Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gamera · 10-21-2006, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the foillowing:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Johnny: Rhutchin, I might be able to get Farrell Till to debate inerrancy with you in a new thread that I can start. If I can, are you interested? May I ask what good an inerrant Bible is if it can be changed? It can in fact easily be changed, taken to some remote jungle areas of the world, and used to deceive at least a few people. If the original Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that it has been PRESERVED inerrant?

What evidence do you have that the additional books in the Roman Catholic Bible are not the word of God?

Do you know how the New Testament Canon was put together? Why should anyone believe that God chose which writings were chosen to be in the New Testament Canon? Were there any disagreements over which writings were chosen?

By the way, regarding your claim that a decent case for Christianity cannot be made without referring to the Bible, I suggest you visit James Holding's web site at tektonics.org. His admittedly flagship article is titled 'The Impossible Faith.' Holding makes very little mention of the Bible in his article.

May I ask what about God's character enables you to love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind?

Leaving Rutchin's naive position aside, why would you not expect a diverse text by diverse authors written at diverse times to be consistent.

Of course it's not consistent -- each of its redacted texts has a unique purpose and God, as a character in those particular texts, has a unique role.

How does this rebut anything but the naive nonsense of literalists?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-21-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Leaving Rutchin's naive position aside, why would you not expect a diverse text by diverse authors written at diverse times to be consistent.

Of course it's not consistent -- each of its redacted texts has a unique purpose and God, as a character in those particular texts, has a unique role.

How does this rebut anything but the naive nonsense of literalists?

Well, if God wishes for people to have a relationship with him by hearing the Gospel message, why doesn't he tell everyone about it? Why does he frequently go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist?

If God exists, since hundreds of millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message, we know that he is not really that serious about people having a relationship with him. We also know that since God killed one fourth of the people in Europe with a bacteria (Bubonic Plague), his desire was to shorten the amount of time that he spent with the Christians who he killed. God also killed one million people with the Irish Potato Famine? What about Hurricane Katrina? Is it your position that hurricanes create themselves and go wherever they want to go? Will you please tell us how people can have relationships with God if he kills them, sometimes when they are babies?

Is it your position that God is not interested in helping Christians in tangible ways? As it is, the best evidence indicates that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at ramdom according to the laws of physics, which is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist.

Do you believe that Jesus physically rose from the dead and was seen by 500 people after he rose from the dead?

What do you believe happens to people after they die? Do you believe that the Devil is a real being?

Johnny Skeptic · 10-21-2006, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Since when is it rational to injure and kill people who love you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It isn't.

Then why does God injure and kill people who love him? Hypocrisy is a detestable trait. God refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists. Rational, loving, and fair beings do not act like that. Decent people are not able to will themselves to love a being who refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists, who makes people blind, deaf and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, who punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, and frequently does out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. May I ask what about God's character has caused you to love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind?

Is it your position that God has chosen me to become one of the elect? If so, how can I be reasonably certain that that is true? If God has chosen me to become one of the elect, am I able to reject his choice? If not, why are you asking me to make a choice?

I am aware that you are still trying to avoid getting into detailed discussions about inerrancy, but it won't work. It is incumbent upon you to reasonably prove that the Scriptures that mention predestination were part of the original Scriptures, and that it was God's choice that they be included in the originals.

I have posted the following on several occasions, but you continue to conveniently avoid reply to it:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

Johnny: Rhutchin, I might be able to get Farrell Till to debate inerrancy with you in a new thread that I can start. If I can, are you interested? May I ask what good an inerrant Bible is if it can be changed? It can in fact easily be changed, taken to some remote jungle areas of the world, and used to deceive at least a few people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Regardless of His character, He is still the one before whom you must stand and give account of all that you have done. How does character change that situation?

God's character is the most important issue of all. If God endorsed lying, which if might makes right he has every right to do, and demanded that you love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind, would you be able to do it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If... Your arguments are always prefaced by "If..." Regardless of your "ifs...," God is still the one before whom you must stand and give account of all that you have done. Do you have any "If..." that can change that situation?

Actually, I don't need any "ifs". Based upon the evidence that we already have regarding God's frequently detestable character, there is sufficient evidence for people to reject him. In fact, decent people are not able to endorse God's many atrocities. May I ask what qualities God has that has caused you to love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind? God says that killing people is wrong, but he kills some of his most devout and faithful followers. Therefore, God is a hypocrite. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. He punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. Even in the supposedly "better covenant" that the New Testament supposedly represents, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. God tells Christians to spread a message that he has no interest in spreading himself. You really do have a strange taste in Gods. One wonders to what extent you would endorse detestable behavior, and what kind of God would actually displease you. It is said that birds of a feather flock together. You like Pascal and John Calvin. If Pascal were here at this forum, he would tell you that you will go to hell because you are a Roman Catholic. If John Calvin were here today in the U.S., he would immediately be ostracized from society for wanting to kill Christians who disagreed with his religious views. He was a murderer, and the Bible says that murderers will go to hell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

God's worst atrocity against mankind is refusing to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists...No moral person is able to will himself to accept the God of the Bible...

If God exists, and does not care enough about me to appear to me tangibly, in person, then I will not, and cannot accept him...

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Such is your argument and your choice. Live with it.

If you attempted to save only some of your children from drowning when you could have attempted to save all of them, you would be rejected by society, including Christian society, and you would have to live with it. Of course, you would not do that because you do not approve of it, but wait, maybe you do approve of it. Will you please tell us which is the case? This has gotten quite confusing. You can call immoral acts moral acts all that you want to, but no rational minded and fair minded person will pay any attention to you.

Many skeptics are kind, moral, loving, and forgiving people, some of whom would risk their lives to save your life. It would be out of character for them to reject any being who is good.

The best evidence indicates that God does not exist. No rational being who wants to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. Today, while tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics regardless of a person's worldview. No loving, caring God would act like that. He would not be able to derive any possible benefits from such behavior. Is there any particular tangible benefit that you, meaning rhutchin, can ask God for and expect to receive? Well of course there isn't, which is exactly what is to be expected if God does not exist.

My concept of love and the Bible's concept of love are quite different. I am much more loving and merciful than God is. If I had enough power, I could run the world much better than God does. I would not run a world government OF the people, or BY the people, but I would run a world government FOR the people. That is what true love is all about.

Now will you please tell us how God chooses the elect, possibly out of a hat? If you have children, do you choose which ones to love out of a hat?

Why have some Muslim countries been so successful at preventing God from choosing the elect from their countries?

Jesus said that when the gospel of the kingdom had been preached unto all nations, the end will come. The gospel of the kingdom has been preached unto all nations, but where is Jesus? If Jesus does not return within 100 years, what will fundamentalist Christians say then? How do you interpret the parable of the fig tree?

I posted all of that before, but you conveniently refused to reply to it. I do not mind reposting arguments that you refuse to reply to. That way, I can show the undecided crowd that you are not nearly as sure of some of your arguments as you pretend you are.

Doug Shaver · 10-21-2006, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If God did not exist, there would be no gospel message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Unless some men invented one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Yep. So, is that what happened?

It certainly looks that way to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Or is it that there is a true gospel message that some men pervert to their advantage?

As I read the totality of evidence pertaining to Christianity's origins, I believe there was an original gospel message that got perverted into what became orthodox Christianity. However, I also think the original message was just as wrong as the one that replaced it.

Doug Shaver · 10-21-2006, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

knownothingism is hardly a good basis to persuade.

Agreed. That is why I think postmodernism is nonsense. It's just know-nothingism with a Ph.D.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-21-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

If God did not exist, there would be no gospel message.

If a loving, caring God did exist, tangible benefits would not be distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics. It is a virtual certainty that tangible benefits are distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics, which is exactly what would be the case if God does not exist.

rhutchin · 10-22-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a loving, caring God did exist, tangible benefits would not be distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics. It is a virtual certainty that tangible benefits are distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics, which is exactly what would be the case if God does not exist.

What are you talking about and do you have support for whatever it is that you are talking about?

rhutchin · 10-22-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Is it your position that God has chosen me to become one of the elect? If so, how can I be reasonably certain that that is true? If God has chosen me to become one of the elect, am I able to reject his choice? If not, why are you asking me to make a choice?

Don't know what God's plans for you are. At the present time, you should do that which you desire. Nothing more, nothing less. Or you can do that which you find that you have no desire to do. It's your choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am aware that you are still trying to avoid getting into detailed discussions about inerrancy, but it won't work. It is incumbent upon you to reasonably prove that the Scriptures that mention predestination were part of the original Scriptures, and that it was God's choice that they be included in the originals.

I have posted the following on several occasions, but you continue to conveniently avoid reply to it:

Start a thread. If time permits, maybe I will get involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

God's character is the most important issue of all. If God endorsed lying, which if might makes right he has every right to do, and demanded that you love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind, would you be able to do it?

Not unless God enabled me to do so. Total depravity rules otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Actually, I don't need any "ifs"....If Pascal...If John Calvin....

Hmmm. Guess I was wrong..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Actually, I don't need any "ifs"... If you attempted...

If I had enough power,...

If you have children,...

If Jesus does not return...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I posted all of that before, but you conveniently refused to reply to it. I do not mind reposting arguments that you refuse to reply to. That way, I can show the undecided crowd that you are not nearly as sure of some of your arguments as you pretend you are.

Start a thread, Fred.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-22-2006, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If a loving, caring God did exist, tangible benefits would not be distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics. It is a virtual certainty that tangible benefits are distributed to humans and animals entirely at random according to the laws of physics, which is exactly what would be the case if God does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

What are you talking about and do you have support for whatever it is that you are talking about?

My supports are common sense, logic, reason, and compassion. If a rational, compassionate being is trying to reveal his existence, he most certainly does not go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist by indiscriminately distributing tangible benefits to humans with no regard for their worldviews. Such behavior on the part of any being would at best indicate that he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. The notion that any loving, compassionate being would injure and kill some of his most faithful followers is patently absurd. If a God was trying to convince people that he does not exist, one of the very best ways for him to do that would be to distribute tangible benefits indiscriminately regardless of a person's worldview or needs, and to make it appear that he does not have any more interest in providing tangible benefits to humans than he does in providing tangible benefits to animals who live long and healthy lives.

Johnny Skeptic · 10-22-2006, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Is it your position that God has chosen me to become one of the elect? If so, how can I be reasonably certain that that is true? If God has chosen me to become one of the elect, am I able to reject his choice? If not, why are you asking me to make a choice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Don't know what God's plans for you are. At the present time, you should do that which you desire. Nothing more, nothing less. Or, you can do that which you find that you have no desire to do. It's your choice.

But I thought that predestination was God's choice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I am aware that you are still trying to avoid getting into detailed discussions about inerrancy, but it won't work. It is incumbent upon you to reasonably prove that the Scriptures that mention predestination were part of the original Scriptures, and that it was God's choice that they be included in the originals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Start a thread. If time permits, maybe I will get involved.

Nice dodge, but it won't work. You are well aware that there are already two relatively new threads on inerrancy at this forum, and one on Bible contradictions, and as far as I know, you have not made ANY posts in ANY of them.

How can you argue about what 2 Peter 3:9 means when you haven't provided any evidence at all that it belongs in the Bible?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.