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.
The purpose of the Bible would change from that of worship to a piece of literature used for study. It would become a source of material for ideas, experiences, emotions, vocabulary; used to study structure and rhythm; used as a source of the speech patterns of writers during that time period; used as a source for oral interpretation to teach a lesson or for entertainment.
I can live with that. Since I have a longsince "Asian Connection" the wars of the Pandavas especially the story of the abduction of Shinta, is culturally huge in Southeast Asia. So I near revere the story as a matter of culture. Far more than the Bible, though I don't believe a word of it, even if there was some historical truth buried in it. I certainly don't see it as a set of rules for living, and neither do they, as they are no longer Hindu, but are Buddhist or Muslim (if they haven't been converted to Christianity).
Thus prof. Stavrakopolou and others have nothing to fear from 'New' Atheism seeking to ban the book or forbid it's study as literature and even as a strong cultural influence on Western society. So she (and others) should stop their opposing of 'New' Atheism and mud -slinging at Dawkins, especially when she has been very vocal about the problems that the kind of socially entrenched religion that Atheism is seeking to dislodge, has caused for her.
She (and the other irreligious) have got it back to front, and quickly need to see that they are fighting the very people who they most need to support.
I keep going on about her because I first saw her here
and as an atheist and as a sad old man who knows a gorgeous girl when he sees one, who wouldn't be knocked out? But a later video when she first explained all the trouble she'd had (especially in America) at the hands of the believers, and then went on a massive bash of Dawkins and "New" Atheism for no reason that I could hear (but I suspect that she fears that we want to eradicate the Bible that she adores so much as literature) I was dismayed, (1) and I want someone to tell her that she is on the wrong side.
(1) it was even worse in a later one where she screamed down someone who said (quite correctly) that science was the best explanation of the world we live in. Clearly she has a concern for the Bible as a cultural influence and sees that as having equal value in the way we see the world as the scientific. But it really should not. If the Bible once has value in shaping western culture (and even Jefferson valued the Gospels as a source of law and morality) it's time to move on, now that we can see that it is no longer fit for that purpose.
P.s It's rather amusing that she says 'No' to King David. There is (as the Believers often point out) archaeological evidence (the Moab Stele) that the Davidic line existed, and thus the historicity of King David has at least some support, though we can suppose that much of the story is legendary.
I suspect that she might actually learn a bit about Bible Historicity from talking to "New" Atheists.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-29-2018 at 08:16 AM..
I would say no. I don't think that, when taken as myth, the character of the Abrahamic God as described in the Bible is interesting or compelling.
For the sake of argument here, I am explicitly ignoring the theological context of things like the trinity, and treating the Bible as a collection of mythic stories. The reason why approaching the Bible this way won't really change opinions on God is that he really isn't a character, so much as a plot device.
As a collection of myths, who are the protagonists? Job, Moses, Joshua, David, Hezekiah, Jesus (ignoring trinitarian doctrine here), Paul, these are some of the protagonists. The stories are not about God, they don't make us identify with him. The stories are about people, those are the figures that will catch the attention, that will allow us to see our own human struggles reflected in them.
As a comparison, The Norse gods, the Greco-Roman pantheon, and others a much more "human" than the Abrahamic God. They are the actors, protagonists and antagonists, of their own stories. And it is this personal nature of those myths that let us identify with the humanity of those gods in a way that lets us relate to the myth.
-NoCapo
This nails it.
OP mentioned a couple of gods that have gained some attention in modern society. There are many others that have simply died out. Very few people can even mention the name of the Zoroastrian deity, nobody particularly cares about Mithra.
Cherry picking and pointing to a couple of characters from mythology does not make the case that all characters from mythology are remembered fondly, if at all.
I don't know, but it seems pretty inevitable. The negative things about him will completely be gone since they will no longer be threatening. They will have vanished and be forgotten. Maybe if those things were cleared away right now we could see it and answer your question.
Characters in stories aren't threatening. What's threatening about Jehovah is that there are still people who believe it is real and they think it worthy of worship.
Characters in stories aren't threatening. What's threatening about Jehovah is that there are still people who believe it is real and they think it worthy of worship.
The bible isn't the enemy. Human ignorance is.
^^^ This
I'm not threatened by any religion. But their followers are very much a threat.
But I actually think that when the new deity of the future starts to decay into religious fundamentalism, that the atheist of the future will be thinking, "At least the Christian god had some character that we can all appreciate", since it will no longer be threatening to anyone anywhere.
Just no!
I have no admiration or appreciation for any man-made gods. There is nothing I like nor respect about the Christian god.
I don't know, but it seems pretty inevitable. The negative things about him will completely be gone since they will no longer be threatening. They will have vanished and be forgotten. Maybe if those things were cleared away right now we could see it and answer your question.
They're not threatening now but even so, why would they disappear? "He" wouldn't be whatever it is we're supposed to appreciate, even if just as a story, if you're going to change who 'he' is .
But, you've come up with some pretty strange questions before so I don't know why I bothered even answering this one.
Carry on.
She (and the other irreligious) have got it back to front, and quickly need to see that they are fighting the very people who they most need to support.
I keep going on about her because I first saw her here
I'm familiar with this show and have watched this episode many times. I'm in agreement with her and also the liberal theists (Jewish, Anglican, etc) who are featured. The only ones I disagree with are the religious fundamentalists AND the atheists like Dawkins. He makes himself look a little foolish on this show I think.
I can live with that. Since I have a longsince "Asian Connection" the wars of the Pandavas especially the story of the abduction of Shinta, is culturally huge in Southeast Asia. So I near revere the story as a matter of culture. Far more than the Bible, though I don't believe a word of it, even if there was some historical truth buried in it. I certainly don't see it as a set of rules for living, and neither do they, as they are no longer Hindu, but are Buddhist or Muslim (if they haven't been converted to Christianity).
Thus prof. Stavrakopolou and others have nothing to fear from 'New' Atheism seeking to ban the book or forbid it's study as literature and even as a strong cultural influence on Western society. So she (and others) should stop their opposing of 'New' Atheism and mud -slinging at Dawkins, especially when she has been very vocal about the problems that the kind of socially entrenched religion that Atheism is seeking to dislodge, has caused for her.
She (and the other irreligious) have got it back to front, and quickly need to see that they are fighting the very people who they most need to support.
I keep going on about her because I first saw her here
and as an atheist and as a sad old man who knows a gorgeous girl when he sees one, who wouldn't be knocked out? But a later video when she first explained all the trouble she'd had (especially in America) at the hands of the believers, and then went on a massive bash of Dawkins and "New" Atheism for no reason that I could hear (but I suspect that she fears that we want to eradicate the Bible that she adores so much as literature) I was dismayed, (1) and I want someone to tell her that she is on the wrong side.
(1) it was even worse in a later one where she screamed down someone who said (quite correctly) that science was the best explanation of the world we live in. Clearly she has a concern for the Bible as a cultural influence and sees that as having equal value in the way we see the world as the scientific. But it really should not. If the Bible once has value in shaping western culture (and even Jefferson valued the Gospels as a source of law and morality) it's time to move on, now that we can see that it is no longer fit for that purpose.
P.s It's rather amusing that she says 'No' to King David. There is (as the Believers often point out) archaeological evidence (the Moab Stele) that the Davidic line existed, and thus the historicity of King David has at least some support, though we can suppose that much of the story is legendary.
I suspect that she might actually learn a bit about Bible Historicity from talking to "New" Atheists.
I watched the video and read the brief description you give of her. If what you say is true, then she acts from a position of fear. That is never a good point to start. She is beautiful.
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.
