You dont have to open the bible to see its a lie

thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
You dont have to open the bible to see its a lie

I see so many atheist debating the contents of the bible.  But do we really have to open it to see its bull.  No we don't.  Why, because of the basic questions anyone would ask about any book that might come across your desk.

 

1.  What kind of book is it? 

2.  Why was it written?

3.  Who wrote it?

There are many more but we only need the first one.

To believers it is the absolute truth and not subject to any change.  To me, a person who has never been introduced to any religion other then personal academic curiosity, its is any odd concept in itself.  I mean, I have been told to read a lot of books, but never has a biology teacher dropped a book on my desk and said this is the absolute truth, and is never subject to change.  If a teacher told me this, I would instantly know they were full of crap and a liar.  To me this is the most damming peace of evidence against most religions. 

 

I would also like to note that not all religions make absolute claims.  For example Tibetan Buddhism does not.

Carl Sagan wrote:
Well, when I talk to religious leaders, one thing I always ask them is: What would you do if a fundamental tenet of your religion was definitively disproved by science? And, at least in the West, and especially among fundamentalist religions, the tendency is to say, "Science couldn't possibly," or, "My religion is an absolute truth, and if science gets different answers, too bad for science." The Dalai Lama's answer was: "If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism." So I tried to push him on this issue. Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."

 

 


Creucent
Creucent's picture
Posts: 29
Joined: 2007-12-06
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm, at least the Dalai

Hmmm, at least the Dalai Lama is willing to adapt to facts. I can respect him for that. Fundie Christians though...until they give up the fingers-in-ears "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" defense, I can't take them seriously. At all.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Dead serious, I knew someone

Dead serious, I knew someone who believed the sun orbited around the earth because the bible said so. It doesn't matter what science discovers, to the believer the bible is truth. After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Buddhists, I luv'em

 Buddhists, I luv'em    The biggest problem, unfortunately, is that reincarnation thing, and so many have quit using the word, and say "recycling".

Sagan asks, "Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."

  YUP, All energy/matter is recycling !   .... Humm Now,  what else did the oral translations of Buddha suggest ?  Well, in a nutshell  ...... Be extra nice to yourself which means also being extra nice to everyone else, as all in the cosmos is ONE.

Big J said the same thing, and added,  Fuck the hypocrites and vipers down at the church temple, force selling doves on the poor and menstruating women to blood sacrifice.  Then big bad J went down there and trashed the place. Fuck YEAH atheist Jesus !  I feel your rage .... But shit J,  there's got to be a better way than gettin ourselves into a big heap of trouble. OUCH !

BTW, some tried to kill Buddha a few times , but he lived into his 80's. Died from food poisoning the story goes .... 

 THEN came, Paul and other RELIGIOUS DOGMA ......      KILL the god of abe and pauls ....     


Slimm
Superfan
Slimm's picture
Posts: 167
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:After all, isn't

Loc wrote:

After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

I don't think they have the slightest idea...

 

Quote:
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
What do you do if one of

What do you do if one of those crazy fundamentalists is a family member you love?  Sometimes I think I'll go crazy, too.

Books on atheism, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote:What do

Iruka Naminori wrote:

What do you do if one of those crazy fundamentalists is a family member you love?  Sometimes I think I'll go crazy, too.

 

Tell them that you just became a scientologist and now worship xenu.  When they try to tell you there is no xenu, tell them to prove there isnt.  When they cant, tell them that is proof of xenu. 


Michaelc (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
      What kind of

 

 

 

 

 

 

What kind of book is it?

I think you should consider you own statement.

Science is always claiming to be unique and separate from religion since it deals with facts that relate exclusively to the natural world. Generally science is unconcerned with ultimate questions until it hits a dead end such as what was prior to the big bang.   

On the other hand, the Bible was not written as a science book. It makes the claim of being the word of God, and logically, if you have something that claims to be the word of God, you would expect it to be the absolute truth and never subject to change.

Fundamentalist are not the only people that believe the Bible is the word of God, as there are evangelicals that are Theistic Evolutionists, or those in intelligent design, yet you tend to focus on those who believe in the 6,000 years and 6 days of creation. I guess they are easy target for you. It's like pointing to Al Queda to represent all Muslims.  


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Michaelc

Michaelc wrote:

Fundamentalist are not the only people that believe the Bible is the word of God

Believing that the bible is the word of God means you're a fundamentalist.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Believing that the

Quote:
Believing that the bible is the word of God means you're a fundamentalist.

Nah.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
totus_tuus

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
Believing that the bible is the word of God means you're a fundamentalist.

Nah.

I will qualify a bit "If you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, you're a fundamentalist"

Then again, you don't believe that the Bible is the only word of God. You also give divine validity to your Church's teachings, don't you?

Not sure if you have a dog in this fight, TT.

As far as the ID argument is concerned, Behe admitted under oath that the only way to call ID science is to redefine science in such a manner that you could include astrology (and for all I know, alchemy) as science.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, you're right JC. 

Yeah, you're right JC.  I'll sit this one out.  I'm with the science as far as the development of life goes, with the caveat that there is an intelligence who drove the development.  I'm somewhat in tune with the thoughts of Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn, Stanley Jaki, and Teilhard de Chardin (about as close to heresy as I'll get) on this one.  Check em out if you ever get a free minute.  It's some cool stuff.

Oh, and yeah.  There are three sources of divine revelation, Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium of the Church.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Michaelc wrote:Science is

Michaelc wrote:
Science is always claiming to be unique and separate from religion since it deals with facts that relate exclusively to the natural world. Generally science is unconcerned with ultimate questions until it hits a dead end such as what was prior to the big bang.
What other sorts of "facts" are there outside of 'the natural world'? Nothing happens outside of nature, only outside of what we understand of it.

Dead end? The answer to "What was before the 'big bang'?" is "Nothing", and I mean nothing as in nothing, not void or emptiness but nothing at all. Folks don't much like that answer because it's not intuitive.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Michaelc wrote: On the

Michaelc wrote:

 On the other hand, the Bible was not written as a science book. It makes the claim of being the word of God, and logically, if you have something that claims to be the word of God, you would expect it to be the absolute truth and never subject to change.

I don't think anyone thinks that the bible new or old, was physically written by gods own hand.  There for a it must product of man, therefore falable.


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Dead serious, I

Loc wrote:

Dead serious, I knew someone who believed the sun orbited around the earth because the bible said so. It doesn't matter what science discovers, to the believer the bible is truth. After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

 

There's an inordinate amount of people who believe the Earth is the center of the universe.

Check out this guy's videos:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xhqpoJLtZzk

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GPU8op9Xm5E


John Paul
atheist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-04-03
User is offlineOffline
preemptive strike on the unopened bible

thomas paine articulated the best argument against the bible (without having to even open it) that i have come across. if my memory serves me well, i do recall paine pointing out the fact that the written word is trapped in time and culture. that is to say that it is not able to be universal (comprehendible to all peoples in all places) for all time. if we are to take the written hebrew or greek to the "four corners of the earth" then we require a interpreter to do so. without the interpreter to translate and explain the written hebrew and greek, the bible is then only relevant to a small number of people. of course, this is my interpretation of paine's point it would be best to read for yourself what paine had to say in his impressive work, "the age of reason." when one realizes the limitations of the written word it then seems very unlikely that a supposed infinite universal being would choose to confine "his" "word" to this limited (though beautiful and wonderful) form of communication. that the perfect God would provide modern man with his "word" through ancient written hebrew and greek, and in the context of ancient antiquated cultures, does not say much for this God of the book. i should also note, as bart ehrman has pointed out, the various contradicting manuscripts which the bible translators translates are copies of copies of copies of copies... of the original text. we do not have the original edition. the edition we do have has gone through many rewrites of many human scribes who took the liberty of editing and adding to the words of the original anonymous writers. these two points alone are enough give the bible thumper good reason to pause and realize that not everyone is impressed with a God who hides in a book. it was not a book that caused the disciples, or any of the early christians for that matter, to believe; so the well intentioned evangelist would be wise to offer something more than just "the bible says so" if he/she hopes for me and others like me to take him/her seriously. 

all the best,

jp

=) 

"That God cannot lie, is no advantage to your argument, because it is no proof that priests can not, or that the Bible does not." - Thomas Paine 

"It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes." - Thomas Paine

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
   ))))   "It is not a

   ))))   "It is not a God, just and good, but a devil, under the name of God, that the Bible describes." - Thomas Paine

   Kill god of abe, it's the devil indeed, I as often also say !    


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote: Dead serious, I

Loc wrote:

Dead serious, I knew someone who believed the sun orbited around the earth because the bible said so. It doesn't matter what science discovers, to the believer the bible is truth. After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

Where are you getting these facts from? The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and where does it say that the sun orbits around the earth? People always get mad when someone quotes science and it's wrong because they're quoting something they've heard, well the same is true with the Bible. Nowhere does it say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, yet that's brought up routinely by atheists.


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Where are you

j_day wrote:

Where are you getting these facts from? The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and where does it say that the sun orbits around the earth? People always get mad when someone quotes science and it's wrong because they're quoting something they've heard, well the same is true with the Bible. Nowhere does it say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, yet that's brought up routinely by atheists.

The bible clearly lists all of the begets and when added up you get about 6,000 years, 10,000 max.

And this was what the catholic church thought of the sun revolving around the earth, when it was first being discovered. 

Cardnial Rob Bellarmine wrote:

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

To the church, this was a very serous problem.  They went as far as lock Galileo in his home for the end half of his life just for knowing this information.  And even forced him to say that the sun revolves around the earth, by fear of death.


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Loc wrote: Dead

j_day wrote:

Loc wrote:

Dead serious, I knew someone who believed the sun orbited around the earth because the bible said so. It doesn't matter what science discovers, to the believer the bible is truth. After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

Where are you getting these facts from? The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and where does it say that the sun orbits around the earth? People always get mad when someone quotes science and it's wrong because they're quoting something they've heard, well the same is true with the Bible. Nowhere does it say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, yet that's brought up routinely by atheists.

The reason it's brought up routinely by atheists is because it's brought up even more routinely by theists claiming it's true. So why don't you ask them where in the bible they got it from?

The belief that the sun revolves around the earth seems to have risen from verses that claim the earth doesn't move:

"The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Ps. 93:1 & 1 Chron. 16:30)

"He established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Ps. 104:5)

And verses saying the sun moves:

...the sun rises and the sun sets; And hastening to its place it rises there again." Eccles. 1:5

We can explain rising and setting, but hastening seems to imply the author thought the sun moved around the earth daily.

The story in Joshua of the sun standing still is wrong from a geocentric viewpoint:

 Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. Joshua 10:12

Wouldn't god rather commmand the earth to stop?

 

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


John Paul
atheist
Posts: 55
Joined: 2008-04-03
User is offlineOffline
6,000 yrs. is the biblical calculation

Loc wrote:

j_day wrote:

Loc wrote:

Dead serious, I knew someone who believed the sun orbited around the earth because the bible said so. It doesn't matter what science discovers, to the believer the bible is truth. After all, isn't it proven by the speed of light and distance of stars that the universe is older than 6,000 years? Yet how many fundies still say there's more evidence for their claim.

Where are you getting these facts from? The Bible does NOT say that the earth was created 6,000 years ago and where does it say that the sun orbits around the earth? People always get mad when someone quotes science and it's wrong because they're quoting something they've heard, well the same is true with the Bible. Nowhere does it say the earth was created 6,000 years ago, yet that's brought up routinely by atheists.

The reason it's brought up routinely by atheists is because it's brought up even more routinely by theists claiming it's true. So why don't you ask them where in the bible they got it from? 

they got it from calculating the generations in the bible. i think it's sad that the many christians today pretend as if there bible is something other than an outdated/illogical book written by men from the distant past. the men from the past didn't know any better but the christians of today who insist that their faith is based on reason and logic seem bent on claiming that their primitive book is modern and scientific. i understand how faith/emotion can blind people from the truth, because i myself used to suffer from this affliction. however, when one reads the bible objectively (without faith) one reads words written by men who sincerely believed the earth to be young (compared to the reality) and the center of the solar system. those who hang on to faith will accuse the objective reader of reading it out of context or too literally, but by "out of context" / "too literally" they mean to say (whether they realize it or not) in the light that contradicts their faith. defend the bible all you want but what you're actually doing is arguing with the ancestors of your faith. the skeptics have been arguing with your ancestors for many centuries and now science has proven the skeptics to be right. the modern christian then attempts to be on the winning side of the argument and rebukes the skeptic for misreading the bible when in fact it is the skeptic who simply maintains his ancestors' position against the positon held by the ancestors of christianity. if the modern christian wishes to join the free thinking skeptics side of the argument then he/she is welcome to do so. however, it would be much more honest and mature to do so while acknowledging the history of the argument. the modern christian owes his/her modernity to the free thinking skeptic/scientist. otherwise, the christian would still believe what his/her ancestors of the faith believed. the scope's trial/creation "scientists"/fundamentalists/etc... are examples of this christian ignorance. it is not the skeptic who misinterprets the bible as putting forth the idea of a young earth at the center of the solar system. it is the skeptic responding to the christian's interpretation of a primitive book which contradicts modern science. i can only hope that one day the modern christian will completely break the spell and let go of that primitive blood thirsty "God" myth that the writers of the bible believed in.

peace,

jp

=)  

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Yeah John Paul, "God of

  Yeah John Paul, "God of abe" is saving no one, wacky people are saving that silly and dangerous god ....     


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I think a lot of people

I think a lot of people ignore what the German redaction history schools of the 19th century realized they could no longer ignore.  You cannot hold the Bible up to modern day understanding and say that because it doesn't match that the authors are liars, and therefore the "Bible lies."  The Bible is a collection of 60+ books, many of these books are actually a collection of smaller books (Like Isaiah, being three books combined into one, Exodus is three books combined into one, etc...).  The intent of the authors, being as they're anonymous, are not easy to ascertain, but it is more than probable that the authors were not writing with the intent to deceive.  When one reads Homer's Iliad and the Odyssey, we don't say to ourselves, "That poet is a liar!  How deceptive he was for spreading those lies!" because we understand that Homer was writing fiction, creating plot, working out narrative with what he understood.  We also understand this when we read any great fiction novel from any really well developed fictional universe.  For example, when we read a Star Wars novel by Michael Stackpole or Arron Allston, we recognize them for their added depth and understanding, as when we read Jason's voyage on the Argo we recognize that Apollonius of Rhodes was expanding on the Homeric fictional universe.  The authors of the Biblical narratives are no different in this regard.  Perhaps some of them really believed they were writing down history, but they were believing this as they were intentionally adjusting plot.  

Instead, we should continually discuss the Bible, to make this point understood, and that instead of calling the Bible out, as if to personify it, we should continue to call out the preachers and pastors who are lying about the contents, who are telling those who cannot think for themselves yet (because they have not met with a Rational Responder *wink*) that the Bible is one book, inspired by one God which does recount science (Like Dr. Dino suggests) and that it is God's divine orders (like Phelps claiming that because the Bible says to kill homosexuals that God demands this) and that it contains accurate history (like evangelicals and maximalist apologists).  These are the real liars.  These are the dolts who blind people to the inventiveness and creativity that the books of the Bible have produced and were produced with.

Just my two cents.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Well said Rook.  The

  Well said Rook.  The bible is one thing, and the church, tho related, is another ....

  Sheezz I tell people, every word even written by man is the word of "Gawed" .....

  I AM fond of lots of the bible and mostly dig the Jesus I read there, but when the typical  preacher or xain starts telling me about Jesus etc I get sad and pissed .....  


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
I think you missing the main

I think you missing the main point.  Anyone who claims any book is absolute truth is a lier.  No exceptions.  Because no such books exist and no such books will ever exist.  By claimer, I mean the people today.  If the original writers are liers, is moot point, given we don't know who they were and even if we did, there is not way of knowing if they came up the the stories in the first place.  One thing we can do for this, is look at other religions we know more about.

Starting from newest.

Scientology (Started by L Ron Hubbard) - This is one we differently don't have to open Dianetics or OT 1,2,3,4,5,6 or 7 to find out that Hubbard made this up for greed, power and his giant ego.  But xenu is one cool dude.

Mormonism (Joseph Smith, Jr.) - His story of the gold tablets is just ridiculous, and how covenant they have never been seen by anyone but him.  Again book need not be opened.

Islam (Muhammad) - Gabriel dictated it to him, this just has made up written all over it. 

In each case, someone had to bend the truth at the very least.  I would have to say they all lied.  Now if you want to say there the work of fiction, then you would be rite.  But how often in history are they presented in that light.

 

The only thing the bible or other religious books are good for is picking history out of them, but even this can be rather difficult and problematic.  Its not always easy to pick the facts out from the fiction.  I always imagine this like in 2,000 years, the only books left from our time are the harry potter series, the bible, The Da Vinci Code, and the lord of the rings.  And now the historians of the future have to use these, to some how figure out our history. 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Actually, bud, it is you who

Actually, bud, it is you who are missing the point.  Please read what I wrote with a little more caution when considering a response. 

 

(1) I would never suggest the Bible contains any historical information (You'll note I clearly labeled it as fiction),

(2) I very concisely wrote that the authors of the books of the Bible did not intend for them to be read as absolute truth.  No such standard existed in antiquity when it came to Jewish writing, which is why so much Jewish fiction and pros narrative exist from the period between the Persian age and the Hellenistic age.

(3) We can tell from what information we know of from the period that they were not writing to deceive - if they were, they were not deceiving anybody because there was no "orthodoxy" or established "canon" for them to con people with.  All literature was a springboard for those who could write to create new and fascinating interpretations. 

(4) It is precisely those idiots who are ignorant of these facts listed here which are the culprits.  The original authors--whoever they were--can not be held accountable for their literary achievements being used against mankind.  That would be like accusing Homer for writing the Iliad with malice intent if we ever caught somebody using the Iliad to launch a hate crime against people living on the supposed location of Ilium, formerly called Troy. 

(5) Historians do not, and if they do it is only in rare cases, use manuscripts to attain knowledge of history.  If you are unaware if historical methodologies, perhaps I can offer you some schooling on the subject.  Archaeological and anthropological data are a vast amount more telling of the past than any written manuscript.  Inscriptions, settlements, artifacts, forensics, will no doubt yield more substantial and fool-proof information than what somebody wrote about 2,500 years ago.  Even if all that was left was the Lord of the Rings, later historians would not be so silly, indeed so incompetent, as to believe it were a work of literary history.  They would immediately recognize it as fiction.  Please take some time to busy yourself learning some of the methods modern historians use to interpret and understand the vast amount of physical data available to us, it may better explain why your conclusions about the Bible are not helpful.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
I don't see were the augment

I don't see were the augment is then.  Considering we both think the bible is almost totally worthless, for anything but fictional enjoyment.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
  Yeah, what was the

  Yeah, what was the argument ? I thought both of you were right on ....          but I AM drunk, and slow .....         God is like that , I AM proof ...... !  


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
thinktank wrote:I don't see

thinktank wrote:

I don't see were the augment is then.  Considering we both think the bible is almost totally worthless, for anything but fictional enjoyment.

The difference is I don't think it is worthless.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Ahhh, Right, the bible

   Ahhh, Right, the bible is by far the "biggest seller" of all time ..... and quite a lesson book of of our humanity !  Priceless ????   


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Yep...

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

   Ahhh, Right, the bible is by far the "biggest seller" of all time ..... and quite a lesson book of of our humanity !  Priceless ????   

I would add that the bible rates as the best seller largely because it is one book that is more often than not bought in mass lots for redistribution, thus counting the original sale, not the fact that it is handed out to those with no intent to actually READ the damned thing.

I would list it as the most bought, least read book of all time.

 

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah LC Is fiction a lie

 Yeah LC

Is fiction a lie ? NO. Does the church Lie ? Da. Religion is nothing but lies, distortion .....


thinktank
thinktank's picture
Posts: 45
Joined: 2007-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:The

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

The difference is I don't think it is worthless.

Well it all depends on your goals.  I can think of a few dozen people who have made millions with it.  It was used to convince race of people to move to the middle east.  And I have heard that David mills uses it to clean up doggy dodo.   I just don't really care for these uses.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
There are other uses of

There are other uses of ancient literature than those mentioned above.  I cannot help it if you refuse to acknowledge them.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
I would have to agree with

I would have to agree with Rook on this point.  Even non-believers, whether agnostic, atheist, or those of other eligious traditions, must admit that the ideals of Chritianity have been very influential in the development of western thought and culture in the last 2000 years.  It is important as members of that society to understand the origins of that thought and the underpinnings of that culture whether they agree with its tenets or not.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
I would be careful there. 

I would be careful there.  I would not say that Christianity was "influential in the development of western...culture."  I do not think Christianity influenced western civilization nearly as much as the Greeks and Romans did, partially because a theocratic system under the Christians failed, which is why the United States was formed as a secular nation using the Greek democratic system, Roman senate system, and various other partialities from these two great civilizations.   However, I do not discriminate in what I value with history.  History needs to be preserved just as any personal memory does.  The second we start ignoring or taking for granted parts of that history, even literary fictions such as the books of the Bible, or even Homer, we are doing our past a disservice and only hurting our possible understanding of the future along with the past.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3563
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
I use my Bible to place my

I use my Bible to place my hot dishes on when I'm eating while reading posts from RRS.  Even as an atheist I have need of the Holy Book.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


totus_tuus
Theist
totus_tuus's picture
Posts: 516
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the clarification

Thanks for the clarification of your views, Rook.  While we disagree on the importance of Christian thought in the development of western thought and culture (even though I think we're not that very far apart), we do agree on the importance of the Bible from a literary and historical standpoint.

"With its enduring appeal to the search for truth, philosophy has the great responsibility of forming thought and culture; and now it must strive resolutely to recover its original vocation." Pope John Paul II


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
thinktank wrote:You don't

thinktank wrote:
You don't have to open the Bible to see it's a lie.

You do realize this is the same logic that Christians use when they say "I don't have to know about evolution to know it's a lie," right? 


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
In his defense, evolution

In his defense, evolution does not claim that man evolved when apes learned to walk on water.


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I got this far reading

  I got this far reading the bible to know it was a "lie"

, well,  an honest mistake?,  first words of that book are, "When God began creating* "  ......  whatever  ..... the snake was cool. God said "I AM what I AM" , yup, that's me and you .....    I especially dug the atheist Jesus philosophy story character alter dude ...... Hey , pick your Jesus ! ......   Hey I AM JESUS  ...... 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
My best ROOK is a comedian !

My best ROOK is a comedian ! Fucking with history !


j_day (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:In his

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

In his defense, evolution does not claim that man evolved when apes learned to walk on water.

No, but they did magically turn into all different races and ethnicities. That's a pretty good trick too.


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The difference is I

Quote:
The difference is I don't think it is worthless.

Well, personally, I fail to see what tremendous contribution the Bible has made to literature. We'd still have Homer's epics without it (alongside all of the Greek epics that a number of the Bible's story's are re-imagining), we'd still have the Norse epics, we'd still have the native american epics, the asian epics... all kinds of spectacular skeletal bits that would likely still have lead down the road to Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Tolkien, etc.

...And, beside that - and I realize this is subjective - I thought the Bible sucked. The stories didn't entertain me. I've tried reading it a few times, and never got through Genesis. I think the notion that it's anywhere in the same league as Homer's work is laughable.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


jmm
Theist
jmm's picture
Posts: 837
Joined: 2007-03-03
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:In his

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

In his defense, evolution does not claim that man evolved when apes learned to walk on water.

Ha ha!


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
j_day wrote:Rook_Hawkins

j_day wrote:

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

In his defense, evolution does not claim that man evolved when apes learned to walk on water.

No, but they did magically turn into all different races and ethnicities. That's a pretty good trick too.

You're right. Having god make different languages and races because the tower of babel got too big for the liking of his ego makes waaay more sense

Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
The difference is I don't think it is worthless.

Well, personally, I fail to see what tremendous contribution the Bible has made to literature. We'd still have Homer's epics without it (alongside all of the Greek epics that a number of the Bible's story's are re-imagining), we'd still have the Norse epics, we'd still have the native american epics, the asian epics... all kinds of spectacular skeletal bits that would likely still have lead down the road to Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Tolkien, etc.

...And, beside that - and I realize this is subjective - I thought the Bible sucked. The stories didn't entertain me. I've tried reading it a few times, and never got through Genesis. I think the notion that it's anywhere in the same league as Homer's work is laughable.

Well for starters, all of these great epics tell us a little something about literature of the period.  However the Bible is a collection of some 800 years of literature, all different types of literature.   Epic, poetry, etc...  And that gives us a little more information than the Homeric Epics, being written almost entirely by one person at one point in history.  It would be if somebody collected all the plays, dialogs and epic cycles throughout 800 years of Greek history and chose 60+ of the most popular and well read books and stuffed them into one volume.  That is basically what the Bible is, but for a great many communities all over the known world at the time.  And, we also have a great deal more literature that was not chosen to go into the canon, giving us an even larger picture.  So this very thing alone makes the Bible important.  What is, per se, the Hebrew Bible could be proven to have been written using Homeric and Greek models, making it entirely a Hellenistic work.  Would that not mean something?  What could that tell us about Jewish culture before that period?  And so on.  You discriminate against the Bible because we are attacked with it more than other works of literature.  However, as a historian, I cannot discriminate about what is important and what isn't.  It is all important, even the Koran, because it helps give us just a little bit more of a picture of the world and what it was like at that period.  

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Rook_Hawkins wrote:Kevin R

Rook_Hawkins wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Quote:
The difference is I don't think it is worthless.

Well, personally, I fail to see what tremendous contribution the Bible has made to literature. We'd still have Homer's epics without it (alongside all of the Greek epics that a number of the Bible's story's are re-imagining), we'd still have the Norse epics, we'd still have the native american epics, the asian epics... all kinds of spectacular skeletal bits that would likely still have lead down the road to Shakespeare, Hemmingway, Tolkien, etc.

...And, beside that - and I realize this is subjective - I thought the Bible sucked. The stories didn't entertain me. I've tried reading it a few times, and never got through Genesis. I think the notion that it's anywhere in the same league as Homer's work is laughable.

Well for starters, all of these great epics tell us a little something about literature of the period.  However the Bible is a collection of some 800 years of literature, all different types of literature.   Epic, poetry, etc...  And that gives us a little more information than the Homeric Epics, being written almost entirely by one person at one point in history.  It would be if somebody collected all the plays, dialogs and epic cycles throughout 800 years of Greek history and chose 60+ of the most popular and well read books and stuffed them into one volume.  That is basically what the Bible is, but for a great many communities all over the known world at the time.  And, we also have a great deal more literature that was not chosen to go into the canon, giving us an even larger picture.  So this very thing alone makes the Bible important.  What is, per se, the Hebrew Bible could be proven to have been written using Homeric and Greek models, making it entirely a Hellenistic work.  Would that not mean something?  What could that tell us about Jewish culture before that period?  And so on.  You discriminate against the Bible because we are attacked with it more than other works of literature.  However, as a historian, I cannot discriminate about what is important and what isn't.  It is all important, even the Koran, because it helps give us just a little bit more of a picture of the world and what it was like at that period.  

I see that as being a strong case for the Bible being 'convenient', rather than 'important'. At best, it then has equal merit to a modern day anothology of the 'best' science fiction of modern times. While no doubt it's nice to have the most popular writing over such a long span of history all compressed into one volume, such writings are not exclusively available in the Bible. We could just as easily find literature from eight centuries of Greek history by simply taking samplings ourselves.

I'm also not 'discriminating' against the Bible when I say it sucks because I didn't enjoy it. I say the same thing about any piece of fiction that doesn't keep my attention.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
The Bible is full of great

The Bible is full of great stuff.
Sure, Christians have used it to cause abuse, but they managed to do that to Aristotle's Philosophy too!
Think of all the genuine scientists that Creationists have quoted out of context to make their case.
I don't think that we should judge the Bible by its mis-use.
While the Bible and Christian theology doesn't make a great moral system, it's packed full of great little passages.
I think everyone here can agree that the Good Samaritan is a classic parable in morality.

And all the ways it fails as an 'absolute truth' aren't such downfalls when you treat it like other historical documents.
(although it doesn't directly narrate an accurate history, that doesn't mean that it doesn't contain lots of real history indirectly!)
Rook clearly admires it as a historical document.
Another good example is Robert "The Bible Geek" Price.
He's a rational historian, but loves Christianity for the culture/mythology/human rite that it is.

jcgadfly wrote:

totus_tuus wrote:

Quote:
Believing that the bible is the word of God means you're a fundamentalist.

Nah.

I will qualify a bit "If you believe that the bible is the inerrant word of God, you're a fundamentalist"

Then again, you don't believe that the Bible is the only word of God. You also give divine validity to your Church's teachings, don't you?

Not sure if you have a dog in this fight, TT.

As far as the ID argument is concerned, Behe admitted under oath that the only way to call ID science is to redefine science in such a manner that you could include astrology (and for all I know, alchemy) as science.


The modern Christians I know see the Bible as a history of man's interactions and attempts to make sense of God.
Their explanation of the harshness of the Old Testament was that man in that state of evolution was only capable of relating to God in that way. In a similar way, we could look back at the ancient civilizations and compare how brutal they are to the modern day, but given the time they were in. You can't simply make a civilisation from scratch, it has to evolve. (I mean, look at the trouble we're having trying to 'impose' a democracy on countries that just aren't ready yet!)

In this way it's makes sense for them to put a lot of value in the Bible and draw experience from it, i.e. see it as a source of the experiences of people who have gone before them, a goldmine in previous experience of God. At the same time, it allows them to interpret it to fit common sense, recognise it that it's people trying to make sense of God given the time, knowledge and situation they were in. So they are in no danger of taking it as absolute and have little difficulty recognising that other religions can also have real experience of God, even if they think that their way is 'the best' or atleast the right one for them.

I still disagree.
I don't believe in God and  Ithink that they over-value the Bible.
But I find it a very respectable position.
I think that people miss the entire point of religion when they assume that fundamentalism is the 'real deal' and that moderates are just those who cannot fully commit to or reject fundamentalism.


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Ah, but this is our

Ah, but this is our difference of opinions then.  I find it to be entertaining and I enjoy reading it.  But more I disagree that we can find a collection of writings so diverse for the Jewish community outside the Bible - and it is precisely because we have the Bible that we can understand it and interpret it as fiction.  We could collect some pseudepigrapha, but then we would know very little of the culture and not so much about their practices and writing.  With the Greeks, we know more about them simply because they ruled the known world for three hundred years!  They had their own country.  The Jews did not.  Their heritage would be entirely unknown to us without many of the books of the Bible, and their reasons for writing the books are important because they do allow us to understand what the people were going through emotionally and mentally.

Additionally, your hypothesis is inaccurate concerning the Bible being 'convenient' as the works of fiction we have today are.  You are wrong.  Fictional literature today is not the same as fiction writing was in antiquity.  We write fiction today mostly for entertainment reasons.  Fiction writing in antiquity is something else.  Fiction and history were once considered one and the same, and respected as one and the same.  But more importantly, for the Jews, their fiction was their history.  And they understood that.  Which is why we have so much literature written in the way of fiction.  Because they didn't have a history, they created it.  This is quite a fascinating thing for me.  To have something so fascinating happen culture-wide spanning generations of Jews.  And no they're not the only ones. 

The Romans created their history and the Greeks did theirs.  And later Romans and Greeks understood their legendary pasts as a part of their history.  But we would never know any of this without the aide of volumes of collected works like the Bible, and the books of the Bible.  For example, without the Bible we would not know that the Hebrews were sometimes educated in Greek gymnasiums and wrote many works based on the models of Homer's epics.  We would not know about the creativity of the Jewish culture in antiquity and their abilities to create incredible works of literary fiction that blended multiple cultures together into one. 

You seem to be under the impression that we have a lot of literature from antiquity.  But we do not.  Unlike today, we cannot go to the "Antiquity Library" and take out one of hundreds of literary manuscripts from a particular decade in any part of antiquity.  We have but a handful in each period.  Whole epic cycles are missing.  There are more works we know existed but will never read than there are works by Greeks that we do have.  In comparison to the Hebrew Bible, we have much more works by Jews than by the Greeks between the period of the Persians to the Hellenistic, and that is why it is so important to have the Bible.

IN any event you are shifting goal posts.  Whether the Bible is interesting to the layman is obviously not in question - it is importance that is under discussion.  Aristotle bores me but I understand its importance. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Ah, but this is our

Quote:
Ah, but this is our difference of opinions then.  I find it to be entertaining and I enjoy reading it.  But more I disagree that we can find a collection of writings so diverse for the Jewish community outside the Bible - and it is precisely because we have the Bible that we can understand it and interpret it as fiction.  We could collect some pseudepigrapha, but then we would know very little of the culture and not so much about their practices and writing.  With the Greeks, we know more about them simply because they ruled the known world for three hundred years!  They had their own country.  The Jews did not.  Their heritage would be entirely unknown to us without many of the books of the Bible, and their reasons for writing the books are important because they do allow us to understand what the people were going through emotionally and mentally.

Whoopity do.

No doubt that it would be interesting for scholars and historians to explore the Jewish culture. But how is that relevent to modern literature? Knowing how semitic people chose to express themselves strictly has historical value. It's probable that there were a number of cultures in the world that vanished without leaving a single trace of their own traditions / art. Are we somehow left worse off without these little tidbits?

I'd say it's not terribly likely.

Quote:
Additionally, your hypothesis is inaccurate concerning the Bible being 'convenient' as the works of fiction we have today are.  You are wrong.  Fictional literature today is not the same as fiction writing was in antiquity.  We write fiction today mostly for entertainment reasons.  Fiction writing in antiquity is something else.  Fiction and history were once considered one and the same, and respected as one and the same.  But more importantly, for the Jews, their fiction was their history.  And they understood that.  Which is why we have so much literature written in the way of fiction.  Because they didn't have a history, they created it.  This is quite a fascinating thing for me.  To have something so fascinating happen culture-wide spanning generations of Jews.  And no they're not the only ones.

Well, I must agree. That is pretty fascinating (I would disagree that fiction today is written, 'mostly for entertainment reasons', but that's another topic). I don't see how it's particularly important to know, however.

Quote:
The Romans created their history and the Greeks did theirs.  And later Romans and Greeks understood their legendary pasts as a part of their history.  But we would never know any of this without the aide of volumes of collected works like the Bible, and the books of the Bible.  For example, without the Bible we would not know that the Hebrews were sometimes educated in Greek gymnasiums and wrote many works based on the models of Homer's epics.  We would not know about the creativity of the Jewish culture in antiquity and their abilities to create incredible works of literary fiction that blended multiple cultures together into one.

Again, while I don't doubt that this is interesting from the perspective of a scholar, how is it actually important to the field of literature? I don't see the connection where knowledge of of how the Jewish culture in antiquity = enrichment of the literary field.

Quote:
You seem to be under the impression that we have a lot of literature from antiquity.  But we do not.  Unlike today, we cannot go to the "Antiquity Library" and take out one of hundreds of literary manuscripts from a particular decade in any part of antiquity.  We have but a handful in each period.  Whole epic cycles are missing.  There are more works we know existed but will never read than there are works by Greeks that we do have.  In comparison to the Hebrew Bible, we have much more works by Jews than by the Greeks between the period of the Persians to the Hellenistic, and that is why it is so important to have the Bible.

...Really?

No offense, but I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt here. Can you provide sources for the claim that we have such a limited library of works from antiquity?

I'm not a history or literary buff of any kind, but I was very much under the impression that we had a more or less very comprehensive library of greek, roman, norse, arabic and egyptian literature that we'd dug-up over the years from places like the Library of Alexandria

Quote:
IN any event you are shifting goal posts.  Whether the Bible is interesting to the layman is obviously not in question - it is importance that is under discussion.  Aristotle bores me but I understand its importance.

Aristotle, Socrates and Plato laid the foundations for Western society, and their contributions to the field of literature are immeasurable. All that you've pointed-out about the Bible so far is that it's neat because it highlights early Jewish culture, and is fascinating from a scholar's perspective. Nothing about how it's made a real contribution to humanity.

Who's shifting goal posts, again?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940