"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist," Chapter 1

[sEcho]

I'm liking this new format. Going through this book is great, however, to be fair I wonder if, after this book, it wouldn't be a good idea to go through a book that makes arguments for atheism as well. My suggestion would be to stay away from Richard Dawkins, because he doesn't give enough good arguments, I think. Off the top of my head, I would go for Daniel C. Dennett's "Breaking the Spell", which is not only a great book on the subject, but is at the same time quite respectful of believers, or George H. Smith's classic work "Atheism: The Case Against God".

[mikedsjr]

SS, There are many issue where the answer is up for grabs. Within Christianity, there is room for those. But there is a limit to what that room is in Christianity. There are absolutes that Christians must confess/believe. And of those, they are not up for grabs to no man. That is the christian perspective with it appears the author is giving. I have to admit, I don't see a point to a book like this, except for what I stated earlier. I can't imagine they are refering to God in generic terms.

CLWM, You really hope you aren't a KJV only person. There are some excellent modern versions that really give a far better word for word translation. Remember, This is their civil law given to them by God. This doesn't reflect how a person should act in these situations, nor how a person should respond on an individual basis. judges, appointed by God through Moses, were to carry out the law and make sure it is done fairly and properly.

Here is the ESV, which I love the best.

22 “When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine.
23 "But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life
24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

These are the two translations I like the most. There are a few more Word-for-Word translations. I'm not a huge NIV fan, because it is a phrase-by-phrase translation. And i don't like KJV because I don't speak old English. If some people find it poetic, then their just weird.

There is definitely a special place that God shows for pregnant women. It doesn't say elderly. It doesn't say young child. it doesn't say another person. Human Life is precious to God, because it is made in the image of God. This doesn't mean I use this to impose on a non-christian how to co-habitat. How can i do that an show them the love of God at the same time. It should be Christians demonstrating this truth.

[ChristLivesWithinMe]

I'm reading a 1953 RSV bible and it says:

"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Now the "harm follow" could refer to the woman. If she dies as a result of the injury, then the offender should die, etc. Either way, I think it just reinforces Scott's point, that there is a graduated scale of morality with regard to women and children. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 is fun too:

If "harm follows" did just refer to the woman then why on earth would they bother putting in their that she was with child? if they weren't talking about the kid then it would be irrelevant whether or not she was pregnant.

"When men fight with one another and the wife of the one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of him who is beating him and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, then you shall cut off her hand. Your eye shall have no pity."

ya this is pretty funny

[ChristLivesWithinMe]

CLWM, You really hope you aren't a KJV only person. There are some excellent modern versions that really give a far better word for word translation. Remember, This is their civil law given to them by God. This doesn't reflect how a person should act in these situations, nor how a person should respond on an individual basis. judges, appointed by God through Moses, were to carry out the law and make sure it is done fairly and properly.

hence it being the old testement and not the new. Anyways i do have more than 1 version

[StillSearching]

SS, There are many issue where the answer is up for grabs. Within Christianity, there is room for those. But there is a limit to what that room is in Christianity. There are absolutes that Christians must confess/believe. And of those, they are not up for grabs to no man. That is the christian perspective with it appears the author is giving. I have to admit, I don't see a point to a book like this, except for what I stated earlier. I can't imagine they are refering to God in generic terms.

What exactly are the absolutes?

I can't really speak to the contents of the book because I'm not reading it. Sounds to me like a waste of money - the same old tired evangelism.

[StillSearching]

If "harm follows" did just refer to the woman then why on earth would they bother putting in their that she was with child? if they weren't talking about the kid then it would be irrelevant whether or not she was pregnant.

How can harm follow to a miscarried fetus? It's dead.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award.

Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
21:22-36 The cases here mentioned give rules of justice then, and still in use, for deciding similar matters. We are taught by these laws, that we must be very careful to do no wrong, either directly or indirectly. If we have done wrong, we must be very willing to make it good, and be desirous that nobody may lose by us.

Theologian Millard Erickson notes that in this view, “the lex talionis [life for life] is applied only if the mother is harmed. On this basis it is concluded that the fetus was not considered a soul or a person, and thus is not to be thought of as fully human.” Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), p. 555.

Jerome's Commentary explains: "If a pregnant women should suffer a miscarriage as a result of a blow, the guilty party need only make a monetary compensation demanded by her husband; however should the woman die, capital punishment is proscribed for the offender." If the fetus had been considered an independent entity, there would have been an life for a life penalty for murder.

The Talmud says that a fetus is its mothers thigh (Hulin 58a and Gittin 23b), and it has no legal rights. Even once the birth process starts the fetus can be destroyed to save the women from physical or mental harm. In order for a fetus to be considered a nefesh adam (a living person), its head must have emerged from the birth canal. Sanhedrin 72b states: it (the fetus) is not a person and therefore its life is inferior to its mothers life.

[ChristLivesWithinMe]

How can harm follow to a miscarried fetus? It's dead.

i guess, but it also says in other versions "if no harm follows" which means it could be more than just a miscarriage like premature as suggested earlier. but i guess it does depend on how you want to personally interpret it and which bible you read.

[ChristLivesWithinMe]

and in no way do i intend to turn this into an abortion pro or con thing, just a few questions bout the scripture passages bro

[ScottBarger]

Ah yes, the wonderful world of biblical Hebrew.

[StillSearching]

How can harm follow to a miscarried fetus? It's dead.

i guess, but it also says in other versions "if no harm follows" which means it could be more than just a miscarriage like premature as suggested earlier. but i guess it does depend on how you want to personally interpret it and which bible you read.

and in no way do i intend to turn this into an abortion pro or con thing, just a few questions bout the scripture passages bro

It's cool. Just discussing some different points of view.

How can harm follow to a miscarried fetus? It's dead.

i guess, but it also says in other versions "if no harm follows" which means it could be more than just a miscarriage like premature as suggested earlier. but i guess it does depend on how you want to personally interpret it and which bible you read.

It definitely does depend on a huge number of factors. Being born premature was likely a death sentence in those days. My guess is that the survival rate was significantly lower than today. To me it makes more sense that the more severe punishment was reserved for those who did harm to the wife. To the husband, she would have been valued more highly than the unborn fetus.

[Pseudonym]

Ah yes, the wonderful world of biblical Hebrew.

No kidding! If only the LXX wer original, this discussion would be so much easier...

[crazylegsmurphy]

Hey All,

I'm finally caught up. I had to order the book online (and two others to save on shipping) and it took a while to get here. I must say that so far I am really liking this excursion from the norm. I don't always get a chance to get on the forums in time to add anything of real value to the conversation, but it's great that I can feel involved through reading the book.

I have so say however that generally I feel a little insulted by what I perceive as the tone of the book so far. It always bothers me when Christians assume that I just go through life without care or consequence and that getting up in the morning must be a chore since there is nothing to look forward to or live for.

The example of "Don" is so ridiculous that I scoffed when I read that part. I have had Mormons come to my door for years and as Scott said there are times when you'll say anything just to get the to leave. Scott is also correct in that I think most Christians would be pretty hard pressed to double talk anyone Atheist or otherwise into some kind of prest-o chang-o conversion on their own doorstep. This "evidence" was really a weak sauce example of how anyone should approach someone. manipulating people off guard will more than likely cause nothing but resentment and confusion that it will do good in my opinion.

The other thing that is bothering me so far about the book (Chapter 1) is that the authors seem to feel there is no problem with just throwing out statements as "truth" without backing them up with any form of counter argument. I'm assuming they'll go into further depth later in the book, but it strikes me as odd how they continuously feel the need to remind us that they're Christians. I can't say for sure, but it almost feels like passive aggressive peer pressure tactics. It's almost like the fence sitters will be easily convinced because someone in a position of "authority" keeps reminding them that "if we can convert to Christianity and find the truth, you can too, and would be dumb not to!"

Anyway, I'm not going to go too much into it since I'm on the tail end of this, but I hope to be more involved as the book goes on.

[ChristLivesWithinMe]

This "evidence" was really a weak sauce example

haha thats my word, weak sauce

[JustJim]

The other thing that is bothering me so far about the book (Chapter 1) is that the authors seem to feel there is no problem with just throwing out statements as "truth" without backing them up with any form of counter argument. I'm assuming they'll go into further depth later in the book, but..."

That's my main complaint, too. I get knots in my stomach reading all their presuppositions of truth or their lists of things we "know" to be true -- without bothering to back those claims up with anything but their own say-so. I got the book online for my "Kindle for iPhone", and it's extremely easy to read and use in that form. But if I had a paper version, I'd already have it annotated and highlighted and underlined to death with all the outrageous unsupported claims like that they make.

On the otherhand, I'm somewhere in the middle of Chapter 5 now, and they're doing a rather exemplary job of explaining the basic tenets of both the cosmological and teleological arguments, even though they don't address any of the rather substantial rebuttals to them. But I'll give them some slack, since their objective is to explain why they do believe God exists - not why others don't. So far, they're making a good case for belief in a first-cause/uncaused kind of non-interventional deistic god. However, that has nothing to do with the God of the Bible, which nothing they've said so far supports. I suppose they're gonna get to that later.

Anyhow, I'm staying out of the discussions because I'm too far ahead in the reading and don't want to confuse later chapters with the chapter under discussion.

Jim