Ten Questions for Biblical Literalists and Fundamentalists

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
No. 10 is why people start these types of threads...you gain comfort in knowing that other people's actions will cause them eternal suffering. A horrible and evil concept, the ultimate judgement. You are attacking someone's soul with the heaven /hell story. Not you directly but the Christian concept.

I have to know why this matters so much to you?

Who cares? People are allowed to think what they want and believe what they like aren't they?

Do you want to go down to the local Amish community and get in their faces with these questions? Is it to make yourself feel superior? What purpose does it serve, really?

a reply to: ketsuko
If you felt your logic and reasoning could help change the perspective of an extremist ISIS member or die hard christian wouldn't you feel compelled to try and convince them. Religion is very damaging but even more dangerous if passed down to the next generation, especially if only certain elements are promoted to suit ones agenda.

I personally feel we cannot move on as a species with the inhibitor that is religion. It's questions like these that help challenge contradictory/confusing rationales that inevitably damage those around you. ( I'm talking about the purest forms of christianity).

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ketsuko
If you felt your logic and reasoning could help change the perspective of an extremist ISIS member or die hard christian wouldn't you feel compelled to try and convince them. Religion is very damaging but even more dangerous if passed down to the next generation, especially if only certain elements are promoted to suit ones agenda.

I personally feel we cannot move on as a species with the inhibitor that is religion. It's questions like these that help challenge contradictory/confusing rationales that inevitably damage those around you. ( I'm talking about the purest forms of christianity).

Any ideology can be dangerous if it's used to promote harm to others. Look at what Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did in the names of their ideologies.

Are you really going to argue that ideas are dangerous? If so, then you promote ignorance as safety.

The truer lesson is that human beings are dangerous, and if a person wants to harm others or control them, they will seize on any means be they religious ones or political or even simple differences in appearance.

a reply to: ketsuko
So if you had the opportunity to try an reason with stalin Mao and pol pot through open debate to help them realise the flaws in their ideology would you not take that opportunity? You yourself said it's not your place to do so, so do we sit by and let people with warped perspective enact these crimes against humanity. If I could stop them through words and rational thinking I wouldn't hesitate myself, thinking progression and wisdom would out way the proposed empathy I should have for their right to think what they like.

I know this is yet another bible bashing thread, to which I welcome them all, but the underlying premise for such a thread is ultimately beneficial, especially to those coming to a point in their life when questioning the religious dogmas that blind us from reality. (Creationism etc etc). We have all been their and threads like this help validate these insecurities that others out there have the same questions.

a reply to: ketsuko
Very true add on. I feel that if we take away the tool (religion) that helps validate these dangerous/evil acts that it will hinder the persons desire to do them, or limit the justification to do so.

Then we can identify the evil people without hair splitting on biblical texts that promote evil to those not fortunate enough to be part of that selected group of people (israel).

And to answer you point about ignorance being safety ( to which I don't understand nor desire you to elaborate on) yes ideas are dangerous, especially when put into text format when if not followed will lead to eternal pain and suffering. Are you saying that man would burn other villages without being told to. Is that human nature to you or human nature to be nave to believe stuff without justification or evidence.

a reply to: rossacus

So which religion were Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot using to justify their actions?

The part you missed is that the true root of evil lies inside humanity. It's like banning guns and telling yourself that without guns there would be no more violence and murder. Think about it logically and you realize that's not true. The gun didn't do the murder, the person did.

This is the same principle. You could completely remove all religion, spirituality tomorrow, and if a person wanted to go on a murderous, genocidal rampage, they would still find a justification for it.

This idea that tools, ideas or anything else is a cause is simply deflection, an excuse because you don't want to face the truth - humans - you, me, everyone around us are capable of the worst evil and will use any excuse to justify it.

Dr. Seuss made a book about it. It's called Sneetches.



Those Sneetches didn't have religion, they just had ways to separate each other, and their division and assertions of superiority based on that division could just have easily turned murderous or genocidal.

Again, the evil lies within, and we all have that capacity. You could remove ideas, tools, and everything else in the world, and the evil would still be there in each of us.

a reply to: ketsuko
Correct. We are evil. That is not debatable.
The difference in our views is that I say religion justifies these evils, validates it's purpose to exist and helps facilitate it to the detriment of those of differing perspectives. I strongly believe that religion amplifies this evil nature, the same evil nature that composed these texts. If man wrote the book, than it is evil in essence.

I cannot believe that the same crimes throughout history would be the same if there was not religion. There would be evil acts, no doubt, but in my head not to the same degree or consistency. But that's just me. Thanks for the debate. Much appreciated.

To answer your question, they didn't have a distinct religion they confided in, but we're undoubtedly influenced by their parents who would in some shape of form being moulded by some form of religion. Religion therefore could of had an indirect link to what they came to be.

originally posted by: ketsuko
I have to know why this matters so much to you?

You want to know something, the OP wants to know something. That's why Cuervo made this thread, to converse and spread knowledge.

Who cares?

The OP and people reading and commenting and this thread.

People are allowed to think what they want and believe what they like aren't they?

What makes you think that the OP's thread suggests otherwise?

Do you want to go down to the local Amish community and get in their faces with these questions?

The Amish have always been willing to explain and discuss their beliefs.

Is it to make yourself feel superior?

Are you afraid that answering these questions honestly will belittle you?

What purpose does it serve, really?

The real question is, "Why are you refusing to address any of the 10 question or add anything constructive to the conversation?". Why are you distracting, derailing and attacking the OP's motives?

a reply to: Cuervo

1. Can you make a moral judgment against rape or slavery using only scripture?

Yes.

2. Would you sacrifice your child if god asked you to?

No.

3. Is it acceptable to cherry pick the bible and only follow the parts you agree with?

Depends on YOUR definition of cherry picking.

4. How did animal X get from point Y to point Z after the great flood?

Easy. There's 2 flood accounts in noah's story. One is a global cataclysm that required dna storage of lifeforms. The other was a bad flood but not a global catastrophe. The one everyone assumes is the global catastrophe is not
(how else do you get a grand total of 32 animals being equated with all animals on the planet?)

5. How did carnivorous dinosaurs supposedly eat plants before the biblical fall of man, when their teeth and digestive systems were not equipped to process a vegetarian diet?

Whaaa? Who said they were not meat eaters? Earth just meant "dirt". The "dirt" could be on any planet and still be called "earth" in early biblical lingo. Thus 4 corners of the earth is measured acreage, vs. the wild outback.

6. Can god tell a lie?

Now that's a loaded question. it depends on how much accurate data is available to the reader as to whether something is or appears to be a lie. However, there's at least one account in the old testament where "he" gets someone else to lie, for him. The issue here is: is that really god the creator, or perhaps another elohim? i'm going with "perhaps another elohim"

7. Is observable physical evidence more important and valid than what the bible claims to be true?

depends on the accuracy of the description of physical evidence.

8. Is there any amount of evidence that would change your views?

change views to what?

9. What physical proof is there that your particular god even exists?

dna.

10. Do you believe hell is a justifiable punishment for a simple lack of belief?

hell is the grave. literally.

the trouble with threads like these is that they tend to use old papal biblical interpretation as their sounding board and back that up with critical texts written by ex-catholic professors (and their scholarly descendants), who started the enlightenment period in europe based on false data. that's like barely out of the dark ages and we are to believe their information was any more accurate than the papal version of the time. they hadn't even developed archaeology as a science yet, but we're to believe their resultant timeline, which started on a false premise, was perfectly accurate.

a reply to: undo
DNA as proof of God? Really? Or is that just the typical troll like response. Suprised you didn't just respond with everything we see.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: undo
DNA as proof of God? Really? Or is that just the typical troll like response. Suprised you didn't just respond with everything we see.

oh my gosh yes, dna is proof of god as that was his "symbol".

let's start with "the serpent in the tree" metaphor. a serpent wound around a staff represents medicine, life, resurrection, creation. why did moses have a staff with a serpent wound around it, as an indicator of where to go for "healing" in the desert? why did jesus liken himself to the serpent raised by moses in the desert to bring healing to the people? these are like double and triple metaphors! it's all over the ancient world: god was equated to the serpent entwined staff of creation and medicine.

you need to research my man!

a reply to: Awen24

Really? I always thought it was my choice...gee thanks...god!

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

some references to "god" in the old testament, are references to pharaoh (of this, i'm almost completely convinced. i mean there's a small margin for error but not much). ever research what the ancient egyptians thought happened in the after life?

a reply to: windword

The real question is, "Why are you refusing to address any of the 10 question or add anything constructive to the conversation?". Why are you distracting, derailing and attacking the OP's motives?

I wondered that as well.

I want to thank Cuervo for posting this thread. I am hoping it will prove to be informative, calmly conducted, and contain some answers from the people addressed in the OP.

As for "why do [you] care?"

It shapes our country, it shapes our adult debates - but most importantly, it influences our youth. And not just young adults and teens - but small children as well.

The Evangelical pushiness is getting more pronounced lately - which doesn't surprise me; with recent 'presidential candidates' like Walker and Cruz and Carson...Perry and Santorum....
all yammering about the Bible and Jesus and "God told me to run" (Walker, there)....

I'd like to know what to expect. "God told [W] to bomb Iraq." What a mess.
If people won't answer questions about it, that worries me.

a reply to: undo

Have I read about Egyptians? Sure, do I care what they thought was a god? No. Do I need to believe what they believed about the afterlife? No.

a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

Have I read about Egyptians? Sure, do I care what they thought was a god? No. Do I need to believe what they believed about the afterlife? No.

So, do other people need to care what you think is a god? Or, believe what you believe about the afterlife?

No. Should what you believe override what others believe?
(I don't know your position on this. I'd like to know.)

a reply to: undo

All I can say is haha. Thankyou for the amusing response. Moses staff as proof. The serpent was used well before christianity, found in sumerian and babylonian civilisations. Think you need the research man and if you research relies on a staff that might have existed than good luck with the conclusions you draw.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. What I believe does not matter. Anyone can believe what they want. My higher power and source of energy will still be the same. It is the same for all whether they want to believe it or not.