Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

[RandFan]

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Linked.

 

[RandFan]

I look at it this way: the bible does not make arguments, people make arguments.

Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc. I'm interested in looking at the logic behind those. That's all. Let's not get involved in a semantical debate.

 

[stillthinkin]

Godwin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

ok.. TOO funny! Well, what about Quirk's Exception? I mean, perhaps, just perhaps, I wanted to end the post...

How about this... no more nazi talk from me. I have suffered my second humiliation, and at my own hand too...

Thank you all for not invoking Godwin's law seriously on me.

 

[stillthinkin]

Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc. I'm interested in looking at the logic behind those. That's all. Let's not get involved in a semantical debate.

Understood. My only point was that the bible is not something independent of humanity, it is a thoroughly human artifact. Why it became imbued culturally with such magical properties in the 16th century was answered to my satisfaction by Marshal McLuhan.

 

[Huntster]

Quote:
So, if I choose, I can point out the societal norms, customs, and laws for the Asmat tribe in New Guinea, and I can kill and eat other people in acceptable morality?

Do you live among the Asmat tribe of New Guinea?

No.

If not then I suspect the answer is no? What do you think?

I asked you first.

Quote:
H: Yet you seem to demand absolutes.

RF: Could you give me an example?

H: How about your very next response:

RF: I feel justified in finding it barbaric, capricious and arbitrary and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone would use it as a moral guide.

How is that an example of an absolute?

You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are.

Quote:
So, why can't someone use the Bible as a moral guide, if their morals are a personal thing?

Because it is pro-hoc reasoning. You decide first what is right then you go find those things that fit with your views.

I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"?

Quote:
A reminder.

A basis of wisdom.

A religious foundation.

A history book of the Jewish people.

I fail to see how this has anything to do with anything. A reminder of what? Be kind to slaves?

As a matter of fact, yes.

What wisdom, you should stone adulterers?

Nope. At least according to Christ.

Quote:
...Is owning slaves or killing children universal?

Over the history of mankind, yes.

Quote:
It is very significant. For example, in my response to triadboy above, when one sees that the Psalms verse he quoted refers to a culture that had been in bondage for centuries, it's hardly surprising that they want to kill their children.

Does that make it right to kill children?

"Right"?

Nope.

What does your catechism state regarding murder?

It is a mortal sin.

How are children moral agents and what have they done to warrant such a punishment?

Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket).

Quote:
Moral? Maybe not. I won't say it is. Like I noted, I'd be active in trying to kill them all, not write poetry.

Isn't this the attitude of the Muslim terrorists?

Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.

They are not interested in such details as innocent women and children. They simply want to kill us all. I find this troubling and counter to the teachings of Christ which I think demonstrates the problem of using the Bible as a moral guide.

Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.

Should you follow Christ and forgive or should you follow Moses and kill them all?

I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I would destroy their entire cities, way of life, ability to conduct warfare, and any future ability they might generate to destroy my culture and enslave me.

Destroying entire cities would constitute a breach of "just war theory", which I believe most Catholic thinkers on the subject subscribe to.

I don't agree. And, besides, it's not my call.

Ditto regarding destroying their "way of life". The last time the West defeated Islam (Battle of Lepanto 1571 AD) we were content merely to destroy their navy. If I recall, that was a Catholic triumph organized by the pope. There was no "kill them to the last" pursuit of the defeated forces afterwards.

If their way of life includes violence or domination over me and mine, their way of life has to go. At least that part.

I want them to adopt my "live and let live" philosophy.

Originally Posted by Huntster
It is very possible to forgive dead people.

I think the idea in the Bible, and in the RCC, is to forgive people instead of killing them, if at all possible.

I agree.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
....It is very possible to forgive dead people.

Wow, so kill them first and then forgive?

Not necessarily in that order.

That's a new take on Christian forgiveness I must admit.

You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.

It's also rather scary.

I'm sorry you're scared.

I suspect this is the attitude of many Muslims.

Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different.

They truly believe that Israel and by extension the United States have enslaved and oppressed them and it is their duty to destroy us.

Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.

You?

 

[Huntster]

....If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Matthew 22:37-40

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
That is an interesting opinion. Of course, it is opinion, because you have still not provided any evidence that "people are born with the "do unto others" philosophy imprinted within them."

I guess it's just obvious to me. I think it centers on psychological feelings of remorse. Because we humans have a brain which can internalize what others feel, we can understand the consequences of our actions upon others...and finally realize we would or would not like these actions inflicted on us.

Some people, even after intensive training, have little or no remorse for even horrendously evil acts.

The Golden Rule certainly doesn't begin with Jesus or even the OT. Buddha was all over that 500 years before Jesus. Hammurabi before the OT.

Yup.

Your ability to waste children is very Yahweh-like. You would make a great Islamic/Jewish god. You would be a bad NT god though. Sorry.

You're right. I would make a horrible God.

But I'm human. I don't qualify.

 

[RandFan]

No.

Well I guess that settles it then.

I asked you first.

And I answered, I said that I suspect that the answer is no. Now that I know that you don't live among the Asmat tribe then my suspicion was correct.

You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are.

I find the bible barbaric, arbitrary and capricious. I find it difficult to decide what is and is not meant to be a moral guide. Why would a guide inspired by god be so arbitrary?

I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"?

Because you pick and choose the parts that square with your upbringing. It is a classic definition of pro-hoc. If you, as an adult having no religious upbringing or a non-Christian upbringing, were to seek the truth and find it in the bible after weighing evidence it would be more substantive.

As a matter of fact, yes.

Well that's nice. I hope you remember that when you have slaves.

Nope. At least according to Christ.

So which rules do we keep and which do we get rid of according to Christ?

Over the history of mankind, yes.

Really? Every culture on every continent had slaves? The Inuit? Are you certain about that?

"Right"?

Nope.

I'm sure glad we got that straight. I'm sorry Moses was never told.

It is a mortal sin.

But you would kill the children of your captors?

Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket).

Then why punish them?

Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.

How is it different?

Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.

Assuming he lived I would agree with you. How does that square with what you said earlier:

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

Moral?

Like RandFan has noted, that's an individual thing.

I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.

Isn't that which is "legitimate" simply in the eye of the beholder? I'm quite certain the Palestinians view their leaders as legitimate.

 

[RandFan]

Not necessarily in that order.

I'm sure your forgiveness of them just before you killed them would be of great comfort. And I'm sure it would make Jesus happy.

You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.

I guess so. When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do." My understanding is that this is what is expected of us.

Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. --Luke 6:28

Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times?

Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. --Matthew 18:21-22

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. --Matthew 5:38-42

I'm sorry you're scared.

No, I did not say I was scared I said that folks with your attitude are scary. It is precisely that kind of attitude that leads to atrocities. Perhaps Christ's message of forgiveness is one moral that I wish Christians would adopt arbitrary or not.

Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different.

So what? The results are the same. Death and carnage justified by religious fervor.

Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.

More than enough to fly planes into the twin towers.

You?

I believe that 9/11 is an example of religious extremism.

 

[triadboy]

When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do."

Jesus' last words depends on which story you read. (which is really strange when you think about it)

 

[RandFan]

If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Matthew 22:37-40

"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Thanks,

Would you care to expand on why you think this is compelling? Don't get me wrong I think I could make an argument but I would like to know your thoughts.

Do you think it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself? Do you love your neighbor as yourself? Earlier you provided a list of priorities including your family, god and country, IIRC. Where does your neighbor fit on that list of priorities?

 

[stillthinkin]

Yes, and quite a few people in the bible made arguments, told parables, allegories, etc.

Are you aware of any "argument" in the bible which could qualify as rationally compelling?

AFAIK most if not all of the argument in the bible is argument based on tradition, that is, it is an elaboration on the ideas and stories that have been handed down in the history of the people of Israel.

I realize gave the example earlier of Jesus "arguing from nature" when he says that we should love our enemies because the sun rises and sets and the rain falls on the just and the unjust, but this does not represent "compelling argument". Though I do find it compelling in a sense.

It could be extended to: "if you believe God created the Sun, and if you believe his providence governs the rain and the sunshine, then have you noticed that he does not withold the sun and the rain based on the justice or injustice of the farmer? Do you likewise."

 

[RandFan]

Are you aware of any "argument" in the bible which could qualify as rationally compelling?

Thanks, fair point. I'm not certain to what extent, if any, logically valid arguments there are in the bible. At least not off hand. I think it would have been better of me to have asked for rationally defensible philosophies and/or propositions.

I think loving they neighbor as thy self would fall along the lines of the golden rule which is a very good philosophy for morality and I believe is rationally defensible.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
No.

Well I guess that settles it then.

Why?

Quote:
I asked you first.

And I answered, I said that I suspect that the answer is no. Now that I know that you don't live among the Asmat tribe then my suspicion was correct.

Why does my address make a difference?

If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?

Quote:
You have absolutely condemned the Bible as a moral guide because some of the books in it are clearly not meant as such, even though some are.

I find the bible barbaric, arbitrary and capricious. I find it difficult to decide what is and is not meant to be a moral guide.

Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral?

Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems?

Why would a guide inspired by god be so arbitrary?

Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.

Quote:
I was raised Catholic. From the beginning.

Can it be pro-hoc? I learned it as I could read. I was immersed in it literally from birth.

How can my utilization of the Bible today be "pro-hoc"?

Because you pick and choose the parts that square with your upbringing.

I do?

Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"?

Quote:
As a matter of fact, yes.

Well that's nice. I hope you remember that when you have slaves.

I don't own slaves. That's illegal.

If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely.

Quote:
Nope. At least according to Christ.

So which rules do we keep and which do we get rid of according to Christ?

They can be condensed into two:

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

Quote:
Over the history of mankind, yes.

Really? Every culture on every continent had slaves? The Inuit? Are you certain about that?

I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread.

Quote:
It is a mortal sin.

But you would kill the children of your captors?

Not as a practice.

Quote:
Children are innocent, and they have done nothing to warrant deadly punishment...........usually (as long as they don't have C4 strapped on, or a grenade in their pocket).

Then why punish them?

I wouldn't do so directly.

Quote:
Maybe the same attitude, but with a different justification and goal.

How is it different?

Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation).

I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society.

Quote:
Christ would oppose killing, perhaps even in self-defense.

Assuming he lived I would agree with you. How does that square with what you said earlier

Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it.

Quote:
I should seek peace and freedom for my family, and follow orders from my legitimate government.

Isn't that which is "legitimate" simply in the eye of the beholder?

Sometimes. For example, if someone is trying to harm me, I can legally and morally use lethal force to stop them. However, my understanding of my opponent's goal is "in the eye of the beholder."

Further, if I am drafted into the military and sent to fight a war, my legitimacy isn't in my power. I'm acting as a member of society, whether or not that society is acting legitimate.

I'm quite certain the Palestinians view their leaders as legitimate.

Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Not necessarily in that order.

I'm sure your forgiveness of them just before you killed them would be of great comfort.

Actually, I doubt that.

And I'm sure it would make Jesus happy.

I hope so.

Quote:
You've apparently had a poor understanding of Christian forgiveness.

I guess so. When Christ was crucified he asked his Father in heaven to "forgive them, they know not what they do." My understanding is that this is what is expected of us.

Yup.

So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did?

Quote:
I'm sorry you're scared.

No, I did not say I was scared I said that folks with your attitude are scary.

If you are not scared, how is it scary?

It is precisely that kind of attitude that leads to atrocities.

I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?

Is the law faulty?

Perhaps Christ's message of forgiveness is one moral that I wish Christians would adopt arbitrary or not.

If they did, and did all along, there would probably not be many left.

They'd all be dead.

Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral?

Quote:
Again, perhaps. However, their justification and goal is different.

So what? The results are the same. Death and carnage justified by religious fervor.

When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion?

Quote:
Some have reason to believe that. Most don't.

More than enough to fly planes into the twin towers.

And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?.................

Quote:
You?

I believe that 9/11 is an example of religious extremism.

That may be true.

I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by RandFan
If anyone would care to, please post arguments that you believe are compelling moral philosophy from Christ or anyone else.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Matthew 22:37-40


Quote:
"You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments."

Thanks,

Would you care to expand on why you think this is compelling? Don't get me wrong I think I could make an argument but I would like to know your thoughts.[/QUOTE]

1) It's simplicity. Christ wasn't viewed well by the Pharisees and Scribes, who over the centuries had built a huge legal situation from Mosaic Law. Christ simplified it into the above.

2) It's individuality. By simplifying it thus, it is clearly between you and God.

Do you think it is possible to love your neighbor as yourself?

You betcha.

Do you love your neighbor as yourself?

I try.

Earlier you provided a list of priorities including your family, god and country, IIRC. Where does your neighbor fit on that list of priorities?

They fit with "community" and "society."

 

[RandFan]

Why?

You agree that morals are arbitrary based in part on culture and custom. If you don't possess those cultures or customs then there is no reason for you to have those morals.

Why does my address make a difference?

(see above)

If it does, does that mean that I should be required to adopt the morals, laws, customs, and behaviors of Alaska Natives?

Definitely the laws. Individuals often have morals that differ from the norm. Customs and behaviors are a personal choice.

Why would you find it difficult to understand what is or is not moral?

I don't know how to explain to you what you can't see. I can decide what is moral. If I already know what is moral then why do I need a guide?

Why would you find it difficult to understand the difference between a narrative of Jewish history and a collection of poems?

The bible is filled with acts ostensibly carried out by the direction of god. Are you saying we are not to infer anything about the morality of those acts?

Apparently, because you've admitted that cannibals can consider themselves moral, morals are arbitrary.

Yes, I'm not sure if you agree though. You seem to want it both ways. Could you come to a decision?

Because I recognize Deuteronomy is a narrative of Jewish history and that the book of Sirach is a moral guide, I'm "picking and choosing"?

Why would god give instructions to his people that are immoral?

I don't own slaves. That's illegal.

And immoral by today's standards but apparently god neglected to tell his chosen people that.

If I did, I'd like to believe I'd treat them appropriately. If you recall, in the pre-Civil War South, the treatment of slaves varied widely.

I can understand owning slaves if god is not involved. If god is involved I can't understand it. How could god not condemn something that is so pernicious?

They can be condensed into two:

And the 10 commandments? It's ok to murder so long as you love god?

I did not say that "every culture on every continent had slaves." However, slavery is an old practice that was widespread.

Couldn't god explain to people that it was wrong?

Not as a practice.

Sounds morally ambiguous. Do you really not know?

I wouldn't do so directly.

That sounds Christan, causing suffering is ok so long as it isn't directly caused.

Islamic terrorists are justifying their acts with the Koran (whether or not that is their true motivation), and their goal is to kill those who are non-Islamic (whether or not that is their true motivation).

They say they are killing those who have caused them harm.

Assuming what you say is true, that is "if", it is a distinction without difference. "Thou Shalt Not Kill". It's easy to get around this if you are creative enough in your justification.

I don't want to kill anyone, but will do so within the law to protect my family, home, community, or to obey lawful orders issued by my society.

That's not what you said earlier.

Huntster

Now that I see which passage you are referring to, I'd say that my policy wouldn't be to kill the children of a foreign power that destroyed my land and took me and my neighbors into hundreds of years of bondage.

I'd kill 'em all.

"kill them all". After the fact.

Because I have reasoned that religious leaders of my faith have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life, and I adhere to it.

Sounds like the Muslim rationalization. They to reason that their religious leaders have reached reasonable conclusions regarding the taking of human life. Jim Jones' followers reasoned that the good Reverend had reached reasonable conclusions regarding suicide.

I prefer to think for myself.

Depends. Who are their leaders? Hamas or Fatah?

Apparently, nobody seems to know............

What possible difference could that make? Your chosen leader is your chosen leader.

 

[RandFan]

Actually, I doubt that.

Maybe you should just kill them then.

I hope so.

Jesus delights in the killing of people if they are forgiven? Or are you saying that he is just happy the folks are forgiven and he is not too keen on the whole slaughter thing?

So, if you find that moral and wonderful, why don't you travel to Baghdad and offer yourself as a sacrifice to peace like Christ did?

I don't understand. I thought the message was to forgive not necassarily to offer ourselves as human sacrifice. Is that what you thought the message was?

If you are not scared, how is it scary?

Because I fear that attitudes like yours are the ones that lead to atrocities. Such an atrocity, statistically, is unlikely to involve me. I fear for innocent people.

I obey the law. So how would an attitude of lawfulness lead to atrocities?

I'm really glad to hear that. In all honesty and sincerity I think that is important and I commend you and I am less worried that you will kill however your kind of attitude is shared by people who would put god before the law.

Id addition to being Catholic, I am American and Alaskan. I'm allowed under the law (Catholic, American, and Alaskan) to utilize self-defense against aggression, and required to obey military orders when under military orders.

Do you find that immoral?

Self defense has never been the subject of our discussion. We have been talking about the order by Moses to kill all males of the little ones. I don't really think that is self defense and I doubt you do either.

When have I justified offensive death and carnage with religion?

You've yet to condemn the slaughter of the little ones by Moses. You said you would do the same, right?

And the reasonable conclusion to draw from that fact is?

We are better off as a human race if we leave god out of the equation.

I am not of their religion, not impressed with their justifications and goals, and consider them enemies not because they are of a different religion (or that they are religious at all), but because they are evil, and they want to kill me.

Likewise, I'm sure, VERY SURE!