Zone1 Why do you need gods?

[Meriweather]

So the Bible is lying?

We have gone over this before:

• Who wrote the account?
• How long after the event was it written?
• What was the intent of the original author to his original audience?

Are you aware that outside the Bible there is no historical data or archaeological finds that support such a people? It appears, generally speaking, the Jews viewed the descendants of Esau as Amalekites.

More to the point of your question: No, I do not believe the Biblical account is a lie--i.e. a deliberate untruth. It also does not include all there is to know and the written account was most likely generations apart from the event.

That leaves us with, "What is the original intent of the story at the time it was written?"

Is it your conclusion that the sole purpose of the story was that the author's intent was to make known throughout all of history that God (and His people) are genocidal maniacs?

 

[Meriweather]

Then you'll explain to me how one tells which parts of the Bible are LIES and which parts are truth.

While the English translations do not do justice to the original Hebrew, and while cultural perspectives and perceptions can be miles apart, I do not see any account (or even translation) as deliberate untruths--i.e., lies.

 

[Mashmont]

“We must judge the tree by its fruit. The best fruits of the religious experience are the best things history has to offer. The highest flights of charity, devotion, trust, patience, and bravery to which the wings of human nature have spread themselves, have all been flown for religious ideals.”
― William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience

This is so true. Atheism doesn't inspire or encompass any of those things. Quite the opposite.

 

[Hollie]

This is so true. Atheism doesn't inspire or encompass any of those things. Quite the opposite.

Well that's really ignorant.
It’s important to remember that entire civilizations have flourished before there was any conception of your gods. In a real sense, I believe that we in the secular governed West have actually avoided what is the true and genuine "Great Beast”; that of forced religion.
Religion in Western cultures is largely a private and personal matter. For the most part it is not often dragged into the public arena or forced upon others. In a representative democracy, you can believe (or not) as you wish, and you can expect that right to be honored (even if grudgingly) and protected by law. This is illustrative of the plurality in democracy which makes us strong and allows the debates which help to preserve our freedoms. It also fosters a de facto secular social milieu which has allowed the arts and sciences to flourish, thus improving our lives and our ability to help others to improve theirs. The positive impact of secular Western democracy on mankind cannot be overstated. We've evolved; we’ve advanced the principles of the individual in the context of the whole. We also understand the benefit to ourselves to be free from the intrusion of religious totalitarianism.

 

[BreezeWood]

There are at least two places in scripture that note the Word of God is imprinted on the hearts of men. Have you ever considered that the reason reject a God of genocide is because the heart knows that there is no God of genocide.

is that the same c bible that claims etched tablets from the heavens - that never existed.

 

[BreezeWood]

Have you ever considered writing a book about a god that hides? I’m not sure what a good title would be.

you should clarify that as the god of the desert religions ... from all but who write the descriptive forgeries and fallacies their adherents have chosen to believe.

 

[BreezeWood]

What is the difference between "embellishment" and "lie"?

You'd have to understand how information was passed down in ancient days to understand that answer.

so true, spinning in the present tense clearly has the truth set above all else.

 

[Mashmont]

It’s important to remember that entire civilizations have flourished before there was any conception of your gods. In a real sense, I believe that we in the secular governed West have actually avoided what is the true and genuine "Great Beast”; that of forced religion.
Religion in Western cultures is largely a private and personal matter. For the most part it is not often dragged into the public arena or forced upon others. In a representative democracy, you can believe (or not) as you wish, and you can expect that right to be honored (even if grudgingly) and protected by law. This is illustrative of the plurality in democracy which makes us strong and allows the debates which help to preserve our freedoms. It also fosters a de facto secular social milieu which has allowed the arts and sciences to flourish, thus improving our lives and our ability to help others to improve theirs. The positive impact of secular Western democracy on mankind cannot be overstated. We've evolved; we’ve advanced the principles of the individual in the context of the whole. We also understand the benefit to ourselves to be free from the intrusion of religious totalitarianism.

The greatest driver of the arts and sciences during the Renaissance? The Catholic Church.

Atheism takes countries backwards. You go to Cuba, and it looks like the friggin' 1930s.

 

[Hollie]

The greatest driver of the arts and sciences during the Renaissance? The Catholic Church.

Atheism takes countries backwards. You go to Cuba, and it looks like the friggin' 1930s.

Umm, no. The greatest driver of the arts and sciences was the waning influence of the church. You won't want to acknowledge it but before the Renaissance, the church was the main contributor to the Dark Ages. The church literally crushed advancement of western civilization for 800 years.

 

[Mashmont]

Umm, no. The greatest driver of the arts and sciences was the waning influence of the church. You won't want to acknowledge it but before the Renaissance, the church was the main contributor to the Dark Ages. The church literally crushed advancement of western civilization for 800 years.

Is that why so many priests were doctors and scientists?
Most modern historians don't even use the term "Dark Ages".
You want to see 'dark ages' go to any of the five atheist government countries. Backwards, poor, dark, shackled, murderous.

 

[ding]

That’s a lie containing truth. I’ll give you a point for that one. What is the score now?

No. That's an allegorical story containing truth.

 

[ding]

...to yourself, perhaps. The rest of us already kinda know your type.

That's nice.

Good for you! You've found a way to take the Bible and God and pare out the bits you don't like and you are left with a great God of your making.

Actually I have entered into a relationship with the creator and am enjoying the fruits of divine providence for my efforts. Whereas you are on the internet arguing about things you don't believe in.

 

[ding]

Sorry, didn't mean to trigger you. My apologies.

Yes, Christ gives you strength. Got it.

You need to see it that way. You have no choice in the matter. You have an external locus of control.

 

[Hollie]

Is that why so many priests were doctors and scientists?
Most modern historians don't even use the term "Dark Ages".
You want to see 'dark ages' go to any of the five atheist government countries. Backwards, poor, dark, shackled, murderous.

How many priests were doctors and scientists? Compare that number to non-priests who are doctors and scientists.

Show us the data to support your statement that ''most modern historians don't even use the term "Dark Ages".

You want to see the results of religious totalitarianism, you will find it in the most backwards, poor, dark, shackled societies on the planet. Strange how entire portions of the globe which are the poorest and most dangerous are those places under the bootheel of religion.

 

[Blues Man]

You missed my point.




"I just don't think" is synonymous with "I don't believe"...

In fact, don't you mention God all the time and state why you don't "don't think" (synonymous believe)?

Without an in depth understanding of the Bible, its languages, cultures, histories, and people, it is quite simple to develop conclusions about God the original authors never had and never presented.

Then there is your insistence about issues like the three Abrahamic faiths worship three Gods when we all state we do not. You do not listen, being stuck in your own conclusions about the faiths/beliefs of others.

This is why I suggest you speak of your own path and tell us about that. You have already been clear that you error in your conclusions about the beliefs of others.

No I use the small g gods.

And I always use the plural.

And I don't know or I don't think do not mean I don't believe. I always said if I was given irrefutable proof that gods exist then I would have to believe gods exist but that doesn't mean I would chose to worship any gods.

 

[Blues Man]

You're lecturing me on something you obviously know nothing about.


It is, when that is the best you have. The only better proof available is DIRECT EXPERIENCE, when then, you KNOW, but it puts you right back where you began with others then saying it is "just your word." When explorers came back from distant locations no one else had seen with reports of exotic animals and things, they became our best witnesses and authorities. Asetics who report high spiritual experiences to the rest of us are our lampposts into a world others have not or cannot see.


Really don't care either way.


Thanks for your opinions.

I actually know quite a bit about Buddhism as I studied with a Buddhist monk for a few years.,

Buddhism is not divinely inspired. The Buddha never claimed divine inspiration. His own experiences in witnessing the suffering of his fellow human beings is what inspired him to seek a path to alleviate suffering. After trying many of the schools of thought of yogis and the ascetics he came to a better realization of the way and then he developed the philosophy of the 4 noble truths and the eight fold path.

Buddhism is a nontheistic philosophy.

 

[Blues Man]

I don’t believe the god of the Bible exists. If He doesn’t then I have a hard time believing He is the only god that exists. My point is that life doesn’t matter. If you spend too much time focusing on the reality that life doesn’t matter then suicide ultimately becomes the only solution especially if you have a difficult life.

Atheism is a very dangerous philosophy but a logical one.

Not so.

Camus in The Myth of Sisyphus broaches that very subject.

How can a rational man exist in the face of the absurdity of an utterly uncaring universe?

According to Camus, the first step an individual must take is to accept the fact of this absurdity. If, as for Sisyphus, suicide is not a possible response, the only alternative is to rebel by rejoicing in the act of rolling the boulder up the hill. Camus further argues that with the joyful acceptance of the struggle against defeat, the individual gains definition and identity.

 

[Meriweather]

I always said if I was given irrefutable proof that gods exist then I would have to believe gods

Correct. You note: If, then....

Which means you hold no belief now. My interest is in your beliefs/ways now, not something that has not yet happened for you. Today, you do not believe, you are only willing to entertain that possibility if "proof" comes your way. So...as you hold no belief in God today, what is your philosophy(s) today? I mean, other than telling people of faith what their belief/faith "really" is?

Again, I am interested in what you do believe...now. Your path...now.

 

[BreezeWood]

Sorry, didn't mean to trigger you. My apologies.

Actually I have entered into a relationship with the creator and am enjoying the fruits of divine providence for my efforts. Whereas you are on the internet arguing about things you don't believe in.

You need to see it that way. You have no choice in the matter. You have an external locus of control.

sorry bing, slapping yourself on your back for being a christian does not bring "divine providence" -

any more than believing 10 commandments disguised as heavenly sent make them any less onerous than they already are and the other forgeries and fallacies of the desert beliefs make them religions representing the true metaphysical origin that life truly was made possible on planet earth.

the error in choice is the only difference from the choices to be made.

 

[Cardinal Carminative]

We have gone over this before:

• Who wrote the account?
• How long after the event was it written?
• What was the intent of the original author to his original audience?

So then why believe ANYTHING in the Bible? I'm serious.

There's scant evidence if any of the Exodus. Why not just assume it was made up?

There's scant contemporaneous evidence of Jesus' existence. Why not just assume it was made up?

Why believe ANYTHING in the bible if SOME of it is just "made up"?

More to the point of your question: No, I do not believe the Biblical account is a lie--i.e. a deliberate untruth. It also does not include all there is to know and the written account was most likely generations apart from the event.

So you think that the authors thought God commanded a genocide but really God didn't? That they just wrote that?

How do you differentiate between stuff that was made up about God and stuff that is REAL about God in the Bible?

Is it your conclusion that the sole purpose of the story was that the author's intent was to make known throughout all of history that God (and His people) are genocidal maniacs?

That is very much how it reads.