No man with a sense of humour ever founded a religion

[orogenicman]

I have always been of the opinion that being saved requires one to lose all sense of irony. I like irony.

[Anomalocaris]

: No man with a sense of humour ever founded a religion

I think you got it wrong. Anyone who would found a religion must have the most twisted and misanthropic sense of humor. It is those whom founders of religion successfully practiced upon that are humorless.

[Sword of Christ]

There's a talking donkey in the Bible, how much humour do you want? It's in there, it's covered. God likes humour he created it.

[Esquilax]

There's a talking donkey in the Bible, how much humour do you want? It's in there, it's covered. God likes humour he created it.

Yet another instance of the good parts of the human mind being created by god, but the bad parts... free will.

Not buying it. The bible is amazingly laughable, however.

[Sword of Christ]

Yet another instance of the good parts of the human mind being created by god, but the bad parts... free will.

Atheists think all morality is relative is culture and personal opinion anyway but kick up a fuss whenever they see something in the Bible that is "immoral". it wouldn't have been immoral for the ancient Jews and there is no such thing as morality in general beyond social agreed social contracts. I would be able to take the view that something in the Bible was mistaken in the moral sense and it was written by humans with their own ideals whether or not God lay at the heart of the source of inspiration, as I believe he was. Atheists cherry pick the parts of the Bible they want to use and miss good, profound and meaningful parts entirely. They also ignore the fact that this was the source of much of what they today consider to be moral and good. What we call humanism was founded from these teachings this is what shaped our civilization, sometimes for the worse often for the better.

Not buying it. The bible is amazingly laughable, however.

I'm guessing you haven't read the whole thing just the parts that highlighted in those New Atheist polemics. That said even Dawkin's admires it as a work of literature, one of the greatest works ever written equal to Shakespeare.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Atheists think all morality is relative is culture and personal opinion anyway but kick up a fuss whenever they see something in the Bible that is "immoral".

Only when theists hold up their holy book as a bastion of morality.

You see? That's called something...what is it?

Oh yes, a > contradiction <.

[Esquilax]

Atheists think all morality is relative is culture and personal opinion anyway but kick up a fuss whenever they see something in the Bible that is "immoral".

Okay, so you insist on telling us what we believe rather than just talking to us about it. That makes you an arrogant sod, but now that you've done it repeatedly despite my objections, I feel fairly justified in doing it to you.

I won't be taking moral advice from christians, since they think murdering babies is the only way to get into heaven.

it wouldn't have been immoral for the ancient Jews and there is no such thing as morality in general beyond social agreed social contracts.

Only that's wrong; agreed or not, if such a contract causes demonstrable harm to individuals- within certain limits and context issue that would take more time than I'm willing to give to explain- then that contract is immoral.

There, see? You've learned something new about how an atheist thinks. The question is, will you take it on board like an adult?

I would be able to take the view that something in the Bible was mistaken in the moral sense and it was written by humans with their own ideals whether or not God lay at the heart of the source of inspiration, as I believe he was.

How can you tell? Let me guess: all the parts written by man are the inconvenient parts for your reputation, huh?

Atheists cherry pick the parts of the Bible they want to use and miss good, profound and meaningful parts entirely.

Unlike you, who just labels whatever he wants as "written by humans" right? Good thing you don't cherry pick!

Besides, I don't care what good things are in the bible, because those things are good independent of the bible. They aren't good because they're in the bible, they're good in spite of it. You still haven't gotten a single inch further toward demonstrating that it is a book of truth.

They also ignore the fact that this was the source of much of what they today consider to be moral and good.

And an equal number of our moral guidelines contradict the bible; that's why we don't allow the murder of gay people, or followers of other religions, or children who are disobedient. All of those things are in the bible, remember?

What we call humanism was founded from these teachings this is what shaped our civilization, sometimes for the worse often for the better.

Even if this was true, humanism advanced by growing past the bible.

I'm guessing you haven't read the whole thing just the parts that highlighted in those New Atheist polemics.

Wrong.

That said even Dawkin's admires it as a work of literature, one of the greatest works ever written equal to Shakespeare.

And I disagree. Dawkins isn't some atheist folk hero, you know. He's just a guy who's smart on some subjects, and dumb on others. You know, like people are?

[Angrboda]

The bible has a few virtues, but many, many more faults. And as Esquilax pointed out, those virtues would still be virtues whether or not they were 'god-breathed' or not.

If you believe the bible is good literature, I have to suspect it is you that haven't read the thing. Most of its value as literature comes from the creativity of the translators of the King James version, as well as a hindsight bias from our cultural aesthetics having been strongly influenced by its influence on literature as a whole, largely by virtue of its ubiquity and religious centrality. I rather suspect its literary virtues in the original Greek or Hebrew are largely unknown to any but experts. As a work of pure literature, it is easily outdone by any modern classic of fiction. Moreover, since the bible as we know it was the process of centuries of after the fact selection, including a very late fixing of the Jewish canon, any virtues it has are likely as much due to that selection process as any original virtues. Do you believe their selection and political maneuvering to secure 'their bible' was god-breathed? More often than not, it was breathed into existence at the point of a sword or through political leverage. As an example of wisdom literature it is perhaps worthwhile, but the bulk of it isn't wisdom literature, and again, we have a bias towards it for reasons having nothing to do with its virtues as wisdom literature. And again, even restricting it to wisdom literature, it is easily matched or outclassed by, to my view, the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu's Art Of War, the Bhagavad Gita, the poetry of Rumi, and many others. The Eloquent Peasant is far more compelling in its simplicity and given its source. No, the Christian bible is shit, and holding up the opinions of a few people who are either too polite to say so, or are simply wrong, doesn't change that.

[Faith No More]

The bible has a few virtues, but many, many more faults. And as Esquilax pointed out, those virtues would still be virtues whether or not they were 'god-breathed' or not.

If you believe the bible is good literature, I have to suspect it is you that haven't read the thing. Most of its value as literature comes from the creativity of the translators of the King James version, as well as a hindsight bias from our cultural aesthetics gaving been strongly influenced by its influence on literature as a whole, largely by virtue of its ubiquity and religious centrality. I rather suspect its literary virtues in the original Greek or Hebrew are largely unknown to any but experts. As a work of pure literature, it is easily outdone by any modern classic of fiction. As an example of wisdom literature it is perhaps worthwhile, but the bulk of it isn't wisdom literature, and again, we have a bias towards it for reasons having nothing to do with its virtues as wisdom literature. And again, even restricting it to wisdom literature, it is easily matched or outclassed by, to my view, the Tao Te Ching, Sun Tzu's Art Of War, the Bhagavad Gita, the poetry of Rumi, and many others. The Eloquent Peasant is far more compelling in its simplicity and given its source. No, the Christian bible is shit, and holding up the opinions of a few people who are either too polite too say so, or are simply wrong, doesn't change that.

I was just going to respond with "fuck you," but what you said is so much better.

[Jackalope]

I'm guessing you haven't read the whole thing just the parts that highlighted in those New Atheist polemics.

I *have* read the entire thing - OK, I admit I glossed over the stupid genealogies and such. I read it as a Christian, in the interest of bolstering my faith. What actually happened was not what I expected.

That said even Dawkin's admires it as a work of literature, one of the greatest works ever written equal to Shakespeare.

I could give a holy rat's ass what Dawkins thinks about, well, much of anything. I respect him as a biologist. I like his sense of humor. Beyond that, meh.