Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

abaddon said:
Clearly not.

Nope. A moments thought would reveal that to you.

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?

Nope. Science simply learns more.

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.
Click to expand...

Newton's view of the universe is very different from Einstein's. Scientists argue among themselves how to interpret the data they possess. Entities like phlogiston have disappeared and the concept of cause of the 18th century is not that of the 21st century. If you want you can call it "know more" but great changes have taken place.

These changes have been produced by what you call "knowing more" and also by social pressures. Similarly, believers with knowledge of history and science have changed their concept of religion in general and have adapted the concept of God to the knowledge of our time. I see no problem. I don't necessarily see any dishonesty.

The problem is that some in this forum get used to attack Christians because of intentions and not attack Christianity for its ideas and practices.

I have known honest and dishonest priests. I have know intelligent and stupid Christians. I don't know if the Pope believes in God really. I have no way to know it. The assumption that all believers are stupid and dishonest is rigorously false.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
The bible says God is unchanging. So either they were wrong 3500 years ago or they are now.
Click to expand...

What changes are the interpretations of the Bible and with them the concept of God. I believe that few Christians, and none among those who have knowledge, would believe it possible that God to go rabidly looking for Moses among the tents of the camp without finding him.
Everyone will say that this is a vision added by the one who wrote this ("redactional" they call it).
The problem of non-fanatical Christians is not literality (nor do the most fanatical read the Bible literally). Their problem is to justify why one interpretation and not the other. Usually they have not any reason, except their desire.
 
Thor 2 said:
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.
Click to expand...

To say that someone is dishonest, you have to know him very well. Even so, you have to be careful with that kind of disqualifications.
I don't know enough of the people you mention to know whether they are dishonest, fanatical, or blinded by the passion to believe.
The fact that they receive communion with millstones (I think it's a proper Spanish expression) is not reason enough to think they are dishonest.
 
David Mo said:
Newton's view of the universe is very different from Einstein's.
Click to expand...
Newton was also an alchemist. What of it?

David Mo said:
Scientists argue among themselves how to interpret the data they possess.
Click to expand...
Please cite the ongoing scientific debate about alchemy.

David Mo said:
Entities like phlogiston have disappeared and the concept of cause of the 18th century is not that of the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Kindly cite the current scientific debate about the nature of phlogiston.

David Mo said:
If you want you can call it "know more" but great changes have taken place.
Click to expand...
Duh.

David Mo said:
These changes have been produced by what you call "knowing more" and also by social pressures.
Click to expand...
Duh.

David Mo said:
Similarly, believers with knowledge of history and science have changed their concept of religion in general and have adapted the concept of God to the knowledge of our time. I see no problem. I don't necessarily see any dishonesty.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. You are intentionally not looking. It is trivially easy to find examples of such self deception in the scientific community. Except if one refuses to actually look in the first place.

David Mo said:
The problem is that some in this forum get used to attack Christians because of intentions and not attack Christianity for its ideas and practices.
Click to expand...
So in your view the Westboro Baptist Church is A OK. Think about that.

David Mo said:
I have known honest and dishonest priests. I have know intelligent and stupid Christians. I don't know if the Pope believes in God really. I have no way to know it. The assumption that all believers are stupid and dishonest is rigorously false.
Click to expand...
Pointless anecdote intended to derail.

Now, you always want to divert into the useless philosobabble and I understand that as a feature of your posts, but that means you are oblivious to reality. For example, you posted...
What is POTUS?
Click to expand...
President Of The United States.

How blissfully unaware of the world must one be?
 
David Mo said:
What changes are the interpretations of the Bible and with them the concept of God. I believe that few Christians, and none among those who have knowledge, would believe it possible that God to go rabidly looking for Moses among the tents of the camp without finding him.
Everyone will say that this is a vision added by the one who wrote this ("redactional" they call it).
The problem of non-fanatical Christians is not literality (nor do the most fanatical read the Bible literally). Their problem is to justify why one interpretation and not the other. Usually they have not any reason, except their desire.
Click to expand...

Yes. Most definitely the interpretations change. The vast majority of Christians today have never read more than a few verses of the book. Very many Christian churches don't even want their members to read it on their own. Which in a way is exactly the Catholic Church's approach to God and the Bible for almost two millennia. Parishioners are told by their pastors the church's view on the bible. And if the parishioner has a different view he/she starts shopping for another church or maybe goes about creating another church.
If God is unchanging as the Bible says, how we view god is irrelevant to the character of God. Somebody has it wrong.

I have yet to meet anyone who can make a proper defense of why their unique interpretation is the right one. Why they can eat bacon, wear clothing of mixed threads, play golf on Saturdays and why homosexuality is wrong. Or why slavery was fine before but not today. Why Paul is the revealed word of God and Shakespeare is not. Why 21st Century humans need the morals of first century goat herders? Because 4th Century Romans told us we must? Give me a break.
 
David Mo said:
Newton's view of the universe is very different from Einstein's. Scientists argue among themselves how to interpret the data they possess. Entities like phlogiston have disappeared and the concept of cause of the 18th century is not that of the 21st century. If you want you can call it "know more" but great changes have taken place.

These changes have been produced by what you call "knowing more" and also by social pressures. Similarly, believers with knowledge of history and science have changed their concept of religion in general and have adapted the concept of God to the knowledge of our time. I see no problem. I don't necessarily see any dishonesty.

The problem is that some in this forum get used to attack Christians because of intentions and not attack Christianity for its ideas and practices.

I have known honest and dishonest priests. I have know intelligent and stupid Christians. I don't know if the Pope believes in God really. I have no way to know it. The assumption that all believers are stupid and dishonest is rigorously false.
Click to expand...

This is whiny woe is the persecuted Christian.
I DON'T attack Christians per se. I do however attack the ridiculous ideas of Christianity. I do attack the dea that "faith" is a virtue. It is not.

You don't get to say you're right and I'm wrong because of your belief in the imaginary.

You don't get to give me a lesson in morals when the book you base that on says it is moral to own humans as property and that you can beat them.

You don't get to call homosexuality an abomination because of the book that also says I should slay my bride if she is not a virgin.

You don't get to use your religious beliefs to influence a secular world.

You can't call on a book written by scientifically ignorant humans from the bronze age to explain the nature of earth, biology or cosmology.

I'm a huge fan of much of what Jesus preached. Love one another. Forgive. Be your brother's keeper. I'm good with all that. It's the moment you think you have a right to do more than that I want to tell you to go screw yourself.
 
Last edited:
abaddon said:
Newton was also an alchemist. What of it?

Please cite the ongoing scientific debate about alchemy.

Kindly cite the current scientific debate about the nature of phlogiston.

Duh.

Duh.

Of course you don't. You are intentionally not looking. It is trivially easy to find examples of such self deception in the scientific community. Except if one refuses to actually look in the first place.

So in your view the Westboro Baptist Church is A OK. Think about that.

Pointless anecdote intended to derail.

Now, you always want to divert into the useless philosobabble and I understand that as a feature of your posts, but that means you are oblivious to reality. For example, you posted...

President Of The United States.

How blissfully unaware of the world must one be?
Click to expand...

I haven't linked alchemy to modern science. I did not say that the issue of phlogiston was a current controversy. I mentioned only one obviousness: that science has changed in some fundamental concepts from the end of the Middle Ages to the present. And that some important points of science are still open for discussion. I don't think you have anything to oppose this idea because it is a banality.
I've said it before. It is easy to find examples among educated believers where their desire to believe is stronger than their intelligence and makes them commit primary mistakes. That does not mean they are dishonest. Dishonesty is willingness to deceive. It implies an intention: to say what is not believed. Believers who convince themselves of some falsehoods do not do so with the intent to deceive. Even if they deceive themselves with flimsy reasons, they believe it.

I have not said anywhere that religion is "OK" in any of its manifestations or sects. I rater think the opposite. Even if I am not too interested, I can discuss whether any particular case is manifestly bad faith. But I am not willing to apply bad faith as a general rule.

I am not arguing philosophically. I am using arguments of pure common sense.

You see dishonesty and bad intentions in everything you don't like. This reveals an inability to argue rationally really. Which doesn't necessarily make you dishonest or stupid. It's just that you haven't learned to argue properly.

Thank you for explaining the acronym. I didn't know it.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
This is whiny woe is the persecuted Christian.
I DON'T attack Christians per se. I do however attack the ridiculous ideas of Christianity. I do attack the dea that "faith" is a virtue. It is not.

You don't get to say you're right and I'm wrong because of your belief in the imaginary.

You don't get to give me a lesson in morals when the book you base that on says it is moral to own humans as property and that you can beat them.

You don't get to call homosexuality an abomination because of the book that also says I should slay my bride if she is not a virgin.

You don't get to use your religious beliefs to influence a secular world.

You can't call on a book written by scientifically ignorant humans from the bronze age to explain the nature of earth, biology or cosmology.

I'm a huge fan of much of what Jesus preached. Love one another. Forgive. Be your brother's keeper. I'm good with all that. It's the moment you think you have a right to do more than that I want to tell you to go screw yourself.
Click to expand...

My intervention was aimed at those who instead of criticizing theories or behaviours attacked intentions (dishonesty). If you didn't, you shouldn't feel alluded to by my comment. I agree with your list of grievances against Christians. In my country they are unbearable. Especially the bishops.

Incidentally, I am not very favourable to the ethics of the gospels. When it is not impossible, it shows intolerance. For example, continuous threatens to infidels with the hell make me sick. Some general principles are nice, but they can be taken from other places less committed to intolerance. A secular morality, for example.
 
Last edited:
I pass a small local church sunday on my way to HD. The service is about two hours with a social after. The preacher is a shouted, hell and brimfire unless you submit with all your mind to jesus. God get less mention.

You dare not challenge the preacher by his manner. He brings the word of god and that cannot be challenged, nor himself as he is the mouthpiece if that word.
He does not encourage his flock to think. Not in matters of faith. He has done all the thinking that needs to be done when he prepared the sermon.

Once a person buys in a little bit it's get pulled all the way in or fall away. Mr. Preacher created that and he knows it.

The same as if grandma always told you from baby on god will cover your needs, sometimes as a gift, sometimes as another inspired to help or he may challenge you to fix it yourself . Would grandma ever lie to you? For as long as you have known she was the kindest and wisest person alive.

Then grandma is gone and your young child is going to die, medicine cannot fix him. The prayers at the church didn't seem to slow his disease. Is god challenging you somehow by allowing the child to die? Grandma isn't giving any answers either and now the thought is on you.

How can one resolve this to save the child and the mental stress? What tools did grandma and the preacher give you to work with?

It was so easy until the crisis hit. Unthinking but knowing all anyway . So many faithful live like this. It's not good for society.
 
8enotto said:
I pass a small local church sunday on my way to HD. The service is about two hours with a social after. The preacher is a shouted, hell and brimfire unless you submit with all your mind to jesus. God get less mention.

You dare not challenge the preacher by his manner. He brings the word of god and that cannot be challenged, nor himself as he is the mouthpiece if that word.
He does not encourage his flock to think. Not in matters of faith. He has done all the thinking that needs to be done when he prepared the sermon.

.........
Click to expand...

What denomination is this church? Can't be C of E as I have been advised they are all warm and fuzzy these days..... err yes ..... come to think of it, it couldn't be C of E, because if it was there would only be 2 or 3 people in the pews. No need to shout.
 
Mexican fundy christian types loosely based on Catholic structures. many of these folks are my neighbors in a dirt road community.

I would guess a group of about 40 any Sunday, young families mostly.

There are dozens of these groups in town and each with a special dynamic. Ee got JW and 7th day adventist stuff too. If you're selling salvation this town is a ripe market.

There are still quite a few hanging on to the Santa Muerto also if you prefer your god to look like the grim reaper as you act Catholic. Weird stuff.
 
Last edited:
David Mo said:
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?
Click to expand...

You can't be seriously making a comparison between views of science changing with changing in facts/data, and changing the interpretation of the bible, can you?

Yes, scientific views change as new facts and evidence arise.

How has the bible changed? It's still the same bible as (apparently) almost 2000 years ago. What facts are changing when it comes to the bible that lead to changes in ideas?

Sure, changes in the perspective of the society changes, but that is not (supposed to be) upon what the religion is based. Or is it? Are you saying that Christianity just changes with the whims of the age? If Christians decide that slavery is ok, then it is ok. But if they decide it isn't, then it is wrong? What use is the bible, then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom