Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

So, I'm to accept the Biblical accounts or decide that you have determined otherwise.

There really is nothing to decide Huntster. Why do you feel that there is?

Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them ... therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

How else can this be read? How can killing children be justified?

It either happened or it didn't.
It was either right or it was wrong.

Sorry. Moses is pretty well known, and among the vast majority of mankind. I've already noted that Christianity is the largest church in the world.

So what? This is fallacy?

So I'm to reject the teachings and analysis of ages of sages to accept your condemnation?

? Fallacy. Read it again.

I can assure you, all Viet Cong weren't male, nor were they all "adults."

True, but what you leave out is that the massacre at My Lai was an atrocity. It involved the indiscriminate killing of women and children.

You are skating on thin ice. War does not give you the license to indiscriminately kill women and children. Look at the quote again.

Numbers 31:15-17

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

You can pretend that it doesn't say what it says... but it does.

The President isn't going to do that, and if he did, and I was among the soldiers, I might have a problem with it.

How do you think the soldiers under Moses felt?

There is a lot I don't know about that situation.

What is there to know?

Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

What is there to know?

I'm not going to reject my faith in God by you harping on your version or interpretation on Old Testament stories. You can go on and on forever. I don't know you, and I know you even less than I know Moses, even though Moses may or may not have even lived, and that was thousands of years ago.

I'm not asking you to reject your faith. I'm asking you to use logic and avoid fallacy.

Give it up. I've been in a war zone. Innocents died. It sucks.

Did your military leaders order you to kill children? I'm sorry Huntster but that isn't going to wash.

You have two choices as I see it.
1.) This single incident is mythology and it never happened.
2.) What moses did was wrong.

Give me another choice?

I'm not going to reject God because of it.

I don't want you to reject god.

in fact, I adhere to Him more because of it.

Of course you do. I don't doubt it.

1.) The Catholics in Ireland adhere to god more when god told them to kill.
2.) The terrorists in Palestine adhere to god more when god tells them to kill.
3.) The terrorists behind 9/11 adhere to god more when god told them to kill.

Your statement doesn't surprise me in the least. Genocide, atrocities and murder in the name of god are actually well understood. Killing in the name of ones god is the best way to prove that your god is powerful and to demonstrate your adherence to god. Only god has the right to give and take life. This is the adult version children saying "my dad is bigger than your dad". It's human nature. Who ever kills the most people has the most powerful god.

 

[Huntster]

You're Still Here?!

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, I'm to accept the Biblical accounts or decide that you have determined otherwise.

There really is nothing to decide Huntster. Why do you feel that there is?

You're right. There is nothing left to decide.

I don't feel that there is. It's over. I'm decided. Always have been.

Why are we still here? ("We" You and me. Debating. Etc.)

Why?

Quote:
Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them ... therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

How else can this be read?

Let me see.............

"Kill them all. Let God sort them out."

"Just kill them all."

"Kill even the pets among them."

"Burn it all. Let not a single trace remain."

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.....................should I go on?

Quote:
Sorry. Moses is pretty well known, and among the vast majority of mankind. I've already noted that Christianity is the largest church in the world.

So what? This is fallacy?

Is this a repeat question?

Do get extra points for answering it again?

Quote:
So I'm to reject the teachings and analysis of ages of sages to accept your condemnation?

? Fallacy. Read it again.

No fallacy, fool. It's a damned straight question.

Answer it.

Quote:
I can assure you, all Viet Cong weren't male, nor were they all "adults."

True, but what you leave out is that the massacre at My Lai was an attrocity. It involved the indiscriminate killing of women and children.

So Vietnam can be neatly catagorized for you in Mai Lai?

The "indiscriminate killing of women and children" can be bunched up at Mai Lai?

That's the problem with folks like yourself. You love Mai Lai.

I hate it.

You are skating on thin ice. War does not give you the licence to indiscriminatly kill women and children. Look at the quote again.

I'm not skating. I'm fighting in a war.

Quit skating. Quit playing.

Fight or go home.

Quote:
Numbers 31:15-17

Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

You can pretend that it doesn't say what it says... but it does.

I pretend nothing. It says to "kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him."

Tough stuff. I'm glad I wasn't there.

Quote:
The President isn't going to do that, and if he did, and I was among the soldiers, I might have a problem with it.

How do you think the soldiers under Moses felt?

I'm not sure, but I suspect when it was over, they were pretty sick and tired.

Quote:
There is a lot I don't know about that situation.

What is there to know?

That which you and I haven't lived through.

Quote:
Numbers 31:15-17

And Moses said unto them ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

What is there to know?

Why that was necessary.

Quote:
I'm not going to reject my faith in God by you harping on your version or interpretation on Old Testament stories. You can go on and on forever. I don't know you, and I know you even less than I know Moses, even though Moses may or may not have even lived, and that was thousands of years ago.

I'm not asking you to reject your faith. I'm asking you to use logic and avoid fallacy.

I've already outlined to you that I will not reject the history of the Israelites and foundation of my Christianity with your drivel about Moses and the Flight from Egypt.

Again, as I have outlined, your "logic" and allegations of "fallacy" are meaningless to me, because you are meaningless.

Moses is Moses.

RandFan is a fan of Randi.

Sorry. You're trumped. Big time.

Quote:
Give it up. I've been in a war zone. Innocents died. It sucks.

Did your military leaders order you to kill children?

Nope. But children died.

I'm sorry Huntster but that isn't going to wash.

That's because you haven't been through the washer.

You have two choices as I see it.
1.) This single incident is mythology and it never happend.
2.) What moses did was wrong.

Give me another choice?

You don't know what you're writing about.

How about a few more:

1) You don't about warfare
2) You don't know about life
3) You don't know about death
4) You don't know about innocent casulties
5) You don't know about sacrifice
6) You don't know about loyalty
7) You don't know about obedience
8) I can go on. Do you want me to?

Quote:
I'm not going to reject God because of it.

I don't want you to reject god.

What do you want?

Of course you do. I don't doubt it.

1.) The Catholics in Ireland adhere to god more when god told them to kill.
2.) The terrorists in Palestine adhere to god more when god tells them to kill.
3.) The terrorists behind 9/11 adhere to god more when god told them to kill.

Your statement doesn't surprise me in the least. Genocide, attrocities and murder in the name of god are actually well understood. Killing in the name of ones god is the best way to prove that your god is powerful. Only god can has the right to give and take life. This is the adult version of children who say "my dad is bigger than your dad". It's human nature. Who ever kills the most people has the most powerful god.

Don't have much experience killing, do you?

More to the point, you don't have much experience staying alive in Hell, do you?

I'm a big guy. I'm good with guns. Carry them all the time. I'm a hunter. I kill for the dinner table, both wild game as well as my own livestock.

Been to the zone, too. In the U.S. military. Good stuff. The best.

They still killed us. Still do.

It's a crap shoot, partner. The odds are in your favor with the U.S. military, but there is no guarantee you'll come home.

It's illegal to kill like you refer. You're putting Moses down with Satan, but you don't fool me.

I know that you don't know

Edited by Darat: 

Breaches of Rule 8 removed.

Thanks, but no, thanks. Moses (or whoever else you decide to deride) aside, I'll adhere to Christ as defined by the RCC. Your interpretation is..............well, deficient.

 

[RandFan]

I've already outlined to you that I will not reject the history of the Israelites and foundation of my Christianity with your drivel about Moses and the Flight from Egypt.

I've never asked you to reject anything Huntster. I have made a logically valid argument. One that I think is important.

Again, as I have outlined, your "logic" and allegations of "fallacy" are meaningless to me, because you are meaningless.

Ok, I'm meaningless. I apologize if I offended you. It wasn't my intention. I stand by everything that I have said but I didn't engage you for any other reason than to discuss what I believe is important. You don't believe that it is and obviously your belief is more important to you than anything else. I don't have any desire to end our discussion in bad feelings or ill will.

Don't have much experience killing, do you?

More to the point, you don't have much experience staying alive in Hell, do you?

I'm a big guy. I'm good with guns. Carry them all the time. I'm a hunter. I kill for the dinner table, both wild game as well as my own livestock.

Been to the zone, too. In the U.S. military. Good stuff. The best.

They still killed us. Still do.

It's a crap shoot, partner. The odds are in your favor with the U.S. military, but there is no guarantee you'll come home.

It's illegal to kill like you refer. You're putting Moses down with Satan, but you don't fool me.

I know that you don't know shyt. That's okay. You have that right.

You'll never take God away from me. Why? Because all that will be left are a$$holes like yourself. People. Tyrants. Folks who think they're the "administrators."

Thanks, but no, thanks. Moses (or whoever else you decide to deride) aside, I'll adhere to Christ as defined by the RCC. Your interpretation is..............well, deficient.

Hey, I don't want you to do anything Huntster. We were simply having a discussion. That's all. Go in peace and be happy.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
Again, as I have outlined, your "logic" and allegations of "fallacy" are meaningless to me, because you are meaningless.

Ok, I'm meaningless. I apologize if I offended you. It wasn't my intention. I stand by everything that I have said but I didn't engage you for any other reason than to discuss what I believe is important. You don't believe that it is and obviously your belief is more important to you than anything else. I don't have any desire to end our discussion in bad feelings or ill will.

Thank you for your good will. I believe you.

And I'm sorry about my harsh words. By writing "you're meaningless", I'm not intending that you're less than others. I'm meaningless, too.

I'm trying to illustrate that our debate is meaningless in history and time. It has occurred over and over, and in a myriad of ways.

God will outlive us, whether or not he actually exists. I'm sorry, but that is a fact.

Better get used to it. You damned sure ain't gonna change it.

 

[Marc L]

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.

Minor nit: It's "You shall not murder. While massacring whole cities would be murder in my book, such killings in wartime in those times were common. Note, I'm not trying to justify it, just clarifying.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

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

My hypothetical mugger wasn't. I apologize for not being more specific. On the other hand, to take your argument, could God be bluffing? Is it ok for a Christian (or anyone else, for that matter) to disobey God because he might be bluffing? Certainly Biblical evidence suggests that he only rarely bluffs,* but most Christians I've talked to say that where accepting Jesus is concerned, it is no bluff.

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.

I do my best not to be insulting in a debate. If I've insulted you, I apologize, and would appreciate it if you'd point out where I've done it. To get back to the point, though, I was talking about the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus. Like you mentioned with jumping off a building: Death or injury is a given. We know this because we've observed it. With not accepting Jesus, we know of no natural consequences, because we haven't observed it. In addition, we know of no natural benefits to accepting Jesus, because again, we've not observed any.** The only consequences/benefits that we can talk about are the ones mentioned in the Bible. Either eternal life or eternal suffering. These aren't natural consequences, though, they're promises/threats.

* For instance Eden, when God said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the Forbidden Fruit. They didn't die, they were exiled from Eden.

** One argument I've heard for benefits of Christianity is how it changes people's lives for the better. While that may be true, the changes seem to also exist when converting to other religions as well, and thus, isn't a benefit of just Christianity.

Marc

 

[Marc L]

If there are differences between the books it means that at least 3 of the books are false. Why is elementary logic so challenging for you?

No, it means that at least three of the books are wrong about things. It doesn't mean that they're totally false.

Take four newspaper articles about a hypothetical murder. Article one says the victim was wearing a red shirt, article two says it was blue, article three says it was green, and article four says it was yellow. In reality, it was orange with pink polka dots. Does that mean all four articles were false? No, it means that they got the details wrong.

Assuming for the sake of argument that there was a man named Jesus who lived in the first century CE, preached about the Kingdom of God, and was crucified, then the four gospels, despite getting the detail wrong, are right about his existence. Just because Luke (for a hypothetical example) is the only one who got 100% of the details right, doesn't mean that the others are false-they still report that there was a man named Jesus who preached the Kingdom of God, etc. Yes, they got the details wrong, and they're unreliable, but that doesn't make them false.


Marc

 

[elliotfc]

So the picture for me is not of a religion that is founded and described by a single entity, supernatural or not, rather it is of a religion formed by people just making stuff up for several hundred years after Jesus lived.

Except for the phrase "just making stuff up" I think this sounds swell.

Religion, then, like government, is of the people by the people and for the people...the kicker is that it's also *about* God. Religion is up to us, Jesus did his thing and accomplished all he set out to accomplish.

I think your idea here, based on your previous responses would be that Christianity was created by a series of divinely inspired people that followed in the footsteps of Jesus.

Yes. I think religion is designed by people with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

God will outlive us, whether or not he actually exists. I'm sorry, but that is a fact.

That is nonsensical

Better get used to it. You damned sure ain't gonna change it.

There is nothing to change. There is no god.

 

[RandFan]

Minor nit: It's "You shall not murder. While massacring whole cities would be murder in my book, such killings in wartime in those times were common. Note, I'm not trying to justify it, just clarifying.

The battle very likely never took place. I'm all for viewing historical events in the context of their time. Human understanding, culture and morality were quite different then. However, if one accepts an unchanging god who is a just being as part of the equation then that is a very different context that simply won't allow such attrocities.

If this wasn't simply mythology and there is a god and god did tell Moses to kill children then god is not a just being.

 

[RandFan]

I'm trying to illustrate that our debate is meaningless in history and time. It has occurred over and over, and in a myriad of ways.

One last thing, that it has occured over and over is proof of nothing.

 

[elliotfc]

My hypothetical mugger wasn't. I apologize for not being more specific. On the other hand, to take your argument, could God be bluffing? Is it ok for a Christian (or anyone else, for that matter) to disobey God because he might be bluffing?

I think OK is...relative...more than objective. We are free to choose to disobey God, for any reason. OK means acceptable, but acceptable to whom?

I think that God, who is in the forgiveness business, can accept those who disobeyed him for any number of reasons, sure.

It is always OK to disobey God. Threats of hell may be real, or may not be real, but in either case it's OK to disobey God. If it wasn't, rapists would get struck by lightning before they committed rape or something. Die of a heart attack.

Certainly Biblical evidence suggests that he only rarely bluffs,* but most Christians I've talked to say that where accepting Jesus is concerned, it is no bluff.

Right. It's either a bluff or it isn't.

I do my best not to be insulting in a debate. If I've insulted you, I apologize, and would appreciate it if you'd point out where I've done it.

I said "many athiests" Marc, but I can see how it might have read like an accusation that you in particular were being insulting, seeing how I was replying to you. My bad.

To get back to the point, though, I was talking about the natural consequences of not accepting Jesus. Like you mentioned with jumping off a building: Death or injury is a given. We know this because we've observed it. With not accepting Jesus, we know of no natural consequences, because we haven't observed it.

Right.

In addition, we know of no natural benefits to accepting Jesus, because again, we've not observed any.**

Right.

You could conclude from this that in a *natural perspective*, accepting or not accepting Jesus is neither logical or illogical. I don't think I'll get uniform agreement on that assertion, but whatever.

The only consequences/benefits that we can talk about are the ones mentioned in the Bible. Either eternal life or eternal suffering. These aren't natural consequences, though, they're promises/threats.

If it's objective reality, then that's the way it is. Calling it a threat is, to me, a superfluous descriptor. If it follows, just like becoming a splat on the ground follows when you jump off a building, threat is taking it a bit too personal. Consequences, if asserted as being unavoidable, would then be commensurate to the result of any sort of action on this planet which could result in a very nasty result.

It God will punish the goats, I'm glad he at least told us that. If he never told us that, then he wouldn't have "threatened" us, but then we wouldn't be clued into the ostensible objective reality, and I don't think that's a better situation than being threatened as you say.

* For instance Eden, when God said Adam and Eve would die if they ate the Forbidden Fruit. They didn't die, they were exiled from Eden.

They didn't die immediately.

** One argument I've heard for benefits of Christianity is how it changes people's lives for the better. While that may be true, the changes seem to also exist when converting to other religions as well, and thus, isn't a benefit of just Christianity.

True, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Wait that sounded weird. But anyways, a particular drug may make you feel better if you're sick, but that doesn't mean another drug couldn't also make you feel better if you're sick.

-Elliot

 

[RandFan]

It is always OK to disobey God. Threats of hell may be real, or may not be real, but in either case it's OK to disobey God. If it wasn't, rapists would get struck by lightning before they committed rape or something. Die of a heart attack.

If it's objective reality, then that's the way it is. Calling it a threat is, to me, a superfluous descriptor. If it follows, just like becoming a splat on the ground follows when you jump off a building, threat is taking it a bit too personal.

Did (does) god have a choice as to what follows as it relates to eternal punishment?

If I hold a gun to your head and tell you that I will kill you if you don't do what I say then can it be said to be "ok" for you to do what every you want? How is that different from jumping of a building? It seems to me that the difference is that I am a conscious being and I have a choice whether to create such a situation.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
God will outlive us, whether or not he actually exists. I'm sorry, but that is a fact.

That is nonsensical

Whether God truly exists or not, a whole bunch of people on this planet (maybe the majority) believe that He does (in one form or another).

He ain't going away, even if He doesn't exist, and no matter how much you wish Him to.

Quote:
Better get used to it. You damned sure ain't gonna change it.

There is nothing to change. There is no god.

Says you.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Marc L
Minor nit: It's "You shall not murder. While massacring whole cities would be murder in my book, such killings in wartime in those times were common. Note, I'm not trying to justify it, just clarifying.

The battle very likely never took place.

Interesting. You're passionately judging the morality of an act that you don't even believe took place?

 

[RandFan]

Whether God truly exists or not, a whole bunch of people on this planet (maybe the majority) believe that He does (in one form or another).

{sigh} This is just fallacy. What a whole buch of people BELIEVE means nothing. Argument ad numerum.

He ain't going away, even if He doesn't exist...

Neither is the easter bunny. Neither is Santa Claus.

Says you.

Yes, for good reason.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I'm trying to illustrate that our debate is meaningless in history and time. It has occurred over and over, and in a myriad of ways.

One last thing, that it has occured over and over is proof of nothing.

It is proof that struggle over whose God is the "right one", or whether He even exists or not, has been going on for all of recorded human history.

Sheesh...........

 

[RandFan]

Interesting. You're passionately judging the morality of an act that you don't even believe took place?

Yes, and for good reason. People really believe that this took place. If it did then there is a very real problem. This is how logic works Huntster. This is what enable humans to progress. The ability to say "what if..." It's powerful. I'm sorry that you are unable to grasp the concept.

 

[Marc L]

It was meant to be cheeky, and just that.

I don't know if God fits the definition of god by the way. Some gods were begotten, while the Christian God is unbegotten. In some ways does it fit the definition of god? I guess so.

-Elliot

Actually, begotten-ness/unbegotten-ness isn't really a necessary characteristic of godhood. Like you said, some were, some weren't. I think (not being a student of such things) the primary qualifications of godhood were that people said they were gods.

Marc

 

[RandFan]

It is proof that struggle over whose God is the "right one", or whether He even exists or not, has been going on for all of recorded human history.

Sheesh...........

Assuming this is true, so what? It still proves nothing. You say this as if it has some deep meaning. No, it just means that a struggle has taken place.

It's difficult to have a discussion with you Huntster. You don't grasp fundamental logic. I'm sorry but your passion blinds your judgment.