The absurdity of Christianity

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, so how does that sit with your skeptic hat? hence suspension of disbelief (existential insurance policy?)

It is the exception that constantly tests the rule, and has resulted in a few inconveniences.

• I am an ordained Elder, yet the pastor and most of the other elders seem content to assign no specific responsibilities to me.

• The Sunday-School and Bible-Study teachers seem to evade answering my questions and often refer me to one of the pastors for answers.

• Even the pastors get glassy-eyed and suddenly "remember" someplace else they have to be whenever I ask them an ecclesiastical question.

I had these problems and others like them throughout high-school and college -- I ask questions for which the so-called "experts" seem unprepared or embarrassed to answer.

Who was Jephthah?

I mean I discovered this in catholic primary school that if you ask questions about the old testament (or worse, the gospels) the stock standard response was a polite "being a christian is about faith".

To be honest you can marry science with a belief in religion. The primary determinant of scientific thinking is statistical determinism. Quite literally you can use the laws of probability to make up your mind to determine if there is a statistical probability that a diety exists.

I am surprised more scientists who also profess christianity don't get behind this defence?

Belief in beings/spirits with "powers" seems to be hardwired in our DNA, Our distant ancestors would sacrifice chickens or burn food or throw implements/gold/tools into rivers as offerings to appease such deities or ask for intercession in some earthy matter. Organised religion has merely codified folk tales.

Jephthah was the bastard son of a prostitute who became a mob boss. His oath to sacrifice his daughter as a burnt offering is an interesting way to show the world you keep your promises, and then slaughtering 42,000 of your own people just to make an example of them is absolutely brutal and maybe even excessive.

The Bible doesn’t consistently make commentary, but rather focuses on the facts of the day. The reader is supposed to look at the lives of the priests, judges, and kings and draw his own conclusions. The account of Jephthah makes it difficult for the believer to conclude that he was a good guy. He only lead his people for six years. It’s more like an example of what NOT to do.

It’s unnecessary to see him as a bad guy, either, though. The word for “and” in his oath is sometimes used as a disjunctive, so it could have been she became the ancient Israelite equivalent of a nun. Human sacrifice was forbidden in Israel.

The takeaway is that believers should look at this passage and draw conclusions as to what kind of man Jephthah was. He is undoubtedly a strong example of a man who had faith, but he was still a flawed and maybe even troubled person. There’s no question the Israelites of this time period were barbaric and often ignored Torah.

...Woah. Reading this makes me really sad, especially the first paragraph. Sad because I used to be like this. A loyal soldier in God's army who hates everyone she doesn't understand. I used to be very homophobic, and judeophobic, very "Death to America, a pox upon the Jews", etc. etc. I was a very angry and traumatized person. I'm glad I grew past that. I hope someday, you will too.

I always assumed many NTs (of which you're one) need these folktales as a pretext for a social/moral/ethical code. How strongly they believe/disbelieve the teachings of the religion doesn't matter. If society abides by the rules and regulations of a religion, then the religion is used to set a social standard. Ideally, things like not stealing, murdering, raping, etc. are the religion's virtues. The mythology draws people in, a form of entertainment. If society uses the religion as a moral agent, it gives the masses a reason NOT to do something detrimental. People who would otherwise have no ethical compunction may hesitate to commit a crime (or understand why it's wrong to commit a crime) because their religion says so...or the religion of the society they live in says so.

Many people either need to believe in something, or need to be aware the greater society abides by something, to NOT violate the rights of others.

That’s not the issue. The problem is that the Bible does have some things to say about homosexuality and unbelievers within a specific context. Someone is trying to trap me in a false dilemma. If I say I believe the Bible, it means I believe ALL of the Bible, including the not-so-nice bits. If I say I don’t agree with certain parts of the Bible for the sake of looking good on WP, then it means I don’t actually believe the Bible. It’s a trap and my opponent knows exactly what he’s doing. I’m being hated for my religion, basically, and the purpose of trapping me into discussing those specific “difficulties” is to get me banned from the website. I’ve actually discussed this with Alex before. The only way to handle hateful people in this kind of situation is to not respond.

Also, you seem to me a reasonable person. Don’t fall for red herrings. Nowhere in the Bible are Israelites or Christians EVER instructed to initiate a holy war against Muslims. Christians aren’t commanded to go to war with anyone. Jesus was clear that Christians should be peaceful people and not stir up trouble. I’m here to discuss what’s actually in the Bible and its implications for the world we live in. When someone asks me where I stand on, say, “killing all the infidels,” it’s a way to change the subject and put the focus on me personally. If I fall for the red herring and say something like, well, yeah, let’s kill ‘em all, then I’ve violated site rules and risk getting banned. Why? Because by chasing after the red herring I’m perceived as promoting violence against another group of people. The only violence I wish against anyone is against any person trying to physically hurt or kill me. But promoting violence against Muslims for the sole reason that they are Muslim is not what I’m about.

Don’t be fooled by that particular question and my response to it. The intent of asking is to discredit me or get me banned. It’s intentionally mean spirited. You have more to worry about from someone using bullying tactics than someone who just wants to have an honest discussion about the Bible.

@Barchan:

I should also clarify that WP policies on acceptable things are somewhat dynamic. When I first began posting on WP, I could say pretty much anything, and there were anti-theists and trolls who got away with much worse. When discussing what the Bible said about homosexuality, I was told I couldn’t do that. Ok, fine. I began reporting people for provoking me simply by bringing it up. As of last year, and I got this straight from Alex himself, you can say that “the Bible says...” but you can’t defend actually killing anyone. If I were to say “____ should be stoned to death,” that would considered against the rules. If I were to say “Book xx:yy says ___ should be stoned to death,” I’ve technically done nothing wrong.

I’m also a strong believer in individual freedom, and I’m fond of using cake-baking as a metaphor for how personal grievance groups infringe on the rights of others. Occasionally people accuse me of homophobia, which has nothing to do with it. People are either free or they are not. Again, red herring.

Regardless of whether you are religious or anti-religious or anything and everything in between, it’s always best to prefer reason over emotion. I’ve been bullied and ridiculed by students and teachers since I started 1st grade. I’m 43 years old. People behaving badly towards me on an Internet forum aren’t exactly going to hurt my feelings any. You have no reason to be concerned for me, but I do appreciate that you at least have concern! Compassion here is a rare commodity and is always welcomed as far as I’m concerned.

The basic Christian narrative doesn't make sense to me. Let's take the oft-quoted verse John 3:19 -- "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

In what sense did God give his son? It's like, during that verse, God is meant to be relatable, like a human father who lost his son, but that isn't what happens in the rest of the story. Three days later, the son came back to life and he's still supposed to be alive now. This was all part of God's plan, so it's not like he even thought he lost his son. (Also, Jesus is both God and his son at the same time.) The inclusion of "only begotten" is interesting as well. If you're a person and you lose your only begotten adult child, it's possible that you can't have another. While God can beget as many children as he wants, because he's all-powerful.

Someone online once explained to me that this was like God cutting off his own finger, but even that doesn't follow, as apparently the finger was re-attached with no consequences.

Yes there's some validity to this. Judeo-christian principles are the foundation of western morality, law and ethics. How it is practiced and adhered to is another matter.

Biblical law stems from the laws of Hammurabi which originally stem from the Kings of Sumeria.

We have adopted many of these christian principles as the basis of our legal system.

According to the Gnostics much of the biblical verses are mean't to be metaphorical and the true meaning is only available to those with "eyes to see and ears to hear"

When you are ready you will understand the written word (or so they said).

If God gave the 10 Commandments and they explicitly say "do not kill" then anything that goes against that i.e. orders to kill anyone because of their race, religion, sexuality, or even a crime they did, etc can't also be from God because it then contradicts and violates the Commandments.

That's why some Christians are very divided - some supporting the death penalty for certain crimes while others oppose it for any crime, no matter how atrocious.

I think the idea of viewing the Bible as metaphorical rather than literal is the way to go. (Actually, I think that's the way to go for most literature.) However, the idea that there's a hidden meaning to the basic central narrative that the average person can't understand until later sounds kind of like a way to dodge criticism. (On the part of the Gnostics, not you. I know you were only mentioning what they said.)

Many people do take the Bible literally and attempt to convince others it's true using logic. For example, there's the "You can't explain the empty tomb" argument. To which my first thought is, "What empty tomb?" But even setting that aside, the basic argument is that once you've eliminated all the natural explanations for why the tomb is empty (i.e., Jesus wasn't really dead, somebody stole the body, etc.) the only remaining explanation is that Jesus must be God. However, as I see it, once you open the door to one supernatural explanation, you open the door to all of them. The empty tomb could be explained by saying that Jesus was a trickster god playing a prank, or that he was a shapeshifting, teleporting interdimensional unicorn. While I don't believe those either, they seem no less likely than the explanation offered by Christian apologetics.

If I felt that Christianity was true, it's possible I might not care about any of this. Certainly, everything I think isn't totally dictated by logic. However, I don't feel it, either.

Last edited by vividgroovy on 14 Jul 2021, 6:39 am, edited 3 times in total.

Not so. If you read the rest of Torah it clarifies in detail what “do not kill” means. It is more properly rendered “do not murder.” The death penalty for murder and certain other crimes is allowed. Killing in war is allowed. Killing in self-defense is justified. Accidental death isn’t a capital crime but does require exile to a refuge city in order to protect the one who caused death. It’s the Bible as a whole that has to be taken as true. You don’t get to pick and choose out of convenience.

Well a lot makes sense while other stuff doesn't have any logic to it however you stretch it.