Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

It is intellectually honest and a painful reality:

What does this have to do with anything?

Innocent people die as a result of war. That is wrong. Unfortunately sometimes it is unavoidable. Intentionally murdering children DOES NOT EQUATE. It can't be said to be unavoidable. It is evil. It is immoral. It is an atrocity.

To try and equate the death of innocent people as a result of war and the intentional murder of children (and to be honest it was after the war) is intellectually dishonest.

If Abraham Lincoln or any of his generals had ordered the murder of children and the order had nothing to do with winning the war then I would condemn them as monsterous.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You asked why people are fussing over the 10 Commandments being posted in and on buildings of justice; legal buildings.

Yes.

Quote:
I cited the fact that the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law.

No you didn't. You dodged his inquiry by begging the question "maybe because the 10 Commandments are the foundation of modern law?". You cited no fact.

Wow! You are finally correct about something! Congratulations! I'm very proud of you, Tony.

I did indeed answer in the form of a question.

However, that doesn't change the fact that RandFan is switching back and forth between law and morality.

You haven't given us reason to think you're receptive to any reasoning.

You haven't offered any worth being receptive to.

I've cited dozens of links withing this thread, including the one regarding national sin. I'm obviously receptive to them.

But, of course, they're based on good facts and information.

 

[RandFan]

However, that doesn't change the fact that RandFan is switching back and forth between law and morality.

I started this line of discussion by declaring that the bible is a poor moral guide. By moral I mean that which is right as opposed to that which is wrong. The purpose of law is, to a degree, to codify morals such as the prohibition against murder, stealing, robbery, rape, etc. I'm not making an argument about legalities but right and wrong.

I stand by my arguments.

 

[Tony]

Again, primarily I see it as a series of history books, books of wisdom, and then, yes, a moral guide.

Ok.

Actually, I can have it any damned way I wish, thank you.

Spoken like a true ignoramus.

Of course you can have it any way you wish. I can believe the sky is orange with green and blue stripes, but it wouldn't be reasonable.

That is your opinion. You may be correct, and your opinion may be flawed.

Killing innocent people is wrong. Do you agree.

My opinion is that your opinion is flawed

No surprise here, the devoutly religious tend to disragard human life more than most people.

Judging God Himself? Under what authority?

What a hoot.

I got news for you, your god is a despotic piece of *****. He’s no better than a third world dictator.

Judging national sin, penance, and redemption without a basis in study from which to do so? As if Lincoln was a fool?

False dichotomy. Just because Lincoln was wrong (more likely, he was playing politics) doesn't mean he was a fool.

You're quite an act, aren't you?

Yes, logical thinking is quite a thing.

i'll declare it reasonable if I please

Are you 5 years old?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
National sin requires national penance and reconciliation. That includes innocents within that nation.

Incredible. You actually support the concepts of human sacrifice and collective punishment.

I do not support the concept of human sacrifice and collective punishment(there you go again assigning something with flawed logic), but I do accept (not support) the reality of collective consequences.

I don't think I've yet seen such barbarism or primitive thinking on this forum.

You apparently don't see much of anything with any degree of accuracy.

Tellingly, I have seen support of such concepts on white-nationalist and islamist forums.

And I have already demonstrated that Lincoln accepted the reality of (not supporting) national sin, penance, and reconciliation.

Quote:
It is intellectually honest and a painful reality:

This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Lincoln was wrong on that count.

I'm sure you won't excuse me for lending more credence to Lincoln's deep considerations than your lousy reasoning and interpretation of reality.

The civil war was not a punishment from God, it was an act of men. Any attempt to claim it was a punishment from god is simply a failure to hold the people who let it happen responsible for their actions.

Funny. You and RandFan want to assign the Mosaic massacre to God, yet now you assign the slaughter of the War Between the States to "men."

Tell me; is that contradictory, rhetoric, foolishness, or "logical reasoning"?

The civil war was the consequence of the evils of slavery. It was not delivered unto men by God. It was delivered to the entire nation (innocents, slave owners, slaves, Irish immigrants, everybody) by hard-heated men with pride larger than their brains because agreement couldn't be achieved to end the sin of slavery in this country.

 

[Tony]

Yes, I did:
Do you read, or do you just type with complete abandon?

Bwahahahahahaha. That is where you (think) explained to RandFan how contradictory he is?

That is incorrect. At that precise moment I was thinking how much of a fool you are.

So you've been incorrect with each and every attempt to read my mind.

Wanna try again.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is intellectually honest and a painful reality:

What does this have to do with anything?

Innocent people die as a result of war. That is wrong. Unfortunately sometimes it is unavoidable. Intentionally murdering children DOES NOT EQUATE. It can't be said to be unavoidable. It is evil. It is immoral. It is an atrocity.

Ya' know, I smell a rat.

Please cite the biblical reference you are referring to, former seminarian.

 

[Tony]

Wow! You are finally correct about something! Congratulations! I'm very proud of you, Tony.

I did indeed answer in the form of a question.

However, that doesn't change the fact that RandFan is switching back and forth between law and morality.



You haven't offered any worth being receptive to.

I've cited dozens of links withing this thread, including the one regarding national sin. I'm obviously receptive to them.

But, of course, they're based on good facts and information.

This isn't even an argument.

 

[Huntster]

Spoken like a true ignoramus.

Sorry, mister.

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

 

[RandFan]

Funny. You and RandFan want to assign the Mosaic massacre to God, yet now you assign the slaughter of the War Between the States to "men."

1. I don't believe in god.
2. If the event happened I put the blame on Moses.
3. I believe the event is likely mythology.
4. However, if it did happen then Moses is a murderer.
5. It is my purpose to demonstrate that the bible is a poor moral guide.
6. It is my opinion that people use god to justify immoral acts like killing children.
7. The Civil War was a war. What that has to do with anything is simply beyond me. Did Lincoln order the murder of children? Did Lincoln order the intentional slaughter of innocent people? If Lincoln intentionally targeted innocent children as Moses did then he is a murderer.

You are being intellectually dishonest in your attempt to compare the two because they can't be compared.

 

[Tony]

I do not support the concept of human sacrifice and collective punishment(there you go again assigning something with flawed logic), but I do accept (not support) the reality of collective consequences.

Backpedal away.

You apparently don't see much of anything with any degree of accuracy.

You're becoming a parody.

And I have already demonstrated that Lincoln accepted the reality of (not supporting) national sin, penance, and reconciliation.

No you didn't. You've demonstrated that he used the rhetoric of religion in that particular speech.

I'm sure you won't excuse me for lending more credence to Lincoln's deep considerations than your lousy reasoning and interpretation of reality.

In otherwords, you accept what confirms your pre-conceived notions.

Funny. You and RandFan want to assign the Mosaic massacre to God, yet now you assign the slaughter of the War Between the States to "men."

What's funny is that you can't tell the difference between what's written in "the word of god" and American history.

The civil war was the consequence of the evils of slavery. It was not delivered unto men by God. It was delivered to the entire nation (innocents, slave owners, slaves, Irish immigrants, everybody) by hard-heated men with pride larger than their brains because agreement couldn't be achieved to end the sin of slavery in this country.

I agree, it wasn't a punishment for slavery by god. Lincoln was wrong.

 

[Marc L]

You are citing a biblical passage from among the oldest books of the Bible, not the New Testament.

Doesn't Jesus himself say he's come not to bring peace, but a sword, dividing brother against brother, etc? Revelations isn't too peaceful, either.

That is simply not true. By picking a single story in the Old Testament to condemn the entire collection is very immature and obviously faulty.

The problem is, though, that Christians themselves have been known to pick single (or multiple) stories out of the Old Testament to justify violence. Not to mention the fundamentalist view that the whole Bible is the word of God, and should be taken literally in it's entirety.*

If you'd stop demanding that the entire world view everything through your smudged glasses, and insisting that it's either your way or the highway like a child, perhaps things might go more smoothly for you.

Pot, kettle, black.

*I realize you're Catholic, and that you don't use the Old Testament as your source. The paragraph is intended to explain why I think RandFan is quoting from the Old Testament.

Marc

 

[triadboy]

The very crucifixion of Christ is just such an example. He suffered and died for the sins of God's people.

This is the concept which - when analyzed - should free minds:

1. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god creates people.
2. The people become sinners - but, of course, He knew they would.
3. He destroys them all except one family. (He destroys animals too)
4. Life goes on
5. The people become sinners again
6. But this time God appears on Earth and has Himself crucified to appease Himself - so He won't have to destroy everyone again.

A god like this CANNOT be classified as All-knowing, All-powerful, and All-loving. The god described by these actions is an idiot.

 

[RandFan]

Ya' know, I smell a rat.

Please cite the biblical reference you are referring to, former seminarian.

I have only quoted it a half a dozen times.

Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

 

[davefoc]

I think that was a nice summary of the situation triadboy. A couple of comments:

I don't think much of the OT was written with the idea of a single all knowing, all powerful god. I think there is at least credible evidence that at least some of the OT writers had the idea that Yahweh was one god among others. Even if that idea is wrong it seems clear that the OT God is not all knowing and all powerful and it is layering on that later idea that makes some of the OT stories seem crazy.

I don't think Jesus was considered to be God in any way in the earliest forms of Jesus based religions. That is not provable because exactly what the early Jewish Christians believed has been lost as that sect died out. Still Mark might be an early Jewish Christian writing and without the added last passages, I don't think there is anything in there that suggests that Jesus is God. My sense of it is that there was lots of theorizing early on about exactly what Jesus was and it was only after about three hundred years that the most implausible and logically inconsistent idea of the trinity came to almost completely dominate Christian theology. Without these notions the idea that Jesus was just a divinely inspired and created messiah put on earth to help mankind seems to be at least an idea without the paradoxes created by the current Christian concept of Jesus, God, the trinity and the holy ghost.

ETA: It appears at least part of the above theorizing is wrong:
proverbs 15:3

The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.

It is interesting, on one hand you have people writing stories about a god that appears to be capable of error and certainly not all powerful and in other places he is all knowing.

I think the authors of Superman face a somewhat similar problem. The basic premise is that superman's powers are almost unlimited, but if they were really unlimited it would be tough to write superman stories since he could just effortlessly eliminate all conflict, so to make superman comic books work superman has to have weaknesses. Seems like the authors of the bible had the same problem with the god they were creating. Make him too powerful, too all knowing and you get insufficient conflict for good fiction but make him too weak, too ignorant and nobody wants to worship him. It seems like they dealt with the problem by just being logically inconsistent. God is all knowing, all powerful when he is described but he has frailties when he is a character in the goings on.

 

[RandFan]

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

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

 

[RandFan]

I think that was a nice summary of the situation triadboy. A couple of comments:

I don't think much of the OT was written with the idea of a single all knowing, all powerful god. I think there is at least credible evidence that at least some of the OT writers had the idea that Yahweh was one god among others. Even if that idea is wrong it seems clear that the OT God is not all knowing and all powerful and it is layering on that later idea that makes some of the OT stories seem crazy.

I don't think Jesus was considered to be God in any way in the earliest forms of Jesus based religions. That is not provable because exactly what the early Jewish Christians believed has been lost as that sect died out. Still Mark might be an early Jewish Christian writing and without the added last passages, I don't think there is anything in there that suggests that Jesus is God. My sense of it is that there was lots of theorizing early on about exactly what Jesus was and it was only after about three hundred years that the most implausible and logically inconsistent idea of the trinity came to almost completely dominate Christian theology. Without these notions the idea that Jesus was just a divinely inspired and created messiah put on earth to help mankind seems to be at least an idea without the paradoxes created by the current Christian concept of Jesus, God, the trinity and the holy ghost.

I agree.

See Who Wrote The Bible?

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You are citing a biblical passage from among the oldest books of the Bible, not the New Testament.

Doesn't Jesus himself say he's come not to bring peace, but a sword, dividing brother against brother, etc? Revelations isn't too peaceful, either.

Christ was stating what has clearly come true. He didn't bring the sword. Might never have even touched one. However, as a result of his message, people have taken up the sword, and have been dividing themselves up.

Quote:
That is simply not true. By picking a single story in the Old Testament to condemn the entire collection is very immature and obviously faulty.

The problem is, though, that Christians themselves have been known to pick single (or multiple) stories out of the Old Testament to justify violence.

As I noted and linked, the RCC has a written doctrine on violence. Some is considered justified.

I choose that doctrine as sound.

Not to mention the fundamentalist view that the whole Bible is the word of God, and should be taken literally in it's entirety.*

I am not a fundmentalist.

Quote:
If you'd stop demanding that the entire world view everything through your smudged glasses, and insisting that it's either your way or the highway like a child, perhaps things might go more smoothly for you.

Pot, kettle, black.

I am not demanding anybody agree with me. I have repeatedly written that people are free to believe as they wish.

 

[elliotfc]

This is the concept which - when analyzed - should free minds:

1. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god creates people.
2. The people become sinners - but, of course, He knew they would.
3. He destroys them all except one family. (He destroys animals too)
4. Life goes on
5. The people become sinners again
6. But this time God appears on Earth and has Himself crucified to appease Himself - so He won't have to destroy everyone again.

A god like this CANNOT be classified as All-knowing, All-powerful, and All-loving. The god described by these actions is an idiot.

I agree that the way you describe this is fitting for an idiot.

-Elliot

 

[Huntster]

This is the concept which - when analyzed - should free minds:

1. An all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving god creates people.
2. The people become sinners - but, of course, He knew they would.
3. He destroys them all except one family. (He destroys animals too)
4. Life goes on
5. The people become sinners again
6. But this time God appears on Earth and has Himself crucified to appease Himself - so He won't have to destroy everyone again.

A god like this CANNOT be classified as All-knowing, All-powerful, and All-loving.

He can if one sees that individual choice among humans is among the central themes of this scenario.[/QUOTE]

The god described by these actions is an idiot.

That is your opinion.