Ignorance and the Bible

[Margot]

Obviously much of Genesis is allegorical. But are the "history" books also supposedly allegorical?

I know you don't like standard Christianity which integrates both the OT and the NT but we are stuck with a God in the NT that is, per every single line of the NT, the same God as the OT.

The reason many of us atheists focus on the OT is because that represents the ORIGIN of God. It represents the BASELINE of God. Given that Christianity does NOT allow one to ignore the OT (that is heresy) it means that the God of the OT has to be dealt with in any discussion of Christianity.

Personally I would recommend to Christians that they revisit Marcion and consider evolving the faith to be more focused on the NT and totally disavow the God of the OT. The God of the OT represents most of the bad intentions many modern Christians carry. Whether it is their homophobia (based on Leviticus) or their eschatology (wanting the return of Jesus via the Holy Land which is "supernaturally" given to one group etc.)

I personally love the teachings of Jesus for the most part. They are brilliant and I can definitely see the makings of a great religion that would be a net benefit to the world. Which it finally seems capable of being. It had a rocky adolescence with a lot of murdery stuff and intolerance.

I like the fact that modern Christians are evolving the faith away from the fire and brimstone stuff, but the fire and brimstone stuff still rides along far too much for my comfort.





That's good because I've not seen anyone except Hume call Christians as many names as you imagine in your posts that they are being called.

In reality most of these conversations have been quite pleasant overall. I don't see anyone really attacking Christians on this thread. But I also get the sense that some posters get really upset when anyone so much as points out a theologically problematic part of Christianity.



Again, no one on this side has said that.

Atheists are obsessed with the Bible and especially Jesus,because deep inside they are hedging their bet!

 

[Margot]

Gentile Christians made a huge mistake distancing themselves from their Jewish roots , as now we are speeding full speed ahead into
The other side of Passover!

 

[domer76]

Kind of but since Paul died over 300 years before the Bible was canonized and, since Christian leaders had a motive to push the religion in a particular direction under Constantine the Great, I doubt all the other writers were given a fair shake. Paul was pushed for a reason that satisfied both Constantine and Christian leaders.

Paul popularized and spread the religion to the Gentiles. That was the difference maker right there.

 

[Ross Dolan]

This is what I said, Frank. “Unlike the Bible myths, atheism doesn’t claim to know the origin of life. A simple “we don’t know” is sufficient. There is no “God of the gaps”.” Yep. I said there is no God of the gaps for atheists. Try some reading comprehension.

No...you did not...and I do not appreciate the bullshitting on your part being portrayed as stupidity and a lack of reading comprehension on my part.

But you seem unable to come to grips with your bullshitting, so I guess it has to stand, despite you saying exactly what I said...and you even quoting your saying what I said you said.

You cannot answer the question(s) I asked, so you have to deflect. We see lots of that happening these days, so you are learning the lessons being taught by Trump. (Congratulations are NOT in order for that achievement.)

I can understand many of the theists who blindly guess there is a GOD, because they fear that if they do not take that position they will be severely punished, or denied sorely sought reward, if they do not. But I laugh at you atheists who insist that you are not suggesting that there are no gods (MAKING A BLIND GUESS ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE) rather than truly taking the stance that you do not know. I laugh with even more gusto at the suggestion that your blind guesses about that lack of knowing...as being attributable to study, logic and science.

For the record, "I do not know" is sufficient.

You suggest that "we don't know is sufficient"...and then mock yourself by going beyond that...and PRETENDING that you are not.

The guesses of many (perhaps, most) religion is dangerous for the human community...and the blind guesses of atheism is every bit as dangerous, because it abets the blind guesses of the religious.


People who choose "atheist" as a personal descriptor should grow the hell up.

 

[domer76]

No...you did not...and I do not appreciate the bullshitting on your part being portrayed as stupidity and a lack of reading comprehension on my part.

But you seem unable to come to grips with your bullshitting, so I guess it has to stand, despite you saying exactly what I said...and you even quoting your saying what I said you said.

You cannot answer the question(s) I asked, so you have to deflect. We see lots of that happening these days, so you are learning the lessons being taught by Trump. (Congratulations are NOT in order for that achievement.)

I can understand many of the theists who blindly guess there is a GOD, because they fear that if they do not take that position they will be severely punished, or denied sorely sought reward, if they do not. But I laugh at you atheists who insist that you are not suggesting that there are no gods (MAKING A BLIND GUESS ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE) rather than truly taking the stance that you do not know. I laugh with even more gusto at the suggestion that your blind guesses about that lack of knowing...as being attributable to study, logic and science.

For the record, "I do not know" is sufficient.

You suggest that "we don't know is sufficient"...and then mock yourself by going beyond that...and PRETENDING that you are not.

The guesses of many (perhaps, most) religion is dangerous for the human community...and the blind guesses of atheism is every bit as dangerous, because it abets the blind guesses of the religious.


People who choose "atheist" as a personal descriptor should grow the hell up.

It’s a copy and paste quote from that original post, Frank. Crystal clear. The “do not know” was referencing the beginning of life. See, unlike any god, there IS evidence of life. Reading comprehension, Frank. Reading comprehension.

Stick with your “blind guess” mantra. It must be near and dear to you. To the rest of us, it’s trite tripe.

 

[Cypress]

Paul thought so little of Jesus that what he actually said about him in all those letters, one could place them on a small post card.

Is that what you read on an atheist blog? I've heard Bill Maher say that also, even though it's obvious Bill Maher has never read the Epistles of Paul.

Paul mentions Jesus dozens, if not hundreds of times, and he writes extensively about the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection, and how Christians should emulate the example of Jesus.

Paul wasn't writing a biography of Jesus, so it's fair to say his letters aren't biographical in nature. But his letters were written for a completely different reason: to give advice and instruction to churches around the Mediterranean about proper practice and doctrine.

 

[Ross Dolan]

It’s a copy and paste quote from that original post, Frank. Crystal clear. The “do not know” was referencing the beginning of life. See, unlike any god, there IS evidence of life. Reading comprehension, Frank. Reading comprehension.

Stick with your “blind guess” mantra. It must be near and dear to you. To the rest of us, it’s trite tripe.

One of your sentences read in its entirety: "There is no “God of the gaps”."

Stop with the bullshit. It is right there in black and white.

As for the "blind guess" well, I understand how it makes you feel to have to deal with it.

Tough, but that is what you are doing...just like the theists.

 

[domer76]

Is that what you read on an atheist blog? I've heard Bill Maher say that also, even though it's obvious Bill Maher has never read the Epistles of Paul.

Paul mentions Jesus dozens, if not hundreds of times, and he writes extensively about the meaning of Jesus' death and resurrection, and how Christians should emulate the example of Jesus.

Paul wasn't writing a biography of Jesus, so it's fair to say his letters aren't biographical in nature. But his letters were written for a completely different reason: to give advice and instruction to churches around the Mediterranean about proper practice and doctrine.

He may write about the MEANING of things, but he writes almost nothing about Jesus himself. Very much different than the synoptic gospels.

Paul’s agenda was conversions and keeping the peace in the ministries.

 

[gmark77]

Atheists are obsessed with the Bible and especially Jesus,because deep inside they are hedging their bet!

So am I to likewise assume you only worship God so you can get into heaven?

 

[domer76]

One of your sentences read in its entirety: "There is no “God of the gaps”."

Stop with the bullshit. It is right there in black and white.

As for the "blind guess" well, I understand how it makes you feel to have to deal with it.

Tough, but that is what you are doing...just like the theists.

Reading comprehension, Frank. Reading comprehension

 

[Ross Dolan]

Reading comprehension, Frank. Reading comprehension

Writing ability, Domer...writing ability.

You have none. Apparently you are not able to compose a post that says what you are saying you meant to say. I directed my questions to what you actually wrote...not to what you now say you meant.

And you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge a mistake. Like Trump...you double down when an error is called to your attention.

Not a good habit...and one that is very difficult to break. You ought at least to attempt to break it, though.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So am I to likewise assume you only worship God so you can get into heaven?

Despite the ancient misperceptions of human beings, a god that needs to be worshiped is no god. Therefore, something else is at work.

IMO, it's social indoctrination. A social glue binding a society together with common beliefs, common practices, piety, humility and respect for others.

Most atheists are also anarchists. The "No Gods, No Masters" mindset of rebellious youth. An atheistic, anarchist society would soon fall apart with most of the members dead and the rest scattered.

In a vacuum, an anarchist society might work but in reality they'd soon fall prey to more organized societies seeking to expand their territory due to population growth.

2010 Anarchist Survey Report

Stefanie Knoll and Aragorn Eloff 2010 Anarchist Survey Report 2010

theanarchistlibrary.org

 

[Margot]

So am I to likewise assume you only worship God so you can get into heaven?

I have a mission on Earth!

 

[Tobytone]

It is quite humorous that those who are the most ignorant on the Bible are those who profess to be Bible thumping Christians. The scholars, people who actually STUDY the Bible for a living, are mostly atheists. And they became atheists only AFTER their deep study led them to that conclusion.

If the Bible stories that defy all laws of science and nature were written today, by an author we could actually talk to about his veracity, we would label it as science fiction.

But, since it was written by several unknown authors 2000 years ago, the believers take it as fact. Delusional. Willfully ignorant. Intellectually lazy.

Said no one with half a brain, ever.

 

[Cypress]

He may write about the MEANING of things, but he writes almost nothing about Jesus himself.

The earliest extant account of Jesus' death and resurrection comes from Paul. Long before the canonical gospels were written. The creed cited in Corinthians shows that Christians believed in the resurrection very early on, it wasn't a later legendary fabrication.

Very much different than the synoptic gospels.

Correct, he did not write a biographical account of Jesus, and biography wasn't even the intent of his letters. He was responding to questions from churches he founded about proper doctrine and practice.

But the death and resurrection of Jesus is central to Paul's letters in terms of theology and doctrine.

Paul’s agenda was conversions and keeping the peace in the ministries.

I don't see anything wrong with that, he never claimed to be doing anything other than spreading the Gospel. Which is what Jesus asked the apostles to do. Paul obviously wasn't seeking wealth, luxury, or glory. He lived a difficult life and persisted onward though shipwrecks, pirates, beatings, and imprisonment.

 

[Based Chad]

Religious people insist that God is revealed in nature.

sort of .

Catholics called it paganism and tried to kill them all.

 

[Tobytone]

Thanks to the work of Zecharia Sitchin and others who found his research to be interesting, I disagree. Now, I fully admit that it looks like Zecharia Sitchin got some things wrong. But as the old saying goes, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. There are a lot of points he's made that are definitely worth thinking about. I believe that The Why Files certainly brings up a lot of these points in the video I linked to previously. For anyone who hasn't seen it, it can be seen here:

View: https://youtu.be/vZBRMcUkqNA

Scott, if you are truly interested in biblical stories and want to learn about a scientific approach to analyzing biblical text, watch Jordan Pettersons lectures on the bible. Any intelligent person that actually listens to his lectures can't say the guy isn't extremely intelligent and knowledgeable. He gives a unique perspective that hasn't been done before that I'm aware of. I know I will get a bunch of unhinged idiots on this thread all bothered by the suggestion, but it's a sincere one. If you are a thinking person, it's worth the watch for sure. The lectures are very well attended by both religious and atheist for good reason.

 

[Cypress]

Catholics called it paganism and tried to kill them all!

That doesn't make sense.

In Romans, Paul directly and explicitly acknowledged that God's revelation in nature and conscience is available to all people. That is canonical.

The Catholic Church considers Paul an apostle, a saint, and a martyr.

 

[Cypress]

Atheists, at least the ones I know, are obsessed with Jesus!

I actually find that atheists mostly have a litany of jokes and complaints about the Old Testament, but they almost never mock, deride, or complain about Jesus.

 

[Based Chad]

That doesn't make sense.

In Romans, Paul directly and explicitly acknowledged that God's revelation in nature and conscience is available to all people. That is canonical.

The Catholic Church considers Paul an apostle, a saint, and a martyr.

the Catholic church is a satanic false Christian organization.

they do lots of evil shit on the regular.



no true Catholic would rape a choir boy eh?\

reality begs to differ, anti-human mason fucktard.