The Old Testament Still Matters Rebuttal

         

3/4 of the Old Testament Still Matters Debate

Previous       Next 

       I talked with Phil, and we both agree that the Old Testament certainly does matter! The main problem Philip had with my post is the examples I peppered in to make a ruckus. This is understandable, of course, and seeing as how my original contention for this topic has been settled peacefully (for once), I will proceed to rebut the accusations he made in regards to my claims and quoting style, as well as some simply incorrect statements. I also need to amend my previous post that stated, "but instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field." While the first link is true, the second link about the fabrics and crops is incorrect. They were not murdered for breaking these decrees. Rather, they were afflicted by a long list of God-induced curses that is 54 verses long. It seems God's anger against people who wore half polyester and half cotton is arguably worse than death, in light of all these curses for their obviously horrid fashion sense.

"Moses, I swear to Myself I will kill your crops if you go out in that awful sweater"

         Now, I want all the readers in the house to pay attention when reading Philip's blog versus reading mine. If you look closely (you actually don't have to look too closely, to be honest), his strongest tool, and almost his entire argument at the moment, is Appeal to Emotion. To sum up what this even means, his style of argument goes like this: "Daniel calls all of you idiots! Well, I don't think you're idiots, therefore I'm right and he's wrong!" If his appeal to emotion succeeded, then he just won you over to his side without so much as a single refuted idea or proven claim. This is bad for obvious reasons; mainly because this is a debate, not a presidential campaign (zing!). It's an effective tool, especially when I'm inherently the enemy and him the good guy; nonetheless, it's a terrible way to determine who is right or wrong. Here are examples of some appeal to emotion from the previous blog post alone:

"...deliberately picking out only the verses that fit into the narrative he’s trying to weave, which is that Christianity is crazy and God is equivalent to Hitler."

"You are the PRO side to your (general) argument that God is Hitler and Christians are stupid, ignorant buffoons."

"Daniel throws up a cadre of Scriptures, twists them inside out,"

"We’re not idiots Daniel!"

" If you want to convince us all that we secretly worship Hitler,"

" Maybe it’s something else Daniel. Perhaps Christians aren’t all that stupid and God isn’t actually an evil dictator."

      So, yeah. I'm not denying that this is a very personal overall theme with insulting topics, but to judge the correctness of said topics based on personal, opinionated disagreement and hurt feelings (where Philip draws power behind his arguments) is falling right into his trap and being played perfectly. 

       Philip's "calling out" of my cherry-picking accomplishes nothing; if I don't change my initial assertion, I still have the notably stronger argument. Copy-pasted here: "The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick!" An example (aside from my original) I can use to demonstrate this is if Philip claimed the colors of the rainbow to be ROY B. BIB-that is, brown instead of violet at the end. If Philip claims to be indisputably, entirely correct, then all I have to do is point out this one simple error and his reliability instantly vanishes, and his claim made false. It doesn't matter that he was correct about everything except one color: the problem is that he's wrong at all! I will also copy-paste my argument in regards to cherry-picking and perspective, along with relevant picture, since I have nothing to add or detract: "And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point."

Notice the opposite perspective on cherry picking!

        For some reason, Philip invokes the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" to show that God is  guilty by default according to me (I have no idea where that idea even comes from). I've never claimed such a thing, and I know better than to do so. With an audience that is majorly (if not entirely) Christian, my entire job is to prove the Bible and God guilty (of something) because he is already held innocent

in all of your minds. I do this by providing Bible verses and passages that show God guilty of something and summarize or explain this verse/passage to prove my assertion. Apparently this process isn't similar enough to myself being a prosecutor and Philip being the defense, as Philip finds fault in my process (which appears to be exactly like prosecution/defense). He claims that I don't always go into an in-depth analysis of the text, which is true. I don't always analyze the verses like I'm an ancient Hebrew translator, but I do provide the source for my summary (a Bible verse/passage) and the claim, because I feel that the source combined with my summary is fairly self-evident. My challenge to the defense, in this case, is to prove this claim wrong; be it through revealing that the source is completely out of context or is misunderstood on my part. The defense also needs to provide an antithesis to my claim, because saying "you're wrong" gets us nowhere in revealing the true context or true interpretation. Don't be mistaken; if Philip fails to disprove my argument, it doesn't automatically prove mine correct. It simply means that Philip couldn't find any fault with my interpretation; might that give you reason to believe my interpretation? You're the judge of that.

       Philip also provided an inadequate response to my question, "Why does God conform to the culture of primitive desert people?" [As opposed to creating the perfect justice, social, and economic system]. Philip's response: "As to why God doesn’t provide his own culture to humans? Because He transcends culture." Um, Philip. He doesn't quite transcend culture if he modified an existing culture and called it "The Covenant", which defined Israelite culture from there on out. Then he actually creates culture. And in this case, he created a horribly primitive and faulty culture for no apparent reason [As opposed to creating the perfect justice, social, and economic system]. Even if he now offers salvation and relationship to all cultures, it's evident that he isn't transcendent of culture because of his meddling with the Israelites. 

      It is interesting to note, however, that Christianity is very widespread compared to other religions. This is due to it's acceptance of all people (Gentiles) and loose requirements of "Accept JC, go to heaven". Also the 500 years of global conquest and forced evangelism wouldn't hurt it's chances. So I wouldn't attribute God's transcendence of culture to Christianity's success.

     And I'm not angry with God, because I don't think he exists. But if I did, oh boy oh boy would I be furious at him. I'd be pissed that he kills so many innocent children, directly through natural disasters or indirectly through lack of intervention, despite his omni-potence. I'd be pissed that he stands by and respects the free will of the rapist over that of the rape victim, despite his omni-benevolence. This is why I'm so confused as to why you aren't mad at God. 

     You believe this omni-potent, omni-benevolent God exists while allowing and causing these things to happen, but is still worthy of praise. I'm not mad at God; he doesn't exist. But the idea of a character that sits idly by, throwing earthquake after earthquake at innocent people, allowing innocent people to be raped, and killing those who haven't died from the first two horrors by giving them AIDS, cancer, and malaria...the idea of that character having the ability to stop all these atrocities yet choose not to is insulting to their families and loved ones. Claiming that this character chose not to stop (or chose to actually cause) these things while having the power to and also being omni-benevolent is contradictory and impossible. Claiming that this character simultaneously sends the people he kills to hell, despite being omni-potent and omni-benevolent, is contradictory and impossible. Claiming that this character is real without calling him "Satan" is delusional. Claiming that this character is worthy of worship is why I'm mad.

Problem of Evil

The Old Testament Still Matters!

     

1/4 of The Old Testament Still Matters Debate

Next 

     If there's one thing that gets me upset when arguing about the Bible, it's when people say, "Well, that's the OLD Testament" Seriously, this is the laziest and most incorrect excuse that pretty much every Christian I've talked to has brought up.  This mindset precipitates into a couple of other horrible arguments:

1. That was the culture at the time!
2. This is out of context!
3. You're just cherry-picking!

      In this post, I'm going to be showing you why these arguments are horrible. I will be using a few arguments Phillip has made in previous blog posts and debates, so go back and read those if you haven't already. If you're lazy and don't want to read those, I'll give a little context with the quote. I've touched on some of these points in previous posts as well, but I can clearly see that my point has not come across. The common thread you'll find between all the points I've made is that God made these Laws/said this.

      Let's begin with the first point: "That was the culture at the time!". My response is, "Yes. Yes it was the culture at the time." This argument is accurate, but the implication is deeper than they realize. For reference, here is one use of the argument:

   *For the sake of this example, let's ignore my entire argument on why this implies women are property.* 

     This claim is made in response to this Law, and it's very true. Virginity in this culture was very important, and the Law based around this idea makes sense when put in this cultural context. My main problem with this is Why does God conform to the culture of primitive desert people? I've been over this argument with another Christian, and it makes zero sense as to why an omni-everything God would make a Law that penalizes both the rapist and his victim rather than just the rapist. In fact, I made up a Law that would solve this whole problem instantly: 

     "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, the man who has done this shall be put to death, and the woman declared a virgin, for the man has taken that which the Lord has given her. Any virgin who has been raped has their virginity restored to them, because what the Lord has given once, he can also give again."

      There we go! Rapists die rather than marry their victims forever, and raped virgin women get their status back! Stop putting God in a box; he doesn't have to conform to the culture at the time! This  in itself is problematic, because although it was the culture at the time, there is no reason at all why God should forfeit setting up a new, infinitely better culture in favor of modifying the existing one. Like, for real; God could've changed up the culture to have a perfect system of justice and economy, but instead he creates a system where people are murdered for being unproductive, wearing cloth of two different fabrics, and planting two different crops on the same field. Doesn't that set off an alarm  in any of you? That we have made current laws that are more good, more correct, and more justifying than God's laws? "That was the culture at the time!" is a horrible excuse, especially when using it to justify God's thought process and mindset on justice. It only lets us label his sense of justice as horribly flawed and primitive. 

       Number 2 on my list is "This is out of context!" This is a valid argument if used correctly, and it is usually used with number 1 as context of the culture. Context is key, and all things can be taken out of context, but when someone says "This is out of context!" and fails to give any reason why, then why believe them? If you're going to claim that something I used was out of context, then please enlighten us on what the true context is. (Phillip's context on the passage from Deuteronomy is spot-on; it's just that it shows how God is super bad at even the slightest critical thinking.)

     This little bit I took from the same paragraph as the example I used for number one. Don't talk in absolutes. When claiming that ALL of my quotes from the OT are out of context, then you have to show the true context for all of them, which you don't do.

      Number 3 is the funniest because of how ironic it is. The great thing about disproving a book or God that claims to be absolutely anything is that all I have to do is cherry-pick one contradiction or immoral act and I'm good to go. Telling me that I'm cherry-picking is like saying "Yeah, God is immoral here, but he isn't immoral over here!" It doesn't matter; the problem is that he's immoral at all! That's why my entire job is to cherry-pick! And remember, who's cherry-picking depends on perspective. To me, you cherry-pick the good and leave the bad, but to you, I cherry-pick the bad and leave the good; the bad is all I need to prove my point. 

I had this one titled "Baby-Spiking" in my notes LOL
Psalm 137:9

     The last two points usually fall under number 1, in that the context is the culture, or that I'm cherry-picking events that are solely caused by the culture. But once again, and I've stated this many times before, the Laws of the Old Testament were made by God himself. The Law that says women are twice as unclean as men? God, not the culture. The one that implies women are property and is flawed for the previously stated reasons? God, not the culture. The one that sanctions priest-led abortion? God, not the culture. The ones that endorse slavery, genocide, and the killing of innocent infants, livestock, and pregnant women? Yet again, God; not the culture.

     The stories of God and the Israelites also holds value in the Old Testament. They show us God's thought process through his actions, which turns out to be very, very, evil. Like, this guy tells the Israelites to straight up murder the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites-basically all the nearby people-for potentially corrupting Israelite culture. Sounds eerily similar to a certain dictator I know of...

"Kill the Jews!"- Hitler
"Kill the Jews people around the Jews!"- God

       
      The Old Testament DOES matter. It matters because it is a timeline of God's actions and decrees. The Mosaic Laws are his commands. Israel's actions are his commands (at least whenever they obey him). Even if you don't derive your lifestyle from his commands-and hopefully you don't-extreme value can be found in knowing God! So stop telling me, "Well, that was the Old Testament, and the culture was different at the time", because unless God changes to fit the culture at the time (hint: he doesn't), his mindset in ancient times is the same today. That argument is extremely short-sighted, and unless you can show me how I misquoted something or any other reason that it was the culture and not God, then don't claim that I took something out of context, and don't blame the culture. Blame God.

*I will revisit the aforementioned passages with more detail and analysis in future blog posts. I just had to bring them up to show my point that all of these things are literally God's commands. Yes, they are terrible, evil things. But hey, as long is you still believe God is omni-benevolent...well, have fun justifying slavery, genocide, and baby/livestock/pregnant women killing!*

Women are Inferior, Property, and Unclean - Rebuttal

            3/4 of Women are Inferior Debate

           Previous       Next 

           Before I begin, I'd like to mention how much I love when you guys come to me with your own opinions and interpretations on the topics I review. It's always great to get another argument to wrestle with, and if one of you comes to me with an argument that can't be refuted, well... I'll have to change my mind (gasp!). Anyway, in this rebuttal I'll be addressing only Phillip's arguments, but you can come up to me anytime you'd like and share your argument and I'll try to refute it, or you can leave a comment below. The more the merrier!

         To start off, I want to remind all of you what my claims were: Women are inferior [to men], property [of men], and unclean [more so than men]. These were my claims, which I reinforced with God's actions and Laws as well as Paul's words. Phillip's job in his rebuttal was to refute these claims, but he seems to have failed in doing this. As we progress through all of his points, I will remind you that he has not disproved any of these claims, but rather came to conclusions that did not logically follow from his arguments (non sequiturs). 

        I'm just going to skip over the first two paragraphs because all he does is straw-man my arguments (I never claimed God hated women, nor did I say the story of Samson was sexist propaganda), propose that I'm using the Bible to promote my personal view of women(I'm not sexist/misogynistic, ladies. I probably support more women's rights than most of you do), and refuses to disprove my claims directly by stating why my interpretations are wrong. Because of this last point, I still stand by them as true, with their arguments in my first post, until proven wrong.

          For his first claim derived from Genesis 1:27, I can totally understand his interpretation and do not disagree with it at all. I see no problem with this verse saying God created both man and woman in his own image. The truth, however, is that the Bible is so full of contradictions, you can find a passage that supports one claim,and then another passage supporting the exact opposite-hence why these debates are so interesting! For example, if we take it that man and woman is created in God's image-as was stated in Genesis 1:27-why is it that Paul says man was created in God's image and reflects God's glory, but woman reflects man's glory? Well, Paul's rationale is, "For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." This plays more into the common idea of the NT that women are subservient and under the authority of men, but it also shows that women reflect the glory of man; not God. This is at odds with the Genesis verse, and also with Galatians 3:28. This is why I hate when people use Paul against this argument. They say "Paul said we are all equal through Jesus Christ.", which he did say, while Paul ALSO says that women should wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of man, while men should NOT wear head coverings during prayer because they are the glory of God. Glory of man and glory of God are quite different, unequal distinctions; especially when it's the basis for women submitting to men! I actually encourage all of you to read the full section, 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, because there is a fun tidbit at the end that says if you disagree with this notion of head coverings, you are opposed to what all the churches of God teach.

            Phillip's examples of female leaders and prophets of Israel is where the illogical conclusions are found. In listing off these important female figures, he claims that "Daniel's really having problems with his "property of men and not human beings" narrative now," What he fails to realize is that just because women lead Israel at certain times and fulfilled God's agenda, it does not logically follow that they aren't property of men and not human beings. God also used a talking donkey to fulfill His agenda, so obviously there isn't a strict criteria to be met in order to serve God's will and be one of God's pawns. Women being leaders and prophets does not disprove my claim; women can still be property of men and do God's work just as a donkey can still be property of men and do God's work. Don't be mistaken here though; I'm not equating women to donkeys (even the rare talking ones). I'm merely showing how you don't have to be equal to a man in status in order to serve God's will. 

God: You were useful, but I'm afraid I can't make you an official priest...

          Phillip makes more illogical jumps, such as when he says "We have the story of Mary, mother of Jesus.", to which I say "so what?" Jesus was born of a woman, therefore women are equal to men? What conclusion do we draw from the obvious assertion that people are born from females? I can tell you that no conclusion can be drawn that disproves my claims! Again, he implies another illogical conclusion when he says "We have the stories of the female followers of Christ, who became the first missionaries when they spoke of His resurrection." And similarly, "so what?" Women were walking by when they found Jesus' tomb open, and later told others. There is no logical conclusion to draw from this that disproves my claims in the very least! As for Jesus saving an adulteress, I have no response. Good on you, Jesus, for sparing this sinful woman! But this once again does not disprove any of my claims. The Church being female...I have no idea how to react to this horrible example. It's like claiming that since the word "spoon" in Spanish is feminine, by not eating with a spoon I am being sexist. I'm baffled that this was even included...

Summary of Phillip's rebuttal

         At the end, Phillip comes to this conclusion: "Daniel is wrong. These are not our views, they’re not the views of Jesus, and they're most certainly not the views of God." How he could possibly come to this conclusion despite disproving none of my Scripture-based arguments is a mystery; especially given that none of his arguments logically suggested any contrary opinions-with the exception of Genesis 1:27. I'm hoping that after reading this, some of you out there will see the power that willful ignorance has; denying well-grounded claims while affirming illogical ones. Please, people, try to keep an open mind. Most of you probably read Phillip's rebuttal and simply agreed due to confirmation bias-the tendency to accept ideas that coincide with ours and reject others. I'm telling you to look at each argument objectively and judge based off of actual logic and reason rather than hold onto unreasonable explanations. Thanks for reading, guys, if you got this far. I appreciate being heard :)