Ignorance and the Bible

[domer76]

Another question that believers struggle with is the hiddenness of their god. One would think that an omni-everything god would easily be able to make his message clear and available to everyone. So that they would all have a chance at salvation.

Yet, he remains hidden. And the message he sends through his holy book is so full of contradictions, errors, and so open to multiple interpretations to make it as clear as mud.

 

[gmark77]

Another question that believers struggle with is the hiddenness of their god. One would think that an omni-everything god would easily be able to make his message clear and available to everyone. So that they would all have a chance at salvation.

Yet, he remains hidden. And the message he sends through his holy book is so full of contradictions, errors, and so open to multiple interpretations to make it as clear as mud.

Definitely a question I've always wondered. If God wanted to be in the heart of every person on earth it would be a very simple process. The fact that he is not is either because he doesn't exist OR he does but he likes to play a game wherein some of his creation whom he loves beyond all other things will have to be sent to damnation (a process of his own creation).

So either God is not real or he's not worthy of worship.

That's a theological problem that I find it hard to get past.


I truly would hope that if the Bible were to stand out as above all other written things then it would, by definition, carry ZERO errors. But since it carries errors (and as you noted also contains jarring contradictions) it seems to be nothing more than a human construct. Which means it is by definition not supernatural.

 

[domer76]

Definitely a question I've always wondered. If God wanted to be in the heart of every person on earth it would be a very simple process. The fact that he is not is either because he doesn't exist OR he does but he likes to play a game wherein some of his creation whom he loves beyond all other things will have to be sent to damnation (a process of his own creation).

So either God is not real or he's not worthy of worship.

That's a theological problem that I find it hard to get past.


I truly would hope that if the Bible were to stand out as above all other written things then it would, by definition, carry ZERO errors. But since it carries errors (and as you noted also contains jarring contradictions) it seems to be nothing more than a human construct. Which means it is by definition not supernatural.

Not to mention the polytheistic nature of the Old Testament, including the very first book, Genesis.

What Christians are generally ignorant of is the history and evolution of their god from the pantheon of gods to the final version accepted today. Yahweh was nothing more than a second tier storm god of some sort that finally rose to the top of the god heap. Merely the top dog in the kennel.

True monotheism as we know it today is post Biblical.

 

[Hume]

Not to mention the polytheistic nature of the Old Testament, including the very first book, Genesis.

What Christians are generally ignorant of is the history and evolution of their god from the pantheon of gods to the final version accepted today. Yahweh was nothing more than a second tier storm god of some sort that finally rose to the top of the god heap. Merely the top dog in the kennel.

True monotheism as we know it today is post Biblical.

The idea of one God is monotheism. Not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Another question that believers struggle with is the hiddenness of their god. One would think that an omni-everything god would easily be able to make his message clear and available to everyone. So that they would all have a chance at salvation.

Yet, he remains hidden. And the message he sends through his holy book is so full of contradictions, errors, and so open to multiple interpretations to make it as clear as mud.

So either God is not real or he's not worthy of worship.

That's a theological problem that I find it hard to get past.

What Christians are generally ignorant of is the history and evolution of their god from the pantheon of gods to the final version accepted today. Yahweh was nothing more than a second tier storm god of some sort that finally rose to the top of the god heap. Merely the top dog in the kennel.

Obviously you two are having lots of problems with Christians and the Hebrew god.

Cannot blame you for that...the god of the Bible is a monster...and the Bible itself is preposterous.

My opinions (feelings, guesses) on those two things have been shared here many times...but here they are again.

My guess, for what it is worth, is that a very self-serving history (of sorts) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The story seems to be a necessary mythology. The mythology served a needed purpose at that time and I can easily understand why the ancient Hebrews felt about it the way they did.



The fact that modern theists feel the way they do about it...is disappointing and disheartening.

Since you two suppose yourselves to be atheists, though, why not get off that easy bullshit and explain why you suppose you know the answers to the questions of the REALITY of existence....particularly that there are no gods. Why not put that cartoon god of the Bible aside?

 

[gmark77]

The idea of one God is monotheism. Not sure what you are referring to.

There are some verses in the OT in which God refers to himself in the plural ("Let us make man in our image" and "Man has become like one of us".

Also it is noteworthy that God feels the need to tell his followers that they should worship ONLY him in Exodus. So, again, that would indicate a polytheistic millieu.

It feels like there is an evolution of God happening in the Bible as it proceeds. He starts off as little more than a tribal god for a small group of highland dwellers, then he becomes a fierce war god championing his followers and granting them the right to commit atrocities as necessary. Then he ultimately morphs into a god of ALL people who only loves and would never support genocide.

 

[Hume]

There are some verses in the OT in which God refers to himself in the plural ("Let us make man in our image" and "Man has become like one of us".

Royal we.

 

[Hume]

There are some verses in the OT in which God refers to himself in the plural ("Let us make man in our image" and "Man has become like one of us".

Also it is noteworthy that God feels the need to tell his followers that they should worship ONLY him in Exodus. So, again, that would indicate a polytheistic millieu.

It feels like there is an evolution of God happening in the Bible as it proceeds. He starts off as little more than a tribal god for a small group of highland dwellers, then he becomes a fierce war god championing his followers and granting them the right to commit atrocities as necessary. Then he ultimately morphs into a god of ALL people who only loves and would never support genocide.

Just Jewish religion. Never found it interesting.

 

[gmark77]

Royal we.

There is always that possibility.

 

[domer76]

The idea of one God is monotheism. Not sure what you are referring to.

True monotheism is post Biblical. The Old Testament has references to the pantheon of gods. The god of Israel was merely recognized as the top god among others.

 

[Hume]

True monotheism is post Biblical. The Old Testament has references to the pantheon of gods. The god of Israel was merely recognized as the top god among others.

ok

 

[domer76]

There are some verses in the OT in which God refers to himself in the plural ("Let us make man in our image" and "Man has become like one of us".

Also it is noteworthy that God feels the need to tell his followers that they should worship ONLY him in Exodus. So, again, that would indicate a polytheistic millieu.

It feels like there is an evolution of God happening in the Bible as it proceeds. He starts off as little more than a tribal god for a small group of highland dwellers, then he becomes a fierce war god championing his followers and granting them the right to commit atrocities as necessary. Then he ultimately morphs into a god of ALL people who only loves and would never support genocide.

That’s EXACTLY how the evolution proceeded.

 

[Hume]

True monotheism is post Biblical. The Old Testament has references to the pantheon of gods. The god of Israel was merely recognized as the top god among others.

Religion has always been for the uneducated.

 

[Cypress]

I can’t tell you any particular count, but a good number are. Plus, one needs to differentiate between Biblical scholars and theologians. Different approaches. Different agendas.

I would be surprised if very many scholars of religion and New Testament studies openly admit to being atheist. Bart Ehrman states that he is basically agnostic.

Why would an atheist be so interested in religion that they would devote 8 years minimum of college education just to pursue a career devoted to complaining about the Bible?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which means that atheism simply means without God.

Which means that it is not a belief system qua belief system. Just as NOT playing baseball is not itself a sport.

People who don't play baseball don't preach against baseball or proselytize to get people who play baseball to convert. Nor do they preach to baseball players what the proper rules of the game are.

 

[Cypress]

Yet, he remains hidden.

Religious people insist that God is revealed in nature. That's why billions of people on the planet perceive there is a purposeful or providential order to reality.

The claim is that the creation, order, rational design, and beauty of nature points to some kind of purposeful organizing principle. Order and design do not come from inanimate random chance, so they are making a reasonably good logical inference.

Epistle to the Galatians specifically makes the statement that even those who do not know about Jesus or Yaweh still have nature's revelation available to them.

 

[gmark77]

I would be surprised if very many scholars of religion and New Testament studies openly admit to being atheist. Bart Ehrman states that he is basically agnostic.

Why would an atheist be so interested in religion that they would devote 8 years minimum of college education just to pursue a career devoted to complaining about the Bible?

I know it can seem upsetting when people complain about the Bible. But remember: there are, for instance, women who currently lack access to necessary healthcare procedures solely because of some people's adherence to the Bible.

Hobby Lobby insists that they shouldn't have to provide certain family planning meds for women because of their deeply held Christian faith (which ironically doesn't stop them from running illegal sales or stealing artifacts from around the world).

Atheists are the ones standing up against these sorts of things.

 

[Hume]

Religious people insist that God is revealed in nature. That's why billions of people on the planet perceive there is a purposeful or providential order to reality.

The claim is that the creation, order, rational design, and beauty of nature points to some kind of purposeful organizing principle. Order and design do not come from inanimate random chance, so they are making a reasonably good logical inference.

Galatians specifically makes the statement that even those who do not know about Jesus or Yaweh have nature's revelation available to them.

Ignorant people believe without understanding.

 

[Cypress]

Atheists are the ones standing up against these sorts of things.

There aren't enough atheists to make any difference. Genuine atheists are only about five percent of the population. It takes religious liberals and religious legislators to support tolerance and human rights. Atheists had virtually nothing to do with the slavery abolition moment or the 1960s civil rights moment, which were spearheaded by Christians.

I can't think of a more cynical career than to spend eight years in college studying a religion you think is bullshit, and then do the hard work of getting a university tenor track professorship for a subject that you think is utter nonsense.

 

[domer76]

I would be surprised if very many scholars of religion and New Testament studies openly admit to being atheist. Bart Ehrman states that he is basically agnostic.

Why would an atheist be so interested in religion that they would devote 8 years minimum of college education just to pursue a career devoted to complaining about the Bible?

Ehrman refers to himself as both atheist and agnostic. Atheist to the Christian god, but agnostic about a generic god.

Many of these guys began their deconversion at some point during their advanced degree education or afterward. Ehrman went to divinity school to become a pastor, but his advanced study led to his questioning, then finally his rejection of Christianity.

It seems to be the STUDY of the Bible and its errors and inconsistencies that lead many of these scholars to their conclusions.