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

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Exactly wherever did you get the idea He was cutesy?

I suppose the question is do atheists want to believe in a Santa Claus and get disillusioned when its not so?

Can someone please explain what the hell just happened? Did I trigger some sort of cognitive breakdown or something?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

Can someone please explain what the hell just happened? Did I trigger some sort of cognitive breakdown or something?

I havent had my coffee yet but its a legitmate question.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

In my view it is one of the greatest ironies of Christianty that a lot of Christians really don't seem to believe or understand that their God is supposed to be omnipotent at least not in the sense that they really understand the consequences of such an assertion.

I don't think someone could truly be a Christian and truly believe that God is omnipotent, and I've never met a Christian who actually did. Claims of the all powerfulness of God are just meaningless sound bites. It just sounds good. The consequences of what that would actually mean if it were true are either ignored or totally misunderstood.

This could be a thread all on its own.

I think being a Christian is a mindset and a set of ideals. I always look at it as being aspirational.

I agree with you that lots of Christians (certainly lots of Catholics I know) understand very little about the religion they profess to follow.

Pompey Magnus

CDfm wrote: »

Conspiracy theorist.

(Ive wanted to post that for ages)

Not really, I doubt you will find too many genuine scholars who would argue that the passage was originally found in John. It is pretty much an accepted fact that it is a later forgery.

CDfm

Charco wrote: »

Not really, I doubt you will find too many genuine scholars who would argue that the passage was originally found in John. It is pretty much an accepted fact that it is a later forgery.

In the OT Stoning was the Punishment for lots of "Crimes". The Early Christians didnt do stonings etc and you have to accept that was part of the ideology.


(Im avoiding the issue of subsequent stuff like the Inquistions as thats slagging match territory)

Pompey Magnus

CDfm wrote: »

In the OT Stoning was the Punishment for lots of "Crimes". The Early Christians didnt do stonings etc and you have to accept that was part of the ideology.

The early Christians woud have been well aware of the Jewish custom of stoning criminals to death, however Christians didn't follow the Torah so did not keep up this tradition. It was because of their broad rejection of the Mosaic Laws that Christians didn't stone criminals, not because they were following the example of Jesus found in this particular story.

At any rate apart from the fact that the story is not found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John, that its writing style is very different to the rest of the Gospel, that it includes a large number of words and phrases otherwise alien to this Gospel it is also not contextually credible as both the man and woman who were found to commit adultery were to be stoned according to Jewish Law, yet in this account it was only the woman who was present.

This story has nothing going for it to support its claim to be an actual historical event, it is fictional.

CDfm

Charco wrote: »

The early Christians woud have been well aware of the Jewish custom of stoning criminals to death, however Christians didn't follow the Torah so did not keep up this tradition. It was because of their broad rejection of the Mosaic Laws that Christians didn't stone criminals, not because they were following the example of Jesus found in this particular story.

I agree

At any rate apart from the fact that the story is not found in any of the oldest and best manuscripts of the Gospel of John, that its writing style is very different to the rest of the Gospel, that it includes a large number of words and phrases otherwise alien to this Gospel it is also not contextually credible as both the man and woman who were found to commit adultery were to be stoned according to Jewish Law, yet in this account it was only the woman who was present.

This story has nothing going for it to support its claim to be an actual historical event, it is fictional.

I am not a biblical scholar or theologian but its in the Bible and is in there for a reason. I hear what you are saying but thats questioning the veracity of the bible.

Pompey Magnus

CDfm wrote: »

I am not a biblical scholar or theologian but its in the Bible and is in there for a reason. I hear what you are saying but thats questioning the veracity of the bible.

Well yes the story is in your Bible in the Gospel of John, all I'm saying is that for the earliest Christians it wasn't in their Gospl of John. If you have a copy of the Bible handy you can even check John 7:53 - 8:12 and it will probably be in brackets or have a footnote repeating what I just said, that it is not found in the most ancient sources.

If the story is not found in the oldest manuscripts and isn't mentioned by the early church fathers then what other conclusion can you come to except that it is a later forgery? Its not like the author of the Gospel was alive a century or so after writing the Gospel and suddenly remembered the event and put it in.

I don't know if the fact that this story is untrue questions the veracity of the original undoctored Gospel, however I think it certainly does question the veracity of the Bible that Christians have today.

CDfm

Charco wrote: »

Well yes the story is in your Bible in the Gospel of John, all I'm saying is that for the earliest Christians it wasn't in their Gospl of John. If you have a copy of the Bible handy you can even check John 7:53 - 8:12 and it will probably be in brackets or have a footnote repeating what I just said, that it is not found in the most ancient sources.

If the story is not found in the oldest manuscripts and isn't mentioned by the early church fathers then what other conclusion can you come to except that it is a later forgery? Its not like the author of the Gospel was alive a century or so after writing the Gospel and suddenly remembered the event and put it in.

I am not questioning your beliefs and your interpretation and what you take from the sources you read.

So do you believe that the broad rejection of Mosaic Law was a good thing or a bad thing?

Pompey Magnus

CDfm wrote: »

So do you believe that the broad rejection of Mosaic Law was a good thing or a bad thing?

I believe it was a good thing, the fact that Christians don't engage in child genital mutilation and stoning are good. I'm not sure what the Christian justification is in still persisting with some of these laws however such as those found in Leviticus dealing with homosexuality or why the Christians still hold the 10 Commandments in high regard (except for the one dealing with observing the Sabbath).

CDfm

Charco wrote: »

I believe it was a good thing, the fact that Christians don't engage in child genital mutilation and stoning are good. I'm not sure what the Christian justification is in still persisting with some of these laws however such as those found in Leviticus dealing with homosexuality or why the Christians still hold the 10 Commandments in high regard (except for the one dealing with observing the Sabbath).

We have lots of common ground here and I am with you on Leviticus.C

The 10 Commandments are a yardstick but were simplified down in Christianity. Anyway its human nature to make rules -when I went to school there was no thou shalt not kill/murder in the school rules- Ive always wondered about that:pac:

robindch

CDfm wrote: »

robindch wrote:

The Euthyphro Dilemma is only headwrecking (and entirely irreconcilable) if you assert that there's an omnipotent deity out there who mandates certain classes of behaviour. It evaporates immediately if you drop either of these two fundamental tenets of christianity.

Is it really that easy as a model on what is moral(legal) vs what is ethical ???

No, the Euthyphro Dilemma shows that morality is either independent of a deity or that morality is arbitrary and meaningless.

The argument in its oldest known form was put forward by Plato around 2350 years ago -- though I'm sure it's older than that -- since which time innumerable religious commentators have failed to resolve it.

Wanna have a go?

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

No, the Euthyphro Dilemma shows that morality is either independent of a deity or that morality is arbitrary and meaningless.

The argument in its oldest known form was put forward by Plato around 2350 years ago -- though I'm sure it's older than that -- since which time innumerable religious commentators have failed to resolve it.

Wanna have a go?

I did have a go on A + A before and I did get thru it nicely-but then I would:). (tough few weeks at work so I wont take up the challenge today)

I thought we needed to raise the bar a bit in A+A so smugly dropped it in doncha know.

For that matter why would it be wrong for morality to be independent of a deity one of the original Christian ideas was that it should be.The Good Samaritan Parable is an example of this in Christianity. It also crops up in everyday life and in what is natural law/natural justice which is common to all men.

You also have the Render unto Caesar passage.

midlandsmissus

Flamed Diving wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00B3IqCvZdE

Very simple, yet effective. An audiobook of the Bible, with animation overlayed.

http://www.youtube.com/user/43alley

I am very glad you posted this as I was very interested in it in my own study of the bible. Here are my thoughts on the matter (as a Christian) so please hear me out.

1) This occurred (if it did) at a time when it was an extremely male dominated society, e.g God created us equal and yet men at the time took more than one wife and abused their natural power - not what God intended.
It is written not by God but by men at a time of extreme male domination. Who knows if that particular incident occurred - but if you look at the entire old testament much of it describes women as practically animals.

The bible is never going to be infallible. It is somebody else's interpretation of events that will be biased by society norms at the time.

When you think of a christian do you think of somebody who can't think outside the bible? Because that's not me. I question,analyse,think of what was going on in history at the time.

If you look at the new testament, sure top church brass had a meeting at the time to decide what to include in the bible and what to edit out.So it is all edited to suit a few powerful clergy men.

It is possible to believe in God and still be an analytical and critical thinker.

Zillah

So you're basically saying that the Bible is worthless and unreliable? If not, that there are some reliable bits, how do you tell them apart? I suspect that you can't, so this oh so nice sounding sceptical/analytical approach of yours probably actually consists of you picking and choosing parts that suit you, rather than parts that have good historical support for their validity.

So, pray tell, how does one, who is analytical and a critical thinker, confirm which bits of a book that is thousands of years old were written by the creator of the universe?

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

So you're basically saying that the Bible is worthless and unreliable? If not, that there are some reliable bits, how do you tell them apart? I suspect that you can't, so this oh so nice sounding sceptical/analytical approach of yours probably actually consists of you picking and choosing parts that suit you, rather than parts that have good historical support for their validity.

So, pray tell, how does one, who is analytical and a critical thinker, confirm which bits of a book that is thousands of years old were written by the creator of the universe?

Sheesh pretty harsh! I guess the offer of a drink is off the table now eh?:D

Yes,that's what I said and I stand by it - in my opinion the bible is unreliable. I don't pick and choose parts,the bible is NOTHING to do with my believing in God. That is completely down to my personal experiences and that alone.

Zillah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Sheesh pretty harsh! I guess the offer of a drink is off the table now eh?:D

No of course not, I'm actually quite nice in person But this here is the A&A forum. En garde!

Yes,that's what I said and I stand by it - in my opinion the bible is unreliable. I don't pick and choose parts,the bible is NOTHING to do with my believing in God. That is completely down to my personal experiences and that alone.

But you're not just saying you're a theist, you called yourself a Christian. How can you call yourself a Christian but announce that the Bible is unreliable? The Bible is the only source of Christianity.

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

No of course not, I'm actually quite nice in person But this here is the A&A forum. En garde!



But you're not just saying you're a theist, you called yourself a Christian. How can you call yourself a Christian but announce that the Bible is unreliable? The Bible is the only source of Christianity.

The Bible the only source of Christianity? No it's not at all.

Don't forget I was an atheist for most of my life. I'll tell you one thing -the bible would be the smallest tool you could turn an atheist with, speaking from personal experience. I certainly wasn't interested in any of it. I'm not saying those things never happened, but you have to see it what for what it is - a collection of writings by people who are as easily biased and influenced by anyone else.

I haven't said this before on here and I don't say it to many people as I know what response I will get.....but this is one incident of why I believe in God and Jesus

There I was meandering along in my atheist life .....when ...I saw a face. This glowing face of Jesus just appeared to me while I was doing a very banal thing. I knew it was him because the word Jesus just popped into my mind. And a million other feelings entered my body. And so many other things have happened to me since.

But eveything made sense after that - I can just sum it up as remembering something I'd forgotten.

I'm open for discussion on what else could have caused a face to appear to me....

1) I wasn't drunk or on drugs
2)I've never suffered from mental health issues - I'm happy, with good relationships
3) I wasn't searching for anything, any meaning or anything.


So taking the scenario of it did genuinely happen - why did it happen to me and not other atheists - you for example? I don't know -it could happen yet.

All I know is - I know what I saw

CDfm

midlandsmissus wrote: »

The Bible the only source of Christianity?

Don't forget I was an atheist for most of my life. I'll tell you one thing -the bible would be the smallest tool you could turn an atheist with, speaking from personal experience. I certainly wasn't interested in any of it. I'm not saying those things never happened, but you have to see it what for what it is - a collection of writings by people who are as easily biased and influenced by anyone else.

Are you saying that the Bible has no authority and if its just a collection of writtings then its just a book.

So you believe in God and Jesus but dont believe in the Bible as Holy Scripture ?

Zillah

As you say, there's lots of reasons someone might see or think they see the face of Jesus. Aside from that, you wouldn't even know who Jesus was were it not for the Bible. Everything you know about this Jesus person, who he was, what he stands for, what he claimed, came from the Bible.

You wouldn't even know the name Jesus were it not for the Bible.

midlandsmissus

Zillah wrote: »

As you say, there's lots of reasons someone might see or think they see the face of Jesus. Aside from that, you wouldn't even know who Jesus was were it not for the Bible. Everything you know about this Jesus person, who he was, what he stands for, what he claimed, came from the Bible.

You wouldn't even know the name Jesus were it not for the Bible.

To clarify I was exempt from religion all the way through school,grew up in an atheist family, never went to mass, so I had very little religious influence. Obviously I knew of the name but I would have given it very little thought.

I read the bible AFTER this happened. And also, I didn't think of the name - it just popped into my mind - non verbal communication.

"As you say there's lots of reasons why this might happen' - I've listed reasons why it could possibly happen, and discounted them in my experience.If you can think of any other valid reasons I'd be happy to discuss the possibilities. Anyway the point of my post is Ive heard of other people that this has happened to, and this is why they believe. So the bible isn't the only reason people decide to believe in him.

dvpower

midlandsmissus wrote: »

"As you say there's lots of reasons why this might happen' - Ive listed reasons why it could possible happen and discounted them in my experience.any others you can think of?Anyway I saw it as clear as day.

I was down at Mount Mellary during the moving statues period in 1985. Lots of people were 'seeing' statues move, but it doesn't mean that the statues were really moving.

No offence, but the world is full of people who honestly claim to have experienced supernatural events. Have you considered that you might have imagined this?

Edit: What is it about the Christians on Boards? They mostly seem to have originally been atheists until they saw the error of their ways.

CDfm

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I read the bible AFTER this happened.

So the bible isn't the only reason people decide to believe in him.

I am not questioning your belief or that you had a spiritual experience.

You have read the Bible and Christians believe it to be either the Word of God or Inspired by God however you seem to have a different take on that & on what basis is that.

So like Zillah I will ask where does your knowledge come from?

midlandsmissus

dvpower wrote: »

I was down at Mount Mellary during the moving statues period in 1985. Lots of people were 'seeing' statues move, but it doesn't mean that the statues were really moving.

No offence, but the world is full of people who honestly claim to have experienced supernatural events. Have you considered that you might have imagined this?

Edit: What is it about the Christians on Boards? They mostly seem to have originally been atheists until they saw the error of their ways.

Yeah but in that example those people went down hoping to see a statue move.I wasn't looking to see anything.

As for your edit that is what most Christians are these days.There are very few people who would stay christian from birth.They either turn atheist or turn atheist and turn back christian.

Húrin

dvpower wrote: »

Edit: What is it about the Christians on Boards? They mostly seem to have originally been atheists until they saw the error of their ways.

The famous John 3:7 comes to mind. You can't be born a Christian.

Zillah

midlandsmissus wrote: »

"As you say there's lots of reasons why this might happen' - I've listed reasons why it could possibly happen, and discounted them in my experience.If you can think of any other valid reasons I'd be happy to discuss the possibilities.

Ok, there are hundreds of mundane reasons this could have happened. Toxins, stress, imagination, tiny seizure, evolution* etc. Suffice to say, people have been claiming to see apparitions of their deities for millennia. Mutually exclusive deities. So yeah, on one hand you say you saw Jesus, on the other hand I have a Buddhist who saw Buddha, a New Age Hippy who says they saw a manifestation of the mother earth, a guy who says the devil chased him in a castle, and the tinfoil hat guy who says he's in psychic communication with aliens.

So sure, from your own narrow point of view it seems like great evidence for Jesus, but if you look at the bigger picture then it's far more reasonable to conclude that people occasionally see weird stuff for some mundane reason. And sure, you weren't a fervent Christian, but then again the power of suggestion is quite effective, maybe on some level you really wanted the special meaning religion would give you.

* There's one theory that I'm quite fond of called the Shaman Theory. It goes that evolution has led to human beings having a natural ability to experience what they will interpret as a spiritual experience so that they can become a leader figure within their community.

Flamed Diving

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I am very glad you posted this as I was very interested in it in my own study of the bible. Here are my thoughts on the matter (as a Christian) so please hear me out.

1) This occurred (if it did) at a time when it was an extremely male dominated society, e.g God created us equal and yet men at the time took more than one wife and abused their natural power - not what God intended.
It is written not by God but by men at a time of extreme male domination. Who knows if that particular incident occurred - but if you look at the entire old testament much of it describes women as practically animals.

The bible is never going to be infallible. It is somebody else's interpretation of events that will be biased by society norms at the time.

When you think of a christian do you think of somebody who can't think outside the bible? Because that's not me. I question,analyse,think of what was going on in history at the time.

If you look at the new testament, sure top church brass had a meeting at the time to decide what to include in the bible and what to edit out.So it is all edited to suit a few powerful clergy men.

It is possible to believe in God and still be an analytical and critical thinker.

Thanks for the post. Although I agree with much of what you said, I think that most Christians would disagree. So I'm not sure what belief system you represent.

midlandmissusism perhaps?

Dades

midlandsmissus, at what point in your life did you see the vision? Was it at a 'low point' for want of a better term? i.e. A point in your life where you needed something more.

Interesting story, though, thanks for sharing it. Although I have to agree with Zillah when he points out that only a complete recluse would not be aware of Jesus, and his reputation amongst certain folk for giving spiritual guidance to those who 'find' him.

dvpower

Húrin wrote: »

The famous John 3:7 comes to mind. You can't be born a Christian.

This doesn't stop many Christians from having their babies baptised at the earliest possible opportunity.

Anyway, my observation was of the high number of Christian posters who have said that they were atheists before they found Jesus, and often disfunctional athiests at that. I thought this remarkable in a country that has such a high number of Christians. Maybe some born again Christians view their previous 'Christian-lite' existence as akin to athiesm ?

CDfm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Thanks for the post. Although I agree with much of what you said, I think that most Christians would disagree. So I'm not sure what belief system you represent.

midlandmissusism perhaps?

The posts from Midlandmissus sounds very much like the ideology of an Irish "Catholic" Group B.A.S.I.C brothers and sisters in christ who have their own women priests.

Its an issue for a different thread.