That is just so very wrong.
The bible is not wisdom accumulated over 2000 years.
The bible is the ‘wisdom’ from some backwater of the empire 2 thousand years ago.
The knowledge that we have accumulated over 3000 years is called science.
I still think it was also a tale of one clever guy that had found a way to subvert the tax system of the Romans, no wonder they crucified him.
Only 4 books in the new testament are about Jesus. The rest are laying the groundwork for the “elites” to keep the rest of the population in subservience.
BTW, Jesus said “render to Caesar etc”, so how do you get that he was subverting roman taxation?
We require consistency, not God.
How could you possibly know this? Or is this another example of “No one can know the mind of God…but me, of course.”?
Heh, I first read that as meaning “we require consistency, we don’t require God.”
Which sounded kind of true…
Again, I refer you to my dimwitted cousin. Imagine he tells you one thing, and tells me the complete opposite; possibly neither statement happens to be true. Imagine too that someone else – say, Czarcasm – helpfully steps in to note that my dimwitted cousin is giving contradictory answers which may or may not be correct.
I reply, in best pchaos fashion, that we require consistency, but my dimwitted cousin doesn’t.
So what? Who the heck cares that my dimwitted cousin doesn’t require consistency? That’s what makes him my dimwitted cousin. It doesn’t explain why we should take his claims seriously; it emphasizes why we shouldn’t.
Yeah - it was the first ‘reasonable’ thing **pchaos ** said, which means I had to have read it wrong.
The Bible badly needs a rev. If software was like religion, Windows 1.0 would be the ultimate operating system. (MS-DOS being the OT.)
Longer how to get that:
Warning, old thread, and the Acts of the apostles are also taken into account.
In essence, I do think that the constant encounters and lunches and friendships with the tax collectors had a background of a nasty growing awareness, by the local tax collectors and Romans, that some rich citizens of Palestine were beginning to show up empty handed, and publicans and Romans were demanding some explanations, I think many suppers were organized to discuss those matters:
Mark 2:16: “When the teachers of the law who were Pharisees saw him eating with the “sinners” and tax collectors, they asked his disciples: “Why does he eat with tax collectors and ‘sinners’?””
Some talks with tax collectors were stopped by miracles or by big shows of faith, nice way to show local tax collectors who god was supporting.
I can see that famous line of: “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” In a different light:
Yes, render unto Caesar, but you can render less to the Empire by giving it all up (and we give you some back when you need it) or help us out in our ongoing effort to “corrupt” the tax collectors…
Bearing in mind that Windows was derivative, from something devised by the bApplonians, who were inspired by the wisdom of Xeroxes. Hmm, “X”, Cross …
Nicely done.
Zoroaster, virgin birth legends, rebirth legends. Sure. But the bugs (and bigotry) are original, at least.
I recall many years ago, when a Windows system was becoming problematic, the user would employ a strategy described as “nuke&pave”, which has a sort of Zoroastrian quality to it. And, you know, it is Virtual Birth. And if you had read the proper parts of the Gnu Testament, you would know, there are no “bugs”, they are “features”.
The epistle Galapagos, by St. Kurt, also offers us a clue in its use of the phrase “the long blue tunnel to the afterlife”: what color is the death-screen of a Windows computer?
The Bible is not a High School textbook, although atheists treat it in that manner to denigrate it. It is a 2000 year search for spiritual answers. A search which atheists avoid like the plague.
Christians abandoned that search 1500 years ago, and the bible has remained virtually unchanged since Christians concluded it contained everything they needed to know, and they stop asking any more questions.
This is a generalisation which is wholly wrong. Many atheists have arrived at their position despite being bought up within a religious world being told that God is real. For many atheists, coming to a conclusion that God isn’t real will have not been an easy one. I for one struggled long and hard with the thought of religion and God. I even studied the Philosophy of Religion at University. I’ve battled with my spiritual side for years and continue to think about the meaning of our existence and the place that religion has in our world.
But, for me at least, scientific insight has offered me far more profound and meaningful answers than religious texts have. Even if those answers sometimes create more questions or are still incomplete.
Btw: I consider the journey I’ve been on makes me a far more spiritual person that most people who call themselves “Christian” or “Jewish” and who say they believe in God despite never having questioned what it all means. I’m willing to bet that most atheists have been on more of a religious journey than most Christians.
There are no spiritual answers. Spiritual is a nonsense word.
The bible is pro slavery, pro marrying your rapist and contains a huge amount of bronze-age nonsense.
The reason to ignore the bible as a guide on how to live, is to read it and see how utterly stupid and vile it is. Think your wife cheated on you? Have your rabbi feed her a cup of altar dust and see if her stomach withers!
Drivel. There is nothing in the bible, as a moral text, that others hadn’t taught before, and often taught better. Jesus is nice enough, but be nice to poor people isn’t something he invented.
Seriously, what specifically do you think the Bible has in the way of answers?
Piffle.
I did go to Catholic School and I did read the bible, but I also looked at history and science, I agree with the ones that say that reading the bible and looking at the context of history is the best way to create atheists.
Not that I remained one after finding the ugly content that is in that book, I’ve mellowed with age and I looked at other philosophers and ideas that lead me to be now mostly a teapot agnostic or deist, like most of the founding fathers:
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson.
I would reason that if life evolved on it’s own then we would reproduce independently. As it is in every thing there are 2 sexes, male and female. I just can’t see one lump of goo evolving into a male and another lump of goo evolving into a female so that they could get together and procreate. Whitch came first? The chicken or the egg? Had to be a rooster and a hen formed at the same time.