should atheists get their own bible?

[Ulver]

To be fair to christian theists, they don't follow their holy book as if it were the word of their god and infinitely wise guide for their christian lives. It's more like something they gather around, as a group "property" and identifier, and pick and choose values for other reasons other than "it's in the bible", even if they attribute those values to being the bible's (do they know that many of the moral values are way older than scripture?).

I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

[fester30]

To be fair to christian theists, they don't follow their holy book as if it were the word of their god and infinitely wise guide for their christian lives. It's more like something they gather around, as a group "property" and identifier, and pick and choose values for other reasons other than "it's in the bible", even if they attribute those values to being the bible's (do they know that many of the moral values are way older than scripture?).

I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

I agree.  The six denominations of which I was a member all talked about it being THE Word of God, and each had a different way of putting higher emphasis on some passages than on others depending upon their doctrine.  They all had a scriptural way to deal with inconsistencies.  There are so many passages in that thing worded in such an ancient way that you can find a way to twist certain passages to explain inconsistencies.  There is a way to interpret things to make it all fit, even the verse that tells them not to interpret things.  Someone who is very determined can work through it, so long as they're willing to ignore or misconstrue science.  The favored way among the different churches I attended to work out the problems in the Old Testament, and the problems between the OT and NT, was to say that the OT was the "old covenant."  The NT was the "new covenant of God," and while the OT may be great for background, history, and connecting prophesies, the NT was the new truth, and the OT was really not necessary for salvation.  In other words, it's license to ignore any and all inconsistencies and problems in the OT.  Now you just have to concentrate on ways to explain inconsistencies of the NT as not being inconsistencies, but instead being a sort of scriptural gymnastics, connecting all the different passages together in just the right way to explain it all.  Let's just not mention it was humans, not God, that decided which books and letters made the cut and which didn't.

[xSilverPhinx]

I wish I knew more Christians like this. I run across a disproportionately high number of Christians who do believe the Bible is the 'W'ord of 'G'od, and to point out its inconsistencies in use is to engage in blasphemy. Oy.

That said, I try to assume your point is true.

I came across a comment posted on YouTube some time ago that made a valid point: that people who supposedly believe that the bible is as good as written by an infinitely wise god himself don't really act as if it were, but I based what I thought people would do if they had such a thing in their possession with what I would do -  be a real fanatic bible reader, memoriser, and quasi scholar (I would probably be a fundie :bananacolor:

[Ulver]

I came across a comment posted on YouTube some time ago that made a valid point: that people who supposedly believe that the bible is as good as written by an infinitely wise god himself don't really act as if it were, but I based what I thought people would do if they had such a thing in their possession with what I would do -  be a real fanatic bible reader, memoriser, and quasi scholar (I would probably be a fundie

[fester30]

I agree.  The six denominations of which I was a member all talked about it being THE Word of God, and each had a different way of putting higher emphasis on some passages than on others depending upon their doctrine.  They all had a scriptural way to deal with inconsistencies.  There are so many passages in that thing worded in such an ancient way that you can find a way to twist certain passages to explain inconsistencies.  There is a way to interpret things to make it all fit, even the verse that tells them not to interpret things.  Someone who is very determined can work through it, so long as they're willing to ignore or misconstrue science.  The favored way among the different churches I attended to work out the problems in the Old Testament, and the problems between the OT and NT, was to say that the OT was the "old covenant."  The NT was the "new covenant of God," and while the OT may be great for background, history, and connecting prophesies, the NT was the new truth, and the OT was really not necessary for salvation.  In other words, it's license to ignore any and all inconsistencies and problems in the OT.  Now you just have to concentrate on ways to explain inconsistencies of the NT as not being inconsistencies, but instead being a sort of scriptural gymnastics, connecting all the different passages together in just the right way to explain it all.  Let's just not mention it was humans, not God, that decided which books and letters made the cut and which didn't.

That's interesting. The bible is so fragmented because of its editing that maybe it's way easier to focus more on pieces rather than the whole thing...but doesn't it bother those who think that it is the literal and perfectly inerrant Word Of God if one passage says one thing and another (both in the NT) says the negation? Or are they so biased towards it being true by default that they don't see any of it?

God and the bible are a really weird 'theory of everything'...trust the human mind to make sense of what makes no sense at all.  

I'll give you an example.  Revelations specifically says that in the end times there will be a judgment (commonly known as the Great White Throne Judgment).  During this judgment, all humanity will be brought before God, and will be judged according to the Book of Life.  Names will be written in the Book of Life according to each person's WORKS.  A few verses later actually describes specifically what works will get someone sent to the pit of fire.

If you take the Bible literally, than this would be a second path to heaven beyond salvation by the blood of Christ.  Problem is, there is another part of the NT that says the only way to heaven is through faith.  Contradiction?  A Biblical literalist told me that it's all in context.  He said that according to earlier verses, people will be saved or damned according to their acceptance of Christ's blood sacrifice as their salvation.  The Great White Throne Judgment is for all those who do not accept Christ.  He told me that when God opens the Book of Life, it will be empty, and he'll show that book to all the sinners who didn't accept Christ, and banish them to the pit of fire.  It doesn't actually say God will do that, or that the Book of Life will be empty.  I told him he was interpreting the Bible, which is forbidden according to several places in the Bible.  http://www.uniquebiblestudy.com/how-to-study-the-bible-b.htm  This URL is to demonstrate some of the Bible verses I showed this guy.

He said he wasn't interpreting, but instead looking at the context.  If someone is already condemned because they weren't saved by grace, they will not find their names in the Book of Life.  Those already saved by grace will not be at the Great White Throne Judgment, because they will already be in heaven.  Therefore, the Book of Life will be empty.

He just refused to understand that what he was doing was, in fact, interpreting the scripture by highlighting some verses and discounting others, because God is perfect, and God works through his heart as a pastor to understand things so that he can guide his flock.  I decided to end the conversation right there, as it wasn't worth it to me to get into which version of Christianity or which pastoral hearts were the ones to follow to get to heaven.  

As you can see, if your beliefs are based only upon faith in an all-powerful, supernatural, above-the-laws-of-physics or even common sense god, you can make anything make sense to you.

[fester30]

One way to put it... if God is limitless, then so are the justifications available to one who chooses to believe in God.  This is what happens when an concept is not falsifiable.  I've heard theists say that atheism is one theory, and their belief is another.  My response is theirs cannot be a theory, as it isn't falsifiable.  Their response is "How can you be an atheist if you don't believe it's possible that God is false?"  All you can do at that point is just shrug your shoulders and move on.