Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[David Mo]

It's completely insincere and unacceptable for Christians over the centuries until today, to be continually altering those original God claims, and then to complain that atheists are not addressing their new changed god beliefs.

I don't get it. Is changing ideas insincere? Don't you ever change your mind? Doesn't science change over time? Why can't Christianity change the interpretation of the Bible?

 

[David Mo]

I suspect also, some of the prominent apologists like Lane Craig, don't really believe the tosh that comes from their mouths. I think some are secretly atheists, but have found a niche market for their product, and make a good living from it. I say this because I feel some are too smart to really believe. I mean some of these guys are really familiar with all the contradictory and nasty stuff in scripture.

Your assumption would only be valid if men were guided only by their intelligence. Everybody, even geniuses, has passions that are stronger than their intelligence many times over. A Christian can be very intelligent, believe in what he wants to believe and use his intelligence to justify what he wants. There is no contradiction. It is a very common psychological fact.

 

[David Mo]

So if good and bad, right and wrong, sin and redemption are unalterable brute facts about reality then God can't make rules about what is right and what is wrong and it doesn't imply that there is a more powerful being who can.

A limited omnipotence is not omnipotence. The problem for a Christian is that, without omnipotence, God becomes something insecure. Why can't God make good evil and he can make a dead man come to life? Where are the limits of his omnipotence and how can they be established? It is better to believe that God can make a triangle square by means that are incomprehensible to limited human intelligence. Better for man to be the one who cannot understand the mystery of omnipotence than to take omnipotence away from God.

 

[HansMustermann]

Your assumption would only be valid if men were guided only by their intelligence. Everybody, even geniuses, has passions that are stronger than their intelligence many times over. A Christian can be very intelligent, believe in what he wants to believe and use his intelligence to justify what he wants. There is no contradiction. It is a very common psychological fact.

In all fairness, he did say "some" not "all". While I can easily believe that a lot do indeed just have a bad case of cognitive dissonance, I also think that at least some are basically con-men. If you can make a LOT of money by just reassuring idiots that a circle is square, there will be no shortage of people thinking, sure, I'll take your money.

Essentially they're salesmen, even if what they're selling is a delusion. And I think it's just untenable to believe that every single salesman actually believes with all his heart that the aluminium siding or used car or whatever he's selling actually is the best thing ever.

 

[pgwenthold]

Well most sermons are about God's love and how little is asked of us except to accept Jesus into your heart. Take what is maybe the most famous verse in the bible. "For god so loved the world he gave his only begotten son." John 3:16.

They never mention that it was God that condemned man to begin with Or that he didn't have to do this. Or that Jesus was only going to be gone for the weekend.

That God/Jesus didn't have to go through all that was always the part that made me roll my eyes when the preacher tried to explain it. After all, he's God. He could do anything. Right?
That was what they said about Noah being 800 years old or the talking donkey or any of the other nonsensical things in the bible.

For some reason god couldn't do the one thing that actually made sense.

It's a protection racket.

See, you have to make payment to Guido (accept Jesus in your heart) to protect against your business being burned to the ground.

Of course, the Don is the one who is going to send Guido over to burn your business down if you don't pay, and Guido is part of the family.

 

[dann]

How does one read the stories of Abraham and Isaac or Jeptha or the Godly man who didn't want his male guest raped instead sent out his concubine so she could be raped and the next day that godly man cut her up into 12 pieces and still think this is the "good book"?

The same way I think that Titus Andronicus is a good play!

 

[dann]

A limited omnipotence is not omnipotence. The problem for a Christian is that, without omnipotence, God becomes something insecure.

That is what the POTUS is up against

 

[acbytesla]

In all fairness, he did say "some" not "all". While I can easily believe that a lot do indeed just have a bad case of cognitive dissonance, I also think that at least some are basically con-men. If you can make a LOT of money by just reassuring idiots that a circle is square, there will be no shortage of people thinking, sure, I'll take your money.

Essentially they're salesmen, even if what they're selling is a delusion. And I think it's just untenable to believe that every single salesman actually believes with all his heart that the aluminium siding or used car or whatever he's selling actually is the best thing ever.

Its NOT that Christians are necessarily stupid. They are not. Isaac Newton may have been the smartest person that EVER lived and he was a very committed Christian. He also believed in alchemy. No, its that they practice special pleading with their God. They put God in a box that is untouchable and refuse to apply the same level of critical thinking and skepticism they use with everything else.

My point wasn't that Christians are stupid. But the theology has created a god that is dumb and weak. I cannot for sure that a Creator doesn't exist. Maybe one does .But I can't imagine a being capable of such a thing being both stupid and weak. God has all the worst flaws of humans. That makes no sense.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't get it. Is changing ideas insincere? Don't you ever change your mind? Doesn't science change over time? Why can't Christianity change the interpretation of the Bible?

The bible says God is unchanging. So either they were wrong 3500 years ago or they are now.

 

[acbytesla]

It's a protection racket.

See, you have to make payment to Guido (accept Jesus in your heart) to protect against your business being burned to the ground.

Of course, the Don is the one who is going to send Guido over to burn your business down if you don't pay, and Guido is part of the family.

Well yeah. They provide both the carrot and the stick. Paradise or or eternal torture. If I had a dollar for every time I have heard "What if you're wrong?"

 

[HansMustermann]

Its NOT that Christians are necessarily stupid. They are not. Isaac Newton may have been the smartest person that EVER lived and he was a very committed Christian. He also believed in alchemy.

I keep hearing that about Newton, but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Alchemy was a science at the time. It included what little was known at the time of what we call chemistry today, and in fact its scientific study IS what led to its transformation into chemistry.

No, its that they practice special pleading with their God. They put God in a box that is untouchable and refuse to apply the same level of critical thinking and skepticism they use with everything else.

Which might be worth calling stupid in its own right. But that's not what I was calling them "idiots" for. I was calling them idiots for paying some con-man to tell them blatantly stupid and outright anti-intellectual stuff, if it's in support of their preconceived faith.

And I'm not even talking about paying them to tell them that God exists. I'm talking about paying someone to tell them that the Earth is 6000 years old, that people rode dinosaurs like in the Flintstones, that nothing ever evolved, that every species on Earth fit on one boat built by an unqualified peasant, etc. That's not at the point of just having faith on one domain and being scientific the rest of the time. That's paying someone to basically tell them that yeah, it's ok to be an ignorant twit and deny evidence. And for that matter to deny science.

Look, I'm not making a statement about their IQ. (Without trying to restart that topic, I don't even believe that IQ tests measure anything else than how much you've been trained to take IQ tests.) But even otherwise smart people can do stupid things. Like, you know, pay someone to tell them it's ok to deny science. And even smart people can believe stupid stuff.

FSM knows at some point I myself believed in everything from telepathy to werewolves. Granted, I was at an age where I also believed that a magical bunny lays coloured eggs and that a jolly bearded man brings presents, if that makes any difference. But still, looking back, I have no problem saying that I was a little idiot at the time and on that domain.

 

[catsmate]

The biblical God talks and acts like a jealous husband who will punish for transgressions real or imagined; he is scared that people will leave him, fully aware that there are other, much better Gods out there.

Which is perfectly logical given the cultural background for the creators of Yahweh.

 

[acbytesla]

I keep hearing that about Newton, but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. Alchemy was a science at the time. It included what little was known at the time of what we call chemistry today, and in fact its scientific study IS what led to its transformation into chemistry.

Fair enough. He thought he could turn lead into gold. Although there really wasn't what we would call science applied to alchemy.

Which might be worth calling stupid in its own right. But that's not what I was calling them "idiots" for. I was calling them idiots for paying some con-man to tell them blatantly stupid and outright anti-intellectual stuff, if it's in support of their preconceived faith.

And I'm not even talking about paying them to tell them that God exists. I'm talking about paying someone to tell them that the Earth is 6000 years old, that people rode dinosaurs like in the Flintstones, that nothing ever evolved, that every species on Earth fit on one boat built by an unqualified peasant, etc. That's not at the point of just having faith on one domain and being scientific the rest of the time. That's paying someone to basically tell them that yeah, it's ok to be an ignorant twit and deny evidence. And for that matter to deny science.

I agree with this 100 percent.

Look, I'm not making a statement about their IQ. (Without trying to restart that topic, I don't even believe that IQ tests measure anything else than how much you've been trained to take IQ tests.) But even otherwise smart people can do stupid things. Like, you know, pay someone to tell them it's ok to deny science. And even smart people can believe stupid stuff.

FSM knows at some point I myself believed in everything from telepathy to werewolves. Granted, I was at an age where I also believed that a magical bunny lays coloured eggs and that a jolly bearded man brings presents, if that makes any difference. But still, looking back, I have no problem saying that I was a little idiot at the time and on that domain.

. What were you? A moron? How could you believe in that?

 

[HansMustermann]

Fair enough. He thought he could turn lead into gold. Although there really wasn't what we would call science applied to alchemy.

That is another thing I keep hearing about alchemy, but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, either.

To really understand what that was about, you have to remember how gold was extracted: by amalgamation with mercury. You had some worthless piece of rock, you added some mercury, and after some more processing it, you got gold.

You also have to understand that that was in the context of the theory of elements at the time, which wasn't the same as Mendeleev's periodic table. It was earth, fire, water and air. So a certain mix of those was some worthless rocks, and a certain mix of those was mercury, and a certain mix of those was gold. By faffing around with some mixtures that totally weren't gold, you got a mixture that totally was gold.

So, yeah, turning stuff into gold may seem stupid TODAY, when we know they're different atoms. But in the context of the knowledge at the time, "what other mix of elements can be refined into gold?" was actually a scientifically valid question.

. What were you? A moron? How could you believe in that?

Well, I already said I was a cute little idiot back then, so I'm not sure what more confirmation do you need. Do I have to get a notarized declaration that I used to be an idiot?

 

[acbytesla]

Well, I already said I was a cute little idiot back then, so I'm not sure what more confirmation do you need. Do I have to get a notarized declaration that I used to be an idiot?

No. It's the cute part that is questionable.

 

[abaddon]

I don't get it.

Clearly not.

Is changing ideas insincere?

Nope. A moments thought would reveal that to you.

Don't you ever change your mind?

Sure, I change my mind all the time. I have a basis for such changes. Do you? Or is it simply a matter of fashion?

Doesn't science change over time?

Nope. Science simply learns more.

Why can't Christianity change the interpretation of the Bible?

They could. But that would ruin the "innerrant" part and the "word of god" part and the "divine inspiration" part. After that what have they left? Nothing but opinion about some ancient books of dubious provenance. The religious are not going to call into question their foundational text, are they? That would make them atheists all at a stroke.

 

[Humots]

Are you trying to set me up for some "gotcha"?

All I know is what I read and the rest is speculation. According to the bible, the answer worked. Who knows? Maybe with a different crowd, he would have been strung up as an idolater. Words aren't really all that persuasive.

I also know that what Jesus did not say (or, at least, it isn't recorded in the bible) is that you can't use coins with Caesar's face on it or that you can only use them to pay taxes to Caesar.

I am simply interested in how biblical statements can be clarified or expanded by a knowledge of the language, culture, and theology involved.

For example, "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel". I have heard that in Aramaic, the words "gnat" and "camel" were very similar, so that statement in Aramaic is a play on words.

So I was interested in whether "Render unto Caesar" could be expanded on.

Did it have a further meaning which would have been clear to the people of the time, who shared a language, culture and theology?

Perhaps the one I suggested in my original post?

I was asking if you had any opinion or relevant knowledge to share.

That's all.

No "gotcha".

 

[Humots]

Why?

Because, as I said earlier, then it would not cost God anything.

You seem to have a false dichotomy of either God makes all the rules or else there must be a more powerful being making those rules.

Doesn't follow. For example God can't decide that there will be an algorithm to generate the digital expansion of a Chaitin constant. That doesn't imply there is a more powerful being who can. An algorithm for the digital expansion of a Chaitin constant is intrinsically impossible.

So if good and bad, right and wrong, sin and redemption are unalterable brute facts about reality then God can't make rules about what is right and what is wrong and it doesn't imply that there is a more powerful being who can.

But it does imply that there is a reality that exists independently of God, in which certain things are intrinsically impossible or possible, even for him.

For many of the religious, aren't God and Reality the same thing?

 

[Thor 2]

Your assumption would only be valid if men were guided only by their intelligence. Everybody, even geniuses, has passions that are stronger than their intelligence many times over. A Christian can be very intelligent, believe in what he wants to believe and use his intelligence to justify what he wants. There is no contradiction. It is a very common psychological fact.

Yes well as Hans said ^ I did say some. To be honest I do tend to think the majority however, and stress the significance of these guys being very familiar with the nonsensical text they defend, as distinct from the awestruck occupants of the pews.

I would even put Ken Ham in in that category, having listened to his feeble arguments when challenged. Building that big mock up boat, and trying to come up with explanations about how to dispose of piles of animal crap, just for one thing, should have tipped the scales for him, if he really did believe to begin with.

Complete ignorance is mandatory to achieve sincere belief in the Noah's ark story. Too much detail must be skipped over, if one is to doggedly remain convinced of its authenticity. Gathering all the animals and getting rid of the poo, is just one part of the problem. Other issues like fresh water fish surviving in salt water and visa versa, fate of aquatic mammals, and so on, are almost too numerous to mention.

 

[psionl0]

So I was interested in whether "Render unto Caesar" could be expanded on.

Did it have a further meaning which would have been clear to the people of the time, who shared a language, culture and theology?

The phrase "render unto Caesar" is used in the King James bible. Other versions use words like "pay back". It is always possible that the original texts might be more accurately translated as "go dancing on a Saturday night" but I seriously doubt it.

In my original answer, I simply said "IF Jesus was pointing out that the coins had graven images on them then that would have bolstered his answer". It may well have been that Jesus wasn't referring to graven images at all but just used Caesar's head to justify saying that "yes, it is lawful to pay taxes" (though I still suspect that the question was intended to be a trap). I was responding to a post that suggested that it was all about graven images.