Four questions for Christians

[LeoVonFrost]

The question was what percentage of the bible do you think is literal. Despite your beating around the burning bush I can see that you can easily pick and choose what part of "god's word" you believe. What is the criteria for your lack of faith for certain verses? I would wager a guess and say you decide that whichever verse will help you prove your current stubborn theory is the one you believe in, interchangable with your mood and belief. I can understand this is about personal belief and I can also respect that, but when you involve others with proselytizing and attempted conversion it stops being personal. How does one attempt conversion with a clear conscience, knowing that the good book is wrong about creation or exodus? I'd assume you would skip over the creation and go right into heaven and hell, god's immoral system of justice that EVERYONE must follow regardless of personal belief. Do you start with, "In the middle, god created jesus"?

[Ryantology]

If capital punishment is OK for some people and not for others, then it is inconsistent.

I am of the opinion that capital punishment is okay for nobody.

Killing infants was, again, done to hostile peoples who had tried to kill Israelite infants. The Egyptians did it to the peaceful people they had enslaved.

Two wrongs make a right?

This law code was not local. It was in practice in places all over the world. It was the norm for humanity. God used the general law code of whoever he punished so that the peoples he judged would only receive what they expected to receive. People who think what they are doing is good differ from people who perform the same act that know what they are doing is bad and know the penalty they are risking. Jesus preaches about ignorance of the truth in Luke 12:47:

No law in effect, ever, allowed for eternal punishment in response for any transgression. Though I suppose some would if they could.

[LeoVonFrost]

post #118 God is still described as merciful in the OT (Exodus 33:19)


post #120 The events of the Exodus are shady

[Consilius]

By the events, I mean the things that physically happened. Had Moses and the Egyptian captivity all been legendary, this would still have no effect on the Bible's authority to teach. Had the proclamations of Moses simply been words put into his mouth by Israelite tradition, the ideas the the writers still put across based on the understanding of the people of the time still reflect their knowledge of God and their faith in him.

[Rev. Rye]

Does it contribute to the betterment of society as a whole? That's the ultimate standard for me. Ethics, justice and codes of law come not from what a lightning bolt wrote on some tablets on Mount Sinai, but from the realisation that we need to live together in peace. Why is that so hard?

How do you determine the betterment of society? How do you know that is the standard? Did you just come up with that on your own?

How does one determine betterment of society? Well, does it lead to a decrease in bad things like crime, and does it lead to people living together in peace? And, seriously, the theory that codes of law, justice, and ethics comes from the need to live together in peace isn't anything new. These ideas reach back as far as Hobbes, Epicurus, and King Ashoka of India. And, really, it shouldn't be that hard to figure out.

Where did Planned Parenthood state that they planned to kill every infant, fetus, and child in a given city?

I guess as long as they’re not killing every child they’re ok, eh?

I notice you kept my post in, and completely trimmed the reference to ChadWooters' post that claimed that Planned Parenthood mass murders every infant and child in cities. And I linked to it.

[The Grand Nudger]

@ Cons

Get your shit together, stop ad-nausing a fucking tq...got it? It's as invalid now as it was the first time you tried it. Even though we need go no further - if we ignored that it was invalid (which we won't) it is unsound...as you will be completeley incapable of establishing it ever occurred. Attempting to defend the narrative is beyond pointless on these grounds.

[Consilius]

Thanks. I wasn't clear on that, Rhythm. You win.

---

The question was what percentage of the bible do you think is literal. Despite your beating around the burning bush I can see that you can easily pick and choose what part of "god's word" you believe. What is the criteria for your lack of faith for certain verses? I would wager a guess and say you decide that whichever verse will help you prove your current stubborn theory is the one you believe in, interchangable with your mood and belief. I can understand this is about personal belief and I can also respect that, but when you involve others with proselytizing and attempted conversion it stops being personal. How does one attempt conversion with a clear conscience, knowing that the good book is wrong about creation or exodus? I'd assume you would skip over the creation and go right into heaven and hell, god's immoral system of justice that EVERYONE must follow regardless of personal belief. Do you start with, "In the middle, god created jesus"?

You don't have to be a Creationist to believe the Bible is true. The Bible is not true as a historical document, but as a book of teaching on faith and morals.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, oh do I? I doubt this very much, nor do I imagine there to be any "winning" on such a thing. So, with this moment of lucidity shared between us, what are your thoughts of this narrative now that you've absorbed the knowledge that the thread has been attempting to impart? How do we maintain both the contents of the narrative and the claimed moral high ground of the character in question? Or do we maintain them both - if not, which one do we throw under the bus? Did "god" do something illogical and immoral, is the narrative fictitious, or is there a third option (as yet unstated)?

[Consilius]

If capital punishment is OK for some people and not for others, then it is inconsistent.

I am of the opinion that capital punishment is okay for nobody.

Ooh, how nice. Let's change the analogy to a detention in a school.

Killing infants was, again, done to hostile peoples who had tried to kill Israelite infants. The Egyptians did it to the peaceful people they had enslaved.

Two wrongs make a right?

This law code was not local. It was in practice in places all over the world. It was the norm for humanity. God used the general law code of whoever he punished so that the peoples he judged would only receive what they expected to receive. People who think what they are doing is good differ from people who perform the same act that know what they are doing is bad and know the penalty they are risking. Jesus preaches about ignorance of the truth in Luke 12:47:

No law in effect, ever, allowed for eternal punishment in response for any transgression. Though I suppose some would if they could.
[/quote]

The phrase "two wrongs make a right" represents a dogma of Christianity: God's love and mercy.
In OT times, not only did this law not exist due to Adam's sin, but the people of the time implemented a law of retribution and only saw justice in it.
If you are being beaten up by a strangers, you have two options: a) two wrongs don't make a right b) they will deserve what they get.

'Eternal punishment' (Hell) is as poor a term as its definition: "Where the bad people go." Hell is rather a state of separation from God that is freely chosen by souls that do not want to be with him. Hell is not "fire and brimstone", rather, that is a description of what it is like to live without God in a person. The 'damned' live forever in the absence of a God they did not want to live with.

---

LOL, oh do I? I doubt this very much, nor do I imagine there to be any "winning" on such a thing. So, with this moment of lucidity shared between us, what are your thoughts of this narrative now that you've absorbed the knowledge that the thread has been attempting to impart? How do we maintain both the contents of the narrative and the claimed moral high ground of the character in question? Or do we maintain them both - if not, which one do we throw under the bus? Did "god" do something illogical and immoral, is the narrative fictitious, or is there a third option (as yet unstated)?

For all I know, the Exodus could have never happened. But this is a story forms part of a narrative of the same Christian God and what he does with mankind. As for its historical validity, that is irrelevant to whether or not the same loving God in the Bible works in the Exodus.
Is my explanation illogical? Apparently, you see it, and I don't. Are you going to justify your belief with evidence or are going to keep saying that its true?

[The Grand Nudger]

For all I know, the Exodus could have never happened.

You could get a much better idea of this narrative's historical accuracy than "for all I know", if you wished to. Simply discarding it is probably the simplest way of dealing with any problem it's inclusion might cause for some other claim, though.

But this is a story forms part of a narrative of the same Christian God and what he does with mankind.

-That- is the troubling part, if we wish to excuse the narrative for what it is. It's foundational, -if not the god that delivered his people from bondage - then which god again?

As for its historical validity, that is irrelevant to whether or not the same loving God in the Bible works in the Exodus.

I think that you aren't giving the narrative a fair shake. For the christ you wish to be the fulfillment of prophecy the god of exodus must be invoked. They must be the same god, loving or not (and lets be clear, a loving being can do atrocious or incoherent things, love isn't any hedge against this if we are to use ourselves as any example). We could, very easily given the narrative, say that "god" -in exodus- did something inexplicable and altogether shitty - but that in some other (later, for example) part of the narrative "god" did explicable, not-so-shitty things.

Is my explanation illogical? Apparently, you see it, and I don't. Are you going to justify your belief with evidence or are going to keep saying that its true?

I'm sorry, I thought that you had finally come to an understanding here? It's not an issue of belief (mine or anyone else's). Your defense is not sound because
A: It is not valid
and
B: You have not demonstrated that the premise is true

It is not valid because it is entirely comprised of a logical fallacy (which you then attempted to drive ad naus....double whammy).

If your defense is not sound or valid, it is -by definition- illogical. My evidence for this is your argument, and the criteria that must be met to have formed a coherent or logical argument- which have not been met......

What part of this is giving you trouble?