The problem with the bible ...

[Ed from Ann Arbor]

I agree with Dawkins that [paraphasing] people who 'believe' the bible either haven't read it [all] or don't understand it. Dawkins is a prominent atheist, but in addition many adherents of Christianity agree with this statement. The bible was thought to 'mean' the way it 'reads' by most all believers [adherents] until recently (mid 20th century?). Even the Catholic Church (my background) fought against science until about 50 years ago. It is a new ball game now that they, mainline protestant, anglican, etc. churches (perhaps comprising 80%) of Christian churches do now employ critical thinking and reason to the bible. I wish the same could be said for Islam. (Wait about 300 years). The fact is that everyone, whether fundamentalist or non-literalist adherents engages in the same process: Selectively taking certain passages as important/applicable, and other passages as not applicable/required to be practiced. Regardless of who is at their pulpit, that person is going to tell them what passages should be acted on, and which 'no longer apply'. Personally i have read the bible through twice. The problem with the bible is that it has an emotional hold for some believers that is so strong that they cannot employ critical thinking to appreciate it the way it can be appreciated. You can't undo the existence of this document, good or bad and the hold it has on the less educated, the less reasoned. I respect atheists who are just appalled at the bible and regret its hold on some people. You and I have common ground. Sorry I can't be more upbeat on Islam. A cultural catholic, Ed.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

You and I have common ground

Not from where I sit. You believe in god, I don't. The mythology contained in the bible or any other sacred book is irrelevant to me. The Torah, the New Testament and the Qur'an are equally appalling to me.

You have not made good start. I especially did not enjoy the sweeping ad hominem of intellectual snobbery

[jonb]

I feel like a pig in shit

On behalf of we atheists I must say it means so much to us that we have your respect. Up until now we have been aimlessly drifting about, but at last you have put us on the first step to gaining credibility, bless you.

Ed from Ann Arbor
Junior Member

Religious Views: believe in god but respect atheists

[Faith No More]

It is a new ball game now that they, mainline protestant, anglican, etc. churches (perhaps comprising 80%) of Christian churches do now employ critical thinking and reason to the bible.

How does one do that and not come to the conclusion that it is complete nonsense?

[Napoléon]

I'm with FNM on this one, seems rather intellectually dishonest that you see all these bad things with the bible and your own religion, that you rationalise along side the atheist viewpoint, but still come to the conclusion:
"Fuck it, I'm going to go against all that is logical in favour of this obviously shitty book"

[Drich]

I agree with Dawkins that [paraphasing] people who 'believe' the bible either haven't read it [all] or don't understand it. Dawkins is a prominent atheist, but in addition many adherents of Christianity agree with this statement. The bible was thought to 'mean' the way it 'reads' by most all believers [adherents] until recently (mid 20th century?). Even the Catholic Church (my background) fought against science until about 50 years ago. It is a new ball game now that they, mainline protestant, anglican, etc. churches (perhaps comprising 80%) of Christian churches do now employ critical thinking and reason to the bible. I wish the same could be said for Islam. (Wait about 300 years). The fact is that everyone, whether fundamentalist or non-literalist adherents engages in the same process: Selectively taking certain passages as important/applicable, and other passages as not applicable/required to be practiced. Regardless of who is at their pulpit, that person is going to tell them what passages should be acted on, and which 'no longer apply'. Personally i have read the bible through twice. The problem with the bible is that it has an emotional hold for some believers that is so strong that they cannot employ critical thinking to appreciate it the way it can be appreciated. You can't undo the existence of this document, good or bad and the hold it has on the less educated, the less reasoned. I respect atheists who are just appalled at the bible and regret its hold on some people. You and I have common ground. Sorry I can't be more upbeat on Islam. A cultural catholic, Ed.

So... the biggest problem with the bible is not an actual problem with the bible but how certain people interperet it? How is that different from anything else?

[Minimalist]

The biggest problem with the bible is that it is a load of mythical shit that some lunatics choose to treat as fact.

[Cyberman]

All due respect to our new friend but I'm a little confused by this thread. The problem with the bible? That suggests there is only one. Unless that problem is the fact that the damn thing exists, I fear there's a can of worms of titanic proportions just waiting for a tin opener.

Plus while I echo pad's sentiments, especially regarding the intellectual snobbery thing, I do find myself agreeing in part with new friend that the bible, just as with any book deemed to be holy, tends to exert an emotional influence over anyone fool enough to accept it as a) history and/or b) instructions for how to live and what to think. I fear this is what you can expect to get with the carrot-and-stick approach.

Incidentally, it's encouraging to see the RCC finally catching up with the realities of the Universe that science has learned independently of revelation. I don't know how this squares with the Word of God supposedly being unchanging, though.

[Drich]

All due respect to our new friend but I'm a little confused by this thread. The problem with the bible? That suggests there is only one. Unless that problem is the fact that the damn thing exists, I fear there's a can of worms of titanic proportions just waiting for a tin opener.

Plus while I echo pad's sentiments, especially regarding the intellectual snobbery thing, I do find myself agreeing in part with new friend that the bible, just as with any book deemed to be holy, tends to exert an emotional influence over anyone fool enough to accept it as a) history and/or b) instructions for how to live and what to think. I fear this is what you can expect to get with the carrot-and-stick approach.

Incidentally, it's encouraging to see the RCC finally catching up with the realities of the Universe that science has learned independently of revelation. I don't know how this squares with the Word of God supposedly being unchanging, though.

In the RCC The Pope is a living Apstole and is 'obligated' to change the 'word of God' to fit God's supposed new words... That is why they must accept the word of the Pope over the Word of the bible when the two conflict.

The "Unchanging Word of God" refers to the belief that the pope is just an old man in a big hat and has no authority to change the bible to fit his personal fancy.

[popeyespappy]

---

I agree with Dawkins that [paraphasing] people who 'believe' the bible either haven't read it [all] or don't understand it. Dawkins is a prominent atheist, but in addition many adherents of Christianity agree with this statement. The bible was thought to 'mean' the way it 'reads' by most all believers [adherents] until recently (mid 20th century?). Even the Catholic Church (my background) fought against science until about 50 years ago. It is a new ball game now that they, mainline protestant, anglican, etc. churches (perhaps comprising 80%) of Christian churches do now employ critical thinking and reason to the bible. I wish the same could be said for Islam. (Wait about 300 years). The fact is that everyone, whether fundamentalist or non-literalist adherents engages in the same process: Selectively taking certain passages as important/applicable, and other passages as not applicable/required to be practiced. Regardless of who is at their pulpit, that person is going to tell them what passages should be acted on, and which 'no longer apply'. Personally i have read the bible through twice. The problem with the bible is that it has an emotional hold for some believers that is so strong that they cannot employ critical thinking to appreciate it the way it can be appreciated. You can't undo the existence of this document, good or bad and the hold it has on the less educated, the less reasoned. I respect atheists who are just appalled at the bible and regret its hold on some people. You and I have common ground. Sorry I can't be more upbeat on Islam. A cultural catholic, Ed.

---

You too Dirch.