Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

An Atheist Reads the Bible - 1 - Lot's Daughters

Options
2456

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Zillah wrote: »

    God and Sodom is more like scenario 2. He is omnipotent. There's no such thing as collateral damage when once is omnipotent. Any damage he did was deliberate. So by Darwin's great bushy beard, will you stop with the meaningless Nazi comparison!

    Not really as you are taking a literalist reading of the bible as fundamentalists do and you should argue with someone who holds those beliefs.


  • Options
    #33
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    Not really as you are taking a literalist reading of the bible as fundamentalists do and you should argue with someone who holds those beliefs.

    But who are you to decide which parts are literal or not?


  • Options
    #34
    Galvasean
    Registered Users Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.


  • Options
    #35
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Dades wrote: »
    I doubt it. My knowledge of memetics is only what I get from skimming threads on the subject to make sure nobody's being naughty. Twas Robin I'd say. :)

    It was a great idea - whoever it was - thats me burned as a heretic.:)


  • Options
    #36
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    But who are you to decide which parts are literal or not?

    You seem to do a very good job of it:D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    You seem to do a very good job of it:D

    Well, here's what I think.

    Either it is complete and utter bull****, or it is the word of God (perfect).

    You exist in some hazy section inbetween those two points, where you pick the bits you like and ignore/allegorise the bits you hate.


  • Options
    #38
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    Galvasean wrote: »
    There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.



    Wicknight wrote: »
    The explanation is that it is a story that comes from a time when people were used and expected cruel and brutal rulers, and thus expected a cruel and brutal God.

    I hate that kinda thought process saying the bible was for the animals which lived 2000/1000 yrs ago and isnt to be followed word for word... That the bible was only for cruel societies and is less strict for our 'enlighted' societies. We have come from the 20th century which is probibly the bloodiest centruy in man kinds history. Which leaders where more cruel and brutal than the one we had over the last 100 yrs. We are only 9 years into this one and have a look at the political map!?!
    look at the fool GW bush how many people was he cruel and brutal to.

    Have thses people ever take a present day trip around somilia? How about a relaxing walk by yourself down the dark back alleyways of any city in Ireland after dark and see how enlightened we are.

    People are people, today, 100 years ago, 10,000 years ago 100,000 years ago.

    The stories in the bible are like that coz they're ment to scare the living crap outa people so they will join the JC church. Now we have education for the masses we can question such 'stories' and say 'hold on, this is crap. It makes no sence and I dont believe it'

    However as soon as people started saying that suddenly, (after thousands of years of strict interpretation (flat earth anyone)) someone from the back of the room shouts, 'well actually the bible is more metaphorical'. Well I for one dont buy it.

    A religion with rules laid down by your god can not change or be open to different understanding, human laws can but not laws laid down by an all seeing wise god. Why should the bible, which was written over many thousands of years, over thouands of years ago be any different for my great, great great, great, great grand father than it is for me? Has god changed his mind?????

    No he hasnt, its stories are made up, people have realised it, the church doesnt have the power to burn us at the stake anymore, so its time for people to move on and put the book beside Santas autobiography and take control of their own decisions.


  • Options
    #39
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Galvasean wrote: »
    There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.

    Thats a rather lazy deduction, if indeed it is a deduction rather than a flippant remark. The only sections that I can think of that have 'divided' (As in, its still literal to alot of folk) christian opinion, is the Genesis account and possibly the flood. All of the bible was 'never' taken literally. There has always been symbolic language in it, and such language known. So nothing has become anything. The bible says what it always has, and in a 'couple' of incidents, things that most thought were literal for years, are being questioned as possible metaphors.


  • Options
    #40
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Galvasean wrote: »
    There was a time when all of the Bible was supposed to be taken literally. Then certain aspects were shown to be contradictory or just plain wrong. These parts then became 'metaphors' for something else. It's funny how as time goes by more and more of the Bible becomes metaphorical.


    It certainly has been around since the time of Christ and Philo of Alexandria was the most well known scholar.

    The early Greek Christians looked at the question of reconciling their faith and fossils and bones they were digging up. Historically the questions are very old. Thats why its often refered to as a Judeo-Hellenic reading of the bible.


  • Options
    #41
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Well, here's what I think.

    Either it is complete and utter bull****, or it is the word of God (perfect).

    You exist in some hazy section inbetween those two points, where you pick the bits you like and ignore/allegorise the bits you hate.

    Thats up to you. I'm not trying to change your mind.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    CDfm wrote: »
    Thats up to you. I'm not trying to change your mind.

    Then why come to A&A?

    Unless... you would like to change...


  • Options
    #43
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    CDfm wrote: »
    Its the same as saying Churchill was a child killer.
    It isn’t really though, is it? No one ever tried to tell us Churchill was infinity good, holy and perfect. No one ever tried to tell us he was all powerful and all knowing.

    I love it when christians impose human like limitation on their all powerful all knowing god. Seriously, how can you liken your all powerful, all knowing, infinity good, infinity holy, infinity kind, infinity merciful god to a WWII prime minister that drank too much?

    MrP


  • Options
    #44
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Thats a rather lazy deduction, if indeed it is a deduction rather than a flippant remark. The only sections that I can think of that have 'divided' (As in, its still literal to alot of folk) christian opinion, is the Genesis account and possibly the flood. All of the bible was 'never' taken literally. There has always been symbolic language in it, and such language known. So nothing has become anything. The bible says what it always has, and in a 'couple' of incidents, things that most thought were literal for years, are being questioned as possible metaphors.


    Take a look at the first few posts esp the vid clips, that is where the argument starts, to say that its only those two books is not true...

    I do believe there are a number of religions alive and thriving still today that have a strict word for word literal meaning. even on the very limited list supplied there are many there which would fall out of your statment that christian opinion is split only over two sections. I fear the lazyness was not with Galvasean...


  • Options
    #45
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    thebouldwhacker wrote: »

    I hate that kinda thought process saying the bible was for the animals which lived 2000/1000 yrs ago and isnt to be followed word for word

    Ok. That wasn't either of our arguments, but knock yourself out :D


  • Options
    #46
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

    Even on the thread one poster says that the Genesis account and possibly the flood are dividing areas of the bible. Sorry but who decided that?

    " ok lads from now on the bible is the word of god except for this bit and a little over here"

    Rubbish, If I believed in god (firstly I wouldnt be wasting my time 9 to 5ing it) I would obey and believe every word he gave to me.... So what is it, people not really believing in god or what???


  • Options
    #47
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    thebouldwhacker wrote: »
    Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

    that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the bible was written by people who would not have thought twice about a god who was prepared to genocide an enemy to let them get their land, or who would kill the children of their enslavers. this would all have seemed perfectly normal to these people who lived with war and hardship and were used to brutal rule from kings and tyrants.

    the issue for christians today is that they do have a problem with a cruel and evil god because they are living in a time where modern ethics and morality (I would point out building upon greek and Roman notions), so they try and find some way to square the circle as it were because they don't want to believe in a cruel and evil god they want to believe in a loving and caring god (and a lot of them already believe before they come to look seriously at the Old Testament).

    it is like someone who doesn't hate Jews and doesn't think Hitler would have hated Jews trying to find a way to make Mie Kamp fit with that frame work.

    so you end up with some rather ridiculous explanations as to why all the horrific killing raping and genocide in the Old Testament was actually carried out by a loving a caring God (a concept that is pretty modern and fits with modern expectations of what a god should be like)


  • Options
    #48
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    thebouldwhacker wrote: »
    Its an argument I often come across, that we are a more socially advanced society and therefore are allowed to read between the lines of the bible and live it metaphoricaly.

    Even on the thread one poster says that the Genesis account and possibly the flood are dividing areas of the bible. Sorry but who decided that?

    " ok lads from now on the bible is the word of god except for this bit and a little over here"

    Rubbish, If I believed in god (firstly I wouldnt be wasting my time 9 to 5ing it) I would obey and believe every word he gave to me.... So what is it, people not really believing in god or what???

    I think you are mixed up here. Something being literal or metaphorical does not make it more or less the word of someone. It means the person was writing either literally or metephorically. Also, I never said that the Genesis account and the flood were the only bones of contention in Christianity. I said, in the context of galvaseans post, that they are the only two incidents that I can think of, where they were once thought as literal but have since had some call for a metephorical reading.


  • Options
    #49
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    Wick, while I agree with you 100%, I'm still going to wobble your jelly a bit.

    I think that while yes many christians are good people, who wish no harm others many (and I have met a few) believe that AIDS was sent by god to rid the world of homosexuals. That famine in the third world is gods design to limit the numbers of people with dark skin, the middle east is a crusade we (christian we) must win cos 'they' will only invade Europe and make slaves of our sisters etc etc.... all with gods help. ffor example I was with a man of the cloth the day of the Iraqi invasion, shock & awe and all that. He was watching the tv saying 'why oh why are they bombing those poor innocent people, think of the suffering that they will go through, and through no fault of their own' good christian there I thought to myself until he followed it up with 'why dont they leave them alone and use the bombs in Israel instead':eek:... they deserve it'


    So I think the 'loving god' is kinda like, 'well he loves me, but if I need him to he'll smite yo ass and all your lands'. god loves and forgives as long as I want him to, (Pat- god didnt make us, we made him)


  • Options
    #50
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Wicknight wrote: »
    that wasn't my argument. My argument is that the bible was written by people who would not have thought twice about a god who was prepared to genocide an enemy to let them get their land, or who would kill the children of their enslavers. this would all have seemed perfectly normal to these people who lived with war and hardship and were used to brutal rule from kings and tyrants.

    the issue for christians today is that they do have a problem with a cruel and evil god because they are living in a time where modern ethics and morality (I would point out building upon greek and Roman notions), so they try and find some way to square the circle as it were because they don't want to believe in a cruel and evil god they want to believe in a loving and caring god (and a lot of them already believe before they come to look seriously at the Old Testament).

    it is like someone who doesn't hate Jews and doesn't think Hitler would have hated Jews trying to find a way to make Mie Kamp fit with that frame work.

    so you end up with some rather ridiculous explanations as to why all the horrific killing raping and genocide in the Old Testament was actually carried out by a loving a caring God (a concept that is pretty modern and fits with modern expectations of what a god should be like)


    On the concept of inconsistancy between the new and old testament. The belief in Armageddon, is that not consistant with Gods Judgements of old? He will wipe out the majority of mankind, not just a people inhabiting a piece of land. He is a Vengeful God. Vengeance is his. I certainly don't deny it, or try dress it up. The issue really, is that you don't see his judgements as Just. You see him as evil, petty etc etc. You think that there are more just ways than his ways. Fair enough. This christian certainly doesn't back away from his judgements though. The old testament is a reminder of what he will do for his people, and what he will do to the enemies of him and his people. There is to be one more day of bloodshed, where once again he will take his people into his care and wipe his enemies out. This one will be final though.


  • Options
    #51
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    JimiTime wrote: »
    He will wipe out the majority of mankind, not just a people inhabiting a piece of land. He is a Vengeful God. Vengeance is his.

    And yet we are all perfect, made in his image, the ultimate life form in the entire universe, our everlasting souls were created by him and for him for all eternity and whats he gonna do? hold a grudge if we arnt good boys and girls? send our souls to the eternal fires of hell?

    Get real. I prefer the turtle story, at least they can enjoy themselves all stacked up like that......


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    thebouldwhacker wrote: »
    And yet we are all perfect, made in his image, the ultimate life form in the entire universe, our everlasting souls were created by him and for him for all eternity and whats he gonna do? hold a grudge if we arnt good boys and girls? send our souls to the eternal fires of hell?

    Hmmm. You don't ever seem to get anything thats being said, and then go OTT about stuff that was never said in the first place. Tell you what, I'll do us both a favour and ignore you.


  • Options
    #53
    Overblood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,359 ✭✭✭Overblood


    JimiTime wrote: »
    I think you are mixed up here. Something being literal or metaphorical does not make it more or less the word of someone. It means the person was writing either literally or metephorically. Also, I never said that the Genesis account and the flood were the only bones of contention in Christianity. I said, in the context of galvaseans post, that they are the only two incidents that I can think of, where they were once thought as literal but have since had some call for a metephorical reading.

    Who suggested that it should be metaphorical? And on what authority?


  • Options
    #54
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Then why come to A&A?

    Unless... you would like to change...

    LOL:D

    Great thread - glad to add my 10 cents.


  • Options
    #55
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It isn’t really though, is it? No one ever tried to tell us Churchill was infinity good, holy and perfect. No one ever tried to tell us he was all powerful and all knowing.

    I love it when christians impose human like limitation on their all powerful all knowing god. Seriously, how can you liken your all powerful, all knowing, infinity good, infinity holy, infinity kind, infinity merciful god to a WWII prime minister that drank too much?

    MrP

    Well Mr P it worked for Churchill and I wont hold a few drinks against him.

    http://inthisfight.blogspot.com/2008/02/churchill-on-religion.html
    "I found no comfort in any of the philosophical ideas which some men parade in their hours of ease and strength and safety. They seemed only fair-weather friends. I realized with awful force that no exercise of my own feeble wit and strength could save me from my enemies, and that without the assistance of that High Power which interferes in the eternal sequence of causes and effects more often than we are always prone to admit, I could never succeed. I prayed long and earnestly for help and guidance. My prayer, as it seems to me, was swiftly and wonderfully answered." - Winston Churchill


  • Options
    #56
    JimiTime
    Registered Users Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    Overblood wrote: »
    Who suggested that it should be metaphorical? And on what authority?

    I don't know. I'm assuming some people who believed in the evolution of man but also in the bible needed to reconcile the two.


  • Options
    #57
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Hmmm. You don't ever seem to get anything thats being said, and then go OTT about stuff that was never said in the first place. Tell you what, I'll do us both a favour and ignore you.


    You really should learn to take it easy, just cos people will challenge what you say doesnt mean you have to go off on one... you can ignore me if you want, no bother imo, but thats not really what boards is about. So keep the personal comments/insults to yourself, this is the second thread today you are trolling me in??? (thanks anyway, but you can have them back) and post away safe in the knowledge that other users have the right to post here too.


  • Options
    #58
    thebouldwhacker
    Registered Users Posts: 3,565 ✭✭✭thebouldwhacker


    Overblood wrote: »
    Who suggested that it should be metaphorical? And on what authority?

    +1

    gods rules yet man has the power to change them as they see fit? gods rules yet man has the power to call bits metaphorical and other bits untouchable... the fix is in boys:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #59
    CDfm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,649 ✭✭✭✭CDfm


    Overblood wrote: »
    Who suggested that it should be metaphorical? And on what authority?

    I have forgotten lots on this stuff but here is the Ladybird edition.

    Philo of Alexandria was a Jewish Scholar around the time of Christ.

    He was part of a movement that read "scripture" allegorically and prior to that it was accepted literally for the most part.Old Testament and Mosaic Law (Law of Moses) and all that.

    Its sometimes called Platoist or Judeo-Christian or Judeo-Hellenic because the Greeks split the subject into Science (knowledge) and wisdom(religion). Theology being closer to poetry then science. So a Greek reading would be metaphorical or allegoricical.Platoist after the Greek philosopher.

    Lots of Debates etc in the Early Church on this for a few years. As you can see its still going on but thats its origans in terms of whats normally debated.

    So reading the Bible that way you look at the philosophy and deeper meaning.

    Some early Greek fossil hunting Christian made the point about having to accept what he saw with his eyes(I cant remember who) as part of one of those debates and if I ever come accross reference to it again I will post it.Im not joking about the Greeks and fossils as they were digging them up and had no explanations for them.

    For someone like me when you read the Bible you read it in terms of the world etc and that it exists and its prehistory etc. Some people dont.


  • Options
    #60
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    It's easy to know when you're not supposed to take Bible stories literally, or when they have some other 'meaning' only knowable to those who accept Jesus into their hearts - when God's morals seem non-existent or fail to measure up to ours (of 2009). That's when.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    thebouldwhacker wrote: »
    post away safe in the knowledge that other users have the right to post here too.
    Everyone has the right to post in the same way everyone has the right to ignore other posters.

    Though deciding to ignore posters is usually best achieved by not telling the other poster you are about to ignore them. That way you avoid the inevitable retaliatory post that can't be ignored. :pac:


Advertisement