Arguments against Christianity

[dan1123]

What really cheeses me is that, from reading 2 Samuel, David repents to the Lord for what is tantamount to a property offense. A wife is the equivalent of livestock.

That's a laugh, you think Nathan's illustration of grabbing a neighbor's only lamb, and slaughtering it for his own guests was an illustration of how women are <i>livestock</i>? You're nuts. It was an illustration so that David would realize that what he did was unethical and would be punished by God. The illustration was not a citation of law--it was a way so that Nathan could show David his own guilt.

And here we now find a specific issue: What does this imply? Well, it implies a whole lot about unseen forces, but it says nothing about God. End of story.

Good way of dodging the implication "a lot of unseen forces" indeed. Where might the knowledge of which people were being prayed for come from? The people praying for the patients didn't even know more than first names. Where might the power to heal--even slightly--come from? Was it chance? The study did a good job elimintating that possibility. The people used all happened to be Christian, so they weren't praying to Allah or any other god. What about these knowledgable "unseen forces", tiassa? If they are not from God, then what are they?

 

[Cris]

tiassa,

Re: AMA study. And here we now find a specific issue: What does this imply? Well, it implies a whole lot about unseen forces, but it says nothing about God. End of story.

They say science fiction often becomes truth. I suspect the Star Wars stories are more appealing to a large number of people rather than the bible.

May the force be with you.

Cris

 

[Tiassa]

"Star Wars, nothing but Star Wars (sing it with me)"

Dan--

Well, we can look at a couple of things: the offense, and the apology, and the LORD's reaction:

Why have you spurned the LORD and done evil in his sight? You have cut down Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you took his wife as your own, and him you killed with the sword of the Ammonites.

It seems David has offended the LORD. But how? Is it the taking of a dead man's wife? Well, were David the brother of Uriah, this would be an acceptable thing; God struck down Onan for his disobedience when he failed to take his dead brother's wife properly--it seems coitus interruptus and other methods are offensive to the LORD, who wants to see some real action.

Is it the murder of Uriah? Just as one should not covet a neighbor's wife, so also should one not kill; of course, it seems there was some sort of war afoot, so ....

Or is it the offense to the LORD?

Were the story proper in any sense, David would have apologized specifically for the murder and the taking of the wife. But instead, the offense is against the LORD.

It's a matter of priorities. Killing a woman's husband so you can sleep with her apparently isn't as disrespectful as breaking a commandment against the LORD. Such are the priorities of the Bible, and such seems to be the point.

What about these knowledgable "unseen forces", tiassa?

I believe Cris mentioned something about The Force, but only in jest; it's always possible, just like the Universe model you cited elsewhere. There are Hindu, Theosophist, and other notions of vibratory harmonic effects. Sure, we haven't detected the actual waves yet, and that's the hinderance to calling such a theory true. But we haven't detected God as yet, either, so I wonder why you're being so Corinthian in the captivity of possibility to the obedience of Christ.

The point of doing such research as IoNS and the AMA have undertaken is to start working toward such answers as to whether the phenomenon is real and what is the nature of that phenomenon. I know it would be a lot easier and more economical to write it up to the God of the Bible, but that may well not be accurate, and knowledge would once again be captive to the obedience of Christ.

I know it's hard for people in the throes of the Bible to respect the quite amazing diversity of human thought and possibility, but just because it's not one does not make it the other; life is not as dualistic as the God/Devil, Redemption/Condemnation, Life/Death model of Christianity would make it. Heck, Christianity even makes a rhetorical mess out of the Life/Death dualism, so there you go.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Okay, maybe not in jest, but ...

Cris--

So maybe not in jest ... for you've an excellent point. I won't even try to draw any parallels to the Dark Side ...

thanx much,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

The point of doing such research as IoNS and the AMA have undertaken is to start working toward such answers as to whether the phenomenon is real and what is the nature of that phenomenon.

I read about another test done in Canada on tomatoes, where three vats of tomatoes were given a disease, one was prayed over, one was "thought good thoughts" towards, and the last just sat there. The one that was "thought good thoughts" towards had no measurable difference from the vat that had nothing done, but the one prayed over showed a measurable amount of healing from the disease. It kind of struck me as an odd experiment, but it shows that it isn't just people being there that helped the tomatoes.

It's a matter of priorities. Killing a woman's husband so you can sleep with her apparently isn't as disrespectful as breaking a commandment against the LORD. Such are the priorities of the Bible, and such seems to be the point.

And if God truly is the final authority, then David would be correct in his assertion that it was Yahweh (translated the LORD in your quote) he sinned against. That has nothing to do with the value of the woman, it has everything to do with the value of Yahweh.

I know it's hard for people in the throes of the Bible to respect the quite amazing diversity of human thought and possibility

If I didn't respect the diversity of thought, I would sound like Tony1. Stop throwing around insults--you have your idea of the truth and believe that you are right, and I have mine and I believe that I am right. Character assassination just a last desperate attempt to take hold of a losing argument.

 

[daktaklakpak]

Originally posted by dan1123

I read about another test done in Canada on tomatoes, where three vats of tomatoes were given a disease, one was prayed over, one was "thought good thoughts" towards, and the last just sat there. The one that was "thought good thoughts" towards had no measurable difference from the vat that had nothing done, but the one prayed over showed a measurable amount of healing from the disease. It kind of struck me as an odd experiment, but it shows that it isn't just people being there that helped the tomatoes.

It looks like an easy test. Did any body actually bother to verify the claim? I don't think it needs to be done in a specially made close-contained environment to repeat the test.

 

[Cris]

I wouldn’t worry too much about the AMA article. That seems to be the only one so far. There will need to be many more studies conducted by independent researchers before the conclusions could be taken seriously. Consistent reproducibility is a typical requirement for scientific acceptance.

Remember Cold Fusion? Findings that were claimed by quite eminent scientists under controlled scientific conditions. No one else was able to reproduce the effect.

The TM movement claims that a small percentage (1%) of people meditating in a society will have a beneficial affect on the whole society, e.g. reduced crime, fewer hospital admissions, better health, etc. Studies made by the FBI in I think the 1960s seem to begin this mode of thinking, but I have not seen any other independent studies done since. Again the phenomenon doesn’t appear to be reproducible.

Scientists talk about unified field theory and the idea of a field with such fundamental particles that it permeates through everything including apparent empty space. Perhaps the idea of the Force from Star Wars is not so foolish.

But consider other long-range effects. There are some moths that emit a pheromone where a mate can detect it at a distance measured in miles. Dolphin can hear sounds in water for many miles away, perhaps that isn’t so remarkable, but some fish life can detect odors at a distance measured in miles. OK so all of these are sensory effects. Could it be possible for humans to be able to transmit effects? Parapsychology studies do show some small effects in telepathy, and precognition, and there are claims for telekinesis, none of these effects can as yet be adequately explained.

I had a recent encounter with poison oak and learnt that a quarter ounce of the poison would be enough to affect every person on the planet. An extremely potent substance. And that brings me to the human brain? It is a complex arrangement of electrical and chemical process; many are quite subtle. Could these potentially potent processes be able to transmit a field that we as yet are unable to detect?

Of course coincidences take place as well.

Crs

 

[Tiassa]

Whatever, Dan ....

Dan--

Two words: Lighten up.

I read about another test done in Canada on tomatoes, where three vats of tomatoes were given a disease, one was prayed over, one was "thought good thoughts" towards, and the last just sat there. The one that was "thought good thoughts" towards had no measurable difference from the vat that had nothing done, but the one prayed over showed a measurable amount of healing from the disease. It kind of struck me as an odd experiment, but it shows that it isn't just people being there that helped the tomatoes.

I'm not surprised at all; music has the strange effect of helping plants grow. Why has never really been figured out.

That has nothing to do with the value of the woman, it has everything to do with the value of Yahweh.

Exactly the problem of almost everything Biblical. However, it does nothing to dispel the appearance of misogyny, which is the issue at hand for this part of the debate.

If I didn't respect the diversity of thought, I would sound like Tony1. Stop throwing around insults--you have your idea of the truth and believe that you are right, and I have mine and I believe that I am right. Character assassination just a last desperate attempt to take hold of a losing argument.

Oh, poor you. I'm not the one who holds science responsible for not knowing everything right now. Unseen forces? What about them, Dan? You're the one who apparently wants to write them to Jee-zus before we know anything about them, or even if they're really there. Something about knowledge being captive to the obedience of Christ? If you must write the possibility of unseen forces to your God alone, and not to nature, and not to any other religious philosophy, then yes, it is a problem with diversity. Quit whining. It doesn't help your argument at all.

--Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

Perhaps the idea of the Force from Star Wars is not so foolish.

It's just another religion--or is it because the idea of an impersonal force rather than a personal god is more to your liking that you hold it above other religions in your mind?

However, it does nothing to dispel the appearance of misogyny, which is the issue at hand for this part of the debate.

Man and woman are created as equal image-bearers of God, the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection are women, Deborah was a leader of Israel as a judge in the time of judges. The Bible has very positive views about women, and with these in mind could not be called "misogynist".

I wouldn’t worry too much about the AMA article. That seems to be the only one so far.

The study I linked to in my previous post was verifying the results of an earlier study, as the abstract reports, the main reason for the study was, "positive findings of a previous controlled trial of intercessory prayer have yet to be replicated." The reason why I posted the article in the first place is that tiassa wanted some empirical evidence of the effects of God.

 

[Tiassa]

Response & diversion

Dan--

A couple of notes, and also a diversion while I assemble material on misogyny and the Bible. Truth be told, I'm prepared to start slinging Biblical quotes, but I can anticipate the response, and while it's fair, it's also the point. It has to do with human failures to understand the Bible, the observable effect of Biblical faith in humanity, and how it is that God failed so miserably in His attempt to communicate with his creations. Being that no Christian advocate at this board has ever addressed these issues forthrightly, I feel the need to be more cautious in my assembly of the argument. In the meantime:

It's just another religion--or is it because the idea of an impersonal force rather than a personal god is more to your liking that you hold it above other religions in your mind?

Hey, the Force was just another suggestion. You asked about the unseen forces, Tiassa, what about the unseen forces ...?

Quite simply: I wish to discover A) that such forces truly do exist, and B) the nature of said forces. This seems much easier than the superstitious attribution of unseen forces to God. Various magicks are only considered magickal because we have no set explanation for the phenomena alleged to be associated with them. The supernatural quantified is natural.

The Force was merely an alternative suggestion that happened to be quite easily at hand. That we humans don't yet understand the Universe is a much more plausible explanation--and much less harmful to humanity--for unseen forces than attributing them to the God of the Bible.

And now, the diversion:

They should be more agnostic so that they can encompass everyone's belief in God or no God (and make us agnostics really happy because then there is one more of us). (Topic post, 8/19/2001)

Since you included yourself with the agnostics, I'm impelled to ask the form of that agnosticism. You have argued the theist standpoint from Biblical theism, without regard to other forms of theism found around the world. What failures of, say, Hindu or Buddhist or shamanistic teachings have brought you to narrow your search to the God of the Bible? That in itself could make for a wonderful topic without a great deal of argument. I'm just curious, since your declared agnosticism somehow compels you to enact the same argumentative processes found among the most faithful Christians. What is the transition from agnosticism to restricting the possibilities of theism to Judeo-Christianity?

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

Notes on Biblical misogyny

Man and woman are created as equal image-bearers of God, the first witnesses to Jesus' resurrection are women, Deborah was a leader of Israel as a judge in the time of judges. The Bible has very positive views about women, and with these in mind could not be called "misogynist". (Dan1123, 8/22/2001, Arguments Against Christianity)

Well, Dan, we can start with these. I'll even go so far as to tell you what issue I have with them.

* Genesis 19.5-13:

5 They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intimacies with them."
6 Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him,
7 he said, "I beg you, my brothers, not to do this wicked thing.
8 I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with men. Let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you please. But don't do anything to these men, for you know they have come under the shelter of my roof."
9 They replied, "Stand back! This fellow," they sneered, "came here as an immigrant, and now he dares to give orders! We'll treat you worse than them!" With that, they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door.
10 But his guests put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door;
11 at the same time they struck the men at the entrance of the house, one and all, with such a blinding light that they were utterly unable to reach the doorway.
12 Then the angels said to Lot: "Who else belongs to you here? Your sons (sons-in-law) and your daughters and all who belong to you in the city--take them away from it!
13 We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the LORD against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it."

What puzzles me here is the value of family and women. In verses 12-13, the angels advise Lot to gather those who "belong to you here" and leave town, for the LORD is about to destroy this place. We can assume, based on the LORD's pattern of behavior, that he holds Lot in some esteem; enough, at least, to warn him of the impending destruction and to advise him to clear out of town. Yet here is a man who offers up his two daughters to gang rape to appease a Sodomite gang apparently bent on violating two men. This is particularly interesting when we consider:

* Deuteronomy 20.13-21:

13 "If a man, after marrying a woman and having relations with her, comes to dislike her,
14 and makes monstrous charges against her and defames her by saying, 'I married this woman, but when I first had relations with her I did not find her a virgin,'
15 the father and mother of the girl shall take the evidence of her virginity and bring it to the elders at the city gate.
16 There the father of the girl shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man in marriage, but he has come to dislike her,
17 and now brings monstrous charges against her, saying: I did not find your daughter a virgin. But here is the evidence of my daughter's virginity!' And they shall spread out the cloth before the elders of the city.
18 Then these city elders shall take the man and chastise him,
19 besides fining him one hundred silver shekels, which they shall give to the girl's father, because the man defamed a virgin in Israel. Moreover, she shall remain his wife, and he may not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 "But if this charge is true, and evidence of the girl's virginity is not found,
21 they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsmen shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.

I'm thankful to be an American, where the burden of proof is on the accusers. After all, here a woman is guilty if the wife's father is unable to produce bloody sheets showing evidence of her deflowering, the woman shall be stoned to death. This, of course, if the man "comes to dislike her." A woman is apparently unfit to defend herself, and must rely on her father. Furthermore, I object to one having to prove their innocence against a charge made simply because the husband is unhappy; it should be to the husband to prove guilt.

* Deuteronomy 5.12-31: You can look up this passage if you like; it's longer than the last one. But the gist of it is that if a husband is jealous, he can take her before the priest, who can force her to consume a toxic substance as a test of her purity. Again, it is given to a woman to defend herself against her husband's jealousy. Notable is that The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin. (5.31)

* 1 Corinthians 14.33-35:

33 ...As in all the churches of the holy ones,
34 women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.
35 But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.

There's not much to comment on here; it's pretty obvious.

* 1 Timothy 2.11-15:

11 A woman must receive instruction silently and under complete control.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. 4 She must be quiet.
13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve.
14 Further, Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and transgressed.
15 But she will be saved through motherhood, provided women persevere in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.

In addition to the intolerance of women in authority, we also find an exploitation of God's Will. As I assert, nothing happens without God's Will. Humankind fell because God willed it, yet here we find a rehash of Eve, and this is apparently cause for this fear of women in authority. Sad thing is, I know Christians who feel this way.

* Leviticus 12:

1 The LORD said to Moses,
2 "Tell the Israelites: When a woman has conceived and gives birth to a boy, she shall be unclean for seven days, with the same uncleanness as at her menstrual period.
3 On the eighth day, the flesh of the boy's foreskin shall be circumcised,
4 and then she shall spend thirty-three days more in becoming purified of her blood; she shall not touch anything sacred nor enter the sanctuary till the days of her purification are fulfilled.
5 If she gives birth to a girl, for fourteen days she shall be as unclean as at her menstruation, after which she shall spend sixty-six days in becoming purified of her blood.
6 "When the days of her purification for a son or for a daughter are fulfilled, she shall bring to the priest at the entrance of the meeting tent a yearling lamb for a holocaust and a pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.
7 The priest shall offer them up before the LORD to make atonement for her, and thus she will be clean again after her flow of blood. Such is the law for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl child.
8 If, however, she cannot afford a lamb, she may take two turtledoves or two pigeons, the one for a holocaust and the other for a sin offering. The priest shall make atonement for her, and thus she will again be clean."

Help me out here: what is so much more impure about giving birth to a girl than a boy?

It seems like a fair start.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

Yet here is a man who offers up his two daughters to gang rape to appease a Sodomite gang apparently bent on violating two men.

And where does it say that God blessed it or even allowed that to occur at that time? The Bible is candid with the sins of its saints--that does not mean that the Bible condones the sins that are told about in the Bible.

I'm thankful to be an American, where the burden of proof is on the accusers.

And when is the last time that such a thing as proof was needed? I remember a report about some gradeschool girl who didn't like her substitute teacher who happened to be a male, so she accused him of sexual harassment. No one would hire him after that, even when the whole story was revealed. At least in the situation described, a woman can clear her name of a false accusation.

Furthermore, I object to one having to prove their innocence against a charge made simply because the husband is unhappy;

You must be really ignorant of the modern legal system. You can be sued for <i>anything</i> and you have to suffer through a lawsuit or loss of money no matter what.

What shoud be noted is that this is not a command. If a the husband is unhappy, God does not command for him to start accusing his wife of these things, but one must assume that he is unhappy if he starts accusing his wife like this. There are actually two ways to deal with this if the charge is brought. She can either be stoned, or leave the community in a non-theocracy as Israel was.

who can force her to consume a toxic substance as a test of her purity

It wasn't a toxic substance, it was some ashes, charcoal-based ink and some dust off the floor. It probably didn't taste too good, but not nearly toxic. The effects described would take an act of God to actually occur. Notably, with your quote, the assumtion is that a false accusation of the wife's adultrous behavior makes the husband accountable. So if she drinks some non-toxic substance and doesn't have any adverse effects, then the husband is called on it and must repent.

There's not much to comment on here; it's pretty obvious.

The Bible verse you comment on is on face-value the opposite of what is actually occuring in the early church and being blessed by Paul. Women are prophesying, teaching, and speaking in general in the church. So what is the real issue here? The culture. There are other issues in the culture that make it so that a woman teaching would cause more harm to the church in that time than good. It would cause others to stumble in their beliefs. It is similar to the haircutting verse that I think is near the 1 Corintians verse you quote. If you remember your history, women did not have much rights in even secular cultures in Rome.

Help me out here: what is so much more impure about giving birth to a girl than a boy?

I don't see where it says that a boy is more unclean. A woman gets more rest after giving birth to a girl, I think it shows a higher regard for giving birth to a girl over a boy in this sense. Being unclean wasn't some form of ostracism or punishment, it was a time for rest--maybe a ritualistic behavior so that a woman who had just given birth would get the space and rest she needed after such a stressful event.

 

[dan1123]

Since you included yourself with the agnostics, I'm impelled to ask the form of that agnosticism. You have argued the theist standpoint from Biblical theism, without regard to other forms of theism found around the world. What failures of, say, Hindu or Buddhist or shamanistic teachings have brought you to narrow your search to the God of the Bible?

I was giving the example as an atheist speaking to an agnostic--I did not mean that I am one. I was both an atheist, and agnostic at times in my life, but I never found any religion very compelling until I tried to show how uncompelling the Bible was. When I came at the Bible, I expected a bunch of examples about how to live your life and instruction on how to do so. I expected a bunch of short-sighted explanations about how the world works. I expected a bunch of people represented as blindly believing, so that it could serve as an example for modern Christians who check their brains at the door when they enter church. I expected a bunch of "superpeople" who never did any wrong to try and show people reading the Bible that they could do no wrong if they were "faithful enough".

I didn't find these. I found no explanations for how lightning works, or why volcanoes erupt. I found no blind believers, but ones who questioned God and demanded proof. I found people who made horrible moral choices, but were still forgiven when they admitted to a mistake--and those were some of the "biggest Saints". I read about this god who was unafraid of people not serving Him, but wanted some sort of "relationship". He didn't want a bunch of sacrifices, but a desire to be with Him. When I read, I found more honesty than anything--who would admit to denying the one who they put their faith in? Who would admit to killing people when their supposed to be saints? Who would admit to an affair when their supposed to be the moral leader of a theocracy? Who would admit that their savior couldn't even keep an audience when He spoke to a crowd? The things in the Bible didn't ring of fiction or myth like so many other religious books and stories that I had read.

Still, I don't want to back down from questions though, so I continue to read critics and apologists. And I participate in the discussion here. I don't want to stop questioning, but that does not mean I will never come to a conclusion--and I have concluded that Jesus was real, and who He said He is. I don't believe the Bible is perfect, but I believe that more than enough was preserved to keep the message unobscured.

 

[achilles12604]

This is a general question to all atheists on this forum. What standards do you use to prove that Napolean existed? How would you go about doing that? Then once you have shown that Napolean existed, how would you go about showing that any or all of his battles were actual history? Please let me know.

Chris

 

[Godless]

You could have started a new thread, this one is over five years old.