Im an Agnostic.. why do people belive the bible is the word of god?

[The Sushi Bandit]

when it was written by man??

[LeftofU]

1. people are looking for a guide book....

...sometimes

[leftstreet]

2. Uh....I think it was meant to be "inspired" by God

Like Falwell, Dr. Dobson, and GWB claim to be.

[FlemingsGhost]

3. Because it is easier than thinking for themselves (n/t)

Flem.

[bliss_eternal]

6. Bingo!

For some people seeing everything in life as black and white, one extreme or another makes things simple for them. They have no desire to address the grey areas of life.

[Strawman]

4. Because that's more comforting than the idea of a permanent dirtnap

For starters. Add the fact that it is the mainstream view in most communities and families and athiesm and agnosticism are seen as deviant and I think you have your answer. People are social animals. They need acceptance above truth. Normative social influence trumps objectivity.

[Patchuli]

5. Despite the 'editing' done by man

the Word of God is beautiful. Jesus words were to live by. I am a church-going liberal and yes, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God with some extra gibberish thrown in by men of the times. I personally do not like Paul!

[The Sushi Bandit]

7. John was always my favorite..

and Ringo too!

[Crunchy Frog]

17. Paul was the cute one though.

:P

[GrpCaptMandrake]

8. I second the dis on Paul/Saul!

At best an administrator. At worst a charlatan.

[chrisau214]

10. All Well and Good

But why do you believe that it is the word of God and not the word's of men who claim to know and speak for God? Why do you believe that the particular word's in this particular book are truly the words of God? Aren't the other books that claim to reveal God's words and God's will as believable? Did God deliberately tell a bunch of different, and usually, contradictory stories to a bunch of different men?

The original post asks a very good question and the question wasn't 'Do you believe that the Bible presents the word of God?' it was 'Why do you believe it is the word of God?'


Chris

[Patchuli]

40. Because even though it's been embroidered upon

by man, the bottom line messages are much too wise for men to have come up with!

Why do I believe? Because I do...

I also believe that God is not very happy with these phony Christians persecuting others they don't like in His Name. Take a long look at Revelations and let me know what you think about how it jives with what's happening these days.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. Paul was an anti-christ

He took the teachings of Jesus and melding them with his pagan god Mithra and the result is the supernatural version of Jesus that most christians follow today. The people who followed the original teachings of Jesus, the gnostics and the jewish christians were deemed heretics and persecuted.

[The Magistrate]

42. It Is Not Quite So Simple As That, Ma'am

The train of thought known as "Gnostic" was certainly not the original teaching of the Christ. The "Christology" of the Gnostics held that Christ was pure spirit without without flesh in the incarnation, as in their duality of good spirit and evil matter it would have been utterly impossible for diety to take up flesh. It was on this point that Gnosticism became viewed as heretical by the orthodox leadership of the time. Being a Jew of that time, Christ could never have held such a view, and did not view being Messiah as stating or implying any actual decent from the diety, or identification as a part or portion of the diety.

The "Jewish Christians", namely the group centered aronf the remaining dsciples at Jerusalem, certainly were closer to the original teachings, but it is unlikely their views would be any more palatable to those who criticize Paul than what is in place now. Their sect was interchangeable with any ultra-orthodox Jewish strain, with the sole difference that they believed the Messiah was already come, and the end of the world would occur within their life-rimes with the Messiah's return.

Paul was certainly no follower of Mithras. He was an orthodox Jew of his times, schooled in, or at least familiar with, elements of "secret knowledge" that were at bottom an attempt to adapt Judaism to the tenets of Platonic philosphy current in those days. Among the tenents of these was a view that what the philosophers view as ideals were emantions of the diety that took on seperate existance, but without partaking themselves of divinity. It will be obvious this is a pretty narrow line to walk in a monotheistic belief system, and a good deal of careful constriction was necessary to maintain it without slipping into polytheistic conceptions. His view was that the Messiah was identical with the ideal man, the emanation from the deity that had been the pattern for the fleshly existance of hmanity, and that on the death of the perfect created man, perfectly animated by that ideal spirit, namely the Jesus the Messiah, that emanation of the deity was restored to being in the heavens in its original nature. This is something different from the idea of a "begotten Son of God", though it is easy to see how the line was crossed in a world in which intercourse of dieties with mortals was viewed as a frequent occurance.

[chaplainM]

9. Because

It says so, in the Bible.

[Lexingtonian]

11. Most people

take the word of others on the matter, on authority, which in turn ultimately relies on an authority given tradition, and a chain of authority/tradition trusted extending back centuries if not millenia. Whatever their personal opinion and experience, many people are simply reluctant to be the one to break this long chain of trust. A lot of times parents left little else to their children but that. To many people it's the only human thing that connects them with their otherwise forgotten ancestors, which rightly or wrongly they value highly.

It's also a pretty good book in a good number of ways, with enough qualities that can be taken as compelling, and probably wiser than most people and small groups on their own.

Both things can be considered valuable, and both are easily abused and corrupted by fools.

[0007]

32. Ship of Fools

Illustrated allegories

In The Ship of Fools Bosch is imagining that the whole of mankind is voyaging through the seas of time on a ship, a small ship, that is representative of humanity. Sadly, every one of the representatives is a fool. This is how we live, says Bosch--we eat, dring, flirt, cheat, play silly games, pursue unattainable objectives. Meanwhile our ship drifts aimlessly and we never reach the harbour. The fools are not the irreligious, since promiment among them are a monk and a nun, but they are all those who live ``in stupidity''. Bosch laughs, and it is sad laugh. Which one of us does not sail in the wretched discomfort of the ship of human folly? Eccentric and secret genius that he was, Bosch not only moved the heart but scandalized it into full awareness. The sinister and monstrous things that he brought forth are the hidden creatures of our inward self-love: he externalizes the ugliness within, and so his misshapen demons have an effect beyond curiosity. We feel a hateful kinship with them. The Ship of Fools is not about other people, it is about us.

[The Sushi Bandit]

45. Wonderfull graphic and words

mahalo!

[lvx35]

12. Because they can't figure out what the other thiests are talking about.

When they talk about inner experiences that transcend material reality, so they look for something tangible to worship instead of the mystery of God, so they turn to a book, a preacher, a temple, a sculpture of Christ, anything but the intangible God.

[gordontron]

13. horray another agnostic

:hi:

because as quoted from one of my friends trying to convert me: "You have to take some things (like the bible) on faith otherwise you can't figure out anything." (rough quotation)

anyways people like something very solid like religion beneath their feet to stand on.

[The Sushi Bandit]

15. in other words "just belive me, dont question me"

is what i have heard for years... and I cant just do that!

[gordontron]

21. agreed

why suspend reason to gain some kind of religious reason? later brother

[Clark2008]

27. Some of us believe that the word of God IS reasonable.

But, we understand that the Bible is a work of allegories and parables and shouldn't be taken literally.

It's a guidebook - a reasonable one for the age in which it was written.

[The Sushi Bandit]

38. Then should there be a "New" version for the modern man??

[Indy_Dem_Defender]

14. Because

I don't know I was once involved in a bible study, Having never read the bible or owning a bible. I started to read and found stuff that didn't make lick of sence, I would ask people in my bible study and they didn't know or couldn't explain, and these are people who "Supposedly went to church every sunday their whole life." We had a textbook and the questions that where asked for homework where answered by all them with some simple answers that really didn't make a lick of sense, my answers where well thought out answers. They where all amazed thinking I'm some genius and a thought I was going to be some great christian teacher :wtf:

Anyways I found a whole lot of it hard to believe fairytales & contradicting. My christian "Friends" wheren't much of friends when I would ask for advice on life, and I would try to be involved in their lives and I'd get pushed away and they acted like I was a task they had to deal with. Basically after it was all said and done I realize they just treated me nice to try to get me to be a christian nothing else, they didn't want to be friends, they just wanted me like a trophy to parade around the church something like "Look I saved him" and then get glory from the church & G-d. It's easy to fool the church but not G-d, I call those types of people "Cosmetic Christians" because all they care about is outward appearance to others, they don't take the time to read the bible and don't care to.

[Crunchy Frog]

16. I don't know.

I guess alot of people just go on believing whatever they were told as kids. Other people like to have something that they can see as absolute truth because they have no tolerance for ambiguity or uncertainty.

I've certainly never seen anything in the Bible that would lead me to believe that it was the word of God. It would have been a kind of petty, small minded, dull God if it were.

That's just my opinion. I don't wish to offend anyone here who has a sincere belief that differs from my own.

[NMMNG]

18. They've been told it is

By their priest/pastor/reverend, by their parents, by their church peers, and by the Bible itself. And if all of these sources say so, it must be true. :shrug:

[Disturbed]

19. If God approved the following statements...

I sure don't feel that this is a God that I would worship.


Psalm 123:2
As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:5
Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9
And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22
Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1
Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

1 Timothy 6:1
All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered.

Titus 2:9
Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18
Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.

[NMMNG]

22. Nor could I worship one

Who said "Thou shalt not kill", then

Told a devout follower to kill his beloved son to prove how much he loved Him (Abraham and Isaac, Gen 22)

Destroyed the life of his most faithful follower--killing his family, servants and livestock--on a bet with Satan (Job)

Kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21)

Orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3)

Orders another attack and the killing of “all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses” (Joshua 6)

Orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married (Judges 21)




Apparently "Thou Shalt Not Kill" is just a suggestion. :sarcasm:

[Dogmudgeon]

24. It's "Thou Shalt Not Murder". Killing is okay.

One of the big revisionist pushes in the pulpits has been to re-define the Hebrew word "Tirtzakh" to mean "Murder", not "Kill".

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" in Hebrew is "Lo Tirtzakh"; literally, "No Kill".

Rather than trying to convince people that they have the inside track on scriptural context, the Religious Right is now trying to sell their flock on a revised definition of the word "Kill".

--p!

[Solomon]

37. It really pisses me off when I see somebody say this.

[SkiGuy]

20. Better question would be

Why does everyone attack the Bible? You either believe it is the Word of God or you don't. Your choice. Christ fulfilled much of Old Testament prophecy, in quite a bit of detail too. Check out Isaiah 53 for example. I also wonder why people will accept the gospels but not the letters of the NT.

[RC]

23. To answer your question - Self defense

Good Christians everywhere insist on holding their version of the bible in your face as if they knew where of they speak. I have come to the conclusion the the bible is the least comprehended string of words on the planet.
Slavery good. Killing good. Incest good. Stealing good.
You can use the bible to justify absolutely anything, no matter what the actual words are.

[Ioo]

25. It was beat into them as a child by mom and dad that had it beat into them

as a child by mom and dad that had it beat into them as a child by mom and dad that had it beat into them as a child by mom and dad that saw someone get killed by the Catholics during the Spanish inquisition and so on...

If you look at the history of the bible and the church it is what is is because people feared it's power. You are seeing the rolls of the church wane a lot not that the fear of mass killings has vanished...

The bible is so full of flaws...

BUT PLEASE know this, MOST of the RW do not read the bible, they have it read to them by a "Preacher". He reads it to them, tells them what it "means" and that is it. The RW have a bible, but they do not study it...

I call it the cult of the preacher.

[H2O Man]

26. Easy enough ....

I do because I don't draw distinctions. Even if an agnostic puts a thread that belongs in the religion forum on GD, I believe it is part of God. It's just in a lower pool. Some of the bible comes from that same region. But in Isaiah 22:8-11 and other related writings, we learn that there are times when it is important to drink from the higher pools.

[BushOut06]

28. Even assuming it IS the word of God...

You're still relying on the HUMAN translations over thousands of years. Unless you know how to read ancient Hebrew, Greek, and whatever other languages they used to write the Bible, you're at the mercy of the whims and beliefs of whomever translated it at the time.

[ladjf]

29. Superstition.

[Peace Patriot]

30. There was no such thing as "the Bible" until the 5th century A.D. when

the following happened:

--the rational, scientific, civil culture of the Roman Empire, which had long since ceased to be a true Republic, came to end, in 415 A.D., with the death of Hypatia, who was head of the Alexandria Library, and a great teacher and scientist; she was skinned alive by a mob of Christian monks under the direction of the Christian bishop of Alexandria, named Cyril, the first of the bishops to call himself a "patriarch"; when Rome failed to punish this foul deed, Roman law and order was effectively over, the great city and library, the center of learning and tolerance in the ancient world, where all religious and other scholars were welcome (and where EVERYONE's sacred, literary and scientific texts were housed, protected and copied) fell into decay, and mob rule by intolerant Christians prevailed (the Jews, for instance, who were among the great scholars of the library, were driven from Alexandria and their property confiscated);

--Cyril went on to become a "father of the church" (he is today a "saint" in the Catholic lexicon--that is, he is presumed to be with God in Heaven), and was, among other things, the chief instigator of the violence and intolerance among the other bishops at the Council of Ephesus (think Tom Delay, Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich all wrapped up in one, with sword in hand); the bishops were fighting over "doctrines" having to do with the nature of Christ (God or man?) and whether or not his mother's hymen remained in tact when she bore him (was she a virgin inseminated by God?).

--You get the trend--mere men, sinners and criminals, trying to decide what everyone else must believe--and, what had been religious belief beginning to be used as a tool of those who wanted power over others (religious belief and civil law becoming one entity). In this context, the bishops decided to pull together the various Christian documents that supported the most violent and authoritarian (and anti-female) among them, into one compendium (later known as the "New Testament") in which all must believe; they excluded many of the earliest Christian documents, burned those texts, and persecuted those who held them to contain the truest teachings of Christ. (Someone managed to bury some of these earlier Christian texts, sealed into jars in a cave in the Nag Hammadi desert near Alexandria, where they remained for 1,500 years--recently discovered and published, and known informally as the Gnostic Gospels, the most fascinating of which is the Gospel of Mary, in which Mary Magdalen is the head of the Apostles).

--these 5th century "patriarchs" also cocked up an item called "the Nicene Creed"--a statement of beliefs about there being one true Father God who conceived a Son in a human woman, Mary, without breaking her hymen (a virgin) in a miraculous combo of "God" and "man"--and began to enforce this "doctrine" on everyone else; you either believed it, obediently and loudly, or you were anathematized and persecuted; at the same time, all "pagan" worship was forbidden, and numerous statues, temples, and works of art and literature were destroyed, especially those that had to do with the Mother Goddess. The Gnostics, the earliest Christians, worshiped both God the Father and God the Mother, and had great kinship with, and were probably allied with, "pagan" neo-Platonic philosophers like Hypatia, who counted some of the Christian bishops among her pupils, notably, Bishop Sinesius of Ptolemais, whose letters to Hypatia survive; all her works were burned, after she was murdered, along with the magnificent collection of scrolls at the library--all the wisdom and learning of the ancient world going back to the Greeks and including texts from the far east. All gone.


--------------

These are the origins of Christian fanaticism, and the insistence on the Bible as "the word of God." It came from men who persecuted others for their more learned and liberal beliefs, and who were stepping into the vacuum of power left by the fall of the Roman Empire, in order to create a monolithic institution, devoted to the worship of the male principle to the near exclusion of the female--an institution with which to rule over others ON EARTH by claiming to provide the exclusive pathway to God, Heaven and eternal happiness. They severely edited "the Bible" (early Christian documents) to suit their purposes, for instance, expunging all references to Mary Magdalen as Christ's chosen leader (as depicted in the EARLIEST-dated gospel, the Gospel of Mary).

There is ample room for belief in Christ and Christ's teachings in this story, if you understand the crime that these early "fathers of the church" committed, of creating an earthly, monopolistic, monolithic, male-worshiping, property-accumulating, power-mongering church around simple, pure teachings, like "love thy neighbor." It's kind of amazing, really, how the light of this great teacher, Jesus, manages to shine through, in the gospel stories that survive, despite every effort to extinguish it. The "church fathers" built a church on "the rock of Peter" (which I am convinced was inserted into the story, and put in Jesus' mouth, at that time, the 5th century--it's nothing he would have said), instead of creating a community based on "love thy neighbor."

The "church"--as with all things human--is a mixed bag of good and evil. It included people like St. Francis, who loved all creatures with a simple and beautiful passion, and St. Cyril, who committed one of the foulest deeds in ancient history, and directed the early church away from all things holy and worthy of devotion--such as love of learning, delight in the great variety of human cultures and beliefs, and large-minded respect for the great masculine/feminine power of the cosmos that created us all.

[Bridget Burke]

35. More than one Church uses the Bible.

Orthodox Christians and Protestants have their own versions of the book--not just Roman Catholics. You also left out the Old Testament--handed down by the Jews & definitely part of the Bible. Protestant Bibles exclude the Apocrypha that both kinds of Catholics include in the Bible.

While Goddess worship was ended, many churches were built on the ruins of Her temples. The great Gothic cathedrals were usually dedicated to Our Lady. And people around the world venerate their own "Virgins" who greatly resemble the departed Goddesses. Did Europe's famous Black Virgins begin as Isis, whose cult flourished throughout the Roman world? Is it a coincidence that the Virgen de Guadalupe appeared where, formerly, Tonantzin had been worshiped? Of course, hatred of "Mary Worship" is a rallying cry for the more militant Protestants.

There are other accounts of the death of Hypatia. This article includes some actual references!

www.ancientquest.com/embark/blackvirgin.html

The Catholic Church & most Protestant ones regard the Bible as "inspired" by God. However, it was transcribed by humans--some parts are symbolic, or reflect the times in which they were written. They should not be swallowed whole. The doctrine of "Biblical Inerrancy" means that every word of the Bible was directly written by God & is literally true. Of course, the modern adherents of this doctrine still tend to ignore certain parts & emphasize others.

[manic expression]

46. That story

the world of the Roman Empire falling to Christianity, is one of the saddest and most tragic stories of history.

Before that time, different religions largely coexisted in harmony. Those who worshipped Bacchus could do so next to people who worshipped Mithras or Epona. The monotheistic, dogmatic, fundamentalist religions that took over was a defeat for learning, tolerance and truth.

[Atman]

31. God's handwriting is WAY too big

He's massive. Barely could fit five words on a page. So he needed men to transcribe his thoughts for him. Silly agnostic.

[Deja Q]

34. The ORIGINAL texts may have been. But centuries' worth of translating...

...have rendered it less than believable.

Several verses have been altered; I forgot the # but in the Old testament there's a chapter that is totally different in one bible version compared to another.

Ezekiel 23:20 is one of my faves; it's overt in one version... the other was written by prudes who obviously want to hide the true meanings.

As for leviticus... probably a work of fiction in of itself.

Don't get me started on how anyone will cherrypick their favorite verses and claim only those are words of God. (or how they won't read deuteronomy or leviticus and look at other passages; many of which turn women into objects for abuse or to be put to death... it's depraved.)

The incongruity of the bible renders it suspect, even if I believe that Christ was the Messiah and tried to save us from ourselves; in turn dying for our sins...

[LWolf]

36. Because they are told so

so many times it becomes a given, like:

"The sky is blue, water is wet, fire is hot, and the bible is the word of god."

Because without that faith, the whole faith crumbles into dust. You can believe in a god or gods without believing the bible, but you can't be a christian without believing the bible. And if you are not a Christian, your gods are false and you're going to hell. Without believing in the bible, you're not going to make it to heaven.

[Zebedeo]

39. Read it

with an open mind and a softened heart and find out.

If you read it with a hardened heart, you will not know what I am talking about. You'll get good laughs, and will be able to point out many passages that seem contradictory or counterintuitive. You'll be able to come away from the experience feeling smug and superior, but you will have missed out on the greatest truth of all.

[Patchuli]

41. Amen Zebedeo!

Happy New Year and WELCOME to DU!! :party: :hi:

[Zebedeo]

47. Thanks, Patchuli!

Happy New Year to you, too!:D

[FM Arouet666]

43. Read what?

I should expect some sort of epiphany along the way? Science and reason should suddenly become negated by the grand glory of the "word?" I have read the bible, a painful experience, boring prose with a redundant message, clearly the work of pre-science minded individuals seeking to construct an ordered society. An admirable feat, but consider the context in which the book was written. A bit dated, it's relevance escapes me.

If you find glory and peace in the bible, great. But never assume that those who do not are smug, arrogant or any other derisive term, missing out on your idea of truth. If the bible is truth to you, revel in it. The world is a big place, everyone need not think the same way as you. Diversity is a human strength, goose-stepping to one ideal is a fault, frequent in our history.

[Zebedeo]

48. Thanks for your response, FM Arouet666

I appreciate your input. FWIW, I do not assume that everyone who does not accept the truth of the Bible is arrogant or smug. I do think that some are, and as evidence for my claim, I would point to their posts in this R/T forum.

From the tone of your post, it does not appear that you are one of those to whom I am referring. The content of your post is thoughtful and not mocking. Perhaps you have seen other posts that serve no purpose but to mock the most heartfelt beliefs of Christians, and seem to take pleasure in poking fun at other people's religious beliefs.

I have a lot of respect for what you do as a physician caring for patients who rely on you to save their lives. You are undoubtedly a responsible and productive member of society. Yet even you seem to enjoy attempting to provoke outrage. Take, for example, your choice of avatars - a sinister Satan-figure. Since, being an atheist, you do not even believe Satan exists, what is the point of this choice of images, except to mock the beliefs of those who do?

Don't get me wrong. Your image doesn't bother me at all, and I don't care whether you continue using it or not. I just think that even reasonable people like yourself can, after some self-examination, find that you have exhibited an "arrogant" attitude toward the beliefs of others at times. As for your comment about diversity vs. goose-stepping, I agree, and I will take your comment to heart. However, your admonition applies not only to Christians, but also to atheists.

Best wishes to you in the new year!

[InaneAnanity]

49. Why do you have a religious symbol as your avatar??

To mock those who don't believe in YOUR god??

please.

[Zebedeo]

50. No, my avatar mocks no one

The difference is that my avatar is an image reflecting my earnest belief, and it does not mock anyone's belief that may be different from my own. FM Arouet666's avatar appears to be an image that reflects a being that FM Arouet666 does not believe exists. FM Arouet666 is an atheist, not a Satanist. But he has chosen a Satan-image as his avatar, apparently for the purpose of disturbing those who believe that Satan exists.

So I don't see the equivalence that you seem to be suggesting.

[FM Arouet666]

52. Your right, but........

Oh, that butt monkey again, I have to stop listening to Laura Ingram, her 'butt monkey' schtick is getting old. I will cut back from 30 seconds a day to 10, that is all I can stomach.

I have pondered my use of the avatar, should I dump it for a less provocative image? Sorry, no. If you find it offensive, or if any christian finds it offensive, so be it. What I find offensive is the attack on evolution, opposition to gay marriage and a womens right to choose, the war over Christmas, the religious right pushing their agenda, the first amendment be damned, claiming moral superiority. Yes, I am pissed, and yes I have a select fictional opponent in mind.

I will try to extend as much understanding to other's beliefs as I can, but realize that most atheists are becoming alarmed at the extent of the christian agenda. Atheists are the minority in America, passivity will lead to our destruction. So yes, I will continue to display symbols which show my opposition, but understand it is not your faith I oppose, it is your faith oppressing me which I oppose.

Peace...........

[Zebedeo]

54. I don't find it offensive

A little peculiar, and somewhat sad, but not offensive. To me, Satan is real, and he represents evil incarnate. He is unfortunately very successful in tricking many people into believing that neither he nor God exist. I believe that Satan employs lies, deception and temptation to try to lead as many souls as possible astray. I believe that Satan delights in ignorance, and uses mankind's pride to convince mankind that God is a mere superstition.

I understand your contrary view, and although I believe that it is terribly erroneous, I respect your right to have and defend your view.

Best wishes to you in this new year.

[FM Arouet666]

56. As I said, believe as you like, belief in such things is a mystery to me

How can one live a life in fear of something which has no form, no substance, no proof that it even exists. Fear the devil? He will take your soul, cause misery and pain? Sorry, the only candidate which fits that bill is mankind. Heaven and hell exist on earth, heaven in the joy of family, joy of life, hell, repeated so many times in history, the gulags, concentration camps, wars, man's inhumanity to man.

I wonder, what have you witnessed that makes you think otherwise. To me, yours is an alien belief, we may never see eye to eye on the topic of belief. However, I am trying to understand, as you seem to be.

A world with gods, a supernatural, demons and angels, our mortal lives just a test for the afterlife. Why do you want such a thing? To live forever, fear of death, just rewards?

Fading into nothing is a scary prospect until you realize that is what you came from. How do you reconcile science with your beliefs? The bible is full of stories which contradict physics, chemistry, biology, etc etc. You may claim that god can contradict anything. But, isn't it more reasonable to consider that the bible contradicts modern science because those which wrote the bible lived in a time without science. A primitive view of the surrounding world, ordinary things today would seem to be miracles to the authors of the bible.

No evidence for a supernatural today, in fact the definition of science clearly states that inquiry will exclude the existence of the supernatural. For thousands of years a belief in the supernatural has existed, yet, only with the advent of science, and the rejection of the supernatural, has the world seen real human advancement. Traveling into space, curing disease, feeding the masses, the list is massive. Don't get me wrong, religion was an advancement as well, originating out of the same motivation. Religion is the predecessor of science, a human endeavor meant to explain existence.

Sorry for the post, the devil made me do it........... }( :evilfrown: :evilgrin:

[FM Arouet666]

51. You are correct

Thanks for acknowledging that I am trying to understand other's beliefs, I truly do try to understand. I have patients pray with me all the time, out of respect for their suffering I go along.

Yes, you might find many of the atheists in the R/T forum to be hostile, but consider the current cultural and political environment. I, for one, feel threatened.

However, I think we must all take care to avoid what I would term "fictional mental opponents." These are the people cast as your enemy by the broad stroke of generalization. You see GOP pundits do this all the time, the "gays are trying to take away your sacred belief in marriage," "liberals are pushing an agenda for X against Y." Both sides of any dispute tend to fall victim to portrayal of the adversary in general terms.

As an atheist I mentally construct the fundamentalist bigot when posting to provocative posts, hence the aggression. However, I try to self edit, avoiding ad hominem, the most deadly sin for any debate. Again, both sides are guilty.

Yes, I taunt with the '666' and the 'devil' faces. Why? Arrogance, I don't think so, perhaps frustration, perhaps deeper, without getting all psychobabble, perhaps it goes back to a sense of conflict with authority? Who knows, but I like images which convey an antithesis to christian belief. Why?, again, I feel threatened, 'resistance is not futile', oops I did it again. I will endeavor to improve. :evilgrin: (oops ;))

[beam me up scottie]

44. Instead of what? An enlightened and educated mind?

Sorry, too late.

Most people who reject the bible do so because they read it, not because they have a "hardened heart", like to feel "smug and superior" or "missed out on the greatest truth of all".

In reality, the people who claim that we've "missed out on the greatest truth of all" are the ones trying desperately to feel smug and superior.

I must have a hardened heart because I laugh at romance novels.

[Silent3]

53. Just how open minded and soft hearted am I supposed to be?

Open my mind until my brain falls out and soften my heart until I suffer complete circulatory failure when my left ventricle collapses into mush?

The Bible doesn't just seem contradictory, it is contradictory. It takes much more than your oh-so-noble-sounding open mind and softened heart to perform the mental gymnastics and self-abnegation required to imagine that every "seeming" contradiction and nonsensical passage is due to your own failings and shortcomings, and not those of the book itself. You have to have decided beforehand that you're going to believe in the Bible no matter what, you have to have given the Bible an unearned a priori assumption of divinity.

My Bush-voting, born-again sister once admitted that not everything in the Bible made sense to her, but when she ran into something that didn't make sense she'd "pray for understanding". If she hadn't already decided that the book has to be true no matter what, and that there just has to be a God out there to answer her prayer, why would she do that? Why would she assume that the failing was hers, and something to be wished away?

[Zebedeo]

55. I speak from experience

I used to be full of pride in myself, and hard of heart. With that attitude, I was not able to receive or know God. It just doesn't work when you approach it as a cynical skeptic. Believe me, I have been where you are. For most of my life, in fact. I can tell you that letting Jesus into my heart has changed my life like nothing else. It is like the fourth verse of O Little Town of Bethlehem:

How silently, how silently
The wondrous gift is given!
So God imparts to human hearts
The blessings of His heaven.
No ear may his His coming,
But in this world of sin,
Where meek souls will receive him still,
The dear Christ enters in.

The key lyric here is "Where meek souls will receive him still." If a person's soul is not meek, but prideful, and if s/he is not ready to receive Christ, it will not happen.

That's my personal perspective based on my own experience, FWIW.

[Silent3]

57. How do you know I haven't been where you've been?

I've been a believer, and I have lost belief -- not because of some terrible emotional crisis, not because "oh, there's such horror in the world, how could God allow that?", etc., etc., but simply because I honed my powers of reason over time and discovered that skepticism is a powerful tool for insight.

I used to be full of pride in myself...

You're still full of pride. The only difference is that you've substituted pride in your ability to reason your way to truth (an ability which probably wasn't, I'm sorry to say, ever very well developed in the first place -- most people can only emulate a parody of reason, and when that parody doesn't work, they blame reason itself for their own limitations) with pride in your ability to feel your way to truth.

I contend that's a far greater sin of pride -- believing one's own overwhelming emotional feelings are any sort of useful or meaningful indicator of TRVTH, believing that you don't have to scrutinize or skeptically examine what you believe, but that your emotions (credited to supernatural forces filling your very being, of course) are some sort of infallible guide that does not need to be -- perhaps even shouldn't be -- questioned.

Yet all the while, other people throughtout the world, claiming emotions just as strong and fullfilling and life-inspiring as yours, come to completely different and even contradictory answers. So, you're either guilty of the pride of claiming your emotional experience is better, truer, deeper, more graced, whatever, than anyone who ends up believing differently, or else you have to take some wishy-washy and ultimately meaningless new-agey escape like "Well, I have my truth and they have theirs" -- as if you all weren't talking about mutually exclusive truths which simply can't coexist.