Why do fundies think atheists are unversed in your bible? (Mormons, Egyptian)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the bible during my exploration period, which started when I was around 12 or so. I attended bible study for a few years, never professing my belief or coming close to being 'saved'. There was a HUUUUGE bible church across the street from my high school (and they had a k-12 private christian school as well) so many of my friends in high school were very devout and went to church there.
Reading the bible and studying it cemented my Atheism. I honestly can't see how anyone could read the bible and still be a believer.
I know athiests read the bible. I know some athiests who claim to understand the bible "better" than professing believers. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Most athiests read the books and they read the verses, but it's their comprehension and understanding that is different than a believer's. As it's been said before, there are things that cannot be discerned as regards the word of God without the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
It's like two people looking at the same image, but from the opposite side. Non-believers see it one way, and believers see it a completely different way. And no matter how many times accounts, ideas, doctrines, supposed contradictions are explained by a believer to help a non-believer see it from our perspective, it usually doesn't happen. Usually most athiests have their minds made up and that's that. There are things they refuse to hear. They put their faith and their trust in themselves and mankind's explanations for everything. Their hearts are hard and their minds are closed. Not all, but many.
Their hearts are hard and their minds are closed. Not all, but many.
On the contrary, our "hearts" care about things here and now, not in some fantasy afterlife, and our minds are open to change, learning, new ideas, and anything else that has any sort of evidence supporting it.
It's you who close your minds off to the wonderful, true nature of the universe by slapping your hands over your ears and chanting "La la la la I'm not listening! I can't stand to have my reality challenged and perhaps shown to be mistaken!"
I know athiests [sic] read the bible. I know some athiests [sic] who claim to understand the bible "better" than professing believers. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Most athiests [sic] read the books and they read the verses, but it's their comprehension and understanding that is different than a believer's. As it's been said before, there are things that cannot be discerned as regards the word of God without the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
Now this is the part I love pulling apart. The leading and revelation by the HS. One need only mosey along to the xian forum or any xian based forum and see how they argue whose interpretation is correct. One must then come to the conclusion the HS has the "memory of a goldfish" as all parties claim to be led by said HS and they differ immensely. In the same breath we are told unequivocally that the bible is the inerrant word of god, holy spirit inspired yet even the gospels do not fully align with each other and are supposed to represent exact words jesus spoke esp. the JWO folk who only follow the red bits (jesus' own words). In your ranks you have universalists, calvinists, armenians, preterists and mormons, each deriving a different HS led interpretation when at the end of the day, it is all but what they are/were exposed to since childhood.
Quote:
It's like two people looking at the same image, but from the opposite side. Non-believers see it one way, and believers see it a completely different way. And no matter how many times accounts, ideas, doctrines, supposed contradictions are explained by a believer to help a non-believer see it from our perspective, it usually doesn't happen.
Exactly. Odd that you fail to mention the differentials between believers too?
One is asked to "accept" that the bible IS the word of god and then read it ignoring the contradictions. When believers are asked to explain these discrepancies, they are swept under the carpet or we get the all too common deflection that w/o the HS we just cannot understand the bible. Not to mention many of us probably had the whole shedangle of being "filled with the holy spook" and all the babble in tongues etc. so either the HS forgot to turn off our logic or more likely the HS is only a figment of the imagination leading one to believe what they choose to believe.
I am an ex-christian and it was only once I really got into the bible and studied it with all the apologetic spins and reading the writings of early church fathers that I cane to the conclusion, it was all a theopolitical scam designed to control the hearts and minds of the gullible.
Quote:
Usually most athiests have their minds made up and that's that. There are things they refuse to hear. They put their faith and their trust in themselves and mankind's explanations for everything. Their hearts are hard and their minds are closed. Not all, but many.
Probably because we have studied it more fervently and with an open mind that we are now closed to old ideas.
The hardness (as in my case) is due to having been duped so long and being scammed out of hard earned money as tithes. For me to reconvert, it would take a personal appearance of god but I am not holding my breath.
As it's been said before, there are things that cannot be discerned as regards the word of God without the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
You know, I hear this line of reasoning invoked again and again -- and each time, it always sounds hollow.
Why?
Simple: it's a paradox. Here, I'll 'logic' it out for you.
A) I read the Bible, yet I lack the capacity to discern God's word.
B) In order to discern God's word, as written in the Bible, I must have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
C) To accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I must accept that God's word is true, but I have to read the Bible to do so.
You know, I hear this line of reasoning invoked again and again -- and each time, it always sounds hollow.
Why?
Simple: it's a paradox. Here, I'll 'logic' it out for you.
A) I read the Bible, yet I lack the capacity to discern God's word.
B) In order to discern God's word, as written in the Bible, I must have the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
C) To accept the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I must accept that God's word is true, but I have to read the Bible to do so.
A leads to B, leads to C, leads back to A.
I'm astonished that nobody's noticed that by now.
And this, my friend, is the circular logic that makes the Christian world go round and round.
Most athiests read the books and they read the verses, but it's their comprehension and understanding that is different than a believer's. As it's been said before, there are things that cannot be discerned as regards the word of God without the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
So you're saying that a book plagiarized off of older Sumerian and Egyptian religious texts and myths cannot be properly understand unless one has help from an imaginary supernatural spirit cooked up by desert goatherders a thousand years later?
I know athiests read the bible. I know some athiests who claim to understand the bible "better" than professing believers. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.
Most athiests read the books and they read the verses, but it's their comprehension and understanding that is different than a believer's. As it's been said before, there are things that cannot be discerned as regards the word of God without the guiding of the Holy Spirit.
It's like two people looking at the same image, but from the opposite side. Non-believers see it one way, and believers see it a completely different way. And no matter how many times accounts, ideas, doctrines, supposed contradictions are explained by a believer to help a non-believer see it from our perspective, it usually doesn't happen. Usually most athiests have their minds made up and that's that. There are things they refuse to hear. They put their faith and their trust in themselves and mankind's explanations for everything. Their hearts are hard and their minds are closed. Not all, but many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane
And this, my friend, is the circular logic that makes the Christian world go round and round.
I think that's right and we know where the cut -off point is. It's Faith. and faith is the uncrtitical acceptance of what one would normally doubt. It is the a priori acceptance of some belief which then colours or conditions all the thinking from then on. Examples:-
a) Genesis is dismissed as a mythological stab at the creation that God nevertheless did
b) Genesis is true if only we understood that it really does describe what science tells us about how it happened; but God is the Creator anyway
c) Science is wrong and it happened just as described.
The inspiration of the Holy Spirit is clearly giving mixed messages. The open - minded conclusion is that it is no sure guide to understanding the Bible.
Now, I'd really like to chat this over with Mams as the post certainly tries to understand where the disagreement lies but Faith, I think, prevents from really understanding the issues.
What, for instance would Mams think about science really putting Genesis (Creation and Flood) into the myth - area. Is that accepted? Does it matter? Is it ok as metaphor? Is it all as science says but God is the finger on the button?
What is thought of the recent pretty clear demonstration that the Daniel prophecy isn't a prophecy at all?
Accept it but say it inspires people to believe?
Accept that it mainly deals with the Seleucids but the later stuff relates to the future and is prophecy?
Reject the evidence and say I'm just trying to convince myself to disbelieve?
That last would certainly put the hard -heartedness or closed - mindedness on the believer side.
What about the evidence for a fabricated gospel? The impossibility of the nativity, The omission of important events like the transfiguration or the raising of lazarus or sinking simon or the walking on the water? What of the contradictions of the resurrection account?
Accepted but they don't matter - It's the message getting through that is important?
Explained? I'd like to see how. 'Witnesses don't always agree' won't work here.
Mams - "supposed contradictions are explained by a believer to help a non-believer see it from our perspective, it usually doesn't happen. Usually most athiests have their minds made up and that's that."
I really would like a quick run through these 'supposed contradictions' and see what the 'explanations' are. Can they really be explained or does it come down to Faith? I think it must as what I see again and again, as I mentioned to Campbell34 recently, is casting around for explanations to keep a theory afloat (the ark must have been soaking in a mineral -laden lake so as to become rock/the east gate was never destroyed - it refers to either a possible buried one or the one built over the destroyed herodian gate) only works if one already has a believed theory which is required to be supported by whatever arguments or evidence comes to hand.
It is supposed that science also works that way but it doesn't because the element of 'belief' isn't there. It's the same with atheists approaching the Bible. They make no assumptions - well, they shouldn't. And not believing is not making an assumption, it is believing in 'god' and a very specific Biblegod, which is the assumption. With that assumption, this looking around for evidence to fit the belief is the way the believer thinks. Looking at the evidence to see whether it is convincing support for the existence of this biblegod or not is the logical and rational way. It isn't hard - heartedness or closed - mindedness.
I have gone on at some length because your post, mams1559, put the finger on the crux of the whole debate.
What is the reasonable starting point for evaluating the Bible?
1) that it is true until disproven or that it is not true until it it is proven true?
2) whether the 'contradictions' (general problems) can be explained well enough to make it credible or those explanation only work as pretexts for maintaining belief?
I would really like your response here. note that I have heard the generality of arguments or explanations before and sometimes they are good or have a modicum of credibilitybut too many just end up by calling atheists hard - hearted or closed minded because they won't accept explanations that don't actually explain anything, but just demand Faith. That is the circular argument InsaneInDaMembrane (where on earth did that name come from?) mentioned.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-16-2009 at 03:09 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
