Doctor X

I am always gratified to meet a fellow Gentleman!

Slainte! Uiesge beatha gu brae!

--J.D.

Now, speaking of abuse and recovery, perhaps we need a "12 Step-Program" for believers.

First, you have to admit you have a problem. . . .

--J.D.

Postcard73

I think it relies more on a four point program than a twelve step one, but there is Fundamentalists Anonymous.

Doctor X

Wow . . . quite a page--even has a link about preaching in prisons which was a thread someplace.

It also has two . . . count them . . . two . . . that is "one," "two," . . Twelve Step Programs!

--J.D.

Heurismus

I'm laughing as I generally do at some threads.

But with respect to all, free thinkers I respond in a more serious note for a moment. We know where Pentagram is so I'll do this hoping he can find a more intellectual way out, so please bear with me for a moment.

Dear Norseman as to your questions I answer with the following abbreviated explanation.

Firstly, do not be ‘pissed off’ at Christianity itself, or Judaism, or Islam. As they are all works of a collected wisdom. Many here will attack me for this but I urge caution. Those who wish to attack me ‘intellectually’ are welcome to provided that it is done objectively. Please read on.
Secondly, the Bible (Biblos) is a marvellous work of men. It is as it were, a vehicle for history, literature, morality, ethics, law and philosophy. I find the closed minds of those who accept it literally to be disconcerting, indeed I often become subjective in response to the subjectivity of closed minds, a human failing of mine as it were and one which I must correct in myself. There are many seeming contradictions, but first you must understand that many accounts have been brought together in one book. Inaccuracies exist in every work. It is for the student to discover these and then discuss with other educated people, especially ‘divines’. Genuine students of any ilk will, I have found, be treated with respect by any genuine Theist. Me, well I’m a student, a student of life. If you have not prepared yourself with a good history of the ‘making’ of the Bible, and a decent understanding of what went before, you too will read it literally and become disillusioned with its content. But we forget all to easily the contextual meaning of all historical documents, if we had ever considered them in the first place! Exegesis what’s that I ask myself, laughingly?
Thirdly, I suggest a look at ‘Law Givers’, such as those of Hellenistic history to understand that great thinkers/leaders have had to assert the authority of ‘God’ in order to appeal to baser instincts. As to law itself, Eunomia (good order) for example was brought by Solon, and Isonomia (equal order) was brought by Cleisthenes. These are but two ‘Law Givers’ as there are many others in Western History, which I’m sure you can identify yourself. As to being told you are not ‘Christian’ and that you are not able to ‘interpret the Bible’ don’t worry you can. But you must become detached and objective. Don’t try and disprove anything, try and engage it with an open mind after all that is in my opinion, the basis of free thought.
Fourthly, You are correct when you say ‘I realise that if I were Christian I wouldn't be trying to disprove the bible, thus I wouldn't find contradictions’. It is their religion and they are entitled to protect its sacred nature, after all many of them are more than mere believers and understand that its essence must be protected. Where there is confusion, then it shows confusion. Accept this for what it is. Nobody has a monopoly of the truth.
Fifthly, You then say the Bible ‘hasn't been ‘disproven’ in 2,000 years despite people's best efforts, god MUST be true". What is there to prove? It is a living work, which should be approached with as many ‘disciplines’ as possible not least an open mind. As I have argued in the ‘Deliberate Impostures’ thread, (drumming up business here) some cannot value its true significance. I have called them ‘troglodytes’ for they appear to be trapped in their own imposture. We can all learn from each other including me, but don't think that you have to be on the inside to understand it or objectively criticise it. ‘Criticism’ as an academic discipline is vital to understanding. But criticism can be seen as an attack so use it wisely.
Lastly, As to screaming…well, I cant stop you, shout at a wall, play a game of squash whatever, get it off your chest and come back refreshed for your journey into the future. I sound like a preacher now, but its just basic advice; I know, I’ve been there myself. And please remember this, when it comes to interpreting the Bible there is no right or wrong way, only interpretations. If the people you engage with are genuine you will get further, but engage with a ‘foot soldier’ and you will get crudity. PS I understand that in America some buy their qualifications; check who you are actually debating with first, otherwise you will be talking to just another charlatan for the cause. God hates them as they do him a disservice, and they are but one step away from crucifying their own humanity. Oh and the crocodile tears that they shed, yuck.

A few Drams like Doctor X suggests is also a very good way to quietly contemplate with!!! Its good medicine!!! (laughs) Get a Bishop barrelled today; a Deacon drunk and the laity lashed, then we can all party. Didn't Ben Franklin say that beer was a sign of God's love and that he wanted us to enjoy ourselves!!!

Norseman

I am "pissed off" at christianity as I am not pissed off at any one individual, but instead the design of a mechanism that does not protect itself but rather requires others to do so, thus allowing an infinitve duration of its existance, be it godly or mundane. Whoever created the bible was very wise indeed, but he was no god.

Yes, this is the definition of most books. However, if you cannot take it literaly it is not a source of history, but of myth.

To take the bible literally is to at least be consistent, an invaluable trait to say the least. However, the bible is a book of myth and legend, so to take it literally is to embrace a fallacy.

Now right here. If you're suggesting that the bible has errors, then it was not written by god. While it could serve as a fictional work, it would be of no use to theologians or anyone looking for truth as it would be impossible to decide what is true and what is not.

I am well aware of the history of the bible, however I have never spent time reading it. I have read bits and peices, and most of Genesis, but I never intend to read it, not within the next few years at any rate; too much violence, hate, and other "adult content" for me to want to read it at this time.

As above, if it must be interpreted for truth to be found, there is no knowledge as to which is the correct interpretation, thus it is worthless in the terms of historical referance.

You may be interested to know that it was the heathen norsemen (my forebears) who invented the term law, and they were ones to develop and first use the modern judge and jury system. Dictionary.com:

Law: [Middle English, from Old English lagu, from Old Norse *lagu, variant of lag, that which is laid down. See legh- in Indo-European Roots.]

You may also be interested to know that christianity never defeated the Norse militarily, but by spreading christianity and letting them war with each other, a far more insidious method but a definite route for the ideas of law to enter christianity.

If I weren't trying to disprove it, I wouldn't care to read it. If a christian somehow managed to disprove it, four things would happen:

1. He would no longer be a "true christian" according to his old "friends".
2. He would no longer be christian for his actions, now an atheist.
3. He would be decalred unable to interpret the bible.
4. His disproval would be discredited.

Which is precisely why the bible hasn't been disproven in 2,000 years (even though it has, at least in my opinion). If you start non-christian it's even harder than above.

Yes, christians should defend their faith, however it would appear only christians are allowed to attack it, and even then it is said that they are not "true christians", and so their attack is invalid, as if they were atheist.

Absolutely correct! However I still hear arguements saying that "Science is never sure, our religion is sure so we MUST be correct", of course I've always considered anyone who was 100% sure of anything a fool.

You'd have to ask the christian who said it. I'm guessing he meant that if the bible were disproved then god basically would have no groundwork, obviously it would have to be a sign from god that the bible was true because no one could disprove it (not for godly reasons though).

In almost all cases if it is not constructive criticism and is coming from a hostile group (e.g. christians vs. atheists, christians vs. muslims, christians vs. state, christians vs. evolution, christians vs. egyptians, christians vs. porn, christians vs. gays, christians vs. divorce, christians vs. feminism, christians vs. blacks, christians vs. jews, christans vs. mayans, christians vs. incas, christians vs. aztecs, christians vs. druids, christians vs. communism, christians vs. technology, christians vs. cloning, christians vs. abortion, or even christians vs. christians) then it is taken as an attack.

So if I choose to interpret literally, and it contradicts, it's still right?

I've come to expect crudity, everyone does it.

I thought god was omnibenevolent? Eh, I guess godhatesfags.com would opt to say othewise.

Good stuff though. This is up there with some of the better christian arguments I’ve seen.

capnkirk

Yes, it is a book of myths, but it (like all religions) persists for one simple reason: MYTHS HAVE POWER!!! Until humans are superseded by our evolutional successors, this unfortunately(?) will remain true.

Understanding this is what separates atheists from antitheists.

Jabu Khan

Yes but some myths sit in the back of the refrigerator with out being digested for far too long.

Heurismus

Having Sudrland blood in me I'm well aware, Pentagram. This was not an attack on you. Debate, brings out fallacies that can be challenged.'Ceann na Drochalide Bige'

All myths have a basis.
All Legends contain a grain of 'accuracy'.

There is a vast difference.

Sparrow

Personally I think the correct way to view the Bible is that it is an assemblage of many types of documents from many authors writing at many different times and settings. Some parts of it appear to be written versions of oral histories as the authors best knew them. That doesn't mean that there is nothing in there that is true, nor does finding one error prove that everything in it is false.


There is a matter of degree here in that there are those who assert that it is completely inerrrant and to be taken literally. Others assert it is inspried and there is room for some interpretation. And probaly many more variations of these than can be enumerated.

I think you're entitled to set your own standards in determining whether any document, event or anything else influences you to believe or disbelieve. You appear to have set your standards pretty high, as do I. There are those whose standards are pretty weak and/or inconsistent.

There are those here that will insist you need to read the whole thing before you can criticize it. I disagree. I've read the parts that Christians usually say are the obvious reasons to believe. I've found them lacking. If that's the best, then I don't need to waste my time on the worst. I will consider new (to me) arguments from other sections, research them and evaluate whether to change my mind.

Well maybe not worthless, but I'd want independent verification.

Thank you for that. Of course that's hard to square with the current belief by the religious right here in the US that the 10C is the source for all law in this country. Who to believe? ;-)

Where in Christianity is such a legal system?

Since it's not wrong by definition, there is no way to disprove the Bible. Of course the same is true of the Koran to Muslims, ...
But someone using this type of argument (circular reasoning) is unlikely to respect your requirement of rational thought. You're not likely to change his mind and you should carefully evaluate whatever else he asserts. It may be just as unfounded.


Science is based on the principle of falsifiability. Simply put (at least I'll try), any claim made by science can be independently verified by anyone. Anyone can devise an experiment to test any hypothesis or theory, and if that experiment shows results which conflict with established knowledge, than the established knowledge must be corrected. Science therefore by definition contains errors. We don't know where they are yet and when they are found they are corrcted. Religion does not work this way. To most religions, the truth is eternal and immutable. Therefore by definition, religion is 100% true. Of course there are many contradictory religions alll claiming to be 100% true. If one has any grasp of logic, then it's clear that at least some of them are lying.

There's enough convoluted text in almost any holy book for someone to rationalize hating/attacking almost anything.

No.

Some of us try not to do so and sometimes fail, others do not make that effort. Unfortunately, knowing someone's belief (or lack thereof) doesn't indicate whether they will or won't.

I doubt that site has any real direct connection to any god.