Fundamentalists...defending the indefensible

[Elijah John]

How bout this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property "

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

If not, and you STILL maintain that the Bible is infallible, how do you defend:

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

[Divine Insight]

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Why should anyone think that it was from anyone other than Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

Why would any God who supposedly cares about humans bother to use an imperfect fallible human to convey God's message to humanity? Especially if this God knew perfectly well that Moses would screw it all up for certain?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

Why would a God create an obviously flawed Bible?

And if any parts of the Bible are obviously flawed, then why should we believe that any of it is correct or came from any God?

If we have to pick and choose based on our own sense of what we deem to be moral or immoral then we are the ones who are making "Moral Laws". And therefore we wouldn't be getting our moral values from any God in any case.

I am in total agreement with the Fundamentalists that if the Bible is the "Word of God" then it must necessarily be absolutely 100% infallible and perfect.

I also agree with you, that it is clearly obvious that the Bible is nowhere near 100% perfect or infallible.

Therefore, there is only one rational conclusion left to be had:

The Bible is clearly not the word of any God.

There can be no wishy-washy middle-of-the-road here. That would require that we decide what is moral and immoral, and then push our moral values onto the Bible based on what we deem to be morally acceptable or morally reprehensible.

We would then become the "God of Morality". And we would actually be "correcting" the very book that we claim to be the "Word of God".

I need to add also, that there exist countless examples similar to the one that you have proposed. So this wouldn't be a matter of simply removing one potential error. The Bible is filled with this sort of thing.

A far better solution to this problem is to simply confess outright that the Bible is not the word of any God. Period, Amen.

After all, if we are willing to just root through ancient fables tossing out everything we disagree with as being immoral, accepting everything that we deem to be moral, and using "non-literal metaphors" to reject anything we don't accept has having literally happened, we could salvage any ancient religion.

The fact that people are increasingly doing this with the Bible only shows that it has no substance of its own.

And the Fundamentalists are at least right on that point. If that's what needs to be done to "save" the Bible, then there's nothing there to save.

They got that much right. All they need to do now is recognize that it's not infallible. And I would certainly hope that your observations concerning beating slaves would cause them pause for thought. It's scary to think that a Fundamentalist would think that some God approves the keeping and beating of slaves. But as you point out, that's what the "Word of God" says!

Good point.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]


DI states:

"Why would any God who supposedly cares about humans bother to use an imperfect fallible human to convey God's message to humanity? Especially if this God knew perfectly well that Moses would screw it all up for certain? "

EJ replies:

If there is a God, how then is he to communicate His Will WITHOUT using imperfect humans?

(a strict Deist would say that Creation is the only reliable Word of God we have)

What say you?

Regarding the obvious flaws, which we are in agreement on, my understanding of God's "fix" is progressive, Spiritual Evolution.

He sends latter prophets as a corrective, to clear things up.

Isaiah, Micah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Muhammad and others.

Although if the Canon is closed at Revelation, (or even Muhammad) then we are still waiting for the corrective on the teaching on slavery...because to the best of my knowledge, neither the New Testament nor the Qur'an forbid slavery.

So, that is a tough one...we are still waiting. Perhaps slavery is so obviously wrong that we do not need a "prophet" to tell us so.

Obviously, much of the above is speculation, I admit.

And I admit, there are many more flaws in the Bible as well.

But I chose this example as a challenge to Fundamentalists, as I cannot find a more blatant flaw.

I would like to see them TRY to defend this one...other than just blind acceptance.

Regarding solutions to the flaws? Ours are different.

You throw much of the good out with the bad, the "baby out with the bathwater"

I pick and choose, (EVERYONE does, whether they admit it or not, they either ignore or gloss over the verses that make them uncomfortable, or contradict their own pre-concieved vision of the Bible)

But my picking and choosing is not arbitrary.

I use the Ten Commandments and the Synoptics, especially Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule as my primary lens.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, use the Gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul.

Both broad visions are there, in the Bible...but they essentially contradict one another, and the lens that one chooses will have different implications.

[Divine Insight]

EJ replies:

If there is a God, how then is he to communicate His Will WITHOUT using imperfect humans?

His Will?

If he is a personified God who has a "will" then he should be able to communicate that to the objects of his creation with easy DIRECTLY.

According to the Bible this God can speak to people from burning bushes, from the clouds, in lucid dreams and visions, etc. I've never experienced any of those things in any convincing manner.

(a strict Deist would say that Creation is the only reliable Word of God we have)

What say you?

I would agree. And therefore the only "strict Deists" we apparently have are the natural scientists who do indeed look to nature for their answers.

Moreover, I should point out that nature doesn't exhibit any sense of morality whatsoever.

Regarding the obvious flaws, which we are in agreement on, my understanding of God's "fix" is progressive, Spiritual Evolution.

He sends latter prophets as a corrective, to clear things up.

Isaiah, Micah, John the Baptist, Jesus, Muhammad and others.

The problem with this is that it doesn't fix the problem at all. We have Jesus proclaiming that not one jot nor on tittle shall pass from law, and that he has NOT come to destroy the laws of prophets past.

So they can't be coming to "fix mistakes" if they are unwilling to even make it clear that there were mistakes in the first place.

Although if the Canon is closed at Revelation, (or even Muhammad) then we are still waiting for the corrective on the teaching on slavery...because to the best of my knowledge, neither the New Testament nor the Qur'an forbid slavery.

So, that is a tough one...we are still waiting. Perhaps slavery is so obviously wrong that we do not need a "prophet" to tell us so.

Obviously, much of the above is speculation, I admit.

Yep, and not very convincing speculation at that.

And I admit, there are many more flaws in the Bible as well.

But I chose this example as a challenge to Fundamentalists, as I cannot find a more blatant flaw.

You are only assuming that this is "blatant" by assuming that God would agree with YOUR sense of morality. But why should that be the case?

I personally don't see this particular example as standing out above many others.

Why would a God instruct us to stone our unruly children to death? Why not instead instruct us on how to solve problems productively and be great mentors who can help people instead of just stoning them to death.

In fact, this appears to be the mentality of this God entirely. You either do as he says or be condemned. That the epitome of parenting skills.

I would like to see them TRY to defend this one...other than just blind acceptance.

I would too, but the popular Fundamentalists, tend to elude these kinds of issues in a similar manner to how politicians evade important questions.

Besides, even Jesus condoned slavery and taught that slaves should obey their masters. So apparently Jesus himself was a Fundamentalists. Especially if you consider the jot and tittle thing.

Regarding solutions to the flaws? Ours are different.

You throw much of the good out with the bad, the "baby out with the bathwater"

I don't "throw" anything out. What I do is recognize that none of it came from any God. Period. That doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't still contain some good ideals. But I'm not about to support the book as being the "Word of God" just because it happens to include some good ideals.

I pick and choose, (EVERYONE does, whether they admit it or not, they either ignore or gloss over the verses that make them uncomfortable, or contradict their own pre-concieved vision of the Bible)

Exactly. And so everyone becomes their own "God".

The difference between you and I is that I confess that all of my moral values come from me, and I get absolutely no moral values from the Bible at all. If I happen to agree with some of the moral ideals in the Bible that's just a pure coincidence. It doesn't mean that I got those moral values from the Bible.

But my picking and choosing is not arbitrary.

I use the Ten Commandments and the Synoptics, especially Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule as my primary lens.

Fundamentalists, on the other hand, use the Gospel of John, and the epistles of Paul.

Both broad visions are there, in the Bible...but they essentially contradict one another, and the lens that one chooses will have different implications.

Same difference.

You create an image of a God that you prefer.

They create an image of a God that they prefer.

You are BOTH creating your own Gods.

And from the very same canon of fables no less.

That should tell you something right there.

[beeswax]

Hi EJ, Yes I went to non conformist evangelical churches most of the time and also occasionally to the Catholic Church and Anglican Church which was a dull as dishwater.

You said..

If there is a God, how then is he to communicate His Will WITHOUT using imperfect humans?

God surely has many means to communicate better to us and so why use imperfect humans that twist the message anyway? Deism is the ONLY way to believe in God and that he allows us all to blow ourselves to smithereens if that is what we will probably do when fundamental religious maniacs get the nuclear bomb and remember ALL these faiths long for the end of the world and judgement by God.

God could speak to us by destroying every mosque in the world or the every Catholic Church or every synagogue in one fell swoop all at the same moment and that would send his message that he is pi**sed off with all of them.

God could write words in the sky in our own language or an angel could appear to all of us with the same message that can be verified as everyone would agree.

Using the bible was probably the WORST example he could have chosen.

[ttruscott]

How bout this one:

"Exodus 21:20-21
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property "

Is this verse from God or Moses?

Could it be only Moses imperfect understanding of the will of God, what HE thought God wanted?

And thus isn't this an obvious flaw in the Bible?

If not, and you STILL maintain that the Bible is infallible, how do you defend:

a) the Bible's condoning of slavery, considering other human beings to be "property"
b) the Bible permitting (if not condoning) the beating of slaves, as long as they don't "die right away"

I contend that these rules are not the rules for a polite society but for a prison of demons... polite society rules would have no effect on restraining the evils of the demonic population but half-way rules can and do teach them moderation for the purpose of enlightened selfishness, that is, I will moderate my evil against you if you will moderate your evil against me.

This has led to the growth of human societies that have learned the fact that better lives can be had within a self restrained society but still, an evil heart will show itself. This process of learning self restraint from the rules of GOD also allows the prison society to believe they have evolved past GOD by contending that their self chosen rules are in fact of a higher moral standard than GOD'd rather than understanding that all moral movement of men's mores to a more benign expression of interpersonal relationships is also directly attributable to GOD as HE left the first rough rules for rough folk behind.

The fact that HIS better ways are not written into the bible until Jesus spoke them does not mean they are also not written by HIM into the fabric of all societies.

[Dropship]

..If he is a personified God who has a "will" then he should be able to communicate DIRECTLY..

Maybe our human minds are incapable of taking it on board-
Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

[Haven]

I contend that these rules are not the rules for a polite society but for a prison of demons... polite society rules would have no effect on restraining the evils of the demonic population but half-way rules can and do teach them moderation for the purpose of enlightened selfishness, that is, I will moderate my evil against you if you will moderate your evil against me.

There is no justification for this ad-hoc dismissal. Why would such a rule even be necessary rather than banning slavery? The Biblical "god" was concerned enough about minutiae like wearing clothing made from mixed fabrics, so why didn't he speak against slavery?

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

If the Bible teaches inerrancy, then to deny it is to deny that which the Scripture claims is true. Further, if the Bible contains some errors, how can we be sure that its claims concerning Christ, salvation, man, etc., are true? Also, the chronology, geography, and history of the Bible are often woven together like strands of a basket with vital spiritual truths. As you cannot start pulling strands out of a woven basket without doing damage to the whole, so it is with the Bible.

(From bible.org)

From this site, and AIG as well, the argument for inerrancy is the only legitimate way to regard the bible. Sounds a lot like the presupppositionalist position in debate, although I don't get the impression most inerrantists approach this position from philosophy. For instance, the bible is simply true and tells it like it is, and with some sense that they must regard the bible this way 'or else'.

Bible.org had the most concise definition that I could find in five minutes anyway. If the bible is errant in any way, the whole shebang falls down, and it must not fall down, so inerrancy is the only 'logical' or correct interpretation.

[Divine Insight]

..If he is a personified God who has a "will" then he should be able to communicate DIRECTLY..

Maybe our human minds are incapable of taking it on board-
Jesus said- "You hardly believe me when I tell you earthly things, so how would you believe me if I told you heavenly things?" (John 3:12)

If this were true then we would have been created by an absolute fool. A God who would simultaneously know that we are incapable of understanding him, yet simultaneously demands that we must obey his every command lest he'll condemn us to eternal damnation.

The bottom line is that any argument that this Biblical God is simply too difficult for human minds to understand is an extremely weak argument for the Bible. On the contrary it's really nothing more than an open confession that the Bible is indeed nothing but pure nonsense.