The Bible

So what? People have criticized the Bible from the beginning. The Jews criticized Moses while he was leading them out of Egypt. Jesus was criticized by his own family. The Romans criticized and murdered Christians. The Jews criticized Christianity and persecuted Christians.

Again, so what? That criticism exists does not invalidate the Bible or Christianity, just as criticism does not invalidate physics or chemistry or literature.

So Jefferson created his own religion by rewriting the Bible to his own personal likes and dislikes. People do that all the time. Sylvia Brown, a psychic, has done the same. New Age type religions take parts of the Bible and reject others, just as Jefferson did. So what?

 

No, now you're doing distortions of my posts. ..not technically the same as ad hom, but still fallacious.
If you want to discuss Jefferson or Paine, do it. You do not need to include the fallacious and snarky comments and distortions.
..probably best for me to ignore you.. From our previous history, i don't think you are capable of rational, civil debate with me. You can have the last word.

 

I did discuss Jefferson and Paine. Jefferson took a knife to the Bible to cut out the "dung" and Paine wrote a book criticizing the Bible and its moral failings. We can talk about them if you want. Or you can keep calling objective observations of history "fallacious" and "distortions" without actually addressing them. Up to you.

 

To the bold text: Then you're missing out on a great video. Any believer who watches the atheist Youtuber Theramintrees, will either become an atheist themselves, or completely understand where atheists are coming from with their arguments.

As for street preachers and door to door types: If they are to attempt to grab my attention, then they should be prepared to face verbal abuse.

I've said this before and I'll say it again; the reason atheists have a problem with hell even though we don't believe in it is because it dehumanizes us in the eyes of friends and family. It makes friends, extended family, work colleagues and in some cases close family view us as filth.

 

I doubt that but I lost my religious faith 61 years ago so. The difference between you and me is that I support religious belief even though I have none myself. I think religion helps maintain peace in society. I don't have enough arrogance to think that others should believe or not believe as I do.

So give them verbal abuse if it makes you feel better. I have no problem with that.

I've never encountered anything like that but, if you have, perhaps you might do better to keep your beliefs to yourself.

 

Lack of familiarity with the Bible has not seemed to impede the Chinese, the Japanese, Singapore, or Korea

Humm, one wonders is god is so impotent that he can be banned. And if banning were possible, didn’t the Romans try that approach without much success?


Forgive me for saying that all of these hyper enthusiastic quotes seem oddly similar to quotes about Marx, Lenin, and Stalin during the years of communist rule. For that matter, these quotes are not so dissimilar to what you would hear at a high school pep rally. We even read about the religious enthusiasm of Thomas Jefferson... who is the guy who edited his own version bible to take out all of the crap

 

Many people dismiss the Bible without hostility or much of a second thought... in much the same way that you and might regard the Hindu or Egyptian holy books

IMO, if you have writings attributed to GOD himself.... any disagreements are alarming. It is like if different people had different versions of the constitution

But, regardless of the many shared elements of canon.... the MEANINGS Attributed to the Bible can be starkly different. After all, Europe had all manner of wars fighting about such things. And even today there is a a remarkable assortment of churches with varying dogmas....Unitarian, Quaker, Mormon, southern baptist, Pentecostal, Christian scientist, Amish, Puritan, televangelist, catholic, snake handlers, etc, etc, etc

 

No, you aren't looking it correctly. If some 80 pound 12 year old threatens to beat me up, I don't actually fear getting beaten up. Nevertheless, it is still a threat, and the 12 year old should be reminded how poor,arrogant, and stupid his behavior is.

 

Given the first paragraph of the OP, it seems that the significance of the bible in human history is not in danger of being overstated. If anything, it is well understated in schools and revisions of history.

And btw, there is a great deal of interest, anger, hostility, and passion for the bible, in the countries you mention, even in the face of hostility and bans.

Stalin & Lenin? They were pretty much in the 'ban the bible!' camp, as well as most communist countries. China still oppresses religious freedom.

From wiki:
Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1922–1991), there were periods where Soviet authorities suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on State interests. Soviet Marxist-Leninism policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and actively encouraged atheism in the Soviet Union. However, most religions were never officially outlawed.

The state advocated the destruction of religion, and it officially pronounced religious beliefs to be superstitious and backward. The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues, mosques and Buddhist temples, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.

 

Of course it doesn't invalidate it. When Christianity gained political power, it began putting the sword (or torch) to critics -- contrary to the normal historical revisionism, no, this wasn't just Catholics; Protestants did it too. That started slowing down during the Enlightenment and critics included people like some of our Founding Fathers. I pointed that out to call attention to the historical inaccuracies.

As for the content of the criticism, Thomas Paine did an amazing job of dismantling the moral failings of the Bible, including its rampant tribalism and its support for punishing people for the actions of others. That goes hand-and-hand with my own reservations of the Bible. Throughout the Bible, God punishes one person for the actions of another. It is even enshrined in the verses that we now call the 10 Commandments. This sort of tribalist thinking is what is used to "justify" even God's commands for infanticide and slavery. It is what we would expect from any book of the period that incorporates the moral failings of man. It is not what we should expect from the word of God, unless that God is unjust and immoral.

 

I have never thought the Bible was insignificant
I do however question whether that agreed significance emerges from any fundamental truth regarding god and religion

My point about Stalin and Lenin was that they were also were idealized in the same may that the Bible and religion are idealized. The fact that people idealize other people or dogmas tells us little... I mean people have also thought that various kings and emperors were gods. And certainly many of these empire also had profound impacts on human history and culture

Not sure what I said that you are responding to. But what is undeniable is that all of the various attempts to ban the Bible have had ineffective results. And from that I conclude the your expressed concern about banning the Bible will turn out to be overwrought

 

We claim to be a Christian majority nation.

We just love all those glowing quotes in the OP.

BUT, our politics shows NO TRACE of that.

We fully accept lying, immoral behavior (even including sexual assault), hate against minorities, jingoism, full scale worship of the god of personal wealth, and all manner of other behavior that Christianity would claim to oppose.

And, we don't compare well against other significant western nations which have a more reduced level of religious obsession when it comes to these factors.


WHY?

What has Christianity done for us LATELY? Will the Christian majority wake up and at least not oppose progress on these issues?

 

Yes. I don't think very many will question its magnitude of its significance. The positivity of its influence may be a more interesting discussion, as will some of the other points.

I have no problem acknowledging that the Bible has had positive influences, but do you intend to discuss a net influence, or some average influence? Would you compare it to a world without the Bible, and if so, how do you propose such a past would look?

Also, what is your stance regarding canonisation?

 

Then you choose to interact with them. Since you made the choice to interact instead of ignoring them and walking away, then you cannot complain about the street preachers.

That implies very strongly that your friends , family, work colleagues believe in hell, and also know your beliefs. So you told them your beliefs - again you chose to reveal your beliefs (even to work colleagues - what happened to religion should not be in the work place?) so you voluntarily engaged in that religious interaction.

Obviously people who believe in hell are going to believe that atheists are going to hell. And that makes you feel bad, which implies you are not very secure in your belief.

And your solution is that you want everyone else (your friends, family, work colleagues, street preachers) to change their belief for your convenience.

Then problem isn't everyone else, its that you have not fully resolved your personal beliefs.

 

In other words, you think that other peoples opinions are a physical threat to you and these people should be punished. Free speech, free thought, new ideas, all must be abolished unless Mamasaid approves.

 

Thats a very general and broad swipe at the Bible. If you can narrow your complaint down to something that can be addressed, I'll take a shot at it.

 

The constant theme of holding people responsible for the actions of others: the entire earth condemned for the actions of Adam and Eve, for example, or God ordering infanticide to punish the Amalekites for the actions of their ancestors, or God bragging about punishing the descendants of those who break his laws.

 

Prove there's a "constant theme" of such. There actually isn't. You're taking that as a given without doing the reading.

As far as populations punished, it was for their collective sins, as in they were all that degenerate or would grow up to be that degenerate. (Refer to Genesis 15:16) You're really confused about the Bible says. You're not even citing verses here. Frankly, you clearly haven't done any earnest Bible study to look for all relevant verses, so why comment? Why would you draw a conclusion without deeper reading?

https://www.gotquestions.org/parents-sin.html

 

Oh look - another one that hasn't studied the Bible but has a negative monolithic view about it.

I'm sorry but the Founding Fathers disagree with you.

What "reformation" are you speaking of? You don't seem to know what the Reformation was. You also clearly think Christianity is anti-science.

 

I just referred to three examples and I've read the Bible many, many times. I'm familiar with the modern, canned apologetics excuses offered for such themes, but they do not perform very well and are often complete fabrications. If you want some specific verses related to what I'm talking about, here are a couple:

1 Samuel 15:2-3
Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Exodus 20:5
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

Deut 5:9
Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me

See also: Exodus 34:7, Numbers 14:18, Isaiah 14:21, Jeremiah 32:18, 1 Kings 11:12 . . . I can go on if you like

The "collective sins" you are talking about is part of the immorality I'm criticizing -- punishing one person for the actions of another due to a morally bankrupt philosophy of collectivist tribalism. Now, there are other verses in the Bible that contradict this philosophy and focus instead on individualism. Those parts are much better. As Jefferson said, it is just a matter of picking the diamonds out of the dung.

 

There's nothing canned here. Your entire argument is based on quoting a few verses out of context like you did above and not addressing the totality of scriptural teachings regarding sins and punishment. Sites that attempt do to that you refer to derisively as "canned" and offer no rebuttal argument against their statements.

So you didn't look at the link I posted which shows that the Bible does not teach to punish one person for the sins of another. Why ignore that and then continue to complain? You don't sound receptive to information that does not conform to your pre-existing bias.

Quoting a famous person doesn't validate your argument.

 

My entire argument is based on actually reading the Bible and recognizing the contradictions. No one is saying that there aren't other verses that do not repeat this moral failing, but they do not change the existence of those that do teach such immoral doctrine. I've cited some for you.

I was raised Christian. My original pre-existing bias was to parrot the canned apologetics like in the link. Eventually, like Jefferson and Paine, I couldn't continue parroting the responses while remaining honest with myself. The link doesn't change the fact that the Bible repeatedly defends the concept of punishing one person for the actions of another. I've given examples. Feel free to address them if you like.

We can start with God ordering infanticide as a collectivist punishment in 1 Samuel 15. I've heard dozens of excuses for this one, some more creative than others.

 

Not at all.

1. We are a transitioning nation, ideologically. The influence of Christianity is waning, while anti Christian Progressivism is increasing. I have a current thread dedicated to this shift in ideology.
2. Our national policies reflect our values, which at one time, had biblical influence, but is based more & more on progressive relativism.
3. American morality has shifted from biblical principles of Absolute morality and natural law, to moral relativism and situation ethics.
4. The decline you allude to, in our social consciousness, reflects the ABANDONMENT of biblical principles in favor of amorality and relativism.
5. We are NOT a 'Christian country,' by the definitions of either the American founders, OR the Founder of Christianity. We are a secular one. The INFLUENCE, or lack therof, from Christianity, Progressivism, or other ideologies, is what is reflected in public policy & social interactions. Biblical influence has declined for 60 yrs or more, while progressive ideals have increased.
6. Biblical Christians are a shrinking minority, and their preserving influence is shrinking, as the ideals of Progressivism are indoctrinated into the culture, while revisionism and phony caricatures of the bible and Christianity dominate the public discourse.

 

Can't say the same for door to door evangelism. And verbal abuse is one thing. But mockery of absurd beliefs is so much more fun.

So much for freedom of expression (outside the workplace) and trust in fellow human beings ESPECIALLY family! I've resolved my personal beliefs. But bad beliefs should be called out and mocked for what they are.

Would you like the idea of somebody telling their son, daughter, brother, sister, father, mother, grandmother, grandfather husband or wife they are going to hell? This actually happened in my family. When my father announced his divorce from my mother a few years ago, my now deceased grandmother told him he is going to hell.

Is it right for a family member to even entertain the idea let alone going ahead with disowning another member of the family for their beliefs?

My estranged wife is in a state of denial right now and refuses to recognize that I'm an atheist.

And here is yet another gem from my favorite atheist Youtuber:

 

The Bible is full of relativistic, situational ethics. Whatever God approves of goes, and his whim apparently changes. Obedience is the only thing close to an "absolute" there. Individualism? Sometimes good, sometimes collectivism is preferred. Slavery? Sometimes acceptable. Infanticide? Sometimes acceptable.