Irrational, or: Four Bible Stories I Don't Get

To me it says to fear the faithful, particularly if they're fundamentalist. Particularly if they're totalitarians.

I haven't seen any god haters here, and there are over 100 comments. I've seen some people say stupid things about not asking questions(from both sides), and some silly explanations of biblical stories (from both sides), and a lot of interesting stuff...along with people honestly trying to learn what others think about the topic... but where's all this hate?

Better hot or cold than lukewarm, jazzman! Hail Lucifer!

Yes, I don't think "Godhater" characterizes the tone here. No one said they hated God. In order to arrive at the truth (or some semblance of it), questioning is always in order. Also, to assume that your version of God is the only version of God is somewhat arrogant, Jazzman. We all have our ideas. Simply because we don't adhere to the construct, fabricated by man, has nothing to do with the existence of a higher power. Or our faith in it.

The status quo may be a safe refuge. But it's often a very narrow-minded one.

The general tone of many (not all) of these comments convey an attitude of total disrespect, disdain, and disregard of Judeo-Christian belief (following the lead of the article itself), although some are nicely packaged, as intellectual thought, but many are not. I can link to the exact ones, but they are obvious.

If Tigerblade is truly and seriously seeking answers to the questions he's posed in this article, about these Bible passages; I'm sure the Pastor, or those appointed by him, at the Church he reluctantly attends, would be happy to answer them, If they aren't willing to, or can't, he should find a Church where they will, and can. But, it might help to pay attention during the service, instead of daydreaming or jotting notes =).

I have no problem with an honest debate of my belief; I have a big problem with the discussion of it in a disrespectful way, although I can do nothing about it, except express my displeasure, and move on.

Thanks, Jazzman. I understand your point of view much better now.

Peace!

Better hot or cold than lukewarm, jazzman! Hail Lucifer!

WhyIt

Hey...at least you know and acknowledge who you're with...

Agnosticism is a sham.

PEACE!

Rebecca

I have no problem with an honest debate of my belief; I have a big problem with the discussion of it in a disrespectful way,

Agnosticism is a sham.

Doing unto others as you would others do unto you is apparently not your strong suit.

I now know where your beliefs lie. Thank you.

Doing unto others as you would others do unto you is apparently not your strong suit.

I apologize, I guess I never considered Agnosticism, which I define as a a belief in Nothing , as something anyone could be offended by criticism of. My thinking is, if you believe in Nothing; then you have no true belief, in a religious sense.

I call Agnosticism a sham, in the sense that I have met some Agnostics who believe by maintaining neutrality, they may not face the consequences, as described in the Bible, of non-belief, if God really exists9.

The sham is that many don't know the Bible clearly states (numerous times), as WhyIt, noted, that "lukewarm" is not acceptable. An Agnostic , is viewed , and faces the same consequences as an overt devil worshiper. God will make no distinction (again based on Biblical teaching).

Maybe the way I should have stated it is; I think Agnostics who believe what I outlined above are being scammed.

Again, I disagree. I certainly can't speak for others' intents, but my intent was hardly to be disrespectful or disdainful of Judeo-Christian beliefs. My goal was and is to bring up some particular passages that just don't seem to make sense in the larger scale of the faith.

I had a lot of questions I was going to raise about exactly what your true intent was in writing this, but decided to let it go.

If you have such a strong grasp on the intricacies of the divine world, then congratulations. I'm sure life is swell for you. However, not all of us are so easily convinced. I'll be the first to admit that the Bible as a physical book itself might not be the greatest place to start, as it's been filtered so heavily through man. However... by bringing it up to a community like this, it's helpful to get other viewpoints.

My opinion is the best response you got to your questions in the article, from the viewpoint of a believer, was from Tom Bombadil, in 22.2.

I apologize, I guess I never considered Agnosticism, which I define as a a belief in Nothing , as something anyone could be offended by criticism of. My thinking is, if you believe in Nothing; then you have no true belief, in a religious sense.

Belief in nothing is Nihilism. Agnosticism is the idea that things are unknowable. It is sort of lukewarm approach, though, but also probably the most realistic. After all, no one knows what's actually out there.

A quote from Yann Martel comparing agnosticism to atheism upon death: "Whereas the agnostic, if he stays true to his reasonable self, if he stays beholden to dry, yeastless factuality, might try to explain the warm light bathing him by saying, 'Possibly a f-f-failing oxygenation of the b-b-brain,' and, to the very end, lack imagination and miss the better story."

Read up on a philosophy before you call it a sham.

If you don't, you run the grave risk of looking like a pompous idiot.

P.S. - There's no spiritual leader or idol in agnosticism, nor is there holy writ. It's kinda hard to be scammed without something to scam you with.

I apologize, I guess I never considered Agnosticism, which I define as a a belief in Nothing , as something anyone could be offended by criticism of. You should try defining it the same way as everyone else, then. It might help you to recognize that when you call something that many people believe a "sham", they might be offended. Hence the point made about your hypocrisy, which is based on you being offended by people calling something you believe in a "sham", while simultaneously calling other people's beliefs a "sham."

Of course, you're correct that people who think Agnosticism is "maintaining neutrality" are mistaken, but only in the sense that they're mistaken as to what agnosticism is.

And, honestly, I don't mind the offensiveness of your pronouncement. We should be offended, if that offense springs from people challenging us to put up a good argument for what we believe. I don't mind dishing it out or taking it, as long as we're talking about the arguments themselves.

The sham is that many don't know the Bible clearly states (numerous times), as WhyIt, noted, that "lukewarm" is not acceptable. An Agnostic , is viewed , and faces the same consequences as an overt devil worshiper. God will make no distinction (again based on Biblical teaching). And agnostics would rightfully point out that you can't use the Bible to defend the notion of God while simultaneously using God to defend the divine inspiration of the Bible. So from an agnostic point of view, what the Bible says is inconsequential, unless and until you define what God is, in some fashion that makes the definition both meaningful and relevant.

In other words, people who get all "het up" about agnostics defying the Bible are missing the point that their opinion on it is truly irrelevant to agnostics. It'd be like me getting all bent out of shape because you don't adhere to the pronouncements of my Magic 8-ball.

In that sense, I think believers such as yourself are the ones being scammed.

27.14 & 27.15:

I mentioned Agnostic belief, in the exact context of those Agnostics who I've met who seem to believe their neutrality offers them some type of insurance, just in case God does exist.

I either misinterpreted what they told me they believed and why, or as you said in your comments here, they themselves were off in that belief.

In other words, people who get all "het up" about agnostics defying the Bible are missing the point that their opinion on it is truly irrelevant to agnostics

I don't believe I got all "het up" about it. I just stated an opinion.

Read up on a philosophy before you call it a sham.

If you don't, you run the grave risk of looking like a pompous idiot.

I hear you.

Its very similar to those who criticize the Bible, and have never read it, and criticize Christianity, and have no true knowledge or understanding of it.

That's good advice in general.

It is indeed.

Having read the Bible in its entirety a number of times, I'm glad I don't fit into your "those" group. On Newsvine, you'll find that many atheists and agnostics willing to discuss Christianity and the Bible at length have either studied it quite seriously, or were once Christian and rejected that faith after trying to see it as self-consistent and trying to reconcile it with the real world.

As a heads-up, just because we don't agree with your religion nor worship your God doesn't mean we don't know anything about them.

Having read the Bible in its entirety a number of times, I'm glad I don't fit into your "those" group. On Newsvine, you'll find that many atheists and agnostics willing to discuss Christianity and the Bible at length have either studied it quite seriously,

There's a spiritual aspect to understanding, the Bible, and to Christianity itself, which most non-believers don't seem to acknowledge, and can't seem to grasp as something tangible. As Paul explained in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

Also 1 Corithians 1:20-25:

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

or were once Christian and rejected that faith after trying to see it as self-consistent and trying to reconcile it with the real world

That's too bad. I have no problem reconciling my faith with the real world, because it its defined what the world really is for me.

The quote of 1 Corithians 1:20-25 above, in 27.19, ends at the word "strength".

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned

So the implication is that if you really understood, then you'd simply just accept it? As a logical construct, that's horses--- without real-world supporting evidence.

It's utterly absurd once you remove "God" from the sentiment: If you really understood the statement "rabbits are purple," you'd accept it.

its defined what the world really is for me.

Sorry, but I find that rather sad.

I define the real world by what I see in the real world, not what an old anthology of fables tells me. Foxes don't actually whine about sour grapes, and there isn't actually a wicked witch in a gingerbread house, lying in wait for greedy children.

There's a spiritual aspect to understanding, the Bible, and to Christianity itself, which most non-believers don't seem to acknowledge, and can't seem to grasp as something tangible.

Actually, some of us grasp it quite well, and when we bring it up are attacked as attacking religion when all we are doing is pointing out that there is an essential non-rational component to it.

So the implication is that if you really understood, then you'd simply just accept it? As a logical construct, that's horses--- without real-world supporting evidence.

No the implication is that without,

the Spirit,

Paul spoke of 1 Corinthians 2:14, which I quoted, and was referring to, we have no ability to understand the true meaning of the Bible. It becomes "foolishness", just as you portray it here. The Spirit defined, is a concept of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit), and receiving it, or coming under the influence of it , is a mandatory pre-requisite to becoming a true Christian. I believe Christianity is first Spiritually discerned, before it can become logically discerned.

Sorry, but I find that rather sad.

I define the real world by what I see in the real world, not what an old anthology of fables tells me. Foxes don't actually whine about sour grapes, and there isn't actually a wicked witch in a gingerbread house, lying in wait for greedy children.

Don't be sad, I'm a very happy person =)

When I say being a Christian has defined what the world really is to me, I'm referring, like you, to what I see in the real world, hatred, jealousy, lust, greed, despair, and all the other failings of the nature of man, which make this world a miserable place for so many, and causes the endless human strife, manifested in war, terrorism, corruption, mayhem and murder, which we all spend a lot of time discussing here on NV. I now understand the cause, the effect, and God's coming solution, to the problem.

Actually, some of us grasp it quite well, and when we bring it up are attacked as attacking religion when all we are doing is pointing out that there is an essential non-rational component to it.

AdipicAcid,

You're right, for a non-believer, there should be a what you call, "an essential non-rational component to it", or what I stated in my comment to Jack Huang above, and what Paul said in 1 Corinthians, would be untrue.

I've engaged in debates about Christian reilgious belief for many years on, and off the Internet. I've also listened to great debates by others much on the issues (in fact a former Hindu, Ravi Zacharias, is one my favorite apologists, and debaters/defenders of Christian belief) and found it to be a useless enterprise, and a waste of time, unless of course you just like to debate =).

But after all the debate is over, the non-disputable fact, which all the great Christian theologians and apologists admit to, is that, the bottom line of Christian belief is faith.

In my NIV Bible, the word "faith" is used 422 times.

I concur, but don't mention that to Blaise. He gets quite upset when you mention that, in the end it is not reason, but faith that is the bedrock of belief.

I misunderstood what you meant by "its defined what the world really is for me."

Good points. I pretty much agree, and in debates about religion, it's refreshing to see a devout Christian explicitly say that the bottom line of Christian belief is indeed faith.

it's refreshing to see a devout Christian explicitly say that the bottom line of Christian belief is indeed faith.

I don't know if I'd qualify as "devout" =)

But I don't understand how any Christian can say its not faith.

Many vocal Christians I encounter here insist that the foundation is built upon logical reasoning, and try to defend that assertion ad nauseam, usually by twisting Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor into some rhetorical abomination. So far, none have been successful.

As for devoutness, well, you're a better judge of that. :-p

Me: Come in, God. Come in, God. This is ChristBot1181999010, do you copy? Over.

Funny little voice in my head: This . Is . God. Kill the heathen. Kill Babel Fish. He does not succumb to our program of automated happiness.

Me: Yessir! I live to serve! I am a sheep, you are my shephard. Jesus loves me but not him! Over.

*reaches for axe*

Note the reference to sheep, Jesus the great Philosopher knew man could be indoctrinated into believing anything and behave like sheep, the only thing is to build up the flock.

Well I prefer to be a stray the black wise un-indoctrinated lamb. I am not an heathen I am a ultimatenessismist and Christians are pagans

Whilst talking about animals. If no one else explained why pork is regarded as a dirty animal its because pork has a very short shelf life without refrigeration, its also recorded as tasting the same as human flesh.

However Catholics ignore many of the holy laws, pork was a staple diet within the Roman Empire, the Romans used ice and salt to preserve their meat.

There is no hate here just sensible attacks on the fabrications of religion.

The word "attacks" has connotations of going to war. War is usually preceded by hatred.

Ah yes, the comments here are simply precursors to a grand holy war against the Christian religion.

Apparently criticism = hate.

Duly noted.

It's the highlights reel.

We can't honestly discuss the rational of these stories if we're going to ignore the giving premise. For example in the cases where people are killed for their disobedience or disrespect, one could argue that God read their hearts and God could see that they were deserving. Within the giving context God can read hearts and tell whether you're good or bad, naughty or nice. That's basically the premise we have agreed to when we examine the rational of the story. Moreover one could also argue that God sees the future(that's also a premise) and their disobedience or disrespect were only a prelude to greater misdeeds and God was cutting down evil before it continues to grow. At the end of the day it's like reading Superman, Superman is going to use one of his superpower to save the day, or get his way. If you don't like it, don't read the text. It's a good thing we live in an age where we are not force to be a part of a religion or believe in God.

Well according to the bible God is giving people a chance to repent, according
to the text some people will actually change.

The point is the bible is a far more complicated book than Harry Potter. It has a God who's power and wisdom dwarfs that of all known super heroes and villains combined. The God of the Bible can create and destroy a Universe. This God can not only see into the future, read hearts and minds, but God can resurrect the dead, and remove the very memory of any pain and suffering...Basically this God could slap you and take it back without you noticing. In every situation there are unknowns that can justify an action that on surface may seem harsh or unjust. So within it's context, it is a very logical book.
eve

This God can not only see into the future, read hearts and minds, but God can resurrect the dead, and remove the very memory of any pain and suffering...Basically this God could slap you and take it back without you noticing.

Yet, in all his claimed good and mercy, he still maanges to drive people to infanticide, reward fratricide, commit genocide, commit xenocide, command incestuous rape, and make laws that (among many other things) tell you to stone disobedient children.

Ah yes. God is a regular goody two shoes.

In every situation there are unknowns that can justify an action that on surface may seem harsh or unjust

That's a blanket argument if I ever saw one. "Everything He does is justified. There are just hidden magical justifications that totally make sense."

So within it's context, it is a very logical book.

If you're thinking in Biblical terms, then the Bible works.

Ummm, no s---, Sherlock.

Well according to the bible God is giving people a chance to repent, according
to the text some people will actually change.

That's inherently illogical, isn't it? If he knows everything that will happen, and everything that we'll do, then he'll know whether or not we'll repent or avoid sin.

I see that like going to a movie that you've already seen and giving it a chance to change the ending. Maybe this time, the Titanic won't sink!

Nope it is like going to a watch a movie, and knowing what will happen, or at least with the ability
to know what will happen and watching it to the end.

That's a blanket argument if I ever saw one. "Everything He does is justified. There are just hidden magical justifications that totally make sense." If you're thinking in Biblical terms, then the Bible works. Ummm, no s---, Sherlock.

Well don't no s---, sherlock me...that was my point from the beginning. I never said whether
the bible was fact or fiction, I just said keep things in context, in your words, "think in Biblical terms."

Well, I apologize that I thought your point was anything more than "assuming the Bible is Truth, then the Bible makes sense." That's an absolutely foregone conclusion. It's like saying "Assuming we define 'red' as the color of peaches, then peaches are red."

But, if you think of the Bible as not an isolated fantasyland with its own rules, then no, it doesn't make sense, nor is it even self-consistent, by our definition of "self-consistent."

Well, I apologize that I thought your point was anything more than "assuming the Bible is Truth, then the Bible makes sense." That's an absolutely foregone conclusion. It's like saying "Assuming we define 'red' as the color of peaches, then peaches are red."

Yes you are correct, that was my point from the start.

nor is it even self-consistent, by our definition of "self-consistent."

I disagree, remember my other blanket statement, interpreted in your words.

"Everything He does is justified. There are just hidden magical justifications that totally make sense."

Thanks, TigerBlade.