Your Help Refuting a Blog

[red]

*sigh* I think the word "arbitrary" might not mean what you think it means. Look it up. Then consider the following example

I have 2 sons, Jake and Dave. I tell Jake to trim the hedges and tell Dave to mow the lawn. I had no specific reason to assign the lawn mowing to Dave, nor the hedge trimming to Jake. Yet they obeyed me. Why? Was this wrong?

What a pointless analogy!
You made arbitrary choices of sons for tasks, and your sons made arbitrary decisions to do as you asked. Any person could have made different choices as there was no law requiring anyone to do anything in any particular way, nor at all.

 

[thenexttodie]

I think the onus on someone claiming we should follow laws that they acknowledge are arbitrarily should explain why anyone should follow them rather than the other way around.

*sigh* I think the word "arbitrary" might not mean what you think it means. Look it up. Then consider the following example

I have 2 sons, Jake and Dave. I tell Jake to trim the hedges and tell Dave to mow the lawn. I had no specific reason to assign the lawn mowing to Dave, nor the hedge trimming to Jake. Yet they obeyed me. Why? Was this wrong?

My use of arbitrary is correct. And your analogy is invalid. If you told Jake to drive carefully and Dave to only ever wear blue clothing it would be a better analogy. Dave would probably obey you as a child but as a rational adult would likely discard your commands that clearly have no objective basis.

Unless of course you think God needs some people not to eat shellfish for some reason. This is actually close to some Jewish thought though Jews don't tend to think that God gave commands to anyone else.

But you said that you could tell the difference between general commands and Israel-specific commands is that the Israel-specific ones were not ones that they could have come up with on their own.

I did not say this.

Is there an actual point you would like to make or are you just going to argue with everything I say, forever?

What is your position? Do you have any evidence for it?

 

[SpecialFrog]

But you said that you could tell the difference between general commands and Israel-specific commands is that the Israel-specific ones were not ones that they could have come up with on their own.

I did not say this.

You did. This is the second time you have claimed you did not. The first time I quoted you saying it and asked you to explain how it could mean anything else.

Read my last post and explain what you think you are saying. Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are lying.

Is there an actual point you would like to make or are you just going to argue with everything I say, forever?

My point is that you are making a lot of claims that you can't justify.

What is your position? Do you have any evidence for it?

I think I have ample evidence that your claims about what the Bible says are poorly thought out. As are your analogies.

 

[thenexttodie]

But you said that you could tell the difference between general commands and Israel-specific commands is that the Israel-specific ones were not ones that they could have come up with on their own.

I did not say this. I think you must have misunderstood me. I have tried to explain this to you already. But no matter what I say, you keep saying that I said this when I did not.

You did. This is the second time you have claimed you did not. The first time I quoted you saying it and asked you to explain how it could mean anything else.

Read my last post and explain what you think you are saying. Otherwise I will have to conclude that you are lying.

The part where I explain this to you begins around the middle of page 6 of this thread.

In your "last post", in the quote you are referring to, you left out the part of your own post, the part which I was responding to:

(You said this)--> "..This sentence structure implies that there is another set of laws with which you are contrasting the dietary laws."

(And I said) "Yes! There are certain laws and commandments God only gave to specific people. Does this blow your mind?"

So, let me summarize..

Atheists commonly argue that Christians are hypocrites for not perpetually obeying every single law or command God gave in the Bible. One reason this why this not a good argument is because, in the Bible God often gives commands only to a certain person or groups of people. Some commands pertain only to a singular event in history. Some for longer.

I believe I can also demonstrate an original and somewhat witty idea that some of these laws were given arbitrarly, and therefore God could actually have someone break one of these laws or have them rescinded without causing one to sin or contradicting His Holy nature. And I believe the dietary laws fall under this category as well as the first one.



Sooo that's about it. I sure everyone can understand that now. Even if you don't agree with it, I'm sure you can at least understand what I am saying. It's pretty easy.

So if there is something that you don't agree with, in your next post maybe you can tell me what it is and why.

 

[thenexttodie]

SpecialFrog here is part of where I tried to explain some of this to you earlier. In all fairness, after re-reading the first part of this post I can see how you could take from it a meaning which I did not intend. But I feel the point I was trying to make in the 2nd makes the whole idea clear enough.

So God gives people arbitrary commands?

]The dietary laws are arbitrary in the sense that the Isrealites would have no way to ever determine on their own what foods they should or should not eat. Not that the law served no purpose, but the rule God gave to determine which foods were clean or unclean, I believe was purely arbitrary. Is there something wrong with that?

I realize many people say it was for health reasons. But as long as something has be cleaned and cooked properly, we can eat anything. Can't we?

It sounds like you are saying that you can tell it is a meaningful command from God if we could work it out on our own without having been told it. Is that accurate?

No. The point I was trying to make with DraganGlas is that, when you investigate things a little deeper than what I think he has, you can show how ridiculous it is to argue that everything God told the Isrealites to do he also expected everyone else to do, forever. But we never got that far.

 

[SpecialFrog]

The part where I explain this to you begins around the middle of page 6 of this thread.

In your "last post", in the quote you are referring to, you left out the part of your own post, the part which I was responding to:

(You said this)--> "..This sentence structure implies that there is another set of laws with which you are contrasting the dietary laws."

(And I said) "Yes! There are certain laws and commandments God only gave to specific people. Does this blow your mind?"

So, let me summarize..

Atheists commonly argue that Christians are hypocrites for not perpetually obeying every single law or command God gave in the Bible. One reason this why this not a good argument is because, in the Bible God often gives commands only to a certain person or groups of people. Some commands pertain only to a singular event in history. Some for longer.

I believe I can also demonstrate an original and somewhat witty idea that some of these laws were given arbitrarly, and therefore God could actually have someone break one of these laws or have them rescinded without causing one to sin or contradicting His Holy nature. And I believe the dietary laws fall under this category as well as the first one.

I assume you acknowledge that all the laws of Moses were given together (according to the text) and so unless you are saying all of the Mosaic laws applied only to the Jews (which I believe is the Jehovah's Witness position) then you are still claiming to have a means of distinguishing between the laws that apply to everyone and the laws that don't. You are also claiming to have a means of distinguishing between laws that are arbitrary (and therefore can be broken with minimal consequence) and the laws that are not.

So again, you appear to explicitly saying what I have said you are.

That still doesn't explain this sentence.

So my question remains, how do you tell the difference between specific and general laws and between arbitrary and non-arbitrary laws?

You also claimed that "[e]verything the Lord expects from you could be easily summarized in just a few sentences." I would like to know what you think those sentences are if it is that simple.

 

[thenexttodie]

So my question remains, how do you tell the difference between specific and general laws...

I've already answered that as about as much I care to on page 5 in a response to Inferno. I don't see why I should go into it any further at this point.

You also claimed that "[e]verything the Lord expects from you could be easily summarized in just a few sentences." I would like to know what you think those sentences are if it is that simple.

If you really wanted to know you would just read the bible yourself.

 

[SpecialFrog]

So my question remains, how do you tell the difference between specific and general laws...

I've already answered that as about as much I care to on page 5 in a response to Inferno. I don't see why I should go into it any further at this point.

Because this is a discussion forum that you came to and made claims? You are under no obligation to try and convince us, but I assumed this was your intent. What you have posted so far doesn't answer the question at all. It just shows that some instructions were given to Moses and co.

Are you going the Jehovah's Witness route and saying all Mosaic laws are inapplicable?

You also claimed that "[e]verything the Lord expects from you could be easily summarized in just a few sentences." I would like to know what you think those sentences are if it is that simple.

If you really wanted to know you would just read the bible yourself.

I've read the Bible, thanks. I've also studied comparative religion (and Judaism). Both of these lead to be skeptical of claims that someone knows what the Bible really says and all other interpretations are wrong.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Apologist: "Everything god wants you to know can be summed up in a few easy sentences."

Non-believer: "What are those sentences?"

Apologist: "If you really want to know read the bible."

...​

Another wonderful showing for the internet apologists on this forum. Checkmate infidels!

 

[SpecialFrog]

Apologist: "Everything god wants you to know can be summed up in a few easy sentences."

Non-believer: "What are those sentences?"

Apologist: "If you really want to know read the bible."

...​

Another wonderful showing for the internet apologists on this forum. Checkmate infidels!

While God may want us to know these important rules, thenexttodie apparently does not.

 

[thenexttodie]

Because this is a discussion forum that you came to and made claims? You are under no obligation to try and convince us, but I assumed this was your intent. What you have posted so far doesn't answer the question at all. It just shows that some instructions were given to Moses and co.

So would you agree then that for example when God gave certain laws for the Levitical Priesthood to follow, that he didn't expect everyone in the world, forever to obey these commands, because they obviously only applied to the Levites- who were the ones responsible for offering sacrifices and other priestly duties.

You would agree with that, right?

I've read the Bible.

Were you one of the people who was said earlier that the Bible condones rape and homosexuality?

I've also studied comparative religion (and Judaism). Both of these lead to be skeptical of claims that someone knows what the Bible really says and all other interpretations are wrong.

Well If you knew the Bible well enough to know whether or not it's being represented accurately, then you wouldn't have to be skeptical would you? Because you would know.

You see, when people say something dumb like God condones rape in the Bible, I don't just say "Gee, I'm kinda skeptical about that." Because I can factually demonstrate that they are wrong.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Weird, I thought I replied to this. Maybe I didn't save my preview.

Anyway, I am going to conclude that your seeming inability to describe the "few sentences" that tell us what God wants shows this to be an invalid claim.

Because this is a discussion forum that you came to and made claims? You are under no obligation to try and convince us, but I assumed this was your intent. What you have posted so far doesn't answer the question at all. It just shows that some instructions were given to Moses and co.

So would you agree then that for example when God gave certain laws for the Levitical Priesthood to follow, that he didn't expect everyone in the world, forever to obey these commands, because they obviously only applied to the Levites- who were the ones responsible for offering sacrifices and other priestly duties.

Yes and no. Clearly there were tasks that were intended to be done by the priests only but there is no indication that their role was optional to religious life. Though clearly modern Judaism is predicated on the interpretation that the priestly role is optional in the absence of a temple.

But the priestly role is clearly delineated in the text. Do you have the same clarity for which parts of the law of Moses do and do not apply to non-Jews?

And how do you distinguish between arbitrary and non-arbitrary laws?

I've read the Bible.

Were you one of the people who was said earlier that the Bible condones rape and homosexuality?

I don't think anybody here claimed it condoned homosexuality.

But yes, the Bible does clearly condone rape in some circumstances. Your arguments on this point were not very credible.

I've also studied comparative religion (and Judaism). Both of these lead to be skeptical of claims that someone knows what the Bible really says and all other interpretations are wrong.

Well If you knew the Bible well enough to know whether or not it's being represented accurately, then you wouldn't have to be skeptical would you? Because you would know.

On the contrary. What I know is that the Bible is a mishmash of texts written by different people at different times for different reasons and edited together later for still different reasons. Thus you can use the text to justify a wide variety of interpretations, but it frequently involves pitting one part of the text against another -- such as Jews using Hosea 6:6 to justify practising Judaism without the temple or the priests despite the fact that a large percentage of the Torah is dedicated to temple ritual.

There is no reason to conclude that there is a "correct" interpretation of the Bible as a whole any more than there is to conclude that there is a correct interpretation of the whole of Greek mythology.

 

[thenexttodie]

So would you agree then that for example when God gave certain laws for the Levitical Priesthood to follow, that he didn't expect everyone in the world, forever to obey these commands, because they obviously only applied to the Levites- who were the ones responsible for offering sacrifices and other priestly duties.

Yes and no. Clearly there were tasks that were intended to be done by the priests only but there is no indication that their role was optional to religious life. Though clearly modern Judaism is predicated on the interpretation that the priestly role is optional in the absence of a temple.

Well, you say "Yes and no", but it sounds like you are agreeing with the actual point I am trying to make which is that in the Bible, God gave a special set of laws which only certain people were required to follow. It's just common sense. The reason why those who practice modern Judaism would fully agree with what I saying is because they are not fucking retarded.

But the priestly role is clearly delineated in the text.

Yeah? No fucking shit? How about that!

Do you have the same clarity for which parts of the law of Moses do and do not apply to non-Jews?

Yeah I do. I know you don't. Unless you're just pretending to dumb for some reason. What is your point?

the Bible does clearly condone rape in some circumstances.

No, it doesn't, That's just a lie certain people like to spread around.

What I know is that the Bible is a mishmash of texts written by different people at different times for different reasons and edited together later for still different reasons.

So are newspapers. So are scientific journals. So what?

[So] you can use the text to justify a wide variety of interpretations,

That's retarded.

it frequently involves pitting one part of the text against another -- such as Jews using Hosea 6:6 to justify practising Judaism without the temple or the priests despite the fact that a large percentage of the Torah is dedicated to temple ritual.

Well there is a bit more to it than that. The temple was destroyed and God had forbid them from building other ones. It's not like if Hosea had never been written, the Jews would have all commited suicide or became pagans or anything like that, just because part of the Bible talks about ceremonial law.

There is no reason to conclude that there is a "correct" interpretation of the Bible as a whole any more than there is to conclude that there is a correct interpretation of the whole of Greek mythology.

The Bible gives dates and actual historical accounts of events which can be supported by archaeological evidence. How you find this to be comparable with the texts we have on Greek mythology, I have no idea.

So when you portray a false or incorrect understanding of the Bible, your representation is less meaningful and lacks the explanitory value of an actual, accurate potrayal. Because not only can the Bible be used to support other sources of historical literature, but there is a common theme throughout the Bible itself.

This can not be shown true with the greek myths. You could completely edit out Remus and swap Romulus with Tarzan the ape-man and it would hardly make a difference. There is no rationality or explanitorial value lost.

 

[Gnug215]

Well, you say "Yes and no", but it sounds like you are agreeing with the actual point I am trying to make which is that in the Bible, God gave a special set of laws which only certain people were required to follow. It's just common sense. The reason why those who practice modern Judaism would fully agree with what I saying is because they are not fucking retarded.

Well, I guess you've just called a lot of Christians fucking retarded.

But ok, so who follows what rules, and where does it say who follows what rules in the Bible?

I'd love an overview of the rules Christians have to follow. I was a Christian for the better part of 15 years or so, and at no time was I shown such a list. Nor did I experience agreement between any two Christians over all rules that ever came up.

One would have thought that something so basic and important as "The Rules!" according to a holy book would be bloody frigging clear, wouldn't one?

 

[SpecialFrog]

But the priestly role is clearly delineated in the text.

Yeah? No fucking shit? How about that!

Do you have the same clarity for which parts of the law of Moses do and do not apply to non-Jews?

Yeah I do. I know you don't. Unless you're just pretending to dumb for some reason. What is your point?

You keep claiming this but have yet to do anything to justify it. If you really had a means of differentiating the two then surely it would have taken you far less effort to explain it by now then to keep dancing around the issue.

the Bible does clearly condone rape in some circumstances.

No, it doesn't, That's just a lie certain people like to spread around.

If you think giving permission for men to take women as spoils of war isn't condoning rape you don't actually understand the concept of consent.

it frequently involves pitting one part of the text against another -- such as Jews using Hosea 6:6 to justify practising Judaism without the temple or the priests despite the fact that a large percentage of the Torah is dedicated to temple ritual.

Well there is a bit more to it than that. The temple was destroyed and God had forbid them from building other ones. It's not like if Hosea had never been written, the Jews would have all commited suicide or became pagans or anything like that, just because part of the Bible talks about ceremonial law.

No, if Hosea hadn't been written another creative interpretation would probably have been developed to explain why elaborate rules that were absolutely required the week before were now optional. How does that help?

There is no reason to conclude that there is a "correct" interpretation of the Bible as a whole any more than there is to conclude that there is a correct interpretation of the whole of Greek mythology.

The Bible gives dates and actual historical accounts of events which can be supported by archaeological evidence. How you find this to be comparable with the texts we have on Greek mythology, I have no idea.

Well, very little of the Bible is supported by evidence -- archaeological or otherwise -- but even Greek mythology is probably correct on a few points (like the Trojan war most likely having some historical basis or Athens and Crete being real places). So what? A collection of historical fiction stories would do at least as well on this front.

So when you portray a false or incorrect understanding of the Bible, your representation is less meaningful and lacks the explanitory value of an actual, accurate potrayal. Because not only can the Bible be used to support other sources of historical literature, but there is a common theme throughout the Bible itself.

This can not be shown true with the greek myths. You could completely edit out Remus and swap Romulus with Tarzan the ape-man and it would hardly make a difference. There is no rationality or explanitorial value lost.

There are common themes in Greek mythology. You could take a collection of them and edit them together in a way that made these connections stronger. And to some extent some of the common themes in the Bible are a consequence of the fact that it rehashes the same stories again and again.

Again, so what?

What you are claiming is that all of the pieces, written down (as you acknowledge) at various times for various reasons, were intended to be part of a whole. For what reason do you think that this is true? And if it is not true, why would there be a correct way to interpret the sum of all these texts?

I'm not sure I get your Tarzan comment. Do you mean that since Romulus and Remus were not historical figures they may as well be Tarzan? If so, the same applies to Moses (and various other patriarchs).

Also, you again excised the section of my post around your claim that there are only a few sentences worth of important instructions.

 

[red]

Well, I guess you've just called a lot of Christians fucking retarded.

But ok, so who follows what rules, and where does it say who follows what rules in the Bible?

I'd love an overview of the rules Christians have to follow. I was a Christian for the better part of 15 years or so, and at no time was I shown such a list. Nor did I experience agreement between any two Christians over all rules that ever came up.

One would have thought that something so basic and important as "The Rules!" according to a holy book would be bloody frigging clear, wouldn't one?

I too was religiously raised and apart from the 10 Commandments, the other so called "laws" were wholly neglected unless one became a Bible scholar.
Unfortunately thenexttodie seems not to understand the ingredients of "laws". That is, they are very clearly defined and how they are applied, and to whom, are not left in doubt. His claims are actually as clear as mud, while so called "archaeological evidence" is as thin as paper.
About all I can conclude is that he is doing a Pontius Pilate number on us all with regard to providing substantiation.

 

[thenexttodie]

if Hosea hadn't been written another creative interpretation would probably have been developed to explain why elaborate rules that were absolutely required the week before were now optional. How does that help?

I'm not interested in discussing "creative interpretations" and whatever could have been written.

Anyway. There are half a dozen other verses in other books of the Old Testament that vividly express the same sentiment as Hosea 6.6. Even in Isaiah 1:11 and I think in the 22 chapter of Samuel 2. God basically says he is sick and tired of sacrifices.

There is no reason to conclude that there is a "correct" interpretation of the Bible as a whole any more than there is to conclude that there is a correct interpretation of the whole of Greek mythology.

The Bible gives dates and actual historical accounts of events which can be supported by archaeological evidence. How you find this to be comparable with the texts we have on Greek mythology, I have no idea.

Well, very little of the Bible is supported by evidence -- archaeological or otherwise -- but even Greek mythology is probably correct on a few points (like the Trojan war most likely having some historical basis or Athens and Crete being real places). So what?

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

A collection of historical fiction stories would do at least as well on this front.

The Greek myths do not.

So when you portray a false or incorrect understanding of the Bible, your representation is less meaningful and lacks the explanitory value of an actual, accurate potrayal. Because not only can the Bible be used to support other sources of historical literature, but there is a common theme throughout the Bible itself.

This can not be shown true with the greek myths. You could completely edit out Remus and swap Romulus with Tarzan the ape-man and it would hardly make a difference. There is no rationality or explanitorial value lost.

What you are claiming is that all of the pieces, written down (as you acknowledge) at various times for various reasons, were intended to be part of a whole. For what reason do you think that this is true? And if it is not true, why would there be a correct way to interpret the sum of all these texts?

Lets be clear. You are arguing that because books of Bible were written at different times by different people, then they can not have any supportive, explainitory, or instructive value in regards to one another.

I am saying that I don't think this is a very rational argument. It certainly cannot be applied logically as general rule for all such instances. And you have not even shown that the Bible does in fact lack these qualites.

Also, you again excised the section of my post around your claim that there are only a few sentences worth of important instructions.

What I said was every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences. I did not say the Bible contains only a few sentences of important instruction. You can either cry like a little girl because I won't tell you or you can go figure it out for yourself. I am obviously not trying to evangelize to anyone of you.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, very little of the Bible is supported by evidence -- archaeological or otherwise -- but even Greek mythology is probably correct on a few points (like the Trojan war most likely having some historical basis or Athens and Crete being real places). So what?

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

This is most likely true, but only because of the different time periods people are dealing with. Most of the New Testament occurs during recorded history, thus there are dozens of real places and perhaps real events recorded in it. However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

 

[Mr_Wilford]

However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

Heck, my own bible says this in its introduction. It explains the flood of noah, while likely based on a regional flood, is mostly derived from early Mesopotamian mythology.

 

[thenexttodie]

Greek mythology in no way compares with the Bible in terms of evidences of accurate historical accounts. I have to say, this is this first time I have ever heard anyone try to argue that it is. It's like comparing rocks with oranges.

This is most likely true,

No, it is not, "most likely true". It is true.

You seriously do not know this?

but only because of the different time periods people are dealing with.
Most of the New Testament occurs during recorded history, thus there are dozens of real places and perhaps real events recorded in it. However, comparing the archaeological evidence for the earliest myths in the bible with the Greek myths, one would find them to be equivalent. The flood of Noah and the Trojan war are both examples of things that are based on historical events we have archaeological evidence for. Albeit, the actual events were far less grand.

We can assume that would we find less evidence for events that took place 5000 years ago as opposed to something that took place 3000 years ago. Sure! Still Greek mythology fails when compared to the Old Testament and New Testament, in terms of accurate historical accounts, based on outside evidence. It's like comparing rocks with oranges and I think its odd any of you would even waste the time to bring it up.