The 10 Commandments are Pants?

silverharp

I thought this was concise and by no means thorough but articulate reasoning as to why the 10 commandments are pants. why do 'muricans get so excited about 'em?


Summary

dont kill when its unlawful to kill...duh! , ditto stealing and lying

no false gods....an omniscient god shouldnt care

graven images... <cough> Catholics

Lords Name and Sabbath... most christians ignore this

Adultery - this was a property right concerning married women only...big whoop

Coveting - if we didnt covet we wouldnt have modern medicine

Honour your Father and Mother - "thanks Mum and Dad!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnqFtf_BT5M

robindch

George Carlin did the ten commandments too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE8ooMBIyC8

Absolam

Non Christians take issue with the 10 Commandments? Shocking.

Pherekydes

Absolam wrote: »

Non Christians take issue with the 10 Commandments? Shocking.

Christians don't?

Equally shocking.

silverharp

Pherekydes wrote: »

Christians don't?

Equally shocking.

indeed, you would think the deity that created the universe could come up with a better template? its almost like its the product of a Bronze age society without any outside help :pac:

Akrasia

Those aren't even the real 10 commandments. Moses smashed those tablets when he had a hissey fit and god gave him a bunch of new commandments

1. Do not worship any other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

2. Do not make any idols

3. Celebrate the Festival of Unleavened Bread. For seven days eat bread made without yeast, as I commanded you.
Do this at the appointed time in the month of Aviv, for in that month you came out of Egypt.
4. The first offspring of every womb belongs to me, including all the firstborn males of your livestock, whether from herd or flock.

5. Redeem the firstborn donkey with a lamb, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem all your firstborn sons. No one is to appear before me empty-handed.

6. Six days you shall labor, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even during the plowing season and harvest you must rest.

7. Celebrate the Festival of Weeks with the firstfruits of the wheat harvest, and the Festival of Ingathering at the turn of the year.

8. Three times a year all your men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD, the God of Israel.

9. Do not offer the blood of a sacrifice to me along with anything containing yeast, and do not let any of the sacrifice from the Passover Festival remain until morning.

10. Bring the best of the first fruits of your soil to the house of the LORD your God. "Do not cook a young goat in its mother's milk."

The second set of commandments supersede the first and are in fact the only ones that the bible calls commandments

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

Samaris

The Ten Commandments that we know about - the traditional set, seem to be perfectly sensible basis for a society at the time, to be honest.

The first four were as regards the specific God of the Israelites. We can certainly take exception to that nowadays, and anyone outside that specific society would definitely take exception to them! But take it in the mores of the time, when every society found a need for a religion to explain what they couldn't and bind a society together. Those three make sense to define the society as who they were, as opposed to being an underclass to the Egyptians. They cover who the Israelite god is and not worshipping anyone else. Making graven images seems an odd one, but it's to do with idolatry and the ways of the Egyptians, I suspect.

Keep holy the sabbath day is partly in terms of the god, and partly a sensible concept of everyone needing a day off regularly.

The rest are perfectly sensible basis for a society getting along with itself. Don't murder, don't steal, don't be envious of your neighbours, don't lie about your neighbours, don't commit adultery, honour your parents. Don't think any of those are particularly pants?

Am interested as regards coveting meaning we have modern medicine. How come?

silverharp

Samaris wrote: »

The Ten Commandments that we know about - the traditional set, seem to be perfectly sensible basis for a society at the time, to be honest.

The first four were as regards the specific God of the Israelites. We can certainly take exception to that nowadays, and anyone outside that specific society would definitely take exception to them! But take it in the mores of the time, when every society found a need for a religion to explain what they couldn't and bind a society together. Those three make sense to define the society as who they were, as opposed to being an underclass to the Egyptians. They cover who the Israelite god is and not worshipping anyone else. Making graven images seems an odd one, but it's to do with idolatry and the ways of the Egyptians, I suspect.

Keep holy the sabbath day is partly in terms of the god, and partly a sensible concept of everyone needing a day off regularly.

The rest are perfectly sensible basis for a society getting along with itself. Don't murder, don't steal, don't be envious of your neighbours, don't lie about your neighbours, don't commit adultery, honour your parents. Don't think any of those are particularly pants?

Am interested as regards coveting meaning we have modern medicine. How come?

they are ok if you take them for purely man made rules of a backward society. But the very rules are counter evidence that they have outside input.

As for your last point , while there obviously can be unhealthy envy because you might break the law for instance , without any form of envy why would people improve themselves otherwise? everyone would settle for a mud hut and a diet of potatoes. As the guy said in the video, if you see someone with nice things you want some of that too

antiskeptic

silverharp wrote: »

they are ok if you take them for purely man made rules of a backward society. But the very rules are counter evidence that they have outside input.

As for your last point , while there obviously can be unhealthy envy because you might break the law for instance , without any form of envy why would people improve themselves otherwise? everyone would settle for a mud hut and a diet of potatoes. As the guy said in the video, if you see someone with nice things you want some of that too

God describes himself as a jealous God. His jealousy is meant in the protective sense: an soldiers jealously for the honour of his regiment or a husbands for the well being of his wife. Not a green eyed monster jealousy.

Ditto envy.

The thing about the commandments is that the essence of them is written into men's hearts anyway. We feel a bit grubby when we engage in adulterous thoughts and actions. We know when our envy lies on the dark side of that word. We know what it is to make idols (of work, money, success).

All people spend their lives reacting with or against God's law. It can't be avoided by disbelief!

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

God describes himself as a jealous God. His jealousy is meant in the protective sense: an soldiers jealously for the honour of his regiment or a husbands for the well being of his wife. Not a green eyed monster jealousy.

Ditto envy.

Eh, where did you get this interpretation?

being a jealous husband is not a particularly good trait by the way. A jealous husband is insecure, controlling and paranoid. Not loving and caring.

The thing about the commandments is that the essence of them is written into men's hearts anyway. We feel a bit grubby when we engage in adulterous thoughts and actions. We know when our envy lies on the dark side of that word. We know what it is to make idols (of work, money, success).

The bible considers any sexual act outside of marriage to be adultery. I didn't feel grubby at the thought of having sex with my long term girlfriend and future wife before I was married.

Also, people have a natural tendency to gravitate towards power and leadership and socially dominant people. This is the cult of the celebrity. Idolising someone is natual. Whether it's idolising your parents, or a sporting hero, or a musician, or a political figure, most people get their inspiration from someone who they wish to emulate. It's natural. God's jealousy is because he only wants people to idolise him, not anybody else. So it's obviously not 'written in our hearts' that we should not place people or ideas onto a pedestal. It's natural, and it's a part of being a social species.

All people spend their lives reacting with or against God's law. It can't be avoided by disbelief!

I completely ignore god's laws. I'm neither following them nor acting against them. Today is Sunday, I saw some sticks in my garden and I picked them up. Did I give a second thought to the commandment to keep the sabbath holy... Anyone who takes these things seriously enough to refuse to do any 'work' on a Saturday or Sunday (depending on what you consider to be the 'sabbath') has serious issues and there are probably loads of other areas in their lives that are suffering because they choose to give priority to a silly made up list of arbitrary rules

Avatar MIA

antiskeptic wrote: »

All people spend their lives reacting with or against God's law. It can't be avoided by disbelief!

Oh Odin I have forsaken the search for knowledge. Forgive me.

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Eh, where did you get this interpretation?

Rather than get into such a discussion (which would likely open up views on God's paranoia about folk worshipping false gods) I'd just ask whether or not you see that there are different types of jealousies, some unhealthy and some which are not. The examples given in my last post are examples of where the word jealously doesn't indicated a green eyed monster jealousy.

The bible considers any sexual act outside of marriage to be adultery. I didn't feel grubby at the thought of having sex with my long term girlfriend and future wife before I was married.

As I understand it, fornication is the word which covers sex outside marriage. Not adultery.

Also, people have a natural tendency to gravitate towards power and leadership and socially dominant people. This is the cult of the celebrity. Idolising someone is natual. Whether it's idolising your parents, or a sporting hero, or a musician, or a political figure, most people get their inspiration from someone who they wish to emulate. It's natural.

As with jealously there are different kinds of idolising: healthy and unhealthy

God's jealousy is because he only wants people to idolise him, not anybody else. So it's obviously not 'written in our hearts' that we should not place people or ideas onto a pedestal. It's natural, and it's a part of being a social species.

I'd be speaking of the the unhealthy type. Unhappiness, shame, depression, follow unhealthy idolisation. The person might not be able to help following that path but there will be a price to pay.

I completely ignore god's laws.

Are you happy to lust after other women? Do you steal. Do you set the pursuit of money up as a life goal? I'm pretty sure you follow (and break) God's laws every day

I'm neither following them nor acting against them. Today is Sunday, I saw some sticks in my garden and I picked them up. Did I give a second thought to the commandment to keep the sabbath holy... Anyone who takes these things seriously enough to refuse to do any 'work' on a Saturday or Sunday (depending on what you consider to be the 'sabbath') has serious issues and there are probably loads of other areas in their lives that are suffering because they choose to give priority to a silly made up list of arbitrary rules

There's a thing called the Old Covenant (which the Israelites were bound to) and a thing called the New Convenant (which the hearts of men at all times are bound do. The latter is a nuanced form of the former. The former talks of not stealing wife/goods - a very literal form of stealing. The latter includes softer forms of stealing (stealing anothers good name by gossip, for example. Or lusting after another as a form of adultery).

The latter covenant is infinitely more wide ranging and is the one whereby you are held and measured. Not whether you follow or not, laws that were never meant to be applicable to you.

I don't think that God minds that you work on a Sunday. But I would think he minds (in the sense of it not being good for you or them) that you don't leave regular time aside to attend to family/own needs. The workaholic is, according to the new covenant. Breaking the sabbath.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

Rather than get into such a discussion (which would likely open up views on God's paranoia about folk worshipping false gods) I'd just ask whether or not you see that there are different types of jealousies, some unhealthy and some which are not. The examples given in my last post are examples of where the word jealously doesn't indicated a green eyed monster jealousy.

Jealousy means you either envy what someone else has, or you are paranoid that someone is trying to take from you something you already have.

It's either greedy or it's insecure, controlling and paranoid,

A jealous husband who sees another man trying it on with his wife is insecure. If he sees his wife trying it on with someone else, then he is controlling. A loving husband trusts his wife to remain faithful to him and a healthy relationship has earned trust by each party showing the other that they are valued and loved.

God's jealousy is a controlling and insecure jealousy. Ordering someone to worship you and then punishing them for either not worshipping you, or for preferring someone else is not a particularly loving thing to do.

As I understand it, fornication is the word which covers sex outside marriage. Not adultery.

Ok, I stand corrected on that point, but the underlying point remains. Fornication is just as abhorrent to god as adultery is and I it was not 'written in my heart' to not fornicate. Quite the opposite actually.

As with jealously there are different kinds of idolising: healthy and unhealthy

Yeah. Like the healthy type is where you love a musician or sports star and they inspire you to work hard and achieve the best you can out of life. The most unhealthy type is where you're forced to worship something on pain of severe punishment. North Koreans suffer from the worst form of Idolatry in the modern world. Organised religions like Christianity do more or less the same thing. Force people to idolise this entity on threat of eternal damnation.

I'd be speaking of the the unhealthy type. Unhappiness, shame, depression, follow unhealthy idolisation. The person might not be able to help following that path but there will be a price to pay.

You mean the kinds of unhappiness, shame, depression and suicide that many unfortunate people feel when their sexuality does not match with what their religion tells them they should feel? Or the generalised shame that comes from being a catholic, where we recite every time we go to mass how un worthy we are and how useless we are and how we;re all sinners and only have value because god gives it to us....

Are you happy to lust after other women? Do you steal. Do you set the pursuit of money up as a life goal? I'm pretty sure you follow (and break) God's laws every day

Ok, then you also follow and break all of Akrasia's laws. I've just made them up. I'm not even gonna tell you what they are. Just know that my laws exist and you're following them and breaking them every day.

That's exactly as meaningful as your claims that I follow and break 'god's laws'

There's a thing called the Old Covenant (which the Israelites were bound to) and a thing called the New Convenant (which the hearts of men at all times are bound do. The latter is a nuanced form of the former. The former talks of not stealing wife/goods - a very literal form of stealing. The latter includes softer forms of stealing (stealing anothers good name by gossip, for example. Or lusting after another as a form of adultery).

The latter covenant is infinitely more wide ranging and is the one whereby you are held and measured. Not whether you follow or not, laws that were never meant to be applicable to you.

I don't think that God minds that you work on a Sunday. But I would think he minds (in the sense of it not being good for you or them) that you don't leave regular time aside to attend to family/own needs. The workaholic is, according to the new covenant. Breaking the sabbath.

You don't have a clue what 'god minds' in relation to anything. Your opinion on the mind of god is as worthless as the billions of other diverse and equally clueless opinions on what god is, or what he wants us to do, or what the consequences are for any particular action we may or may not take in this world

The books of the bible are so poorly written that nobody has any claim to know what any of it really means. If you read the stories, many come across as violent and evil and many others come across as ludicrous and baffling and others are pointless and boring, and inconsistent. The bible is not a source of knowledge. Its a source of great confusion.

The creator of the universe could have employed a decent ghost writer to make it clear to us on earth who he is, what he wants us to believe and how he wants us to behave. But he didn't

antiskeptic

Akrasia wrote: »

Jealousy means you either envy what someone else has, or you are paranoid that someone is trying to take from you something you already have.

4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.

Paranoia needn't be involved. Jealously can be a healthy, correct position to occupy. Vigilance in a world prepared to harm you to it's own end isn't a negative thing.

A loving husband trusts his wife to remain faithful to him and a healthy relationship has earned trust by each party showing the other that they are valued and loved.

See above. A man could be jealous of his wifes good name when he hears of someone slandering her.

God's jealousy is a controlling and insecure jealousy. Ordering someone to worship you and then punishing them for either not worshipping you, or for preferring someone else is not a particularly loving thing to do.

What is preferred in worshipping other gods (be they religious or secular) is that which is harmful to us.

We are supposing, for the sake of argument that God, and what he says, is true. In that case, worshipping that which is not of him is of the devil and is necessarily harmful (for that is what the devil wants, to harm us). We attract both the harm the devil issues forth and we receive punishment for aligning ourselves with the devil against God.

God doesn't need our worship. Any more than he needs our praises.

Ok, I stand corrected on that point, but the underlying point remains. Fornication is just as abhorrent to god as adultery is and I it was not 'written in my heart' to not fornicate. Quite the opposite actually.

Sin is intrinsic to your (and my) nature. We frequently (less so in the case of a Christian who knows more clearly what he ought to be doing) find no issue in doing that which is abhorrent to God because we are satisfying our sinful aspect.

Alongside that however is that in us which, when it is not being masked by sins desire, which knows something isn't right.

A way to illustrate is to look at corrosion in our cars. We don't notice a little bit, even though harm is being done. But when it is advanced through prolonged and intensive exposure to that which corrodes then we do notice it.

It isn't unusual for someone who fornicates there way around life to suffer the penalties of advancing corrosion in time. They encounter the physical, emotional (and spiritual) damage that comes with the territory. Indeed, we tend to view those who reach the stages of advanced corrosion with distaste and perhaps pity (philanderers, sex addicts, dirty old men, perverts, etc. are words associated with advanced fornication.

At the other end of the spectrum is someone who perhaps isn't married but who has (or aims in their fornication) towards wholesome, long term relationship. I wouldn't suppose God as frowning on same anymore than I imagine God frown on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres.

The most unhealthy type is where you're forced to worship something on pain of severe punishment.

This is another example of an objection based on woeful theology (like the one which supposes commandments aimed at specifically at the Israelites as apply to you today. It's astonishing how often atheists plough this furrow)

You mightn't like or see a use for theology but without it, your objections ring utterly hollow. You have to, as Terry Eagleton puts it, attack your opponent at his strongest point - not on your own misunderstandings of his position.

In this example you are incorrect in supposing a Christian must worship on pain of punishment. The Christian is saved and is 'going to heaven' no matter what. He worships God because God is great, because God has done this wonderful thing for him (saved him and given him assurance of his fathers unending love) and because he loves what God stands for. He accepts there can be discipline for disobedience - just as any Father disciplines a disobedient child in order to set on right path.

A non-Christian doesn't believe in God to be motivated to worship on pain of punishment. How can you fear a God you don't believe in?

You mean the kinds of unhappiness, shame, depression and suicide that many unfortunate people feel when their sexuality does not match with what their religion tells them they should feel? Or the generalised shame that comes from being a catholic, where we recite every time we go to mass how un worthy we are and how useless we are and how we;re all sinners and only have value because god gives it to us....

No. That wasn't what I meant. I meant what I said.

As for objections to Catholicism: you'll have to take that up with Catholics. I myself don't find much to commend Catholicism myself.

Ok, then you also follow and break all of Akrasia's laws. I've just made them up. I'm not even gonna tell you what they are. Just know that my laws exist and you're following them and breaking them every day.

That's exactly as meaningful as your claims that I follow and break 'god's laws'

If God exists and you behave as I suggest God's laws governs mens actions (other than when their sinfulness leads them otherwise) then following God's laws you are doing.

You don't have to believe in God to be governed by his laws speaking within you.

You don't have a clue what 'god minds' in relation to anything. Your opinion on the mind of god is as worthless as the billions of other diverse and equally clueless opinions on what god is, or what he wants us to do, or what the consequences are for any particular action we may or may not take in this world

You're not in a position to make that statement. All it takes is for God to exist and for him to reveal something of his mind to me (as the Bible says he does) for me to know (something) of the mind of God

The books of the bible are so poorly written that nobody has any claim to know what any of it really means.

Literary criticism (by the non-religious) indicate otherwise. It's not likely that folk would spend careers specialising in literary criticism of the Bible if it was as poorly written as you say

If you read the stories, many come across as violent and evil and many others come across as ludicrous and baffling and others are pointless and boring, and inconsistent. The bible is not a source of knowledge. Its a source of great confusion.

If it is the case that God exists and is the case that the lost haven't the eyes to see then the Bible would be experienced as you say - by those without eyes to see. Once you start understanding the basic framework however, it gets a lot more manageable but if truly blind to what it has to say (for it wouldn't merely be literature at that point) then impenetrable it surely would be.

The creator of the universe could have employed a decent ghost writer to make it clear to us on earth who he is, what he wants us to believe and how he wants us to behave. But he didn't

Er.. he did. The ghost involved being the Holy Ghost - the one who opens eyes.

Akrasia

antiskeptic wrote: »

4. Vigilant in guarding something: We are jealous of our good name.

Paranoia needn't be involved. Jealously can be a healthy, correct position to occupy. Vigilance in a world prepared to harm you to it's own end isn't a negative thing.

Here's exodus 20:5

You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me

Yeah. That's really the 'nice' version of jealous right there.....

What is preferred in worshipping other gods (be they religious or secular) is that which is harmful to us.

We are supposing, for the sake of argument that God, and what he says, is true. In that case, worshipping that which is not of him is of the devil and is necessarily harmful (for that is what the devil wants, to harm us). We attract both the harm the devil issues forth and we receive punishment for aligning ourselves with the devil against God.

Hold on, so it's either god or the devil? How come god is so narrow and everything else is automatically 'the devil'?

God doesn't need our worship. Any more than he needs our praises.

He doesn't need it, but he wants it, he feel it belongs to him and is owed to him, and if you don't deliver, he'll punish you in any number of cruel ways. (but he loves you)

Sin is intrinsic to your (and my) nature. We frequently (less so in the case of a Christian who knows more clearly what he ought to be doing) find no issue in doing that which is abhorrent to God because we are satisfying our sinful aspect.

Sin is invented by religion. We do not have a 'sinful nature'. (And if we do, why would god create us with a sinful nature?)This is just a control mechanism to guilt trip people into requesting absolution.

The whole concept of sin is incoherent. As is the origin of sin in the 'garden of eden' (which never happened) and the subsequent 'original sin' that taints our imaginary 'soul' from before we are even born.....

Alongside that however is that in us which, when it is not being masked by sins desire, which knows something isn't right.

A way to illustrate is to look at corrosion in our cars. We don't notice a little bit, even though harm is being done. But when it is advanced through prolonged and intensive exposure to that which corrodes then we do notice it.

It isn't unusual for someone who fornicates there way around life to suffer the penalties of advancing corrosion in time. They encounter the physical, emotional (and spiritual) damage that comes with the territory. Indeed, we tend to view those who reach the stages of advanced corrosion with distaste and perhaps pity (philanderers, sex addicts, dirty old men, perverts, etc. are words associated with advanced fornication.

Huh?

At the other end of the spectrum is someone who perhaps isn't married but who has (or aims in their fornication) towards wholesome, long term relationship. I wouldn't suppose God as frowning on same anymore than I imagine God frown on wearing clothes made of mixed fibres.

Again, you have absolutely no idea what god would frown upon. This is the same god who sent a pair of bears to maul a 42 children who called someone 'Baldy'

This is another example of an objection based on woeful theology (like the one which supposes commandments aimed at specifically at the Israelites as apply to you today. It's astonishing how often atheists plough this furrow)
You mightn't like or see a use for theology but without it, your objections ring utterly hollow. You have to, as Terry Eagleton puts it, attack your opponent at his strongest point - not on your own misunderstandings of his position.

In this example you are incorrect in supposing a Christian must worship on pain of punishment. The Christian is saved and is 'going to heaven' no matter what. He worships God because God is great, because God has done this wonderful thing for him (saved him and given him assurance of his fathers unending love) and because he loves what God stands for. He accepts there can be discipline for disobedience - just as any Father disciplines a disobedient child in order to set on right path.

First of all, you're claiming that you know the criteria for salvation. You have no idea.You think you do, but then claiming certainty where there can be none has been a feature of evangelical religious believers since before religion started.

For every christian who thinks belief is sufficient, there are plenty who think belief is only the starting pont and your soul will be judged and you might not be let into heaven if you're not worthy. (see the entire catholic church to start)

I don't know if god changed his mind and now lets people into heaven for doing stuff he would have punished with death in the old testament.

I do think it's extremely illustrative of the character of the god you worship. The stuff that happens in the old testament are mental. It's the same god that you believe in. You can call it a new covenant but it doesn't change the fact that the god you worship is unhinged.

A non-Christian doesn't believe in God to be motivated to worship on pain of punishment. How can you fear a God you don't believe in?

The threat is there to try and scare people into forcing themselves to believe. Don't pretend that this isn't a strategy of the various churches going back as far as Blaise Pascal and before. It's meant to control people into not even daring to think thoughts that might shake their faith.

The more evangelical the church, the more mind control is exerted as parents are terrified that their children will fall out of the faith and be condemned to hell.

No. That wasn't what I meant. I meant what I said.

So you're going to ignore the pain that is undoubtedly caused by people who invest to much thought and emotion into trying to meet the impossible standards of a cruel and vengeful god?

As for objections to Catholicism: you'll have to take that up with Catholics. I myself don't find much to commend Catholicism myself.

They base their beliefs on the same books that you do. how can you be so sure that you alone have arrived at the truth, while the 1.2 billion catholics are all wrong?

If God exists and you behave as I suggest God's laws governs mens actions (other than when their sinfulness leads them otherwise) then following God's laws you are doing.

He doesn't exist so that's grand.

You don't have to believe in God to be governed by his laws speaking within you.

This is true, if god had the same kinds of laws that we see in physics, the law of conservation of momentum for example, applies whether you believe in it or not, but none of these 'laws' handed down by god are even coherent enough that we can test them to see if they apply. There is zero predictive power in these 'laws' that allegedly govern us.

You're not in a position to make that statement. All it takes is for God to exist and for him to reveal something of his mind to me (as the Bible says he does) for me to know (something) of the mind of God

Of course I am in a position to make that statement. You're as sure of the mind of god, as a die hard optimist is that Ireland are going to win the world cup.

'Private revelation is the stupidest method of communication imaginable, If I was designing the cruelest most inefficient method of revealing truth to anyone, it would be private revelation.

Literary criticism (by the non-religious) indicate otherwise. It's not likely that folk would spend careers specialising in literary criticism of the Bible if it was as poorly written as you say

Rubbish. Listen, this is a book that billions of people claim that they live their life by, but the vast vast vast majority of people have never read it from end to end.
Why? Because it's boring, it's too long, it's violent, it's inconsistent, it's poorly written in many places, it contradicts itself all over the place and the stories don't make any sense in light of the allegedly loving caring god that most people want to believe in.


It's an important book, it's not a good book. People spend just as much time and energy memorising and criticising the Torah, the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita etc

If it is the case that God exists and is the case that the lost haven't the eyes to see then the Bible would be experienced as you say - by those without eyes to see. Once you start understanding the basic framework however, it gets a lot more manageable but if truly blind to what it has to say (for it wouldn't merely be literature at that point) then impenetrable it surely would be.

So when you approach the bible with an open mind, it makes no sense, but when you are told what to think and when you have all the added layers of theological interpretations piled on top of the scripture, then it becomes clear?

Er.. he did. The ghost involved being the Holy Ghost - the one who opens eyes.

I was thinking someone better qualified, like Eamon Dunphy