The word of god

116 posts / 0 new
Last post
Nyarlathotep's picture
extra ecclesiam nulla salus

extra ecclesiam nulla salus

JoC's picture
And you should read what the

And you should read what the Church means by that. The catechism also has a section about non catholics. Here it is.

“This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation. (CCC 847)”

Greensnake's picture
Great Hope,

Great Hope,

"Then it truely is survial of the fittest and dog eat dog. Literally no reason for morality. There is no debate. It only is I'm going to get mine. - Great Hope"

Morality IS a tool for survival! In small groups, where morality first arose, treating your neighbors badly was a prescription for your own extinction. It's not just dog eat dog, as you seem to think. Cooperation is a powerful tool that increases a group's chance for survival. Conclusion: There is EVERY reason for morality!

Cognostic's picture
The Bible was Einstein's

The Bible was Einstein's inspiration for the Atomic bomb. Imagine what life would be like if scientists had not extracted the DNA code from the Bible.

JoC's picture
This is an old issue rehashed

This is an old issue rehashed one too many times. How old is the modern scientific method? How old are the books of the Bible?

It’s easy to see the modern scientific method did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Why are we trying to force a narrow scientific interpretation on an ancient form of literature? John made a good point earlier.

Why would God even write in terms only scientists in the past 50 years can understand? When will you guys realize that the books of the Bible weren’t meant to record scientific facts (ie, it isn’t a science textbook). When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression. Why is that?

David Killens's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

The modern scientific method is the most consistent method of determining the truth and facts. Before the modern scientific method matured into practice, there was nothing as consistently accurate in determining the truth.

For example, Genesis states that the earth came before light. Do you believe that this earth was formed before the sun? That does not make sense, pure and simple.

"When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression."

Who stated that the earth stands still? I will criticize them for stupidity too.

Please respond, who stated the earth stands still?

And if you state Flat Earthers, I will be direct. They are bat-shit ignorant and crazy morons.

JoC's picture
Actually, everyone you know

Actually, everyone you know who uses the terms sunrise and sunset.

By using these terms, does everyone mean the sun is actually rising from the horizon? Or sets? Does anyone who uses these terms secretly imply that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth?

Of course not.

David Killens's picture
@ JoC

@ JoC

"By using these terms, does everyone mean the sun is actually rising from the horizon? Or sets? Does anyone who uses these terms secretly imply that the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth?"

You are mixing up two distinct terms. One is relative. For an individual standing on the ground and watching the sun rise... RELATIVE to the observer, the sun is rising. They are not describing planetary motion, they are describing what they are observing.

If I am on a train rushing along at 60 MPH, and there is another train on a parallel track, but going in the opposite direction, also going at 60 MPH, RELATIVE to an observer standing on any train, the other train is rushing towards them at 120 MPH. Neither train is going 120 MPH, each is traveling at 60 MPH.

And this is what is going on with your comment. relative to an observer, the sun is rising. Based on planetary motion (a completely different topic) the earth is rotating.

JoC's picture
Exactly my point. It does

Exactly my point. It does happen that the Bible would describe things or origin of things in non-literal terms. But they are otherwise useful and accurate.

The problem arises when people force the text to say something it never meant to in the first place. It would be like me telling someone who says “sunset” is wrong and that they’re stupid for thinking the sun moves around the earth. It simply wasn’t what the text meant.

Sheldon's picture
What a useful about an

What's useful about an erroneous creation myth where life is magically created instantly in its current form, including humans who only evolved a couple of hundred thousand years ago at most in a process that took billions of years, and all described as being completed in 6 days?

That's not useful, it's hokum archaic superstition. What's more an omniscient deity would know this...and know we'd see through it. Ancient superstitious humans tellingly wouldn't have known.

Hmm....

Greensnake's picture
JoC,

JoC,

A lot of phrases, such as "the ends of the earth" are inherited from a time when they could only be understood in terms of a flat earth and a Babylonian cosmos. The big problem is that the Bible never rises above a Bronze Age descriptive understanding of astronomy and not all of it can be passed off as innocent observation. As always, truth is in the details and when we study enough of those biblical details they clearly depict a Babylonian cosmos, which was a 3-layer cake consisting of the heavenly vault, the pancake earth, and the deep waters below it. I did a thread on it in 2016 which is mentioned in my longer post on this thread.

JoC's picture
Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go

Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples. Look back at the stories we say contradict science. Say, the creation of the world (Genesis 1). It’s just a chapter long in a much longer book. It’s quite obvious that the author of Genesis never meant Genesis 1 to be the end all. It actually acts as more of an introduction to the rest of Genesis. Yet, a lot of people (Christians included) expect Genesis 1 to tell the whole story when it simply wasn’t written that way.

Nyarlathotep's picture
JoC - The Bible doesn’t go

JoC - The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples.

Oh I agree. That is why it is so crazy. The only deity that would have written that non-sense would be a deity of chaos.

Also if what the bible says is for ancient people and it's applicable to the modern world; can we assume you won't be using it for any modern arguments?

JoC's picture
I’m assuming you mean it’s

I’m assuming you mean it’s “not applicable to the modern world” and I say, of course not. We never throw away/disregard ancient wisdom or knowledge just because we aren’t the primary audience. The same goes for anything ever written.

Greensnake's picture
Joc,

Joc,

Don't you think it stupid of God to focus on a tiny, ancient audience and miss the audience of billions in today's world? I would think that an intelligent author would focus on his main audience.

If the Bible never rises above Bronze Age cosmology, then who is to say that it rises above Bronze Age morality? If it can't be trusted in the here and now, how can it be trusted in the hereafter? How can we be confident that there is even a divine author behind it?

Genesis I is clearly modeled on a Babylonian-type cosmos. That is to say, the Bible is in serious error. How could a divine author with omniscient powers fail to present an account this is acceptable to ancient readers without sacrificing the truth? See my old thread "Flat-Earth World" (03/23/2016 16:53) for a review of the cosmological errors in the Bible.

Sheldon's picture
"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t

"Exactly. The Bible doesn’t go past the ancient understanding of how the world is because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples."

You seem determined to miss the point, why is that? Why would an omniscient deity waste billions of years and vast space and energy on a universe that is largely redundant, to eventually bring about our minuscule solar system, then waste billions of years evolving life, and hundreds of millions of years tinkering with dinosaur evolution, then about 200 000 years ago finally evolve homo sapiens. only to sit by mute while humans lived suffered and died in ignorance and fear, then about 2 to 2 thousand years ago suddenly say "well that's enough of that" "it's time for an intervention". An intervention in the ancient middle east, among an ignorant and superstitious culture, only to relate a message that precisely reflected both the ignorance and superstition of that culture.

SI this really what you you would expect of an omniscient being?

"Say, the creation of the world (Genesis 1). It’s just a chapter long in a much longer book. "

Isn't the ridiculous and immoral concept of original sin important and central to the christian religion? Isn't the whole idea of atonement based on the erroneous claims in the genesis myth? If there was no original sin then the idea of vicarious atonement and the blood sacrifice of crucifixion is irrelevant.

"expect Genesis 1 to tell the whole story when it simply wasn’t written that way."

Is it really unreasonable to expect clarity and accuracy from an omniscient message? I ma always shocked at how low theists are prepared to move the bar for credulity, whilst scoffing at other religions and other versions of their religion that do the same.

Qu@si's picture
pretend that i'm an theist ok

pretend that i'm a theist ok??here is what they will say to your brilliant statement and query.

"because he is god!!"

checkmate shelly...you're owned by them...hahahahha..
*sheldon just drooled then few seconds past out*

Algebe's picture
@JoC: because it was written

@JoC: because it was written in the ancient times, for the ancient peoples.

If the Bible was meant for Bronze Age people, why is so much importance placed on it in the Digital Age? I threw away my Windows 3.1 manual because it was no longer relevant to contemporary computing. Why hasn't the Bible been discarded? It's both irrelevant and harmful today.

Or is god going to issue Bible 2.0 soon?

Sheldon's picture
"It’s easy to see the modern

"It’s easy to see the modern scientific method did not exist when the books of the Bible were written. Why are we trying to force a narrow scientific interpretation on an ancient form of literature? "

For the obvious reasons stated already, that human science outstripping and disproving a message from an omniscient deity is absurdly irrational. So you're left with either the obvious fact that the bible's errancy is evidence it is an entirely human creation, or that human errancy has corrupted it. The problem with the latter idea is that nothing in the bible can be shown as unequivocally requiring an omniscient deity to produce it, and of course no one being able to demonstrate objective evidence for any deity means Occam's razor again favours the first idea.

Why would a deity communicate or allow a message to be communicated that it knew was erroneous? Especially if it wanted the message to evidence it's existence, so that people would believe it existed and would worship it, with of course the most dire consequences imaginable for failing to do so?

"Why would God even write in terms only scientists in the past 50 years can understand?"

That's a ridiculous straw man, no one has claimed that, just pointed out that how absurdly irrational it is to claim omniscience is behind a book as demonstrably erroneous as the bible is.

"When will you guys realize that the books of the Bible weren’t meant to record scientific facts"

You have a bizarre view of atheists and atheism if you think they believe that. It's an ancient book of myths, cobbled together by humans, and reflects the human ignorance, cultures and prejudices of the epochs it is derived from.

" it isn’t a science textbook"

Why on earth would you think any atheists would think it is? People are just pointing out the obvious contradiction between the claim it is inspired by an omniscient mind and the fact it reflects precisely the ignorance and prejudice of the humans who wrote it.

"When the Bible says the Earth stands still, you call foul. But when other writers write the same line, you understand it right away to be idiomatic expression. Why is that?"

Are you being serious? Come off it Joc for goodness sake, re-read what people have written as you are missing the point spectacularly.

Cognostic's picture
Without the Bible we would

Without the Bible we would never have known who built the pyramids in Egypt.

Tin-Man's picture
@Cog Re: Pyramids

@Cog Re: Pyramids

Okay, now you are stretching it a bit. lol

Cognostic's picture
How could anyone question the

How could anyone question the word of God? If it were not for the Bible, Lincoln never would have freed the slaves. Christopher Columbus would never have found the New World. America would still be overrun with heathen red skins.

Sheldon's picture
Without the bible we wouldn't

Without the bible we wouldn't know that rape and murder are wrong.

Also that it is grossly immoral to wear blended fabrics, or eat shellfish.

Greensnake's picture
Anyone who thinks the Bible

Anyone who thinks the Bible was written by an advanced being, let alone an omniscient god, is so deep into denial that a rational argument with that person is probably impossible. But, I'll add my two cents.

To begin with, the Bible is horribly organized. There is silly duplication of whole paragraphs (word for word!) in a work that should be written as though each word was purchased with a gold coin. That is, considering all the good things that could have been packed in, space is at a premium. An intelligent author would not stupidly waste space! That's a no brainer.

Aside from silly duplication, a massive amount of space is wasted on silly wars and violence. If there was a lesson to be learned here, unlikely in that God organizes much of the rape and genocide, a fraction of that material would have been sufficient. It would also have been clearly labeled as a lesson by an intelligent author.

Speaking of grossly incompetent organization, we find the instructions for salvation scattered over the 8 corners of the Bible! To start with there is a problem in identifying which passages actually relate to the requirements for salvation! Countless Christian sects are divided over this very issue. In some cases it is hard to say whether an instruction was universal or intended for a particular person or situation. Some passages say that good works are the only thing that really counts; others say that only faith counts. Some suggest that both are needed.

Anyone who thinks that this kind of organization is the work of a god, who wants to instruct his people, is truly deep into denial. Facts no longer mean anything. A freshman student taking an English Comprehension course would have had the good sense to collect all the material relating to salvation into one, short book. The instructions would be given clearly and with enough detail to suppress wiggle room, given exactly once in a rational order, and would not be mixed in with any other material. Is that asking too much for mighty God?

The Bible has silly science! Nobody's asking that nuclear physics be given to primitive people. Where science is given it should be reasonably accurate. What is the point of insanely dumbing it down to appeal to a few ignorant tribes only to sow doubt among billions of people in our times? Who said that an ancient reader had to understand everything? Clearly, God would have written some of his Bible for us today. We number in the billions. Is God too stupid to recognize where his main audience is?

Speaking of silly science, God confuses mold with leprosy! I documented that in my thread "Bible Follies: God is Confused About Leprosy and Mold" (07/27/2016). Then there is the business of using the Babylonian concept of the cosmos in Genesis, flat earth and all. I documented that in my thread "Flat-Earth World" (3/23/2016).

The Bible has plenty of erroneous history. Joshua "conquered" cities that didn't exist at that time! Then there is the tale of Noah's ark, an absurdity of such monstrous dimensions that even many Christians say that it must not be taken literally. Adding up the chronological details in the Bible points clearly to an earth that is not much older than 6000 years! Approximately 200 Bible scholars worked on that problem before science provided the answer, and the mean figure they got was around 6000 years. Clearly, that is the age assumed by the Bible. That so many ancient scholars could study the matter at length and come up with that figure means either that God is a totally incompetent writer or else that he was actually intended to present the earth as about 6000 years old.

The Bible is also filled with failed prophecies. The biggest one is Jesus' prophecy of an immediate return, a prophecy given in about 90 different verses! He was "knocking at the door" and would arrive before that generation passed away. The ax had been laid at the base of the tree! Anyone who can go through these 90 odd verses and come away believing that 2000 years later the prophecy is still valid is just plain nuts.

Then there is the prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar conquering Tyre, the island nation. Never happened! In this rare instance the Bible was still being written when the embarrassing truth became clear! Thus, we find an apologetic adjustment. Nebuchadnezzar was going to get his treasure by conquering Egypt. But that didn't happen either! The Bible is filled full of prophecies that failed in the most miserable manner! Of course, those deep in denial can't comprehend such a thing, so they come up with all these weird excuses. Anything but the obvious truth!

There are prophecies that have demonstrably never been fulfilled. Believers say that they will yet be fulfilled, but in many cases the historical stage that makes fulfillment meaningful is no longer there! And, there is no serious prospect of it ever returning!

The Bible is a moral cesspool unless you happen to be looking at the standard collection of ancient wisdom that had been handed down across the Middle East and elsewhere. Whole books have been written on the immoral verses in the Bible, but I could never stomach going more than a few pages or taking a brief look. It's just so depressing.

The Bible also has an ocean of contradictions. Once you understand that "A and not-A" is not how contradictions are identified in actual writing, and once you adopt a reasonable definition, then those great tomes of apologetics by Geisler and Archer fall to pieces. Sometimes whole books in the Bible contradict each other!

An intelligent author would also have made the Bible much more useful by including the modern convention of an index and a detailed table of contents. Verses would have been numbered as was later deemed necessary by mere humans.

There is nothing about the Bible that remotely suggests that it was written by an advanced author, let alone a divine author. People believe in it for the same reason that people believe in the Quran or any of the other holy literature of the world. Most of them were raised from childhood with such beliefs and have been thoroughly brainwashed. Such people will stoop to the silliest arguments to save their bacon. They will focus on some small point and ignore the surrounding mountains!

Mr. Breezy provides an excellent example of the above when he adopts the old canard that God didn't want to confuse ancient readers with modern science. But, as I have pointed out above, that bandage doesn't even begin to cover the huge wound! Indeed, God should be addressing us much more than the ancient few. We are his biggest audience! Moreover, there was never a requirement for an ancient to understand everything in the Bible. Being omniscient, God would have no trouble at all sticking with modern science in a way that doesn't confuse an ancient reader but would ring a bell for a modern reader. I know I could do it, so why not God? The only rational conclusion is that the Bible represents Bronze Age thinking amended by Iron Age authors. It is the result of political compromises, changing ideas, and much later editing to reflect diverse opinions. Some material was lost, and some material barely got voted in even though such was not widely recognized early on.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Most of the things you've

Most of the things you've written would appear to say more about you as a reader, than God as a "writer." Not all your points are bad, but enough are to make me wonder how serious you are.

How can I reason with someone that views even the absence of an index as an existential threat to God? Wait till you find out the Bible was written without vowels, you'll probably conclude it was the work of Satan lol.

David Killens's picture
@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

@ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ

John, can we both agree that the bible is a guide, and that we should not take everything literally?
Can we both agree that the bible is described as being inspired by god, or even that it is god's thoughts and words?

Thus, if god intended this bible to be a guide, it is one shit poor piece of instructions. I know brain damaged and emotionally crippled people who can do a better job at writing up guides.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
I have no immediate reason to

I have no immediate reason to disagree with your two statements.

What a curious thing to say however; you might as well have said you know someone with broken arms that can outrun me lol. In any case, 2.5 billion Christians today; it's hard to argue something is poorly written when it's got a quarter of the world's population convinced.

aperez241's picture
The reality seems to be that

The reality seems to be that most Christian have not read the whole Bible, even less studied it seriously checking for consistency, etc.

http://www.faithwire.com/2017/04/25/how-much-of-the-bible-have-you-read-...

So they are not convinced by the good writing but by the ideas they have received at home or from their community or pastor/ father.
Besides, that many people believe in, like or get convinced by something does not prove that what they believe is not hogwash.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Whether it comes from the

Whether it comes from the ideas of the home or their own personal studies, it all traces back to the same book.

People getting convinced by hogwash, proves the hogwash is convincing. The Judeo-Christian religion is definitely one of the world's oldest religions. It predated all the Greek and Roman gods, and it also outlived them. It's hard to argue how it could have been more effective.

Sheldon's picture
"People getting convinced by

"People getting convinced by hogwash, proves the hogwash is convincing. "

Dear oh dear, that statement says it all really.

"It's hard to argue how it could have been more effective."

It could be true for a start, the way it fragments even today is ample evidence it can mean whatever adherents want to believe it means, from Catholicism to the Westboro baptist church, they all think they know what god wants, so how effective a communicator could such a deity be? Hitler thought he was doing "god's work" so do ISIS, yes indeed god is very convincing, just not very clear.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.