Is this view refutable?

[nazz]

Yup. I think we're in total agreement. I'll try and explain a little more clearly what I meant;

In general terms, refuting Gods is kinda a backwards way to look at things, since you can spend your whole life refuting Gods, and still miss some. Besides this, refuting all Gods is not possible (with the simple example being Deism), so what is it ultimately meant to achieve?

In some cases, obviously, refuting a version of God IS useful, if trying to get someone to understand your position, or if arguing against harmful belief structures, etc.

So my question was pretty literal. Why does nazz feel like this version of God needs to be refuted? Is the particular Christian demonstrating some harmful or negative actions due to their beliefs? If so, perhaps those could be more specifically examined, rather than tackling God as a whole, when a 'God of the Gaps' model may be at play.

Equally, if the argument is more academic, it might be worth simply admitting that not all versions of God(s) can be logically refuted.

I addressed this above but I'll elaborate here. No, it is not because this guy holds harmful beliefs. He's a pretty good guy. My interest in this question is more for my own benefit. As a Gnostic Christian I have leaned toward the view that this universe can't be the creation of a good and loving deity. I felt like this guy successfully challenged that with his view.

 

[nazz]

If God doesn't have the power to prevent evil, why do we call him God? Aren't Gods powerful by definition?

You are all over the map except in the place to which this thread pertains.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I addressed this above but I'll elaborate here. No, it is not because this guy holds harmful beliefs. He's a pretty good guy. My interest in this question is more for my own benefit. As a Gnostic Christian I have leaned toward the view that this universe can't be the creation of a good and loving deity. I felt like this guy successfully challenged that with his view.

Got ya, I think. So it's more that he's opened a possibility you didn't think was possible, rather than the fact that's he's proven anything?
I'll have a think, gotta get back to work right now.

 

[nazz]

Okay so, I believe that this 'god' is an epitome of all wisdom, knowledge and power for those who believe in him. If so, how come that such a powerful and all-knowing being isn't able (or isn't doing something) to stop evil things in this world? I think that argument is quite valid argument. And yeah, how can you know that a being is omnipotent (or not), omniscient, etc given the fact that you do not know about his existence at all?

The argument is that although suffering is bad it serves some greater unknown purpose that is good.

 

[Ingledsva]

How would the truth be sexist?

The Bible "events" took place in patriarchal times, and it was also written down in patriarchal times - BY MEN.

1) The claim that the stories prove men wrote them (they don't).
2) The claim that the story referenced (Moses and Pharoh) is a particularly patriarchal story.
3) Discriminatory language (as if I had said "ramblings of some ignorant girl").

What? LOL! Dude!

1. First off, if it is true, it's true! The Bible was written under patriarchy, and gives us male names as authors of all of the texts. Ruth is only in there to give us the start of David's line! Also, The way women are treated in the Bible, shows patriarchy. They could be kidnapped, raped, sold, be made into captive slaves, concubines which are sex slaves, bred to make more slaves, worth less, etc.

2. LOL! I said -

It is these stories that proved to me that the Bible is just the patriarchal ramblings of men.

Note that THESE stories, not just one.

I said that Exodus story shows YHVH torturing and murdering people just to put on a flashy show. Men write this kind of story - not women.

3. What discriminatory language? What the hay are you going on about?

Patriarchal culture = patriarchal writings! That is a fact!

*

 

[JerryL]

1. First off, if it is true, it's true! The Bible was written under patriarchy, and gives us male names as authors of all of the texts. Ruth is only in there to give us the start of David's line! Also, The way women are treated in the Bible, shows patriarchy. They could be kidnapped, raped, sold, be made into captive slaves, concubines which are sex slaves, bred to make more slaves, worth less, etc.

You are back-peddling.

Firstly: you've just asserted a female author for some of the bible. So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .

You've also defended your claim by stating that the Bible was "written under patriarchy". That doesn't make it patriarchal. (though before you go there: I agree that much of it is) So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .

Indeed: the fact that it was "written under patriarchy" could make parts of the Bible downright progressive (the same argument used for the Quran much of which was far *less* patriarchal than the prevailing culture and laws at the time)

Note that THESE stories, not just one.

So only some of the stories in the Bible fit your description? So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .

3. What discriminatory language? What the hay are you going on about?

Among other things: dismissing a huge body of work as "rambling".

BTW: List every author of every part of the Bible. Not just who wrote it down (though you can't prove that either),but who actually made the story in the first place.

You can't? Neither can I. Can you prove gender by the handed-down and re-written texts? I can't.

 

[Ingledsva]

You are back-peddling.

Firstly: you've just asserted a female author for some of the bible. So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .

ING - WRONG! One book has a female's name. It is still written by a male.

You've also defended your claim by stating that the Bible was "written under patriarchy". That doesn't make it patriarchal. (though before you go there: I agree that much of it is) So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .

ING - Pure BULL! I only has to read it to see that it is patriarchal material.

Indeed: the fact that it was "written under patriarchy" could make parts of the Bible downright progressive (the same argument used for the Quran much of which was far *less* patriarchal than the prevailing culture and laws at the time)

ING - Again BULL! Better patriarchy is still patriarchy. You sound like one of those people who claim the slavery of the Bible was really only indentured servants, and they treated them better then others of the time. LOL! OR - Them having sex with kidnapped captives was really marriage, - not RAPE!


So only some of the stories in the Bible fit your description? So it can't just be the patriarchal ramblings of men .
Among other things: dismissing a huge body of work as "rambling".

ING - The Bible is OBVIOUSLY patriarchal. Women are property and sex slaves.

BTW: List every author of every part of the Bible. Not just who wrote it down (though you can't prove that either),but who actually made the story in the first place.

You can't? Neither can I. Can you prove gender by the handed-down and re-written texts? I can't.

And now you are just being ridiculous. Most of the texts were not written by the people named. This does not change the fact that it was written for two patriarchal religions, - by MEN ONLY - living in a patriarchal society. And I might add men decided which books to keep at the Councils of Nicaea. And as already stated - the stories themselves show this. They think nothing of RAPE, nothing of female SEX SLAVES, Captive SEX SLAVES, selling your daughter, women under control of males - handed off as property to other males, worth less according to the Bible, hell, they even kidnap and rape their own - according to the Shiloh story. They thought nothing of throwing sex slaves and daughters to be raped and murdered (Sodom story, for instance.)

To say it isn't patriarchal, and written under patriarchy, is a laugh.


*

 

[JerryL]

And now you are just being ridiculous. Most of the texts were not written by the people named.

Bold didn't work so now bold and red? Shout louder! It will make you more right.

So to be clear: you don't *know* the origin of the work.

This does not change the fact that it was written for two patriarchal religions, - by MEN ONLY - living in a patriarchal society.

You assume.

And I might add men decided which books to keep at the Councils of Nicaea. And as already stated - the stories themselves show this. They think nothing of RAPE, nothing of female SEX SLAVES, Captive SEX SLAVES, selling your daughter, women under control of males - handed off as property to other males, worth less according to the Bible, hell, they even kidnap and rape their own - according to the Shiloh story. They thought nothing of throwing sex slaves and daughters to be raped and murdered (Sodom story, for instance.)

That seems so organized that it's hard to believe it's "ramblings"

I suppose the writer of John thought nothing of it when he had Jesus step in to save a woman accused of prostitution.

A plain reading of Jesus' teaching recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus forbids any hierarchy in Christian relationships, presumably including both women and men: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you."

The two resurrections Jesus does are both for women (the resurrected people are returned to women).

In light of they extreme objectification of women you have rightly pointed out: It must be clear that these gospels are very progressive in regards to women compared to the society in which they came out. It seems, therefore, quite unprovable a claim that the writer of John was patriarchal (though clearly the time , nor rambling.

Heck, If you look you'll find examples throughout, for example, the woman's suffrage movement; where in many instances while fighting for equality continued the sexist "different clothing" standards of the time (and now). I don't believe those women were patriarchal.

To say it isn't patriarchal, and written under patriarchy, is a laugh.

Good thing no one said that then.

What someone did say is that your comment was sexist. Which it was.

 

[Harikrish]

The only reason God allows suffering is because there are the sick, the poor and the misguided among us. If God punished those that were unprivileged or afflicted by misfortune he would be a very unsympathetic God.

 

[Ingledsva]

Bold didn't work so now bold and red? Shout louder! It will make you more right.

And now you are just being ridiculous. Most of the texts were not written by the people named.

So to be clear: you don't *know* the origin of the work.

You assume.

ING - LOL! You are starting Red-Herring crap flinging. No one knows the names of the original authors.

That seems so organized that it's hard to believe it's "ramblings"

I suppose the writer of John thought nothing of it when he had Jesus step in to save a woman accused of prostitution.

A plain reading of Jesus' teaching recorded in all three Synoptic Gospels indicates that Jesus forbids any hierarchy in Christian relationships, presumably including both women and men: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you."

ING -Jesus stopping the stoning of a prostitute to teach that none are without sin, - in no way negates that they are living under patriarchy. Nor - obviously would such negate Tanakh, - Jesus said he did NOT come to change the LAW!

The two resurrections Jesus does are both for women (the resurrected people are returned to women).

ING - What is your point? Mothers make these teaching stories better.

In light of they extreme objectification of women you have rightly pointed out: It must be clear that these gospels are very progressive in regards to women compared to the society in which they came out. It seems, therefore, quite unprovable a claim that the writer of John was patriarchal (though clearly the time , nor rambling.

ING - I keep hearing that from Christians, - and it is just BULL! Some were worse - some were better - some were the same. Hammurabi's code, for instance, says to take care of the widows.

Heck, If you look you'll find examples throughout, for example, the woman's suffrage movement; where in many instances while fighting for equality continued the sexist "different clothing" standards of the time (and now). I don't believe those women were patriarchal.

ING - What are you talking about? And what does it have to do with our discussion?


Good thing no one said that then.

What someone did say is that your comment was sexist. Which it was.

My comment was not sexist - it was fact. Study history, and the exegeses surrounding the Bible.


*

 

[JerryL]

My comment was not sexist - it was fact. Study history, and the exegeses surrounding the Bible.*

I have. Made quite a hobby of it for a while. I won't keep up with my cousin who had his Doctored in comparative religion; but I can discuss quite a bit.

Went trough several parts in Hebrew too. Mostly Geneses, Exodus, and Deut. Doesn't hurt to have Jewish relatives to provide even more context.