Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire For Christians,non-Christians & Atheists

Nothing like it. Believers reading the bible interpret its narrative through the filter of their own beliefs, their faith, which often means ignoring or dismissing all that is inconvenient.

The proof of that lies in the numerous interpretations and offshoots in Christianity, which began almost immediately. Plus of course, Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the prophesied Messiah.

I don't think that God spoke through anybody at any time or place. I am merely pointing out the contradictions within the narrative, the two incompatible descriptions of God and the actions attributed to God within the story line,




Have you looked at the history of the Gospels and how the NT was put together through a series of councils, copying between gospel writers, drawing from hearsay, etc?

Not that this matters, the contradiction between descriptions of a God of Love, not keeping record of wrongs, and God who punishes generations for the sins of their fathers, orders executions murder and genocide, are there to be seen and read by anyone.

It's only the filter of faith that does not allow believers to acknowledge these contradictions.



Quote;

''Oral gospel traditions, cultural information passed on from one generation to the next by word of mouth, were the first stage in the formation of the written gospels. These oral traditions included different types of stories about Jesus. For example, people told anecdotes about Jesus healing the sick and debating with his opponents. The traditions also included sayings attributed to Jesus, such as parables and teachings on various subjects which, along with other sayings, formed the oral gospel tradition.[1][2]

Scholars generally understood that these written sources must have had a prehistory as oral tellings, but the very nature of oral transmission seemed to rule out the possibility of recovering them. However, in the early 20th century the German scholar Hermann Gunkel demonstrated a new critical method, form criticism, which he believed could discover traces of oral tradition in written texts. Gunkel specialized in Old Testament studies, but other scholars soon adopted and adapted his methods to the study of the New Testament.[3]


Mark, Matthew and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they have such a high degree of interdependence. Modern scholars generally agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be written (see Markan priority). The author does not seem to have used extensive written sources, but rather to have woven together small collections and individual traditions into a coherent presentation.[15] It is generally, though not universally, agreed that the authors of Matthew and Luke used as sources the gospel of Mark and a collection of sayings called the Q source. These two together account for the bulk of each of Matthew and Luke, with the remainder made up of smaller amounts of source material unique to each, called the M source for Matthew and the L source for Luke, which may have been a mix of written and oral material (see Two-source hypothesis). Most scholars believe that the author of John's gospel used oral and written sources different from those available to the Synoptic authors – a "signs" source, a "revelatory discourse" source, and others – although there are indications that a later editor of this gospel may have used Mark and Luke.[16]''

Do you believe that happened? You must or you have no case. God has the right to give life and take it away while we do not. He will judge the world again. Nice sidestep from acknowledging that atheists never built a good society.

My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. Although pointing only to Nazis and Communists atrocities seem bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.

And skeptics and communists don't have a filter lol?

If you want to learn church history you should study it and not merely suckle the bottle of unscholarly skepticism. There was no ecumenical council that ever discussed the canon before Trent. The two councils that discussed it were local. Before they were ever convened we had the old Latin bible and even the Vulgate. So we had the form of the Bible we have today before any council discussed a canon. Skeptics are some of the worst historians.

There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.

However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....

Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..

There is no way to know the circumstances, the account is too brief.

However, it is unlikely that in the history of the tribe of Israel that he was the first to careless on the Sabbath. ....

Perhaps the gatherer of sticks was just unlucky to be caught in an activity that his captors thought was excessive..

And how is truth determined?

In the past, it was decided by the priesthood. And nonconformists were put to death.
Still is in the Islamic world.

the draconian church conveniently shelved the concept of 'free will' and adopted coercion.

Israelites began breaking the Sabbath from the Get Go.
God described them as 'hard headed' and finding the need to repeatedly remind them of the importance
of keeping the sabbath.
thus its reasonable to suggest the Lord finding it hard to get it through to Israelites, decided to single out
the stick gatherer to set a harsh example to all other blasphemers.

The rules were already made repeatedly clear that working on the sabbath meant death, ..and blasphemers
had already been stoned to death ....So why the need to consult the Lord as to what punishment the stick
gatherer should receive..?.

So you think the story is historically accurate?

Hahahaha. And i bet you cant accept the Earth needs cleansing again.

And he forgets how the Church behaved when it had power. But I'm sure he has some absurd justification for The Inquisition.

How would 'work' even be defined....is everyone supposed to abstain from cooking meals on a Sabbath because cooking is work, lighting a fire is work? If gathering sticks is work and means a death sentence, why not lighting a fire, cooking meals, tending to family needs?

Who policed these things on the Sabbath....is that a kind of work?

Maybe everyone was supposed to stay in bed for the day in order to avoid the death penalty.

My post was only to support your claim that no moral accountability can allow for horrific acts. But only pointing to Nazis and Communists atrocities seemed bias and unfair because you did not include what God did.

And he forgets how the Church behaved when it had power. But I'm sure he has some absurd justification for The Inquisition.

Where did 'communists' come from? Did you slip that in for dramatic effect?

As for skepticism as a principle, not an ideology, that is just a way of examining claims in a logical and rational manner.

Given all the things people try to sell us as truth, a bit of applied scepticism is a healthy thing.

We are not in the same class as God or the universe or whatever force if you please takes life all the time. We are specifically talking about human choices and in that context alone there has never been an atheistic society that has been beneficent. That is very telling.