Reconciling old and new testaments
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-02-2015, 06:40 PM
Reconciling old and new testaments
I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.
My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.
There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?
Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Happy's post
25-02-2015, 06:53 PM (This post was last modified: 25-02-2015 07:30 PM by goodwithoutgod.)
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.
My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.
There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?
Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.

It is called cherry picking scripture. the bible has lots of interesting immoral things demanded by god, for example...

GENESIS 19:6- In Sodom, Lot’s home was assaulted by a homosexual mob seeking to have relations with two angels. Lot volunteered his virgin daughters to the crowd, saying "you can do what you like with them" as long as the guests are left alone. After offering his children to be raped, Lot was then appointed by God as worthy of rescue from Sodom’s destruction.

EXODUS 21:20-21 According to God’s law, it was wrong to beat a slave to the point of death. But if the slave survived and got back up within a few days, the beating wasn’t punishable, because the slave was the property of the master. (God endorsed slavery and the beating of slaves.)

EXODUS 32:27 After seeing the golden calf, God commanded the Levites, "Each man strap a sword to his side. Go back and forth through the camp from one end to the other, each killing his brother and friend and neighbor." 3,000 were slaughtered, and God was pleased.

LEVITICUS 26:27-29 God threatened hostility, punishing people for their sins "seven times over," making them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters.

NUMBERS 31:17-18 God commanded Moses to kill all of the male Midianite children and "kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

NUMBERS 31:31-40 God divided the plunder to the soldiers, the priest, the Israelites and for tribute to the Lord. 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 virgin women.

DEUTERONOMY 7:2 God told the Israelites, regarding their enemies, to "destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy."

DEUTERONOMY 20:13-14 God laid down the rules for battle, instructing the slaughter of all of the men. Women, children, livestock and possessions could be taken as "plunder for yourselves."

DEUTERONOMY 20:16 "…in the cities of the nations the LORD your god is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes."

DEUTERONOMY 21:10-13 According to God’s law, if an Israelite soldier was at war with an enemy, and he saw a beautiful woman that he found attractive, he could capture her to be his wife. She must then shave her head, trim her nails and discard the clothing she was wearing when captured. She could mourn her father and mother for a month. If the soldier wasn’t pleased with her for any reason, he could "let her go wherever she wishes."

DEUTERONOMY 28:53 God’s punishment for disobedience included eating "the fruit of the womb, the flesh of the sons and daughters the LORD your God has given you."

King James version
Numbers 15:32 – 36
and while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day.

And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation.

And they put him in Ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him.
And the Lord said unto Moses, a man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp.

And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses.

Wow, such a loving peaceful benevolent deity.

Numbers 31:7
and they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

Numbers 31:15
and Moses said unto them, have ye saved all the women alive?

Numbers 31:17
now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. (Wonder how the simple soldiers ascertained whether or not the women were virgins?)

Numbers 31:18
but all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
-After dividing up the spoils, or as the Bible referred to it as the booty;

Numbers 31:40
and the persons were 16,000; of which the Lord’s tribute was thirty and two persons.

So let’s do a recap, as per the Lord’s command, Moses directed slaughter of tens of thousands, man women and children, keeping for themselves of course the virgin girls as booty, and of course giving God’s representative his tribute….And this is a loving peaceful benevolent deity? Truly?

Why the differences of the god in the OT and the NT? Different authors with different agenda. The OT is a parable based off of ancient sumerian myths.

Today we know that the Judean priests cooked up/assembled Genesis for political reasons in Babylon as a text for reference for the return, to provide a national story and a legal system for a basis for the return. They did it around 575-550 BCE, in order to promote political unity during a crisis caused by the exilic experience in Babylon, after having written the book of Job, (as an attempted "spiritual" response to the question of suffering). While the "Persian Imperative" is now discounted by scholars, it was probably on the right track in some ways, i.e. the unification of the warring priestly class with the Yahwist land owners into a unified, post exile state. In any case in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah it describes the Return from Babylon, with Ezra carrying two things, ... the letter from Artaxerxes giving him and the King the power to rule in his name, and the Torah of Moses --- the first time in human history what is now the beginnings of "The Bible" (The Scroll of Moses), are ever mentioned.

Using the fact that archaeology has proven that the domestication of camels did not occur in the Ancient Near East until after 1000 BCE, the fact that camels have not been portrayed on pottery, ceramics, buildings and decorations earlier than 1000 BCE, (except on royal buildings), we know they were not a regular, general part of their culture. That and the fact that the Sea Peoples (aka Philistines) did not arrive in the Levant until about 1200 BCE tells us that the dating of any possible Genesis as real history is impossible before that. We know from location citing, that the Patriarchs were not related, and that the priest-authors invented the "family" of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, meaning that the Patriarchs are mythological, as well as unrelated. Camels were used in the Southern trade route to Arabia, where they transported the gum, ointments, tragacanth and labdanum mentioned in Genesis. The trade was at it's height around 700 BCE, making it the approximate likely date for Joseph, in case he ever existed. That being said, he was probably a myth as well.

How do we know that? Because Genesis is a conflation of J-1, the Yahwist-1 source, with J-2, E, and P. The "4 source hypothesis" was originally proposed by the French phsyician Jean Astruc in his monumental work, published in 1753, which forever changed our view of the Bible and the way it was written. His discovery forms the basis of present day scholarship by every mainline Biblical Studies department in the world and is confirmed by most scholars, including Dr. Cuthbert Simpson, who was Sub-Dean and Professor of Old Testament at the General Theological Seminary, in the US, in his chapter of Albright's Interpreter's Bible.

The most important early historical person we know of in the history of Isra-EL is Deborah. She organized the tribes (Judges 5) in combating their neighbors. Judaism should therefore rather be called Debra-ism. She is the Mother of the Nation and actually existed, whereas Abraham did not.

Jean Astruc noticed that the name of God alternated in the Genesis text and he and scholars in the years to follow, were able to figure out what the probable source documents were. They separated the ones that were used by the Judean priests, who combined the J-1 (Yahwist doc) with J-2 and E (Elohim doc) and added their own P (Priestly) material. There is also evidence for further work, which is called "R" for "redactor". This multiple source "hypothesis", has been accepted by scholars for hundreds of years, except for a very small radical fringe of fundamentalists who refuse to accept the facts that are lying right in front of them. The reason Abraham was created as "Father of the Nation", is that he was associated with local geographical sites from the Kingdom of Judah. The Judean priests were trying to centralize and give importance to their own location in Judah by making Abraham hold primacy of importance, thus giving Judah, (and themselves) primacy. This is all proven by the archaeology. There is another theory which proposes that since J is more concerned with women, women's issues and more sensitive to women, that at least one of the major authors of J was a female. Dr. Richard Elliot Friedman does not discount this. In fact, in his book "Who Wrote the Bible?", written in 1987, Dr. Friedman raised the question of whether or not J was a woman. In comparing J with E, he pointed out that the J documents originate from the Judean court, "from a circle in which both men and women had a certain status. The possibility of J being a woman is thus much more likely than with E. More important, the J stories are, on the whole, much more concerned with women and much more sensitive to women than are the E stories."

This became what is known in Biblical scholarship as the Source Hypothesis, or Documentary Hypothesis. There is no longer any dispute in scholarly circles about this hypothesis. Why ? Because it it confirmed by 6, independent sets of supporting evidence.
1. The linguistic dialect in each source is known, and can be documented as separate by decades, or longer.
2. The terminology for the same idea, person, object, or place is different in each source.
3. The content of each of the sources is different.
4. The "flow" of the story works if the source materials are combined.
5. The same known sources are similar or connect to the same known sources in other books.
6. The inferred political motivations for each source matches the material and it's apparent goals.

A lot of the J traditions came from Sumeria, the Enuma Elish and the Gilgamesh Epic. They were used as sources for the Creation myth and the Flood myth.

The NT is a collection of parables, allegorical writings, interpolations and pseudepigrapha. Not only is there no evidence of jesus, but no one who ever wrote of jesus knew him...all based on hearsay. The synoptic gospels were not written by whom people think, or even when.

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

Reference:
Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

Boadt, L. (1984) Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York. Paulist Press. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Robby Pants from TTA's outstanding work on the OT, which I sampled quite heavily Smile

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like goodwithoutgod's post
25-02-2015, 09:10 PM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.

You have to realize that these are two different religions, so it's bound to not make sense.


(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.

She is right, to an extent. She's not right that it can be reconciled in any meaningful way, but she's right that you have to approach it a certain way. The trick is to not employ intellectual honesty.

If you read the OT without the context of the NT, it says very different things. People in the OT believed very different things than what are taught in the NT, and this shouldn't be surprising; it's a different religion. Here are just a handful of things that you will find in the OT if you don't try to retcon it with Christian mythology:
  • Originally, when people died, they went to Sheol. It's a somewhat neutral afterlife. There was no mention of heaven or hell as an afterlife.
  • Similarly, when they OT talks about death as a punishment, it is physical death. The notion of it being spiritual death is a result of back-reading the NT into it to get it to make sense.
  • One of the earliest beginnings of what would become Hell in the OT is Hinnom. The first chronological mentioning of Hinnom was literally just as a geographic location (Joshua 15:8 and Joshua 18:16). That's it. It was just a physical place.
  • Next, Hinnom is listed as a place where people sacrificed their kids to Moloch (side note: God wasn't the only god in the oldest parts of the OT; he was just the greatest).
  • Hinnom then gets promoted to a cursed place for the wicked. The KJV translates this as "Hell" (Of course, the KJV translates every occurrence of Sheol, Hinnom, Gehena, Tarterus, and Hades to "Hell", because fuck honesty).
  • The first chronological mentioning of Satan has him listed as "the satan". This translates into "the adversary" or "the accuser". He is arguing with God about whether or not Job will remain true to God in times of trouble. He only afflicts Job and kills his family with God's permission. This is the only time in all of the Bible that Satan kills anyone.
  • Later mentioning also have the article "the" in front of his name. There is no indication that it is necessarily even the same entity.
  • There is nothing in the OT that even hints at the serpent in the Garden of Eden as being Satan. That detail is later added in Revelation.
  • Toward the end of the NT, Satan is again mentioned, without the article "the", thus naming him "Satan". Even then, he seems to be more of a stumbling block, with no mention of vast, cosmic powers.
It's not until the NT that we get Heaven as a reward and Hell as the punishment for everyone else. Also, Satan, at this point gets promoted to the role of "The Deceiver" who is apparently the great cosmic evil with powers and dominions to somehow grant kingdoms and what not. If you read a non-KJV translation of the OT without taking notions of Heaven, Hell, or Satan the Deceiver into account, you get a very different picture.

I know the prophesies of the Messiah are totally different than what the NT delivers and describes, but I don't have a lot of specific info on that.


(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?

People have various ways of explaining why stuff happened in the Old Testament, but why that doesn't matter. It's a cop out, but it's easy for them to say.

When it comes to bad laws, they'll say that Jesus came to fulfill the law. Note, the moral laws still apply (because they say so), but the civil and ceremonial ones don't. Now, why the creepy rape laws where you stone rape victims are civil, but the anti-homosexuality ones are moral is a mystery to me. Also, I'm not sure why we don't have to stone homosexuals if homosexuality is still an abomination, despite the law being fulfilled.

Honestly, about any form of apologetics only "makes sense" if you look at it in very small pieces. If you step back and try to see how this latest excuse fits into the broader theology, it starts to fall apart. Cue the apologist running in circles hoping that you will either not notice or tire of asking questions before noticing. That, or they can just cut off the conversation by saying "the Lord works in mysterious ways". Seriously. If you want to see this in action, just let one of them talk. When they say something, ask questions. Let em keep going and give them all the rope they need. It will get very presuppositional and very weird, but they will contradict themselves in short order.


(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.

Basically, cognitive dissonance. Most people want to believe their religion is good, despite it saying bad things. Any given approach to reconcile this is just one manifestation of this.


(25-02-2015 06:53 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Robby Pants from TTA's outstanding work on the OT, which I sampled quite heavily Smile

Well, thank you. Big Grin Although, you seem to have a lot more of a formal background in this than me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RobbyPants's post
25-02-2015, 09:18 PM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.
My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.
There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?
Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.

One simple explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartment...chology%29

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
25-02-2015, 10:31 PM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
Bart Ehrman did a lecture on the Gospel of Judas. It actually made MORE sense for what the Cainites believed than modern christians about the OT and NT. Worth a watch.

There are 3 parts.




"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes The Organic Chemist's post
26-02-2015, 06:20 AM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
Marcion of Sinopes asked that question about 1900 years ago. He surmised the god of the Old testament (YHWH) was a different god than the New Testament god (Abba). Jesus' death was the price that was paid to purchase mankind from the wrathful OT YHWH.

It actually makes more sense than the ad-hoc concoction of Paul's original sin BS.

Of course they branded him a heretic and excommunicated him. The Catholic church also realized that they needed to establish a canon to establish which parts of the thousands of early Christian texts were acceptable and enforce that canon upon the early church.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 07:24 AM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
The quickest, cleanest and surprisingly easiest way to reconcile the new and old testaments?????

Toss the piece of shit in the rubbish, and be done with it.

Problem solved.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like onlinebiker's post
26-02-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.
My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.
There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?
Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.

I don't see you reconciling the testaments together but having an issue with things you find horrible (not that I blame you). Both the NT and OT versions of God send people to Hell, pass judgments, show mercy, and bless some people beyond their wildest dreams.

I don't pick and choose and I don't ignore. It's my atheist friends at TTA who cherry pick and constantly complain about the same verses. They never want to discuss the love of Jesus, the wisdom of Proverbs, the joy of life, the glories of Creation, etc.

Sorry but I live in a world of Christians where we talk always about the hard and soft parts of the Bible.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(25-02-2015 09:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 06:40 PM)Happy Wrote:  I know this question was probably asked a million times, but I honestly do not understand how people who believe, truly and honestly, can reconcile the god of old and new testaments.
My mum, who is a devout christian, keeps telling me that there's a certain way of reading the bible and I'm doing it wrong. I've been an atheist for a long time, and the first time I read the bible was when I started doubting religion. I read it as any other book, from the beginning to the end. But I honestly don't understand, what difference would it make which chapter I read first. I read a lot of articles on the topic and they all just trail off into usual rationalising, that it's the same god, but the only way to know him is through jesus, but yeah, it's still the same god, but only through Jesus you will truly understand the love of god, but all of the books are still valid, but only Jesus…. You got the point. It does not make sense to me.
There are some horrible horrible things in the bible, I won't even go to all the stuff you have to do to a rape victim or your slaves. What disturbed me the most is Hosea 13:16 "Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." I just had a baby girl, she's 6 months, she's the most precious and beautiful thing in my world. And seeing the world from a different perspective, as a mother, these lines are just making me sick. I keep imaging my baby being "dashed in pieces" or myself being "ripped up" while pregnant with her. How, how can you believe in this kind of god? How can you believe this book? How can you talk about god of Love?
Can someone please explain it to me? How can you pick and chose what you like and just ignore the unpleasant stuff? It's in the book you consider sacred.

One simple explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartment...chology%29

100 million Americans have cognitive dissonance? I guess we inmates run your asylum. Good luck with that. Drinking Beverage

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Reconciling old and new testaments
(26-02-2015 12:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 09:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  One simple explanation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compartment...chology%29

100 million Americans have cognitive dissonance?

I guess so, but admitting you have this condition is the first step to recovery. Every year many do see the light and add to the growing atheist population.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: