Hello there, I'm an atheist

[mattrose]

I do not believe that torture and blood sacrifice solve problems, but that is the story of Jesus. I remember feeling deeply grateful for his sacrifice, but in those days I didn't question why, why should anyone have to be tortured because of sin? Why would innocent suffering be considered a solution to the anger of god?

That is not THE story of Jesus. That is AN interpretation of how the cross works. There are a number of different ways that Christians throughout history have understood the how the cross reconciles us to God. You have observed 1 interpretation (that God is furiously angry at sinful people and needs to see some blood to be appeased) and rejected it. I happen to reject that view too. I don't think the anger of God is the problem the needed to be solved by the cross. The Bible says the cross reconciled us to God, not God to us. If you'd like to hear different 'theories of atonement' than the 1 you are presently familiar with... we can talk about that.

Have you read deeply in the more unsavory parts of the Bible?

Sure, I have a naturally skeptical and analytical mind. I am drawn specifically to those parts of Scripture.

What do you think about the slavery

When an Israelite went bankrupt, the Law said they could work off their debt by serving the person they owed for up to 6 years (depending on the size of the debt). The Law protected those servants from abuse. Compared to the nations around them at the time, Israel's laws were a step in the right direction. God works progressively through history to improve conditions. The 'slavery' passages in the Old Testament are usually mis-interpreted by modern people because we have American slavery history in mind when we read the texts.

or the genocide

God wanted to plant the Israelites in the middle of the world's empires so that they could be the vessel to bring the love of God to the world. The Canaanites knew God was with Israel and capable of great miracles (God had delivered them from the mighty Egyptians). We have every reason to believe that most of the common people among the Canaanites fled before the Israelites even got there. Jericho was a military stronghold. Only stubborn soldiers, for the most part, stayed to challenge the Israelites for possession of the land. After the miracle at Jericho, even many of the stubborn remaining in the land may have fled. Others (like Rahab) converted. I don't think it can rightfully be called genocide. It was a war. And in war hyperbolic military language is used that makes modern readers think it was something akin to genocide. There are plenty of resources that address this subject that i could recommend to you if you are interested.

or the rape?

The Bible never approves of rape. You may be making the mistake of assuming that the Bible approves of everything it records. You need to remember that much of the Bible is narrative history. It is a record of what happened, not necessarily an endorsement of what happened.

Why would god accept the sacrifice of Jeptha's daughter?

I think you are assuming that Jepthah's daughter was sacrificed/killed. Again, that is just 1 interpretation. I don't think she died. I think she was given to the Lord for a lifetime of service to God. But even if she was killed... using that as an argument against God would be flawed because the point of the Book of Judges is that the Israelites were doing whatever they wanted, not what God wanted. If Jepthah killed his daughter, that was wrong. The Law specifically said not to do that!

Why was he jealous, and so full of anger, wrath and vengeance? Those stories didn't fit the narrative of a loving god I grew up with. They don't make sense, unless the book was written by people, ignorant people. Then it all fits. At least for me.

There is an appropriate form of jealousy (when a covenant relationship is being threatened). And there is an appropriate place for anger (when injustice is being done). Wrath is simply the withdraw of God's presence from those who don't want God's presence. We actually want God to bring justice to the world, which takes the form of vengeance against evildoers. It seems you've been overly influenced by the kind of theology that sees God as primarily (or 50%) angry and this has caused you to interpret much of the Old Testament in the worst possible way. I've got good news... there's a better way to interpret the Old Testament (with the light of Jesus).

Finally, I do doubt the existence of Jesus. I'm not as studied as I would like to be so I make no claims. He may have existed, he may not have. If you have any contemporary references to him, outside the bible, I'd like to know about them. As far as I have been able to tell he is not mentioned anywhere but the gospels until much later when Christianity was more established.

I've got more good news for you! But before we begin to provide evidence of Jesus as a historical figure, we should stop and ask ourselves what kinds and what degrees of evidence we should expect to find for a 1st century character like Jesus. It would be easy to over-estimate Jesus’ fame amongst his contemporaries. In fact, his public ministry lasted less than 4 years. During this time, his travels only extended about 120 miles north to south and about 30 miles east to west. There were no TV interviews, podcasts to download from the internet, and he never self-published a book. In a sense, then, we should be quite surprised to find any evidence of a 1st century Jewish teacher who died in the beginning years of his ministry. But in another sense, if Jesus really was God in the flesh, did miracles, and rose from the dead, one would think he would leave behind a historical trail!

Indeed, Jesus left a large literary legacy. The problem is that most atheists and skeptics deny that the bulk of these documents are admissible as evidence on the grounds that they were written by believers (for example, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John). But we should question this automatic dismissal of the Gospels. Indeed, believers wrote them, but these believers were also Jesus’ contemporaries and, in many cases, eyewitnesses to the events of his ministry. Very few ancient figures have as much written of them by contemporaries as Jesus.

Even if we dismiss the Gospel records, though, we are not left without evidence of Jesus’ existence. As a matter of fact, we have confirmation of Jesus’ life from 2 major Roman historians (Tacitus and Suetonius) and 1 major Jewish historian (Josephus) from the late 1st century.

Truth be told, even if we only accepted antagonistic sources like those mentioned above, we would still know the following pieces of information about Jesus:

1) Jesus was a 1st century figure
2) Jesus taught in Palestine
3) He performed extraordinary works
4) He was sentenced to death
5) Some claimed he rose from the dead

Thus, when we speak of Jesus as a historical figure, we are on solid ground. To question his existence is valid, but the investigation yields clear results. His historicity is beyond reasonable doubt.

The references to Jesus in Tacitus, Suetonius, and Josephus are easy to access online. As I said, I don't know of a single historian studied in these issues that rejects the existence of Jesus or any of the above 5 facts about his life.

[dizerner]

I do not believe that torture and blood sacrifice solve problems, but that is the story of Jesus. I remember feeling deeply grateful for his sacrifice, but in those days I didn't question why, why should anyone have to be tortured because of sin? Why would innocent suffering be considered a solution to the anger of god?

Unlike this modern trend I see for some Christians to deny clear Biblical truths, in a shameful irony, you the unbeliever see the clarity with which Scripture teaches this. Now there is a movement of "Christians embarrassed about Scripture and making it palatable somehow," so that we make sure God doesn't offend us somehow or is any way confusing to our natural understanding! (Jesus himself didn't seem at all concerned by that factor).

Your objection boils down to one simple point: God should reward and punish based only on the actions of each individual, and not on a method where one person's actions affects another's. Thus a fair scenario would be, every human being gets their own Garden of Eden where they clearly see and fellowship with God, and upon each one's disobedience, they alone would be removed from God's presence. Many Christians will try to squeeze this framework into all of Scripture (and it has a few stronghold passages like Calvinism).

The Bible unapologetically talks about the wrath of God against sin being unleashed on Christ. So much so, that Christ, who is said to be God in the flesh, pleaded with his Father for another way of salvation. Every sin we committed was laid upon his soul—his soul was made an offering for sin. We have many OT pictures to give us an understanding of what that kind of atonement and sacrifice means. This is a true and purest kind of hero, someone willing to take my place and bear my crimes—and then afterwards give me the power to live a new life. It certainly can't be called cosmic child abuse, since all parties were willing and in on the plan.

My answers to this objection would be:

1. Why should I trust an intuitive moral feeling within me, when I did not create it and don't know where it comes from?
2. Should I be unwilling to admit my intuition might be wrong? Should I be unwilling to submit to a higher revelatory source?

And in the end, clinging to how I "feel" about a truth God simply reveals to me, is simply rebellion against Him. After all, I don't think you wouldn't admit that your mind is limited or that it doesn't have all knowledge—what you are saying is, with the mental power you now have, it doesn't seem right or logical. But we have no logical reason to trust either our mental powers, or our moral intuitions—not only are they extremely limited in scope, but Scripture declares them fallen.

If one man pressed the code to fire off a volley of nuclear weapons, we can question why it was allowed. But knowing it happened there's only one reasonable course of action: find shelter. It would be a shame to be found arguing about whether or not this is something that makes sense, when the bombs drop. I've heard an atheist that said he'd rather pay for his own sins, he wouldn't feel right about someone else doing it. But this is just putting himself first, in a weird kind of way; he's welcome to throw his life away, he has that right.

I think what you really mean by this question is not whether the truth might seem illogical but how we can know it?

[ApostateltsopA]

We can reasonably state that murder is a greater harm than insulting is.

I've known atheists that disagreed with this. Once murder is committed, what does it matter? No conscious entity is in pain anymore. But words can hurt us with deep emotional pain we live with every day, while the murdered is simply in nonexistent bliss. We could measure the sorrow of the murdered person's loved ones, but what if no one knew the person? Do you see how even things you think are obvious aren't really?

Your atheist friend made the mistake of equating harm with pain right now. A murder victim has been robbed of all the potential they would ever have after the point of murder. A murderer has demonstrated harm to both their society and the murder victim. So no I don't see how things I see as obvious aren't really, though I do see how a clever person can use language to persuade for even terrible things.

A second thought, your objection requires a metaphysical reference point. Since the mind of the murder victim is gone no harm remains. I refer to the physical and social reference points, the body remains harmed to death and the society loses all that the victim could have contributed.

----====<<<<((((WARNING))))>>>>====----
Below this warning I'm going to be pretty critical of the bible and the stories contained therein. I will make specific reference to rape and genocide. I wanted to hide the text but that function seems not to work on this board. So read below at your own risk. It is nasty, nasty stuff and delves into the problem of evil. I don't want anyone to feel personally attacked, my ire is with the people who wrote a nasty story.

That is not THE story of Jesus. That is AN interpretation of how the cross works....

By this reasoning there is no "The" story of anything. All stories require the active participation of a mind, and are therefore up for some level of interpretation. However the phrase, 'Jesus died for our sins' is a very common one throughout Christianity and it implies that killing Jesus solved problems. Since the problem involved God and his anger with sin, it seems a worthy set of questions, why sin at all? why does killing make god less angry? Is it moral to have one person suffer to remove judgment from another? Is judgment moral in the first place? That is a huge topic, and if you want to look into it we can get a new thread on the basic premise of Christianity, from Eden to the Cross. If you like I can start it, though probably not tonight.

Slavery - Your depiction of slavery applied to Jewish men only. Jewish women and any gentile were slaves for life. The bible has helpful advice about how much each person could be beaten, and what punishment would befall the owner. As far as I can tell, the only times a slave owner was punished was if the slave lost an eye, a knee, or died in under two days after a beating. If they lived more than two days after it, then all was well. Oh and if a owner owned both a mother and daughter he was only to take one or the other as concubine, not both. If you like I can dig up the verses. Everything I have said can be confirmed quickly with google.

However, even for the Jewish men, slavery was no picnic. If a slave owner did not want to give them up he could get out of the seven year clause by giving the slave a wife. If at the end of the seven years the slave wanted to stay with his wife and children he had an awl driven though his ear and was a permanent slave. If he went free his wife and children stayed behind.

Genocide- 1 Samuel 15:3 (Link goes to Bible hub)

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

That is genocide. Via direct command from God. It even has a specific injunction to kill the children and infants. You can find a similar command in the story of the Levite, and the slaughter of the Benjamites and then the kidnapping of "wives" for the surviving Benjamites when the Isrialites realized they were about to lose a tribe.

The Bible never approves of rape. You may be making the mistake of assuming that the Bible approves of everything it records. You need to remember that much of the Bible is narrative history. It is a record of what happened, not necessarily an endorsement of what happened.

The bible endorses the concept of taking concubines. Sex slaves. That practice means rape, lots and lots of rape. In the story of the Levite I referred to above a concubine flees her owner and is given back to him by her father. (Later she is treated much worse.)

The bible refers to Lot as the only righteous man in Soddom. When his home is approached by a crowd he offers his virgin daughters to them as rape victims to sate the crowds lust. Now, I'll read a little between the lines for this story. God still saved Lot, after he made this offer. So he didn't stop being righteous when he offered his daughters for gang rape. Though he did kill Lot's wife for looking back at the destruction they fled. That argues strongly that in Genesis offering your daughters to a mob does not make you unrighteous.

Jeptha-
Jeptha was not just some guy, he was one of God's action heroes, the Judges. The bible is explicit that Jeptha made the vow to God and that God actively held up his end of the bargain. If this had not been to god's liking then the same character in many other places showed it was quick to withdraw support when it was displeased with the actions of one of it's heroes. Look at what it did to Moses after he didn't take the people into the promised land right away. It sent him, and them, back into the desert and wouldn't let them attack until he died.

21"When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not be slack to pay it; for the LORD your God will surely require it of you, and it would be sin in you.
22But if you refrain from vowing, it shall be no sin in you.
23You shall be careful to perform what has passed your lips, for you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God what you have promised with your mouth. (Deut. 23:21-23)

However, I think this resource does a better job of articulating this story and how it was a contract and was a human sacrifice, through burnt offering. (this is where I pulled the Deuteronomy quote I'm not sure what version they used.)

Now, one other thing you mentioned really stuck with me. You said that not all of what was in the bible was what God wanted. Some of it is just history. It is my experience that when god didn't like something, in the bible, he was pretty quick to make his anger or displeasure known. Such as when Jesus beat up the merchants at the temple, or cursed the fig tree, or when God sent bears to kill children who made fun of his servant Elisha.

So how do you determine which horrible things are just history and which horrible things are actually the will of god? Why do you think the ones that are just history are in the book without commentary on why those things were bad to do?

Sadly I'm out of time. If you are like me when I first came across this stuff, you may be in shock or upset. I first started learning about these things watching the show "Six Feet Under" where I learned that the book of Leviticus really does demand death as a punishment for things I'd not punish at all. I'll try and swing in again tomorrow. Feel free to take time before you reply, look up the things I'm talking about. mattrose, your version of Christianity seems a lot more progressive than most I've encountered. If you are not a bible literalist this stuff shouldn't bug you too much. It's just an old book. We can talk about the historicity of Jesus later.

[mattrose]

By this reasoning there is no "The" story of anything. All stories require the active participation of a mind, and are therefore up for some level of interpretation.

You're making a common mistake here. I see atheists (and Christians, but especially atheists) make this mistake often. It is the mistake of assuming that because there are multiple 'possible' interpretations there must also be either an unlimited number of possible interpretations OR that all the possible interpretations are equally plausible.

The reality is that a text properly understand only allows for a limited number of POSSIBLE interpretations and those interpretations are more or less PLAUSIBLE than each other. Now, of course, people can argue about which interpretations are possible or more plausible... but in such cases they are either right or wrong. The interpretation of a text is not completely (or even mostly) relative. It must be shaped by the immediate and broader context of the passage and the meanings of the words utilized.

However the phrase, 'Jesus died for our sins' is a very common one throughout Christianity and it implies that killing Jesus solved problems. Since the problem involved God and his anger with sin, it seems a worthy set of questions, why sin at all? why does killing make god less angry? Is it moral to have one person suffer to remove judgment from another? Is judgment moral in the first place? That is a huge topic, and if you want to look into it we can get a new thread on the basic premise of Christianity, from Eden to the Cross. If you like I can start it, though probably not tonight.

I humbly submit that you are simply wrong to insist that what is known as the substitutionary model of the atonement is the ONLY or the PRIMARY interpretation of the meaning of the cross. There are numerous models, all of which accept the phrase 'Jesus died for our sins'. You are, apparently, only familiar with the substitutionary model and, so, you're critiquing something about Christianity that many Christians throughout history haven't even believed in! You are very welcome to start a thread if you'd like to learn about other models of the atonement. Briefly, I'll simply tell you that I do not believe that the purpose of the cross was to appease an angry God.

Slavery - Your depiction of slavery applied to Jewish men only. Jewish women and any gentile were slaves for life. The bible has helpful advice about how much each person could be beaten, and what punishment would befall the owner. As far as I can tell, the only times a slave owner was punished was if the slave lost an eye, a knee, or died in under two days after a beating. If they lived more than two days after it, then all was well. Oh and if a owner owned both a mother and daughter he was only to take one or the other as concubine, not both. If you like I can dig up the verses. Everything I have said can be confirmed quickly with google.

Your assumption (based on the patriarchal language of the time) that Jewish women were slaves for life is not necessary from the text. You are correct that non-Jews could be slaves for life. But the bigger issue here is that you are projecting modern ethics regarding slavery on the ancient world. God actually agrees with you that these laws were inadequate. God was working progressively through history. You makes the common atheistic (and sometimes Christian!) mistake of assuming that the Bible is a FLAT book in which all parts are equally relevant. Christians believe in progressive revelation. The laws given to Moses were steps in the right direction given the culture at the time, not the end-goal.

However, even for the Jewish men, slavery was no picnic. If a slave owner did not want to give them up he could get out of the seven year clause by giving the slave a wife. If at the end of the seven years the slave wanted to stay with his wife and children he had an awl driven though his ear and was a permanent slave. If he went free his wife and children stayed behind.

I don't mean to be mean, but you really don't know what you're talking about here. I'm guessing you've read some comments on these types of passages from other atheists without really bothering to understand them in their historical context.

The person owed debt-payment (which you're calling a slave owner) was NOT allowed to get out of the 7th year clause by forcing the person owing the debt to marry another slave. The situation involved a man coming to the end of his 6 years of working off his debt who had, during his service, voluntarily married a woman (who was simultaneously working off the debt, but had not yet reached the end of her term). In this situation, the newly debt-free man had a number of options. First, he could work extra hard as a free-man to pay off the remaining debt of his wife. Second, he could simply wait for her debt-service to end. Third, he could agree that he didn't do too well on his own before and, having enjoyed the stability offered by the owner, he could voluntarily agree to remain in that man's household for life with his family.

But there was a problem... how would the community KNOW that the newly freed man was choosing this option rather than being pressured into it by the former boss? In order to address this problem, there was a public ceremony (an ear piercing of sorts) which marked the man as a servant for life. This was a choice on the part of the former servant to publicly acknowledge his intent to remain in the household. The very fact that this was an option shows that Hebrew style 'slavery' was often a preferable option for people who went bankrupt.

As usual, atheists simply come up with the harshest possible interpretation of the text and reject it. It's a straw man.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" That is genocide. Via direct command from God. It even has a specific injunction to kill the children and infants. You can find a similar command in the story of the Levite, and the slaughter of the Benjamites and then the kidnapping of "wives" for the surviving Benjamites when the Isrialites realized they were about to lose a tribe.

Again, you simply don't have an awareness of literary genres found within the Bible. There is a military literary genre that uses exaggeration and hyperbole (much like today, an athlete might say 'we destroyed/annihilated' those guys). We still have military and competitive genres today... so I'm not sure why atheists struggle so much to understand that Scripture might speak in these ways as well. The reality is that the common people in Canaan had (and seemingly took) every opportunity to leave the land before Israel got there. Military strongholds remained (like Jericho). Battles ensued (in which the Israelites were out-numbered and out-weaponized).

Jeptha-
Jeptha was not just some guy, he was one of God's action heroes, the Judges. The bible is explicit that Jeptha made the vow to God and that God actively held up his end of the bargain. If this had not been to god's liking then the same character in many other places showed it was quick to withdraw support when it was displeased with the actions of one of it's heroes. Look at what it did to Moses after he didn't take the people into the promised land right away. It sent him, and them, back into the desert and wouldn't let them attack until he died.

I'll respond to your Lot & Jeptha interpretations together because they are equally uninformed and in just about the same way. Here, you're making the common mistake of assuming that Judges is a book of human heroes. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of the purpose/meaning of the Book of Judges. It's a book about the downward cycle of sinful Israel. They got worse and worse. And this includes their leadership. Over and over, God DID withdraw support during the time of the judges... so I don't really know what you're talking about. The only 'hero' in the Book is God who continually gives the people another chance despite their terrible behavior. Plus, I just flat-out disagree with you that Jepthah's daughter actually was sacrificed (the text doesn't say this), but since you're so far from understanding Judges to begin with, I don't know if it's worth grappling with the details. Bottom line, you've consistently shown that you are aware, only, of the worst possible interpretations of Scripture. You've rejected them just like I have.

Now, one other thing you mentioned really stuck with me. You said that not all of what was in the bible was what God wanted. Some of it is just history. It is my experience that when god didn't like something, in the bible, he was pretty quick to make his anger or displeasure known. Such as when Jesus beat up the merchants at the temple...

Yes, a lot of times God's displeasure with a situation is immediately made known (in the Book of Judges this is made obvious by the fact that God kept giving them into the hands of their enemies). But, again, you show a general level of ignorance for the Bible-stories that you reject. Jesus didn't beat up any people in the temple story!

So how do you determine which horrible things are just history and which horrible things are actually the will of god? Why do you think the ones that are just history are in the book without commentary on why those things were bad to do?

That is actually a good question, but I think there are really good answers. First, identifying literary genre is important (you made this mistake with the Book of Judges, assuming that it was a collection of hero stories rather than a depiction of Israel's moral decline). Second, it is important to read confusing Scriptures in light of less confusing ones (you made this mistake with regard to Jephthah, assuming that he killed his daughter when the text is ambiguous on the matter even though elsewhere in the Law of Moses child sacrifice is specifically and clearly forbidden.... but, again, even IF Jephthah DID sacrifice his daughter, that is clearly not an endorsement due to the nature of the Book of Judges and that clear biblical law opposing child sacrifice!. Third, and most importantly, we are helped in interpretation by progressive revelation. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God. In Jesus it is revealed that God is love. So anything that cannot be reconciled to Jesus/love (or at least making progress toward Jesus/love) is clearly not endorsed by God. Christians interpret the Old Testament by the light of Christ.

Sadly I'm out of time. If you are like me when I first came across this stuff, you may be in shock or upset. I first started learning about these things watching the show "Six Feet Under" where I learned that the book of Leviticus really does demand death as a punishment for things I'd not punish at all. I'll try and swing in again tomorrow. Feel free to take time before you reply, look up the things I'm talking about. mattrose, your version of Christianity seems a lot more progressive than most I've encountered. If you are not a bible literalist this stuff shouldn't bug you too much. It's just an old book. We can talk about the historicity of Jesus later.

I'm not in shock at all. I've read the passages you mentioned many times. I've actually been a Bible-teacher for more than 10 years. I have a master's degree in theology. The objections you have raised are common, but they are uninformed. They are straw-man arguments against Christianity. I am a little surprised that you are not aware of this b/c most people who claim to be atheists with an online presence have since realized that these harsh interpretations of Scripture are unnecessary interpretations. Either you haven't had enough dialogue with informed Christians or you've purposefully dismissed these counter-arguments. If the latter, it could be because you have a vested interest in not recognizing the truth of Christianity OR it could be because you really don't think the atheistic interpretation of the passages is wrong. If that's the case, we just disagree. I'd only ask that you admit that Bible scholars might actually know more than you do about how to interpret the Bible.

I'd be glad to talk more about the evidence for Jesus' existence when you have time. Thanks for the ongoing dialogue. It has always been an encouragement to my faith to discover that the arguments against it are so weak. In other cases, the issues raised by atheists cause me to think about something I haven't thought much about and can dig into. In every cases so far, it has built up my faith to dig into these so-called problem areas. So when I say I appreciate this dialogue, I really mean it!

[Homer]

Apos wrote:

We are not talking about what has historically been required of men. This whole line is a total nonsequiter. I show you and injustice perpetrated against women, and you say effectively, "but what about the men?" That is a derail of the topic. What men have endured in the past has no bearing on what women may be forced to do in the future. Though since you seem so hung up on it, I support women's right to be in the military in combat roles and believe that any draft should be pulled from eligible persons of every gender.

You keep saying my argument is weak, but instead of refuting it you are dancing away from it. Engage the argument, under what circumstances to you believe it is ok to remove a person's right to bodily autonomy? If the circumstance is "to save a life" then you should be ok with demanding the bodies of anyone for that process. Since you clearly are not ok with that, you should accept that "to save a life" is not sufficient reason to deny someone's rights and come up with a better reason to oppose abortion. Or, you could come to my side and join pro choice.

I should have realized when you used the words "bodily integrity" and "bodily autonomy" you were using words from the women's lib movement and realized there was no hope of persuading you of the evil of abortion. The euphemism of "pro choice" informs us of where your head is at. As though it is as simple as choosing what to have for lunch. From what you wrote above I can only assume that you see a mother carrying her baby to term as equivalent to "the saving of a life". How we have changed. Abortion good. Pornography good. Gay marriage good. Those with self induced AIDS looked upon as heroes. As the scriptures which you abhor inform us:

Isaiah 5:20 New American Standard Bible
20. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Matthew 6:23 New American Standard Bible
23. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!


You mock Christianity. Have you ever considered what this world would be like if everyone followed Jesus? There would be no war. No hungry children. Aids and VD could not exist. I could go on but that is enough. And please do not bring up stuff like the crusades and other things that were done by those who claimed the name of Christ. They were certainly not following Him.

As for your comments about the story of Jepthah you need to open your eyes:

Judges 11:37-39 New American Standard Bible
37. She said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions.” 38. Then he said, “Go.” So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. 39. At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel,

That she was to be a burnt offering makes no sense of why she would go off with her friends and weep because she was a virgin, rather than because she about to be put to death. She was to be devoted to God as are nuns in this day, as the statement about her remaining a virgin shows. That she remained a virgin makes no sense if she was put to death.

[dizerner]

Your atheist friend made the mistake of equating harm with pain right now. A murder victim has been robbed of all the potential they would ever have after the point of murder. A murderer has demonstrated harm to both their society and the murder victim. So no I don't see how things I see as obvious aren't really, though I do see how a clever person can use language to persuade for even terrible things.

How in the world can you know what the victim would contribute? Maybe he was a sociopath and would contribute more pain to society? A murdered person is non-existent. How can a person who doesn't exist be robbed of anything? It's not "clever language" just to call someone to account for their logic. That's just a cheap cop out to any argument (Oh, you're just using "clever language" so I can ignore your logic.)

A second thought, your objection requires a metaphysical reference point. Since the mind of the murder victim is gone no harm remains. I refer to the physical and social reference points, the body remains harmed to death and the society loses all that the victim could have contributed.

I don't mean offense, but it seems to me you are just setting up what is arbitrarily important to you, personally. How should that convince someone else to adopt your value system? This is what I meant when I said materialism requires relative morality. It all boils down to one person saying "well I feel this is right" and another person saying "well I feel that is right" and nobody really can show why their view is better without simply saying "adopt my values and priorities so that you come to my conclusions."

[ApostateltsopA]

You're making a common mistake here. I see atheists (and Christians, but especially atheists) make this mistake often. It is the mistake of assuming that because there are multiple 'possible' interpretations there must also be either an unlimited number of possible interpretations OR that all the possible interpretations are equally plausible.

Then I have communicated poorly. What I intended to say was that no single interpretation can be the correct one. Even if a given passage only has five or so.

The reality is that a text properly understand only allows for a limited number of POSSIBLE interpretations and those interpretations are more or less PLAUSIBLE than each other. Now, of course, people can argue about which interpretations are possible or more plausible... but in such cases they are either right or wrong. The interpretation of a text is not completely (or even mostly) relative. It must be shaped by the immediate and broader context of the passage and the meanings of the words utilized.

So, how is a text properly understood? What is the methodology? Hermenutics is a beginning, but anyone familiar with this discipline should also admit that a significant amount of interpretation falls on the reader due to the deliberate vagueness of the original texts.

I humbly submit that you are simply wrong to insist that what is known as the substitutionary model of the atonement is the ONLY or the PRIMARY interpretation of the meaning of the cross. There are numerous models, all of which accept the phrase 'Jesus died for our sins'. You are, apparently, only familiar with the substitutionary model and, so, you're critiquing something about Christianity that many Christians throughout history haven't even believed in! You are very welcome to start a thread if you'd like to learn about other models of the atonement. Briefly, I'll simply tell you that I do not believe that the purpose of the cross was to appease an angry God.

That's fine, but whatever the problem was that got solved, bloodletting and torture were the vehicle for the problem to be solved right?

Your assumption (based on the patriarchal language of the time) that Jewish women were slaves for life is not necessary from the text. You are correct that non-Jews could be slaves for life. But the bigger issue here is that you are projecting modern ethics regarding slavery on the ancient world. God actually agrees with you that these laws were inadequate. God was working progressively through history. You makes the common atheistic (and sometimes Christian!) mistake of assuming that the Bible is a FLAT book in which all parts are equally relevant. Christians believe in progressive revelation. The laws given to Moses were steps in the right direction given the culture at the time, not the end-goal.

Please look at Exodus 21 in whichever version of the bible you think is the best translation. This covers several laws and includes the freedom to beat slaves to death, provided they take a few days to die. It also explicitly states that women only get to go free if they are abused in certain ways or given to the purchaser's son as a wife.

Now as to the bigger issue, you are correct. I view slavery, any kind of slavery, as an abomination. This view is well supported by the ethical system I have outlined elsewhere. You say that men of the time were not capable of understanding this? I say hogwash. If god is powerful surely he has the ability to either make it clear slavery is an abomination, or to compel lack of slavery through fiat as it does with so many other rules, like the admonition against eating shell fish, or wearing mixed fabrics. The simple fact is that the bible repeatedly endorses slavery in both the old and new testaments. That is one of the reasons that the problem of evil is such a hurdle for claims that god is all loving, all just and all wise. The two concepts do not mesh.


Exodus 21
I don't mean to be mean, but you really don't know what you're talking about here. I'm guessing you've read some comments on these types of passages from other atheists without really bothering to understand them in their historical context.[/quote]

I've read the bible, many translations, and apologetics websites, as well as counter apologetics websites and engaged with believers. Your insistence on my ignorance does not sit with the evidence. You can go and read this stuff for yourself. If you want to claim I have taken it out of context please supply the context under which it is better for one person to own another than for both to be free. I see the "that is out of context" claim a lot but no one ever provides the context.

....

As usual, atheists simply come up with the harshest possible interpretation of the text and reject it. It's a straw man.

Not at all. I see you bending over backward to excuse what I believe you know is immoral teaching. I am conveying the clear meaning of the texts. I'm providing you chapters, not verses, with which to interpret and willing to take your decision, not mine, on which translation should be adhered to. You have already had to walk back on your claim that slavery was limited in duration. You should, after reading Samuel, admit that Jewish women didn't get the same limited term as men.

Again, you simply don't have an awareness of literary genres found within the Bible. There is a military literary genre that uses exaggeration and hyperbole (much like today, an athlete might say 'we destroyed/annihilated' those guys). We still have military and competitive genres today... so I'm not sure why atheists struggle so much to understand that Scripture might speak in these ways as well. The reality is that the common people in Canaan had (and seemingly took) every opportunity to leave the land before Israel got there. Military strongholds remained (like Jericho). Battles ensued (in which the Israelites were out-numbered and out-weaponized).

I'm tempted to post all of 1 Samuel 15 for you here. Go take a few minutes to read it. The story has Samuel speaking for God about God's desire for the genocide. Saul is described as killing everyone, but keeping some of the cattle. This ends Saul's reign as king. You claim this is a genre of hyperbole. What is the context clue for that revelation? Why do you know this passage is hyperbole? Was god regretting making Saul king also hyperbole? I've engaged with this story specifically with believers, and reviewed pastors, priests and apologists dealing with it and you are the first person ever to suggest it's hyperbole to me or to any of the others I've seen engage this topic. Where are you getting that information?

I'll respond to your Lot & Jeptha interpretations together because they are equally uninformed and in just about the same way. Here, you're making the common mistake of assuming that Judges is a book of human heroes. I don't think you have the slightest understanding of the purpose/meaning of the Book of Judges. It's a book about the downward cycle of sinful Israel. They got worse and worse. And this includes their leadership. Over and over, God DID withdraw support during the time of the judges... so I don't really know what you're talking about. The only 'hero' in the Book is God who continually gives the people another chance despite their terrible behavior. Plus, I just flat-out disagree with you that Jepthah's daughter actually was sacrificed (the text doesn't say this), but since you're so far from understanding Judges to begin with, I don't know if it's worth grappling with the details. Bottom line, you've consistently shown that you are aware, only, of the worst possible interpretations of Scripture. You've rejected them just like I have.

mattrose, The text is clear on Jeptha. "Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior." = Hero. I'm taking this from the NIV version of Judges 11. Here are verses 29-31 which mark both that the spirit of god was with Jeptha, so still a hero, and the specifics of the deal Jeptha offered to god.

"29Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30And Jephthah made a vow to the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”"

Now, that looks to me like Jeptha was hoping it would be a dog, or some other non-human creature. If he had a dog he could reasonably expect it to beat people out of the door.

Look here at verse 32,

"32Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon."

This shows that Jephthah won, not on his own but through the intervention of God who gave the Ammonites to him. Now look how Jephthah reacts when his daughter comes out.

34When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter. 35When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.”

That is not the wail of someone who will have his daughter become a priestess, or nun, or holy person. This is a parent realizing that he has to destroy his child.

That brings us to verse 39

39After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin.

I'm using the NIV for these quotes. If you disagree with that translation I'm willing to look at another. My understanding from listening to apologists is that the NIV is a better translation than the KJV due to a better understanding of the original language. You are correct that the bible does not say, "And his daughter was burned". It instead confirms that he did what he vowed, however he vowed to offer a burnt sacrifice. If you want to dispute this you can't just tell me I'm wrong. You need to offer some kind of evidence.

Yes, a lot of times God's displeasure with a situation is immediately made known (in the Book of Judges this is made obvious by the fact that God kept giving them into the hands of their enemies). But, again, you show a general level of ignorance for the Bible-stories that you reject. Jesus didn't beat up any people in the temple story!

He overturned tables and drove them out. You can accuse me of hyperbole, but not by much. In either case it directly shows what I intended, god is not subtle about making his displeasure known in the bible.

So how do you determine which horrible things are just history and which horrible things are actually the will of god? Why do you think the ones that are just history are in the book without commentary on why those things were bad to do?

That is actually a good question, but I think there are really good answers. First, identifying literary genre is important (you made this mistake with the Book of Judges, assuming that it was a collection of hero stories rather than a depiction of Israel's moral decline). Second, it is important to read confusing Scriptures in light of less confusing ones (you made this mistake with regard to Jephthah, assuming that he killed his daughter when the text is ambiguous on the matter even though elsewhere in the Law of Moses child sacrifice is specifically and clearly forbidden.... but, again, even IF Jephthah DID sacrifice his daughter, that is clearly not an endorsement due to the nature of the Book of Judges and that clear biblical law opposing child sacrifice!. Third, and most importantly, we are helped in interpretation by progressive revelation. Jesus is the fullest revelation of God. In Jesus it is revealed that God is love. So anything that cannot be reconciled to Jesus/love (or at least making progress toward Jesus/love) is clearly not endorsed by God. Christians interpret the Old Testament by the light of Christ.

You are cherry picking. I'll be the first to agree with you that the bible is contradictory. However I believe, with some evidence, that this is because the new and old testaments were not written together, but that the new was added, many many years later as a rebooted version of Judaism. I am forced to take what you say here with a large amount of salt given how clearly wrong you are about Jephthah. Essentially you are rejecting every part of the bible that does not mesh with Jesus as love. So the slavery, the genocide, the existence of hell, you have to relabel it all as historical because it's not about love, it's about fear and obedience. However it leaves me very confused. If the tale of Jephthah is just historical context why does it describe God as taking an active hand in the deal? Was that author wrong?

I'm not in shock at all. I've read the passages you mentioned many times. I've actually been a Bible-teacher for more than 10 years. I have a master's degree in theology. The objections you have raised are common, but they are uninformed. They are straw-man arguments against Christianity. I am a little surprised that you are not aware of this b/c most people who claim to be atheists with an online presence have since realized that these harsh interpretations of Scripture are unnecessary interpretations. Either you haven't had enough dialogue with informed Christians or you've purposefully dismissed these counter-arguments. If the latter, it could be because you have a vested interest in not recognizing the truth of Christianity OR it could be because you really don't think the atheistic interpretation of the passages is wrong. If that's the case, we just disagree. I'd only ask that you admit that Bible scholars might actually know more than you do about how to interpret the Bible.

I'd be glad to talk more about the evidence for Jesus' existence when you have time. Thanks for the ongoing dialogue. It has always been an encouragement to my faith to discover that the arguments against it are so weak. In other cases, the issues raised by atheists cause me to think about something I haven't thought much about and can dig into. In every cases so far, it has built up my faith to dig into these so-called problem areas. So when I say I appreciate this dialogue, I really mean it!

I don't know that I would call these arguments against Christianity, so much as arguments against the validity of the bible as more than a book. Most Christians don't read their bibles, they get only what their teachers select for them. I respect that you have a master's degree in theology, but that leaves me shocked both at your ignorance of the degree of slavery and at your insistence that the story of Jephthah doesn't end is a burnt offering of his daughter. I've encountered both before, and from far less studied persons. However once I actually am forced to cart out the verses the person is usually very unhappy because they got their information from one of the apologetics websites that lies. Did you forget that the slavery was not as you initially described it? Do you now see that Jephthah's daughter was indeed killed? If not can you support your position with scripture, or with some researched source? I'm also enjoying our talk. However I find it very frustrating to be told repeatedly I'm ignorant based apparently only on your authority.

You can tell me all you like that I am ignorant, and I may well be. However with no additional source to study from I can't just take your word on it. You say God is love, and I agree the Bible says that. However it also says that God created evil. It talks about lots of things that God does that are not consistent with love, which I see as reason to doubt it as a credible source of information on god. It looks to me like you have chosen the nicer bits and believe they invalidate, or moderate, the nasty ones. I can see now, how you make that interpretation, with your love litmus, but I do not see why you feel that set of verses is more credible than the others.

[ApostateltsopA]

I should have realized when you used the words "bodily integrity" and "bodily autonomy" you were using words from the women's lib movement and realized there was no hope of persuading you of the evil of abortion. The euphemism of "pro choice" informs us of where your head is at. As though it is as simple as choosing what to have for lunch. From what you wrote above I can only assume that you see a mother carrying her baby to term as equivalent to "the saving of a life". How we have changed. Abortion good. Pornography good. Gay marriage good. Those with self induced AIDS looked upon as heroes. As the scriptures which you abhor inform us:

Isaiah 5:20 New American Standard Bible
20. Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness;
Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Matthew 6:23 New American Standard Bible
23. But if your eye is bad, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light that is in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!

Homer, First off, you are still not engaging my argument. You are making personal attacks against me though and that suggests to me that we should probably set this aside. I'm not here to attack or hurt you, or to mock your beliefs. My beliefs are held honestly as my best attempt to be a good person. If I were you I would ask myself why it is so easy to label and reject me instead of showing me how my argument fails.

Just to clear a few things up though, yes I am a proud Feminist. It's part of being a secular humanist. No I do not view abortion as a good thing. I see it as the lesser of two evils. No, I don't see having a child as saving a life. I see it as creating one. An act of creation which I believe must be consensual. Pornography does not bother me as long as all the people involved are willing participants and not exploited. It's like fair trade coffee or exploitation free diamonds. Marriage equality is good, whenever we reduce the amount of bigotry in our society that is a good thing. I am thrilled with the court's decision on that topic. However I will stand right alongside you if someone tries to make your church perform one of these ceremonies. That would be a violation of the rights of the church goers. Not so much the bakers of cakes though, they are doing business in the public space and no gays allowed is just as bigoted and wrong as no blacks allowed or no women allowed.

Finally I have no idea what you are talking about "self inflicted HIV heroes". I have never heard of such a person and would need to see some evidence to believe any such thing actually exists.

You mock Christianity. Have you ever considered what this world would be like if everyone followed Jesus? There would be no war. No hungry children. Aids and VD could not exist. I could go on but that is enough. And please do not bring up stuff like the crusades and other things that were done by those who claimed the name of Christ. They were certainly not following Him.

As for your comments about the story of Jepthah you need to open your eyes:

Judges 11:37-39 New American Standard Bible
37. She said to her father, “Let this thing be done for me; let me alone two months, that I may go to the mountains and weep because of my virginity, I and my companions.” 38. Then he said, “Go.” So he sent her away for two months; and she left with her companions, and wept on the mountains because of her virginity. 39. At the end of two months she returned to her father, who did to her according to the vow which he had made; and she had no relations with a man. Thus it became a custom in Israel,

That she was to be a burnt offering makes no sense of why she would go off with her friends and weep because she was a virgin, rather than because she about to be put to death. She was to be devoted to God as are nuns in this day, as the statement about her remaining a virgin shows. That she remained a virgin makes no sense if she was put to death.

I don't share your opinion. I'll point out only that Christianity is far from a monolith. There are thousands of denominations, many of whom have actively killed others in the past and many say they would like to in the present. Theocracy is bad. I'm sorry you don't realize that.

[ApostateltsopA]

How in the world can you know what the victim would contribute? Maybe he was a sociopath and would contribute more pain to society? A murdered person is non-existent. How can a person who doesn't exist be robbed of anything? It's not "clever language" just to call someone to account for their logic. That's just a cheap cop out to any argument (Oh, you're just using "clever language" so I can ignore your logic.)

...

I don't mean offense, but it seems to me you are just setting up what is arbitrarily important to you, personally. How should that convince someone else to adopt your value system? This is what I meant when I said materialism requires relative morality. It all boils down to one person saying "well I feel this is right" and another person saying "well I feel that is right" and nobody really can show why their view is better without simply saying "adopt my values and priorities so that you come to my conclusions."

I'm not ignoring your argument, I'm finding the premise flawed. You claim that a murdered person does not exist. You wax poetic about what they may have been and offer a possible sociopath. Sociopaths are a distinct minority, the odds of a murder victim being one of them, and one who would be dangerous since not all sociopaths are, are very low. So this is just a red herring. Clear physical harm can be shown, a life has been ended. If you want to claim that no harm has fallen you need to support that with more than just your claim.

However, this is where things get interesting and the health analogy is so handy. You claim this set of ethics is just my opinion. I've already agreed that maximizing well being, and minimizing harm are tenants which much be accepted axiomatically. I can argue for them, but if you really want to insist that killing people isn't bad, then I'll not be able to convince you, but I will have good grounds to ignore your further input on the topic, and a very easy case to convince others to listen to me and not you. If you accept my axioms then we can benchmark harms and well being, since well being does not include being dead, then murder is wrong. Murderers can be punished. Not all opinions are equal.

[mattrose]

Then I have communicated poorly. What I intended to say was that no single interpretation can be the correct one. Even if a given passage only has five or so.

I don't understand what you mean here. Obviously 1 single interpretation IS the correct one. Perhaps you are saying that no single interpretation may be PROVEN to be the correct one? That's true, but a very different thing.

So, how is a text properly understood? What is the methodology? Hermenutics is a beginning, but anyone familiar with this discipline should also admit that a significant amount of interpretation falls on the reader due to the deliberate vagueness of the original texts.

Deliberate vagueness? I'd say hermeneutical hurdles have more to do with our limitations than the motivation of the original authors of the text. I discussed a few key principles of methodology already.

That's fine, but whatever the problem was that got solved, bloodletting and torture were the vehicle for the problem to be solved right?

No. You're still stuck on 1 model of atonement theory.

Please look at Exodus 21 in whichever version of the bible you think is the best translation. This covers several laws and includes the freedom to beat slaves to death, provided they take a few days to die.

What are you talking about? The passage specifically says it is against the law to beat a slave to death. You're saying the owner was free to do so. These kinds of contradictions are why I keep questioning whether you're actually reading the texts. The whole set of laws there gives slaves unprecedented rights for that time.

It also explicitly states that women only get to go free if they are abused in certain ways or given to the purchaser's son as a wife.

No it doesn't. I assume you are misunderstanding v. 7. The immediate context (v. 8-11) show that this is in regards to marriage situations. Arranged marriages were part of that culture (they are still part of many cultures). Marriages, obviously, were meant to be permanent (not 6 years long). The laws in verses 7-11 protect the woman in such a situation from neglect.

Now as to the bigger issue, you are correct. I view slavery, any kind of slavery, as an abomination. This view is well supported by the ethical system I have outlined elsewhere. You say that men of the time were not capable of understanding this? I say hogwash. If god is powerful surely he has the ability to either make it clear slavery is an abomination, or to compel lack of slavery through fiat as it does with so many other rules, like the admonition against eating shell fish, or wearing mixed fabrics. The simple fact is that the bible repeatedly endorses slavery in both the old and new testaments. That is one of the reasons that the problem of evil is such a hurdle for claims that god is all loving, all just and all wise. The two concepts do not mesh.

.

The ancient world didn't have bankruptcy court. The vast majority of 'slavery' in ancient Israel was a way of dealing with bankruptcy. Whereas in other countries debtors were either killed or made slaves for life, God made provision that debtors could work off their debt. What do you think would have been wiser? To kill debtors? To send them out into the wild with nothing? To create an environment of irresponsibility and laziness by have no negative consequences? It seems to me the system God gave them was better than all those options. Frankly, I'd say it was better than what we do today in many ways. It put the creditor and the debtor in an intimate relationship, often sharing a household. The relationship was often so positive that the debtors willingly chose to spend the rest of their lives with their creditors.God is smarter than you and I. To make a law against debt-service would have been devastating to ancient society. So God provided a system that was a vast improvement over what was in place and a stepping stone toward long-term progress.

I've read the bible, many translations, and apologetics websites, as well as counter apologetics websites and engaged with believers. Your insistence on my ignorance does not sit with the evidence. You can go and read this stuff for yourself. If you want to claim I have taken it out of context please supply the context under which it is better for one person to own another than for both to be free. I see the "that is out of context" claim a lot but no one ever provides the context.

While the context does show you to be wrong, in most of the cases you've mentioned, you aren't even taking a verse out of context. You're just misquoting even the isolated verses!

You have already had to walk back on your claim that slavery was limited in duration. You should, after reading Samuel, admit that Jewish women didn't get the same limited term as men.

I didn't 'walk back' from any initial claims. I spoke to the majority type of slavery in ancient Israel (the kind discussed in Exodus 21... that we are discussing). If you want to talk about treatment of non-Hebrew slaves, be my guest (but let me know you want to do so... don't just keep switching back and forth whenever it seems to serve you a rhetorical advantage).

I'm tempted to post all of 1 Samuel 15 for you here. Go take a few minutes to read it. The story has Samuel speaking for God about God's desire for the genocide. Saul is described as killing everyone, but keeping some of the cattle. This ends Saul's reign as king. You claim this is a genre of hyperbole. What is the context clue for that revelation? Why do you know this passage is hyperbole? Was god regretting making Saul king also hyperbole? I've engaged with this story specifically with believers, and reviewed pastors, priests and apologists dealing with it and you are the first person ever to suggest it's hyperbole to me or to any of the others I've seen engage this topic. Where are you getting that information?

You've engaged with ministers and apologists and you've never come across someone saying there's reason to believe hyperbole is being used here? I'm sorry, but statements like these give me serious doubts about your seriousness. There are 2 main reasons why we can conclude that the statement is hyperbolic. First, the genre is militaristic... which is typically hyperbolic (so that brings hyperbole into the grid as an interpretive possibility, if not plausibility). Second, for goodness sakes, the Amalekites are mentioned NUMEROUS TIMES after 1 Samuel 15! Apparently, there are still lots of them around. Anyone suspecting that they were literally wiped off the planet in 1 Samuel 15 can resolve the issue with a simple biblegateway.com word search. Because of these facts, not only is hyperbole a possibility for the statement in 1 Samuel 15... it's just a fact. Find better dialogue partners.

mattrose, The text is clear on Jeptha. "Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty warrior." = Hero. I'm taking this from the NIV version of Judges 11. Here are verses 29-31 which mark both that the spirit of god was with Jeptha, so still a hero, and the specifics of the deal Jeptha offered to god.

Your arguments are lame. Because he was a mighty warrior he was a God-pleasing hero? Goliath was a mighty warrior too. Because the spirit of God used him to deliver his people he was a hero? God used the Assyrians to accomplish some of his purposes as well. Were they biblical heroes? I can't believe you've thought this through.

You are correct that the bible does not say, "And his daughter was burned". It instead confirms that he did what he vowed, however he vowed to offer a burnt sacrifice. If you want to dispute this you can't just tell me I'm wrong. You need to offer some kind of evidence.

Well, part of your confusion comes from v. 31. The text uses the word 'and' but (in Hebrew) the word 'or' could be the correct translation as well. In that case, the vow is that whatever comes outside will either be consecrated to the Lord OR it will be sacrificed as a burnt offering. The fact that the girl mourns her perpetual virginity (rather than her impending death!) seems to confirm that consecration, not sacrifice was the soon coming outcome. v. 39 seems to confirm this. After the time of mourning, he carried out the vow. So v. 39 should read, if you are right "And she was dead" but instead it reads as if I am right "And she was a virgin."

Therefore I think it is most plausible that she was consecrated to the LORD. But let me say again, EVEN IF SHE WAS SACRIFICED (which is a possible interpretation), it doesn't make your point (about the depiction of God's character) because you've mis-diagnosed the entire point of the Book of Judges! It's not a book of human heroes. It's a book of God's heroic persistence in working with His people even though they had become just like the Canaanites (even, possibly, to the point of sacrificing their children with foolish vows... both things the Mosaic Law said not to do!).

It seems to me you lose here in not just 1, but a few different ways. You're most likely wrong about whether his daughter was sacrificed. Secondly you're wrong about the meaning of Judges as a whole. And third, you're trying to argue that the Old Testament Laws are terrible when the Old Testament laws actually outlawed the very things that you're recognizing as terrible. If I were an evangelist for atheism, I would probably never mention the name Jephthah again.

He overturned tables and drove them out. You can accuse me of hyperbole, but not by much. In either case it directly shows what I intended, god is not subtle about making his displeasure known in the bible.

You tried to suggest that Jesus beat people. That seems a serious accusation. I called you on it. You retracted. Noted.

As for God's abruptness. Sometimes God is abrupt and sometimes God is not. God deals with different situations differently. I bet you do too.

with no additional source to study from I can't just take your word on it. You say God is love, and I agree the Bible says that. However it also says that God created evil. It talks about lots of things that God does that are not consistent with love, which I see as reason to doubt it as a credible source of information on god. It looks to me like you have chosen the nicer bits and believe they invalidate, or moderate, the nasty ones. I can see now, how you make that interpretation, with your love litmus, but I do not see why you feel that set of verses is more credible than the others.

Here's why. Because the Bible itself says that Jesus is the ultimate revelation of who God is! Once I have access to the brightest form of Revelation possible (God in the flesh!) why wouldn't I interpret all other revelation through that lens?

I don't read the Bible as a 'flat' book (where everything in it is equally revelatory no matter what order it appears). The Bible is a narrative of God's progressive revelation culminating in Jesus. So you better believe I interpret the Old Testament in light of the sacrificial love of Jesus and the fact that God is love. 90% of atheistic Old Testament objections can be dealt with on Old Testament grounds alone, to be honest (like the ones we've discussed). But when a text remains cloudy we do best to use the light of Christ to help us understand it.

If you'd like to read some Christian thinkers who really grapple with these issues I'd recommend 2 names. One is Paul Copan. He has a number of publications dealing with these Old Testament issues. The other is Greg Boyd. Greg is more radical in his approach. If you're heart is really open to being corrected, you may find Greg Boyd an interesting person to think with. He recognizes a lot of the issues that are bothering you. They bother him too. And he has some very intriguing ways of understanding the situation. He's a widely published author and a mega-church pastor... so he's easy to access online.