Undermining one's credibility..

[Elijah John]

Why do Evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses claim the Bible is perfect when it contains verses like this?

Numbers 15:32-36, ESV: "32 While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the Lord said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.� 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the Lord commanded Moses."

And then there is the slave-beating verse, (which reference escapes me for the moment) which implies that is not only permissible to own another human being, but to beat them half to death as long as they "don't die right away" and this is ok because slaves "are your property".

For debate. Are these passages from God (assuming there is a God for the sake of argument) or is this the law of Moses for a Theocratic society?

Did the same God who said "Thou shalt not kill" and do unto others as you would have them do unto you" pen the above verses as well?

Does it undermine one's credibility, the credibility of the Faith, or the credibility of the Bible do attempt to justify or to defend such atrocious passages?

Believers, why are some of you so reluctant to admit that some things in the Bible are just plain wrong, and defy God-given common sense and decency?

And why do you attempt to defend or justify such atrocious passages?

[Elijah John]

To those who support the notion that cherry picking the Bible is "intellectually' dishonest, or inconsistent, I would ask the following.

-Since the Bible contains some unreasonable (absurd and atrocious) portions, are you suggesting that the only reasonable approach to the Bible is to reject it completely?

-Or is there no such thing as a reasonable, Bible-based Theist?

-Is Fundamentalism the only valid approach to Bible-based belief?

-Is it so hard to distinguish between the relevance and veracity of the Golden Rule as contrasted to the stoning verses?

And believers, JWs and Evangelicals. Don't y'all pick and choose yourselves? After all, even you folks do not advocate nor do you emphasize stoning. Some of you defend such verses in the theoretical, but not many in actuality.

The argument that cherry picking is an invalid approach to the Bible is a reasonable argument only if the Bible were literally dropped from Heaven, word for word dictated by God Himself.

But it was not, the books of the Bible were written by men over the centuries, and compiled by commitee, comprised of human beings, not infallible gods or angels. And these men, also picked and chose.

Or was it decreed by the Almighty that the Bible was to contain 66 books, no more, no less?

But the Bible is not entirely from God, nor does it claim to be. A more reasonable way to look at it is to see the Bible as being about God, inspired by God.

Or more accurately, about an ancient people's encounter with the mysterious Divine, who they understood as "God".

That way, one can take the Bible seriously, but not literally. And not be compelled to defend everything contained within it's pages.

The only portions of the Bible that I recall that are even claimed to be from God are the Ten Commandments, (allegedly written by the finger of God Himself) and the prophetic utterances, which begin with the phrase ""Thus saith the LORD" and Jesus "verily, verily" statements.

To borrow a phrase from Hillel, "all the rest is commentary". Commentary and historical and cultural context.

So it seems to me that an entirely reasonable approach to the Bible, (if one is inclined to be a Bible-based Theist) is to view the Good Book not as infallible dictation, but as inspiration. Inspiration as a lover is inspired by his beloved to write love poetry.

That poetry doesn't come from the beloved, but rather it is inspired by the beloved.

And really, what is wrong with a believer picking the portions that resonate and ring true for them, and deriving Spiritual inspiration from those portions?

Who can argue with that?

After all, very few (except for some maniacs) are inspired by the verses which advocate stoning people to death, keeping or beating slaves.

But millions are inspired by the belief that there is a God, who commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thy self".

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

-Is it so hard to distinguish between the relevance and veracity of the Golden Rule as contrasted to the stoning verses?

Here's the thing. When I talk to theists, they may say to me that they get their morality from God. Some may say God teaches the Golden Rule. Others may say God teaches to stone those who break his commands.

Given that both of these are in the Bible, and both of these are attributed to God, and that we have no way of actually verifying which (if either) actually is taught by God...my point is to ask 'why bother trying to shoehorn God into this mess?'
If there is a god somewhere out there, I haven't got the foggiest clue what sort of morality (if any) he/she/it teaches. So I don't bother with that line of thought.

Another point I'm trying to make is that the people you are talking to EJ, already believe that THEIR morality comes from God. Just the same as yourself. You're not going to convince them that your morality is 'really' from God, and theirs isn't, by appealing your morality to a standard that isn't God (which is what you are essentially doing). Why should they listen to you? You're a mere human, and God's well...God. He's already taught them what he wants in terms of morality (or so they believe).

[Willum]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

No, but you should understand it's effects and motivations.
And since you can 't be sure with all the various contradictions, et&al., I mean even the golden rule, as I recently discovered was not only not Jesus, but from the people who called themselves the "Golden People," existing from post 150 BC to the times of Jesus. These Chrysos (golden people), were advocates of their golden rule. This seems to be a deliberate corruption of Suetonius, a treacherous validation of something that doesn't seem to exist otherwise.

Just how much of the Bible needs to be wrong before it is wrong/unworthy of attention?
The Golden rule was from some other group.
Jesus advocated paying a blasphemous tax to foreign gods, and obeying a blasphemous government.
None of the desirable things he says are provable.

All the temporal and provable impacts of the NT are, the Golden Rule, taken from those "Golden People" - Chrysos, pay taxes (to a blasphemous government) and obey (a blasphemous government).

Is there anything else in the NT that is noteworthy?
If, so, let's examine it's implications.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

From a philosophical point of view I see no problem cherry picking religion. From a religious point of view I think it rings of intellectual dishonesty. I don't see how one can claim there is an entity capable of creating universes yet incapable of controlling its message to the universe.

If you are deciding what is good and bad about the bible you probably already have an idea of what is good and bad and don't need the bible to determine that. So why bother constraining yourself to what the bible thinks?

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

-Is it so hard to distinguish between the relevance and veracity of the Golden Rule as contrasted to the stoning verses?

Here's the thing. When I talk to theists, they may say to me that they get their morality from God. Some may say God teaches the Golden Rule. Others may say God teaches to stone those who break his commands.

Given that both of these are in the Bible, and both of these are attributed to God, and that we have no way of actually verifying which (if either) actually is taught by God...my point is to ask 'why bother trying to shoehorn God into this mess?'
If there is a god somewhere out there, I haven't got the foggiest clue what sort of morality (if any) he/she/it teaches. So I don't bother with that line of thought.

Another point I'm trying to make is that the people you are talking to EJ, already believe that THEIR morality comes from God. Just the same as yourself. You're not going to convince them that your morality is 'really' from God, and theirs isn't, by appealing your morality to a standard that isn't God (which is what you are essentially doing). Why should they listen to you? You're a mere human, and God's well...God. He's already taught them what he wants in terms of morality (or so they believe).

It's not a science, rikuo, it's more like an art. And involves instinct and intuition, and God-given (from my pov) common sense.

Some things are just self-evident. Like it is wrong to stone people to death, or do keep and beat them as slaves. And by contrast is it right to "love thy neighbor".

Our morality (mine with Evangelicals) is basically the same or quite similar, our theology often differs a bit though.

I am not championing my own personal morality, but rather that which I also derive from the Bible.

After all no one that I know of here actually advocates stoning people to death or keeping and beating slaves, in actuallity, in the here and now.

Some may defend it in the theoretical and in "once upon a time". But that is different.

My point is by viewing the Bible the way I suggest, one does not even need to defend those atrocious passages in the "once upon a time."

Let me ask you this, are you then suggesting that only reasonable approach to the Bible for the Theist to take is to reject it completely because it contains some absurdities and atrocities?

Why not (for the Theist) just mine the good and run with that?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by JehovahsWitness]

And the Pharisee, whom had original works on tap and in their own language, would know that your interpretations were wrong.

What would you say to them?
You'd say this, and they'd hold up that Hebrew/Aramaic you are so fond of quoting.
Hmmmm.

What would I say to a Pharisee in the first century? I'd point to Jesus and say "I'm with him"

JW

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

From a philosophical point of view I see no problem cherry picking religion. From a religious point of view I think it rings of intellectual dishonesty.

Then every Bible-based person is guilty of that, as all cherry-pick. Whether they admit it or not, all do so.

The Fundamentalist only claims that they do not cherry pick. But at the very least, they cherry pick for purposes of practice and emphasis. Even though they may claim to endorse the whole in theory.

But isnt' that too, "intellectually dishonest"?

After all, only a small portion of folks in Appalachia handle snakes as a religious practice.

And very, very few Christians sell all they have to give to the poor in order to follow Jesus.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 26 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, ignoring the obvious problem that you don't have any proof of Jesus existing, the Pharisee and Sadducee, both certainly 1000x more credible religious sources than the JW, would certainly execute you in a way worse than they did Jesus, allegedly.

Probably by hanging, then indecent burial. In a way they believe would exclude you from resurrection.

So, in the face of it, from this impartial observer, you would be, and most certainly are wrong about your beliefs. The odds of JW's being right vs. folks who understand the religion first hand, are astronomical.

What could you possibly say that would make you more credible than the Pharisee, your religious forefathers, or the Sadducee, even, who were polytheists, yet the same "Jewish," people?

Makes your head swim doesn't it?
You might find you were "with" someone who didn't exist.

Wild.

[JehovahsWitness]

would certainly execute you in a way worse than they did Jesus, allegedly. Probably by hanging, then indecent burial. In a way they believe would exclude you from resurrection.

Lol... I've just been virtually executed after having been hypothetically transported in time... bummer ... lol... too funny.

Anyhoo... was there are part of "I'm with him (Jesus)" ie "I agree with whatever he says" you were having problem grasping? My point is that if in this time travel scenerio, I found myself next to Jesus and Jesus were disputing with a group of Pharisees, I'd take it that Jesus was right and they were wrong.

Then I'd run like Ahimaaz! lol... just kidding, I'd like to think I'd have stuck by him (Jesus).

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 21 by Elijah John]

From a philosophical point of view I see no problem cherry picking religion. From a religious point of view I think it rings of intellectual dishonesty.

Then every Bible-based person is guilty of that, as all cherry-pick. Whether they admit it or not, all do so.

The Fundamentalist only claims that they do not cherry pick. But at the very least, they cherry pick for purposes of practice and emphasis. Even though they may claim to endorse the whole in theory.

But isnt' that too, "intellectually dishonest"?

After all, only a small portion of folks in Appalachia handle snakes as a religious practice.

And very, very few Christians sell all they have to give to the poor in order to follow Jesus.

I would agree it is also. Since the bible is wrought with many contradictions and mutually exclusive concepts it is impossible not to cherry pick. I guess that's why I don't adhere to any religio since there is none that is logically consistent.