HOME | DD
rationalhub β Robert Ingersoll on Bible
Published: 2012-06-20 18:27:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 2617; Favourites: 41; Downloads: 181
Redirect to original
Description
This. Even if you take out all the vile stuff and bullshit, Bible is still a shallow book that's hardly worthy of any admiration.Related content
Comments: 67
The Bible is only truth. Not just the Old or New Testaments. There are no Old or New Testaments. It is all one book, one message, and one story.
π: 0 β©: 1
That is complete BS.
Not only do we have evidence that that the bible was compiled from multiple authors and that the new testament attached itself to the old, but we have evidence that directly contradicts the majority of the bible's claims.
π: 0 β©: 1
Well you are certainly entitled to such an opinion.
Yes, we all know it is from multiple authors. Even the pages of it proclaim it, such as the different disciples writing the books. And what I was trying to say that we shouldn't call it Old and New Testament because it is all one book and one message compiled from different books. And if someone is a sincere believe they should not try to put a barrier in between either one, whether something is from Isaiah or Matthew.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's not my opinion unless you call trusting evidence over assertions opinion.
And it is not one book. The new is obviously written to attach to the old without being an addition.
Or are you saying that the biblical god made a complete 180 in terms of character?
Huge miracles, creating worlds, destroying entire peoples before. And then healing a few people and promising torment or not after death after.
If you split them and read objectively you'd see no connection.
π: 0 β©: 1
I know it is separate books. I am saying it comes together as one book, as one message. Like a puzzle. You got separate pieces, it comes together to make one bigger picture.
From a non biased point and using the precepts you can see it all coming together. Like it says, there is a time for everything. Such as a time for destruction, then a time for creation. God isn't one sided. He isn't some peaceful hippie talking about peace and love, nor is he some maniac who goes on murder sprees.
π: 0 β©: 1
So you admit the biblical god changes completely from one book to the other.
And since that god has no evidence for it, arguing about the rest is irrelevant.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not at all. He is the same god in every book.
π: 0 β©: 1
Nope. In the first he smites and performs great miracles.
In the second he impregnates another man's virgin wife who starts preaching peace and mercy and creates afterlives never mentioned before and no great miracles are performed.
Of course since there's no evidence for either book being true all that is besides the point.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, because different situations calls for different things. You notice that in the end in Revelations he is smiting and creating miracles, and then remaking the world. He isn't like a Greek god, only having one sphere of power or influence. He is the ultimate righteousness, which means He does what is called for in the situation. In one moment He will have to destroy, in another He will have to create. In one He lays waste to cities, in another He has to rebuild them. Its not that He changes. It is that not every situation is the same.
π: 0 β©: 1
That's not righteousness, that's a tautological templar with the greatest case of moral myopia ever.
You're saying that whatever your god does is good, including raping another man's wife.
And again, both books of the bible have no evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
So He is supposed to act the exact same way for every situation? When the Philistines came, Jesus was supposed to go up to some lunatic like Goliath and say "Peace, not war"? Right and wrong isn't so straight like that. There are times to do different things to do what is right.
I am not trying to say, "Oh God does it so it must be good", like what is good changes depending on what He does. I am saying God is what is good, and it never changes. He never one day decided to say something like "Hey, stealing is wrong." His very unchanging nature would already include something like that.
Wait, so you think Mary was impregnated by God? You actually think that doctrine is Biblical? What next, Adam and Eve and their kids are the only people on the planet so they had to have incest to make us? White Jesus with long hair? For someone trying to disprove the Bible you aren't even providing the right context of those things.
I heard you the first time, but this argument is not about the evidence of the Bible. It is about the morality of God, and how the Bible is compiled.
π: 0 β©: 1
If the bible isn't the literal truth then how do you know what is metaphor and what is not?
And you admit there isn't any evidence? If so, then why do you believe in something that has no evidence that you don't know what is metaphorical and what is supposed to be literal?
π: 0 β©: 1
There is literal truth. But you have to use precepts to understand what it is really saying. Use just one verse and its meaning can be taken out of context.
I never said that. I said that is not what the original argument is about.
π: 0 β©: 1
Your convoluted and full-of-holes explanation is more complicated than anything science indicates and has zero evidence as well.
So Occam's Razor cuts it out.
π: 0 β©: 1
Very well. What was so bad about my explanation of the morality of God?
π: 0 β©: 1
Not that claim, but your claims about the bible in general.
If you can't see the contradictions in what you've said here alone, then there's no point in trying to debate you.
Hint: you can't say it's literal truth after saying certain parts aren't meant to be taken literally.
π: 0 β©: 1
You are telling me my claims are wrong. So if I am, show me how.
The Bible itself is truth. All of it. But some parts are not literal. And I am not trying to say that all of it is meant to be metaphorical, or that all of it is literal. I am not even sure where you got that from. I looked back and I mentioned how this argument is not about evidence and how a lot of Christians believe in error filled doctrines like a white Jesus or immaculate birth, and somehow you get that I am trying to say the Bible is not literal.
π: 0 β©: 1
The burden of proof is on you to prove you are right.
Look up "falsifiability."
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, if that was the argument. The only argument I am trying to give is the morality of God and precepts in the Bible lead to the true meaning. Not sure why you think I am trying to prove that He exists.
"FalsifiabilityΒ or refutability of a statement, hypothesis, or theory is the inherent possibility that it can be proved false. A statement is calledΒ falsifiableΒ if it is possible to conceive of an observation or an argument which negates the statement in question." I am not sure what this has to do with me saying God is good and that the Bible has a deeper meaning than most Christians think.
π: 0 β©: 1
If you can't prove your god is real then arguing morality is pointless.
π: 0 β©: 1
Not exactly, as we got into this without even bringing up His existence at first.
π: 0 β©: 1
If your god doesn't exist then your morality claims are false.
So it is relevant.
π: 0 β©: 1
Yes, but even if that was possible it would still be a major thing as this has influenced the lives of many in good and bad ways. So it would be best to know what is really going on in the book, whether you believe He is real or not.
π: 0 β©: 1
No, the bible is full of "divine" commands condoning slavery, rape, genocide, and other awful things.
Only someone already convinced it's true and good could possibly defend it after reading it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeRDR1Ytzn0
π: 0 β©: 1
Let me guess, you are basing the slavery argument based off of the fact that Hebrew's had slaves. They had indentured and war slaves, not at all like the trans Atlantic slave trade. It gives instructions on how slaves should be treated (Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1).
Rape is one of the crimes mentioned in the Mosaic Law. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
Now lets look at 28-29 and see a fine example of taking something out of context.
28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days
So women have to marry their rapists? Wrong. Let us look at a precept to that. Exodus 22:16-17 βIf a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins." So here we can see Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refers to premarital sex, not rape.
Let me ask oh a question. Lets say you had a whole nation of people who you just saved. They need to be led to righteousness while under attack from people who hate them. These people will not stop. Whole nations of people are ready to attack your nation and they are not going to act on diplomacy. What would you do? Sit back, or take them down? Let your people be destroyed, or commit genocide?
That's a pretty far statement to claim only those who are already indoctrinated into it can call it good. Anyone could call it good.
I will watch the video and give you my opinion on it when I can
π: 0 β©: 1
So you once again are trying to avoid having to offer evidence that the christian biblical god exists and are trying to change the subject.
Not happening.
Show me the evidence.
π: 0 β©: 1
Change the subject? The original argument was about the morality of God and taking scripture out of context. That's what you and I are talking about. I never brought up the argument of giving evidence. I am not avoiding it as there is nothing to avoid. Now when we finish this argument and you are still available, we can go into the evidence for or against God.
I will give that video a point; The Bible has been used to do many heinous things. The Crusades, for example. Or some people who believe in the typical white America because America is God's country and all that crap. But that doesn't excuse the actual good it did. Not saying the bad things done by so called believers should be excused, but that doesn't mean we cannot focus on the good things the others have done.
Another thing it got right was that God is not some all kind pleasant being. Yes, He is the pinnacle do righteousness. So can He really be nice to everyone and be some peaceful hippie guy? Not at all. The Bible does talk about forgiveness, in the sense that we should forgive wrong doings that are fixed.
God also does what is right in that He gives an eye for an eye. Egypt had the Israelites enslaved for years, and they were obviously not going to give them up. Is God supposed to excuse that? No. So He has to bring terrible things upon Egypt. This wasn't like Egypt had the Israelites as slaves for ten years or a few months, it was over a hundred. And you can go and say God hardened Pharaohs heart, God only facilitated a process Pharaoh already started.
And for the rest of what the priest said, it only serves to prove the point against most modern day Christians who try to cherry pick the scriptures when they try to put God in a box and make Him how they want. He isn't a peaceful omnibenevolent guy, and He is not some evil force. You can't be good if you are either of those things. Its simply impossible. And no, the stoning of homosexuals or burning fornicators was not nice. Who said doing what is righteous for the situation had to be nice? God can't be the nice guy all the time. In order to do what is right there has to be some real devotion, meaning you can't act the same in each situation. When ___ happens, you act according to the situation. Is God supposed to always forgive every wrongdoing even when the person doesnt repent? Because it seems as if you are saying He has to be a totally one sided guy if He is good. So neither of those guys are in the right.
π: 0 β©: 1
Show me the evidence that your god is real.
π: 0 β©: 2
I mean if so we can, just wanting to be sure.
π: 0 β©: 0
So you are wanting to completely drop the argument of the morality of God and just ignore everything we wrote?
π: 0 β©: 1
It can't be debated until your god is proven.
Or would you accept me saying morality is relative because a space alien proved it to me?
π: 0 β©: 1
Very well. I will write up a response for it when I can.
π: 0 β©: 0
I think Ingersoll's perspective is the most logical approach.
π: 0 β©: 0
I pity this person and you. Even atheists have often recognized the literary quality in the bible.Β Most importantly is God's love note to a fallen and wicked humanity.
π: 0 β©: 2
There's a difference between recognizing literary value and claiming that a thousands of years old cobbled together book of myths is absolute truth.
Since the bible has no evidence, your comment is a waste.
π: 0 β©: 0
And yet the Bible is a bestseller. Go figure eh?
π: 0 β©: 2
So? By that logic Hogwarts is real.
π: 0 β©: 0
Wonder what that has got to do with anything.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Bible is still a shallow book that's hardly worthy of any admiration."
π: 0 β©: 1
So? I was talking from an ethical/moral POV, not as a work of literature. And I'm not sure what being a bestseller has to do with being worthy of admiration.
π: 0 β©: 1
Iunno, you'd think that people would admire a bestseller. Then again, a lot of people liking it doesn't make it a good book. Eh, who knows, right?
π: 0 β©: 1
Nope it wouldn't. It's the best seller because it has great influence/impact (as Christianity has the most followers over the world to state the obvious) - no one denies that. Also perhaps as a work of literature. That doesn't mean it's worthy of admiration as in a divine book from an ethical/moral POV.
π: 0 β©: 1
For some people it is. You just admitted so yourself.
π: 0 β©: 1
And your point being? My POV is "Bible is a shallow book that's hardly worthy of any admiration" - and I have good reasons for that. Some people may or may not consider it otherwise for various reasons, but why exactly is it relevant?
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah. Your opinion. Then indeed my point is completely irrelevant. Sorry!
π: 0 β©: 1
Not to mention the fact that the bible is contradicted by the evidence.
If any part of the bible is contradicted the entire thing loses it's claim of being absolute truth.
π: 0 β©: 0
If the Bible is such a shallow book, then why do we still use the morals and rules found in it today? Even you?
π: 0 β©: 1
Are you accusing me of being homophobic, sexist and threatening people with hell? I don't think so. Why'd you say that?
π: 0 β©: 1
Absolutely not, because that's not all the Bible's about.
The Bible says not to lie, commit adultery, or murder. All of which even Atheists would find wrong, or raise their own children with. So, no.
And the Bible is not sexist.
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>