tam wrote:
If a person claims to be an expert in the bible, then sure, that ignorance (willful or otherwise) tends to damage the credibility of their claim. Mind you, this goes both ways - theist and non-theist alike.
IMHO, any so-called "
theist" who is not an expert in the Biblical doctrines of their theology not only has no credibility as a "
theist", but they should seriously question themselves as to why they have placed their faith in a theology when they obviously don't even know what's in it.
So, for me, they lost double credibility. They certainly lose any credibility as a "
theist" since they don't even know what's in the theology they claim to believe in. And again, for me, they lost credibility as even being an intelligent person since they have clearly placed their faith in a theology that when they don't even know what's in it.
I don't see where they could lay claim to having any intellectual credibility at all concerning their faith in a theology when they don't even bother to learn what's actually in it.
tam wrote:
As for the passage in question, many are also ignorant of the fact that some laws were given due to the hard hearts of the people. Such as the law on divorce - being able to send one's wife away with a certificate of divorce for any and every reason, even if you just got tired of her and don't want to support her anymore.
Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt 19:8. It was not true from the beginning; it was an
allowance made for people who would not do better.
So was the original God stupid then?
He must have been not to have foreseen this problem and to need to have Moses change his original intentions.
tam wrote:
God also makes clear what He desires here:
"Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Isaiah 58:6
Again, this represents nothing more than a very poorly written and flawed fabricated mythology, or a God who can't even understand how things might unfold. But that flies in the face of a God who is supposed to be able to foretell the future.
tam wrote:
Of course everyone here is aware of those passage as well, right?
Absolutely. But those passages don't do anything to salvage this broken mythology.
Trying to argue that some God keeps changing his laws based on new events and behaviors that he didn't originally see coming is hardly a meaningful apologetic excuse for such an obviously broken mythology.
So yeah, just becasue this mythology is filled with self-contradictory claims hardly saves it from being obviously flawed and clearly fictitious.
These simply aren't compelling apologetic arguments for this self-contradictory mythology. To the contrary these kinds of arguments actually support valid reasons for rejecting this mythology as being obviously flawed and man-made.
So by trying to defend this mythology you have actually supplied information that demonstrates that it cannot be referring to any actual God who supposedly knows what he's doing and can see into the future.
Your apologetic excuse for this God is nothing more than a suggestion that this God changes his mind because things aren't working out the way he had originally planned.
That hardly helps this theology. It's does just the opposite. It's exposes the logical contradictions in the Biblical doctrines upon which this theology is built.
