I have now met a real life creationist.

[Ford]

The premiss of this whole stoning/Sabbath fake 'gotcha' is that Christians today are expected to adhere to specific laws given for a very specific purpose to the ancient Israelites. (From the time before Messiah)

I must have missed the passage in the Bible that says "these laws applied before, but will not apply two thousand years from now."

And it isn't so much a "gotcha" as taking fundy Christians at their word...or more to the point, God's word. I can't tell you how many Christians (today, not from millennia ago) insist that the Bible is the literal Word 'O God. True in every sense. Not merely divinely inspired, but written by God through men.

Inevitably one of us godless heathens points out that there's some really unpleasant stuff in there - particularly the OT - and then the Word 'O God conveniently stops being literal and/or true in every sense.

It is a bit like the argument creationists make when they say "well six days doesn't mean six days like we know them, but six biblical days which could mean anything because God doesn't follow our calendar." Goalpost shifting. Point dodging. Hemming and hawing. But let's say I missed it, and there is a passage which makes it clear that the old laws don't apply (except of course for the gay sex thing). So that means that at one time, God instructed one group of his followers (ancient Israelites) to stone people. And sacrifice animals. And all the other unpleasant stuff in Leviticus. And that was all perfectly acceptable because...?

 

[Lion IRC]

They're commanded to stone people for blasphemy

No! Not "people". Just men.

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.

That only applies to men.

"He that blasphemeth"
"he shall surely be put to death
"stone him"

Now. Let's define blasphemy.
"Gee whiz" is or isn't blasphemy???

 

[Lion IRC]

http://biblehub.com/topical/c/congregation.htm

"This describes the Hebrew people in its collective capacity under its peculiar aspect as a holy community, held together by religious rather than political bonds. Sometimes it is used in a broad sense as inclusive of foreign settlers, (Exodus 12:19) but more properly as exclusively appropriate to the Hebrew element of the population. (Numbers 15:15) The congregation was governed by the father or head of each family and tribe. "

 

[Lion IRC]

I'm not a Hebrew am I?

 

[Lion IRC]

The premiss of this whole stoning/Sabbath fake 'gotcha' is that Christians today are expected to adhere to specific laws given for a very specific purpose to the ancient Israelites. (From the time before Messiah)

I must have missed the passage in the Bible that says "these laws applied before, but will not apply two thousand years from now."

That's the point. The first Sabbath predates Mosaic law.
Noah worked on the Sabbath. Abraham worked on the Sabbath. Isaac worked on the Sabbath. Jacob worked on the Sabbath. So it's not as if Leviticus Sabbath law has applied forever - or is intended to apply forever.
The Israelites were Gods chosen people and they had very specific, temporary (casuistic) ritual/legal obligations as part of that privilege.

...And it isn't so much a "gotcha" as taking fundy Christians at their word...or more to the point, God's word. I can't tell you how many Christians (today, not from millennia ago) insist that the Bible is the literal Word 'O God. True in every sense. Not merely divinely inspired, but written by God through men.

I insist that. Where's the problem?
My parents placed restrictions on what I could do when I was young which no longer apply.
But their words are/were still THIER words.

...Inevitably one of us godless heathens points out that there's some really unpleasant stuff in there - particularly the OT - and then the Word 'O God conveniently stops being literal and/or true in every sense.

No it doesn't.
An apple can be green today (which is true) and yet red at some later time - and its just as true to use the word red.

...It is a bit like the argument creationists make when they say "well six days doesn't mean six days like we know them, but six biblical days which could mean anything because God doesn't follow our calendar."

I can happily accept either 6 literal days or 6 allegorical days.
God could create the world in 6 literal seconds if He wanted.
So what if people interpret the text either way?
Who is going to argue with God about the definition of time?

...Goalpost shifting. Point dodging. Hemming and hawing. But let's say I missed it, and there is a passage which makes it clear that the old laws don't apply (except of course for the gay sex thing).

If folks tell me they think the bible condones "the gay sex thing" I will happily argue against their interpretation but likewise accept that God alone knows whether they are sincerely mistaken or not.

... So that means that at one time, God instructed one group of his followers (ancient Israelites) to stone people. And sacrifice animals. And all the other unpleasant stuff in Leviticus. And that was all perfectly acceptable because...?

Because obedience to God matters.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I just mentioned two examples of Biblical evil. But there's loads of it. Among the worst is that it encourages passivity under political oppression. It doesn't argue some "picking your battles" type argument. Nope. This is just all out acceptance of dictatorship. It encourages obedience to a king no matter what. That's evil. It's a total focus on the "next life". I'm sorry, but evil rulers need to be removed. A bad ruler mustn't be allowed to cling to power.

And slavery. I understand that in the ancient world slavery was common, and completely normalised to the authors of the Bible. That doesn't make it less evil in today's world. The fact that Christians still cling to the Bible and claim it as a moral guidance is deeply deeply troubling. Yes, evil.

It goes on. The Bible is full of attempts to justify evil. I find the notion that anybody thinks that book is anything but nice inspiration, in parts, abhorrent.

Out of love for his child, a father administers discipline. To the kid, that discipline is evil.
I don't think you know what evil is.

Wow.... So encouraging murder of innocent people just for disposing of their days freely is a "father administers discipline to their child".

I'm pretty sure your soul is so black that you've grown numb to evil. You seem to have normalised it completely.

Will you define it, please?
Remember, there are people who think that nothing is evil, that nothing is morally wrong or bad, no malevolent spirits, etc; so your definition would have to take these things into consideration.

Yeah, but then again our mental institutions are full of people who think they are Napoleon. The fact that some people believe something isn't argument for that they have a point. So no, I don't need to take that into consideration.

I like Hannah Arendt's definition:

Life is hard and confusing. We have a constant temptation to stop taking responsibility and submit to a totalitarian authority and totalitarian rules. Just so we don't have to take responsibility and we can blame others for the result of our actions. I'm paraphrasing because she was not a pithy writer. She did coined the term "the banality of evil". Evil people don't go out of their way to do evil. They've just placed a framework of rules between themselves and reality so that they won't have to think or feel.

I'm not saying Christianity has to be a totalitarian ideology or philosophical system. Christians who don't see the Bible as the word of God, but just perhaps a profound book written by regular people with good intentions, they escape this. Or people who question God or Christian rules, and create their own rule frame work, they're also good.

But anybody who just takes the Bible as it is and does their best to follow it to the letter is a tool of evil.

I don't believe in evil people. I think an overwhelming majority of people are good. Those that aren't are most likely just overwhelmed by life. But it's easy for a good person to go astray and do evil. It's something to be constantly vigilant about. Just to encourage someone to trust one book and hold it above all others is evil. Not necessarily because that book is evil, but because it creates the type of unthinking willing tools for evil that Arendt warns about.

The fact that you go out of your way to defend a book that is so clearly morally corrupt and hold it up as a good guide to follow in it's entirety, is evil IMHO. All totalitarianism is always evil. We need to constantly educate and encourage our young to question authority. To think for themselves. Something BTW, that Christians the last century have been very good at. I don't think Christians or Christianity are the problem. It's just Christians like you. It's not the text itself. It's the mindset you bring to reading the Bible that is evil.

 

[wilson]

Out of love for his child, a father administers discipline. To the kid, that discipline is evil.
I don't think you know what evil is.

Wow.... So encouraging murder of innocent people just for disposing of their days freely is a "father administers discipline to their child".

I'm pretty sure your soul is so black that you've grown numb to evil. You seem to have normalised it completely.

I will ignore that remark.
You just don't get it. Discipline is necessary. Why?
“. . .Because sentence against a bad deed has not been executed speedily, the heart of men becomes emboldened to do bad.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)

What is evil? The child sees discipline as evil. It has nothing to do with Sabbath laws.
Sorry you couldn't recognize a simple illustration. Look at it again and tell me if the illustration is inappropriate.

Will you define it, please?
Remember, there are people who think that nothing is evil, that nothing is morally wrong or bad, no malevolent spirits, etc; so your definition would have to take these things into consideration.

Yeah, but then again our mental institutions are full of people who think they are Napoleon. The fact that some people believe something isn't argument for that they have a point. So no, I don't need to take that into consideration.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt.../does_evil_exist_neuroscientists_say_no_.html

I like Hannah Arendt's definition:

Life is hard and confusing. We have a constant temptation to stop taking responsibility and submit to a totalitarian authority and totalitarian rules. Just so we don't have to take responsibility and we can blame others for the result of our actions. I'm paraphrasing because she was not a pithy writer. She did coined the term "the banality of evil". Evil people don't go out of their way to do evil. They've just placed a framework of rules between themselves and reality so that they won't have to think or feel.

Where's the definition?

I'm not saying Christianity has to be a totalitarian ideology or philosophical system. Christians who don't see the Bible as the word of God, but just perhaps a profound book written by regular people with good intentions, they escape this. Or people who question God or Christian rules, and create their own rule frame work, they're also good.

But anybody who just takes the Bible as it is and does their best to follow it to the letter is a tool of evil.

I don't believe in evil people. I think an overwhelming majority of people are good. Those that aren't are most likely just overwhelmed by life. But it's easy for a good person to go astray and do evil. It's something to be constantly vigilant about. Just to encourage someone to trust one book and hold it above all others is evil. Not necessarily because that book is evil, but because it creates the type of unthinking willing tools for evil that Arendt warns about.

The fact that you go out of your way to defend a book that is so clearly morally corrupt and hold it up as a good guide to follow in it's entirety, is evil IMHO. All totalitarianism is always evil. We need to constantly educate and encourage our young to question authority. To think for themselves. Something BTW, that Christians the last century have been very good at. I don't think Christians or Christianity are the problem. It's just Christians like you. It's not the text itself. It's the mindset you bring to reading the Bible that is evil.

Sorry, but you are repeating yourself about what YOU think is evil. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is.
I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I like Hannah Arendt's definition:

Life is hard and confusing. We have a constant temptation to stop taking responsibility and submit to a totalitarian authority and totalitarian rules. Just so we don't have to take responsibility and we can blame others for the result of our actions. I'm paraphrasing because she was not a pithy writer. She did coined the term "the banality of evil". Evil people don't go out of their way to do evil. They've just placed a framework of rules between themselves and reality so that they won't have to think or feel.

Where's the definition?

I highlighted it in pink and bolded it so it'll be easier to find.

Sorry, but you are repeating yourself about what YOU think is evil. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is.
I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

From the article you posted, Anders Behring Breivik is an excellent example of a person doing evil, but motivated for good. I've read his manifesto. He was convinced that Islam is evil, and that socialism and liberalism, due to their tolerance and weakness was allowing them into Europe. And that was diluting our superior Christian morals. So he set about to murder a bunch of socialist children at a summer camp. Clearly an evil act. But in his mind he was helping people.

 

[wilson]

Where's the definition?

I highlighted it in pink and bolded it so it'll be easier to find.

That is not a definition by any means. Just a rambling statement that states HER opinion of the word. She is referring to people. Evil is not personified. You cannot define a word by using the same word.

Sorry, but you are repeating yourself about what YOU think is evil. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is. I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

From the article you posted, Anders Behring Breivik is an excellent example of a person doing evil, but motivated for good. I've read his manifesto. He was convinced that Islam is evil, and that socialism and liberalism, due to their tolerance and weakness was allowing them into Europe. And that was diluting our superior Christian morals. So he set about to murder a bunch of socialist children at a summer camp. Clearly an evil act. But in his mind he was helping people.

Still talking about people. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is.
I am still waiting for your definition of the word.
Millions of people benefit from following bible principles.
Is this the result of following the "evil" in the bible?:
Watch the video.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/these-words/family-worship/

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

Truly hilarious.
He asks for your definition, you give it, he denies you gave one, AND criticizes your definition as only being your definition. The one you haven't given, yet.

What he's really saying is that if you don't give HIS GOD'S definition of evil, he'll reject it as useless.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I highlighted it in pink and bolded it so it'll be easier to find.

That is not a definition by any means. Just a rambling statement that states HER opinion of the word. She is referring to people. Evil is not personified. You cannot define a word by using the same word.

Sorry, but you are repeating yourself about what YOU think is evil. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is. I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

Wouldn't it be simpler if you just told what you found unclear about the definition? She isn't referring to people. She's referring to acts. She doesn't believe that people are motivated by performing malicious acts. Her claim is that good people can do evil things if they totally accept an authority. It's the lack of a critical stance that is the danger.

An example; if we claim that God is all good and the Bible is the infallible word of God, we've set us up to become a tool of evil. The Bible is full of obsolete moral teachings. Things they thought made sense in the antique world. But stuff society has since moved on from. That makes certain parts of the Bible evil. Not by malicious intent from the authors. Just by the fact that they accepted certain things as an inevitable part of society, and created rules around that. This means that it encourages political passivity under tyrants and the obedience of slaves, justifying slavery.

As long as the Christian reader reads, using their brain, filtering out the obsolete (and evil) passages, it's all good. But the moment a Christian claims that the Bible is all good in its entirety... Well.... I'm sorry = evil.

From the article you posted, Anders Behring Breivik is an excellent example of a person doing evil, but motivated for good. I've read his manifesto. He was convinced that Islam is evil, and that socialism and liberalism, due to their tolerance and weakness was allowing them into Europe. And that was diluting our superior Christian morals. So he set about to murder a bunch of socialist children at a summer camp. Clearly an evil act. But in his mind he was helping people.

Still talking about people. You only succeed in confirming my statement that you do not know what evil is.
I am still waiting for your definition of the word.
Millions of people benefit from following bible principles.
Is this the result of following the "evil" in the bible?:
Watch the video.
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/videos/these-words/family-worship/

I didn't say the Bible is all evil. I don't think it is. I'm actually a big fan of religion and sacred texts. I've read all of the major works for all of the major religions in history. I've learned a lot by it. Including the various Christian Bibles. Religious texts tend to be tried and tested advice from the coach.

The problem only arises when you claim that all the teachings in the Bible is good. That you completely deny the evil in it. Trying to defend it, is evil IMHO. Better just to accept the unsavoury parts, write them off as targeted to a different audience living in a different world, and move on from there.

The video you posted is an excellent example. This is actually something I like about Jehovas witnesses. They've accepted that the Bible is out of date, and they've created a companion piece to it. An update. Which in some cases completely contradicts the Bible. This is a healthy and good way to read the Bible. Let's just ignore the fact that they've managed to convince themselves that they're Biblical litteralists. Which is actually really funny. But of course, all Jehovas Witnesses should make their own companion piece interpretation. Not just Charles Taze Russel. But a good start!

The first centuries of Christianity the Bible was a living work. Continually getting books added. That is core Christianity. I never understood why they stopped? The Christian world certainly could use an updated Bible. You know, one without the evil in it. Or why just one? Why not many Bibles. They way Christianity used to be before the Roman emperor put his nose in Christian liturgy.

 

[funinspace]

pretty in pink

I am still waiting for your definition of the word.

Truly hilarious.
He asks for your definition, you give it, he denies you gave one, AND criticizes your definition as only being your definition. The one you haven't given, yet.

What he's really saying is that if you don't give HIS GOD'S definition of evil, he'll reject it as useless.

I think it got to hilarious when he utilized his own definition of arrangement to make an Argumentum ad dictionarium about the universe and everything. Then other words were added to the fruit salad, like theology and philosophy...

 

[Keith&Co.]

Truly hilarious.
He asks for your definition, you give it, he denies you gave one, AND criticizes your definition as only being your definition. The one you haven't given, yet.

What he's really saying is that if you don't give HIS GOD'S definition of evil, he'll reject it as useless.

I think it got to hilarious when he utilized his own definition of arrangement to make an Argumentum ad dictionarium about the universe and everything. Then other words were added to the fruit salad, like theology and philosophy...

That was good.
But the start was probably when he denied knowing what a creationist even was, but he WAS quite willing to insist that he wasn't one.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The premiss of this whole stoning/Sabbath fake 'gotcha' is that Christians today are expected to adhere to specific laws given for a very specific purpose to the ancient Israelites. (From the time before Messiah)
But according to this premiss if I see Jesus working (healing folks) on the Sabbath I'm supposed to stone Him.

Yes, that's the entire point we're trying to make. Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which actually align with decent laws and standards of moral behavior. When you need to do that, the text you're doing that to is not actually a source for those standards. This is made worse by the fact that inconsistencies arise when you try to put two parts of it together like you do with the Jesus healing on the Sabbath thing. The logical conclusions which one comes to are dumb because the premise of using Biblical passages as a source for laws and morality is a dumb premise to begin with.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The premiss of this whole stoning/Sabbath fake 'gotcha' is that Christians today are expected to adhere to specific laws given for a very specific purpose to the ancient Israelites. (From the time before Messiah)
But according to this premiss if I see Jesus working (healing folks) on the Sabbath I'm supposed to stone Him.

Yes, that's the entire point we're trying to make. Trying to use the Bible as a source for laws and standard of moral behavior is frigging stupid because you need to find reasons to discount and ignore large portions of it in order to cherry pick out the parts which actually align with decent laws and standards of moral behavior. When you need to do that, the text you're doing that to is not actually a source for those standards. This is made worse by the fact that inconsistencies arise when you try to put two parts of it together like you do with the Jesus healing on the Sabbath thing. The logical conclusions which one comes to are dumb because the premise of using Biblical passages as a source for laws and morality is a dumb premise to begin with.

Also demonstrated by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I know nobody has come up with a valid refutation of that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also demonstrated by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I know nobody has come up with a valid refutation of that?

Well, wilson dismisses philosophy, so that defeats the dilemma... Ignoring a problem is equal to refuting it, right?
Not sure how wilson defines philosophy, though...

 

[funinspace]

Also demonstrated by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I know nobody has come up with a valid refutation of that?

Well, wilson dismisses philosophy, so that defeats the dilemma... Ignoring a problem is equal to refuting it, right?
Not sure how wilson defines philosophy, though...

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad. Philosophy is is wondering if ketchup is a smoothie. Common sense is knowing that its not." -- Miles Kington (not sure if the whole quote is his or not)

 

[Ford]

I must have missed the passage in the Bible that says "these laws applied before, but will not apply two thousand years from now."

That's the point. The first Sabbath predates Mosaic law.
Noah worked on the Sabbath. Abraham worked on the Sabbath. Isaac worked on the Sabbath. Jacob worked on the Sabbath. So it's not as if Leviticus Sabbath law has applied forever - or is intended to apply forever.
The Israelites were Gods chosen people and they had very specific, temporary (casuistic) ritual/legal obligations as part of that privilege.

...And it isn't so much a "gotcha" as taking fundy Christians at their word...or more to the point, God's word. I can't tell you how many Christians (today, not from millennia ago) insist that the Bible is the literal Word 'O God. True in every sense. Not merely divinely inspired, but written by God through men.

I insist that. Where's the problem?
My parents placed restrictions on what I could do when I was young which no longer apply.
But their words are/were still THIER words.

...Inevitably one of us godless heathens points out that there's some really unpleasant stuff in there - particularly the OT - and then the Word 'O God conveniently stops being literal and/or true in every sense.

No it doesn't.
An apple can be green today (which is true) and yet red at some later time - and its just as true to use the word red.

...It is a bit like the argument creationists make when they say "well six days doesn't mean six days like we know them, but six biblical days which could mean anything because God doesn't follow our calendar."

I can happily accept either 6 literal days or 6 allegorical days.
God could create the world in 6 literal seconds if He wanted.
So what if people interpret the text either way?
Who is going to argue with God about the definition of time?

...Goalpost shifting. Point dodging. Hemming and hawing. But let's say I missed it, and there is a passage which makes it clear that the old laws don't apply (except of course for the gay sex thing).

If folks tell me they think the bible condones "the gay sex thing" I will happily argue against their interpretation but likewise accept that God alone knows whether they are sincerely mistaken or not.

... So that means that at one time, God instructed one group of his followers (ancient Israelites) to stone people. And sacrifice animals. And all the other unpleasant stuff in Leviticus. And that was all perfectly acceptable because...?

Because obedience to God matters.

This is the sort of mental gymnastics I'm talking about.

The prohibition against working on the Sabbath is part of the 10 Commandments. The same 10 Commandments that conservative Christians insist are the basis of US law, that they feel should be enshrined in courthouses and schools across the lands, and that we're simply not following hard enough.

Yet when following a couple of them becomes less than convenient, the hand-waving explanation is "oh those are just old laws for the Israelites to follow."

Or the gay sex thing (again). All those rules in Lev. about what you can/can't eat, wear, etc. are all just "old laws for the Israelites to follow" but when same sex couples want to move in together the conservative Christians lose their mind because the OT book says "no gay sex." Could it be that the "old laws for Israelites" argument applies in that case as well? Nope, say the Christians. The infallible Word 'O God suddenly doesn't just apply to old Hebrews! Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

 

[James Brown]

What's it called when your ethics depends on the situation?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Also demonstrated by Plato in the Euthyphro dilemma. As far as I know nobody has come up with a valid refutation of that?

Well, wilson dismisses philosophy, so that defeats the dilemma... Ignoring a problem is equal to refuting it, right?
Not sure how wilson defines philosophy, though...

Isn't that like dismissing thinking?