...and so it goes...

For those watching at home:

It started here

Then to Rhology's Blog and continued

First, I fail at posting comments. ;) Second, it has become apparent that we have completely different worldviews, and methodologies. It would seem we are talking past each other. Third, your tone has improved, and I thank you.

2) “Would not a refusal to modify your vocabulary accordingly demonstrate bias on your part?”

I prefer to use words that describe actions/events as accurately as possible. I apologize if you take issue with it. I will wholeheartedly admit I am completely against the barbaric, immoral, medically unnecessary process of male genital mutilation. It is inhumane and it should have baggage. Am I correct in inferring your support for the practice? What of female genital mutilation? If not, wouldn't this demonstrate sexism on your part?

3) “Then may I ask why you made the claim? Did you have any reason, any justification for it, or think you did when you wrote it?”
Justification is the intent of my paragraph following that statement, to explain how and why I arrived at that conclusion.

“True, it's unclear who the HUMAN author was. Christians also accept that God is the fundamental (aka "other") author, though.”

This is where I start to realize we have two completely different epistemological methods. This is a HUGE claim. Please provide evidence for: The existence of a God, the properties of God, the character and intentions of God, then use these features to show why God would be interested in creating ambiguous literature.

“I'd say it's b/c God wrote it, and b/c it actually discusses historical people, in the past tense.”

It was not written as a historical record, it was written as a letter. The apparent intent is to spread christian doctrine.

"Certainly it does. I'd contend that it brings up the ppl it brings up precisely b/c an important part of their lives and careers was relevant to the discussion. It's significant to talk about them b/c faith and resurrection were active in their lives, as opposed to bringing up some guy named Joe who didn't have faith and who died after an unremarkable 40-year life.”
The concept of faith is apparent in the original story of Abraham and Isaac, the concept of resurrection is not. This letter was written somewhere around 1000 years after the event. You agree on the intentions of the text: to spread christian theology. The author does this by projecting his world view, into the past and overlaying it on the Hebrew's history.

“What if God were writing it and knew Abraham's heart better than even Ab did, and chose to reveal it more fully in Hebrews?”

See above.

4) “Also, "multiple sources" =/= textual variant.”
Multiple sources/writers/authors often lead to textual variations. It is true in modern times and is especially true in antiquity.

“I'd ask you at this point: given naturalism, why would you believe that ANYthing is compelling, given that you're merely matter in motion, receiving and reacting on neural impulses over which you (since "you" don't exist; matter exists and you're a material machine) have no external control?”

This is my favorite question raised so far, and worthy its own blog post, if not entire books. I assure you I will answer it, hopefully later this week, time permitting.

5)”They had their origin in God, not in man.”

Proof?

“what reason do you think the apostles might have had to throw away all their religious acceptance and such for the sake of a guy who they knew wasn't God (if indeed they knew for sure that they'd hidden the body and that Jesus didn't really rise from the dead)?”

Jesus, if he existed, could have been quite the charismatic speaker/leader. There are many examples of groups of people following charismatic personality's even unto the grave. IE Jonestown, Heavens Gate. What if they simply went to the wrong tomb? Or perhaps they were not complicit in the body snatching? Maybe, they saw what they wanted to see. What of the textual incongruity’s between the gospels? If there is an all powerful loving God, who sent his son as the only way to salvation, don't you think He would have made sure the story was written down correctly?

6) “I wouldn't say that asking for "evidence of God's character" is the right way to go about it.”

Asking for evidence is not the correct way to go about looking for answers?

“Rather, we either accept that claim at face value or we accept another. Accepting any other leads to absurdity (and when I say "absurdity", I mean it as a serious charge, haha)”

What if God doesn't exist, how does that lead to absurdity?

“thus by process of elimination I don't see a good reason to say that God's character is not in fact absolute and unchanging. Especially b/c He said it is.”

Please explain how the authors of the Bible stating the unchanging nature of God, is any more true than the writers of Enuma Elish stating attributes of their gods?

“I would suggest that you're not reading them correctly.”

So you are not a literalist?

“For one thing, did you know that the NT discusses eternal torment in Hell MUCH more frequently than does the OT?”

I did know that. In fact in the Hebrew Bible there is hardly any mention of an afterlife or a “satan” at all.

“Have you ever looked at OT/NT with a view to the different situations in which the people of God (rather than God Himself) lived?”

Are you saying the people of God were changing, therefore their writing of God is changing? Doesn't that undermine divine authorship?

“This is shifting morality? God condemns Ananias and Sapphira to death in Acts 5, and Jesus says in Luke about some ppl who died when a tower fell on them: "I say to you that you too must repent or you will likewise perish". Jesus predicted the razing of Jerusalem in AD 70 and warned the unrepentant Jews that this judgment would fall on them. Etc.
God has the right to put anyone to death anytime, remember? And every day, 1000s of ppl die.”

It's not death alone that's the problem. Joshua chapter 8, under God's command, killed ALL the inhabitants of Ai, men, women, children, everything but the cattle. Numbers 31:17, after winning the war, Moses commands the murder of all the male children, and women who are pregnant. These are things we find morally despicable today, even in wartime. Would you argue God still commands us to kill even the innocent among our enemy’s? Does God still want us to commit genocide?

Yet it is commanded, then Jesus tells us later only the blameless can cast stones.
“Are you familiar with the actual Mosaic law regarding how adulterers were to be punished? Namely, that BOTH parties should be present? That the whole reason they brought the woman to Him like that was to hypocritically test Him?”

I am quite aware that it was a test. Are you suggesting that it was not intended as a moral principal?
“And thanks for the link to commonsenseatheism. I'm afraid that I can't take Luke too seriously, given his propensity to delete my comments, which I assure you contained no unseemly content or profanity.”

So because Luke doesn't take you seriously, you dismiss his writings? Judging from your commentary past and blog, you do seem to get quite an antagonistic tone at times. IE One reason you give for blogging: ”To tweak brittle atheists and watch them foam at the mouth.” I am not sure I would want that sort of antagonism around my blog either. The point of the link was to reference the problems with theistic bound ethics. Have you had a chance to read and respond?

“But as for Fyfe, I'm still waiting for him to let us all know how we can know which desires are moral to have and act upon.”

http://www.alonzofyfe.com/article_du.shtml I do not completely buy into his flavor of utilitarianism, but it is interesting.

Well, sure, but the question is not whether people can "do ethics", but how they justify those ethics.

My point is: we are past the point of easy answers. Do I have the answers, heck no, but I am looking. What good would it have been if we accepted God as the solution for the orbits of the planets, or the devil for mental illness?