(September 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: What more can I say? Read it follishly and you can pick out many small examples out of context. In context, it is what I say. No contest.

How can a god that wipes out all the people in the world bar 8 be good ... in context or out?

Kyu

(September 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: How can a god that wipes out all the people in the world bar 8 be good ... in context or out?

See here

(September 1, 2009 at 4:17 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Nonsense Saerules. God as the pure actuality is incapable of 'not good'. Your logic is very twisted. You should stick to the out of context meaning, because that is all you can address.

God kills the Egyptian's first born sons. <--Out of context.

Because he 'hardened' Pharaoh's heart. <--In context.

Your god kills people, and that is horrible (out of context). What is more horrible is the JUSTIFICATION he uses to make himself 'right' (In context)!

I don't think you understand what context means Fr0do... the context of an event is the circumstances around the event. And when you put your evil god in context: he becomes worse than Hitler (At least he does in my opinion). Your 'wonderful, merciful, loving, almighty GOD' is the worst TYRANT i have ever seen in writing!

He is bloodthirsty enough to slaughter his favored people... sexist enough to treat women as mere tradable cattle... racist enough to put his own creations to death for being the wrong color... Sadistic enough to torture his creations for the smallest mistakes... Unfair enough to have the innocent sacrificed by the guilty...

BUT THE WORST THING HE HAS EVER DONE... he made you love him...

HE IS A TYRANT! AND you love him for it...

(September 1, 2009 at 3:40 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Suffice to say, there is no cherry picking going on at all, only 100% unprejudiced realism. Like I said, you naturally read it out of context - yeah of course there's a lot of nasty stuff in there, but the point is the opposite to what you summise.

What more can I say? Read it follishly and you can pick out many small examples out of context. In context, it is what I say. No contest.

And how the fuck do you decide on how to judge the big picture? How exactly do you have any real grasp whatsover on exactly how it should be read...how exactly do you have this 100% unprejudiced realism you claim to have?? That's fucking ridiculous. How would you 'get the message' when there are countless others that interpret it differently, and even when there are those that interpret it very like you do, no two people interpret things absolutely identically, so to claim 100% unpredjudiced realism is absolutely fucking ridiculous...

And by what logic then..do you somehow claim to interpret it better than others? The interpretation is subjective...so how do you genuinely explain all these horrible parts...???

You can choose (unfreely) to see the whole thing in a 'good light' or to see it in a bad way or any other way...you can interpret it how you will...so what is it you can possibly know that others don't, that somehow means you have '100% unpredjudiced realism' on your side? What a fucking claim!

Go on then..enlighten me! Lol.

EvF

Complete nonsense Saerules. I love the way you make up arguments for me and then dismiss them. You obviously have no comprehension of what context means.

... have you ever... in your life... seen a dictionary, Fr0do?

noun
the circumstances that form the setting for an event, statement, or idea, and in terms of which it can be fully understood and assessed : the decision was taken within the context of planned cuts in spending.
• the parts of something written or spoken that immediately precede and follow a word or passage and clarify its meaning : word processing is affected by the context in which words appear.


In layman's terms: The circumstances around an event.

(September 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And how the fuck do you decide on how to judge the big picture?

I take your constant swearing at this as frustration.

You don't understand the fundamental idea that this is not a book you can read and understand as a non believer. This, sadly for you, is fact.

Context means an appreciation of what the book aims for. You know what Christians say about that but choose to ignore it anyway, and then conclude that it is the opposite. Well big surprise... not.

You think Christians interpret the book differently from each other, as well as from atheists.. when this is a completely different thing. Christians interpret within a framework of peer review. An interpretation by a Christian is subject to criticism and evaluation from other Christians. This also happened more strictly in the Jewish Rabbinical tradition, where a Rabbi's 'Yolk' was his particular interpretation, that needed to be ratified by at least 3 other accepted Rabbi's (IIRC) to be accepted.

Non believers mostly have no clue what the bible is saying. Wild interpretation of the sort you entertain, being entirely illogical when understood within the concept that Christianity understood in choosing those very books, with their apparent contradictions.

It is the method of the time, and it works today, that supposed absurdities/ opposites/ contradictions actually conceal the real truth, which is sorta the point.

If you want to criticize it, it gives you plenty of ammunition. It also makes you look a fool.

---

(September 1, 2009 at 5:55 pm)Saerules Wrote: ... have you ever... in your life... seen a dictionary, Fr0do?

The context of the bible, is not at the micro level. It is a collection of books compiled for the reason of describing and understanding God. Take out any small peice and you are removing it from it's context. What you have to do is relate it to the rest of the bible where the concept as a whole can be grasped.

If you are talking about some other religion other than Chrstianity, then that's fine. However, if you want to discuss Christianity with me, you need to understand that Christianity specifically factors in Christ to the whole thing. Christ is God from the beginning. The bible does not say that in the beginning, but from the statements about and by Jesus we connect the two to gain meaning. that's how it works.

So apparenly I'm a fool for not believing that Christians have special knowledge over the truth behind the bible!

Sorry but...you assert that Christians have somehow got it right when it come to understand the bible and....

1.. How do you know that? At all? How do you remotely know that you Christians have got it right?

2. How am I fool for not believing you when you haven't given me any fucking evidence.

(September 1, 2009 at 6:22 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 1, 2009 at 5:49 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: And how the fuck do you decide on how to judge the big picture?

I take your constant swearing at this as frustration.

You'd be wrong.

If you really wanna know my mood right now... - I feel fucking fantastic!

It's close to my birthday and my tickets to see my favourite band, Orbital - came today!

Well, it was yesterday that they came actually, since it's half past midnight here now (as it is for you since you're GMT, but others may actually be reading this post and caring about my sheer elation right now lol , who aren't GMT - so that's why I said 'here' despite the fact that you're GMT too lol)

EvF

(September 1, 2009 at 7:27 pm)EvidenceVsFrustration Wrote: you assert that Christians have somehow got it right when it come to understand the bible....

1.. How do you know that? At all? How do you remotely know that you Christians have got it right?

Because Christians put it together, and the fact that Christians demonstrably do actually understand it whereas non Christians have no clue. It's plainly obvious to see, and there's evidence all over the web of precisely this. Explanations > Christians. Dumbfounded incredulity > Non Christians. Is that not clear to you then??

And as it's 1. A Christian compilation, and 2. about Christianity... why the fuk don't you understand that Christians should understand it and you shouldn't you moron?

Ummm....I don't understand it because that's a fallacy perhaps?

That's like a version of the genetic fallacy. The source does not mean the source's argument(s)/interpretation(s)/whatever is/are correct. If Christians compile it that doesn't mean that their interprtations are better.

I mean this is a subjective matter after all! So how can you use the whole to explain away the horrible immoral crap when it's just your own subjective interpration? Please do explain if you can!

How do they have any more bearing on the matter? It's full of immoral garbage, the fact that the NT is Christian doesn't mean that they somehow have special powers of avoiding this and explaining it all!

Ok, last of all, you're barely asserting that the Christian subjective interpretations are somehow above non-Christians. The fact they are Christian doesn't explain how they can possibly interpret it any better...so this is a bare assertion on your part - so how can it possibly be 'clear to me' then - when, as I say - this is all subjective intepretation and you haven't evidenced in any way that Christians have any power over the matter...since it's...subjective!

EvF