A Book You Can Trust

Post Reply New Topic

Haha, busted!

All of creation was placed under Adam's control. Adam had an enormous responsibility being who and what he was. Being God's "spokesman" of sorts makes his actions that much more important, and all it takes is the imperfection of one to put a blot on the whole world, and that extends to all of humanity.

That is, of course, only one interpretation. Keep in mind that traditional interpretations of the creation of man and subsequently Adam is that Genesis 1 is the overview/summary and Genesis 2 is the details. Obviously we don't have a DeLorean time machine to test any of these theories, but I think it would be mistaken to assume we know EXACTLY what Genesis means when we really have know idea or any way to know. The only thing Genesis does tell us about the how and why of creation is that the universe and all living creatures in it, i.e. all things, were created for only one reason: God's own pleasure. God made it, He owns it, He can do with it as He pleases. That's all. The thing I hate most about YC/OC (which is really an internal matter among Christians) is that it distracts from the central message of the Bible.

The problem of literalism is understanding what certain things literally mean. Those first few chapters leave a number of gaps and how we fill those gaps is a lot of conjecture. Those gaps are literally still there, whether you like them or not. There is evidence from the Bible that Adam really was the first human being--but the Bible still has human beings being created prior to Adam. So--is Adam really the first human being and Genesis 2 clarifies Genesis 1? Or is Genesis 2 a continuation of Genesis 1? The Bible itself doesn't give that answer. All a literalist can honestly say here is that he doesn't know the answer with any certainty. For the Christian, the age of the earth is not the most important Biblical issue.

The logic seems rather simplistic to me. Adam seems to have behaved badly in the context of God's commands but punishing a whole species for the action of one member certainly violates most common sense. But then, God as an unknown factor cannot be said to have common sense considering His addiction to massacring huge populations for the misbehavior of a few as described in the Bible. Perhaps Mark Twain in his story "The Mysterious Stranger" had the proper view of God.

It's only one possible interpretation. But I don't see it as violating most common sense, as you put it. One of the laws of Moses is that children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents and vice versa. So why is it God punishes children for parents' sins? The problem then is that all life and all parts of creation are interconnected. What affects one affects all. Adam brought sin into the world. For a perfect creation to become imperfect, all it takes is one imperfection. A sin nature would involve the rest of humanity also waking up and knowing that rebellion against God is a real possibility as Adam and Eve demonstrated. If, for another example, a father is the sole breadwinner of his family and he robs a bank, when he gets caught his wife and children lose their main source of financial support while he serves prison time. But justice is not met if the family petitions the court to pardon him so that he can continue working and supporting his family, is it? So, basically, you're punishing the children for the father's crime--but it is an unfortunate consequence of a father's poor decision. Same way with Adam. But given how all people are affected by one person's sin, God is also just to provide a way in which each person may atone for their own sins. Blame Adam for the sins of humanity. But don't accuse God of failing to provide a way to escape the eternal consequences of sin.


Well, if God is an "unknown factor" then massacring large populations really is irrelevant, isn't it? If there really is no God, there is no debate!

To clarify: If there really isn't a God, then there cannot be an assumption that God has common sense--since He can't have common sense if He doesn't exist. What's funny to me here is that both the Christian and the atheist come to the same conclusion: The humanity is ultimately responsible for his own suffering. After all, you've pointed out to me before that we can't know the mind of God. So even if you did, as I do, assume that there is a God, you still couldn't explain how it is that the world as it is, all things considered, is the best outcome (given sinful human nature). You might imagine a world that is better on your own terms, but you also have to consider that if human beings show fallibility and that God does not, it stands to reason we would have difficulty in reasoning how exactly God's way is really the best.

On a side note: I don't for one second believe that we live in the "best possible world." As I've said many a time, I believe the world as we know it is the end result of a human creation, not the world as God created or intended it.

There are all sorts of problems with a world ruled by a perfect creator ending up with an imperfect world. Can God make mistakes? Can Adam who was created by a perfect God be imperfect?

Humans living in a world without God have no illusions of being expected to act in any particular way. Lie all other animals human are still very much attempting to deal with the many puzzles of nature. That we do not solve them all is no fault of an imperfect creature. We do the best we know how and in that, have survived so far but there are no guarantees. Nature is neither beneficent nor evil. It merely changes configuration like a kaleidoscope within set limitations. A perfect world is one without change and that is a very odd concept indeed and rather boring.

I could, an if I would, but PBS.

Very nice to hear and see philosophical and scientific replies, but personally I read the bible (and many other publications) simply as a guide to help me in living a full and satisfying life. Whether certain facts are historically correct is of no consequence to me personally. There are just too many examples of leading and instruction for leading a sweet lifestyle in which you can be happy for me to ignore simply because it may be controversial.

Absolutely right.

To accept that there may be contradictions and conflicts with history, science, points of view, etc. in the Bible is no doubt realistic. But to refuse to consider that defects in some aspects of the Bible does not implicate further defects in morality or other advice in conduct seems to me to be blind to possibility.

And of course there are aspects of bliblical morality that are primitive by today's standards. If you lived by biblical morality, you'd be thrown into prison. So you have to pick and choose what you believe even by that standard.

I disagree. Looks to me like Biblical morality would keep someone from committing crimes, unless of course the Christian religion were made illegal.

not unless you have critical thinking and sort first, thus proving one has a sense of morality outside the bible

from the skeptics anotated bible
"Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13

"I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven." 17:14

"The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14-16

Any person or animal that touches Mt. Sinai shall be stoned to death or "shot through." 19:12-13

Like the great and powerful Wizard of Oz, nobody can see God and live. 19:21

God gives instructions for killing and burning animals. He says that if we will make such "burnt offerings," he will bless us for it. What kind of mind would be pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals? 20:24

A child who hits or curses his parents must be executed. 21:15, 17

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. 21:24-25

If an ox gores someone, "then the ox shall surely be stoned." 21:28

If an ox gores someone due to the negligence of its owner, then "the ox shall be stoned, and his owner shall be put to death.". 21:29

If an ox gores a slave, the owner of the ox must pay the owner of the slave 30 shekels of silver, and "the ox shall be stoned." 21:32

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

"Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death." Is it really necessary to kill such people? Couldn't we just send them to counseling or something? 22:19

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

If you make God angry enough, he will kill you and your family with his own sword. 22:24

"The firstborn of thy sons thou shalt give unto me." (As a burnt offering?) 22:29

God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27

Moses has some animals killed and their dead bodies burned for God. Then he sprinkles their blood on the altar and on the people. This makes God happy. 24:5-8

Get some animals, kill them, chop up their bodies, wave body parts in the air, burn the carcasses, and sprinkle the blood all around -- in precisely the way God tells you. It may well make you sick, but it makes God feel good. 29:11-37"

also

plenty more where that came from, it even has the wonderfull verse numbers some people find so authorative

the above sentence is a link, there is literally over 2000 verse references that show immoral behavior, absurd family values, absurd values, injustice, prejudice and many much worse things, there is a verse reference for each and every stinking one.

there is knowledge to be had if you pick around in the bible but it also exists in much nicer wrapping elsewhere.

Last edited by Oodain on 06 Jul 2011, 9:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Biblical law stones people for many ridiculous offenses and kills others for sexual transgressions. Plus you can beat your slave and not be punished unless he dies after a proscribed period, after all, he's your property.

It's a bronze age code meant to lightly regulate savages. It's ridiculous and stupid.

The skepticsannotatedbible can't really be taken seriously. If you pick apart verses one-by-one without examining the surrounding text, sure, it seems absurd. But, well, you could say the same for any text, be it the U.S. Constitution or your states legal code. Or a biography of Abe Lincoln. If you find issues with something in the Bible, pick ONE thing you take issue with and I'll be happy to explain it for you.

Ridiculous to whom? And why? How many offenses merit stoning?


Actually, it's only specific sexual transgressions. Given the culture to whom the law was given, the death penalty for those specific transgressions is completely understandable. If you don't understand why specific sexual transgressions are punishable by death, please ask about the specific ones you're wondering about, and I'll be glad to explain it.


Actually, given the period of time Hebrew laws regarding slaves were given, those laws are amazingly humane. It's the wickedness of human nature that leads them to trade each other as property. Hebrew laws actually make owning slaves difficult. One may sell himself into slavery, for example, to settle a debt, BUT he has to be set free in the year of jubilee. Also, a nomadic people like the Hebrews were during the exile were unable to imprison criminals. By allowing them to become slaves to pay back their "debt to society," they were able to work and remain productive within their society.

Sure, slaves could be beaten as a part of their punishment. But they could also run away from their masters if they felt they were being treated unjustly. New masters were commanded NOT to return them to their old masters.

And, finally, people from weaker families or who had specialized skills could remain lifelong servants as a profession. People still find good work in the present day as custodians and waitresses, and this was no different then as it is now.


This sounds like an understatement. Given the seriousness by which the ancient Israelites were called to take their relationship with God, it goes far beyond mere law and order.


Merely a matter of opinion.

Besides, measure-for-measure justice is the standard in western law and is much more humane than in some places. Petty theft in the west requires, typically, something like returning the stolen property OR paying for it, paying a fine and/or jail time. The same offense in the Bible requires returning the property or its value, a fine of a certain percentage of that value, and a sacrifice; the thief could opt for a period of slavery during which the money he earned would be used to repay they debt incurred. In other civilizations, they'd just cut your hand off.

Oh, and a conviction in ancient Israel required at least two witnesses with the burden of proof on the accuser. A trial would be held in front of the city elders (judges) who would render a decision--not unlike a modern-day trial-by-jury of one's peers. Other cultures may not have anything resembling a "presumption of innocence." So I still fail to see how bronze-age justice is irrelevant in the modern day. Western justice systems not only have a basis in Biblical law, they also are fair and effective.

listen the skeptics bible use the same bible most of christianity uses, there are hundreds of contributors so im sure there are some taken out of context but i am sure you can find some there arent.
my issue with the bible has nothing to do with what good one can gain from it or the lessons some people learn through it they coldnt otherwise.
my issue is with stating that a book more than a millenia old has an absolute value in regards to matters it probably wasnt intended for and surely couldnt have been imagined for, it can hold individual value if read right but it certainly cannot be claimed to be absolutely true.

in my mind doing so would detract from many of the lessons it could teach.
it might coincide with history and portray some real history that does not however validate everything in the book.