Three Steps to be Faithful to the Bible

[The Nice Centurion]

Some things are made clear in the Bible that most christians prefer to Avoid like Plague to aknowledge.

But to be really faithful to the bible is reverse to pick and choose.

So I found out that . . .

1) Bible faithful christians must believe in Flat Earth.

2) Bible faithful christians must be Geocentrists (Sun orbits the Earth).

3) Bible faithful christians must identify themselves as Advocates for Genocide.
I present my post from another thread for explanation.

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #1]
I want to enter this debate by presenting William Lane Craigs apologetic for the Caanaite Genocide.

That W.L.C. even identifies himself as an apologist for Genocide was reason enough for Richard Dawkins to refuse debating him on stage.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... lane-craig

But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."

By some it is seen as an Outrage that Dawkins refuses to give Genocide Advocacy some dignity here.
Them see this as a declarement of bancruptcy for New Atheism. Brights against Genocide they consider disrespectful.
https://amp-theguardian-com.cdn.ampproj ... lane-craig

Am I right If no, then why not

[Mae von H]

Lane Craig or not, I find that one has to give the Bible a pass, NT or old.

Whattt? What one? What do you try to articulate with this nonunderstandable sentence?
Could you please learn from Lane Craig as your role model when it comes to speaking in words that can be commonly understood?

Faithfulness (I mean belief, not accuracy) requires the Bibvle must be made to look good, even if it means denying what it means or even (as has been seen) what it says.

No christian would walk with you here. You are unreasonable.
Bible faithful = faithful to the bible. Not deny that and deny this.

Science is denied, at need, history is denied, at need, morals (as we have right now) is denied, at need, and of course, reason is denied, at frequent need.

To take the genocide of Canaan, it is so obvious, clumsy on dumb, in fact to excuse it as the norm for the day.

Duhhh, as they say. Yes, it was and the writers said what the Israelites did or said they did (I think the history is actually different) and it becomes like normal (flawed) human behavior where a tribe grabs what it wants and appeals to a god (name your own) as justification. Such a 'that's how it was, back then' may get the Hebrews off the hook as just doing what everyone else did, but it scuppers the claim that the tribal god they had was (or is) good, by modern standards.

It's the Faithbased Fail for the Bible, from Slavery excuses (when not trying to evade that it is slavery) o Lane Craig's frankly shocking (though not unusual) excuse for the Flood as 'they were all wicked'.

The bottom line, as always, is - that may do for the Faithful to close their eyes to unwelcome aspects of the Bible, but it will by no means do with anyone who has not thrown their reasoning, understanding and morals in the trash in favor of Blind faith - at least, once we goddless have gently removed from their eyes the wool that Bible - apologists regularly try to pull over. them

It is reverse to faithful, if one closes eyes and denies what the bible says;
In this case that is: Flat Earth, Geocentrism, Genocide Advocacy.

This is an interesting exchange. You two are in the same side.


Regarding genocide, modern genocide was carried out by the atheists…Mao, Stalin, in Cambodia, is there an atheist Communist take over with no genocide? But since the fittest survive, your side cannot complain.

[1213]

...
1) Bible faithful christians must believe in Flat Earth.

No, because Bible doesn't say earth is flat.

2) Bible faithful christians must be Geocentrists (Sun orbits the Earth).

This is relative, from earth point of view sun orbits earth.

3) Bible faithful christians must identify themselves as Advocates for Genocide.

I don't see any good reason to think so.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Mae von H in post #8]
So you are not a bible faithful christian!


I wonder what else in the bible you just skip and choose to ignore.

Classic True Scotsman fallacy. I won’t fall for that trap. You can rest assured we will not tell you that you’re no true atheist.

You are free to and would be getting that right, for as I already stated in this forum me am a Hard Polytheist!

And why should I not be so fair and give the other side (Craig) a voice?

He’s not here. It’s unfair.

That means it is also unfair to quote Shakespeare, Hannibal, Julius Caesar, Adolph Hitler, the Characters in the bible, my neighbours dog et cetera! Because they are all not here.
(Though Craig has the advantage to be able to always join this forum without a charge. Or is already has. Who knows?)

Better a christian presents the argument, than me possibly strawmanning try to present the view of the christians.

You guys strawman enough with people writing their thoughts. You guys employ a number of fallacies.

YOU are CLEARLY strawmanning. by calling ME an atheist!

A bible faithful christian has to advocate genocide that happens on a flat earth orbited by the sun.

No more than atheists have to advocate killing the genetically inferior to preserve the survival of humans.

Darn! We have to think something up to stop them from doing that! You with me here?

Because its in the bible

You can’t show me anywhere in the Bible where this is but you wickedly mock and malign and misrepresent christians and the Bible. Unfortunately for you, I see through it all.

You even got my religion wrong. So I dont think you read your bible right. Everything I said can be found therein!

Lane Craig or not, I find that one has to give the Bible a pass, NT or old.

Whattt? What one? What do you try to articulate with this nonunderstandable sentence?
Could you please learn from Lane Craig as your role model when it comes to speaking in words that can be commonly understood?

Faithfulness (I mean belief, not accuracy) requires the Bibvle must be made to look good, even if it means denying what it means or even (as has been seen) what it says.

No christian would walk with you here. You are unreasonable.
Bible faithful = faithful to the bible. Not deny that and deny this.

Science is denied, at need, history is denied, at need, morals (as we have right now) is denied, at need, and of course, reason is denied, at frequent need.

To take the genocide of Canaan, it is so obvious, clumsy on dumb, in fact to excuse it as the norm for the day.

Duhhh, as they say. Yes, it was and the writers said what the Israelites did or said they did (I think the history is actually different) and it becomes like normal (flawed) human behavior where a tribe grabs what it wants and appeals to a god (name your own) as justification. Such a 'that's how it was, back then' may get the Hebrews off the hook as just doing what everyone else did, but it scuppers the claim that the tribal god they had was (or is) good, by modern standards.

It's the Faithbased Fail for the Bible, from Slavery excuses (when not trying to evade that it is slavery) o Lane Craig's frankly shocking (though not unusual) excuse for the Flood as 'they were all wicked'.

The bottom line, as always, is - that may do for the Faithful to close their eyes to unwelcome aspects of the Bible, but it will by no means do with anyone who has not thrown their reasoning, understanding and morals in the trash in favor of Blind faith - at least, once we goddless have gently removed from their eyes the wool that Bible - apologists regularly try to pull over. them

It is reverse to faithful, if one closes eyes and denies what the bible says;
In this case that is: Flat Earth, Geocentrism, Genocide Advocacy.

This is an interesting exchange. You two are in the same side.


Regarding genocide, modern genocide was carried out by the atheists…Mao, Stalin, in Cambodia, is there an atheist Communist take over with no genocide? But since the fittest survive, your side cannot complain.

An atheist and a hard polytheist couldnt be farer away from being samesided.

We two are as apart as the Sun (orbiting flat earth) and the Moon (which is according to you flat earthers a flat silver circle that is hold by magnetics above flat earth)!

Therefore you have to take up that Mao thingie with Transponder alone

[Mae von H]

There are times a believer needs to be like Jesus and remain silent before false accusers.

[The Nice Centurion]

If we do bible verses to prove our points, is it OK then for you that we use Original KJV from 1611
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611_Psalms-137-9/

Its my second favorite, right after the Joseph Smith Bible

[TRANSPONDER]

Lane Craig or not, I find that one has to give the Bible a pass, NT or old.

Whattt? What one? What do you try to articulate with this nonunderstandable sentence?
Could you please learn from Lane Craig as your role model when it comes to speaking in words that can be commonly understood?

Faithfulness (I mean belief, not accuracy) requires the Bibvle must be made to look good, even if it means denying what it means or even (as has been seen) what it says.

No christian would walk with you here. You are unreasonable.
Bible faithful = faithful to the bible. Not deny that and deny this.

Science is denied, at need, history is denied, at need, morals (as we have right now) is denied, at need, and of course, reason is denied, at frequent need.

To take the genocide of Canaan, it is so obvious, clumsy on dumb, in fact to excuse it as the norm for the day.

Duhhh, as they say. Yes, it was and the writers said what the Israelites did or said they did (I think the history is actually different) and it becomes like normal (flawed) human behavior where a tribe grabs what it wants and appeals to a god (name your own) as justification. Such a 'that's how it was, back then' may get the Hebrews off the hook as just doing what everyone else did, but it scuppers the claim that the tribal god they had was (or is) good, by modern standards.

It's the Faithbased Fail for the Bible, from Slavery excuses (when not trying to evade that it is slavery) o Lane Craig's frankly shocking (though not unusual) excuse for the Flood as 'they were all wicked'.

The bottom line, as always, is - that may do for the Faithful to close their eyes to unwelcome aspects of the Bible, but it will by no means do with anyone who has not thrown their reasoning, understanding and morals in the trash in favor of Blind faith - at least, once we goddless have gently removed from their eyes the wool that Bible - apologists regularly try to pull over. them

It is reverse to faithful, if one closes eyes and denies what the bible says;
In this case that is: Flat Earth, Geocentrism, Genocide Advocacy.

Now it is you making no sense. The Bible points to geocentricity, a flat earth and indeed science - denial unless one dismisses how it looks and insist it be as it...is required to be to look good.

That is, fits the Dogma. Billion year evolution can be denied, but heliocentric system and round earth cannot. The daylight before the sun cannot be right so something must be made up.

That's what I mean by giving the Bible a pass, NT or Old. Lane - Craig (on the resurrection or cosmic origins) starts with the faithbased assumption that scuppers the Bible- apologetics from the start.

And that is where you crash and burn in dumping on me, appealing to Authority of Lane Craig to buy the argument. And you don't get it, of course.

Lane - Craig is smart of course, but he fails because his case is flawed. You can get the smartest Lawyer in the world and get him to argue the sun goes round the earth, but he would be on a losing ticket.

Lane -Craig is smart enough to see it because he omits any mention of God in Kalam, because he knows that is where it falls down (1), just as he avoids the evidence in the resurrection but appeals to the strawman of 'the disciples lied about what they saw'/the disciples would not die for a lie.

I really don't know whether he doesn't realise that none of that has to be true, or whether he doesn't care, but it is why he fails, and so do you.

(1) the universe (Known universe or wider cosmos, same argument) had an origin. Possibly. But it could be a Natural origin as well as a god, name your own, anyway. Mention of a god (intelligent creator) in Kalam would blow the whole argument.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #16]
"Is the bible required to be presented as looking good by believers" is an interesting topic for another thread another day.

No one hinders you to make that thread

And I would be the first to contribute the fact that, if modern science would have proven earths shape to be a CUBE, then most christians would rape and plunder bible verses to prove that the bible always showed too that earth's of course a CUBE.

But bible faithful christians ABSTAIN from rape and plunder of biblical contents. They KNOW that by biblical standards the erth's flat.

Like here at the Flat Earth Conference in Denver Colorado 2018;
https://www-denverpost-com.cdn.ampproje ... -denver%2F

You can deny that fact and still remain a bible unfaithful atheist (in spite of you telling us hogwash here anyway), but if CRAIG DENIES the earths form as flat, then he's no bible faithful christian!

Sorry

But at last, Craig has the decency to advocate biblical genocide and with finest rhetorics too.

[The Nice Centurion]

Some things are made clear in the Bible that most christians prefer to Avoid like Plague to aknowledge.

But to be really faithful to the bible is reverse to pick and choose.

So I found out that . . .

1) Bible faithful christians must believe in Flat Earth.

Absolutely nonsense.

2) Bible faithful christians must be Geocentrists (Sun orbits the Earth).

Absolutely nonsense.

3) Bible faithful christians must identify themselves as Advocates for Genocide.
I present my post from another thread for explanation.

Insulting as well as nonsense.

It’s all in the bible.

No it’s not. So please provide verses like „the earth is flat.” You’ve got a straw man argument.

I take it, you are either calling (parts of) the bible nonsense or else you are just not a bible faihful believer.

No it’s not there and you haven’t established it is.

Am I right If no, then why not

You’re totally wrong. Why? Because we are the ones to say what we must believe not you.

Otherwise, cutting and pasting is a pretty way poor way to present an argument. Shows a lack of ability to think and articulate thoughts.

Why should I not cut and paste my own text from elsewhere, I already made my point to present my same argument here also?
Did you even look at it?
Your critic shoots its own foot!

You cut and pasted from Craig. That’s not you by a long shot.

Is Craig morally correct in his advocacy of biblical genocide?

Is Craig biblically correct in his advocacy of biblical genocide?

Is any christian who sways away when it comes to his duty of advocating biblical genocide, a less bible faithful christian?

[TRANSPONDER]

It's like this - the Bible contains things that are wrong, things that are contradictory and things that are not at all admirable.

'True Christian' apparently means taking the Bible as meaning what it says (poetry and metaphor aside), but to do that means science denial, logic denial and even Bible denial.

Christians generally cannot do that, so they have to fiddle what the Bible actually says to make it say what they would like it to say. Bible apologetics are frankly in a mess.

Lane - Craig may not be here, but his arguments are available. He is very adroit in dressing up childishly simple arguments in long words to try to wrongfoot the other side, but pared down to basics, they are bad arguments.

The universe had a start. (Maybe, but who says it had to be a god?)
The disciples would not die for a lie. (Who says they did, and why should we credit that claim?)
the flood and other Biblical atrocities are justified because the victims were wicked (really? All of them? It's vile)

And the attempt to defend by attacking us is futile, like the tired old 'atheists want euthanasia' argument.

Cold logic might make a case for that, but the 'Straw Vulcan' argument is part of the human instinct problem that we don't understand. Logic refused human empathy or morals and just eliminates anyone not required in the figures, without emotion. So the accusation goes.
And logic only works with editing out instinct and emotion.

No, it is not like that and never was. Human emotion and human instinct are valuable tools just like curiosity and imagination. But we have to understand and control them, not let them control us. Writing scripts (notably Startrek scripts) was done by people who understood this no more than the man in the street and reflected in their scripts the misunderstanding of logic and reason and the old canard that scientific understanding removed awe and wonder, never mind emotion, empathy and even morals.

I don't know whether this canard comes from instinct or religion, but either way it has to stop lying about it (and us) to the people.

[benchwarmer]

...
1) Bible faithful christians must believe in Flat Earth.

No, because Bible doesn't say earth is flat.

Correct, it doesn't say it directly, but it sure does imply it in multiple spots. I call this Bible apologists trying to have their cake and eat it too. In other words, you can't insert your own additional details in order to remove problems (Joseph means Heli or pretend there are gaps or pretend generations are involved) and at the same time ignore all the existing details that point in a particular direction.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory,

There is no mountain high enough to see every kingdom on a spherical (technically an oblate spheroid) Earth. This strongly implies a flat Earth. The only other possibility is that all kingdoms are in a small enough area that they could be seen from a very high mountain that is in the middle of this small area. However, this also fails. We know at the time of the author writing Matthew that people lived far enough from each other that it is impossible to see them all from any mountain.

So yes, it seems very, very likely that the author of Matthew thought the Earth was flat (like many of his time I suppose). Unfortunately, he scribed something that would later be elevated as 'scripture' with this wrong thinking in it. Bible believers are stuck with it now and must create all manner of excuses to avoid these kinds of issues.

I really don't know why Bible apologists don't simply use the same, very believable, argument that what fallible humans wrote down is likely to be filled with errors. They should be concentrating on how to distill the errors from the truth rather than pretending the errors aren't there.