Atheist Bible Study 1: Genesis

[Minimalist]

Good stuff!

[Minimalist]

I love this.  I recall when one of the religitards must have wasted hours of his time trying to persuade people that the two creation stories in genesis were really the same story.  He embarrassed himself as usual.  Anyway, here's a bunch of bible-thumpers who have seen reality.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages...in-genesis

The Two Creations in Genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

And they even dare to call them "myths" which will doubtless cause jesus freaks to blow a gasket!

[Bucky Ball]

I love this.  I recall when one of the religitards must have wasted hours of his time trying to persuade people that the two creation stories in genesis were really the same story.  He embarrassed himself as usual.  Anyway, here's a bunch of bible-thumpers who have seen reality.

https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/passages...in-genesis

The Two Creations in Genesis

The Bible opens with two different creation stories. The accounts are similar in that they both describe the creation of animals, plants, and humans. But they are distinct in several ways and even contradict each other on key issues.

Because of these and other divergences, it is likely that separate authors with distinct theological views and agendas wrote these myths. The differences in the accounts reflect the unique way each author conceptualizes the deity. In Gen 1, God is distant, creating through speech according to a master plan. This image contrasts with Gen 2, where the author depicts God as a human-like figure who walks in the garden and, like a potter working with clay, has a hands-on, trial-and-error approach to creation. God in this version seems more accessible than the transcendent creator of Gen 1.

And they even dare to call them "myths" which will doubtless cause jesus freaks to blow a gasket!

The best part of the second one is that he didn't know what to make Adam for his partner. 
So .... they held "wife try-outs", "but none proved to be a suitable partner for the man". 

[Minimalist]

You'd think that a "god" would nail it the first time, eh Buck?

[GrandizerII]

Abram Impregnates Another Woman
Genesis 16

Abram had an Egyptian slave by the name of Hagar (perhaps acquired while in Egypt back two chapters ago). Sarai, his wife, was getting tired of not being able to bear children, so she did to Abram what Eve did to her own man Adam: lead man to defy the will of God. In this case, Sarai requested that Abram forfeit his trust in God and make a baby with their slave Hagar. That way, Sarai could have children by proxy. Abram, of course, agreed. So Abram and Hagar had sex, and Hagar became pregnant after a while.

When Hagar found out she was pregnant, she began to feel nothing but contempt towards Sarai. It's not clear to me exactly why that is, but nevertheless, this pissed Sarai off and Sarai put the blame on poor Abram ... even though Sarai was the one who suggested all this in the first place. Human beings can be rather irrational, and this was no secret to the ancient Jews.

Now Abram, showing his douchey side again, told Sarai that she could do whatever she wanted with Hagar. And jealous Sarai did exactly that. Hagar did not like the way Sarai was treating her, and so she fled.

While near a spring in the desert, the angel of the Lord appears to Hagar and urges her to go back to her mistress, promising her that she will have plenty of offspring. The angel also said the following:

"You are now pregnant and you will give birth to a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers."

Not exactly the most cheerful of prophecies, but this gives Hagar enough reason to want to head back to Abram and raise her child there. When Ishmael was born, Abram was already 86 years old. Yeah ... that's some very healthy sperm for an old guy like him.

Nice story, revealing the imperfections that come with being human.

[Minimalist]

Another observation from Robert Price on the horseshit which is Genesis.

Third, the Bible-hater blames the Bible for being an ancient book, not a modern one. Of course, he would never do this if the fundamentalist wasn’t making ridiculously inflated claims for the Bible. Once we drop the absurd pretense that the Bible is a miraculously inspired, infallible, and inerrant revelation from God, the Bible is no longer an old battle axe wrested from the hands of a threatening barbarian. It ceases to be a weapon and becomes a fascinating artifact, like Beowulf, the Nibelungenlied, and the Iliad.

Pg. 15

Of course, in comparison to those others it is really third-rate literature!

[Drich]

yeah sorry noob if you were looking for a change. I will finish this book, and it will take more than an angry dragon lady to stop me.

You actually think I'm angry?  Yet more proof of your inability to reason to a correct conclusion.  I don't take you seriously enough to get angry, Drich.

Glob...
this is another kill the messenger attempt...

Jorgie..

Are you even familiar with what a Your- mun-gand is? do you know it's role? it is a happy dragon/snake? Then you take on it's persona when you adopt it as your avatar (another word that seems to have slipped by you with it's meaning if you do not wish to be viewed as big mean angry dragon lady.) This demon/loki spawn takes out thor. Thor did not have beef with this dragon serpent because it was a nice friendly go happy being... And, This is how you present yourself or how you wish to be seen. So forgive me when I call you out on the shadow you cast, even if you 'feel' chipper.

[Minimalist]

Jormungandr is a mythological creature.... just like your fucking jesus.

[Angrboda]

You actually think I'm angry?  Yet more proof of your inability to reason to a correct conclusion.  I don't take you seriously enough to get angry, Drich.

Glob...
this is another kill the messenger attempt...

Jorgie..

Are you even familiar with what a Your- mun-gand is? do you know it's role? it is a happy dragon/snake? Then you take on it's persona when you adopt it as your avatar (another word that seems to have slipped by you with it's meaning if you do not wish to be viewed as big mean angry dragon lady.) This demon/loki spawn takes out thor. Thor did not have beef with this dragon serpent because it was a nice friendly go happy being... And, This is how you present yourself or how you wish to be seen. So forgive me when I call you out on the shadow you cast, even if you 'feel' chipper.

Oh, really? You were taking the persona literally, that's why you referred to an unsexed serpent as a lady? You trip over your own balls every time.

Jormungandr is a serpent. Jormungandr is neither a dragon nor a lady. The only possible thing you could have gotten right there was the angry part, but you didn't, so you strike out yet again.

[Cod]

Sunflowers... Big heads, have their roots in horse shit.