You are quite correct we don’t usually want to remove the blinders. We earned our blinders by much study and it seems such a waste of time and effort to remove them. I have a vested interest in my belief. If I am correct I will live forever and even be happy forever. It is very difficult for me to understand why an atheist wants to believe there is no God, or a Muslim wants to believe in a God that couldn’t care less about him.
No, I don’t believe just because I want to. I knew you would jump on that.

“I would like to see a method even proposed as to how to remove it.”

Well, because blinders are acquired over a period of time I think one would have to go all the way back to the beginning of their erudition and start to relearn everything. One would start with the question, “Is there a God, or not?” The answer to this question is not found in the Bible. Surprisingly I believe science would answer this question and that there is because there has to be a designer. You and I can see and admit that we have blinders (I thought you did), but most scientists will not admit they have blinders. So you have to reach your own conclusions from scientific evidence. You said, “Hmmm…maybe I ought to re-look at how I handle the stories of the Tanakh?” You would not start with this question, because it is not the starting point. Too many points have been accepted as true before one acquires a way of viewing the Tanakh. Kind of like starting to build a two story house on the second floor.

It seems to me that you built your understanding without first answering the basic question “Is there really a God”. It is only logical that if you do not believe there is a God that you would not accept the Word of God as truth.

“Do you understand the different Greek words used in the Pastorals as compared to Paul’s agreed genuine writing?”

Suppose Paul is writing to someone who would better understand if he used different words. Pharisees were very intelligent men and Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees, so if Paul were writing to a person of much less intelligence, or from a different environment, perhaps he would use different words (A slightly different language: something like English and American). The truth is we don’t know and we do not have all of the information that would enable us to be sure if Paul wrote it, who this Timothy is (could be a different Timothy), or much of the background that might influence the questions you presented.

“If you truly believe I (or any other person) has blinders; I can tell you I have already answered the question of whether I would like to remove those blinders. I do. I am now looking at the what as to how to do so. What (again) do you propose?”

“To be honest, it is not easy for me to take seriously someone accusing me of having “blinders” when they haven’t engaged the study as I have.”

Sorry, I thought you admitted that you had blinders.

I didn’t start this blinder thing, but it is true the story that started it actually has three answers and they depend on one’s beliefs.

The Christian that was told the god of the Qur’an made such a command would answer that it was wrong, because they believe the god of the Qur’an is not God. I do not see any double standard here at all. Their answer changed when the conditions of the story were changed. It was not the same scenario. It was deceptive and designed to be so.

The Muslim would answer that there is no story like that in the Qur’an, and the atheist would just say that there is no God so it was just to justify killing and plundering.

Perhaps it is not blinders, but merely the angle it is viewed from and that angle changes with what one believes.

“Look, astudent, we realize that you have as much ability to verify as to what God has a “right” to do as we have. None.”

You disagree with me and then you agreed by saying, “The reality is, that if God is God, He can do any of these things, up to and including executing us.”

Of course I have the ability to verify what God has a right to do. You are mixing the right that God has to do something with what God will do.

God never kills at whim, nor does He do anything at whim. He explained why those that were to be destroyed were to be. It is true that God can not lie, because if He were to say something was true it would become true and it would have always been true. Why do you say God can not prevent something in the future? Of course He can, because He does not, doesn’t mean that He cannot. He can do anything including making time reverse. (You know the story) You are right God MUST grant salvation if the right levers are pulled and buttons pushed, because He said He would and God is no liar. He would be if He reneged. It is not an obligation that man assigned to God, but one that is self-appointed. God made the levers and buttons.

“What, exactly are the “rights” that God has and, more importantly, what “rights” is God denied?”

God has all rights and no one can deny God anything. If He can be denied anything then He is not God. The idea and the question are absurd, but then they were meant to be.

I am glad you recognize the question of how to remove one’s bias as a difficult prospect. I was hoping you could provide some insight as to how you particularly, propose to do so. Unfortunately, often when I bring this topic up, the other person proclaims, “Oh, we are all bias” and leaves it there. While I agree, I would like to see a method even proposed as to how to remove it.

Interestingly, before we even get to the question of what to do to remove the inherent blinders we all have, the first question is whether we want to remove the blinders. Part of the point of my sharing that story about using the Qur’an was that people don’t want to remove the blinders.

They never pursue the question of how to remove bias, because they have no interest in doing so in the first place. How many of those people paused, even for a second, and thought, “Hmmm…maybe I ought to re-look at how I handle the stories of the Tanakh”? Answer: None. I know it. They know it. We all know it.

If you truly believe I (or any other person) has blinders; I can tell you I have already answered the question of whether I would like to remove those blinders. I do. I am now looking at the what as to how to do so. What (again) do you propose?

A good example of this is Paul’s authorship of 1 Timothy. I didn’t just mention that to engage in the debate—I was more curious as to the length and breadth of your own study in that regard. I was curious as to how you would respond to that claim?

Do you understand the different Greek words used in the Pastorals as compared to Paul’s agreed genuine writing? Do you understand the advanced church structure, unseen in the other letters of Paul? Or the placement of Timothy in the wrong city (if you hold Acts to be historical.)? Or the difficulty in placing the writing of Timothy within a specific year of Paul’s life? Or the historical convention of a disciple writing a work in their leader’s name?

To be honest, it is not easy for me to take seriously someone accusing me of having “blinders” when they haven’t engaged the study as I have. If you had replied, “Oh, here is why I hold Paul to be the author of Timothy” and provided more than its internal claim, then I would appreciate the effort.

The only scholars left, that I can tell, who hold Paul as the author of Timothy reside in the Conservative Christian sector. In other words—those with (Ta-da!) a bias toward having Paul be the author of Timothy.

Study up on it, and then tell us why we are being bias as to agreeing to very well-supported arguments by persons who hold no stake in whether Paul wrote 1 Timothy or not.

astudent: If there is a God then He has the right to command everyone to be executed.

Interesting choice of words. “Right.” Look, astudent, we realize that you have as much ability to verify as to what God has a “right” to do as we have. None. For example—if God can kill us, can God lie to us too? Can God withhold salvation if we believe with our heart and confess with our mouth that Jesus is Lord? Can God kick someone out of heaven? Can God bring someone out of Hell?

The reality is, that if God is God, He can do any of these things, up to and including executing us. Which is a bit terrifying to Christians, I think. So they create (with their own blinders, I fear) a curious bit of God. One that can kill at whim, but cannot lie. One that can see the future, but cannot prevent it. One that MUST do what the Christian demands (asking for salvation) and MUST provide heaven if the right levers are pulled and buttons pushed. But can somehow decide who gets a shot at those levers and buttons.

Simply put, they create a massive, awesome creature and then confine it to their own wants and desires. (Reminds me of the Genie in Aladdin “Phenomenal Cosmic Power! itty-bitty living space.”)

What, exactly are the “rights” that God has and, more importantly, what “rights” is God denied?

“It always matters what one bases a claim on. When you make a claim about God, doesn’t it matter what you base that on?”
Well, I may have been too quick to make that statement. I’ll agree with you it does matter.
Wasn’t your thesis based on deception? The account was Biblical yet presented as from the Koran. Can you really find truth in deception or have you just proved we can be deceived?

“Evangelical Christians make up a hefty percentage of the Republican base, and evangelical Christians are played a role in electing our current President.”
Heather, you have nothing to worry about! I suppose that by evangelical Christians you mean, “Of, relating to, or being a Christian church believing in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible”. Well the Bible says God appoints the authorities and if you are truly evangelical you believe your vote doesn’t count at all. I am as evangelical as one can get, at least that is my goal, so I will leave the perceived responsibility to you. Your problem is with those who only think the Bible is their sole authority.

“Except that’s using the letter to Timothy to prove the letter true”
Who wrote the letter can not be “proved” either way. I merely accepted what it said and of course you did not. Your statement attests to that “To us, Paul didn’t write the letter Timothy”. That was based on “There are a lot of scholars who have compared this letter with what is determined to be the genuine ones”, but there are a lot of scholars that disagree with that result.

“This would depend on perspective.”
I’ll agree with you about that also. Because I believe the Bible to be the Word of God many of your statements malign it in my eyes. However I don’t believe that you do it on purpose. If you do not question the Bible you will never truly believe it. I did not always believe the Bible, but when I began to really think about this world and how it came about I found that I had to believe in a God. My belief in the God of the Bible was only a natural result of searching for the truth. I apologize if I seem to try to tie your hands. If it would mean that you would reach the same conclusions as I have then by all means malign away.

**What did you think they would say believing that the god of the Koran is not God? If I said go and kill all of the people in a city they would say my behavior was wrong, because I don’t have the right to give such a command. ** So the entire matter, according to this reasoning, becomes subjective. The action itself never changed, but you categorize it as good because it’s in the Bible, not because the action is good in itself. If in the Koran, the action is bad. If in the Bible, the action is good. The action wasn’t accepted on its own merit, but because it was in the Bible. When the action was in another book, it wasn’t accepted. Even the definition of ‘good’ becomes subjective here. Again, to many, this comes across as a double-standard.

**I don’t mean to disparage you in any way, but does it really matter what you based your claim on?** It always matters what one bases a claim on. When you make a claim about God, doesn’t it matter what you base that on? As with here, I made a ‘thesis’ and then said this is why I say that. If you made a ‘thesis’ about God, you would then back it up with support.

** What makes you think that you live in a country where Christianity dominates?** Because, as DagoodS states, we live in a country that is heavily populated by Bible-believers. These are believers that have a strong voice in politics, that can heavily affect women’s reproductive choices (and I’m not talking about abortion, I’m talking about birth control and sex education), events in the Middle East, and science, just to name a few. Evangelical Christians make up a hefty percentage of the Republican base, and evangelical Christians are played a role in electing our current President.

**(1 Tim 1:1&2 NIV) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.**

Except that’s using the letter to Timothy to prove the letter true, and I believe that is known as circular reasoning. There are a lot of scholars who have compared this letter with what is determined to be the genuine ones, and based on elements such as content, grammer, and word choice.

**However the definition of malign is “To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of” ** This would depend on perspective. To us, Paul didn’t write the letter Timothy. In those times, it was common practice to write something and attach the name of a famous person to it. Based on what we’ve studied in terms of the creation of the Bible, it’s not an untrue statement. As stated, we are considering a variety of viewpoints and interpretations.

Agnosticatheist,
Of course not. As I said to Heather, God made everything out of His material, with His equipment, and His time, so He has every right to do with it as He pleases. We think we are self-sufficient, but no one gave themselves life. God takes every ones life one way or the other and He will take mine and yours also. So He definitely is not a genocidal murderer, nor is He any kind of murderer. The definition of the word murder is, “The unlawful killing of one human being by another, especially with premeditated malice.” God is not a human being there for He can not murder.

DagoodS,
Now there is an honest statement and a darn (I shouldn’t say damn) good question.
I don’t think you can find anyone who is not biased. You may find some who claim to be unbiased. Everyone has a stake in the matter.
Perhaps one could take the position of “Devils Advocate” it wouldn’t remove blinders, but it might force one to look around them.

“Hmmm. And you accuse us of maligning the Bible. Therefore, by use of this method…”
Now that is funny and I had to laugh. However the definition of malign is “To make evil, harmful, and often untrue statements about; speak evil of” and I am not doing this.

“I live in an environment that is overwhelmed by Bible-believers”
God’s people have always been a small percentage of all the people. Actually it is we who are overwhelmed.

“Oh, and Paul did not write 1 Timothy”
(1 Tim 1:1&2 NIV) Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the command of God our Savior and of Christ Jesus our hope, To Timothy my true son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

“See, it is not so much that we “malign” the Bible, as that we consider the possibilities available.” To malign the Bible. Read the definition again.

I would be happy to address your other points, if you would explain the following: in my example that I used to support my statement, how do you account for the defense of the situation when it was discovered that the example was actually from the bible? When the speaker said the story was from the Koran, the audience thought it was horrible. When the speaker revealed that it was actually from the Bible, the audience excused it saying that it was from another time.

Please don’t answer this saying that I have my own blinders on — that doesn’t address my situation, but changes the topic. In any other circumstance, we could call that a double-standard.

We would disagree w/you here and believe Heather is reading the Bible with an open mind and you’re reading the Bible with blinders on.

For example: Would you say that God is a genocidal murderer? If you say no then how do you explain all these verses unless you put a “blinder” on…

http://literalbible.blogspot.com/search/label/Killings?&max-results=100

aA

I agree that I have blinders on. But realizing that is not enough. For me. The question, then is how to create a method by which as much bias can be removed. To both recognize the blinders, and frame, as best as possible, a question to remove the possibility of the bias affecting my answer.

And one such way is to talk to other people. Talk to people who have no such bias. Who have no stake in the matter. Of course, finding such “neutral” people is not always easy. So I tried seeing what those who would not have any stake in whether the Qur’an was true or not would say. And they found this command to be evil.

What method do YOU propose to utilize to remove one’s blinders?

astudent: If someone is accusing others of a particular error you better watch them. The man who cries thief often, is usually stealing.

Hmmm. And you accuse us of maligning the Bible. Therefore, by use of this method…

I agree with the premise that we often assume others have the same faults we do. As you say, a thief presumes others steal. Which brings me back to the same question—rather than fling statements back and forth as to who has the thicker blinders—what method do you propose that we all can remove our blinders?

astudent: If you really don’t believe in a God then why don’t you try to prove the Koran wrong? Or any other holy book wrong?

Because, as heather states, I live in an environment that is overwhelmed by Bible-believers. Plus I know a great deal more about the Bible. Plus it interests me.

Oh, and Paul did not write 1 Timothy, and his claim of being a Pharisee is not exactly clear in Phil. 3:5. He may have been explaining his position on the Torah (as compared to other Jewish sects) OR he may have been saying he was a Pharisee.

See, it is not so much that we “malign” the Bible, as that we consider the possibilities available.

“Ah, but now you’re changing the topic. I’m not maligning the Bible, I’m commenting on how it is used and interpreted.”
Well, you could have fooled me. I believe you are also interpreting the Bible and with blinders. Your interpretation or unfounded guess that Paul was very proud of his heritage leaves out the confession of Paul (1 Tim 1:13-16) He was a Pharisees when he persecuted Christians.

Go re-read why I said people read with ‘bible blinders’ on, and thus what I based this claim on. When people thought the story came from the Koran, the behavior was wrong and the people following that book should know better. When people found out that he actually pulled the story from the Bible, the story was no longer considered wrong but excused away. How would you explain the shift in behavior and the sudden justification for the story? Those are usually along the lines of reading something with blinders on.

**If you really don’t believe in a God then why don’t you try to prove the Koran wrong? Or any other holy book wrong?** Because I don’t live in a country lead by people who rule according to the Koran. I live in a country where Christianity dominates.

**Do your ‘blinders’ hide other religions and other books? Or is it just safer to malign the Bible?** Ah, but now you’re changing the topic. I’m not maligning the Bible, I’m commenting on how it is used and interpreted.