Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are you an atheist? I am, and so should you.; (be one that is)
Topic Started: Jul 15 2009, 07:59 PM (4,786 Views)
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
IT - being evasive as usual. Do you deny that the god described in the Hebrew bible and your god are one in the same?

In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Jon, how do you figure that the God of the old testament was a sociopath?

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
I don't think he was a sociopath, but he was written and imagined by primitive people of that time - it really bears stark contrast to our world of today. The New Testament god surely improves a bit, but even in that people pick and choose what to believe - discarding the bit that seems outdated, and fashioning only the most appropriate seeming moral teachings to their tastes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
jon-nyc
Jul 19 2009, 02:10 AM
IT - being evasive as usual. Do you deny that the god described in the Hebrew bible and your god are one in the same?

I am not being evasive at all, you were not asking coherent questions that mean anything theologically. I answered as best as possible with the two points about revelation and human interpretation. The subject remains the same but the experience and description differ. In the Christian model of revelation the Incarnation and Pentecost are efficient means of revelation, so that the people get the message more clearly, with an implicit criticism that the Jewish dispensation was getting it wrong-- although the message of God's benevolence and love is found through the OT as well.

I even gave you an analogy for understanding that you didn't even acknowledge as comprehending. Is it that you simply don't understand the analogy? Or do you actually understand it but choose to ignore it and keep aggressing the issue in an opportunistic manner?

Here's another more direct analogy: a child gets angry at his parents for not letting them do X. "YOU ARE SO MEAN!!! I HATE YOU!!!!" (this Jon is actually a prophetic voice I am speaking in so you better learn to deal with it). Is the parent therefore objectively mean and deserving of contempt? Is that some different parent than the one who loving changes diapers and proud beyond words when the child graduates college?
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
CrashTest
Jul 19 2009, 10:02 AM
I don't think he was a sociopath, but he was written and imagined by primitive people of that time - it really bears stark contrast to our world of today. The New Testament god surely improves a bit, but even in that people pick and choose what to believe - discarding the bit that seems outdated, and fashioning only the most appropriate seeming moral teachings to their tastes.
You know, one of the first things a person should do before deciding whether to believe in God or not is to take the time to actually study what is said in the Bible instead of making assumptions about it. Most people who decide they are atheists are just as misinformed about God and the Bible as you are. No offense...

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
Larry - I did read the bible, but I do agree with you that it's important to know what it is one criticizes. The old testament certainly is full of what today we can consider primitive thinking - or at best morals meant to not be taken literally.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeff
Senior Carp
Larry
Jul 19 2009, 09:23 AM
Jon, how do you figure that the God of the old testament was a sociopath?

Look up the Judgment on the Amalikites ("destroy them all man, women, child, goat and ox until not a thing among them breaths" or something like that). :)

The Curses of Deuteronomy are pretty neat as well, telling the Israelites that the punishment for violating any of the rules of Deuteronomy, including such trivialities as wearing cotton, will be forcing mothers to eat their own children as their enemies gloat in glee.

I am surprised we let kids read the thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
Well for the apostolic Churches the bible is not the Word of God -- Jesus is


IT, Beyond the fact that I disagree with your definition of the term "apostolic," the belief that you've just defined is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Most, if not all mainline Protestant churches also have this view of the scriptures - there is one Word of God, that is, Jesus Christ. The Bible is authoritative scripture, inspired by God within which one can find the Word of God (i.e., Christ) - but the Bible itslef is not considered inerrant or infallible, at least in the sense that those terms are most commonly used today.

Christians view the nature and authority of the Bible in many different ways. The inerrant/infallible aspect (including all their various permutations) only became popular within the last 250 years or so - and especially in the past 120 years or so, but only within a rather small band of the entire global spectrum of Christianity. In raw numbers, an extremely small percentage of Christians hold those views, and most of them are concentrated in the U.S. While this group includes many good, very deeply committed and sincere Christians, I simply think they're mistaken on this aspect of the faith - as, of course, they think that I am on the same topic.

As a sidebar, no one who believed that the scriptures are the inerrant/infallible Word of God could have read the sermon I delivered today without having his head explode.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Wait a minute, I thought all the Christian churches combined over similarities.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
Look up the Judgment on the Amalikites ("destroy them all man, women, child, goat and ox until not a thing among them breaths" or something like that).


Beyond reading that section of scripture to find support for a preconceived viewpoint, have you taken the time to actually study the history behind this?

Here is a good article that goes into a lot of detail on the topic. I think 400 years of being attacked constantly by a bunch of nomads who practiced child sacrifice might just justify God passing judgment on them the way he did.

Interesting side note - the Caananites were a marauding bunch of throwbacks who spent their lives attacking everyone else, killing them, and stealing their property. They came from the desert regions of the middle east. Could they be the ancestors of.........

nah.... that would be.. politically incorrect to say, wouldn't it...... lol
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Larry
Jul 19 2009, 12:06 PM
So it was wrong for them to kill children, but OK for God and/or the Israelites to do it? I sense a double standard here.

Maybe, just maybe, the ancient people used God and their religion as a bit of an excuse for doing the naughty on their neighbours with opposing viewpoints and killing lots of people they didn't like. That could never happen nowadays, obviously.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
Actually...I believe in God now. (Notice the capital G)


1 John 4:12-13

12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.


I apology for my earlier blasphemy, the answer was within the bible all this time.


(Thank you google..I just searched for "random bible verse" and this answer came up without me even asking it)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Well, that was tidy.

So . . . anyone with access to Google will become a Christian?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No, that was Crash playing everyone for a fool, just as he always does.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Nobody would do that about Jesus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
kenny
Jul 19 2009, 01:25 PM
Nobody would do that about Jesus.
Yes they would. They're called atheists..
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CrashTest
Pisa-Carp
Larry, I am not playing anyone for a fool - I was just showing how vacuous the bible is when it comes to trying to explain anything. god is back, with a lower case g!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
No, you're just showing us that you enjoy getting your laughs at the expense of others. That's just you, Crash. That's your history.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Dewey
Jul 19 2009, 10:53 AM
Quote:
 
Well for the apostolic Churches the bible is not the Word of God -- Jesus is


IT, Beyond the fact that I disagree with your definition of the term "apostolic," the belief that you've just defined is not exclusive to the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Most, if not all mainline Protestant churches also have this view of the scriptures - there is one Word of God, that is, Jesus Christ. The Bible is authoritative scripture, inspired by God within which one can find the Word of God (i.e., Christ) - but the Bible itslef is not considered inerrant or infallible, at least in the sense that those terms are most commonly used today.

Christians view the nature and authority of the Bible in many different ways. The inerrant/infallible aspect (including all their various permutations) only became popular within the last 250 years or so - and especially in the past 120 years or so, but only within a rather small band of the entire global spectrum of Christianity. In raw numbers, an extremely small percentage of Christians hold those views, and most of them are concentrated in the U.S. While this group includes many good, very deeply committed and sincere Christians, I simply think they're mistaken on this aspect of the faith - as, of course, they think that I am on the same topic.

As a sidebar, no one who believed that the scriptures are the inerrant/infallible Word of God could have read the sermon I delivered today without having his head explode.
I respect that you disagree over my use of the term apostolic to describe the Catholic and Orthodox views, and I simply limited my comments to those branches of Christianity that I could knowledgeably speak about. It was not to suggest that mainline protestants and evangelicals of all sorts share the same views of scripture, revelation or (in)errancy. I think you and I are in agreement about the reasons for this misunderstanding that folks like Ehrman are capitali$ing on -- the historical critical method as a scientistic project to get to the "real" bible. This is what I meant by "a product of post enlightenment view of scripture". I appreciate that many of the intellectual traditions of the mainline Protestant churches are often deeply rooted in the church fathers, which keeps us all from these untenable positions that in some ways Ehrman rightly finds problematic even while he is both a product of the mind set and continues to remain in that mindset while purporting to fight it.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dewey
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I thought you were already aware of mainline Protestant views of scripture, but I wasn't sure. My comment was really addressed more generally though. I think that often, many people - particularly non-Christians, but often even some Christians - aren't aware that the inerrant/infallible theories are the exception, not the rule, within the faith.*



* I know we have several Christians here who hold to either inerrant or infallible understandings of scripture. I'm not knocking you or the sincerity of your faith; I just disagree with you on this point of how we understand our mutual faith.
"By nature, i prefer brevity." - John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 685.

"Never waste your time trying to explain yourself to people who are committed to misunderstanding you." - Anonymous

"Oh sure, every once in a while a turd floated by, but other than that it was just fine." - Joe A., 2011

I'll answer your other comments later, but my primary priority for the rest of the evening is to get drunk." - Klaus, 12/31/14
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Crash
 
I was just showing how vacuous the bible is when it comes to trying to explain anything. god is back, with a lower case g!

For the record, Crash, it's not a prerequisite to believe in the Bible in order to believe in God's existence. I, for one, do not believe the Bible was (or is) a revelatory instrument sent directly from the Creator to humanity. However, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who do believe it is inspired by God. (And they could be right, you know.)
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
QuantumIvory
Jul 19 2009, 03:05 PM
Crash
 
I was just showing how vacuous the bible is when it comes to trying to explain anything. god is back, with a lower case g!

For the record, Crash, it's not a prerequisite to believe in the Bible in order to believe in God's existence. I, for one, do not believe the Bible was (or is) a revelatory instrument sent directly from the Creator to humanity. However, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who do believe it is inspired by God. (And they could be right, you know.)
I think it might be a good idea for Crash to spend some time reading the Mahābhārata, and then returning to give us his impressions. I'm sure we'd be all ears.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
John D'Oh
Jul 19 2009, 03:33 PM
QuantumIvory
Jul 19 2009, 03:05 PM
Crash
 
I was just showing how vacuous the bible is when it comes to trying to explain anything. god is back, with a lower case g!

For the record, Crash, it's not a prerequisite to believe in the Bible in order to believe in God's existence. I, for one, do not believe the Bible was (or is) a revelatory instrument sent directly from the Creator to humanity. However, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those who do believe it is inspired by God. (And they could be right, you know.)
I think it might be a good idea for Crash to spend some time reading the Mahābhārata, and then returning to give us his impressions. I'm sure we'd be all ears.
Yeah, Crash. Come back after you have read all 100,000 verses and enlighten us. (Yes, I did have to look it up, as I had no idea what the Mahābhārata was. (At first I thought it was a distant relative of Mahatma Kane Jeeves.)
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
The only reason I knew anything about it was because it was serialised on British TV about 20 years ago. To say that I watched it would be an exaggeration.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
I saw parts of it -- pretty Bollywood but without the line dancing.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply