The Absurdity of the Bible

Adstar-

You make the assumption that I am an atheist, just because I am not a Christian? That's illogical in itself, as if anyone who questions the bible is the word of God is somehow an atheist and not a Muslim, Buddhist, Jew, Pagan, Humanist, Scientologist or a Hindu. And still, you attack the poster and not the subject matter, and assume that I believe in the big bang theory as well. Way to go, sir.

Everyone else-

Incest in that day was indeed frowned upon, and according to historical documents punishable by death. If Lot was righteous, why did he not turn his own daughters in to the correct authority? He was willing to let his daughters be killed by an angry mob to protect some angels, so why not turn them in?

Does anyone else not find it odd that not only did Lot's wife never have a name, but neither did his daughters? But the boy who were the incestuous result of Lot's own over-indulgence did have names.

There are two recorded births of females in the bible, and no more. The majority of women in the Old Testament never had a name in fact, and all of them seem to be made out as effected by the same serpent that Eve was. Is the OT bible telling us that not only are women unimportant and nameless, but also that they are evil by nature because of Eve's deception?
 
Kotoko said:
The Bible is rife with such entries, and they are hypocritical in their story. The Bible condemns incest, and yet Lot (the righteous) bears children with his daughters, and Abram marries and has children with his own half sister Sarai. And not only does Abram commit incest with his wife, but has an adulterous affair with Hagar on the side as well... which is also a sin in the Bible and yet he too is called righteous.

When you read the Bible, how can you not see all the convoluted stories and the ideas put forth as honest, righteous and just when they are hypocritical, absurd, and contradictory?

What makes people believe so strongly in something that can't keep it's story straight?

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?
Click to expand...

God keeps his story straight, but we have free will, and morality is relative. That is why it appears that God is hypocritical. But, like many things, they are not as they appear to be.

Why stop there? Every single character in the bible except Jesus was a hypocrite. But, they were real people, who knew God's truth. Some decided to follow it, some not, and some followed after they didn't, still some fell from grace. So, just because we read about righteous people sinning in the Bible, doesn't make it fall in line with God's laws of morality. It wasn't the sin that made the people righteous. Some suggest we have free will, I think this is further evidence of God's law, and people disobeying. Some followed, some didn't. If you are interested in finding God, then you must first find God before you can understand the history of God's people and God's plan that is found in the Bible.

So, when you read stories, and think, "Well, that's just unfair! God holds this standard for me I'm told by the hypocritical pastors, but allows this and this and this." Remember, that is why Jesus came to die for you as well as Abraham. The living and the dead shall be judged, and Abraham is no exception. No one can say, but there were many times that were written about the righteous things Abraham did. And God did have a close relationship with him, but so did Satan. No one can say whose name is written in the book of life.

Morality is relative. That is not a hard concept.

The only thing that matters is what you are doing with the time that is given to you, and do you accept the sacrifice made by God enough to sacrifice your own life, in like manner, as the son of God did.
 
Last edited:
Baron Max said:
audible said:
einstruck said:
"The bible is like a mirror: When an ass looks into it, an ass looks back out." (Augustine)
Click to expand...
that describes the religious person brilliantly, well done.
Click to expand...
That's not a very nice thing to say, is it? Is that because your parents didn't raise you properly, or because you didn't get enough religious teachings?

Baron Max
Click to expand...
quite the opposite, my parents did raise me very well, thank you. however the church did try to ram its doctrines down my neck, but as it was and is so absurded, I did'nt get indoctrinated, and therefore, am a clear thing morally better person for it, I cant help if, the cap fits.
I did'nt say it, augustine did and einstruck quoted.
 
Kotoko said:
Incest in that day was indeed frowned upon, and according to historical documents punishable by death. If Lot was righteous, why did he not turn his own daughters in to the correct authority? He was willing to let his daughters be killed by an angry mob to protect some angels, so why not turn them in?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Please provide some references to prove that incest was "frowned upon" in that day... and please confirm the specific "day" you are talking about.
Does anyone else not find it odd that not only did Lot's wife never have a name, but neither did his daughters? But the boy who were the incestuous result of Lot's own over-indulgence did have names.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: The whole story of Lot and his family is not only mythical but symbolic. Lot's "wife" was turned into a "pillar of salt" (sodium), which was the legendary name for Mount Sodom. Therefore, "Lot" must not have been a human nor his daughters flesh and blood. There is also a lot of symbolism regarding the brother-cousins, Ammon and Moab, who were conceived by Lot and his daughters in the cave. Could the cave have been a refuge in Mother Earth as in Mount Sodom? What does it mean when you hear the phrase, "the salt of the Earth?" In biblical references, "salt of the Earth," is translated as "rare to find," "good," "unique," "of high worth/value," "a truly good person," etc., but the literal translation of "salt of the Earth," means nothing more than "common," "abundant," "something not worth much because it is found everywhere," as in the human body, for instance.
There are two recorded births of females in the bible, and no more. The majority of women in the Old Testament never had a name in fact, and all of them seem to be made out as effected by the same serpent that Eve was. Is the OT bible telling us that not only are women unimportant and nameless, but also that they are evil by nature because of Eve's deception?
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: The serpent of Eden was known for its wisdom. After all, the serpent didn't lie to Eve. It told the truth. The word for serpent in Hebrew is HWWH. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for Eve is also HWWH, both pronounced 'havvah'.

The whole story of A&E in the GoE is mythical. (For the trillionth time, the ancients made-up stories about the constellations they saw in the skies. The story of the serpent in the GoE was made-up about the Constellation Serpens. The symbolism of the GoE represented the Earth, not a specific flower bed on Earth.

~ Medicine*Woman
 
Kotoko said:
The very same Lot that is praised as a Just and Righteous man in 2 Pet.2:7-8. 19:8.
Click to expand...
Does this "Lot" creature has a last name?

Here's another... God creates light on the first day, but doesn't create the sun, moon and stars until the fourth day. Someone want to explain that one as well?
Click to expand...
Study astrophysics. To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star.
 
ts,

To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star.
Click to expand...
Riiiight - and the light from the brightest star will really be noticeable, huh? But note that the stars also weren't created until the 4th day.
 
TruthSeeker said:
Does this "Lot" creature has a last name?.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Lot's full given name was Lot A. Twat.
Study astrophysics. To begin with, the sun wasn't the first star.
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: And stars are still being born, so the entirety of the heavens could not have been created that first week.
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Lot's full given name was Lot A. Twat.
Click to expand...
Oh really? I thought it was "Lots Of Twat".... :D

*************
M*W: And stars are still being born, so the entirety of the heavens could not have been created that first week.
Click to expand...
Geeeeezz... God's a busy pal.... :D

Riiiight - and the light from the brightest star will really be noticeable, huh? But note that the stars also weren't created until the 4th day.
Click to expand...
Maybe we got something wrong!
Like... the other day I thought the Canucks would win, but in the end it didn't happen. Maybe the universe is similar. Maybe there's a giant puck flying through the universe!

Everything is possible!
(To some degree?)

Yaba Daba :m:!
 
Baron Max said:
Very few Christians in the world consider the Bible as a verbatim history. And besides, many just believe the parts they like or want to believe, and don't believe the others.

Baron Max
Click to expand...
That would explain all those that believe in the rapture.

Very few you say?
 
Kotoko said:
So you don't have answers for the questions I've put forth, you just prefer to do name calling and dodge the actual issue. Very productive and mature.

Does anyone actually have an explanation, or reasoning behind what is written and why it's believed? Baron did a half-assed job, but I'd like to hear from the Christians who believe that the Bible is the one true word of God.
Click to expand...

Kotoko, Baron Max got it right--the Bible was written by Humans--they are fallible in all sorts of ways. I don't need to go into details. The problem is that there's a whole lot of stuff in the Bible that doesn't add up when you analyse it--that's the nature of a series of books that have been written over a long period by a number of different people.
 
jayleew-

I do not believe that most Christians would agree with you that morals are at all relative. In fact, most would argue that there is NO give on the laws, morals and values from the Bible. It is not open to interpretation.

Xylene-

If the Bible is fallible, why is it that Christians will argue that it is the one true word of God, and there is nothing you can talk to them about?

Baron-

If that is true, why is it that the laws written in Leviticus are held up for the most part (i.e. laws against homosexuality, etc.) but ones about eating pork, and tattoo's are mostly ignored? Then they use the NT as an excuse for not following the laws set out in Leviticus?
 
Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: Please provide some references to prove that incest was "frowned upon" in that day... and please confirm the specific "day" you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Lot's time was about the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi were written. This does show the morality and general idea of law prior to their being any religious law, and thusly states;

Code of Hammurabi section 157;
If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

http://www.re-quest.net/g2g/historical/laws/hammurabi/index.htm
 
Kotoko said:
jayleew-

I do not believe that most Christians would agree with you that morals are at all relative. In fact, most would argue that there is NO give on the laws, morals and values from the Bible. It is not open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Well, if that IS true, then most Christians put their God in a box of limitations of morality and are no better than the Pharisees. They also told Jesus that it is written that no work should be done on the Sabbath and that it was a sin to even harvest corn, but yet him and his disciples did so at the shock of the Pharisees.

The Christians you speak of, I once was, and I found that if I limit God to the morality which is spoken of in the Bible, then I am not allowing God to be greater than what is written about him in the Bible. He may as well be dead, if I believe only what I read or hear about in a book, because something that is alive is not single-minded, unless he be a flawed individual. God is concerned about where your heart is, and that concept is found in Corinthians when Paul talks about eating meat.

It all boils down to not being the judge of another human being.

It is a sin to kill, but God killed. It is not the action God is concerned about, but the motives. That is the essence of morality, and God is bigger than a set of rules.

Another thing: if the Christians think the Bible is not open to interpretation, then they are not Christians by definition. The first Christians, which Paul started, DID interpret the Bible. In fact, it got a little out of hand and people began to think their interpretation was more accurate than another's. So, to be a Christian, you must follow Jesus Christ's teachings and interpret the Bible, just like the first church.
 
The Bible is absurd if you don't know God. If you don't know God, the Bible is nothing more than what Medicine Woman is saying. It is just a work of fiction. A fairy tale. If I don't believe aliens exist, then any book proclaiming aliens exist that has fallible proof or no proof, is also absurd.

If you don't believe in God, then I agree with you. If you do believe in God, then I don't agree agree with you. So, what is the point of this thread?
 
Cris said:
ts,

Nah, some things are impossible.
Click to expand...
The only impossibility is the lack of possibility.

Are you an atheist yet?
Click to expand...
I'm an antagonist. I mean.... I'm agnostic.
... inclined to absurdutism.

How about ya? :p

Yaba Daba! :m:
 
jayleew said:
If you don't believe in God, then I agree with you. If you do believe in God, then I don't agree agree with you. So, what is the point of this thread?
Click to expand...
Be silly and create a good atmosphere for a cup of coffee or a good fatty. :m:

Yaba Daba! :m:
 
Kotoko said:
Lot's time was about the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi were written. This does show the morality and general idea of law prior to their being any religious law, and thusly states;

Code of Hammurabi section 157;
If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father, both shall be burned.

http://www.re-quest.net/g2g/historical/laws/hammurabi/index.htm
Click to expand...
*************
M*W: Where do you get the information that Lot's time was 'about' the same time as the Laws of Hammurabi? The morality and idea of the common law prior to the establishment of monotheistic religious law is proof that human beings have an innate sense of right and wrong and, therefore, do not need man-made "religious laws" to supercede his own conscienceness of morality.

I also have a problem with the translation of section 157 and its interpretation. It is based on a son having incestuous sex with his mother after his father had sex with her. Sure, under Hammurabi's Code, this may have been against the 'code,' but it was still practiced and was culturally accepted. The Egyptians were famous for their incestuous breeding to keep the royal bloodlines intact. The tribe of the Abiru who became the ancient Hebrews also followed this law to keep their pharaonic bloodlines intact.

However, the myth of Lot was just a symbolic way of telling a story. Incest at that time wasn't frowned upon in that culture. Using the incest card was a way of telling the story about the genesis of the enemies of Israel even though this particular culture was actually Egyptian. (Has anything really changed in 5,000 years?).

The manner in which Hammarubi's Code was interpreted may leave much to be desired. After all, it wasn't decoded until the early 1900s AD, at a time when biblical scientists and archeologists were greatly influenced by the Church. I believe the connotation of the mother and son being 'burned' for incestuous sex follows closely the story of Isis, Osiris and Horus, and the mythical stories of Aten worship. The sun also burns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top