Happy Atheist Forum

That's my problem with this book. It's been edited, parts kept in and parts thrown out, interpreted and translated and all of that according to the whim of who had the most to gain by having the bible say what they wanted it to.

All this stuff is from Wikipedia:

"James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy."

That's the King James Version, the one I guess most Christians read. King James gave the translators instructions to make the bible work for the Church of England. Smells fishy already.

"The Bible as used by Christians is divided into the Old Testament and the New Testament. The canonical composition of the Old Testament is in dispute between Christian groups: Protestants hold the books of the Hebrew Bible to be canonical and include them in what they call the Old Testament. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox additionally consider the deuterocanonical books, a group of Jewish books, to be a canonical part of their Old Testament. "

In dispute it says. This side says one thing and the other says another thing. It's all about "canonical composition."

"Pope Damasus I assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Council of Rome in AD 382. He commissioned Saint Jerome to produce a reliable and consistent text by translating the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin. This translation became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and in 1546 at the Council of Trent was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official Bible in the Latin Rite."

Declared by the Church to be the official Bible. In 1546! Sorry, King James. Your 1611 version of the bible ain't official. Well, it is as far as you're concerned, and you're the king so hey! Why the hell not?

Now it doesn't take much imagination to figure that these people who were doing all this assembling and editing and translating under the influence of councils and kings weren't going to get every little thing exactly right. I mean, I'm still looking for the perfect translation of Crime and Punishment. My Russian speaking cousin tells me that such a translation is not possible, not really. So as someone who only speaks English I'll never know what it's like to read that book, not really.

So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

Quote from: "i_am_i"So how in the Sam Hill, after so many people have had their hands on this collection of writings, after it's been through so many editions and versions and political fiddling about, how can anyone say that the Bible is the true undisputed word of God?

Well, rationally, they shouldn't be able to.  But rationality has never really been the central concern of people who claim that a story book written by a primitive society is undeniably and irrefutably true (even without multiple translations and alterations).  Plus, most of the Christian mythology was based on pre-existing popular stories of the time (like the virgin birth myth, etc.).  Wasn't it the Concil of Nicea (or something like that) that decided what stories and myths would actually go into the book?  And that was like 300+ years later, when they decided to make all the holidays parallel the Pagan ones, so the other members of society wouldn't notice so much the encroaching monotheist nonsense in their culture...  

I'm a big advocate of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  If you want to look into different changes and the processes that created the bible translations we know today then you'd like this book.  

Some people don't realize that the bible has been changed and to what extent over the years.  They don't know of the Apocrypha and other heretical texts that have been around over the centuries that the orthodox church killed the followers of.  Hell some people don't know that the bible originally wasn't in English much less that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added centuries after the fact to make the bible seem more credible.  But many people who don't know these things wouldn't believe you if you told them it was the case.

You can't paint everyone with one brush and say just because the bible has been changed they shouldn't believe it.  Many may be ignorant of this fact, but many Christians like Reginus (one of our resident Christians in case you didn't know) who knows the bible has been changed will say that the book has been edited, just not to the point where the message has been changed.  He is half right here and I have to give credit where it is due.  You can't say it is unreliable if a few words here and there have been changed but the overall story/flow is nearly identical to previous translations.  However if this is the case you can't call the book the literal word of God but you can call it the inspired word of God.  This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

I disagree with this of course and I can point to instances where the stories and the characters have been changed / added.  But thats irrelevant to the point i'm trying to make.  Which is just because a book has been changed it is not necessarily intellectually dishonest to still believe in it.  

Also I have found through many arguments that arguing the reliability of the bible will get you no where.  Instead you need to argue if the stories are plausible or depict reality.  Even if a story of zombies walking the streets is the original from 2000 years ago doesn't mean it depicts reality.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

A quick word: in my understanding, being evangelical doesn't necessarily being a being fundie. Evangelicalism is simply a branch of Christianity which places an emphasis on Jesus + being "born again." I don't see any conflict between this and moderate interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, a lot of Evangelicals are fundamentalists, but to be a pirate, you don't need to have a peg leg.

My understanding of the definition of evangelicalism was always that it describes those sects of Christianity which engage in evangelism, or proselytising. At any rate, that's what I was taught in one of those kinds of churches, so not surprisingly, it's probably wrong: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evangelical

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I'm a big advocate of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman.  If you want to look into different changes and the processes that created the bible translations we know today then you'd like this book.  

Some people don't realize that the bible has been changed and to what extent over the years.  They don't know of the Apocrypha and other heretical texts that have been around over the centuries that the orthodox church killed the followers of.  Hell some people don't know that the bible originally wasn't in English much less that the names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were added centuries after the fact to make the bible seem more credible.  But many people who don't know these things wouldn't believe you if you told them it was the case.

You can't paint everyone with one brush and say just because the bible has been changed they shouldn't believe it.  Many may be ignorant of this fact, but many Christians like Reginus (one of our resident Christians in case you didn't know) who knows the bible has been changed will say that the book has been edited, just not to the point where the message has been changed.  He is half right here and I have to give credit where it is due.  You can't say it is unreliable if a few words here and there have been changed but the overall story/flow is nearly identical to previous translations.  However if this is the case you can't call the book the literal word of God but you can call it the inspired word of God.  This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

I disagree with this of course and I can point to instances where the stories and the characters have been changed / added.  But thats irrelevant to the point i'm trying to make.  Which is just because a book has been changed it is not necessarily intellectually dishonest to still believe in it.  

Also I have found through many arguments that arguing the reliability of the bible will get you no where.  Instead you need to argue if the stories are plausible or depict reality.  Even if a story of zombies walking the streets is the original from 2000 years ago doesn't mean it depicts reality.

I think in this case, I may disagree with you. I agree, denouncing books because a few words change, but the flow and meaning is retained, is not logical, but that is not what is happening here. Books of the bible were choosen, by people, to be included or not, large parts were left out, the editing was done with an intent to change the message the bible (make Jesus look more miraculous, more convincingly the son of god). If I were publishing a report about the earthquake situation Haiti right now, and the international relief effort, and you then, edited it, but excluding the aid contributions of certain countries, for instance, I would say that compromises the integrity of the report.

Quote from: "SSY"I think in this case, I may disagree with you. I agree, denouncing books because a few words change, but the flow and meaning is retained, is not logical, but that is not what is happening here. Books of the bible were choosen, by people, to be included or not, large parts were left out, the editing was done with an intent to change the message the bible (make Jesus look more miraculous, more convincingly the son of god). If I were publishing a report about the earthquake situation Haiti right now, and the international relief effort, and you then, edited it, but excluding the aid contributions of certain countries, for instance, I would say that compromises the integrity of the report.

I totally agree with you here.  The point I was trying to make was that theists aren't necessarily irrational/idiots for believing in a book that has been changed.  Many are ignorant of the fact it has been changed in the first place.  However those who do know this and still believe can make the case that it hasn't been changed enough to change the meaning.  I would, of course, disagree and argue that 1: the word of god was voted on, 2: many things were changed intentionally, and 3: we don't know who the authors are much less their intentions when writing the bible.  I was just saying that to leap to the point that everyone who believes in the bible is irrational because the bible has been changed is logically fallacious.

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"This argument throws fundies and evangelicals under the rug but leaves moderate Christians intact.

A quick word: in my understanding, being evangelical doesn't necessarily being a being fundie. Evangelicalism is simply a branch of Christianity which places an emphasis on Jesus + being "born again." I don't see any conflict between this and moderate interpretation of the Bible.

Of course, a lot of Evangelicals are fundamentalists, but to be a pirate, you don't need to have a peg leg.

I am aware of this and thats why I used the word and.  It may be the area I live in (bible belt) but I haven't met a moderate evangelical though i've heard a few stories about them.  They are usually trying to convince other evangelists that evolution is true.  Besides how big does the general population have to be before we refer to the moderates as the minority?

Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

Quote from: "bfat"Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

It's only the obviously silly things they take like that, obviously made up=Allegory/metaphor, harder to disprove=fact. Why some bits of it are true, and others false, and why god felt the need to obscure some of his divine truth in a load of made up superstition, they usually never get around to explaining.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"snip

True dat.

He could have put everything allegorical in italics. Too bad god didn't invent italics until the 15th century.

Quote from: "bfat"Something that I could never quite comprehend, though, is people who believe that some of the bible is metaphorical (like genesis, and the flood, etc., therefore allowing for a belief in evolution), but insist that other parts of it are entirely true.  My mother is one of these people.  She's a Catholic who believes in evolution and that many of the early stories of the bible are metaphorical, but that everything involving Jesus is true.  I guess, since the old testament and new testament were compiled so far apart, that this is where she makes the distinction.  But knowing that it was MEN who put together all the stories into one book (as mentioned above) and declared it the word of God... this seems to fall apart.  Since the various sections of the bible are so vastly different, and sometimes contradict each other, and knowing that at least some of the bible is metaphorical... why is it so impossible for some people to accept that it's possible that all of the bible is metaphorical?

And of course there is the argument that some of the bible is historical, and this is true, but setting a metaphor or an allegory, or even a "fairy tale," in a historically accurate setting doesn't make it true.

It just frustrates me that people who accept that some of the bible isn't absolute truth won't admit to the possibility that the rest of it could also be untrue...

My best friend is the same way and it too is very frustrating.  He flat out told me when I started reading the bible that i can't treat it like other books that I have to look at it under some different lens.  I guess he was trying to say I needed to just accept it and not think about it.  I've asked him about parts of the bible and he made the mistake once saying that it was metaphor (I don't remember the part now but he is a YEC so it wasn't about genesis) I asked him how can he separate fact from metaphor in the bible and he said to me, "You have to do it very carefully".  What?!?! So I said this and he never brought up metaphor again, "How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?  You can't tell the difference all you are doing is picking and choosing what you believe without justification all the while trying to avoid the realization that it was written by bronze age barbarians with no clue about the universe who were so insecure with not knowing that they made shit up which you read today and ignore 95%+ of it."

Never heard a word about it again.

QuoteHe flat out told me when I started reading the bible that i can't treat it like other books that I have to look at it under some different lens. I guess he was trying to say I needed to just accept it and not think about it.

they always loose me with that part. like i have to trick myself or dumb myself down to understand it. by understand i mean buy into it. i doubt i will ever understand why someone would still cling to "the word of god."
if a group of people (apologetics) need to be formed just to make it relevant, make since, and/or coherent then how is it not utter bs?

Quote from: "LoneMateria"How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer off the top of my head.

My question is: why would it even be necessary for a Christian to know? (esp. with regards to the OT)

because the OT is the roots of the NT?

and if the whole book could be taken as metaphorical, would that not be some good info to know?

Quote from: "Reginus"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"How do you know what you are reading is metaphor and what is literal?

That's a good question, and I don't have an answer off the top of my head.

My question is: why would it even be necessary for a Christian to know? (esp. with regards to the OT)

Well if you are basing your faith off of this book wouldn't it make sense to 1: read it and 2: understand it?  After all a CHRISTian should be aware of the Christ they follow right?  Also they should be aware what their Christ said and done and if it based on fact.  Oh and without the OT there would be no NT.  The NT exists because Jesus fulfilled the OT prophecies (supposedly) so if the OT is crap then the NT is founded on that same crap.  After all Jesus taught and believed in the laws of the OT and says so in the NT.  The OT is just embarrassing to Christians and thats why they try and brush it under the rug or try and flat out ignore it.  Who would Jesus be without the Old Testament?

Christians would claim that although it was men who compiled the Bible, they were guided by God. This of course is highly unlikely (Constantine was hardly a model Christian), but not illogical IF you are a theist.

Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

Quote from: "Dagda"Christians would claim that although it was men who compiled the Bible, they were guided by God. This of course is highly unlikely (Constantine was hardly a model Christian), but not illogical IF you are a theist.

Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Of course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

so how do you as a roman catholic separate what is metaphorical and what is factual?

QuoteOf course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

knowing this you still have no issues with your faith? all that you typed doesnt make it sound man made or like men controle "god?"

Quote from: "G-Rollso how do you as a roman catholic separate what is metaphorical and what is factual?
/quote]

With much hard work and study. For instance, I think historical analysis has shown that the Babylonian Exile and the flight from Egypt were real events, however the Garden of Eden etc was probably metaphorical. Now some people criticise me for claiming that some events are metaphorical because they see it as a ‘get out of jail free’ card. I disagree with this criticism. Science constantly updates its theories when new information comes to light, therefore I think it is health when Theology does the same; if science guides us closer to the truth of Scripture (even if it proves it to be metaphorical in its entirety) then this can only be a good thing.  

[quote="G-Roll"]
knowing this you still have no issues with your faith? all that you typed doesnt make it sound man made or like men controle "god?"

Well I am not actually a Roman Catholic (that is just the worldview which best describes my beliefs) never having formally converted for reasons which I would rather not discuss. This of course gives me some wriggling room, but at the end of the day I think that the Roman Catholic Church has attempted to reconcile these facts with that of their faith. For instance the RC does not believe in justification by scripture alone, instead taking account of tradition etc. This means that although RC might be reluctant to change their interpretation, they can and have re-interpreted sections of their faith which makes me think that it is possible for me to be a RC theologically and remain open to re-evaluation of scripture. As I am being a little thick this morning I did not understand the part after the question mark. Would you mind re-typing this section?

Damn it! Somehow I have managed to quote myself. Oh well, you get the idea.

QuoteOf course this rather elitist view became unpopular some time before the Council of Nicaea because it became difficult to recruit the heard to a religion in which they had to work for Salvation-they had plenty of that in the Pagan Greek tradition. By de-mystifying the Christian religion the early Church Fathers basically created the mass movement which Nietzsche so despised.

the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

Quote from: "G-Roll"the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

So far nothing in this thread has said anything to suggest otherwise.

Hmmm....maybe that's because.......

Quote from: "Dagda"Anyway, Jesus Christ spoke in parables and allegory. He made clear that his teachings were hidden in layers and that not all people would understand. St. Paul reiterated this sentiment in his (well probably his) letters. The point is that I know some of the Bible is metaphorical and some factual, but that is the whole point of Christian teachings-not everyone will get it, but those that do will inherit the Kingdom of Heaven.

Isn't this just a cop out?  Imagine if all important books had this format.  Imagine if you were studying to become a doctor and the medical book you were reading on heart bypass was full of allegory and the real information was hidden in layers.  How screwed would we be you became a doctor?  All that you are doing is coping out so you can pick and choose what you want to believe in.  It's not just you it's everyone, i'm not attacking you here ^_^.  This is also why there are 30,000 sects of Christianity.

Christians tend to ignore the parts of the bible which they don't like and just keep what they do like.  I'd place a bet 90% of Christians don't know that Jesus told his followers how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves.  That as long as you didn't kill them when beating them it wasn't murder.  If they died two days later from those injuries you were fine, it wasn't murder.

This is why I so love it when people say they think Jesus was a great teacher/good man/good example to follow - and I'm not even talking about the religious people, I mean other atheists/non-believers. Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

Quote from: "elliebean"This is why I so love it when people say they think Jesus was a great teacher/good man/good example to follow - and I'm not even talking about the religious people, I mean other atheists/non-believers. Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

not to change the subject, but i dont think i see the harm in individuals being spiritual. if that is what you mean by disorganized... id much rather have people believing whatever they want without any form of guidance or rules to be christian, jewish, or muslim, ect...
although the people who do believe the same individual things would most likely form together and religious leaders would rise and the sheep... i mean people would follow.
so never mind....  

Quote from: "elliebean"Also love it when someone doesn't believe in "organized religion", as if disorganized religion is any better.

Hmm.... yeah, no I think "disorganized" religion is waaay better.  Disorganization is far less threatening than hierarchical, organized groups (think Nazis...).  The organization of religion encourages people to stop thinking for themselves and only listen and follow like sheep, so they form into these clusters (mobs) that can only obey and accept everything they're told.  But this, I think, is the nature of most humanity.  Until we evolve past the point where (most) people WANT to be directed, organized, and told what to do, there will always be religion.  Never underestimate people's fear of thinking for themselves.

This doesn't mean that theists and religious people don't think--there are plenty of very intelligent religious scholars who try to decipher the mysteries and enigmatic wording throughout religious texts, to interpret it and make sense of them.  But the point is that most people don't think BEYOND the text, to the fact that what they're studying is completely illogical and needs such immense efforts to decode it in the first place that, in any other context, it would have lost all credence.  The Odyssey is also an ancient text that talks about gods, and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than the bible.  But if someone claimed that it was a religious text, most people would laugh.

So what's the difference?  It's just that a group of PEOPLE said that "this is the word of God" and got a bunch of sheeple 2000 years ago to follow it, then used violence, fear, and intimidation to continue to convert populations throughout history.  

Nothing much has changed.  

Quote from: "G-Roll"the last paragraph you typed makes it sound as if men controle the word of god.

Of course they do. That is not to say God does not exist, just that He/She/It is not exactly like he is portrayed in his biography. Like all text there is a kernel of truth in the Bible (well somewhat more in my opinion, but that is just my opinion), and it should be dismissed off-hand at your peril.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Isn't this just a cop out? Imagine if all important books had this format. Imagine if you were studying to become a doctor and the medical book you were reading on heart bypass was full of allegory and the real information was hidden in layers. How screwed would we be you became a doctor? All that you are doing is coping out so you can pick and choose what you want to believe in. It's not just you it's everyone, i'm not attacking you here ^_^. This is also why there are 30,000 sects of Christianity.

Christians tend to ignore the parts of the bible which they don't like and just keep what they do like. I'd place a bet 90% of Christians don't know that Jesus told his followers how hard they were allowed to beat their slaves. That as long as you didn't kill them when beating them it wasn't murder. If they died two days later from those injuries you were fine, it wasn't murder.

Cop out would suggest that this interpretation came about because of criticism of a literal interpretation. It did not. As far as I can tell there was a long history of this interpretation in Judaism well before the birth of Christ, and Jesus seems to carry on this tradition in his teaching. So cop out it is not. Instead it may be a return to the original meaning of the teachings of Christ. Now I am criticised sometimes for attempting to make more out of atheism than there really is, and I have tried to take this criticism on board. I know it is easier to attack a literal interpretation of the Bible, but make sure you are not trying to make theists an easier target by defending that literal interpretation.

Your allegory of a medicine journal I don’t quite agree with. Medicine and spirituality are not the same thing, so I do not see why they should be taught in the same way. However, if I stay with the metaphor then perhaps I could describe the allegory as this: any doctor will tell you that someone can read as many textbooks as they like, but nothing is as good as practical experience in the operating room. In the same way spiritual truth becomes all the more spectacular if it is arrived at through experience and experiment. However, unlike medicine, spirituality is much easier and safer to convey through allegory (no one will attack you for publishing a medicine journal, but allegory might hide you from the abuse that tends to attach itself to new spiritual masters-just see the Crucifixion or Crusade against the Cathars).

There is also the possibility that, like medicine, spirituality is a personal thing (what works for me may kill you) hence as an allegory can mean many things to many men perhaps this is the best way for humanity to arrive at the spiritual philosophy which suits them best.

I realise that the above is not perfectly typed, but it is not a dissertation. If anyone struggles just tell me and I will re-type.

Quote from: "Dagda"Of course they do. That is not to say God does not exist, just that He/She/It is not exactly like he is portrayed in his biography. Like all text there is a kernel of truth in the Bible (well somewhat more in my opinion, but that is just my opinion), and it should be dismissed off-hand at your peril.

What truth exists only in the bible that can't be found anywhere else which would make dismissing the bible somehow perilous?  The bible does have some great stuff in it, but that great stuff is not, to my knowledge, specific to the bible.  Hammurabi's code and the teachings of Confucius, for example, both pre-date the bible but have a lot of similar teachings and laws.

For that matter, what about dismissing the bible is perilous and could be avoided by reading it?

That is a rhetorical question. I've already read it.

[spoiler:2jp4p6pf]It's far more perilous to read it as though it were anything but mythology.[/spoiler:2jp4p6pf]

I am sorry, I did not make myself clear there. I agree pinkocommie that the spiritual teachings in the bible are not unique to that book (this actually convinced me to become more spiritual), but it does have a unique insight into Jewish/Christian history which the Tao Te Ching lacks. I meant that we should not dismiss the Bible because even if the spirituality is so much bull, it still gives us a starting point when we are researching the history or culture of the Abrahamic religions.

Quote from: "Dagda"I am sorry, I did not make myself clear there. I agree pinkocommie that the spiritual teachings in the bible are not unique to that book (this actually convinced me to become more spiritual), but it does have a unique insight into Jewish/Christian history which the Tao Te Ching lacks. I meant that we should not dismiss the Bible because even if the spirituality is so much bull, it still gives us a starting point when we are researching the history or culture of the Abrahamic religions.

Oh I'm sorry, I totally agree with you there.  Historically the bible is very important.

Quote from: "Dagda"snip

My apologies as well. I was in a....mood...yesterday. :)

Edit: Spammer removed. Thanks, Whitney =)

thanks for the report...spam deleted and user IP banned (I just deleted the user and all of his posts since it was easier to do it that way)

Quote from: "Dagda"Cop out would suggest that this interpretation came about because of criticism of a literal interpretation. It did not. As far as I can tell there was a long history of this interpretation in Judaism well before the birth of Christ, and Jesus seems to carry on this tradition in his teaching. So cop out it is not. Instead it may be a return to the original meaning of the teachings of Christ. Now I am criticised sometimes for attempting to make more out of atheism than there really is, and I have tried to take this criticism on board. I know it is easier to attack a literal interpretation of the Bible, but make sure you are not trying to make theists an easier target by defending that literal interpretation.

I'm trying to figure out the argument you presented here.  I see a lot of words like, "seems to carry on", and "As far as I can tell", and "may be a return".  To me it looks like you aren't really sure and are just saying things.  The bible has been literally interpreted for thousands of years.  In the U.S. 1/3 the population claims to be Evangelical (and a healthy majority of them are fundamentalists).  Millions of people today believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and even more so did in the past.  These people who believe in the literal interpretation cop out when they look at the Old Testament and see laws like stone your unruly children to death, virgin women are forced to marry their rapists, and stories like bears tearing apart 42 children for calling someone bald, and say oh its just allegory, or interpretation.  All that is happening is they are dodging the realization that their book is very immoral.  

I actually find moderate theists more crazy in many areas.  So don't get me wrong.  While those who believe in a literal interpretation of the bible are crazy and will typically cop out when presented with much of the OT, the moderates can be just as bad (if not worse especially in areas like evolution).  Someone who has a non-literal interpretation of the bible will cop out in a similar way.  Instead of saying, "I don't know why God murdered 42 children for calling his prophet bald in 2Kings 2," moderates instead just ignore that by saying, oh well it doesn't really mean that (or the really annoying one liner, "Thats the old testament it doesn't count anymore" like that somehow justifies these things).  Though I might ask another 10 questions here it is typically pointless.  Because this is a cop out, it is a way of ignoring what is written and/or dodging a tough question by putting forth a claim that cannot be proven nor reasoned with.  

I will ask you this ... if God really wanted to convey a message wouldn't it just be easier to write it down how he meant it instead of leaving up to interpretation as a riddle in a story?  This type of nonsense reminds me of the crap Muslims say when science makes a discovery, "Oh the Koran predicted this thousands of years ago because it is perfect ... we just didn't notice until science made the discovery."

Quote from: "Dagda"Your allegory of a medicine journal I don’t quite agree with. Medicine and spirituality are not the same thing, so I do not see why they should be taught in the same way.

I find my comparison valid for a few reasons.  1 Both books are meant to convey facts of their respective subjects.  2 Both books contain critical information about humans and both claim to save humans.  3 An improper understandings of both books can cause death (bible will do it on a grander scale).  4 The people who know their respected books very well are often times looked to as authority figures.  

Quote from: "Dagda"However, if I stay with the metaphor then perhaps I could describe the allegory as this: any doctor will tell you that someone can read as many textbooks as they like, but nothing is as good as practical experience in the operating room. In the same way spiritual truth becomes all the more spectacular if it is arrived at through experience and experiment. However, unlike medicine, spirituality is much easier and safer to convey through allegory (no one will attack you for publishing a medicine journal, but allegory might hide you from the abuse that tends to attach itself to new spiritual masters-just see the Crucifixion or Crusade against the Cathars).

Will those same doctors tell you not to read textbooks because practical experience is better?  And since when did allegory did promoted from its status of symbolism to the status of experience and experiment?  

Quote from: "Dagda"There is also the possibility that, like medicine, spirituality is a personal thing (what works for me may kill you) hence as an allegory can mean many things to many men perhaps this is the best way for humanity to arrive at the spiritual philosophy which suits them best.

I realise that the above is not perfectly typed, but it is not a dissertation. If anyone struggles just tell me and I will re-type.

Medicine is a personal thing?  If that was true then there would be no standard medical treatment for ailments.

So you find moderates crazy because they don’t think they should stone adulteresses because it is in the Bible?  The Bible may have been literally interpreted for thousands of years, but it has also been metaphorically interpreted for thousands of years. I really don’t see your point: are you saying I should ignore the Bible because it is difficult to understand, or that I should be a fundamentalist?

As for personalised medicine I think the current theory is that as medicine advances it will become easier to make medicine work for the afflicted; we are slowly beginning to see different treatments for different people because doctors have realised that we are not all the same inside or out.

It might be helpful if we could all specify in some detail which religion we are objecting to.  

I think what many posters on atheist boards are really trying to say is that they object to Christianity, and/or fundamentalist or conservative Christianity.   In other words, the religion they've seen, the religion they know about, they don't like.  

As example, I never see any focused informed discussions of say, Hinduism, on atheist boards.   I don't know much about it myself.   So we shouldn't be lumping Hinduism, and hundreds of other religious approaches, in to the single word "religion", until we know something about them.

I doubt any of us could even name all the religions, ya dig?

Just a reminder; this thread is about the bible.

Ha, ha!  Point taken.  Duh...   Thanks for reminder.   I don't even see the post I was replying to now.   OMG, the pink unicorn removed the invisible non-existent post, and nobody even noticed, it's a miracle!

Quote from: "Dagda"So you find moderates crazy because they don’t think they should stone adulteresses because it is in the Bible?  The Bible may have been literally interpreted for thousands of years, but it has also been metaphorically interpreted for thousands of years. I really don’t see your point: are you saying I should ignore the Bible because it is difficult to understand, or that I should be a fundamentalist?

As for personalised medicine I think the current theory is that as medicine advances it will become easier to make medicine work for the afflicted; we are slowly beginning to see different treatments for different people because doctors have realised that we are not all the same inside or out.

I didn't realize only moderates think its crazy to stone people to death.  Maybe you should enlighten us with a practical definition because it seems we are on two separate pages.  Here ... instead of waiting for a response, which will ultimately take the conversation no where and ignore all the arguments I put forward again, let me tell you my definitions of fundamentalists and moderates and what I find crazy about both.  And to boot I will tie it in with the topic of the thread.  

Fundamentalist Christian:  A self-proclaimed Christian who believes the Bible is the infallible word of God, ignores an astonishing 95% of the bible, thinks the old testament doesn't count, thinks Jesus made statements on abortion, doesn't believe in evolution, believes everyone who holds opposing beliefs is crazy and should shut up but they have the right to freedom of religion (aka freedom of discrimination), believes they should run the government, hates everyone who is different (and think they are persecuted when they are not allowed to act on that hate), think all of our morals come from God, and refuses to accept scientific evidence in places where they stuck their God.

Seems crazy right ... this next one takes the cake.

Moderate Christian:  A self-proclaimed Christian who believes the bible to be inspired by God, ignores 99% of what is written, believes in scientific evidence and has found a way to compartmentalize discrepancies and illogical premises (such as evolution, the big bang and their god mixing.  They believe that God made the universe 14 billion years ago with the intent of creating a universe for us which is 99.999% deadly to us, with the knowledge that the earth will be made 9.5 billion years after the universe and his chosen species will be made between 4.3 and 4.4 billion years after that, and after that species evolves he waits more then 190,000 years before sending his son to die on the cross and forgive your sins so you can enter paradise.  By any estimate this is the most ineffective thing to do for an all powerful being who mysteriously makes all his actions look like natural causes.), who thinks that the bibles true meanings are hidden morals to stories that have been changed an uncountable number of times throughout its history and language translations, who believes that their beliefs depict reality yet won't take the time out to read the bible (in their own language much less Greek or Latin) or follow it's teaching.

Now that these have been defined (the best they can be in such little space, and some of each ones craziness pointed out) you still haven't shown me why allegory and layers of hidden information is a realistic way to put forth important information to people.  You and I can figure out that presenting the information in this format is stupid, unreliable, and can have negative consequences [as in the medical example].  If your god is omnipotent or smarter then us like he supposedly is then why can we figure this out but not him?  And why are you attempting to make excuses for this?

I cannot speak for the rest of the Christian faith, but I will put forward my own theological theory. God is Love. However, He also wishes to be loved in return, and this presents a problem. Without free will the human race cannot love God freely, and when someone is forced to love it becomes, at most, a kind of lust or adoration. As such God gave us free will in the hope that He would be loved in return, however we used that free will to turn away from God (see Genesis chapter 3-4). In this we became imperfect and so could no-longer directly experience God (this is the metaphor of the Garden of Eden). At this point you may point out that only Adam and Eve sinned so why should we all be punished. Well the answer is simple; two bad apples infected the lot. Like a pitcher of water when a dot of ink is added, the imperfections of Adam and Eve quickly spread.

However, God does not give up and has, at various stages, handed down/inspired various religious texts to help humanity unite with the God-head once more-this is why most mystical texts have the same underlying message; they came from the same source.

To answer your question about allegory, it is quite simple. The Gospel of Thomas put it well: when Thomas was asked to divulge the secret teachings of Christ ‘Thomas replied, ‘If I tell you what he said you’ll pick up stones and hurl them at me’. It is easy to forget that not so long ago saying the wrong thing could quickly lead to death (see stoning of James the Just, the execution of Cathars etc). The reason texts such as these are written in metaphor and allegory is that when the Inquisition came knocking you could appear more innocent and orthodox than you otherwise would appear.

Most mystical traditions (Cabbalists, Greek Mystery Schools, Indian mystics etc) seem to indicate that the information contained in these allegories could be dangerous in the wrong hands. To use your own example Elisha killed a number of children for calling him bald (the concept of God and His actions in the world would require another few paragraphs, but it is more the power of God rather than God Himself who killed those children) is an anecdote. It may have been true or false, but that is not the point. What it is saying is that those who received that secret information (Elisha) can do great damage (killing children etc). This is yet another reason that this mystical information is conveyed in allegories-it prevents the information falling into the wrong hands.

Obviously the major problem of conveying any information in symbolism is that it is very difficult to interpret (kind of the point), and this the reason for the constant re-interpretation. Hope this enlightened you as to my beliefs concerning metaphor in the Bible.

Very interesting response Dagda.  I think that it merits it's own thread.  I don't want to get us more OT so i'm just going to respond to the parts that have to deal with the thread.  If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  Most days when I debate people it's mainly Fundamentalist Christians and not Roman Catholics.  I know your theology is different, as is your bible, and I find it strange that you reference the Gospel of Thomas (non-canonical).  It would make for fun conversation.

Quote from: "Dagda"To answer your question about allegory, it is quite simple. The Gospel of Thomas put it well: when Thomas was asked to divulge the secret teachings of Christ ‘Thomas replied, ‘If I tell you what he said you’ll pick up stones and hurl them at me’. It is easy to forget that not so long ago saying the wrong thing could quickly lead to death (see stoning of James the Just, the execution of Cathars etc). The reason texts such as these are written in metaphor and allegory is that when the Inquisition came knocking you could appear more innocent and orthodox than you otherwise would appear.

This seems like a hypothetical answer to me and let me explain why.  First off this answer would only apply to the New Testament since Jews existed for a few thousand years before Christians.  Next Christians were not supposed to fear persecution (at least not according to Matthew 5:10-12).  Yes the Orthodox Church has been hunting heretics like Marcion for different bible interpretations for a long time.  However in the process they destroyed many heretical texts (some are gone forever) and their text has been one of the biggest contributers to the bible to date.  To claim that their text is full of hidden messages to avoid persecution from themselves is not logical.  The only way to attempt to salvage the argument then is to say they were persecuted by the Pagans.  At first the pagans thought Christians were atheists since they claimed to worship the god of the Jews but didn't follow any of his laws.  However once that was cleared up the only time Pagans really gave a damn about Christians was when a natural disaster would happen and they would interpret it that their gods were angry with the Christians for not giving offerings (they really didn't give a damn until Christians started killing them).  However there are only a few recorded cases of this, not enough to claim they were persecuted to the point where they needed to hide their true messages in code.  

And even if I were to buy into this, the coded messages will almost certainly be lost in translation from Greek to Latin (or English or any other language).  Now even if we were to postulate this very, very minute possibility of there being hidden messages in the bible, how would that lend any credibility to whether or not its true or that you even have the right message?  When you start taking large books like the bible and start looking for hidden messages there are enough words and letters that you can imagine some hidden meaning that isn't really there.  Again this is the same crap that goes on in Islam when they credit the Koran for recent scientific breakthroughs saying that the Koran predicted this 1500 years ago.  When you want there to be a message you will find conveniently find one.  

Quote from: "Dagda"Most mystical traditions (Cabbalists, Greek Mystery Schools, Indian mystics etc) seem to indicate that the information contained in these allegories could be dangerous in the wrong hands. To use your own example Elisha killed a number of children for calling him bald (the concept of God and His actions in the world would require another few paragraphs, but it is more the power of God rather than God Himself who killed those children) is an anecdote. It may have been true or false, but that is not the point. What it is saying is that those who received that secret information (Elisha) can do great damage (killing children etc). This is yet another reason that this mystical information is conveyed in allegories-it prevents the information falling into the wrong hands.

How does this lend any credibility to your argument?  Some mystics have said that they can cast a spell on you and witches can do the same thing.  Saying this doesn't lend any credibility to if magical witches exist or that an collection of noises from a mystic can kill you magically.   Just like mystics and superstitious traditions don't lend credibility to the assertion that messages hidden in the bibles allegories and symbolism are dangerous in the wrong hands, or that these messages exist.

Oh and how does a just and loving God rationalize the slaughter of 42 children for calling his prophet bald?  That is neither just or an act of love and is devoid of morals.  Would it be okay for you (if you were all powerful) to kill 42 kids for calling your brother bald?  Then why would it be for God?

Quote from: "Dagda"Obviously the major problem of conveying any information in symbolism is that it is very difficult to interpret (kind of the point), and this the reason for the constant re-interpretation. Hope this enlightened you as to my beliefs concerning metaphor in the Bible.

The major problem here is that the supposedly hidden information is critical information that your god wants people to know.  This information is the difference between a life of bliss or torment and torture (which is another barbaric system within itself and the topic of a different discussion).  Instead of saying, "I love you and I want to help you and this is what I need" there are stories of the slaughter of children, cities, babies, heretics, and chosen people to demonstrate the power and jealousy and rage of a supposed loving being.

The interpretation of symbolism and allegory is just an attempt to avoid the nasty parts of the bible that believers don't like so they don't have to think about their beliefs.  All you've done here is postulate a hypothetical scenario to avoid your justification for this belief.  You haven't presented anything remotely resembling evidence to justify your claim that the true meanings in the bible are hidden in symbolism and allegory and that these messages somehow survived through all of the errors, and translations of the bible 1900 years later and is intact.  Until you can present something tangible and rational as evidence to your claim I can only conclude that your belief in these hidden messages is irrational and unsupported.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Very interesting response Dagda.   If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  

Ditto, same here, interested in what you have to say Dagda.

Regarding the Bible...

Did you ever play that game in elementary school where the class lines up, and the teacher whispers something to the first kid, who whispers it to the next, and the next etc, to the end of the line.   When the final kid says the message out loud, it usually bears little resemblance to what the teacher originally said.

That's my theory of the Bible, and all holy books.   Somebody has an interesting insight, and then it gets mangled in translation by a series of others who didn't have the insight.   Many of these people are sincere, some are power tripping scammers, and it becomes an ever bigger mess as time goes on.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Very interesting response Dagda.   If you want to copy/paste and start a new thread I would be more then glad to go in depth into the theology with you.  

Ditto, same here, interested in what you have to say Dagda.

Regarding the Bible...

Did you ever play that game in elementary school where the class lines up, and the teacher whispers something to the first kid, who whispers it to the next, and the next etc, to the end of the line.   When the final kid says the message out loud, it usually bears little resemblance to what the teacher originally said.

That's my theory of the Bible, and all holy books.   Somebody has an interesting insight, and then it gets mangled in translation by a series of others who didn't have the insight.   Many of these people are sincere, some are power tripping scammers, and it becomes an ever bigger mess as time goes on.

The NT wasn't written until about 50 years after Jesus, supposedly, died.  The stories until that point were hearsay. Imagine that game on a grand scale.  After the NT was written the first hundred years or so the only people that copied them for distribution were "literate" members of the Christian community (when the church was poor and they were considered more of a cult and couldn't afford to hire scribes to make copies of the NT).  Literate back in those days meant that they could sign their own name.  They were the ones who made copies of copies of copies for a few hundred years.  Once Christianity finally came to power and its leaders started making money they had professionals and monks take over the copying, though it didn't solve the problem it severely reduced it.  However the damage was done, but even with professionals and monks doing this there were still an uncountable number of changes and variations.  Imagine before the monks got a hold of it. I really can't figure out why anyone would hold the book as accurate much less "infallible".

Quote from: "LoneMateria"I really can't figure out why anyone would hold the book as accurate much less "infallible".

Yea, I agree with you there, but....

...It is interesting that billions of people are still talking about the main character in the New Testament 2,000 years after his death.   Here we are, on an atheist forum, still talking about him too.

We could theorize that people are idiots, and have fallen like suckers for a huge scam.   Which could be true.

But why did billions of people over thousands of years fall for this particular "scam" in such historic numbers, over such a long period of time, in nearly every culture of the world to at least some degree?

If we had absolutely perfect 100% PROOF that the entire Bible is completely false, we'd still have some big questions to chew on.

Quote from: "Typist"If we had absolutely perfect 100% PROOF that the entire Bible is completely false, we'd still have some big questions to chew on.

1. Books are written by human beings.
2. The Bible is a collection of books.
3. The books contained in the Bible were written by human beings.

It has nothing to do with being accurate or false. It has nothing to do with why or how. It has everything to do with where these books came from, and about that there can be no question.

If you or anyone else wants to believe that there was some supernatural power behind the writing of these books then that is absolutely your right. However, you'll have to admit that this is a pretty out-of-left-field way to think about a book, or about anything else for that matter.

Hi J,  

Ok, so let's presume that we know that the Bible is entirely human in origin.   Seems a reasonable theory to me.

We're still left with the question, why have billions of people maintained an interest in Jesus over two thousand of years?  

I don't have an answer, just offering the question.

Quote from: "Typist"Hi J,  

Ok, so let's presume that we know that the Bible is entirely human in origin.   Seems a reasonable theory to me.

We're still left with the question, why have billions of people maintained an interest in Jesus over two thousand of years?  

I don't have an answer, just offering the question.

Well i'm sure the killings over the past 2000 years had something to do with it.  Just because many people believe something is true doesn't mean it is actually true.  Besides the only reason we talk about it is because assholes want to impose laws (limitations on our freedoms) based on this 2000 year old fictional character.  Otherwise I don't think we'd give a shit.  Also since you seemed to dance around it i'm just gonna say it.  Because the vast majority of people believe in this delusion it gives us a insight on the human psyche.  It tells us something about how the brain works and how our society operates when our brain is able to willingly accept such contradictory delusions and defend them adamantly.  Remember just because we may not have all the answers doesn't lend credit to their premises.  Because I can't 100% disprove it doesn't mean my next door neighbor is a Leprechaun.

Quote from: "Typist"We're still left with the question, why have billions of people maintained an interest in Jesus over two thousand of years?  

You'll have to ask them, won't you?

Quote from: "i_am_i"You'll have to ask them, won't you?

Well, yes, so let's ask people who are still talking about Christianity 2,000 years after it's launch.  You know, people like me, people like you.

Quote from: "LoneMateria"Just because many people believe something is true doesn't mean it is actually true.

Agreed of course.  

QuoteBesides the only reason we talk about it is because assholes want to impose laws (limitations on our freedoms) based on this 2000 year old fictional character.  

Ok, which people precisely are trying to impose what laws specifically upon you personally?    

QuoteBecause the vast majority of people believe in this delusion it gives us a insight on the human psyche.  

Right, delusion or not, the scale of the event will _hopefully_ give us some insight.

QuoteIt tells us something about how the brain works and how our society operates when our brain is able to willingly accept such contradictory delusions and defend them adamantly.  

Yes.   And what makes it relevant to us, is we have brains also, we live in society too.  

QuoteRemember just because we may not have all the answers doesn't lend credit to their premises.  

Agreed.   Please note that I'm not trying to "lend credit to their premises".   I'm trying to understand reality.   To me, just one view, this whole "atheist vs. theist" paradigm passion gets in the way of that.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "i_am_i"You'll have to ask them, won't you?

Well, yes, so let's ask people who are still talking about Christianity 2,000 years after it's launch.  You know, people like me, people like you.

I talk about it because this is a religious discussion forum. I'm not going to come here to talk about transcribing Charlie Parker solos am I?

Quote from: "i_am_i"I talk about it because this is a religious discussion forum.

Right, me too.  And we both came here voluntarily, to discuss religion, including a fair bit about Christianity.  

It's true that theists are interested in Jesus in a different way than we are, agreed.  But the fact is, we're still interested.

Quote from: "i_am_i"I'm not going to come here to talk about transcribing Charlie Parker solos am I?

Dang, why not, that would be fun.   Can we do Stan Getz too?   Maybe we could find some jazz players who are theists or atheists, and use that to sneak jazz on to the forum?    

When Ray Charles played that c minor 7th chord, that was wrong, Wrong, WRONG because he went to school in the city with America's oldest church!!  (true)

Any chance you might upload a link to an MP3 of your music?

Quote from: "Typist"Any chance you might upload a link to an MP3 of your music?

Nah, that ain't why I'm here.

What?  WHAT?  

No free MP3s???

Moderator!  Infraction!  

QuoteOk, which people precisely are trying to impose what laws specifically upon you personally?

here you can view it from a "different point of view." although i feel it is much more extreme.
http://www.domini.org/openbook/nigeria19991019.htm (http://www.domini.org/openbook/nigeria19991019.htm)

also for some atheists its originally kinda scary to come out publicly and state that they do not believe in god. looking at society in america i feel that atheists are discriminated in politics, child custody cases, often the workplace, in history, and atheist children in schools and even the freaking boy scouts.
there is a thread about the under god debate and all kinds of topics similar to the question you asked.

QuoteFive of Nigeria's 36 states have implemented Sharia, or Islamic law, or
are attempting to do so in a move that Christians and some
Muslims fear will lead to the return of oppressive regimes they
hoped had vanished when democracy was restored in May.

Five of 36 states in Nigeria.   Attempting to implement sharia law.

China, representing a huge proportion of humanity, is a political dictatorship, and has been for 60 years.   Russia, representing another large group of humans, is well on it's way to returning to a long history of dictatorship.   Most of the Middle East is run by dictators.  

Why not worry about that?

i deem it worry worthy as well.

we have a lot to worry about now eh?

Quote from: "G-Roll"i deem it worry worthy as well.

Ok, cool.  

Quote from: "G-Roll"we have a lot to worry about now eh?

Well, if we are to be followers of logic, I suggest we only worry about things we are prepared to address with constructive action.

Well constructive action is good in most cases. And should/when Sharia law come to America im sure everyone will be worried and take many different forms of  constructive actions.
I plan to do little more than vote. I realize that is pretty low on the extreme scale, but I suppose cool heads usually prevail.

Quote from: "Typist"

QuoteBesides the only reason we talk about it is because assholes want to impose laws (limitations on our freedoms) based on this 2000 year old fictional character.  

Ok, which people precisely are trying to impose what laws specifically upon you personally?    

Firstly laws don't have to specifically target me to be concerned with them.  I am concerned with any law or proposed law in the name of this deity which are derogatory, pointless, stupid, harmful, or blatantly targeting children, which serves no purpose other then to restrict peoples personal freedoms because assholes (like many proposed by overzealous idiots in the republican party [though not exclusively them]).  I'm not only concerned with myself but my fellow human beings here.

One of the big recent examples of these laws was Prop 8.  Restricting the rights of the gay community because these assholes holy book thinks homosexuality is abominable and several people have attempted to propose laws to make homosexuality illegal (Not that its much better then Uganda's kill the gays bill).  In the bible belt here you can't purchase Alcohol on a Sunday.  Can't drink on God's day.  Cecil Bothwell and the attempts to get him kicked out of public office for being an atheist and thus not upholding the North Carolina Constitution.  The whole fiasco of trying to shove Intelligent Design in schools.   Schools in states like Texas can't mention condoms in schools during their sex education courses.  And lets not forget all the tax breaks given to churches, ministers, missionaries etc..  Just you know shit like this and much more that constantly goes on.

http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/

check atheism sub reddit and about every other day and you can find somewhere where some religious asshat or group is attempting to remove the rights of some minority while simultaneously claiming that their religion gives them the right to discriminate and if we don't pass that law we violate their freedom of religion. If they are able to pass laws to remove the rights of minorities and make anyone they don't like second class citizens then even if these laws don't affect us now they can start a chain reaction which will eventually effect us.

QuoteYes.   And what makes it relevant to us, is we have brains also, we live in society too.  

... it makes it relevant to us because last time I checked you and I were both human.