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?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by Elijah John]

Amusingly enough, all you had to do was Google the literal phrase 'slave beating verse' and you would have had it. Exodus 21:20-21

Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

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?

Assuming someone answers the latter (it was Moses), my rebuttal is to ask 'Why didn't God correct Moses, prevent him from mucking about?' If I was God, and had a prophet who was leader of my chosen people, but he was busy enacting his own laws, I'd be pretty ticked off. I'd be smacking him down, telling him to knock it off.
In fact...why would I even have a prophet at all? Why the middleman?

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?

You misunderstand EJ. Thou shalt not kill only refers to unlawful deaths. As long as one says the death is lawful, then it doesn't violate the commandments! How do we know which deaths are lawful and which aren't? Well...
Yes, that is the reasoning given to me by other Christians when I discussed the topic with them.

Does it undermine one's credibility do attempt to justify or defend such atrocious passages?

Precisely the angle I use when I question the validity of the Bible itself. Unlike yourself, good sir, I don't think the Bible is redeemed by its good parts. In my humble opinion, an actual loving wise all powerful god wouldn't have allowed the holy book of his religion to depict him as a savage bloodthirsty maniac, thus giving ammunition to folks like myself.

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?

Well...they might say that their 'God-given common sense and decency' ALLOWS for what is in the Bible. Myself? I just sit back and chuckle, seeing several people all claiming that their own morals are God given, and the other guy's isn't.
You can't all be correct, but you can all be wrong.

[Divine Insight]

And why do you attempt to defend or justify such atrocious passages?

I think the reason should be obvious. Christian theology is built upon these "Holy Scriptures" that we call the Bible. If within this theology we are going to take the position that any part of these "Holy Scriptures" are to be deemed false, or not intentionally included by the "Holy Spirit of God", then we need to take action to toss these scriptures OUT.

Why keep them in the "Holy Book" if we are going to decree them to be clearly false and not from God. Either that, or we would need to proclaim that Moses himself was clearly fallible and had no clue what he was proclaiming in the name of God on occasion.

And if that's the case then we have just called Moses' own credibility on the carpet. Which parts of Moses prophecies and scriptures should we embrace as coming from God and which parts should we reject as being Moses own personal ideas?

This is why I actually agree with the Christian Fundamentalists on this issue. They are right, either every word of the Bible must be the infallible truth of God, or we are stuck with having absolutely no way to determine which parts are from God and which parts aren't, thus rending the entire scriptural package unreliable.

Once you have established that Moses cannot be trusted in everything he says, then you've pretty much discredited him entirely. And if you toss out all of Moses you don't have much left.

So I agree with the Christian Fundamentalists. It makes no sense to try to pick and choose. You really have no choice, it's all or nothing. So the Christian Fundamentalists cling to the idea that it all must be true so they don't have to toss the religion out entirely.

This is the point where I disagree with them. I agree with them it's "all or nothing", but I choose to just toss it ALL out, and simply reject the religion as never having and credibility from the get go.

Those who want to pick and choose which parts of Moses tales seem reasonable and which parts don't have an enormous job cut out for them. I would also personally insist that they write their own version of the Bible that clearly cuts out the parts they don't like. In fact, they should actually leave those parts in and just print them with a strike-out line passing through those verses so everyone can see what parts they are rejecting.

And then the question becomes, "Under what authority are they choosing which parts to cross out and which parts to accept?", this seems to be a highly subjective religion at this point.

Also, if we're going to do this with the Bible why can't we also go back to Greek mythology and do the same thing here. We can just cut and paste only the parts that make sense to us and salvage Greek Mythology by making it into something acceptable by simply tossing out parts that are obviously absurd. We could do this with any religion.

Shouldn't a REAL religion not need to be repaired in this way?

Why couldn't the omnipotent God keep his Holy Book in order and his chosen prophets under control?

Once you start tossing out verses as being clearly not from God you've already conceded to my debate position which is:

I hold that the Bible cannot be true as it is written.

If you're tossing verses out of the Bible as clearly not being from God then you're already supporting my debate position.

[Elijah John]

I would just like to amplify the OP a bit.

Believers, do we do our God, the Bible or our various denominations any favors by claiming the Bible is perfect in the face of manifest error, absurdity and atrocity?

Wouldn't we and our cause be better served if we could just admit to the places the Bible was just plain wrong?

[Zzyzx]

.

Believers, do we do our God, the Bible or our various denominations any favors by claiming the Bible is perfect in the face of manifest error, absurdity and atrocity?

Wouldn't we and our cause be better served if we could just admit to the places the Bible was just plain wrong?

EJ, it appears as though the prevailing attitude in Christendom is that to doubt the Bible is the beginning of doubting one's faith -- and that may have merit.

If some parts of the Bible are acknowledged to be in error or faulty, how can other parts be declared to be absolute truth? If some 'miracle' or supernatural tales are considered to be not true / factual, for example, how can the veracity of ANY such tales be declared to BE true / factual? Without supernaturalism, where does that leave God and Jesus?

Therein lies the danger of basing one's position on sources that cannot be verified by means outside themselves AND the danger of accepting an ideology for psychological, social or emotional reasons.

[marco]

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?

Because Matthew has given guidance here.

"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit." Matthew 7: 17, 18.

It is obvious that beating a slave to an absurd degree is wrong. Killing someone for breaking a simple rule is wrong. The only way we can listen to Matthew is to accept that what we see as evil, is good. And this is exactly what happened in the time of Christian burnings. They took their lead directly from the Bible where common sense is ignored, and evil is seen to be good.

Matthew tells us that part of Scripture is bad. It is tree bearing bad fruit.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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?

Since the passage in Numbers could not possibly be derived from the God that you choose to believe in, that really only leaves one possibility. And that is that this particular passage, and other passages that offend your sensibility and moral outrage, were NOT derived from God, but reflect the beliefs and customs of the ancient men who wrote the various passages. But these are ALSO the very same men who wrote the passages that you admire and cherish. So your option is to cherry-pick those portions of the Bible that please you, while ignoring those portions that offend you. And this is commonly what most Christians do. It's not really intellectually honest though, is it?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 7 by Tired of the Nonsense]

And that is that this particular passage, and other passages that offend your sensibility and moral outrage, were NOT derived from God, but reflect the beliefs and customs of the ancient men who wrote the various passages. But these are ALSO the very same men who wrote the passages that you admire and cherish. So your option is to cherry-pick those portions of the Bible that please you, while ignoring those portions that offend you. And this is commonly what most Christians do. It's not really intellectually honest though, is it?

My response to this, directed at EJ (and pretty much any other Christian for that matter) is to ask 'why say of your common sense/decency/morality that it is God given' when what is typically described as the word or teachings of God are in conflict with your morality?

[JehovahsWitness]

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".

I have addressed this issue in an earlier post. Feel free to consult it (link below)
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 027#764027

[Peds nurse]

I would just like to amplify the OP a bit.

Believers, do we do our God, the Bible or our various denominations any favors by claiming the Bible is perfect in the face of manifest error, absurdity and atrocity?

Hello, my wonderful friend, EJ!!
The Bible may contain errors, especially after being translated as much as it has been. I think there is a difference between the errors of man, occurring by faulty translation, and entire passages that are difficult for us to grasp because of their "hardness," and calling it imperfect. From the beginning of time, God holds true to His word, even if it seems harsh in today's world. I actually love that about God. What He says comes to pass, and this means the good as well as the not so good.

Wouldn't we and our cause be better served if we could just admit to the places the Bible was just plain wrong?

We have done this, this is why there are so many denominations, and different beliefs. I personally, think that when we start crossing out things that we think are wrong, we create a new version of the Bible.