Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-10-2013, 01:27 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
This is a huge topic, but I'll focus on the New Testament, and I'm going to just focus on probably the most common argument that I get given when it comes to the Bible and the one that I get frustrated about because it's something that both atheists and a lot of Christians do, and something you mentioned where atheists have a problem: 'when we read what is in the Bible and make observations based on what we have read.' If you want to understand it - or for that matter point out how stupid it is- at least know what you're talking about beyond a reading of an English translation of ancient Greek texts.

Take the four gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Firstly, these are four different books written for four different audiences. For example, Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience so it focuses on how Jesus fulfils the Messianic promises. Luke is written for Greeks, more interested in the philosophical side of Jesus. Mark's Romans loved power so it focuses on how powerful the ministry of Jesus was. And John was just a good all-rounder- he wrote for everyone.

Think of it this way. When the election for Barrack Obama was on, it was covered by the world wide media. Some countries didn't have the history of Black-White social tensions that have existed in America, so their coverage included extra information on that. Other countries might have already experienced some of those tensions and their own coverage would reflect that. The ways in which it is told doesn't change the truth of the central narrative of a black man being elected president- it's just told in multiple, culturally appropriate ways. The trick is being able to understand how it's told before you discover what it means. So when someone says 'this gospel says it was a mud roof and that gospel says it was a tiled roof' and uses that as way of saying they don't agree, you wonder whether that person actually thinks it's a real blow against the credibility of the Bible or just a half-hearted attempt at trolling. Ignorance is not intelligence- something both sides need to learn
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 02:16 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 01:27 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  This is a huge topic, but I'll focus on the New Testament, and I'm going to just focus on probably the most common argument that I get given when it comes to the Bible and the one that I get frustrated about because it's something that both atheists and a lot of Christians do, and something you mentioned where atheists have a problem: 'when we read what is in the Bible and make observations based on what we have read.' If you want to understand it - or for that matter point out how stupid it is- at least know what you're talking about beyond a reading of an English translation of ancient Greek texts.

Take the four gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Firstly, these are four different books written for four different audiences. For example, Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience so it focuses on how Jesus fulfils the Messianic promises. Luke is written for Greeks, more interested in the philosophical side of Jesus. Mark's Romans loved power so it focuses on how powerful the ministry of Jesus was. And John was just a good all-rounder- he wrote for everyone.

Think of it this way. When the election for Barrack Obama was on, it was covered by the world wide media. Some countries didn't have the history of Black-White social tensions that have existed in America, so their coverage included extra information on that. Other countries might have already experienced some of those tensions and their own coverage would reflect that. The ways in which it is told doesn't change the truth of the central narrative of a black man being elected president- it's just told in multiple, culturally appropriate ways. The trick is being able to understand how it's told before you discover what it means. So when someone says 'this gospel says it was a mud roof and that gospel says it was a tiled roof' and uses that as way of saying they don't agree, you wonder whether that person actually thinks it's a real blow against the credibility of the Bible or just a half-hearted attempt at trolling. Ignorance is not intelligence- something both sides need to learn

Oh so your saying that because they were written for different audiences we should ignore the glaring historical fuck ups between the books. Like the conflicting infancy gospels or the 2 genealogies that don't match up because when I tell a story I always change who my ancestors were to make the listener feel more at home...

This of course is leaving out the entire fact that the rest of the world (who at that time was compiling histories) failed to mention all these events happening. If every grave in a major Roman city where to be flung open and the dead walk through the street I would expect a few of the administrators to mention this. Then there is the fact that no one would have had a trial for sedition in a province that was under martial law so that does explain why in the 2 tellings they got none of the details the same.

That is of course assuming there even was a Rabbi troublemaker who stirred the pot enough for the Romans to crucify him. Chances are there was a Yeshuia ben Josef simply because if there never was a real person the gospel writers were basing this on why invent such elaborate means to transport his birth from Galilee to bethlehem to fulfill a misinterpreted "prophecy". Granted most of the later gospel writers had only a bare bones (if that) understanding of the Hebrew bible so it is not surprising that most of the signs they had their mythical God-man completing were wrong in near every way.

This of course leads us to the actual main founder of what today is known as Christianity St Paul of tarsus. What an all time peice of shit this douchebag was. You can trace nearly all of the misogyny and bigotry to him, horrid little man (maybe literally there is some speculation he may have been a dwarf) But best of all Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth because he never met him. Paul was spinning a hybrid Greek mystery cult mixed with judaism. His mythical christos was never meant to be a real person and was surely not the guy that later church fathers decided he was referencing. But this post is starting to get a bit long so I will save the rest for another time.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 02:39 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(20-02-2012 09:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-02-2012 02:27 AM)rook2004 Wrote:  And they are bullshit.

My research indicates faith is technology. Wink

I misspoke. Scripture is technology.

Rev, there's too many of courses in yer rant. Tongue

Yasmin, we don't take kindly to apologists 'round here. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 02:51 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 02:39 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(20-02-2012 09:48 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  My research indicates faith is technology. Wink

I misspoke. Scripture is technology.

Rev, there's too many of courses in yer rant. Tongue

Yasmin, we don't take kindly to apologists 'round here. Dodgy

Yer lucky it's in english considering I wrote it from memory at 4 am Tongue

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 05:07 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(19-02-2012 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I read this last year. Only 100 years after is was written... cos I like to keep up with trends.
http://www.allthebooks.net/ebook/is-the-...her-essays

I read it in one night

I can't make the link work. Any suggestions?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 05:13 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 02:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 01:27 AM)Yasmin Wrote:  This is a huge topic, but I'll focus on the New Testament, and I'm going to just focus on probably the most common argument that I get given when it comes to the Bible and the one that I get frustrated about because it's something that both atheists and a lot of Christians do, and something you mentioned where atheists have a problem: 'when we read what is in the Bible and make observations based on what we have read.' If you want to understand it - or for that matter point out how stupid it is- at least know what you're talking about beyond a reading of an English translation of ancient Greek texts.

Take the four gospels- Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Firstly, these are four different books written for four different audiences. For example, Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience so it focuses on how Jesus fulfils the Messianic promises. Luke is written for Greeks, more interested in the philosophical side of Jesus. Mark's Romans loved power so it focuses on how powerful the ministry of Jesus was. And John was just a good all-rounder- he wrote for everyone.

Think of it this way. When the election for Barrack Obama was on, it was covered by the world wide media. Some countries didn't have the history of Black-White social tensions that have existed in America, so their coverage included extra information on that. Other countries might have already experienced some of those tensions and their own coverage would reflect that. The ways in which it is told doesn't change the truth of the central narrative of a black man being elected president- it's just told in multiple, culturally appropriate ways. The trick is being able to understand how it's told before you discover what it means. So when someone says 'this gospel says it was a mud roof and that gospel says it was a tiled roof' and uses that as way of saying they don't agree, you wonder whether that person actually thinks it's a real blow against the credibility of the Bible or just a half-hearted attempt at trolling. Ignorance is not intelligence- something both sides need to learn

Oh so your saying that because they were written for different audiences we should ignore the glaring historical fuck ups between the books. Like the conflicting infancy gospels or the 2 genealogies that don't match up because when I tell a story I always change who my ancestors were to make the listener feel more at home...

This of course is leaving out the entire fact that the rest of the world (who at that time was compiling histories) failed to mention all these events happening. If every grave in a major Roman city where to be flung open and the dead walk through the street I would expect a few of the administrators to mention this. Then there is the fact that no one would have had a trial for sedition in a province that was under martial law so that does explain why in the 2 tellings they got none of the details the same.

That is of course assuming there even was a Rabbi troublemaker who stirred the pot enough for the Romans to crucify him. Chances are there was a Yeshuia ben Josef simply because if there never was a real person the gospel writers were basing this on why invent such elaborate means to transport his birth from Galilee to bethlehem to fulfill a misinterpreted "prophecy". Granted most of the later gospel writers had only a bare bones (if that) understanding of the Hebrew bible so it is not surprising that most of the signs they had their mythical God-man completing were wrong in near every way.

This of course leads us to the actual main founder of what today is known as Christianity St Paul of tarsus. What an all time peice of shit this douchebag was. You can trace nearly all of the misogyny and bigotry to him, horrid little man (maybe literally there is some speculation he may have been a dwarf) But best of all Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth because he never met him. Paul was spinning a hybrid Greek mystery cult mixed with judaism. His mythical christos was never meant to be a real person and was surely not the guy that later church fathers decided he was referencing. But this post is starting to get a bit long so I will save the rest for another time.

"What an all time peice of shit this douchebag was."

I've written 2 chapters on the fucker, but this one line says it better.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
16-10-2013, 06:49 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 05:07 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(19-02-2012 08:50 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I read this last year. Only 100 years after is was written... cos I like to keep up with trends.
http://www.allthebooks.net/ebook/is-the-...her-essays

I read it in one night

I can't make the link work. Any suggestions?

Yeah. A second of google... Dodgy

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35539

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
16-10-2013, 07:16 AM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
The Bible is a tool to indoctrinate the masses into subservience to the alliance of Politics and Religion.

See here: A Heretic's Bible Study Guide

[Image: low_res_cover_s.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
Where's the balanced, open-minded thread showing why the Bible can be taken seriously?

*Tremendous and world-influencing scholars, scientists, architects and philosophers have reveled in its teachings

*It tells great stories--many people worldwide know and affirm creation, judgment, Adam and Eve, etc.

Can this be taken seriously?

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Or:

What profit has a man from all his labor
In which he toils under the sun?
4 One generation passes away, and another generation comes;
But the earth abides forever.
5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down,
And hastens to the place where it arose.
6 The wind goes toward the south,
And turns around to the north;
The wind whirls about continually,
And comes again on its circuit.
7 All the rivers run into the sea,
Yet the sea is not full;
To the place from which the rivers come,
There they return again.
8 All things are full of labor;
Man cannot express it.
The eye is not satisfied with seeing,
Nor the ear filled with hearing.

Or:

"Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 03:38 PM
RE: Why Atheists Can't Take the Bible Seriously
(16-10-2013 05:13 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 02:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Oh so your saying that because they were written for different audiences we should ignore the glaring historical fuck ups between the books. Like the conflicting infancy gospels or the 2 genealogies that don't match up because when I tell a story I always change who my ancestors were to make the listener feel more at home...

This of course is leaving out the entire fact that the rest of the world (who at that time was compiling histories) failed to mention all these events happening. If every grave in a major Roman city where to be flung open and the dead walk through the street I would expect a few of the administrators to mention this. Then there is the fact that no one would have had a trial for sedition in a province that was under martial law so that does explain why in the 2 tellings they got none of the details the same.

That is of course assuming there even was a Rabbi troublemaker who stirred the pot enough for the Romans to crucify him. Chances are there was a Yeshuia ben Josef simply because if there never was a real person the gospel writers were basing this on why invent such elaborate means to transport his birth from Galilee to bethlehem to fulfill a misinterpreted "prophecy". Granted most of the later gospel writers had only a bare bones (if that) understanding of the Hebrew bible so it is not surprising that most of the signs they had their mythical God-man completing were wrong in near every way.

This of course leads us to the actual main founder of what today is known as Christianity St Paul of tarsus. What an all time peice of shit this douchebag was. You can trace nearly all of the misogyny and bigotry to him, horrid little man (maybe literally there is some speculation he may have been a dwarf) But best of all Paul had no knowledge of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth because he never met him. Paul was spinning a hybrid Greek mystery cult mixed with judaism. His mythical christos was never meant to be a real person and was surely not the guy that later church fathers decided he was referencing. But this post is starting to get a bit long so I will save the rest for another time.

"What an all time peice of shit this douchebag was."

I've written 2 chapters on the fucker, but this one line says it better.

I glad you approve. Big Grin

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: