Does the Bible make God stupid and insecure?

[David Mo]

Strawman. What I said it's a red herring, not that it's an argument from authority. Address what was actually said, or don't. But dumb strawmen aren't it.

First it was you who spoke with contempt of Bultmann because he was "a famous guy". If there was no contempt, watch your language and there will be no misunderstandings.

So, more of your usual bluster and flailing for why one should pursue a complete red herring? It still has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, no matter how educative it is or who wrote it.

You're obsessed with catching coloured fishes. Go back to land.
The theme of the thread is if the god of the Bible is stupid. This implies the question of how a rational Christian can withstand the absurd image that the Bible gives of his god. In the fact the thread passed to this way almost from the beginning. From comment #2, to be exact.

Bultmann is a sample of how cultured Christians obviate the presence of a primitive god in the Bible. To him, God is not stupid. The biblical god is simply a primitive god narrated by primitive believers. But, according to him, the Christian must overcome that primitive concept through a special interpretation of the texts. That's what Bultmann's chapter is about that you don't seem to have read. If you had, you wouldn't be talking about fishes.

 

[HansMustermann]

First it was you who spoke with contempt of Bultmann because he was "a famous guy". If there was no contempt, watch your language and there will be no misunderstandings.

Well, see, that's the misunderstanding right there. The contempt wasn't for the famous guy, but for your recurring notion that you can pretty much demand -- then bait and troll, when that fails -- that everyone must drop everything else and discuss some quote because, look, some famous guy said it.

Look, I don't know what your problem is, but if you want to set the topic, you can start a thread like everyone else.

 

[HansMustermann]

That said, ultimately it says nothing about the God of the bible, or any other god, which is why I call it a coloured fish.

You can go existentialism on the ass of, well, just about anybody or anything. If nothing else, you can go for the absurd side of it, which is just as much a part of existentialism. E.g., the episode where Beavis kicks a taoist master in the nuts can cause reflection about how in an absurd world, that kind of bad things happen to good people. So, yeah, I just went existentialist on Beavis and Butthead's ass, yo

The problem is that it doesn't change how that character is actually portrayed in the actual work of art. What in my existence it makes me think about is an extra dimension, and outside the scope of that work of art.

E.g., I can go all introspective based on, say, reading about how Cao Cao in the Romance Of The Three Kingdoms murders a friend's sons over a misunderstanding. (He was on the run and thought they were planning to ambush him.) But at the end of the day, it's still just a part of his characterization as a ruthless, machiavellian character, setting the stage for him to say his famous line, "I would rather betray the whole world, than have the world betray me." Whatever extra lessons I learn by contemplating my existence and own actions or mishaps at various times, is extra material that Luo Guanzhong definitely wasn't thinking about when writing the novel in 14'th century China.

Or I can do it about the Beavis and Butthead episode that I mentioned, or about the actions of Peter in Family Guy, but it doesn't change the fact that they're characterized as idiots. You know, like the God of the bible is in the OP's view. Whatever extra parallels I can draw myself from there are just that: extra.

Unless the point can be made that the piece of art is deliberately doing a metaphor for situation X -- which I don't think the ancient Jews were -- then it inspiring me to think of unrelated situation X is rather orthogonal to the actual work of art or its characterization of its characters.

 

[Robin]

The price to be paid must be to someone's benefit.

Why?

If God is omni-this-and-that, then isn't he paying himself?

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

We seem to have a god that makes all the rules and then claims he's stuck with them.

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.

 

[pgwenthold]

I think this is related, so instead of starting a different thread

A couple of weeks ago in church was "Trinity Sunday" (in the church calendar). It comes at some point after Pentecost.

Now, I've been to church on Trinity Sunday a few times, and I've heard more than one sermon on said day. And that sermon inevitably involves some discussion of the concept of the Trinity, of course, and the greatness of the mystery of it. But it is also caveated with something like, "This 3-in-1 thing of the Trinity is really complex, and I don't really understand it, but still it is great and wonderful and this what we believe."

Now, these aren't random people, these are ministers that have been through the seminary, so have presumably had teaching on the Trinity. So why don't they understand it? Are the teachers all that incompetent at teaching? Or is it because what is being taught doesn't make sense? Or do the teachers not really understand it, either?

The short question is: I've heard a lot of people say, re: the trinity, "I don't fully understand it." Well, who DOES actually understand it? And why don't they help out the others?

 

[HansMustermann]

According to the Catholics at least, pretty much nobody understands how the trinity makes any sense. That's what makes it a mystery too great for mortal minds.

 

[bruto]

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.

We could go round and round on the question of whether logical necessity transcends everything including the entire universe that God is said to have created. But with regard to the payment of a debt, what is a debt if not a transaction? If a debt must be paid it must be paid to someone or something or it has no meaning.

 

[HansMustermann]

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.

We're not talking about maths, though, we're talking basically a justice system. Which is just literally whatever rules you give. Hopefully it will be the ones that work the best, but if your justice system works by "throw her in the river, and if she can swim she's innocent" (I'm, of course, talking Mesopotamian law, not European witch trials) or "randomly kill a tenth of them" (Roman decimation) or "whoever wins a game of squash lives" (Aztecs) or whatever other arbitrary rule, that's that.

Ditto for what is the price to pay, if any, for a transgression. It can be stuff like you can be flogged to death for breaking curfew. (In late Han dynasty China, Cao Cao made a name for himself as an inflexible and incorruptible man while being a captain of the guard by flogging to death even a relative of a powerful noble for breaking the curfew.) Or it can be that you can be forgiven once from being executed if anyone wants to marry their daughter to you. (Feudal Romania.) Or that the price of a new bride is a fair price to pay for raping a girl. (Actual rule from the Old Testament.) Or that a fine of 400 shillings is a fair price to pay for killing a priest right in the middle of his reading mass. (I kid you not, it's in the early middle ages Germanic weregeld rules.)

Whatever.

The notion that God can't set whatever rules he wants, as if it's maths, is... interesting, to say the least. See, Euthyphro.

More importantly, though, Xianity would imply that in this perfect justice system from which even God can't deviate, it is perfectly ok for an innocent to pay for someone else's capital crime. In fact, for any unlimited number of other someones. E.g., that for example if I were the Han emperor, it would be ok that I can execute some loyal guy that didn't revolt or disobey in any way, as the price that the almost half a million yellow turban rebels have to pay for their rebellion.

It's... not a justice system I could get behind, to say the least.

 

[acbytesla]

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.

Let's see. According to the bible. Oysters, clams, shrimp are bad as well as bacon, planting two different crops side by side, wearing clothes with mixed threads. Not to mention gathering firewood on Saturday or marrying a non-virgin since you are to kill her and leave her corpse on her father's doorstep.

The idea that the debt must be paid ignores that debts are forgiven throughout the bible. The idea that God must impregnate a woman, become his own son to be tortured 33 years later for him to accept a debt as paid is more than a little convoluted.

 

[IanS]

"Mysterious ways". God has a plan. Sin and redemption are an important part of that plan. God knows best. *shrug*

All I'm saying is that atheists (and antitheists) interpret the Bible in ways that actual believers do not. And so the objections that atheists (and antitheists) have don't necessarily apply.

I think we have had that argument (about mistaken atheists) here before, and quite recently. I was not convinced by that claim before, and I don't think it's at all convincing now.

Christians say all sorts of things about their beliefs in God, the bible, Jesus and all sorts of related issues. Much of what they say is not what it originally said in the biblical books 2000 to 3000 years ago. God has been reduced to an ever shrinking tiny few remaining gaps in our 21st century knowledge about this universe.

God was once claimed in those books to be the deliberate instigator of almost everything. But now we know (as much as anyone could ever "know"), that no such God was involved in any of that.

If Christians today (how many of them?) say they now believe all sorts of other things different from what was originally claimed for God, then it's completely inadmissible to criticise atheists if they explain why the original biblical God beliefs are wrong. 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.

The God beliefs were really fixed for all time in what was originally written in the biblical books. Because those were claimed to be written by prophets who could actually speak to God and who knew as certain fact what God did & what he wanted etc. You cannot change that 2000 years later after science shows all the original beliefs were wrong.

 

[acbytesla]

I think we have had that argument (about mistaken atheists) here before, and quite recently. I was not convinced by that claim before, and I don't think it's at all convincing now.

Christians say all sorts of things about their beliefs in God, the bible, Jesus and all sorts of related issues. Much of what they say is not what it originally said in the biblical books 2000 to 3000 years ago. God has been reduced to an ever shrinking tiny few remaining gaps in our 21st century knowledge about this universe.

God was once claimed in those books to be the deliberate instigator of almost everything. But now we know (as much as anyone could ever "know"), that no such God was involved in any of that.

If Christians today (how many of them?) say they now believe all sorts of other things different from what was originally claimed for God, then it's completely inadmissible to criticise atheists if they explain why the original biblical God beliefs are wrong. 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.

The God beliefs were really fixed for all time in what was originally written in the biblical books. Because those were claimed to be written by prophets who could actually speak to God and who knew as certain fact what God did & what he wanted etc. You cannot change that 2000 years later after science shows all the original beliefs were wrong.

Did Christians EVER really agree? The first bible only included the Gospel of Luke and 10 of Paul's epistles. The entire Old Testament was tossed.

 

[Humots]

It seems like you are substituting a different question to the one that was put to Jesus.

They couldn't use coins with graven images at the temples but there is no evidence that they refused to accept those coins in other business dealings. If that had been the case then there would have been no need for money changers at the temples.

[Nobody was asking Jesus if it was lawful to use coins with graven images. It probably wasn't an issue. Instead, they appeared to want to make this a first commandment issue. Had Jesus simply said that it was lawful to pay taxes to a Roman emperor (they considered themselves gods in those days) then he could have been accused of violating the first commandment. (Had he said "no" then he could have been accused of inciting rebellion).

By reminding them that they were using coins with graven images, he avoided that trap.

I heard this argument given before, in a Catholic sermon.

How, exactly?

Was he telling them that they shouldn't be using those coins in the first place?

Or that as long as the coins with Caesar's image were only used for dealing with Caesar, it was all right?

That would fit with "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that are God's".

It would also fit with with ""If one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull it out?"

How would I know? I don't know if the story was recorded accurately or if it even happened at all.

My point was that if you are going to criticize the authors of the gospels then you need to criticize them on the words they wrote and not a different set of words entirely.

I was asking: If the situation as given (see first bolded above) was a trap, how did the answer as given (see second bolded above) avoid that trap?

I'm not criticizing the authors, I'm saying that, assuming it happened as described, is there some plausible explanation, like one of the ones I suggested in my post (see third and fourth bolded above), as to why Jesus' answer was appropriate.

You wrote as if there were one (first and second bolded again).

 

[Thor 2]

I think it must be a strain for modern day theists, to mould the god they believe in, into something acceptable to modern day thinking. Hardly surprising really, given that most believe in different versions of the Abrahamic God, who supposedly made himself known, to some primitive nomads thousands of years ago. A god who had favourites, ideas about slavery and a woman's place, that surprisingly coincided with the views of the primitives, he took to his bosom. He had a single tracked mind about how to achieve consensus - violence - diplomacy was never entertained as a strategy.

There is a need perhaps for a more modern god, that is for those who need a god at all. A compassionate, multi coloured, multi sexual, god. A god who all can embrace without reservation. You can't hammer the Abrahamic God into this shape, no matter how you try.

 

[bruto]

I think it must be a strain for modern day theists, to mould the god they believe in, into something acceptable to modern day thinking. Hardly surprising really, given that most believe in different versions of the Abrahamic God, who supposedly made himself known, to some primitive nomads thousands of years ago. A god who had favourites, ideas about slavery and a woman's place, that surprisingly coincided with the views of the primitives, he took to his bosom. He had a single tracked mind about how to achieve consensus - violence - diplomacy was never entertained as a strategy.

There is a need perhaps for a more modern god, that is for those who need a god at all. A compassionate, multi coloured, multi sexual, god. A god who all can embrace without reservation. You can't hammer the Abrahamic God into this shape, no matter how you try.

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. Plenty of modern Christians certainly try, and though it may not satisfy you it seems to satisfy them. You can, after all, presume that the Abrahamic account of God was what was defective, and perhaps that the accounts are corrupt and flawed, but not God himself. Of course it takes a bit of gymnastics to keep the Bible in the picture, but some people seem to manage.

 

[acbytesla]

I think it must be a strain for modern day theists, to mould the god they believe in, into something acceptable to modern day thinking. Hardly surprising really, given that most believe in different versions of the Abrahamic God, who supposedly made himself known, to some primitive nomads thousands of years ago. A god who had favourites, ideas about slavery and a woman's place, that surprisingly coincided with the views of the primitives, he took to his bosom. He had a single tracked mind about how to achieve consensus - violence - diplomacy was never entertained as a strategy.

There is a need perhaps for a more modern god, that is for those who need a god at all. A compassionate, multi coloured, multi sexual, god. A god who all can embrace without reservation. You can't hammer the Abrahamic God into this shape, no matter how you try.

I don't think it's as hard as you think it is. People just do it.

My experience is EVERY Christian cherry picks what they accept in the bible. And that can be very different from what their pastor preaches.

I should look for it. But I read a poll that asked people what they believe in the Bible. And for the most part few people believed more than a little of The stories in the Bible despite the vast majority identifying as Christians.

Most Christians didn’t believe in Noah or Jonah or talking donkeys or snakes. Most Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation and practice birth control despite the opposite being doctrine. 80 percent of Americans say they believe in God and most only step into a place of worship on special occasions.

It is also my experience that only a fraction of people that identify as Christians have read more than a few random verses. I had barely read more than a fraction of the Old Testament despite regularly attending church as well as going to bible camp in the summers. You know, a few pages of Genesis a few of Exodus, the story of Job, a few Psalms and Proverbs and probably and odd verse focused on in Bible class.

More than half the time when you bring up some of the outright horrific verses in the Old Testament they'll doubt it outright. Ask the average Christian the story of Jepthah or Elisha and they won't know what you're talking about. I didn't.

My point is people identify as believing in God because that is the culturally acceptable thing to do. What they actually believe could be very different.

I was an atheist for 20 years before I would tell people I was. Actually being able to look people in the eye and say I'm an atheist was a big deal. I used the term agnostic because that was more acceptable. And I don't believe I'm an outlier.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oh yeah. If he's so omnipotent can he write a post so full of contradiction that he himself can't make it sound logical?

Heck, I do that all the time.


Hold on one second...... I'M GOD!!!!!

 

[Thor 2]

I'm not sure that's entirely the case. Plenty of modern Christians certainly try, and though it may not satisfy you it seems to satisfy them. You can, after all, presume that the Abrahamic account of God was what was defective, and perhaps that the accounts are corrupt and flawed, but not God himself. Of course it takes a bit of gymnastics to keep the Bible in the picture, but some people seem to manage.

I don't think it's as hard as you think it is. People just do it.

My experience is EVERY Christian cherry picks what they accept in the bible. And that can be very different from what their pastor preaches.

I should look for it. But I read a poll that asked people what they believe in the Bible. And for the most part few people believed more than a little of The stories in the Bible despite the vast majority identifying as Christians.

Most Christians didn’t believe in Noah or Jonah or talking donkeys or snakes. Most Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation and practice birth control despite the opposite being doctrine. 80 percent of Americans say they believe in God and most only step into a place of worship on special occasions.

It is also my experience that only a fraction of people that identify as Christians have read more than a few random verses. I had barely read more than a fraction of the Old Testament despite regularly attending church as well as going to bible camp in the summers. You know, a few pages of Genesis a few of Exodus, the story of Job, a few Psalms and Proverbs and probably and odd verse focused on in Bible class.

More than half the time when you bring up some of the outright horrific verses in the Old Testament they'll doubt it outright. Ask the average Christian the story of Jepthah or Elisha and they won't know what you're talking about. I didn't.

My point is people identify as believing in God because that is the culturally acceptable thing to do. What they actually believe could be very different.

I was an atheist for 20 years before I would tell people I was. Actually being able to look people in the eye and say I'm an atheist was a big deal. I used the term agnostic because that was more acceptable. And I don't believe I'm an outlier.

Yes well I suspect you guys are right about the majority of the faithful. They just lap up what comes from the pulpit and do a minimum of independent reading.

Interesting to listen to some of the arguments given by callers into the Atheist Experience. Those who call, in I suspect, are a little more familiar with actual doctrine than the average god bot, and the struggle they seem to have with making sense of scripture, is painful to listen to.

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.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes well I suspect you guys are right about the majority of the faithful. They just lap up what comes from the pulpit and do a minimum of independent reading.

Interesting to listen to some of the arguments given by callers into the Atheist Experience. Those who call, in I suspect, are a little more familiar with actual doctrine than the average god bot, and the struggle they seem to have with making sense of scripture, is painful to listen to.

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.

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.

 

[psionl0]

I was asking: If the situation as given (see first bolded above) was a trap, how did the answer as given (see second bolded above) avoid that trap?

I'm not criticizing the authors, I'm saying that, assuming it happened as described, is there some plausible explanation, like one of the ones I suggested in my post (see third and fourth bolded above), as to why Jesus' answer was appropriate.

You wrote as if there were one (first and second bolded again).

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.

 

[David Mo]

(...)for your recurring notion that you can pretty much demand(...)that everyone must drop everything else and discuss some quote because, look, some famous guy said it.

Look, I don't know what your problem is..

I don't understand what's in his head either. If someone proposes a topic about the god of the Bible and says it's stupid, I think it's perfectly reasonable for to bring here an opinion on the topic. It is a common practice in any discussion between sensible people. I am not forcing anyone to follow anything. If you would like to comment on it, you do so. If you don't feel like it, don't do it. But I don't know why you get these fits of rage and start insulting like a possessed man. You'll know what's happening to you.