Weird stuff in the bible 2.0 version, AC Edition

[maize]

One of my favorite bibles illustrates this (NSFC)

 

Once upon a time, the Catholic church opined the rings of Saturn were really the holy prepuce of Jesus.

 

Your link says that a 17th century Catholic scholar opined such a theory, this is not the same as the Catholic church being the author of the opinion.

 

That is sloppy use of words.

[MercyA]

As I was looking at this before I hit post...I was just thinking what it would be like to be you, basically to be an atheist, and I remembered this link.  I just thought many some here (on both sides) would be interested.  My friend was interviewed by an atheist, for an atheist newsletter, and you can read it online.  

 

Thanks so much for sharing this!  It's been a long time since I agreed with someone so completely.  I especially appreciated your friend's answer to question #8.    

[albeto.]

Your link says that a 17th century Catholic scholar opined such a theory, this is not the same as the Catholic church being the author of the opinion.

 

That is sloppy use of words.

 

Who represents the catholic church if not her theologians?

[Carol in Cal.]

So this would imply that God knew man would eventually create a church around Jesus.  How did he know that?  If people have free will, how could he know what each and every person may or may not do?  And if he did know (because he's supposed to be omnipotent) is it really free will at all?

Free will and foreknowledge are orthogonal.

 

If He caused what He knew would happen, that would negate free will.  If He merely knows what would happen, that doesn't negate free will.  It's a difference of agency.

 

An example I heard (here I think) recently I thought illustrated this pretty well.

 

As a parent, there are things I can sort of 'see coming' from my DD.  I don't cause them, but I can see that they are imminent. 

[Lady Florida.]

I don't remember if this has already been mentioned in this thread, but another weird thing in the Bible is calling menstruating women "unclean" and stating that they must be sent away while menstruating. As an introvert, a private place I could go to for a few days a month sounds pretty good to me. In stressful times, I have told my husband, "I want my menstrual hut!"  He says I can have my hut, if he can use it the rest of the month!

 

It occurs to me that I probably first heard about menstrual huts on WTM, thanks for the laughs.

 

I've never seen menstrual huts mentioned here on WTM, but I did read The Red Tent years ago. Although I knew a menstruating woman was "unclean", I didn't know they had a special place to go until I read that book.

[Lady Florida.]

She doesn't need brain surgery.   :svengo: After spending two weeks researching it like crazy and last night not being able to sleep...  Surgery won't help, so we can go on our merry way and just use meds.  I am praising God for that.  

 

(DD is basically fine, but has epilepsy, for anyone who doesn't know.)

 

I didn't know and was going to offer hugs, but didn't want to ask for specifics in case it was something you didn't want to share. I'm glad to hear she'll be okay with meds. 

[albeto.]

I didn't say that, unless I managed to make a typo somewhere.  I was just thinking of what it would be like to be an atheist.  I can say, we have a terrible year in terms of medical things.  But I have prayed, and God has been right there, and given me such a sense of peace.  He has done so much for us (I mean, real, practical things- I pray and *bam* something happens), and I honestly just feel His love for me.  I feel His care.  I would not want to live without it.  I just can't imagine what it would be like not to have that.  

 

Ah. If you (or anyone) is interested, Laura started a thread some time ago, Ask an atheist, you pick our brains there. There's also a social group, Ask an atheist/agnostic. In both places I'm sure you'll find people happy to offer their opinions. 

 

If you pray and *bam* something happens, can you do it right now? 

 

Can you pray for there to be rain by nightfall where I live?

 

If not (and I've no doubt it won't and you probably won't even pray for it because you likely know it's a fool's errand), I can't help but be confident in my conclusion that the function of prayer is not to get things done (which is indistinguishable from magic, really), but to placate one's doubts when reality doesn't conform to professed beliefs. So when you pray for me, it's not really for me. It's for you. 

 

I really don't know, but I might be a different kind of Christian than you are used to interacting with.  We are nonresistant, and I wouldn't report posts like that anyway.  We converted 'from the world' (no religion) to the conservative anabaptists because this is the group of believers we saw actually living out the words of Jesus and the rest of the NT.  

 

I've interacted with all kinds. From the uber liberal progressive xians who don't believe Jesus was god (but still identify as xian), to very concervative, traditional xians of many different sects. Most are quite nice at first, many get snarky, some get down right nasty when their answers aren't received with the gratitude they expect. Others simply stop interacting with me. Some even accuse me of being minions of Satan, lol! That's my favorite, I have to admit. I told my kids that and they howled! Fwiw, I grew up in a Quaker home. The ideals of pacifism are very clear and dear to me. 

 

I prayed for you last night before I fell asleep, and I will continue too.  I prayed that God will open your eyes to His truth, that you will see Him, come to Him, and know His love.  That means, I believe He will give you chances, and thoughts, and have things happen in your life to give you the opportunity to draw closer to Him... but it will be your choice to come to Him or not.  I hope that's okay with you.  

 

Sure it's okay, but why do you think he didn't listen to me when I cried out for those very things myself? And this was back when I wanted to keep my belief. I longed for it. I was desperate for it. I kept convincing myself that even though I no longer "felt" his presence, I could count on it being there (faith, right?). But alas, it didn't last. If he listens to you but ignored me, what kind of teacher's pet is he playing you for?

 

But if you believe prayers work, why not ignore me and pray for more practical things, things that are necessary to millions of people today? Why bother with my salvation when I've readily and freely denied the holy ghost, I've committed the unpardonable sin, my fate is sealed according to biblical logic. I would hate to be the recipient of your god's attention at the expense of the children who will be sold as soldiers today. I would hate your god for attending to me instead of the children who are being raped right now. How could he ignore them just for my piece of mind? How could you? 

 

 Off to pray for a little bit of quiet.    :lol:

 

Now that, I understand! 

 

:laugh:

[Bluegoat]

Who represents the catholic church if not her theologians?

 

That's a bit like saying because some scientists have seriously proposed that the universe is a hologram, or really any odd thing you can think of, that it "represents" science.

 

It just represents what a guy thinks, within a discipline.  It could be demonstrably within the discipline, but still be a bad thinking, or just crazy, or unique. 

 

To get an idea of a whole discipline, you have to look at the whole.

 

[albeto.]

She doesn't need brain surgery.   :svengo: After spending two weeks researching it like crazy and last night not being able to sleep...  Surgery won't help, so we can go on our merry way and just use meds. 

 

I'm glad to hear it. 

 

I am praising God for that.  

 

I'm not. And personally, I find this kind of sentiment offensive and horrifying, for so many reasons. It's why I'm glad we have this thread here. I'm expected to keep quiet when xians say things I interpret as being offensive, but if I say things xians interpret as being offensive, I get banned for a number of days. 

 

Still, I am genuinely glad your dd will not need surgery. I hope medications get sorted out quickly for her. I think we're on the cusp of some real medical miracles in these next few years, or maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist. 

 

 

ETA: I don't mean to imply your daughter's wellness is offensive and horrifying. To borrow the language from those who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, I should probably clarify to say I find prayer immoral. 

[albeto.]

That's a bit like saying because some scientists have seriously proposed that the universe is a hologram, or really any odd thing you can think of, that it "represents" science.

 

It just represents what a guy thinks, within a discipline.  It could be demonstrably within the discipline, but still be a bad thinking, or just crazy, or unique. 

 

To get an idea of a whole discipline, you have to look at the whole.

 

 

It's not like that at all. Science is a method of discovery, accountable to scrutiny. Theology is a method of deductive reasoning with the variable of "god" being a requirement, accountable only to one's own comfort zone. 

[maize]

Who represents the catholic church if not her theologians?

The Catholic Church is an organization, random theologians within an organization do not speak for the organization unless given specific authorization to do so.

 

This is true for churches, universities, companies, political parties, etc.

[Lady Florida.]

Augustine of Hippo was opining and he certainly had a major influence on Church policy. It's not inconceivable (yes I do know what that word means PB fans ;) ) that other theologians who were just opining could also influence policy.

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Plain Mom and Albeto,

 

In your different ways, you're both displaying intolerance.

 

Plain Mom, Albeto's been very clear in her opinions on prayer. Continuing to tell her that you're praying for her strikes me as aggressive and unhelpful. 

 

Albeto, telling someone not that you disagree with her faith (which many people on this board do and have done), but that you find her expression of it "horrifying and offensive" crosses the line into personal attack, particularly since, in that post, she was not "praising God" for you, but for her own child's medical diagnosis.

 

I would appreciate both of you stepping away from each other now--or carrying on further discussions with each other by PM.

 

Thank you.

[Love]

nm   

Edited August 19, 2015 by Susan Wise Bauer
Please move on, thanks.

[maize]

Augustine of Hippo was opining and he certainly had a major influence on Church policy. It's not inconceivable (yes I do know what that word means PB fans ;) ) that other theologians who were just opining could also influence policy.

Of course.

 

Which is entirely different from attributing the opinion of each and every Catholic theologian to the Catholic Church itself.

 

This would be like attributing the opinion of every member of, say, a medical association to the association. Let's say my family Dr. thinks that orange oil is a great way to cure ear infections. Should I tell people that his medical association thinks orange oil cures ear infections? If I want to know the opinion of the medical association, I need to look at official statements approved by the association.

[Ernie]

.

I became pro-breastfeeding. I volunteered in an LLL group and tried to help people. I didn't go out an become "anti-formula" and start siuations to talk about how wrong/silly/awful formula is. It would have been just so negative to be like that, when I could have been out concentrating on the positive and the good.

 

To people like us, PlainMom, there isn't much point in imagining the positive without the negative. We follow the claim to it's logical conclusion, where ever that leads us.

 

If you say you promoted breast milk, you likely compared it to the alternative. I mean, a baby has to eat one thing or the other. I suppose you could have drawn the line at saying breast milk is as good as formula. "My baby survived on breast milk too?" Did you make a list of pros and cons to determine which method was BEST for your child? Did you promote the approach that made the MOST sense? If you claim one is surperior, you imply that the other is inferior, and neither claim or implication is more or less important than the other. Maybe you avoided words like "inferior", or maybe you qualified your claims with phrases like, "It was the best choice FOR ME.".

 

To people like us it doesn't matter. We appreciate your concern with congeniality, but the "negatives" of your statement aren't diminished, because you only mention the "positives". Both statements are made.

 

People tell my little girl "Jesus died to save you." and they think they've only said something good, but she asks, "Saves us from what?". A threat is implied in the claim whether you want the focus to be on that or not. That's a big, big, BIG problem. Don't do that. People are constantly terrorizing my children, and looking at me with open hands, saying, "What? I'm telling them the good news."

 

I point this problem out and I'm asked, "Why are you being so negative?".

[Ernie]

Free will and foreknowledge are orthogonal.

 

If He caused what He knew would happen, that would negate free will. If He merely knows what would happen, that doesn't negate free will. It's a difference of agency.

 

An example I heard (here I think) recently I thought illustrated this pretty well.

 

As a parent, there are things I can sort of 'see coming' from my DD. I don't cause them, but I can see that they are imminent.

Explain the concept of free will to me. What causes your DD to make her choices, and how did those causes get there?

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Ernie, you have very few posts and only (so far as I can pull them up) on controversial threads such as this one; would you like to introduce yourself?

 

SWB

[albeto.]

The Catholic Church is an organization, random theologians within an organization do not speak for the organization unless given specific authorization to do so.

 

This is true for churches, universities, companies, political parties, etc.

 

Leo Allatius hardly a "random theologian." In any case, the catholic church makes few dogmatic pronouncements, and these are usually arguably found in councils, as they formalize opinion in response to some popular heresy or heresies. One when such teachings are considered heretical does the church formally call for correction. Since this was speculation based on theological truths (ie, no part of the god of the bible would be disposable, even his little foreskin - just throwing that out from off the top of my head), and deduced from what people knew (the newly sited rings of Saturn) this idea was considered just as plausible as any others. It simply fell out of favor due to incoming information failing to confirm such ideas. 

[albeto.]

Plain Mom and Albeto,

 

In your different ways, you're both displaying intolerance.

 

Plain Mom, Albeto's been very clear in her opinions on prayer. Continuing to tell her that you're praying for her strikes me as aggressive and unhelpful. 

 

Albeto, telling someone not that you disagree with her faith (which many people on this board do and have done), but that you find her expression of it "horrifying and offensive" crosses the line into personal attack, particularly since, in that post, she was not "praising God" for you, but for her own child's medical diagnosis.

 

I would appreciate both of you stepping away from each other now--or carrying on further discussions with each other by PM.

 

Thank you.

 

Thank you for being clear. I will not engage PlainMom in this discussion any more, but I don't want her to think anything she said strikes me as being aggressive and unhelpful. On the contrary. 

[Ausmumof3]

Only, the evidence we have paints a different historical picture. The evidence we have shows these religious beliefs were not limited to Jesus. Beliefs about following a man who was the son of a god, born from a human mother were nothing new at this time. Rituals such as breaking bread and drinking wine as a community in hopeful anticipation of being carried up to the heavens after death to live with the god man and his father god precedes the rituals attributed to Jesus. Beliefs in the redemption of mankind at the hands of the god man who suffered on behalf of men didn't start with Jesus, either. In fact, just about every theological idea, and most stories, had been passed around in regions preceding Israel of the first century. Consolidation of stories and formalization of theological "truths" were offered once and for all (the first time) in the 4th century.

Yes various non Christian beliefs have been welded to the original message at various times.

[Bluegoat]

It's not like that at all. Science is a method of discovery, accountable to scrutiny. Theology is a method of deductive reasoning with the variable of "god" being a requirement, accountable only to one's own comfort zone. 

 

In theology generally, and Catholic theology in particular, the view of any one theologian is not representative of the whole.  An even basic acquaintance with Catholic theology should make that evident.  That is just an objectively true statement - that is not how it works and the rules for the system don't allow it.  Perhaps some of the presuppositions that led you to that particular conclusion might be flawed.

[albeto.]

Yes various non Christian beliefs have been welded to the original message at various times.

 

The entirety of the xian religion is a product of non xian beliefs evolved and modifying over time. Your own documents show a progression of beliefs, from yahweh being one of many gods, to the strongest of the gods, to the only god. Jesus is at first a celestial being who gives Paul visions of events such as the last supper (not new to xianity), and his death and resurrection (not new to xianity). The stories of Jesus evolve over the next few decades to include Mark's suffering servant, keeping under the radar until the very last minute, no miraculous birth to announce his incarnation; to Matthew's Jesus, an improvement Jesus who corrects some of the earlier mistakes and includes some more miracles for good measure; to Luke's Jesus, unflappable and strong of character (even at age 12); to John's Jesus, a veritable Divine Terminator who fears no Roman, hides no miracle, constantly talks about his divinity where others were silent, and making declarations that practically dare the Jews to arrest him for blasphemy at their earliest convenience. The bible encourages both free will and predestination, although these are mutually incompatible when considered biblically. The bible encourages both works and faith - alone but also together - as the means of justification. The bible steals stories from other religions and usurps rituals from other gods (like the "last supper" and the death/rebirth bits). The bible is a rich source of historic insight into the mythology of the Jewish and then xian religions, but there has yet to be one "original message" universally understood by all xians. If you don't believe me, you can tell me what you think the original message is, I (or likely someone else, as I'm considered completely dishonest and untrustworthy by some) will start a thread asking if that's true, and we'll see how many good and true and devout "real xians" disagree with you. I can guarantee they'll have reasons for their answers. 

[albeto.]

In theology generally, and Catholic theology in particular, the view of any one theologian is not representative of the whole. 

 

Never argued it was. And it doesn't change my point. At one point "the catholic church" taught that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth. The theologians responsible for justifying the threats and arrest against Copernicus and Galileo spoke on behalf of the CC. Eventually, theologians argued even this point, and over the course of some decades/centuries, "the catholic church" taught another thing. During that time of transition, however, theologians speculated (because really, that is what they do, and that is all they can do) different points. Each time, they represented the catholic church. The only difference is this example is particularly embarrassing (well, the rotation of the sun around the earth is too, but everyone already knows about that). 

[albeto.]

lol, what is it like to be an atheist ? It's like being any other person. We're not a different species. Except for the baby eating...

 

snort

 

When my mom asked me about my deconversion, I asked her if she had trouble sleeping at night knowing that Zeus is very angry she has yet to contribute any coins to his temple upkeep. She said, "Well, no."

 

I said, "Yeah, it's like that."

[Ausmumof3]

The entirety of the xian religion is a product of non xian beliefs evolved and modifying over time. Your own documents show a progression of beliefs, from yahweh being one of many gods, to the strongest of the gods, to the only god. Jesus is at first a celestial being who gives Paul visions of events such as the last supper (not new to xianity), and his death and resurrection (not new to xianity). The stories of Jesus evolve over the next few decades to include Mark's suffering servant, keeping under the radar until the very last minute, no miraculous birth to announce his incarnation; to Matthew's Jesus, an improvement Jesus who corrects some of the earlier mistakes and includes some more miracles for good measure; to Luke's Jesus, unflappable and strong of character (even at age 12); to John's Jesus, a veritable Divine Terminator who fears no Roman, hides no miracle, constantly talks about his divinity where others were silent, and making declarations that practically dare the Jews to arrest him for blasphemy at their earliest convenience. The bible encourages both free will and predestination, although these are mutually incompatible when considered biblically. The bible encourages both works and faith - alone but also together - as the means of justification. The bible steals stories from other religions and usurps rituals from other gods (like the "last supper" and the death/rebirth bits). The bible is a rich source of historic insight into the mythology of the Jewish and then xian religions, but there has yet to be one "original message" universally understood by all xians. If you don't believe me, you can tell me what you think the original message is, I (or likely someone else, as I'm considered completely dishonest and untrustworthy by some) will start a thread asking if that's true, and we'll see how many good and true and devout "real xians" disagree with you. I can guarantee they'll have reasons for their answers.

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail your atheist thread I just responded to one question with a bit of factual info. I would like to ask questions about some of your statements but don't want to be the rude Christian turning a fun thread into a debate.

 

I am stuck on where in the bible god is considered one of many gods? I don't mean to be dumb I just don't recall reading it? If you don't want to answer because this is meant to be a fun thread that's totally ok.

 

In all honesty I am not comfortable starting my own thread with a belief statement but I enjoy reading and hearing your perspectives.

[albeto.]

Sorry, I didn't mean to derail your atheist thread I just responded to one question with a bit of factual info. I would like to ask questions about some of your statements but don't want to be the rude Christian turning a fun thread into a debate.

 

I am stuck on where in the bible god is considered one of many gods? I don't mean to be dumb I just don't recall reading it? If you don't want to answer because this is meant to be a fun thread that's totally ok.

 

In all honesty I am not comfortable starting my own thread with a belief statement but I enjoy reading and hearing your perspectives.

 

No worries. It definitely goes under weird stuff! This historic record shows a mythology of El and Asherah who had 70 sons, the strongest of which was Yahweh. Information of this mythology comes from sources outside, but related to the texts later canonized as the old testament. Notice how the old testament doesn't mention the idea that no other gods exist, just that they shouldn't be worshiped (oh, and if someone in another town does worship another god, you should go and kill him, and for good measure, everyone in the town, everything in the town, and then burn that sucker to the ground so god may turn from the fierceness of his anger, shew mercy, have compassion, and multiply his people, Dt 13:13-19). That whole episode with Aaron and Moses and the Pharaoh's sorcerers and magicians with the dueling miracles shows either these guys were legit magicians with skills on par with Dumbledore, or they had gods on their side, too. Here's a few biblical references that refer to the ancient polytheistic belief (follow its link for a more detailed explanation). Also, you can search yourself for polytheism in the bible, Ugarit and the bible, Asherah, and the 70 gods who are children of El, to get you started. 

[Ausmumof3]

Oh I did read your link! I had always thought of el as a generic word for god and Yahweh as the name not two separate entities. But if el wasn't considered a name I wonder why the Jewish people use the word Hashem instead because of not using the name. And again I'd always seen the magicians as using some kind of trickery. But of course when you are overly familiar with stuff you just read over it without too much thought.

 

The verses that reference gods I think use the word Elohim which is literally something like mighty ones or something. Also it's and odd word because it's plural or singular depending on the context.

 

Thx for the info. I have another rabbit trail to follow...

[Onceuponatime]

If you were to read Genesis as an individual book, without any preconceived ideas about monotheism, you would see no approbation of other gods. Abraham's family back in Haran did not worship Abraham's God. Yahweh was seen as just that, "Abraham's God" not anyone else's god. Isaac and Jacob each inherit Yahweh from their fathers. As Abraham travels, he usually sets up camp near the area's "Great Tree." Great trees were cultic sites where gods were consulted. Abraham's servants respect Abraham's god, but he is obviously not their god. Rachel stole her father's household gods. Joseph married the daughter of an Egyptian priest who most likely worshipped Ra.

 

Another wierd thing about the God in Genesis is that he basically has two names, Yahweh, which is translated "the lord" in English texts, and Elohim, which is translated God. Elohim is a plural word used in a singular fashion. El was the Canaanite high God and the common noun for god (lower case). You see el stuck on to the end of people and place names in Genesis. Ra is used in the same way in Egyptian names. You do not see the same done with Yahweh. Some Christians prefer to think of Elohim as the trinity or "the godhead." It could just as easily have been a collective noun for "all the gods."

 

ETA: It took me a while to type this and I missed that it had already been mentioned.

[Bluegoat]

Never argued it was. And it doesn't change my point. At one point "the catholic church" taught that the sun does indeed revolve around the earth. The theologians responsible for justifying the threats and arrest against Copernicus and Galileo spoke on behalf of the CC. Eventually, theologians argued even this point, and over the course of some decades/centuries, "the catholic church" taught another thing. During that time of transition, however, theologians speculated (because really, that is what they do, and that is all they can do) different points. Each time, they represented the catholic church. The only difference is this example is particularly embarrassing (well, the rotation of the sun around the earth is too, but everyone already knows about that). 

 

You asked who represented the Church's view if not theologians.  You presented that particular idea as representative.  "The Catholic Church" did not teach that.  A particular theologian speculated on it.  Presenting it as the teaching of the body is very misleading. 

 

Theological discussion happens a lot like historical discussion, or scientific discussion, over time.  People write their ideas, argue them, others agree or disagree or refine them.  New information is taken within the basic paradigm and changes the way things look.  Sometimes the paradigm undergoes upheaval.  This isn't some kind of secret, or controversial in theology, any more than it is in other areas of study.  Speculation happens in many areas of study as well, including the sciences - imagination is in fact an important part of science, and theoretical ideas that can't be subject to testing for many years, if ever, have often driven new scientific ideas.

 

THe idea of the rings of Saturn as a foreskin isn't embarrassing, although it is comical for us, in part perhaps because it has some bathroom characteristics. It's weird, because it is not part of our culture to think about things in that way.(And arguably it is speculative natural history as much as speculative theology.) The reasons for such an idea could be instructive to someone looking to get some insight into the concerns of the theologians - it seems weird to us to think about it as an important question, but for them it was a kind of conservation of matter/energy issue, and that concern is based on some fairly important ideas in Christianity - in particular the idea that matter is real and good, not an illusion or by nature degraded. 

 

Why should it be embarrassing for someone to consider a solution to a structural problem in their system in an imaginative way, or for it to be left behind when it proves to be unlikely?

 

You should probably take the time to read more about Galileo as you've mischarachterized that as well. 

[Lady Florida.]

(oh, and if someone in another town does worship another god, you should go and kill him, and for good measure, everyone in the town, everything in the town, and then burn that sucker to the ground so god may turn from the fierceness of his anger, shew mercy, have compassion, and multiply his people, Dt 13:13-19). 

 

Well, almost everyone and almost everything.

 

Sometimes you should kidnap and rape their virgins and force them to marry your men. Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18

 

And of course, sometimes rather than kill their animals (cattle, sheep, goats) you should keep them for yourselves.

[Ernie]

Ernie, you have very few posts and only (so far as I can pull them up) on controversial threads such as this one; would you like to introduce yourself?

 

SWB

Sure,

My name is Ernie. My wife and I have homeschooled our 4 kids for 13 years. We have been heavily influenced by your work for which I am truly grateful. We actually saw you speak in Cincinnati a few years ago after Ken Ham was critical of your association with Peter Enns. Maybe you remember me. I was the dashing bald guy 3rd from the aisle in the 20th row, sitting next to a disproportionately beautiful woman.

Sooo, I feel like I'm in trouble. The short story is I gradually deconverted from Christianity over the past few years. I just couldn't handle the cognitive dissonance. It had gotten to the point where the subject of God's existence made me dizzy and made feel like I needed to hurl.

The long version is I found myself in some unique positions that prompted me to think through things with a certain unfetteredness that comes with a measure of social isolation. Additionally, I was teaching critical thinking skills at school, and I found myself wondering why I didn't apply the same stringent standards to the most important areas of my life. Shouldn't it be the other way around? I decided to examine my Christianity, (as well as other versions) with the same sense of skepticism that I applied to things as trivial as money. I was fairly certain that everything I already believed would be confirmed, so it wasn't that hard to swear to follow the evidence wherever it lead.

Truth trumps all. A lifetime of fake love, false hope and an artificial sense of belonging pales in comparison to a few honest conversations. The evidence didn't lead back to Christianity, though. It lead to nowhere. Our existence is a big fat mystery.

The relief that came with that final admittance to myself that I had no clue as to how we got here cannot be overstated. It was like an instantaneous cure of an epic bout of car sickness. My brain was whole again. That's all I really got out of it. My lifestyle hasn't changed, except that I thank my wife for dinner and not a disembodied spirit.

My biggest concern was losing favor with my wife. I adored her, and I wanted to maintain and even improve strong loving bonds with her, but I knew how Christians view atheists. I remembered how I used to view atheists. Atheists are the most discriminated minority in America, more than blacks, more than Hispanics or gays. Studies show that most Americans would just assume live next door to a sex offender. A sex offender had the potential to ruin a life, but if an atheist contaminated your children's thinking, God might see fit to torture him or her for eternity. It's a no-brainer. I don't blame them.

The point is I doubted my chances with my wife. Jesus was stiff competition. I asked her to do one thing for me, to examine the evidence as if she wasn't afraid of hurting Jesus's feelings and as if she wasn't afraid of hell. "Look at this as if for the first time," I said. That's a tall order, because it's next to impossible to honestly and critically analyze something if you already believe that you will reap eternal damnation for not confirming the hypothesis. It's like the evil queen holding a rock in her hand, asking the mirror, "Who's the fairest of them all?" The mirror might be partial to answers that it thinks will spare its smooth and un-crackled surface. It takes an extraordinary amount of courage or a few moments of being so brain fried that you just don't care anymore. I had the latter, but she had the former.

She read a few books, and posted some questions on here about the investigation. Albeto, god bless her, contributed to those posts and was able to phrase things so succinctly and gracefully that my wife's faith wavered. Naturally, I became a fan. I read her posts as faithfully as I read any other periodicals. My wife decided to get to the bottom of this and read a library on the subject and eventually conceded that the god of the bible was no more likely than any of the other gods written about in mythology. Now, you may have mixed opinions about this, but it's conceivable that these threads saved our marriage, though from your perspective it might have cost her her soul. I doubt it.

We don't really believe in souls, so for us, we feel that we get one life, but we get to live it out with the people we love. It took me awhile to adjust, but I adjusted, we adjusted. We grieved and recovered like we do when someone dies. Our best friend and greatest confidant had died, and this time for good. It takes about a year. As with grief there are typical phases in the transition that can be tracked. One of them involves a period of expressing your new thoughts like we have done here. We came from a life where this issue is the most important issue conceivable. Eternity was at stake.

For a time we felt compelled to challenge everybody to rethink their positions, with a similar sense of urgency at first, but then we adjusted to the idea that there is no actual reason to believe that our consciousnesses will live after our brain waves cease, and we realize that it's actually not important at all. If eternal bliss or damnation didn't actually hinge on a single belief, the issue was trivial. We might as well engage in debates on the existence of ghosts, Bigfoot or leprechauns...no offense.

Our little girl wanted to keep believing in God, but she just couldn't do it. I didn't tell her there was no God. I just said that I didn't believe, and I only said it when she asked. Her mother said she did believe. I simply explained that there was just no evidence, and that I don't have the capacity to believe every story that has no evidence. She believed in Santa Clause and fairies longer than she believed in God. There was way more evidence for Santa Clause and fairies. There were half eaten cookies and presents under the Christmas tree, and I screwed a cool little door to a tree in our yard where fairies obviously lived.

Atheists used to have a don't ask don't tell mentality. They kept their thoughts to themselves so people wouldn't ostracize them. Then 9/11 happened, and they began to rethink their place in society. We now feel morally obliged to speak out for the use of reason over faith. We're just like you. We want to make the world a better place, and support each other in this pursuit.

[albeto.]

Well, almost everyone and almost everything.

 

Sometimes you should kidnap and rape their virgins and force them to marry your men. Judges 21:10-24, Numbers 31:7-18

 

And of course, sometimes rather than kill their animals (cattle, sheep, goats) you should keep them for yourselves.

 

Don't forget, 32 of those virgins were for Yahweh himself (Num 31:40). 

 

[Illustrated bible picture link]

[albeto.]

Oh I did read your link! I had always thought of el as a generic word for god and Yahweh as the name not two separate entities. But if el wasn't considered a name I wonder why the Jewish people use the word Hashem instead because of not using the name. And again I'd always seen the magicians as using some kind of trickery. But of course when you are overly familiar with stuff you just read over it without too much thought.

 

The verses that reference gods I think use the word Elohim which is literally something like mighty ones or something. Also it's and odd word because it's plural or singular depending on the context.

 

Thx for the info. I have another rabbit trail to follow...

 

I think the way you read it is the way all of us who have been raised to respect and trust the bible have read it. It doesn't make sense when we're told there's only one god, and so we tend to accept answers like this. We accept them because it makes more sense against the backdrop of what "everyone knows," but also, more insidiously, we accept them because people we trust (parents) tell us so. That's where historical evidence from the greater region comes in. Through an historical lens, we can see what the writers intended for their own audience - a concept even the most literalist readers will advocate, but not when it differs from the acceptable dogma (one god in three persons). For me, it's difficult to take someone seriously when they say they do think about these religious problems seriously, they apply critical thinking skills, they are relentlessly curious and will dig for the truth, but when some fact or information comes to light that completely throws these ideas on their head, they are dismissed and rejected faster than Josh Duggar's next job application. 

[albeto.]

We don't really believe in souls, so for us, we feel that we get one life, but we get to live it out with the people we love. It took me awhile to adjust, but I adjusted, we adjusted. We grieved and recovered like we do when someone dies. Our best friend and greatest confidant had died, and this time for good. It takes about a year. As with grief there are typical phases in the transition that can be tracked. One of them involves a period of expressing your new thoughts like we have done here. We came from a life where this issue is the most important issue conceivable. Eternity was at stake.

 

This is exactly my hope for this thread. I'll be glad to see it used for those who need a "safe" place to explore, articulate, heck, even question some of these things that have always been taboo to challenge. And I don't mean taboo only in the sense that society will punish one through shunning, shaming, and renewed threats of eternal damnation, but the taboo one's own mind enforces. When people have been trained to "capture their own thoughts" and reject doubt ("I believe, help o thou my unbelief"), it can be a difficult process to do what you did - hold these claims accountable regardless of the outcome. And let's face it, the outcome just may be one's own sense of emotional well being. Surely that's one very real fear. I recall reading testimony after testimony of xians who brought themselves back from the brink of unbelief, only to report the feelings of loss, emptiness, loneliness, abandonment, and despair they "knew" they would suffer if they had allowed themselves to give in to temptation and give up their belief. I couldn't believe the lack of trauma myself, and your reference to the end of feeling carsick is a familiar feeling. I have friends who cannot share their thoughts with their loved ones because they're not so fortunate as to have a spouse that will take the challenge. Huh, as I'm typing this out I realize in every example I can think of, it's the husband's deconversion that leads to the wife's questioning, and the wife's deconversion that leads to hiding due to a very legitimate fear of losing her marriage, children, home, and community. I don't know what, if anything that means. I'm glad to have one "safe" place for people to go, and I'm humbled to hear my small part in your own liberation. 

 

Atheists used to have a don't ask don't tell mentality. They kept their thoughts to themselves so people wouldn't ostracize them. Then 9/11 happened, and they began to rethink their place in society. We now feel morally obliged to speak out for the use of reason over faith. We're just like you. We want to make the world a better place, and support each other in this pursuit.

 

+1

[Ernie]

This one is weird to me.

Leviticus 21: 19-21.

…19or a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, 20or a hunchback or a dwarf, or one who has a defect in his eye or eczema or scabs or crushed testicles. 21No man among the descendants of Aaron the priest who has a defect is to come near to offer the LORD'S offerings by fire; since he has a defect, he shall not come near to offer the food of his God.…

 

What does God have against dwarves and cripples?

[Ernie]

Ernie, you have very few posts and only (so far as I can pull them up) on controversial threads such as this one; would you like to introduce yourself?

 

SWB

Did I pass?

[Audrey]

Hi Ernie!

 

That's the best intro post I've ever read here.  :thumbup1:

[Ausmumof3]

I think the way you read it is the way all of us who have been raised to respect and trust the bible have read it. It doesn't make sense when we're told there's only one god, and so we tend to accept answers like this. We accept them because it makes more sense against the backdrop of what "everyone knows," but also, more insidiously, we accept them because people we trust (parents) tell us so. That's where historical evidence from the greater region comes in. Through an historical lens, we can see what the writers intended for their own audience - a concept even the most literalist readers will advocate, but not when it differs from the acceptable dogma (one god in three persons). For me, it's difficult to take someone seriously when they say they do think about these religious problems seriously, they apply critical thinking skills, they are relentlessly curious and will dig for the truth, but when some fact or information comes to light that completely throws these ideas on their head, they are dismissed and rejected faster than Josh Duggar's next job application.

Was the latter part aimed in my direction or just a general statement? I am still reading and following up on some of your info but also am a busy mum so it's not happening in a day. I tend to build and collect info over time - that's how I work. If it wasn't meant that way - sorry for being touchy.

[BrookValley.]

Did I pass?

If this is a democracy, you get my vote.

[Ausmumof3]

Is there a translation of the Ugarit texts available or do you have to know the language to read it?

[Susan Wise Bauer]

Thanks, Ernie! Much appreciated. Nice to "meet" you. (Now if I could only pull up the mental picture of the dashing bald guy next to the strikingly beautiful woman...)

 

SWB

[Ernie]

Thanks, Ernie! Much appreciated. Nice to "meet" you. (Now if I could only pull up the mental picture of the dashing bald guy next to the strikingly beautiful woman...)

 

SWB

It was "disproportionately beautiful". All women are strikingly beautiful. This one just looked out of place.

 

Anyway, I remember you. I don't see what the problem is.

[albeto.]

Was the latter part aimed in my direction or just a general statement? I am still reading and following up on some of your info but also am a busy mum so it's not happening in a day. I tend to build and collect info over time - that's how I work. If it wasn't meant that way - sorry for being touchy.

 

In general. I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. I didn't have any one poster in mind, but rather a history of comments along this line. 

 

Is there a translation of the Ugarit texts available or do you have to know the language to read it?

 

Well, I found this: http://religion.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-90

 

Maybe it will help? 

[albeto.]

And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him [Moses], and sought to kill him.

Then Zipporah [Moses' wife] took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me.

So he [Yahweh] let him [Moses] go

Exodus 4:24-26

 

What on earth did Moses do to anger the lord so much that yahweh wanted to kill him? In the last sentence, he was telling Moses of his plans to send Moses to Pharaoh, and how Pharaoh wouldn't care, and so he'd kill his baby to show him who's boss. But where does the foreskin come into this? How on earth did throwing a bloody foreskin down on the ground calm him down so fast? How did Zipporah think to *do* that? 

 

Really, this makes no sense to me. I find it beyond weird. 

[bolt.]

I love the Zippy's Day story! Every critical thinker runs into it eventually. (And many of them come and ask me about it in RL, after they have a good solid, 'What-the-???!" reaction I the privacy of their own Bible time.)

 

I do know some reasonable answers to your questions, in the form of of an an intersection of the context of ancient near east culture and general Christian theological thought.

 

But I don't know if the point of the thread is just to say, "Yep, that's definitely a weird part!" (It is! Definitely!) Or to actually present serious answers that demonstrate how people who take this stuff seriously actually manage to digest it.

[Stacia]

The things I find odd or distressing in the Bible are things that many on this thread have already mentioned. There is just so much disturbing content yet the book is revered as holy. That's a definite disconnect for me.

 

One thing that has always confused me is the belief that the word of the Bible is correct & infallible, even though most people today are reading translated versions of the supposed original. And most translations are translations of translations. That alone (allowing for error in mankind's part in the translation process) waters down the 'holy' words (in my opinion at least). And that's assuming that there were no malicious or purposeful errors added during the multiple translation processes. (I have Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus here but haven't read it yet.)

 

On a completely different note.... Early in the thread, someone mentioned Bill Maher. I greatly enjoyed watching his religious 'documentary'. I realize the movie offends some, but I think he asks a lot of the questions that have been asked here. I saw it in a packed theater & I would say about half the theater agreed with him & the other half was completely outraged.

[ktgrok]

I was raised Catholic then converted to United Methodist as an adult. I never even knew there were people who read the Bible literally until we started homeschooling. I was quite shocked to learn that anyone read it literally. I also never knew about YEC before homeschooling. 

 

 

Different denominations, but this. I in no way take all of the Bible literally. It is the words of real people trying to make sense of things that happened, but containing their own prejudices, mistakes, and limited understanding. 

 

It would be far weirder if it read like a liberal manifesto, complete with epigenetics and quantum physics, given who the audience was. 

[6packofun]

most people today are reading translated versions of the supposed original. And most translations are translations of translations. That alone (allowing for error in mankind's part in the translation process) waters down the 'holy' words (in my opinion at least). And that's assuming that there were no malicious or purposeful errors added during the multiple translation processes. (I have Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus here but haven't read it yet.)

 

That's not actually true.  It's a commonly held *belief*, but not accurate.  Modern translations are translated FROM the original languages.  So we're working with a translation, period.  Now, do we have the originals as in the exact piece of paper or whatever material it was written on by the original author?  Nope.  Should we be concerned about copies?  Perhaps, but we can know that the process was meticulous and we don't have good reasons to believe that foundational concepts (rather than grammatical errors, misplaced words, added words for clarification, etc. which make up the HUGE majority of variants) were tinkered with.  Do you know of any proof that manuscripts were being changed drastically on purpose? 

 

We might think that we should be concerned about copies of copies.  Yes, that's a valid question.  But considering how LONG copies of the originals were kept in use, it's a good bet that, when also comparing and contrasting with the thousands of manuscripts/fragments that show the very little actual variation (again, in meaning of passages, not grammar, etc.), we have a pretty solid idea of what the authors meant to say.  (Take for example the Codex Vaticanus, a copy of the New Testament, made sometime in the 4th century.  It wasn't re-inked to continue being used until the 10th century.  So this ONE copy was in use for about 600 years.  Manuscripts and other writings were treated much differently back then. :) )  

 

We should give the Bible the same deference that we give other ancient manuscripts.  Tacitus' Histories and Annals--we have "early" manuscripts from the 9th and 11th centuries and the originals were actually written in the FIRST century.  Do we doubt that we have a pretty darn good idea of what he wrote down?  No.  The gap between the originals of the NT and the earliest copies is really not that big in the grand scheme of things considering all of the corroboration there is.

[albeto.]

I do know some reasonable answers to your questions, in the form of of an an intersection of the context of ancient near east culture and general Christian theological thought.

 

But I don't know if the point of the thread is just to say, "Yep, that's definitely a weird part!" (It is! Definitely!) Or to actually present serious answers that demonstrate how people who take this stuff seriously actually manage to digest it.

 

The point of this thread is to give a place to former religious believers, and those who have never really been religious believers who also wonder about "weird stuff" and disturbing content in the founding documents of the xian religion a place to express those questions and comments. I think there's value in being able to explore, articulate, learn, and share ideas that don't conform to the expectations of one's society (whether that be locally or nationally or globally). There's a measure of support in knowing one isn't alone in having certain ideas and concerns and questions about things it seems everyone else "gets." It is my hope this thread functions as a place of safety for those who have such questions or comments about bible stories and ideas that are otherwise considered social taboo to criticize in public. 

 

Having said that, I'm game for hearing a reasonable explanation about why throwing down a child's foreskin would appease the anger of Yahweh.