Rachel Johnson

Atheist Blogger- the godlessvagina / Podcaster the pink atheist

Ripping On The Bible!!

23 Comments

Deuteronomy 31:6

New International Version (NIV)

6 Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid or terrified because of them, for the Lord your God goes with you; he will never leave you nor forsake you.”

Now the definition of forsake is this: abandon: to withdraw companionship, protection, or support from somebody.
Someone might have wanted to explain to god what this meant before he was tempted by Satan, and tested the faith of Lot. I am sure that the suffering and horrors he was said to have suffered at the will of god and hands of Satan would have not seemed like such a good thing to do if god could even remember to do what he said. Now to be fair maybe god said this after he was done testing Lot. Sort of as an after thought on that whole principle of testing.
Then we come to Jesus and realize he must have not meant a word of what he says in that verse. Since Jesus even asked his own father, “Father if it be your will take this cup from me.” What he meant by that is, do I really have to go and die. To which god says that he does. And in those final moments before Jesus was said to have given up the ghost, god turned his head away. Now if that is not some kind of forsaking, then I am not sure what it is. Since he left him on the cross to die. Made him go to the cross, and watched him as he was there for hours dying.
So the next time a good Christian tells you how loving and un-forsaking their god is, remind them what forsake means, and that god himself has broken his rules at least twice, if not more.

Advertisements

Author: Rachel Johnson

I am a writer about atheist issues. Separation of the church and state. Women and their right to choose, and sex. I talk about all of the "taboos" of modern life as well as evolution and science.

23 thoughts on “Ripping On The Bible!!

  1. Yeah, but nothing like a good human sacrifice.

  2. I remember being in in depth bible studies about Job, and wondering how killing someones entire family and giving them a flesh eating disease to test them and help them grow their faith and trust in you was a loving thing to do. I do not want anything to do with someone who would think that is a good idea, or call that not forsaking me. The hoops that this bible study jumped through to make it seem like a lesson or sensical were so ridiculous looking back. There are a lot of people in my life who haven’t forsaken me, and who I can see and touch everyday, so I need not waste my time believing in someone who will make my skin fall off so I will trust them more. Maybe I will work on my relationship by telling my fiance that I am going to start breaking all his things and get him fired from his job so he can really cherish our relationship.

  3. May I say that you are treating the word “forsake” completely out of the context. And yes there is a context involved, that ofcourse renders your point invalid. I mean you can have fun with this but really this is not serious stuff at all. If you are really on to “ripping on to the Bible” I suggest a more mature approach. I mean an approach where you actually know the context of what you are dealing with, your post here signifies that you do not.

    • I literally posted the definition of the word. From the dictionary. After the verse. So I know exactly what I am writing about here. But feel free to keep talking.

      • O, sure, but I didn’t mean the dictionary, I meant the word in the context of the incident and the connotations from that context which apply to it.

        Plus I am not trying to pick on you, but you really are missing the context here.

        You can say “I love cheese.”
        and I can take out the word “love” and use anyone of the definitions out of the 27 listed in the dictionary.

        Consider e.g “a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.”.

        Now any sane person would agree that I am right by at least one definition, but you of course would know that I am also dead wrong because I am out of context. The object in question in your original statement is not a person – as the definition puts it but rather, in the context, it is ordinary cheese. So wouldn’t it be wrong of me to use the wrong definition of the word love, to laugh at you for your silliness that you actually love cheese as a human being.

        Now we know that it is not you who is being silly but me who is grossly mistaken, its me who has taken the wrong definition, because I do not understand the context in which the statement was made; and so the fault is at my end because I do not understand completely what cheese it and therefore by my own use of definition I am attributing it some traits that cheese does not intrinsically have, mainly the ability to be alive, living, but I am treating it as such and still blaming you for it.

        I know the above is very general but I hope you do understand that you can be wrong out of context while still being right by the dictionary. Don’t worry I am not here to defend religion, simply pointing out the poor reasoning for an argument.

        This would not stand in critical analysis of any passage you quoted. That is why I said, if you really want to be critical of Christianity try for more mature arguments for atheism, believe me there are some. But do not expect that these small things, like the ones you posted are gross mistakes that Christian scholarship is unaware of, they simply are not what you think they are, at least they are not the problems you have pointed out. You might have seen dumb than dumber Christians, I have too, plus I have witnessed the same lot of atheists and other religious people as well, so no surprise that most Christians do not understand scriptures, and most do with a superficial understanding. And on and off you will find someone with a better understanding and you can argue seriously, well better than this, I hope.

        There are perfect valid reasoning and argumentation for a lot of things, on both sides. If you find time delve into that.

        Anyway, good day to you.

        • John,

          While I concur that there are many definitions for various words, and can be interpreted in various manners, this was not grossly abused. See in the context presented god is stating his ever present and protective force, within the lives of his believers. That he will in no instance turn from them, leave them or abandon them, but instead serve as protector, and guide.

          Now in the case of Lot god is tempted by Satan. We all know this story well. Or at least any of us with background on the Bible. As I am sure you have. Not only does god remove himself as protector but in fact continuously orders more torment upon Lot to the point of unrelenting human suffering. Now can this be termed as forsaking? Well god was not protecting him from the tragedies, not protecting him. In fact god was a willing participant in the suffering. As with Jesus later.
          You may not agree with the perspective that this is forsaking, but indeed this is the absolute of what forsaking is. After all a merciful god would feels that he can’t forsake his followers certainly would not punish them with torture, and torment. He would not subject them to death for his desire to continue being merciful.
          Any way I would love to hear the actual reasoning behind your statement. If you would like to say that I have been grossly mistaken, then please by all means, add what you believe to be the true reasoning here.
          Also I had concluded you were not a theist on the attack. I have to read responses a lot and can usually gather when it is just theistical blathering.

        • Touche Theist who calmly disguises his theistic stance. How dishonest of you to not disclose your feverently theistic stance on my writings. Well, thank for your scrutiny.

        • What do you find dishonest about what I said? I haven’t bombarded your post with arguments simply because I do want to argue with you. My sole purpose for posting earlier was to show you that what you are calling out as a problem, is not a problem to begin with.

          I have serious reservation about your perspective, and I am sure you have against mine, but I do not see how that is relevant here. A bad logic is a bad logic, regardless of who is pointing it out. Even If a murderer say “murder is wrong”. Does that disqualify the statement itself that murder is indeed wrong, no.

          I have not got personal but you have. If you do not want me to post further I will not. As I said, I only wanted to help you understand why your points are invalid. However if you do not want to discuss those, it fine. I wasn’t attacking you earlier , nor am I now.

        • I was reading some of your blog, and noting that you are both an apologist for the bible and a literalist, which is very scary. While you may assume to be correct in your statements, those also come from that perspective. Like me trying to identify with your sky daddy, and maintain my stance as an atheist.

          Indeed I was astounded to see your reference to the Sabbath. The literal meaning to you, and such. Here is the deal John. I am just as influenced by my perspective as you. Please don’t pretend you cherish quality over dogma. Because what you absolutely consider correct is probably not the case, but you base your logical thinking on dogmatic ideas.

          Had you been up front about whom you are I would have added that into account. Weather you want to admit to a bias of not, it exists. You can add anything on here you would like. I am not going to forbid you, neither will I let you assert a lack of intellect on my part simply because of your dogmatic bias.

  4. I have always been a little worried by the old testament view that the Abrahamic god is omnipotent; an all seeing, all doing and, more importantly, all interfering being with the desire to involve itself in the banal, the mundane and the banal lives of humans. The idea that there /may/ be some sort of grumpy bugger watching over everything we do, making arbitrary decisions about who lives, who dies, when and how did worry me a lot when I was younger, fresher and more naïve. The idea that somebody may be looking down while I am in the bathroom is not very appealing. Less so when I am having sex. I was always worried I would be marked down for the dismount……

    No, as the Bird People of Brontitall have said, the idea is utterly ludicrous. At least if taken literally, which lots of people do.

    I can see why this is appealing however; it abdicates one from the responsibility of thought, your actions, and therefore the consequences from those actions, can be off-loaded to somebody else thereby allowing the hard of thinking a god nights sleep while the argue “Not me Gov’.”.

    Nah, this is not a viable argument and for somebody who does believe, well, give them a slap in the face and say “gods will……”. I am sure they will argue it wasn’t.

  5. I never said or pretended to be anyone else than what I meant when I posted. I am a theist, I never said I wasn’t, my blog even says so but also I do not need to shout it into everyone’s ears. And I do cherish quality over Dogma, for me most dogma has been around because of bad religion. I cherish intellectual honesty which is a good thing. That being said, no one is truly unbiased, so I do not know what has bothered you so much. I do not see how my bias affects a principle of interpretation of context, which, if you had studied the scholarship behind it, would know of. And rather attacking a straw man and wasting your time, you would take on more serious challenges to theism.

    As they say, know what you are attacking.

    And I meant no offense, I am not even accusing you of lack of intellect, simply that you are not aware of what you are attacking. Within the framework of theism the problems you pointed out in the OP, are not problems at all, hell they are not related.

    I am not here to vent out, Rachel. I saw something I could contribute to therefore I posted. There is no hidden agenda. You almost blame me for a conspiracy against you.

    By the way we all can be wrong, I do not negate that, but we all can not be right, that is a fact. And again, just because something sounds right to me, doesn’t mean it has be wrong too just because it is my perspective. Its a logical fallacy. Truth exists independent of perspectives. I can say you you are a atheist therefore you are biased and technically worng and what you believe (or do not believe) right is probably not the case. I can assert that but would this help the situation? I do not think so, Rachel, so I am not going to do that. But I will say you are dismissing the argument by dismissing me, but you haven’t dismissed the argument itself.

    Anyway, I will leave it at that, make of it what you must. You have assumed quite a lot and therefore I find it embarrassing to have to explain myself over for an offense I did not give.

  6. And one more thing, you have marked me wrong as a literalist. Contextual reading and making sense of it is hardly being literalist. A literalist would be someone who would ignore the context and simply take out the words and take them in their most direct sense which appeals or seems right to them. Close to something which you did, taking the passage from the book of Joshua and assuming that it has universal application, it doesn’t. And there are plenty of Christians around who actually share your view that the verse in question does have universal appeal. Why? Because it sounds like it, they literary pick it up and apply it as they see fit. Now that is wrong.

    In-fact some of the most profoundly wrong christian doctrines people preach today are because they revert to literalism, which is plain wrong. For what its worth, I do not believe that the days mentioned in the opening chapter of genesis are 24 hours days.

    Has there been a misunderstanding, or you simply think I am a dangerous fanatic? I am critical that is true, in fact mostly on Christianity itself because it is being derailed by uninformed people who are at the helm of the institution. Bad religion has caused more protest than spiritual emptiness. I know a lot of atheists (my self included, as a former atheist) who were against Christianity because they found it hypocritical, not because they hated God or the idea thereof. Most people never even experienced something spiritual, they just experienced bad Christianity, at its best.

    Now the war has taken off a personal side. rather than debating academically people resound to anger (I once did because I was angry at atheists for all the trash talk but Christians aren’t doing anything better either, not many). I am sure you must have witnessed some really angry or trash talking theists to come out full of suspicion on me, even before we begin. I do not blame you. I have had plenty of atheist calling me a low-IQ person, who worships unicorns. And I really pity them, both groups actually, because they don’t know that emotions do not add an iota of credibility to anything, whether they be Christians or atheists.

    That is why I said earlier, I like intellectual honesty. I cherish it. You do not have to believe in something because you have to. I can not convince you to have faith, because faith doesn’t work like that. So why would I even want to do that?

  7. And oh, by the way, you constantly reference the story of Lot form the Bible in your post and replies and I hate to tell you that it is not of Lot’s. You are quoting the wrong story. The story you are actually wanting to refer to is that of Job.

    Now am I wrong for pointing this out too? 🙂

    Chill, have a nice day. I meant no dis-respect.

    Peace.

    • John, I am not sure how anyone can become a former atheist. I would question the motives and thinking of such individuals. It is like taking all of the solid evidence which exists all around us and completely dismissing it. You can’t make me have faith, this is true, and I can’t convince you that science works and is more right than wrong, and it does/is.
      As for your bias, you hold yourself to one standard, which may be commendable, but honestly I have been a christian and had the same bias. I am not saying you are driven by that alone, or dismissing the possibility of you being an intellectual. But it would like me trying to write an article against chocolate, or read one. I would be hard pressed to evaluate the article without my personal bias slipping in there.

      I am not accusing you of having no ability to interpret text logically, or philosophically, rather I am holding you to your bias. Perhaps you are the better of most in that you can refrain from that bias. Wonderful.
      Yes it is Job, You are correct there. I think of Lot a lot. It is one of the most sickening stories in the bible. Forgive that I do make mistakes.

      As for you being a literalist, I have to hold onto that one. Your article about the Sabbath seemed to take the idea that the intent was a day for god, and worship vs a day for man. But the interesting thing is always this. Every one of us can read that bible and because of the vague writing it is left to interpretation. Just like a book of poetry is. Every person on earth could read the same passage and the interpretation might be astoundingly different.

      I am not running you off from my bog, but I sure am challenging you. So I welcome you to stay, and please read the rest of what I write. Perhaps it might change your mind. 😀 Cheers John, and thank you for reading what I write.

      • Rachel there are ways to interpret the Bible, I agree. But even among these there is a level of accuracy which can always be obtained. I agree, everyone thinks they are right but that doesn’t mean anything. Anyone can read the Bible and make of it what they want, doesn’t mean that is what the passage is for. There are proper methods to do that. The general assumption that all of it is to be followed literally as it is, is plain wrong. Not everything is objective or even commanded to everyone, sure everyone can follow it doesn’t mean it was given that way. Remember Church is not equal to God, the institute fo Christianity is not equal to God, we have been wrong in the past, the church has been wrong in the past, there is simply no denying it.

        You would be more close to reading and understanding the bible if you study the history, context, idioms, manner of expression, writing style etc. You would know better what the writer was trying to say.

        About being a literislt, I would still say you are wrong, because I follow what we call
        “Historical-grammatical method” and to some extent the “historical-critical method”, you can read more about it online. Literalism style of interpretation is something else entirely.

        What I did about the Sabbath is exactly the opposite of what a literalst would do. My intent was not to show that sabbath was a day of God, rather if you read, I said, it was a shadow of things to come, of our eternal rest in Christ, that is as anti-literalist as it gets. 😉

        Being a former atheist for me is the same as you being a former Christian. If you understand your experience than you can understand what it takes.

        I have nothing against science at all, all the scientific evidence shows me a marvel, I believe it. Simple as that, science does not talk about God, and there are no empirical ways to discover God either, Believing in God doesn’t mean you have to dumb down science, though I will grant you that the YEC group has done the exact thing and they are behind most of the undeserved scrutiny that Christians who believe in God and cherish science, get to face. I think evolution is by far the best model I know to explain origins. I also think that intelligence is needed to derive a lot of things that our universe have. I am not in favor of Intelligent design movement though. I think evolution did happen, so the point to negate it, is quite futile.

        I understand your point about writing on the thing you have bias on. But if I told you that my enjoyment doesn’t rely on the chocolate itself but the quality thereof, then I think it is not that difficult to write about any chocolate, if it is good, I will favor it, if its not good I will not favor it. How do you think Critics become critics, they love what they do, but their love is not for the things they critique alone but the specific originality of what those things should have been. Think of art critics, their critique is not against painting in general but each individually crafted piece. They love painting that is why they know how to distinguish between good ones and bad ones. So honest critique an be done with you having a bias towards the subject but not individually about the components.

        I’ll be happy to discuss, if you choose to and you are welcome to do the same on my blog as well.

        Thank you for having me. 🙂

        Good day.

        • I already came over for a visit. You will find my atheism tracks. 😀 Plus John, if you think we evolved and yet it took god billions of years to give his word to some wandering nomads in the deserts, who were illiterate, and uneducated, then for a very literate man that is a sad affair.

  8. You are welcome at my blog 🙂 feel free to chime in anytime.

    Well, believe me, there are worse things to imagine compared to God giving his word to some nomads after billions of years.

    Plus, never fall for anthropomorphic projection in theism, you may end at the wrong conclusions.

    Cheers

  9. By the way, how would you address the question about the origins of the laws of Physics?

    The most common I have heard are these “I do not know”, “We will find out.” and “they were always there”.

    Do you believe something similar or something else? Do you find these answers, satisfactory for someone who negates a higher intelligence?

    I know people say , just because we do not know it, doesn’t mean God did it. And they are right. I absolutely agree, that is a “God of the gaps argument”, it is faulty and considered a logical fallacy.

    So I am not implying that just because we haven’t discovered something, means God did it, neither I am going to imply this if you fail to provide a reasonable answer to the origins of the laws of physics question.

    But what I do would like to know is how can you explain this or justify this question, given your current understanding and rationale for your world view? And how does this, leaving your bias aside, reflects on your intellect? Where does the position of “not knowing” exactly places you? that is if you do not know. If you do have a reasonable explanation, please share it.

    Thanks.

    • My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that the laws of physics apply to this universe based upon all the parameters of the universe. Basically all the elements of those laws were set into motion at the time of the big bang. Since we live in a flat universe, we are governed by that principals. The reason our universe exists and has existed is because it is a flat universe, one which is expanding.

      I would love to go on and on, but really I know that there are laws to this universe which mean that even your deity would be subject to, making him less probable.

      My field is biology, and as such I get to deal with the evidence at had. I can see the complex as simple and simple as complex. Which for me eliminates the need for clinging to a deity or divine force.

      May I suggest A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss.

  10. Thank you for your response. I would give it a go. Although I enjoyed reading, A Brief History of time and the Grand design by Stephen Hawking and the first three minutes by Steven Weinberg. I wonder if this book is along the same lines? any idea?

    By the way, if there was a big bang, it happened precisely because of the laws of physics and not vice-versa, I could be wrong but the big bang precisely happened because gravity existed. Actually Stephen Hawking did a good job to explain it in the grand design. He contends that we can not actually know the exact origins of the universe ever since they are now past the cone of light that we could see them happening. Plus if also writes that if there would be only gravity present the universe would sprawl again as it did, if it did it would not the same as we see today but it can.

    My only question is, why did gravity exist, why does it always function like the way its supposed to be and how did it originate? Why did it even originated and why doesn’t it spiral out of its own limits. This however has no answer, our current technological prowess is not capable to answer this precisely, I hope it does one day.

    Whether my deity would be subject to laws of physics is debatable but I will not object if you wish to think so.

    You know its amazing that people studying the same stuff can come out at so many different results. My friend is a Ph.d Physicist and she left atheism after she completed her studies, now she is a researcher in particle physics and super symmetry. But her views are exactly opposite of yours.

    By the way are you agnostic or atheist or agnostic atheist?

    • I have been told I am agnostic atheist, because as a scientist I can’t conclude to a 100% that there is no god. Now please don’t profane an idea, my area for which I allow the possibility for a deity is highly minute. As in microscopic.
      For my own position and beliefs I call myself a atheist pure and simple, and if you ask me personally what I believe, I will say there is no god and there never needed to be one.
      Physicists and biologists have a separation gap, where physics allows for everything to be possible, we biologists look and see the physical and the limits to the possible.
      😀 One thing I love about biology, it works with what is and they theories that encompass that. Physics works in the mathematics, and numbers which are even imaginary. While a lot of physics works, for me it eludes to many things we will never conclude in our lifetimes. IE, adventurous albeit a little boring.

      As for why gravity was”created” well that assumes, and with understanding, we can not assume. A Universe From Nothing just gives insight to why the universe is flat, and what makes it flat. It also explains how the space we thought was nothing is not nothing at all, and we don’t know what it is. The proportional distancing of galaxies, based on speed, and how we can know if the universe is indeed speeding up in expansion. It is very good.
      Why did gravity exist, well if I can make ignorant assumptions based on my own limited knowledge, then I would guess that it has to exist based upon principals we have yet to comprehend. We often think our universe is the only, and that we are not a universe in a universe, or that there was no other universe or system before us. The human ego merits awards in selfish egotism and denial based on grandeur. In the finite of this universe we are but specks of dust on a hill in a vast cosmos. I think a deity should be able to do better than that. But that is my thinking and my bias.
      I am not so perplexed about origins John, after all, we may never know, but one thing I do know is there will never be a toxic deity which humbles me or causes me to bend my knees. 😀

  11. You are completely WRONG
    1. God turned his head away from Jesus because he absolutely COULD NOT BEAR to see his son in so much pain
    2. He tested Job because yes, you get a lot closer to God during hard times because you know that he is YOUR ONLY HOPE. I was saved because I was going though a hard
    time.
    3. He sent his son on the cross to save us from our sins because the cost of sin is hell and the only way to out do that cost is to have a pure sacrifice. None of us are pure because every single one of us have sinned and none of us are pure enough to be sacrificed for God. Jesus was completely pure and never sinned so he could die for us. If you are wondering why God didn’t just wipe out sin all together, it is because that would also eliminate free will, thus eliminateing our souls.

    Look, if you don’t want to believe in God, at least don’t try to drag down other Christians with you, and perhaps do more research on it. Thank you for reading.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s