talkmagic.co.uk

I don't deny that there is quite a lot of hard to swallow stuff in the Bible. I have in the past dealt with each issue raised (AndyRegs - do you happen to have the reply I sent to you about the offering daughters to an angry mob thing? Because I can NOT be bothered to work through that again!), but it seems when given an answer for one bit, people just hunt desperately for the next... if there was, say, 3 passages that you really struggled with and if you knew the answer you'd consider the possibility there was a God I might be more inclined, but with all due respect the attitude you are coming from is, "I've made up my mind, and here are a few nasty difficult bits of the Bible to prove it"! So, allow me to make a few general points that I hope you will bear in mind when reading these passages.

1) Back to cherry-picking for an instant: I honestly believe that with the right attitude and study, there is something useful to come out of all pieces of the Bible. However, it isn't necessarily a "moral point" as you say because the Bible isn't just a "moral code". Because of this, a relatively obscure point can require a lot of "work" to uncover; you could read a whole grisly story and learn one thing, or learn hundreds of things from a few passages of certain parts of the OT. I don't think it's deliberate, deceptive cherry picking to focus on the latter, i think it's common sense. I love delving into the grit of the OT, but I'm perhaps in a minority, which is why you don't tend to hear people preaching about them to the masses - they're reserved for smaller, more dedicated study groups - but they're not ignored.

2) The Bible is full of self-referencing. Much of what is said in the NT is in some way referencing or echoing the OT, if it wasn't for that, we wouldn't know Jesus was infact claiming to be God when he very deliberately says something which mimicks how God refers to himself in the OT. Without that knowledge of Jewish history (which is effectively what the OT is), that would be lost on a modern day reader. Hence, some of the OT is necessary even if it doesn't seem to make an obvious point standing alone, because of the way it sets up for the NT.

3) Attitude counts! We're not only told that we should read the Bible, but how - i.e. humbly, and with a prayer that God would use it to reveal himself to us. Christians (as perhaps several religions, I don't know) don't just see it as a textbook, we see it as something "living" - you're not only reading the words God has written through inspiring someone thousands of years ago, but he is helping you to understand it. Given this, if from the beginning you are setting out to disprove or knock down God in your own mind or that of others, the Bible will be almost opaque to you. It's like going to see a film you might otherwise have enjoyed after hearing a witty, negative review.

4) With regard to being "righteous" - I'm not sure that, discounting the obvious, there is one man in the Bible who is described all the way through as being totally good, sinless etc. Most of the "Biblical heroes" fall at some point; they either started rubbish, do something rubbish or end up rubbish. I think it is a slightly weak point to be honest to say "ooh, look at this, God says he's righteous but he got drunk!" There are men and women today who I would describe as "Godly", certainly more so than me, but I don't for one second believe that they don't do bad things too! There's a difference between saying someone is trying hard to live right for God, and saying someone is good enough to get into heaven on their own (ie. perfect) - the latter does not exist. Therefore, we see throughout the Bible that God uses children, cowards, fishermen, outcasts etc. and accomplishes amazing things with them, despite their flaws. And the message is perfectly clear - don't think that because you are not perfect or some high authority that God can't use you in a powerful way. What's so bad about that?

5) I will pick up on just a couple of direct points to finish off: the faeces thing. This isn't just a vulgar threat, "do this and I'll rub cr*p in your face", the priests he is speaking to have been ignoring God and leading the people astray, something God sees as a very serious problem throughout the Bible (even in the NT there is some pretty strong stuff about those who "lead his children astray" - I don't relish this thought but I hope Dawkins understands the gravity of his situation if he is wrong...). The sacrifices they are giving to him are therefore an insult, paying lip-service to one thing whilst doing another. He is basically saying "I'll throw the rubbish of your sacrifices back in your faces." The Jewish faith is very physical - showing you are repentant by wearing sackcloth and ashes, eating this, not eating that, washing this a certain number of times - these things can seem bizarre or unpleasant compared to our sanitised lives, but are perfectly relevant to the culture of the time. I don't think means the message is lost whatsoever - don't try to tell God you're doing one thing and do another!

Secondly, I want to clear up the heritage of Jesus which you raise before you even get there! I don't quite understand the ins and outs here, but I understand the principle - basically, there are two ways of tracing lineage - there's a "royal lineage" and a "blood lineage" - you may be a descendent of a royal line without your parents actually being king and queen, or something like that. The saviour of the race is foretold to come from "the line of David", ie. the royal line, which he does, but there's also some other thing that Jesus' heritage fulfills too which I can't for the life of me remember - but basically his blood lineage fulfills that one. Bonus. That's why, when you would expect Matthew to get right into the story of the birth, he starts with the boring list of ancestors - because it would have been vital for the Jews of that time to know, and they would have immediately recognised the significance.

I'm sorry these posts are so long guys - I hope you have the patience to go through them steadily, I'm certainly doing the same in return. I know I may appear to be dominating the thread somewhat but as the only person arguing from a "religious" stance, I feel I have to hold my own!

themagicwand wrote:I wonder what the skeptical community would do with themselves if all those that were of a religious or spiritual nature held their hands in the air and said "You know what - you're right! We don't believe anymore."

Well if everyone in the world suddenly became atheists then, without a doubt, there'd be a lot less war and death in the world... So the skeptical community would probably get down on their knees and thank God for this miraculous global change of heart!

As far as I can see to argue about points of scripture is rather irrelevant as it is akin to arguing to whether all the plot points of the Harry Potter books tie up.
Discussion of this ilk often gets bogged down in the particular information contained within a 'holy book'. For me no book written by an unknown author constitutes any form of evidence to the existence or indeed non existence of any deity.
The religious sort when arguing will usually ( not always eg mr. Farlsborough) resort to scripture but this is mearly dragging an argument into the realms of nit picking about an old text that is usually unclear to whether it is metaphoror or historical fact. All of which is incredibly helpful to a belief system which has no bearing on rationality.
As far as I can see it is upto the believers of any system, hypothesis or idea to provide evidence that can be backed up regardless of the testers intentions. If this cannot be done then I will take that belief as seriously as the guy who thinks he's a reincarnation of Merlin or the drunk down the road who thinks he's J.F.K.
I will, however alway maintain the idea that people can believe whatever they want as it is a base human right but that same right entitles me to dismiss them as either delusional, stupid or frightened

As for nastiness, there are too many to mention, but try reading Judges (19:22-30).
After taking in a traveling Levite, the host offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine to a mob of men(who want to have sex with his guest). The mob refuses the daughter, but accepts the concubine and they "abuse her all night." The next morning she crawls back to the doorstep and dies. The Levite puts her dead body on an ass and takes it home. Then he chops the body up into twelve pieces and sends them to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

The above was one of many questions put to farls over PM. The below was his reply, which I think is the one he asked for above. If not then let me know and I will edit and replace accordingly.

Farlsborough wrote:
Ok - I'll mention this first. I'm no bible scholar, just a fairly well read and reasonably intelligent Christian, so I can't pretend to be able to answer all of your questions. Before I even go near this I'd like to make a few general points:
a) It is very easy to take parts of the Bible out of context, *especially* the Old Testament. In ancient times, people would have recited huge swaiths of scripture, they would know it inside out. Today, even someone like me who considers themselves a full-on Christian doesn't read their Bible as much as they should - yes, in some ways because it's not part of our culture, but also down to my laziness. The book of Habbakuk is a great example of this - most of the way through it is a list of sufferings and complaints, but right at the end he still praises God, which turns it from a book of moans into an inspiration for those undergoing hardship.
You could probably find somewhere in the Bible that says "worship satan" and quote it... ignoring the fact that it comes halfway down a heading entitled "things you should never do"! In that respect, the issue of nastiness you have just brought up is chock full of situations that to a Western 21st century eye look hideous, but may well have more meaning to someone who has read the whole OT up until that point and understands the context. The bain of Christianity is to be challenged by people who say "but what about (obscure book) 21:33-37?", the first answer should be "come back when you've read it from 1:1!"

b) Criticism is often given because people focus on the nice bits and ignore the gory bits. Well, same reason - convenience, and time! And also, what people need to hear. I have heard some totally stonking sermons and Bible studies on the old testament, including on the list of places stopped at in the desert, but they are hardcore. They take hours, they require a lot of concentration and putting in context, and the point may somewhat complicated. It's really worth it when you do put in the effort, but when you can give a 20 minute sermon on mercy or forgiveness from the gospels - which, let's face it, is still what people struggle with - I think it's an understandable decision made by whoever's doing the teaching. The sad fact is also that many ministers don't seem to have the ability or knowledge to delve into the hard stuff, they seem to be qualified only to make pithy niceties and attend coffee morning.

c) The Bible is full of nastiness because it is about *real life*. And if you look around you, you'll see that a lot of life is quite nasty. Ok, so you're shocked by a description of a brutal gang rape... it's pretty graphic. But that's because unlike the cardigan wearing, perpetually smiling plump vicars would have you believe, the Bible doesn't pull any punches. And I really value that... far better IMHO than a book of ethereal, impractical ideas... reading this stuff should have the same sobering effect as watching the news. I wouldn't want it any other way.

d) Finally, The Bible is revealed to us by the holy spirit. Not that non-Christians shouldn't read the bible of course, but be honest - you could pick apart almost any text and not allow yourself to be convinced, if you come at it with cynicism. I really do believe that some things need divine help to understand - the first thing a preacher should do before he starts reading to prepare a sermon is pray - therefore there may be little anyone can say if you approach it thinking "this is a load gyp, I'm not going to be convinced...", on the otherhand if you think and pray "Lord, please reveal the meaning of this to me", you might just be surprised.

Ok, now for an attempt at a reply to Judges! Basically, I don't think you can blame God for the wicked deeds of men. It clearly states that these guys are intent on something horrible - they are not following God's way. How do you "make good" in a situation like that? Does it sound like if they had a choice, and would you give up your daughter to be raped in any but the most dire of situations? The host was honour bound to protect his guest and was going above and beyond the call of duty by offering his daughter. The guest offers his concubine, I think in an attempt to save the daughter - they are all trying to do the honorable thing in a terrible situation. The host obviously knew the town was dangerous - he offered them shelter because he was worried about them sleeping in the square. Why the man ends up cutting up the concubine (she is already dead at this stage I think) and posting her out I don't know - perhaps as an example to the tribes as to the extent of the wickedness of that town? We are told that everyone who saw it said "such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Eygpt."

I struggle to see your issue with this passage though, because it's not as if it says "and the men raped the concubine, and God saw that it was good". The men are clearly labelled as very wicked - the whole thing is obviously appalling and regrettable, but as I said, it's a recording of real life. Is it just that such a scene be included in a "Holy Book"? If so, see my previous answer on nastiness.

Cheers Andy,
It's nice to see that my responses to questions are at least consistent! Obviously there's some repeated stuff here, see the penultimate paragraph for my thoughts on that specific passage.

Peace out for today guys, I'm off to Louth to pick up some floor standing speakers I just bought on eBay (blew my last ones up cranking them to hard at our houseparty!)

Secondly, I want to clear up the heritage of Jesus which you raise before you even get there! I don't quite understand the ins and outs here, but I understand the principle - basically, there are two ways of tracing lineage - there's a "royal lineage" and a "blood lineage" - you may be a descendent of a royal line without your parents actually being king and queen, or something like that

In two places in the New Testament, the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the claimed husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no earthly father?
But I agree with Greedoniz that to argue points of scripture is rather irrelevant especially when you can read so much/get so much out of it.
I suppose it could be a case of ' for those who believe no proof is necessary, for those who don't no prove will suffice'
I have no problem with peoples faith as long as it doesn't hurt others (my truth is not your truth- Bruce Lee)
It's religion I have a problem with. The Church, during days gone by (and some would say even to this day) used mans faith, his need for a reason for things happening, to control the populus with images of fire and brimstone along with sermons in Latin so as to keep/hide things they (the Church) didn't want known, becoming rich in the process. Hell, the Catholic churh even added a few extra gospels and included purgatory and the assumption of Mary. With the Church of England came, not only Henry VIII's divorce but christmas comes into play, the Roman festival of Saturnalia, how is that Christian? It's well aceppted that Jesus wasn't born on christmas day, and if he was, what's a decorated tree in the house got to do with it, Pagan I believe. Easter Eggs are Pagan/roman symbols of fertility as are the fish head hats of bishops, the Number of people who bow down in front of a cross or kiss a crucafix that hangs round their neck while saying the 10 commandments 'Thou shall not worship graven images' may be missing the point slightly.
Religion has been and still is responsible for a lot of pain and suffering around the world, all done in Gods name.
I'm sorry if I appear to have had a little rant and nothing personal was ment to Farlsborough, it just really gets me. I've spent a fair bit of time both in Northern Ireland and in Iraq and have experienced first hand what people are capable of in the name of religion.
I won't go anymore into why there almost certainly is no God, the talented Mr Dawkins can do that far more elequently than I.
If the name of God does appear in the sky writen in fire and the apocalypse comes Revalations style, not only will I stand corrected, but it will be interesting to see which religious group does stand up and say "told you so"

But untill then, thank God I'm an athiest.

Have a Good weekend

Think of an atom on say for instance a piece of paper, electrons orbiting around the nucleus. Now look at our solar system planets orbiting around a sun. Now picture self standing on an electron using a telescope trying to see another atom on the bit of paper what would you see?? So what if were all just an infection on an atom of an infinatley larger being who has no idea that hes even caught something cause lets face it we dont know what the atoms in our own bodies are up to nor can we change them. So if you look at it that way lets hope the thing were infecting never finds out that were here or we'll be the ones getting killed by "GOD"s cough bottle.

OOOOOOOkay!!

Cheque please!