Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Further, isn't it wise to consider the reality that you might be looking from the perspective of a common citizen rather than the leader of a nation? Moses and President Bush have the authority and responsibility to make decisions like warfare. I don't have that horrible responsibility, and I doubt you do either.

“I have as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it.” – George Carlin

President Bush has no more “authority” to declare war than what we allow him. The same is true for Moses, God, or anyone/thing else.

No, it is not. It isn't even true of President Bush. After being elected, he has the authority and responsibility to deploy U.S. military forces under current legal conditions, and you do not.

Those legal or other considerations differ among leaders. The authority of Moses, Saddam Hussein, and the Prime Minister Ehud differ.

Quote:
Don't we learn morality as we live and grow? Isn't it a process in the works?

I could have sworn you said that morality was absolute earlier. How can it be absolute and a work in progress?

I believe that the laws of good/evil are absolute. Morality is how we understand and behave within those laws, and it can vary with each and every individual based on many factors.

Quote:
The kind that confirm what you have already learned.

A key point in your scenario is that by rejecting those described questionable events is also evidence of one's moral growth and decision making.

If you’re simply picking the ones that you agree with, it is not a guide at all, and it lends unwarranted credibility to it to refer to it that way.

It can be a guide, if one wishes to use it such.

Quote:
It doesn't help to have other people claiming that if you accept the wisdom from a particular source, you must also accept that which clearly doesn't work for them.

Perhaps, but when people refer to the Bible as a moral guide it certainly implies they mean the whole thing.

That depends on how liberally you percieve implications. As this thread demonstrates, speculation is easy to do, and it provides error.

You’d have to add some qualifiers to that statement. Like saying something along the lines as, “The Bible can be used by anyone as a moral guide, as it contains such a wide variety of possible moral or immoral actions, ranging from the slaughtering of children or selling your daughter as a sex slave to helping the poor or caring for the sick, so no matter what you may consider moral, you’ll be sure to find some passages to suit you.”

If you wish to review the Bible in that manner, that may be the way you should do it.

But, frankly, I tend to focus on biblical passages that praise God with joy and a fullness of heart, because that's what I'm at this point in my life. At my age, I think I've pretty much figured out sound morality that is accepted in the society that I live in. I'm a successful parent and husband, well known, respected, and liked by community leaders, well liked by my neighbors, successful with employers, and start another round of jury duty in just a few days. I'm beyond "basic training" in morality.

 

[Huntster]

And in one case, they actually wrestle god!

Source:

Jacob was left there alone. Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When the man saw that he could not prevail over him, he struck Jacob's hip at its socket, so that the hip socket was wrenched as they wrestled. The man then said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go until you bless me." "What is your name?" the man asked. He answered, "Jacob." Then the man said, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed." Jacob then asked him, "Do tell me your name, please." He answered, "Why should you want to know my name?" With that, he bade him farewell.

Not asking for much are you? Once again you are describing a god that is not all-powerful, all-knowing, nor all-loving. You are anthropomorphilizing god. With this kind of statement, I can assume your god has a beard.

Cheats when wrestling, too?

Jesus adhered to OT laws. He was Jewish.

Christ was condemned specifically for violations to Mosaic Law.

Some people who interacted with the bible justified wars, slavery, anti-semitism, bigotry, close-mindedness, polygamy, etc.

And some people who have not interacted with the bible justified wars, slavery, anti-semitism, bigotry, close-mindedness, polygamy, etc.

Either way, they are all people, capable of sin.

 

[I less than three logic]

No, it is not. It isn't even true of President Bush. After being elected, he has the authority and responsibility to deploy U.S. military forces under current legal conditions, and you do not.

First, you should review your constitutional knowledge. Mr. Bush can deploy troops, my statement was declare war. Remember?

Second, no leader has any more authority over their troops or citizens than what those people allow them to have. The troops do not have to follow every and any order given to them by anyone, even Mr. Bush himself. Also, citizens can strip any and all powers they had previously given to their government, perhaps you should read up our country's history a bit.

It all comes down to a numbers game, but the reality is that no leader has any more power than what we allow them to.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No, it is not. It isn't even true of President Bush. After being elected, he has the authority and responsibility to deploy U.S. military forces under current legal conditions, and you do not.

First, you should review your constitutional knowledge. Mr. Bush can deploy troops, my statement was declare war. Remember?

Actually, no I didn't realize the point had evolved to "declare war." My original point was:

Moses and President Bush have the authority and responsibility to make decisions like warfare.

Your response included:

President Bush has no more “authority” to declare war than what we allow him. The same is true for Moses, God, or anyone/thing else.

You are partially correct. President Bush does not have “authority” to declare war, even though the War Powers Act allows him to conduct warfare, even without a declaration of such from Congress. Also, as I pointed out, the same is not true for Moses or other national leaders, because laws, customs, powers, etc vary dramatically.

Second, no leader has any more authority over their troops or citizens than what those people allow them to have.

Do you include such leaders as Stalin, Hitler, Hussein in that blanket statement?

The troops do not have to follow every and any order given to them by anyone, even Mr. Bush himself.

Yes they do, even in our current military law. If they feel that to follow the orders of a superior is against the law, they are subject to judgement. Disobedience in most military environments is strictly regulated.

Also, citizens can strip any and all powers they had previously given to their government, perhaps you should read up our country's history a bit.

Your attempt to isolate debate of this point to American law does not damage the point.

It all comes down to a numbers game, but the reality is that no leader has any more power than what we allow them to.

That is not true universally.

 

[I less than three logic]

Actually, no I didn't realize the point had evolved to "declare war." My original point was:



Your response included:



You are partially correct. President Bush does not have “authority” to declare war, even though the War Powers Act allows him to conduct warfare, even without a declaration of such from Congress. Also, as I pointed out, the same is not true for Moses or other national leaders, because laws, customs, powers, etc vary dramatically.

Sorry, I took "make decisions like warfare" as declaring war.

Do you include such leaders as Stalin, Hitler, Hussein in that blanket statement?

Absolutely. They had no more power than what was allow by their followers. Like I said it is a numbers game. They may of had the right followers to force the others into submission, but their power still came from others. If their troops took moral responsibility upon themselves to disobey orders of killing innocent people or launching some kind of chemical attack on civilians, they would have had no power.

Yes they do, even in our current military law. If they feel that to follow the orders of a superior is against the law, they are subject to judgement. Disobedience in most military environments is strictly regulated.

If they all disobeyed, what power would the leaders have?

That is not true universally.

Of course it is. If the leader does not have enough followers they have no power.

 

[Tony]

So, you can call me an a-hole but Tony can't call you an ignoramus. You sir are a hypocrite.

Dammit randfan, are you being an a-hole again? Hey, I guess it's better to be an a-hole than a whole-a.

 

[Tony]

Sorry, mister.

Your gone. I don't have to take this crap from you.

Like a cowardly mutt you run away with your tail between your legs. Like all hypocrites, you can dish it out, but you can't take it. What was it you said earlier?

You know how much you injure the Beast by how loud he screams

Indeed.

 

[triadboy]

Jacob was left there alone. Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When the man saw that he could not prevail over him, he struck Jacob's hip at its socket, so that the hip socket was wrenched as they wrestled. The man then said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go until you bless me." "What is your name?" the man asked. He answered, "Jacob." Then the man said, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed." Jacob then asked him, "Do tell me your name, please." He answered, "Why should you want to know my name?" With that, he bade him farewell.

That was a bad source. Use this one:

http://www.essex1.com/people/paul/bible34.html

“You shall be called Israel, which means ‘I have wrestled with God’.”

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Jacob was left there alone. Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn. When the man saw that he could not prevail over him, he struck Jacob's hip at its socket, so that the hip socket was wrenched as they wrestled. The man then said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go until you bless me." "What is your name?" the man asked. He answered, "Jacob." Then the man said, "You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed." Jacob then asked him, "Do tell me your name, please." He answered, "Why should you want to know my name?" With that, he bade him farewell.

That was a bad source. Use this one:

http://www.essex1.com/people/paul/bible34.html

Interesting. I cite the passage from the New American Bible (authorized version for North America by the Roman Catholic Church), you label it "a bad source", then recommend one copyrighted by an idividual named Paul Dallgas-Frey?

No, thanks. I'll stick with the RCC version.

 

[triadboy]

Interesting. I cite the passage from the New American Bible (authorized version for North America by the Roman Catholic Church), you label it "a bad source", then recommend one copyrighted by an idividual named Paul Dallgas-Frey?

No, thanks. I'll stick with the RCC version.

The site was "Bible Stories For Kids". I guess I'm not sure how old you are.

Here is another site:

http://www.fatherdave.org/article/article_53.html

So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved."

 

[Tony]

It's not too strong a word. I see idiots describing the Bible all the time around here.

-Elliot

elliotfc: Exhibit A.

 

[Czarzy]

Hunster,
You have referred to God as "He". Would you ever refer to God as "She"?
If not, why not---is it because God is never referred to in the Bible as "She"?
Then, if it is as written in the Bible that "mankind" was created in God's image, is it that women were not created as such? But if they too are, then why not ever refer to God as "She"? I would really like to know your reasoning about this. Off-topic, yes, but this is a question that hit me by the second page and has had me searching for understanding throughout all these pages.

Thanks.

 

[Huntster]

......I guess I'm not sure how old you are....

Older than you think.

 

[Huntster]

Hunster,
You have referred to God as "He". Would you ever refer to God as "She"?...

When discussing the subject with you, and if you preferred, sure. Clearly, God isn't physical/biological, so gender isn't an issue except to the beholder.

...Then, if it is as written in the Bible that "mankind" was created in God's image, is it that women were not created as such?...

Clearly, they were. We were "created" in "the image and likeness" of God. Since that isn't physical/biological, it likely refers to spiritual. Unlike other biological creatures on this planet, we have a spirit; both genders.

But if they too are, then why not ever refer to God as "She"?

Like my Roman Catholicism, I grew up primarily speaking English. That's the way the language was set up. There doesn't seem to be an appropriate pronoun.

 

[davefoc]

Huntster and Elliotfc,
Thank you for your responses in this thread. I have appreciated your posts and your attempts to explain the nature of your faith. For what it is worth, you guys are among the most well spoken people that I have noticed here at JREF at explaining their religious ideas.

The question that I wanted to ask is this:

Even assuming that a god exists what reason is there to believe that he/she/it wants to be worshipped? Maybe what God's really interested in watching people do interesting things and for God watching people sitting in church is pretty friggin boring.

 

[triadboy]

Source:


Jacob was left there alone. Then some man wrestled with him until the break of dawn.

Isn't it odd that you believe in a literal translation of the story - Jacob fought a MAN - And yet another Catholic believes it is a story of Jacob's spiritual struggles with God?

Christ was condemned specifically for violations to Mosaic Law.

Which law?

And some people who have not interacted with the bible justified wars, slavery, anti-semitism, bigotry, close-mindedness, polygamy, etc.

Either way, they are all people, capable of sin.

Understood. But when these things are done with support from The Word Of God - it diminishes that god's righteousness.

It reminds me of Mark 16:9-16:20. These verses were added to Mark much later and are not part of the original Mark. These are the verses that contain the challenge - (to paraphrase) If you are truly faithful, you can handle poisonous snakes and not be killed.

As we speak, there are folks in the Appalachians handling poisonous snakes to show their faith! But wait! That part of Mark was uninspired by God. It's all so confusing.

 

[Huntster]

Huntster and Elliotfc,
Thank you for your responses in this thread. I have appreciated your posts and your attempts to explain the nature of your faith. For what it is worth, you guys are among the most well spoken people that I have noticed here at JREF at explaining their religious ideas.

Thank you very much for those kind words. I'd like to return that compliment by stating that I've always considered your posts very genuine, well written, and thoughtful.

The question that I wanted to ask is this:

Even assuming that a god exists what reason is there to believe that he/she/it wants to be worshipped?

I think that's the common misperception that a lot of people make. I believe, as has been explained to me in several sermons by a very, very good priest, God wants to be loved.

Maybe what God's really interested in watching people do interesting things and for God watching people sitting in church is pretty friggin boring.

Watching a church service (especially a Catholic Mass)? Yeah, I guess I can see how many might consider it very boring.

However, I find it wonderful. Since I know all of the prayers the priest recites silently during the Mass (I wish they would recite them all aloud, because they're absolutely beautiful), I recite them silently with them, focused toward God in a state of pure praise, thankfulness, and love.

 

[elliotfc]

Cheers Dave.

Even assuming that a god exists what reason is there to believe that he/she/it wants to be worshipped?

I don't know what your conception of worship is. If you think of it as something like groveling before him, I don't think he wants that.

Worshiping has changed over the centuries. Christians have kept the word, because it is inexorably tied to religion and is quite serviceable. But I think most Christians would agree that the best way to worship God is to follow his commands and follow the example of Christ.

Then there's the understanding of the word (probably what you're talking about) "worship" which directly relates to communal services. I think they're quite helpful...reminds us that we're all in this together, we're not just a bunch of loners...it's an organized way to receive instruction and create things (like music) to express ourselves...and then you've got Catholics who see it as a way to fulfill one of Christ's commands (do this in remembrance of me). Is attendance at worship services required by God? I don't think so. I think it quite helpful for a lot of people though in the "keeping things in perspective" kind of way.

Maybe what God's really interested in watching people do interesting things and for God watching people sitting in church is pretty friggin boring.

Maybe. -Elliot

 

[Huntster]

Isn't it odd that you believe in a literal translation of the story - Jacob fought a MAN - And yet another Catholic believes it is a story of Jacob's spiritual struggles with God?

Considering the fact that there are innumerable Christian and Jewish sects out there (including sects within the Roman Catholic Church), as well as innumerable religions, I don't think it odd at all that people might interpret a biblical passage differently. Hell, disputes over biblical interpretation literally fill this very forum.

I'm reading the words. I cited them, highlighted some, linked it.

Looks to me like Jacob wrestled a man. In my Catholic youth, it was recognized that the man was an angel, but that is not what the words say.

Quote:
Christ was condemned specifically for violations to Mosaic Law.

Which law?

Ultimately, blasphemy, but the Pharisees appeared to most hate him for his repeated healing on the Sabbath.

Quote:
And some people who have not interacted with the bible justified wars, slavery, anti-semitism, bigotry, close-mindedness, polygamy, etc.

Either way, they are all people, capable of sin.

Understood. But when these things are done with support from The Word Of God - it diminishes that god's righteousness.

Only if you choose to believe them when they try to justify these acts in God's name or with biblical reference.

It reminds me of Mark 16:9-16:20. These verses were added to Mark much later and are not part of the original Mark. These are the verses that contain the challenge - (to paraphrase) If you are truly faithful, you can handle poisonous snakes and not be killed.

These are the footnotes regarding those passages from the New American Bible:

[9-20] This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. It is a general resume of the material concerning the appearances of the risen Jesus, reflecting, in particular, traditions found in Luke 24 and John 20. The Shorter Ending: Found after Mark 16:8 before the Longer Ending in four seventh-to-ninth-century Greek manuscripts as well as in one Old Latin version, where it appears alone without the Longer Ending. The Freer Logion: Found after v 14 in a fourth-fifth century manuscript preserved in the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, this ending was known to Jerome in the fourth century. It reads: "And they excused themselves, saying, "This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things dominated by the spirits [or, does not allow the unclean things dominated by the spirits to grasp the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal your righteousness now.' They spoke to Christ. And Christ responded to them, "The limit of the years of Satan's power is completed, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who sinned I was handed over to death, that they might return to the truth and no longer sin, in order that they might inherit the spiritual and incorruptible heavenly glory of righteousness. But . . . .' "

3 [20] THE SHORTER ENDING - [And they reported all the instructions briefly to Peter's companions. Afterwards Jesus himself, through them, sent forth from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.]

As we speak, there are folks in the Appalachians handling poisonous snakes to show their faith! But wait! That part of Mark was uninspired by God. It's all so confusing.

Other religions fondle snakes as well. I hate snakes. Been bit. That's one of the reasons I love Alaska so much. There are no snakes around here whatsoever.

My religious faith has no need to wrassle with serpents.

 

[davefoc]

Watching a church service (especially a Catholic Mass)? Yeah, I guess I can see how many might consider it very boring.

Speaking as an atheist here and a person that experienced a presbyterian church in my youth and a person who has attended a few catholic services:

Catholics can not even begin to imagine how boring a church service can be. A catholic ceremony has people in nifty costumes, swinging smoke thingies, candles, food and really short sermons.

I remember attending my first catholic church service. I had just settled in for what I thought was going to be the sermon, a period of intense boredom for me from my Presbyterian church experience and all of a sudden the sermon is over. What? A three minute sermon? It can't be over already, but it was. If God is tuning in on church services and not watching some wars or football games that he finds more to his liking I am pretty sure that he is not checking out the Presbyterians. They might be too boring even for God.