by Vorjack
“Too great praise challenges attention, and often brings to light a thousand faults that otherwise the general eye would never see.
Were we allowed to read the Bible as we do all other books, we would admire its beauties, treasure its worthy thoughts, and account for all its absurd, grotesque and cruel things, by saying that its authors lived in rude, barbaric times. But we are told that it was written by inspired men; that it contains the will of God; that it is perfect, pure, and true in all its parts; the source and standard of all moral and religious truth; that it is the star and anchor of all human hope; the only guide for man, the only torch in Nature’s night.
These claims are so at variance with every known recorded fact, so palpably absurd, that every free, unbiased soul is forced to raise the standard of revolt.”
—Robert Ingersoll, Some Mistakes of Moses
I think old “injure-soul” just about nails it. We atheists spend a lot of time pointing out the absurdities, the atrocities and the contradictions within the Bible. But these are not really attacks on the Bible itself. Instead, these are aimed at the pedestal the Bible is placed upon. Making extravagant claims for the bible, even in the form of praise language, sets the bible up for this kind of criticism.
Pullquote: The Bible is a mixture of beauty and ugliness, wisdom and absurdity, history and fable — like all ancient documents.
The Bible is a mixture of beauty and ugliness, wisdom and absurdity, history and fable. In that regard it is like all ancient documents. We don’t heap scorn upon the Odyssey or the Iliad, despite the central place they have in western literature. We don’t mock the Epic of Gilgamesh, despite the fact that it’s even more ancient than the Bible. But the claims made for the Bible are of a type and a degree that we must respond.
Despite all that, I hope that American Christians continue to lavishly praise their holy book. I’ve met so many ex-evangelicals who left their church because they’ve finally gotten around to reading the Bible. They grew up hearing nothing but the PR spin from the pulpit. They only encountered a few, pre-approved, pre-digested selections from the Bible. When they finally read the work for themselves, expecting something transcendent and inspiring, their resulting disappointment sent them right out the church door.
So whenever I hear a preacher describe the Bible as the perfect book, I have to smile. Somewhere in the pews another freethinker is about to be born.
Cant we have all christians lavishly praise that book so that when they read it they stop going. Cause the evangelicals are annoying not just in the states, I’ve come across groups in Canada and Australia that need to start critically examining their beliefs
They’re everywhere.
This is especially true in the catholic church, where the readings from the scriptures have to follow a pre-established order that is repeated every three years. In this way the churchgoers will never found out that the institution of eucharist, for example, is painfully absent in the gospel of John, simply because this passage is never read.
Wade–
You do realize that while the West was suffering through the dark and middle ages at the hands of “God’s” church, the East was socially and scientifically advancing in astonishing ways… and doing it pretty much without a god (as the “god” of Eastern religions is often a philosophical and in no way personal one)? The advances that the Chinese made were amazing (like a printing press hundreds of years before the West):
http://www.inventions.org/culture/asian/chinese.html
This is especially true in the catholic church, where the readings from the scriptures have to follow a pre-established order that is repeated every three years. In this way the churchgoers will never found out that the institution of eucharist, for example, is painfully absent in the gospel of John, simply because this passage is never read.
The average Catholic churchgoer wouldn’t care for the most part because the RCC teaches that the books of the Bible are historical but not inerrant. So if “John” didn’t write about it that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, it just means that John didn’t write about it. The Catholic Church puts a lot more emphasis on “Tradition” and a lot less emphasis on “Scripture” than a lot of other Christian denominations do (probably at least partially because they’re so old and long ago dealt with the problems around people finding out that Scripture wasn’t literal truth – see Galileo Galilee among others).
That might be true, except that even a catholic may start to wonder why “John” would write a gospel about the life of Jesus but would leave out what according to the church is the most important thing he did on earth. It’s a bit like writing a biography about Elvis, but not mentioning he was a singer.
And Galileo was only rehabilitated a couple of years ago!
I have found that reading my Bible keeps me plugged into what God is saying, it takes personal time with God to discover who He is, church attendance “only” is not the way to find God.
The Bible is the reason that good men do good things, if it wasn’t for Bible believing Christians, we would not have hospitals, schools, and Major universities in this country, so I attribute a lot of this countries institutions on God’s Holy Word.
Yeah, those poor Asians, having no hospitals, schools, and major universities.
Not to mention the poor Greeks, Romans, Celts, Syrians, Persians, Japanese, etc. I mean NONE of those cultures are known for their support of education, building(engineering), or health….
…oh wait.
Everybody knows that education, healthcare, and engineering didn’t exist before Christianity was invented.
You forgot morality!
dwade, that is just flat-out stupid.
No one here with the opposing view suggests that Christians don’t do good works. But, that doesn’t have any relation to whether the bible is the inerrent word of god written by inspired authors. I’m glad Dwade finds comfort in reading it, but I suspect that his reading might be focused on the NT instead of the vast barbaric content of the OT.
Was it the bible that made them do it or them making the choice to create those organizations. I’m fairly sure they did it to impress others with their wealth, their compassion for suffering of those around them, them feeling guilty for the suffering that made their wealth or because they thought they could make a difference. Charity and the helping of others existed long before the christians, and like I said, the bible didn’t make them do it. It’s a book that they may of drawn on for the creation of their value system, but there was not a force or otherworldly power guiding them.
Reading the bible is not enough to come to the truth. You must pause in between your readings to assess the plausibility of what you’re reading, whether it’s factually and historically accurate, whether there are any irreconciliable contradictions. Many do not read the bible critically enough.
Wade, you’ve pretty much just said that all of the good things about Western civilisation, like education and healthcare, would never have happened without the Bible.
I have to tell you, that while that may be the myth that your priest on his pulpit would like you to believe, it just is not true. You can’t make a statement like that with no evidence to back it up. Until you show me that the whole history of medicine and education is rooted in the Bible, you’re just repeating Christian propaganda.
The Bible does the exact opposite of educate you: It prevents you from learning. You start with the possition of “This is true because the Bible says so”, and then twist meanings and pervert observations to fit that premise.
If you didn’t have these Bible-tinted glasses, you would instead observe facts and then go to the most probable cause for those facts. God isn’t the most probable cause for any recorded fact, ever. Really. Blaming God for anything is a serious stretch!
I really would like you to spend some time learning about the history of the Bible, though. Learn that the gospels of the New Testament weren’t written until generations after the stories that they claim to portray. Learn that the first pope decided what would go into the Bible. He excluded gospels that he disagreed with and edited others to fit the story better. He even declared others, which were just as old and just as valid (admittedly not very) as the gospels he included, to be heretical texts and had them destroyed.
Next, research this: Jesus is not mentioned in any convincing way by any of the dozens of historians who were in the Mediteranean during the alleged lifetime of Jesus. The title of Jesus is mentioned (“annointed one”) very briefly in some texts, but there is no indication that they refer to the man you call Jesus Christ. The only “historical document” that proffesed to describe him was proven to be a fake centuries ago.
This raises some interesting possibilities. First, that Jesus never existed, second that the stories we know of Jesus might be an amalgamation of the deeds of many different people. Thirdly that if Jesus did exist as we think of him, that he was just one of many “holy men” in the area at the time, with nothing really remarkable or distinguishing about him. Personally, I think that option three is the most likely.
Knowing all of that, how can you honestly think that the Bible is anything other than an inferior book of fairy tales? It’s demonstrably nonsense. And anyway, Gormenghast is a much better book of fantasy. So’s Dune.
Custador, you’re right to challenge dwade, to be sure. His statement was naive at best, and arrogant and condescending at worst.
That said, you can’t ignore the contributions that people of faith have made, continue to make, and will make to the greater good of society. That’s swinging the pendulum too far to the other extreme.
The Bible does the exact opposite of educate you: It prevents you from learning. You start with the possition of “This is true because the Bible says so”, and then twist meanings and pervert observations to fit that premise.
I disagree. I think that the way the bible is used by many prevents learning — and that ultimately by what you’re getting it with your “This is true…” quote. But, the bible itself is not to blame. Furthermore, it’s entirely possible to read the bible and value it and be a learned person all a the same time.
I really would like you to spend some time learning about the history of the Bible, though. Learn that the gospels of the New Testament weren’t written until generations after the stories that they claim to portray. Learn that the first pope decided what would go into the Bible. He excluded gospels that he disagreed with and edited others to fit the story better. He even declared others, which were just as old and just as valid (admittedly not very) as the gospels he included, to be heretical texts and had them destroyed.
Well, you’re part right about the age of the Gospels. Most likely, the Gospels that we have were in their final form no later than 100ish CE. However, it is more likely than not that the source material for the synoptics was in circulation much, much earlier. Furthermore, don’t make the mistake of undervaluing oral tradition as a medium for communicating the stories of Jesus. I’m not going to overvalue it and say it defninitely happened, and it happened perfectly, but we can’t ignore it either.
And it’s also possible that the gospels were written down in an almost final form as early as 70ish CE. So “generations” might actually be “generation.” We won’t really ever know for sure based on the evidence we currently have.
The rest of the NT, however, was actually written down sooner — at least chunks of it. The letters that are truly of Pauline authorship could be as early as 60 CE. Revelation is probably quite a bit later, maybe as late as 120 CE.
As to the Pope choosing the Gospels: I don’t know where you got your info, but the canon was chosen long before there ever was a pope. Check wikipedia for the early church councils and the first pope as a reference. You’re partly right about the age of the gospels, but you’re entirely wrong about how the the Gospels were canonized.
Next, research this: Jesus is not mentioned in any convincing way by any of the dozens of historians who were in the Mediteranean during the alleged lifetime of Jesus. The title of Jesus is mentioned (”annointed one”) very briefly in some texts, but there is no indication that they refer to the man you call Jesus Christ. The only “historical document” that proffesed to describe him was proven to be a fake centuries ago.
Are you referring to Josephus? And you are, of course, assuming that the NT is an entirely unreliable source of historical information. I’m not going to debate that with you, because neither of us is going to convince the other. That said, I understand your skepticism, and I partly agree. I don’t think the NT and the gospels in particular are intended to be historical literature in the proper sense of that term. There are, however, plenty of historical details throughout the NT that can be validated by outside sources, which at the very least means there is some historical accuracy to the NT.
That said, you can’t ignore the contributions that people of faith have made, continue to make, and will make to the greater good of society.
Nobody’s ignoring them. We’re not talking about them here because those contributions have not a whit to do with the accuracy and / or truth of the Bible, or with the topic of the original post.
That’s not quite true.
The comment to which I responded did question the accuracy of the bible explicitly and was in direct response to someone who claimed the bible was the inspiration for the good works of history.
The response claimed that the bible was inaccurate rubbish and rightly that all sorts of meaningful contributions to society had been made without needing the bible.
I was simply adding the complementing point that people who have been inspired by the bible (rubbish or not) have made great contributions to society as a direct result of being motivated by the bible.
blgulker,
You obviously have a good handle on biblical criticism. So why are you still a Christian? I honestly don’t get it.
Sorry brgulker, I mistyped your username.
Because my faith’s not in the bible.
The question was asked sincerely. Your answer is, well, not an answer really.
And yes, I have a good handle on higher criticism. I’ve spent seven years studying Christianity formally. BA in Religion/Philosophy and Master of Divinity. I’ve studied Greek/Hebrew, read all the big thinkers in Christian history, and everything else one would expect in a theological education that lasts seven years.
So yeah, I get biblical criticism — which is why I started posting here instead of just reading. If memory serves, my first post was in response to some criticism of Paul (?) after reading the blog for quite a bit. I started posting because I disagreed with the higher criticism in the original post, and because I like the conversation, I keep posting.
Plus, it keeps me honest to keep reading, posting, and conversing here. It’s good for me. And hopefully, I add something of value now and again.
So you admit there is only *some* historical accuracy? How are we to parse the real bits from the embellished bits? Honestly, all of the supernatural stuff sounds embellished or like the stories of people who lacked knowledge and so created etiological stories to make up for it. No germ theory = curse from god. No neuropathology theory = demon possession and the like.
If that is true, then the resurrection couldn’t have happened– it’s just wishful thinking or else an etiological story. Therefore, the doctrine of salvation falls apart. How do you explain that?
(I’m asking this honestly as a former Christian myself!)
Soteriology (salvation doctrine) is itself deeply problematic.
Thank you for this reply. I still don’t understand why you are a Christian. The historical record is so problematical.
I’ve just gone down and read a further comment of yours which gives me some understanding. I will try to reply under your heading there.
@ brgulker
… Furthermore, it’s entirely possible to read the bible and value it and be a learned person all a the same time. …..
when you say value it what exactly do you mean. do you mean as some oracle of truth and positivity. because again that’s like picking and choosing the parts you want to emphasize. what if someone wants to emphasize selling theirs and other peoples daughters into slavery. would that be a teaching inside of the bible that a learned person should value.
are you talking about symbolic values. because there are better text that emphasize morality as much or more than the bible.
how can you call a book valuable that mentions unicorns but doesnt take the time to clearly state that selling your daughter into slavery is wrong. why would a perfect god that is worth worshiping inspire people to write passages about unicorns but not specifically and clearly tell folks not to sale any of their children or someone else’s children into slavery.
i guess what really bothers me is that your perfect god is so rough and ambiguous in his nature. i see no reason why a learned or intelligent person would value the bible as anything more than literature.
for all of the good things one can point out in the bible, there are just as many evil and absurd things in the bible. you really are picking and choosing what is palatable and what is not about the bible in order to make some claim as to its value. using your logic the bible is no more valuable than other holy text.
i have a fundamental problem with a perfect and loving god that would take the time to inspire passages about not eating shell fish and about unicorns but say nothing against slavery. especially given the fact that this god rarely makes personal appearences on this planet in order to tell us that those things are wrong.
i can not figure out why your loving and perfect god would give instructions on selling ones daughter into slavery. i don’t see any value in believing in that god or following that gods teachings.
cant it be argued that bible god has his priorities a little screwed up if he takes the time to mention that eating clams is a sin and an abomination but say nothing about selling ones daughter into slavery.
that dosent bother you.
I think the reason I don’t make sense is because you’re assuming that I think the bible is quite literally “god’s word.” It’s possible to think of the bible as a thoroughly human book but still have faith.
have faith in what. can you define what you are talking about having faith in. is the bible the only way to explore and gain access to this faith.
google ‘atheist charities’…here’s a nice article about that:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/charity.htm
“I have found that reading my Bible keeps me plugged into what God is saying”
Why is there an update?
Did god print a new FAQ?
Does god often change what he says since the last time you read it?
Are you sane?
My dear Sunny…you could stand a bit more…light.
His words are mere words in the same way that seeds are mere…seeds.
“My words are spirit and they are…Life” John 6:63.
“His words are mere words in the same way that seeds are mere…seeds.”
I agree. Every morning when I loosen my bowels, the smell is still the same.
@ john c
….. His words are mere words in the same way that seeds are mere…seeds. ….
are you saying that if we listen to god or understand these words/seeds that good things will happen to us.
are you saying that we should live by gods words and then seeds of goodness and salvation will be planted in us.
what words/seeds are you referring to by the way. because thier are some not so good seeds in bible.
Lol, is the question mark button on your keyboard broken??
Just trying to be funny =P
I do have a busted keyboard, don’t know if you were talking to me or not. So yes my keyboard at home has been cursed by Yahweh. The fact that I cant use capitol letters or anything else that requires the shift button is a clear sign of Yahweh’s attempts to block my message of non belief that I am trying to spread to the entire world.
I really wish Yahweh would stop blocking my free will.
“Are you sane?”
With regards to Johnny C…I’m gonna go with “no.”
haha, if you want to base the morals of the bible off of what this country is and does… then you have proven a very vital point. What has this country done in the last 100 years that has been worth anything? what little good we do usually do we want full recognition for it and to be noticed for what we are doing. If you do a good deed with the expectations of a reward then the deed is useless.
“if it wasn’t for Bible believing Christians, we would not have hospitals, schools, and Major universities in this country.”
Oh, prove it! That’s a pretty outlandish claim to make with nothing to back it up.
Gee, I wonder how the Japanese managed to become a major economic power and a first world country with some of the best science/medicine/technology in the world without the bible???? Gosh, I’m soooooo confused….
;)
Don’t be silly LRA, you know that was because the demons were helping them!
I always thought that was because God was testing our faith :-p
Of course, the demons— why do the Japanese throw beans at them, then?
Poor demons…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGUhMqWbbS4
Japan is inferior. Their dinosaur saddles only fit velociraptors. European ones for tyranosaurs.
This is actually a kind of bad example, because there have been Christian mercenaries in Japan for a very long time and Christianity is a very major religion there.
2% is “very major”?
Wow, I thought it was larger than that. I guess it was just the area I went to. The family I stayed with was Christian and I saw several people wearing cross necklaces and the like. That combined with reading I’d done on the missionary work that happened there, I guess I thought it was more influential.
wearing a cross means your a Christian now? is that what Christians think… no wonder the religion has fell to S&%#
Using external tokens as signals for internal states is not foolish; usually it is all we have to go on. Assumptions of that nature can be inaccurate, of course (not everyone who wears a cross is a Christian), but there is a tendency for people who are Christian to decide to wear crosses as an external token of their faith, so it is not a crazy induction.
I lived in Japan for a year and went to a Catholic school there… I could not see that it had much effect on the community, the girls I went to school with basically went along with the Mass and religion studies etc because it was a good European-style school that wasn’t so strict, and almost guaranteed them entry into university. Most of the teachers were Catholic, however, from the conversations I had with them I inferred that they felt themselves to be a very, very small minority. This appeared to strengthen their faith; possibly they perceived themselves as being persecuted for this. It *is* very hard to break away from the accepted societal norm in Japan, so I wouldn’t be surprised.
@MahouSniper:
Did you do any reading about the Christian mercenaries who were tortured and ordered to apostasise by stepping on a portrait of Mary? It’s very interesting, and details the early rebellion against Christianity by the Japanese. More recently they seem to have sort of accepted it while keeping a watchful eye on it.
Proof? Proof?? Godbots don’t need no stinkin’ proof!
I just posted my deconversion story. Reading the Bible extensively and just thinking about it was the primary reason I became an atheist.
This “perfect book” is why I walked away from my faith. Any rational person that has studied the Bible would agree that the creator of our immeasurable universe should be able to author a less terrible book.
Invisible god + unanswered prayers + conflicting and absurd book = No reason to believe.
I wonder about the disconnect between the God of the Bible and the God of the Pulpits. I know that the great and loving God emerges ultimately from selective reading of the Bible by the preachers, conveniently omitting the disturbing parts. Or at least ignoring the darker implications. I am always amazed when I hear sermons on “the disobedience of Saul”. The preacher will rant about his failure to carry out the will of God, a great sin, but will express no reservations about the fact that the will of God was to slaughter an entire population, including not only the children but the livestock. The same with other acts of mass murder attributed to God throughout the OT. This selective presentation of the Bible by the preachers has, over time, resulted in a transformation of the wrathful God of the Bible to the loving God of the Pulpits so familiar to us all today.
Good post, Vorjack.
I would add that there are Christians who share many of your concerns and sentiments but haven’t left the fold, so to speak. I am one of them.
We have a term that we use, albeit with some significant differences from what you posted above, to describe how we feel about the topic: bibliolatry.
There are those of us who accept the bible in its humanness and criticize our Christian brothers’ and sisters’ understandings of inerrancy. Obviously, our own position presents its own challenges that we have to nagivate, but it is, I think, a much better way forward than the alternative. It allows us to ask honest questions (be free thinkers, as you put it) and engage in civil conversations with people of other faiths and people who reject faith altogether. In my mind, that conception of the bible offers a much more harmonious future among these diverse groups of people. Like you, If I’ve understood you right in the past, I think that should be one of our primary goals for the present and future.
While I respect your point of view about christianity, in fact I think yours may be the best way to understand the bible, I have some questions about your beliefs.
1.- Humanness of the bible. Do you still think, thought, that it is Godly inspired? Do you believe that it is the word of God?
2.- Which things has -or has not- the bible to make you thing it is more the word of god than the Quran or Jew’s Gospel? I mean… why do you pick christianity and not another abrahamic religion?
3.- Objectively, do you acknowledge the possibility of the bible being written as…
a.) A compendium of tales to show the people how to behave
b.) A fundational myth -of the world and about Hebrew’s nation- like others writings from that period of time
c.) A composition of hebrew religion adapted to other cultures – greek first, romans after
[this last point may include for me the N.T., but feel free to add another non supr-natural explanation]
….sumarizing: can you imagine a way for a book like the bible to be written without the intervention of a god?
4.- If your answer to the first and the third questions are “yes”, why do you prefer a supernatural explanation above a natural one?
P.S.: I’m trying to understand you, but I won’t deny that I am an atheist and I think my point of view is the correct one, of course
1.- Humanness of the bible. Do you still think, thought, that it is Godly inspired? Do you believe that it is the word of God?
The passage that usually gets cited by Evangelicals and Fundamentalists to ‘prove’ that the Bible is inspired by God can be found in the epistles to Timothy. In Greek, the phrase literally means something like “god-breathed,” which I don’t think is accidental on Paul’s part (or whoever actually wrote the words down).
In the creation myth of Genesis 1, God breathes into the dust of the ground, and the result is Adam. IMO, the link is too significant to ignore. Scripture is as ‘perfect’ as humanity — and by Christian definition, humanity is far from perfect. But, that doesn’t mean it’s not valuable. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t describe the narrative of God’s people — and all of their imperfections and sometimes horrific actions. And that doesn’t mean it doesn’t witness to the unique person of Jesus.
So in short, my acknowledging the bible’s humanness doesn’t go as far as most here would like, but it is a better way forward, I think, with respect to ongoing relationships among people of faith and people who reject faith. Thoughts on that point?
2.- Which things has -or has not- the bible to make you thing it is more the word of god than the Quran or Jew’s Gospel? I mean… why do you pick christianity and not another abrahamic religion?
The proper answer is Jesus. The unique, definitive doctrine of Christianity is Incarnation and the derivative doctrine of Trinity.
That said, I’m enough of a sociologist to know that being born in a Christian home had a whole lot to do with me being a Christian. Not that I haven’t analyzed my faith (as I mentioned, seven years in higher education doing just that), but I’d be naive to ignore the family I was born in.
3.- Objectively, do you acknowledge the possibility of the bible being written as…
a.) A compendium of tales to show the people how to behave
b.) A fundational myth -of the world and about Hebrew’s nation- like others writings from that period of time
c.) A composition of hebrew religion adapted to other cultures – greek first, romans after
[this last point may include for me the N.T., but feel free to add another non supr-natural explanation]
….sumarizing: can you imagine a way for a book like the bible to be written without the intervention of a god?
Yes, all of those are objectively possible and some are probably more likely than not.
4.- If your answer to the first and the third questions are “yes”, why do you prefer a supernatural explanation above a natural one?
I’ve tried it all, my friend. I had my agnostic bit. I had my pluralistic bit. I had my Christian fundamentalist bit.
For me, the best explanation of human life is the Christian one. Life makes sense in that framework to me. Life has purpose and inherent meaning for me that way. The universe isn’t indifferent, and humanity is not simply a byproduct. I have a reason to wake up in the morning and serve others (currently, as an AmeriCorps member) — I participate in the redemption of creation because God participates in that through Jesus. That’s what I’ve chosen to believe because it works better for me than anything I’ve tried — and because I believe it to be true. (And I’ve said before, there’s a difference between saying “I believe this to be true” and “This is absolutely true.” The former leaves the possibility of me being wrong, which I might be)
Other people are comfortable with the things I just mentioned that I reject. The indifference of the universe is the logical conclusion of their rational thought. That’s fine. I’m not out to convince them they’re wrong. Hell, even if I wanted to, it’s not like I could. I’m honest about who I am, but I’m not going to force it.
I just do my best to love and serve other people, because I believe that’s what life is about. When I die, it won’t matter if I’m wrong. Worst case scenario: I spent my life believing something that wasn’t true. But, if that’s the case, then I’ll be dead, and it won’t matter anyway. Best case scenario: I’ll have chosen a life that’s meaningful, and hopefully, I’ll have made a difference in the life of others.
So, why not make the choice I’ve made? It’s the best one that I can make for me and my life. And you should make the best one that’s possible for yours.
I should have mentioned under your question 2:
I should have also said this: whether or not Jesus is really alive today (and my hope is that the resurrection did happen), there is no doubt that his love and teachings are alive in the hearts and minds of those who follow him — and I don’t mean in some overly mystical, supernatural, new age way, but in a concrete way. Jesus lives in the lives of those who follow him. Jesus loves through those who love in his name. I have been touched by that living love more times than I could ever count. My life is different because of Jesus. So why Christianity? For me, it’s a natural choice.
Others might choose something else. They are free to do so, and I will respect that choice.
Sorry for not having found this sooner.
I think I understand and it’s troubling to me. You clearly want to be a good person and help humanity. To me it looks like you are leaning on Pascale’s Wager but the problem with that bet is that truth matters. We can’t be sure to what extent but in certain key moments in communities, families or within one’s self it could be crucial. You sit, I think, between humanism and Orthodoxy. Maybe you can make it through life holding to a deeply modified ancient theology with outcomes, on balance, remaining good but that’s the real wager.
Patterns of life that are truly good don’t really need supernatural support do they? One can be helpful without theism.
I would also like to suggest you consider to what extent you are a believer for emotional reasons and whether that is “good”.
I feel sypatico for you and if I am being presumptuous, I apologize.
I think I understand and it’s troubling to me. You clearly want to be a good person and help humanity. To me it looks like you are leaning on Pascale’s Wager but the problem with that bet is that truth matters
Yeah about Pascal, but only the first part of the wager, really. Whether or not I’m right or wrong about my faith, I will have lived a life that (hopefully) has made a difference — and I will feel fulfilled in that during my life and up to my death.
Patterns of life that are truly good don’t really need supernatural support do they? One can be helpful without theism.
Of course you’re right. I agree with you.
I would also like to suggest you consider to what extent you are a believer for emotional reasons and whether that is “good”.
I understand your comment and concern. Without giving my entire life story, let me just say that I don’t think I’m religious because of emotion.
Thank you, so far is the better answer I could have imagined from a christian. I think you know the limits of your faith, as i know the limits -well, some- of science. If an important % of christians -and other religion members- would believe like you, I wouldn’t have anything to say against religion.
I know I’m not anyone to judge you, but you have, again, all my respect in your beliefs.
Francesc,
I do appreciate your comment about respect. I’m not really out to convince people of your perspective to believe like me. I do, however, try to engage Christians who’ve never taken epistemology and science seriously.
I do wonder, however, if it’s possible to achieve mutual respect without having any of us change our fundamental beliefs. I try to encourage Christians to become more tolerant without abandoning their faith.
Do you think that’s possible?
“We have a term that we use, albeit with some significant differences from what you posted above, to describe how we feel about the topic: bibliolatry”
Share the truth of your Non-Trinity God and also your humanness, not of the citizen of this world, living or dying your life like the Old Book says.
DarkMatter, I never understand what you post in response to me. Not trying to be rude or anything, but I’m not speaking your language.
His English is perfect. Are you feeling well?
In all fairness, I get confused too. Where are you from, DarkMatter?
I didn’t mean English, literally, but rather figuratively.
We’re not speaking the same language = I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Yes I was just pulling your chain :)
But I don’t have a chain…
Oh wait, figurative language again :P
I’ve always said nothing makes you an atheist faster than reading the bible.
Pingback: The House of Zot » Blog Archive » Is Bible praise good for freethinkers?
Another good post, Vorjack.
I certainly agree that it’s a nice thought – and reading the Bible was part of what convinced me to stop believing in it – but I don’t think that many people really bother to question it. We all know our fair share of gullible people: imagine how much more gullible they were when they were taught things before they really developed the ability to think critically. I certainly agree that as long as the Bible is made to be greater than man that someone is going to stand up and question it, but I think the bigger difference happens on a more personal level.
I think that’s why people like us write about the Bible: to encourage others who haven’t yet reached the same conclusion to look further into it. I will be writing about my story some time in the near future – discovering this blog made me really think about my own path, and while it’s not nearly as interesting as Daniel’s, it still is something I can look back on – because I think that will paint a clearer picture than just saying that God is imaginary and that the Bible was written merely by primitive men. I’m not even under the delusion that I’m making a huge difference (especially since my blog is very new and doesn’t solely focus on religion and skepticism) but if I encourage even one person to break free from the mental prison that is the beliefs that were likely instilled in them from a young age by their parents, I will have at least made a difference.
Hm – I wonder if that’s why I run into so many fellow fallen away/”recovering” Catholics among atheists, Unitarians, etc. We are never taught to take the Bible literally, especially the old Testament stories (we don’t question the Jesus stories much), so we start out thinking a little more critically than those who are taught in a literal Bible from the start.
Just discovered this blog. Very enjoyable to me as the intellectual content(generally) is above most I”ve read. As a raised Catholic, who became an agnostic in college, then an athesist in graduate school, followed by skeptical attendance at the Episcopal chuch(5 yrs. after grad school) , and now participating in that same church…well I find this dialogue quite interesting.
“Wade, you’ve pretty much just said that all of the good things about Western civilisation, like education and healthcare, would never have happened without the Bible.” (Custador)
It is true in a sense, because if the message of Jesus as the ultimate sacrifice for sin had not permeated the whole world, you would still be a goat farmer devoting the majority of your goats to the superstitious worship of deity rather than the food supply. And all the tradesmen would have to waste their money buying your goats to sacrifice everytime they sin. So, a whole bunch of animals–goats, lambs, cows, even pigs (Pagans sacrificed too, not just Jews), birds–would be diverted from the food supply to superstition. There would be more starvation and less spending on progress like research to cure disease. The message of Jesus’ sacrifice cured civilization of the obsessive need to slit the throats of animals in worship to invisible deities. That much at least must be acknowledged.
The problem is that although original Christianity cured this superstition, Catholicism replaced it with a new one, the Catholic Church! Then Prots rather than removing that, merely replaced it with a new one, Calvinistic ‘orthodoxy.’ Even Atheists are merely replacing this resource-sapping superstition with a new one, i.e. Carbon Credits and the whole Global Warming scare. Curley-cue light bulbs that are supposed to be environmentally friendly (but poison their Chinese manufacturer with mercury) and various oppressive taxes on cow flatulence and so on, will be nothing more than a new sacrificial system, this time worshiping Congressmen as deities rather than invisible spirits.
“So, a whole bunch of animals–goats, lambs, cows, even pigs (Pagans sacrificed too, not just Jews), birds–would be diverted from the food supply to superstition.”
um, yeah. Romans could get away with sacrificing a pinch on incense, so I’m not sure your economics work. They had little in the way of organized churches to support (until Julian the Apostate), so there was no tithe. Incense isn’t necessarily cheap, but it’s less than 10% of your income.
Also, the Roman world was moving towards ethical monotheism anyway. Some of the Stoics had already convinced themselves that the greek myths were just allegorical stories, and that all gods were just symbolic manifestations of the one God. If Christianity never came about, we’d be worshiping Isis or Mithras or someone else, but the results would probably be much the same.
You know, in some peoples eyes we atheists are no better than nazis, racists and ant-semites.
Say that you are agnostic and “you are still saveable”.
I have to ask; am I no better than a believer? Where is the love tolerance, understanding for my free democratic thought?
You see, from an early age our kids are taught not how to think but what to think.
Religion is a method of control. People live their lives in fear of the unknown. Fera of a highly unlikely God. No matter how strong a case one puts forward; “The word of God” is the only answer.
But I say, we atheists are not a part of a cult or new religion. We don’t meet once or twice a week and plot ( or perhaps its time we did). Its just a free subjective way of being.
Atheists don’t actively seek each other out. Carry books by Dawkins or Hitchens to indicate our philosophies.
I don’t seek sympathisers for my thoughts. I treat everyone as I wish to be treated. No judgements, intolerance or condemnation.
Just free to decide for myself how I wish to live and create my happiness and joy. Not answerable to a book of control that has ruined so many lives.
Strange how when all the evil and suffering prevails that its not God who is answerable, no “he moves in strange ways” but when something wonderful happens against all odds, then of course its a miracle of Gods doing.
AsI said to the Jehovas witnesses that I invited in. ” I really like what you have to say. Come back when you have convinced The Jew, the Muslim, the Catholic, The Hindhu, The Sihk because they all beleieve that they are the chosen ones. That they will be saved not the unbeliever.
I’ll take my chances though.
Now before I sign off. I make apologies for any grammar or spellinng mistakes. I have an eye infection and this is all done by feel. ( I wanted God to help so if it happens to be correct then give him/her the benefit of the doubt.
Take care and get as much joy as you can every day.
Just a little ps. Its not only reading the bible that makes you an atheist. Its all the other religious fantasies also.