God has no desires, no approval process. The notion of god is unconnected to the notion of good. "God" neither causes, nor encourages good (or evil). Lack of a god neither causes, nor encourages good (or evil).

God, for example, doesn't approve of stonings. People that engage in stonings approve of stonings and then attribute that authoritative review to a divine service provider.

God, for example, doesn't approve of charity. People engaged in charity approve of charity and then attribute that authoritative review to a divine service provider.

In either case "god" will gladly accept payment for such services. There's overhead in both the charity and stoning business, and if anyone wants god to continue to participate in either market we need to encourage him to do so by allowing for a little profit.
(and if one decides that they like charity but not stonings - or vv- please recognize that your personal desires should not deprive some other consumer of a product they wish to purchase, and that to do so would be to impede upon "god's" ability to adequately service a broad and diverse market)

(February 21, 2013 at 8:13 am)catfish Wrote: Another atheist who hasn't read the Bible???

The prophets said the scribes lied...

No, reading the bible is the problem in the first place. I know you have your views, but you're a cherry picker. Beyond that, you've got all this awful stuff literally in the bible, and yet what you're saying is that after allowing all this slander to occur, god was just like "ooh! Just kidding!" in time for all the touchy feely crap that comes later?

Now, I think it's all made up anyway, but that's beside the point; there's a reason the Old Testament is still included in the canon at all, regardless of whether or not you all choose to obey it.

By ignoring a later verse that calls the scribes liars, it is you who is the one cherrypicking. I know you need a reason to hate the Bible, but be logical in your interpretation of it...
.

(February 21, 2013 at 8:13 am)catfish Wrote: Another atheist who hasn't read the Bible???

The prophets said the scribes lied...

These were from before there were scribes. But you are right, they all lied, including the so-called "prophets". I was just making a point that if one speaks of what god approves, then we can certainly bring evidence of what he did (supposedly) approve, which is always suspect.

---

Catfish, As for reading the bible, I entrenched myself in the "Old Testament" for decades. You cannot see a single statement of a prophet, say Jeimiah 8:8 which I can only assume you are speaking of, when it does not speak of untrustworthyness. And if you are talking Christian texts, then he was speaking not of all scribes, but of the Tzadukim ones, who were part of the temple takeover during that time. But to make such a broad paintbrush stroke about all scribes? It's a bit to interpretive.

---

(February 21, 2013 at 11:11 am)catfish Wrote: By ignoring a later verse that calls the scribes liars, it is you who is the one cherrypicking. I know you need a reason to hate the Bible, but be logical in your interpretation of it...
.

I've studied (mostly in Hebrew and the Aramaic targums) the biblical texts (not the Christian ones) a tad longer than you have (reading in those texts in English, while nice, is not really studying them). So painting a broad brush about picking cherries is a bit off.

When the non-Christian texts speak of the scribes, there is no "You cannot trust anything they say", and the context of the Christian text is speaking of the Sadducean Priests and scribes of that day, who were corrupt, not those who existed prior to Hillel the elder, or during the Period of Rabban Gamliel and later. So you have a narrow range of interpretation to work with.

As an aside, I was quoting from the 5 books of Moses, which would be considered outside of the scribes, unless you are a promoter of the conspiracy that the scribes changed it, in which case there is no case of a Jesus.

But I can live with that.

So what are you saying? Are you promoting the notion that all of the fucked up shit was supposedly commanded by God?
.

You either need to hold that the Torah (5 books of moses) is true, and therefore God commanded all of the "fucked up shit". Or, someone changed everything, which means that nothing can be trusted, including the requirements of a Messiah. While the latter is a good gambit, given that Jesus could not fulfill the basic requirements (hence his change in attitude to the Pharisees in Matthew), it also wipes out all prophecy all together, since if you cannot trust one sentence, you cannot trust any of it.

But since you have not made you position known, I can only assume that it is from the former.

Why must a person chose from your two choices? All or nothing huh? I guess you don't trust your own reasoning abilities...
.

(February 21, 2013 at 4:04 pm)catfish Wrote: Why must a person chose from your two choices? All or nothing huh? I guess you don't trust your own reasoning abilities...
.

If you do not like the idea that the Torah is an uncorrupted text (supporting the "weird bullshit" that I mentioned earlier), and you don't like the idea that it is corrupted (since they have been played with, none of the prophecies can be trusted, and so all of the "He fulfilled" falls apart), then by all means, I am open for another choice. Something thoughtful and scholarly is always appreciated.

Nah, that's all fine and dandy, just don't be trying to support the "uncorrupted text" position and I don't care what you believe...
.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:13 pm)futilethewinds Wrote: The only atheist I know of which would approve of that philosophy is Ayn Rand. And she's just an asshole.

Even Ayn Rand was okay with charity as long as you do it because you want to and not out of guilt. She was an asshole, but she made herself sound worse than she actually was by using her own meaning for words like altruism (self-sacrifice without anything in return, even satisfaction) and selfishness (enlightened self-interest).

---

(February 21, 2013 at 11:11 am)catfish Wrote: By ignoring a later verse that calls the scribes liars, it is you who is the one cherrypicking. I know you need a reason to hate the Bible, but be logical in your interpretation of it...
.

If the scribes are liars, why believe anything in the Bible?