scombrid

I think this has been pointed out before but what the hay. When we quote the OT we aren't acknowledging its validity. We're pointing out the absurdity of the Christian claim that their alleged god is lovy, dovy, cute, and fuzzy in the face of his methods of coerced worship and genocide in the OT. Attacking the bible's description of god is far different than accepting the bible's validity in that claim. Sometimes it's just neat to point out all that gruesome stuff to "feel good" Christians that don't even know it's back there.

Radorth

Oh I think most of them have beheld both "the goodness and severity of God," unlike yourself.

But I realize the paradox is too deep for most Buddhists, never mind the pedantic atheist.

I don't suppose it dawned on you that you are offering nothing more than a straw man argument. If the OT is untrue and you know it to be, you have an obligation to point elsewhere to the truth instead of making repetitive arguments you know to be absurd.

Rad

LogicMage

When I "visited" an FCA meeting, The YEC speaker was ranting about a "conspiracy of science" I have never seen anything as stupid

Daggah

Not only is it not a straw man, but the quote above is a non-sequitur.

#1, a straw man argument is an argument in which one person misrepresents their opponent's position and then argues against that misrepresentation. How is that the case here?

#2, it doesn't follow that we have an obligation to talk about anything else. The examples of violence in the Old Testament are clear examples of contradiction in the Bible.

#3, they're not absurd. A loving, benevolent god would not stain his hands with as much bloodshed as the god of the Bible.

And Radorth, the OT, as much as you like to pretend otherwise, IS part of the Bible.

scombrid

No strawman. You mischaracterized our use of material from the OT. I was responding to this:

I wasn't arguing anything regarding actual validity of the OT beyond stating that we don't accept it lest you forget that and quote as if it's an authoritative source of reality. I was pointing out to you that just because we utilitize examples of the god characiture in arguments regarding the nature of Yahweh from the OT doesn't automatically mean we believe the OT accounts to be true.

If all I'm doing is pointing out that someone's view doesn't jibe with the bible I don't need to go outside that source.

If I want to criticize the story as written then I don't have to disporve it for that purpose either.

In characterizing god, if I want to assert that the Christian god commited what humans regard as genocide, I go to the only source that acknowledges and describes that god. I'm not going to find account of your god's fictitious smiting in any other literature contemporaneous to the bible.

This use of the OT is vastly different than your use here:

Here you use it as evidense to support your position that no one would believe in or worship god even if he proved himself. In this sense you need to establish that these events actually occurred before they support your claim that we'd turn our backs on god in the light of evidence of his existance. Criticizing the biblical account is vastly different than offering it as evidense of reality.

If I wish to argue the validity of the OT I might pick apart Genesis and the flood account. I might wonder why exodus was largely missed by other cultures that lived in the region at the time. But that isn't the topic here. What was the topic again?

Radorth

Oh duh! Did you even read my post? When you decide all Christians are not the same, don't believe the same, or make the same assumptions and that some well know you don't believe the OT, I'm sure we'll have a meaningful discussion. Until then...

And I'm saying it's intellectually hypocritical to quote from it at all and tell us we cannot. And of course any argument based on false assumptions is a fallacy. You are simply being lazy.

Rad

Family Man

Only #2? I must try harder.

Family Man

Rad, don't you find it slightly ironic that you would post this:

on a thread that notes that many Christians seem to be paranoid and defensive when it comes to their faith. Comparing you to Kenny, I guess you couldn't resist making my point for me. Thanks.

scombrid

And I'm telling you that when you post bible material as a historical reference (as in stating what the Iraelites physically did) it is held to a different standard of proof than when we want to give an example of what the bible says.
There's nothing hypocritical about that. We're using the material in a different context. You say the Israelites did X. Whereas we'd say, the bible says they did X and here's whey we think Y about it. I'm criticising what the bible said and have no need to assess whether or not the event actually occurred whereas you stated here that the Isrealites actually physically turned on god despite miracles signs and whatever else it supposedly did to communicate with them.


If I want to criticize the bible's portrayal of its god then I'm going to post from what part of the bible from where the portrait comes. Say I want to assert that the biblical Yahweh appears to have bibolar disorder. I sight the sadism in the OT followed by his sacrifice to himself to himself for our benefit.