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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by JehovahsWitness]

Well, 1. You (pl.) can't show that Jesus is anything other than a religious construct invented by Emperor Constantine. So Jesus wouldn't be there for you to be with.
2. You can't show that you (pl.) know better than your forefathers in religion, the Sadducee and Pharisee.

Or can you?

I for one would believe folks who spoke their original language and knew and practiced those original beliefs, that were difficult, perhaps, to believe and follow, rather than a modern apologist, with a brand new "easy-on-the-eyes" religion.

But, convince me...
By analogy, how many JWs know first century Greek, better than a first century Grecian?
How many JWs know Jehovah better than a first century Jew?

and then how could you tell them THEY are wrong because of your beliefs.

My turn to LOL, I think... but I'll hold it out of respect.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to 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?

I am suggesting that the Bible was very clearly written by humans, and therefore should be accorded no more, or less, authority than any other book written by humans. In fact, since the Bible was written by ancient humans who lived thousands of years ago, we should reasonably expect that as time has passed and our store of knowledge and understanding of the functioning of the universe has increased, we should rightly expect to have come to vastly more accurate and rational conclusions with the passage of time, and should reasonably expect to dismiss, or at least begin to phase out, the erroneous beliefs and conclusions that our ancient ancestors came to. Just as I would expect our descendants to have new and better information on the functioning of the universe in the future, and to phase out the inaccurate and erroneous concepts that we might be holding today.

[Justin108]

If someone doesn't want to respect the law of the land where they live, they are free to leave but living within a nation's territories implies you will comply with the laws of that country or face the consequences.

"If you don't like being executed for blasphemy against Muhammad, just leave Iran"
"If you don't like being executed for marrying a non-Muslim, just leave Sudan"

Your reasoning disregards the severity of every immoral law. No matter how depraved and unjust a law is, it's your fault for living there.

Why didn't the Jews follow this rationality? How many times did the Jews invade a different country for laws they disagree with? For worshiping other gods or sacrificing children? If you don't like sacrificing children, you are "free to leave", right? All laws are immediately justified because if you don't like a law, you are "free to leave"

Demanding the "right" to work yourself (or your employee or animals) into the ground.

This is a clear strawman. Working on weekends does not automatically mean you work yourself into the ground. I work on weekends all the time and I cope quite fine.

(or your employee or animals)

If your argument is that this was for the sake of the employees or animals, then have the Sabbath law state that! "Ye shall not require thy employees to work on the Sabbath. But if you want to work on the Sabbath, then go ahead". The fact that it was the one working on the Sabbath that ends up being executed tells us that this is not about protecting employees because employees would be the ones being executed.

The right "to work seven days a week without a break" would be a perverse issue to attempt to promote, even today.

What are you talking about? We have that right! I can work as much as I like and no one will stone me to death! Hell, I won't even get a fine!

You get that "having a right" and "being forced to" are two different things, right? We have the right to work on weekends, but that does not mean we are forced to. It just means that if you have things to do and you're bored on the weekend, then you are free to do it if you feel like it.

That would be paramount to demanding the right to work yourself into the ground like a slave.

I have the right to work seven days a week yet I do not work myself into the ground like a slave... so there goes that theory.

No one needed at the time, to work seven days a week and no one would starve or die because they took a day off

Ironically though, they would die for not taking a day off.

The fact that working seven days a week was unnecessary does not justify killing someone over it. What harm is there in a man spending his own time doing his own work? If he believe he stands to gain from it, then what's the big deal? Who is he harming by gathering sticks?

Looking at things practically, one could argue that giving workers a day OFF is a very compassionate provision

Yes. Then give the right to have a day of, not an obligation under penalty of death!

As has been stated this law wasn't "cruel" or "unreasonable" because working 7/7 is not a human right

It is a human right! He have that right! I have the right to work on weekends! I do it all the time!

But let's pretend it was illegal to work on Saturdays... does that mean that it merits death? Theft - an act that harms people - does not even deserve death! So why would working on a Saturday deserve death?

on the contrary modern laws reflect this principle of giving workers time of and make it illegal in many countries to make employees work without time off

If that was the intended purpose of the Sabbath, then why not simply have the Sabbath force employers to give their employees the day off?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to 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?

I am suggesting that the Bible was very clearly written by humans, and therefore should be accorded no more, or less, authority than any other book written by humans. In fact, since the Bible was written by ancient humans who lived thousands of years ago, we should reasonably expect that as time has passed and our store of knowledge and understanding of the functioning of the universe has increased, we should rightly expect to have come to vastly more accurate and rational conclusions with the passage of time, and should reasonably expect to dismiss, or at least begin to phase out, the erroneous beliefs and conclusions that our ancient ancestors came to. Just as I would expect our descendants to have new and better information on the functioning of the universe in the future, and to phase out the inaccurate and erroneous concepts that we might be holding today.

Hey ToTN!! Hope you are fine and dandy this day!!

I understand what you are saying. The Bible was written by people who didn't have the knowledge or insight that we do now. What they couldn't explain, they chucked up to being God. The problem that I have with that, is what purpose would it serve to write all this documentation down, and preserve it and consider it Holy if it were just mere words written by confused people? All these sacred texts found at different places were not just discarded like we do junk mail. Surely, after generations and generations of knowledge obtained, the people would consider the words of their ancestors rubbish, unless it held some form of truth.

With all this knowledge that we have today, why would so many people believe the truth in those pages? Why would millions upon millions of people for thousands of generations find hope, strength, insight, and love in those pages?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 34 by Peds nurse]

The problem that I have with that, is what purpose would it serve to write all this documentation down, and preserve it and consider it Holy if it were just mere words written by confused people?

1. They're confused
2. In their confusion, they write down these words.
3. They think the words to be Holy.
4. They preserve them, BECAUSE they think the words to be Holy.

There. We have all the justification we need. Or in that blurb I quoted from you, are you talking about two separate (groups of) people? One who wrote down and preserved the words, and the other who was confused?

[Peds nurse]

[Replying to post 34 by Peds nurse]

The problem that I have with that, is what purpose would it serve to write all this documentation down, and preserve it and consider it Holy if it were just mere words written by confused people?

1. They're confused
2. In their confusion, they write down these words.
3. They think the words to be Holy.
4. They preserve them, BECAUSE they think the words to be Holy.

Hey Riku!!

I am hoping that you really considered your reply before you posted. So, a bunch of confused people wrote down a bunch of words and some of them were a prophetic in nature (such as Isaiah) which came to pass thousands of years later? Because these confused people thought the words to be Holy, they preserved these words for thousands upon thousands of generations...all the while practicing what these words said. So now in this very day and age, there are millions of confused people walking around believing those same passages? Some of these confused people hold PHD's. Some of these people are physicians, lawyers, scientists, and psychologists. Some of these confused people are our neighbors, our friends, and maybe even our families?

There. We have all the justification we need. Or in that blurb I quoted from you, are you talking about two separate (groups of) people? One who wrote down and preserved the words, and the other who was confused?

That isn't a very good argument.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 36 by Peds nurse]

So now in this very day and age, there are millions of confused people walking around believing those same passages? Some of these confused people hold PHD's.

So? PhD's don't mean that a person is immune from believing something for bad reasons.

Because these confused people thought the words to be Holy, they preserved these words for thousands upon thousands of generations...all the while practicing what these words said.

Thousands of generations would equal tens/hundreds of thousands of years. Just saiyan.
But yeah. They thought the words to be holy, and so preserved them and practiced them.

So, a bunch of confused people wrote down a bunch of words and some of them were a prophetic in nature (such as Isaiah) which came to pass thousands of years later?

Isaiah wasn't thousands of years before Jesus, even if I consider Jesus to be a fulfilment. (He isn't, by the way. I've been given verses before from others that they say Jesus fulfilled, only to read the full chapters and find verses right after or before the ones I was shown, where obviously it cannot apply to Jesus)

Some of these people are physicians, lawyers, scientists, and psychologists. Some of these confused people are our neighbors, our friends, and maybe even our families?

Do you know someone, anybody at all, who believes a thing you personally believe to be absolute bovine faeces, that you personally think only someone foolish would believe? Doesn't have to be religious in nature. Maybe they voted for a politician you think only idiots would vote for.
So I don't see where you're going with this. How does my friend being Christian somehow mean that he isn't being foolish by having Christian beliefs?

[Peds nurse]

So now in this very day and age, there are millions of confused people walking around believing those same passages? Some of these confused people hold PHD's.

So? PhD's don't mean that a person is immune from believing something for bad reasons.

True, but it also mean that they believe in things for good reasons.

Because these confused people thought the words to be Holy, they preserved these words for thousands upon thousands of generations...all the while practicing what these words said.

Thousands of generations would equal tens/hundreds of thousands of years. Just saiyan.
But yeah. They thought the words to be holy, and so preserved them and practiced them.

I think it had to serve a purpose for them...a great purpose.

So, a bunch of confused people wrote down a bunch of words and some of them were a prophetic in nature (such as Isaiah) which came to pass thousands of years later?

Isaiah wasn't thousands of years before Jesus, even if I consider Jesus to be a fulfilment. (He isn't, by the way. I've been given verses before from others that they say Jesus fulfilled, only to read the full chapters and find verses right after or before the ones I was shown, where obviously it cannot apply to Jesus)

So, you are not going to believe what people wrote in the Bible as either witnessed or inspired to be true, but you will believe what others say about the text in regards to its meaning? Interesting.

Some of these people are physicians, lawyers, scientists, and psychologists. Some of these confused people are our neighbors, our friends, and maybe even our families?

Do you know someone, anybody at all, who believes a thing you personally believe to be absolute bovine faeces, that you personally think only someone foolish would believe? Doesn't have to be religious in nature. Maybe they voted for a politician you think only idiots would vote for.
So I don't see where you're going with this. How does my friend being Christian somehow mean that he isn't being foolish by having Christian beliefs?

I'm not talking about one person who believes in some political agenda, I am talking about millions upon millions of people, who have lived their entire lives around the God of the Bible. There has to be something that holds them there... If one looks at the Westboro Church, there are only 40 members...among how many Christians just in Topeka, Ks? There is something that stops that growth...

What I am saying, is that if the entire thing was a farce, people would catch on, just like they have with Westboro.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 34:

...
The Bible was written by people who didn't have the knowledge or insight that we do now. What they couldn't explain, they chucked up to being God. The problem that I have with that, is what purpose would it serve to write all this documentation down, and preserve it and consider it Holy if it were just mere words written by confused people?
...

Exactly. Where claims are 'confused' with reality, it's ratiional to conclude the claimant's the one confused. It fits the data better to conclude these storytellers are a'tellin' a big'n, than it is to conclude corpses skitter about.

All these sacred texts found at different places were not just discarded like we do junk mail. Surely, after generations and generations of knowledge obtained, the people would consider the words of their ancestors rubbish, unless it held some form of truth.

"Some form of truth" is a rather vague way to go. Sure, "Y'all don't go stealin' off one another" is a right and good'n to tell, but, "Stone that on a Sabbath Day stick picker upper to his dad-gone death!"? Comes off a bit extreme to me.

With all this knowledge that we have today, why would so many people believe the truth in those pages?

'Cause they erroneously think there's more "T"ruth there than actually is?

Why would millions upon millions of people for thousands of generations find hope, strength, insight, and love in those pages?

They killed off all their competition?