Deist And Libertarian Defense

[brvheart 1,752]

I suppose it's the same circular argument we get into around here all the time. Basically, I think that, either way, your take is incorrect. Option A: We can interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, the argment that "dog" might mean something completely benign is extraordinarily silly...you must be able to see that. No matter how he meant it exactly, it was a derogatory term for something. Why he was racist/sexist/whateverist is a whole other topic. Maybe he had to fit into society in order to be taken seriously. Who knows. Or maybe the part of him that was a man was subject to the day's societal norms.Option B: We can't interpret the bible based on today's sensibilities and knowledge of that period in time. In this case, we don't know what "dog" means. But, again, but that logic none of the bible can be truly understood, not even words we think should have obvious meanings, so no christian should be able to say for sure what any of it means, which would kind of put a damper on the whole thing. There's no religion if you don't know what any of it means.

A: I have never once argued the fact that it wasn't derogatory for something, so this entire option is moot. B: We can know many things in the Bible based on seeing them in context throughout the Bible, so I don't agree to your conclusion that if we can't know for sure what someone's motivations were in a very specific situation, then the entire Bible is irrelevant.

[speedz99 145]

Christ was showing them that their opinions of each other were ignored by God, and He saw them as all the same, sinners in need of grace.

By calling her a dog and then giving in after she begged for a while? Wouldn't it be better to show them by being pleasant in the first place?

Probably should've just healed her without insulting her first and then told the parable of the master and his dog.

You'd think.

[speedz99 145]

A: I have never once argued the fact that it wasn't derogatory for something, so this entire option is moot.

Ah. So he was being a jerk, just not necessarily a racist jerk. How could I have been confused by your argument?

B: We can know many things in the Bible based on seeing them in context throughout the Bible, so I don't agree to your conclusion that if we can't know for sure what someone's motivations were in a very specific situation, then the entire Bible is irrelevant.

Overall, I don't hate this argument...but I'm sure you'd say that by the context throughout the Bible you can definitively conclude that Jesus was an awesome, not at all jerky kind of guy. And when showed this example (and I'm sure others) you have to hide behind, "Well, but that part we can't really understand for sure." Seems hypocritical, and like you'll only say it's hard to understand the parts that go against your overall opinion.

[DJ Vu 176]

Not sure what makes you think that is a popular theory, it fact it would be a deviation from the entire doctrine of who Christ is.

Google hits. Maybe some commentary from some of those google hits.

[brvheart 1,752]

Ah. So he was being a jerk, just not necessarily a racist jerk. How could I have been confused by your argument?

I disagree that he was being a jerk, but my entire point was discussing the fact that he wasn't racist, so I'm not sure how you missed it.

[brvheart 1,752]

Google hits. Maybe some commentary from some of those google hits.

It's definitely not "popular", in Christian circles, that Jesus didn't know stuff.

[SilentSnow 1]

Overall, I don't hate this argument...but I'm sure you'd say that by the context throughout the Bible you can definitively conclude that Jesus was an awesome, not at all jerky kind of guy. And when showed this example (and I'm sure others) you have to hide behind, "Well, but that part we can't really understand for sure." Seems hypocritical, and like you'll only say it's hard to understand the parts that go against your overall opinion.

Might as well be more direct- Biblical interpretation is an unsolvable problem, as shown by the countless thousands of different interpretations. You can personally believe whatever you want about the bible, but due to its extreme vagueness you can't reasonably postulate a religion in which unbelievers are punished for not interpreting the bible the way you do.

[Balloon guy 158]

Might as well be more direct- Biblical interpretation is an unsolvable problem, as shown by the countless thousands of different interpretations.

Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious if you know of more than 3 different interpretations.

You can personally believe whatever you want about the bible, but due to its extreme vagueness you can't reasonably postulate a religion in which unbelievers are punished for not interpreting the bible the way you do.

Extreme vagueness?I think you are confused...more than normal.

[vbnautilus 48]

reasonably

Yeah I don't think they are too worried about that.

[BaseJester 1]

How are you coming to the conclusion that the dog comment was related specifically to the woman's race and not, for example, her hair color or gender or shingle style on her house?

By reading the verses, in which Jesus specifically explains himself:

24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”

"Of Israel" is not a hair color or gender or shingle style. You have to hypothesize an author who is actively hostile to his readers knowing what the hell he is talking about to even entertain the notion that the verses would contain irrelevant details (the woman's origin) but leave out other details that are vital to understanding the message.You could certainly argue that "of Israel" is a political distinction, but I think that is also splitting hairs on which sort of prejudice his statement represents.

[Balloon guy 158]

Are these people racist?Or prejudiced towards Christians?

[BaseJester 1]

Are these people racist?Or prejudiced towards Christians?

He's probably a Republican.Are you considering basing a religion on this particular individual?

[speedz99 145]

I disagree that he was being a jerk, but my entire point was discussing the fact that he wasn't racist, so I'm not sure how you missed it.

Your entire point was that we don't know if he was being a racist. I'm saying it doesn't matter if it was racist, per se, because no matter how you classify it he was being a jerk. Not sure how you could possibly disagree with that."Please help me!""No. You're a dog.""But please!""Ok fine. Everyone look at how benevolent I am!"Seriously man, come on. Jesus was a fucking jerk to that woman, regardless of exactly why he was being a jerk.

[BaseJester 1]

To come to this conclusion I'm going to need more information...What time period did this event happen in? Was it more than 2,000 years ago?Were dogs and vets looked down upon in that society?Were women looked down on?Can you describe all possible reasons for the white doctors initial response, including his views on women, men, animals, area of origin, belief system, race, etc?Was the medication expensive?Did this woman have health insurance?Could the doctor be referring to her inability to pay for his services, and her color was just a coincidence?Can you please explain the ins and outs of circumstantial evidence?

BRIAN: Ohh. Look. There was this man, and he had two servants.ARTHUR: What were they called?BRIAN: What?ARTHUR: What were their names?BRIAN: I don't know. And he gave them some talents.EDDIE: You don't know?!BRIAN: Well, it doesn't matter!ARTHUR: He doesn't know what they were called!BRIAN: Oh, they were called 'Simon' and 'Adrian'. Now--ARTHUR: Oh! You said...EDDIE: Ohh.ARTHUR: ...you didn't know!BRIAN: It really doesn't matter. The point is there were these two servants--

[SilentSnow 1]

Care to elaborate on this? I'm curious if you know of more than 3 different interpretations.

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement. Here are a few that seem to directly refute the modern christian/neocon worldview. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.Thou shalt not kill.

[Spademan 94]

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?

[brvheart 1,752]

By reading the verses, in which Jesus specifically explains himself: "Of Israel" is not a hair color or gender or shingle style.

But the thing is, the Jews were the chosen people and Jesus was using this opportunity to tell everyone that he didn't just come for the Jews, but for the Gentiles also. It seems like he's doing the opposite of what you are claiming, regardless of how he said it.

You have to hypothesize an author who is actively hostile to his readers knowing what the hell he is talking about to even entertain the notion that the verses would contain irrelevant details (the woman's origin) but leave out other details that are vital to understanding the message.You could certainly argue that "of Israel" is a political distinction, but I think that is also splitting hairs on which sort of prejudice his statement represents.

If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus often speaks in parables and often "seems" to be actively hostile to his listeners knowing what he is talking about. There are big portions of the gospels where the disciples and just sitting around going, "what the hell was he talking about?"

[brvheart 1,752]

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?

I think these are all fine points. I understand that the origins of the universe are unexplainable. I also understand that the Bible is something that can be easily dismissible without video evidence. I also understand that the scientific method is a much better way to prove something, than say, faith.You won't get any arguments from me.

[brvheart 1,752]

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement.

This is only true is you are adding every denomination that claims to be Christian... like Mormons, Catholics, or Episcopalians. These are three denominations that base the far majority of their "beliefs" on traditions in their denominations vs. actually what the Bible says, so they are easily dismissed from the discussion.If you weed it down to only the Bible believing, "in Christ alone, though faith alone" crowd, then there are only a handful of verses or doctrines that are in disagreement.

[Balloon guy 158]

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement. Here are a few that seem to directly refute the modern christian/neocon worldview. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.Thou shalt not kill.

Don't know that there are any misunderstandings of these verses.I guess if you want there to be confusion you can make it up. But nobody thinks these verses are in dispute as to their interpretation.

[speedz99 145]

Don't know that there are any misunderstandings of these verses.I guess if you want there to be confusion you can make it up. But nobody thinks these verses are in dispute as to their interpretation.

If this was true, there would be no death penalty in this country.

[Balloon guy 158]

If this was true, there would be no death penalty in this country.

Glad you recognize that the US legal system is based on Biblical ethics.

[DJ Vu 176]

I feel like this thread is going in circles even more than usual for this forum.

[speedz99 145]

Glad you recognize that the US legal system is based on Biblical ethics.

No no, if it was, there would be no death penalty. And poor dogs of races other than ours would have to do extra begging to get health ca...oh fuck.

[brvheart 1,752]

No no, if it was, there would be no death penalty. And poor dogs of races other than ours would have to do extra begging to get health ca...oh fuck.

Or genders. Or homelands. Or differing social statuses.