Brian Zahnd: No, God didnt command genocide in the Old Testament

[guillaumeb]

From the interesting opinion piece:

Even a casual reader of the Bible notices that between the alleged divine endorsement of genocide in the conquest of Canaan and Jesus’s call for love of enemies in his Sermon on the Mount, something has clearly changed.
What has changed is not God but the degree to which humanity has attained an understanding of the true nature of God. The Bible is not the perfect revelation of God; Jesus is. Jesus is the only perfect theology.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/08/29/brian-zahnd-no-god-didnt-command-genocide-in-the-old-testament/

[Voltaire2]

1. Ignore the awful crap!

Theology is amusing. Jesus was all good with brutality until the secular enlightenment forced theologians to reformat their decoder rings and come up with new interpretations.

[guillaumeb]

2. You have an interesting viewpoint. eom

[Voltaire2]

4. Take a look at where Christianity was at before

the 1700s. Good Christians were burning witches, for example, and doing so with religious authority. Torture and brutally were commonplace and it was just fine with the theologians. Thomas Moore, for example was busy burning heretics until he got his own head lopped off.

This was the Jesus of the pre-enlightenment era. The Bible didn't change, neither new nor old. Humans changed. Theologians caught up eventually to where humanity had gone.

[guillaumeb]

8. Where was Christianity in 30CE?

Where was mankind in general in 30CE?

[edhopper]

14. If you are claiming no one else teached peace

You would be wrong.

[guillaumeb]

15. Not what I claimed. Not what I said either.

[edhopper]

16. Then I have no idea what you were saying

with that post?

[guillaumeb]

49. I said that I found the opinion interesting.

[edhopper]

62. I mean about where Christianity was 30 CE?

I don't understand what you were trying to say with that response?

[guillaumeb]

64. I explained to another poster in #53

that the message of Jesus was where Christianity was in 30CE.

[Act_of_Reparation]

20. Nowhere.

Christianity didn't exist in 30 CE.

[guillaumeb]

53. It existed in the message of Jesus.

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. Composition fallacy.

The message of Jesus is not Christianity, it is a part of Christianity.

[guillaumeb]

55. The message of Jesus is the message of Christianity. eom

[Voltaire2]

65. Well the point is that for the next 1600 years

that message apparently embraced horrendous brutality. You might think it was some other more acceptable message to our modern sensibilities, but the evidence, based on the actions of Christian leaders across the centuries says otherwise.

[guillaumeb]

67. Violence has occurred in all of recorded history.

And probably prior to that also. It is not as if violence first occurred when the Bible was written. Whom do we blame for this violence?

[Voltaire2]

78. I blame humans.

Christianity did nothing to change that. It in fact by the mid 300s became a convenient mechanism for organizing and controlling people. From the 1400s up to the modern era it provided ideological justification for conquest and colonization. Likely any other religion would have been useful too, the Christian version just happened to be in place at the time.

So about this alleged message of Jesus that somehow refuted all the horrible shit in the OT and is the "only perfect theology".... what is the evidence for that?

[guillaumeb]

80. The evidence for the message of Jesus?

Those passages of the Bible that contain His words are considered to be His message.

[Voltaire2]

83. Well there is ample disagreement on even what those alleged words might be.

But despite that how does it prove that the rest of the bible doesn't describe a petty tyrant of a deity that commits and orders genocide and slaughter? Oh and there is that whole section of the NT that has this same awful god slaughtering the unsaved portion of humanity. I suppose we ought to ignore that part too, right?

[guillaumeb]

87. Well, as you know, the post represents one person's opinion.

Your opinion might differ.
So are you a Biblical literalist?

[Voltaire2]

90. So we are down to "that's just your opinion,man"?

Ok. And you might want to research what biblical literalism actually is. And no, clearly I don't think those texts are the inerrant word of some magical being. I do think they accurately reflect the ethical state of human society at the time they were written. Slavery, tribalism, brutality, genocide, misogyny- all normal.

[Act_of_Reparation]

92. Again, a composition fallacy.

You are conflating the religion with its scripture. Religions are more than that. I don't have the time or the inclination to summarize a veritable library of sociological, anthropoligical, and historical analyses of the Christian religion, but if you're at all interested in making sense of this stuff, here's a couple of books I think you'll enjoy:

A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years by ecclesiastical historian Diarmaid MacCulloch (St. Cross College, Oxford). This is a comprehensive history of the religion going back to its Hebrew and Greco Pagan origins. It explains in no small detail the importance of the Old Testament to the first Christians in Jerusalem, what we do and do not know about the ministry of Jesus, and the early theological quibbles resulting from this lack of clarity. If it makes you feel better, the author is a theist.

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture by UNC Chapel Hill Professor of Religious Studies Bart D. Ehrman. This explains the development of Christian orthodoxy and how this process affected transmission of Christian scripture. The sectarian struggles between camps of early -- and by "early", we mean "in the immediate aftermath of the crucifixion" -- Christians dramatically altered the scriptural narrative, to the point where it is impossible to know what the supposed message of Jesus actually was.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Nowhere and all over the planet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. Talking about an actual year with Christianity is not very useful

If we assume Jesus was a real person, then the claims for when he was born span about 8 years, and the timing of his death is unknown too. Is 30CE your idea of when he was about to start preaching, in the middle of it, or after?

[guillaumeb]

102. I am accepting the narrative of 30CE as the beginning of the public ministry. eom

[braddy]

127. That isn't so, for centuries Christianity was largely persecuted and hidden away, and very

Christlike, it was centuries later when a Roman Emperor changed that situation and then centuries more before Christians could end the violent domination of that Roman Emperor's church.

[Voltaire2]

134. Not historically accurate.

There were a few very brief periods of persecution in the pre-christian Roman Empire. For the most part Rome tolerated all religions. By the mid 300's Rome was christian. During the 2nd and 3rd centuries Christians were more likely to be killing each other over theological disputes than being martyred by Rome.

[braddy]

137. You seem to be mostly in agreement with what I posted, people ignore the first centuries of

Christianity and want to focus on the Roman Empire's Roman Catholic denomination of an artificial and misguided era, that is especially troubling in view of Islam and Mohammed.

[Voltaire2]

138. Er no I think we disagree.

The first 250 years, that is before it became a state religion, were filled with theological violence mostly between christians. Aside from the undocumented first decades, Christians seemed to be fine with slaughter and brutality, for the appropriate reasons of course.

[braddy]

142. I'm not aware of any Christian wars or Christian nations from the early centuries that you keep

implying, Some people today confuse Christ and Mohammed, Christianity and Islam.

"Early Christians were persecuted for their faith at the hands of both Jews from whose religion Christianity arose and the Romans who controlled many of the land across which early Christianity was distributed. Early in the fourth century, the religion was legalized by the Edict of Milan, and it eventually became the State church of the Roman Empire."

[Act_of_Reparation]

143. You're looking for the wrong things in the wrong places.

Early Christians lacked political influence and couldn't engage in the kind persecution you describe until they were granted legal, and ultimately official, status within the Empire. They did, however, engage in sectarian conflict with the Jews and with each other.

The first three centuries of Christianity saw the development of Christian orthodoxy, which necessarily entailed the suppression of heretics like the Marcionites and the Gnostics. Whether or not this involved physical violence on some level is anyone's guess (as you note, the Church was largely underground at this point) but the early factions did exert their internal political influence against each other. At the very least, there were excommunications, which were a much larger deal in late antiquity than they are today.

[Voltaire2]

144. There weren't Christian nations until Rome.

Nor did I say there were. Instead Christians were slaughtering each other ad hoc, outside of government authorized slaughter, over doctrinal issues so arcane to modern sensibilities as to seem comic.

The point being that there seems to have been no point in time at all when these idealized peaceful Christians actually existed as an organized religion.

[braddy]

145. You seem to have your very own history.

[Bradical79]

108. That's what it pretty much boils down to

It's a codex loaded with contradictions and justifications for a great deal of vile acts. It's pretty much impossible to make it all work together without ignoring significant portions of the texts. All that's left is playing mental gymnastics to explain away the most problematic portions that contradict your personal philosophy or objectives.

[MineralMan]

3. Command it? Committed it.

Wiped out every living human, save one family, if Genesis is to be believed. That is pure genocide. Of course that's just a fable, but some folks claim it's all literally true.

So, which is it?

Isaiah 45-7 King James Version (KJV)

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

[Angry Dragon]

5. I find your quote interesting

all the christians I run across deny god created evil ............ very interesting

[MineralMan]

22. It's a very well-known verse.

You won't learn it in Sunday School, though.

If a supernatural entity created everything, then evil must be among the things created. The Old Testament deity was a grumpy, angry, jealous deity. Not a nice entity at all, really. Like most deities, it needed to be appeased frequently with animal sacrifices and the like, along with very strict, sometimes conflicting rules of behavior.

[AtheistCrusader]

36. The god of the bible created satan, and allows it to continue to exist.

Not Omnipotent or malevolent? Choose one.

[MineralMan]

39. Well, it's all mythology, as far as I'm concerned,

so there's no need to choose. I'll leave that to others.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Agreed

[zipplewrath]

41. Choice

Well, don't know what Sunday school you went to but...

They do "teach" these things in SOME Sunday schools and they teach that God created choice. Evil, or Satan, was actually "created" be cause someone "chose" to. The concept is taught in multiple ways, including the story of leaving Eden as well as angels falling from "grace".

And this actually isn't limited to Christianity. The concept of choice is repetitive in religions. It is a common explanation for evil, or misfortune. Consider Karma for example.

[MineralMan]

42. That we have the ability to chose is not in question.

We all make hundreds, if not thousands, of choices each day. My dog makes choices, too. Yesterday, for some unknown reason, he chose to lift his leg and pee on a microwave cart in the kitchen. For his trouble, he got scolded and sent outdoors.

That we can make choices is evidence of nothing more than the fact that we make choices. That fact is obvious to anyone. No deity is required to explain the fact that we are presented constantly with situations which require such choices. If we were incapable of choice, we would not be capable of surviving. Every animal makes choices, and we are animals, just like the rest of them, if a bit smarter.

Choice is simply part of our existence. We begin making choices very early in life and continue until we die. Our ability to choose our actions is not proof of deities in any way. No deity is needed to explain that living beings need to make choices.

Again, the logic is circular and illogical. If you believe that a deity exists, you can assign that deity to the job of creating choice. If you do not so believe, you will still have that ability, just as my dog has. He doesn't believe that deities exist, and yet he chooses his actions, just as I do.

For my dog, peeing on the microwave cart was a choice. He is housetrained, and has never done that before. Did he commit evil? Certainly not. It was just a poor choice on his part. I didn't like cleaning it up, and made my displeasure known to him. But, it was his choice to make. Perhaps the next time he thinks that peeing on the microwave cart is a good idea, he will remember that I scolded him for it and go outside to pee. I certainly hope so. Does my dog think I am a deity? Nah. I'm just the creature with thumbs that lets him eat without hunting.

[zipplewrath]

45. Well, now you're talking in circles

You asserted that they "don't teach this in Sunday Schools". All I pointed out is they do. Theology does not avoid the question of whether deities create "evil". There are many different explanations, but a common thread is that evil, or calamity, or disaster is often explained as the outflow of choice, of which the creation is attributed to the creator. Christianity, quite the opposite of your assertion, does not avoid this question, and has multiple examples of the connection between choice and evil. And so do many other faiths.

[Angry Dragon]

47. It is one verse I missed ........... plan to use it often

[MineralMan]

48. There are apologetics for that verse, of course.

You might want to read some of those first, so you'll be prepared for the arguments.

You can begin your search here:

https://www.google.com/search?q=apologetics+for+Isaiah+45%3A7

[HubbleSN]

6. +1

[guillaumeb]

7. If one is a Biblical literalist, one will insist on a literal interpretation.

So if you yourself are a Biblical literalist............

[MineralMan]

23. I'm not such a literalist, but

I'm always happy to point out passages that call literalism into question. I'm merely an observer of things religious. It's for my own protection, you see. I need to know the mindset of those who would punish me for my disbelief.

So, what do you make of the OT deity wiping out all humans except for one family? Seems rather overdone to me, somehow.

[guillaumeb]

51. I do not read it literally.

But I am not a Biblical literalist.

[MineralMan]

52. OK. Whatever you say.

[AtheistCrusader]

57. There's a middle ground between 'this is true word for word' and 'hey the first half of this entire

book is nothing but bloodshed and murder for, or on the behalf of X god'.

You don't get to classify 'anything difficult to defend' as 'biblical literalism' and dismiss it.
Well, not credibly anyway.

[guillaumeb]

59. A Biblical literalist generally accepts that each word of the Bible is the inspired

word of God. And generally takes the Bible as being literally true.

Zahnd seems, at least from what I have read here, to be saying that he sees the Old Testament as highly allegorical, and the message of Jesus as the fulfillment of the Bible.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. I get allegory. What I don't get is classifying everything one doesn't like

(such as the Abrahamic god acting as a jealous, genocidal, psychopath for the first half of the entire show) as 'allegory'.

al·le·go·ry
[ˈaləˌɡôrē]
NOUN
a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one:

An allegory wouldn't apply to resolve the wildly different natures of the god of the old testament, and the human character of the god of the new testament. It would be like trying to bridge the Grand Canyon with a 20 foot step ladder. Can't get there from here.

An allegory might be something smaller like Matthew 10:34

34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Which is, in my estimate, a casual 'hidden meaning' that in fact the god of the new testament IS quite very the same genocidal murderous lunatic as portrayed of the god of the old testament.

Allegory conveys small ideas, small messages, subtle lilts. They can have a profound effect on the meaning of any individual story, but not massive bombshell re-writes that flip everything 180 degrees.


There are claims that the 'Binding of Issac' in the old testament is an allegorical message to Abraham that human sacrifices/blood sacrifice is no longer required of humanity. Debatable, but that would be an example of a 'hidden message' that reveals some alternate understanding. It's not a complete re-write/ret-con of the situation wherein it didn't happen at all, and Abraham really sat down to dinner with Issac and passed him a butter tray with a butter knife on it.

[guillaumeb]

71. You provided a quotation:

34 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Now, instead of asking if this refers to interfamilial war, consider if it could refer to the strife that might occur if one family member accepts the message of Jesus in a non-Christian household?

Or if one citizen of a non-Christian country accepts the message of Jesus in a country that officially worshipped another deity?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. It is an interesting choice of idea, if that's the case.

For instance, in may cases the biblical character warns of persecution and rejection for his followers and that they should turn the other cheek and endure it, and they'll be rewarded for it.

A pacifist idea. No projected offense, the offense will be committed by the other side.

All translations of 'I have not come to bring peace, but a sword' land somewhere around the idea of a weapon or positively sowing discord/strife. Positively. An overt act. Sowing, not merely opting out of whatever the norm religion is.

So yes, I don't doubt that individuals who buck the dominant religious idea are mistreated and there is contention and strife. I've experienced it as an atheist in a dominant Christian society. What I wouldn't do is suggest that opting out is sowing discord, or 'bringing a sword'; an offensive weapon.

What does 'bring a sword' so-translated mean to you?

[guillaumeb]

79. To figuratively separate the Christian from the non-Christian.

Using a metaphor that would be familiar to His audience. He could hardly have mentioned using a light saber.

[AtheistCrusader]

82. So he came to divide, not unify.

Interesting that no bible I know of went with that sort of meaning.

[guillaumeb]

86. No, He came with a message that not all would accept. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

93. Not required.

[trotsky]

94. I don't accept that humans are deeply flawed creatures who must beg for forgiveness from a god,

or risk being punished eternally for their finite transgressions.

It should not be surprising that many people won't accept such a nasty, anti-human message.

[Pope George Ringo II]

95. Yep. Marketing 101

Before you can sell a product, you need to create the perceived need for that product. Hence, original sin. We have a handy-dandy cure for that. But wait, there's more! Our product will also help you find your socks. And, if you order now, we'll throw in some weekly social activities.

[trotsky]

96. So true!

Nice username, BTW. LOL Welcome!

[guillaumeb]

97. Nor do I. eom

[trotsky]

135. Without the notion of sin and forgiveness, Christianity has no foundation.

So congrats, you just played yourself. Again.

[PJMcK]

105. Your question

The self-contradiction of the Flood Fable has always baffled me. If the Old Testament god came to the conclusion that his creation of humankind was a mistake, how could a "perfect" omniscient god not have known this beforehand? And then, after this god destroys every living thing except one family and their pets, why did this god think that things would turn out differently since the humans were imperfect?

Of course, this story is only one of many contradictions in that book.

Another example of biblical genocide is the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. God rained fire and fury such as the world has never seen on those two towns destroying every living thing within them. If god is omnipotent, why isn't the eradication of evil the first chore on the to-do list? It's almost as if the angry, jealous, needy god of the O.T. enjoyed exerting its destructive power.

The New Testament god isn't much better. What loving "father" would allow their son to be humiliated, tortured and murdered to "save" mankind from evil? If it were my son, I would move heaven and earth to protect him, (bad pun, sorry). Just get rid of the evil this god created and the problem is solved.

Or could it be that this god isn't all the wonderful things they teach in Sunday School?

[MineralMan]

107. Like most deities, the Judeo-Christian-Islamic one is

sort of like Her Majesty the Queen, in the Beatle's brief song:

"Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl, but she changes from day to day..."

[trotsky]

25. Millions of Christians are.

And they wield lots of political power. So instead of ignoring or dismissing literalists, perhaps we should confront them.

[raven mad]

28. It would be difficult to be a literalist.

You'd have to learn Aramaic, ancient Greek, ancient Latin, and then find a bible that was actually, literally interpreted. There isn't one.

[trotsky]

30. Actually, it's pretty easy.

All you need to do is point out a problematic bible verse that causes problems for a lot of people, and a Christian like guillaumeb will call you a literalist. Boom.

[raven mad]

31. LOL!................ I used to argue this stuff with a Jesuit...........

he usually won, of course, but he DID know all the languages involved.

[Lordquinton]

32. No you don't

God inspired King James, therefore everything he wrote was through divine Revelation.

See? So easy...

[raven mad]

34. Now, just how many giggles do I have to post?

Nah, I'll just wiggle my butt..........

[Lordquinton]

43. Wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle

Yeah!

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Feeble deflection. There are whole books in the bible that are nothing but bloodshed on behalf of or

commanded by the Abrahamic god.

This is not a translation error.

[raven mad]

46. True, but remember it was NOT worldwide -

confined to small areas.

I still wonder about the folks that swear they follow the literal interpretation. I mean, give me a break.

?downsize=715 &output-format=auto&output-quality=auto

[Voltaire2]

69. Actually that isn't quite what it means.

Within Christian theology literalists insist that the Bible is the inerrant word of god, but it has to be interpreted from the historical/cultural context and is conveniently frequently inscrutable and requires further interpretation because god liked to speak in aphorisms. That said the more common meaning of literal applies to almost all Christians to some extent.

[edhopper]

9. So nothing in the Bible is literally true

until Jesus. Then it is. And all the dark angry God stuff is because people didn't understand God.
How convenient for Christains.
And how convenient for God who let his worshippers not understand for thousands of years.

The tortured logic here is astounding.

[guillaumeb]

10. See #7 for my view.

And, as I make clear in the post, this is one person's view.

[edhopper]

11. The author is a

New Testament litteralist.

His logic is absurd on its face.

[guillaumeb]

12. I disagree with your reading. eom

[edhopper]

13. I have no doubt of that

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. You are shying away from the main point of the article you posted

Just to say "I disagree" with the obvious interpretation of the article you posted is a waste of everyone's time.

The article says, at length, that the Old Testament is not a 'true' guide to God's ethics, and that it is wrong. It says we know this because we have the New Testament which the author believes is a true guide. He says "Jesus is the only perfect theology"; "Perfect theology is not a book; perfect theology is the life that Jesus lived". But we only have a description of the life that Jesus lived in the gospels. He is saying we must take them as true.

"What the Bible does infallibly and inerrantly is point us to Jesus"
"we understand Jesus Christ as “the exact imprint of God’s very being.”"
"We should acknowledge that in the late Bronze Age, Israel made certain assumptions about the nature of God, assumptions that now have to be abandoned in the light of Christ. It is abundantly clear from the Gospels that Jesus has closed the door on genocide, just like he has closed the book on vengeance."

For any of this to work, you have to take the gospels as literally true.

[guillaumeb]

110. I would say that you missed the point entirely.

I am reading Zahnd's article as a statement of his personal belief and opinion. So, in that spirit, he is saying that the Old Testament is allegorical. So in Zahnd's view, and in my own, it is not intended to be read as literally correct.

But the message of the Gospels, the words and message of Jesus, is what Zahnd feels is the entire point of the Gospels, and the culmination of the Bible.

If you feel that the Gospels are not true representations of the message of Jesus, that is your interpretation. I would disagree with that interpretation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

111. You said in #12 that you disagree that Zahnd is a New Testament literalist

but you didn't say why - you just pointed at a post which is, frankly, meaningless. But now, you're saying Zahnd does take the gospels as the words and message of Jesus, and what's more, you're saying you agree with that.

Which is it?

[guillaumeb]

112. The New Testament contains far more than the Gospels.

And much of the New Testament, in my opinion, is allegorical.

Zahnd was talking about Jesus as the living example of the message. And Zahnd said:

Perfect theology is not a book; perfect theology is the life that Jesus lived.

So I feel you are conflating the message of Jesus contained in the Gospels with the entirety of the New Testament.

[Bradical79]

121. I think he's pointing out the arbitrary nature

Of saying this part is litterally true, this part is allegorical. What's the reason to think one part is more true than others?

[guillaumeb]

124. Belief is the reason.

And without belief, there can be no faith.

[trotsky]

136. Well done, you justified every version of Christianity equally.

David Duke's, Pat Robertson's, Joel Osteen's, etc.

You just can't help but undermine your own position. It's quite entertaining.

[marylandblue]

139. In fairness to guillaumeb

It should be noted that he takes a very progressive and non-traditional view to the Bible, one that is not consistent with the likes of full-on literalists like Duke etc.

[trotsky]

140. I of course am not disputing that in any way.

Just noting that there are about as many versions of Christianity as there are Christians in the world. And none of them can say for certain that *they* have the correct interpretation (though certainly a whole hell of a lot of them do, including guillaumeb).

[marylandblue]

141. Yes Martin Luther opened a big can of worms

When he said everyone can interpret the Bible for themselves. Of course, at the time, he thought everyone would agree with him.

[Angry Dragon]

17. you make nothing clear in your posts

[guillaumeb]

50. What clarity do you expect in this group?

On one side are the theists, on the other are the non-theists, with some not certains in the mix as well.

[Bradshaw3]

56. Plenty of clarity is to be found in reason, fact-based historical research and an open mind

If the last part is closed off to things like logic and facts due to an insular belief system based on fanciful tales from 2,000 or more years ago, then no, clarity is not possible.

[guillaumeb]

58. "Original intent" is a subject that inspires

much discussion. As to open-mindedness, some might interpret your response as evidence of the opposite approach.

[Bradshaw3]

60. Some would be wrong

As I've responded to you before, if you can present fact-based, reasoned support for your claims then I would be happy to read it. That's open-minded. Not listening to the same when it doesn't support your view isn't open-minded. Neither is trying to deflect when closed minded thinking is pointed out.

[guillaumeb]

61. And, as I have stated before this, faith demands no proof.

Faith demands faith. I have faith that there is a Creator. If I could show proof that there is a Creator, I would have no need of faith.

[Bradshaw3]

63. You are certainly entitled to that belief

But when you post "findings" about the gospel and so forth you are not using faith; you are attempting to use the tools of reason and research that require more than faith if you want them to be considered valid. If you can't justify things in those terms then don't use them if you're just going to end up saying "well I have faith". It's hypocritical and debases your "faith" argument. I have had this same cycle of discussion with other true believers in the past. They use "facts" and reason - ala Aquinas - until their rationality starts to wilt in the face of countervailing facts. Then they resort to "faith".

[guillaumeb]

66. I mentioned in the original post that I found this to be an interesting opinion.

I am not trying to prove anything to anyone. If your beliefs are different from mine I understand that.

And, as I have stated in prior conversations, neither belief in a deity nor non-belief in a deity is provable. It is simply a belief or a position that one takes.

[Bradshaw3]

72. Except that it's not up to non-believers to prove anything

The burden of proof is on those who claim there is a god and that his representatives (whoever that is of course depends on the religion) were sent by that deity to earth. Maybe I'm wrong but your posts certainly seem like you're trying to validate your beliefs to others.

[guillaumeb]

73. It is not incumbent on anyone to prove any beliefs.

I am not attempting to persuade anyone of the validity of my beliefs.

[Bradshaw3]

85. Never said it was - as long as they admit it is just belief and not fact based

This is probably pointless but to reiterate, if people want to use reason and facts it is incumbent upon them to use actual historical FACTS in a logical way. Otherwise just post and say I believe etc. And for someone who is not trying to persuade anyone you certainly do seem to spend a lot of time and energy here with posts that purport to support your beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

89. I do spend time here, and interestingly enough, many non-theists devote far more time here.

But we all have our own personal reasons for posting what we post.

[Lordquinton]

113. As you have stated incorrectly in prior conversations

non-belief requires no proof it's as simple as "No"

[guillaumeb]

114. And, as I have pointed out repeatedly,

expressing a belief in a negative manner does not make it any less of a belief.

[edhopper]

115. But I have no belief

Last edited Mon Sep 4, 2017, 08:34 AM - Edit history (1)

I simply do not accept the existence of God.
It is no more a belief than not accepting the Ether or Ghosts or Bigfoot.
Not a belief there is no God, just no reason to accept the concept is real.

I have explained this to you many times. Your refusal to see atheism as nothing more than another religion tells more about your beliefs than the reality of nonbelievers.

[Pope George Ringo II]

116. Just out of curiosity, I have to ask:

Can you provide any reason your definition of atheism should carry any weight whatsoever when it is contradicted by
1) The dictionary?
2) The stated atheist position?

I mean, I understand you're having trouble wrapping your head around a position you find alien. But this is just ridiculous.

[guillaumeb]

117. In hopes of satisfying your curiosity,

Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Dealing with your response:
1) So the definition of belief is consistent with the position that an atheist does not believe in the existence of a deity. The atheist has no evidence, and no proof. But the atheist believes that there is no deity.
2) Is there an official atheist position? Is there an official atheist source?

[Pope George Ringo II]

118. You keep using that word. Wikipedia does not think it means what you think it means.

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Note that your preferred dictionary for this point goes on to note that, "Atheism is a more parsimonious position than theism and is the position in which everyone is born," which indicates acknowlegement of the fact that not having a religion predates belief/disbelief in anything.

So,

1) You've just cited a dictionary which flatly contradicts you on this point. To be fair, that's what dictionaries do on this subject.
2) There's a consensus atheist position on the subject provided by pretty much every atheist I've seen around here or anywhere else. It's one thing to have a stance on whether that position is right or wrong, but to refuse to accept somebody's right to define what he stands for?

[guillaumeb]

119. But the definition that you cite as evidence

refers to an unprovable proposition. And that unprovable position is the position that there is no deity. Unless an atheist or a theist can provide proof that their position is true, what are we to call it?

[Pope George Ringo II]

120. Technically, that's the definition you cited when you went to Wikipedia. I just used the right word

I prefer the OED for definitions, myself. It's generally better, although similar in this instance. If you want some more meat on things, Encyclopaedia Britannica is a good place to start online, and offers a decent online primer for some reasons why atheism simply can't correctly be defined as you are doing. It won't beat actual education on the subject, but one webpage never does.

Atheism is not an unprovable proposition. By definition, it's the rejection of one subset of unprovable propositions. In all candor, whether you can wrap your head around a position you clearly find incomprehensibly alien (I have my own, so that's not the insult it might appear) has no bearing on whether other people can and do embrace that position. Their doing so is in no way contingent on your ability to correctly define it. And your inability to even correctly identify the tenets of its adherents--or flagrant failure to acknowledge their otherwise undisputed primacy in the matter of defining their own position--does not, ahem, speak well of your ability to discuss the merits of positions you clearly don't understand for some reason. I concede that atheism covers a lot of ground and encourages many divergent philosophies, but until you grasp that the common thread is what we don't share rather than what we do, you'll never even come close to getting it.

Lack of belief is a position rather than a belief, and as your own source noted, the default one. It's right there in the name. After all, bald is not a hair color and "off" is not a TV channel. Nielsen might dispute that last, but doing so would say more about how they view the world than it does whether or not the TV is on. Personally, I investigated and discarded enough purported deities that I lost interest in investigating any more. For reasons outside this point, I am quite certain some don't exist, while too bored with the subject to even worry about others. In no case would I say I have a "belief" one way or the other on them existing any more than I have a "belief" in the same for Dracula, Harry Potter, or Bigfoot. Similarly I don't "believe" astrology and palm-reading aren't real any more than I "believe" David Copperfield couldn't really make the Statue of Liberty disappear.

As an example, would you say that you yourself "believe" in the non-existence of the god Pelor? Or Arioch? If so, can you please explain how you actively held a belief in the non-existence of beings I presume you didn't know existed in any sense of the word thirty seconds ago? Rest assured, atheists fail to believe in gods neither one of us has ever heard of, as actively believing in the non-existence of things we don't know were ever imagined would be weird. I see no difference between Ptah and Cthulhu in this respect. Where would you draw the line on believing in the non-existence of fictional gods for yourself? More to the point, where do you draw the line for me since you've stolen that right from me by, for your own purposes, re-defining my lack of belief as belief? Am I to actually "believe" Cthulhu is fictional? If we apply Pascal's Wager to Cthulhu, things could get exciting.

And just to drive the point home, putting aside the question of who has the right to define the atheist position, I'd also point out that you're still defining atheism incorrectly. Your own peculiar definition might have at least some accidental points of similarity for a "strong" atheism which you hear from quite a bit here, but for "weak" atheists you've somehow managed to get things precisely backwards in going on about what "weak" atheists positively "believe." Hopelessly and spectacularly so. The question is why? The other question is what are you going to do about it? Are you going to at least try to grasp that the only common thread is what we don't believe, rather than what we do?

[Angry Dragon]

70. No one believes as anyone else

so it comes down to what you believe
with religion nothing can be proven

each inhabited planet has its own god
with a supreme god above them all

[Igel]

19. And what's true about Jesus

is what we reason is good and just using whatever means we have + tradition.

I can see how that would lead to a fairly consistent, united Christian denomination.

Not. In the least.

Sort of also allows for fundies that believe others should be horsewhipped to say, "Ah, we reached that on our understanding and tradition." Then it's a philosophy-wagging competition hedged about with nothing but unfounded assumptions ("No, that's a bad assumption--it's bad because I think it's bad, QED).

The hrm interpretation is interesting, though, but may be based more on "this is what it could have meant based upon Arabic than upon any actual evidence from before 670 AD."

[beam me up scottie]

18. Except he kinda did.

More than once:



Poor horsies.

[MineralMan]

24. Inconvenient, that, isn't it?

Either the Bible is true and the OT deity is a genocidal maniac, or it's not true, in which case, one has to question the actual existence of the deity therein described.

Oh, well...

[guillaumeb]

76. I suggest a rereading of the entire article.

That should clear up your confusion.

[NeoGreen]

21. (Sarcasm On) Sure he didn't...(Sarcasm Off)

...



http://biblehub.com/1_samuel/15-3.htm

New International Version
Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

New Living Translation
Now go and completely destroy the entire Amalekite nation--men, women, children, babies, cattle, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys."

English Standard Version
Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

New American Standard Bible
'Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

King James Bible
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Now go and attack the Amalekites and completely destroy everything they have. Do not spare them. Kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

International Standard Version
Now, go and attack Amalek. Completely destroy all that they have. Don't spare them, but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, both ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

NET Bible
So go now and strike down the Amalekites. Destroy everything that they have. Don't spare them. Put them to death--man, woman, child, infant, ox, sheep, camel, and donkey alike.'"

New Heart English Bible
Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Now go and attack Amalek. Claim everything they have for God by destroying it. Don't spare them, but kill men and women, infants and children, cows and sheep, camels and donkeys."

JPS Tanakh 1917
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.'

New American Standard 1977
‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”

Jubilee Bible 2000
Now go and smite Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have and spare him not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

King James 2000 Bible
Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.

American King James Version
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

American Standard Version
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet any thing that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Darby Bible Translation
Now go and smite Amalek, and destroy utterly all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

English Revised Version
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Webster's Bible Translation
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

World English Bible
Now go and strike Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and don't spare them; but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

Young's Literal Translation
Now, go, and thou hast smitten Amalek, and devoted all that it hath, and thou hast no pity on it, and hast put to death from man unto woman, from infant unto suckling, from ox unto sheep, from camel unto ass.'

For the pertinent part, start at the 1:10:10 mark:

[trotsky]

26. No, see, it's simple.

I really don't like that part, so it's not true. Ta da!

[NeoGreen]

29. Nuts...

...messed up again....

Guess I'll just have to flood the whole planet again and start over.

But THIS time I will create double-special rainbows that sparkle and throw glitter to show I will NEVER EVER do that again (you know the flood thingy). Honest, pinky swear...


Oh and ... oops ... almost forgot ... (Sarcasm Off)...

[raven mad]

44. I'm kind of weird.

I liked George Burns as God...............

I mean, Teri Garr??? Perfect!

[raven mad]

27. Ummmmmmmmmmmmm -

Except for the Torah, the nowadays bible was written WAY after Christ left................and most of the authors were about 2/3 crazy. I don't believe much of it at all, but the history is sometimes interesting.

[trotsky]

33. Only 2/3 crazy? ;-)

[raven mad]

35. Well, you have to make allowances.

For Paul, especially.

[uriel1972]

74. Book of Revelations anybody?...

That is some seriously screwed up stuff.

[guillaumeb]

77. And?

How do you think this applies to the article itself?

[uriel1972]

98. rivers of fire, extermination of mankind...

Kinda brings down the whole "No Genocide" argument for the New Testament

[guillaumeb]

99. The use of allegory is an important part of the article.

Specifically, in how one can interpret the Bible.

[marylandblue]

101. So what's your position on Jesus himself?

Is he literally God made flesh? Or is that an allegory too?

[guillaumeb]

103. It is allegory, and truth at the same time.

Allegory in the sense that Jesus had human parents, but truth in the sense that we are all, figuratively speaking, children of the Creator.

[marylandblue]

104. fair enough.

[tymorial]

81. No he COMMITTED genocide

On a massive scale if the story of Noah is to be believed.

[guillaumeb]

106. If it is believed is the key.

And the article describes one person's belief that much of the Bible is allegorical.

[Lordquinton]

122. What is it an allegory for?

What hidden meaning is "Murders everyone on the planet except this family and the animals on their boat" trying to convey?

[MineralMan]

123. The meaning is "God's Gonna Getcha for That"

That's the underlying meaning, so you'd better do right and not piss the deity off. That's what I took from the Flood story.

That's the only allegory I can think of that applies, really.

[guillaumeb]

126. This might help:

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/genesis-flood

[guillaumeb]

125. My interpretation?

If that is what you are asking, her is a good explanation.

Interpreting the Flood story
The Genesis Flood story contains many literary clues that its writers (and original audience) were not intended to narrate an actual series of events. The story employs the literary device known as “hyperbole” throughout, describing a massive ark which holds representatives of “every living creature on Earth”, and a flood which flows over the tops of the highest mountains in the world. These are not meant to challenge readers to figure out the practicality of such descriptions, but rather they are important clues that we are dealing with a theological story rather than ancient journalism.

http://biologos.org/common-questions/biblical-interpretation/genesis-flood

[Lordquinton]

128. That took a lot of words to say not much of anything

In the end saying the flood is an allegory for god's love is so twisted it hurts. And I'm not just trying to hate here, he literally says that:

Thus, through the lens of Christ, the biblical Flood story proclaims the marvelous news of God’s grace and love for his people.

He also brushes on the fact that it was taken literally, until recently when there was overwhelming evidence that a global flood never happened (not in the Abrahamic religions, nor any of the mythologies they copied from). Much of the bible is like that now, it was 100% literal, until it was proven not to be. Which is what I'm drawing from when I say there has been more evidence against god than for him.

In any case we shouldn't be telling kids that God murdering the world is a way he shows love.

[guillaumeb]

129. If you read the entire article,

your comments were covered. But if you insist only on a literal interpretation, you are certainly entitled to endlessly argue against that.

[Lordquinton]

130. I did read the entire article

and they danced around everything I said, but avoided directly confronting it. And still ended up saying "God murdering everything is his way of showing his love"

Do you agree with that?

[guillaumeb]

131. It is one interpretation.

Mine differs.

[Lordquinton]

132. What would this group be like

without someone expressing specific views, but refusing to support, or even say what they are.

[guillaumeb]

133. A different group.

But if you wish to know my personal view, it is one of cleansing. A classic metaphor involving floods and water. So I see the flood allegory as a symbolic cleansing of the earth and all of its problems.

[Lordquinton]

146. Symbolic cleansing

That's a lot better than pretty much any answer I've heard here.

[guillaumeb]

147. It does make allegorical sense.

And it accords with Jesus' message of love and tolerance.

[Lordquinton]

148. It's a good allegory

But not with love and tolerance. Cleansing, letting things be washed away and letting it hurt, but it was specifically not loving nor tolerant.

[bobbieinok]

84. Looks like you found a better forum for this post

So DUers check out 'religion' but not 'progressive Christianity?'

Thanks again for the link.

[guillaumeb]

88. Hello. The Religion Group is a very busy place. Many of the responders are non-theists,

which makes for some interesting exchanges.

[bobbieinok]

91. Thanks for the reply

I sorta knew that.

I get plenty of non-theistic input offline.