Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bob K · 10-25-2003, 04:42 AM

For evaluating holy books we need standards.

See http://www.bobkwebsite.com/stndrdsholybks.html

#7 applies herein:

Quote:

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

emur · 10-25-2003, 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Frankly, I think that's a ridiculous position to take. The whole Bible shows God as someone who rewards the faithful and punishes the wicked. Has anyone misunderstood this? Is there anyone who thinks that God doesn't reward the faithful and punish the wicked, based on that Psalm and Jeremiah? Anyone at all? Show me that, and I'll concede you have a point. If you can't show me that, then your point is moot.

You agree then that God is not good to all.

Mel

GakuseiDon · 10-25-2003, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by emur
You agree then that God is not good to all.

Mel

Yep. He is certainly not good to those who remain wicked. In fact, as that Psalm, as well as the rest of Bible consistently points out, He punishes them. Have you heard any differently?

Remember, the Psalms are poems, not theological positions. Anyway, taken in context:

Ps 145:8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion. Slow to anger and great in mercy.
9 The Lord is good to all; And His tender mercies are over all His works.

So, He is slow to anger and offers mercy to all who repent. That is open to all, so you could say He is "good to all" by offering this to all. But He punishes those who never repent.

Wayne Delia · 10-25-2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike(ATL)
DM, the point that God should see how this could be misconstrued and should have designed His book better is ludicrous and distracting to the only point I am trying to make at the moment.

How is it ludicrous? If God is unable to ensure no contradictions or misunderstandings, then He is not omnipotent. Otherwise, if he chooses to allow contradictions or misunderstandings, it's pointless to blame anyone for arriving at what you consider incorrect conclusions, such as you are doing with Don.
Quote:

It is impossible to ask that a text of this length, dealing with so many different situations, describing so many accounts, be so uniform that you could not take 5 words out of context and compare them to another 5 words in a completely different place in a completely different situation and always have a completely consistent message.

Oh. Well, so much for omnipotence, then. For that matter, God wouldn't even need a book that had to be translated at all - He could simply provide a sufficient level of understanding into everyone's minds, while still allowing for free will choices to reject that understanding. Since He doesn't, it's His own damn fault if the message is not properly communicated.

Quote:

I try to be a nice reasonable guy so I'm sorry for the tone but there is just no reasoning with you people (at least in this thread so far), you will defend your man here to the death.

"Our man"? To whom are you referring? Would you defend "your man" (Jesus) to the death, whatever that implies, and if so, wouldn't the same criticism apply to you?
Quote:

It could not be more plainly obvious that both authors are talking about the same God.

That's not under debate. What is under debate is that the two authors are describing the same God in mutually contradictory terms.

Quote:

You keep moving the argument back to the nature of God that you find contradicting.

That's not unreasonable, considering that's the main point of the debate.

Quote:

You claim to be open to reason and discussion but here we clearly have an instance where you will just not hear anything of it.

We haven't heard anything at all that was logically reasoned, free from special pleading, and persuasive.

Quote:

You demand that we (Christians) accept all of your arguments without a second thought...

We did? I didn't, and I am unaware of anyone who actually made that claim. Don Morgan certainly didn't. Who were you thinking of, and where's a reference to that particular claim?
Quote:

...but on the smallest most insignificant detail you will not concede any error on your part.

An error in even a single insignificant detail is sufficient to refute the claim of Biblical errancy. You haven't demonstrated any errors on our part.
Quote:

For the purpose of continuing the discussion (and only for that) here I am not saying the Bible doesn't contradict itself in other places, I am not saying that the merciful yet punishing God makes sense, all I am saying is that those two original verses are not an example of biblical errancy because when taken in context the message is not contradicting.

Apparently, what you mean by "taken in context" is that the statements mean more than what they actually say. But any restrictive conditions not specifically mentioned do not apply. Thus, "The Lord is good to all" contradicts "The Lord punishes the wicked," if what was meant in the first verse was "The Lord is good to all, except the wicked."
Quote:

I refuse to continue this discussion until you will concede this clearly obvious and very very small point. There is no purpose in discussing with someone who is not open to something as indisputable as this. I can clearly see that I will get the same response no matter what so it would be a waste of my time and yours.

But in doing so, you've lost the debate, because you are unable to do exactly the same thing you're demanding that others do for you - to examine their arguments and admit errors. You're making a big one you are unable to admit.

WMD

Jaelum · 10-25-2003, 01:13 PM

I am an atheist and at one time studied the Bible a good bit, and I must say that I would caution against using this in a list of Biblical contradictions.

First of all, a psalm is one complete thought on a subject. It really isn't fair to take part of one and then hold it against a later part of the psalm that clarifies the position.

But the better argument against it (and this covers the juxtaposition with the Jeremiah verse as well) is how one defines "good". If you uphold your promises, and mete out reward and punishment fairly, is this not an aspect of being "good"? A respected judge or parent does this, and is appreciated for it. We don't say that the judge is not good when she hands down a very stiff penalty for a premeditated crime - she would be "not good" if she did not do so!

So, that God is "good" to all, even though he destroys the wicked who do not worship him is not necessarily a *contradiction*. Of course we would argue that this is not a "complete" or "moral" use of the word "good", but if one believes that there is a God who has issued these edicts (the supposed audience of the missive), then it would be "good" that He keeps his promises.

There are many better examples of outright contradictions to be found (such as Ez 18:20 and Deut 24:16, as pointed out by Rodynus above). Watering down the list with a target like this weakens the stance and builds a straw man for the opposition to attack, in my humble opinion.

Doctor X · 10-25-2003, 02:08 PM

Indeed.

There are far more disturbing contradiction to explain.

--J.D.

emur · 10-25-2003, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Yep. He is certainly not good to those who remain wicked. In fact, as that Psalm, as well as the rest of Bible consistently points out, He punishes them. Have you heard any differently?

Remember, the Psalms are poems, not theological positions. Anyway, taken in context:

Ps 145:8 The Lord is gracious and full of compassion. Slow to anger and great in mercy.
9 The Lord is good to all; And His tender mercies are over all His works.

So, He is slow to anger and offers mercy to all who repent. That is open to all, so you could say He is "good to all" by offering this to all. But He punishes those who never repent.

I believe the psalmist is expressing his feelings toward God as a personal recipient of God's goodness. As one who is not an inerrantist, I believe that the psalmist is exaggerating God's goodness in his praise. It's quite the human thing to do.

When it comes to the overall OT, God is hardly good to all. For example, those Amalekite children and infants who were slaughtered at God's command (1 Samuel 15) certainly had no choice. God was not good to them. Thus, on the point of God's goodness to all, the psalmist is wrong.

Mel

Doctor X · 10-25-2003, 03:33 PM

emur:

We have had some fun reading some explanations of that little event. No disrespect to the posters who did attempt the impossible, but we have also had some interesting explanations of the bears that mauled 40+ children for pissing off Elisha!

Why do people prefer the ridiculous rather than a more rational approach--with the "bears" it is a counterpoint to what happens to the men who treat Elisha well just before. To preserve a belief, some will grab on to even the ridiculous rather than admit they have been duped.

Most of us have been duped. Look at those who voted for Gore [Stop that.--Ed.] Most of us Strawmen started with some belief in religion, and, if American or English . . . most of us were some form of Christian or Jewish . . . though there is a "Zoroastrian Mafia" about you need to be careful of. . . .

Some of us found recognizing contradictions very disturbing. Others found it interesting if not refreshing. Not everyone can just drop a belief system willingly.

--J.D.

Cretinist · 10-25-2003, 04:42 PM

I agree with GakuseiDon that there is no real contradiction in Psalms 145. However, the idea that God is merciful is still contradicted by countless examples in the Bible. God orders the destruction of infants, personally kills David's infant child, etc, etc.

GakuseiDon · 10-25-2003, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaelum
I am an atheist and at one time studied the Bible a good bit, and I must say that I would caution against using this in a list of Biblical contradictions.

First of all, a psalm is one complete thought on a subject. It really isn't fair to take part of one and then hold it against a later part of the psalm that clarifies the position.

But the better argument against it (and this covers the juxtaposition with the Jeremiah verse as well) is how one defines "good". If you uphold your promises, and mete out reward and punishment fairly, is this not an aspect of being "good"? A respected judge or parent does this, and is appreciated for it. We don't say that the judge is not good when she hands down a very stiff penalty for a premeditated crime - she would be "not good" if she did not do so!

So, that God is "good" to all, even though he destroys the wicked who do not worship him is not necessarily a *contradiction*. Of course we would argue that this is not a "complete" or "moral" use of the word "good", but if one believes that there is a God who has issued these edicts (the supposed audience of the missive), then it would be "good" that He keeps his promises.

There are many better examples of outright contradictions to be found (such as Ez 18:20 and Deut 24:16, as pointed out by Rodynus above). Watering down the list with a target like this weakens the stance and builds a straw man for the opposition to attack, in my humble opinion.

Excellent post, Jaelum. I agree completely. There are indeed much better contradictions. (Peter's denial and the rooster's crowing once or twice springs to mind). A legalistic interpretation of half a sentence in Psalms, besides being intellectually dishonest (IMHO) is not going to convince an inerrantist of errancy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2003, 01:13 PM	#25
Jaelum Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Upstate South Carolina Posts: 42	I am an atheist and at one time studied the Bible a good bit, and I must say that I would caution against using this in a list of Biblical contradictions. First of all, a psalm is one complete thought on a subject. It really isn't fair to take part of one and then hold it against a later part of the psalm that clarifies the position. But the better argument against it (and this covers the juxtaposition with the Jeremiah verse as well) is how one defines "good". If you uphold your promises, and mete out reward and punishment fairly, is this not an aspect of being "good"? A respected judge or parent does this, and is appreciated for it. We don't say that the judge is not good when she hands down a very stiff penalty for a premeditated crime - she would be "not good" if she did not do so! So, that God is "good" to all, even though he destroys the wicked who do not worship him is not necessarily a contradiction. Of course we would argue that this is not a "complete" or "moral" use of the word "good", but if one believes that there is a God who has issued these edicts (the supposed audience of the missive), then it would be "good" that He keeps his promises. There are many better examples of outright contradictions to be found (such as Ez 18:20 and Deut 24:16, as pointed out by Rodynus above). Watering down the list with a target like this weakens the stance and builds a straw man for the opposition to attack, in my humble opinion.

10-25-2003, 02:08 PM	#26
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	Indeed. There are far more disturbing contradiction to explain. --J.D.

10-25-2003, 03:33 PM	#28
Doctor X Banned Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: USA Posts: 3,794	emur: We have had some fun reading some explanations of that little event. No disrespect to the posters who did attempt the impossible, but we have also had some interesting explanations of the bears that mauled 40+ children for pissing off Elisha! Why do people prefer the ridiculous rather than a more rational approach--with the "bears" it is a counterpoint to what happens to the men who treat Elisha well just before. To preserve a belief, some will grab on to even the ridiculous rather than admit they have been duped. Most of us have been duped. Look at those who voted for Gore [Stop that.--Ed.] Most of us Strawmen started with some belief in religion, and, if American or English . . . most of us were some form of Christian or Jewish . . . though there is a "Zoroastrian Mafia" about you need to be careful of. . . . Some of us found recognizing contradictions very disturbing. Others found it interesting if not refreshing. Not everyone can just drop a belief system willingly. --J.D.

10-25-2003, 04:42 PM	#29
Cretinist Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hell Posts: 399	I agree with GakuseiDon that there is no real contradiction in Psalms 145. However, the idea that God is merciful is still contradicted by countless examples in the Bible. God orders the destruction of infants, personally kills David's infant child, etc, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.