A few new atheist arguments I recently came accross...

[domokunrox]

I wanted to point out that in the US prison system that there is a group affiliation known as "Norte" (the northern Hispanic gang) and according to their leadership and statements, their hate for their rival gang stems from disrespect of women and child abuse. Namely that their believe that raping women and children is objectively wrong.

So, as it stands right now. There are criminals in prison who believe objective morals exist. Meanwhile, echoside here is not imprisoned and believes that objective moral values and duties are "far from proven".

Echoside, do you have a response to this?

[Proinsias]

Do you have a link for the Norte belief that raping women is objectively wrong?

[domokunrox]

Do you have a link for the Norte belief that raping women is objectively wrong?

http://nortenos-14.com/
You can find some basic information there. You will find that they also objectively believe homosexuality as wrong according to their statements. That's interesting. Didn't know that one.


It is one of the reasons they went to war in the first place. The southerners are affiliated as part of the mexican mafia, and as such it is widely recognized that the war was sparked on the abuse the mexican mafia had committed on families in these communities. Not only to their families, but also for the crimes they were committing on the Hispanic community in small farming towns. This includes rape that they were committing, and selling drugs to teenagers.

Providing you with a link is sort of futile. There are some books that explain the war between the two groups. You can also look at prison related hit lists found smuggled by gang members who have specifically targeted rapists as their primary targets to hit inside the prison.

The fact that they have a very outspoken and openly threat their rivals for being rapists isn't a secret. Like I said, they began their war with that being one of the reasons. I know a guard in the California correctional facility. I've spoken to soldiers personally. They all confirm that the war was started because of moral atrocities the southerners were committing.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul, it doesn’t matter what authority you feel the Bible has; the scripture itself testifies to its inerrancy

.

That is THE point of contention, what scripture says about ITSELF is irrelevant.
That is circular logic.

<snip>

Oh, Paul ...

Oh Danny !

Paul, do you agree that the Bible is the word of God?

No, Christ is the WORD of God.
The bible is God's word in Human words.
I view it as the works of inspired men, men inspired by the HS to write about God and I also view it as a record of when God spoke to certain men and what was written about those events.

And since you asked, I have read many writings about the Bible, my favorites being those of the Late Bruce Metzger.
I have just finished Augustine's "Confessions".

[DannyM]

No, Christ is the WORD of God.
The bible is God's word in Human words.
I view it as the works of inspired men, men inspired by the HS to write about God and I also view it as a record of when God spoke to certain men and what was written about those events.

Christ is the Word, the Truth, the Way. This isn't an either/or; the Bible is still the word of God. Since all scripture are God-breathed...

2 Tim. 3:16,17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

...then it appears you'll have a hell of a job proving otherwise.

And since you asked, I have read many writings about the Bible, my favorites being those of the Late Bruce Metzger.
I have just finished Augustine's "Confessions".

Sorry, Paul, but I'm not sure what this has to do with us...?

[PaulSacramento]

No, Christ is the WORD of God.
The bible is God's word in Human words.
I view it as the works of inspired men, men inspired by the HS to write about God and I also view it as a record of when God spoke to certain men and what was written about those events.

Christ is the Word, the Truth, the Way. This isn't an either/or; the Bible is still the word of God. Since all scripture are God-breathed...

2 Tim. 3:16,17

16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

...then it appears you'll have a hell of a job proving otherwise.

And since you asked, I have read many writings about the Bible, my favorites being those of the Late Bruce Metzger.
I have just finished Augustine's "Confessions".

Sorry, Paul, but I'm not sure what this has to do with us...?

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.
I respect those views, even if I don't agree with them 100%.
I do expect the same "courtesy" however.
As I express before, the bible can't be used to "legitimize" itself.
Of course IF one chooses to do so then one must also be prepared to answer the issues of Jeremiah's and Christ's accusations against the scribes.

The reason I mentioned what I had read was because it was commented that perhaps I should do some reading into the history of the bible writings.
As least I think it was directed to me...

[RickD]

As I express before, the bible can't be used to "legitimize" itself.

The consistency of the entire bible, when understood in its proper context, "legitimizes" itself, so to speak. So in that way, it does prove itself to be trustworthy, IMO.

[PaulSacramento]

As I express before, the bible can't be used to "legitimize" itself.

The consistency of the entire bible, when understood in its proper context, "legitimizes" itself, so to speak. So in that way, it does prove itself to be trustworthy, IMO.

Yes, I agree.

[DannyM]

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.
I respect those views, even if I don't agree with them 100%.
I do expect the same "courtesy" however.

Paul, I wasn't aware that questioning your stance was disrespectful.

As I express before, the bible can't be used to "legitimize" itself.

Everyone has an ultimate starting point, Paul. What do you think of God's self-revelation? Should we trust it 100%, or just a little bit until we can find some 'outside' verification? What about Christ's self-attestation? And how do we verify the inerrancy of the Bible from ‘outside’ without leading to an infinite regress of appeals?

Of course IF one chooses to do so then one must also be prepared to answer the issues of Jeremiah's and Christ's accusations against the scribes.

Can you post these verses please, Paul?

[PaulSacramento]

Everyone has an ultimate starting point, Paul. What do you think of God's self-revelation? Should we trust it 100%, or just a little bit until we can find some 'outside' verification? What about Christ's self-attestation? And how do we verify the inerrancy of the Bible from ‘outside’ without leading to an infinite regress of appeals?

I think this is and always has been a very personal thing, some people require ONLY The bible while others need to reconcile the bible with what science tells us ( and by science I mean archeology, astronomy, physics, etc), other need to reconcile the bible with how it is interpreted, and so forth.
Like you said, everyone has a starting point and mine is that YES, we do have the words of God in the bible but that bible is not JUST the words of God but also the History of a people and it was written by ancient man for ancient man and it's various books were written as genre's and the bible is not A book but a collection of books of various writers, it is a progressive revelation of God and God's will, a will that is accomdating to the people it is been spoke to.

Can you post these verses please, Paul?

Jeremiah 8:8
8 How can you say, “We are wise,

and the law of the Lord is with us,”

when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes

has made it into a lie?

As for Christ,
Matthew 23 goes into great detail Jesus' issues with the scribes ( and some of the Pharisees).
Mark 12 and Luke 20 also.
While Christ isn't as "in your face" as Jeremiah that accuses them point blank of lying, Jesus does accuse them of hypocracy.
I don't think this is a case of "the scribes have lied and written falsehoods in the bible", but that Christ was accusing them of selective interpretations in their writings to justify things that they wanted to prioritize, case in point:

6 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ 19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

While I don't think that these things call into question the authority of the Bible, they do call into question the authority of those that were responsible for the transmission of the bible.
The warning of "test all that you are taught", is a valid one.

[MarcusOfLycia]

Most of what Christ argued against the Pharisees had nothing to do with their 'interpretations'. They didn't put into practice the things they forced others to. Much of their 'law' was outside of Scripture as well, and this was condemned, too.

When I was younger, I got into these sorts of arguments with a few friends of mine. All of us are/were Christians and liked to talk about this sort of stuff. Once the 'its just your interpretation' argument became commonplace though, these discussions ended. It killed the conversation to hear that your opinion of the truth was nothing more and no more or less valid. Without an objective source that could be properly understood, there was no way to argue anything in the Christian worldview. Instead of respecting other opinions, it became about invalidating them. It is a very postmodern concept as far as I've seen it. No way to 'know' the truth, even though the Truth is a living Person. Everyone also seems to forget the work of the Holy Spirit, part of which is the illumination of Scripture. Just because hypocritical pharisees who invented their own laws were condemned by Christ, there is no reason Christians led by the Holy Spirit in honest pursuit of truth with Scripture as the starting point should be included in that condemnation. It doesn't even make sense.

[PaulSacramento]

Most of what Christ argued against the Pharisees had nothing to do with their 'interpretations'. They didn't put into practice the things they forced others to. Much of their 'law' was outside of Scripture as well, and this was condemned, too.

When I was younger, I got into these sorts of arguments with a few friends of mine. All of us are/were Christians and liked to talk about this sort of stuff. Once the 'its just your interpretation' argument became commonplace though, these discussions ended. It killed the conversation to hear that your opinion of the truth was nothing more and no more or less valid. Without an objective source that could be properly understood, there was no way to argue anything in the Christian worldview. Instead of respecting other opinions, it became about invalidating them. It is a very postmodern concept as far as I've seen it. No way to 'know' the truth, even though the Truth is a living Person. Everyone also seems to forget the work of the Holy Spirit, part of which is the illumination of Scripture. Just because hypocritical pharisees who invented their own laws were condemned by Christ, there is no reason Christians led by the Holy Spirit in honest pursuit of truth with Scripture as the starting point should be included in that condemnation. It doesn't even make sense.

Very well put.

[DannyM]

I think this is and always has been a very personal thing, some people require ONLY The bible while others need to reconcile the bible with what science tells us ( and by science I mean archeology, astronomy, physics, etc), other need to reconcile the bible with how it is interpreted, and so forth.
Like you said, everyone has a starting point and mine is that YES, we do have the words of God in the bible but that bible is not JUST the words of God but also the History of a people and it was written by ancient man for ancient man and it's various books were written as genre's and the bible is not A book but a collection of books of various writers, it is a progressive revelation of God and God's will, a will that is accommodating to the people it is been spoke to.

The Bible having full inerrancy and overall authority doesn't require one to ONLY use the Bible.

Can you post these verses please, Paul?

Jeremiah 8:8
8 How can you say, “We are wise,

and the law of the Lord is with us,”

when, in fact, the false pen of the scribes

has made it into a lie?

Is Jeremiah saying a false pen has defiled scripture?

Jeremiah 1:1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9

The words of Jeremiah son of Hilkiah, one of the priests at Anathoth in the territory of Benjamin.

2 The word of the LORD came to him in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josiah son of Amon king of Judah,[

4 The word of the LORD came to me, saying,

5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.

6Ah, Sovereign LORD, I said, I do not know how to speak; I am only a child.

7 But the LORD said to me, Do not say, 'I am only a child.' You must go to everyone I send you to and say whatever I command you.

8 Do not be afraid of them, for I am with you and will rescue you, declares the LORD.

9 Then the LORD reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, Now, I have put my words in your mouth.

As for Christ,
Matthew 23 goes into great detail Jesus' issues with the scribes ( and some of the Pharisees).
Mark 12 and Luke 20 also.
While Christ isn't as "in your face" as Jeremiah that accuses them point blank of lying, Jesus does accuse them of hypocracy.
I don't think this is a case of "the scribes have lied and written falsehoods in the bible", but that Christ was accusing them of selective interpretations in their writings to justify things that they wanted to prioritize, case in point:

6 “Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.’ 17 You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred? 18 And you say, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gift that is on the altar is bound by the oath.’ 19 How blind you are! For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 So whoever swears by the altar, swears by it and by everything on it; 21 and whoever swears by the sanctuary, swears by it and by the one who dwells in it; 22 and whoever swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God and by the one who is seated upon it.

23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel!

While I don't think that these things call into question the authority of the Bible, they do call into question the authority of those that were responsible for the transmission of the bible.
The warning of "test all that you are taught", is a valid one.

Paul, where is scriptural authority being called into question here?

[PaulSacramento]

I am not trying to convince you Danny.
Like I said earlier, this will be a case of "agreeing to disagree".
You asked and I replied.
Like I also said:
I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.
I respect those views, even if I don't agree with them 100%.

[RickD]

I have no problem with anyone that takes the bible as inerrant and literal and concrete.

Paul, I have no problem with taking the bible as inerrant, and literal. I do have a problem with taking the bible in a rigid, concrete way. For example, YECs take the bible in an extremely concrete way when it comes to their interpretation of the text to back up their view. Being too concrete, doesn't leave any room to be open to possible errors in one's interpretation of biblical things. Especially non-essential things. Not to mention that it's a horrible witness to unbelievers, when a Christian is so rigid, as to put his interpretation, as being equal to the text itself.