An apology and a clarification

[aitm]

I mean..*cough..cough*  I won't post again....really......I am sure that some of you simply mis-interpreted what I wrote before.....

[Contemporary Protestant]

Why do you claim to k what the bible says or doesn't say, I claim the reader might be wrong because I make mistakes and I don't claim to have all the answers, but it seems like you know everything about my religion and have crystal clear insight to my personal beliefs


The nature of hell is often disputed and many christians believe that children, being innocent and naive to much of the world, are not sent to hell

Hell is seen by some as a separation from God, not as a place where demons torture people

[aitm]

 

[Solitary]

I've always felt closer to heaven than hell being separated from delusions. Solitary

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Shhh, aitm, a secret, relax. None of it's real. There was no god to write it or give "the word" to anyone.  They just made it all up.

[SGOS]

With one google search, I found this, its huffington post, and Im not familiar with the author, so take it with a grain of salt

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/4-good-reasons-not-to-read-bible-literally_b_919345.html

From the article:

1) Nowhere does the Bible claim to be inerrant.

That's right. At no place in its more than 30,000 verses does the Bible claim that it is factually accurate in terms of history, science, geography and all other matters (the technical definition of inerrancy). "Inerrant" itself is not a word found in the Bible or even known to Christian theologians for most of history. Rather, the word was coined in the middle of the 19th century as a defensive counter measure to the increased popularity of reading the Bible as one would other historical documents and the discovery of manifold internal inconsistencies and external inaccuracies.

The signature verse most literalists point to is 2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." But one can confess that Scripture is inspired by God without resorting to claims that it contains no factual errors. We normally use the language of inspiration in just this way, describing a painting, a performance of Chopin, or even a good lecture as inspired. What binds the various and sundry texts found in the Bible together may be precisely that they are all inspired by the authors' experience of the living God. There is no hint that the authors of the Bible imagined that what they were writing was somehow supernaturally guaranteed to be factually accurate. Rather, biblical authors wrote in order to be persuasive, hoping that by reading their witness you would come to believe as they did (see John 20:30-31).

The author makes a reasonable point, that the Bible should not be read literally.  I certainly don't, and you don't.  He says it should be read as inspiration.  I could agree with that too, expect that I find many of the stories morally repugnant and not inspirational at all, but certainly other people are totally inspired by it.  But where does that leave us?

Many books, both fiction and non fiction are inspirational, as are movies.  Some deal with actual characters with birth certificates and proof they actually existed.  Even if the author claims the Bible never says it is inerrant (a claim which I will contest), Christianity most certainly passes it off as true, which pretty much is the exact definition of inerrant.  So how do we treat that?  Would you say that the Bible is not true, but maybe inerrantly inspirational? 

As for the claim that the Bible never claims inerrancy, I actually allowed some of the Jehovah's Witnesses Finest into my house and asked them how they knew the Bible was inerrant, and those little Devils poured through their memorized Bibles complete with zillions of book markers for the verses which proved the Bible was inerrant.  It was a totally useless endeavor of course, because you can't prove the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.  That's the fallacy of circular reasoning.  So the author of the link's claim doesn't seem to be entirely trustworthy.  In addition, almost the last words of the Book of Revelations is the part where John says this is all true, and not a word must be changed or the consequence will be an eternity of fire.  I assume he means the entire Bible, but it might be the last book, and if it's just the last book, he's claiming inerrancy for the most absurd book of the Bible.

Consider this:

The Bible is not true.
Christianity claims it is true.
Therefore Christianity is false.

There are several ways to put the above inconsistencies together, but they don't help your case very well, and most importantly, if the Bible is only inspirational, then it completely worthless as evidence for God.

You want to try to understand atheism?  Well, this is why we don't believe in your god, well actually, it's just for starters.  I'm a former Christian, so I won't spend much time trying to understand you, because I searched for God for 50 years, and believe me, I know the gymnastics you're having to go through to support your belief right now.  But thanks for asking about atheism.  I do appreciate the chance to express my views to someone who might actually be interested.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Tbh I am very young (17 to be exact) and I converted when I was 14, baptized when I was 15. So I haven't been a believer for very long, if I were to leave christianity I would likely go to the New Age movement. I really like that stuff

[Feral Atheist]

Tbh I am very young (17 to be exact) and I converted when I was 14, baptized when I was 15. So I haven't been a believer for very long, if I were to leave christianity I would likely go to the New Age movement. I really like that stuff

He's back!

Hi scroyle "the cultural christian" you're back the same day you left.

[Contemporary Protestant]

Im not Scroyle, he tried to say what atheism was, I have been very clear that I don't understand your viewpoint but I would like to, and I said I worship Jesus as a God

[SGOS]

Tbh I am very young (17 to be exact) and I converted when I was 14, baptized when I was 15. So I haven't been a believer for very long, if I were to leave christianity I would likely go to the New Age movement. I really like that stuff

I would say you are probably there already, but just hanging onto the Christian label out of tradition or something.  No religion in history as lasted forever before eventually being reclassified as mythology by the world population.  Jesus Christ has had a good run, although probably not as long as Rah or Zeus, and in a modern world it is starting to feel the bombardment by it's former members as it's stories come into direct conflict with an exponentially growing scientific understanding.

I would predict that the next widely embraced religion of fashion will be something out of the new age movement, which you aspire to.  Something that might refrain from making such bold claims that are so easily demolished in a modern world.  The movement is there.  It's just awaiting a charismatic leader with the skill to pedal his box of bullshit.  Yeah, I know you've got guys like Depak Chopra, but he's still along ways from the leader required to get more than the usual quick to fizzle cult movement going.

But whatever the movement might turn out to be, the skeptics of the world will still ask to be shown actual evidence, and will treat it as irrelevant without that evidence.

[Contemporary Protestant]

That quote is out of context, just saying, I was being honest that I don't even have a high school degree, so Im not going to prance about like Im enlightened or something

[Feral Atheist]

Im not Scroyle, he tried to say what atheism was, I have been very clear that I don't understand your viewpoint but I would like to, and I said I worship Jesus as a God

Gee, you know a lot about what scroyle was about, even though your join date is after scroyle's departure (by a few hours anyway).

[Contemporary Protestant]

I read about the "Cultural Christian" and I am disgusted by his insensitivity. He is also a "Catholic", I am a moderate Protestant. Which means we are close to opposite

[SGOS]

Gee, you know a lot about what scroyle was about, even though your join date is after scroyle's departure (by a few hours anyway).

OK, I'm not going to make an actual accusation, but it might not be out of order to consider that scroyle came in here in a state of exuberance over some poorly thought out insight and was met with a harsh dose of reason (Hey, been there myself), ..... So he decides to come back with a new identity (I never did that, however), and do a more humble reboot.  Hell, by the third time he does it, he might be on the verge of skeptical epiphany and have a life altering insight about the difference between bullshit and reason.

[Contemporary Protestant]

I would have banned Scroyle too, just reading about that guy was maddening, "Im not atheist, I just don't believe in God, but I give money to the pope so technically Im a christian" That is ridiculous, I give what little money I have to charities I know I can trust, like there was a charity that said bring us shoes, I trust that because they didn't ask for money, and re-selling kids shoes is not a lucrative scam. I dislike the concept of a pope (i think pope francis is a cool guy, still disagree) because I think its wrong to tell people how to worship God. Church leaders that I listen to, encourage research and fact checking. Like my youth pastor knows I have been communicating with atheists for the past few weeks (on other sites) and didn't criticize me for doing it.