Thread: God, Bible - Have they outlived their usefullness?

IF God exists, he/she/it is the most irresponsible parent in the entire history of time and/or Universe!

A parent does not let their children kill each other.
A parent does not let their children starve each other, or to starve to death.
A parent does not remain absent when their children are failing.
A parent does not let their childrens cries for help go unanswered for very long.

If there are other civilizations throughout the Universe with similar circumstances and situations as we have here on Earth... GOD has surely been irresponsible in having too many children to feed and care for effectively!

Clearly the Bible was a creative expression in writing from the men who wrote it. The Bible is full of their biases, fears, prejudices, and limited knowledge of the environment and Universe we live in. The Bible was written with the authors conceit of knowing everything about everything.

Worst of all... is that the people of this Earth have adopted this ancient, flawed, and biased text to govern and influence our lives now!

If the Bible was rewritten today, it would greatly differ from the Bible written in ancient times... So, why is so much devotion given to this ancient, man-made text full of prejudices, biases, and false/incomplete knowledge?

:?

Originally Posted by IceCold

IF God exists, he/she/it is the most irresponsible parent in the entire history of time and/or Universe!

A parent does not let their children kill each other.
A parent does not let their children starve each other, or to starve to death.
A parent does not remain absent when their children are failing.
A parent does not let their childrens cries for help go unanswered for very long.

A child throwing a tantrum in a grocery store acting like they are going to die if they don't get the candy they want, uses the same type of thinking. It is the poor parent who gives into this. There are things that God has given over to us as our responsibility. Every good parent does the same or they will only succeed in raising dangerously large infants. Living your child's life for them may get them through childhood alive but not as functioning adults. God's concern is our eternal spiritual life compared to which this life is but a few seconds of discomfort no matter how much our impatience and self absorbtion may exaggerate it so that it seems all important.

Originally Posted by IceCold

So, why is so much devotion given to this ancient, man-made text full of prejudices, biases, and false/incomplete knowledge?

This is a very good question and one well worth pursuing. Your incomprehension is a good beginning. Good Luck.

To answer your question "God, Bible - Have they outlived their usefullness?"

These human inventions is still used to manipulate and destroy the minds and will of weak. Control the masses, give excuses for wars creating suffering for thousands. Make their inventors rich beyond imagination. And halt the progression of the human race as a whole.

So NO, they have not outlived their usefullness. And neither will they, as long as stupidity exists.

Ice Cold's contention is a variant of Nietzsche's claim that God is dead.

The one thing we can be sure of is that Nietzsche is dead and we can be sure that Ice Cold's thoughts will be long forgotten and irrelevant while wise people still worship and honor their creator. Hope you have a nice talk with Nietzsche.

What is it that Ice Cold and Raziell offer that would be impossible to used to motivate people to do evil?

Surely you don't think atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot are shining examples of what happens when God is eliminated.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Surely you don't think atheists such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot are shining examples of what happens when God is eliminated.

You conveniently forgot to mention the hundreds of political leaders, warlords, dictators, rulers etc. through the millennia, wich did unspeakable crimes upon humanity in the name of god - and yes also in actual belief of him.

Man will do both good and evil regardless of religion. You dont honestly think hitler for example, did what he did because he didnt believe in god?

Those men wanted power and domination and they wouldve done what they did regardless of if they believed in fairytales or not.

Raziell said:

You conveniently forgot to mention the hundreds of political leaders, warlords, dictators, rulers etc. through the millennia, wich did unspeakable crimes upon humanity in the name of god - and yes also in actual belief of him.

I could not help but notice that Raziell conveniently neglected to mention them too. Perhaps you are referred to Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and the Roman Empire, Hannible, Mussoline, Kaiser Wilhelm and Ceausescu?

Raziell is comparing tens of 1,000's of deaths which may have been caused by some religious inspired crimes with tens of 1,000,000's of deaths attributed to just Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Raziell also said:

You dont honestly think hitler for example, did what he did because he didnt believe in god?

I would say if Hitler had believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he would never have exterminated 6,000,000 Jews. I cannot speak to what he would have done had he believed in some other God. However, we do know what he did as a godless tyrant and that is the only thing we can deal with. We could speculate anything we want, but it does not negate the reality of what happened.

Getting closer to home, if Raziell believed in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he would not be saying the things he says. So, as to Raziell, I would say his lack of belief in God definitely influences what he says, and probably also what he does. Thank God, he is probably not going to have the ability to become another Hitler.

Dayton. The last part was actually kind of offensive. You are suggesting all of us godless heathens are as bad as Hitler and, if given the option and power, would become another Hitler.

Dayton, i have no doubt that if we lived in the old times now and you had the oppurtunity. You would crusify me for being a godless heathen if you had the chanse. Im just a infidel going to hell anyway right? So you would just do gods will.

The problem is, sinse god doesent exist. You would have crusified an innocent man over nothing.

Religios fanatics like you sure arent making the world any better than hitler would have done. But i wont argue anymore with you. I dont know if you were manipulated from birth or recently converted by a religious group to become accepted by the people around you, but if you really want to base your life on lies instead of facts. Then i can do nothing but pity you. And im not saying that in hopes of offending you, but in hope - from one human being to another - that you will wake up to reality and enjoy life. As an individual, with your own opinions.

Such a hot topic. And a topic that can never be proven or disproven with any means that we have today. A time traveler would only be the one to go back to the beginning and/or visit the crucial times that are so relevant to this debate.

But, this is not possible today. I would be open-minded if some kind of proof came through regarding one side or the other. Clearly, we should all be open-minded on this subject.. because no person can state to know it all - Not even in our time period.

But, from history we can see that religion and the Bible have hindered the progress of mankind over and over. Knowledge and the people that could have helped mankind progress by leaps and bounds were persecuted, killed, and exiled by the religious figures in the past. This can not be denied.

When you get gravely sick do you pray to God to heal you? No, you usually go to a doctor that has been trained in the latest science to treat your disease/ailments. Or are you the religiously "blind" person that prays for God to take you to heaven? Some people are so eager to leave this world, that they pray to go to heaven. Those people must have a horrible life, or no life at all.. and all they can hope and have faith in is the life after death.

Such a hot topic. And a topic that can never be proven or disproven with any means that we have today

i hope your not refering to the fact that the "The Bible is full of their biases, fears, prejudices, and limited knowledge of the environment and Universe we live in." this can be proven.

also

"why is so much devotion given to this ancient, man-made text full of prejudices, biases, and false/incomplete knowledge?"

this can be at least theorized, at least to the same level of certainty of anything else in psychiatry. i'm not really knowledgable enough to specify. but i'm guessing it has something to do with the fact humans are stupid and weak and subservient. or in less offensive words, they don't like responsibility, and are willing to trade alot of 'useless' freedoms of thought to offload it.

oh and

To answer your question "God, Bible - Have they outlived their usefullness?"

These human inventions is still used to manipulate and destroy the minds and will of weak. Control the masses, give excuses for wars creating suffering for thousands. Make their inventors rich beyond imagination. And halt the progression of the human race as a whole.

So NO, they have not outlived their usefullness. And neither will they, as long as stupidity exists.

i second this.

Raziell said:

The problem is, sinse god doesent exist. You would have crusified an innocent man over nothing.

Well, actually, the most famous crucifixion was sort of like that. An innocent man was crucified because he claimed to be God. So, in a sense, an innocent man was crucified over nothing. To the best of my knowledge this is not exactly a practice ever used by Christians. Religious factions have used forms of execution, but where do you get the notion that I would want to crucify you? All I would do is try to tell you about Jesus and your need for salvation.

Ice Cold said:

But, from history we can see that religion and the Bible have hindered the progress of mankind over and over. Knowledge and the people that could have helped mankind progress by leaps and bounds were persecuted, killed, and exiled by the religious figures in the past. This can not be denied.

You folks keep saying stuff like this but offer very few examples to back up the claim. I am aware that the Church had some issues with Galileo over whether the earth revolved around the sun or vice-versa. But I am not sure how this actually hindered the progress of mankind. It is not like thinking the sun revolved around the earth changed anything. Had we been trying to send a mission to Mars or Saturn, it might have made a difference.

There are many areas of science today which are highly controversial. These questions and differences do not hinder progress, but rather enhance it by compelling and producing research which leads us to the correct answer. Should we ridicule Edwin P. Hubble because his Hubble Law turned out to be wrong (which was ironically confirmed by the Hubble telescope)? We know as much now because he was wrong as we would known if he had been right.

So I think Ice Cold, or others who subscribe to this ideology, must come up with some actual examples of religious hinderence having taken place and how it actually and significantly hindered the progress of mankind.

NOBODY expects the spanish inquisition!

your saying the fact that any science which contradicted the churches 'view' was blasphemy, punishable by death, had any negative impact on our understanding of the world an universe? ...

its not about comming up with gallileo-like examples (who after struggling against the close-minded church for most of his life, ended up under house arrest till his death, if i remember correctly, i think 'issue' is a bit of a soft word for it).

its about the gallileos that didnt exist because of this ever-present resistance to the finding of new knowledge and understanding.

verzen said:

Dayton. The last part was actually kind of offensive. You are suggesting all of us godless heathens are as bad as Hitler and, if given the option and power, would become another Hitler.

Not exactly, I suggested only that there was that capacity. Well, actually, I think anyone has that capacity, given the opportunity, but, if the shoe fits. . . I suppose there is an extent to which I would find it more plausible that a godless person could do this than a sincere believing Christian.

In paraphrasing from the Book of Quotes, I guess I subscribe to the philosophical observations of John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). He is the one who actually said:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, is sometimes wrongly attributed as the source. He did say something similar, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it"

So, in a way, you have been offended by far greater than I.

Are there professing Christians who could do this? Well, I would say yes, but I would most surely doubt the sincerity of that person's profession.

Originally Posted by redrighthand

its about the gallileos that didnt exist because of this ever-present resistance to the finding of new knowledge and understanding.

Definitely!
==========
daytonturner wrote:

[Not exactly, I suggested only that there was that capacity. Well, actually, I think anyone has that capacity, given the opportunity, but, if the shoe fits. . . I suppose there is an extent to which I would find it more plausible that a godless person could do this than a sincere believing Christian.

In paraphrasing from the Book of Quotes, I guess I subscribe to the philosophical observations of John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902). He is the one who actually said:

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

William Pitt, the Elder, The Earl of Chatham and British Prime Minister from 1766 to 1778, is sometimes wrongly attributed as the source. He did say something similar, in a speech to the UK House of Lords in 1770:

"Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it" ]
==========

Most will agree that the church and its religious figures have possessed the most power throughout history. Therefore, coupled with your quotes, the church and its religious figures have been the most corrupt.
====
redrighthand, I was stating the Bible is full of that stuff that I had listed. :?
====

A person who opposed the religious establishment would of had to be willing to outcast himself from society, suffer possible exile, torture, death, or any other act they deemed suitable punishment. So, many probably would not step up to that level or would not be willing to endure such treatment.
Regarding the religious establishment, how can you support these barbarians? They acted upon their faith which was based on knowledge that was not even questioned and was believed to be the concrete truth. In their favor I might say they acted with the limited knowledge they could attain at that time period. That is true. But, to condemn new knowledge just because it went against their "concrete" truth is unacceptable. They did not allow their knowledge to be tested or challenged. They thought they knew it all and nothing else mattered to them. For example, the Geocentric model from Ptolemy. Ptolemy had to make a tremendously complicated model to imitate the motions of the planets. And often calculations were made with the Sun at the center of the solar system, eventhough they "knew" that it was the Earth at the center.
Unlike religion, science is self-testing and self-correcting using the scientific method. Nothing is known to be "concrete" knowledge! Everything is available to be tested and retested, found to be true or false, and can be reinforced or removed. There is scarce information to be tested in religion. And overwhelmingly, a debate comes down to the religious person saying, "Well, you have to have faith!."

So.. these people of limited knowledge about anything wrote the Bible. How can you trust in man with all his prejudices and biases to write the word of a God in a Book for the masses? Documentaries have shown that certain bishops went through the many gospels and took out only what they wanted to keep in the Bible they created. What of the many other gospels that spoke of differing views that what was accepted to be included in the Bible that was written? Who is to say that one person has the RIGHT to judge what may be acceptable and what may not? These religious figures took it upon themselves as so many of them do, to oppress what went against their "concrete" knowledge or did not like, and push their beliefs and values on everyone else.
Like the people that go house to house spreading the word of their GOD.... If I wanted to know I would search out your church or ask around to find a copy of your Bible. Do not waste my time coming to my door and talking religion... Or maybe like a kid with a lemonade stand, if I am thirsty and wanted it, I would search it out and buy some... :wink:

redrighthand, I was stating the Bible is full of that stuff that I had listed.

oops sorry my bad, didn't realise that you posted the original post.

Ice Cold said:

Most will agree that the church its religious figures have possessed the most power throughout history. Therefore, coupled with your quotes, the church and its religious figures have been the most corrupt.

I would agree that for a period of time, the Roman church had a great deal of power and the Pope and his minions wielded it improperly. But I would not agree that they were the most powerful figures in history. I would think that both Stalin and Mao wielded far more power and were in many ways as suppressive as the Roman church had been.

Ice Cold then said:

redrighthand, I was stating the Bible is full of that stuff that I had listed.

Well, you didn't really list anything other than your own opinions. You are saying the Bible is full of that stuff and you have not listed one single thing from the Bible nor have you defined "that stuff."

I have no idea what history books you have been reading unless it is your own rewrite of history: The World According to Ice Cold.

And then:

Documentaries have shown that certain bishops went through the many gospels and took out only what they wanted to keep in the Bible they created. What of the many other gospels that spoke of differing views that what was accepted to be included in the Bible that was written? Who is to say that one person has the RIGHT to judge what may be acceptable and what may not? These religious figures took it upon themselves as so many of them do, to oppress what went against their "concrete" knowledge or did not like, and push their beliefs and values on everyone else.

Your ignorance on this topic is beyond description. You have no idea what you are talking about here. It is difficult to believe that someone can be so misinformed and devoid of information and still try to make comments.

I know a whole lot more about quantum theory and string theory than you know about the Bible and I would never even consider offering any kind of critique on either of those topics. I would be ashamed to show my ignorance. You don't even know enough to know you don't know anything.

I note in your OP you say, "The Bible was written with the authors conceit of knowing everything about everything." Actually, it looks as though you were reading your own stuff again.

Originally Posted by daytonturner

Should we ridicule Edwin P. Hubble because his Hubble Law turned out to be wrong (which was ironically confirmed by the Hubble telescope)? We know as much now because he was wrong as we would known if he had been right.

Is this a little garbled? Are you talking about Einstein being wrong because he added the cosmological constant to his field equations so that GR would allow a steady state universe? This is what was proved wrong by the discovery of the expansion of the universe according to Hubble's law. And now physicists have reconsidered whether a different cosmological constant should be added for other reasons.

It is all so common that all I have did is express my opinions from what I have read, and what I have viewed on latest documentaries, etc.. and daytonturner takes every chance to attack and insult me. ROFL!

Mighty righteous of you!

I would think that any human being would watch and read all they could regarding this subject and try to make a decision for themself regarding the facts that are presented. And this means studying both views on this subject. Once again similar to the scientific method. If that which you are studying does not defeat your beliefs, then it may reinforce or modify your beliefs to something stronger. What I have viewed through books, documentaries, etc. is the overpowering hand of the religious establishment that kept people from questioning the "concrete" knowledge of the church. Going back to the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden. Knowledge is not evil, Knowledge is power!


I will post some documentaries later on today or tomorrow that describe where the Bible ideas were "borrowed" from, the bishop that took it upon himself to decide for the world what gospels should be included and which should not, and some others.

Good day to you all. 8)

Mitchell asked:

Are you talking about Einstein being wrong because he added the cosmological constant to his field equations so that GR would allow a steady state universe?

Uh, well, I am in danger of wandering into the same territory that I accused IceCold of getting into. I have very little understanding of this cosmology other than that it relates to Hubble's use of a direct proportion to measure the distance to other galaxies and the speed of expansion of the universe based on redlight shift. My understanding, slight though it be, is that the redlight shift is not constant in the way Hubble used it. And that while cosmologists began questioning the constant based on some findings late in the 20th Century, it was information from the Hubble telescope that confirmed their suspicions of the problems.

To continue to show my ignorance on this subject, my understanding is that it was originally thought that redlight shift operated in the field of light rays in much the same way as the Doppler effect works in the field of sound waves. That would be that your speed in relation to the source of the sound has a direct impact on the degree and speed of the change of the sound. Thus if you are approaching a train whistle, the speed and quality of the sound shift is different than it would be if you were traveling in the same direction as the train. However, we have apparently found that light does not act in the same way and we cannot use similar proportions.

This is probably not a good place to be educated on this particular subject matter although I find it fascinating. I don't if this has what to do with Einstein's constant, but you may well know how it relates. I am wide open to a PM on the topic.

But, meanwhile, back to IceCold who said:

It is all so common that all I have did is express my opinions from what I have read, and what I have viewed on latest documentaries, etc.. and daytonturner takes every chance to attack and insult me.

Well, it is my experience that not all opinions are accurate. If the information you are considering is inaccurate, then the opinions you draw from that information are equally inaccurate.

I am not attacking you, IceCold, as a person, but, rather, the information you are trying to disseminate and its inaccuracy and your scholarship on this topic. The internet has made the production and dissemination of "documentaries" very easy. But moreover, it has made the dissemination of inaccurate and biased information even easier.

If you knew how the Bible was put together and how it has come down from ancient days to us, you would know that one person could have had no ability to effect changes in it. It is not like one guy could revise the Bible and mass produce and distribute tens of thousands of copies of the revised edition. Not only would such a project require (then impossible) mass production of the revised editions, it would also require the mass destruction of existing copies so as to hide the evidence of the changes.

Prior to the invention of the printing press, all copies of manuscripts (Bible and others) were accomplished by hand copying, a time consuming and demanding project. How long do you think it would take you to hand copy the Bible and then go back and check it for accuracy?

One person just cannot make a lot of copies of a manuscript in a short amount of time. Nor could several people making copies, work from the same manuscript. Thus, if you have five people (or any number), making copies, they must be working from five different copies. Even if one of them made a change in one of his copies, the change would not be repeated by the others. Thus, if you had four copies that said "abc" and one copy that said "xyz," you would know that something was wrong with the copy that said, "xyz."

There is no piece of ancient literature for which we have as many copies and fragments of manuscriptes as for the Bible. Because of this, later alterations to the manuscripts would be obvious when compared to earlier copies. If you had actually done a complete and thorough study on this subject, you would know that what you are saying is not possible and you would not even be saying it.

One of the biggest problems I see here on this forum in this subject area is that people are so dead set on trying to debunk and disrespect the Bible that they will believe anything they hear which does that, no matter how illogical or impossible it is.

IceCold, if you are a person who actually wants to follow your own advice to "watch and read all they could regarding this subject and try to make a decision for themself regarding the facts that are presented," you would be reading and watching some information which discusses the reliability and accuracy of the Bible and realize that this crap you are looking to is not physically or humanly possible. As I have suggested here before, a very good study on this is Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict.

I have been embarrassed and skewered here more than once by saying things which were inaccurate and having it exposeds. I do not take it personally, though. I actually welcome it when someone corrects me.

the grand majority of the earth population would say no, they have not outlived their purpose