Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[IllegalArgument]

Trust a 25 year old child to come up with a statement like that.

Our understanding of spirituality has been undergoing growth, refinement, change, etc since the dawn of mankind. The mere age of the Bible as well as the plethora of religious understanding out there in the world should make that abundantly clear.

It's just that you reject that understanding completely.

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

 

[Huntster]

This is why I don't think you need God to be good, you are cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that you think are right.

What do I or my interpretation of the Bible have to do with "needing God to be good"? I've already noted that there are people out there who aren't "religious" who are good, and we all know there are "religious" people out there who are not good.

I have every right to judge how various religions interpret the Bible (or whatever "Good Book" they like) and, when I find things I can understand and relate to, I will understand and relate to them. Who are you to judge what I understand and relate to? God?

You wouldn't stone your neighbor or give your child up as a burnt offering.

I might stone my neighbor (depends on circumstances). I might shoot him. I might blow them up. I don't know. I sure hope I don't or don't have to, but I might. Been there. Circumstance. I'm not in control here. I'm not God.

You don't need "God" to be good.

I want God, because I love Him, I appreciate the blessings He has bestowed on me, and want to be with Him.

You want or reject Him to your own pleasure, whether you're "good" or not. That's up to you and Him.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

He's also saying I'm 25. I want that extra year's birthday presents.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I might stone my neighbor (depends on circumstances). I might shoot him. I might blow them up. I don't know. I sure hope I don't or don't have to, but I might. Been there. Circumstance. I'm not in control here. I'm not God.

I want God, because I love Him, I appreciate the blessings He has bestowed on me, and want to be with Him.

You want or reject Him to your own pleasure, whether you're "good" or not. That's up to you and Him.

First off, you just admited you would follow God's will if you were required to stone another human to death.

So, you personally would have no issue with God telling you to stone another human to death?

And I ask again, is God the only reason you do good things? To gain favor? And it would be alright to do bad things because you again God's favor by doing that?

 

[RandFan]

So, you personally would have no issue with God telling you to stone another human to death?

I personally find it difficult to look at the bible and come to any reasonable understanding as to what is good and bad. The 10 commandments state "thou shalt not kill" however the Jews did a lot of killing and that includes women and children. Now, perhaps it was justified (I'm not convinced but perhaps). Perhaps god told them to. Ok, so is killing good or bad? It really isn't clear.

 

[elliotfc]

Ok, perhaps I was mistaken. However, can you prove (i.e. scientifically to the same extent of gravity) that there are laws of goodness/evilness? I’m not sure such laws exist the same way gravity or other laws of nature do.

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I personally find it difficult to look at the bible and come to any reasonable understanding as to what is good and bad. The 10 commandments state "thou shalt not kill" however the Jews did a lot of killing and that includes women and children. Now, perhaps it was justified (I'm not convinced but perhaps). Perhaps god told them to. Ok, so is killing good or bad? It really isn't clear.

To be fair, sometime's it's quite clear. One must wipe out any nearby village that prays to another god. One must also kill one's own family if they worship a different god than YZL33TWAY. Killing is specifically commanded for all sorts of infractions, both minor and major.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity.

-Elliot

The reason for that is simple, such rules do not exist. At least, they are not sent down from on high. They are a product of the evolution of altruism, and human culture.

 

[elliotfc]

That's not free will. A mugger holding a gun to your head and saying, "Your money or your life" is not free will-only dictating and punishment for disobedience.

I disagree. The mugger recognizes two different choices, and whether you want to accept it or not, *the mugger could be bluffing*.

To have free will, I'd have to be able to say to God, "Nope, not happening" and not have to worry that he'll be the one imposing the consequences.

The fundamentalist *might* argue that it's more like jumping off a building. You just off a building, something bad will happen. It's a given. *Worry is beside the point* if you're dealing with a given. It is what it is.

Unfortunately, there's no way to know what the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus might be. Many non-Christians lead happy, successful (as defined by them) lives. They aren't in want and they're not suffering, so happiness doesn't seem to be predicated solely on being a Christian, nor does success and health.

Agreed.

The only consequences we know of are the ones God threatens us with in the Bible.

Disagree.

Many atheists recognize that theists can live happy lives and die happy, but as a consequence they live as slaves or don't think or whatever the insult du jour happens to be at the moment.

-Elliot

 

[Huntster]

What makes you think these laws even exist?

What makes you think that good/evil don't have laws? Doesn't everything else?

Faith is not an acceptable answer here.

Why not?

Who are you to dictate whether or not faith is acceptable?

Are you God?

The laws of gravity, time, and relativity did exist before we had any concept of them that is true. However, they’ve always had a measurable effect, that’s kind of what exist means; we just needed to know how to measure those effects.

Are you suggesting that good/evil do not have observable effects?

What we are debating here is our understanding of how good/evil work, how to measure them, how to manipulate/interact them, etc.

Our understanding of those laws came about by our noticing of those effects, and develops by our observations of those effects.

Our understanding of physical law has come through experimentation with physical tests. You cannot experiment with spiritual law with physical tests or measurements and expect accurate answers.

Your laws of good/evil can have no measurable effect apparently by definition, what does it mean to say they exist then?

The effects of spiritual law cannot be "measurable" with physical tests or measurements.

 

[IllegalArgument]

Huntster, I would like to say, that I don't think you are capable of stoning another human to death.

I think that you would realize that stoning another human being is "bad" by every standard of rational human conduct.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I have faith that the Bible was written by people of God, inspired by God, and it is enough evidence for me to have faith in the teachings of my church.

Yes, and it is still circular reasoning.

And who says that circular understanding doesn't conform to spiritual law?

Indeed, in accordance with some theologians, circular is exactly what occurs spiritually:

You come back to God.

 

[RandFan]

I don't believe that you can prove that there are "laws" of goodness/evilness in the same way that you can prove that there is a "law" of gravity.

The law of gravity follows from an objective and consistent observation. The law of gravity is falsifiable. The law of gravity can be used to make testable predictions. Do you have an objective and consistent observation of goodness/evilness that would lead to a law? Can the laws of goodness/evilness be used to make testable predictions? Are such laws of goodness/evilness falsifiable?

I think that you will find that there is far too much ambiguity and subjective nature laws/ethics/morality to form any tests that would lead anyone to conclude that the laws of goodness/evilness are as constant and objective as gravity.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
You will not prove or disprove spiritual law with physical tests. Period. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it works/doesn't work.

And we will not prove or disprove elves exist with physical laws.

What kind of stupid statement is that?

If a fricken elf shows up on your doorstep, you will (and can only) prove it's existence with the physical test that he is there, can be seen, felt, heard, etc.

What an idiot.

Why should we accept either?

You don't have to. Indeed, you've clearly made your choice. In accordance with God's law, you have that choice, and you have made it.

Congratulations.

 

[RandFan]

And who says that circular understanding doesn't conform to spiritual law?

Indeed, in accordance with some theologians, circular is exactly what occurs spiritually:

You come back to God.

There is no god because I say there is no god. If you don't believe me just ask me. QED.

 

[Huntster]

So, you're saying it's ok to ignore the parts of the Bible you don't agree with?

Is that what you want me to say?

Do you want me to say that so you can then continue debate under terms that you like to use?

No, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the parts of the Bible that I don't understand, or which I don't think are significant in my life will not be focused on for obvious reasons.

 

[elliotfc]

Another issue that, for me, reduces the credibility of the gospels even more than their internal contraditions, is the depency of Matthew and Luke on Mark. Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source for a great deal of their material.

Dave, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's generally held that all 3 synoptics were dependent on a non-extant source. Or, you're right, but Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as another, or other, non-extant sources.

So Matthew and Luke are not independent witnesses adding credibility to the account of another author.

Christian tradition holds that the evangelists were associates of the witnesses, and the differences may very well (or not) come from the memories of the actual witnesses.

In my opinion, Luke 1:1-4 recognizes that other gospels are/were in circulation, so I'd guess Luke was familiar with Mark, sure.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

What kind of stupid statement is that?

If a fricken elf shows up on your doorstep, you will (and can only) prove it's existence with the physical test that he is there, can be seen, felt, heard, etc.

Until the elf shows up is it rational to believe in the elf?

What an idiot.

Uncalled for.

You don't have to. Indeed, you've clearly made your choice. In accordance with God's law, you have that choice, and you have made it.

Congratulations.

And also in accordance with Elven law. Looks like I'm in the clear.

 

[elliotfc]

Quite. The same way I don't think that it is *possible* to accept God in this life, only in the next one, if anybody cares. I indulge theists, or I indulge the word theist. I use the word as it is generally used...but for many years I've considered it to be fundamentally unsound.

I agree, as a theist. I have *faith* in the existence of God (based on my Christian faith), but I'm of the opinion that I'll accept God in the next one. There won't be faith in the next one, but we are commanded to have faith in this one.

Your rejection here seems to be based on knowing that God does exist, then rejecting him. The same holds true for acceptation then. No one knows “in this life” if God exists or not, one can either believe or not believe.

Agreed. I don't articulate this often because it's usually not helpful, or, I'm content with sticking with conventional speaking because it's just easier. I say I believe in God, I accept God, I know God, but I am cognizant that it is only when I face God that I will *truly* know God.

-Elliot

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Dave, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm pretty sure it's generally held that all 3 synoptics were dependent on a non-extant source. Or, you're right, but Matthew and Luke used Mark as well as another, or other, non-extant sources.

Let's entertain this claim for a momment. Do you know what other collection of litterature is often conflicting, but based on a single source? Harry Potter fanfiction. There's more "contemporary" material about Harry Potter than there was about Jesus. Ergo, we can ignore the contradictions, and accept that Harry Potter is our Lord and Savior, may he deliver us from Valdemort.

Do you see how silly this is?