Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

[Hatuey]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

No, I merely ignore dumb post/questions...like yours...I don't waste my time on tomfoolery...

See what I mean?

Elvira, point to me in the bible where it says that in the the 20th century, JWs will set up their headquarters in upstate NY.

Then, explain to me the relationship between this headquarters and any passage of the bible you pick.

Wait.. nothing written in the bible was written with any knowledge of the Americas, so there is not even a passing mention of your 19th century cult, its leadership or its founders.

Thanks for playing?



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

There is no logic in being a theist. If 100,000 kids claim to have an imaginary friend, one that cant be tested, examined, observed, or recorded that doesn't make him any more real than if 4 out of 5 adults say they have the same imaginary friend, but they call him god.

The theistic position is one that has had all of recorded human history to prove gods. Ra, Zeus, Allah, Chutlu, whatever they were called, not one not ONE group could say 'our proof of X god is real and can be tested and predicted by laws which we currently understand'. Instead it gambles on ignorance to explain literally everything which cannot be understood at that point. The god of the gaps isn't just a funny catch phrase, it's a literal description of the state of modern religion.

The overwhelming majority of people use to beg for 'gods Mercy's and protection until they died from horrible diseases that we can now get rid of with antibiotics. Today equally pious people will deny their kids antibiotics if their belief that their god will heal their kid is big enough. The kids almost always end up dead, the adults remain pious and declare that the kid dying was all a part of a plan. What plan? For a kid to never go to prom, drive a car, do all of the things kids want to do? That's gods plan? That all suggest that the more theistic one becomes, the less logical they are likely to be.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

there does not need to be logic in being a theist, for theists to apply logic in other areas or to do so more often than an atheist. One does not have to subject logic to every aspect of one's life, to be able to apply it and its principles to some aspects of one's life. The vast majority of theists from all the world's major religions are completely comfortable using the advances in medicine to safe the lives of anyone, including their own children, while they pray for the health of them. Prayer and modern medicine are not mutually exclusive. Most theists consult doctors, learn about medical options, take medications or blood transfusions, and yes even have the odd appendectomy performed on little Mary or Sam consistent with the recommendations of a clinician. Why would you use the anomaly of those whose belong to a sect that does not, as anything more than evidence that there exists the ultra slim minority of theists that act in a way you see as illogical? It says virtually nothing about the set, to focus inordinate attention on a subset and draw any inferences therefrom. Is this an example of the vastly superior logic of non-theists?

No of course not, because you are not typical of a non-theist, any more than those parents to which you referred above are typical of theists. I will draw no conclusions about the capacities of theists or non-theists to use or comprehend logic from your post.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

there does not need to be logic in being a theist, for theists to apply logic in other areas or to do so more often than an atheist. One does not have to subject logic to every aspect of one's life, to be able to apply it and its principles to some aspects of one's life. The vast majority of theists from all the world's major religions are completely comfortable using the advances in medicine to safe the lives of anyone, including their own children, while they pray for the health of them. Prayer and modern medicine are not mutually exclusive. Most theists consult doctors, learn about medical options, take medications or blood transfusions, and yes even have the odd appendectomy performed on little Mary or Sam consistent with the recommendations of a clinician. Why would you use the anomaly of those whose belong to a sect that does not, as anything more than evidence that there exists the ultra slim minority of theists that act in a way you see as illogical? It says virtually nothing about the set, to focus inordinate attention on a subset and draw any inferences therefrom. Is this an example of the vastly superior logic of non-theists?

No of course not, because you are not typical of a non-theist, any more than those parents to which you referred above are typical of theists. I will draw no conclusions about the capacities of theists or non-theists to use or comprehend logic from your post.

That's kind of the thing, theist parents have had to INCREASINGLY ignore their religion to justify their actions while still attributing the results of modern medicine to a deity. That is the single most tangible flaw in your argument, that you can remain logical while giving your imaginary friend less and less power, but still believing that what happens in your life is the product of your devotion, or that deity's mercy.

It's bonkers.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

That's kind of the thing, theist parents have had to INCREASINGLY ignore their religion to justify their actions while still attributing the results of modern medicine to a deity. That is the single most tangible flaw in your argument, that you can remain logical while giving your imaginary friend less and less power, but still believing that what happens in your life is the product of your devotion, or that deity's mercy.

It's bonkers.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

They are not 'ignoring their religion' when they attribute results of modern medicine to a deity, unless that religion in their view ( not your view!) obliges some eternal conflict between medicine and the faith. Many do not see each advance in medicine as something takin power from God, but instead each advance is yet another gift he gives. Maybe their deity works directly in peoples lives. Maybe their deity works indirectly. Maybe this deity sometimes works directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Maybe there are several deities in their faith. Theism is a very very broad concept.

You seem to want to tell me what theist parents have to think, how they have to act, and what they have to justify. I just don't see you as the expert here. Why are you working so hard to turn people of faith into a some stereotypic two dimensional caricature based on seventh day Adventists and the like, when those sorts of denominations represent a small percentage of a globe full of theists? Faith does not have to be based on logic for logic to play a role in the lives people of faith.

Surely you realize how small a part of the lives of atheists and agnostics, logic' actually plays. People simply do not apply logic to much that goes on in their lives or days. People can, but they really don't. Its pretty exhausting and normally not very valuable most of the time.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

They are not 'ignoring their religion' when they attribute results of modern medicine to a deity, unless that religion in their view ( not your view!) obliges some eternal conflict between medicine and the faith. Many do not see each advance in medicine as something takin power from God, but instead each advance is yet another gift he gives. Maybe their deity works directly in peoples lives. Maybe their deity works indirectly. Maybe this deity sometimes works directly, sometimes indirectly, sometimes not at all. Maybe there are several deities in their faith. Theism is a very very broad concept.

You seem to want to tell me what theist parents have to think, how they have to act, and what they have to justify. I just don't see you as the expert here. Why are you working so hard to turn people of faith into a some stereotypic two dimensional caricature based on seventh day Adventists and the like, when those sorts of denominations represent a small percentage of a globe full of theists? Faith does not have to be based on logic for logic to play a role in the lives people of faith.

Surely you realize how small a part of the lives of atheists and agnostics, logic' actually plays. People simply do not apply logic to much that goes on in their lives or days. People can, but they really don't. Its pretty exhausting and normally not very valuable most of the time.

The truth is that as technology improves, attribution to direct acts of god gets pushed further back in the background. But believers are stubborn. They attribute every good thing to god, and none of the bad. It makes no logical sense. The story of God's involvement keeps changing as mankind advances.God is a moving goal post and there is no end in sight to how far it will be moved. It is very easy to make up a god who is involved in whatever we want to imagine. It takes no deep thought or evidence.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

The truth is that as technology improves, attribution to direct acts of god gets pushed further back in the background. But believers are stubborn. They attribute every good thing to god, and none of the bad. It makes no logical sense. The story of God's involvement keeps changing as mankind advances.God is a moving goal post and there is no end in sight to how far it will be moved. It is very easy to make up a god who is involved in whatever we want to imagine. It takes no deep thought or evidence.

Yes believers are stubborn. We call it 'confirmation bias' when it involves political or ideological beliefs. ' Yes they provide a 'moving goal post' for the most fundamental of assertions to ensure continued relevance and just as any other advocates of any other ideas do.

You have discovered that ideas evolve and change their shapes and dimensions to suit new cultural and social needs.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Yes believers are stubborn. We call it 'confirmation bias' when it involves political or ideological beliefs. ' Yes they provide a 'moving goal post' for the most fundamental of assertions to ensure continued relevance and just as any other advocates of any other ideas do.

You have discovered that ideas evolve and change their shapes and dimensions to suit new cultural and social needs.

Especially ideas that have no basis in factual reality.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Especially ideas that have no basis in factual reality.

. The foundation of a religion is not based on facts, even if there are historical facts that hover nearby . That is where the faith part comes in.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

. The foundation of a religion is not based on facts, even if there are historical facts that hover nearby . That is where the faith part comes in.

Tell that to some of the believers who post here.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Tell that to some of the believers who post here.

I will, if you will tell some of the non-believers who post here that they cannot be smarter or more 'logical' than a believer is, if they are the sort who try to stereotype believers as 'intellectually compromised' because they have some faith based religious beliefs. Some of the greatest minds and intellects in civilization, have belonged to people who prayed before they fell asleep each night. Theists, agnostics and atheists have all been counted as great writers, mathematicians, scientists, inventers, statesmen and philosophers.

Faith in a divine being does not act like some virus that infects and destroys the frontal lobe of its victims.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

They are not 'ignoring their religion' when they attribute results of modern medicine to a deity, unless that religion in their view ( not your view!) obliges some eternal conflict between medicine and the faith. Many do not see each advance in medicine as something takin power from God, but instead each advance is yet another gift he gives.

And this is absolutely illogical. Name your modern medicinal product and I will show you its history and who came up with it free of a religious explanations. That is the exact opposite of what a theist would do because the path has already been laid out no matter how illogical it may be.

Take penicillin, do you believe there is a supernatural explanation for it? I dont. I can pinpoint the exact moment in history someone figured out its value to health sciences. A theist would say - it's God's gift without actually being required to explain how and just continuing to make asserts.

God created everything, except cancer, aids, bubonic plagues, hurricanes, volcanoes, and every other thing in this universe that has ever posed a threat to human existence.

What a coinkidink huh?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

And this is absolutely illogical. Name your modern medicinal product and I will show you its history and who came up with it free of a religious explanations. That is the exact opposite of what a theist would do because the path has already been laid out no matter how illogical it may be.

Take penicillin, do you believe there is a supernatural explanation for it? I dont. I can pinpoint the exact moment in history someone figured out its value to health sciences. A theist would say - it's God's gift without actually being required to explain how and just continuing to make asserts.

God created everything, except cancer, aids, bubonic plagues, hurricanes, volcanoes, and every other thing in this universe that has ever posed a threat to human existence.

What a coinkidink huh?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Geez. I don't believe in God and do not thrive in religious environments because something in me does not do well with 'miracles'. I do recall that they did not feel God owed them any explanations. They were not entitled to one. They don't owe you or me an explanation either, let alone one that meets our standard for 'logic'.

You have to get over this idea that YOU get to decide in what parts of their lives, they have to apply logic and reason, to show YOU that they can apply logic to parts of their lives that they deem it relevant. You must have this idea in your head that atheists and agnostics sift all parts and aspects of their lives through a logic filter. It ain't so. I have listened to too many people who are non-religious for reasons that do not meet much logical scrutiny. Sometimes its no more analytic than a bad experience in a church when they were younger.

 

[Ploughboy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I take the Bible absolutely 100% literally. This means that I believe it is literally true. What this does not mean is that I do not take figurative language or symbolic stuff to be literal, but to express something deeply spiritual which has a literal meaning behind the expression. But people are take every figurative word and passage in the Bible literally I do not consider rational thinking people. There are so many figurative expressions in the Bible not meant to be understood in the literal sense. What is to be understood liierally is he meaning behind the expression which is to be accepted as literal truth. God is the Author of common sense and if we don't apply common sense to the Bible then we won't be able to understand it.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Yes believers are stubborn.

So are liberals.

Yes they provide a 'moving goal post' for the most fundamental of assertions to ensure continued relevance and just as any other advocates of any other ideas do.

The is no moving goal post for the resurrection and salvation of Jesus Christ. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

And then there's liberalism which thinks it's progressive, except it's not. It's regressive and in many ways morally reprehensible.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

So are liberals.



The is no moving goal post for the resurrection and salvation of Jesus Christ. It's the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

And then there's liberalism which thinks it's progressive, except it's not. It's regressive and in many ways morally reprehensible.

1. You need to follow the discussion better. This is the post to which I responded. "The truth is that as technology improves, attribution to direct acts of god gets pushed further back in the background. But believers are stubborn. They attribute every good thing to god, and none of the bad. It makes no logical sense. The story of God's involvement keeps changing as mankind advances. God is a moving goal post and there is no end in sight to how far it will be moved. It is very easy to make up a god who is involved in whatever we want to imagine. It takes no deep thought or evidence." So you might want to rewrite your post so that it discusses the same 'goal posts' to which we referred above, rather than make up a strawman.

2. Your third sentence is completely off-topic. Nobody has been discussing 'liberalism' at all.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I take the Bible absolutely 100% literally. This means that I believe it is literally true. What this does not mean is that I do not take figurative language or symbolic stuff to be literal, but to express something deeply spiritual which has a literal meaning behind the expression. But people are take every figurative word and passage in the Bible literally I do not consider rational thinking people. There are so many figurative expressions in the Bible not meant to be understood in the literal sense. What is to be understood liierally is he meaning behind the expression which is to be accepted as literal truth. God is the Author of common sense and if we don't apply common sense to the Bible then we won't be able to understand it.

Does the bible command one to troll internet forums?

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

1. You need to follow the discussion better. This is the post to which I responded. "The truth is that as technology improves, attribution to direct acts of god gets pushed further back in the background. But believers are stubborn. They attribute every good thing to god, and none of the bad. It makes no logical sense. The story of God's involvement keeps changing as mankind advances. God is a moving goal post and there is no end in sight to how far it will be moved. It is very easy to make up a god who is involved in whatever we want to imagine. It takes no deep thought or evidence." So you might want to rewrite your post so that it discusses the same 'goal posts' to which we referred above, rather than make up a strawman.

2. Your third sentence is completely off-topic. Nobody has been discussing 'liberalism' at all.

You need to study the Bible more. God is consistent, not transitory in his blessings and judgments. Whereas believers tend to attribute every good thing to God, unbelievers almost universally tend to attribute every bad thing that happens to God, and never the good.

If you will read Deuteronomy chapter 28 ('The blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience to God') you will find that believers understand that when Judgment is handed out by God on wicked men and nations, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

If you read the Book of Judges you will see over and over again the cycle of sin, judgment, repentance, and return of Israel to God. There is often redemption following falling away from God.



In addition, when was the last time unbelievers attributed evil to Satan? I doubt I've ever seen it. So keep that in mind also.

Finally, there's this from Christian speaker Ravi Zacharias:

"The process of secularization, combined with moral relativism, when its done its work, will ultimately destroy a sense of shame in a culture. Secularization has a deadly effect when it is uninformed by a transcendent moral order" (i.e. God).

Zacharias goes on to talk about the medical community's quest for a drug to deal with post traumatic stress disorder, that would diminish or take away the horrific memories of the individual. But they are wrestling with what would happen if rapists and murderers took the drug, which would then erase the shame and memory of their criminal deeds. "You take shame away from an educated person, and you have a monster in the works" (i.e. Hitler, etc.)."

This is precisely what secularists and liberal moral relativists are currently doing in our society - elevating debased behaviors and thinking while numbing down the shame of individuals, so their consciences won't be impinged.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I take the Bible absolutely 100% literally. This means that I believe it is literally true. What this does not mean is that I do not take figurative language or symbolic stuff to be literal, but to express something deeply spiritual which has a literal meaning behind the expression. But people are take every figurative word and passage in the Bible literally I do not consider rational thinking people. There are so many figurative expressions in the Bible not meant to be understood in the literal sense. What is to be understood liierally is he meaning behind the expression which is to be accepted as literal truth. God is the Author of common sense and if we don't apply common sense to the Bible then we won't be able to understand it.

I prefer Lord Of The Rings.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You need to study the Bible more. God is consistent, not transitory in his blessings and judgments. Whereas believers tend to attribute every good thing to God, unbelievers almost universally tend to attribute every bad thing that happens to God, and never the good.

If you will read Deuteronomy chapter 28 ('The blessings of obedience and the curses of disobedience to God') you will find that believers understand that when Judgment is handed out by God on wicked men and nations, that is not necessarily a bad thing.

If you read the Book of Judges you will see over and over again the cycle of sin, judgment, repentance, and return of Israel to God. There is often redemption following falling away from God.

View attachment 67234933

In addition, when was the last time unbelievers attributed evil to Satan? I doubt I've ever seen it. So keep that in mind also.

Finally, there's this from Christian speaker Ravi Zacharias:

"The process of secularization, combined with moral relativism, when its done its work, will ultimately destroy a sense of shame in a culture. Secularization has a deadly effect when it is uninformed by a transcendent moral order" (i.e. God).

Zacharias goes on to talk about the medical community's quest for a drug to deal with post traumatic stress disorder, that would diminish or take away the horrific memories of the individual. But they are wrestling with what would happen if rapists and murderers took the drug, which would then erase the shame and memory of their criminal deeds. "You take shame away from an educated person, and you have a monster in the works" (i.e. Hitler, etc.)."

This is precisely what secularists and liberal moral relativists are currently doing in our society - elevating debased behaviors and thinking while numbing down the shame of individuals, so their consciences won't be impinged.

Oh crap. I just finished with dealing one side of this problem to be met with an example of the other side of the problem. I will make this quick so we do not waste any time. If you quote scripture at me, you have already lost any conceivable reason to post to me in the first place. I do not revere the words. I do not honor them in any higher regard than I do any other collection of ancient stories or aphorisms or poetry . I have zero patience with anyone who sells their sanctimonious claptrap clothed in the greater Palestine of centuries ago. Your moral compass is no better than anyone else's because you think your God built it. What you see as righteousness, I see as moral arrogance and moral arrogance is repugnant to me.

Logicman, you have already killed any likelihood that I would pay attention to your ideas simply because of the nasty way you delivered your argument. I will not be preached to like this.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

If you quote scripture at me, you have already lost any conceivable reason to post to me in the first place. I do not revere the words. I do not honor them in any higher regard than I do any other collection of ancient stories or aphorisms or poetry .

Back at you. A person who has zero respect for the Bible is one who has never seriously studied it. You haven't done your homework.

I have zero patience with anyone who sells their sanctimonious claptrap clothed in the greater Palestine of centuries ago.

Why would I care about how much patience you have?

Your moral compass is no better than anyone else's because you think your God built it.

Yeah, it is better.

God's laws and morality are absolute - they originate from an outside and divine source. They are for all people in all places at all times in history. They do not change.

Man's laws and morality, if not based on God's laws, are subjective. They tend to change over time, in different places, and in different cultures, like one changes their shorts.

Logicman, you have already killed any likelihood that I would pay attention to your ideas simply because of the nasty way you delivered your argument. I will not be preached to like this.

You come in here with an attitude of hostility against people of faith don't expect us to roll over like liberal snowflakes do, who are offended by every little thing.

"In secularism, if it leads to a society without shame, it will not survive." - Ravi Zacharias

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Back at you. A person who has zero respect for the Bible is one who has never seriously studied it. You haven't done your homework.



Why would I care about how much patience you have?



Yeah, it is better.

God's laws and morality are absolute - they originate from an outside and divine source. They are for all people in all places at all times in history. They do not change.

Man's laws and morality, if not based on God's laws, are subjective. They tend to change over time, in different places, and in different cultures, like one changes their shorts.



You come in here with an attitude of hostility against people of faith don't expect us to roll over like liberal snowflakes do, who are offended by every little thing.

"In secularism, if it leads to a society without shame, it will not survive." - Ravi Zacharias

Reread my posts in this thread. Not hostile at all to people of faith. I have been defending them in virtually every post. I am hostile to self righteous and sanctimonious lectures by people who are WAY to sure that they alone have the working combination to God's morality fault.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Reread my posts in this thread. Not hostile at all to people of faith. I have been defending them in virtually every post. I am hostile to self righteous and sanctimonious lectures by people who are WAY to sure that they alone have the working combination to God's morality fault.

Christians are anything but self-righteous. According to the Bible we have no inherent righteousness of our own. We rely, by faith, in the righteousness of Christ, attributed to us.

Unbelievers, on the other hand, will arrive at the Judgment with only their perceived sense of (self) righteousness. Which is nothing. And that won't make it come Judgment Day.

Try studying the Bible for a change instead of hating it based on superficial arguments and understanding.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Christians are anything but self-righteous. According to the Bible we have no inherent righteousness of our own. We rely, by faith, in the righteousness of Christ, attributed to us.

Unbelievers, on the other hand, will arrive at the Judgment with only their perceived sense of (self) righteousness. Which is nothing. And that won't make it come Judgment Day.

Try studying the Bible for a change instead of hating it based on superficial arguments and understanding.

I do not 'hate' the Bible any more than I hate those who believe it holds religious truth. I did enough study of it to decide that it will hold a superficial and rather shallow secular value to me. As long as you as a believer don't try to use it as a club, or a tool to induce fear and control, and you don't shove your 'righteousness of Christ' down my throat I have no reason to care where you learned it from. It stays a valued source of reading material for you and provides you some moral clarity and a sense of purpose and destiny. Its not going to do much for me, and I don't feel any loss because it does not. No reason for me to study it at all.

I am content to break down the silly stereotypes promoted by some on both sides. Yours included. Your moral compass is no better than mine because you think your God built it.

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I do not 'hate' the Bible any more than I hate those who believe it holds religious truth. I did enough study of it to decide that it will hold a superficial and rather shallow secular value to me. As long as you as a believer don't try to use it as a club, or a tool to induce fear and control, and you don't shove your 'righteousness of Christ' down my throat I have no reason to care where you learned it from. It stays a valued source of reading material for you and provides you some moral clarity and a sense of purpose and destiny. Its not going to do much for me, and I don't feel any loss because it does not. No reason for me to study it at all.

I am content to break down the silly stereotypes promoted by some on both sides. Yours included. Your moral compass is no better than mine because you think your God built it.

You don't have an objective foundation for your morality. I do - God. Claiming yours is as good as god's is wishful thinking.

 

[btthegreat]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You don't have an objective foundation for your morality. I do - God. Claiming yours is as good as god's is wishful thinking.

LOL Based on a several rather questionable premises including that this God exists, that this God has a sense of morality, that this God cared enough to communicate it all to us, and that this God did so through this Bible that described it, and that God did not communicate other possibly relevant or contradictory forms of this morality elsewhere and that you understand this complete and objective morality correctly and that objectivity in morality is an absolute to which we ought to aspire or that God wants us to aspire to. That is quite a series of reaches for me, that I might label as 'wishful thinking' or some really grandiose hubris in Christianity.


I think doubt and a little humility are very healthy attributes when deciding whether one's version or source of morality is superior than any other. I encourage it in both theists and atheists or agnostics. Maybe 'God' in whatever form, likes people who doubt and question any truths of the sort you advocate, a lot more than people who do not. Maybe He likes how I think more than how you think.