Taking Things Literally

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Well if not then all the other commandments seem to lose their purpose.

"Oh, I like the bit about not murdering but I don't see what's wrong with coveting my neighbour's wife."

Common sense and thoughtfulness help when regarding any kind of literature. Should Darwinists believe that Darwin was correct about all of his speculations?

I will waste my breath again, but please take note, I don't know if I will feel like explaining this too many more times. God did not write the Bible. God inspired the writers of the Bible to do so. Two men, inspired by the same flower, may write totally different descriptions of the flower. Men interpreted God's inspiration. Men are imperfect. Thus, the Bible is probably imperfect. Were the ten commandments of exodus and deuteronomy valid? As valid as Hammurabi's laws, I'd say. Were there Giants in those days? Maybe, I wasn't there. Absolute decision of factuality about a collection of writings will probably be incorrect. If you have a tub of bathwater, with a baby in it, do you throw out the entire container?

 

[amark317]

 

[Cellar_Door]

Common sense and thoughtfulness help when regarding any kind of literature. Should Darwinists believe that Darwin was correct about all of his speculations?

I will waste my breath again, but please take note, I don't know if I will feel like explaining this too many more times. God did not write the Bible. God inspired the writers of the Bible to do so. Two men, inspired by the same flower, may write totally different descriptions of the flower. Men interpreted God's inspiration. Men are imperfect. Thus, the Bible is probably imperfect. Were the ten commandments of exodus and deuteronomy valid? As valid as Hammurabi's laws, I'd say. Were there Giants in those days? Maybe, I wasn't there. Absolute decision of factuality about a collection of writings will probably be incorrect. If you have a tub of bathwater, with a baby in it, do you throw out the entire container?

The breath you have wasted during typing that response is no different to the despicable amounts of perfectly good air you consistently waste everyday. Plus, Darwinism is not a religion - you would do well to note the fundamental differences between respect and dogma.

The ten commandments are actually the 'word of God', being the words he spoke to Moses, unlike the majority of the Bible as you have pointed out. Therefore, surely it is blasphemous to follow some of them but discount the others? How can a Christian trust anything written in the Bible at all if they must first admit to the many gaping inaccuracies?

Now to go back to the original point: I fail to see how, for example, a number of rappers can call themselves Christians with huge guns sticking out of their trousers and lyrics rife with swear words and references to fucking their 'bitches'. Did Jesus not speak out openly against violence and the oppression of women? All I'm asking is, at what point does someone fail to live up to the name of a true Christian?

 

[Lori_7]

if you consider what god is supposed to be, then wouldn't it be silly to think that human imperfection could thwart his efforts? if his efforts were to communicate a message and he is omnipotent and omniscient, then he could consider and allow for any human errors, or malintent regarding the transmission of that message.

 

[(Q)]

God did not write the Bible. God inspired the writers of the Bible to do so.

Which is essentially one and the same thing. If you don't accept that, then the bible is merely just another book of fiction.

Two men, inspired by the same flower, may write totally different descriptions of the flower. Men interpreted God's inspiration. Men are imperfect. Thus, the Bible is probably imperfect.

But, that is something you cannot judge, as it is supposed to be the word of a perfect god. Clearly, god being the omniscient being he is purported to be would easily make sure his words are not imperfect.

 

[S.A.M.]

Clearly, god being the omniscient being he is purported to be would easily make sure his words are not imperfect.

So if someone cannot understand, there is something wrong with the knowledge?

 

[lightgigantic]

So if someone cannot understand, there is something wrong with the knowledge?

sometimes

 

[(Q)]

So if someone cannot understand, there is something wrong with the knowledge?

That's impossible, we're talking about god here, his word is perfect, concise and clear, there can be no misunderstanding between the creator and his creation. This does not constitute the notion that the creation is perfect, of course, but also does not mean the creation isn't able to understand perfection. Even those with serious mental problems will be able to understand gods message as god will speak directly to them so that they will understand his perfect word.

Your point is entirely moot.

 

[S.A.M.]

That's impossible, we're talking about god here, his word is perfect, concise and clear, there can be no misunderstanding between the creator and his creation. This does not constitute the notion that the creation is perfect, of course, but also does not mean the creation isn't able to understand perfection. Even those with serious mental problems will be able to understand gods message as god will speak directly to them so that they will understand his perfect word.

Your point is entirely moot.

That makes no sense. Fortunately, its all your fault.

 

[Simon Anders]

That's impossible, we're talking about god here, his word is perfect, concise and clear, there can be no misunderstanding between the creator and his creation. This does not constitute the notion that the creation is perfect, of course, but also does not mean the creation isn't able to understand perfection. Even those with serious mental problems will be able to understand gods message as god will speak directly to them so that they will understand his perfect word.

Your point is entirely moot.

This should hold true in relationships between experts and lay people, but it doesn't.
It also assumes all intentions on God's part would be like ours.
It doesn't remotely address the way, for example, lightgigantic and certain mystics would look at the issue, where one does, in fact, understand, but refuses to notice for varied reasons.

Consider the possibility that God wants some sort of ongoing evolving process, rather than the sudden enlightenment of all creatures.

You continue to make the claim that if there was a God, this God MUST act in a certain way.

This is as big a claim as the theist who asserts there is a God.

Hell, I can't even figure out the motives of some people I know well on all occasions.

I doubt monkeys can figure out human motives, nor children always their parents motives or reasons for doing things a certain way.

But Q, you know

1) what God's motives must be
2) how God MUST go about achieving goals

(if there is a God)

Welcome to the faith club.

 

[(Q)]

That makes no sense.

Brilliant comeback.

 

[(Q)]

This should hold true in relationships between experts and lay people, but it doesn't.
It also assumes all intentions on God's part would be like ours.

Gods intentions are revealed in the bible, we have no say in the matter.

It doesn't remotely address the way, for example, lightgigantic and certain mystics would look at the issue, where one does, in fact, understand, but refuses to notice for varied reasons.

The nonexistence of a god would address it.

Consider the possibility that God wants some sort of ongoing evolving process, rather than the sudden enlightenment of all creatures.

Can we consider that which is already written in the bible stating otherwise?

You continue to make the claim that if there was a God, this God MUST act in a certain way.

This is as big a claim as the theist who asserts there is a God.

You are once again mistaken in that it is not I who makes these claims, they are gods commands. Gods message is revealed in the bible and is revealed to his followers personally. There are probably hundreds of posts in these forums alone from theists claiming they have heard god speaking to them.

God IS acting a certain way. It is written.

 

[S.A.M.]

Brilliant comeback.

That was amazingly easy to understand. Good job, there, bro.

 

[(Q)]

That was amazingly easy to understand. Good job, there, bro.

Sorry, I used way too many words for your attention span.

 

[Simon Anders]

Gods intentions are revealed in the bible, we have no say in the matter.

Christian fundamentalists agree with you. Others realize that a document can't validate itself.

The nonexistence of a god would address it.

Beside the point.

Can we consider that which is already written in the bible stating otherwise?

You can consider anything you like. I am not a fundamentalist Christian, nor am I a Christian for that matter, but you will only find, ironically, agreement with those you most fear.

You are once again mistaken in that it is not I who makes these claims, they are gods commands.

You are making the claim, it seems, that if there is a God, that God must have produced a document that is to be taken literally and to be taken as in its entirety as correct. This means you know a lot of things about what a God must be, which is an interesting stand for an atheist to take.

The atheist as expert in what a God must be like and must do.

Gods message is revealed in the bible and is revealed to his followers personally. There are probably hundreds of posts in these forums alone from theists claiming they have heard god speaking to them.

And that should tell you something about repeatedly saying the Bible, for example, must be literally true - or, implicitly, there is no God. I think it is too much to ask for us to connect the dots there for you.

You, Q, seem to have a need to be a purist about religion and to tell religious people what their God must be like. I can see no justification for this in terms of your expertise or experience. I can see reasons why it steamlines arguing your case. I can't be sure what your motives are, but until something shifts in you, I'll keep considering your fundamentalism something you choose for an intended rhetorical edge. You may or may not be aware of this.

 

[Simon Anders]

Sorry, I used way too many words for your attention span.

In fact my post was longer than most of yours. Even your ideas of what 'easy to understand' MUST be are in need of EXPANSION.

Tell you what Q.

I'll check back in a few weeks and see if you are still driving this line. If not, perhaps the discussion will get interesting.

I do think it is fair to add that this line you have recently taken WAS interesting and it made you a more dynamic debater. You maintained lines of argument and debated rather than degenerating into ad homs and shooting from a distance. You came in, got your hands dirty and I think it made for some interesting discussions. Really. I enjoyed seeing if the box you made was really a box. I enjoyed pointing out how I think it is not.

So, seriously, hats off. This line you have taken also splits theists into the fundamentalists and the non-fundamentalists, which is also a good point. Long before you brought up this line, I have argued with fundamentalists - who basically make the same claims you do but not from the subjunctive position. But other theists may have found themselves having to be more specific about what kind of theist they are and are not. This is also good.

But it's not the magic bullet.

So get another line and keep us on our toes. Don't be a one trick pony. We both lose something if you are.

 

[(Q)]

Christian fundamentalists agree with you. Others realize that a document can't validate itself.

Only a true Christian would agree. Others cannot validate the word of god.

You can consider anything you like. I am not a fundamentalist Christian, nor am I a Christian for that matter, but you will only find, ironically, agreement with those you most fear.

A Christian is one who obeys his god, hence it is not the people to fear, but their gods commands.

You are making the claim

Why do you keep saying that? I make no claims, the claims are from god, not me.

This means you know a lot of things about what a God must be, which is an interesting stand for an atheist to take.

Why is that a problem? Anyone can read the bible and know gods word.

The atheist as expert in what a God must be like and must do.

God says what he must be like and must do, in the bible.

And that should tell you something about repeatedly saying the Bible, for example, must be literally true - or, implicitly, there is no God. I think it is too much to ask for us to connect the dots there for you.

I have been attempting to connect the dots for you. The fact that I may or may not believe a word of the bible doesn't preclude the fact that others do, and they obey it, simply because that is what god commands.

You, Q, seem to have a need to be a purist about religion and to tell religious people what their God must be like. I can see no justification for this in terms of your expertise or experience. I can see reasons why it steamlines arguing your case. I can't be sure what your motives are, but until something shifts in you, I'll keep considering your fundamentalism something you choose for an intended rhetorical edge. You may or may not be aware of this.

I am no purist about religion, it is the religion itself that is self-explanatory of what theists should and shouldn't do, and who they should obey and worship. I have no motives other than to demonstrate the hypocrisy of theists.

 

[(Q)]

I'll check back in a few weeks and see if you are still driving this line. If not, perhaps the discussion will get interesting.

No need to check back at all. The discussion was over some time ago. You just didn't know that yet.

 

[(Q)]

So get another line and keep us on our toes. Don't be a one trick pony. We both lose something if you are.

It was hardly any trouble at all pointing out the bleeding obvious.

Tell you what, since you're handing out free advice, I'll give you some.

Don't be such a pompous ass. There's a good fellow.

 

[Lori_7]

his message has been loud and clear to me. this isn't nearly as difficult as many people would like it to be.