Hardly hot potatoes, part 2

(For the background to this discussion, see the previous post.)

How can anyone rely on the Bible for answers, if it's just a loose translation of ancient myths anyway?
The word choices here reveal a great amount. Granted, the quality (and intention) of translations vary, but there is no doubt the Christian community (and its Jewish forebears) have been committed to transmitting Scripture accurately from one generation to the next. "Loose" is a completely subjective word choice, revealing bias in the questioner. As does the word "myth." The assumption is the Bible records allegory, particularly in the Old Testament. That assumption is challenged regularly. It's worth pointing out what archeological evidence we have underscores the Bible's accuracy on the areas of history on which it touches... it does not diminish it.

How can we trust a religion that has advocated slavery and the subjugation of women throughout history?
By "religion," one would have to mean the doctrines, which are different from its practitioners. Unlike Mohammmed, Christ never said anything in Scripture to justify a Crusade-like endeavor. That doesn't mean Christians aren't guilty of perverting scripture to solemnize acts of evil. It DOES mean Christ Himself is not guilty of such advocacy. So, where do we find in Scripture the "advocation" of slavery and female subjugation? We don't. We find passages encouraging believers who have to deal with institutions, like slavery, that will always exist in this fallen world. We find passages that reconcile cultural expectations of civility with the responsibly exercised freedom of believers in Christ. To the extent these have been abused by people with an agenda the fault is theirs, not God's.

The four questions addressed in these two posts are simply saws that have been around for a long time. They are asked with an agenda, and because of that agenda no evidence, no matter how objective, will be enough to overcome them in the mind of the questioner. I should know--I used to ask similar questions myself in an attempt to evade any notion of a God to whom I had to answer. Fortunately, a wise man eventually challenged me to examine the motivation behind my questions: was I seeking knowledge or excuses?

Vox Day, the author of the book I bought during the Amazon "surge," frequently points out how the most highly praised atheists still borrow a moral foundation from 'religion.' Aside from utilitarianism, which most thinking people recognize as hostile to human liberty and dignity, atheism has yet to produce a basis for society that isn't cribbed in some way from those they claim to oppose. If we are all created beings, however, it would stand to reason our logic can never rise higher than that of our Creator. Scripture is clear that God Himself is the one who has to give us the faith and love to respond to Him. Only when we pervert the faculties He's given to us do we even have the capacity to try to resist His word. But when you have to borrow from your enemy even to fight, you ought to examine the ground you're on.