Does ANYONE actually read the bible?

[SNOWBALL]

It seems like reading the bible is the best way to become an atheist, or at the very least, to become angry and disgusted with god.

For those of you who don't wanna read, here's a cartoon:
Sodom and Gommorah (http://youtube.com/watch?v=4KVVRIpO-kA)

[vhawk01]

Luckily, reading the Bible comes DECADES into the process of becoming a Christian.

[tame_deuces]

Yeah, I know the Bible very well. As an atheist I feel I am obligated too.

Atheists taking smalls parts of the bible and throwing it in people's faces are worse to me than religious people doing the same. It's like reading the abstract of an academic work and debating against it.

And I don't get the angry and disgusted with God bit either, it seems like it's only a cliffhanger to start an argument with religious people.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I know the Bible very well. As an atheist I feel I am obligated too.

Atheists taking smalls parts of the bible and throwing it in people's faces are worse to me than religious people doing the same. It's like reading the abstract of an academic work and debating against it.

And I don't get the angry and disgusted with God bit either, it seems like it's only a cliffhanger to start an argument with religious people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've read the whole Bible and aren't disgusted by that God?

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists taking smalls parts of the bible and throwing it in people's faces are worse to me than religious people doing the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

why? They claim that the bible is perfect. It doesn't take much to prove it's not.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

You've read the whole Bible and aren't disgusted by that God?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, haven't read the whole bible, there are those that know it far better than I do. I do know it very well compared to most though I think.

I can't say I'm disgusted by the god in the bible no, his acts doesn't strike me as any worse than the people we call the 'greatest humans' when we discuss history.

Plus the new testament god is vastly different from the old testament God, the explanation to why is to be found in the bible also (Matthew if I remember correctly). And so were the old laws of the old testament are abolished, so christians does not need to adhere to them.

So in brief, no, the christian god does not disgust me whatsoever, the principles in the matthew chapter could in large part be picked straight from a modern agenda of human rights.

But I don't believe in him either.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't say I'm disgusted by the god in the bible no, his acts doesn't strike me as any worse than the people we call the 'greatest humans' when we discuss history.

[/ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't be disgusted if the majority of people worshipped Nero? Hey, that's ideal. I don't choose to be disgusted myself, if I could choose I'd make digust a very rare emotion for myself. But the gut disgust is definitely there for me, and is much too strong to bother minimizing. If you have a similar response to my ideas, what can I say.

[ QUOTE ]
Plus the new testament god is vastly different from the old testament God, the explanation to why is to be found in the bible also (Matthew if I remember correctly). And so were the old laws of the old testament are abolished, so christians does not need to adhere to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

You actually read Matthew from start to finish?

Even if we allow your interpretation, if Hitler had a change of heart and started being a nice guy, you would say he's a great guy? And would feel no digust regarding him and his actions? He's off the hook because he doesn't torture people any more, he's reformed? And let's say that Hitler killed his son, and that was the source of his change of heart. That would be a valid reason, and justification for his previous actions?

[ QUOTE ]
So in brief, no, the christian god does not disgust me whatsoever, the principles in the matthew chapter could in large part be picked straight from a modern agenda of human rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is factually incorrect. It is very easy to take a contemporary standard (such as the UN standard) and compare it to Matthew. There are plenty of blatant inconsistencies. I can do it for you if you like.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't be disgusted if the majority of people worshipped Nero? Hey, that's ideal. I don't choose to be disgusted myself, if I could choose I'd make digust a very rare emotion for myself. But the gut disgust is definitely there for me, and is much too strong to bother minimizing. If you have a similar response to my ideas, what can I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I would be. Do I have to 'protect' this viewpoint also? Or should we dwell into a philosophical discussion debating if a morale standpoint can be correct at all? We mean different things that is all.

Our views do not need to have a match from some logic based viewpoint. They are solely a subjective perception however you twist and turn it.

You sound like an advocate of peaceful solutions, I am an advocate of using force to protect the culture/view I belong to and served my time as a soldier as a token of that ideal.


[ QUOTE ]

You actually read Matthew from start to finish?

Even if we allow your interpretation, if Hitler had a change of heart and started being a nice guy, you would say he's a great guy? And would feel no digust regarding him and his actions? He's off the hook because he doesn't torture people any more, he's reformed? And let's say that Hitler killed his son, and that was the source of his change of heart. That would be a valid reason, and justification for his previous actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the Matthew chapter isn't a very long one to read through. As for regarding the Hitler comparison, I really don't find the old testament god to be disgusting either. I view the stories as a result of their times, which were probably not as soft as the days we live in now. Sorry if that upsets you in any way.

[ QUOTE ]

This is factually incorrect. It is very easy to take a contemporary standard (such as the UN standard) and compare it to Matthew. There are plenty of blatant inconsistencies. I can do it for you if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was too hasty here and you are correct. The bible is miles ahead of other works/ideas of its time though and is largely the foundation of modern western society's ideals together with the great greek minds.

Apart from that you can run all the comparisons you want for my part.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You wouldn't be disgusted if the majority of people worshipped Nero? Hey, that's ideal. I don't choose to be disgusted myself, if I could choose I'd make digust a very rare emotion for myself. But the gut disgust is definitely there for me, and is much too strong to bother minimizing. If you have a similar response to my ideas, what can I say.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I would be. Do I have to 'protect' this viewpoint also? Or should we dwell into a philosophical discussion debating if a morale standpoint can be correct at all? We mean different things that is all.

Our views do not need to have a match from some logic based viewpoint. They are solely a subjective perception however you twist and turn it.

You sound like an advocate of peaceful solutions, I am an advocate of using force to protect the culture/view I belong to and served my time as a soldier as a token of that ideal.


[ QUOTE ]

You actually read Matthew from start to finish?

Even if we allow your interpretation, if Hitler had a change of heart and started being a nice guy, you would say he's a great guy? And would feel no digust regarding him and his actions? He's off the hook because he doesn't torture people any more, he's reformed? And let's say that Hitler killed his son, and that was the source of his change of heart. That would be a valid reason, and justification for his previous actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the Matthew chapter isn't a very long one to read through. As for regarding the Hitler comparison, I really don't find the old testament god to be disgusting either. I view the stories as a result of their times, which were probably not as soft as the days we live in now. Sorry if that upsets you in any way.

[ QUOTE ]

This is factually incorrect. It is very easy to take a contemporary standard (such as the UN standard) and compare it to Matthew. There are plenty of blatant inconsistencies. I can do it for you if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I was too hasty here and you are correct. The bible is miles ahead of other works/ideas of its time though and is largely the foundation of modern western society's ideals together with the great greek minds.

Apart from that you can run all the comparisons you want for my part.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is 'the times were tougher' a valid justification for a God who slaughtered innocent children? You seem to have glazed over a lot of the sicker stuff.

[tame_deuces]

Slaughtering civilians have been a common tactic in any form of war for thousands of years and is still in widespread use in most wars currently taking place on our planet.

Only in the most modern western societies after the late 60s have you had an 'opinion of majority' that such tactics were wrongful.

The old testament is obviously written in a time when such slaugherings would be the norm, tougher times. I am not more disgusted by that than I am by any other old myth/legend depicting the killings of thousands.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Slaughtering civilians have been a common tactic in any form of war for thousands of years and is still in widespread use in most wars currently taking place on our planet.

Only in the most modern western societies after the late 60s have you had an 'opinion of majority' that such tactics were wrongful.

The old testament is obviously written in a time when such slaugherings would be the norm, tougher times. I am not more disgusted by that than I am by any other old myth/legend depicting the killings of thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right....which, hopefully, is 'very disgusted.'

But thats not the key difference. The key difference is that people, modern, affluent, civilized people, are claiming that these acts represent a PERFECT, JUST, and BENEVOLENT human being. No one would claim the same thing of the other violent mythologies. We recognize them as a product of an era, not as an eternal representation of perfect love.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Slaughtering civilians have been a common tactic in any form of war for thousands of years and is still in widespread use in most wars currently taking place on our planet.

Only in the most modern western societies after the late 60s have you had an 'opinion of majority' that such tactics were wrongful.

The old testament is obviously written in a time when such slaugherings would be the norm, tougher times. I am not more disgusted by that than I am by any other old myth/legend depicting the killings of thousands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right....which, hopefully, is 'very disgusted.'

But thats not the key difference. The key difference is that people, modern, affluent, civilized people, are claiming that these acts represent a PERFECT, JUST, and BENEVOLENT human being. No one would claim the same thing of the other violent mythologies. We recognize them as a product of an era, not as an eternal representation of perfect love.

[/ QUOTE ]

*edit* Actually not so disgusted by the old myths/legends of violence and war, I think of that as an integral part of our cultural heritage.

Well, you need to take that part of the discussion up with someone else, as an atheist I do not believe in the biblical god, and I don't think modern society needs religion anymore (I think society did once), as it will be a hindrance into developing the philosophies of future culture. (Which will hopefully look back at these days and say 'boy those were harsh times). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Our views do not need to have a match from some logic based viewpoint. They are solely a subjective perception however you twist and turn it.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, but I have two concerns. The first is that I rarely meet an atheist who has read the full text of the Bible without being disgusted, so as an exception your position is interesting and seems highly unintuitive to me. The second is that you're expressing judgements about us and our motivations, and that seems worth a response.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, I was too hasty here and you are correct. The bible is miles ahead of other works/ideas of its time though and is largely the foundation of modern western society's ideals together with the great greek minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't indicate anything with regard to its usefulness or to the applicability of its content today.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, you need to take that part of the discussion up with someone else, as an atheist I do not believe in the biblical god, and I don't think modern society needs religion anymore (I think society did once), as it will be a hindrance into developing the philosophies of future culture. (Which will hopefully look back at these days and say 'boy those were harsh times).

[/ QUOTE ]

If religion is a hindrance, what is the basis of your criticism of those who are vocal about its negative impact? Or is it just people being vocal in general that rubs you the wrong way? (But if that's true, what does a forum like this offer you?)

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

If religion is a hindrance, what is the basis of your criticism of those who are vocal about its negative impact? Or is it just people being vocal in general that rubs you the wrong way? (But if that's true, what does a forum like this offer you?)

[/ QUOTE ]

No people in vocal does not bother me, I'm very fond of a good debate (or else I wouldn't post in SMP). I also like this forum because people here tend to be very well read and intelligent (many forums are plagued by pure flames when even touching the subjects discussed here daily).

I just think it religion is a subject one can discuss with a fair degree of diplomacy and tact, since it is so heated it can so easily explode into a flame instead of debate/argument.

I also grew up in a Christian environment, though a very free spirited one (the tradition was you were not baptized at all, as that was a choice you should make yourself, and nobody should be 'subjected' to religion untill they were old enough to understand it, so we could make our own choice), and have attended many a late discussion christian friends of the 'family' and most of them were really good people.

Not once have I heard a bad word about my choice about being an atheist from these people.

I guess my background makes me a candidate for 'moderation' in these debates.

[madnak]

I see. I think growing up in a fundamentalist environment leads to a different approach. A lot of the anger some of us experience is related to our (less pleasant) experiences with religion.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. I think growing up in a fundamentalist environment leads to a different approach. A lot of the anger some of us experience is related to our (less pleasant) experiences with religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, we all have different perspectives which is a good thing in the end I guess.

But I also feel that discussing religion with believers as an for/against argument is not something I usually do. I could just as well discuss the bible with them from a believer's viewpoint, it doesn't make it less interesting.

For me the main point is to stop religion and spread the message of reason, logic and open-mindedness as the proper way of seeing the world.

Or to say it short, it isn't the 50% (or whichever number) of the people who are religious I'm interested in convincing, we aren't going to have believers admit your 'if he exists god is a sadist' or my 'god does not exist' view.

But we can change the opinions of the undecided and hopefully one day the world will be a place where baseless belief is something we only use for the smaller things in life.

The race is on I guess. /images/graemlins/grin.gif