“Because you know, when the bible was written, and then rewritten, and then edited, and then re-edi -ted, then translated from dead languages and then re-retranslated and re-edited again, then re-re-re-edited, and then re-translated, and then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts out, and then re-edited and re-translated and given to the pope for him to approve, and then re-edited and re-written— all based on stories that were told orally 30 to 90 years after they had happened to people who didn’t know how to write… I guess what I’m trying to say is, the bible is literally the world’s oldest game of telephone.”-David Cross
I posted this quote on FaceBook and a friend responded:
I’m amazed at how much time atheists like to comment on God and religion. They sure do spend a lot of time on something they absolutely do not believe in.
Her comment makes me squint really hard. How would you respond to her response. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum. I haven’t been here in awhile. Thank you.
My answer is if God designed the whole system God knew all they and has built it into the design - so exactly how God wants it for our time.
Perfect example, the parable of the talents. Back then a coin, today it has a different meaning, equally if not more so meaningful, or to put it another way God knows what ‘He’ is doing.
As an atheist, here’s how I’d answer – “Because religion is fascinating and hugely important in the world. It’s had huge impacts on human history and continues to do so. It’s a big influence in most people’s lives. It’s almost an endlessly fascinating topic.”
It’s also worth noting that Cross, in the opening quote, overstates the facts dramatically. It didn’t quite come about that way. There are lots and lots of excellent books about the origin of the Bible, and the facts are fascinating. The various manuscripts that were assembled into the Torah – why we have two different tellings of creation, Adam and Eve, the Flood, etc. – is, in itself, one of the great mysteries of history.
The fact that a Kingdom of David existed (although not as great a Kingdom as the Bible claims) is wonderful and fascinating. It doesn’t tell us any more about God than the discovery of Troy tells us about Aphrodite…but it is well worth the attention of any educated American.
The question isn’t whether or not a commenter accepts the literal truth of what they’re commenting on. It is that others do, and do so with the belief that that justifies them in expecting intellectual and moral privilege for their opinions, not only on that topic, but also on anything to which they believe their belief applies. If you argue for any proposition on the basis of nonsense, you must expect to have the nonsense pointed out.
Never heard of David Cross before, but thought the comparison to the telephone game was amusing and a good way of putting it. Some religious people are not capable of hearing anything less than glowing reviews of their religion, and if they hear anything less, they prefer to shoot the messenger, and/or pretend to be offended. There are some delicate flowers out there, and this evidently is one of them.
Haven’t kept up with the latest, so did some quick search engines, and got mixed reviews, with one putting it succinctly, “depends which archaeologist you are asking.” How concrete is this?
Plus women are not generally putting vast amounts of effort into turning men physically into women, whereas Christians spend a lot of time trying to convert atheists.
Firstly, she’s being sly, implying something without wanting to say it, so my standard response in that case is “Your point being?” Make her come into the open.
Secondly, you could go more directly to the heart of the matter; “Christians sure do spend a lot of time forcing their religion and religious mores on those who absolutely do not believe in them”
Thirdly you could comment on her obvious ad hom: “Why is it a problem for you that atheists comment? Is Cross’s analysis wrong or far too close to the truth?”
