Bible Disproved By One Scripture

[dimreepr]

It's only nuts if you follow blindly, have faith (You and john show all the symptoms of blind faith), I've already asked you to point out the bad in the NT; now would be a good time to start.

[Moontanman]

It's only nuts if you follow blindly, have faith (You and john show all the symptoms of blind faith), I've already asked you to point out the bad in the NT; now would be a good time to start.

 

 

Seriously? You don't know about the slavery issues and Jesus lied about when he was coming back? He told people not to wash their hands at a time when disease was rampant? There is more but do I really have to point these things out to a Christian? I am an atheist and I have studied this backwards and forwards, I did not take the stance of atheism one morning because I stubbed my toe and blamed god...

[dimreepr]

 

 

Seriously? You don't know about the slavery issues and Jesus lied about when he was coming back? He told people not to wash their hands at a time when disease was rampant? There is more but do I really have to point these things out to a Christian? I am an atheist and I have studied this backwards and forwards, I did not take the stance of atheism one morning because I stubbed my toe and blamed god...

 

 

I am also an atheist and the second coming can be explained because spontaneous enlightenment is more likely in times of strife and slavery is a cultural issue...

 

Please try to be more specific.

We can't predict the future but it can be foreseen.

Edited July 8, 2016 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

 

 

I am also an atheist and the second coming can be explained because spontaneous enlightenment is more likely in times of strife and slavery is a cultural issue...

 

Please try to be more specific.

We can't predict the future but it can be foreseen.

 

 

I disagree, if the god of the bible is real and he has the attributes his fan club gives him then supporting slavery is a very puzzling thing, Jesus, while not exactly the same as the god of the OT does make some critical errors that should have been easy for omnipotent being to deal with. Saying that slavery is a cultural issue is a cop out. The whole purpose of spreading religion is to change culture to the standards god wants, from that perspective god is either a raving psychopathic monster or nothing but a made up reflection of the horrible morality of the times...

[dimreepr]

Post #104 I said:

 

The bible is a book out of its time, we don't understand what it was trying to say, we've no idea which verse was intended as a metaphor, which were analogous and which literal, but to dismiss it out of hand is being closed minded.

The bible didn't say it was meant to be taken literally, people did; read the NT with an open mind and there's much to be learnt, without a need for god.

 

 

 

I disagree, if the god of the bible is real and he has the attributes his fan club gives him then supporting slavery is a very puzzling thing, Jesus, while not exactly the same as the god of the OT does make some critical errors that should have been easy for omnipotent being to deal with. Saying that slavery is a cultural issue is a cop out. The whole purpose of spreading religion is to change culture to the standards god wants, from that perspective god is either a raving psychopathic monster or nothing but a made up reflection of the horrible morality of the times...

 

 

What part of "I am also an atheist" do you not understand, I'm asserting the NT needs no god other than in this context.

[Moontanman]

Post #104 I said:

 

The bible is a book out of its time, we don't understand what it was trying to say, we've no idea which verse was intended as a metaphor, which were analogous and which literal, but to dismiss it out of hand is being closed minded.

The bible didn't say it was meant to be taken literally, people did; read the NT with an open mind and there's much to be learnt, without a need for god.

 

 

 

What part of "I am also an atheist" do you not understand, I'm asserting the NT needs no god other than in this context.

 

 

Yet you ignore the flaws and the fact that very few people think of it in any terms other than religion and use their interpretation to allow them to dominate others?

Can we say cherry picking?

[dimreepr]

 

 

Yet you ignore the flaws and the fact that very few people think of it in any terms other than religion and use their interpretation to allow them to dominate others?

Can we say cherry picking?

 

 

I can, but then you've yet to be specific.

[Moontanman]

 

 

I can, but then you've yet to be specific.

 

 

Oh please, I have been specific in this very tread, do I really have to drag out the links yet again?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

[dimreepr]

 

 

Oh please, I have been specific in this very tread, do I really have to drag out the links yet again?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

 

 

You've been specific in terms of the OT in this you are cherry picking.

[Moontanman]

 

 

You've been specific in terms of the OT in this you are cherry picking.

Please see the above link...

[John Cuthber]

I've already asked you to point out the bad in the NT; now would be a good time to start.

Are you paying any attention at all?

How many times have I pointed out that the biggest problem with the NT is that it tells you, quite clearly that you should follow the OT?

Would that be the OT that the NT says still stands?

 

Well, OK yes.

I am insisting that this

""For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.""

actually means what it says, rather than, for example, "please leave an extra pint today milkman".

But I'm only insisting on that because the alternative is silly.

 

A more reasonable claim would be that, since the book says "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." that's what it means.

It means nothing will change in the laws.

 

...

OK That's the second time you have deliberately not looked at the right line from the Bible.

And once again I wonder why you thik we wouldn't notice.

The one that says (as I put it) "the old rules are here to stay" is this one

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

or, if you prefer the older translation "

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

rather than the irrelevant line that you keep insisting on.

 

It's pretty clear that He says the old laws are here to stay forever.

 

 

 

 

I'm saying your point of view is inconsistent.

There is no issue of "interpretation" of the bit where Christ says "the old rules are here to stay". That's what he said.

 

Why not throw out both books and start from scratch without the nonsense?

...

 

But, as I said, the interesting question is why do you keep ignoring the fact that the relevant part of the scripture

"For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."

is quite clear; the laws stay forever.

...

Perhaps I can help here.

The verse is the one immediately after the one you referred to. It's the one that says

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."

That's a pretty clear statement that the old laws- the OT laws- carry on.

Now, the interesting question is how did you miss that (or were you just hoping that everyone else would miss it)?

"

 

So, you are saying Christ got it wrong.

He said he was here to fulfil the laws, but you say that's impossible.

You seem to be arguing against yourself.

Then they screwed up royally.

The OT tells you that rape and slavery are OK. The NT tells you that the first one was right and that not a jot or a tittle of it will ever change.

So what's the problem here: are you blind or lying?

Edited July 8, 2016 by John Cuthber

[dimreepr]

So what's the problem here: are you blind or lying?

 

 

Right back atcha, but OK, one last stab:

The part that you insist is true and undeniable is in a book you also insist is nonsense and can't be understood.

I contend that the concept the NT is trying to convey is understandable, despite the confusion both time and translation have created, with or without the OT but it's much easier without.

[Memammal]

I contend that the concept the NT is trying to convey is understandable, despite the confusion both time and translation have created, with or without the OT but it's much easier without.

Are you referring to Jesus and/or John The Baptist's Essene-based teachings, or Paul's doctrine? Also which interpretation of Jesus' teachings, i.e. according to which gospel? I am not convinced that it can be referred to as a single, unifying "concept"..? There are a number of different nuances, variations on the theme, hence the reason why there are so many Christian denominations.

Edited July 9, 2016 by Memammal

[dimreepr]

Are you referring to Jesus and/or John The Baptist's Essene-based teachings, or Paul's doctrine? Also which interpretation of Jesus' teachings, i.e. according to which gospel? I am not convinced that it can be referred to as a single, unifying "concept"..? There are a number of different nuances, variations on the theme, hence the reason why there are so many Christian denominations.

 

 

"variations on the theme" sums it up for me.

 

But the reason there are so many denominations is a mixture of politics and a lack of understanding the theme.

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Right back atcha, but OK, one last stab:

 

The part that you insist is true and undeniable is in a book you also insist is nonsense and can't be understood.

 

I contend that the concept the NT is trying to convey is understandable, despite the confusion both time and translation have created, with or without the OT but it's much easier without.

And, as I have said before it doesn't matter.

Either

It's wrong, it's wrong or it's wrong.

It's wrong because it says we should keep the OT (which is morally unacceptable) or it's wrong because it doesn't mean what it says (in which case it's dishonest) or it's wrong because it's unreliable or incomprehensible in which case it's useless as a source of guidance)

 

So why keep it?

I already asked that and your answer looked more like a tacit insult than anything actually useful. In any event it wasn't valid anyway because it worked in both directions.

 

Can you do better than that?

[dimreepr]

I'm not trying to win, john, I'm just trying to explain the fourth option, it was (when written) and is understandable (even with all your wrongness), can you honestly say, because you don't understand it, it's not understandable?

 

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

Without god, where else can heaven be?

You don't need great intelligence to understand, but you do to convey that understanding to others.

Edited July 9, 2016 by dimreepr

[Moontanman]

I'm not trying to win, john, I'm just trying to explain the fourth option, it was (when written) and is understandable (even with all your wrongness), can you honestly say, because you don't understand it, it's not understandable?

 

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

Without god, where else can heaven be?

You don't need great intelligence to understand, but you do to convey that understanding to others.

 

And you are doing nothing but cherry picking and obfuscating the issue...

[dimreepr]

 

And you are doing nothing but cherry picking and obfuscating the issue...

 

 

How?

[Moontanman]

 

 

How?

 

 

By posting things that support your position and ignoring those that do not.

 

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

 

Really?

[dimreepr]

 

 

By posting things that support your position and ignoring those that do not.

 

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

 

Really?

 

 

That was to illustrate my point.

 

And this:

 

You don't need great intelligence to understand, but you do to convey that understanding to others.

 

 

 

Is a compliment to John Cuthber (ohh the irony), if I were john the baptist JC is exactly the type of person I would try hardest to convince.

Edited July 9, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

I'm not trying to win, john, I'm just trying to explain the fourth option, it was (when written) and is understandable (even with all your wrongness), can you honestly say, because you don't understand it, it's not understandable?

 

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

 

Without god, where else can heaven be?

You don't need great intelligence to understand, but you do to convey that understanding to others.

The people who were alive when it was written are dead.

How easy it was for them to understand it can not matter today.

The only thing that can matter today is what people can get from it today.

My contention is that, while it may say some good things, it says enough bad things, and is sufficiently unclear on other things that it is not a good place to start if you are looking for moral guidance.

At best, it is pointless.

You say I keep failing to understand it- well, if you are right then it is failing to do its job.

That's yet another facet of why it should be dropped.

 

If you want a moral code or guide to good living, what do you gain from starting with the NT, rather than a blank sheet?

[dimreepr]

If you want a moral code or guide to good living, what do you gain from starting with the NT, rather than a blank sheet?

 

 

Spontaneous enlightenment is a rare thing indeed, much like stumbling onto an oasis; it's so much easier if we have a map.

[Moontanman]

 

 

Spontaneous enlightenment is a rare thing indeed, much like stumbling onto an oasis; it's so much easier if we have a map.

 

 

Not if the map is nonsensical and leads no where...

[dimreepr]

But if you can show others how to read the, nonsensical map, then it leads to the oasis.

Stumbling onto the oasis doesn't take intelligence, drawing the map does.

And even an experienced modern map reader may struggle with long john silvers attempt.

Edited July 9, 2016 by dimreepr

[John Cuthber]

 

 

Spontaneous enlightenment is a rare thing indeed, much like stumbling onto an oasis; it's so much easier if we have a map.

Are you saying that you only know right from wrong because you used the NT as a map, or do you accept that most of us are already a pretty long way down the road to decent moral behaviour anyway.

But if you can show others how to read the, nonsensical map, then it leads to the oasis.

Stumbling onto the oasis doesn't take intelligence, drawing the map does.

And even an experienced modern map reader may struggle with long john silvers attempt.