Understanding the holy scriptures is impossible unless God gives you the interpretation

[jimb]

But there aren't any skeletal or fossil remains of venomous snakes on the island aside from native species and there are no written accounts of deadly vipers prior to the incident

A more reasonable explanation given is that there could have been a venomous Maltese snake which has since become extinct. However, there is no evidence – fossil, documented or otherwise – of a dangerous indigenous viper inhabiting Malta during historical times. And there is no evidence of an extinction event (such as the introduction of a predator or strongly competing species) that could wipe out an entire population of vipers, while leaving other species of snakes alive.

Which viper bit St Paul in Malta?

St Paul was bitten by a viper right in front of a group of awestruck natives on the island of Melita, who knew very well how venomous the particular snake was and so expected the victim to “swell up or fall down dead”. Since he remained unharmed they...

timesofmalta.com

After the fact there was a local legend that rose up that all the snakes lost their venom after Paul had cast the snake into the fire. Seems like a convenient explanation for why there are no deadly snakes on Malta

Doesn't seem like a very likely explanation to me when the more likely explanation was that he was just lying

"Doesn't seem like a very likely explanation to me" is obvious. You're just searching for a way to discredit what the Bible says.

 

[jimb]

What motivates you to believe in a god that well may not exist? What need does it meet for you? Why is it that you will do that and others find no need or reason to follow you? Is it for the hope of an afterlife and heaven? Is it because you fear extinction at death? Your belief is unjustified, and for you to hold it, it must meet some need, or you would walk away from it as I have.

Not just my opinion, but yes, it's an opinion. That's what "to me" signifies. It's also a fact in my case. I've done it in the past, in my Christian years, when I thought a god existed and had communicated with me. That would make the words valuable, and I studied them assiduously. Without that god belief, there is no point spending more time there.

Yes. Many still believe in gods.

What I said is that it's self-serving for a religion to teach that those who don't follow it and who look elsewhere for advice and wisdom are fools. They go further and threaten them with damnation and hellfire. It doesn't serve me at all to point out foolishness in the religious. Nor them.

Why do I do it? Wouldn't you comment on fools calling others fools? As I and others have told you, that offensive and condescending. I'm happy to point out the hypocrisy and the low character of those willing to believe that their family and neighbors who think differently than they do are fools, especially when they believe it on faith, a choice I also consider foolish. But I didn't write that out in a book and distribute it to billions of people over centuries.

Here's more of that beautiful poetry which one is so wise to study: "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

Lookie there. We're not just fools. Without provocation, we're further maligned as corrupt and vile. Not one of us do any good. If you believe that, you're a fool and are simple. Imagine me writing that about Christians. You're all vile and corrupt, and not one of you does any good. That's hate speech, my friend. It's condescending, contemptible, and pure bigotry.

Yes, and you've already agreed that there are religious fools. The difference is that I limited my assessment to a subset of the religious, and I did so based on specific behaviors that I described: "atheophobic or homophobic bigots, or they come into threads to argue science with the scientifically literate." Those are fools to me. Do you disagree?

Predetermined? No. Those are judgments based in evaluating individual Christians, many on these threads.

How about addressing the examples I gave you of religious fools. Explain why they're not fools, but EVERY unbeliever is a corrupt, vile, useless fool. You invite this kind of rebuttal when you post offensive, condescending scripture about atheists to atheists.

What you're experiencing here is the rise of the nones, the people who are rejecting religion and who after centuries of being silenced, now have a platform and an air of respectability. Your Bible and church have managed to marginalize and demonize atheists in the past, but that's changing. It's going in the other direction. It's the believers that are increasingly being seen as the outliers - the homophobes and atheophobes, and those who would deny women freedom over their bodies.

And the believers simply weren't used to that or prepared for it. They'd never been spoken to in the past as I have written to you here. They're unprepared and are taken aback, taking comfort in the fact that it was predicted that they would be rejected, as if that required prescience to predict.

Whereas in the past, citing scripture as you did was safe and protected from scrutiny, rebuttal, and condemnation, but today, you pull that stuff out in a mixed, public forum like this one, and increasingly, you can expect blowback. And it's gaining momentum. The day may come when people keep their religious lives private and contained to enclaves of like-minded people the way they keep their sex lives and financial status private and share them only with a trusted few. Perhaps you'll modify your behavior a bit going forward.

"What motivates you to believe in a god that well may not exist? What need does it meet for you?" I know that God exists! He healed me when I was in the hospital, gave me a spiritual gift, and has blessed my life many times since I gave up atheism.

"Why is it that you will do that and others find no need or reason to follow you? Is it for the hope of an afterlife and heaven?" Among other things, I have the assurance of an afterlife in heaven. I say what I mean to say. If others don't follow me, that is their problem.

"Your belief is unjustified, and for you to hold it, it must meet some need, or you would walk away from it as I have." That is simply your personal opinion. I have no need to walk away from something that I know is real.

The rest of your mean-spirited post doesn't deserve a reply.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Doesn't seem like a very likely explanation to me" is obvious. You're just searching for a way to discredit what the Bible says.

The Bible has been endlessly discredited. You do not seem to have any answers for the endless problems of the Bible.

 

[McBell]

The Bible has been endlessly discredited. You do not seem to have any answers for the endless problems of the Bible.

Something I do not understand is if the premise of the thread is true, that no one can understand the Bible unless God gives you the understanding, then what is the end goal of those who agree with the premise?

I mean, if it takes God giving the understanding, what do those who agree with that think they are going to do for those who God declared can never understand it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know that God exists! He healed me when I was in the hospital, gave me a spiritual gift, and has blessed my life many times since I gave up atheism.

I don't believe that you have any more knowledge about gods than I or any other human being has. You just have a belief based in a conclusion not justified by the evidence you've presented, and I'd say that you're probably wrong. I too have gotten "healing" in hospitals, have a spiritual sense, and have been blessed many times, but I don't attribute it to a god because I have no evidence that a god was involved or exists.

I have the assurance of an afterlife in heaven

That doesn't mean you'll have an afterlife.

The rest of your mean-spirited post doesn't deserve a reply.

You were the one that posted the mean-spirited scripture. You didn't like my reply, and that's not surprising, but it's unsurprising that you deflected from it with a derogatory judgment that you also can't defend.

What I gave you was a sound analysis and good advice. Things are evolving. The church no longer has the hegemony it once had. It can no longer inhibit rebuttal from unbelievers. Once it would stone them. A century ago, an American teacher (John Scopes) was successfully prosecuted for challenging biblical creationism by teaching evolution.

When I was born, atheists were considered unfit to teach, coach, adopt, give expert testimony, hold elected office, or sit on juries. How's that for mean-spirited. And immoral.

Today, atheism is becoming increasingly socially acceptable as organized, politicized religion is seen as increasingly irrelevant and, to use your word, mean-spirited with its various bigotries. Now that atheists are fighting back after so many centuries of Christian oppression and bigotry, Christians are appalled. They're just not used to that.

But the smart ones are the ones that can recognize that and adapt. You should expect to be addressed as I did whenever you help support your religion's bigotries as you did with that offensive, condescending scripture about who is wise and who is a fool. Expect to have your religion's hypocrisies and other immoral behaviors and doctrines challenged and expect it to be an unpleasant experience every time that is also counterproductive, since it exposes these flaws and faults.

Try to be respectful to skeptics and unbelievers, and if that's not possible for you, then try to keep your derogatory comments about them limited to friendly venues like your church, where such things occur commonly and are welcome.

Or not. I can't say that I mind every opportunity I get to make this argument, one I have no reason to make otherwise.

 

[jimb]

I don't believe that you have any more knowledge about gods than I or any other human being has. You just have a belief based in a conclusion not justified by the evidence you've presented, and I'd say that you're probably wrong. I too have gotten "healing" in hospitals, have a spiritual sense, and have been blessed many times, but I don't attribute it to a god because I have no evidence that a god was involved or exists.

That doesn't mean you'll have an afterlife.

You were the one that posted the mean-spirited scripture. You didn't like my reply, and that's not surprising, but it's unsurprising that you deflected from it with a derogatory judgment that you also can't defend.

What I gave you was a sound analysis and good advice. Things are evolving. The church no longer has the hegemony it once had. It can no longer inhibit rebuttal from unbelievers. Once it would stone them. A century ago, an American teacher (John Scopes) was successfully prosecuted for challenging biblical creationism by teaching evolution.

When I was born, atheists were considered unfit to teach, coach, adopt, give expert testimony, hold elected office, or sit on juries. How's that for mean-spirited. And immoral.

Today, atheism is becoming increasingly socially acceptable as organized, politicized religion is seen as increasingly irrelevant and, to use your word, mean-spirited with its various bigotries. Now that atheists are fighting back after so many centuries of Christian oppression and bigotry, Christians are appalled. They're just not used to that.

But the smart ones are the ones that can recognize that and adapt. You should expect to be addressed as I did whenever you help support your religion's bigotries as you did with that offensive, condescending scripture about who is wise and who is a fool. Expect to have your religion's hypocrisies and other immoral behaviors and doctrines challenged and expect it to be an unpleasant experience every time that is also counterproductive, since it exposes these flaws and faults.

Try to be respectful to skeptics and unbelievers, and if that's not possible for you, then try to keep your derogatory comments about them limited to friendly venues like your church, where such things occur commonly and are welcome.

Or not. I can't say that I mind every opportunity I get to make this argument, one I have no reason to make otherwise.

I know God and God knows me. End of story.

Since you can't be respectful toward believers, something that is clearly not possible for you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don't believe that you have any more knowledge about gods than I or any other human being has. You just have a belief based in a conclusion not justified by the evidence you've presented, and I'd say that you're probably wrong. I too have gotten "healing" in hospitals, have a spiritual sense, and have been blessed many times, but I don't attribute it to a god because I have no evidence that a god was involved or exists.

That doesn't mean you'll have an afterlife.

You were the one that posted the mean-spirited scripture. You didn't like my reply, and that's not surprising, but it's unsurprising that you deflected from it with a derogatory judgment that you also can't defend.

What I gave you was a sound analysis and good advice. Things are evolving. The church no longer has the hegemony it once had. It can no longer inhibit rebuttal from unbelievers. Once it would stone them. A century ago, an American teacher (John Scopes) was successfully prosecuted for challenging biblical creationism by teaching evolution.

When I was born, atheists were considered unfit to teach, coach, adopt, give expert testimony, hold elected office, or sit on juries. How's that for mean-spirited. And immoral.

Today, atheism is becoming increasingly socially acceptable as organized, politicized religion is seen as increasingly irrelevant and, to use your word, mean-spirited with its various bigotries. Now that atheists are fighting back after so many centuries of Christian oppression and bigotry, Christians are appalled. They're just not used to that.

But the smart ones are the ones that can recognize that and adapt. You should expect to be addressed as I did whenever you help support your religion's bigotries as you did with that offensive, condescending scripture about who is wise and who is a fool. Expect to have your religion's hypocrisies and other immoral behaviors and doctrines challenged and expect it to be an unpleasant experience every time that is also counterproductive, since it exposes these flaws and faults.

Try to be respectful to skeptics and unbelievers, and if that's not possible for you, then try to keep your derogatory comments about them limited to friendly venues like your church, where such things occur commonly and are welcome.

Or not. I can't say that I mind every opportunity I get to make this argument, one I have no reason to make otherwise.

Well said, and another excellent response, in my opinion.

I would like to say that reading the posts you quoted reminds me that I am far better off not being a Christian.

 

[Audie]

The Bible has been endlessly discredited. You do not seem to have any answers for the endless problems of the Bible.

No need to search for things to discredit
the bible.
The search for an educated and honest
Yec is a hopeless Quest.
Like looking for the Seven Cities of Gold.

Or Bigfoots outhouse.

 

[Audie]

I know God and God knows me. End of story.

Since you can't be respectful toward believers, something that is clearly not possible for you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

Good. You can go now.

 

[jimb]

I don't believe that you have any more knowledge about gods than I or any other human being has. You just have a belief based in a conclusion not justified by the evidence you've presented, and I'd say that you're probably wrong. I too have gotten "healing" in hospitals, have a spiritual sense, and have been blessed many times, but I don't attribute it to a god because I have no evidence that a god was involved or exists.

That doesn't mean you'll have an afterlife.

You were the one that posted the mean-spirited scripture. You didn't like my reply, and that's not surprising, but it's unsurprising that you deflected from it with a derogatory judgment that you also can't defend.

What I gave you was a sound analysis and good advice. Things are evolving. The church no longer has the hegemony it once had. It can no longer inhibit rebuttal from unbelievers. Once it would stone them. A century ago, an American teacher (John Scopes) was successfully prosecuted for challenging biblical creationism by teaching evolution.

When I was born, atheists were considered unfit to teach, coach, adopt, give expert testimony, hold elected office, or sit on juries. How's that for mean-spirited. And immoral.

Today, atheism is becoming increasingly socially acceptable as organized, politicized religion is seen as increasingly irrelevant and, to use your word, mean-spirited with its various bigotries. Now that atheists are fighting back after so many centuries of Christian oppression and bigotry, Christians are appalled. They're just not used to that.

But the smart ones are the ones that can recognize that and adapt. You should expect to be addressed as I did whenever you help support your religion's bigotries as you did with that offensive, condescending scripture about who is wise and who is a fool. Expect to have your religion's hypocrisies and other immoral behaviors and doctrines challenged and expect it to be an unpleasant experience every time that is also counterproductive, since it exposes these flaws and faults.

Try to be respectful to skeptics and unbelievers, and if that's not possible for you, then try to keep your derogatory comments about them limited to friendly venues like your church, where such things occur commonly and are welcome.

Or not. I can't say that I mind every opportunity I get to make this argument, one I have no reason to make otherwise.

You can be as negative and cynical as you want. It doesn't affect me one way or the other.

Unlike yourself, I have faith.

Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

assurance: freedom from doubt; certainty about something.
evidence: knowledge on which to base belief

Faith is the opposite of doubt and unbelief.

 

[jimb]

Good. You can go now.

I am not going. I am not the one who can't be respectful toward believers; you are.

 

[Soandso]

You are not better off not being a Christian. You just think you are, but your are wrong. Do you have "the peace that passes all understanding" in your life?

There's some more of that "all-knowing" attitude. I thought you gave that up when you became a Christian?

 

[2ndpillar]

Another unread non answer.

If it is "unread", how do you reason that it is a non answer. I think you have taken on the aura of Mussolini's fascist black shirts, which is associated with the Marxist brown shirts, which are imagined by the Marxist Progressives, who make the laws in their own image, and have a tendency to burn all books and suppress any nonaligned thinking. Sounds like a product of the elite University culture. Good luck with that.

 

[2ndpillar]

Seeing the block of text told me you were
not going to answer. So I didn't read it.

That makes perfect sense. You see an answer in text form, and therefore it must be a non-answer to your question. Did you get a good night sleep last night? Have you been eating properly, and getting proper exercise? I have heard that a sweat lodge can sweat out most of the toxins in your body.

 

[Ajax]

I communicate with God in the same manner that I communicate with everyone. Sometimes I make a request, sometimes I thank Him, often I praise Him and what He has done in my life. And yes, God answers me back.

I hope that you do not mean literally that God speaks to you, otherwise you are in trouble. You mean that God answers your requests with signs that appear later in your life with a chance of about 50%?

You obviously ignore that the Bible is a historical document, written to cultures that existed thousands of years ago. If you understood those cultures better than you do now, you would have a better understanding of what God's Word really means. It is obvious that you and others spend a lot of time trying to criticize the Bible without understanding it.

If the Bible is written to cultures that existed thousands of years ago, then obviously 1) does not apply to today's cultures and 2) does not contain any special meanings to understand. It was written in the 6th-5th century BC in a language that people understood.

Furthermore the Bible is not a historical document. It is what is called interpreted history. This means that not everything in it is historically accurate. Rather, the authors were more concerned with conveying information (historical or not) that is important to their religious beliefs. Its primary purpose is theological and spiritual.
The Creation, the Flood, the Exodus never happened, the Israelites lived harmonically with the Canaanites for centuries and neither people lived for 100 years plus, let alone close to 1000 years. The life expectancy was much lower than today, mainly due to infant mortality, infectious diseases, lack of medical knowledge, and harsh living conditions. So whilst the Bible has some historical information, it contains a lot of lies making it (especially the OT) more a fairy tale than historical book.

But you avoided to reply directly if you accept God's orders as they appear in OT that people must kill disobedient children and those working on Saturdays or that people can buy slaves who will be inherited by their children? Do you really believe Jimb that people must obey those God's orders?

I believe that the Bible is God's perfect message to humanity. I accept what it says 100%.

I thought you just said that the Bible was written to cultures that existed thousands of years ago...Do you mean to ancient cultures? Because an omniscient God cannot give different messages to humanity depending on which century or millennia people live.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There's some more of that "all-knowing" attitude. I thought you gave that up when you became a Christian?

In addition to what I said in the post he quoted, I'd like to reiterate that renouncing my Christian faith and belief in the biblical God was one of the best decisions that I've ever made for my mental health and emotional well-being. I don't regret my decision in the least, but I wish I had done so years ago to save myself years of depression and emotional distress. I never felt any sense of inner peace in my life until I disavowed my belief in God and abandoned my Christian faith. So, yes, I have experienced "the peace that passes all understanding," but not during my thirty years as a devout Christian or in the years preceding that. As I previously shared in other threads (such as this one), Christianity was a prison for me. I felt like I was imprisoned, but only my prison cell door was always open, and it took me a long time to realize that I could leave whenever I wanted to. In conclusion, I'd like to state unequivocally that I am far better off not being a Christian. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about it, and no judgmental Christian could ever convince me otherwise.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I know God and God knows me. End of story.

That's what that is to me - a story. I still don't believe you. Why should I. I once said the same things. Later, I came to understand that I was interpreting what was being generated by my own mind as sensing something external.

Unlike yourself, I have faith.

Yes, I know. That's what causes you to call your guesses about gods facts and knowledge.

You no doubt see having faith as a virtue. I see is as a logical error - an abandoning of reason and empiricism. I have worked hard to ensure that I have another way to decide what is true than faith, which is all we have when we are too young to reason or think critically, and unfortunately for many, all they ever have to decide such things. It's how they decide what's true about vaccines or climate change, because they can't or won't accumulate and properly interpret relevant evidence. It's why they give their money to wealthy prosperity evangelists. It's why many refuse pain relief at the end of life. They believe that it is purifying, something they believe they need before meeting their maker that they believe exists by faith. Faith allows one to make all manner of mistakes that critical thought avoids.

Since you can't be respectful toward believers, something that is clearly not possible for you, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.

I can be respectful to believers, but I am not respectful to a person who disrespects me. You have to give respect to earn respect. You've been offensive and remorseless. You shouldn't expect to be treated respectfully. The opinions I've shared with you have been carefully considered, are sincerely believed, and are constructively offered. You would do well to carefully consider them yourself.

You are not better off not being a Christian. You just think you are, but your are wrong.

More disrespect. And arrogance, and condescension. And faith. And the word is "you're."

The only way that I, for example, would not much better off as an atheist humanist is if the god you believe in exists. If that were the case, we're all screwed, including you. The god of Abraham is both incompetent and immoral. Just consider the flood story, where the god is cruel (drowning? really?) and murderous over its own engineering failure, takes it out not just on humanity but on all terrestrial life, prefers killing to tolerating or repairing, and uses the same failed breeding stock to repopulate the earth that it just nearly exterminated. How could that story be worse?

Satan was another of its engineering failures, but rather than punishing Satan say with drowning or the equivalent, the god releases it on earth. That more incompetence and immorality.

Like I said, if that deity exists, eternity promises to be hell.

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

Faith is the opposite of doubt and unbelief.

No, faith is the opposite of empiricism, which generates justified belief (knowledge), and which has a place for doubt (it's called skepticism and tentative belief there) and unbelief (unevidenced and untestable beliefs are rejected according to Hitchens' Razor). The critical thinker doesn't believe the faith-based thinker's claims just as I have rejected your claims of knowledge that a god exists or that one is better off believing in it.

How about a sincere apology to the atheists you have maligned? Do you have that in you? Or do you still find yourself righteous and justified in reproducing such scripture? Maybe you think that YOU are entitled to an apology for being rebuked for so doing.

 

[Shaul]

Scripture doesn't support your premise. As it says, ""For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. "It is not in heaven, that you should say, Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it." Deuteronomy 30 11-14

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

"The god of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

Great quote.

I think it's spot on. I like Penn Jillette's quote too: "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want?" And my answer is: I rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them, they would go on killing and raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine."

 

[Audie]

If it is "unread", how do you reason that it is a non answer. I think you have taken on the aura of Mussolini's fascist black shirts, which is associated with the Marxist brown shirts, which are imagined by the Marxist Progressives, who make the laws in their own image, and have a tendency to burn all books and suppress any nonaligned thinking. Sounds like a product of the elite University culture. Good luck with that.

If youd answered it would only take one
line.