- The Bible

That's some tough shit, just because that hag Eve had to eat an apple, women have to go through painful labor and be ruled by men. Word.

word? but for how long? Babies in machiens growing up soon!

Well Feminists stopped half of that.

what chapter/verse is that?

It's after Eve fucked us over with the Devil.

It's her damn fault. Who the hell listens to talking snakes?

And he raped Mary.

i am a bible literalist

A lot of the Bible makes a ton more sense if you figure God is an evil, angst-filled 12 year old.

god is just like the bully from toy story

I actually wrote a lot on how women are portrayed in the Bible, namely the old testament which is really just mostly Hewbrew oral culture speaking. Women really didn't get much respect in ancient Greek, Hebrew and Christian cultures(when it developed) until the early middle ages.
That's just the way it was, and with the exception of some fictional characters like Penelope and Medea, women were looked upon as more or less property of their husbands...the idea of love was somewhat absurd until the idea of courtly love came around with the knights, it was more about loyalty.

It also makes alot more sense when you realize it is a mish mash of edited, re-edited versions of long gone ancient texts and documents written by several different authors with most of the source material coming from a long gone oral history. It amazes me that anyone can take it as a whole.

Eh, my worth is more than just my ability to bear children, so I don't have to have a baby if I don't want to.

Liar!

You can cook and clean too. Now, bend over and accept my seed, woman.

I'm only amazed when people try to take some sort of middle ground. The way I see it, if you're religious, you take it as a whole, if you're not, you don't. It's silly to see all the new wave hipster "christians" that walk around bashing fundamentalists. The bible wasn't written as a self-help book full of useful suggestions and symbolic stories. It was written as an actual accounting of existence and purpose divinely passed and guided from biblical god to man. That's what they truly believed anyway, it wasn't some fairy tale. Yet, I constantly see people these days making their own guesses and assumptions about what their religion is, what it should be? Deciding which parts of the bible are ok to ignore. And they somehow expect these arguments to have a divine validity? This is modern religion? Willing your expectations into dogma?

Obviously this is because we know so much these days, we understand disease, anatomy, procreation, stars, galaxies, nature, and so on to an extent where you can't block it out. Yet, people fear their own irrelevance enough to simply convince themselves that a self-created religion is the ultimate answer?

There most likely isn't a person on this board who takes the bible literally, except for the small part about an eternal soul in heaven... despite the inherent logical flaws of the utopian concept and our scientific understanding of the human psyche.

Anyway, what am I rambling about? Just ignore me.

Test Tube babies scare me.

In high school we watched some movie in social studies that took place in the future. It focused on these two brothers, one was a 'love child' the other a test tube baby whose whole life was planned before he was born. It was soo freaky. I forget the name though.

God was kind of a dick to a lot of people - just ask Job.

I'm also confused by the religious who look at some of the stories in the bible as metaphors - they certainly weren't intended to be read that way.

I guess they just feel better giving that backward culture the benefit of the doubt?

I thought I smelled gasoline as I typed that last sentence, so I'll also ask that you ignore me.

Hey man, he had a bet with Lucifer. He couldn't let the Prince of Darkness one-up him.

He was a pretty big dick to Abraham, too.

Gattaca?

Good thing God didn't write the bible, it was just a bunch of crotchety old jewish guys.

Then again, people are idiots.


Yeah. Wow, we watched that in school too.

Gattaca sucked.

I used to think the same way, but religion was already taken on some sort of middle ground when it was created, and always changes according to the norms of society. Christians in America and Christians in Europe are different. Religion also changes when spread across regions. I used to be atheist. I used to bring up things like that to make Christianity look stupid, but it just doesn't work. Religion changes, just like everything else in this world. I can tell you that if you compare what Jesus said compared to what God said, everything God said is greatly exaggerated and used to invoke fear. Jesus would never be an oppresor.


Anyways, I saw Gattaca in biology back in high school. It's a crappy movie.

Gonna jump around a bit, but here goes...


The Bible shows that God had intended to create both male and female from the very start. In the first account (the shorter, less-detailed one — Genesis 1 gives an “overview” of Creation, and Genesis 2 then goes into much greater detail regarding the sixth day of creation, with God’ crowning act of creation, man. The Bible often uses what is called “expansion and repetion”, where it will give an account, then tell it a second time with much greater detail), it states, “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.”

This plainly states that male and female are created in the image of God, “man” referring to mankind or humanity. Males alone are not the image of God, and neither should we make the mistake that “goddess” worshippers make on the opposite extreme, but rather, males have certain qualities that are expressions of God’s character (strength, protection, etc.—I’m shooting from the hip) and females have others that equally demonstrate his character (tenderness, etc). Thus, MANKIND, male and female together, are “the image of God.” God has used not only male descriptors of himself but also used metaphors such as “a mother hen covering her baby chicks” or titles such as “El Shaddai” (translated as “God Almighty”, but the Hebrew word shad means breast, and shaddai is “many-breasted”, implying that he can provide for all our needs). To think of God as either male or female is categorically an error, because his nature transcends time and space and he is not just a “bigger” man with “powers”. But I digress.

God created Adam from dirt, basically. Eve was not created from dirt, but rather from the highest order of God’s creation. (Some have joked that God created Adam, his crowning act, looked at him, then said, “You know, I think I can do a little better than that!” and then created Eve, lol). God chose a rib because everything he does is full of his teaching—he did not take a bone from his skull because woman was not to rule over man; but neither did he take a bone from his foot, because he was NOT to trample over her (which is what you are saying was the hidden meaning of the creation account). No, she was taken from his side, from a place close to his heart, because he was to love, protect and cherish her as he would himself (that was the objective of making her out of his own flesh). God even said she was a “suitable companion” (King James English of 400 years ago, “an help meet”) for Adam. God then declared that they were to become ONE. Where is the sexism or male-superiority in this?



Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

This is a prime example of how a half-truth is told when texts are taken out of context (turning them into pretexts/lies).

What you quoted was a direct result of Adam and Eve’s choice. They each had made their choice (which they tried to palm off on others, Adam blaming God and Eve by saying, “The woman that YOU gave me!” and Eve saying, “The serpent tricked me!”), and every choice has consequences. It can be no other way in God’s orderly universe; chaos would ensue if the law of cause and effect did not exist (this is a scientific law, btw, not a “religious” law made up by philosophers).

When God stated the curses, he wasn’t saying, “I’m mad because you did this, so I’m going to make it so it hurts when you have babies! You’ll pay!” That is a childish and ignorant way to look at it. In the Bible, blessings and curses are the natural consequences of actions. God was telling them what would be the result of the fall. God’s love for Adam and Eve did not change at all, nor his desire for their benefit and happiness, because God does not change. He had provided not only a perfect world for them, but the Garden planted by his own hands.

God told man (read: Adam and Eve) that if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, they would die. Was this a threat, or a loving warning?

The fact that it was a loving warning from their Father and Creator is evident in the fact that he intervened and did not allow what he had warned them would happen to actually take place, but rather, instituted a plan where he himself would suffer the ultimate consequences of their choice and die for them as the man Christ Jesus.

Eve is nowhere blamed in the Bible for “ruining” paradise; Adam is. Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam knew right well what he was doing, and the Bible writers lay the guilt on him, not her.

Taking into consideration what I said above about blessings and cursings in the Bible being warnings that actions have consequences (any logical person will come to this conclusion, unless you want to argue that God “causes” lung cancer in smokers, “gives” STDs to promiscuous people, or “caused” Eve’s childbearing pain), it is evident that God was simply warning them of what was going to happen now that sin was brought into the world. It is the nature of fallen humanity for the strong to subjugate the weak—not just men of women, but a bully on a playground with the geek, or the man with the power of the powerless. God knew that woman, being the physically smaller and weaker, would be subjugated by man. This is all out of God’s original created design, which he called “very good.”

You're looking into the bible WAYYY too thoroughly.

Well, at least i KNOW what im saying, unlike most people here who are just guessing. I'm not super religious, hell, i dont really believe most of the things in the bible, but i KNOW about it. A lot of you, obviously, dont.

No, I mean it's kind of pointless to be looking into it that much.

Why? Its the oldest book in the world. Whats wrong with actually knowing about it? A lot of things can be considered "pointless."

You can't fight back if you don't have any ammunition.

You don't need to preach to me. I don't see how you can shovel all of that into absolutes though or even care about it in the first place. As an atheist it amazes me how much some other atheists obsess or think about religion (albeit in a iconoclastic/debunking way)

That wasn't to make it look stupid, that was to make non-literal stances look irrelevant through instability.

Is belief in something that holds no solid ground truly religion? Why not just call yourselves "spiritual"? Does this not afford you the same comfort of relevance? Can this "neo-christianity"really be seen as something with merit?

It seems to me like it's just one gradual decent toward secularism, so I'm not at all making a complaint. The only hurdle left is to get them to acknowledge that their concept of heaven and hell are technically the same place and true idealism lies in a finite existence full of triumph and adversity. Maybe then they'll be willing to look at the current scientific compendium on the human psyche. Religion would be all but gone by then, the training wheels of a productive society, outliving their use to the point of becoming a hindrance.

See, closer and closer toward a secular society where progression is open to intelligent debate instead of being dictated by ancient absolutes.

Let's worship our new god, professor smiley.

Yeah I was going to say. Can we have a show of hand of how many people have actually read the entire Bible? or the Qur'ān? or the Tanakh?

You say this as if it is some form of burden for me. This is simply what I enjoy. I can obsess about art too.

I'm impressed; this topic doesn't have the word "period" in it anywhere.

I'm not really fighting back. It's more of an opinion. I think it's pointless to try and comprehend the Bible, since no one knows for sure what the stories are trying to convey. Through many translations and due to passing of the word by the use of oral history, the message might have been skewed over time. Plus, many of the stories just don't make any sense.

I know nothing about the subject matter at hand, I'd just like to say that no one knows for sure what any song/story/movie is trying to convey. The author leaves it up to the view/listener/reader to decide that for themselves.

No, not in that sense. In the sense that it comes off as evangelizing atheism and attempting to win converts over to it through the debunking of christianity/judaism/etc through logical and scientific means. Its the big conundrum of atheism as I see it.

Pretty much, to some extent. The author MIGHT have been trying to convey something, but no one knows for sure, so it can be interpreted many ways.

Well, it's hard to discuss a differing opinion on any sort of topic (IE. wii vs xbox360) without some form of passive proselytizing. That's just the nature of discussion. Regardless, I don't feel an abundant need to talk about religion on this board, just weighing in on something that was said for the sake of my own curiousity.

Etc, etc.

Have you ever read the Bible?

Yes. Have you?

What about the gene for having more than two nipples being predominant in men?

God is just fucked up to everyone. Nobody is special.

reminds me of Tucker Max

Because we know exactly what whoever wrote the bible intended. Okay.

Simultaneous creation of the sexes

If precedence of creation is indicative of superiority, wouldn't it mean all animals and plants rule over us?
It's irrelevant; simultaneous conception means nothing.




God created Adam from dirt, basically. Eve was not created from dirt, but rather from the highest order of God’s creation. (Some have joked that God created Adam, his crowning act, looked at him, then said, “You know, I think I can do a little better than that!” and then created Eve, lol). God chose a rib because everything he does is full of his teaching

Oh, this is going to be good.


—he did not take a bone from his skull because woman was not to rule over man; but neither did he take a bone from his foot, because he was NOT to trample over her (which is what you are saying was the hidden meaning of the creation account). No, she was taken from his [i]side, from a place close to his heart, because he was to love, protect and cherish her as he would himself (that was the objective of making her out of his own flesh).[/i]


What a sappy crock. God doesn't deal in metaphors. Parables are more Jesus' kind of thing. God has always been direct and to the point. He used a rib (sorry : It was written that he used a rib) because they seemed more or less superfluous - it's easy to accept the idea that we originally had one extra rib; can you imgaine explaining why God took the oh-so-useful third arm?


Let's look into Gen 2:22-24 (I'm using the KJV of the bible, it seems to the most commonly accepted version.)

[22] And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

God basically presents Eve to Adam.

[23] And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Adam's a jerk, ain't he? "This bitch came outta me, she will be 'SubBC' "

[24] Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Cleave means be faithful here

Genesis 3:16 - Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”


Lord knows the Christian Chruch has never taken any part of the Bible out of context when determining the dogmatic dictactes of their church.




No. Eve bit the apple and then convinced Adam to sin. The original sin is Eve's alone. To quote;

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise,she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.


Please don't bite off more than you can chew; discussion of deterministic concepts are a hobby of mine.



In the Bible, God makes everyone his bitch. That's pretty much all there is to it. the OT's God is vengeful, bloodthirsty and quite frankly, downright sadistic.

God was telling them what would be the result of the fall.

Since God makes all the rules, what in blazes is the difference? What's to say he didn't make up this result in pure anger? I have some passages I can cite if you wish to deny God can get angry.



God changes. God listened to Abraham and reconsidered his action - his very own "perfect" plan.



So God is a condescending asshole. This just keeps getting better.



Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Back it up.

God knows all. God IS all. God KNEW man would sin. God KNEW Eve would fall for the serpent's trickery.

You're telling me God set up his own son to die for his own creation's sin, thereby redeeming the original sin he KNEW his FIRST creation would do.

Not only this, but now you claim that God LIED to them. God told them what would happen, knowing they would fall, and then did NOT go through!

And this makes sense and is not something that seems to come out straight of the simplistic mind of a child.





What? Adam's sin is cowardice; Eve's sin is greed (possibly pride). Which of these is a deadly sin again?



Two of the above are quite simple biological results. The other is unexplainable at this time. Something does not fit.



....


Did you just deny every single thing you've claimed so far and cop-out with the old "human nature" card? why yes, yes you did.

God MADE human nature.

God is therefore responsible for whatever humans do - Jesus' sacrifice would mean nothing otherwise.

God is therefore responsible for the chauvinistic,mysoginist cultures that developped unbder Christianity.

Ofcourse I have, do you really expect someone to ask that question if they haven't? I think you should re read it. What stories are you having trouble with? please be specific.

Let's see. This is just one.

Jesus gets all teary and upset when Lazarus dies. However, shouldn't Jesus be, I don't know, happy that his friend is going to heaven? Then he goes an resurrects him, which I feel was selfish use of powers. And the whole point wasn't for him to show that he has power over death, because he has resurrected people before.

He's the son of God, he does what he wants.

*raises hand*



*hesitates* counting hadiths? There's so many Also, I cannot claim to have read the original arabic version




What the Christ?