[Closed] Anyone read the Bible?

You may be missing the point.

It's happened before. 😉 I'll take another look.

so the bible is not a book of facts
well it tells me how everythign was made

You think that's what it's telling you. kja78 told us Genesis is not facts, and he's a minister. You can't get much better evidence of Christian belief than that can you?

why do you defend something you dont believe?

I am defending something I believe in - the search for understanding, in favour of simple facts.

By the way, fact and fiction aren't the only two options.

So you agree is important that it's known which it is. Regardless of it's worth. Thats just introducing a shield to hide behind.

Otherwise known as 'a point of view' you mean?

When I read anyone defending the bible it sounds like a petulant child with fingers stuck firmly in it's ears insisting that Father Christmas exists. These threads are always circular because believers believe no matter what evidence is given to the contrary - That's what faith is, belief without evidence.

The bible at best is a book of fables with a few decent points, at worst it's the basis of three faiths that bring misery to millions. It's also a chameleon of a book that changes meaning depending on the values of the person hitting you over the head with it -It's a hateful thing and I despise it.

When I read anyone defending the bible it sounds like a petulant child with their fingers stuck firmly in it's ears insisting that Father Christmas exists

I was thinking the same thing about those attacking it! (and I'm not a believer either)

to demand the kind of checks that Cougar's after

Hang on, I wasn't demanding anything. I was simply highlighting the inherent difficulty in validating what's written and offering a possible suggestion as to how it might have come about.

Have you tried to find out? Before making assumptions about them?

Is it Put Words in Cougar's Mouth Thursday? I wasn't making any assumtions about anyone, I was just thinking out loud; I said as much in the sentence you quoted, "I wonder..."

It's mine (the part of man). If the speaker told me what to write in the blog then it would be his word (the part of god).

... assuming no bias, spin or hyperbole in your writing. It's no longer the speaker's (god's) word if you miss bits out and add a few of your own.

You can't get much better evidence of Christian belief than that can you?

Its clearly evidence of belief. whether that moves the debate any further forward or tells us something that we dont already know is another question

It's no longer the speaker's (god's) word if you miss bits out and add a few of your own.

I am of the assumption that if god guided the writing of it then no words are added other than his own.

If man wrote it then we could be dealing with anything from the Daily Mail to a historic school textbook or anything in between.

Just think of it as a history book. Does that help?

If man wrote it then we could be dealing with anything from the Daily Mail to a historic school textbook or anything in between.

I think that's where the faith bit comes in.

I don't respect it Molgrips and I'm afraid it shows, prolly best I duck out. I've done what I can, my children are godless heathens that think for themselves and do the right thing because it's right and not for fear of eternal punishment..

comparing the bible to the daily mail is a bit harsh

I think that's where the faith bit comes in.

Your losing credibility by moving the goalposts all the time. JY was right, your not doing the cause any good. Your not as adept at this "devils advocate" stuff as you like to think you are.

I think that's where the faith bit comes in.

Faith in what? The bible?

I fail to see how anyone can have faith in the bible without establishing the author first.

To me this - belief in the bible - is quite separate to belief in god.

I've done what I can, my children are godless heathens that think for themselves and do the right thing because it's right and not for fear of eternal punishment..

Mine to, along with me. However that doesn't mean I don't respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

Your losing credibility by moving the goalposts all the time.

Seriously - where? I'm interested to know where you think I'm being inconsistent. And just to make it clear, I'm not playing devil's advocate for the sake of it, I'm just trying to make a point.

I'm just trying to make a point.

This is quite apparent.

Whereas for the most part everyone else was having a discussion.

I apologise.

I thought that this was a discussion. What am I doing wrong?

Is that aserious question ? i dont think your style helps these chats - you are [ not intentionally] inflamtorry and give a more empahtic supportive stance to an ideology you dont support than the minister you like quoting.
It riles folk and is IMHO is not helpful, I am simply turing the other cheek to your posts on this subject from now on as I realy dont think they help - like Whoppits posts dont help tbh but more well intentioned

comparing the bible to the daily mail is a bit harsh

I start writing a post get distracted by work

On which one?

on the one hand the bible promotes fish butties on the other DM has tv listings.

give a more empahtic supportive stance to an ideology you dont support

Ok let's get this straight.

My ideology is to find the value in everything. Many atheists are overly dismissive, so this is against my ideology. It's nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. I could seek value in supporting a football team or making a pile of coal into art, and we would be having the same conversation.

I admit I have been inflammatory in a few posts earlier in this thread. I apologise fully. They were intented to be slightly toungue in cheek, but I am finding it hard not to consider some points of view as ridiculously literal-minded.

However that doesn't mean I don't respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

I don't think anyone has said that they hate the bible, I certainly haven't. I've criticised it for being inconsistant and for what it has to say about women and other minorities (well what it apperently says depending on the translation!) but that is a world away from hate.

I also don't not respect people because they are religious; I start off with the same amount of respect for everyone. When people start to use such beliefs as an excuse for bigotry, intolerance, anti intellectualism or for demanding special treatment then I start to lose respect for them, but that's pretty much the same as I would do for anyone else who expressed such opinions.

My ideology is to find the value in everything.

You don't need religion in order to have morals, understanding, love and peace.

If anything mixing these up in a religion / god based scenario attributes these values to a faith, thus making them easier things to dismiss or ignore in everyday life.

So wouldn't there be a greater value in having no religion, instead putting the focus and effort into living harmoniously.

So wouldn't there be a greater value in having no religion, instead putting the focus and effort into living harmoniously.

Quite possibly yes.

I don't think anyone has said that they hate the bible

Joolsburger did up there.

I agree with the rest of your post though except for the criticism for being inconsistent. It's not actually one book, it's 66 books, with different authors, they just come in the same volume. So why should they have to agree? It contains any different impressions of what God is or could be.

So why should they have to agree?

For the religious, as a cornerstone of their faith, if it is truly the word of god then it needs to be consistent or else god is inconsistent.

If religions take the view (as yours is) that it is not a direct word of god, rather a collection of opinions then they need to say as much. Move on, and stop referring to it as being any more important than any other book of worthwhile opinions.

I just wish they could collectively agree to do one or the other.

why should they have to agree?

I can't immediately lay my hands on the exact quote, but someone said earlier that they believed that the bible was written by men guided by god; so everything in there is god's word, with nothing added and nothing taken away. Literary Shredded Wheat, if you will.

If that's the case, then it would seem logical that they'd agree. If they don't then either the writers aren't all that accurately guided by god at all, or god is telling them different things for some reason. Which sounds a bit vindictive to me.

Ok so as an example of what I mean. Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson. They might differ in their opinions of his motivations or opinions of other things. They ought not differ on simple facts like his birthday or where he lived.

If I were really into Nelson I might read both, and appreciate both. I might not even have to believe one or the other. I might be happy to think that some people think X about him, and some Y. And I'd probably read more books on Nelson when they came out too.

However, if I'm obsessed with Nelson, then it's fair to say ANY book about him is much more important to me than say, Wayne Rooney, isn't it?

or god is telling them different things for some reason. Which sounds a bit vindictive to me.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren't there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I'm still not seeing a problem here.

Literary Shredded Wheat, if you will.

🙂 I like that... Is the bible Shredded Wheat or Shreddies?

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren't there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I'm still not seeing a problem here.

"Opinions" vs "facts", perhaps?

To quote one Mark Knopfler, if "two men think they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson...

What if both described different motivations and thoughts Nelson had regarding a particular event.

While the facts surrounding the event may be accurate. The arguably more interesting information, (and in the case of the bible more important) Nelsons thoughts and opinions are not.

Now, if Nelson had written it himself, or dictated it to a staff member, then the thoughts and opinions are going to be accurate as well as the event facts.

Would this third book not be a lot more valuable than the others?

In fact we've established the first two are full of the writers opinion, not the subjects, and therefore not that reliable after all.

And anyway, that dodges my point.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions

Under normal circumstances yes; but you've missed out the other half of that argument. They're being directed by god, remember, so they're not in a position to draw their own conclusions.

If they [i]are[/i] able to make their own conclusions, then that negates the whole "it's god's word" argument. It clearly isn't if we've just established that they're making it up. Can't have it both ways.

Joolsburger did up there.

I agree with the rest of your post though except for the criticism for being inconsistent. It's not actually one book, it's 66 books, with different authors, they just come in the same volume. So why should they have to agree? It contains any different impressions of what God is or could be.

Fair enough I skipped over that

As for the inconsitances well it is presented as one book as well as being the world of god so I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to agree. To use another example if I were to look at the all the published works on a scientific topic I'd expect them all to be consistant and if inconsistancies were found I'd expect them to be at the very least recognised and hopefully resolved. I don't mean resolved by saying "that bit doesn't count" or "well translation is tricky".

In any case the examples that I used to highlight the inconsistancy ("thou shall not kill" and "eye for an eye.." were two extracts from the same book that were contradictory. I don't think I'm being unresonable in questioning that.

Ok so as an example of what I mean. Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson. They might differ in their opinions of his motivations or opinions of other things. They ought not differ on simple facts like his birthday or where he lived.

If I were really into Nelson I might read both, and appreciate both. I might not even have to believe one or the other. I might be happy to think that some people think X about him, and some Y. And I'd probably read more books on Nelson when they came out too.

...

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren't there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I'm still not seeing a problem here.

If both parties accept that what is presented is [i]opinion[/i] then I'd agree however the fact is that there are two biographies of Nelson/books in the bible that are inconsitant but some Nelson devotees are claiming that these books are opinion and others that they are absolute truth. Both groups can't be right.

It's a re written fable.
But you can't deny all those folks that believe in it.

Cougar, seriously, there is a lot within the bible that has actually been validated as true...

The same could be said for any Harry Potter novel (Ford Anglias, steam trains, London, etc. etc.)

I admit I have been inflammatory in a few posts earlier in this thread. I apologise fully. They were intented to be slightly toungue in cheek, but I am finding it hard not to consider some points of view as ridiculously literal-minded.

TBH imo you're the only one who brings a bit of sanity to these threads molgrips. And I admire your tenacity, most wouldn't bother, specially as militant atheists tend not to be very tolerant or good humored towards those who challenge them.

Nobody can prove that God is a fictional character.

Oh dear.

No body can prove than elephants don't turn pink and fly around in circles, but [b]only[/b] when not being watched or recorded. Your point?

Edit: Without wishing to sound rude, any discussion on belief religions should, in my humble, at least require any prospective discusser to pass a basic IQ test.

Now, if Nelson had written it himself, or dictated it to a staff member, then the thoughts and opinions are going to be accurate as well as the event facts.

Would this third book not be a lot more valuable than the others?

Yes, but in this case we don't have it. Or rather, in the case of Christianity we don't. The Mormons have their single definitive book, as do (afaik, please correct me if I am wrong) the Muslims.

To further my own example, Nelson is reported to have said 'Kiss me, Hardy' as he died. Let's assume this is accurate, you'd expect all bios to contain this fact. Now, why did he say this? Was he delirious, or did he have homosexual feelings for Hardy? You could discuss this for ages, and the discussion itself would be interesting, you could go back over his life and look for other things that could be interpreted as hints of homosexuality. Or, you could think about the context of the time and read that hetero kissing was a common thing amongst friends at the time, and he just wanted to feel close to his friend as he died. I THINK (not sure though) I remember reading that even people who were there at the time were in some disagreement about this.

The facts are not in dispute, but what they mean is. God may have specifically said or done certain things, but you could debate forever what that actually meant.

If both parties accept that what is presented is opinion

It's implicit that any historian presents their own interpretation of events.

To use another example if I were to look at the all the published works on a scientific topic I'd expect them all to be consistant

I'd say that's an entirely different subject. This is most definitely NOT science. I'd say it's a lot more like history. There are always new history books being published about the same subject, even though only one set of facts actually happened. We don't seem to have a problem with this.

In any case the examples that I used to highlight the inconsistancy ("thou shall not kill" and "eye for an eye.." were two extracts from the same book that were contradictory.

Well yes. Let's assume God did in fact say 'Thou shalt not kill'. Did he mean at all, or was he just talking about wanton aggression? Is capital punishment ok? If there are two contradictory indications, which one takes precedent?

Did God actually [i]say[/i] "An eye for an eye"? Or is that just Jewish common law at the time? I suspect the latter. Which is where the context comes in - the Jews were a race with their own religion, so the cultural identity and law are intertwined with their religious beliefs.

What does the original Hebrew say? Is there more than one word for 'kill'? Perhaps there's a different word for an act of aggression or one of capital punishment, and they both got translated into the same? Anyone know?

It's far from black and white imo.

imo you're the only one who brings a bit of sanity to these threads molgrips

Thanks ernie I appreciate that.

Without wishing to sound rude

Too late 😉

Many atheists are overly dismissive

Just think of it as a history book. Does that help?

However that doesn't mean I don't respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren't there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I'm still not seeing a problem here.

I dont think you help really leave it someone who actually believes what they are saying they do it far better than you tbh.

specially as militant atheists tend not to be very tolerant or good humored towards those who challenge them.

I dont think you help really leave it someone who actually believes what they are saying they do it far better than you tbh.

You miss my point, really.

could you not look for the good in my wrongness though - like say it was a religious text 😉

I'd say that's an entirely different subject. This is most definitely NOT science. I'd say it's a lot more like history. There are always new history books being published about the same subject, even though only one set of facts actually happened. We don't seem to have a problem with this.

The point is that no one (sensible) tries to claim that a small selection of books about history is the absolute literal truth, some christian do do this with the bible.

It's far from black and white imo.

Which were you a christian would put you in the "open to interpretation" camp rather than the "absolute truth" clamp. However if it is the work of man/men/woman/women and by implication a work of collective fiction to codify customs of the time then it seems a very strange thing to base a belief system on, especially several thousand years later. If on the other hand it is the "absolute truth" directly from a deity then why the inconsistencies? I would have thought that an all powerful supernatural deity would have been able to create this work without them. There are significant fundamental problems with either argument.

As I and others have pointed out it can't be both things and unless and until christians decide which one it is they will forever (rightly) be accused of moving the goalposts by flip flopping between them when such debates occur.

Also can I be a militant atheist? I've never been a militant anything before 😉

When I turned the computer off late afternoon my time on Wed., I thought this thread had about reached the end, but obviously not the case. Always interesting on subjects like this to see how new posters pick up the gauntlet/carry on the discussion--but see that Cougar is still solidly in the mix.

We aim to please.

Or be bloody awkward. One of the two.

Incidentally, I'm halfway through reading the essay that kja wrote. It's actually very interesting so far; I'd recommend it.

Just saw this on C4
[url] http://www.4thought.tv/themes/where-do-we-go-when-we-die/jeremy-pearce [/url]

World's going to get pretty crowded..

Just re-reading...

well our view is that it is wrong with no basis in fact and no observation to verify it. What exactly are you expecting?

What about things that might be un-observable?

some christian do do this with the bible.

Yeah, you won't find me defending their point of view.

However if it is the work of man/men/woman/women and by implication a work of collective fiction

NO! Fiction means something deliberately made up for entertainment. A biography is not fiction, even if it's some crazy interpretation.

When I turned the computer off late afternoon my time on Wed., I thought this thread had about reached the end,

I was on holiday. I caught up this morning now I'm back at work 🙂

What about things that might be un-observable?

I'm not stopping them. Until one pops up to explain their Christian views, I'll continue to express my philosophical ones.

NO! Fiction means something deliberately made up for entertainment. A biography is not fiction, even if it's some crazy interpretation.

Though obviously fictional biographies, and biographical fictions somewhat blur the distinction : )

Also the dramatised versions "based on" real events I was discussing to myself earlier.

I'm not stopping them. Until one pops up to explain their Christian views, I'll continue to express my philosophical ones.

With respect, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't recall you ever really airing your views per sé, beyond "hey, let's all be nice to each other," which convention dictates is the sort of thinking that gets people nailed to crosses. You're largely just dissecting everyone else's.

Glad you like it Cougar, I think I articulate in it fairly well my attitude towards scripture... Right, I've had a long and emotionally challenging day, so I will post up a few thoughts here, but probably won't come back to the computer this evening as I need some space.
I'll start by reposting the 1st founding principle of the Baptist Union of Great Britain. 'That our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, is the sole and absolute authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, and that each Church has liberty, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to interpret and administer His laws.'
Not keen on the word ‘Laws’, probably doesn’t mean quite what it’s supposed to. Anyway, that's a statement that I fully agree with, indeed that attitude is one of the reasons I chose to become a Baptist minister and not part of another denomination.

It's been a surprise to me to read in this thread that many people with no faith are perturbed by the fact that people of faith can agree to disagree or can change their stance on certain issues. This has never been a problem for me. There are a few things that I believe are central to being a Christian - belief in the deity of Christ, belief in the Holy Trinity, and belief that through faith in Christ, his life, death and resurrection, we are somehow made 'right' before God. These are my 'Primary theological issues'.

Notice that in that founding principle it's Jesus who is the sole authority in matters of faith, and not the Bible. I believe that I've experienced a personal revelation of Jesus Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit and it's that experience which is the ultimate foundation of my faith, and not the Bible. So where does the Bible fit into my faith? I believe that the four Gospels are a reliable account of the life, works, and teachings of Jesus. And being that Jesus is God, what the four Gospels tell us Jesus was like is what God is like. When I say reliable, I don't mean perhaps what we as 21st Century Westerners with our thought processes heavily influenced by Greco-Roman philosophy might think.

Matthew and Mark (probably a disciple of Peter) were Jews and wrote as Jews; people who knew the Old Testament intimately and saw Jesus as the Messiah foretold by the Jewish faith. Luke was gentile, probably the Doctor Luke of Paul’s letters and wrote more scientifically probably to non-Jewish, non-Christians in Rome. John, probably the ‘beloved disciple’ of Christ put a far more spiritual emphasis and interpretation on his recollection of events. Luke also wrote Acts as a history of the early church and of Paul. So for me the Gospels and Acts are fundamental to my faith. The epistles (letters) of the New Testament were written to specific churches in specific contexts, and whilst inspired by God their instructions may not apply specifically to context today. As one of my lecturers was fond of saying ‘It’s not about “the Bible says...” it’s about “what does the Bible mean when it says...”’ For example; Paul instructs women to cover their heads in church. The only women in his context who didn’t cover their heads were prostitutes. It’s as if Pauls says ‘Christian women, you are free from your culture’s rules, but it’s probably best not to dress like a prostitute.’

The Old Testament is a bit more tricky, we journey with a nation as it covenants with God and develops its understanding of God and God’s expectations for it. These were people who were used to telling and hearing stories, some of the OT stories probably have their origins in the most ancient stories known to humanity. The OT can be divided into four categories; The Law, History, Wisdom and The Prophets. These four categories all have different purposes and we see a development of the Jewish faith and understanding of God as we move through the OT, from a God who calls on the destruction of his enemies in the law and some historical books, to the suffering servant of Isaiah. The OT points towards a coming Messiah who will put all things right; this is not Christians reading back into the OT but is something that Jews believe, God will send the Messiah, but the Jews don’t believe it was Jesus. Indeed the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that the community at Qumran believed that two Messiahs would come as they couldn’t see that one person could be both Priest and King.

I don’t think the original readers/hearers of the OT stories cared in the slightest whether the stories were true, they were interested in what the story could teach them. Whilst Jesus did on occasion teach by giving lists and instructions, the majority of his teaching was in parables, made up stories he used to illustrate his point. If that’s how Jesus (who is God) chose to teach when he walked the earth, why is it so hard to view the OT stories as parables? Some of them are probably true, many probably have their origin in truth, some may be complete fabrications, but that’s not the point.

Besides which, I say to all the Christians, given that Jesus (who we believe is God) didn’t seem to give two hoots about the creation story, the flood, homosexuality etc why do you? Given that Jesus did get particularly upset about issues like justice, tolerance, inclusivity, generosity, forgiveness etc why don’t you?

This ‘shifting goalposts’ thing that some are so upset about, I’m not sure I understand why. Life is a journey and we as individuals change during that journey. We see in the OT the Jews as a nation on a journey with God, and I believe that all humanity is on a similar journey where deeper truths and realities will become apparent at different stages in time. This is not just in faith, but we see scientific, technological, ethical etc development going on all around us. I know you don’t like arguments from scripture, but Jesus said he would send his Holy Spirit to teach his disciples - there was more for us to learn than what Jesus had time to teach us.

The Christian faith has changed over the course of history, but that’s not to keep up with society, we are part of society and as humanity learns and grows so does the church. As I wrote in the essay a couple of you have read, the early Jewish Christians had to come to terms with non-Jewish Christians. Christians were instrumental in the abolition of slavery, despite the Bible, even the NT appearing to condone slavery. Victorian Christians had to come to terms with women being given more rights (ok, some Christians still struggle with that one) and today the Church, at least in the UK is having to decide where it stands on homosexuality. Sometimes the Church drives the change in the wider society and sometimes the society drives a change in the Church. So yes the goalposts do move, but isn’t that kinda the point of life and being a human? Change, development, learning etc is all good and exciting stuff.

Anyway I’ve drivelled on for long enough, anyone would think I don’t get enough attention or something. Goodnight, God bless - go and enjoy the life that God gave you. I’m going to walk the dog and buy some bike parts I can’t really afford.

now I'm back at work

I am shocked--you mean people are on this site while working 😯

Ye gods.

Well I suppose I like to pose questions as much as anything else.

Are you curious about my views? Care to ask a question? 🙂

Sorry, but I have just dipped into this thread and will have to catch up before posting. I will try to represent the Christian point of view on the nature of faith when I get back from the gym. As one does.

ernie +1

and,

Good thread this, I'm really enjoying reading kja78's posts, I hope he comes back.

This thread more than most of the religion threads is making me laugh. The smug atheist crowd are looking really stupid. Trying to slag something off without knowing much about it. A lot of people far clever than you lot have spent a lot of time thinking about it, you're just dabbling at the edges. It's like you've read about theology in a daily mail feature and think you've got it all sussed out.

Agree with the first part. Glad he's back.

Second part was a bit naughty. Obviously tongue in cheek, but maybe missing a little winky smiley for the hard of thinking. 😉

It wasn't aimed at anyone personally, but it's quite amusing to see who've self-identified in order to take personal offence.

The logical fallacy part tickled too.
You get called out (wrongly) for [i]"ad hominems"[/i] and [i]"from authority"[/i].
And the next post argues against human scrifice.
Magic. 🙂

Anyway, good to see a voice of reason amongst the madness on these threads.

Thanks for that excellent post kja78, you are a fantastic communicator like so many other preachers, and that in itself gives me a warm fuzzy feeling 🙂

some may be complete fabrications, but that’s not the point.

Very succinctly what I've been trying to say. But the literalists here make so much noise that I don't think they can hear it.

Good luck with your emotional challenges too.

For example; Paul instructs women to cover their heads in church. The only women in his context who didn’t cover their heads were prostitutes. It’s as if Pauls says ‘Christian women, you are free from your culture’s rules, but it’s probably best not to dress like a prostitute.’

This is why I am saying that the scornful atheists sound silly - they are finding points to ridicule, but without understanding the context they only have half the story.

It sometimes seems that (not neccessarily everyone on here) the most scornful are trying to find things to ridicule so that they can do so and feel like they've won some great battle by conclusively proving that God doesn't exist.

Great job guys!

Anyway, good to see a voice of reason amongst the madness on these threads.

If that was aimed at me - thanks! If it was aimed at kja78, I thoroughly agree.

I'm not going to respond to kja78's post right now as, well, TBH Lovefilm have just sent me the new Tomb Raider. But I would like to say one thing.

There's an argument that gets proffered here sometimes that the theology debates on STW are pointless. That no-one ever changes their mind and it's just pointless bickering. I'd like to refute that.

One of the big issues I have with the religious is that it is sometimes apparent that many theists don't appear to have given much thought to their "beliefs." They're Christians, or whatever, by default.

The intelligent and thought-provoking input from people like kja78 and Ro5ey have given me cause to revise that opinion. I'm not necessarily convinced that they're representative of the majority, more's the pity, but it's refreshing and reassuring to know that there are people out there for whom their faith is a considered, measured choice rather than blindly 'believing' what they were brought up to believe.

STW does good debate. And I'd like to thank you all for that.

Christians were instrumental in the abolition of slavery

FWIW you explain it well, as does your essay.
I guess what many of think is that god bellowed to us and sent down tablets of stone and you need to adhere to these for ever as rules. the church sticking to antiquated views of women and homosexuals helps maintain his view. It is interesting to consider that it[relationship/faith with gd/holy spirit/jesus] is a relationship that can also change and evolve.
I think where we struggle is that when the biblical accounts are clearly factually wrong [ genesis and flood for example] you[probably more we] then get tied up in knots as to whether the bible is true or false - the word of god or not the word of/myth or laws etc. For you i assume it is less relevant than your relationship with faith JC etc
i dont agree with you but you explain it well.

Well I suppose I like to pose questions as much as anything else.

You and me both.

Are you curious about my views? Care to ask a question?

Nothing jumps immediately to mind if I'm honest. The point I was making was more that you invariably play devil's advocate (irony?) on this sort of thread. Whilst that's absolutely fine and I'm no stranger to it myself as a means of progressing a discussion, it does kind of mean that you're more of a self-elected referee rather than an active player, if you see what I mean.

well they helped create it as well

That's basically DNA's comment about Bill Gates, isn't it. Hang on, let me dig out a quote.

Thus,

"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armor to lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the first place."

it's refreshing and reassuring to know that there are people out there for whom their faith is a considered, measured choice

Yep, and because I listen to stuff like Thought for the Day instead of getting all angry about it (like some on here admitted to doing) I've also learned that.

you[probably more we] then get tied up in knots as to whether the bible is true or false

Hmm I am not sure about that. From the outside it's easy to attribute characteristics to 'Christians' as a whole, as it is to Muslims and everyone else, but there are loads of differing viewpoints. It's easy to laugh at fundamentalists or people pushing inerrancy but you can't lump moderates in with them.

it does kind of mean that you're more of a self-elected referee rather than an active player

I'm not that solipsistic 🙂 I don't have a particularly strong viewpoint on the Bible itself - it's not that important to me personally but I'm happy to learn about it for whatever it is.

What I do care strongly about though is poor thinking and ignorance. It winds me up. Especially so when it results in people being really offensive to people who don't deserve it. Wtf are they trying to do? STW can be nice as pie most of the time but as soon as religion is mentioned people queue up to jeer and laugh - why? Do you so desperately need to make yourself feel like the big guy? FFS.

What I do care strongly about though is poor thinking and ignorance. It winds me up

you and me both.

as soon as religion is mentioned people queue up to jeer and laugh - why?

you know, I don't think that's fair. A select few do, sure, but they're a vocal minority IMHO.

Fair point. It's easy to confuse the vocal minority with the majority - which is what I was just complaining about. D'oh.

The intelligent and thought-provoking input from people like kja78 and Ro5ey have given me cause to revise that opinion. I'm not necessarily convinced that they're representative of the majority, more's the pity

My experience is that the majority have made a considered opinion in that same way that many non-believers have as well. It's just that not many can express it quite as well as these folks can. A fair number of my 'believing' friends (for want of a better term) are people who didn't come from any sort of religious background but rather came to their faith later in life. It really does work in both directions

ps. and interesting thread. I doubt it would have lasted this long pre the lifetime bans which is a pity

I think that the tone of the debates has steadily improved. The first one I read wasn't much better than schoolkids throwing things at the fat kids.

[url= http://dawonderful.blogspot.co.uk/2012_08_01_archive.html ]Read My Bible :-)[/url]

Religion, the root of all evil.............

Read My Bible

A few good laugh out loud moments there, fair play.

"Creepeth" properly gives me the giggles for no good reason.

I notice the OP still hasn't explained why he asked the question.

My ex partner was deeply religious & I'm not. After a few jars I'd often prod her with the religious stick for an argument. She would retreat stating "you need to talk to my pastor as I don't know enough about it"

My reply would be "so you choose to believe heart & soul about something you know nothing about"

The bible is for the gullible, desperate, needy & megalomaniacs of this world

Our weekends would fly by

After a few jars I'd often prod her with the religious stick for an argument.

You sound like a lovely fellow.. holy shit.

Oh and what's wrong with being needy? We all have needs, I know I do.

Yeah I've already got you down as needy

That makes me inferior then?

Reading this:

After a few jars I'd often prod her with the religious stick for an argument.

Reminds me of Junkyard's...

As for aggressive aethism I am never really sure what this means. For sure some peole dislike the message and the believers more than others but it is an importnat issue - i find it used as a bit of a lazy slur tbh used to charicature folk.

...way back in this thread.

That was kind of where I was going with the notion of an aggressive atheist standpoint.

No judgements. 😉

Inferior? Read the post again ...

aye fair enough you found one but I think we can just call that aggressive/disrespectful shitty tbh
Perhaps we should ask him about 29 ers to see if this aggressiveapproach is a trait or just something he does to religious folk

Who me?

My post was tongue in cheek.

Now, applying that school of thought to the good book in question, where does that bring us?

That you can't believe everything you read. Or, being more precise, anything at all. Where does that leave us... 😉

Note : I just spent the last 10 minutes typing a long-winded post but deleted it because I really can't be arsed to get into a debate.

I don't believe you.

🙂