Ignorance and the Bible

[Cypress]

As does believing in God, but here we are.

It's interesting that you confess atheism leads to paradoxes and cognitive dissonance.

So you spend all your time on here telling atheists what they believe even when they disagree with you. Do you do the same for Baptists? How about Catholics? How about Jews? You go around telling your Jewish friends what their beliefs are?

If not why not?

Atheism is easy to understand. Nothing exists but matter and energy, and at the end of the day there really is no ultimate purpose or meaning.

To the extent atheists write books, they're usually just a litany of complaints about the Old Testament, or about specific events in Christian history.

To really understand Christian or Buddhist belief, you would have to spend a few years studying at a seminary or a Buddhist monastery.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The birth story IS a fundamental Christian belief. It includes the divine nature of Jesus and the notion of a virgin birth, worshipped by millions. You can’t cherry pick that out.

The death and resurrection is equally contradictory in Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. And equally as implausible as a virgin birth.

You constantly show scorn and contempt for their blind guesses about the REALITY...but you seem oblivious to the absurdity of your blind guesses about it.

Why is that? What makes you suppose your blind guesses are any more "scientific" or "rational?"

They aren't.

If you were half as rational and logical as you suppose you are...you would be identifying as an agnostic...or simply identifying an agnostic position without actually adopting any descriptor.

There is no greater chance of arriving at a reasonable "there are no gods" using logic, reason, science, or math...than there is of arriving at a reasonable "there is at least one god." Similarly, there is no greater chance of arriving at a reasonable "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" using logic, reason, science, or math...than there is of arriving at a reasonable "It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none."

 

[Ross Dolan]

And if YOU can't imagine it then surely no one can do it.



As does believing in God, but here we are.



So you spend all your time on here telling atheists what they believe even when they disagree with you. Do you do the same for Baptists? How about Catholics? How about Jews? You go around telling your Jewish friends what their beliefs are?

If not why not?

That post above to Domer is meant for you too.

 

[domer76]

No, fundamental Christian theology is based on grace and salvation, and the redemptive power of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Luke and Mathew - the only gospels which briefly mention a birth narrative - say nothing directly about Christian practice and theology.

The gold standard for Christian practice, theology, and salvation are the epistles of Paul. Paul said nothing of consequence about Jesus' birth, and apparently considered it so inconsequential it doesn't factor in at all Paul's instructions and guidance on Christian practice, theology, and salvation.

Paul knew the apostles Peter and John, and he knew Jesus' brother James, so if the birth was so important they would have told him.

There is decent circumstantial evidence that Mark's gospel is based on Peter's teachings. Peter was Jesus' closest apostle, and the birth narrative is never mentioned in Mark. If the birth was so bloody important, you'd think Peter would have told Mark.


Now, the birth story of the Buddha is even more fantastical than the birth story in the Gospel of Mathew. But it doesn't figure prominently in the practice, beliefs, and metaphysics of Buddhism.

Atheists have never used the Buddha birth story to diminish Buddhism.

You should talk to a few Catholics about their veneration of the Virgin Mary.

The resurrection story is equally full of scientific impossibilities and contradictions. But I repeat myself.

As I said before, Paul’s version of the religion was the church ABOUT Jesus, not the church OF Jesus.

Regarding Buddha’s birth. Do we have an entire season, legal holiday, school plays, public birth scenes, incessant songs and special church services commemorating the birth of Buddha? Nope, I didn’t think so.

 

[Cypress]

You should talk to a few Catholics about their veneration of the Virgin Mary.

The resurrection story is equally full of scientific impossibilities and contradictions. But I repeat myself.

As I said before, Paul’s version of the religion was the church ABOUT Jesus, not the church OF Jesus.

Regarding Buddha’s birth. Do we have an entire season, legal holiday, school plays, public birth scenes, incessant songs and special church services commemorating the birth of Buddha? Nope, I didn’t think so.

You're right, that there is a traditional belief in the Virgin Mary.
People who believe in a supernatural being believe he is capable of miracles.
On this planet, you are in small minority that believes that the ultimate explanation for life, the universe, and everything is inanimate matter and energy

Atheists believe in miracles too, though they generally don't recognize that they do.
I don't see the Virgin birth as a crucial flaw to get stressed about..

Tradition aside, the birth as nothing to do with salvation, which are based on asking forgiveness for your sins and believing in redemptive power of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ.

Now, in a sacramental religion like Catholicism, I can't think of any sacraments that directly involves the birth narrative in Luke.

 

[Margot]

Right, the Deuteronomistic history in the Hebrew Bible did contain legitimate historical narrative about the unified kingdom and the first temple period. Before the advent of modern archeology, it was our best source of historical information about the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Israelites.

But this stuff was written by scribes who were compiling an oral tradition that was centuries old, so the Deuteronomistic history has to be read with a critical and skeptical eye.

Bottom line, YHWH could have had a Book written very detailed with a specific timeline!
He Chose to do it this way! Why??? You'll have to ask him!
I'm A theologian, not by choice, but I find the Bible can be a problem teaching, because of first organized religion, second laymen's spin,and I doubt if one person can answer everything it means! I have been at it 50 years Nov 1.
And what I have learned the most , is the Bible is on a need to know basis.

 

[Margot]

You truly are confused, aren’t you? I’m questioning YOU about your irrational beliefs. Trying to point out the obvious.

I recognize the myth for what it is. Fictional story. Fictional characters. That’s what you fail to do.

I'm A specialist, you'll have to take your Job issues,to someone in that field.
Passover is my field of study.

 

[Margot]

You truly are willfully ignorant of where YHWH originated, aren’t you?

YHWH was a second tier Canaanite storm god in the pantheon of gods. El was the top dog at the time. Over time, YHWH rose up the godly social ladder and emerged as the top dog. Even stole El’s woman for his own. As polytheism started to fade, YHWH became the ONLY god. YOUR god. If you actually studied what your book says, rather than take it as fact, you would recognize polytheistic traits in the 10 Commandments and Genesis.

But you don’t because you are comfortable in your ignorance. Ignorance is bliss is very true on your part.

That’s why I say that atheists often know more about your religion than you do.

Before there was a physical universe, before there were created Spirits,there was YHWH.

 

[Margot]

Only in your imagination. Hearing voices is a form of schizophrenia. Hearing holy voices is theological schizophrenia.

Hezekiah's tunnel is Biblical and still exist! One example.

 

[Based Chad]

Thanks for acknowledging my point that atheists here read the Bible as strictly and as literally as most nutjob Bible thumper do.

You guys, and Richard Dawkins + Christopher Hitchens are almost the only evidence I have to go on. I don't meet atheists in real life who spend time complaining about the Old Testament.

I never said there weren't substantial numbers of people and nut jobs who read the Bible as literal history and fact: I have named several of the groups - aka, atheists, Pentecostals, conservative Southern Baptists, right-wing evangelical Bible thumpers.

any rational analysis would indicate the OT god is a blood thirsty assholes, and the Jesus is something altogether different.

yes, Zionism is gay.

 

[Based Chad]

Only in your imagination. Hearing voices is a form of schizophrenia. Hearing holy voices is theological schizophrenia.

or maybe she can be a saint.

 

[Margot]

My two cents is that somebody could read Luke, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Romans, Philippians and then you'll basically have all the tenets of Christian ethics and theology.

There is no moral anything in Christianity, each and every Christian and non Christian is an immoral sinner,who's only hope is from Salvation purchased at the Cross with the Blood of Christ. That's all the theology too!
All the rest is fluff. Can't get you out of this world alive.

 

[Margot]

From the first cave paintings in France and Spain, it's pretty obvious that homo sapiens had an innate predisposition for the spiritual and transcendent.

We can argue until the cows come home as to why that is. But the reason genuine atheists will probably never make up more than five to ten percent of the human population, is we generally do not believe reality is limited to what our senses can ascertain, and that life, the universe, and everything is not ultimately best explained by quarks and electrons.

My one and only problem with atheist is if they don't believe in intelligent design.
You don't have to believe anything else ,but if you believe all this just happened with design,you have no intellect.

 

[Margot]

Prophecy from the OT I might add. Which is why Christians keep the OT with the NT and don't pare it away like some would prefer.

The OT sets the stage and foretells the arrival of Jesus.

Not all Old Testament has been fulfilled!

 

[Cypress]

OT god is a blood thirsty asshole!

The only posters using rational literary criticism of the Bible on this thread are the two agnostics: me and Dutch

Both the atheists and the religionists are reading the Bible as strictly and as literally as the most conservative fire-and-brimstone Pentecostal would.

There is zero archeological evidence of mass destruction of towns, and mass graves in early biblical Israel.

The tribes who were supposedly totally wiped out make appearances chronologically later on in the Bible.

The rational conclusion is that while there may have been conflict and skirmishes, the scribes recording the oral tradition were using hyperbole and exaggeration as literary license.

 

[gmark77]

My one and only problem with atheist is if they don't believe in intelligent design.

Why do we need intelligent design? Evolution seems to do a pretty darn good job. Just look at the evolution of the eye.

You don't have to believe anything else ,but if you believe all this just happened with design,you have no intellect.

Or maybe you just don't know much about developmental biology.

 

[Margot]

Why do we need intelligent design? Evolution seems to do a pretty darn good job. Just look at the evolution of the eye.



Or maybe you just don't know much about developmental biology.

So a gall bladder heart,penis,liver,just happened to come to gather and work together by dumb luck.

 

[gmark77]

I'm A specialist, you'll have to take your Job issues,to someone in that field.

That's a unique dodge.

 

[Margot]

Why do we need intelligent design? Evolution seems to do a pretty darn good job. Just look at the evolution of the eye.



Or maybe you just don't know much about developmental biology.

Enlighten me,how we got here without a bit of intelligent design along the way be specific.

 

[gmark77]

So a gall bladder heart,penis,liver,just happened to come to gather and work together by dumb luck.

Not really "dumb luck", but yes they occur naturally.

I like the eye example because so many Intelligent Design propentists (lol) find it baffling. Here's how the eye seems to have arisen, complete with evidence in the actual animal record.