It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2017, 11:49 AM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
You'd kind of hoped God would have spoken to the Assyrians, Babylonians and others, don't be murderous assholes. Guess that's too much to hope for from an all powerful, perfectly good God.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2017, 12:04 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
(22-07-2017 12:34 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  The Bible has no mention of puppies, kittens or cute baby squirrels. How can I possibly believe anything else the Bible says?

Checkmate, Christians!

Oh yes, that is very bothersome. I completely agree! >.<
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes AnaBunny's post
22-07-2017, 12:09 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
(22-07-2017 11:22 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Things that are also missing:

-Don't rape people

-Don't have slaves

-Don't go kill everyone in a town, even if you think God is telling you to

I wonder if some of the biblical authors actually had slaves? The Antebellum South had the bible on their side, no doubt bout it.

don't believe everything you think
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like church_organ's post
22-07-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
No religion anywhere ever said:

"Hey guys, We are totally full of shit. We pray to a fucking rock. But give us money anyway or we will tell the king to fucking kill you."

It just is not the way they swing.

Atheism is NOT a Religion. It's A Personal Relationship With Reality!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Minimalist's post
22-07-2017, 05:20 PM (This post was last modified: 22-07-2017 09:02 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
I would have at least expected that it said something like "if you have a low potassium, eat a banana". Angel

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-07-2017, 06:48 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
(21-07-2017 07:35 PM)church_organ Wrote:  My biggest issue with the holy books and the religions that claim a revelation of some sort is that nothing in the revelation is ever included that could not have been written by the people of the day. God could have told us about bacteria and infections/illness. He could have told us the earth orbits the sun or given us a combustion engine, the secrets of renewable energy or a telescope or mentioned that that e=mc2. But no, instead we get a magic trick, water to wine. Jesus cures a few lepers. He does’t eradicate leprosy, no. It just smacks of human mediocrity.
If the Bible actually didn't lead from behind, but had in it some commands / principles that were way ahead of its time, it would actually be a pretty good authentication for the notion that it's inspired or at least special.

Christians know this, and so they try to dredge these things up. It's not just stuff like the lame example of some OT passage talking about the "circle of the earth" so it must mean a sphere, contrary to the prevailing flat-earth concepts of the time. It's also more elaborate but still laughable efforts, like the book None of These Diseases, which attempts to ascribe advanced medical knowledge to the various Jewish dietary and ritual washing rules. For example, there was some rule that if you exhibited certain symptoms you had to stay "outside the camp" until those symptoms passed. One problem with this is that menstruation was one of the things that got you excluded from polite society for the duration. But the other thing is that just because some folk wisdom evolved from observing that sicknesses tended to spread from contact with sick people and that avoiding contact might help, scarcely serves as evidence that god knew about infectious disease processes. Besides, if he WERE aware of it he could simply explain them, not couch them in a bunch of obtuse rulesets.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
22-07-2017, 08:22 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
Along the lines Mordant was talking about, what was the thing with shellfish? Was it just an issue of eating undercooked type stuff and getting sick and then the general principle getting codified?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-07-2017, 09:15 PM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
(22-07-2017 08:22 PM)jerry mcmasters Wrote:  Along the lines Mordant was talking about, what was the thing with shellfish? Was it just an issue of eating undercooked type stuff and getting sick and then the general principle getting codified?

That's interesting. I should have the answer, but I never thought about it. It appears that shellfish (being bottom-feeders) were thought to be spreaders of disease, in Canaan.

"Shellfish are bottom feeders. They pick up waste that is dumped into the rivers and along the shore, so are thought to be unclean and can make people sick."
http://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Abrah...-man#!n=12

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-07-2017, 01:57 AM (This post was last modified: 23-07-2017 02:05 AM by Glossophile.)
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
(22-07-2017 06:48 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(21-07-2017 07:35 PM)church_organ Wrote:  My biggest issue with the holy books and the religions that claim a revelation of some sort is that nothing in the revelation is ever included that could not have been written by the people of the day. God could have told us about bacteria and infections/illness. He could have told us the earth orbits the sun or given us a combustion engine, the secrets of renewable energy or a telescope or mentioned that that e=mc2. But no, instead we get a magic trick, water to wine. Jesus cures a few lepers. He does’t eradicate leprosy, no. It just smacks of human mediocrity.
If the Bible actually didn't lead from behind, but had in it some commands / principles that were way ahead of its time, it would actually be a pretty good authentication for the notion that it's inspired or at least special.

Christians know this, and so they try to dredge these things up. It's not just stuff like the lame example of some OT passage talking about the "circle of the earth" so it must mean a sphere, contrary to the prevailing flat-earth concepts of the time. It's also more elaborate but still laughable efforts, like the book None of These Diseases, which attempts to ascribe advanced medical knowledge to the various Jewish dietary and ritual washing rules. For example, there was some rule that if you exhibited certain symptoms you had to stay "outside the camp" until those symptoms passed. One problem with this is that menstruation was one of the things that got you excluded from polite society for the duration. But the other thing is that just because some folk wisdom evolved from observing that sicknesses tended to spread from contact with sick people and that avoiding contact might help, scarcely serves as evidence that god knew about infectious disease processes. Besides, if he WERE aware of it he could simply explain them, not couch them in a bunch of obtuse rulesets.

Not surprisingly, Muslims will try to do the same thing. My memory of the incident may be a bit sketchy, but I remember having a Muslim on YouTube provide a link to a list of scientific observations/predictions made in the Koran supposedly ahead of its time. Most of them were rather pathetic, but one did manage to stand out just a bit. Apparently, there's a mention of female bees doing the hive's work which predates the zoological discovery that only the females do that.

It occurred to me that I was pretty sure Arabic was a language with grammatical gender, which I quickly confirmed with a bit of research. The fact that the feminine noun form was used in describing the bees may have been just a consequence of grammar instead of any real statement of fact, so I looked up the Arabic base word for "bee," or more specifically, its gender.

As it turns out, it's masculine, but it didn't take much more research to discover that, when a group is referred to collectively in Arabic, there is a stylistic precedent for using the feminine plural regardless of the gender of the base word. I think it has to do with emphasizing the collective nature of the group or something. In any case, a purely grammatical or stylistic explanation definitely couldn't be ruled out, and it was clearly much more plausible than Mohammed actually being a real prophet to a real god.

Not that it would've been convincing by itself anyway. I think it still would've fallen under the heading of "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." But it was still fun to delve into it, because it was one of the few times that being a linguist was directly helpful in debunking a theist's claim. That usually tends to be more of a biological or cosmological matter rather than a linguistic one, since not many are peddling the Tower of Babel with the same fervor that they do Noah's Ark.

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Glossophile's post
23-07-2017, 02:37 AM
RE: It is what is NOT in the Bible that bothers me
The Bible is missing a statement at the start saying something like:

This novel is a work of fiction. Characters and events are either modified to fit the narrative or simply invented by the authors. Any other resemblance to entities living, dead, or resurrected is coincidental.

“I am not responsible for actions of the imaginary version of me you have inside your head.” - John Scalzi

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Norm Deplume's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: