Forums » Theology

• Jonathan Cousar

  

  • Internet Czar
  • 2581 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 2:08:28 PM EDT

  ◄Dave► you said, "Jonathan, your whole premise here is that there is only one 'true' god, and with that bias, you presume that all others are 'fake.' What evidence do you have for this assertion?"
  
  You're asking me to prove a negative? I would instead ask them to prove a positive. I would ask - what evidence the adherents to these other gods have that their gods are real? Any historical evidence? Any objective evidence? Any logical evidence?
  
  And by the way, your whole premise is that any belief in God or gods must be based entirely on blind faith, and you therefore presume that any claims to objective, historical or logical evidence are invalid.
  
  Do you see my point? You asked that question as if you are the one person in the room with no bias.
  
  Oh - and on my name, I don't really care. Although in real life - everyone calls me Jonathan - except my dad. He calls me Son (in a very charming southern accent - that makes it at least two syllables)!
  
  Eric, I'll respond to your first post - eventually! I just need to set aside some them to take a look at it.
• Jonathan Cousar

  

  • Internet Czar
  • 2581 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 2:18:13 PM EDT

   ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave► said:
  ...for an at least semi-rational mind, to reconcile conflating the angry, jealous, petulant, vengeful, wrathful, spiteful, bloodthirsty, and downright evil god of the Old Testament... ◄Dave►

  ------------------------------------- 

   

  Dave, let's take a look at a few of the words of the "evil" God of the Old Testament! And tell me what makes him so evil.  

  
  Let's go right into the heart of Old Testament darkness - the book of LEVITICUS!  (Makes you shudder just hearing it doesn't it)!?

   

  Here's some of what it says:

   

  “When you harvest your crops, do not harvest the grain along the edges of your fields, and do not pick up what the harvesters drop. It is the same with your grape crop—do not strip every last bunch of grapes from the vines, and do not pick up the grapes that fall to the ground. Leave them for the poor and the foreigners who live among you, for I, the LORD, am your God.
  “Do not steal.
  “Do not cheat one another.
  “Do not lie.
  “Do not use my name to swear a falsehood and so profane the name of your God. I am the LORD.
  “Do not cheat or rob anyone.
  “Always pay your hired workers promptly.
  “Show your fear of God by treating the deaf with respect and by not taking advantage of the blind. I am the LORD.
  “Always judge your neighbors fairly, neither favoring the poor nor showing deference to the rich.
  “Do not spread slanderous gossip among your people.*
  “Do not try to get ahead at the cost of your neighbor's life, for I am the LORD.
  “Do not nurse hatred in your heart for any of your relatives.
  “Confront your neighbors directly so you will not be held guilty for their crimes.
  “Never seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

   
  Does that sound like an evil irrational, bloodthirsty God?  

  
  This post was edited by Jonathan Cousar at July 27, 2012 2:18:55 PM EDT
• Oscar Booth

  

  • 124 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 6:16:43 PM EDT

  Again I see people quoting the parts that help their cause. Read Leviticus 1/27.all the way. One might find god is a little more "irrational, bloodthirsty than one might think
  Of course it's the old testament, not binding.
  
  http://nltinterlinear.com/Lv.1
  
  
• Jonathan Cousar

  

  • Internet Czar
  • 2581 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 6:42:20 PM EDT

  That's right Oscar, read the whole thing... and tell us what's irrational.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 7:04:54 PM EDT

  Is there any particular reason why you guys are focused on Leviticus? Seriously, why does that particular book seem to attract you?
  
  When I look at Leviticus, I see a book of regulations and laws, primarily. It is certainly an important book. However, it is akin to sitting down and reading State building code!
  
  Are you aware that Leviticus was written by Moses? Moses, also, wrote Exodus. In fact, the two books were meant to be read together. You start out with Exodus and you finish with Leviticus. There is perspective there that is missed if you skip Exodus!
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 7:20:36 PM EDT

  When you read Leviticus it is important to keep in mind that the book's main thrust is Holiness. Holiness simply means set apart for God.
  
  A key element of Leviticus, and of Old Testament worship, was animal sacrifices. Sacrifices were offered so the sinner might have access to God. They were to "atone" for sin. And to "sanctify" the offerer. The sacrifice was a substitute; it died in the place of the sinner.
  
  Leviticus can be broken into two sections: Attaining Holiness(chapters 1 - 16), and Maintaining Holiness(chapters 17 - 27). The first division taught Israel how to attain holiness by the sacrifices and Levitical priesthood. The second taught then how to maintain holiness by moral and ceremonial purity.
• Jon McKeone

  

  • 45 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 7:25:33 PM EDT

  Actually Robert it is sanctified or sanctification which means set apart for God. The meaning of holiness is entirely different.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 7:39:40 PM EDT

  Oh stop it! Thats what you argue about???
  
  Holiness, or sanctity, is in general the state of being holy (perceived by religious individuals as associated with the divine) or sacred (considered worthy of spiritual respect or devotion; or inspiring awe or reverence among believers in a given set of spiritual ideas). In other contexts, objects are often considered 'holy' or 'sacred' if used for spiritual purposes, such as the worship or service of gods. These terms can also be used in a non-spiritual or semi-spiritual context ("sacred truths" in a constitution). It is often ascribed to people ("a holy man" of religious occupation, "holy prophet" who is venerated by his followers), objects ("sacred artifact" that is venerated and blessed ), times ("holy days" of spiritual introspection, such as during winter holidays), or places ("sacred ground", "holy place").
  
  
• Mark Pepin

  

  • 93 posts
   

  July 27, 2012 10:42:51 PM EDT

  ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave► said:
  Mark, I have lost track of how many times I have asked you not to refer to me as an 'atheist.' Once again, I prefer the terms 'skeptic,' 'godless,' or 'heathen.' Although technically the term atheist simply means 'one without a god,' in modern usage in America, it has come to denote a sinister ACLU-type activist culture warrior, who thinks he knows for certain that there are no gods, and is actively engaged in promoting the use of government to prevent public displays of piety. Although certainly skeptical, I have ho such certainty, and damn sure have no interest in denying anyone their right to practice their religion anyway they choose, as long as they don't pester me with it, or try to use government to regulate my lifestyle to conform to their dogma. ◄Dave►

   

  I apologize that you take offense.  However, if someone who is "pro-choice" enters into a discussion with me, I would refer to them as an "abortionist."  My reasoning is that those who are "pro-choice" are only arguing for ONE choice- the choice to murder humans in the womb - all other "choices" being already legal, the "pro-choicer" is only fighting for the one choice that is being challenged legally - abortion - hence, an "abortionist."

   

  For the same line of reasoning, someone who refers to himself as a "Skeptic" as opposed to an "atheist" is only playing word games, because the Skeptic denies the existence of God in the same manner that the atheist does.  To be sure, today's "Skeptic" has the advantage of building on the shoulders of previous atheists' arguments and having an arsenal of debate tactics at their advantage.  But when you strip away the veneer of their "skepticism" all that remains is a rejection of God - and a specific defiance of Christianity in particular.

   

  I attribute this as the main reason that I have never found an atheist who is willing to stand his ground and debate his views without fear.  They all, including you, shy away from the difficult accusations and criticisms, specifically their underlying hatred of all things Christian.  Doug made special note of it in his replies.  It's there in your posts, but when challenged, you refuse to engage.

   

  I read much of what you write, and it is clear that you have stellar reasoning powers. 

   

  In any case, I believe that people choose what they believe in based upon two main factors:

   

  1. Birthright - they believe what they grew up with
  2. Reason - they examine what they learn to come to the truth

  I find that you and Eric are both in the latter group.  Because of that, I would challenge you based upon reason.

   

• Oscar Booth

  

  • 124 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 9:47:00 AM EDT

  Jonathan Cousar said:
  That's right Oscar, read the whole thing... and tell us what's irrational.

   

   

  All of it. It's not only Irrational, bloodthirsty, but also sickening. 

  Poor old Moses had a rough row to hoe, going between all those sinners and the man it sky, that called himself "lord" just to be kicked out of the promise land for saying "we". 

  Of course those that believe in "burnt offering" sacrifices, and killing those that doesn't those that doesn't do it just right, might find Lev. ..........refreshing

   

   

  
  This post was edited by Oscar Booth at July 28, 2012 9:48:10 AM EDT
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 11:02:33 AM EDT

  This is my understanding of the nature of God: God, being the ultimate embodiment of power, and perfection, cannot be in the presence of imperfection without destroying it. The laws of Moses, mentioned in the book of Leviticus, and referred to in other books, as well as the ten commandments, were set down with the purpose of making provision for a surface cleansing of the children of Israel. This allowed them to continue (more or less) in the covenant that Abraham made with God. In that covenant, God promised to take care of them and make them prosper, and many acts that people use to imply God's vindictiveness were a part of keeping that covenant. In fact, God did not promote rape, slavery, incest, or murder. Rape and incest were expressly forbidden, under pain of death. Murder was also expressly forbidden, and even manslaughter could under certain circumstances be punished with death. There were acts of war during the time of the Old Testament, some of which did include the total destruction of cities. One of the rules of Leviticus was that every seven years there was a year of Jubilee. that year, all property returned to the original owners, as designated when Joshua led the children of Israel into the promised land; all slaves (actually indentured servants) were released; and all debts were forgiven. There were also many rules expressly prohibiting the mistreatment of indentured servants, and foreigners. Of course, the children of Israel followed the law about as well as Americans follow the laws today.
  
  As for the animal sacrifices, it is is made clear that the only way sin can be covered, to prevent God from destroying us in our imperfection, is by the shedding of blood. Any animal sacrificed, had to be of an approved species, and also be free from imperfection. By the shedding of that blood, there was sufficient covering, and surface purification, for the designated high preist to survive being in the presence of God, once a year, most years.
  
  Jesus, as the son of God, and having lived a perfect life, despite all temptation to the contrary. (perfect being defined as always doing God's will) was able to take the office of high preist permanently, and also has the power to forgive(absolve) our sins(imperfections) and purify us sufficiently that we can be in the presence of God without being destroyed.
  
  By that, my view is that I will still be accountable for how I've lived my life, altough I will not be condemned to leave God's presence, through the sacrifice that Jesus made for me. I believe that God's heart's desire is to be able to forgive all people, and not see anyone unwelcome in His presence, but that if one sets one's heart in opposition to God's overall rules, then God is willing to allow them that choice, with the natural result that they make themselves unwelcome in God's presence.
  
  
  Justice is when you get what you deserve.
  Mercy is when you don't get what you deserve.
  Grace is when you get what you don't deserve.
  
  God is inherently Just, but thankfully, His love for mankind grants us both mercy and grace.
  
• ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave►

  

  • 41 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 11:35:18 AM EDT

  Oscar Booth said:

   

  "All of it. It's not only Irrational, bloodthirsty, but also sickening. 

  Poor old Moses had a rough row to hoe, going between all those sinners and the man it sky, that called himself "lord" just to be kicked out of the promise land for saying "we". "///

  .

  Agreed, Oscar. Just imagine finding the odor of burning flesh to be a pleasing aroma. And, what about all of the wanton slaughter, rape, and slavery of non-combatants this God ordered Moses to conduct, in the process of clearing the 'Promised Land' of its current occupants, and carefully dividing the pillage? One of our most important Founders of this so-called 'Christian Nation,' without whose pamphlet "Common Sense" there probably would not have been a Revolutionary War, put it best:
  .
  “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God.  It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.” -Thomas Paine in "The Age of Reason"
  .
  I concur with him too. ◄Dave►

   

   

   

• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 12:41:32 PM EDT

  Paine died in June 1809, and to drive home the point of his tarnished image, the New York Citizen printed the following line in Paine's obituary: "He had lived long, did some good and much harm." Just because someone can write, doesnt mean that they can write knowledgeably on any subject. There is no evidence that Paine was schooled in the subject? In fact, the quote that you posted is a clear indication that he did not have a working knowledge of the subject matter. If I recall correctly, Age of Reason was, primarily, a book critical of organized religion. So, it appears that the book was written by a dynamic writer, which was critical of religion and the Bible. But, who's writer has no standing.

  
  This post was edited by Robert Watson at July 28, 2012 12:46:46 PM EDT
• ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave►

  

  • 41 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 1:09:11 PM EDT

  Robert Watson said:

   

  "So, it appears that the book was written by a dynamic writer, which was critical of religion and the Bible. But, who's writer has no standing."///

   

  Standing? STANDING? Good grief, if he could write it is fair to conclude that he could read! Any literate man can (and should) read the plain language in the Torah as the ancient history book, which it is. It takes a delusional sort to 'interpret' it to mean something other than what it plainly says. I'll grant that there is a lot of allegory and parables in the New Testament, which are fair game for creative interpretation; but in the first five books of the Old Testament, not so much. ◄Dave►

  
  This post was edited by ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave► at July 28, 2012 1:11:20 PM EDT
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 1:29:29 PM EDT

  Well, standing is actually the wrong word. My apologizes. I meant expertise.
  
  You say that you have read it (the Bible) and yet you are not grasping the context, significance, or the symbolism. Neither did Paine. There are people that write because they have something that needs to be said. Then there are people that write because they need to say something.
• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 1:34:29 PM EDT

  The concept that I think Paine was naive about is Hermeneutics.
  
  Hermeneutics is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is a science because it is guided by rules. The art is in the application of the rules. The primary need of hermeneutics is to determine the meaning of the Word of God. Since all doctrine rests upon interpretation, we must have correct interpretation to develop correct doctrine. Hermeneutics seeks to bridge the gap between our minds and the minds of the Biblical writers. The best way to accomplish this bridge is through a thorough knowledge of the original languages, ancient history and comparison of Scripture with Scripture. An extensive knowledge of geography and culture is also invaluable. The step of faith that we must make is the inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16). This establishes the boundaries for correct understanding of the Word. We also must seek to determine the true text. This discipline is called textual criticism. Lower criticism seeks to determine the author and date of the writing. So called “Higher Criticism” is a liberal approach to Scripture that does not accept complete inspiration of the Bible. There is a need for intellectual honesty and education. One may have the rules memorized, but may not be able to apply them, or may seek to apply them in a biased manner. The objective of the interpreter is to read out of the text (exegesis) not to read one’s own viewpoints in to the text (eisegesis).
• ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave►

  

  • 41 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 1:57:38 PM EDT

  Robert Watson said:

   

  "You say that you have read it (the Bible) and yet you are not grasping the context, significance, or the symbolism."///

   

  I am not much interested in the bloody symbolism you attach to the vile acts of debauchery, which Moses reported your God ordered him to carry out. Was he lying, or was he accurately reporting his orders? Those who believe the Bible to be the inerrant 'Word of God,' sure spend an inordinate amount of time trying to spin it into what they wish it said. Since the Old Testament was written centuries before Jesus was even born, Christians do not own it and have no special standing (or expertise) for interpreting what the author(s) intended to report. ◄Dave►

• Robert Watson

  

  • 19 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 2:17:18 PM EDT

  Actually, you seem very interested in it! You just have a non-cogent concept.
  
  "...debauchery, which Moses reported your God ordered..." What are you talking about?
  
  If you are going to say that because the OT was written a long time ago; therefore, we cant interpret it, then the same would need to be said for the NT. So too, for Socrates, or Plato. That is a preposterous position. Of course we can correctly interpret ancient writings. Being Christian has nothing to do with "owning it." You can correctly interpret the Bible without being a Christian. But, there are specifics that need to be followed whenever we study a subject. You need to follow them.

  
  This post was edited by Robert Watson at July 28, 2012 2:19:25 PM EDT
• ThoughtsAloud ◄Dave►

  

  • 41 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 3:09:08 PM EDT

  Robert Watson said:

   

  "You can correctly interpret the Bible without being a Christian. But, there are specifics that need to be followed whenever we study a subject. You need to follow them."///

   

  I need do no such thing. I am not encumbered with a need to reconcile the cognitive dissonance attendant with attempting to believe the wretched God of Moses and the beneficent mortal Jesus, are one and the same mystical entity. Personally, I have concluded that Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, David Koresh, et al, were all delusional fools, or con artists, or both. I am not much interested in the spin any of their devotees place on their preachifying. ◄Dave►

• Doug Walters

  

  • 126 posts
   

  July 28, 2012 5:14:48 PM EDT

  What happened to you when you were young to bring about such intense hatred against God, Dave?