10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[Drich]

I likes dees

1. Can you make a moral judgment against rape or slavery using only scripture?

Yups


1.Rape is condemned with in scripture, as Rape is a sexual activity. The only sexual contact we are allowed to have is with in the confines of a sanctified marriage. (which can not include rape.)

2.Who says all slavery is bad? Our society currently was built on and is completely supported by the modern day equilivant of slavery. Now just because we call our version of slavery something different, does not make one bound in slavery any different than those who came before. Only real difference is that in Jesus' day there were rules protecting slaves, now not so much as they are not considered slaves no more. So the moral judgement here is if a slave is treated well and according to the law then slavery can indeed be a good thing for the slave and the one who owns them. Now before you come off 1/2 cocked understand and maybe look up the difference between chattle slavery and just slavery Believe it or not most of you idiots have been preprogramed to unload at the mentioning of the word slave. The more you understand the word the more you see it everyday and the most you will accept that your very life hings on modern day slaves. So like the bible points out not all slavery is evil.

2. Would you sacrifice your child if god asked you to?

Here's the thing there are no NT examples of this. (like Abraham was told) however there are examples of God taking or calling a child home in a number of circumstances and the remaining parents are expected to process forgive and move on over time. In a sense the net result is the same even if it was not played out in a dramatic fashion.
So if you have lost a child under God you are being asked to at least let go and forgive over time, which would be the same challenge Abraham would have to had faced after being made to kill isacc.

3. Is it acceptable to cherry pick the bible and only follow the parts you agree with?

Okay, this is actually a trick question. The reality is that nearly everyone, from every denomination of Christianity, cherry picks the bible. Literalists like Comfort and Ham will tell you that homosexuality is a morally reprehensible act and an abomination unto the lord, and will point to the bible as justification for their own bigotry. Of course, when you point out that it also says to stone your unruly child to death and not to eat bacon wrapped shrimp, suddenly those parts don't apply to them.

The reason this is a trick question is because biblical literalists almost always say that cherry picking is a big no-no. So this question brings to light their absolute hypocrisy. They say all sorts of things, and yet when it's all said and done, they don't actually live up to most of what they claim to believe.

Of course, if you live in any civilized society, you actually can't follow the bible literally. Let me rephrase that. You can follow the bible literally, but you'll end up dead or in prison. In civilized societies the notion of murdering your child for disobedience seems barbaric. Of course, barbaric is a nice way to put it because in all actuality that idea is just flat out insane. And it doesn't really matter why someone does it either. Whether you think god talks to you or you think god talked to someone else in the past and so you follow the book written by a third party that tells their story, it's all really equally insane.

People who think this way do not understand the way the bible represents two completely different religons. one,being completely dead. in that no one follows the rules of that religion anymore. (they come close, but there are no more OT jews.)

So then to ask the question is it to cherry pick the whole bible? yes, as again 2/3's of it have nothing to do with Christianity therefore do not apply except in a contextual form. (what was required compared to what we have been freed from doing.) Is it then ok to cherry pick the Christian bible? no never.

4. How did animal X get from point Y to point Z after the great flood?

the same way they went from z to Y.

---

yeah no got it the first time.

---

The Ark story is not a tale of logistics. Meaning it was never mean to be read as a way to defy God and save the planet from his coming wrath/flood. No the story of the ark is how God used one man's faith and hard work to save what was good of the world from the pure evil in the world. So in a sense God saved and repopulated the earth not Noah or the ark. Noah was the reason God did not start completely over, the Ark was a manifestation of that man's faith (as imperfect as it was) Again God did the rest.

5. How did carnivorous dinosaurs supposedly eat plants before the biblical fall of man, when their teeth and digestive systems were not equipped to process a vegetarian diet?

nothing in the bible says meat was not on the menu before the fall. It simply says that meat comes on the menu for noah and his people after the flood.

---

Ken Ham and Ray Comfort, as well as many other biblical literalists, have made the claim before that dinosaurs used to all be herbivores. Furthermore, they'd have us believe that men and dinosaurs lived side by side. Apparently the velociraptor was really a fun loving dude who's just misunderstood.

The most insane part of this proposition is actually not the assertion itself, but that it's actually more sane than the assertions of other literalists in the past. There once was a time when many biblical literalists claimed that dinosaur fossils were put on earth by Satan in order to trick men into not believing in god. I think we would all agree that the vegetarian Flintstones idea is a slight improvement over the conspiracy theory involving a cosmic demon lord. Not a huge improvement mind you, but an improvement nonetheless.

6. Can god tell a lie?

[hide]This is a variation of the old “can god make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift” question. The major difference here is that I address the issue from a strictly philosophical standpoint without invoking the science of physics. I find this to be a more appealing route, because religion is all about philosophy. So my tact has always been to fight bad philosophy with good philosophical arguments.

So what we have with this question is a classic paradox situation. If god is omnipotent then god can do anything including lying. However, the bible says that god is the epitome of goodness and that lying is an act of moral turpitude. So no being which is wholly good could possibly also be a liar, and yet any being which cannot lie cannot also be omnipotent, because being incapable of lying would be a limitation that no omnipotent being should be beholden too.

Another very good variation of this question is to pose the paradox of omniscience versus free will. In that form, the question becomes whether or not man can have free will while god simultaneously has omniscience. The paradox there lies in the idea that if god is omniscient and can honestly know exactly what will happen in the future, then mankind can't have free will. And if mankind has true free will, then god can't be omniscient.

The reason for this paradox is very simple. You see, if you have true free will, then god can't know for sure what you will do until you choose to do it. And if god is omniscient, then he knows every choice you're going to make even before you make it and there can be no choice to stray from that path. So we see that the two ideas, just like god being benevolent and omnipotent, are mutually exclusive to one another.

These sorts of philosophical paradoxes are the bane of most literalists who debate these issues. The biggest reason why they can't address them honestly is that they don't really understand the terminology and ideas at play. Many of them conflate omniscience with prescience. Prescience being the ability to know all possible future outcomes but not determinately, and omniscience being the ability to know the distinct and exact future with absolute determination.

From a biblical perspective, god is said to be omniscient and know the exact future with absolute certainty. We are told more than once that all things go according to god's will and that nothing can negate this. We're told that every plant and animal on earth bends to the will of god. This means that there are no accidents and there are no choices, but that everything is already predetermined and there can be no veering off the path.

If we look back at the original question and whether or not god can be truly benevolent and omnipotent and still tell a lie, we see once again two mutually exclusive ideas that negate one another. If you admit that god can lie, then you are saying he truly is omnipotent, but you negate any chance of god being strictly benevolent, because if god can lie, there is no guarantee that he hasn't lied before, which would negate benevolence.

These sorts of paradoxes are some of the biggest contributors to people abandoning religion. When confronted with such ideas, many believers come to an understanding that we in this day and age understand these philosophical issues much better than those who wrote these doctrines. When we put that understanding to use, we see glaringly obvious flaws in the doctrine at a philosophical level. And if the doctrine is flawed at a philosophical level, we must question all the rest of it, and every philosophical idea within it.

---

All paradoxes end once stupid people can wrap their heads around how God himself describes Himself. Rather than look to man/The Church/Tradition to describe the nature of who God is.
God says:
"I am, Alpha and Omega. The beginning and end to all things." now a fool says ok so what, let's talk about an omnimax God... but if you think about what it means to be the beginning and end to all things, it the best way to describe God and complete authority/real complete power. We man use the "Omni" aspects of God to describe an Omni max God." Problem? an Omni max God by definition says he must be the best most and strongest at whatever attribute we claim for him, this however lends itself to paradoxes. IE if God is the creator of everything and is the strongest can he create a rock he can not lift?

However an alpha and Omega does not have this problem. why because to be the beginning and end to all things means there is no authority higher, that put God's will as the ultimate deciding factor on all things as he is the deciding factor on everything. Which means he has complete power and the authority to do whatever He likes. Example Can an alpha and omega create a rock so big he can not lift it?
Yes absolutely He Can!!! OR No! Absolutely He can not... It is up to Him on whether He can or Can not. That is the ultimate power, and that is what alpha and omega describes.

Do you guys see being what God says he is, trumps All paradoxes when comparing the Omni aspects of God against themselves. This too is also why Epicurus' paradox also fails. (Well one because he was not talking about the God of the bible, two he was describing all powerful beings, and not an alpha and omega.)

7. Is observable physical evidence more important and valid than what the bible claims to be true?

no.. as science is young and foolish.. It is still in it's adolescence years and will need some time to catch up to God.

8. Is there any amount of evidence that would change your views?

sure they change a lot, it's just on God to change them.

9. What physical proof is there that your particular god even exists?

God is the proof of God.
Or rather if you follow the bible and A/S/K for the Holy Spirit as outlined in luke 11 you will be granted an audience... an awareness or maybe like me He will send a "flesh and blood" messenger. which will kind of validate the bible God and what the bible says about God.

10. Do you believe hell is a justifiable punishment for a simple lack of belief?

It's not just belief or disbelief sport there is a whole lifestyle that disbelief will afford you that belief banns. That said if Christians could poke each other in the b-hole as much as you guys did and post it on the interwebs with the frequency you guys do and their wasn't any difference between Christianity and what you guys are besides 'belief.' then yes I would say belief is a strong enough deciding factor. However as I said you guy cast off 'belief' so you can do the things a "good Christian does not."

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/blog/casp...tly-answer

10 Questions a Christian literalist honestly answered and did so with the literal backing of the bible.