There’s a blog I read from time to time called Thomistic Bent. The latest post is a short video that tries to give a good reason for why the Bible says God commanded the Israelites to commit genocide against the Canaanites. The reasoning of this explanation is almost as perverse as the stories themselves. As Thomas Paine once said, attributing these kinds of actions to God is the worst form of blasphemy. I’d appreciate anyone who wants to join me in the conversation at his blog.
The Ultimate Blasphemy
Finding Truth 
@ignorantianescia,
thanks for the reply.
you say,
“Simple, it’s not based on pick-and-choose, but based on evidence. With the assumptions outlined above (including the assumption that Jesus is God’s Son), I ask myself whether it is probable a certain portion is factual based on my knowledge.”
Forgive me, but this still looks like pick-and-choose to me, even though you say it isnt, but never mind that for now. when you go on to say that you make your decisions based upon your assumptions, including the assumption that jesus is god’s son. isnt that quite an assumption? Doesnt that assumption dictate most, if not all, of your following “logical” connections? if you start with a false premise, the best logic in the world will to error when starting from a false idea. Like building your house on the sand; the best carpenters and masons could have built the house, but without a good foundation it will never be structurally sound.
wouldnt that be like someone assuming that zeus is the supreme god, and then “looking” to please god? that assumption would seem to dictate every following move, and would lead the individual farther and farther into a false notion. And if ever questions or if ever presented with information that refutes his religion, he only falls back to his foundational assumption, that zeus is the supreme god, then follows that right back to his previous and flawed conclusion, all the while convincing himself that he has reexamined things. And he did, he just failed to reexamine why he begins with his assumption each time.
LikeLike
Ark gave me this idea. Would you mind contributing? Feel free to self-promote, too.
LikeLike
Crap, I forgot to put the link 🙂
http://defendyourpost.wordpress.com/lively-discussion-links/
LikeLike
Awesome idea — thanks!
LikeLike
Arkenaten, I’m willing to discuss the archaeological evidence of Nazareth and to answer your question, but I’d like to focus on [url=https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-ultimate-blasphemy/#comment-3346]another post by you[/url] first.
I’m more interested in asking you some questions, but it’s probably good to know where I’m coming from, so I’ll respond to some points you make there:
-To my knowledge, there aren’t any passages that come close to establishing inerrancy (admittedly, some passages state that God cannot lie – though other passages effectively have God lying), but feel free to scupper me! 😉
-Also to the best of my knowledge, a majority of New Testament scholars consider the epistles to Timothy pseudepigraphical and I trust their conclusion, so I don’t give much credit to 2 Tim. 3: 16.
-Passages referring to “Scripture” generally do not refer to current Western Christian Scripture, as likely some books didn’t when the author wrote that word and in any case there wasn’t any fixed canon yet (as you know, since you referred to Marcion yourself).
Now to the questions: I’m confused you find the “cherry-picking” Christian belief I profess worse than fundamentalism, while calling the fundies potentially admirable. Do you really think that less rigid forms of Christianity are worse than fundamentalism?
Please allow me to list a few not too hypothetical scenarios, based on various interpretations of “worse”. First some ethical ones:
-Fundamentalists may cherrypick OT laws against homosexuality or same-sex marriage, while ignoring prohibitions on shrimp. Whereas I, who accept the secular character of the modern state, wouldn’t dream of imposing religious ideology on others through the state.
-Back on-topic: they will justify immoral acts described in the OT with all sorts of contrivances. That might be consistent if they had defined morality as God’s arbitrary will, but generally they will deny that horn of the Eutrypho dilemma. Non-inerrantists can however candidly admit the narrated actions are morally unacceptable.
Then now some scenarios based on consistency and truth:
-Ultra-conservative deny the inconsistency in Luke regarding the dating of Jesus’ birth. Yet a non-birther Christian may happily state that it is unlikely a census was held under Herod’s rule while Quirinius was legate of Syria, since the latter only received that rank when Herod’s son Herod Archelaus was deposed and Archelaos only became a tetrarch after Herod was dead.
-Fundamentalists still read “prophecies” in Daniel as referring to “the Messiah” instead of “a messiah”, but.
Would you consider the fundies the preferable party on these issues or us? If not, why are those unethical or improbable beliefs superior to our alleged inconsistency?
LikeLike
William, for a change I’ll be brief:
First of all, you are forgiven. 😉
Anyway, getting to the point, the issue of “pick-and-choose” was brought up in a Christian context (namely versus Christian fundamentalism), with me trying to establish that these beliefs are not incostent or arbitrary. Even then they aren’t assumptions proper as I outlined the reason I accept the Resurrection in a previous post, but they are insufficiently fleshed out to be considered conclusion. I could describe it in more detail but it is probably ill-advisable to immediately discuss an enormous variety of subjects. Besides, I’m more concerned with defending the coherence and validity of my beliefs at the moment (as they are being regarded by some as “cherry-picking” or “pick-and-choose”), not defending the truth of them. After all, coherence and truth are two different concepts.
Nevertheless, I think foundational assumptions are a necessity of life, but I don’t think belief in the Resurrection is one. And such axioms may be reconsidered as well.
(Arkenaten, I have also posted a response to one of your comments, but I included a link so it was and may still be in the moderation queue.)
LikeLike
ignorantianescia,
Sorry your comment to Ark got caught in the spam filter — thanks for letting me know!
Just for the record, I don’t think you’re being inconsistent in your approach to the Bible. Guys like you and UnkleE always have my respect, even if we disagree, because you seem to study these issues with an open mind.
I can see why you are skeptical of certain passages (in most cases, they’re the same ones I’m skeptical of), but the reason I don’t accept the rest of the Bible as being inspired is because I think if God wanted to really send us such an important message it would be clearer — not piggy-backing on writings that are obviously inaccurate. Does that line of thinking make sense to you?
LikeLike
Some assumptions are safer and more necessary than others. What has led you to assume that Christ actually resurrected? I hear people say they believe it based on history quite often, but never really see why.
I mean, I believe Jesus existed, i just no longer buy into the far-out-there claims that he actually performed miracles, walked on water, rose the dead, died and came back to life, etc. I can see where history may indicate that Jesus lived and was crucified, but I have yet to see anything that actually corroborates the claim that the other stuff happened. I wouldn’t buy that from anyone I know, and I’d be skeptical even if i saw video today… one reason I dont believe in Bigfoot, alien encounters or islam, etc.
The validity of the resurrection or any other supernatural claim of jesus seems to be an assumption that looks an awful lot like a giant leap. But no more so than the belief in any other religious hero, yet I suspect you have no issue doubting other religions’ validity or credibility.
and I still think that saying, “this part of the bible (collection of books and letters) is good and reliable, while that portion is bad and incredible,” is in fact picking and choosing. My question is really how do you do that?
I understand we may all do that to a certain degree with history, but again, some assumptions are better than others. So assuming that there was a man named jesus who was crucified, is one that is easy to accept based on history and the fact that nothing supernatural or out of the ordinary is required to make that happen. to say that this man was the son of god, flew, raised the dead, etc, is something completely and drastically separate.
LikeLike
@ Ingnoraianecia
I will disagree with Nate here, although I can see where he is coming from, having had to endure all the crap he did, he is probably worn out by fundamentalists giving him uphill…uphell?
My comments re Fundamentalists.
Let me be perfectly clear. They are nuts! Total wackadoodles. But at least one can usually spot them a mile off. And I said I admire them because they prefer to accept the inerrancy of the bible and not cherry pick,which is at least honest. Totally wrong, but honest nevertheless.
That doesn’t make them any less dickheads.
Your ilk, on the other hand, will accept the prophecy of the Virgin Birth re Isisiah – which is utter hogwash, and you are perfectly well aware of this – and the Resurrection, as crucial parts of your belief in the man-god, as perfectly plausible, yet will decry as much of the OT and to a lessor extent the NT that doesn’t suit your purpose. That of ensuring Yashua is deemed your god without an Old Testament blemish to his name.
This insidious approach, allows you to maintain a hold on the false prophecy of the Virgin Birth and the divinity of Yashua while chucking out everything else.
And worse, you think that you are able to ‘hoodwink’ the likes of Nate with your oh-so-reasonable approach.
Unfortunately for you, the bible does not say Interpret as You Please.
And if there are passages that scholars consider pseudepigraphical’
( and some scholars believe that many if not most of Paul’s epistles fall into this category) then you should have the decency and integrity to apply similar criteria to the Isiah passages, and be even more scrupulous towards the written accounts of the resurrection.
That you and your ilk choose to blatantly ignore these topics clearly smacks of an ulterior motive.
You are , I believe , a coward and a fraud.
LikeLike
ignorantianescia says: March 18, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Arkenaten, I’m willing to discuss the archaeological evidence of Nazareth and to answer your question, but I’d like to focus on [url=https://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-ultimate-blasphemy/#comment-3346]another post by you[/url] fir
Absolutely no problem at all.I relish the discussion. First though, open up a blog of your own.
It will makes things more on the level and wont clutter up Nate’s blog.
Do that, am I am there in a shot.
LikeLike
Hey Nate,
I’ve been reading a few of your conversations and I have a question. “Why do you go to so much time and effort to debate the existence of God?” I just don’t get the point. You have chosen to walk away from your previous belief – thats your call – but why are you still so engaged. I can understand that it is intellectually stimulating, but surely their are better pursuits for the mind than debating a myth – no matter how wide spread.
It seems your existence has become defined as the guy who used to believe in God but doesn’t, and has found nothing new in it’s place except to intellectually debate a subject that is primarily a matter of the heart and not the head.
On the other hand, perhaps your heart knows something that your head refuses to accept – so you are marooned in the world of the intellect while the bridge off that island, the mystery of the heart is never crossed.
Please don’t tell me you gave up faith in God to become a mere creature of the intellect – or maybe you never actually believed, you simply chose an intellectual position and subsequently changed it.
I’m starting to ramble now, you know from past conversations that I try to speak plainly, I hope I havn’t offended you this time,
cheers Graeme
LikeLike
Hi Graeme,
Thanks for the question.
I can assure you that my faith was genuine while I was a Christian, and I can equally assure you that I have no such faith now. I concede that it’s possible a god exists; I just personally don’t believe in one right now, and I feel quite certain that the god of the Bible is fiction.
As to why I continue to discuss it, that’s a really good question. Mostly, I’ve seen the damage that religious fundamentalism can cause, and I feel like it’s worthwhile to help make its flaws accessible to people. If others hadn’t done the same, I’d likely still be a fundamentalist myself.
Secondly, I just enjoy discussing the stuff. 🙂
Hope you’re doing well, and thanks again for the question!
LikeLike
Comments like this one from mybroom smack of ‘Hard Done By’. There is a petulance about them that is all too familiar – the Holier than thou Christian having his little dig at the former Christian, couching his terms in a pseudo intellectual fashion that oozes condescension.
. Many atheists, myself included, often wonder why bother writing about the utter absurdity of religion and in this case, Christianity. Many times we walk away. Then a comment like Graeme’s pops up and one is quickly reminded, once again, why we write, and why deconvertees need support and why twits like mybroom who still want to belittle those who follow a path of true enlightenment , free from superstition and fear are deserving of the same belittling.
However, sometimes it may be better to just smile. It is often tough enough to find one’s own path without having to light the way for the delusional-minded worshipers of a narrative construct and would be man-god.
LikeLike
Wow, is this guy Arkenatan really an improvement on the religious fundamentalists?
Yes, I’m doing well and thanks for receiving my comment in the spirit it was given. By the way – I’m not a big rap for religious fundamentalists either.
LikeLike
Yes, this guy Arkenaten is most definitely an improvement on the fundies.
You are a Christian of the ‘We Don’t Need Religion’ variety but probably claim a relationship with Yashua, yes?
If I have any of this wrong, feel free to rap me over the knuckles, but this is the impression created on your blog.
I would strongly recommend you go back to basics, study some of the history of your ‘I am not part of a religion’ religion.
Composition of the biblical texts is always a good one to kick off.
Read up on all the Church Conclaves, Eusebius etc etc.
Read Marcion too.
This will help you clear up many misunderstandings and erroneous beliefs you may have been saddled with along the road of you inculcation.
Why not then look at an in-depth study of the Isaiah prophecy, its terminology, etymology and who it was REALLY directed at.
Sorry if I come across as somewhat pointed, I have spent far too much time having to listen to William Lane Craig types and this puts a dent in one’s normal civility.
Most atheists are more than willing to help you understand real truth, if this is what you want. It all depends on you.
Any questions you have have , feel free to ask….no problem. I, at least will do my best to help you find a better path. It might not yet be the best, but it can only be an improvement on the one you are currently on.
Cheers
The Ark
LikeLike
You win Ark,
LikeLike
Win? Win what? I did not realise you and I were competing?
Christians compete with themselves and other religions. You are all fighting for those limited places in Heaven, I believe?
Atheists don’t fret over this nonsense. It is far easier for us. Believe me.
.
LikeLike
I am not even going to pretend to have all of the answers on this one lol but I will say that to go back to one of your other posts, We did not create dogs, we did not even create other people, even if we want to claim we created our own kids, someone else created us and the way kids are created etc. God created all of us he is the only one who did, we have never made life or created life so if we murder someone it is truly murdering someone but if the one who gave you life to begin with who promised you death one day decides when it will end then is it murder then? Imagine you created something, if someone else came along and destroyed it, it would be vandalism and would seem cruel and wrong but if you destroyed it yourself it is different. Especially if you destroyed it because maybe it did not serve it’s purpose but not only that it was ruining other things you created that were serving their purpose and were doing great things, but maybe some others are upset because they love what you created or were benefiting from it somehow but does that mean you are wrong for destroying it? You love it to but also love your other creations and do not want them all to be destroyed or for them to even just suffer due to the other ones? There is just one thought on the subject. Another thought it some people believe in God but not Hell, I personally like to think that even the Devil himself could be saved so what if we all end up saved and in Heaven what does it matter if we die here, we are not really dead just finally alive without all of the suffering? For the wages of sin is death but he came to save us all from that. As for the ways people were killed, I may be mistaken but my understanding is God’s usual commands were to kill everything. Just to kill it, not to enslave it, torture it, keep it for yourself or give it a cruel death, etc. People often went against God’s commands in this matter and suffered for it. This of Saul for example. Also, I think people often try to say God had them do something when that was not the case like with the Indians so like with a lot of things he gets a bad rep because of people like that but think of the religious people when Jesus came. They rejected Jesus, and actually caused him to be crucified, an innocent man, I think any wrongful death or genocide is the result of people saying they are doing things in the name of God but really are not, not God himself. I really feel strongly about the way the Indians were treated too because my great great great grandmother was full blooded. I am Indian/Native American. Of course I am also a relative of the ones who did it to them lol Also the people in the Bible were going to Land but not just land, land promised to them by God, to do great things for God, those people were not just in the way of land they wanted they were in the way of God’s plans. Yes maybe they could have asked nicely for it and in some cases I believe they did but when it comes down to it everything is God’s, and if those people are not willing to give it to God to whom in belongs to, so he takes it from them ,everything from them. This is not our world, these are not our lives, our children, our things, they are all his and we realize that and are thankful for it we are rewarded even more. It is like your children, imagine if they have a lot you have given to them, maybe they are even spoiled a little but they do not appreciate what they have, do you give them more? Or do you maybe give them less or at least stop giving more until they appreciate what they do have? Or if you give them a lot and they are so thankful and appreciate it so much you probably reward them with even more. Some do just continue to spoil them whether they are thankful or not and end up with spoiled brats yet that is what most expect God to do with us and think it is unfair when he doesn’t.
LikeLike
Two things:
1) If you created a piece of pottery, then later wanted to destroy it, that’s no big deal. You’re certainly within your rights to do so. But what if you could create a doll that came to life, you know, like Pinocchio. Would you still have the right to destroy it, once it’s truly alive?
2) You mentioned that you didn’t think God commanded for people to be tortured or enslaved, but that’s actually not true. In Numbers 31, Moses tells the Israelites to massacre the Midianites. However, they were to save the virgin girls for themselves. And before you think that Moses just went rogue here and God had nothing to do with it, the same chapter says that God told Moses he wanted a share of all the spoils, including the virgins. Some pretty horrible stuff.
Also, the Law of Moses has a number of laws concerning slavery — none of them prohibit the practice. And God told the Israelites that they could enslave people from the nations around them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery
LikeLike
Here is one link I found before I read your response but let me actually read that part of numbers before I even try and respond to your response: http://www.accessv.com/~rjchin/proof/canaan.htm
This might have already been address in that video you linked but I could not watch it for some reason.
LikeLike
And about the Pinocchio doll if it goes crazy and turns into an evil Chucky doll would you kill it? lol
LikeLike
I still have not had a chance to read all your blogs and they may address this but how did you explain this when you were a Christian? how did you justify it then? Or could you not and you just accepted it at the time? If I don’t reply to any of your other replies I replied to so much I don’t know if I will ever have time to go back and read them all lol Can’t normally spend as much time as I did yesterday
LikeLike
Here is a response to the response below I know won’t appease you but does appease me. I have also seen a good one before explaining slavery in the Bible I will try to find. I have had all of these same questions and concerns before but have had them answered over time through prayer, not internet research really so it is not just the article below that appeases me. I use the internet to give another side at times because you cannot explain to people what you have seen and have experienced easily that makes you trust God when it comes to this stuff and in general. I actually thought something similar when I was watching the Bible on the history channel recently and he killed Pharoah’s son. When I was younger it used to bother me but I now realize his son died in his sleep, no suffering and went to heaven as he was still an innocent child. Had he killed the Pharoah instead, his son would have grown to probably be even crueler than him, hate God even more and avenge his father’s death. I also questioned the whole Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son and like with things like this I think it is a test to make sure you trust God and that he is not the type of God that would do that, he was not testing him to see how much he loved him. He knew how much he loved Him, he even already knew what he would do but Abraham did not know what he himself would do so if anything it was to show Abraham that. Before his wife doubted that child God promised so much that she had her husband sleep with another woman and have a child with her and Abraham went along with that, that child was a gift from God, that child was God’s yet people think God cares about that child less than them? .
http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=763
LikeLike