TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Is religion beneficial?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM What is even more ridiculous is that Abraham manages to talk him round to sparing Sodom (and Gomorrah) if he found 10 innocent people in the whole city! Honestly, does this even remotely sound like the creator of the universe to you? Receiving a lesson in justice and fairness from a human being?

I'm not certain that I believe God sending angels to experience Sodom first hand is unreasonable. I would interpret this more as a test then an investigation.

I think you misunderstand the the story of Abrahams pleas. The story isn't about God being schooled in justice by a human; rather, it is revealing God's forgiveness... Abraham asks him if he will destroy all or spare the righteous. God's answer is that he will spare all if there are 10 righteous people in the city. This reveals God's justice... he is willing to let the "wicked" survive in order to spare the righteous... which is more then Abraham asks of him. Why 10? beats the hell out of me.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec Religion is great for your sex life

On another note...

I grew up around strict (basically "fundamentalist") Christians and for years tried to act in step with their moral teachings, including teachings about sexuality. This meant that sex outside of marriage, masturbation, and lustful thoughts were all considered to be sinful, so I tried to avoid all of them.

Of course plenty of people will talk about how "oppressive" such a morality is, and how it leads to shame and ignorance about sex when really we should all be open and scientific about it. But now that I look back on it I think that those "oppressive" moral teachings imbued sexual pleasure and sexual thoughts with a kind of dark, mysterious aura that they wouldn't have had if I had grown up in a more permissive culture. It certainly made sexual feelings more conflicting and perhaps even more interesting in a way. Maybe sexual repression isn't all bad?

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Maybe sexual repression isn't all bad?

I don't think so. Apparently, the more repression there is, the more people tend to feel the urge to "be free", and they hardly ever understand why it is that those rules exist in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard My view on Leviticus is exactly what I stated earlier and you reiterated in your question... it is Moses (or someone acting under Moses' name... Aaron perhaps) crafting rules based on their interpretation of earlier Biblical events and other rules based on practical necessity/expediancy. While I am a man of faith I also understand that it is probable that much of the Bible (Old Testiment in particular) was writen in an attempt to legitimize the rule of man rather then to relate the revelation of God. The fact that many of the books of the OT were writen by kings/rulers/polititions certainly lends credance to that. Moses, for example, while being a prophet (presuming that much is accurate) was also charged with leading the Isrealites. Being a leader involves much more then does being a prophet alone. Moses had the additional duties of ensuring the cohesion of the tribe, maintaining order, and safeguarding his people from the many dangers they faced (like undercooked pork and infected foresikns). It is most probable that in order to simplify his life Moses would have ascribed rules that he was making in order lead his people to God, as believers will question God far less then they would the guy God chats with from time to time. Leviticus is a prime example of a book that was written by man as law ascribed to God for greater authority. Is it unfair to assume that Lev. is actually the word of god... no, one may believe as one wishes; however, since much of what is in Lev. only appears in Lev. or is a derivative of earlier stories I believe that it's more likely to be the work of a man rather then the work of God.

I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like mental gymnastics to let your god off the hook in regards to some of the hateful nonsense spouted in Leviticus...however if the god of the bible does not exist then your explanation makes perfect sense!
By the way, removing the foreskin if it is infected is fair enough, but if it isn't then what's the point? I wonder how many young hebrew men died as the result of having their foreskin removed by a dirty and infected knife/rock, or whatever they used.

I've never heard a position like yours before, bascially what you are saying is that Moses created rules and punishments and attributed them to being the will of god, rather than god stating said rules and punishments. I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I'm sorry, but to me that sounds like mental gymnastics to let your god off the hook in regards to some of the hateful nonsense spouted in Leviticus...however if the god of the bible does not exist then your explanation makes perfect sense! By the way, removing the foreskin if it is infected is fair enough, but if it isn't then what's the point? I wonder how many young hebrew men died as the result of having their foreskin removed by a dirty and infected knife/rock, or whatever they used. I've never heard a position like yours before, bascially what you are saying is that Moses created rules and punishments and attributed them to being the will of god, rather than god stating said rules and punishments. I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you.

I don't think that my position is mental gymnastics at all. Much of what is in Leviticus is simply inconsistant with the overriding themes of the Bible. If the Abrihamic God exists then it seems unlikely that this book is the direct word of God as it is inconsistant with both earlier and later books and contains a multitude of rules/laws that are only discussed therein. To be honest, I cannot cite any biblical scholars that share my view on Lev in particular; however, this is likely due to a gap in knowlege on my part as opposed to my position being unique. I can confirm that many Biblical scholars share my understanding of the books of the bible being of three primary purposes; revelation, history, and law.

I'd imagine that the whole brisk thing was to prevent infection of the foreskin... either that or to deminish sexual pleasure as is the case with female circumcision.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I'm not certain that I believe God sending angels to experience Sodom first hand is unreasonable. I would interpret this more as a test then an investigation. I think you misunderstand the the story of Abrahams pleas. The story isn't about God being schooled in justice by a human; rather, it is revealing God's forgiveness... Abraham asks him if he will destroy all or spare the righteous. God's answer is that he will spare all if there are 10 righteous people in the city. This reveals God's justice... he is willing to let the "wicked" survive in order to spare the righteous... which is more then Abraham asks of him. Why 10? beats the hell out of me.

I did not misunderstand the story of Abraham's pleas. How can it be about god's forgiveness if in the very next chapter he rains burning sulphur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them and all the people who lived there? Where is the forgiveness there?

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I did not misunderstand the story of Abraham's pleas. How can it be about god's forgiveness if in the very next chapter he rains burning sulphur on the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, destroying them and all the people who lived there? Where is the forgiveness there?

The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM I'd be interested to know if there are any biblical scholars / theologians who hold the same view as you.

Theology is actually a quite diverse branch of thought. It seems to me that MH subscribes to some sort or Biblical Maximalism, although I reserve myself the right to be wrong (I just happen to know a tad bit more about the The Copenhagen School of Biblical Studies (aka The Minimalist School), but I ain't no specialist).

Take some time to read about modern (European) theology. It's fun, even for atheists

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible.

That is not forgiveness though...why would the righteous need forgiven?
If god didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah then I would understand your point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Theology is actually a quite diverse branch of thought. It seems to me that MH subscribes to some sort or [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_maximalism]Biblical Maximalism[/url

I don't think my thoughts on the Bible can be broken down quite so neatly. While I do agree with the maximalist idea that it is a book of history recalled through the scope of religious belief I don't think that applies to all of the books of the OT. Given the number of books and authors I don't believe anyone can make any great sweeping statement on the purpose of the bible or intent of the writers... even to say that all the books were divinely inspired or intended to further human understanding of the divine is a foley born of trying to over-simplify something inheirently complex.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM That is not forgiveness though...why would the righteous need forgiven? If god didn't destroy sodom and gomorrah then I would understand your point.

Perhaps justice would have been a better choice of words... my bad. The forgiveness is related to the pleas... "for the sake of 10 I will spare them." God would forgive all if he found 10 righeous people (again why 10 is the critical mass I have no idea - probably something that just got included in the verbal tradition as people felt they needed to give it a number). In the end God decides that the people are so wicked that only Lot and his family deserve to be spared.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't think that my position is mental gymnastics at all. Much of what is in Leviticus is simply inconsistant with the overriding themes of the Bible. If the Abrihamic God exists then it seems unlikely that this book is the direct word of God as it is inconsistant with both earlier and later books and contains a multitude of rules/laws that are only discussed therein. To be honest, I cannot cite any biblical scholars that share my view on Lev in particular; however, this is likely due to a gap in knowlege on my part as opposed to my position being unique. I can confirm that many Biblical scholars share my understanding of the books of the bible being of three primary purposes; revelation, history, and law. I'd imagine that the whole brisk thing was to prevent infection of the foreskin... either that or to deminish sexual pleasure as is the case with female circumcision.

In my opinon, the behaviour of god in leviticus is entirely consistent with his behaviour in other books of the old testament:

1. Killing every living thing on the planet except Noah's family and 2 of every animal - Genesis.
2. Hardening the heart of the king of Egypt so that he could continue with the administration of the 10 plagues, the final plague being the death of every firstborn child - Exodus.
3. The cruel 'bet' with satan that Job would worship god no matter what happenned to him - Job.
4. God commanding that Joshua put everyone to death and spare no one, as he captures Amorite territory - Joshua.

There are many more examples of god's jealous, petty and vindictive nature, and they aren't contained to the book of Leviticus.

Oh...and why would Moses want to diminish sexual pleasure?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't think my thoughts on the Bible can be broken down quite so neatly. While I do agree with the maximalist idea that it is a book of history recalled through the scope of religious belief I don't think that applies to all of the books of the OT. Given the number of books and authors I don't believe anyone can make any great sweeping statement on the purpose of the bible or intent of the writers... even to say that all the books were divinely inspired or intended to further human understanding of the divine is a foley born of trying to over-simplify something inheirently complex.

I reckon I exaggerated a bit (sorry about that ), but I just meant to show Ricky that there are several different schools of biblical exegesis, and he would probably be interested in that one

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM Oh...and why would Moses want to diminish sexual pleasure?

If sex were less pleasurable, then people would have an easier time resisting the temptation to do it before marriage.

Let's not get too technical. The question was, Is religion beneficial? It's beneficial to a certain extent. It teaches good morals and kind of leads kids on a pretty hefty path. But when you think about it, you have too many organizations and groups out there that take it a step further. I was raised a catholic and my parents weren't hard core fanatics but would casually visit the church and thats it. My parents woulnd't induce it to the point where she would rub the bible up my ass every day. Other organizations on the other hand, tend to use religion for their sexual addictions or to make a profit off it. Christians, Mormons, Jehova witnesses are some that use religion as a means to make money off weak minded individuals that cough up 20-30% of their pay check every pay period. There's an organization here in el paso where the "Minister" and his family drive top notch vehicles and live in a mansion in a gated community. None of these douche bags work, they live off "the church" and its members. Whats so sad about this organization is that its growing rapidly, people buy into this shit. All it is, its a membership to a club when a fee is required. I approached a couple of mormons last year, and i pointed out that in order for me to go to their wonderous church...i had to pay a fee. They were good at avoiding the question and shaping it into a different concept about their church and the people...blah blah blah. I know that catholics priests(some) are pedophiles and have tendencies but hey, thats everywhere. Ministers have dicks and they tend to have tendencies to screw their members. What it comes down too is...it just depends on how weak minded you are and if you have any common sense. Use religion to a certain extent, just dont become into a fantical maniac and go around like hipocryte pointing out everyone elses flaws and sending them to hell. I also forgot to mention, religions have the tendency of claiming that they can convert gay individuals into straight, go figure. common sense people....

quote:

Originally posted by Lira I reckon I exaggerated a bit (sorry about that ), but I just meant to show Ricky that there are several different schools of biblical exegesis, and he would probably be interested in that one

Thanks, I'll take a look at the link and see what I make of it

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles If sex were less pleasurable, then people would have an easier time resisting the temptation to do it before marriage.

Then I think god should maybe do a redesign...perhaps a foreskin that forms once you are married...that way you won't get married Hebrew couples complaining about having shitty sexy lives.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard With regard to Lev 20:13 in particular, I agree with you... there is little to no reasonable basis for this passage. In truth, I think much of Leviticus is outdated. This is not a commentary on god, however. Leviticus is one book that is a prime example of rules/laws of man being ascribed to god based on earlier theology. For example; 20:13 states that homosexual intercourse is a sin and the sinners should be put to death. This was written by Moses (or claimed to have been) in response to the story of Soddem in which God destroys the city after some of the townsmen attempt to rape an angle. The Hebrews of Moses' time believed that Soddem was destroyed due to homosexual activity; however, what they paid little attention to was the fact that angels are non-sexual beings thus it is reasonable that the city was destroyed for the attempted rape rather then the homosexual bent of said attempted rape. Most of Leviticus is this way... rules written in response to earlier stories thus it says more about what the Hebrews of the time thought about God rather then God itself (presuming the existance of god, which is necessary for this discussion).

i'll preface this by saying i completely agree with you. BUT, all i have to say is that 'no, you're wrong. leviticus is the word of the lord our god' and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. we both know there are plenty of people that DO believe this as well :/

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Most of the inconsistancies of the Bible (which you love to point to) are easily explained as being misinterpretations by the writers or rewriters. One must bear in mind that this is a collection of books written by 30ish authors over a period of over 1000 years, which is intended to serve multiple purposes. Some of the books are theological, some historical, and others are codified law. One could pull inconsistancies from any believe system (be it theological or philisophical) which has evolved over time, this does not invalidate the belief system though... you have to look at the big picture with these things, look for what is consistant and consider that to be what is valid.

but doesn't the nature of the passage(s) really depend upon one's own interpretation? you might call something 'historical' and i might swear that it is theological. neither of us are wrong (or right) are we?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Finally, I didn't state that one must possess a knowledge of the Bible to conclude there is no god. My position is that one must possess a knowlege of the bible in order to evaluate it's worth, similarly; one must possess a knowlege of religion, anthropology, and history in order to evaluate the worth of religion.

yeah ok. that's more like it! for me though, there are enough problems with the document that i have experienced that im less than enthused with the idea of dicovering more about it.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I took exceptional umbridge with your post because you are so forceful in espousing your beliefs (or lack there of) while similtaniously stating that there is no worth in understanding that which you are railling against. Such a position is absolute shit and far below your capabilities. If you insist on holding this position then there is no point in having further discussion with you as such a position confirms that you have no interest in furthering your understanding; rather, you are only looking for an opportunity to spar using that which you already know/believe.

well, there's no point holding wishy-washy opinions! its not that i think there's no worth in understanding the bible; indeed i learn a great deal from you every time we spar. i'd much prefer to learn from people like yourself, because its easier and you're much more even-handed with the source material i certainly think knowledge is an end in itself, and im sure the bible is a great document for studying the evolution of belief during the times it was written.

however, even if there is a god i have serious doubts that the bible is an adequate representation of him (which to me is the whole point of a holy book) and i don't think that further study is a responsible use of my time given this opinion. if its not the undisputable word of god then its lustre is gone, and i may as well read the iliad or ulysses etc for historical knowledge. my "railing" is still based on a certain level of understanding of the bible, though obviously it will never approach yours. how much of the text should i have read/studied in order for me to legitimately rail against it? i've read some, and i found it wanting. why would/should i continue studying something i find unconvincing? i haven't read the entirety of mein kampf either, but i don't think that is necessary to discount it or criticise it. if i read and studied the bible more, its likely that my criticisms of it would merely increase, both in volume and in tone. given that most of my issues with religion stem from sociology and political theory, why struggle with the text just so i can have a fuller appreciation of theology?

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This is a lot like building a cardboard canoe in your living room... it may be fun to hop in and pretend to paddle but it doesn't get anyone anywhere.

i think the problem is that i get far more out of these discussions than you do. though to be fair, its a bit hard for me to provide non-knowledge in return for all the wonderful info i glean from you

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard The righeous were spared... this is a common theme throughout the bible.

but Lot (was it Lot? i forget) offered his daughter to the rapists. doesn't sound particularly 'righteous' to me and then god turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for having the temerity to look over her shoulder. what a nice bloke!!

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN though to be fair, its a bit hard for me to provide non-knowledge in return for all the wonderful info i glean from you

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'll preface this by saying i completely agree with you. BUT, all i have to say is that 'no, you're wrong. leviticus is the word of the lord our god' and there's not a whole lot you can do about it. we both know there are plenty of people that DO believe this as well :/

Unfortunately, you are correct... there are many people who believe all that they are told without giving it any critical thought or seeking deeper understanding. I can't stand these people. In fact I have very little tolerance for them and will take any opportunity to tear them down and illustrate just how little they understand about their own faith. I'd rather a person believe nothing then have faith in something simply because they were told to.

quote:

but doesn't the nature of the passage(s) really depend upon one's own interpretation? you might call something 'historical' and i might swear that it is theological. neither of us are wrong (or right) are we?

Given that anyone interpreting a passage today has no way of actually knowing what the intent of it was then I suppose right and wrong is not discernable. That said, one who possesses a greater knowledge of the collective books of the bible and the context in which they were written is better equiped to delve deeper into any one passage and correctly interpret the meaning. In truth, very little of the bible is as simple as the words on the page, particularly the New Testimate (as it was written as a historical record, instruction to believers, and theology... generally any gospel story holds at minimum two meanings... this was intentional). I suppose my point is; the opinion and interpretation of some crackpot who has never actually read the bible and bases his faith on what he hears when he's in an arena with hundreds of other recovering alcoholics crying while the only idiot in the place who has read the bible pretends to heal people because the holy spirit flows through him (and him alone) warrents far less consideration then that of someone possessing a Doctor of Divinities (Rev.) who has spent his/her life studying the bible, biblical history, and para-biblical records.

quote:

yeah ok. that's more like it! for me though, there are enough problems with the document that i have experienced that im less than enthused with the idea of dicovering more about it.

While I can appreciate not wanting to read a book that you dislike, the bible is not something that you can understand if you only read bits and pieces. If you read only one book you will get a partial understanding of that book only. If you read all of the books then you will gain a deeper understanding of each and every one of them. This is the only way to even come close to understanding the Bible. It's something that you really have to commit yourself to doing because it's one of the most difficult reads ever (Mein Kampf may actually have it beat... Damn that thing was needlessly wordy and circular); however, it's unfair to criticize something that you don't understand.

quote:

however, even if there is a god i have serious doubts that the bible is an adequate representation of him (which to me is the whole point of a holy book)

This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it.

quote:

and i don't think that further study is a responsible use of my time given this opinion. if its not the undisputable word of god then its lustre is gone, and i may as well read the iliad or ulysses etc for historical knowledge.

The epics you cite have actually provided a good deal of insight into the Helenic peoples of the time thus they have some value. Even if you discount all the theology in the Bible it could be worth reading for that; however, the more important reason for you to read it will be addressed below.

quote:

my "railing" is still based on a certain level of understanding of the bible, though obviously it will never approach yours. how much of the text should i have read/studied in order for me to legitimately rail against it? i've read some, and i found it wanting. why would/should i continue studying something i find unconvincing? i haven't read the entirety of mein kampf either, but i don't think that is necessary to discount it or criticise it. if i read and studied the bible more, its likely that my criticisms of it would merely increase, both in volume and in tone.

Since your opinion on both religion in general and the existance of god is already well solidified, I would expect that your objections to the bible would become more robust in both substance and magnitude if you took the time to better understand the bible. If for no other reason a study of the bible would be useful for you in order to better argue your positions.

quote:

given that most of my issues with religion stem from sociology and political theory, why struggle with the text just so i can have a fuller appreciation of theology?

You can't understand the sociology and political theory without understanding the theology. You cannot intelligently debate the sociology and politics without understanding it first. I'll let you in on a secret... I had objections to organized religion well before I started studying religious beliefs. Since I have been exploring both the theology and history of various religions many of my objections have deepened. There is a tremendous amount of stupidity done in the name of religion by way of practices and beliefs that simply are not supported by the theology. The whole catholic masturbation thing for example... that stems from a story where God commanded a man to inpregnate his brother's wife (brother either dead or unable to knock her up, I can't recall)... dude decided that knocking up his brother's wife was kinda fucked up so he did the old withdraw trick and spooged on the floor... god saw this and killed him. Chances are this is one of those stories that's more fable then real; however, the early christians interpreted this story as God killing the man because he blew his load in such a way that conception was not possible; however, a more reasonable interpretation is that God struck him down for disobeying a direct commandment... the latter interpretation is more consistant with the actions of God as described in the OT then is the former; otherwise there'd be all sorts of stories of God killing people for banging their wives post menopause. That's the type of thing an understanding of the bible can provide a non-believer... now, because of that you have a theological reason to explain why the prohibition on masturbation is bollocks, which would go a long way in debating someone who is a believer. Trust me, there is nothing more fun then using sound theology to confuse the fundimentalists!

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it.

It sounds a little like your position lies somewhere between deist and theist to be honest.
From what you said a bit, I'd be interested to know what role you think the bible plays if it can't offer an adequate representation of god?
I somewhat agree with you in that the bible does not adequately represent god, however I'd go further and say that if there is a god, then I'd be confident that it isn't the god of the bible.

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM It sounds a little like your position lies somewhere between deist and theist to be honest. From what you said a bit, I'd be interested to know what role you think the bible plays if it can't offer an adequate representation of god? I somewhat agree with you in that the bible does not adequately represent god, however I'd go further and say that if there is a god, then I'd be confident that it isn't the god of the bible.

I think the Bible offers great advice on living well. I further think the Bible offers great insight into the nature of god; however, certainly not an adequate representation. I don't think it's possible for us to know god... to really know god, as a whole, as we are mearly part of god and only capable of understanding god as it relates to our own experience. The theology in the Bible (as with the Vedas) should be treated as an introduction to god, basic insight that should be used as a jumping off point for further reflection on god.

If one takes the view that the Biblical representation of god is a complete picture then I'd say the god of the Bible is not god (presuming existance thereof). In my view God as revealed in the bible is only the infinately small portion of God that we can understand... like how one would explain something complex to a child... you tell them as much as they can understand, enough for them to get the general idea and to develop that idea further as there capacity to understand grows.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Unfortunately, you are correct... there are many people who believe all that they are told without giving it any critical thought or seeking deeper understanding. I can't stand these people. In fact I have very little tolerance for them and will take any opportunity to tear them down and illustrate just how little they understand about their own faith. I'd rather a person believe nothing then have faith in something simply because they were told to. Given that anyone interpreting a passage today has no way of actually knowing what the intent of it was then I suppose right and wrong is not discernable. That said, one who possesses a greater knowledge of the collective books of the bible and the context in which they were written is better equiped to delve deeper into any one passage and correctly interpret the meaning. In truth, very little of the bible is as simple as the words on the page, particularly the New Testimate (as it was written as a historical record, instruction to believers, and theology... generally any gospel story holds at minimum two meanings... this was intentional). I suppose my point is; the opinion and interpretation of some crackpot who has never actually read the bible and bases his faith on what he hears when he's in an arena with hundreds of other recovering alcoholics crying while the only idiot in the place who has read the bible pretends to heal people because the holy spirit flows through him (and him alone) warrents far less consideration then that of someone possessing a Doctor of Divinities (Rev.) who has spent his/her life studying the bible, biblical history, and para-biblical records. While I can appreciate not wanting to read a book that you dislike, the bible is not something that you can understand if you only read bits and pieces. If you read only one book you will get a partial understanding of that book only. If you read all of the books then you will gain a deeper understanding of each and every one of them. This is the only way to even come close to understanding the Bible. It's something that you really have to commit yourself to doing because it's one of the most difficult reads ever (Mein Kampf may actually have it beat... Damn that thing was needlessly wordy and circular); however, it's unfair to criticize something that you don't understand. This may shock you... I agree, presuming there is a god I am certain that the Bible is not an adequate representation of it. If there is a god we are most certainly incapable of understanding it's nature (as our understanding is limited by our experience). Despite the Bible's claims of being devinely written or, alternatively, devinely inspired it is - ultimately - the product of man. Since man is incapable of understanding god then nothing we could produce could be an accurate or adequate representation of god. Where I disagree with you is that a holy book is meant to offer insight to the devine... not to explain it in full... it is a guide for further thought, not a end to it. The epics you cite have actually provided a good deal of insight into the Helenic peoples of the time thus they have some value. Even if you discount all the theology in the Bible it could be worth reading for that; however, the more important reason for you to read it will be addressed below. Since your opinion on both religion in general and the existance of god is already well solidified, I would expect that your objections to the bible would become more robust in both substance and magnitude if you took the time to better understand the bible. If for no other reason a study of the bible would be useful for you in order to better argue your positions. You can't understand the sociology and political theory without understanding the theology. You cannot intelligently debate the sociology and politics without understanding it first. I'll let you in on a secret... I had objections to organized religion well before I started studying religious beliefs. Since I have been exploring both the theology and history of various religions many of my objections have deepened. There is a tremendous amount of stupidity done in the name of religion by way of practices and beliefs that simply are not supported by the theology. The whole catholic masturbation thing for example... that stems from a story where God commanded a man to inpregnate his brother's wife (brother either dead or unable to knock her up, I can't recall)... dude decided that knocking up his brother's wife was kinda fucked up so he did the old withdraw trick and spooged on the floor... god saw this and killed him. Chances are this is one of those stories that's more fable then real; however, the early christians interpreted this story as God killing the man because he blew his load in such a way that conception was not possible; however, a more reasonable interpretation is that God struck him down for disobeying a direct commandment... the latter interpretation is more consistant with the actions of God as described in the OT then is the former; otherwise there'd be all sorts of stories of God killing people for banging their wives post menopause. That's the type of thing an understanding of the bible can provide a non-believer... now, because of that you have a theological reason to explain why the prohibition on masturbation is bollocks, which would go a long way in debating someone who is a believer. Trust me, there is nothing more fun then using sound theology to confuse the fundimentalists!

i will finish this conversation just by pointing out that if god does exist then i will have all of eternity to study the bible, and if he doesn't then im not gonna waste my mortal life reading something that isn't true.

squirm your way out of that analysis canuck!!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.