STOP! THE! MADNESS!

dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
STOP! THE! MADNESS!

What with my fundy upbringing, i thought i knew the bible fairly well. then i came across this: 

Matthew 27:51-53 

 51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

i truly want to believe in ALL that xianity is. seriously. i was majorly brainwashed as a kid, but, come on. i mean COME ON! I could (b/c of said brainwashing) pretty much buy virgin birth, death, ascension, but then this?

i don't know why, but it just hit me when i read that verse. like a ton of bricks:

zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem in 33 CE? ZOMBIE SAINTS for cryin' out loud?????????????

And only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?

STOP! THE! MADNESS! 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Roisin Dubh
Roisin Dubh's picture
Posts: 428
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: What with

dassercha wrote:

What with my fundy upbringing, i thought i knew the bible fairly well. then i came across this:

Matthew 27:51-53

51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

i truly want to believe in ALL that xianity is. seriously. i was majorly brainwashed as a kid, but, come on. i mean COME ON! I could (b/c of said brainwashing) pretty much buy virgin birth, death, ascension, but then this?

i don't know why, but it just hit me when i read that verse. like a ton of bricks:

zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem in 33 CE? ZOMBIE SAINTS for cryin' out loud?????????????

And only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?

STOP! THE! MADNESS!

Of course only one guy recorded it, he barricaded himself in a shopping mall, and all the other people of Jerusalem were eaten or turned into zombies themselves.   

 

"The powerful have always created false images of the weak."


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
HAHA!!!! Too funny. thanks

HAHA!!!! Too funny. thanks for that.

Yeah, i wanna believe this stuff. i REALLY do. It's comforting. But, come on, wtf???????????

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


suttsteve
Posts: 82
Joined: 2006-07-25
User is offlineOffline
Sounds like an Indiana Jones

Sounds like an Indiana Jones movie, doesn't it?


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: What with

dassercha wrote:

What with my fundy upbringing, i thought i knew the bible fairly well. then i came across this:

Matthew 27:51-53

51At that moment the curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth shook and the rocks split. 52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus' resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

i truly want to believe in ALL that xianity is. seriously. i was majorly brainwashed as a kid, but, come on. i mean COME ON! I could (b/c of said brainwashing) pretty much buy virgin birth, death, ascension, but then this?

i don't know why, but it just hit me when i read that verse. like a ton of bricks:

zombies roaming the streets of Jerusalem in 33 CE? ZOMBIE SAINTS for cryin' out loud?????????????

And only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?

STOP! THE! MADNESS!

Since you are atheist, you don't believe in "ghosts" however many people do believe that people's spirits live on after they die.  I do not think this passage is referring to the rotting corpses, rather their spirits.  If you accept the ascension, then you accept we have spiritual bodies which conform to natural laws not yet understood by us, including, possibly, and ability to appear in this realm. 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree, the main question

sugarfree, the main question was not what body they had but "And only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?"


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
That's right: if it doesn't

That's right: if it doesn't make sense, it's a metaphor, or it's symbolic, or it was a product of a special agreement with the deity and has since expired. Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness. One day, archeologists will discover our current cultural crap, and a new batch of theologians will debate whether Harry Potter's broom was real or symbolic.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: dassercha

sugarfree wrote:
dassercha wrote:

Since you are atheist, you don't believe in "ghosts" however many people do believe that people's spirits live on after they die. I do not think this passage is referring to the rotting corpses, rather their spirits. If you accept the ascension, then you accept we have spiritual bodies which conform to natural laws not yet understood by us, including, possibly, and ability to appear in this realm.

actually, i'm prolly the one non-atheist posting on this site. I'm agnositic, and as my post states, VERY much want to believe. however, reason & logic make it difficult for me to do so as evidenced by the passage.

as a fundy, i was told that once dead, soul is gone from body.  

Did you read the verse sugar? 52 SPECIFICALLY states the following: "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." and then they roamed around meeting & greeting their peers. What happened after that? did the bodies go back to the grave? just say'n...

 

 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10327
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Exactly. The word "spirit"

Exactly. The word "spirit" is nowhere to be seen. Sugar is making things up.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote: as a

dassercha wrote:

as a fundy, i was told that once dead, soul is gone from body.

Did you read the verse sugar? 52 SPECIFICALLY states the following: "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." and then they roamed around meeting & greeting their peers. What happened after that? did the bodies go back to the grave? just say'n...

 

 

You all take things too literally, sometimes.  If I was a person living in back then, laying in my bed and night, and I woke up , saw some guy standing at the foot of the bed who said, "Hey sugarfree, it's Isaiah" (for argument's sake) "guess what, I just talked to Jesus, and he's got something really cool planned in 3 days so be on the lookout for it."  I think to myself, holy crap, Isaiah is supposed to be dead. So the next day I go out and tell my buddies...the tombs have been opened! Isaiah is walking around in the city! because I don't know how else to explain it.  And that's how it get penned down.  These were humans writing this stuff, like us, and like us, they understood things on human terms.  What were they supposed to say?  "Isaiah slipped thru dimensions 5 and 6 on his way to earth, stopping for coffee along the way..."


Rigor_OMortis
Rigor_OMortis's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2006-06-18
User is offlineOffline
Quote: You all take things

Quote:
You all take things too literally, sometimes.  If I was a person living in back then, laying in my bed and night, and I woke up , saw some guy standing at the foot of the bed who said, "Hey sugarfree, it's Isaiah" (for argument's sake) "guess what, I just talked to Jesus, and he's got something really cool planned in 3 days so be on the lookout for it."  I think to myself, holy crap, Isaiah is supposed to be dead. So the next day I go out and tell my buddies...the tombs have been opened! Isaiah is walking around in the city! because I don't know how else to explain it.  And that's how it get penned down.  These were humans writing this stuff, like us, and like us, they understood things on human terms.  What were they supposed to say?  "Isaiah slipped thru dimensions 5 and 6 on his way to earth, stopping for coffee along the way..."

The way a theist applies this "they couldn't describe better, 'cause they didn't know better" argument has already gone past "amazing", now it's "outright funny"...

 

DUUUUDE ! If you can apply the same logic to that small piece of the Bible, why can you not apply it to the whole concept of God? Couldn't it be just as well that the writers of the Bible had the same lack of "better terms" regarding the whole world itself?

Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Sugarfree, I have no idea

Sugarfree, I have no idea what you're trying to argue at this point, other than in favor of an interpretation of ancient texts so liberal as to render their actual contents irrelevant. If you accept the claim of one resurrection, or two, why not a dozen, or a hundred? The distinctions you suggest between claims of the supernatural and symbolism and metaphor seem arbitrary (special pleading again).
To play "devil's advocate," I would ask what the verse would have stated prior to translation, but I wouldn't be optimistic of it bearing much in favor of our ancestors' credibility.


Edger
Posts: 104
Joined: 2007-01-14
User is offlineOffline
Magilum wrote "Look at all

Magilum wrote "Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness"

Enough said. 


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: dassercha

sugarfree wrote:
dassercha wrote:

 

 

 

You all take things too literally, sometimes.  If I was a person living in back then, laying in my bed and night, and I woke up , saw some guy standing at the foot of the bed who said, "Hey sugarfree, it's Isaiah" (for argument's sake) "guess what, I just talked to Jesus, and he's got something really cool planned in 3 days so be on the lookout for it."  I think to myself, holy crap, Isaiah is supposed to be dead. So the next day I go out and tell my buddies...the tombs have been opened! Isaiah is walking around in the city! because I don't know how else to explain it.  And that's how it get penned down.  These were humans writing this stuff, like us, and like us, they understood things on human terms.  What were they supposed to say?  "Isaiah slipped thru dimensions 5 and 6 on his way to earth, stopping for coffee along the way..."

 

Sugarfree: Why not the writings of Muhammad??

Why not the writings of Greek Mythologists? Why not Hindu scripture?

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: dassercha

sugarfree wrote:
dassercha wrote:

as a fundy, i was told that once dead, soul is gone from body.

Did you read the verse sugar? 52 SPECIFICALLY states the following: "The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life." and then they roamed around meeting & greeting their peers. What happened after that? did the bodies go back to the grave? just say'n...

 

You all take things too literally, sometimes. If I was a person living in back then, laying in my bed and night, and I woke up , saw some guy standing at the foot of the bed who said, "Hey sugarfree, it's Isaiah" (for argument's sake) "guess what, I just talked to Jesus, and he's got something really cool planned in 3 days so be on the lookout for it." I think to myself, holy crap, Isaiah is supposed to be dead. So the next day I go out and tell my buddies...the tombs have been opened! Isaiah is walking around in the city! because I don't know how else to explain it. And that's how it get penned down. These were humans writing this stuff, like us, and like us, they understood things on human terms. What were they supposed to say? "Isaiah slipped thru dimensions 5 and 6 on his way to earth, stopping for coffee along the way..."

Ummm, i thought all the writers were UNDER THE DIVINE INSPIRATION OF GOD when every letter was written. if you disagree w/ that premise, lemme know. otherwise, why would God make it so very unclear if it was spirit or body here.

sorry, but i've reviewed that passage approx. 6.3 million times today and, by golly, it STILL SEZ "BODIES"!!!!!!!!!

...and not "spirit." 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


JeremiahSmith
Posts: 361
Joined: 2006-11-25
User is offlineOffline
dassercha wrote:

dassercha wrote:
and only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?

What's funny is that, assuming it did actually happen, not even Matthew thought it was interesting. I would think that any reliable historian, if confronted with the sudden resurrection of many holy people who appeared to many other people all over Jerusalem, would spend a little more than two sentences talking about it. Thomas Paine argued that this point was more than enough to know that the event had never happened; if it had, Matthew would have been unable to keep his mouth shut about it. He would have listed the names of the resurrected, what they looked like, who they appeared to, what they had to say, what they did. It would be the most amazing event ever. Even if everyone else in the world had somehow neglected to mention it, it is beyond imagining that the one guy who did notice it would just gloss over it.

Götter sind für Arten, die sich selbst verraten -- in den Glauben flüchten um sich hinzurichten. Menschen brauchen Götter um sich zu verletzen, um sich zu vernichten -- das sind wir.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Edger wrote: Magilum wrote

Edger wrote:

Magilum wrote "Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness"

Enough said.

Are there any other people on this site with literary backgrounds?  I'm wondering if any of you studied how to extract theme, interpret symbolism...or how about the humanities?  Specifically studying how man interprets the world.  Not trying to figure out if how man interprets the world is right...just observing man, via written works, and drawing together related themes, these themes revealing the inner workings of our own hearts and minds, revealing truths about our very character?

I'm getting the impression that most of you are math/science folks.


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Edger

sugarfree wrote:
Edger wrote:

Magilum wrote "Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness"

Enough said.

Are there any other people on this site with literary backgrounds?  I'm wondering if any of you studied how to extract theme, interpret symbolism...or how about the humanities?  Specifically studying how man interprets the world.  Not trying to figure out if how man interprets the world is right...just observing man, via written works, and drawing together related themes, these themes revealing the inner workings of our own hearts and minds, revealing truths about our very character?

I'm getting the impression that most of you are math/science folks.

 I think when it comes to knowledge about the world that math and science are more objective than man's subjective interpretations of that world. I think each responder recognizes the symbolism and the themes. They, and myself included, just think that basing our entire belief system about the creation of the world, the afterlife, morality, justice, and the meaning of existence on those subjective themes is just ridiculous and irrational.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
Rigor_OMortis

Rigor_OMortis wrote:
 

DUUUUDE ! If you can apply the same logic to that small piece of the Bible, why can you not apply it to the whole concept of God? Couldn't it be just as well that the writers of the Bible had the same lack of "better terms" regarding the whole world itself?

Well, yes.  Read Genesis.  We do our best to explain him, given that we are human beings of this world, and he is eternal, not of this world.  There is certainly a divide there, a disconnect.  You all try to take things literally all the time.  Well, I think God sometimes talks to us figuratively, and that we learn truths about him via this figurative language.  Now my task, is to be engaged as a reader...to question, to speculate, to ask God "what the heck did you include this for?"  (This is why I asked if there are any literary folks out there, because it is similar to how you go about reading any great literary work.  Speaking  strictly from a literary standpoint, the Bible is a very complex, very rich text.)  Bottom line is, I have to be an active participant, using my brain...constantly thinking, as I read and interpret the message, whether it be literal (i.e., the beginning of numbers) or figurative (i.e., revelations).


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
Ad hom, Sugarfree. A mild

Ad hom, Sugarfree. A mild one, but that's what it is.


sugarfree
Theist
Posts: 478
Joined: 2007-03-14
User is offlineOffline
RationalSchema wrote: I

RationalSchema wrote:

I think when it comes to knowledge about the world that math and science are more objective than man's subjective interpretations of that world. I think each responder recognizes the symbolism and the themes. They, and myself included, just think that basing our entire belief system about the creation of the world, the afterlife, morality, justice, and the meaning of existence on those subjective themes is just ridiculous and irrational.

However, many of you believe truth is relative, and you give yourselves free reign to choose what is right and wrong in your lives, based soley on your own subjective opinions of morality.  And this, in your minds, is completely rational.

So...to be honest, I do not know completely what to make of that...why you believe subjectivity is a valid path to truth sometimes, but not others.  Have any of you pondered this yourselves, and if so, care to enlighten me? 


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
You could look at it as a

You could look at it as a figurative description of the world, a description of an unproven rhetorical place, or more simply as an attempt to describe the world--this world that we are all uncontroversially aware of--that has been supplanted by actual evidence. Before germ theory, people believed diseases were caused by spirits, or bad odors -- I recall “swamp gasses“ being of particular concern. There was a theory of combustion in the seventeenth century which stated all flammable materials contain a substance called phlogiston which is liberated by burning. Now we know fire is oxygenation, and not an element unto itself, or a release of the superfluous theoretical phlogiston. Before neuroscience, people believed character could be revealed through examining the head against a phrenology chart. You talk about faith being sufficient, but you try to talk about it in naïve scientific terms, which suggests it's really not enough to satisfy your curiosity. Bearing in mind there's no way to prove a negative, there is a point when enough aspects of something simply lose credibility in a mutually exclusive argument. When enough of the bible becomes “metaphorical” and “figurative” I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance at work to preserve belief.


magilum
Posts: 2410
Joined: 2007-03-07
User is offlineOffline
However, many of you

However, many of you believe truth is relative,

I have no idea what's meant by that.

and you give yourselves free reign to choose what is right and wrong in your lives, based soley on your own subjective opinions of morality.

Believers also have free reign, either by cherry-picking scripture (declaring parts they don't like metaphorical, figurative or arbitrarily given a special context) or admitting their failure and seeking forgiveness. The net result is that religion isn't a reliable indicator of morality, nor is it a practical source of moral guidance given that they ultimately apply their preferences in interpreting what they need to follow and not. And actually, free reign ain't all that free. There are laws, cultural mores, and biological imperatives.

[...] So...to be honest, I do not know completely what to make of that...why you believe subjectivity is a valid path to truth sometimes, but not others.

I don't get this.

[...]


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
RationalSchema wrote:

I think when it comes to knowledge about the world that math and science are more objective than man's subjective interpretations of that world. I think each responder recognizes the symbolism and the themes. They, and myself included, just think that basing our entire belief system about the creation of the world, the afterlife, morality, justice, and the meaning of existence on those subjective themes is just ridiculous and irrational.

However, many of you believe truth is relative, and you give yourselves free reign to choose what is right and wrong in your lives, based soley on your own subjective opinions of morality. And this, in your minds, is completely rational.

So do theists. The only difference is that theists use their subjective interpretations of a text where others use observation and analysis to make decisions.

Listen if you're going to build strawmen then at least make them sturdier. Otherwise, it allows us to throw them right back.

Quote:
So...to be honest, I do not know completely what to make of that...why you believe subjectivity is a valid path to truth sometimes, but not others. Have any of you pondered this yourselves, and if so, care to enlighten me?

Sure have. Every friggin' day. I'm just curious as to why you seem to deny that your own subjective assessment is just that... subjective.

The quest doesn't have to be for this thing called 'objective morality'

 

Besides that, the sensationalism of the storyteller in Matthew should probably label the work as fiction rather than allow picking and choosing what is metaphor and what is commandment.

What 'message' are we allegedly missing concerning the dead rising and hanging out after the messiah dies?

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
JeremiahSmith

JeremiahSmith wrote:

dassercha wrote:
and only this one guy thought it interesting enough to record it?

What's funny is that, assuming it did actually happen, not even Matthew thought it was interesting. I would think that any reliable historian, if confronted with the sudden resurrection of many holy people who appeared to many other people all over Jerusalem, would spend a little more than two sentences talking about it. Thomas Paine argued that this point was more than enough to know that the event had never happened; if it had, Matthew would have been unable to keep his mouth shut about it. He would have listed the names of the resurrected, what they looked like, who they appeared to, what they had to say, what they did. It would be the most amazing event ever. Even if everyone else in the world had somehow neglected to mention it, it is beyond imagining that the one guy who did notice it would just gloss over it.

Yeah, excellent point. My guess is that at the Nicean Council in 315, they just sorta left it in knowing they couldn't edit too much, or--lightning zap--but, just sorta hoping no one would look into it too much. Wink

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


dassercha
Superfan
Posts: 233
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Edger

sugarfree wrote:
Edger wrote:

Magilum wrote "Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness"

Enough said.

Are there any other people on this site with literary backgrounds? I'm wondering if any of you studied how to extract theme, interpret symbolism...or how about the humanities? Specifically studying how man interprets the world. Not trying to figure out if how man interprets the world is right...just observing man, via written works, and drawing together related themes, these themes revealing the inner workings of our own hearts and minds, revealing truths about our very character?

I'm getting the impression that most of you are math/science folks.

In all seriousness, maybe this site needs to have a questionaire for theists before they post so we know EXACTLY where each one is coming from. Seriously, there are so many denominations/sects, etc out there.

Shug, i grew up fundy; most fundies take EVERYTHING literally.  

Liberal interpretation obviously does not and i would agree more with that theology. Even consevative jewish scholars acknowlege the creation story, Jonah, Job, Lot etc as symbolic.

However, on this issue, sorry, i stand my ground. "Bodies were raised," not "spirits appeared." 

It's there, plain as day, b&w... 

 

EDUCATION! EDUCATION! EDUCATION!


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree

sugarfree wrote:
RationalSchema wrote:

However, many of you believe truth is relative, and you give yourselves free reign to choose what is right and wrong in your lives, based soley on your own subjective opinions of morality.  And this, in your minds, is completely rational.

So...to be honest, I do not know completely what to make of that...why you believe subjectivity is a valid path to truth sometimes, but not others.  Have any of you pondered this yourselves, and if so, care to enlighten me? 

You miss the entire point completely. First, you labeled and generalized all atheists or users of this site w/o any facts or evidence, except for my words.

Second, yes my own views of morality are subjective, but I take into account factual scientific evidence from multiple sources. I come to those conclusions through reasoning and logic. I don't come to them because of some book a man wrote thousands of years ago. I don't come to them because my pastor said so. My subjective view is not based upon one simple truth, but is based on many areas of evidence, philosophy, and reasoning.

Lastly, the largest difference is my morality and my belief system is subject to change when new evidence and new information presents itself.  I will not twist that information, althought slightly because I am human subject to biases, to fit my already existing belief system. I attempt to look at the new information objectively and not just interpret it to fit what I already know. I do not claim to have the complete truth and the exact truth, and do not need you to believe in my truth. However, I can attack the methods to which you have come to your truth. My logical, rational, and objective conclusion, given all the data, is that your methods are ridiculous. 

To highlight for you in an example: I have changed my position on Abortion almost monthly and I still have trouble with it. I am always taking information from both sides and scientific data about what is beneficial for people and society as it relates to abortion. You on the other hand are bound by one truth and one way without any wavering on the matter. It is an absolute to you. Right and wrong. Good and evil. God vs. Devil. If you would change your view based on new information let me know. If so then I don't see any reason for you to believe anything in the bible.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


itsjustinf
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote: Edger

sugarfree wrote:
Edger wrote:

Magilum wrote "Look at all the contortions you have to go through to rescue this drivel from its own insipidness"

Enough said.

Are there any other people on this site with literary backgrounds? I'm wondering if any of you studied how to extract theme, interpret symbolism...or how about the humanities? Specifically studying how man interprets the world. Not trying to figure out if how man interprets the world is right...just observing man, via written works, and drawing together related themes, these themes revealing the inner workings of our own hearts and minds, revealing truths about our very character?

I'm getting the impression that most of you are math/science folks.

 

Yes, sugarfree, I have my degree in Literature. Of course there is much symbolism in the bible, unfortunately most well written texts have a consistency in their symbolism that simply cannot be found in the bible. Attribute this to the multiple writers if you must, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the church and its followers continue to pick and choose which parts of the bible they want to be real and which they want to be symbolic. When reading Beowulf I don't say "Grendel wasn't real, he was symbolic of the struggle that Hrothgar's court was going through at the time. The dragon, however, was 100% real." That's simply not the way to properly analyze a text. And if you want to get that far into it, as a literary work, the bible isn't very good at all. It certainly has its moments, but as a whole, without the billions of adherents, it would not be considered classic literature in the same vein as The Decameron or Crime and Punishment. And those only had one author, as opposed to the however many the bible had (Too many cooks, spoil the broth, so to speak.) So, I don't think that appealing to the literary merits of the "good book" is the best route for your argument. It simply isn't that good.


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
itsjustinf wrote: So, I

itsjustinf wrote:

So, I don't think that appealing to the literary merits of the "good book" is the best route for your argument. It simply isn't that good.

I like Dawkins' take: God isn't as good a writer as Shakespeare.  Smiling 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10327
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The bible really doesn't

The bible really doesn't match up to most literary works. Almost every book I've ever read was written better. I could write a better book than the bible. I think a 6 year old could, for that matter. Especially when writing a work that is supposed to support an entire belief system. There are far too many flaws and contradictions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


econgineer
econgineer's picture
Posts: 50
Joined: 2007-01-06
User is offlineOffline
I'm not a very good writer

I'm not a very good writer and probably couldn't write a better book than the bible, but I don't have to be a good cook to know the meal tastes like shit.  I found it interesting that Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, suggested the bible should be taught as literature because it is referenced so often in our culture.  I see his point,  but the bible is poor literature and the references could be understood without reading the bible. 

Responsibility: A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one's neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star. ~Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary, 1911


Unlucky13
Unlucky13's picture
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-01-27
User is offlineOffline
hahahaha thats funny as

hahahaha thats funny as hell. I really do wonder what would happen to Christianity if Christians really read their bibles.

ASK A PRIEST!!!!

I am collecting questions for the next couple of weeks. Do you have a question you'd like to ask a priest? Post it here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/5959


Mordagar
RRS local affiliateSuperfan
Mordagar's picture
Posts: 128
Joined: 2006-02-22
User is offlineOffline
sugarfree wrote:   Since

sugarfree wrote:
 

Since you are atheist, you don't believe in "ghosts" however many people do believe that people's spirits live on after they die. I do not think this passage is referring to the rotting corpses, rather their spirits. If you accept the ascension, then you accept we have spiritual bodies which conform to natural laws not yet understood by us, including, possibly, and ability to appear in this realm.

 

Come now, you aren't being honest. Atheism holds no bearing on whether or not one believes in ghosts, spirits, afterlife, etc. It depends on which atheist you ask. I'm not doubting the majority of atheists don't believe in ghosts, but hasty generalizations shouldn't be made lightly.

 

The only binding tie found in atheism is no God belief. 

"The idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I am unable to take seriously." [Albert Einstein, letter to Hoffman and Dukas, 1946]


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Unlucky13 wrote: hahahaha

Unlucky13 wrote:
hahahaha thats funny as hell. I really do wonder what would happen to Christianity if Christians really read their bibles.

AND what would happen if they let their kids choose their own religion. Between those two things, within a generation the entire christian population will be in Westboro.