God is irresponsible if the Bible is not literally true.

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2005-03-15 02:01pm

On another board I go to, a member named Caliban mentioned in a thread about the Ten Commandments debate, that God is the font from which all goodness springs. In response, I posted a few links from Mike's site:

http://www.creationtheory.org/Essays/Morality.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/Morality/ ... tGod.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/BiblicalM ... ance.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/BiblicalM ... cism.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/BiblicalM ... mily.shtml
http://www.creationtheory.org/BiblicalM ... omen.shtml

his response got me thinking about a few things about what people say about the Bible not being literally true. Before we get into that, here is his response:

Earl, I salute your complete irrevelance.

First off, I'm a Catholic, not a fundementalist. I know you're inclined to lump all Christians together and give yourself a pat on the back for being so sophisticated, but there are differences among us. One interesting little one is that Catholics have no qualms with evolution, so you look a little dumb when your response to one is to a link an anti-creationist that takes aim at the idea that the bible should be interpreted literally.

NOTE: I didn't link to any of Mike's pages that have to do with evolution. This is like giving someone a link to a movie news websites page about Spider-Man and the person bitching that they don't like X-Men, which is covdered on another page. That's why I didn't link to it, dumbass.

Shall I provide some links on how you shouldn't massacre and starve millions of kulaks? Because I'm assuming -- and I could be wrong -- that you're an atheist, and atheists did that, so you must be of a similar phrase of mind, right? Wait, what's this? You're not a Stalinist? Why, you're not even a communist? But aren't you non-believing types all the same?

Way to completely miss the point of my posting those pages. And you don't have to be a fundy to use this type of logic, I see.

Several of those links have absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying -- honestly, what the hell does a page accusing Paul of misogyny have to do with the general outlines of the Christian concept of God -- but even those that touched on what I was explaining weren't relevant. Why? Because the argument they were trying to debunk was that God DECIDES what is good, and that his decisions on such matters are perfectly recorded in the bible.

God still allowed Paul's quotes to remain in the book that represents Him. What does that say about Him?

But that wasn't what I was arguing at all. I said nothing of the bible being a perfect record of god's will -- and, seeing as how I don't believe this, it would be quite a surprise if I did -- and never even said that God DECIDED what was good.

Good, because the only way you can believe all morality and goodness comes from God is if you discard a huge portion of the bible.

I argued something else entirely. I said that God didn't decided what was good, but rather that God WAS good. You've heard the phrase "God is love" before, and this is what is meant. God isn't a necessary abritrater between good and evil. He is the essence of good. Secular humanists can tap into universal values, but those values will still be God.

Sorry, I don't think homosexuals should be stoned to death. My values are not God.

When I saw the links I was fully expecing one of them to be the Meno, and frankly, I was kind of disappointed that you didn't go through the trouble of finding it. In case you haven't read it, Socrates debunks the idea that zeus or any god can dictate what is good and what is evil, and leads Meno to the possibility of a set universal laws, virtues, or whatever you want to call them, that transcend even gods.

Which contradicts what he said about God being the font from which all goodness flows.

This set of virtues, this is what is embodied in the Christian god. That's why we can say, without a touch of provincialism, that god is universal.

There's a lot of people in the universe that God wants to kill or burn for eternity, so in that sense you're right.

Reason wasn't given to people needlessly. It was meant to be used. That some Christians decline to use it is not a black mark against Christianity.

And you don't see a problem with the staggering number of people who don't use said reason? A book exists that encourages people to ignore their ability to reason. You don't see a prolem with the power that book holds over people?

Anyway, this made me realize something: sure, it's good that some people can still believe in God and use their head by ignoring the abhorrent parts, but they never think about what an asshole God would be to let all that stuff be in the bible in the first place if he didn't endorse all of it.

You do not administer a test that a large number of people fail for thousands of years. And if the results bring suffering to other people, then you are irresponsible and immoral for giving that test (in this case a book that is not entirely literally true, but does not say so, to see if people can pick the good stuff out).

I don't think I've ever heard this brought up on this board. Has this ever occurred to anyone here? This can't be a wholly original idea, of course. But what are our thoughts on the idea that God is just as much of an asshole if not all of the bible is true?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-15 02:10pm

First of all, I like how your Catholic friend makes up words like "irrevelance."

Also, I do like the idea of God being just as much of an asshole if the Bible is meant to be interpreted metaphorically. But I don't think that's the implication we can draw from it. After all, it's not God who promotes God. It's Christians who promote Him. Christians, then, are the assholes for continuing to publish and follow this mindless credo, and pushing those standards on others.

But then again, we already knew this.

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2005-03-15 02:11pm

Wait, you're wondering why God lets the Bible exist if it's full of falsehoods?

That just goes back to the old paradox of a good, omnipotent God and a world filled with evil. So, yeah.

Bug-Eyed Earl · Post by **Bug-Eyed Earl** » 2005-03-15 02:14pm

Well, I don't believe that, Uther. I'm saying: "Why do people who believe the Bible is not entirely literally true wonder why it is so full of falsheoods and contradictions, considering how much damgae those can do?"

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-03-15 02:15pm

Uther wrote:Wait, you're wondering why God lets the Bible exist if it's full of falsehoods?

That just goes back to the old paradox of a good, omnipotent God and a world filled with evil. So, yeah.

It's a particular variation on the theme; it asks why God would allow himself to be misrepresented so grievously, since we know he particularly hates that.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-15 02:37pm

Darth Wong wrote:It's a particular variation on the theme; it asks why God would allow himself to be misrepresented so grievously, since we know he particularly hates that.

It's all just adding up. You all better brush up on your ft/cubit conversions (or meter/cubit for you metricists) for when God decides to let it rain again.

And He will.

jcow79 · Post by **jcow79** » 2005-03-15 02:45pm

This is what I hate about debating Catholics. I think they are one of the worst groups when it comes to moving the goal posts. When you attack the Old Testament they claim they don't really focus on the Old Testament they focus on the New. When you attack that they often claim that a lot of it shouldn't be taken literally. They like to throw out a bunch of historical facts to attack individual arguments but can't seem to make them coalesce into an actual viable belief system. Everything is so fucking vague you can never pinpoint precisely what they DO believe.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-15 02:59pm

jcow79 wrote:This is what I hate about debating Catholics. I think they are one of the worst groups when it comes to moving the goal posts. When you attack the Old Testament they claim they don't really focus on the Old Testament they focus on the New. When you attack that they often claim that a lot of it shouldn't be taken literally. They like to throw out a bunch of historical facts to attack individual arguments but can't seem to make them coalesce into an actual viable belief system. Everything is so fucking vague you can never pinpoint precisely what they DO believe.

Very true. A lot of Catholics are what have been called "Cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Catechism. Which means you can never argue the beliefs of Catholics, because there is no unified belief among them. Some are literalists, but when a group of Catholics is pushed to debate a literalist interpretation, they fall back on other, more liberal interpretations of the Bible and of God. It's very frustrating because you can never back them into a corner the way you can with other fundies.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-03-15 03:20pm

Catholics are honestly pretty sneaky as an organization.

They're the hardest to attack, most nebulous in belief, and most 'oh, we're kind of moving with the times!... sometimes!... maybe!.... there we go!.... oh, not about that!'

Luckily, I've found them much more tolerable than most, to the point I don't actively object to a lot of them (especially E+C Catholics, the ones that do stuff for Christmas and Easter and nothing else.)

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2005-03-15 03:41pm

Yeah, at the ground level Catholics are by and large quite tolerable folks, though you can be surprised at how an otherwise tolerant and reasonable person can open a real sewer of venom when you bring up an issue that lies in contradiction to the doctrines of the church. Homosexuality and abortion are issues that can open a real can of worms with them.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-03-15 04:00pm

To what board do you go?

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2005-03-15 04:51pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:It's a particular variation on the theme; it asks why God would allow himself to be misrepresented so grievously, since we know he particularly hates that.
It's all just adding up. You all better brush up on your ft/cubit conversions (or meter/cubit for you metricists) for when God decides to let it rain again.

And He will.

Uh, no, he won't, he promises not to when the ark lands. Not that I don't appreciate the jest you were intending, but be accurate in future.

I argued something else entirely. I said that God didn't decided what was good, but rather that God WAS good. You've heard the phrase "God is love" before, and this is what is meant. God isn't a necessary abritrater between good and evil. He is the essence of good. Secular humanists can tap into universal values, but those values will still be God.

So the essence of good orders his faithful to commit genocide repeatedly, including pregnant women and defenceless children? Good luck making that one stick.

Oh, and let's not forget Hell, the essence of good would create an eternal realm of pain, torture and suffering why, exactly? These things are not good by humanist standards. "Oh but they're God's standards!" is a potential response to this, but then, calling something "the essence of good" when good does not actually mean good is an equivocation fallacy.

Coincidence with some humanistic belief does not mean the bible god is the source of all morality, and is the essence of what is good that humanists can sometimes tap into.

When I saw the links I was fully expecing one of them to be the Meno, and frankly, I was kind of disappointed that you didn't go through the trouble of finding it. In case you haven't read it, Socrates debunks the idea that zeus or any god can dictate what is good and what is evil, and leads Meno to the possibility of a set universal laws, virtues, or whatever you want to call them, that transcend even gods.

This set of virtues, this is what is embodied in the Christian god. That's why we can say, without a touch of provincialism, that god is universal.

Heh, the catholics are the masters, true masters at the contradictory simultaneous positions. This is the transcendental argument right after he just denied the transcendental argument! If it transcends even gods, this means that God cannot be the source! That's the point! They do not manifest into God, according to this argument, God simply abides by these rules of existence (including morality, according to the argument, which i disagree with) since they are above everything that exists according to their existence.

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2005-03-15 08:08pm

Rye wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote: It's all just adding up. You all better brush up on your ft/cubit conversions (or meter/cubit for you metricists) for when God decides to let it rain again.

And He will.
Uh, no, he won't, he promises not to when the ark lands. Not that I don't appreciate the jest you were intending, but be accurate in future.

God promised, and you believed that slimebag? He's changed His mind before, and he can do it again.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2005-03-15 08:42pm

sketerpot wrote:
Rye wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote: It's all just adding up. You all better brush up on your ft/cubit conversions (or meter/cubit for you metricists) for when God decides to let it rain again.

And He will.
Uh, no, he won't, he promises not to when the ark lands. Not that I don't appreciate the jest you were intending, but be accurate in future.
God promised, and you believed that slimebag? He's changed His mind before, and he can do it again.

he doesn't have to make it rain for 40 days and nights again. he's still got plagues, locusts, and the killing of all firstborn if he decides to throw a hissy fit in the future.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-16 01:00am

Rye wrote:Uh, no, he won't, he promises not to when the ark lands. Not that I don't appreciate the jest you were intending, but be accurate in future.

It was obviously a metaphor. You misinterpreted me. My word is Truth, and it is Light, and it is The Way. It is not meant to be interpreted literally, unless I say it is, in which case I'm always right about the literal translation and interpretation unless I can Google a quote from a biblical scholar, in which case he/she acts as an extension of my authority, and the authority of my Word.

Is that a better jest?

Uther · Post by **Uther** » 2005-03-16 04:12am

Queeb Salaron wrote:
jcow79 wrote:This is what I hate about debating Catholics. I think they are one of the worst groups when it comes to moving the goal posts. When you attack the Old Testament they claim they don't really focus on the Old Testament they focus on the New. When you attack that they often claim that a lot of it shouldn't be taken literally. They like to throw out a bunch of historical facts to attack individual arguments but can't seem to make them coalesce into an actual viable belief system. Everything is so fucking vague you can never pinpoint precisely what they DO believe.
Very true. A lot of Catholics are what have been called "Cafeteria Catholics" who pick and choose what they want to believe from the Catechism. Which means you can never argue the beliefs of Catholics, because there is no unified belief among them. Some are literalists, but when a group of Catholics is pushed to debate a literalist interpretation, they fall back on other, more liberal interpretations of the Bible and of God. It's very frustrating because you can never back them into a corner the way you can with other fundies.

Oh noes, the Catholics are being open minded again.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-16 09:01am

Uther wrote:Oh noes, the Catholics are being open minded again.

Oh, it's not that I dislike them for this. Catholics are some of the easiest-going religious people I know, or at least they can be. It's just that debating religion with them is frustrating because there is rarely a uniform code of belief among them. On the whole, though, Catholics is good people, far as I can tell.

Big Phil · Post by **Big Phil** » 2005-03-16 02:06pm

Is it commonplace for people to bring their discussions on other boards here? Is there a reason for this?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-03-17 01:17am

Is it commonplace for people to bring their discussions on other boards here? Is there a reason for this?

I would venture to say that this board attracts the great majority of their membership based on rational minded people that tend to be far better educated then the average webboard clientele. Because it's been such a haven of sanity, people here tend to feel this is a "home" board where they can retreat to and have the average member totally understand their frustration when dealing with the grab bag mix of religious fanatics, uneducated yokels, teenage punks, and just plain stupid people that make up the melting pot on other boards.

It's a shame more of them didn't come here. They'd learn a lot quicker.

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-03-17 01:32am

I sometimes like to bring ideas back here to hear their opinions on them. I am not an expert in every field, and sometimes I cannot tell if I am being bullshitted.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2005-03-17 11:08am

Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:I sometimes like to bring ideas back here to hear their opinions on them. I am not an expert in every field, and sometimes I cannot tell if I am being bullshitted.

I'm the same way. There are a lot of very educated voices on this board, and it's great to be able to come back here where I know I'm not getting rolled up in poor logic or misinterpretations of sources. Wong keeps a tight ship, and everyone here seems to be genuinely interested in the exchange of ideas.

To be honest, I haven't found this caliber of intelligent debate on any other forum online. The best I can do is bring this board's style to other boards and try to teach it elsewhere.