Why We don't take your Holy Scriptures Seriously

[Dr H]

But why are so many so quick to treat the scriptures so roughly?

Speaking only for the culture in which I was born, and in which I live: one reason is that particular set of myths permeates our society.  One is naturally going to have the most to say about, and the most critique concerning that which is familiar to the point of being ubiquitous.  A majority of Americans have only scant knowledge -- if any -- of the Hindu Vedas, so they're not going to spend much time critiquing particular hymns to Indra or Agni.

On the other hand, a huge number of Americans -- even non-religious Americans -- know the stories of the Garden of Eden; Noah and the Flood; Jesus and the crucifixion, etc.  Allusions to these are everywhere, as are loud-mouthed people insisting that we take them all as literal truth.  Of course that tends to draw widespread and detailed reaction.

I have never attempted to have legislation passed to force people to behave as if they didn't believe in God. 
Consequently, I resent attempts to enact or perpetuate legislation designed to force me to behave as if I did believe in God.

The "squeaky wheel" phenomenon.

[WinterHold]

Rather, even if we lost all historical records, God is proven, his name proven, and expectation of relief proven, and the structure of household of the reminder proven, him proving things through a revelation proven by logic, and God's guiding and manifesting the truth proven, all these are proven in Quran, and even the fact they would have an exact consistent number, every family of the reminder having 12 Successors to the founder, is proven.

Lest we let deceivers make us forget the truth, God would prove it, and show true history, whether we can prove it or not through alternative means, is something else.

And Abu Baker and Umar didn't burn hadiths to protect Quran and have no one be confused as to what is Quran and hadiths, like Sunnis claim.  They did so knowing they could not distort it so they attacked the Sunnah and burned hadiths down and forbid people to write it.

And when people resorted to writing commentary in Quran to pass on the Sunnah, Uthman collected all the Qurans and burned them.

The war is against the truth. And there was no Jewish tribes killed, rather, those so called Jewish tribes went underground and there was no execution. Rather, they worked with the Jinn Worshippers, with magic and darken the hearts, and put locks and they inherited the sorcery attributed to Sulaiman by devils.

This truth is real, and it's apparent if you just reflect over the hate towards the reminder's family and the household of revelation that is currently being spread by Muslims where as they deny their station, give lip service to them being scholars they love, and then attack their lovers for believing their God given stations.

Could you please tell me, proven to whom?

The claim you made is so loose and ambigious, that it begs the question: what the hell are you speaking about?
You just said that:

1-God is proven
2-His name is proven
3-The Shiite faith (what you refer to as "the family of the reminder" proven)

What the hell? Do you really expect others -members on this forum and visitors- to buy into suck ambiguous claims that don't even make sense?

Very strange. But aren't all your topics and posts, ambigious claims without a single proof even to other Muslims?
Delusional to the max. But isn't your cult -that you hide its name- is?

[Drich]

The "Atheist Bible Study" thread got me thinking: why are some religious adherents so averse to their scriptures being ridiculed? I think the main reason is that those from religious backgrounds are accustomed to their holy scriptures being held aloft, as something beyond reproach-- ie. taken super seriously. In religious settings, the more "troublesome" verses are often glossed over, instantly apologized for, or explained away. These verses are handled in a "special way." Social mores in these circles dictate that no one ask: "What if this is just a bunch of bronze age bullshit?" In our "Atheist Bible Study" thread, it is pretty obvious that no verse will be afforded such special protection. And I think some people are bothered (maybe even scared) by that.

I'll be the first to step out of the thread if it becomes some kind of "free-for-all" that refuses to see anything good or meaningful in the scriptures. That would indicate that the discussion is neither fair nor relevant. But (by the same token) "What if this is just a bunch of bronze age bullshit?" also seems like a fair and relevant question, one that ought to appear perennially in the discussion if we are to consider ourselves any kind of self-respecting atheists/skeptics.

But why are so many so quick to treat the scriptures so roughly? One of the main reasons is: you guys take them so seriously. I mentioned the Greek myth of Arachne in one of my posts there. I love mythology of all kinds, especially Greek myths. But if a third of the people around me insisted that I take the myth literally, that is, I treat it seriously as the reason why spiders exist, I might begin heaping some ridicule upon it.

A third. I know I've shown the chart below before, but I think it says something relevant. 34% of Americans (that's nearly half of all Christians in this country) treat Genesis as a literal history. They want creationism to have "honorable mention" status in our science classrooms. Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas advanced an interpretive mode that does not typify that of the average modern Christian. These guys were all influenced by the Greeks, too. Remember that Paul dismissed the Greeks, and that's enough for the literalists to pay the Greeks or modern science no mind at all.



I remember mentioning some Hindu myths to some of my Indian friends I knew in DC. They grew up with these things. And they were more inclined to view the myths as something stupid rather than interesting. Reflecting on this, I conclude that their reaction to being presented with the myths was such because (where they came from) such myths were taken too seriously.

I was watching a documentary about India wherein a troupe of "miracle workers" would travel around to different villages and perform magic tricks (like lying on a bed of nails etc.) and would attract large crowds of spectators. Of course, the troupe would attribute their "magic powers" to God. They were dishonest magicians.

In the wake of this first group, a different kind of troupe followed. This group would similarly put on magic shows for audiences. They called themselves the "God Busters." They had a different style. After performing the same feats that the other group performed, they would explain to the audience exactly how the tricks were done, adding that God had nothing to do with any of it. I'm sure these "God Busters" are a great thorn in the side of the charlatans who would prefer that nobody questioned their supernatural claims. But one could also imagine a middle of the road Hindu saying that, while some people make unfounded claims related to the Hindu religion, this does not discredit the religion entirely.

I can see how some theists on the forums resemble those middle of the road Hindus. I think it's important to understand as we continue the Bible study thread, that some "God busting" is to be expected. To ignore the need for such a thing would be to ignore the fact that (at least) half of Christians are making exaggerated claims which make such "God busting" warranted. And, like it or not, these guys still push to fuck with our science classrooms and elect like-minded politicians whenever they can...

Should we spend some time considering allegory as we make our way through the text? Sure. But don't get all huffy if we do a little "God busting" too. Your problem ought not be with us. Your problem ought to be with the literalists who make such commentary pertinent.

 that all you post amounts to..  charts, graphs, how other religions perform.. all crap.. you don't respect the bible for the same reason you personally attack anyone who can defend it. The bible represents a single attempt from God to reconcile with us, and if you can discredit the bible in your mind it is ok to also dismiss God. as you clearly think the two are linked.

(meaning God would not allow his holy writing to be disrespected, because you can= no God.) Even now your OP is riddled with attempts at failed logic/reason why you shouldn't believe, based on the idea that the bible should be more than it is. when in fact the bible is as valuable as any map. extremely valuable if the map is telling you how to get where you want to go and worthless if you have no desire to get where the map points! However it seems you think the bible is apart of God. that is a 6th century church idea that died with the reformation. Disrespecting the bible is not disrespecting God. challenging the bible is not challenging God.

What's more Challenging the bible and calling into question every aspect of belief and what the bible says is recommended in the bible itself. you not treating it as a holy book is nothing new and for those who really know the bible also know it is not God. it never claimes to be.

[Minimalist]

There will always be strife in the Middle East until Jews and Muslims stop claiming that God is on their side and gave the land exclusively to them.

Time to trot this out again.....

[WinterHold]

There will always be strife in the Middle East until Jews and Muslims stop claiming that God is on their side and gave the land exclusively to them.

Time to trot this out again.....

The Middle East is a very attractive land, with lots of natural resources that make it a target for its own people and foreigners alike.

Looks like somebody seeded its land with so much natural recourse. All the rest depends on the natives who get blinded by greed, they will invite foreigners if they were ready to share the loot after helping them get it.

It's not religion. I really wonder what Europeans would've done if they lived here; last I heard they fought a world war that killed 80 million people, that without even finding a goldmine like oil.

The Jews didn't "spawn" in the region neither are they natives. Somebody brought them from the outside, as if he was "fashioning a crisis out of thin air". Since when secular counteries -like Britain- buy the biblical narrative?

[vulcanlogician]

 that all you post amounts to..  charts, graphs, how other religions perform.. all crap.. you don't respect the bible for the same reason you personally attack anyone who can defend it. The bible represents a single attempt from God to reconcile with us, and if you can discredit the bible in your mind it is ok to also dismiss God. as you clearly think the two are linked.

(meaning God would not allow his holy writing to be disrespected, because you can= no God.) Even now your OP is riddled with attempts at failed logic/reason why you shouldn't believe, based on the idea that the bible should be more than it is. when in fact the bible is as valuable as any map. extremely valuable if the map is telling you how to get where you want to go and worthless if you have no desire to get where the map points! However it seems you think the bible is apart of God. that is a 6th century church idea that died with the reformation. Disrespecting the bible is not disrespecting God. challenging the bible is not challenging God.

What's more Challenging the bible and calling into question every aspect of belief and what the bible says is recommended in the bible itself. you not treating it as a holy book is nothing new and for those who really know the bible also know it is not God. it never claimes to be.

Wow, Drich. You couldn't have missed my point more. My OP doesn't say anything about "why you shouldn't believe." It was about why I don't take ancient religious texts seriously (with emphasis on the Bible). I was careful to say exactly what I meant.

I like ancient Greek philosophy, especially Plato. I think Plato's books contain a lot of valuable insights. But some of it is laughable. I also read ancient Hindu religious texts. Same there; plenty of insights to be had. But also plenty of logic fails and superstition. I plan on approaching the Bible as I would any ancient text. That means expressing respect for the insights, talking about the cultural origin of various stories, and (when it is warranted) LOLing at some silly shit. With this thread, I wanted to respond to some concerns Neo had voiced in the other thread without bogging that thread down with debate.

It's all well and good that you think it is okay to question the Bible. I will be doing that. But I won't be giving any absurd verses special treatment, as many Christians are prone to do.

[Minimalist]

The Middle East is a very attractive land, with lots of natural resources that make it a target for its own people and foreigners alike.

Um, no it isn't.  The part they are talking about is an arid shithole.

[GrandizerII]

The Middle East is a very attractive land, with lots of natural resources that make it a target for its own people and foreigners alike.

Um, no it isn't.  The part they are talking about is an arid shithole.

If you mean Lebanon, I'm going to have to agree. Nature-wise, it's a very beautiful country. But fuck the infrastructure there.

[Minimalist]

The song is about the "holy land" which is far from a paradise.

[Whateverist]

Geez, I read the OP and scrolled the first two pages. What has got MK so stirred up? For someone with so little of relevance to the discussion he sure says a lot.