The perfect God's imperfect book.

[Mr Camel]

For some reason, my parents ended up enrolling me into a Christian College (who claimed they never forced their believes on their students) and I was crazy crazy about science at the time (still am). How disappointed was I to find that my science teacher, who looked distinctly like Albert Einstein, tried to tell the class that the dinosaurs were extinct because of the Great Flood and that fossils can't possibly be available to us without a massive flood like the story in an ancient book which couldn't possibly be biased at all! He wasn't too impressed when I put my hand up to simply spout "Iceage".

Hey I thought of another story we should add to the Bible!

"Ice Ages aren't possible, God created them by sending worldwide rain for several days and several nights and then he froze it all".

Small tip: In order to add versus to the great book, it helps to be biased, perhaps fairly bigot. Not to mention a tad of narcissism somewhere in there too.

This is why I don’t base my life on the damn thing. I mean, seriously, how can you possibly expect me to get my morals from such a book. Better yet, how can you honestly tell me that that’s where you get your morals from? I can understand the need for God in one’s life but please explain to me why you feel it necessary to read from such an imperfect, tertiary source every day and call it “God’s word”. If God loves you so much, why in all things possible, would he decree such ludicrous and conceited commandments and then send his son (who is born of a virgin for some strange reason other than to show off) to die by Jews 2,000 years from now to show his forgiveness for a sin you may have mistakenly committed. But despite that mouthful, why can’t he just forgive us? And why did he have to condemn millions of innocent Jews to their bloody death? By your logic, he knew that would happen. Oh, but it’s for the greater good isn’t it? A greater good that somehow justifies millions of innocent deaths. Do you really want to worship such a God?

If you think you can elucidate/justify this, please go ahead.
The reason for this thread is to see if anyone replies with a detailed defence. I'm a curious person. Please entertain me.

[rjh4 is back]

I mean, seriously, how can you possibly expect me to get my morals from such a book. Better yet, how can you honestly tell me that that’s where you get your morals from?

You mean like "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others as you would have them treat you". I'm curious why you consider such commandments ludicrous and conceited. If not these, to which commandment are you referring? You will need to be more specific.

Most of the rest of your questions seem to boil down to: "Why didn't God do things like I think they should have been done?" You would have to take that up with Him.

[Mr Camel]

I mean, seriously, how can you possibly expect me to get my morals from such a book. Better yet, how can you honestly tell me that that’s where you get your morals from?

You mean like "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others as you would have them treat you". I'm curious why you consider such commandments ludicrous and conceited. If not these, to which commandment are you referring? You will need to be more specific.

Most of the rest of your questions seem to boil down to: "Why didn't God do things like I think they should have been done?" You would have to take that up with Him.

Hey, I'm just using your own logic here..

"The first three commandments are entirely about fearing the author of the orders. Entirely about being terrified of someone whom you are enjoined to love" - Christopher Hitchens

Ok, so when I say the Bible is biased.. how would you defend this?

---

Most of the rest of your questions seem to boil down to: "Why didn't God do things like I think they should have been done?" You would have to take that up with Him

Sorry, I would have to take that up with him? Can you answer this differently? this really doesn't help with the situation. You're just proving my point.. you're leaving everything in the hands of something you cannot prove exists.

I like to break things down into detail and, in this case, prove how the Bible is biased and unjust. Can you take all that and justify it somehow? I don't know if that's possible really but I'm open to it.

[rjh4 is back]

Hey, I'm just using your own logic here..

I just asked for clarification on your question, so I do not know what you are referring to here.

"The first three commandments are entirely about fearing the author of the orders. Entirely about being terrified of someone whom you are enjoined to love" - Christopher Hitchens

I don't think the words being used mean that you are to be afraid of God in the sense that you might be afraid of someone who is abusing you. I think it means to have the appropriate respect for. Put yourself in a theists shoes for a minute. Assuming that God created the universe and everything therein and gave you life, what kind of respect do you think He is entitled to? None? I don't think so. The God of the Bible is entitled to magnitudes more respect than the most powerful person to have existed on earth. So why is it ludicrous for the creator of everything to indicate that you should have appropriate respect for Him?

Ok, so when I say the Bible is biased.. how would you defend this?

I don't know since you have not told me why you think the Bible is biased.

Sorry, I would have to take that up with him? Can you answer this differently? this really doesn't help with the situation. You're just proving my point.. you're leaving everything in the hands of something you cannot prove exists.

I like to break things down into detail and, in this case, prove how the Bible is biased and unjust. Can you take all that and justify it somehow? I don't know if that's possible really but I'm open to it.

How about this...do you think it is an appropriate question to ask me why God didn't do things like you think He should have done them? Doesn't seem like an appropriate question to me.

I think the transcendental argument for God's existence does prove the existence of God. You may not but that is your business. But to say I am leaving everything in the hands of something I cannot prove exists is not being accurate because God's existence has been proved to my satisfaction.

As for proving how the Bible is biased and unjust, if one starts with your standards of bias and justness, I have no doubt that you can prove that which you set out to do. However, you will probably not prove it to me because I would probably take issue with your standards.

[Secularone]

I mean, seriously, how can you possibly expect me to get my morals from such a book? Better yet, how can you honestly tell me that that’s where you get your morals from?

You mean like "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Treat others as you would have them treat you".

It is well known among philosophers that humans develop ethics from human experience. We do not need a book from a god.

Many of the Bible's commandments damage lives without just cause and are themselves immoral.

[Mr Camel]

How is the Bible biased you ask? Do you not view a secondary source as biased? Ok then. Try call it a primary source why don't you.

[rjh4 is back]

Many of the Bible's commandments damage lives without just cause and are themselves immoral.

The NT teaches that all the law of the OT and the prophets of the OT can be summed up in two commandments:

"Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind"

and

"Love thy neighbor as thyself"

See Matt. 22:37-40

Are you saying these are commandments that damage lives without just cause and are immoral? If not, what commandments are you talking about? (BTW, I think your characterization of anything as immoral is quite meaningless really unless you hold to some objective standard of morality. Do you?)

[Darwinian]

How can you be commanded to love? That's like ordering someone to enjoy marmite!

And..

What if you don't love yourself?

[rjh4 is back]

How is the Bible biased you ask? Do you not view a secondary source as biased? Ok then. Try call it a primary source why don't you.

Seems to me that you are the one that said that you wanted to prove that the Bible was biased and unjust. I asked you what you meant by biased and you ask me: "Do you not view a secondary source a biased?" How does asking me a question prove bias in the Bible? If you would like to set forth a case that the Bible is biased, please do so and I can try to respond. But unless you set forth your case, I do not know what you would like a response to. Who knows, maybe I will agree that it is biased. I doubt that I will agree it is unjust.

[Dotard]

"Why didn't God do things like I think they should have been done?" You would have to take that up with Him.

Problem is I've tried. The bastard won't debate. He is like the errant theist who walks up to you and spouts something like "You need to let go of your false pride!" then scrurrys off like a cockroach when you flip the lights on refusing all discussion on the matter.

He won't return calls, never writes to explain his position, won't respond to emails.

Many xtains have told me the same malarky. "You should take that up with Him."

I've tried. No response. It's as if he....... i dunno....... doesn't exist.