Comments on: Which Part of the Bible Should be Ignored Next? http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/ Enlightenment through common sense Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:36:35 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-982 The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy Sat, 27 Jun 2009 00:55:02 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-982 [...] The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy There’s been a phrase around for a while now that goes along the lines of “The Bible is the atheist’s greatest weapon against Christianity” (paraphrased as I can’t find the original at the moment). I’m not a fan of the wording, specifically citing the Bible as a weapon, it suggests were in a war, or a battle with Christians. I’m no more in a war with Christians than I am in a war with the field mouse that lives in my garden. Regardless, the point remains. Many Christians have never fully read the Bible, and out of those that have, they typically choose to simply ignore that bits that don’t fit their lives. [...] [...] The Bible is Christianity’s Greatest Enemy There’s been a phrase around for a while now that goes along the lines of “The Bible is the atheist’s greatest weapon against Christianity” (paraphrased as I can’t find the original at the moment). I’m not a fan of the wording, specifically citing the Bible as a weapon, it suggests were in a war, or a battle with Christians. I’m no more in a war with Christians than I am in a war with the field mouse that lives in my garden. Regardless, the point remains. Many Christians have never fully read the Bible, and out of those that have, they typically choose to simply ignore that bits that don’t fit their lives. [...]

]]> By: Jordan P http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-879 Jordan P Tue, 26 May 2009 02:16:25 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-879 I wish I could edit my comment.. But ill just add: Take the story of Genesis. A Rational Interpretation: Even God needs to rest once in a while. Don't work 24/7, do amazing things, but then don't feel guilty if you want to kick back for a day or two. Literal Interpretation: God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and stopped on the 7th day. Memorize that and ignore anything to the contrary. I wish I could edit my comment.. But ill just add:

Take the story of Genesis.

A Rational Interpretation: Even God needs to rest once in a while. Don’t work 24/7, do amazing things, but then don’t feel guilty if you want to kick back for a day or two.

Literal Interpretation: God created the world in 6 days a few thousand years ago and stopped on the 7th day. Memorize that and ignore anything to the contrary.

]]> By: Jordan P http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-877 Jordan P Tue, 26 May 2009 02:12:16 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-877 Yeah. Any sane, rational, logical person should accept the beliefs which have the most hard factual evidence behind them. Most religious people I know take the word of god to be explanation for things formal logic and science does not have explanations to. The word of "god" is really no difference than the word of any philosopher. The Bible gives people reason to get up in the morning and toil in their monotonous jobs. Some people do not find pleasure in thinking about how the universe began, some people find it scary to envision what lies outside of the universe, or "where" the big bang occurred. If you choose to believe in god and creation, you get a nice (understandable) story explaining [i]why[/i] we are here. Explaining why you go to work, explaining why you should be good to other people. When people turn to religion to fill in philosophical gaps, to inspire and encourage them to work hard and be good citizens, then who can blame them? Religion only becomes a problem when people start to ignore reason and take it literally. The bible is a story. It is meant to help people understand their place in the world. If you leave it at that, nobody has any problems. Yeah. Any sane, rational, logical person should accept the beliefs which have the most hard factual evidence behind them. Most religious people I know take the word of god to be explanation for things formal logic and science does not have explanations to. The word of “god” is really no difference than the word of any philosopher. The Bible gives people reason to get up in the morning and toil in their monotonous jobs. Some people do not find pleasure in thinking about how the universe began, some people find it scary to envision what lies outside of the universe, or “where” the big bang occurred. If you choose to believe in god and creation, you get a nice (understandable) story explaining [i]why[/i] we are here. Explaining why you go to work, explaining why you should be good to other people.

When people turn to religion to fill in philosophical gaps, to inspire and encourage them to work hard and be good citizens, then who can blame them? Religion only becomes a problem when people start to ignore reason and take it literally.

The bible is a story. It is meant to help people understand their place in the world. If you leave it at that, nobody has any problems.

]]> By: What Happened Before the (Young) Earth Existed? http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-873 What Happened Before the (Young) Earth Existed? Mon, 25 May 2009 22:24:23 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-873 [...] As you can see, we achieved allot before God created us, and there was an awful lot going on in the world before it was even a twinkle in God’s eye. I know that not all Christians choose to accept the Bible as a literal interpretation of events, but that begs the question of which bits of their holy book they will choose to ignore next. [...] [...] As you can see, we achieved allot before God created us, and there was an awful lot going on in the world before it was even a twinkle in God’s eye. I know that not all Christians choose to accept the Bible as a literal interpretation of events, but that begs the question of which bits of their holy book they will choose to ignore next. [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Baker http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-363 Jonathan Baker Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:44:01 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-363 Could we just clarify that "creation" means making something "out of nothing". The question of creation is: "where did <b>everything</b> come from" not "where did the horse come from". Long before Darwin there were evolutionary sorts of theories. For example St. Augustine way back 1400 years before him had the idea of <i>semines rationes</i> (like a blueprint just read to unfold) buried somewhere inside creatures that allowed new species to come about. The problem of evolution is a scientific one principally, but also a philosophical one. Where Darwin ran into difficulties is the idea that "random mutations" could allow species to become gradually more complex. This is unreasonable because no effect can be greater than its cause. Augustine's theory required an intelligent being (God) to plant these 'DNA-type' messages in the first place. I'm not saying Augustine was right, but that his theory is <i>more</i> reasonable. In any case, my main point is that evolution and creation are separate questions. Could we just clarify that “creation” means making something “out of nothing”. The question of creation is: “where did everything come from” not “where did the horse come from”. Long before Darwin there were evolutionary sorts of theories. For example St. Augustine way back 1400 years before him had the idea of semines rationes (like a blueprint just read to unfold) buried somewhere inside creatures that allowed new species to come about. The problem of evolution is a scientific one principally, but also a philosophical one. Where Darwin ran into difficulties is the idea that “random mutations” could allow species to become gradually more complex. This is unreasonable because no effect can be greater than its cause. Augustine’s theory required an intelligent being (God) to plant these ‘DNA-type’ messages in the first place. I’m not saying Augustine was right, but that his theory is more reasonable.

In any case, my main point is that evolution and creation are separate questions.

]]> By: Out of the Mouths of … Comedians at The Atheist Blog http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/comment-page-1/#comment-267 Out of the Mouths of … Comedians at The Atheist Blog Thu, 29 May 2008 23:44:13 +0000 http://www.the-atheist.com/which-part-of-the-bible-should-be-ignored-next/#comment-267 [...] on the actual content of the Bible.  I think it’s always interesting to ask a Christian why they choose to believe certain parts of the bible (God, creation, miracles) but not others (slavery, adult circumcision, oppression, violence, abuse [...] [...] on the actual content of the Bible.  I think it’s always interesting to ask a Christian why they choose to believe certain parts of the bible (God, creation, miracles) but not others (slavery, adult circumcision, oppression, violence, abuse [...]

]]>