The Bible is a disgrace to God!!!

[junebug72]

The bible really is a disgrace, a con, designed to control a petty and cruel civilization.  It uses fear and manipulation to accomplish the goal of enslaving women, discriminating homosexuality, and provide consequences for violence.  While their reasons seem somewhat noble, after 6000 years it is in dire need of an upgrade. 

My biggest problem with the book is the cruel, angry, and jealous God it portrays.  That the Christian society holds it sacred and will say just about anything to avoid admitting it's flaws.  They carry on with the cruelty of the old testament even when it goes against what Jesus taught, especially what Jesus taught us about judging and loving. 

There are some dark times in the history of Christianity like slavery, prejudice, beheading for blasphemy, and burning women at the stake, all justified by the bible.

I think the book should be banned.

As a believer in Intelligent Design, I believe in God but not the evil book.  It can be held somewhat responsible for the atheistic attitude, as well as, the deaths of millions.

It does get better in the new testament.  My interpretation of what Jesus taught is that he wanted us to see the flaws.  It was old testament values held by scribes and pharisees that hung an innocent man on the cross.  History is violent.  We are fortunate now to live where we are free to decide for ourselves w/o fear of government violence against us.  That is why the spiritual but not religious population is growing.  We see the contradiction of love throughout the OT and see the dramatic shift in the new.

Most importantly, science has discovered truths about our formation that really contradicts Genesis.  I remember being 11-12 years old and asking myself, why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?  Then there is the age of the planet.  It is obvious that we are much older than 6013 years old. 

God can exist without the bible.  I would bet that since it's origin God has been hurt by it's authors.  I believe that God has given us the knowledge to revoke that nasty book of lies so that we can know of the love God has for us all.

[junebug72]

I meant to post under biblical contradictions.  Will a mod move it there for me Please?

[One Above All]

It can be held somewhat responsible for the atheistic attitude
<snip>

I certainly hope you're not stereotyping atheists. There is no "atheistic attitude".

[junebug72]

It can be held somewhat responsible for the atheistic attitude
<snip>

I certainly hope you're not stereotyping atheists. There is no "atheistic attitude".

Not my intention at all One.  I simply mean non belief.  Atheism is defined as non belief in gods.    All atheist do not believe in God.  Stereotyping would be to say they are all nice because some are nice.  At least that's how Webster defines the word-stereotype.

[The Gawd]

JB, I feel you are starting to understand many of our arguments now even though you still hold your god belief.

I have asked you this numerous times and you still ignore it.

If you do not believe in the bible, WHERE did you get your Jesus belief from? This is important.

[One Above All]

Not my intention at all One.  I simply mean non belief.  Atheism is defined as non belief in gods.    All atheist do not believe in God.

Your wording implied otherwise, since an "attitude" is a series of behaviors[1].

1.	Emphasis on the plural.

[junebug72]

JB, I feel you are starting to understand many of our arguments now even though you still hold your god belief.

I have asked you this numerous times and you still ignore it.

If you do not believe in the bible, WHERE did you get your Jesus belief from? This is important.

History.  I find historical significance from the bible not truths about God.  I have answered this question several times.  Jesus explains Christianity. I believe the Hebrews were enslaved by the Egyptians, I believe that there were wars with Persia, I believe they hung a man named Jesus on the cross for no good reason.  I believe they had Kings named Solomon and David.  I believe they were under Roman Government during the time of Christ.  I believe they thought they knew God and kept a record of events.

I really hope this satisfies your inquisition. Most historians agree that Jesus was here; it is his divinity that can be scrutinized more so than his existence. 

[One Above All]

Most historians agree that Jesus was here

Source?
EDIT: Assuming you can post a reliable source, note that just because a lot of authorities believe in something doesn't make it true. Argumentum ad verecundiam.

[junebug72]

Most historians agree that Jesus was here

Source?

There are plenty, here's one:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html,

This is not a thread to debate the existence of Jesus.

[The Gawd]

Most historians agree that Jesus was here

Source?

There are plenty, here's one:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html,

This is not a thread to debate the existence of Jesus.

Youre right, it is not about the existence of Jesus, BUT it is about the reliability of the bible, which is where Jesus belief comes from. In one breath you berate the bible calling it unreliable, in the next breath you believe it enough to have a belief in Jesus. I hope you can see the problem with that. Now I agree with you, the bible is a worthless book, but it raises the question of why do you believe portions of it knowing that it is rubbish from unreliable sources?

[Willie]

Wow, Junebug. You're starting to sound like Thomas Paine.

The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion. It has been the most destructive to the peace of man since man began to exist. Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses, who gave an order to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and then rape the daughters. One of the most horrible atrocities found in the literature of any nation. I would not dishonor my Creator's name by attaching it to this filthy book.

As to the book called the Bible, it is blasphemy to call it the Word of God. It is a book of lies and contradictions, and a history of bad times and bad men. There are but a few good characters in the whole book.

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel.

Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid or produces only atheists or fanatics. As an engine of power, it serves the purpose of despotism, and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests, but so far as respects the good of man in general it leads to nothing here or hereafter.

[junebug72]

Thanks Willie.  Sounds like a wise man and so do you.

[wheels5894]

It sounds, June as though you could include the Qur'an in what you say as it has all the characteristics of the bible. Holy Books of the time seem to have been there mainly to hold the population in fear and to justify violence against others.

[junebug72]

It sounds, June as though you could include the Qur'an in what you say as it has all the characteristics of the bible. Holy Books of the time seem to have been there mainly to hold the population in fear and to justify violence against others.

Isn't Moses part of Qur'an as well?  Thanks for adding it.  I should have titled it Moses is a disgrace to God, but that really narrows the idea.  I'm going to have to change my quote now. 

[Willie]

Thanks Willie.  Sounds like a wise man and so do you.

Paine's book "Age of Reason" is a very good read. And, being over 200 years old, it is public domain so you can read it online for free, and it doesn't cost much for a Kindle edition or a printed copy. It exposes some philosophy of one of our founding fathers that the "this is a Christian nation" claimants would prefer that no one know about. It would be interesting to see how the religious right would react if this book were to be included as required reading for U.S. History in the public high schools. On the one hand, it is very contradictory to both their religious beliefs and their political agenda. But on the other hand, it is an original work by one of our founding fathers, and is very relevant to the enlightenment thinking that was prevalent among nearly all of the founders. They could not credibly argue against it's historical relevance, and it would be very hard for them to raise a stink about it without making it plainly and publicly obvious that it is actually them, and not their opponents, who are trying to indoctrinate our youth with politically and religiously motivated revisionist history. You just can't get any less "revisionist" than original works by the founders themselves, except by trying to suppress some of them.

I think every American should read "Age of Reason". Many, and perhaps even most, will not agree with Paine's ideas, but at least they would be better equipped to recognize the lies and the systematic manipulation and indoctrination that is being pushed upon themselves and their children.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

I also recommend watching "The Revisionaries". A documentary about the efforts far right members of the Texas Board of Education to inject a right wing slant into public school curricula. If you have Netflix, you can stream it.

[junebug72]

Thanks Willie.  Sounds like a wise man and so do you.

Paine's book "Age of Reason" is a very good read. And, being over 200 years old, it is public domain so you can read it online for free, and it doesn't cost much for a Kindle edition or a printed copy. It exposes some philosophy of one of our founding fathers that the "this is a Christian nation" claimants would prefer that no one know about. It would be interesting to see how the religious right would react if this book were to be included as required reading for U.S. History in the public high schools. On the one hand, it is very contradictory to both their religious beliefs and their political agenda. But on the other hand, it is an original work by one of our founding fathers, and is very relevant to the enlightenment thinking that was prevalent among nearly all of the founders. They could not credibly argue against it's historical relevance, and it would be very hard for them to raise a stink about it without making it plainly and publicly obvious that it is actually them, and not their opponents, who are trying to indoctrinate our youth with politically and religiously motivated revisionist history. You just can't get any less "revisionist" than original works by the founders themselves, except by trying to suppress some of them.

I think every American should read "Age of Reason". Many, and perhaps even most, will not agree with Paine's ideas, but at least they would be better equipped to recognize the lies and the systematic manipulation and indoctrination that is being pushed upon themselves and their children.

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

I also recommend watching "The Revisionaries". A documentary about the efforts far right members of the Texas Board of Education to inject a right wing slant into public school curricula. If you have Netflix, you can stream it.

I've bookmarked his website.  They have a great compilation of his works there.  I've just begun Age of Reason, and so far this is exactly how I feel about religion.  I now have another historical figure to look up to.  I can not thank you enough for introducing me to his work.

I agree his historical importance to this country seems like something that should be taught in schools.  I don't think matters concerning God or religion should be though, but that's me.

I've got to take a walk.

[Whateverman]

I think the book should be banned.

As someone who rejects the divinity of the Bible, I can't disagree with this more strongly.

First and foremost, the book plays a significant anthropological role in the history of modern human civilization.  Anyone wanting to understand the state of humankind in the 21st century would need to have some minimal understanding of what the Bible claims, and where human society has placed it in relation to its understanding of the world.

I would reject the banning of Mein Kampf for similar reasons, even though it has played a much smaller role.

Secondly, banning a book is a sure way to increase its popularity.  Religious fundamentalism would skyrocket...

edit: grammar, emphasis

[median]

As someone who rejects the divinity of the Bible, I can't disagree with this more strongly.

First and foremost, the book plays a significant anthropological role in the history of modern human civilization.  Anyone wanting to understand the state of humankind in the 21st century would need to have some minimal understanding of what the Bible claims, and where human society has placed it in relation to its understanding of the world.

I would reject the banning of Mein Kampf for similar reasons, even though it has played a much smaller role.

Secondly, banning a book is a sure way to increase its popularity.  Religious fundamentalism would skyrocket...

edit: grammar, emphasis

I actually agree that we should not ban the book (or nearly any book for that matter - and I say "any" b/c it may be a matter of national security to ban one, but that's another topic).

However, whether or not the bible "plays a significant role" in human history says absolutely nothing as to whether it's truth claims are true.

[LoriPinkAngel]

This expresses my opinion on banning books...

"The Bebelplatz is known as the site of the infamous Nazi book burning ceremony held in the evening of May 10, 1933 by members of the SA ("brownshirts"), SS, Nazi students and Hitler Youth groups, on the instigation of Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels. They burned around 20,000 books, including works by Thomas Mann, Erich Maria Remarque, Heinrich Heine, Karl Marx and many other authors.
Some days earlier, on May 6, the students had also dragged the contents library of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft into the square, burning them on May 10.
Today a memorial by Micha Ullman consisting of a glass plate set into the cobbles, giving a view of empty bookcases, commemorates the book burning. Furthermore, a line of Heinrich Heine from his play, Almansor (1821), is engraved on a plaque inset in the square: "Das war ein Vorspiel nur, dort wo man Bücher verbrennt, verbrennt man am Ende auch Menschen." (in English: "Where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people").[1] Students at Humboldt University hold a book sale in the square every year to mark the anniversary."  from wikipedia  (bold mine)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1d/Bebelplatz_Night_of_Shame_Monument.jpg/220px-Bebelplatz_Night_of_Shame_Monument.jpg

I got to see this in person when I was there on a concert tour back in 1998.  It is very moving.

[junebug72]

That was my bad. I shouldn't have said ban the bible.  I guess what I really want is for people to quit claiming it's God's word.  There is no proof of that.  As Thomas Paine puts it; it's hearsay. 

[junebug72]

Most historians agree that Jesus was here

Source?

There are plenty, here's one:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/reallyknow.html,

This is not a thread to debate the existence of Jesus.

Youre right, it is not about the existence of Jesus, BUT it is about the reliability of the bible, which is where Jesus belief comes from. In one breath you berate the bible calling it unreliable, in the next breath you believe it enough to have a belief in Jesus. I hope you can see the problem with that. Now I agree with you, the bible is a worthless book, but it raises the question of why do you believe portions of it knowing that it is rubbish from unreliable sources?

This has nothing to do with the topic.  It is possible that Jesus existed.  It would not surprise me if he didn't.  Do you not believe there were ancient Kings called Solomon or David?  Do you believe Abraham and Moses existed?  I did not claim the book a lie I called it a disgrace to God.  I did not claim that there is no historical accuracy.  The likelihood of a man named Jesus is good, IMO. 

Honestly Jesus is like the hero to me.  His sacrifice magnified if he was just a man.  Maybe it's a fear embedded in me from childhood brainwashing, IDK.  If it was nothing but BS I would think the people of the time would not have bought the story at all and Christianity would not be the most popular religion in the world. 

I hate to cut this short but I got to run an errand.     

[The Gawd]

This has nothing to do with the topic.  It is possible that Jesus existed.  It would not surprise me if he didn't.  Do you not believe there were ancient Kings called Solomon or David?  Do you believe Abraham and Moses existed?  I did not claim the book a lie I called it a disgrace to God.  I did not claim that there is no historical accuracy.  The likelihood of a man named Jesus is good, IMO. 

Honestly Jesus is like the hero to me.  His sacrifice magnified if he was just a man.  Maybe it's a fear embedded in me from childhood brainwashing, IDK.  If it was nothing but BS I would think the people of the time would not have bought the story at all and Christianity would not be the most popular religion in the world. 

I hate to cut this short but I got to run an errand.   

Thank you.

This absolutely does have to do with the topic. It has to do with claims in the book you call disgraceful, but is literally the only the thing suggesting this god that you believe in, and his son exist. And even if you want to stick to the topic strictly, even in the story book the "sacrifice" is one of the more disgusting parts of the entire myth. What else would you call human sacrifice? Especially since it, according to the book, was only necessary due to yahweh's inability to be forgiving.

It was not believed by the people of the time, even in the book itself. The people who supposedly witnessed Jesus put him to death and did not believe what he was preaching. Christianity was a fledgling cult until Constantine promoted it by force nearly three centuries after the fact... conveniently after anyone alive at the time of this supposed Jesus wouldve been dead and no one could refute it.

Furthermore, in other disgraceful books. You can see how clearly false books can gain a large following by looking at Mormons.

[William]

Maybe it's a fear embedded in me from childhood brainwashing, IDK.  If it was nothing but BS I would think the people of the time would not have bought the story at all and Christianity would not be the most popular religion in the world. 

(my bold)

Junebug72, I think you actually do know the truth of how religion gets knitted into a population, multiplies and persists through generations   

To be successful a scam needs to have elements that people find attractive - to suck them in - and even better if they want others (including their children) to believe as well. 

The Christian meme is highly evolved - parts that didn't work so well were jettisoned or changed throughout the history of the faith - the story has acquired powerful mechanisms of guilt and fear that trap children early in a way they find difficult to shed beliefs as adults even in the face of their realisation they've been conned by words in a silly old book.

If the bible hadn't been locked down in the canon it would have morphed much more by now - probably it would absorb some scientific knowledge for credibility and be cleansed of some contradictions.  But even though it's locked down it's constantly being re-translated and re-interpreted by different sects who don't like what they see in earlier versions.

Religion is a sophisticated scam that benefits clergy on this earth during their lifetimes .... think about that 

There is nothing in the bible that is good or moral that wouldn't be good or moral without the bible.  But there is plenty that is rotten and bad only because of the bible - basically the same for other ancient text-based religions.

[Nam]

The bible really is a disgrace, a con, designed to control a petty and cruel civilization.  It uses fear and manipulation to accomplish the goal of enslaving women, discriminating homosexuality, and provide consequences for violence.  While their reasons seem somewhat noble, after 6000 years it is in dire need of an upgrade. 

My biggest problem with the book is the cruel, angry, and jealous God it portrays.  That the Christian society holds it sacred and will say just about anything to avoid admitting it's flaws.  They carry on with the cruelty of the old testament even when it goes against what Jesus taught, especially what Jesus taught us about judging and loving. 

There are some dark times in the history of Christianity like slavery, prejudice, beheading for blasphemy, and burning women at the stake, all justified by the bible.

I think the book should be banned.

As a believer in Intelligent Design, I believe in God but not the evil book.  It can be held somewhat responsible for the atheistic attitude, as well as, the deaths of millions.

It does get better in the new testament.  My interpretation of what Jesus taught is that he wanted us to see the flaws.  It was old testament values held by scribes and pharisees that hung an innocent man on the cross.  History is violent.  We are fortunate now to live where we are free to decide for ourselves w/o fear of government violence against us.  That is why the spiritual but not religious population is growing.  We see the contradiction of love throughout the OT and see the dramatic shift in the new.

Most importantly, science has discovered truths about our formation that really contradicts Genesis.  I remember being 11-12 years old and asking myself, why aren't dinosaurs mentioned in the bible?  Then there is the age of the planet.  It is obvious that we are much older than 6013 years old. 

God can exist without the bible.  I would bet that since it's origin God has been hurt by it's authors.  I believe that God has given us the knowledge to revoke that nasty book of lies so that we can know of the love God has for us all.

Cherry-picking Jesus.

-Nam

[Add Homonym]

This is not a thread to debate the existence of Jesus.

No, but you said that Jesus thought the prior OT was barbaric, and was attempting to highlight the errors in it.

The message of Jesus is so confused that nobody can really tell what he expected of his followers.

Paul says his crucifixion releases us from sin.
Matthew quotes him as saying that we should live feral, in the environment, with no wealth, like Lilies and birds, who do not need barns. (Matt 6)
He is quoted in the gospel of Thomas, saying a load of other shit
In Luke, he says the Kingdom will not be found by inspection, but is within you, whereas, he berates Sadducees for not believing in the resurrection.
He tells others that the end of the word is coming within their generation.
After telling a ruler to give his wealth away, he then tells his followers that they don't need to.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus forgets everything he said in Matthew, inc. Love Thy Neighbour, and then claims he is the "word".
Mark says that Christians can be identified by casting out demons, drink poisons, and healing the sick.
His ideas are mostly consistent with Hillel (90BC->) , in highlighting love in the OT - claiming that the OT was about love, and his new principles were compatible.

The Romans killed him, and we have no idea why, except that he might have claimed to be a king, and been a cultic shit stirrer. We have no documentation outside Mark-Matthew to give us any clue to a real Jesus. He could have been like Ghandi, and done a passive protest against something, and been arrested. That would kill him, but if so, that event would have been documented. Instead we have the implausible scenario that attempts to blame everything on Jews. He was strung up for something, and then we are palmed the conspiracy theory version of WHY, which would have hidden the real why. He could have also been like David Koresh, teaching apocalypse to a group, and telling them that he was their ticket to the afterlife. The Koresh model fits rather well, and explains the dispersal of the disciples, and the strange relationships he had with women and marriage.

This has nothing to do with the topic.  It is possible that Jesus existed.  It would not surprise me if he didn't.

Tricky for nonexistent people to be your hero?

  I did not claim the book a lie I called it a disgrace to God.

Anything we wrote about God would be a disgrace to God, since we are clueless.

Honestly Jesus is like the hero to me.  His sacrifice magnified if he was just a man.

Lots of people have started cults and movements, and then been shot, without warning. Stories of the next Christians, say that people died deliberately in his name. (Or, in the name of getting an afterlife)

Maybe it's a fear embedded in me from childhood brainwashing, IDK.

I'd be taking the maybe out.

  If it was nothing but BS I would think the people of the time would not have bought the story at all and Christianity would not be the most popular religion in the world. 

Islam is more popular. You could say that Christianity is more popular among people who count, or have brains. It's believed by more white people. Indians, Chinese and Arabs only count as 0.1 persons per white person.

HTH.

[magicmiles]

Secondly, banning a book is a sure way to increase its popularity. 

Only if the book has substance beyond the controversy.

[magicmiles]

Not my intention at all One.  I simply mean non belief.  Atheism is defined as non belief in gods.    All atheist do not believe in God.

Your wording implied otherwise, since an "attitude" is a series of behaviors[1].

1.	Emphasis on the plural.

June, i think what meant OOA meant to say was:

"Thanks for the clarification, June. You might want to keep in mind, for future reference, that referring to a belief as an 'attitude' will likely cause some confusion"

[junebug72]

^Wiki defines "attitude" as favor or disfavor towards a person, place, or thing.  Seems I used the word appropriately.  Your attitude influences your behavior but it's not behavior. 

[One Above All]

^Wiki defines "attitude" as favor or disfavor towards a person, place, or thing.  Seems I used the word appropriately.  Your attitude influences your behavior but it's not behavior. 

The word was not used appropriately, since being an atheist doesn't mean you feel a certain way about everything. Hence, there is no "atheistic attitude", as I said before.
Also, magicmiles, you might want to take a long look in the mirror the next time you claim I need to learn some manners. I'm not the one who presumed to speak for others.