judge homosexuals based on bronze age morality (that was the context of the discussion to begin with).

You can't have it both ways. Either we need to view the behavior and rules of ancient civilizations in context of their times and understanding and conclude that they were making it up as they went along like the Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, Celts, Persians, etc., or we need to conclude that god told the Jews to perform acts that are considered today to be crimes against humanity. In short, immoral.

Point taken. I didn't read the original thread. But I think you'll find that some Christians apologists will reject your either/or proposition in favour of some sort of moral/spiritual historicism where the perfect "meta-morality" is only revealed in retrospect.

 

[RandFan]

I agree. But the apologetics spin response that I've heard before is that God is morally perfect and so are his laws - it's just that we weren't ready for the fully developed version back then. God gave the ancient Israelites precisely the moral guidance that was warranted given the moral/spiritual development of humans at that time. Christian historicism, I guess.

Yes, that's the spin but it really comes up short and we need to stay focused here.

On Saturday (or Sunday if you prefer) go find someone working, grab hold of him or her and drag that person to the park. Get a group of your friends together and stone that person to death.

I'll confess that is rhetorical and a bit of an appeal to emotion but I'm trying to make a point. Must of us would cringe at the idea. What a monstrous thing to do. What possible good could come of such an act?

Ok, what possible reason did god have for killing people who didn't follow Jewish law to keep the sabbath day holy in ancient times? Is there really any valid reason? I know, apologists like to point out that we shouldn't question god but this is an error in logic. First we need to figure out whether or not god, perfectly just and merciful would really order such a barbaric act.

No, if god exists then he/she would never engage in such an awful thing. Otherwise, what's the point of morality if it is so arbitrary and capricious as to include captial punishment for offending god's ego?

There are videos on the web of people being stoned to death. Watch them and tell me that a perfectly just god would be involved with that.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, that's the spin but it really comes up short and we need to stay focused here.

On Saturday (or Sunday if you prefer) go find someone working, grab hold of him or her and drag that person to the park. Get a group of your friends together and stone that person to death.

I'll confess that is rhetorical and a bit of an appeal to emotion but I'm trying to make a point. Must of us would cringe at the idea. What a monstrous thing to do. What possible good could come of such an act?

Ok, what possible reason did god have for killing people who didn't follow Jewish law to keep the sabbath day holy in ancient times? Is there really any valid reason? I know, apologists like to point out that we shouldn't question god but this is an error in logic. First we need to figure out whether or not god, perfectly just and merciful would really order such a barbaric act.

No, if god exists then he/she would never engage in such an awful thing. Otherwise, what's the point of morality if it is so arbitrary and capricious as to include captial punishment for offending god's ego?

There are videos on the web of people being stoned to death. Watch them and tell me that a perfectly just god would be involved with that.

I'm with you all the way. I'd love to hear a coherent response from a believer.

Here's one that is especially incoherent:

http://www.gotquestions.org/SAB/SAB-CS-Numbers.html#Num15-32

 

[RandFan]

Point taken. I didn't read the original thread. But I think you'll find that some Christians apologists will reject your either/or proposition in favour of some sort of moral/spiritual historicism where the perfect "meta-morality" is only revealed in retrospect.

I've no doubt such an argument will be made. That's fine. People have to be forced to face their consciousness and try and justify this barbarism. I know that many can do it but in the end the good will prevail. Just as people eventually gave up their desire to keep slavery legal so to can people give up the idea that the bible is the perfect word of god and or that rules made by nomadic tribes in the bronze age have any relevance for us.

I used to be against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. I changed my mind because I could not make a reasoned argument that withstood criticism.

I think intellectually honest people would eventually have to give up clinging to the notion that a just and merciful god would order the killing of anyone.

 

[RandFan]

I'm with you all the way. I'd love to hear a coherent response from a believer.

Here's one that is especially incoherent:

http://www.gotquestions.org/SAB/SAB-CS-Numbers.html#Num15-32

Agreed.

Thanks for the link. Yeah, if one starts out with the premise that the bible is correct then one must perform all kinds of logical gymnastics to get over the sick and twisted world of ancient Israel. Again, sick and twisted in light of our times.

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9



That's enough for me to invalidate the bible as anything other than ancient philosophy. Some good. Some mediocre. A lot that's evil.

No, there is nothing happy about murdering children.

Or course, Radrook will tell us that we lack the special understanding that would justify the true joy one could achieve killing children by throwing them against rocks...

And here I thought drowning puppies was sick and twisted.

Please...

 

[Olowkow]

"Gathering sticks", that ain't workin', money for nothin' and your chicks for free. These folks were in dire straits if they had to get stoned to gather sticks.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. --Psalm 137:9



That's enough for me to invalidate the bible as anything other than ancient philosophy. Some good. Some mediocre. A lot that's evil.

No, there is nothing happy about murdering children.

Or course, Radrook will tell us that we lack the special understanding that would justify the true joy one could achieve killing children by throwing them against rocks...

And here I thought drowning puppies was sick and twisted.

Please...

I tried that one on Radrook some time ago, and he gave the same answer that he gives every other time, which of course was along the lines of how those who are intellectually inferior to him and scripturally illiterate are unqualified to discuss the bible in front of him. I get the feeling that he would have added, "Or breathe the same air I do," since that was the overall gist of his argument. The correct answer would be that Psalm 137 was a lamentation over a time when the Israelites lived in slavery under the Babylonians, and thus expressed a sentiment of revenge against their captors. Tribal warfare was very brutal, and women and children were not spared. This Psalm was descriptive, not proscriptive.

Psalms are nothing more than ritualistic religious songs. They are not prophecies, laws, or mandates. The funny thing is that when Psalm 137 is typically used in Christian worship, the final verse of it is conveniently left out.


I wanted to add, as well, something about the chess analogy Radrook seems to be so fond of. What he is apparently unaware of is the fact that the rules of chess have been changed and revised since the game was invented. Under the original Arabian rules, the bishop moved two spaces diagonally, and if there was a piece in the way, it jumped it without capturing it. Later on, it was given long range powers. Under the original rules, the queen could only move one space diagonally per turn; it was weaker even than a pawn, posed a negligible threat, and opposing queens never met each other. This was changed so that the queen was the most powerful and second most valuable piece in the game, able to move like a bishop and rook. Under the original rules, there was no such thing as castling or the two space opening move for pawns, but this was changed later on. One of the last rules to be changed was the addition of the en passant maneuver, where a pawn on the 5th row could still capture a pawn using its two space opening move. This was to prevent players from trying to avoid capture by exploiting the two space opening.

In addition to the rules being revised, the chess notation has likewise undergone revision. The original notation, used for centuries, involved naming the columns by the initial letters of the power pieces that start on them: QR, QN, QB, Q, K, KB, KN, and KR, and numbering the rows 1-8. Moves were written by using the intial letter of the piece and then the coordinates of the space it would move to. This was changed fairly recently. The new officially recognized notation is a much simpler coordinate system, using letters a-h for the columns. Moves are written using a coordinate for the space a piece is on, and then the coordinate for the space it moves to.

The rules of chess, like interpretations of the bible, do in fact change and undergo revisions over time. Not only is Radrook's analogy false on both counts, it also hurts his case. He is essentially arguing that the original Arabian rules are set in stone and nobody has any right to deviate from them, let alone play the game by modern rules. A key difference between chess rules and bible interpretation is that it's a lot rarer for people to murder, oppress, or march off to war in the name of differing views on chess rules. I think he probably should have asked someone who actually knows how to play chess before spouting off such a ridiculous analogy.

As I said before, it's funny he should mention the game of chess. Debating with bible literalists who demand nothing short of complete and utter compliance with their beliefs is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon. It knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and then flies back to its flock to declare victory.

 

[Brian-M]

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

Not worth nominating, it's a repeat...
http://www.internationalskeptics.co...ight=Mutual+admiration+commentary#post3920933

But I do have some questions...

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

Who's rules are these, and who agreed to them?
What are these rules?
Which Christian doctrines are you talking about? Catholic Christian? Protestant? Church of England? Baptist? Anglican? Seventh Day Adventists?

Finally, when disputing quotes from the bible, which bible is the right one?

 

[RandFan]

The correct answer would be that Psalm 137 was a lamentation over a time when the Israelites lived in slavery under the Babylonians, and thus expressed a sentiment of revenge against their captors. Tribal warfare was very brutal, and women and children were not spared. This Psalm was descriptive, not proscriptive.

Psalms are nothing more than ritualistic religious songs. They are not prophecies, laws, or mandates. The funny thing is that when Psalm 137 is typically used in Christian worship, the final verse of it is conveniently left out.

Thanks,

I knew some of the history of the Psalms and the background of the sentiment for the killing of the oppressors children. Given the times it's somewhat understandable. At the end of WWII a number of Jews seriously considered poisoning the water of Germans or causing some other atrocity. It's in line with how humans, many if not most humans, think under certain given circumstances and our propensity to see our enemies as subhuman.

Still, it's not very enlightening for god's ostensibly chosen people to sing the praises of death for their enemies children.

As a work of literature I don't have a problem with it. I can see it in the light of its times and understand the outcry that would lead to such sentiment.

But if this were truly a work of a just and merciful god I would expect an exhortation of forgiveness. If Gandhi, a Hindu, could embrace non-violence urge Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims to see the humanity in each other then surely god could have taught the Jews the same. Then again, he could have visited the Babylonians and told them that oppressing the Jews was not a very nice thing to do but then we wouldn't have all of those great narratives.

Often when my wife and I are watching a horror movie or TV show and one of us yells out, "why is the idiot going down into the basement alone" the other says, "because the writers new it would make for a better show".

I guess god wanted a really good show.

On the other hand, maybe this is all the result of people trying to survive during a hostile period in human history?

 

[Radrook]

Three indications of scriptural illiteracy

1. Ignoring or denying context

Claim: Work itself was punishment since prior to sin Adam was not to labor.

Context Fact: Adam is told to tend the Garden and subdue the earth as well as care for the animals.

Claim: Sex was the original sin

Context Fact: God created the sexual organs to be used to fill the earth. Adam and eve were instructed to have sex.

2. Ignoring or denying Genre

Claim: All scripture is allegorical and should not be taken literally.

Genre Fact: The scriptures contain poetry, history, song, prophecy, advice, proverbs, moral instructions, ceremonial worship instructions,

3. Ignoring original word meanings

Claim: God lied because he used the word "yom" to indicate when Adam would die if he sinned.

Word meaning Fact: The word "yom" is used in the scriptures in reference to periods of time longer than one day as well.

The above three errors are being constantly used in support of easily refutable untenable antibiblical arguments. After they are deployed, mutual congratulations on the effectiveness of these flawed arguments commences interspersed with hecklings-jecklings, chortlings and euphoric feelings of rhetorical accomplishment. This is followed by accusations of my not daring to engage such arguments in detail because I fear the consequences. True-I do fear the consequences-being swamped with inanities.

 

[Radrook]

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

Glad to hear that. Perhaps by exposing these dubious tactics there will be an increase in genuine arguments which will warrant a response and which will provide a basis for an intelligent discussion on the issues involved. Although judging by the furious raucus, I doubt it.

 

[RandFan]

The above three errors are being constantly used in support of easily refutable untenable antibiblical arguments.

So, what do you think of stoning a guy for gathering sticks on the sabbath?

 

[RandFan]

...there will be an increase in genuine arguments which will warrant a response and which will provide a basis for an intelligent discussion on the issues involved.

Do you feel that it is ok to kill a guy for gathering sticks on the Sabbath?

Yes, no, other?

Any comment?

Hello?

Is this thing on?