An athiests' take on the Bible...

[ULTRA]

As a non-religeous person, I've probably studied the Bible and associated scribblings more than most. I'm reading the Dead Sea Scrolls at present.
We know Jesus lived, there is no doubt of that, the records left by the Romans are unambiguous. This is not an arguement for or against. What I have seen is, miracles aside, a great deal of phophecy and a great many stories.
Dissecting these, we are left with a code for civillised life written in stories mainly as a code to describe how to live at that time. In the main, they are not meant to be taken literally, and consequently do not work when they are. Though some realities are just as real now as they were then. Let's not forget, this is how education was done when most of society was illiterate. We still use these methods to teach young children and are the reason fairy-tales remain so popular.

So as an athiest, what can I take from the Bible? The answer is a surprising amount. Good sense, moral guidence and social etiquette. The importance of various institutions from the courts to marriage to foreign policy. A little history too, though it is a little scrambled in places - But that is hardly surprising given the level of literacy and education of the times.

I think to dismiss it out of hand without even reading it properly is a mistake - A closed mind is never conducive to the learning process, and the name "Jesus" means "Teacher", not messiah or King or son of God.

Some people seem to think to read it is to endorse it, which of course is absolute rubbish. Reading Mein Kampf does not make one a Nazi, and The art of motorcycle maintainance does not make one a Buddhist. It's just a book. Somebody with nothing left to learn has a lot to learn about learning.
As for being the truth? I don't think so. Maybe it was thier truth in thier time, and maybe some of it was true, but it is an idealogical text written as a succession of tales. The literal truth of them is ultimately unimportant though, it is the truth of thier meaning that I believe makes it such an enduring text.

 

[Rav]

To say that the Bible is a fascinating book would be an understatement. There are some brilliant insights into human nature contained within it's pages, not to mention all the compelling philosophy and general wisdom. I don't regret a single minute of the countless hours that I've spent studying it myself.

 

[ULTRA]

To say that the Bible is a fascinating book would be an understatement. There are some brilliant insights into human nature contained within it's pages, not to mention all the compelling philosophy and general wisdom. I don't regret a single minute of the countless hours that I've spent studying it myself.

Yes Rav, exactly.

 

[Rhaedas]

I think you're correct in saying that we can't ignore its significance in history and its influence. Just as you can say of many great writings. I don't think it holds a monopoly on its teachings of human nature and philosophy, though, and I think the morality it does teach is countered by a lot of very harsh immoral things done, in the name of God.

I personally found most of it pretty dry writing. I mean, it's not something I would chose to read for enjoyment. I think the title that's been used for it before, 'the greatest story ever told', is a reach, imo.

 

[Thoreau]

As a non-religeous person, I've probably studied the Bible and associated scribblings more than most. I'm reading the Dead Sea Scrolls at present.

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've "studied the Bible and associated scribblings more than most."

We know Jesus lived, there is no doubt of that, the records left by the Romans are unambiguous.

There is a lot of doubt in that.

There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – ], Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[66][67] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived."[68][69]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Dissecting these, we are left with a code for civillised life written in stories mainly as a code to describe how to live at that time.

Yes, it contains many laws that were set forth at that time, much like the American Consititution.

In the main, they are not meant to be taken literally, and consequently do not work when they are.

(Playing the Devil's Advocate here...) Nowhere in it's pages does it specify that one is not suppose to receive it's texts in literal terms. If anything, the writers make it clear at various points that it is the direct word of God, directly provided (by divine guidance) from God himself. Now, if God himself told these people what to write, don't you think that a) God wouldn't contradict himself not just once, but MULTIPLE times, and that b) God, if he truly wanted us to believe in him and understand his word, that he would have more clearly documented (or ensured that men more clearly documented) his words? But that is aside from the point, I suppose. The problem with either side of the argument (whether the bible is literal or interpretational) is that no one really knows. There are millions of people who take the Bible literally (see Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, etc). So, when you state that "they are not meant to be taken literally", you're stating that you know as fact that they aren't, when in all actuality, they just may be. Just as Christians say that we don't know Gods will, we (nor they) knew the will and intentions of the writers.

So as an athiest, what can I take from the Bible? The answer is a surprising amount. Good sense, moral guidence and social etiquette. The importance of various institutions from the courts to marriage to foreign policy. A little history too, though it is a little scrambled in places - But that is hardly surprising given the level of literacy and education of the times.

I beg to differ. Read Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus, and well... most of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, where murder, rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, human and animal sacrifice, and condemnation of unbelievers are completely condoned by God himself. I don't see much "good sense" or "moral guidance" from the Bible. If that is indeed what you are in search of, may I offer the follow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Jain_Agamas

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/

The Jain Agamas contain (as I've said before in other threads) far more positive morality and promotions of peace, love and compassion than anything I've found in the Bible.

I think to dismiss it out of hand without even reading it properly is a mistake - A closed mind is never conducive to the learning process, and the name "Jesus" means "Teacher", not messiah or King or son of God.

Sigh...

“Jesus” (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘).meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".[30][31]

The etymology of the name Jesus is generally explained as "God's salvation" usually expressed as "Yahweh saves"[32][33][34] "Yahweh is salvation"[35][36] and at times as "Jehovah is salvation".[37] The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judaea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[38][37] And Philo's reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of Joshua was known outside Judaea at the time.[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Etymology.2C_origin_and_usage_of_the_name

Some people seem to think to read it is to endorse it, which of course is absolute rubbish. Reading Mein Kampf does not make one a Nazi, and The art of motorcycle maintainance does not make one a Buddhist. It's just a book. Somebody with nothing left to learn has a lot to learn about learning.
As for being the truth? I don't think so. Maybe it was thier truth in thier time, and maybe some of it was true, but it is an idealogical text written as a succession of tales. The literal truth of them is ultimately unimportant though, it is the truth of thier meaning that I believe makes it such an enduring text.

Ok, so what was the point of this thread? Nothing personal, but it seems as though you're almost defending the Bible.

:shrug:


EDIT: Atheist

 

[Rav]

Ok, so what was the point of this thread? Nothing personal, but it seems as though you're almost defending the Bible.

He is defending it as a book that shouldn't be taken literally, contains many stories, accounts and assertions that are probably not true, but is nonetheless a book that we can all learn something from.

There's nothing wrong with that, at all.

 

[birch]

Ok, so what was the point of this thread? Nothing personal, but it seems as though you're almost defending the Bible.

a lot of so-called 'normal' people have some type of mental dysfunction that is easily not detected because it is not overtly obvious.

they tend to think in black/white or get on some bandwagon. the bible just as any other book will have metaphors in them. that doesn't mean all of them are worthy or moral. some of them will be and some of them will not be.

that's the problem with most people, they don't discern but are easily brainwashed. if they see something in the bible they agree with, they are apt to accept it all or assume it is all good. if someone appears to be a saint, they may believe it or take it at face value etc.

i agree with you though, i don't consider fundamentalists to be the most moral or concerned about humanity or morality considering their choice in religion. there are far more humane, more ethical, spiritual and reflective philosophies, texts or religions out there

 

[Lori_7]

the bible doesn't need defending. though it's clear to me, that religious and non-religious alike instinctually (and erroneously) feel the need to defend themselves in light of what's written in it.

 

[birch]

the bible doesn't need defending. though it's clear to me, that religious and non-religious alike instinctually (and erroneously) feel the need to defend themselves in light of what's written in it.

come again?

 

[Rav]

the bible doesn't need defending.

As a book of myths, legends and stories, no. But as a historically accurate account and a factual statement concerning the "truth" of existence, it certainly does require validation (which is impossible of course).

 

[Lori_7]

come again?

i guess it comes down to the overriding concept of sin. nobody really wants to hear the news that there's something wrong with them. the silly thing is though, that it's really not much of a news flash or a breaking story for christ's sake. it's so obvious.

 

[ULTRA]

No offense, but I seriously doubt you've "studied the Bible and associated scribblings more than most."

And you have no reason to think thus than mere unfounded opinion that is not even relavent

There is a lot of doubt in that.

No, there's not.

There are Greco-Roman pagan passages relevant to Christianity in the works of three major non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries – ], Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Tacitus, in his Annals written c. 115, mentions Christus, without many historical details (see also: Tacitus on Jesus). There is an obscure reference to a Jewish leader called "Chrestus" in Suetonius. (According to Suetonius, chapter 25, there occurred in Rome, during the reign of emperor Claudius (c. AD 50), "persistent disturbances ... at the instigation of Chrestus".[66][67] Mention in Acts of "After this, Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. There he met a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all the Jews to leave Rome."

there are specific references, as you well know.

Charles Guignebert (Professor of the History Of Christianity at the Sorbonne), while rejecting the Jesus Myth theory and feeling that the Epistles of Paul were sufficient to prove the historical existence of Jesus, said "all the pagan and Jewish testimonies, so-called, afford us no information of any value about the life of Jesus, nor even any assurance that he ever lived."

One mans opinion, not supported by evidence. If there is any, let's see it.

Yes, it contains many laws that were set forth at that time,

As I said.

(Playing the Devil's Advocate here...) Nowhere in it's pages does it specify that one is not suppose to receive it's texts in literal terms. If anything, the writers make it clear at various points that it is the direct word of God, directly provided (by divine guidance) from God himself. Now, if God himself told these people what to write, don't you think that a) God wouldn't contradict himself not just once, but MULTIPLE times, and that b) God, if he truly wanted us to believe in him and understand his word, that he would have more clearly documented (or ensured that men more clearly documented) his words? But that is aside from the point, I suppose. The problem with either side of the argument (whether the bible is literal or interpretational) is that no one really knows. There are millions of people who take the Bible literally (see Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, etc). So, when you state that "they are not meant to be taken literally", you're stating that you know as fact that they aren't, when in all actuality, they just may be. Just as Christians say that we don't know Gods will, we (nor they) knew the will and intentions of the writers.

It's pretty self evident.

I beg to differ. Read Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus, and well... most of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, where murder, rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, human and animal sacrifice, and condemnation of unbelievers are completely condoned by God himself. I don't see much "good sense" or "moral guidance" from the Bible. If that is indeed what you are in search of, may I offer the follow:

Where does it condone these things, specifically? Proof please.

The Jain Agamas contain (as I've said before in other threads) far more positive morality and promotions of peace, love and compassion than anything I've found in the Bible.

irrelevant.

Sigh...

“Jesus” (pronounced /ˈdʒiːzəs/) is a transliteration, occurring in a number of languages and based on the Latin Iesus, of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יְהוֹשֻׁעַ (Yĕhōšuă‘, Joshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic יֵשׁוּעַ (Yēšûă‘).meaning "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)".[30][31]

The commonly accepted term is "teacher"

The etymology of the name Jesus is generally explained as "God's salvation" usually expressed as "Yahweh saves"[32][33][34] "Yahweh is salvation"[35][36] and at times as "Jehovah is salvation".[37] The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judaea at the time of the birth of Jesus.[38][37] And Philo's reference (Mutatione Nominum item 121) indicates that the etymology of Joshua was known outside Judaea at the time.[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus#Etymology.2C_origin_and_usage_of_the_name

Wiki is not considered an authority on anything

Ok, so what was the point of this thread? Nothing personal, but it seems as though you're almost defending the Bible.

Even if I was so what? Im discussing it as a text. You read into that what you like.

 

[Thoreau]

He is defending it as a book that shouldn't be taken literally, contains many stories, accounts and assertions that are probably not true, but is nonetheless a book that we can all learn something from.

There's nothing wrong with that, at all.

If I were to publish a book that said, for example, that we must murder all Jews, or all Egyptians, or Brits, or even Americans, it would be nothing but equal to the Bible. How many here would dare say you'd read it? Most would not, I assume. In fact, the likelihood of it ever getting published is next to nothing. So, why then do we not attribute the same moral standards to the Bible or Quran? Why should we even bother reading such dribble? Granted, I've read the Bible multiple times, not for any intrinsical value, not to find hope or learn of life's complextities within it (I can find those things on my own), but rather out of understanding so that I may be able to combat against it. And so far, it's working out just fine.

the bible doesn't need defending.

... Nor does it deserve it. If you've read the Bible, I would say that defending what little positive morality it does contain would be a nearly impossible task - as it rests in the shadow of the horrible attrocites and morally bankrupt judgement that is accounted for throughout the rest of the books.

Now that we have moved from blind faith into the era of examining what is in the Bible, why should we not just toss it out? If you don't want to get rid of it all together, might I suggest putting it in the Symthsonian. We understand that the Bible is not a proper moral guide for a modern society. It has in fact proven to be detrimental to our mental evolution and the understanding of our universe. Why then do we hang on to it? Put it in the archives where it belongs, somewhere between the horror and fantasy sections. It has no place in our schools, in our families, and certainly no place in our judicial system.

 

[Lori_7]

... Nor does it deserve it. If you've read the Bible, I would say that defending what little positive morality it does contain would be a nearly impossible task - as it rests in the shadow of the horrible attrocites and morally bankrupt judgement that is accounted for throughout the rest of the books.

Now that we have moved from blind faith into the era of examining what is in the Bible, why should we not just toss it out? If you don't want to get rid of it all together, might I suggest putting it in the Symthsonian. We understand that the Bible is not a proper moral guide for a modern society. It has in fact proven to be detrimental to our mental evolution and the understanding of our universe. Why then do we hang on to it? Put it in the archives where it belongs, somewhere between the horror and fantasy sections. It has no place in our schools, in our families, and certainly no place in our judicial system.

it's the story of my life mz, and i have absolutely no desire to see the story of my life institutionalized and shoved down people's throats as it has been. imo, that's contrary to the whole point of it.

if you're putting your faith in morality good luck. it sure hasn't helped us thus far.

 

[Thoreau]

For someone that has supposedly studied the Bible more than most, you should know exactly where it condones murder, rape, etc. I'm not going to surf chapter by chapter and list the hundreds of accounts. You can do that on your own. Start with Genesis and work your way toward Revelation. For the sake of brevity, use google.com.

Please, come back again when you've actually read the Bible.

 

[ULTRA]

If I were to publish a book that said, for example, that we must murder all Jews, or all Egyptians, or Brits, or even Americans, it would be nothing but equal to the Bible. How many here would dare say you'd read it? Most would not, I assume. In fact, the likelihood of it ever getting published is next to nothing. So, why then do we not attribute the same moral standards to the Bible or Quran? Why should we even bother reading such dribble? Granted, I've read the Bible multiple times, not for any intrinsical value, not to find hope or learn of life's complextities within it (I can find those things on my own), but rather out of understanding so that I may be able to combat against it. And so far, it's working out just fine.

Ridiculous exaggeration common in denial syndrome

... Nor does it deserve it. If you've read the Bible, I would say that defending what little positive morality it does contain would be a nearly impossible task - as it rests in the shadow of the horrible attrocites and morally bankrupt judgement that is accounted for throughout the rest of the books.

I'm not defending anything.

Now that we have moved from blind faith into the era of examining what is in the Bible, why should we not just toss it out? If you don't want to get rid of it all together, might I suggest putting it in the Symthsonian. We understand that the Bible is not a proper moral guide for a modern society. It has in fact proven to be detrimental to our mental evolution and the understanding of our universe. Why then do we hang on to it? Put it in the archives where it belongs, somewhere between the horror and fantasy sections. It has no place in our schools, in our families, and certainly no place in our judicial system.

Why not just burn all books that don't agree with your "proper" idea of right and wrong?

 

[Rav]

If I were to publish a book that said, for example, that we must murder all Jews, or all Egyptians, or Brits, or even Americans, it would be nothing but equal to the Bible. How many here would dare say you'd read it? Most would not, I assume. In fact, the likelihood of it ever getting published is next to nothing. So, why then do we not attribute the same moral standards to the Bible or Quran? Why should we even bother reading such dribble? Granted, I've read the Bible multiple times, not for any intrinsical value, not to find hope or learn of life's complextities within it (I can find those things on my own), but rather out of understanding so that I may be able to combat against it. And so far, it's working out just fine.

You have every right to be offended by some of the things contained therein, and every right to assume the position that you've taken on the matter. My argument is simply that in spite of all the intolerance and absurdity contained therein, wisdom can be found as well.

 

[ULTRA]

You have every right to be offended by some of the things contained therein, and every right to assume the position that you've taken on the matter. My argument is simply that in spite of all the intolerance and absurdity contained therein, wisdom can be found as well.

Some people just have a psycological fear of it. It defys reason.

 

[birch]

I beg to differ. Read Joshua, Deuteronomy, Numbers, Exodus, and well... most of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, where murder, rape, slavery, genocide, infanticide, human and animal sacrifice, and condemnation of unbelievers are completely condoned by God himself. I don't see much "good sense" or "moral guidance" from the Bible. If that is indeed what you are in search of, may I offer the follow:
”
Where does it condone these things, specifically? Proof please.

MZ was right about him and so was i. he is just trying to defend everything in the bible.

he even overlooks that there are passages that condone it. people's minds can be so deceiving or self-deceiving.

 

[Lori_7]

For someone that has supposedly studied the Bible more than most, you should know exactly where it condones murder, rape, etc. I'm not going to surf chapter by chapter and list the hundreds of accounts. You can do that on your own. Start with Genesis and work your way toward Revelation. For the sake of brevity, use google.com.

Please, come back again when you've actually read the Bible.

i have read it. it says that we can attribute suffering and death to sin. and because of what i've experienced, and learned about myself, i think that's absolutely correct.