|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 1:47 pm
i am astounded at the attempts to make sense of singular verses in the bible without considering the whole that i have seen here and elsewhere. it is no insult to anyone but i think that a good understanding of the bible and other religious texts must come from an open mind. and in saying that i mean that we must be open to thinking about things in ways other than the literal. i have trouble understand how after so many hundreds of years the understanding of the bible has decreased as opposed to increased. people quarrel about sentences in a book. even if it is the word of god it is the word channeled through a human, whose interpretation or translation from the experience of god into the words of man makes the message slightly flawed, yet one who knows the way and reads can gather more from reading than someone who thinks that they know with their intellect. in addition this text as recorded long ago has been manipulated by men of power as long as has been possible. the bible and books like it that claim supreme authority are dangerous and even more dangerous are the ignorant and manipulative minds who use them to gain power in the world of men.
thats not the end of my rant about the bible, but it will have to be for now.
good day to all
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17, 2007 1:54 pm
I have a problem with the literal/figurative aspect of the Bible.
How is one to know what is suppose to be literal and what figurative? It's easy to tell people to figure it out on their own, but if the Bible is the word of God then taking the wrong thing as figurative when it is suppose to be taken literally means the difference between heaven and eternal torment.
An atheist rant about the bible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:57 am
well first we must consider what god is. then what role man takes in recording and translating the "word" of god.
who is the atheist?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 2:14 pm
I'm the atheist. Quote: well first we must consider what god is. then what role man takes in recording and translating the "word" of god. But to consider what God is one would require knowing what in the bible should be taken literally and what figuratively prior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:19 am
truthfully i dont think the bible has anything to do with god or his nature or our 'salvation'. it was written by the hands of men, passed through the filter of lower mind, and to know god is an experience not a result of indoctrination. personally i dont think anything should be taken too literally and that is one of the troubles with the world. people take religion too seriously, take themselves too seriously, take thier problems too serious, take thier opinions too seriously.
oh btw good to see a new face participating. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:07 am
I personally don't think it is possible to know God by any means other than your imagination. The Bible is vague at best, and other people don't really know as much as they think they do. Of course, I'm a Christian-converted-to-agnostic, so my opinion may or may not be valid in this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 9:20 am
My rant on the Bible starts off by; why should we belief anything it says? It is supposedly the word of God, however God did not write it. Man wrote the Bible, and man is mortal and has faults. What if the men writing the Bible didn't like what God was telling them and they made changes to "fix it" to the way they thought it should be? For instance; what if one of them were homophobic and thought it should be wrong while God was accepting? What if the men were sexist and thought women should be lower than man? I'm not fighting in defense of either claim, I'm simply wondering how so many people can believe the literal as well as metaphorical aspects of the Bible when fellow man wrote it word for word; they could have easily created it themselves, or ignored God (should he exist).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:09 am
khuan I'm the atheist. Quote: well first we must consider what god is. then what role man takes in recording and translating the "word" of god. But to consider what God is one would require knowing what in the bible should be taken literally and what figuratively prior. This is decided untrue. One does not find definitions for God in only the Bible. If that were true then where did the people who wrote the Bible get their idea of God? By accident? God exists outside of the words on the pages of a book translated a zillion times over. God is something that can be discussed without the Bible being involved at all so your statement is fallacy. Aside from all of that why distinguish the Bible from every other religion's books? Take them all put them side by side and what do you get? An outline for each thats pretty much the same with a few minor differences in the end product. The IDEAS are the SAME. Ghandi and Jesus spoke the same message, Budha and Jesus saw eye to eye, Mohamed(sp?) was really out there but the Korahn still teaches loving your neighbor and being selfless and everything else that is in the Bible...in fact it stemmed from the same lineage in fact. Jews and Christians? Same thing until Jesus was born....but even still you get the point. So...........I'm not really sure why the Bible is confusing to you. Is it because you don't want to believe in God and so throw off anything that is commonly related to him? Or is it because of the rather bold (and unfounded) claim of the Bible's infallability? I can see that point. is it because you can't tell whats metaphor from whats literal? If thats the case then I'll ask this, why does it matter? What's really important about the book is not that it makes literal sense, but that it makes logical sense, doesn't spew lies, promotes a faith that provides hope, and in the end if you hang onto that faith then you will be a better person for it. The term "better" is of course relative but the point remains, the Bible is a moot point really. It's not the basis for anything other then to grant an idea of history, how Jesus came about (starting with Judah) through a bunch of stories, and then on to Jesus who teaches much the same as Ghandi or Budha by preaching and speaking and having people wander around writing it down. I guess i don't understand why people make it into such a big deal compared to every other religious figurehead out there. I suppose in some sense it provides a slight bit of proof for someone who resides within the faith of christianity....after all why would an atheist attack THEIR book an no one elses when they all promote a God head of some sort and preach the same message. Then again it could also be that Jesus made a claim that the others did not make.....he said he was God....but then again, he also provided proof of it in some sense. In the end though it boils down to this: No theology is ever going to be 100% correct. Even Atheism has it's flaws. So what it really comes down to is a race to determine how close to the Truth of the matter you're going to get before you die. The Bible can provide a tiny bit of that but to rely upon it for the source of your faith is a problem. Standing on a book that has such an odd distinguishment made between metaphore and reality is probably folly. THINK...... THINK.......thats why I am bothered by Christians......because a stupid book is what they rest their faith on and not their ability to reason........ DAMMIT.....THINK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 12:07 pm
"THINK.......thats why I am bothered by Christians......because a stupid book is what they rest their faith on and not their ability to reason........
DAMMIT.....THINK! "
------------------------------
Lol I agree with that. Many Christians blindly follow a book and sermons based on that book, however most cannot even explain what the book is saying, literal or metaphorical. Reasoning God, Jesus, and religion can be a quite controversial thing, it can be reasoned either in the favor of Christianity or of science. It comes down to what an individual believes (preferably based on thought, not blind ignorance). It bothers me that people will blindly follow one route of belief or another without any intelligent thought put into that belief. I think a Christian that is ignorant to what they believe is just as damnable compared to someone who has no faith at all. *Disclaimer* (I do not mean to offend.)
I think I went a little off track to what you were saying Niniva, but I agree with you on that statment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 8:26 pm
Quote: I think a Christian that is ignorant to what they believe is just as damnable compared to someone who has no faith at all. Based on vast studies of the Bible I would say that it is a safe assumption that people who hold to a blind faith without questioning are more likely to actually BE damned then not. I am over the opinion that, if Christianity turns out to be true, then 75% of people who call themselves christians will find that they have missed the mark so far that they wind up burning in hell....and desservedly so. If Christianity turns out to be true. I won't reveal my own hopes or dreams reguarding all this but I will say I am a theist but other then that I'll leave you guessing and give everyone their fair share of thought.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 10:13 am
----------------------------------
I am over the opinion that, if Christianity turns out to be true, then 75% of people who call themselves christians will find that they have missed the mark so far that they wind up burning in hell....and desservedly so.
If Christianity turns out to be true. I won't reveal my own hopes or dreams reguarding all this but I will say I am a theist but other then that I'll leave you guessing and give everyone their fair share of thought. - Niniva
---------------------------------
I agree, in my experiences, many who have claimed to be Christian would even give the Devil a headache.
Lol, mystery-theist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:07 am
Mystery so to speak because it is illogical to think that any one religion is exactly right about something that is impossible to understand....and yet they all claim they do.
I refuse to be irrational and so I leave myself open to be swayed in this direction or that based on the practicality and solidness of the arguement provided.
On the other hand a life with no faith in anything is also impossible so I have to adhere to some sort of faith.
I consider it like this:
1. Understanding a being like God is impossible
2. Understanding that it is impossible to understand God IS possible and is the very essence of faith.
3. To claim understanding of a being you also claim is omniscient, and omnipotent is irrational, the two are are incompatable
4. If religions differ on points of view about God and yet teach the same things then the teachings are sound but their views on God cannot all be right....especially if they are opposing. If A=/= B then x+x =/= both A and B. Thats impossible.
And so it is impossible to understand God exactly, it is also highly probably that religions views on God are also wrong in some way (if not most ways) and so following something wholely without developing some form of personal idea that differs at least slightly from a religious docternal point of view is irrational.
The idea that any book of religious interest (Bible, Koran, Pentatuch ect.) is open to interpretation automatically means that any person who winds up being correct only got there by complete accident in human terms.
Why study all this if God is impossible to understand? Well simply put, understanding him as well as is humanly possible, constantly seeking to find this illusive truth that I know I will never find is the only way to justify faith. While being exactly right is impossible, being as CLOSE to right as I can be is an attractive goal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:33 am
You and I think alot of like in that aspect. I myself have no belief in a higher power at the moment, however I am open to any idea and am willing to be swayed. I am a little bais toward my current belief, yet I am willing to look at other aspects and listen to opposing views.
There is a word for what you are describing at the end of your statement, but I can't quite remember it. Un-something...the inability to understand something that there is no definite answer for. Something you can't see nor ever know.... Something that is just beyond our ability to understand and we are unable to grasp the concept. *Grrr* It's bugging me that I can't think of the word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 12:18 pm
There's probably a lot of words that describe it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 14, 2008 10:38 am
Femme Fatale Gunslinger "THINK.......thats why I am bothered by Christians......because a stupid book is what they rest their faith on and not their ability to reason........ DAMMIT.....THINK! " ------------------------------ Lol I agree with that. Many Christians blindly follow a book and sermons based on that book, however most cannot even explain what the book is saying, literal or metaphorical. Reasoning God, Jesus, and religion can be a quite controversial thing, it can be reasoned either in the favor of Christianity or of science. Hmmm, my own philosophy professor would quite dissagree with this. When one of the students asked him about the conflict between reason and faith, at first he didn't even understand the question. He believed the two to be in perfect compatability (e.g., you must reason to have faith in something.). The next day he came back, and he finally figured out what the problem was. Being a very worldly person, he said that it was a disposition unique to recent, primarily American Christianity to take religion as a blind leap of faith. He viewed it throughout history as a purely philosophical religion; take Berkeley, Descarte, or one of the numerous others who even created their own arguements for gods existance. Back to the very beginning, the times of ancient Greece and Rome, the Jesus' followers started by challenging the philosophers in the forum in favor of their belief. There, they saw the "Unknown God" statue, in memorial of Socrates' belief, which was very much in line with Christian belief in monotheism and reward in life after death. So they basically said "Hey, that's what our god is. The unknown God of Socrates." Hmm, I'm sure the writing of bible itself was one lively discussion. They do say it was "divine inspiration", yes, but naturally they all had a different "divine inspiration" in writing it and argued it thoroughly. Otherwise, why would different people have written different parts? However, I do get what you're saying. Christianity as a whole is supposed to be a philosophical religion, and many practice it as such (personally, I'm unaffiliated). However, many take it with the same virtue as jumping off of a cliff and hoping something catches you. The truly sad part is that this mentality's only benefit is to free you from reason... Thus, it's very likely they won't find a giant pile of pillows at the bottom of that cliff...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
