Atheism requires as much faith as rel...

Atheism requires as much faith as religion?

There are 243558 comments on the Webbunny tumblelog story from Jul 18, 2009, titled Atheism requires as much faith as religion?. In it, Webbunny tumblelog reports that:

Atheism requires as much faith as religion? bearvspuma : The only problem with this rationalization is that ita s assuming all athiests are so because theya re intelligent in the ways of science and reasoning and all people that believe in a form of god are unintelligent.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Webbunny tumblelog.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172817 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said that faith is evidence. Evidence is what supports faith. Evidence is what supports the decisions that a jury makes in a court case. The jury doesn't deliberate until all the available and reasonable evidence is in and the attorneys submit their closing arguments. The jury can't say "We find the defendant guilty/not guilty" and then go looking for reasons to justify it. That wouldn't be justice. That would be foolish. Likewise, it's supposed to work the same way with Christianity. We're supposed to ask questions and weigh the merits of the total argument, not just small pieces and sound bytes.
The stereotype is that Christians say "Yup we believe" and then go looking for reasons to believe. That is just stupid. And it's equally stupid (no offense intended) to apply that stereotype to all Christians. Some of us really do think and consider the evidence.
That brings me to the next point. What is and isn't evidence?
That is undoubtedly a major point of contention. What is the standard of evidence? Is it the preponderance of the evidence which is 51% or higher, or is it beyond reasonable doubt? With all due respect to the uninitiated in legal and historical matters, the higher standard is only applied in criminal cases. Not civil cases or historical research. Certainty isn't the goal in presenting evidence for the spiritual seeker. Certainty would have us all in Vegas or never leaving the bathroom.
The Christian church is undergoing a radical change in which discussion about doubt and church history is being encouraged instead of discouraged. People want real answers before placing trust in Jesus, and I think it's right that they do. Trust shouldn't be blind as has been the attitude. Neither should people be told "Well just believe first and then we'll give you the reasons why later." No. That's dishonest. That's why you're seeing a sharp decline in mainline church populations. But that doesn't mean Christianity is declining. It means that the traditional view of church and the Christian faith is changing. House churches are on the rise. With a house church, most if not all of the funds collected go directly towards charitable causes right in the local community, because there are no administrative costs associated with the church.
Sorry to be so long on this post, but the old stereotypes are being challenged. Perceptions are being challenged in both believers and skeptics.
My faith didn't come first. The evidence built my trust from the ground up because I was willing to follow the evidence wherever it took me. And where it took me was to the probability that Jesus is who he claimed, and that all my old perceptions of an old angry petty cosmic tyrant were false because I hadn't allowed for the cultural/historical differences, and because I was too proud to admit being wrong. It took me 20 years to come to this conclusion. It couldn't happen overnight, and that's why I don't try to convince you in one argument. I give you small snippets to mentally chew on. Only you can decide if your mind is open enough to consider putting your stereotypes aside. I can't decide for you or tell you what to do. I can only tell you what worked for me.
Well, you are fairly unique among theists.

Most will do and think whatever they need to, to preserve their faith.

In short? The faith that was instilled into them as defenseless children, is what drives their thoughts-- and so they are quite willing to re-twist what they see, to "justify" that deeply ingrained faith.

I tried to cling to mine for years, by going more or less deist.

But eventually, even that nebulous faith died on the vine--for lack of supporting *facts*.

I look around the world? I see atrocity happening to little innocent kids?

God-preventable atrocity? Some of it even due to purely natural causes?

And I **have** to conclude: there cannot possibly be a god who gives a rat-fink about the fate of humans.

“Rising”

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#172818 Jul 22, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a mistake to equate empiricism with the claim that everything has to pertain to the five senses, at least if you take that strictly.
For example, empiricism has been used to demonstrate the existence of many things that are beyond our senses: radio, ultra-violet rays, neutrons, neutrinos, ultra-sound, various types of radioactivity, etc. Our eyes can detect only a very small part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Our ears have a larger range in terms of octaves, but dogs can hear much higher sounds than we can.
With that said, the *starting* point is the five senses. From those, we can learn how to detect things we cannot see or hear.
<quoted text>
I missed where you enumerated the ten tests. And yes, archeology can add to the data to consider. By not having the inherent biases of an author, it allows a bit more objectivity, but we still have the biases of the archeologist. The latter tend to be cultural and unintentional, but they still exist, just like the biases of the historians. There is now, at least, a tendency to attempt to point out such biases and learn how to minimize them in professional work.
The links I *did* see were OK as starting points, but they also tend to ignore the context by which we obtain ancient writings. Unless they are written in rock (which has its own set of cautions), ancient writings have been written and re-written by scribes over centuries. We can often even relate the different documents by looking at the errors the scribes made and how they were transmitted to later manuscripts. We can often follow how interpretations have changed over time because of the types of errors that scribes have made.
I would also challenge your assertions about the reliability of oral traditions. While they can be much more reliable than many think, they are definitely less so than written records. The most reliable ones use rhyme in some way as a memory check, but even that allows for large changes over time. It also takes a fairly large collection of people devoted to memorization to maintain reliability over time. And, finally, the subject has to be one that the memory specialists think is interesting enough to *be* memorized. And such considerations change over time. This leads to a situation where oral tradition is more reliable than a simple game of telephone, but much less reliable than written records, which are also not perfect as transmitted over centuries.
And, once again, we always have the issue of whether the stories in the writings are believable to begin with. For example, do we really think that the god Pan lead Julius Ceasar across the Rubicon?
Snort, ha hahah We are not limited to our human ability.
We indeed have developed super ability to detect things beyond those limitations. This has been a prerequisite since before radar even, but infrared and gps to new horizons we go.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172821 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
And I? Looking at the **exact****same** body of "evidence"?
Have concluded the exact opposite-- as have a large number of bible scholars and historians.
... not that it's a popularity contest--it's not-- reality doesn't care one way or the other, of course.
I have no faith, you see-- in contrast to you, who does.
So your faith **demands** that you reshape what you percieve, to support the faith.
But I am able to see the inconsistencies for what they really are-- inconsistencies.
And I then ask:
"What sort of deity-- who CARES-- would allow such mistakes to creep in?"
"If, as they all claim, the consequences are **infinite** in scope?"
"Then-- it **behooves** said deity to ensure CONSISTENCY."
Alas, that is **not** the case at all.
I can certainly understand your point of view. But I thought I saw inconsistencies too. They're only inconsistencies in text. Meaning, we have to delve deeper than just the font in front of us. There are vast cultural differences that kept me from understanding.

I asked you what the fear factor would be if God was to suddenly show up in His true form in such a way that His identity as the creator and rightful king would be unmistakable. You answered that if He was the petty, angry, jealous God you were picturing Him to be, that the fear factor would be very high. And if He was the tyrannical monster you describe, I would agree. People would be committing suicide in droves. Much worse than the 1929 Wall Street stock market crash. But that's my point.

Maybe God isn't the angry petty God we humans imagine Him to be. Maybe it's our perception that's inaccurate. If He really is our judge, maybe it's better that He doesn't appear just yet. Maybe it's better that He give everyone a fair chance to accept or deny freely.
For if He did appear, our perception of Him would have us scared shitless, and any effort to placate Him wouldn't be out of respect, but out of fear. And when something is done on the basis of coercion, intimidation, fear-mongering, then it's not worth having.

In retrospect, I think He doesn't show a massive sign directly because skeptics wouldn't believe it anyways, and those who were convinced would be reacting out of fear and not love. I think that the resurrection was the only sign we were going to get, and that He did *update* His message to all of us through all the various periods of transition and translations of the bible.

And if He did show us directly, then He wouldn't be acting through humanity. In other words, humans need to experience God's influence while still retaining their individual identity. And I believe that's how men were influenced to write the bible.

Maybe His absence from our sensory capabilities is a gift in it's own right. That's the way I think of it.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172822 Jul 22, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I see much the same things.
Which forces me to ask what sort of deity would have suffered all of the above, to mangle his "message", if said message was so all-fired important?
I mean... really?
Do you have iTunes on your computer? I know of a podcast that might interest you. Yes it's from a pastor, but if you're willing to give it a fair listen, it might give you something to think about, from a totally different perspective. When I first heard it I was blown away.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172823 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I can certainly understand your point of view. But I thought I saw inconsistencies too. They're only inconsistencies in text. Meaning, we have to delve deeper than just the font in front of us. There are vast cultural differences that kept me from understanding.
False. They are **literal** inconsistencies in the very details of the story-- and these details literally change the very nature of the story.

Example: what were Jesus' last words?

Example: who was there at Jesus' tomb on Easter morning?

Those are two of the worst examples-- but there's many more.

Like, is it faith alone? Or is it works? The NT says it's both... what?

Like is Jesus the only way, or just one of many? The NT says it's both... what?

I could go on, but the point is that the message is **muddled**.

I hold gods to a higher standard than you do.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172824 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
Maybe God isn't the angry petty God we humans imagine Him to be.
False.

If this god **really** cared? He would alleviate much suffering in the world.

But more to the point? A **caring** god would not suffer such as the bible to even exist-- for it's one of the most consistent sources of evil in the world.

By that, I mean people have done more evil-- "justified" by the bible's words-- than pretty much any other single cause.

Of course, the quoran is making huge inroads in the bible's records-- but that's a relatively newcomer religion and doesn't have the long-long track record the bible does.

The **only** way out of this conundrum?

Is if the gods in question: do not care at all.

(I'm ignoring the case where they are powerless--- if they're powerless, then they're not really gods at all)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172825 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
For if He did appear, our perception of Him would have us scared shitless, and any effort to placate Him wouldn't be out of respect, but out of fear.
Really?

I have a working plan, should I ever come face-to-face with the acutal bible's god:

I plan on horking one right into his egotistical eye.

Respect **must** be earned. And you cannot respect what you fear.

The fact that you admit here, that the bible's god is FEAR-WORTHY?

Says to me that you agree: the bible's god is a monster.

We humans have learned to fear monsters...

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172826 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
In retrospect, I think He doesn't show a massive sign directly because skeptics wouldn't believe it anyways, and those who were convinced would be reacting out of fear and not love.
Oh, bullshit. There is no other way to describe your lame excuse here.

I expected better from you, than this tired old excuse.

Skeptics may take longer to come around-- but if there really **is** evidence in support of something?

They **will** come around.

Clearly, your god is incapable of ... being convincing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#172827 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have iTunes on your computer? I know of a podcast that might interest you. Yes it's from a pastor, but if you're willing to give it a fair listen, it might give you something to think about, from a totally different perspective. When I first heard it I was blown away.
No-- I refuse to pollute my PC with the bloatware, resource-hog that is itunes-- which tries to take over every single "media" file in your entire network.

Pass.

I probably wouldn't listen anyhow-- if his "arguments" are pure emotional based?

I'd have to dismiss him out of hand.

And I have **yet** to witness an argument for god, that wasn't an emotional appeal.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#172829 Jul 22, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
You have faith that you are right about there being no God. You are wrong and this concerns you. It's why you are enslaved to blabber your bullsh8t on forums all day long.
Your poor choice has led you to fear, your fear has led you to frustration, your frustration has led you to anger, your anger has led you to outbursts and rages of steaming bitterness. It's the flow chart for atheism and you didn't escape its wrath, you bigot.
Atheism teaches nothing!

Atheism rejects fantasy and superstition.

Excerpts from your holy guidebook... Which is full of disgusting things...

Stonings take place to this day, in many Muslim countries, based on biblical directives.(Muslims, like Christians and Jews, consider themselves the "children of Abraham.")

Remember, according to Jesus, not "one jot or one tittle" of the OT Law shall pass until the end of time. So, non-virginal brides should be stoned to death, today, tomorrow and forever.

Amnesty International has a poster that shows, to scale, the size of the stones to be used in a "proper" stoning. Imagine dying that way.

Imagine a God who would order that people should die that way.

What isn't boring in that book is sadistically cruel, rabidly misogynic and just plain primitively stupid.

But even more important, the Bible is supposedly the guide to morality, inspired by a deity.

Why is any of that awful stuff included in such a supposedly wonderful 'holy' guidebook?

Why does anyone have to make excuses for the filth in it?

The "context" argument does not hold.

There is no moral context into which murdering babies, for example, may be inserted.

Televangelists wave it dramatically, declaring it to be the "world's best-selling book for a reason,"

It may be the world's best seller, but not one Christian in a thousand knows what's really in it.

Atheists do !
We took the time to read the whole thing.
Perhaps you missed a verse or two...?
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#172833 Jul 22, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope , haven't missed a single verse, including these that talk about you.
Romans 16:17-18 ESV
I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive.
1 John 4:1 ESV
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Matthew 7:15 ESV
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves (atheists).
2 John 1:10-11 ESV
If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works.
2 John 1:7 ESV
For many deceivers (atheists/ex-Christians) have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. Such is the deceiver and the antichrist.
How about these?

" Happy the one who takes and dashes
Your little ones against the rock! "
-- Psalm 137.9.

Did Jesus lie or was it John?

" Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father."
--John 14.12

Ignorant or lying angel?

"The Lord God shall give him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end." – Luke 1.32.33.
Hmm. Did Jesus ever get to reign over the house of Jacob?

Obedient slaves are righteous?

"Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves ... obedience leads to righteousness?"
– Romans 6.16.

Simple-minded God?

"I am jealous over you ... I fear your minds be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."
– 2 Corinthians 11.2-3.
"I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create EVIL. I the LORD do all these things."
– Isaiah 45.7.

Puerile God?

"If ye will not give glory unto my name saith the LORD ... I will spread dung upon your faces."
– Malachi 2.2,3.

Making "every thought captive.

"For the weapons of our warfare are casting down imaginations ... and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."
– St Paul, 2 Corinthians 10.4,5.

The cost to humanity of fifteen centuries of Christian savagery – of hundreds of millions of lives brutalised and truncated, sacrificed to war, torture, pogrom, burning, pestilence and plague – is incalculable.
Imhotep

Orlando, FL

#172834 Jul 22, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess that's why you embrace it since you are incapable of learning.
Speaking of learning disabilities... ;)

I assume sufficient education and intelligence are present to accept the fact that… Neither Egyptian nor Roman history records any persons known as Moses or Jesus.

NOTE
Feel free to DISPROVE the following...

Please refrain from using Christian apologists as their viewpoints are clearly biased in favor of their dogma.

These alleged 'saviours/prophets' exist only in holy books, which themselves are copied from previous legends and myths.

"In fact, the quest for Biblical accounts of ancient Egypt at least into the 19th Dynasty of Egypt's New Kingdom, take on an interesting approach by most investigators. Essentially, since there is no evidence to clearly support the existence of Joseph, or Moses, or the Israeli Exodus, most of the investigation examines what was possible, what cannot be ruled out, or what fits into and Egyptian context.

In other words, is it possible that such events or people could have existed from what we know of ancient Egypt.

Some specifics are very possible, such as Joseph's rise to importance in the Egyptian court.

Other events, such as the Exodus, as specifically told in the Bible, are much more difficult.

Though the Egyptians may not have liked to record defeats, it would seem very probable that, were the disasters inflicted upon them as detailed in the Bible, there would have survived some textual evidence.

For example, the Egyptians recorded events such as eclipses of the sun and the levels of the Nile Flood.

Were the Nile to have turned to blood and every firstborn child suddenly have died, not to mention all of the other plagues mentioned in Exodus, there would have doubtless been some record left, particularly during the New Kingdom. Tomb records frequently provide us with the most meager of details, and we have, from that period, many thousands of documents recording civil actions and even commercial contracts."

"Despite the mass of contemporary records that have been unearthed in Egypt, not one historical reference to the presence of the Israelites has yet been found there. Not a single mention of Joseph, the Pharaoh's 'Grand Vizier'. Not a word about Moses, or the spectacular flight from Egypt and the destruction of the pursuing Egyptian army."
Magnus Magnusson (The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, p43)


For many centuries the Egyptians were present in Palestine, controlling the trade routes and importing the timber, olive oil and minerals not found in Egypt.

Archaeology has uncovered dramatic evidence of this pervasive Egyptian presence in 'Canaan'– yet nowhere does the Bible refer to Egyptians outside of Egypt.

It would spoil the story!

How could Hebrews escape into the promised land if the Bible admitted Egyptians were running the show there too?

"Neither Moses, nor an enslaved Israel nor the event of this Exodus are recorded in any known ancient records outside the Bible ...
Although its climate has preserved the tiniest traces of ancient bedouin encampments and the sparse 5000-year-old villages of mine workers there is not a single trace of Moses or the Israelites."
– John Romer, Testament

In spite of this evidence you can, in fact, convert me! PTL. hallelujah!

1. Provide evidence that your God is the only true God in a way that religions other than yours cannot do.

2. Provide evidence that your holy book is true in a way that religions other than yours cannot do with theirs.

Until this time, and it will be an eternity - you are only one of many religious cult members - each claiming more or less the same immortality or enlightenment as others.

Science is inquiry. Religion is presupposition. Reasoning people do not accept religious dogma without evidence. Religion has an answer for everything, but solutions to nothing.

Since: Jun 13

Milwaukee, WI

#172835 Jul 22, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I can certainly understand your point of view. But I thought I saw inconsistencies too. They're only inconsistencies in text. Meaning, we have to delve deeper than just the font in front of us. There are vast cultural differences that kept me from understanding.
I asked you what the fear factor would be if God was to suddenly show up in His true form in such a way that His identity as the creator and rightful king would be unmistakable. You answered that if He was the petty, angry, jealous God you were picturing Him to be, that the fear factor would be very high. And if He was the tyrannical monster you describe, I would agree. People would be committing suicide in droves. Much worse than the 1929 Wall Street stock market crash. But that's my point.
Maybe God isn't the angry petty God we humans imagine Him to be. Maybe it's our perception that's inaccurate. If He really is our judge, maybe it's better that He doesn't appear just yet. Maybe it's better that He give everyone a fair chance to accept or deny freely.
For if He did appear, our perception of Him would have us scared shitless, and any effort to placate Him wouldn't be out of respect, but out of fear. And when something is done on the basis of coercion, intimidation, fear-mongering, then it's not worth having.
In retrospect, I think He doesn't show a massive sign directly because skeptics wouldn't believe it anyways, and those who were convinced would be reacting out of fear and not love. I think that the resurrection was the only sign we were going to get, and that He did *update* His message to all of us through all the various periods of transition and translations of the bible.
And if He did show us directly, then He wouldn't be acting through humanity. In other words, humans need to experience God's influence while still retaining their individual identity. And I believe that's how men were influenced to write the bible.
Maybe His absence from our sensory capabilities is a gift in it's own right. That's the way I think of it.
so basicly just to be on the safe side belive in god? lol ur a sad individual
Thinking

York, UK

#172836 Jul 23, 2013
If MaccyDs were trying to target our tastes, they're getting it wrong now. 70% of sit down restaurant meals on a Saturday night in Britain are Indian.
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
McD's is closing it's doors in the UK?
What? Not bland enough?
<laughing my azz off-- sorry about the joke on UK cuisine...>
:D

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172837 Jul 23, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, bullshit. There is no other way to describe your lame excuse here.
I expected better from you, than this tired old excuse.
Skeptics may take longer to come around-- but if there really **is** evidence in support of something?
They **will** come around.
Clearly, your god is incapable of ... being convincing.
I don't see this as an excuse. I see this as being true. I'm convinced that it's the most reasonable explanation in a very difficult subject.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you something that goes against what I believe.

And the reason I mentioned the podcast is because it may be able to answer your question about why Jesus did what He did in far better a manner than I could. And I think that God doesn't have to be direct to reach us. Rather, we need to understand that He works through humans, not independent of humans. That's not to say that He can't, but that He chooses not to.

I'm just telling you what I believe. I think your expectations are too high based upon a number of factors:

1) Biblical literalism. Proof-texting. In our modern practice of literacy, everything is read literally. Everything must be explicitly spelled out for us. This is the great tragedy of our modern time. Everything has to be dumbed down. The bible is not immune to this phenomenon. That's why I believe we see so many translations. We keep dumbing it down to suit the time and cultural span between us and ancient Israel.

2) Distorted view because of contrasting differences in cultures which is affected by biblical literalism. A great example of this is your argument that Paul speaks of a spiritual resurrection and not a physical one. This goes against ancient Judaic beliefs about the resurrection at the end of the world. Ancient Jews expected a bodily resurrection, not a spiritual resurrection. If they expected a spiritual resurrection, then there wouldn't have been an empty tomb to discuss.

3) This distortion when contrasted against your ideal shows you a god that is ineffective and therefore must not exist. This is simply a mistaken ideal of what you think God should do. Are you saying that God should dumb it down and require no effort on our part? Is that what you would do? If that's what you believe God should do, then where is our incentive to learn through experience? Experience is the best teacher.

These aren't intended to be offensive critiques. These are my beliefs according to my understanding. If I've misrepresented anything you've said, please let me know. Understanding you is key to this dialogue.
spudgun

Stoke-on-trent, UK

#172838 Jul 23, 2013
Roman Apologist wrote:
<quoted text>1) Biblical literalism. Proof-texting. In our modern practice of literacy, everything is read literally. Everything must be explicitly spelled out for us. This is the great tragedy of our modern time. Everything has to be dumbed down. The bible is not immune to this phenomenon. That's why I believe we see so many translations. We keep dumbing it down to suit the time and cultural span between us and ancient Israel.
..
So you dont take the Bible literally? If so, please say clearly that it is not the word of God. Simples.

The OT God is angry and violent, a being unworthy of worship IMO. The NT one, although flawed, is a big improvement.

“a.k.a. GhostWriter2U”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#172839 Jul 23, 2013
spudgun wrote:
<quoted text>
So you dont take the Bible literally? If so, please say clearly that it is not the word of God. Simples.
The OT God is angry and violent, a being unworthy of worship IMO. The NT one, although flawed, is a big improvement.
That's another point of contention. This is an assumption based on perception. Our assumption and perception in modern society is that every document must be read literally. We even read novels that way. Metaphor isn't easily recognized. That doesn't mean that the OT isn't still the word of God. The problem isn't with the writing. The problem is with our own understanding of the writing.

In the OT, God comes across as angry and violent because of the style of writing and ancient understandings. Hyperbole is a prime example of this. I've written about this before. Hyperbole is a method of exaggeration to make a specific point or highlight a concept.

For example, let's suggest that you are an alien from another planet and have no idea what the sport of ice hockey is. You've never heard of it. Now let's go a step further and suggest that you're visiting Times Square in New York City and you see a newspaper headline that reads as follows:

"Rangers Slaughter Penguins!"

This confuses you. You ask a person who is not a hockey fan or is unfamiliar with today's sports headlines. So the following dialogue ensues:

You: What are rangers?

Local: Rangers are law enforcement officers that protect the environment and wildlife.

You: What are penguins?

Local: Penguins are wild flightless aquatic birds.

You: What is "slaughter?"

Local: Slaughter is killing on an intensive scale.

Because the local is unfamiliar with hockey, current events, and because you're unfamiliar with cultural metaphor, you come to the following conclusion:

"Rangers who are supposed to protect wildlife just killed penguins that are a part of wildlife. This is a contradiction.
The Rangers are evil and that publication is nonsense."

This is exactly the mistake we commit when reading the bible. We don't understand the culture or the metaphoric principles of literacy, and we give up on it.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172841 Jul 23, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't give a damn if your story is real, or a lovely-lovely bit of hyperbolic prose.
I loved reading it either way!
So funny, the scene you painted into my mind's eye.
:D
It's real, a quick search on google will pull up several occasions where McDs has been on the receiving end of French farmers waste disposal plans. I guess I was just lucky to be there at the time.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#172842 Jul 23, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
The robocensor is kind of an idiot... in case you haven't already figured that one out...
... <laughing>
One had suspected as much - but one very rarely gets flagged.

Kind of amusing, actually.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#172843 Jul 23, 2013
Just Results wrote:
<quoted text>
You're lying to yourself.
No he is not, he is stating FACT, or perhaps you can show ANY occurrence of the name Moses being mentioned in Egyptian history.

Or perhaps you have some secret stash of documents that over rule the Roman archives and several Roman historians. Remember that at the time in question the Roman administration was the most prolific producers of documentation ever seen prior to the 20th century.

You also cannot provide evidence that you god exists yet alone is the only true god

You also cannot provide evidence that the babble is the only true religious book, far from it, much of the evidence shows the babble, both OT and NT to be incorrect.

You also cannot, with all honesty contradict Imhotep’s statement that science is enquiry based and religion is presupposition

So no, he is not lying to himself, he is stating FACT

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

NCAA Basketball Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Nostrilis Waxman 1,252,696
News Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex ma... (Aug '10) 12 hr Big D 201,821
What role do you think humans play in global wa... (Sep '14) Sun Earthling-1 6,277
The Email Address Debacle: Did Hillary Do Somet... Sun GoGoGrandMaHillary 1,653
News Trail Blazers 'like what Tim Frazier brings' at... Sat Fartman 2
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Jul 4 tom wingo 29,828
News Giddens Leads New Mexico Over UNLV, 59-45 (Mar '08) Jul 2 Fartman 24
More from around the web