The Bible

[tame_deuces]

I've read it, discussed, referenced it and thought about it. As an atheist and a future scientist who enjoys discussions about stuff that is 'larger than life' (whatever that means for an atheist anyway) I think it is important to know the big religions well.

One can easily pick out the ones who hasn't read it, hasn't tried to understand it or have prejudices against it in any debate regarding christianity.

I think it is difficult to take a man seriously in a debate regarding fundamentals in christianity if he hasn't read the bible.

And the non-readers are just as many on the religious side as they are on the non-believer side in the discussions, so this isn't an argument one could in any way use to 'support' different sides in such a discussion.

[FortunaMaximus]

If I was going to read the Bible, I'd have to read the Quran, then probably the Talmud. It's just a lot of reading material to do, and, well, very little of my personal outlook would change, having developed into an adult in a mainly Christian democracy.

<shrugs> You do have a point though, and at least in my personal life, I challenge the religious people I do know to validate their beliefs without using their source material, because if they can't... That doesn't necessarily say a lot to me. I don't attack their faith, because I consider that inviolate. If a person believes, that's always cool.

[Alex-db]

[ QUOTE ]
It's an important work of literature. One of many.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its also very funny in parts.

That tower of Babel story is python-esque outright silliness.

And I love the part where Moses disappears for a while to his tent on the other side of the campsite, and noone else is allowed to go in there or they will incur God'd wrath, and noone is allowed to see inside the tent or see what he does in there, but then he comes back with stories of speaking to God and burning bushes and the like.

Guess who pitched his tent over the one patch of shrooms on that campsite [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Either way I recommend reading it because it builds an interesting psychological picture of the believers, and its interesting because a lot of the time a critical reader can see how or why the stories would be written or spun that way. It has interesting relationships to fields of advertising or politics in which creating the right story can manipulate large numbers of people.

[Raliegh]

I wouldn't claim to be a biblical scholar, but I did go to Catholic school, so I've had plenty of exposure to it. It's like a collection of short stories, some better than others, some so painfully boring, I can't get through them.

I think it's like Hamlet. A very important work, which contains things that you encounter in everyday life, but how much does it really matter that "Brevity is the soul of wit" comes from Hamlet and not the Bible. The argument that you "can't be an educated person" without reading the Bible doesn't ring true to me, unless you put all of the great works of western literature on that list.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
We were founded on the opposition of the state influencing the church, not the church influencing the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to go both ways. If one religious denomination influences the government more than others, the net effect is that the government is exerting control over those who observe other religions.

While one's own religious persuasion can certainly inform one's political views (and there is nothing wrong with that), the churches themselves should stay out of politics.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We were founded on the opposition of the state influencing the church, not the church influencing the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to go both ways. If one religious denomination influences the government more than others, the net effect is that the government is exerting control over those who observe other religions.

While one's own religious persuasion can certainly inform one's political views (and there is nothing wrong with that), the churches themselves should stay out of politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's your opinion, but I'm speaking of history:

By THE PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me “to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:”

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; —for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; —for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; —for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; —for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; —and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; —to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; —to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; —to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; —to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; —and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

GIVEN under my Hand, at the city of New York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.

G. WASHINGTON

[tolbiny]

I think it is difficult to take a man seriously in a debate regarding fundamentals in christianity if he hasn't read the bible.
--------------
People do this in regular life? Jeez- i haven't had a debate about the fundementals of christianity in years, and reading the bible once or twice certainly wouldn't inform me well enough of the subject to do so.
Without actually reading the bible i have a vague to good idea of its age, the main characters, many of the stories, some of the moral lessons, and can pick up allusions to it in other works. The bible is pretty unique in this way.

[agent_fish]

ZOMG!!! A PROFESSOR validated your religous beliefs. That's proof enough for me.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it is difficult to take a man seriously in a debate regarding fundamentals in christianity if he hasn't read the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that people practiced Christianity for centuries without having actually touched a Bible, right?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think it is difficult to take a man seriously in a debate regarding fundamentals in christianity if he hasn't read the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that people practiced Christianity for centuries without having actually touched a Bible, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get how this question relates to my post.Discussion of different practices of religion is very different from discussing religion itself. In the same manner as discussing law will be very different from discussing criminals/abiders.

My post allready said that I think lack of bible knowledge is prevalent amongst both religious and non-religious debatants.