Pentagram

funinspace

1. No. Read the below:

These comments within are not an attempt to refute the existence of any god, but to refute a literal Bible and the narrow mindedness that this construct helps generate in my opinion. This is partly an attempt to explain why I no longer have much respect for organized modern Christianity. I do agree that there probably was a Jesus, who preached and prophesized in Israel, and was killed.

A very brief charting of the new testament timeline

Joshua was born 8-4B CE and died 27-34 CE. Jesus is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name Joshua. And J(Y)oshua is the English phonic pronunciation of the Hebrew name. This is not something that Biblical scholars really disagree about. It's just very carefully not presented to the masses. Why do the preachers even fear stating his more phonically correct name? Are they so unsure of the faith of their congregations? If the truth and the dissecting/discerning of every word in every verse is so important, then why not the proper translation of the name of the messiah? Paul provides the first writings of the cannon that we have today. Paul's
first letter was to the Thessalonians or maybe the Galatians, was written about 48-51 CE. His last writing was about 62 CE. Acts was written 20-25 years after his death, and speaks of many amazing things that Paul never refers to in his letters. Mark, the first Gospel to be written, was completed around 65 CE. John was the last to be written, around 100-120 CE. The oldest nearly complete copies of the Gospels range from 200-300AD. There is a 200-300 year gap between the events surrounding Christ and the documents that have survived. And the gap between when they were written and the copies we have is 100-200 years.

LITERALISM VERSES REALITY

Jerusalem was sacked by Rome in 70 AD. I find it incredulous, that it is coincidental, that the most miraculous portions of the Gospels appeared only after the destruction of the temple and all that went with it. The dispersion/
suppression of the Jewish leadership incapacitates their capability to counter the new Christian sect.The first milestone in establishing a cannon was around toward the end of the 2nd century, in reaction to Marcion. The 363 AD Synod of Laodicea almost gave us our current list, but left off Revelations and Esther. The earliest current used NT listing came around 367 AD when Athanasius gave a list in his Easter Letter including Revelations. However, this is a declaration of an individual, and still minus Esther. In 393AD, the Synod of Hippo finally gave us our current list. Though in 692 AD, the Trullan Synod added confusion to what the actual cannon was supposed to be. This decree included, for instance, that both the Synod of Laodicea and the Epistles of Athanasius were to be considered authoritative, even though they contradicted each other on whether Revelation was to be included. Furthering the confusion, this Synod also codified as official the so-called "Eighty-Fifth Apostolic Canon" which was probably written in the late
4th century but attributed to Clement of Rome--this decree established the two letters of Clement as "sacred books" and part of the "venerable and holy" Bible, along with eight other books "which it is not appropriate to make public before all, because of the mysteries contained in them". The essence though, is that the Cannon and it was basically established at the end of the 4th century as what we now know as the Catholic Bible. This Cannon stood virtually unquestioned until Martin Luther and John Calvin challenged it again based on much more limited information available back in their time. So after 1100 years, the inspiration of the Bible had been wrong. Where is God's guiding hand if you do not except this version of the Bible? I could understand this if one considers this a very human endeavor, groping, trying our best to find the truth. But this is not what fundamentalists, evangelicals, or even your common community Churches prostelyzes. I call them all literalists, whether they recognize their own biases or not. The literalists are as bad about venerating modern interpretations of the Bible, as Catholics are about venerating Mary. If they believe there are essentially no errors outside of minor textual variances, then they have a very big problem with simple logic. Since, if God controlled the construction of the Bible/cannon, then how could he allow it to be incorrect for most of Christian history. That is from the final establishment of the cannon circa 400AD up to the 1500's. Second, if they insist on this "literal inerrancy", then why do most of them not believe in a 6000 year old earth, and a flood happening in the early part of the 3rd millennium BC. That is the first order understanding of the Bible. Are they letting reason interfere with simple faith? Also, if they want to argue that many disagreed in the 4th century AD about the Apocrypha books, then what about the eastern half of Christendom strongly arguing against the inclusion of Revelations right to the end of the 4th century; that the majority of Eastern Orthodox peoples refused to recognize Revelations for another 500 years; that Turtullian didn't consider it authentic; and Augustine didn't believe that John wrote it. Also Martin Luther privately questioned the validity of Revelations. And probably, only the raw power of the Church in Rome, forced the acceptance of Revelations. Without their overwhelming power, Revelations probably wouldn't be part of the Bible. So exactly where is this unanimity of what the Bible should be? Why is it that in this age, you accept this construct without question, when most of the Church fathers struggled with what is true. And this outline skips a large body of detail covering the widespread divergences of the Christian Churches outside of Roman control, such as the Ethiopian, Coptic, Syrian, Byzantine, and Armenian canons. And these are hardly the Gnostic heretics.

OBVIOUS OT CONFLICT WITH HISTORY/REALITY

Simply put, 1100-2300BC is not some point in space and time that is invisible to history. Yet to accept a literal Bible, one must be ignorant, or make some elaborate redactions of reality or the words of the Bible, to not find history
contradictory with the Bible. Since I due not believe that there is any significant truth to Noah's flood and Joshua commanding the Sun to stand still, nor believe in literal inerrancy, it does not cause a crisis for me. However, both of these events conflict with historical reality. If there was anything approaching Joshua's planetary demands (never mind the literal words that commanded the sun, and not the earth to be still), vice something far simpler like some sort of light over the valleys being fought over, or nothing at all, then the alterations of solar objects could not have been missed by the astronomers of all the civilized empires filling the world circa 1200 BC. Such civilizations include, but are not limited to China, Egypt, Greece, and several Mesopotamian empires. This would have been an absolutely shocking event for all these heathen peoples, and there is no way it would not be recorded as a major and radical event. And the probability that we have not recovered any hint of this event from any of these empires is absurdly low. Therefore, one would have to argue that God was in league with Satin in burying the archaeological information to keep us mortals confused. Therefore why isn't it just as believable that a Q intelligence (a la Star Trek) merely pretending to be gods, was just having fun with our feeble little world. It is no less rational, nor less plausible.
The Bible is quite clear about the timeline from Adam to Noah to Abraham in Genesis 5:3-28 (1056 years) and 5:32,11:10-26 (897 years). A reality that many literalists seam to want to obfuscate. One cannot rationally argue that these were periods, not father to son, over and over again. When passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born one after another. If one argues for such wildly variant interpretations of such simple and clear words, then one can reconstruct any part of the Bible any way one wants to make for your desired results. And language doesn't have any meaning. Therefore, literalism has no meaning when such methods are employed. Almost all Biblical scholars agree that the time frame for Abraham is 2000-1800BC.

Therefore, the flood would have been roughly 2400-2200BC. Which is impossible, since we have uninterrupted written records of both the Sumerian and Egyptian civilizations going hundreds of years beyond this time. Going further, there is very excellent science that can accurately look at the records of the ice caps in Antarctica going back 740,000 years; and coral reef records from the Australian Great Barrier Reef and others, going back almost 100,000 years. And both records would be devastated by anything approaching a world wide flood. It would not be missed, overlooked, or misunderstood. So not only could in not happen when the Bible claims due to human records, but it could not have happened at all in any way resembling the tale as told, due to the earths records. Unless of course, if there was a conspiracy of deities? Therefore, either Genesis 5:20-28 is factually wrong, or Noah's flood is a fable, or the gods are having fun with us, or the reality of human sensory perception has no meaning. The period from Abraham to Jacob entering Egypt to begin the 430 years (Ex 12:40) of Egyptian life can be clearly traced in the same manner. Again, where passages clearly state when X was A old, Y was born. The only difficult one is when Joseph is born, but thru carefully searching thru, the specific dates still can be determined. This period lasted 270 years.
Abraham has Isaac at 100 Gen 21:5
Isaac has Jacob at 60 Gen 25:26
Jacob has Joseph at 79 (This date become unimportant to calculations)
Jacob enters Egypt at 130 Gen 47:9
Total: 290

So following the Bible literally, one ends up with the first estimation that's required, when did the 40 years of wandering end and the invasion begin. 1170BC (though there are some newer archeological arguments for making this date about a 100 years younger) is what others have culled from the miscellaneous corners searching from King Solomon back to the invasion. I find that an acceptable number. So that puts Jacob entering Egypt in 1610BC (1170 + 40 + 400). And it places the Birth of Abraham at 1900BC. And that puts the flood at 2297BC if you want to insist on the literal life. The Bible runs just the same back to Adam, showing that mysterious 6,000 years (1900BC + 897 + 1056 = 3853BC, or 5855 years old).

Jacob lived to be 147 years old (Gen 47:28). He is the last of the miraculously long lived Biblical Hebrews. Yet no where in history do humans live so long, but for in fables and the Bible. That was only the 16th century BC. We have
reasonable knowledge of human history in that area for a 1000 years beyond Jacob's story. And no where do men live such long lives except in what we now call fables.

There are innumerous other probable exaggerations, errors, and omissions. I just selected a few of the most obvious problem areas. Here's just a query to another two without detailed discussion: Solomon's wisdom was purportedly known world wide according to this perfect Bible (10th century BC). Yet only within the Bible do we ever hear of his name. No other kingdom's writings speak of him, how interesting. Does the word hyperbole come to mind? Also in the 8th century an Israeli King asked and got the Sun to reset back a few degrees as a sign. Now we can add a dozen more literate empires to be shocked, that never noticed it again. I comment on areas which have the most irrational defenses written. Whole books have been written to cover all the problems. The above is sufficient to cause one to think if one hasn't already got to the point of hearing without listening.

IT DOESN'T GET MUCH BETTER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

Joshua said that he did not change one iota from the OT (Matthew 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven,"). Paul argues directly against this several times in order to make sure Gentiles can be brought into the fold while ignoring the law. So who is the higher authority, Joshua or Paul? Or do the literalists need to wake up and realize they are not in the land of Oz. Or did I sleep thru the end of heaven and earth? Yes, I have heard the justification, that this has a small translation error, and it is supposed to mean the end of Joshua's ministry on earth. Ok, so now I can't trust the translations or what? This purported "error" is hardly a minor detail, and one can't say it doesn't matter since it doesn't change Christianity. Most all of the church variants have split over less matters. It even goes to the point where the new Christians decided it was ok to even ignore one of the Ten Commandments (never mind the several hundred other edicts within the Law), to keep and honor the Sabbath. So you can prostitute the Law, as long as it builds a larger church? Oh yes, let's just take the OT laws as guidance, and reduce them to only being goals. But verses in the NT covering sexuality, homosexuality, drunkenness,
et.al. are to be taken literally, and not as guidance. So we can ignore one of the 10 commandments by calling it just guidance and by other specious arguments. But cannot consider the NT admonishments of sexuality, alcohol, et.al as merely optional guidance? Huh? I am not that stupid! I see a serious contradiction. If we can see the OT Law as merely guidance, then certainly the NT "laws" are also just guidance for better living. Again these are a literalists words demanding an absolute truth, not mine.

I find it fascinating that the later the Gospel was written, the more fantastic the story unfolds. And, but for Mark, all were written after the sacking of Jerusalem. And Mark is the least miraculous, especially if one ignores the forged ending. Later Christians didn't like the ending of Mark so they conspired to commit forgery and added a more pleasing ending. Or shall we pass the arsenic cocktail around and all have a stiff drink? How the hell do you think it got there, but by human machinations? Scholars know of at least one instance where a Gospel verse was adjusted, to make the trinity more definitive. This was probably done in the late second century. Christians conspired to commit forgery by adding and changing what Joseph Flavious wrote in his "History of the Jews" to make sure Joshua wasn't left out. Of course these Christians didn't consider it forgery, for they were only clarifying the truth. What are Matthew's 3 14's, but an imaginative literary license? What are we to make of Matthew's misquote of Isaiah 7:14, about Isaiah's non-descriptive "young woman"? Where is the Holy Spirit guiding all that is written? Do the ends justify the means? Did the forgers commit deceit with a pure heart? How about the direct contradictions between Matthew and Luke on the birth narrative? It is comical to hear the explaining away of Bethlehem, Nazareth, Egypt, wise men, houses, and stables. They are mutually exclusive stories, if we are to remain literal. And think again about the contortions you go thru to keep it together. Do words still really have any meaning at this point, and again what is literalism at this point?

There are almost no grand worldly miracles within the NT. However, Mathew and Luke offer up the miracles of Christ's death with earthquakes and a blood red sky. And yet again nothing outside the Bible speaks of this, no Romans, Greeks, nor Egyptians.

AREAS OF ORGANIZED CHRISTIAN HIPROCRACY

Paul tells women to be quite at church and only ask question from their husband at home (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."). So Paul invokes the law when it suites his preferences? How many literalist churches really follow this admonition? I have spent time in at least 5 of these churches, and not one followed this edict. I wonder how small all these Bible, community, evangelical flocks would become if they properly followed this explicit order. Who's picking and choosing what they like, then criticizing others for doing more of the same?

1 Timothy 3:12 "A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children...". There are only 2 admonishments for limiting the wives to 1. And the other one is the same thing for overseer's. A direct corollary is that this doesn't apply to the general congregation. Hey now we can be like good old fashion Mormons. Or we can use reason, and not be so literal? I have no patience for the absurd arguments made by the literalist defenders, that different times required difficult solutions (i.e. polygamy) in the early ages. This perfect all knowing, all powerful God (within a literal Bible) was certainly capable of creating an environment where men wouldn't be tested/tortured so harshly. This sounds so much just like excuses. And besides, nothing in the NT says polygamy is now a bad thing or a sin. All comments are just vague negative innuendos hidden within parables. It is just another area that Christians carefully skate over, and just hope no one really notices the thin ice.

If the Bible is complete and fully sufficient for a persons needs, then Christians have no moral basis by which to condemn slavery. The Bible (Old and New) clearly accepts slavery as part of the human condition. See 1 Ti 6:1-2, Ex 21:20-21, and a multitude of other verses. Are these truly views a literalist church wishes to promote, their perfect Bible does. If the Bible can be perfectly clear about things like homosexuality, then one would expect the Bible to be clear about slavery and polygamy. It is. And that's the problem for most Christians. They don't like the answer, so they contort the meaning of the relevant verses to make it vaguely against slavery and polygamy.

In 250AD, the Church of Rome could afford a Bishop, 47 presbyters, seven deacons, 52 exorcists, and a mish mash of others. It was not quite yet the all powerful and dominating evil demonic Roman Catholic empire. It is interesting that they had more exorcists than any other category. Modernists like to laugh away the murderous Christians who killed "witches" in the 17th century, as a fluke. And at the same time try to keep all the Biblical magic true for the 12 disciples. Nothing says it died with them. The church in the 3rd century was still obviously wrapped up in calling everything they didn't understand as evil. Yet why did all this evil, just happen to fade away step by step into oblivion as science shed light on reality? Do you really think the devil fears science? Then this evil got remapped into more unquantifiable terms of just working the mind, so the defenses could hide from the light of science. Then what? Why were they imagining it in the 17th and 3rd century, but not in the 1st? Better yet, lets say the church really needed 52
exorcists in the 3rd century, and now we don't. Hey, that must mean that the world is getting better, and the devil is weaker. Hhm, that doesn't really help the "end of the world is near" crowd, does it? Hey, weren't they also saying that in Paul's day? Gee, and now it's only 2,000 years later. I don't think I am the only one seeing a problem here.

How often does one hear of the suffering, and difficulties Christians faced in the first couple centuries? It's interesting, that in all the years I went to church regularly, that I never heard about what happened starting in the 4th century when Christians came to power. They thought nothing of destroying active pagan temples (which was initially illegal), and barbarically killing the pagan priest, if he interfered. They even were willing to murder Christians leaders that didn't stay in the emerging orthodox fold. Like some Greek Christian leaders, who held a different view from the now modern view of the trinity. And it was quite often done gruesomely. They thought nothing of pushing the Roman empire to pass laws making Christianity the only choice, and punishable. Gee, the suffering of pagan, by the hands of Christians is never worth mentioning. If one wants to elevate the suffering of these early Christians, then one is obligated to honestly confront Christianity's ugly latter history (it was hardly just those big bad Catholics). Otherwise how can one honestly claim to be humble, while hiding such an ugly truth? And I don't believe that most of the preachers don't know this reality. And lets not forget how we never talk about the Spanish Inquisition raged on for400 years. And most of that is before the Protestant revolution.

A LOVING GOD VS LITERALISM

There are a couple of verses like 1 John 5:11-12, that basically say one is condemned to eternal damnation if you do not accept Joshua as the only conduit to God. A direct corollary to that is that God condemned around half of humanity to hell for about 1500 years by the method that he chose to reveal the good news. And it only changed slowly for a couple hundred years after. Since he is omnipresent and omnipotent, he was fully capable of creating a method of revelation that could have at least offered others a choice to avoid eternal damnation. Millions of people, in a literal world, never got that choice, they got hell! This is a loving God? Never mind the rest of humanity's fate, going back to the beginning of time, while the Hebrews were the only select cast. Yes these are harsh words, but I'm trying to get you to think beyond the limits you put upon yourself. And again these are the demands of literalism, not I.
Then there's Exodus 14:4 where God hardened the Pharaoh's heart so he could get his jollies. God murdered at least 1000 people to "gain glory for myself" and that the "Egyptians will know I am the Lord". Well there's NO evidence that this supposed event caused the Egyptians to know the Lord. And in today's understanding butchering a 1000 people is much closer to Bin Laden, than glorious. Do you think these warriors, who followed their King, who was no more than a puppet to God's greater plan, had no families? It's amazing how Christians can so conveniently turn off rational thought as they quickly skate over the overtly violent, vulgar, barbaric, sexually denigrating portions of the OT, and just say that's the way it was.

CONCLUSSIONS

Basically I find the majority of modern literalist views and arguments to be simply bullshit. Literalists lie and obfuscate in order to maintain their false truths. They knowingly choose the most optimistic dates when presenting their view, while the data is widely debated. And their views are a small minority. They purposely leave out the true ranges for the data. They refuse to admit the ugly realities, the difficult truths, et.al. Each difficult verse taken separately always has some complex explanation to keep it perfect. The issue is, how believable are all the defenses when reviewed in totality? Reasonably clear verses about things like father/son relationships, slavery, and polygamy are obfuscated in order to somehow find the Bible on the right side of history, morality, and ethics. What is one to make of obscure verses if we can't even take clear verses at face value, just because we don't like what they say?

There is sufficient evidence of scribes/writers being fully willing to alter documents if it somehow promoted their views of Christianity. The lterations of Josephus Flavious works, the additions to the end Mark, 1 or 2 surviving evidence of early alterations to the cannon that show a tendency to make Jesus more God like. How much other evidence didn't survive from before the 4th century AD due to the consolidation of power of the emerging orthodox church, seated at Rome. Which was to be eventually known as the Roman Catholic Church. And the fact that without transcribing efforts, the texts would disenigrate over time, never mind the intentional destruction of heretical documents. Those that condemn that coalescence of power in Rome, should consider what might have happened if it didn't happen. Gnosticism might have survived as a radical variant of Christianity. Oops, actually it may have survived in the Mandaean's, (and the other's in northern Iraq), or the documents of the extant Coptic Christians. But we certainly wouldn't want to let their quite different views be aired broadly. Thereby forever tainting the "purity" of Christianity. For their beliefs would also have the benefit of 2000 years of obscuring of verifiability. A virtual Christian flavor of Hinduism. The only reason Eusebius could claim that the Gospel of Thomas was unanimously rejected by all the church fathers, was due to the 100+ year campaign to diminish the heterodox elements by what was becoming the orthodox majority centered in Rome, and subtly supported by the Roman Empire. No such claim could have been made in 150AD. History is written by the winners.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolution appears to be a reasonable theory.
Yes, read the above.
Yes.
Probably. No.
I"m just one person without formal education in the area.

Wow...that's a long list to compile. Here's a short listing without perfect citations:
NIV/NAS/KJV with New Bible Commentary for reference
Evidence demands a verdict; and a host of other apologetics that I no longer remember.
The History of Christianity, Paul Johnson
The Footsteps of the Messiah: A Study of the Sequence of Prophetic Events, Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum,Magnusson, Archeology of the Bible, Magnus
Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible
History of the Jews, Joseph Flavious
History of the Church, Eusebius
2 books on Sumerian archeology
1 book on Egyptian archeology
The Testament, John Grisham
Gnostic texts, like Gospel of Timothy
Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture, Shelby Sponge
Well that's about all the titles I can remember off the top of my head.

I would get a better source than this buffoon.

thegdin

forgive me. let me reword "god doesnt exist". "i see absolutely no reason to believe a god exists. nor have i seen, heard, read, or in anyway observed or been told of anything to lead me to believe that a god might exist." hows that?

as far as labelling something as "not devine" goes,, i can logically say that my car "is not" FLIBARTERGUM. how can i say this? because there is no such thing as FLIBARTERGUM. now are you trying to say that the simple statement of "my car "is not" FLIBARTERGUM" brings FLIBARTERGUM into existence?



and thank you SPIN, you nailed it on the head with your post.

justsumner

You wrote:
"You state simply that "God does not exist." So, I guess a list of follow up questions would be appropriate"

1. How did the world come into it's present state?

A:It is called time. Nothing remains unchanged. The basic laws of physics dictate this and it has been proved time and again.

2. Do you believe there is credible evidence to overturn your claim that there is no God?

A: The claim is on your end not mine. But, try this construct on: The cosmos can be explained to a large part WITHOUT the need to invoke dieties. YOU claim gods exist. Prove it. You cannot. Is there "Credible" proof? What is credible to a scintist and credible to a mystic are very different. But you asked so.. No. There is not any credible evidence....

3. What do you mean by "2000 year old game of Chinese telephone?"

4. Do you believe that the Bible has some form of historical value?

A: as an author and historian with some 7 years spent in seminaries studying history...nope. Not a bit. The stories in the Bible compare with nothing archeological. Any similarities between the Bible and fact are purely coincidental.

5. Do you believe that Jesus existed? If so, do you believe he was the Messiah?

A: IF he existed he was a socio-political figure. After he was dead cults made him into an incarnation of Mithra/Dionysus/etc. etc. etc. Look up the term "Messiah." NOTHING about son of god, yada yada yada....

6. How do I know you are a credible source?

A: Because I read Aramaic, Koine Greek, and Latin. Because I have studied the Bible in the original lanuages for many many many years. Because I have written books on the history of the church that no Biblical person has yet been able to disprove (and they have tried).
AND..because I tend to believe cold hard facts, rather than fond wishes and delussions.

justsumner

You wrote:
"Basically I find the majority of modern literalist views and arguments to be simply bullshit. Literalists lie and obfuscate in order to maintain their false truths. They knowingly choose the most optimistic dates when presenting their view, while the data is widely debated. And their views are a small minority. They purposely leave out the true ranges for the data."

Bingo. That is exactly what was taught in seminary. Change the subject. Sway the people. If you are nailed on a fact...try the old argument "The scripture was not meant to be taken literally.......

But admit this ONLY when the gig is up.

Chili

I have no problem with your unbelief and the God you are asked to believe in probably doesn't exist. In fact, I can't really see anybody believing some of the stuff they want you to believe. Apart from that it was an error on your part to recognize the divine without the existence of God.

Do you think poetry is inspired or that some poetry is inspired?

Do you think science is beatiful because it extrapolates from omniscience?

sourdough

no,
if it was,this God must be total doofus for making so many inconsistencies,contradictions and outright lies regarding creation of the world,light etc
www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

not to mention jealous,sadistic psycho
www.thewaronfaith.com click bible quotes

thegdin

i disagree. im not recognizing ANYTHING as divine. saying that "divine doesnt define anything" doesnt contradict the statement "the bible isnt divine". if i say that i am not an elf, does that mean that i am saying elfs exist? no. i am only acknowledging the concept of an elf. in the same way that i acknowledged the concept of god and divinity and not the existence of.

i would say that everything is inspired. but not divinely inspired if thats what youre getting at with this question. i would assume not since you have read my previous posts.

i find science beautiful because in its purest forms it attempts to honestly answer questions. not because it takes away from the idea of omniscience. i couldnt care less about omniscience since i believe it to be impossible. just like god the IPU and the boggie man are all impossible. (impossible in my opinion.)

Dean Anderson

Good_Anger,

For further clarification of my answers...

The reason that I do not believe the Bible to be the word of God is, as I have already said, because I do not believe that Yahweh exists.

The reason for my lack of belief is tied in to the story of my deconversion, but to summarise (in an extremely simplified manner):

I was once an Evangelical Christian. Slowly, over the course of a couple of years, I came to the realisation that my religion was false - and eventually I 'came out of the closet' and acknowledged that I no longer believed any of it.

The three factors that led me to give up my beliefs were...

1) Actually reading and studying the Bible in depth with an inquiring mind. There is only so much you can twist and rationalise the Bible to fit it into your beliefs before you have to realise that the Bible could say anything and you would still claim it to be true whilst also claiming it does not actually mean what it says.

2) Becoming more educated in the sciences, and finding it harder and harder to find reasons why most of modern science is logically and rationally correct - but must be wrong because it contradicts the Bible. Unlike most Christians that I know, I wasn't satisfied with the phoney half-truths that Creationists claim. I learned enough about science to be able to see them for the bullshit that they were.

3) Despite my desire for Christianity to be true, and for Yahweh and Jesus to be my personal friends - it became more and more apparent that the good feelings I got when praying were caused by myself, not by some external force 'convicting' me. It became apparent that they were no more present guiding my life than anyone elses. My Christian friends would credit all their good luck (and all the results of their hard work) to God, and blame all their bad luck (and the results of their laziness) on Satan - but they were no more blessed or cursed than non-Christians. They just had a couple of 'scapegoats' that let them avoid personal responsibility.

Since that time, I have continued to study the Bible - I find it a fascinating document into the beliefs of historical people.

To clarify my statement that the Bible does not support the beliefs and tenets of Christianity, I can give a few examples...

Firstly, there is the Genesis 2-3 story. Christians interpret this story as one of 'Original Sin' - that of Adam and Eve being tempted by Satan into 'sinning' and willfully going against Yahweh's wishes. The story is further interpreted as saying that this 'original sin' has cause man to 'fall' from grace and become flawed - a state that we need Jesus' 'sacrifice' to save us from.

If you read the actual text, none of these themes or motifs are actually present in the story. The snake is not 'Satan'. It is merely a snake. Adam and Eve do not 'sin' by 'willfully disobeying Yahweh'. They are in a state of innocence - not yet knowing right from wrong - and innocently follow the advice of the snake (who - far from being 'the deceiver' is actually the truth teller, exposing Yahweh's lies about the consequences of gaining wisdom for what they are). Adam and Eve lose nothing from their actions - they do not become 'flawed' or 'fallen' in any way. They instead gain wisdom and a sense of morality. There is no need for them to be 'saved' in any way - and indeed, nothing to 'save' them from, except the vindictive curses of Yahweh when he realises that they have found wisdom and may yet find immortality and become his equals.

This example is typical of the depiction of Yahweh throughout the OT. He is repeatedly depicted as a tribal god - more powerful than the gods of the other tribes, but by no means the only god (as Christianity claims).

Similarly, the character of Satan is not the enemy of Yahweh. As can be clearly seen from the book of Job, Satan sits at Yahweh's side and acts as a Puck-like figure - a court jester and trickster pointing out that Yahweh may not be as powerful as he likes to think he is.

Even basics, like the existence of Heaven and Hell as spiritual realms are foreign concepts to the Old Testament - which repeatedly shows Heaven as being the physical place above the brass firmament and Sheol (the closest equivalent it has to hell) as being a physical place below the ground.

In order for most of the Old Testament stories to support Christianity, a Christian must project his or her own beliefs back onto the stories, and completely change their meaning - introducing many new elements that do not appear in the original stories, and twisting what is said in those stories to breaking point, often making it mean almost the exact opposite of what it actually says.

Even the New Testament does not agree with many tenets of mainstream Christianity - for example the belief that Christians will all go to Heaven when they die, and non-believers will go to Hell where they will burn for all eternity.

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that this is not the case. According to the New Testament, only some Christians will go to heaven, the rest will be destroyed along with all the non-believers. There is no eternal torture in the Bible.

The New Testament doesn't even claim to be totally inspired by Yahweh. Since this claim is central to the argument I will go into more detail.

(Space does not permit me to go throught chapter and verse of the other points I have made, I have had to simply summarise them. I can flesh out any of them if you want more details..)

The main claim for the inspired nature of the Bible is the following verse (KJV translation used):

This is often paraded around as 'proof' that the Bible is inspired. However, if we look at the Greek that this translation is from, we see:

This does not say that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is just a translation by Christians who want the verse to say that because it suits their theology.

A more accurate translation would be:

"Every writing (γÏ?αφη) inspired by God (θεοπνευστος - 'God-breathed') is also useful for..."

If this is taken in the context of the rest of the passage...

...it is in a passage warning about false writings and teachings. The verse does not say that all scripture is inspired by God. It instead says that writings that are genuinely inspired are useful.

There is also no indication of which writings are being talked about. Christians normally assume that it means 'Scripture' - i.e. the Bible, but who is to say what is and is not part of this 'scripture'? Is the Old Testament? Are the Gospels? What about the Gospel of Thomas? What about Revelation?

This is exactly the sort of study that Christians generally do not do. The vast majority of Christians will read the KJV translation of 2Tim 3:16 and take it at face value, simply assuming that is claims that the Bible is inspired - when it does no such thing when you look at the context and at the original Greek.

However, none of this discussion of what the Bible actually says (as opposed to what Christians believe) would make it any less likely to be genuinely the 'Word of God'. The Bible could still be the word of Yahweh - and Christians just misinterpret it badly by apporaching it with many preconceptions as to what it should say.

This is why I also mentioned the disagreement that science has with the Bible.

The Bible makes it clear that the Earth is flat, with a dome over it called the 'firmament' (made of beaten metal - probably bronze). This firmament has windows and doors in it which Yahweh can open in order to let rain and snow in from his storehouses. Yahweh lives above this physical firmament, in heaven, and the stars are lights on the underneath of it. The sun revolves around the Earth at a low altitude - underneath the firmament - and can be stopped in its tracks. It is possible to build a tower or use a ladder to reach up to the firmament. Underneath the flat Earth, is the underground realm of Sheol, where dead people go.

Of course, this disagrees completely with...

Physics (which seems to think that the sun is much bigger than the Earth, and that we revolve and move around it)

Astronomy (which seems to think that the stars are like the sun but a long way away - rather than being lights hung from the firmament

Engineering (which has produced many rockets and space probes - none of which has hit the firmament yet)

Geology (which indicates that the Earth is a few billion years old, rather than the few thousand that the Bible indicates)

Archaeology (which has completely failed to unearth any evidence for most Old Testament events, and has instead unearthed lots of evidence for continued history of civilisations that were supposedly completely wiped out by the flood)

Palaentology (which has found literally millions of fossils that indicate a long history of the Earth and a varied and evolving population for most of that history)

Biology (which, as well as discovering the evolutionary mechanisms that independently support the Palaentology discoveries, has also discovered the inherent connection between consciousness and brain matter which contradicts what the Bible says about souls and life after death.)

Claims that the Bible is the true inerrant word of the Christian God are, quite simply, completely at odds with both the Bible itself and the rest of the world.

Sparrow

Use of a word or reference to a concept does not confer existence on that entity. The error is entirely yours.


Some poetry is inspired, but not by a supernatural force or entity.


Assuming you meant 'beautiful' and not some derivation of the word 'beatify' (which has religious connotations), I find science beautiful, but no extrapolation from omniscience is involved.