Dark Ages . . . .

[Alex Bragi]

Originally Posted by Goldie

When I was a kid...a Christian/ Episcopal kid... I always thought that the two went hand in hand...That we were the product of evolution and that the biblical stories were a way to explain it to people of that time...not to be taken literally. Most people I knew felt the same way...whether they were church goers or not.

Goldie, I agree completely. It's not just our physical being that's evolving--it's our minds too. The story of Adam and Eve was simply a very simple and childlike way for mankind to accept the beginning of time in a world where the earth was flat and God punished evil people with floods, plagues, and other nasties.

Many stories in the new testament are obviously parables, but I think perhaps quite a few in the old and new testaments are too.

Originally Posted by Goldie

Of course, now...I know the bible is bunk... or a "crock" A crock is like a ceramic bowl...therefore a crock of shit is a bowl full of shit ...which is like saying Bullshit...all means "untrue!"

The bible is a lof of things, but I don't believe a "crock” is not one of them. To me, it’s a collection of often incredibly interesting (often shocking and perverted) stories, history, and clever proverbs*. Many non-theists I know agree with me and freely admit to reading it. I think it's important to remember that it’s Christians who twist and turn into something it’s not.

Originally Posted by Goldie

These people who scoff at the scientific evidence really frighten me.

Anyone with a closed mind frightens me.

Footnote: * My favourite bible proverb: A virtuous woman more valuable then rubies. And, my other half's favourite (he's an agnotistic too): A nagging woman is like dripping water.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Goldie, I agree completely. It's not just our physical being that's evolving--it's our minds too. The story of Adam and Eve was simply a very simple and childlike way for mankind to accept the beginning of time in a world where the earth was flat and God punished evil people with floods, plagues, and other nasties.

Many stories in the new testament are obviously parables, but I think perhaps quite a few in the old and new testaments are too.



The bible is a lof of things, but I don't believe a "crock” is not one of them. To me, it’s a collection of often incredibly interesting (often shocking and perverted) stories, history, and clever proverbs*. Many non-theists I know agree with me and freely admit to reading it. I think it's important to remember that it’s Christians who twist and turn into something it’s not.



Anyone with a closed mind frightens me.

Footnote: * My favourite bible proverb: A virtuous woman more valuable then rubies. And, my other half's favourite (he's an agnotistic too): A nagging woman is like dripping water.

Oh. I know the bible and Church law...VERY well. I can take from it what is good. But, I still call it all a "crock." It is a work of fiction...and as long as someone takes it as such...that is fine. But, hardly anyone DOES! That's the problem. There are cool things in LOTR...but I don't BELIEVE in trolls and elves! It has a basic G vs E storyline. But, if someone tried to tell me it was non-fiction...then I would call that a "crock," too!

[Alex Bragi]

Originally Posted by Goldie

Oh. I know the bible and Church law...VERY well. I can take from it what is good. But, I still call it all a "crock." It is a work of fiction...and as long as someone takes it as such...that is fine. But, hardly anyone DOES! That's the problem. There are cool things in LOTR...but I don't BELIEVE in trolls and elves! It has a basic G vs E storyline. But, if someone tried to tell me it was non-fiction...then I would call that a "crock," too!

Well, I understand where you're coming from, Goldie, but unlike the LOTR and not to put too finer point on it, the bible is based a fact not fiction. Sure there are 'stories' in the bible--parables. Also, much of it's been elaborated on, and misinterpreted over time, however, the old testament is still basically a history of the Jews pre BC, and the new a record of a man called Jesus who many believed, and still believe, to be the son of God.

As sure as Caesar ruled Roman, and unlike Frondo, a man call Jesus lived and had a profound influence on a huge number of people.

[verte]

Frodo.

[Goldie]

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

Well, I understand where you're coming from, Goldie, but unlike the LOTR and not to put too finer point on it, the bible is based a fact not fiction. Sure there are 'stories' in the bible--parables. Also, much of it's been elaborated on, and misinterpreted over time, however, the old testament is still basically a history of the Jews pre BC, and the new a record of a man called Jesus who many believed, and still believe, to be the son of God.

As sure as Caesar ruled Roman, and unlike Frondo, a man call Jesus lived and had a profound influence on a huge number of people.

Believe what you like...
I don’t come here to argue about my atheism. I come here to be among atheists. There are many people more qualified than me to argue the subject.
However, I will say this much... there is not a book more contradictory than the bible. And while yes...a person can..."pick and choose"... what/who says what to take from it?
Should I believe that all gays go to hell, for instance, and ignore the love thy neighbor part?
That is what many do. That is the problem with picking and choosing...and believing that a work of fiction, although it has SOME historical accuracy, is indeed, factual.
Many, many books have historical reference and accuracy but are still untrue.

So... I think that book, in particular, does more harm than good... because people preach it as the TRUTH!
Therefore, I think other books have a much greater value.
They were/are all written by "man"...
They are just people.
So what if Jesus did live?... So did Hitler. Many people followed him and worshiped him and believed what he said to be the one and only truth! Many people died or were tortured because of what Hitler said.

Many people have died and were tortured because of the OT, and because of what Jesus said.


I don't believe that what the bible says is truth... you may...I don't. It may have historical value...so do a lot of books. But they are all written by man.
So... in my case... seeing as how I was led to believe the bible to be THE word...and THE truth...I say it's a "crock." It is NOT true...any more than any other book of fairy tales or say “Gone with the Wind.”
I guess we will just have to disagree on this one, Alex.

[verte]

The Bible is a fascinating read. But not a work I would personally turn to for historical accuracy.

[Alex Bragi]

I'm sorry, I guess I tend to get rather argumentive about bashing of the bible and bible bashing alike. They frustrate me because, qute frankly, I don't see any benefit in either. Good people actually fighting over what's actually good seems ridiculously fulile to me. I suppose to that end there's also a certain amount ridiculous futility in me sitting in the middle often at odds with both sides.

Originally Posted by Goldie

...I don't believe that what the bible says is truth... you may...I don't. It may have historical value...so do a lot of books. But they are all written by man.

No, I do not believe the Bible to be "truth", per se. Please re-read my posting. I took extreme care not use that word; and I most certainly don't deny the Bible was written by man. You have insinuated, or certainly you seem under the impression that, I'm some kind of quasi Christian, and the truth is that I'm not. I'm a proud, fence sitting, have the questions but just not the answers, agnostic.

I thought your other points were valid and interesting, Goldie.

Originally Posted by verte

Frodo.

And verte...

[Quath]

I see the Bible being as accurate as the Illiad is. There is some real history, but you have to strip away a lot of the bullshit first.

My favorie story is the Adam and Eve story. I think it is because of how the story has changed its meaning as I understood new things. For example, when I first heard it, I was Christian and saw it as a story of God setting up people on Earth. Later on, I saw it as the fall of mankind and how humanity disappointed God.

Then I became atheist and I saw the story in a new light. I saw it more like a SF book where God was setting up a zoo and humanity had to decide on whether it wanted to life safe in a zoo or take its chances in the wild.

Later, my grandmother gave me a lot of books in an attempt to convert me back. I saw the Adam and Eve story as a huge setup story where God wants humanity to fail so he can act justified in punishing them. I also saw the sexism in God punishing Eve more than Adam. I also saw the anti-intellectuism as God desires for people to be ignorant. It also indicates that sex is dirty and God doesn't really like it.

The latest interpretation I have is based on some lectures on the OT. It seems the original intent of the story was to show that humans are somewhere between the gods and the animals. (Original Hebrews were polytheistic.) The whole thing about the clothes was that animals are born with clothes and gods are naked. So humans are in between (and can go to either side). It also showed that humans could become gods if they gained immortality and knowledge of everything. So humans were kicked out because the gods feared that humans would become like them and possibly replace them.

However the Greek and Norse mythologies beat the Christian and Jewish mythologies hands down. Zeus or Odin could easily lay the smack down on Yahweh anyday. And Jesus would be no match for Thor or Heracles. (Though South Park did show that Jesus was a pretty good match for Santa Claus.)

[Pyrogenesis]

It also indicates that sex is dirty and God doesn't really like it.

So why did he create it?

It seems the original intent of the story was to show that humans are somewhere between the gods and the animals.

That sounds plausible, especially if we compare it to the age-old "chain of being" idea that originated with Plato, or even earlier.

However the Greek and Norse mythologies beat the Christian and Jewish mythologies hands down. Zeus or Odin could easily lay the smack down on Yahweh anyday.

Which reminds me, have you read Ilium and/or Olympos by Dan Simmons by any chance?

[Smilin]

Originally Posted by Quath

I see the Bible being as accurate as the Illiad is. There is some real history, but you have to strip away a lot of the bullshit first.

My favorie story is the Adam and Eve story. I think it is because of how the story has changed its meaning as I understood new things. For example, when I first heard it, I was Christian and saw it as a story of God setting up people on Earth. Later on, I saw it as the fall of mankind and how humanity disappointed God.

Ahhh yes, that story of the nakie couple Gog put in a garden and purposely set a tree in the midst of it with a warning that they would die if they ate from it?

Gog doesn't seem to grasp human psychology does he?

Basically he fucked up from the get go and we were doomed to a choice of "accepting" the blood sacrifice of himself to himself to gain entrance into "heaven" where we would constantly worship him 24-7. It's either that or the lake of fire eh?

hmmmppphhhh...some loving "Father" that "Gog" fellar is eh?

Let's not forget the "talking snake" part of the story either....

that and the bullshit tripe of him "creating" everything in 6 days and then taking the day off from all his "work"

*chuckles silently to self over how he could have ever been so gullible*

[Quath]

Originally Posted by Pyrogenesis

So why did he create it?

Obviously so he could forbid it.

Which reminds me, have you read Ilium and/or Olympos by Dan Simmons by any chance?

I haven't. How is it?

[Pyrogenesis]

I haven't. How is it?

Ehhh, so-so. But it has ancient hi-tech Greek gods going macho and dropping nuclear bombs and so forth.

[Bud]

Originally Posted by Quath

Obviously so he could forbid it.

This is actually a very good point. One would have to create sinful acts before one could make judgements on sin.

It seems a bit pointless to me. It's another justification for my theory that if God does exist... well... he's a bit of a fucking numpty, ain't he?

[Bud]

Never mind... thinking of something else...

[Terry]

Originally Posted by Bud

This is actually a very good point. One would have to create sinful acts before one could make judgements on sin.

It seems a bit pointless to me. It's another justification for my theory that if God does exist... well... he's a bit of a fucking numpty, ain't he?

and if God would exist....the story of Iob alone would show he's a big a**hole.....

[Puck]

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

As sure as Caesar ruled Roman, and unlike Frondo, a man call Jesus lived and had a profound influence on a huge number of people.

Post proof or retract?

I will grant that likely there was some dude named Jesus who, like our modern day preachers, was too lazy to hold a real job, so went about telling other people how to live, like he had some wisdom to impart.

However, this is NOT proven fact. There very well may not have been a human named Jesus who was a traveling con man. Or, indeed, as some believe, the Jesus character is a compilation of several different preachers during that time and place, and the writers of the bible stories took from the different preachers, and took from past saviour stories and put it all together to make a story up to try to win the most followers for their 'team'.

the old testament is still basically a history of the Jews pre BC,

Again, this is not proven fact. For all we know, considering how much we do know is bullshit, the whole lot of it is bullshit. And then we must keep in mind that when a people set ink to papyrus to 'record' their history, they are going to make themselves out the heros of the story. There may be small bits and pieces of the OT that were based on history, but the overall story is simple bullshit.

We are all free to believe whatever makes us happy, but we are not free to claim as fact that which is not proven so.

[Tharmas]

Originally Posted by Puck

we are not free to claim as fact that which is not proven so.

I had a much longer thing to post…never got around to it. As usual Puck hit the nail on the head.

Maybe we’re conditioned to think about “the” Bible the way we do because we call it “The Bible” as if were One Big Book.

But it’s not. It’s a collection of all kinds of stuff gathered together over centuries.

And it’s not even one collection. The Catholic’s collection is different from the Prots’, and both are different from the Jews’, dog knows.

I look at it like I would look at any collection of stories, poems and essays collected over a long period of time – say an anthology of western literature from 750 – 1500, which I think would include Beowulf and the Song of Roland and the Battle of Maldon and others I forget (sorry I’m Anglo-centric).

Would there be ‘history’ in there? Sure. Would you read it to learn history? No.