I have now met a real life creationist.

[funinspace]

I wonder what other passages of the Bible will have to be redacted and revised now that we've entered the Scientific Age?

Digital Tablets

 

[Keith&Co.]

We didn't tell you that the Bible should be the source of laws and moral behavior. You guys told us that and we're telling you that this claim of yours is silly.

^This.
And it's made more silly by the various gyrations the faithful go through, claiming that it's equivalent to modern laws, modern science, or a modern father who punishes disobedient children, BUT when such claims are scrutinized, suddenly it's not meant to be taken as a law, as science, or maybe god can't be compared to a father because if i threw my kids in a furnace for being disrespectful, no one would shrug and say, 'hey, he had every right to do that.'

 

[Lion IRC]

Hmm, yes. Carl Linnaeus and Jehovah. Both equally omniscient and infallible.

All right, I'll concede. It's hypocritical to criticize the authors of the Pentateuch for their science mistakes but give Linnaeus a pass. So let's do what we did with Linnaeus. Let's edit the Bible to excise those mistakes and update it with new information as it is discovered. Of course, we'll also have to excise the passages that forbid excising the Scriptures, but hey.

I wonder what other passages of the Bible will have to be redacted and revised now that we've entered the Scientific Age?

It's not a mistake to put birds and bats together.
The bible doesnt classify birds as mammals.
So there's nothing to redact.

 

[Lion IRC]

If I look at a 50 year old science book I will certainly need to cherry pick that which is and is not still true.
Pluto. Is a planet. Is not a planet. Is a planet. Is not a planet.
Empiricism is the best.

And nobody here will raise an eyebrow when science text books change in order to keep up with current truths.

So why are folks straining at the goads over the idea that God would have unique laws in place for a selected group of people at a very unique time in their history?

It's a huge double standard especially since a lot of counter-apologetic bible skepticism is aimed directly at alleged bible contradictions related to obvious examples where God commands one thing here and something different there.

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over clean versus unclean animals. (Leviticus)
...oh but Lion IRC didn't God declare that all of His creation was good? (Genesis)

Eg. skeptics annotated bible quibbling and whining over "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus)
...oh but Lion IRC why does God command killing? (Leviticus)

Notwithstanding any cherry picking or hermeneutics, or manuscript copying errors, or doctrinal disputes, there is NO disagreement among biblical theists that obeying God is the first most important starting point.

So even if Tom Sawyer just so happened to be right and I ought not to be eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed threads, that in no way detracts from my emphatic belief that God's law ought to be obeyed.
I'm not altering my conviction that God is always right.

No Christian AFAICT says that God-given Mosaic laws were bad laws.

Yes, once again, that's the entire point that people are trying to make.

Atheists aren't the ones who are saying that Bible is based on infallible divine commands. We're told that by Christians. Then when we question this claim, we're told "Well, that part is fallible and comes from man instead of God, so you can ignore it".

Oh, so you're talking past me and directing remarks at someone else who thinks something different to me. You're chatting to them, about what they think.
Fair enough. But I don't claim that so its a strawman you're arguing with.
I do NOT concede or claim that any part of God's Word is "fallible".

...If obeying God's law is the important thing but you get to decide which of God's laws you can break without needing to worry about it, then you're not really obeying God's laws.

Excuse me???? I don't get to decide which laws I can break. Where did I say THAT?
That is so unbiblical. What Christian ever told you that?
Man, you really ARE having a conversation with someone else!

...That's like saying you agree that you ought to obey criminal laws, but you're still going to mug people and not consider yourself a criminal.

I don't say that. I don't argue anything of the sort. What a pathetic strawman.

...Also, science never portrays itself as infallible.

Yeah, yeah. I know. that's what I said. The beauty of science. Correcting it's own mistakes.
Thanks for 'splaining stuff back to me which I already posted.

...The fact that it constantly changes and updates itself based on new information is its greatest strength

Yadda, yadda, yadda.
Constantly changes. Tentative hypotheses. Uncertainty. Yes. I know.

...and the reason that it works so well and it is empiricism at its best.

Yes, I'm sure that's just exactly what Bacon expected from repeatable, empirical evidence.

...It's the Christians who are saying that things said thousands of years ago are the guidelines to use, not scientists.

You must have missed this....

Whenever I see the religion versus science cannard I can't help but think of how prominent Christians, Jews and Muslims are among the lists of famous scientists/doctors/biologists....

...We didn't tell you that the Bible should be the source of laws and moral behavior. You guys told us that and we're telling you that this claim of yours is silly.

Atheist says the bible is "silly" No surprises there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Excuse me???? I don't get to decide which laws I can break. Where did I say THAT?
That is so unbiblical. What Christian ever told you that?
Man, you really ARE having a conversation with someone else!

What about right here:

So even if Tom Sawyer just so happened to be right and I ought not to be eating shellfish and wearing clothes made from mixed threads, that in no way detracts from my emphatic belief that God's law ought to be obeyed.

Do you eat shellfish and wear clothes made from mixed threads? If so, you're deciding on some laws to break. If you got a new job and your boss was female, so you're allowing a woman to have a position over you, do you quit that job? If not, you're deciding on some laws to break.

Now, in every case, you can come up with a reason as to why "Well, that one isn't meant to be taken literally, it's only all these other ones which I agree with that are meant to be taken literally". That, however, is the specific definition of cherry picking and what is meant when people say that the Bible isn't the source of laws and morality, but a thing which can be checked against them and have parts which are moral and parts which are not.

 

[Lion IRC]

Were recreational marijuana users in Colorado breaking the law in 2012?
How about if they do the exact same thing in 2017?

 

[Lion IRC]

Now, in every case, you can come up with a reason as to why "Well, that one isn't meant to be taken literally, it's only all these other ones which I agree with that are meant to be taken literally".

Oh FFS I never said that!!!

- - - Updated - - -

/thread

 

[James Brown]

It's not a mistake to put birds and bats together.

No, if you're talking about flying creatures, of course not.

The bible doesnt classify birds as mammals.

I don't know anyone who says it did.

The problem that's often mentioned is in Leviticus 11:13-19, in which a long list of unclean birds that can't be eaten is listed, ending with the bat. Either the author thought that bats are birds, or he thought that the definition of a bird is any flying creature (but he treats flying insects separately for some reason), or he started listing the unclean birds, then thought of bats at the end but couldn't go back and modify the word 'birds' to be more inclusive on account he's writing in permanent ink.

All in all, I think its a very minor point. There are far more problems with the Bible's science than this tidbit. But I know some people will defend it to the death to serve as a proxy for the inerrancy of the entire Bible.

 

[Ford]

Were recreational marijuana users in Colorado breaking the law in 2012?
How about if they do the exact same thing in 2017?

Colorado changed their laws.

When was the last time the laws in your bible were changed, and who changed them?

 

[wilson]

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.

There is no definition there - in her words of yours.
I will have to illustrate:
Let's just say......."depravity."
DEFINITION:
depravity
1
n
moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles
“its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity”
Synonyms:
corruption, degeneracy, depravation, putrefaction
Type of:
immorality
the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct
n
a corrupt or depraved or degenerate act or practice
That is how a definition is presented.
Now - please show us your definition of "evil."

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.

Couldn't be! You still don't know what evil is.

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.

Are you not making claims for me and then working at debunking them?
Why do you want to do a thing like that?

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.

If you cannot define evil, you would do well to stop talking about it.

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.

Is there something in their literature that says so? Please point me to it.

Which in some cases completely contradicts the Bible.

Again, I ask for clarity. Show me anything printed by JWs that contradicts the bible.

This is a healthy and good way to read the Bible.

How would you know? How many people have done that and what is the level of their improvement?

Let's just ignore the fact that they've managed to convince themselves that they're Biblical litteralists.

No. Let's not. Once again, I ask you to show me something that gives you that impression.

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!

What you don't realize is that JWs is a totally united community. What do you think contributes to that? If each person entertained his own interpretation of the scriptures and practiced such, that phenomenal unity would be shattered.

The first centuries of Christianity the Bible was a living work. Continually getting books added.

That is flat out false! A bible canon exists and it effectively prevents any new additions.

That is core Christianity.

How would you know? Can you tell what is of pagan origin and still practiced in Christendom?

I never understood why they stopped?

No one could stop what was never started.

The Christian world certainly could use an updated Bible.

If you think that the bible needs something, tell us what it is.

You know, one without the evil in it.

Still talking about what you do not know?

Or why just one? Why not many Bibles. They way Christianity used to be before the Roman emperor put his nose in Christian liturgy.

What changes to NT Christianity did Rome make?

 

[wilson]

Worse than than that, he dismisses both philosophy and theology, while also saying he can refute philosophy with religion.

Only if you're a materialist. I can refute it with religion which has no theoretical basis.

Only one way to find out. Let's give it a try.
Which philosophy do you want me to refute?

 

[blastula]

You said you could refute philosophy itself without using philosophy.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Were recreational marijuana users in Colorado breaking the law in 2012?
How about if they do the exact same thing in 2017?

Yes and no. Colorado has never based its marajuana laws off of the infallible fiat from a deity, though.

If you're saying that the Christian view is that the Bible is simply a historical document which describes some aspects of ancient societies and has no more relevance to today than a scroll about Athenian mining regulations in 782 BC does,then fine. The laws and morals defined in the Bible simply do not apply anymore than Colorado's old marajuana laws do.

If, however, the Christian view is that the Bible is the source of the laws and morality which we should currently be following, then the fact that you need to find reasons to toss whole truckloads of the laws and morality within it in order to get to the stuff which would be useful for that exposes great flaws within that claim.

Now, if you are not one of the Christians who makes that claim and instead only view the Bible as an historical artifact with nothing more then academic value, then my comments would not had relevance to your particular sect. I'm sorry that I falsely portrayed you as one of those Christians who finds the stuff in the Bible to be important. That was my mistake.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I understand perfectly well why Carl Linneaus gets a hall pass.
Because hypocrites have double standards.

Christians invented it.

 

[wilson]

I understand perfectly well why Carl Linneaus gets a hall pass.
Because hypocrites have double standards.

Must be so confusing not understanding all those long words atheists keep using. If you don't know something, how about asking questions until you do? You're just coming across as a clown now.

Shouldn't you, then, be asking what evil is until you get an understanding?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Evil is something that causes unecessary harm to another.

 

[wilson]

The laws of nature is a successful arrangement and ANY arrangement is evidence of design.

No it isn't.

Things have to arrange themselves in some manner.

Do you have proof for that claim?
NOTHING can arrange itself.

The fact that they ended up arranged some way is evidence that there was an end point, not evidence that someone planned for it to reach that end point.

Then you're using the wrong word. Arrangements are evidence of planning. A spilled cup of sugar is not an arrangement. 5 spilled cups of sugar in a circle is an arrangement.

It's like if you drop five dice and they arrange themselves as 6, 4, 6, 2, 3 and then you say that this end result is meaningful and must be because someone planned for them to have that arrangement.

Could that happen if you had nothing to do with it? That is the ONLY way they could arrange themselves.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Must be so confusing not understanding all those long words atheists keep using. If you don't know something, how about asking questions until you do? You're just coming across as a clown now.

Shouldn't you, then, be asking what evil is until you get an understanding?

Ok, go for it. What is your definition of evil?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

NOTHING can arrange itself.

Do you mean in part or in whole?

 

[DrZoidberg]

NOTHING can arrange itself.

How about God? Is got something or a nothing? Or is your God named "Nothing" and therefore can arrange itself?