FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-12-2006, 04:42 PM   #251
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Default

Just out of interest - has there ever been a case on this forum of one of these long argumentative threads ending in a poster stating that they were changing their position?
Neil List is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 04:30 AM   #252
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by myfishgrewlegs View Post
Back on page #6 in post #126, rhutchin said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
If a person were to follow Jesus perfectly, I suspect that person would never violate one of the laws of Moses.
One of the laws given to Moses in Leviticus 20:9 says, "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
But in Luke 14:26, Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

The way I read it, if you follow Jesus perfectly on this point, you are certainly violating one of the laws of Moses.
I don’t really see how the violation would occur unless you intend to ignore the Biblical context an equate “hating father/mother” with “cursing father/mother.” Is that how you got the violation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by myfishgrewlegs View Post
Also in post #238:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
The risk results form the possibility that the Bible is telling the truth despite the problem passages.
rhurchin, why aren't you (or are you?) concerned about the risk you are taking by rejecting the idea that the Torah or the Qur'an, or any other "divinely inspired" book might be "telling the truth, despite the problem passages"?
I think a person needs to look at all those risks.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 04:36 AM   #253
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic View Post
rhutchin
As you describe above, the problem is not that the information is not available, it is that people like Johnny Skeptic don't want people to have that information. Thus, Saudia Arabia works hard to keep its people from obtaining the information in the Bible.

The problem here is that God has given Johnny Skeptic the freedom to do that which he wants. Johnny Skeptic exercises the freedom God has given him to destroy people. You are getting your way; what is your complaint?

Johnny Skeptic
God deliberately withholds information from some people that they would accept if they were aware of the information, so God is having his way. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept information that he would accept if he was aware of the information...
Not really. the Bible is freely available and anyone reading it is able to see the logic of accepting what it says.

The problem seems to be that you object to God giving you control over the distribution of that information. However, it seems to me that you actually want that control. What exactly is your complaint? Aren't you getting what you want?
rhutchin is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 04:43 AM   #254
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Barleycorn View Post
rhutchin
Why is that?

Kinda following your biases into this aren't you?

Jon Barleycorn
Not really -

Angra Mainyu asked :
Did God not command, in your opinion, the killing of homosexuals and blasphemers?
Should God’s command be obeyed?
What about democracy?

You replied :
If people want to be ruled by God, they would be subject to His commands. In a democracy, anyone with 51% of the vote can make his own laws.

That sounds pretty much to me like you advocate implemeting the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers at the very least. Or perhaps I misunderstood you?
If a society decides that it wants to be ruled by God, then that decision requires that it impose the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers, and then follow the prescribed legal system for carrying out that punishment.

I am an advocate for a society ruled by God.
rhutchin is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 04:44 AM   #255
JPD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
I don’t really see how the violation would occur unless you intend to ignore the Biblical context an equate “hating father/mother” with “cursing father/mother.” Is that how you got the violation?



I think a person needs to look at all those risks.
And draw the conclusion that not one position can be demonstrated to be any more or less valid than any other position, unless you subscribe to one of them, in which case you will probably incline towards that one in preference to the others. In one respect it depends on where you were born. This God feller really needs to ensure that his message gets through clearly - he can't be that bothered about what people think since they (within each religion) draw all manner of conclusions (not infrequently contradictory) from the texts. This is the quandry that you are in. We're not concerned since you have consistently failed to show why or how a risk exists. Good luck!

One can read a bible wherever they are - potentially - but they can also, equally, be exposed to the other texts which tell a different story.

So what would be the point exactly when:

(a) The risk cannot be traced to anything but words
(b) Those words may say different things to different people within the same religion. Some sects will ignore them all together. Some will interpret them literally.
(c) Some of those words appear in other texts but the nature of the text fundamentally differs.

Its always fun watching Christians and Muslims - sometimes they regard each other's future homes as hell. At others they get all warm and fuzzy at interfaith gatherings. Websites (designed by what appear to be indoctrinated children who are a bit simple, but turn out, embarassingly, to be mature adults) inform the visitor that we are "all looking at the same God from different perspectives." So just run that by me again - you're all looking at the same God but you're all - during moments of lesser empathy and understanding - looking at the same God responsible for sending you all to hell? And that this monotheism worships a trinity? Great arguments.
JPD is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 04:57 AM   #256
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posts: 9,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD View Post
rhutchin
You don't have to believe anything automatically. Do like any scientist would. Accept the Bible as a working hypothesis until someone proves that it is not true. Truth in science arises through observation and speculation about how things happened. As science discovers how things actually work, it discards those hypotheses that are shown not to explain this.

What has been pointed out on this thread ad naseum is that people do not believe that the Bible is true. What people refuse to accept is that the Bible cannot be proved false. That is enough to identify risk.

JPD
Then by the same token saying that there is no risk stands as a valid "working hypothesis", but this isn't really how science works.
I would think that the null hypothesis (some form of it) is always inherently understood to exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD View Post
You have hit the nail on the head with "observation" - God by its very (I don't really like to use this word because it doesn't really work in this context) "nature" is not available for testing. So saying that there is a risk is not really a testable statement. If there was a verifiable, demonstrable way in which the messages of the dead could reach us then that would be something that we could test. You haven't demonstrated that there is a risk that we should pay the slightest attention to - we can't take it seriously. Now if you feel that you have chosen a particular route in life because you believe this risk to be real, and because you wish to reach (because you believe in the existence of) heaven then please argue convincingly that you are not doing this because you stand to gain something from it, ie. that you are acting selfishly
I think the risk can be demonstrated because a person can acknowledge two things: (1) death is certain and (2) no one knows what happens after a person dies. Because testing is difficult (impossible), it is difficult (impossible) to throw out a hypothesis about that which happens after death. If you cannot provide definite proof of that which happens after death, then you cannot do away with risk.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPD View Post
In the 2 Peter 3:9 thread you have said that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
Heaven is a gift and in that sense, it is a gain. Heaven cannot be gained as a consequence of good works, goodness, or whatever a person does.
So are we back to the relentless tedium and moronic pointlessness of the elect? You have two modes only in these threads - Pascal's wager and the elect. The first can't be demonstrated to be a risk and the second demonstrates the brainlesness of the alleged creator. Why, then, would we pay Biblegod the slightest attention? I can't see a reason. If Biblegod exists and wishes to stick me in hell for having asked obvious and reasonable questions and not accepting the poor quality arguments of his followers, there's nothing I can do about it. Once again, and let's see if you can get this to sink in this time, WE CANNOT CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. You believe it and we don't - how hard is that to understand?

And because you have consistently failed to show that there is any risk at all we can't comprehend what the risk is that we "accept" - are you beginning to understand this yet?
God will not stick you in hell for having asked obvious and reasonable questions and not accepting the poor quality arguments of his followers. God will deny you entry into heaven if you have sinned.

Aren’t you choosing what you believe? Are you claiming that there are forces at work that are causing you to believe that which you believe or are, at least, influencing you to believe that which you believe. In what sense do you not choose to believe what you want?
rhutchin is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 05:10 AM   #257
JPD
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 5,322
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
I think the risk can be demonstrated because a person can acknowledge two things: (1) death is certain and (2) no one knows what happens after a person dies. Because testing is difficult (impossible), it is difficult (impossible) to throw out a hypothesis about that which happens after death. If you cannot provide definite proof of that which happens after death, then you cannot do away with risk.
Until I have evidence - and one would need evidence to make a decision as apparently critical as this - that there is a risk - I have to assume that risk doesn't exist. Would you look seriously at an argument that said that there are rabbits with lazer beam eyes that will burn you if you don't believe that they exist on the basis that someone has written that they do (and for which no evidence really exists)? Create an infinite number of potential hazards and spend your life trying to work out whether they are something you should seriously consider. When you have formed an infinite variety in your mind and evaluated and discounted them all, come back and build on your argument that we should take your position on the Bible seriously. What, the Bible is all you need? What, that many people can't be wrong? What will you do if they all are? The problem is that, because you believe one record, you discount the others. Now that is interesting - why would you do that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
God will not stick you in hell for having asked obvious and reasonable questions and not accepting the poor quality arguments of his followers. God will deny you entry into heaven if you have sinned.
Oh you know this do you? There is no evidence that Biblegod exists but you manage to pin all manner of attributes on it nonetheless. Absolutely remarkable!

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin View Post
Aren’t you choosing what you believe? Are you claiming that there are forces at work that are causing you to believe that which you believe or are, at least, influencing you to believe that which you believe. In what sense do you not choose to believe what you want?
These forces appear to be nothing more than products of the mind. As far as I can tell I have decided what to believe but it is an interesting question. If there was a fantastically intelligent and complex (so complex that it couldn't be detected?) entity influencing me, it is quite possible that it could do so and make me think that the beliefs were my own.
JPD is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:26 AM   #258
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 7,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
If a society decides that it wants to be ruled by God, then that decision requires that it impose the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers, and then follow the prescribed legal system for carrying out that punishment.

I am an advocate for a society ruled by God.
Thanks for finally answering that question.

Incidentally, do you think that blasphemers should be executed by means of stoning, as the God of your interpretation of the Bible would have said, if He existed?

Anyway, I will point out that you do not have proof of God’s existence, but you claim that He exists, and go on to advocate for the execution of millions of people, based on their sexuality or what they say about the alleged God.
Angra Mainyu is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 10:38 AM   #259
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 19,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhutchin
If a society decides that it wants to be ruled by God, then that decision requires that it impose the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers, and then follow the prescribed legal system for carrying out that punishment.

I am an advocate for a society ruled by God.
And if you had been a friend of Pascal's, you probably would have agreed with him that only Roman Catholics will got to heaven. In addition, if you had been a friend of John Calvin's, you probably would have agreed with his endorsement of killing Christians who did not agree with his religious teachings, in which case, if the Bible is true, since it says that murderers will go to hell, you and Calvin will go to hell.

Regarding the issue of homosexuality, there is not any credible evidence that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves. As is true of practically every thread that you start or participate in, it always gets back to Pascal's Wager. I embarrass you on that issue every time that we discuss it. There is good evidence that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. In your opinion, how many reasonably provable errors and contradictions would it take to discredit the Bible?
Johnny Skeptic is offline  
Old 11-13-2006, 11:17 AM   #260
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Buenos Aires
Posts: 7,588
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
Regarding the issue of homosexuality, there is not any credible evidence that the writers were speaking for God and not for themselves. As is true of practically every thread that you start or participate in, it always gets back to Pascal's Wager. I embarrass you on that issue every time that we discuss it. There is good evidence that the Bible contains errors and contradictions. In your opinion, how many reasonably provable errors and contradictions would it take to discredit the Bible?
I don’t think any number of them would do, because the fact is that the wager would make no sense even if there were no contradictions and no errors that could be proven by means other than the lack of proofs of its claims.

For example, I’ll write the following text, with no contradictions and no errors that could be proven in any way but by pointing to the lack of proof of the claims.

Text: :devil3:

“The Goddess created the world. She commands that those who want to have eternal life, should advocate for adopting the following law:
Anyone who advocates for the killing of gay people on Biblical grounds, either directly or by making those killings legal, should be put in prison for the rest of her or his life”. :devil3:

Should we consider that wager as well? :devil1:

Of course, the wager never makes any sense, not only because there are as many distinct religions as one wants to invent, but also because it’s impossible to actually believe because of a bet. I already pointed that out in my replies to rhutchin in this thread and the other, and explained that carefully, but he doesn’t seem to have changed his views.
Angra Mainyu is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:10 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.