Christians persecuted in UK

Originally posted by stellspalfie
so are you suggesting saying a lot of good things negates anything bad a person has said or done?

I am saying that the majority of secularists, atheists and anti biblical protagonists have
ignored the vast majority of the Hebrew text and concentrated upon a very small
portion which they have attempted to utilize to discredit the whole. Thus a number of
times we have been subject to Gods permittance of slavery, of capital punishment for
moral crimes like homosexuality and adultery. Not once have they produced a text
which demonstrates Gods protection, the wisdom of dietary and hygiene laws, the
wisdom of quarantine, the practicality of the reparation for theft, the judicial
arrangement for involuntary manslaughter, not once, that indicates to me that there
stance is one of extreme bias, otherwise, how else are we to account for this
discrepancy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am saying that the majority of secularists, atheists and anti biblical protagonists have
ignored the vast majority of the Hebrew text and concentrated upon a very small
portion which they have attempted to utilize to discredit the whole. Thus a number of
times we have been subject to Gods permittance of slavery, of capital punishment for
m ...[text shortened]... e
stance is one of extreme bias, otherwise, how else are we to account for this
discrepancy.

The problem with believing things based on blind faith is that there is no guarantee that they are correct.

In fact there is a high probability that they will in fact be wrong.


The fact that some things in the bible (or any other holy book) might be right is not relevant to the fact
that many things are wrong and harmful.

The reason that we know that some of the things in the bible/other holy books is right is that we can work
out through reason and science that those things are correct and helpful and we can work out why.

The problem is the things that are wrong and harmful.

Because they are believed based on blind faith it is extremely hard to stop people believing or doing the harmful
things they believe based on faith.

The advantage of science and reason is that if evidence shows that an activity or belief is wrong or harmful we can
accept that evidence and change it.

Those that believe without evidence can't and don't (at least not without a big fight about it).



It's not that we ignore the 'good/correct' things in the bible, it's that we can work out that they are good or correct
without the bible and more helpfully we know why they are correct or good and thus when they apply and when they don't.

We focus on the stuff the bible gets wrong because that is where we have problems with people believing things that
are wrong and harmful, to us and themselves.


And also because if the bible were really inspired or written by the being described in it as god it should contain no mistakes
or errors or harm. The fact that it isn't even remotely close to being 100% true is evidence that it wasn't written by the
being described in it (or that being is evil and lied deliberately).



The fact that your bible condones, codifies, and encourages, slavery and makes factual claims about the world that are false is
not in any way compensated for by any claims it gets right or morals it gets right.

And because it doesn't explain why any of it's morals are good (they are simply commandments from god with no explanation
as to why) people who follow them often can't see any reason to follow them if or when they loose faith in their god or cease
to fear being punished by that god.

However secular morals come with an explanation for why the moral guidelines exist which helps in trying to figure out tricky
moral problems and means that there is no authority that can be taken away that would then cease to prop them up.

They have a better and more stable foundation.


Unlike anything believed on faith.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The problem with believing things based on blind faith is that there is no guarantee that they are correct.

In fact there is a high probability that they will in fact be wrong.


The fact that some things in the bible (or any other holy book) might be right is not relevant to the fact
that many things are wrong and harmful.

The reason that we ...[text shortened]... ey have a better and more stable foundation.


Unlike anything believed on faith.

what has blind faith got to do with the fact that the majority of secularists, atheists and
anti biblical protagonists have utilized a small percentage of the Hebrew text in an
attempt to discredit the whole? Its not even relevant. Again attempting to state that
you focus on the stuff that in your opinion the Bible allegedly gets wrong is not a valid
argument for ignoring the rest of the text, its merely a kind of excuse for having done
so, nor does it invalidate the fact that the Hebrew portion contains many practices that
were in fact beneficial if employed. Again using your own morality or that of secular
liberals is not a valid argument for stating why you have ignored the majority of the
text, it merely an attempt to diminish the responsibility for having done so on the basis
that you do not agree with that morality.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what has blind faith got to do with the fact that the majority of secularists, atheists and
anti biblical protagonists have utilized a small percentage of the Hebrew text in an
attempt to discredit the whole? Its not even relevant. Again attempting to state that
you focus on the stuff that in your opinion the Bible allegedly gets wrong is not ...[text shortened]... h the responsibility for having done so on the basis
that you do not agree with that morality.

You really are not up to this intellectually are you.

Re-read my arguments and you will find that I explain everything you fail to understand
about my arguments.


I clearly state why belief based on faith is relevant to the discussion and why pointing out
the errors and harm in the bible is perfectly valid and reasonable.

Hint, we focus on the harm and errors because that is what we disagree about.
Arguing about things we agree about is pointless.

Originally posted by googlefudge
You really are not up to this intellectually are you.

Re-read my arguments and you will find that I explain everything you fail to understand
about my arguments.


I clearly state why belief based on faith is relevant to the discussion and why pointing out
the errors and harm in the bible is perfectly valid and reasonable.

Hint, we focus on ...[text shortened]... rrors because that is what we disagree about.
Arguing about things we agree about is pointless.

oh i understood your arguments, they were simply irrelevant. You slaver on about
blind faith, like that's relevant to atheists who have for the most part ignored the
majority of the Hebrew text, dear oh dear, are you feeling ok?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am saying that the majority of secularists, atheists and anti biblical protagonists have
ignored the vast majority of the Hebrew text and concentrated upon a very small
portion which they have attempted to utilize to discredit the whole. Thus a number of
times we have been subject to Gods permittance of slavery, of capital punishment for
m ...[text shortened]... e
stance is one of extreme bias, otherwise, how else are we to account for this
discrepancy.

That's like saying -

'Yeah, i know Andre Breivik killed 77 people in cold blood, but if you look beyond that he actually said some good things as well'

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That's like saying -

'Yeah, i know Andre Breivik killed 77 people in cold blood, but if you look beyond that he actually said some good things as well'

Again this is a fallacious argument, why? because Andre Breivik might indeed have said
or done some good despite having killed 77 people in cold blood, he in fact may be
very polite for all i know, hes certainly well dressed, that's for sure and he has certainly
co operated with authorities. But that is all besides the point, we are not talking of the
actions of God we are talking of the actions of atheists and anti biblical protagonists,
not those of God, who for the most part have refused to acknowledge any good in the
Hebrew portion of text and have for the most part only sought to highlight those
portions which are expedient to do so in order to discredit it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is a fallacious argument, why? because Andre Breivik might indeed have said
or done some good despite having killed 77 people in cold blood, he in fact may be
very polite for all i know, hes certainly well dressed, that's for sure and he has certainly
co operated with authorities. But that is all besides the point, we are not talkin ...[text shortened]... nly sought to highlight those
portions which are expedient to do so in order to discredit it.

Yes to point out that there are things wrong in the bible we point out things that are wrong...

To point out that there are things bad in the bible we point out things that are bad...

To point out that there are things we disagree with we point out things we disagree with...


Where did we go wrong precisely?

This argument is idiotic even for you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Yes to point out that there are things wrong in the bible we point out things that are wrong...

To point out that there are things bad in the bible we point out things that are bad...

To point out that there are things we disagree with we point out things we disagree with...


Where did we go wrong precisely?

This argument is idiotic even for you.

Again this is pure fallacy, i am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed out
things which you see as wrong, I am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed
out things you see as bad, I am stating that you have ignored the vast majority of the
Hebrew text in doing so and that your position is a position of bias as a result, dear oh
dear, will you actually address the point that I am making.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is pure fallacy, i am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed out
things which you see as wrong, I am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed
out things you see as bad, I am stating that you have ignored the vast majority of the
Hebrew text in doing so and that your position is a position of bias as a result, dear oh
dear, will you actually address the point that I am making.

Well for starters it is not a vast majority as if you look at something like the skeptics annotated bible
you will find we redact almost all of it.

However what you are arguing is moronic.


And it comes back to the difference between believing based on blind faith and believing things based on
evidence and reason.


The difference in belief systems between skeptical atheists and theists is not what we believe but why we
believe it.

There are of course many things we jointly believe (things like murder is bad, ect).

However the reason we believe those things is not the same.

The objection skeptics have to belief based on faith is that it means that you can believe anything good or bad
for no good reason with no evidence and often despite and in the face of evidence presented to the contrary.

So we argue against belief based on faith, any belief based on faith.

AND we point out all the things you believe that are wrong and explain why.

It is not bias to not focus on the stuff we agree about.

We are having a disagreement about the stuff we disagree about, both sides focus on the stuff they disagree
about in the other side.

That is not what bias means.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is pure fallacy, i am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed out
things which you see as wrong, I am not arguing against the fact that you have pointed
out things you see as bad, I am stating that you have ignored the vast majority of the
Hebrew text in doing so and that your position is a position of bias as a result, dear oh
dear, will you actually address the point that I am making.

It's hard to get past mass murder, genocide, stoning and burning people to death and the killing of children.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's hard to get past mass murder, genocide, stoning and burning people to death and the killing of children.

Oh and don't forget the slavery.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It's hard to get past mass murder, genocide, stoning and burning people to death and the killing of children.

and yet again, people justify abortion, war, promiscuity, self indulgence and hedonism,
all things the Bible is quite clear are morally wrong. Again this is not really the issue,
clearly the anti religionists have utilized those parts of the Hebrew text to legitimize
their stance against the Bible as a whole, or God as a whole and in the process have
failed to recognize the validity of some of the excellent principles therein. All i seek is
to establish why that bias has arisen and to what extent.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
and yet again, people justify abortion, war, promiscuity, self indulgence and hedonism,
all things the Bible is quite clear are morally wrong. Again this is not really the issue,
clearly the anti religionists have utilized those parts of the Hebrew text to legitimize
their stance against the Bible as a whole, or God as a whole and in the proce ...[text shortened]... t principles therein. All i seek is
to establish why that bias has arisen and to what extent.

That there are things wrong and evil in the bible means that it is not a valid source of morality
because any pronouncement it makes must be tested to see if it's a good pronouncement or a
bad one.

Thus the fact that the bible contains errors and evils DOES discredit the bible as a moral source.

Also the fact that it claims the authority of a non-existent being as it's basis.

It is evidently just the words of ancient people who didn't know much about the world and who got
many things wrong accordingly.


We can do better.

THAT is why we ignore the bible.


Because it is not infallible and is often/usually/mostly wrong and has no basis or reason for any of it's
pronouncements right or wrong.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Again this is not really the issue, clearly the anti religionists have utilized those parts of the Hebrew text to legitimize their stance against the Bible as a whole, or God as a whole and in the process have
failed to recognize the validity of some of the excellent principles therein. All i seek is
to establish why that bias has arisen and to what extent.

I for one recognise the validity of many of the excellent principles in the Bible. I do not however think the Bible is unique in containing these principles. I think the vast majority of these principles are understood and agreed to by us all regardless of what religion we have or what books we have read. That the books of the Bible contains them is hardly surprising. That people who read the Bible agree with them is hardly surprising. But none of that should cause anyone to shy away from criticizing the not so pleasant parts of the Bible, 'principles' or otherwise. That you see such criticism as 'bias' is actually entirely due to your own bias due to your religious beliefs. You don't want people to criticize it - but are unable to defend it, so are forced to blame it on bias or try to use the good parts to legitimize the bad.
It is interesting to note that a Muslim in your situation would do exactly the same with regards to the Quran - and you will do exactly the opposite with regards to the Quran.