Making sense of the NT

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hello,

I've been debating (online) against atheism for many years, I'm very well educated in the sciences and to a lesser degree, philosophy.

However - and I know I'm not alone here - Christianity itself, the New Testament, remarkable and thought provoking as it is, and not questioning the legitimacy of the texts we have access to, I am ultimately deeply puzzled by it all.

Christ revealed some deeply profound things, completely dumbfounding prevailing Jewish beliefs and this goes in its favor, as it's sheer radicality is just not something I'd expect to simply emerge from prevailing ideas.

Yet it makes no sense at the end of the day, for example why go to all this trouble? the entire human race is in a state of anguish, confusion and beginning to collapse, why is that logically necessary as part of creation?

What exactly are humans expected to do? it is far from clear (as is evidenced by the many doctrinal arguments over the past twenty centuries).

So that's my position, I'm interested in hearing some candidate answers!

[benchwarmer]

1) Directly communicate with each person being 'wicked' and explain if they don't change their ways immediately they will be removed from the planet. If the person continues their ways, they are instantly vaporized. Point this out to the next person you are confronting. "Hey, stop doing <x>. See what I just did to Bob after I warned him and he didn't listen?"

So basically, your gripe is God didn't kill people quickly enough?

Sigh.... My gripe is the Biblical flood is ludicrous and not fitting an actual god, were such a thing to exist. An actual god would probably use something logical and something that actually works. How did killing panda bears solve anything? How did the flood solve anything?

If a god needs to remove bad people, just do it. Why the big show of mass death and destruction of everything? My real gripe is with the authors of the story. I don't think an actual god did any of this. I think some humans wrote a poor story. That's it.

My real point is that because this flood story is not logical, it has the fingerprint of men telling stories. I'm not coming at this from "God is stupid", but from "the authors of this story were not thinking this through or perhaps were not even trying to write history".

.

Ha! The great sterilization... But this option leaves evil-doers in the world, the problem being the impact this has on the rest of creation. (Like how we're currently destroying life on earth.)

Not sure why the "Ha!" Mass genocide and pointless killing of EVERYTHING is not deserving a "Ha!", but a slow weaning of the population of evil doers is too far. Ok.....

Yes here, you seem to be suggesting a slow weaning of the population through forced sterilizaton would be a good option. Which are you recommending, instant zapping or slow reduction?

Perhaps you missed the beginning of this conversation. Apparently atheists are not providing any alternatives. I just slapped down 3 of the top of my head falsifying the original claim. Now we are debating which of my plans is better? No idea. I'm partial to God having direct and constant communication so that we don't have to debate any of this. If death is necessary, just zap the evil doers and leave everything else alone. How is that not better than letting things get wildly out of control and then a mass extinction event? I can only guess that faith positions are getting in the way.

[brunumb]

My real point is that because this flood story is not logical, it has the fingerprint of men telling stories. I'm not coming at this from "God is stupid", but from "the authors of this story were not thinking this through or perhaps were not even trying to write history".

I think that is patently obvious. I also feel that JW is trying to avoid confronting that notion head-on by focusing on minor details of the excellent points you have made. Unfortunately, Jehovah comes across as a complete doofus in the flood story, not to mention a brutal and uncaring thug.

[Tcg]

I disagree, to regard the NT as a product of human invention makes the matter even more bewildering.

Why would this be the case?


Tcg

[JehovahsWitness]

So basically, your gripe is God didn't kill people quickly enough?

An actual god would probably use something logical and something that actually works. ....

Different, more sensible (IMHO) solutions:

1) ..... instantly vaporized. Point this out to the next person you are confronting. "Hey, stop doing <x>. See what I just did to Bob after I warned him and he didn't listen?"

2) ...just vaporize every offender.

3).... sterilize the wicked. Only those who are 'righteous' will reproduce.

I'm sure there are many other sensible solutions than an almighty god could use that actually make sense and actually work.

So your "sensible solutions" are is instant vaporisation (you padded this out to make two points but that was just repetition) and forced sterilization. One is just an alternative faster method of killing (which amounts to: you dont think God should have killed the wicked, a more sensible option would be to kill the wicked) and the other option is to not kill the wicked but hope their not being able to have children will be a suitable deterent. Of course since wickedness is not generic more wicked would be born each day, so that logically would not have worked.

....If a god needs to remove bad people, just do it.

Supposedly He just did it. So apart from suggesting he should have killed them with vapour not water and done it individually over time your "more sensible" suggestion is ... see if they want children.

Yes, next time someone tries to kill you show them a condom, that should stop them!





RELATED POSTS

WHY : What was the purpose of the flood?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p874813

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p874964

Why did God not employ the slow extermination of the wicked through sterilization?
viewtopic.php?p=1061072#p1061072

Why did God not instantly vapourize the wicked one by one instead of flood the planet?
viewtopic.php?p=1061288#p1061288

Does the global flood prove God a "baby killer"?
viewtopic.php?p=979190#p979190

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

NOAH, KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[TRANSPONDER]

So basically, your gripe is God didn't kill people quickly enough?

An actual god would probably use something logical and something that actually works. ....If a god needs to remove bad people, just do it.

If the bible is to be believed, hHe just did it.

So seriously, what would you have done if, as Gen 6:5 describes, you "saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was evil"?

What would you have 'advised' God to do?

Different, more sensible (IMHO) solutions:

1) ..... instantly vaporized. Point this out to the next person you are confronting. "Hey, stop doing <x>. See what I just did to Bob after I warned him and he didn't listen?"

2) ...just vaporize every offender.

3).... sterilize the wicked. Only those who are 'righteous' will reproduce.

I'm sure there are many other sensible solutions than an almighty god could use that actually make sense and actually work.

So your "sensible solutions" are is instant vaporisation (you padded this out to make two points but that was just repetition) and forced sterilization. One is just an alternative faster method of killing (which amounts to: you dont think God should have killed the wicked, a more sensible option would be to kill the wicked) and the other option is to not kill the wicked but hope their not being able to have children will be a suitable deterent. Of course since wickedness is not generic more wicked would be born each day, so that logically would not have worked.

Despite your attempt to make such an alternative to the clumsy and petulant Flood look bad, doing it (as God surely could) in a way that would simply Remove the evildoers and leave blameless animals and plants intact would be neater and more decent, never mind God saying 'I messed up. Better go back to square 1' and begun with Noah, Though of course Adam was sinless before God stitched him up and all creation with him and Noah, though Righteous was still sinful be definition of being human.

I just feel that we look at Genesis and say 'No. That has to be mythical', even without the geological and palaeontological evidence that it isn't factual or the evidence that it was borrowed from Babylon anyway.

...I wrote a lot more but deleted it as this is rather about the NTY. But Genesis - literalism is such a Thing just now.

[JehovahsWitness]

Remove the evildoers and leave blameless animals and plants intact would be neater and more decent...

So...., are you saying you have no problem if God killed all the wicked. Drowning all those people would not have been an unreasonable solution.... its just the animals and the plants?! Is that what you are saying?

All the cries I read of "God drowned the world! How barbaric! GOD DROWNED THE WORLD .... The horror!!" Is actually an appeal for all the innocent tomatoes?

.... would be neater ...

Ahhh yes, the classic "Appeal for neatness", otherwise known as ..."The Mary Poppins syndrome "





JW

[TRANSPONDER]

Remove the evildoers and leave blameless animals and plants intact would be neater and more decent...

So...., are you saying you have no problem if God killed all the wicked. Drowning all those people would not have been an unreasonable solution.... its just the animals and the plants?! Is that what you are saying?

All the cries I read of "God drowned the world! How barbaric! GOD DROWNED THE WORLD .... The horror!!" Is actually an appeal for all the innocent tomatoes?

.... would be neater ...

Ahhh yes, the classic "Appeal for neatness", otherwise known as ..."The Mary Poppins syndrome "





JW

prancing about screaming sarcastic parofies of the arguments just makes it plain that you have no valid argument. Keep at it - you only hurt your case, no mine.

While I deplore all disaster, by hurricane, War or God if it happens at least do it as humanely and sensibly as possible. We are limited with protection against hurricanes or help afterwards, rules and morals in conducting a war and God doing his evils in a way that any human with the morality God supposedly gave us could do it better, more sensibly and in a more moral way.

The conclusion is that it is not the God that Christianity now preaches. Genesis is a myth and a derivative one, too (I think Exodus, also). and if there is a god it is not the god of the Bible.

[JehovahsWitness]

... if it happens at least do it as humanely and sensibly as possible.

.... and spare the fruit ?

leave blameless animals and plants intact would be neater ...

Oh and leave the place as neat as you found it .... got it.

Atheists (including me on this very site) have offered lots of alternate solutions.

Thanks for sharing.




JW







RELATED POSTS

WHY : What was the purpose of the flood?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 13#p874813

Why would God choose FLOODING the earth as a method of execution ?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 64#p874964

Why did God not employ the slow extermination of the wicked through sterilization?
viewtopic.php?p=1061072#p1061072

Why did God not instantly vapourize the wicked one by one instead of flood the planet?
viewtopic.php?p=1061288#p1061288

Does the global flood prove God a "baby killer"?
viewtopic.php?p=979190#p979190

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

NOAH, KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[brunumb]

prancing about screaming sarcastic parofies of the arguments just makes it plain that you have no valid argument. Keep at it - you only hurt your case, no mine.

When the main issue is unable to be addressed, the best strategy appears to be to disingenuously skirt around the edges attacking minor points instead. An all to frequently used tactic by some around here.

[benchwarmer]

prancing about screaming sarcastic parofies of the arguments just makes it plain that you have no valid argument. Keep at it - you only hurt your case, no mine.

When the main issue is unable to be addressed, the best strategy appears to be to disingenuously skirt around the edges attacking minor points instead. An all to frequently used tactic by some around here.

What's even funnier is that I called it right from the start:

Sorry, but that's baloney. Atheists (including me on this very site) have offered lots of alternate solutions. When we do, theists will generally ridicule, downplay, or just ignore them. Because how could humans come up with better solutions than their God?

Apparently it's not possible to offer a more humane solution to planet wide destruction. Apparently it's silly to have God keeping things in line right from the start. Apparently instant death is no different than a painful, panic filled drowning in front of your children (who probably shouldn't be swept up in this mess). Apparently pointing out that none of the other species on the planet needed to be destroyed is also silly. Apparently, just having wicked lines just die out through sterilization (a sort of evolution) is also silly. I grant that the sterilization option is not the most effective or fit for purpose method. It was yet just another alternative (which atheists were apparently not providing) to death and destruction.

Now we have devolved into debating why MY suggestions are not perfect. Well, I'm not a god, yet seemed to have come up with at least one more humane, less unnecessarily destructive method. I'm sure if we put our minds together we can figure out an even better way. Though, again, the point has always been that the story in the Bible shows the clear hand of men telling bad stories that make no sense.

Apologetics on display. Always fun to watch. How this gains converts I'm not sure.