... malevolent bully.

[MrFungus420]

Right, exactly. And, in OT days the Jews sacrified to Yahweh like the pagans sacrificed to their gods, and the Jews wrote in the Old Testament that it was their god that demanded sacrifices. Exhibit A: Abraham was specifically asked to take his son Isaac up to a blood soaked and reeking alter where other sacrifices had been made to the god, and slit his son's throat and bleed him to death. The god supposedly demanded that, not the people.

Abraham thought that is what God told him. It was really his own impulse to sacrifice. Then God accommodated the Jews by giving them his son, whom they sacrificed. It wasn't that God demanded it - it is that God accommodated the Jewish impulse to sacrifice. Under my theology, in any event.

Under your theology...

Are you familiar with the term "delusions of grandeur"?

Unless you can come up with Biblical justification of your claims, it looks like nothing more than you deciding that everyone who has ever lived and been a Christian is wrong. That they must be wrong. Nobody else has access to your privileged information, so nobody else could be right. According to the Bible, God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. Now, thanks to you, we learn that God didn't really tell Abraham to do so. That it was apparently some sort of delusion on Abraham's part to justify his filicidal impulses.

We are so fortunate that you have come along. Thank you for sharing with us what has been left out of the Bible.

[Bruce Burleson]

I'm not certain why everyone seems to be saying that I have to accept everything that is written in the Bible, or dismiss the whole thing. This is an example of the faulty binary logic that I encounter on atheist boards generally. The Bible is a book that was put together by men, so some of it may be valid and some faulty. I'm just telling you my take on it, based on my experience.

Generally, I accept the history of Jesus and the early church given in the new testament to be accurate. My personal experience confirms for me the validity of the teachings about the Holy Spirit, although I do not expect anyone else to be convinced by my personal subjective experience. Since I don't approach the writings from the perspective of them being authoritative, I simply evaluate each writing on its own merits and determine what comports with my own experience.

And what's wrong with cherry-picking, anyway? I've been doing that ever since I was a teenager.

[Pappa]

I'm not certain why everyone seems to be saying that I have to accept everything that is written in the Bible, or dismiss the whole thing. This is an example of the faulty binary logic that I encounter on atheist boards generally. The Bible is a book that was put together by men, so some of it may be valid and some faulty. I'm just telling you my take on it, based on my experience.

Generally, I accept the history of Jesus and the early church given in the new testament to be accurate. My personal experience confirms for me the validity of the teachings about the Holy Spirit, although I do not expect anyone else to be convinced by my personal subjective experience. Since I don't approach the writings from the perspective of them being authoritative, I simply evaluate each writing on its own merits and determine what comports with my own experience.

And what's wrong with cherry-picking, anyway? I've been doing that ever since I was a teenager.

I think the criticism is because it leaves you free to pick pretty much any morality you want from the bible. If so, why bother using the bible at all, when you could just choose any morality. Also, the bible is used as a source of authority to back up the validity of whichever random bit of morality a person has extracted from it... in that case they may not using the bible to get their morality from but to validate a view they hold (such as hating homosexuals, for example).

An atheist would say why bother with all that nonsense and just have your own morality - which by any benchmark is as valid as anything in the bible.

[Bruce Burleson]

I think the criticism is because it leaves you free to pick pretty much any morality you want from the bible. If so, why bother using the bible at all, when you could just choose any morality. Also, the bible is used as a source of authority to back up the validity of whichever random bit of morality a person has extracted from it... in that case they may not using the bible to get their morality from but to validate a view they hold (such as hating homosexuals, for example).

An atheist would say why bother with all that nonsense and just have your own morality - which by any benchmark is as valid as anything in the bible.

I don't pick any specific morality from the bible at all, just some principles. Most of it, especially in the OT, was for a culture that has long since disappeared (in the West, anyway). What I do take from the new testament writings is the account and teachings of Jesus. His main commandment was to love one another as he had loved us. That's pretty much the basis of my morality, along with the Golden Rule, which Jesus also taught in his own particular manner. Morality just becomes an application of those principles. The end result of the application of these two principles is quite satisfactory and leads to general human happiness and welfare.

[Bruce Burleson]

OK so you admit Abraham was insane. Why not go one step further and realise that it is all a bunch of schitzophrenic ravings at best and crowd control by a priestly class at worst.

I don't think he was insane. I simply think that he interpreted the thoughts of his own mind in accordance with his particular worldview, which was quite common. He thought God was pleased with sacrifices, and that the greatest sacrifice he could offer was his son, and he wanted to please God, so he decided to do it. Either God stepped in at the last minute or Abraham found an acceptable rationalization, and didn't go through with it. Given the presence of the ram caught in the bramble bush (if you are familiar with the actual story), Abraham probably thought that God had provided a substitutionary sacrifice. That gave rise to the theology of substitutionary atonement, which was available for early Christians to employ in the case of Jesus. When Jesus came along, he knew that his presence would lead to his death (the ruling elite definitely did not want the Son of God interfering with their power structure), but he was willing to offer himself, not because it was demanded by God, but because it would fulfill the expectations and impulses of the Jewish (and pagan) cultures which were steeped in the idea of sacrifice.

So, with the ultimate sacrifice having been made, God could move past the old way of people dealing with him, and into a new relationship based upon trust (faith) and the presence of the Holy Spirit. It marked an advance in the progressive revelation of God - leaving the blood cult of sacrifice and moving on to spiritual communion.

[Pappa]

I think the criticism is because it leaves you free to pick pretty much any morality you want from the bible. If so, why bother using the bible at all, when you could just choose any morality. Also, the bible is used as a source of authority to back up the validity of whichever random bit of morality a person has extracted from it... in that case they may not using the bible to get their morality from but to validate a view they hold (such as hating homosexuals, for example).

An atheist would say why bother with all that nonsense and just have your own morality - which by any benchmark is as valid as anything in the bible.

I don't pick any specific morality from the bible at all, just some principles. Most of it, especially in the OT, was for a culture that has long since disappeared (in the West, anyway). What I do take from the new testament writings is the account and teachings of Jesus. His main commandment was to love one another as he had loved us. That's pretty much the basis of my morality, along with the Golden Rule, which Jesus also taught in his own particular manner. Morality just becomes an application of those principles. The end result of the application of these two principles is quite satisfactory and leads to general human happiness and welfare.

I understand your point, but I think if your view is that you're taking the "basic crux" of Jesus' teaching as your morality, then that's no different to taking the "basic crux" of your morality from evolutionary biology, which has shown we have evolved morality. Humans are born with a basic sense of right and wrong, a morality which culture or religion moulds into whichever pattern is the local norm. Every self-labeled atheist I know, and also any Humanist, etc. seems to have a perfectly acceptable form of morality. This may differ from person to person, but the basic elements of right and wrong are the same. And the basic elements are also recognizable and acceptable to a moderate Christian.

[FBM]

Step 1: Create universe.

Step 2: See that it was good.

Step 3: Get bored with it.

Step 4: Create a bunch of animals on an inconspicuous, random, run-of-the-mill speck of dust.

Step 5: Get bored with it.

Step 6: Create a special being in your own likeness. Surely you can't get bored with that, eh?

Step 7: Get bored with it.

Step 8: Create a second being with sex organs that match first special being's. (Good thing you put sexual organs on the first being, even before you decided to create a reproductive mate for him, eh? nudge nudge wink wink)

Step 9: Get bored with it.

Step 10: Allow an evil, talking snake to spice up the party a tad with some temptation.

Step 11: Slam your special beings for eternity for falling for your trick, even though you knew they were inferior to you in the first place.

Step 12: Eventually get pissed off about your special beings to the point that you drown 99.9% of them, rather than simply making them disappear and starting over again, even though your majestic omnipotence would make that possible.

Step 13: Get bored with it.

Step 14: Trick a handful of the most gullible into believing that you fathered yourself by one of those special beings...etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Step 15: ???

Step 16: Profit?

[Bruce Burleson]

I understand your point, but I think if your view is that you're taking the "basic crux" of Jesus' teaching as your morality, then that's no different to taking the "basic crux" of your morality from evolutionary biology, which has shown we have evolved morality. Humans are born with a basic sense of right and wrong, a morality which culture or religion moulds into whichever pattern is the local norm. Every self-labeled atheist I know, and also any Humanist, etc. seems to have a perfectly acceptable form of morality. This may differ from person to person, but the basic elements of right and wrong are the same. And the basic elements are also recognizable and acceptable to a moderate Christian.

OK. So we shouldn't have any problem being neighbors, then.

[Toontown]

Step 1: Create universe.

Step 2: See that it was good.

Step 3: Get bored with it.

Step 4: Create a bunch of animals on an inconspicuous, random, run-of-the-mill speck of dust.

Step 5: Get bored with it.

Step 6: Create a special being in your own likeness. Surely you can't get bored with that, eh?

Step 7: Get bored with it.

Step 8: Create a second being with sex organs that match first special being's. (Good thing you put sexual organs on the first being, even before you decided to create a reproductive mate for him, eh? nudge nudge wink wink)

Step 9: Get bored with it.

Step 10: Allow an evil, talking snake to spice up the party a tad with some temptation.

Step 11: Slam your special beings for eternity for falling for your trick, even though you knew they were inferior to you in the first place.

Step 12: Eventually get pissed off about your special beings to the point that you drown 99.9% of them, rather than simply making them disappear and starting over again, even though your majestic omnipotence would make that possible.

Step 13: Get bored with it.

Step 14: Trick a handful of the most gullible into believing that you fathered yourself by one of those special beings...etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum.

Step 15: ???

Step 16: Profit?

Step 15: Arrange a huge, genocidal war to wipe out all the bad "special beings" you allowed Satan to deceive. Tell them 2000 years beforehand that it is going to happen and how it is going to happen. Describe the "Antichrist" who will make it happen.

Step 16: Laugh when the "special beings" fall for it anyway. Then wipe them out when the Antichrist gathers them all up on the Plain of Megiddo.

Step 17: Remove all the dead "special beings" from their graves and judge them one by one, having already laboriously written down everything they ever thought, said, and did, in your "Book of Life". Toss all the unacceptable "special beings" into eternal hell fire. Including Mother Teresa, for doubting your existence. That will teach them. Especially that goody-two-shoes Mother Teresa, the faithless bitch who never really loved you.

Step 18: Having completed the laborious 7000 year task, face-palm yourself for not having thought of simply making the monkeys you wanted in the first place. And not making all the others that you had to laboriously judge and then burn up. Then breathe a sigh of relief when you remember that the original goal was to collect a large following of monkeys who (freely) chose to love you, of their own free will, in spite of all your, uh, idiosyncracies. And also collect tens of billions of monkeys who did not love you, to torture in hell forever and ever. Mission accomplished. All the monkeys who aren't burning in hell, love you. Because you are such a lovable guy. And the agonized screams of the others who do not love you are quite satisfying. So you haven't really wasted the 7000 years after all.

Step 19: Get bored with all the praising and screaming. Realize that you wasted the whole 7000 years.

Step 20: All the angels are nervous about what your next boredom-reducing move might consist of. You've never been entirely happy with the angels. They don't (freely) love you. They only love you because you made them love you. Exept for Satan, your first "free will" being, who never loved you at all. Perhaps another "Judgement Day" might be in order...

[AshtonBlack]

[MrFungus420]

I'm not certain why everyone seems to be saying that I have to accept everything that is written in the Bible, or dismiss the whole thing. This is an example of the faulty binary logic that I encounter on atheist boards generally. The Bible is a book that was put together by men, so some of it may be valid and some faulty. I'm just telling you my take on it, based on my experience.

Generally, I accept the history of Jesus and the early church given in the new testament to be accurate. My personal experience confirms for me the validity of the teachings about the Holy Spirit, although I do not expect anyone else to be convinced by my personal subjective experience. Since I don't approach the writings from the perspective of them being authoritative, I simply evaluate each writing on its own merits and determine what comports with my own experience.

And what's wrong with cherry-picking, anyway? I've been doing that ever since I was a teenager.

You are making all sorts of claims about it. Many, if not MOST, have no basis in the Bible.

You are dismissing parts of it for no other reason than you don't like them as written.

You don't like the fact that the Bible says that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. So you turn it around and try to claim that it was Abraham that wanted to do a sacrifice and he chose his own son. You have no justification for this other than it doesn't match you preconceived notion of God. You recognize that it is something that is not consistent with a loving and "good" deity. You recognize that it is a either a cruel act (assuming that God was intending to stop the sacrifice from the start) or outright evil.

So, rather than examine your whether the Bible (the only basis for belief in God/Jesus) is coherent, rather than examine whether or not your opinions match the Bible, you just discard any parts of the Bible that don't mesh with your ideas.

[floppit]

I'm not certain why everyone seems to be saying that I have to accept everything that is written in the Bible, or dismiss the whole thing. This is an example of the faulty binary logic that I encounter on atheist boards generally. The Bible is a book that was put together by men, so some of it may be valid and some faulty. I'm just telling you my take on it, based on my experience.

I don't think you have to believe all or nothing, faith is by it's very definition not the result of reasoning or evidence, as such you may freely pick and choose. Let's face it the bible is not consistent so to some extent all those who want to follow it's text need some degree of latitude to choose which bits they prefer, and that is what happens. From the right wing fundamentalist beliefs of hell to the liberals wanting gay priests, people are actively selecting parts of the larger text to suit their preference; I have no problem with that on a personal level, if someone wishes to believe in fairies I don't mind at all - why should I object to whatever parts of the bible they select to believe? What bothers me, the part I do object to is the use of an irrational and inconsistent text to add 'authority' and 'validity' to individual's beliefs. I would gladly join up with any believer equally campaign to separate church and state, or campaigning not to impose their faith's world view on those who do not believe - a good example of which would be the appalling slowness with which gay relationships have been given formal recognition, and even now that any recognition avoids skilfully the word 'marriage'. I would have no objection to siding with a believer asking for reasoning and questioning to be taught in schools and openly requiring that such an approach be brought to bare on all religious texts.

So - while I agree it is a logical error to demand an all or nothing, a binary approach to belief in the bible, it is still reasonable to ask those who believe only part to make clear what they believe and divorce themselves from those using the text as an infallible authority. What is acceptable is to say that if you believe some of the bible is flawed then logically you cannot use the presence of something within the bible as confirmation of it's accuracy.

[Bruce Burleson]

So - while I agree it is a logical error to demand an all or nothing, a binary approach to belief in the bible, it is still reasonable to ask those who believe only part to make clear what they believe and divorce themselves from those using the text as an infallible authority. What is acceptable is to say that if you believe some of the bible is flawed then logically you cannot use the presence of something within the bible as confirmation of it's accuracy.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of "the Bible" anyway. There are Jewish writings and early Christians writings, and they all got put together in one volume. It's better just to evaluate each one on its own merits, not as part of a whole.

[floppit]

So - while I agree it is a logical error to demand an all or nothing, a binary approach to belief in the bible, it is still reasonable to ask those who believe only part to make clear what they believe and divorce themselves from those using the text as an infallible authority. What is acceptable is to say that if you believe some of the bible is flawed then logically you cannot use the presence of something within the bible as confirmation of it's accuracy.

Agreed. I don't like the idea of "the Bible" anyway. There are Jewish writings and early Christians writings, and they all got put together in one volume. It's better just to evaluate each one on its own merits, not as part of a whole.

So do you treat the book without reverence?

[Epictetus]

Jesus does not fit this description at all. For me, the Old Testament description of God was colored by the barbaric nature of the people, and Jesus came in part to correct our perception of God. I read the OT to help me understand the historical and cultural context of the New Testament, but I don't consider it to give an accurate depiction of the nature of God. I rely almost completely on the NT portrayal of Jesus for my concept of the Deity.

Actually, I think that Jesus was far more sadistic than his "heavenly father." He took tortue to a whole new level with his invention of the "fiery furnace," a place of endless torment, "where there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth," and "where their worm dieth not." Here Christianity and Islam have much in common: "Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. God is mighty and wise."