The Reason Some Believe This Bible Nonsense Is...

[czyz]

I submit that if people were taught both sides of the argument regarding the bible(or any other religious text for that matter) that religion would likely be much more insignificant in our world.

Most of us were taught the tenets of the faith in places like Sunday School, zealous parents, or like myself, in a Catholic grade school. We were purposely not told the other side of the story such as there is no historical evidence for most of what the bible contains, that many of the stories in the bible have their genesis (pardon the pun) in religious practices that predate the Hebrews, the vast majority of errors in the bible regarding names and dates, and the fact that these events supposedly happened during the early Iron Age when man was ignorant, superstitious, fearful, and mostly illiterate.

There are volumes of information and historical evidence supporting the premise that the Torah, the Bible, and the Koran are mythological stories conveyed as a feeble attempt for early man to explain the natural world. It was man's early attempt at such a task and it shows by the silly stories contained within and the wicked teachings taught in some verses (i.e. slavery is acceptable, genocide of tribes which are enemies of the Hebrews, killing people for working on the sabbath, etc.)

A god or prime mover that created the universe may very well exist, and we very well could transition into a spiritual dimension upon expiring from the physical plane, but for us to speculate what may await us after death is like an amoeba with its own consciousness imagining what it would be like to be human.

I submit it is time to lay down the silly books and embrace the notion of morality and ethics in our world, and thus create the kind of society which benefits man and move our planet a little closer toward sanity.

[Divine Insight]

If there exists a God, the Hebrew fables can't be the correct description of God.

I don't agree at all. We live in a world full of hate and mistrust, where might is right and where good people starve and die of painful cancers while bad people grow fat and die of old age in their beds. I think if there is a god, he is almost exactly as described in the Bible.

That's irrelevant. If God is exactly as described in the Bible then he would be a demon. But the biblical God is claimed to represents all that is good, righteous, just, perfect, and above all he's supposed to be trustworthy.

So even if there was a "God" that actually behaved like the "God" portrayed by the Bible, then he wouldn't be a "God" at all in then sense of being "good". He would be a demon. He basically wouldn't be any better than Satan in the same fairytale.

Now, can you imagine and "Evil God". Well, maybe you can, but isn't that a conflict of terms? What good is an Evil God? An Evil God would not be trustworthy, not would he be worthy of worship.

Although I will agree with on one point. The Biblical God is described as being a God who will unleash his wrath upon anyone who doesn't love and obey him. So that clearly does portray him as a demon. The only problem is that it pretty much destroys all the other claims being made about this God, including the idea that he would be trustworthy.

So I suppose if you allow for the concept of an "Evil God" then you could allow that the Bible could be true. But that seem like a rather futile. This would be asking people to bow down to a demon.

[keithprosser3]

Lighten up, DI. There isn't any god, good, bad or anything in between so I take a detached view of it. Ever read Catch 22?

"The God I don't believe in is a good God, a just God, a merciful God. He's not the mean and stupid God you make him out to be." (Chapter 18)

[Divine Insight]

My personal morality is obviously far superior to these "silly books" (as the author of this thread puts it)

So I'll state my belief. I don't believe in moral objectivity.

Are those statements compatible?

Yes, they are compatible within the contexts of the conversations in which they were stated.

When speaking of the Biblical God we necessarily need to speak of "Objective Morality". That's a given in that fairytale. Because in that arena God makes the moral rules, and evidently he can change them at any time as well, (which brings up the question of just how objective they can truly be even in that context)

A God who can change the rules of morality must necessarily be making up his own subjective morality on the fly anyway. And Clearly in the New Testament the rules of mortality were indeed changed between the Old Testament Covenant and the New Testament Covenant.

So ironically even the Biblical God is necessarily subjective in his choice of moral values.

After all, I'm not the only one who is far superior to the morality of the God of the Old Testament. Evidently Jesus was too. In fact that's what most Christians love about Jesus. Take Jesus and the New Testament out of the religion and most Christian would toss in the towel, they want nothing to do with the God of the Old Testament.

In other words, most Christians wouldn't even bother with Judaism or Islam.

They have a love affair with Jesus who had vastly superior moral values from the God of the Old Testament. In fact, most Christians are in love with Jesus NOT with the God of the Old Testament like they are supposed to do.

So in that respect I'm not much different from Jesus. I have vastly higher moral values than the God portrayed in the Old Testament. And for the most part I reject many of the same things that Jesus himself is said to have rejected by the New Testament Gossips.

The Christians would actually love me as much as they love Jesus if they had a clue that Jesus and I are one.

~~~~

But yes, actually in a sense you are correct. To even say that I don't believe in objective morality is the same as saying that I don't believe in morality at all in any absolute sense. Which is true.

Morality is entirely a human invention. It's entirely a subjective ideal. Therefore morality is whatever humanity defined it to be from the point of view of majority consensus.

In today's world the majority consensus has clearly rejected Biblical morality. For example, people are speaking out against actions taken by religious oppression such as the Taliban for example. The Taliban is a perfect example of Biblical morality because the Taliban behave today pretty much the same way that the Hebrews were behaving back in the Old Testament. And this is renounced by most civil modern people as being immoral.

So while morality is subjective, it's not necessarily left to the subjective opinion of a single person, but rather it's the result of majority consensus. There is no doubt in my mind that my moral values are far more in line with the modern sense of morality by the majority than with the actions commanded and directed by in the Bible by the ancient Hebrews.

Most civil people today will quickly condemn the Taliban as being immoral. And that's the same as condemning the Bible to be immoral.

Now Christians will scream, "The Old Testament no longer holds, we have Jesus now!"

Well, fine, if they agree with the higher moral values of Jesus then they agree with me to. It's that simple.

But the moral teachings of Jesus are not compatible with the immoral teachings of the Old Testament God.

So there can be no objective morality even within the Christian Bible. It necessarily needs to be subjective relative to Jesus.

Otherwise, we'd still need to be stoning people to death for working on the sabbath like the Old Testament God had commanded.

Or if we move over to the Qur'an we'd need to cut the hands off of anyone who ever steals anything. No age limit was given, so even young children could potentially be mutilated for life if we live by the objective morality of the Qur'an.

Anyone who wants to hold up an idea of objective morality in terms of the Abrahamic religions is going to live in a very strict and brutal world.

Men are to rule over their wives too, let's not forget that objective morality taught in the Bible. And her desire shall be to serve him.

Rapists get to marry their victims too! Which means that those women would then become slave to their rapist for life! And that would be objective morality.

Don't tell young men this or they might just go out and rape the hottest looking girl they can find just so they can marry her and have her for their personal slave the rest of their lives.

That would be objective morality according to the Bible. No personal subjective opinions allowed.

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 101 by Divine Insight]

That's irrelevant. If God is exactly as described in the Bible then he would be a demon. But the biblical God is claimed to represents all that is good, righteous, just, perfect, and above all he's supposed to be trustworthy.

Matthew 12:22-37 "...Every kingdom that fights against itself will be destroyed. Every city or family that is divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he fights against himself. Then how can his kingdom stand? 27 You say I drive out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Then by whose power do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But suppose I drive out demons by the Spirit of God. Then God’s kingdom has come to you..."
Now how can you continue to call Jesus a demon or an "Evil GOD"?

[keithprosser3]

I was just checking with you, DI. I ain't none too quick in my thinking sometimes.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 101 by Divine Insight]

That's irrelevant. If God is exactly as described in the Bible then he would be a demon. But the biblical God is claimed to represents all that is good, righteous, just, perfect, and above all he's supposed to be trustworthy.

Matthew 12:22-37 "...Every kingdom that fights against itself will be destroyed. Every city or family that is divided against itself will not stand. 26 If Satan drives out Satan, he fights against himself. Then how can his kingdom stand? 27 You say I drive out demons by the power of Beelzebub. Then by whose power do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28 But suppose I drive out demons by the Spirit of God. Then God’s kingdom has come to you..."
Now how can you continue to call Jesus a demon or an "Evil GOD"?

I have never called Jesus a demon or an evil God. On the contrary, I believe that Jesus was most likely a Jewish Mahayana Buddhist Bodhisattva.

Moreover, I find the verse that you have posted to be quite interesting and I use it frequently to defend my witchcraft against Christian criticism. The Christians often claim that witches get their power from Satan (just as Jesus had been accused of in the verse you've quoted).

However, like Jesus I use my powers for good works. Therefore, for the very same reasons that Jesus gave my powers cannot come from Beelzebub (or Satan) because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Therefore my powers necessarily must come from God, for precisely the same reasons that Jesus gave.

If what Jesus spoke is truth, then clearly it must also apply to me. I cannot do good works in the name of Beelzebub, demons, or Satan because that would be a house divided against itself.

So I find it rather humorous that Jesus himself has totally vindicated all witches who do good works. Because their power (according to Jesus) can only come from God. Only God's power can be used for good works.

So the verse you've posted is probably my most favorite verse in the whole of the New Testament. Jesus has vindicated and endorsed Wicca right there.

Because in Wicca, the prime moral code is "Do as ye will but harm none". So no Wiccan witch can do any harmful magic. Therefore all of their magical powers necessarily can only come from God as Jesus himself has proclaimed.

Jesus has totally endorsed Wicca as being from the Holy Spirit of God. It cannot have come from Beelzebub, demons, or Satan according to Jesus. That would be impossible. Because in that case, it would be a house divided against itself.

~~~~~

By the way, when I say "The God described in the Bible" I'm not talking about Jesus. Jesus was not God. Jesus was said to be the demigod son of God born of a virgin woman. Moreover, Jesus said that we are to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. Not him (Jesus).

So Christians who are in love with Jesus and worship Jesus are not doing as Jesus taught anyway. They are supposed to be loving God with all their heart, mind and soul. Not Jesus.

[Goat]

I still think the differences are profound. Let's see if I can do a better job explaining them.

Neitzsche: There is no such thing as Truth.
Christianity: There is such a thing as Truth.

And, to which I say 'I do not know what you mean by 'Truth'. What is the 'Truth' ^TM that you talk about? Can you define it in a manner that is clear, and universally accepted?

Until you do that.. neither the 'there is Truth', and there 'is no such thing as 'Truth' are null statements that do not semantic values.

Start there first.

(1) Is there anything in the world that is "universally accepted"?

Yes, yes there is. If you drop a brick, it will fall. If you jump off a cliff, you will fall too.

Another thing that is universally accepted is that there is 'day and night'.

(2) Get a dictionary, or read my above posts more closely. I don't have time for your word games.

In other words, you can't show even define 'Truth' ^TM . It isn't my word games, but rather I was pointing out you were using terms that can not be properly defined, or be shown to exist at all.

[acehighinfinity]

[Replying to post 106 by Divine Insight]

Moreover, I find the verse that you have posted to be quite interesting and I use it frequently to defend my witchcraft against Christian criticism. The Christians often claim that witches get their power from Satan (just as Jesus had been accused of in the verse you've quoted).

?? You use this verse to defend your witchcraft against Christian criticism? But why? Give me an example? Do you study witchcraft and do claim yourself a WITCH?

However, like Jesus I use my powers for good works. Therefore, for the very same reasons that Jesus gave my powers cannot come from Beelzebub (or Satan) because a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Can you list what those good works are? Who are you doing your good works for? How do you know where your powers came from? Matthew 12:22-37 - So you think by understanding these verses you can conclude where your powers came from, correct?

So I find it rather humorous that Jesus himself has totally vindicated all witches who do good works. Because their power (according to Jesus) can only come from God. Only God's power can be used for good works.

So you think your powers are purely from GOD? Can you reference this from the holy bible?

WITCHCRAFT: (I've only listed a few scriptures below)
Deuteronomy 18:9-14 "..Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead..."
1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."
Galatians 5:19-21 "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
I don't see anything positive about WitchCraft, do you?
I'm gonna ask you again, "So you think your powers are purely from GOD? Can you reference this from the holy bible?"

[theopoesis]

[Replying to Goat]

I suppose that you think it clever to add a trademark symbol after the word true, as if that somehow removed the word's clear lexical meaning from our minds. And I suppose you believe you have proven your point about the necessity of universal agreement. Yet, had you bothered to read your own atheist philosophers then you would be quite familiar with David Hume, that atheist philosopher who sought to discredit the notion of cause and effect, and who therefore would claim that it is in fact not certain that a dropped brick will necessarily fall toward the ground.

Universal consensus is not as easy to find as you would think.

But why demand a universal definition of the word "Truth"? Is it because you do not know what the word truth means? Were that the case, then my suggestion to go to a dictionary would easily resolve the problem. Why not simply do so and be done with it?

Merriam Webster would have clearly told you that Truth is "the quality or state of being true." and being true is "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs."

Now, had you bothered to read my post clearly, you would have quickly learned that Nietzsche was speaking of certain varieties of truth: philosophical truths, moral truths, metaphysical truths, and so forth. He did not question scientific truths. These are the sorts of truths in question. Did you read before you charged headlong into the fray, armed with wit capable of trademarking the untrademarkable, in hopes of making a point wise only to yourself?

Let's look at an example of "philosophy," just in case you are unfamiliar with this term, too. I want to briefly consider the ideas of simulation and dissimulation. So, while we are defining words, let's return to the word "dissimulate," the noun form of which is "dissimulation." Merriam Webster defines "dissimulate" as follows: "to hide under a false appearance." Philosophically, Jean Baudrillard defines dissimulation as follows: "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has." I would point to igtheism as an example of dissimulation. Many an igtheist will debate for years against the idea that God exists, only to turn around and periodically say mid debate "I don't know what the word 'God' even means." This is dissimulation, for if the igtheist truly did not understand the term, the igtheist would have never entered the debate in the first place.

Baudrillard, that philosopher we are considering, suggests that dissimulation is often coupled with simulation, which he defines as, "to feign to have what one hasn't." I think the most helpful example of simulation actually comes from Rommen. Rommen uses the illustration of an individual who doesn't really care about the suffering of the world, but doesn't want to look like he doesn't care, so he sponsors a child in Africa. This act is a simulation of caring to mask his indifference.

So, given these ideas of Baudrillard, we can begin to explore Nietzsche's claims about truth. Were I, hypothetically speaking, to apply the philosophy of Baudrillard to our discussion, what would Nietzsche say (one can imagine a little rubber bracelet much like the WWJD ones - WWNS)? Suppose I suggested that your claim not to know what the word "truth" means was actually dissimulation. After all, I might hypothetically note that you have spent close to a decade on this site debating the truth and falsehood of a number of claims, so surely you know what the term means. Suppose I proposed that this act of dissimulation was, in itself, actually a simulation? Perhaps I might say, hypothetically speaking of course, that there was no genuine desire to know the truth of things, no genuine desire to actually discuss, no genuine desire to explore the question of the existence of God. Of course, a lack of such desires would not come across well on a site devoted to the exploration of the truth or falsehood of the existence of God through discussion, so this hypothetical me might want to say that a simulation was in order: were someone to dissimulate, pretending not to know what the word "truth" meant, then one could simulate a desire for earnest discussion, merely claiming that an unobtainable "universal" definition was keeping a real discussion from proceeding. In other words, I might hypothetically say that the call for a universally accepted definition was a dissimulation intended to simulate a genuine desire to debate.

Now, were I to actually make such claims, what would Nietzsche say? That is a bit unclear. Certainly, any of Baudrillard's larger claims about "the real" (to use his terms) would be disputed by Nietzsche, but it is unclear if the smaller claims about simulation and dissimulation would be disputed. Would Nietzsche say that I was clearly correct, if I were to apply these terms to you? Or would he merely recognize my application as a power play to try to get you to go away?

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

I suppose that you think it clever to add a trademark symbol after the word true, as if that somehow removed the word's clear lexical meaning from our minds. And I suppose you believe you have proven your point about the necessity of universal agreement. Yet, had you bothered to read your own atheist philosophers then you would be quite familiar with David Hume, that atheist philosopher who sought to discredit the notion of cause and effect, and who therefore would claim that it is in fact not certain that a dropped brick will necessarily fall toward the ground.

Well then, a dropped brick will fall to the ground no matter how David Hume talks about 'not knowing 100%'. Yes, I am familiar with him.. and 'philosophically', that might be true, but in the REAL WORLD, the brick will fall to the ground. Even David Hume would admit that. If you don't believe it, you can put it to the test.

You can take a 50 pound brick, and hold it over your foot. You KNOW it will hurt if it its your foot. Care to drop it? One can make all the irrational claims one wants, but, the brick does not care. It will fall to the ground, unless held up by something.

Universal consensus is not as easy to find as you would think.

But why demand a universal definition of the word "Truth"? Is it because you do not know what the word truth means? Were that the case, then my suggestion to go to a dictionary would easily resolve the problem. Why not simply do so and be done with it?

Because 'Truth', with a capital T, has not meaning. There are so many 'theories' of truth it can not defined. The 'small' truth, as defined as 'facts that are real', can be defined, but not that is not the metaphysical 'Truth'.

Which theory of truth are you going to use? There are at least 5 major theories, and the one thing about all of them, is none of them can be shown to be accurate.
That makes the word 'Truth' to have no semantic value.

Merriam Webster would have clearly told you that Truth is "the quality or state of being true." and being true is "being in accordance with the actual state of affairs."

NO, that is 'truth', not 'Truth'. One is 'just the facts', the other is this metaphysical piece of work that is meaningless. When it comes to theology and metaphysics , that definition is not that what is being used. That is equivocation.

Now, had you bothered to read my post clearly, you would have quickly learned that Nietzsche was speaking of certain varieties of truth: philosophical truths, moral truths, metaphysical truths, and so forth. He did not question scientific truths. These are the sorts of truths in question. Did you read before you charged headlong into the fray, armed with wit capable of trademarking the untrademarkable, in hopes of making a point wise only to yourself?

Yes, he was.. so, what does TRUTH mean in this context. Define it in THAT context.
Which theory of truth? Correspondence theory? Coherence theory?Constructivist theory? Consensus theory?? Or something else all together?

Let's look at an example of "philosophy," just in case you are unfamiliar with this term, too. I want to briefly consider the ideas of simulation and dissimulation. So, while we are defining words, let's return to the word "dissimulate," the noun form of which is "dissimulation." Merriam Webster defines "dissimulate" as follows: "to hide under a false appearance." Philosophically, Jean Baudrillard defines dissimulation as follows: "To dissimulate is to feign not to have what one has." I would point to igtheism as an example of dissimulation. Many an igtheist will debate for years against the idea that God exists, only to turn around and periodically say mid debate "I don't know what the word 'God' even means." This is dissimulation, for if the igtheist truly did not understand the term, the igtheist would have never entered the debate in the first place.

Philosophy is 90% of people playing word games in ivory towers, making people think those ideas are relevant, but they aren't. For example , this whole business between Friedrich Nietzsche and Christianity as you claim doesn't have any semantic value unless you define what 'Truth' means according to both sides of the argument. There are so many variations of concept, are you even USING the same concept?
Nietzsche is dead.. so I can't ask him to clarify his term.

Baudrillard, that philosopher we are considering, suggests that dissimulation is often coupled with simulation, which he defines as, "to feign to have what one hasn't." I think the most helpful example of simulation actually comes from Rommen. Rommen uses the illustration of an individual who doesn't really care about the suffering of the world, but doesn't want to look like he doesn't care, so he sponsors a child in Africa. This act is a simulation of caring to mask his indifference.

So, given these ideas of Baudrillard, we can begin to explore Nietzsche's claims about truth. Were I, hypothetically speaking, to apply the philosophy of Baudrillard to our discussion, what would Nietzsche say (one can imagine a little rubber bracelet much like the WWJD ones - WWNS)? Suppose I suggested that your claim not to know what the word "truth" means was actually dissimulation. After all, I might hypothetically note that you have spent close to a decade on this site debating the truth and falsehood of a number of claims, so surely you know what the term means. Suppose I proposed that this act of dissimulation was, in itself, actually a simulation? Perhaps I might say, hypothetically speaking of course, that there was no genuine desire to know the truth of things, no genuine desire to actually discuss, no genuine desire to explore the question of the existence of God. Of course, a lack of such desires would not come across well on a site devoted to the exploration of the truth or falsehood of the existence of God through discussion, so this hypothetical me might want to say that a simulation was in order: were someone to dissimulate, pretending not to know what the word "truth" meant, then one could simulate a desire for earnest discussion, merely claiming that an unobtainable "universal" definition was keeping a real discussion from proceeding. In other words, I might hypothetically say that the call for a universally accepted definition was a dissimulation intended to simulate a genuine desire to debate.

This is nothing that is just, playing head games, and is pure nonsense in my opinion. I don't have respect for that kind of pretentiousness. It doesn't have any VALUE add in real life.. it allows people to pat themselves on the back and proclaim how clever they are, but none of it can be shown to be accurate.