Bible verse by verse

[_The Erotic Apologist]

In this case, I would say the God's intentions for man are very good, if man will listen to God's instructions.

No. The Bible in general and the Old Testament in particular portray god as a bloodthirsty tyrant. And in any case, this only makes sense if one is predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims. If one is not predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims, these claims become irrelevant and nonsensical.

Why should I adopt a supernatural worldview when it's clear that we live in a purely naturalistic world?

However, when man refuses to listen to God, he will find a lion along the way.

It's been my experience that a .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge deals with lions quite effectively, thank you very much. But for some reason the Bible has nothing to say about the virtues of the .300 Winchester Magnum cartridge when dealing with lions.

Believe and be saved.

Again, this only makes sense if one is predisposed to believe the Bible's unprovable supernatural claims. If one is not predisposed to believe the Bible's supernatural claims, these claims become irrelevant and nonsensical.

Why should I adopt a supernatural worldview when it's clear that we live in a purely naturalistic world?

Man brings upon himself his own problems when he ignores God's warning and instructions.

If this were true, the Bible would instruct people to wash their hands in order to avoid infection.

If this were true, the Bible would teach us that a printing press will spread written communication faster than a hand-copied document.

If this were true, the Bible would teach us that a non-centralized economy with minimal regulation will produce a greater degree of prosperity than a Soviet style economy.

If this were true, the Bible would teach us that a thorium salt reactor will produce greater amounts of clean electricity than a traditional BWR reactor.

If this were true, the Bible would teach us that the rise of the internet will result in the widespread rejection of unfalsifiable supernatural belief systems.

In this the Bible is very clear, again, and again, and again.

No. The Bible is open to multiple interpretations, many of them contradictory and nonsensical. The only way the Bible can be made to be "clear" is if one cherry-picks certain passages while ignoring others.

[_huckelberry]

Tyrant?

I am puzzled why the Old Testament people who lived under his rule were happy for his military participation and found his absence tragic? You read Psalms? I can see how Amalakites might dislike his rule but I do not see how tyranny would be a relevant reason why.

I am aware of some examples of what sound like overblown reactions in certain stories like that one related to Davids census. Why do you think some today react differently to that story than did the first tellers of the story?

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Tyrant?

I am puzzled why the Old Testament people who lived under his rule were happy for his military participation and found his absence tragic? You read Psalms? I can see how Amalakites might dislike his rule but I do not see how tyranny would be a relevant reason why.

I am aware of some examples of what sound like overblown reactions in certain stories like that one related to Davids census. Why do you think some today react differently to that story than did the first tellers of the story?

This is based on the assumption that the magical, supernatural being named Yahweh actually exists.

I don't know about Nipper, but I'm reasonably sure I inhabit a rational world, not a magical, supernatural one.

[_LittleNipper]

Man brings upon himself his own problems when he ignores God's warning and instructions.

If this were true, the Bible would instruct people to wash their hands in order to avoid infection.

Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

[_LittleNipper]

In this case, I would say that God's intentions for man are very good, if man will listen to God's instructions.

No. The Bible in general and the Old Testament in particular portray god as a bloodthirsty tyrant.

There is another side ----- the Old Testament also talks a lot about mercy and grace and has, for the time it was written, a remarkable degree of law and order. For instance several witnesses were required for someone to be convicted of serious crimes, such as murder. An example of each citizen's strong legal position is when king Ahab had to arrange a mock trial to access Nabot's vineyard. (1 Kings 21). In all countries at this time a king took whatever he wanted, and at best, he compensated for what he took (if he was in a good mood). But in Israel this was not the case. Only after the king had bribed false witnesses to say that Nabot had blasphemed God, he could seize Nabot's vineyard.

In all other cultures in Bible times slave owners treated their slaves at their own discretion. Naturally, it was a financial loss to kill or beat a slave so that he/she became disabled; however, there was no punishment connected with it. It was free to rape slaves. The Jewish law is unique. If a Jewish slave owner raped his female slave he had to marry her and she became a family member. The status of women among the Jewish people was incredibly strong placed in its historical context. To be Jewish is inherited from mother to child. If you have a Jewish father but a non-Jewish mother you are not automatically a Jew, but if you have a Jewish mother you are always counted as a Jew, regardless of who the father is. I fail to see anything sick in such a law. On the contrary! Jewish law had a remarkably high morale and rule of law if you compare with the cultural norms of that time.

Is God of the Old Testament different from God in the New Testament? God in the Old Testament is portrayed as viscous and bloodthirsty (an opinion often expressed by militant atheists), while Jesus seems to have a much more sympathetic image (which doesn't prevent some atheists from calling Jesus an oppressor — he claimed for example that a Truth existed, which to them oppresses free thought — free thought being more important to post modern man than true thought --- thinking right). Thus, their conclusion is that Jesus' teaching is incompatible with Old Testament, which ultimately leads to the Bible contradicting itself and losing credibility.

Christianity certainly has its origin in the Old Testament. Jesus' teaching is the foundation of the Christian faith. In many ways, Jesus did go against the contemporary Jewish clergy (though it was more about their interpretation of Old Testament, and not the Old Testament as such). Without the Old Testament as a background, it is very difficult to understand the New Testament, especially certain terms like the belief in a coming Messiah and blood sacrifice. But possible problems in Old Testament are more of a problem for Judaism than for Christianity. As a Christian you cannot disregard the Old Testament, but the New Testament contains nevertheless a fuller revelation of who God is and if you want to understand who God really is, one must find Jesus.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

No soap? No disinfectant?

This is a good example of why you should do your own research instead of simply cutting-and-pasting blocks of text from your favorite apologetic sites. If you had done so you would have discovered that in point of fact Ignaz Semmelweis instructed care-givers in his employ to wash their hands in an antiseptic solution consisting of chlorinated lime. You might also have discovered that mild disinfectants in the form of primitive soaps were in widespread use in ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, ancient China, etc.

In other words, it's disingenuous to conflate Ignaz Semmelweis' antiseptic procedures with ancient Hebrew purification rites. This is just as bad as when you ignorantly claim that Chinese ideograms are somehow connected with the Biblical flood.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

There is another side...

You're conveniently side-stepping the fact that in order to believe in a magical, supernatural being such as Yahweh, you must first adopt a magical, supernatural worldview.

This seems at odds with the rational world that I inhabit, and that you probably inhabit as well.

[Guest]

Encyclopedia Britannica documents that in 1845, a young doctor in Vienna named Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis was horrified at the terrible death rate of women who gave birth in hospitals. As many as 30 percent died after giving birth. Semmelweis noted that doctors would examine the bodies of patients who died, then, without washing their hands, go straight to the next ward and examine expectant mothers. This was their normal practice, because the presence of microscopic diseases was unknown. Semmelweis insisted that doctors wash their hands before examinations, and the death rate immediately dropped to 2 percent. Look at the specific instructions God gave His people for when they encounter disease: "And when he that has an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself even days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean" (Leviticus 15:13). Until recent years, doctors washed their hands in a bowl of water, leaving invisible germs on their hands. However, the Bible says specifically to wash hands under "running water."

No soap? No disinfectant?

This is a good example of why you should do your own research instead of simply cutting-and-pasting blocks of text from your favorite apologetic sites. If you had done so you would have discovered that in point of fact Ignaz Semmelweis instructed care-givers in his employ to wash their hands in an antiseptic solution consisting of chlorinated lime. You might also have discovered that mild disinfectants in the form of primitive soaps were in widespread use in ancient Babylon, ancient Egypt, ancient Rome, ancient China, etc.

In other words, it's disingenuous to conflate Ignaz Semmelweis' antiseptic procedures with ancient Hebrew purification rites. This is just as bad as when you ignorantly claim that Chinese ideograms are somehow connected with the Biblical flood.

Your original point was that if the Bible was true, then there should be information there in about hand washing. I produce this reality and you choose to cast it aside. The Bible is clear that various things were unclean and washing required certain procedures. To suggest that Egyptians and others already knew this and practiced is non sequitur.

[Guest]

There is another side...

You're conveniently side-stepping the fact that in order to believe in a magical, supernatural being such as Yahweh, you must first adopt a magical, supernatural worldview.

This seems at odds with the rational world that I inhabit, and that you probably inhabit as well.

To ignore the supernatural, one MUST prove that the formation of life from non living matter is a natural process that happens again and again. The "naturalist," cannot even prove that it ever happened, let alone that it will happen or does happen. That simple point alone suggests the miraculous. And to simply ignore that point is to be "conveniently" irrational. The use of term such as, possible, probable, most likely, etc. ---- doesn't make such "rationalizations" ABSOLUTE!

[_The Erotic Apologist]

Your original point was that if the Bible was true, then there should be information there in about hand washing.

I don't know how things work in your house but where I come from, hand washing involves the use of soap and water.

I produce this reality and you choose to cast it aside.

Your response said nothing about soap. Furthermore, you disingenuously attempted to conflate an ancient purification ritual with an antiseptic procedure involving an antiseptic solution of chlorinated lime.

The Bible is clear that various things were unclean and washing required certain procedures.

But it says nothing about mild disinfectants such as primitive soap--it's dishonest of you to infer that Old Testament purification rites were the equivalent of Ignaz Semmelweis' antiseptic procedures.

To suggest that Egyptians and others already knew this and practiced is of non sequitur.

Not just the Egyptians, but also the Babylonians, the Chinese, and the Romans--if these civilazations knew about soap, then why not the Israelites?