Isaiah 41:21-24 vs Luke 4:12

[NeoGreen]

Last edited Wed Jul 17, 2019, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

http://biblehub.com/isaiah/41-21.htm

Isaiah 41:21
"Present your case," says the LORD. "Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King.

Isaiah 41:22
"Tell us, you idols, what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come,

Isaiah 41:23
tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear.

Isaiah 41:24
But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; whoever chooses you is detestable.

http://biblehub.com/luke/4-12.htm

Luke 4:12
Jesus answered, "It is said: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'"

[shenmue]

1. Cherry-picking. Not funny.

Again, why isn't this group called "I don't like religious people"?

All you do is come here to start shit.

[marylandblue]

3. Personally, I am not anti-religious

But cherry-picking is the norm for religion. I've read the Bible cover to cover, and I was surprised to find out how many Christians haven't, but still have their favorite out of context quotes.

[trotsky]

5. It's actually a difficult question, which is why many Christians attack those who ask it.

How do you determine which parts of the bible to take literally?

Would you like to try answering the question?

[marylandblue]

7. I do know Christians who are game to try

But the ones here don't like those questions.

[whathehell]

70. The "ones here" may not "like those questions'

because they're sick of the lack of balance here, of being the only"acceptable" religion to hate...Unlike some other religions
who are accorded "cultural sensitivity" they are under constant attack and shown no respect at all.

[marylandblue]

71. Maybe so. I try to be balanced myself

But I can't vouch for the perception of others.

[whathehell]

74. ---------

I'm glad you're aware of it, at least, and that you make the effort. It's more than I can say for most here.

[trotsky]

90. I don't hate any religion.

I hate religion being given special privileges and protected from criticism, as you are attempting to do here.

And that applies to ALL religions. I am an equal-opportunity offender.

[whathehell]

27. Um..The same applies to the Torah and the Qu'ran..

So it's not only Christians, I'm afraid.

[trotsky]

40. No shit.

But the majority of people on this board, and in this country, are Christians.

Thanks for trying though.

[NeoGreen]

41. "Whataboutism"...

... in a classic mode.

[trotsky]

42. You got it! n/t

[whathehell]

44. ..Shit.

Your claim that "the majority of people on this board are Christian" is completely unsubstantiated, but even if true, wouldn't justify aiming your anti-theistic bile solely at one group

If you want to continue posing as "rational" even handed atheists, I'm afraid you'll have to try harder.

[trotsky]

45. LMAO

You take care now.

[NeoGreen]

47. Is someone missing the point that...

...the general atheist position (i.e. the god hypothesis is not proven) can be universally applied to all such claims, regardless of the "flavor" of the claim?

Is it that simple?

[trotsky]

48. Well, I have been spewing the "bile"...

of asking how we know what parts of the bible are to be taken literally.

I mean, honestly, how terrible of me to ask that. I am clearly an awful person.

[whathehell]

50. Is that your idea of a "rebuttal"?

Try again.

[trotsky]

54. Oh, did you give me something to rebut?

Perhaps you're up to the task?

You could really shut me up and humiliate me, if you would just answer the question I asked:

How do you determine which parts of the bible to take literally?

You could start by identifying the parts that YOU take literally, and why you take only those parts and not any other parts that others take literally.

Go for it. If you can. Bet you can't though.

[whathehell]

58. Lol..Sure.

I'd be happy to answer your question when you're able to show good faith by extending it to the other religions whose identical problems you acknowledge.

Go for it if you can: bet you can't though.

[trotsky]

60. SURE, THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM.

Any religion based on divine revelation and/or a holy book, yep.

But the thing is, I never said they didn't. I'm not singling out Christianity - I was focused on it because that's the majority faith both in this country and among believers on DU. It's also the faith of the person I replied to.

I have no idea why that was some kind of stumbling block for you, but it's gone now.

Please proceed.

[Mariana]

63. Trotsky did, and I will too.

Hello, non-Christian religious people. Please explain how you determine which parts of your religious texts to take literally, and which you consider to be fiction.

[whathehell]

68. Really lame..

[trotsky]

88. See post #60.

And please proceed.

[MineralMan]

6. Once again, this is not the Religious Group.

It is the Religion Group. Religion is the topic here. Anyone may discuss that topic here from any perspective.

Religion is not protected in this DU group. It is discussed.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. That post is about a religion, not about religious people.

Try not to make everything about you.

[trotsky]

10. What's unfortunate is that this is exactly how the right shuts down political debate, too.

Make it about their religious beliefs, which are precious and mustn't be challenged.

Sad to see the same tactic used here.

[MineralMan]

11. Yet, all the while they are challenging the beliefs of

everyone not part of their own sect of Christianity.

Ugly stuff, all around.

[whathehell]

30. Sorry to tell you, but all Right Wingers aren't Christians of any kind

let alone Fundies, who do, by the way, comprise only about 30 percent of American Christians.

[trotsky]

46. Oh, I wasn't aware that you and you alone got to decide who is or isn't a Christian.

Must be nice to be able to judge others.

Oh wait, Christians aren't supposed to do that...

[whathehell]

59. Really?...Gee, you've just told us that "most on this board are Christian"

So I guess it's YOU and you alone who "got to decide who were Christians". Lame much?

[trotsky]

61. Uh, because that's what they identify as?

Are a majority of believers on this site Muslim? Hindu? Some other faith? All equally likely or equally distributed? In a majority Christian country where a majority of both political parties are Christian? You're right, I'm making a terrible assumption.

I have no idea what victory you think you've scored, or even what point you were trying to make. Or perhaps it was that yes, only you get to decide who is a Christian. After all, you expressly did it in post #30.

Why do you get to judge?

[whathehell]

69. Uh, you mean DU members? I've seen FEW here identify in religious terms of

any sort...Of those that do, I've seen at least as many Jews and even more atheists

P..S. I do hope that you haven't simply "assumed" a majority of Christians here on the simple basis of they're being the majority in the country...That would be a mistake, unless, of course, you think DU members are a representative sample of the overall population..If you believe that, I may have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

[trotsky]

89. Ohhh I see your confusion.

Majority of DU members vs. majority of DU believers. I neglected to specify I was referring to BELIEVERS. I agree that despite Christians being a large majority in the USA, and a large majority of Democrats and Republicans, there could only be a few on DU. Perhaps you're the only one. I can't be certain, nope.

Now see post #60, and please proceed. Show me what a good Christian looks like. Engage in some honest debate.

[whathehell]

99. Lol..No, bro, the "confusion" is all yours.

and, as indicated, it's manifested in your poor communication skills. Have a good one.

[trotsky]

107. I understand why you chose to bow out.

I have asked a very difficult question - one no theist has been able to answer yet.

I am not surprised you felt the need to insult me on the way out, either.

Take care and I hope your religion brings you peace instead of anger and hatred.

[Act_of_Reparation]

62. You obviously know a lot about statistics.

[Mariana]

64. How can fundies be 30% of Christians if they aren't Christians?

You're not making sense.

[whathehell]

65. Excuse me, but I never made that statement..

so I'm afraid it's you who is "not making sense".

[trotsky]

91. LMAO you DID make that statement.

You said: "...Fundies, who do, by the way, comprise only about 30 percent of American Christians."

So the fundies both ARE and ARE NOT Christians?

LOLOLOLOL

[whathehell]

96. You really don't know what "comprise" means, do you?

You might want to increase your vocabulary..

[trotsky]

97. I sure do!

But you CLEARLY do not.

com·prise
kəmˈprīz/
verb: comprise; 3rd person present: comprises; past tense: comprised; past participle: comprised; gerund or present participle: comprising

consist of; be made up of.
"the country comprises twenty states"
synonyms: consist of, be made up of, be composed of, contain, encompass, incorporate;
"the country comprises twenty states"
make up; constitute.
"this single breed comprises 50 percent of the Swiss cattle population"
synonyms: make up, constitute, form, compose; account for
"this breed comprises half the herd"

Holy shit dude you're just embarrassing yourself more. PLEASE keep going.

[whathehell]

98. Now you do, lol..Nothing like a public blunder of the semantic kind

to bring the blunderer to a dictionary.

Talk about "embarrassing yourself". Go for it!

[Pope George Ringo II]

101. You...ah...just celebrated putting your foot in your mouth and then shooting it.

"Comprise" means exactly what he thinks it means.

[whathehell]

105. You...ah..have lost track of the thread..ah

I never denied his newly discovered dictionary definition.

Try and keep up..ah.

[Pope George Ringo II]

106. Actually, you did deny the dictionary definition in post 65.

That's a big part of the reason pretty much everybody is looking at you and wondering why you find it so funny that you're utterly incoherent.

[whathehell]

110. No, dear...Read it again

What post 65 says is "I never made that statement"....To understand that, you have to know what the statement I was referring to actually says...When you find it, you may finally understand what this about.

[Pope George Ringo II]

111. Actually, I think I've finally got your mistake figured out.

Just so we're clear, when you said "All Right Wingers aren't Christians of any kind," back in post 30, that's not the tired old "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy denying the existence of Mike Pence, that's actually just a poorly built sentence where you meant to say something more like "not all Right Wingers are Christians of any kind," right?

It sure looks like you made a grammar mistake rather than a logical or vocabulary mistake.

[whathehell]

113. Lol, my mistake and theirs..I knew it wasn't one of logic or vocabulary

The others were too eager for the "gotcha" to see it. Thanks.

[trotsky]

108. Wow.

Well, I'll let the readers here be the judge of who understands what the word "comprise" means.

They can decide who to laugh at then.

[Pope George Ringo II]

100. In some ways, this is even weirder than the atheism strawman deliberate misdefinition.

Just bizarre.

[trotsky]

109. Isn't it?

Religion makes people do strange stuff indeed.

[Mariana]

115. Put religion and self-righteous rage together, and it gets even weirder. nt.

[trotsky]

116. "self-righteous rage"

Now that's some accurate terminology.

[whathehell]

67. Bravo!!

Now let's see what kind of response you get.

[Voltaire2]

16. Oh look another atheist badz post.

I’ve been told they are all in my imagination and yet here is another one.

This forum is not the group hug for belivers forum. There are several faith safe havens where perhaps you would be more comfortable. I suggest trashing this forum as all aspects of religion are discussed here and that appears to cause you to get upset.

[guillaumeb]

19. No, this is yet another "theists badz" post.

Sometimes the choir can sing softly, some days it can sing loudly. But always it is the same simple melody.

[Voltaire2]

21. actually it is about theological hypocrisy

it says nothing about theists.

On the other hand the person I responded to wrote:
"All you do is come here to start shit."

Which is in fact a personal attack on an atheist.

[guillaumeb]

22. And personal attacks are unknown here?

Speaking of irony, your own response could easily be characterized as a personal attack.

[Voltaire2]

23. no obviously they aren't unknown. In fact they are quite common.

A frequent one is the trope I have labelled "atheists badz".

But now we are just going in circles. Your turn to deny that this happens.

[guillaumeb]

24. You illustrated what you previously condemned.

If either one happens in this forum, I will join you in condemning it. And I will keep looking for the "atheists badz" posts, but I must confess to not finding any so far.

[Voltaire2]

25. excellent! Right on cue.

you never fail.

[guillaumeb]

26. I am not infallible, but I am close.

And your own personal attack. Do you recognize that you did it?

[sprinkleeninow]

102. 😉

[guillaumeb]

112. Exactly.

And that might explain the non-response.

[whathehell]

32. No it's not..Again, it's selectively aimed at Christian theological "hypocrisy" despite

the fact that it's no less prevalent in the Torah and the 'Qu'ran.
Next.

[whathehell]

29. Exactly....Thanks guillaumeb...It needs to be pointed out, especially since

99% of the time the only religion being trashed is Christianity......Funny, that.

[guillaumeb]

31. It is the dominant US religion.

So I understand the focus, but not the illogic of exhibiting what one claims to oppose.

[whathehell]

33. Not an excuse.. Not for the level of imbalance displayed. n/t.

[guillaumeb]

35. No, it is no excuse in my view either.

If we claim to oppose intolerance, it helps to demonstrate what we claim to oppose.

[whathehell]

38. Yes, they are VERY selective about what religion they target..

They like it "safe" and easy -- Minus those allegations of "cultural insensitivity".

[sprinkleeninow]

103. 'Christianity' sets some 'teeth on edge' like no other. 🤔

[guillaumeb]

114. Perhaps because they feel "surrounded" by Christians.

But, inevitably, as humans evolve, theism will slowly fade. Or such they believe.

[whathehell]

75. Thank you..

Talk about "hypocrisy".

[Lordquinton]

17. Same reason it's not called "I don't like Non-religious peoeple"

This is another great answer to the question "why can't discussion happen"? because questions about literally anything to do with religion is seen as offencive. The basic position of an atheist, god doesn't exist (or however you want to phrase it to be semantically pleasing) is seen as offencive by theists, so the whole discussion is derailed before it can even start.

[guillaumeb]

20. You are not supposed to comment on that.

It raises a discordant note.

[PragmaticDem]

28. That is a good name for the group.

[whathehell]

39. It does sometimes feel more like "Atheist Underground"

than anything else.

[Iggo]

72. I don't hate religious people. I think belief in a god or gods by a grown person is ridiculous.

But I don't hate religious people.

[marylandblue]

2. You are about to find out you are taking the Bible too literally

I don't know what those passages really mean, but since you can't prove anything, they mean whatever you want them to mean.

But while we are at, Malachi 3:10 also ought not be taken too literally,

"Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it."

Except if your Joel Osteen, it seems to have worked out well for him.

[Cartoonist]

4. The Deity test

That's always bothered me. All these miracles Jesus is alleged to have performed are not evidence of divinity, otherwise David Copperfield would be regarded as a god.

This would have gone a long way to convincing me that Jesus was someone special. Had he produced a globe with all the continents on it. If he told everyone that the Earth orbits the sun. He could have described the known planets and revealed the unknown ones.

He didn't do any of that. He didn't do anything to show that he knew more than the current level of knowledge of his time.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Knowledge of his time, and limited geographical knowledge of his culture.

He said, to my knowledge, nothing of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, nothing of cultures of Asia, nothing even of Europe.

[MineralMan]

12. Better check the Book of Mormon on that.

And there's this, too, from SANANDA ESU IMMANUEL :

https://iamsananda.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/he-walked-the-americas-evidence-of-jesus-by-native-americans/

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Foiled again!

[guillaumeb]

36. It is called connecting to His audience.

Would you speak to a primary level school class of advanced physics? And if you did, would you use the same references and technical terms?

[Cartoonist]

43. Dumbing down

For someone who believes, you just insulted Jesus. I think even children could comprehend talk of celestial bodies without having to get into advanced physics. Besides, I am not asking for Einstein like discussions. Why couldn't Jesus just drop a hint at something unknown at the time?

Answer, he didn't know more than his audience. Conclusion: he was just a man like everyone else. No divinity, no son of God.

[guillaumeb]

49. Your conclusion is completely illogical and emotion based.

But as long as you realize that, it is your conclusion to make.

[Cartoonist]

51. My conclusion is illogical?

And your conclusion that a man is really the son of an omnipotent being who created the universe is sound thinking? You do realize how ridiculous that is, right? Your belief is 100% emotional completely sans logic.

[guillaumeb]

52. As long as you realize that your own decision is emotion based and unprovable.

And that is obviously difficult for some to admit.

[Cartoonist]

55. My decision is provable

Fact: There is no proof that God exists.

That's all. No emotion necessary.

[guillaumeb]

56. Your assertion is your opinion.

Based on emotion and reason in varying proportions.

[Cartoonist]

57. Huh

So you are defining me now.

[whathehell]

77. No, I'm afraid it's not -- One can't prove a negative.

The best you can do is point to a lack of proof.

In centuries past, one could as easily have "decided" that the disease causing didn't exist because no instrument was yet available to prove otherwise....The problem with strict empiricism is it's heavy dependence on technology.

[Cartoonist]

78. That's what I said

A lack of proof. That's all that is needed to make someone an atheist. When you come up with some proof, then I will become a theist.

[whathehell]

79. Um, no you didn't...

You said you could "prove" your decision,, but "deciding" to become an atheist or even a theist "proves" nothing. It simply shows us your criteria for making al decision, it doesn't prove the validity of the idea upon which the decision was based.

[Cartoonist]

80. Here's the proof

Statement: There is no proof that God exists.

The above statement is TRUE.

[whathehell]

81. Um, we've already discussed that but you don't seem to be getting it..

Do you think that everything that truly exists has ALREADY been discovered and "proven"?...If so, I guess we're lucky you're a cartoonist instead of a scientist.

[Cartoonist]

82. Discovery

As things get discovered, I believe in them. I don't believe in unicorns or Santa. You don't need to be a scientist, just a realist.

[whathehell]

83. That's fine, but it's a limited outlook, imo

I'd dispute your self designation as a "Realist" in favor of a "Right Now -ist" one. In times past, you'd likely have been good with the "evil humors" theory of disease.

[Cartoonist]

84. Perhaps

Yes, I might have gone with the then current state of medical practice. That's the magnificence of science. As new discoveries are made, practices are revised.

Religion seldom changes. When was the last time the Bible was updated? The Bible still supports slavery. Do you?

[whathehell]

85. Perhaps..

and no, two thousand year old books can't change, but, interpretations can and do. Have a nice one.

[Cartoonist]

92. And there you have it

2000 year old religious books can't change, but 2 year old science books can. Slavery is still slavery and can not be interpreted any differently. Doctors no longer use leeches. I'll take science any day over religion.

[whathehell]

95. Lol..Actually, doctors HAVE started using leeches again..

You can google it.

[trotsky]

94. Interpretations can indeed.

Could be that people will start interpreting it that women must remain subservient to men.

Oh wait, some already do. And you can't tell them they're wrong.

[sprinkleeninow]

104. What is the appeal, enticement, siren call

of this group that makes one wanna be heard?

[whathehell]

37. Um, are you familiar with other religious books BESIDES the Bible?

You will hear little to nothing about them here, but I suggest you acquaint yourself with them..You'll find other things to arouse your skepticism

[Act_of_Reparation]

93. Cool story, bro.

[Ferrets are Cool]

14. "They Hypocrisy Religion"

[Igel]

15. Let's conjugate that.

"I hypocrisy religion
"Thou hypocrisy religionest"
"He hypocrisy religions"
...


Except that the quotes are taken out of context. By somebody who claims to know better and condemns those who take quotes out of contexts.

I guess the past tense is "he hypocrisy religioned" and the progressive is "he is hypocrisy religioning."

[Ferrets are Cool]

18. LOL It was early when I typed that....thats my story

and I am sticking to it. THE THE THE THE THE Hypocrisy Religion.

[whathehell]

34. "The hypocrisy atheism"

How's that?

[Corvo Bianco]

53. Thanks bro! Sorry it's like breaking the news about Santa Claus

Every damn time.

[Iggo]

73. Santa Claus.

Exactly.

[thbobby]

76. To each their own

Believe in God. Fine, your choice.

Don't believe in God? Your choice too.

Sure some of the Bible is contradictory. So what. Belief in God is based on faith.

I do not believe in God. My choice. I won't tell others their choice is wrong unless it causes harm to others.

Justifying war with Religion is wrong. Believing atheists or agnostics have no sense of altruism is also wrong.

[Voltaire2]

86. A discussion in which we learned that atheists don't hate enough religions.

fascinating.

[NeoGreen]

87. Yes, very much so...

...


So, can the passages in the OP be interpreted to mean that Yahweh tells non-believers to go do science and believers to not test its "creation"? I.e. stay away from science and remain ignorant within faith alone?

If so, this could be a biblically based argument for NOMA, an ineffective one, but a possible line of dialog a theist might take.

Just askin'