Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Norman Alexander]

Where did Mary and Joseph come from?

Palestine.

 

[theprestige]

Christians aren't under the Law of Moses. (to be clear)

I have reasonable clarity in my own mind. (we don't know everything)
Other Christians claim that I have crossed a line and have lost my way.

I'm curious about your views on that.

Why would I have any views on your doctrinal disputes with other Christians? Are you thinking ISF is some sort of theological arbiter?

One thing I notice here.
Folks tend to pick a view that they believe and discount all others.
I expected a bit more open-mindedness.

Sure, okay. But what does this have to do with your theological disputes with other Christians? Shouldn't you be talking to them? Or consulting with a priest or pastor who takes these things seriously and is well informed about them?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Agree about all of the mythologies above - also all kinds of trickster gods, and similar. And Small Gods. And the God of Small Things.

And Abraham's throuple is of course woven into a lot of poetry and prose, and a million other kinds of art that I enjoy, since I am a cultural christian. I approve of all mythology, in fact, but none of the religions...

I'll go for the pantheon of Stan Lee, entertainment is baked in, they have no commandments beyond "power brings responsibility for those with none" which ain't a bad starting point, and they're no less credible than any other mythology.

 

[Steve]

Christians aren't under the Law of Moses. (to be clear)

I have reasonable clarity in my own mind. (we don't know everything)
Other Christians claim that I have crossed a line and have lost my way.

I'm curious about your views on that.

One thing I notice here.
Folks tend to pick a view that they believe and discount all others.
I expected a bit more open-mindedness.

You are not paying attention. Most folks here gave not merely "picked a view". They have arrived at their positions based on years of consideration and exposure to the writings, and arguments, of Christianity (and other religions). The discounting of pro-christianity views has come after careful consideration of all available facts, and discrepancies. And folks here have shown in this very thread that they are able to clearly support their carefully considered views much better than a person who "just knows" that the views they picked are the correct ones and who discounts all others.

 

[acbytesla]

Now you can, but where did it originate?

As others have said, morality has evolved over time, since probably before we were even humans. You can read about this and see how moral codes have changed over time and from culture to culture. No religion required.

The problem for Rusty is that he attributes everything to God including morality. But I don't know how this is possible because the Abrahamic God is not moral.
Let's first make it clear that I don't believe that any god is real. I'm saying that the foundational literary God character that is the basis for Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism is not good.
In their holy books,
God tells the first lie.
God punishes the innocent including children for his actions.
God commands man to own their brethren as if they are cattle.
God orders the subjugation of women. He makes them sex slaves.
God punishes women for having sex. If they are raped, their rapist can be ordered to marry their rapist.
The God of the Bible instructs man not to think. He orders worship.

None of this is moral.

 

[theprestige]

@Rusty Tyler , you need to try a different approach. Everyone here considers the Bible to be claims, not evidence. If you want to argue here, that the Biblical claims are true, you need to provide supporting evidence from other sources. That's how you win hearts and minds here.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem for Rusty is that he attributes everything to God including morality. But I don't know how this is possible because the Abrahamic God is not moral.

It's moral when God says it's moral.

 

[theprestige]

@Rusty Tyler, let me understand: Other Christians chased you away from their forums, so now you're here, pleading your case to literally the worst audience ever.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

The problem for Rusty is that he attributes everything to God including morality. But I don't know how this is possible because the Abrahamic God is not moral.
Let's first make it clear that I don't believe that any god is real. I'm saying that the foundational literary God character that is the basis for Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism is not good.

God tells the first lie.
God punishes the innocent including children for his actions.
God commands man to own their brethren as if they are cattle.
God orders the subjugation of women. He makes them sex slaves.
God punishes women for having sex. If they are raped, their rapist can be ordered to marry their rapist.
The God of the Bible instructs man not to think. He orders worship.

None of this is moral.

Also, of course (as you already touched upon), a lot of our freedoms we enjoy today we have despite Christianity. Freedom of speech and of religion, no more forced Christianity or blasphemy laws. Women's rights and gay rights. Modern justice systems are way more advanced than what they had in the bronze age, too.

 

[acbytesla]

It's moral when God says it's moral.

The problem with that beyond that it is divine command theory. It is special pleading.

If any being other than God did these things, almost no one would judge it to be moral. It's no better than running a NAZI extermination camps or leading the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe. Just following orders is not a defense, Neither was being an Israelite and committing genocide on the neighboring tribes.

Finally, how does one know that the laws and commands what we were told were from God, were from God? Or something pulled out of someone's ass?

 

[The Atheist]

There are few things funnier than people trying to interpret a series of manuscripts cherry-picked by various groups to try to give legitimacy to their religion.

Rusty, my apologies, I haven't been reading the thread. What's your opinion on the Apocrypha? And please specify which apocrypha and your individual take on them.

Thanks

 

[Foster Zygote]

It's moral when God says it's moral.

Which leads me to my biggest problem with claims of divinely derived morality. Namely that one isn't inclined to defend it. People simply assert that their morality comes from a divine agency and is therefore objective, when in reality it's as subjective as anyone else's. But they abdicate responsibility for justifying their morality by resorting to "God said so". This has allowed all manner of terrible behavior to be perpetrated by people who assure themselves that they are objectively right and refuse to even entertain the idea that they could be wrong.

I prefer to admit that morality is a subjective human construct and accept responsibility for having to vigorously defend my code of right and wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

Which leads me to my biggest problem with claims of divinely derived morality. Namely that one isn't inclined to defend it. People simply assert that their morality comes from a divine agency and is therefore objective, when in reality it's as subjective as anyone else's. But they abdicate responsibility for justifying their morality by resorting to "God said so". This has allowed all manner of terrible behavior to be perpetrated by people who assure themselves that they are objectively right and refuse to even entertain the idea that they could be wrong.

I prefer to admit that morality is a subjective human construct and accept responsibility for having to vigorously defend my code of right and wrong.

This is well expressed.

I couldn't agree more. Relying on a phantom god or gods is abdicating one's responsibility.

 

[JayUtah]

@Rusty Tyler , you need to try a different approach. Everyone here considers the Bible to be claims, not evidence. If you want to argue here, that the Biblical claims are true, you need to provide supporting evidence from other sources. That's how you win hearts and minds here.

The approach of proving supernatural religious claims by citing to the Bible and then trying to habilitate the Bible for that purpose will inevitably fall flat with skeptics. When the argument is

Why should we believe this supernatural claim?​

Because it's recorded in the Bible and the Bible should be considered reliable,​

how the skeptic finishes that hypothetical dialogue is

No, the inclusion of irrational, supernatural claims is a reason to consider the Bible unreliable. And the supernatural claims themselves are improbable on their face.​

"The Bible proves it" works only if you either already accept the Bible blindly or already accept supernatural events blindly or both. That's the only way a one-two-punch mutually supportive argument works, such as when we can assemble independent consilient evidence for a novel claim. Asking why we don't accept the biblical account of a patently irrational claim should not need a belabored answer.

 

[JayUtah]

People simply assert that their morality comes from a divine agency and is therefore objective...

I think it's more accurate to characterize the morality as having come from a divine source and is therefore metaphysically correct and unassailable. Stating that something is the "will of God" implies that God has a will. Someone's will may not necessarily be objective. But the will of a supreme being can be postured as perfect and therefore beyond rational debate.

But they abdicate responsibility for justifying their morality by resorting to "God said so". This has allowed all manner of terrible behavior to be perpetrated by people who assure themselves that they are objectively right and refuse to even entertain the idea that they could be wrong.

There is no more dangerous a person than a monster who believes he's right with God.

Not only do they abdicate their intellectual responsibility, they respond to criticism that cites to obvious injustice, abuse, and discrimination by saying that their morality comes from a higher source that isn't susceptible to frail human understanding. I simply can't fathom the alleged superiority of a moral framework that justifies outrageous behavior by saying God makes us beholden to rules we can't understand.

The Episcopalians have a prayer that includes the notion that God blessed us with "memory, reason, and skill." What's the point of giving someone brain with such an awesome capacity for critical thinking, logical analysis, and curiosity if they're just meant to surrender all that to some guy's, "Because God said so," and the associated warm-fuzzy?

I prefer to admit that morality is a subjective human construct and accept responsibility for having to vigorously defend my code of right and wrong.

Exactly. It's so frustrating when religionists say, "If you don't have a God you can't have morality," when I can speak at length about where my morality comes from and why I think it works. I can answer questions about it without having to resort to an invisible, mute being or something like, "It just makes me feel good."

 

[Rusty Tyler]

iscarding it as the divine word of God robs it of the special status that you're arguing we should afford it.

I'm not arguing for any more special status than it deserves.
In fact I warn Christians against Bibliodolatry. Worship of the book.

 

[acbytesla]

No, the inclusion of irrational, supernatural claims is a reason to consider the Bible unreliable.

This! 100 percent. The moment someone invokes the supernatural in a story is the moment I conclude it is fiction.

 

[acbytesla]

I'm not arguing for any more special status than it deserves.
In fact I warn Christians against Bibliodolatry. Worship of the book.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Did Noah or Adam or Methusalah live past 800 years of age?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I'm not arguing for any more special status than it deserves.
In fact I warn Christians against Bibliodolatry. Worship of the book.

Christianity is the largest religion in the world with over 2.3 billion followers, around 30% of the global population - and the Christian Bible is central to it. That arguably makes it the most influential work of fiction in human history, with particular emphasis on the word 'fiction'. For that reason It deserves the attention it gets. Has any other literary work been more brazenly misrepresented by more disingenuous apologists?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

This! 100 percent. The moment someone invokes the supernatural in a story is the moment I conclude it is fiction.

Why would you conclude that a supernatural event would not be shared in writing?
And why would that discredit it?

(awaiting snarky reply)