Reading The Bible in full as a non-believer

[Hibernia&Alba]

Having always been an avid reader, one of the glaring omissions from my reading experiences has been The Bible. Though it's been the cornerstone of Western civilization for two thousand years and is the biggest selling book in history, I had so far managed to avoid it. We had a Bible in the house when I was a kid, but I never bothered with it and I only heard its contents in readings at Mass. By my mid teens I was an atheist and that was that.

Well, I thought I should read it at some point, just for the experience, even as a non-believer. I'm about 250 pages in (Book 7 of the Old Testament, Judges) and already there has been, amongst other miraculous things, a talking snake, a talking donkey, God speaking through fire, plagues, numerous genocides, rape, seas and rivers stopped, and a lengthy treatise on how God likes his meat cooked. Now I'm not meaning to mock anybody for their religious beliefs - each to their own - but I can't help but wonder how, in our age of science and philosophy, there are still millions who believe The Bible is the literal Word of God. Anyone who has read any Greek mythology will recognise the themes and motifs of The Bible. In the pre-Enlightenment world I fully understand why the great majority believed it; I'm sure I would have, too. I have family and friends who are practicing Christians. I suppose that is the essence of faith: either you accept it or you don't, but it's much harder to accept in our epoch. Anyway, I'm not a theologian and not looking for a debate about the existence of God. Just wondering how many of you might have read it in full? I'm guessing those who have are practicing Christians? Has anyone else read it out of curiosity, in order to experience the most influential book in this part of the world?

I have about 1100 pages left to complete both Testaments. Who knows, by the end of it I might be a devout Christian :greengrin. However, due to its importance, I think it can still be a valuable experience to the non-believer.

[Hibrandenburg]

Having always been an avid reader, one of the glaring omissions from my reading experiences has been The Bible. Though it's been the cornerstone of Western civilization for two thousand years and is the biggest selling book in history, I had so far managed to avoid it. We had a Bible in the house when I was a kid, but I never bothered with it and I only heard heard its contents in readings at Mass. By my mid teens I was an atheist and that was that.

Well, I thought I should read it at some point, just for the experience, even as a non-believer. I'm about 250 pages in (Book 7 of the Old Testament, Judges) and already there has been, amongst other miraculous things, a talking snake, a talking donkey, God speaking through fire, plagues, numerous genocides, rape, seas and rivers stopped, and a lengthy treatise on how God likes his meat cooked. Now I'm not meaning to mock anybody for their religious beliefs - each to their own - but I can't help but wonder how, in our age of science and philosophy, there are still millions who believe The Bible is the literal word Word of God. Anyone who has read any Greek mythology will recognise the themes and motifs of The Bible. In the pre-Enlightenment world I fully understand why the great majority believed it; I'm sure I would have, too. I have family and friends who are practicing Christians. I suppose that is the essence of faith: either you accept it or you don't, but it's much harder to accept in our epoch. Anyway, I'm not a theologian and not looking for a debate about the existence of God. Just wondering how many of you might have read it in full? I'm guessing those who have are practicing Christians? Has anyone else read it out of curiosity, in order to experience the most influential book in this part of the world?

I have about 1100 pages left to complete both Testaments. Who knows, by the end of it I might be a devout Christian :greengrin. However, due to its importance, I think it can still be a valuable experience to the non-believer.

Indeed, god really wants to sack his marketing team, instead of some mouldy old book, surely an App or PS4 game would be the way to go nowadays.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Indeed, god really wants to sack his marketing team, instead of some mouldy old book, surely an App or PS4 game would be the way to go nowadays.

There must be Bible apps so you can read it on your phone? No good for me, nor Kindles, as I always write annotations in my books.

[lord bunberry]

Having always been an avid reader, one of the glaring omissions from my reading experiences has been The Bible. Though it's been the cornerstone of Western civilization for two thousand years and is the biggest selling book in history, I had so far managed to avoid it. We had a Bible in the house when I was a kid, but I never bothered with it and I only heard heard its contents in readings at Mass. By my mid teens I was an atheist and that was that.

Well, I thought I should read it at some point, just for the experience, even as a non-believer. I'm about 250 pages in (Book 7 of the Old Testament, Judges) and already there has been, amongst other miraculous things, a talking snake, a talking donkey, God speaking through fire, plagues, numerous genocides, rape, seas and rivers stopped, and a lengthy treatise on how God likes his meat cooked. Now I'm not meaning to mock anybody for their religious beliefs - each to their own - but I can't help but wonder how, in our age of science and philosophy, there are still millions who believe The Bible is the literal Word of God. Anyone who has read any Greek mythology will recognise the themes and motifs of The Bible. In the pre-Enlightenment world I fully understand why the great majority believed it; I'm sure I would have, too. I have family and friends who are practicing Christians. I suppose that is the essence of faith: either you accept it or you don't, but it's much harder to accept in our epoch. Anyway, I'm not a theologian and not looking for a debate about the existence of God. Just wondering how many of you might have read it in full? I'm guessing those who have are practicing Christians? Has anyone else read it out of curiosity, in order to experience the most influential book in this part of the world?

I have about 1100 pages left to complete both Testaments. Who knows, by the end of it I might be a devout Christian :greengrin. However, due to its importance, I think it can still be a valuable experience to the non-believer.
It’s the biggest work of fiction ever put into print. I get that it’s about an ideology, but it really ****in annoys me that it’s quoted as if the events actually happened. All religion is a backward ideal imo, but if people want to believe in it then fair enough. I think modern civilised society was born out of our religious past, but it’s also undeniably true that religion has led to the death of more people than any other cause.

[Kato]

Most people who take the Bible literally haven't read it.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Jack]

My Dad not only read the bible but studied it, he was Church of England although never very religious. It was often 'fun' listening to him and the local priest who would quote one thing from it to prove his point and my dad would quote another to give the opposite view.

He described the Old Testament as folk lore which after several generations and revisions was eventually written down. The New Testament he described as being like the newspapers of the day, a one sided view heavily influenced by the 'editor'.

[marinello59]

It’s the biggest work of fiction ever put into print. I get that it’s about an ideology, but it really ****in annoys me that it’s quoted as if the events actually happened. All religion is a backward ideal imo, but if people want to believe in it then fair enough. I think modern civilised society was born out of our religious past, but it’s also undeniably true that religion has led to the death of more people than any other cause.

A matter of opinion rather then an undeniable truth surely? Neither of the two world wars were driven by religion. Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot oversaw the deaths of millions yet they had all rejected religion as they followed their cause. Corrupted and not so corrupted versions of religion have been the driving force for some terrible things but I don’t think we can fairly say religions have been even close to being the root of most evil in the world.

The Bible is a wonderful book no matter how you read it with plenty for believers and non-believers in there. It is a library of connected books though and probably best approached on that basis by reading them in the order that’s easiest for you. I don’t think I’d get too far if I started on page one and tried to keep going, some of the Old Testament books are really hard work. :greengrin

[J-C]

I've read a fair bit and the reason why today I'm an Atheist, nothing against people who want to believe no matter what religion it is you believe in, some find solace and strength from the church.

[Future17]

I've always fancied reading the writings which were proposed for inclusion in The Bible but rejected. Some great stories in there, including Jesus talking down some dragons.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've always fancied reading the writings which were proposed for inclusion in The Bible but rejected. Some great stories in there, including Jesus talking down some dragons.

Is that like The Bible, The Director's Cut, or is it more like the outtakes and blooper reel? :greengrin

[pollution]

Interesting topic.

Slightly off theme but I have wondered that as Christ was born Jewish but by his resurrection became a Christian

does this imply that Jews should convert to Christianity and by implication it is preferable to be a Christian than Jewish ?

I am not criticising here, just a simple but challenging question.

[Pretty Boy]

Interesting topic.

Slightly off theme but I have wondered that as Christ was born Jewish but by his resurrection became a Christian

does this imply that Jews should convert to Christianity and by implication it is preferable to be a Christian than Jewish ?

I am not criticising here, just a simple but challenging question.

That was certainly the stance of the Catholic Church prior to the 2nd Vatican Council. The tone has softened since then albeit the belief in the 'one true faith' remains.

The Bible passage dealing with the question is arguably the tearing of the temple curtain at the point of the death of Jesus. The curtain separated the Holy of Holies from the people with only the High Priest permitted to pass through it. The symbolism of the tearing is that the sacrifice of Jesus opened the path to God to all, Jew and gentile. The old covenant between God and the Israelites was broken and the new covenant, instituted at the Last Supper and reenatced in the Mass as a bloodless sacrifice, replaced it.

Of course many Christians, particularly the evangelical movements in the US, still view the Jewish people to be God's true people.

Fwiw I have no strong views either way. Jews believe what they believe, Catholics likewise and atheists think it's all a lot of nonsense. That's perfectly fine imo.

[J-C]

Interesting topic.

Slightly off theme but I have wondered that as Christ was born Jewish but by his resurrection became a Christian

does this imply that Jews should convert to Christianity and by implication it is preferable to be a Christian than Jewish ?

I am not criticising here, just a simple but challenging question.


His name was actually Yeshua which is Jewish, Yahweh (the lord) is Salvation, we pronounce it Joshua. When translated from Jewish into Greek it becomes Iesous (Jesus). The name Christ comes from the Greek Christos which means the anointed or chosen one, put the two together and you get Iesous Dos Christos or Jesus the Christ.

[Kato]

Most wars are caused by those looking for power or profit, even where religion has been pushed out as a front.

I have a bible which is designed to be "read as literature" i.e. all those verse numbers and chapters are removed. Makes a lot more sense, reads just like Greek or Roman mythology and of course that' all it is, Hebrew (and a few more tribes) mythology.

I also had, but sadly lost, a Manga Bible. Pages and pages of blood and magic.

[Bostonhibby]

I've read it, a right good work of fiction it is, with some very valid guidance about doing, and how to do good things. All religions and those of no faith at all can take part.

It's when one claims to be better than the other or have a monopoly on good that the wheels come off.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

A matter of opinion rather then an undeniable truth surely? Neither of the two world wars were driven by religion. Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot oversaw the deaths of millions yet they had all rejected religion as they followed their cause. Corrupted and not so corrupted versions of religion have been the driving force for some terrible things but I don’t think we can fairly say religions have been even close to being the root of most evil in the world.

The Bible is a wonderful book no matter how you read it with plenty for believers and non-believers in there. It is a library of connected books though and probably best approached on that basis by reading them in the order that’s easiest for you. I don’t think I’d get too far if I started on page one and tried to keep going, some of the Old Testament books are really hard work. :greengrin

Big time - Leviticus: a book about food preparation. In all seriousness, shouldn't God have more important things to teach humanity?

And I have a Catholic Bible which has seven extra Old Testament books. So much for the Protestant work ethic: taking a short cut whilst we Papists put in the hard yards :greengrin

[Lancs Harp]

Big time - Leviticus: a book about food preparation. In all seriousness, shouldn't God have more important things to teach humanity?

And I have a Catholic Bible which has seven extra Old Testament books. So much for the Protestant work ethic: taking a short cut whilst we Papists put in the hard yards :greengrin

You were an athiest in your opening post :greengrin

I agree in general with your opening post btw. Humans seemed programmed for some reason to believe in some sort of superior being that needs worshipping, to which across the planet there seem to be different versions of. Before that of course we worshiped the sun but this fell out of fashion.

Each to their own obviously.

[Hibernia&Alba]

]You were an athiest in your opening post :greengrin[/B]

I agree in general with your opening post btw. Humans seemed programmed for some reason to believe in some sort of superior being that needs worshipping, to which across the planet there seem to be different versions of. Before that of course we worshiped the sun but this fell out of fashion.

Each to their own obviously.

You've probably heard the old saying 'once a Catholic, always a Catholic'. :greengrin

I still have great respect for the social message of Christianity; it's the idea the idea of a deity I struggle with. Anyway, if I'm wrong, it's best to show one's face :greengrin. I was at Mass yesterday - it's complicated.

[Future17]

Is that like The Bible, The Director's Cut, or is it more like the outtakes and blooper reel? :greengrin

Closer to the latter I think! :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

Genuinely great stories within the bible. Whether you believe them or not is a different question, but good stories and made many a good movie too.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Genuinely great stories within the bible. Whether you believe them or not is a different question, but good stories and made many a good movie too.

Dynamo made a tv series out of replicating many of the illusions and tricks Jesus done as well.

[1 8 7 5]

Read the St James bible cover to cover and the Quran when I was in my early 20s.

There has been something 10,000 alterations from the first bibles to those we hve now.

Both books were written by men with long beards who are long dead. For me, the only difference between a Cult and a Religion is time, and really, religion is asinine.

Todays religious are really similar to me insomuch as they too dont believe in any of the roman or greek or norse gods etc. They only differ to me in that they have just one more to go.:greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

Read the St James bible cover to cover and the Quran when I was in my early 20s.

There has been something 10,000 alterations from the first bibles to those we hve now.

Both books were written by men with long beards who are long dead. For me, the only difference between a Cult and a Religion is time, and really, religion is asinine.

Todays religious are really similar to me insomuch as they too dont believe in any of the roman or greek or norse gods etc. They only differ to me in that they have just one more to go.:greengrin

Incomplete, missing seven books. Start again, please :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Big time - Leviticus: a book about food preparation. In all seriousness, shouldn't God have more important things to teach humanity?

And I have a Catholic Bible which has seven extra Old Testament books. So much for the Protestant work ethic: taking a short cut whilst we Papists put in the hard yards :greengrin

Leviticus is a book that has had arguably one of the greatest influences on modern society. It is the basis for the teaching of both Judaism and Christianity, and by extension that means Islam as well, on homosexuality.

The issue is that the text in Leviticus 18 22 may well be a later amendment or even mistranslated. You have to consider the book was written by multiple authors over a sustained period of time. Much of the preceding text deals with incestuous relationships and relationships with the spouses of family members. The literal translation of Leviticus is that one should not 'uncover nakedness' which is seen as a euphemism for sex. So 'do not undercover the nakedness of your fathers sister' roughly means 'don't have sex with your aunt'. The teachings on incest are generally pretty straightforward.

However there are a couple of interesting exceptions. 'The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother you shall not uncover her nakedness'. Note the latter part addresses only the mother. A bit later 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your fathers brother....you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt'. So a law understandably forbidding sex between a man and his uncle actually becomes about sex between a man and his aunt and a law about sex with your father then emphasises the mother. Why? Other verses drive home their point but it is specific to the preceding point eg 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law, she is your son's wife'. The only verses that don't fit with the standard pattern are the ones which address incest between men. One suggestion is that these diversions suggest that they are an exception to the rule because it specifically needed stated that incestuous relationships between men were forbidden, as they were with women, because same sex intercourse was otherwise permitted. The emphasis on incestuous homosexuality is played down and the act between son and mother was pushed forward. Again, why? Well if you say that 'thou shalt not kill', there is no reason to stipulate that includes both father and mother. It's a blanket ban on murder and it applies to all. By the same token if homosexual sex is prohibited why is there a need to further stipulate homosexual sex that is also an act of incest is prohibited? There isn't because it would already be understood. Verse 22 is likely to be a later addition by a new author, either written at a time when views were changing or the author was someone who held his own strong views on the subject. Either way they have left clues, such as possibly amending the earlier texts to push the prohibition on homosexual incest into the background and thus not marking it as a clear exception, to suggest that amendments and additions have been made.

Of course that is only one theory among many on such subjects. I think what it does hammer home though is the importance of understanding and questioning the Bible rather than just accepting it verbatim. Whilst some denomination believe in the literality of the Bible, I'm not convinced that is a sensible stance. The Bible may well be the word of God but it was communicated through and written by humans and humans are fallible.

[JeMeSouviens]

Big time - Leviticus: a book about food preparation. In all seriousness, shouldn't God have more important things to teach humanity?

And I have a Catholic Bible which has seven extra Old Testament books. So much for the Protestant work ethic: taking a short cut whilst we Papists put in the hard yards :greengrin

Pre-fridges, vacuum packing and not to mention keeping animals in something like sanitary conditions, this was a life and death size big deal! :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

Leviticus is a book that has had arguably one of the greatest influences on modern society. It is the basis for the teaching of both Judaism and Christianity, and by extension that means Islam as well, on homosexuality.

The issue is that the text in Leviticus 18 22 may well be a later amendment or even mistranslated. You have to consider the book was written by multiple authors over a sustained period of time. Much of the preceding text deals with incestuous relationships and relationships with the spouses of family members. The literal translation of Leviticus is that one should not 'uncover nakedness' which is seen as a euphemism for sex. So 'do not undercover the nakedness of your fathers sister' roughly means 'don't have sex with your aunt'. The teachings on incest are generally pretty straightforward.

However there are a couple of interesting exceptions. 'The nakedness of your father and the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover; she is your mother you shall not uncover her nakedness'. Note the latter part addresses only the mother. A bit later 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your fathers brother....you shall not approach his wife, she is your aunt'. So a law understandably forbidding sex between a man and his uncle actually becomes about sex between a man and his aunt and a law about sex with your father then emphasises the mother. Why? Other verses drive home their point but it is specific to the preceding point eg 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter in law, she is your son's wife'. The only verses that don't fit with the standard pattern are the ones which address incest between men. One suggestion is that these diversions suggest that they are an exception to the rule because it specifically needed stated that incestuous relationships between men were forbidden, as they were with women, because same sex intercourse was otherwise permitted. The emphasis on incestuous homosexuality is played down and the act between son and mother was pushed forward. Again, why? Well if you say that 'thou shalt not kill', there is no reason to stipulate that includes both father and mother. It's a blanket ban on murder and it applies to all. By the same token if homosexual sex is prohibited why is there a need to further stipulate homosexual sex that is also an act of incest is prohibited? There isn't because it would already be understood. Verse 22 is likely to be a later addition by a new author, either written at a time when views were changing or the author was someone who held his own strong views on the subject. Either way they have left clues, such as possibly amending the earlier texts to push the prohibition on homosexual incest into the background and thus not marking it as a clear exception, to suggest that amendments and additions have been made.

Of course that is only one theory among many on such subjects. I think what it does hammer home though is the importance of understanding and questioning the Bible rather than just accepting it verbatim. Whilst some denomination believe in the literality of the Bible, I'm not convinced that is a sensible stance. The Bible may well be the word of God but it was communicated through and written by humans and humans are fallible.

You certainly seem top know your Bible, PB. Have you spent a lot of time studying it?

[Pretty Boy]

You certainly seem top know your Bible, PB. Have you spent a lot of time studying it?

Not particularly.

I think regularly attending Mass helps. If there is something I don't understand or agree with then I'll go away and read some stuff on it to try and understand it better. I think framing the teachings to try and assert historicity and thus give context is important.

It also helps that our Parish Priest is a really nice guy who is both exceptionally well educated and versed in the Bible whilst also being a modernist/liberal (or as liberal as you get within the Church). He's brilliant at explaining some of the more problematic teachings of the Church and actively encourages people to think a bit more deeply about the scriptures.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Not particularly.

I think regularly attending Mass helps. If there is something I don't understand or agree with then I'll go away and read some stuff on it to try and understand it better. I think framing the teachings to try and assert historicity and this give context is important.

It also helps that our Parish Priest is a really nice guy who is both exceptionally well educated and versed in the Bible whilst also being a modernist/liberal (or as liberal as you get within the Church). He's brilliant at explaining some of the more problematic teachings of the Church and actively encourages people to think a bit more deeply about the scriptures.

I'm now on 2 Samuel. The narrative story of The Bible is actually a good read. Whether one believes it divine or reads it as ancient mythology, it's actually a 'page turner'. I think many of us expect religious texts to be a dull read, but I'm enjoying reading it more than I expected.

[Block]

I've read it, a right good work of fiction it is, with some very valid guidance about doing, and how to do good things. All religions and those of no faith at all can take part.

It's when one claims to be better than the other or have a monopoly on good that the wheels come off.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

I don't get this post. If we all strive to be better people then surely that's a good thing?

If there is zero morality the world would soon be a cesspit of anything goes?

Thankfully we live in a country of law and order or are you against that too as it judges people and holds their behaviour to account?

[Bostonhibby]

I don't get this post. If we all strive to be better people then surely that's a good thing?

If there is zero morality the world would soon be a cesspit of anything goes?

Thankfully we live in a country of law and order or are you against that too as it judges people and holds their behaviour to account?

I'm with you.

I'm getting at when one religion, sect, cult, gang or whatever thinks their version of truth or morality is best or should be brought to prevail over others.

Never ends well.

I'm law abiding and happy to be so and not sure where I said otherwise.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Block]

I'm with you.

I'm getting at when one religion, sect, cult, gang or whatever thinks their version of truth or morality is best or should 3brought to prevail over others.

Never ends well.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

Thankfully there are still nations and cultures that hold to their religions and versions of Law and Order.

Communism and Marxism that are entities without religion or law and order Never Ends Well as proven.

[Kato]

Thankfully there are still nations and cultures that hold to their religions and versions of Law and Order.

Communism and Marxism that are entities without religion or law and order Never Ends Well as proven.

The irony there being is that if a truly Christian country taking the Sermon On The Mount, which is seem as the embodiment of the second covenant, as it's basis would be striving towards something not that far from communism.

I can't think of truly Christian country, certainly not one that looks to the second covenant as it's basis for living. Most groups who are pointing at the Bible or the Koran as their basis for morals are using a very messed up version of those writings and a very selective interpretation.

[Hibrandenburg]

It really does grip my faeces when the religious start to imply that they have some sort of monopoly on morality. If you need your religion to tell you what the right thing to do is, then the problem is not with humanity as a whole but more likely with you. We don't need religion for people to do good things but it is a very useful tool to get good people to do bad things.

[Moulin Yarns]

I have about 1100 pages left to complete both Testaments. Who knows, by the end of it I might be a devout Christian :greengrin. However, due to its importance, I think it can still be a valuable experience to the non-believer.

That's about where I gave up reading Lord of the Rings!! Half way through book 5!! :wink:

[Bostonhibby]

It really does grip my faeces when the religious start to imply that they have some sort of monopoly on morality. If you need your religion to tell you what the right thing to do is, then the problem is not with humanity as a whole but more likely with you. We don't need religion for people to do good things but it is a very useful tool to get good people to do bad things.Amen to that.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Key West]

I can understand why people take refuge in holy books, it looks like it’s down to interpretation in the end.
The whole of mankind has evolved over a long period of time and every individual has been switched on at some point to try and make some sort of sense of it all, we read books, watch films, listen to music to try and establish some moral compass. All of this could have happened without you ever existing, the fact that you are here in this moment to question things may suggests that atheism is too simplistic an answer.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm on 1 Chronicles, about 400 pages in. Big cliff-hanger at the end of Kings, whereby Judah has fallen to the Babylonians. Chronicles is a another interpretation of previous books, so it's going to be a while before the narrative picks up again. Those Old Testament writers knew how to keep the reader hooked :greengrin

[Keith_M]

The 'Old Testament' seems to be full of hideous stories of slaughtering non-believers and includes what pretty much amounts to exterminations (or a Holocaust, if you will) of whole populations... Men, Women and Children.

It also has so many examples of people that considered Females as an inferior species, not worth as much as a Male. For instance, some guy called 'Lot' offered his own daughters to be raped by a Mob to prevent them attacking his House Guests.


It honestly has stuff in there that's the biggest load of made up bollocks you could possibly imagine, and yet hundreds of millions of people slavishly follow religions based on that nonsense.



And a question for our believers:

Wars, sexual abuse, hideous illnesses, premature deaths of children, rape, child-abuse, millions of people starving to death....

Are you telling us that your God is up there watching all this ever day and does F.... All about it yet you worship that guy? Seriously?

[Stairway 2 7]

The 'Old Testament' seems to be full of hideous stories of slaughtering non-believers and includes what pretty much amounts to exterminations (or a Holocaust, if you will) of whole populations... Men, Women and Children.

It also has so many examples of people that considered Females as an inferior species, not worth as much as a Male. For instance, some guy called 'Lot' offered his own daughters to be raped by a Mob to prevent them attacking his House Guests.


It honestly has stuff in there that's the biggest load of made up bollocks you could possibly imagine, and yet hundreds of millions of people slavishly follow religions based on that nonsense.



And a question for our believers:

Wars, sexual abuse, hideous illnesses, premature deaths of children, rape, child-abuse, millions of people starving to death....

Are you telling us that your God is up there watching all this ever day and does F.... All about it yet you worship that guy? Seriously?

https://youtu.be/-suvkwNYSQo

The brilliant Stephen fry saying similar is great

[Pretty Boy]

The 'Old Testament' seems to be full of hideous stories of slaughtering non-believers and includes what pretty much amounts to exterminations (or a Holocaust, if you will) of whole populations... Men, Women and Children.

It also has so many examples of people that considered Females as an inferior species, not worth as much as a Male. For instance, some guy called 'Lot' offered his own daughters to be raped by a Mob to prevent them attacking his House Guests.


It honestly has stuff in there that's the biggest load of made up bollocks you could possibly imagine, and yet hundreds of millions of people slavishly follow religions based on that nonsense.



And a question for our believers:

Wars, sexual abuse, hideous illnesses, premature deaths of children, rape, child-abuse, millions of people starving to death....

Are you telling us that your God is up there watching all this ever day and does F.... All about it yet you worship that guy? Seriously?

If people use bad things as proof that God doesn't exist, do they also balance that by attributing good things that happen to God? . If war, child abuse and rape are attributable to God's impotence or non existence then are medical advances, cancer survival, acts of charity and philanthropy and heroic rescues proof of his greatness and charity? You surely can't load the scales one way and say bad things happen = God isn't all powerful or doesn't exist. Good things happen = the work of humans and our ingenuity and goodness.

One of my favourite depictions of God is by Irvine Welsh in the Granton Star Cause in which God is just a pissed off old guy in a boozer. He's sick and tired of being blamed for everything wrong in the world, big and small and states he could fix it but he just doesn't give a ****. He then lists all the protagonists failings and explains to him how he had the power to change every one of them but chose not to and asks why he should be any different?


There are, or were, plentiful resources on the earth to be shared around so that we all have enough to eat, drink and live comfortable lives. Humans choose to distribute those resources unfairly. Rape, abuse, murder are all human acts. Humans have free will and the existence of God or otherwise is largely irrelevant to the people who carry out those actions, even those motivated by religion are carried out or instructed by humans. Likewise all the good things that happen are the result of human actions as well, even those motivated by people of faith.

I can accept all kinds of logical arguments for the non existence of God, I doubt there are many, if any, believers who don't think about them as well. I just don't think you can argue bad things happening is proof of non existence unless you are also willing to accept the opposite as balance.

[Stairway 2 7]

If people use bad things as proof that God doesn't exist, do they also balance that by attributing good things that happen to God? . If war, child abuse and rape are attributable to God's impotence or non existence then are medical advances, cancer survival, acts of charity and philanthropy and heroic rescues proof of his greatness and charity? You surely can't load the scales one way and say bad things happen = God isn't all powerful or doesn't exist. Good things happen = the work of humans and our ingenuity and goodness.

One of my favourite depictions of God is by Irvine Welsh in the Granton Star Cause in which God is just a pissed off old guy in a boozer. He's sick and tired of being blamed for everything wrong in the world, big and small and states he could fix it but he just doesn't give a ****. He then lists all the protagonists failings and explains to him how he had the power to change every one of them but chose not to and asks why he should be any different?


There are, or were, plentiful resources on the earth to be shared around so that we all have enough to eat, drink and live comfortable lives. Humans choose to distribute those resources unfairly. Rape, abuse, murder are all human acts. Humans have free will and the existence of God or otherwise is largely irrelevant to the people who carry out those actions, even those motivated by religion are carried out or instructed by humans. Likewise all the good things that happen are the result of human actions as well, even those motivated by people of faith.

I can accept all kinds of logical arguments for the non existence of God, I doubt there are many, if any, believers who don't think about them as well. I just don't think you can argue bad things happening is proof of non existence unless you are also willing to accept the opposite as balance.

If he created childhood cancer he's a ****

[Pretty Boy]

If he created childhood cancer he's a ****

What age is the cut off at which our mortality becomes palatable?

If everyone was guaranteed to live until at least 50 or we all died on our 70th birthday would that really sway anyone on the matter of the benevolence or existence of God. I'm sceptical.

[Keith_M]

If people use bad things as proof that God doesn't exist, do they also balance that by attributing good things that happen to God? . If war, child abuse and rape are attributable to God's impotence or non existence then are medical advances, cancer survival, acts of charity and philanthropy and heroic rescues proof of his greatness and charity? You surely can't load the scales one way and say bad things happen = God isn't all powerful or doesn't exist. Good things happen = the work of humans and our ingenuity and goodness.

One of my favourite depictions of God is by Irvine Welsh in the Granton Star Cause in which God is just a pissed off old guy in a boozer. He's sick and tired of being blamed for everything wrong in the world, big and small and states he could fix it but he just doesn't give a ****. He then lists all the protagonists failings and explains to him how he had the power to change every one of them but chose not to and asks why he should be any different?


There are, or were, plentiful resources on the earth to be shared around so that we all have enough to eat, drink and live comfortable lives. Humans choose to distribute those resources unfairly. Rape, abuse, murder are all human acts. Humans have free will and the existence of God or otherwise is largely irrelevant to the people who carry out those actions, even those motivated by religion are carried out or instructed by humans. Likewise all the good things that happen are the result of human actions as well, even those motivated by people of faith.

I can accept all kinds of logical arguments for the non existence of God, I doubt there are many, if any, believers who don't think about them as well. I just don't think you can argue bad things happening is proof of non existence unless you are also willing to accept the opposite as balance.



Sorry mate, but that's a very poor attempt to defend your God.

We're not talking about whether bad things happen. We're talking about people who believe in a God that sits back and watches those bad things happen... day after day, year after year, century after century.... all the while still being worshipped by people that think that's OK?


Fair enough, you believe in that God if you like, but it hardly seems like a deity that's going to win me over any time soon.


And don't get me started on the sins of the pious that think God is with them.

'Gott Mit Uns' was a popular motto of one group from about 80 years back, as well as all the fanatical religious terrorists, child abusing Priests/Vicars, or those that burnt non-believers at the stake, urged on by their Priest, Vicar, Bishops, Imams and Popes.


Hypocrisy The Name Is Religion.

[Pretty Boy]

Sorry mate, but that's a very poor attempt to defend your God.

We're not talking about whether bad things happen. We're talking about people who believe in a God that sits back and watches those bad things happen... day after day, year after year, century after century.... all the while still being worshipped by people that think that's OK?


Fair enough, you believe in that God if you like, but it hardly seems like a deity that's going to win me over any time soon.


And don't get me started on the sins of the pious that think God is with them.

'Gott Mit Uns' was a popular motto of one group from about 80 years back, as well as all the fanatical religious terrorists, child abusing Priests/Vicars, or those that burnt non-believers at the stake, urged on by their Priest, Vicar, Bishops, Imams and Popes.


Hypocrisy The Name Is Religion.

Is the latter part of your post not just a critique of the sins of humans and the flaws of organised religion rather than the sins of God? Take God out of the equation and those human failings and the belief in the superiority of one belief over another still exists. There are countless real world examples of that, a few already cited on this thread.

At what point does the hypothesised God start and stop interfering? Is it just a belief that if God exists he should give everyone what they want? How does that work in a world of disparate needs, wants and beliefs? At the most base level if a Hibs and Hearts fan both pray for their team to win the next Derby how does God satisfy both of them?

Good things happen every day. If I suggested any of them were proof of the existence of God I would be, quite correctly, shot down. If only the bad things can be taken into account then it leads to a pretty lopsided discussions though.

[Stairway 2 7]

What age is the cut off at which our mortality becomes palatable?

If everyone was guaranteed to live until at least 50 or we all died on our 70th birthday would that really sway anyone on the matter of the benevolence or existence of God. I'm sceptical.

Right even say under 10s dying of cancer, what a horrible **** what sins did they commit. What does that unimaginable pain the kids go through or the people around them bring to his world. If God is all powerful and he let's there be child rape then I'd love to knock him out

[Hibrandenburg]

Sorry mate, but that's a very poor attempt to defend your God.

We're not talking about whether bad things happen. We're talking about people who believe in a God that sits back and watches those bad things happen... day after day, year after year, century after century.... all the while still being worshipped by people that think that's OK?


Fair enough, you believe in that God if you like, but it hardly seems like a deity that's going to win me over any time soon.


And don't get me started on the sins of the pious that think God is with them.

'Gott Mit Uns' was a popular motto of one group from about 80 years back, as well as all the fanatical religious terrorists, child abusing Priests/Vicars, or those that burnt non-believers at the stake, urged on by their Priest, Vicar, Bishops, Imams and Popes.


Hypocrisy The Name Is Religion.

Epicurus sums it up rather well, he'd have been a great software developer:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[Hibernia&Alba]

And a question for our believers:

Wars, sexual abuse, hideous illnesses, premature deaths of children, rape, child-abuse, millions of people starving to death....

Are you telling us that your God is up there watching all this ever day and does F.... All about it yet you worship that guy? Seriously?


In The Old Testament, God doesn't merely sit back and watch such things, He Himself makes them happen. So He's actually calmed doon since the old days :greengrin

[Pretty Boy]

Epicurus sums it up rather well, he'd have been a great software developer:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

Would you be happier without free will and with an omnipresent entity controlling your every thought and action? Surely to allow humans free will a God that existed would have to wilfully limit his powers? That doesn't even require a belief in God to understand. You can't have free will and also a total reliance on a singular entity to ensure you encounter no problems, sadness or badness in your life.

If would appear some eople who are nominally atheist or anti theist are very, very angry at a being they don't even believe to exist and/or angry at people for believing in that being. Both those angers seem misplaced to me. I have no real issue with the anger aimed at organised religion, in fact I'll happily join in when it comes to a great number of areas. The idea that a belief in any kind of supernatural or spiritual entity is a character flaw or a mark of inferior critical thinking seems flawed to me though. How many people who don't believe in God will happily accept that yoga involves some kind of 'spiritual energy'? Does that encounter the same level of mocking or implication of impaired intelligence? There are many great thinkers and scientists who failed to actively give up on the idea that there could be a God: Darwin, Carl Sagan, Ian Barbour. Einstein believed the problem too vast for his brain or the brain of others. With that in mind I'll stick with my stance of 'agnostic theist'. I just don't know. I think my favourite take might be that of Freeman Dyson though:

'Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.'

[J-C]

Old testament god is a bit of a c*** , taking the 1st born, wiping out people who dont keep in line, wars in his name etc, then suddenly the NT comes along with good old Jesus and suddenly God turns into a bit of a hippie, turn the other cheek and help your fellow man no matter who he is. One minute it's kill the heathens then suddenly it's the heathens are our friends, welcome them.

Religion is there to control the population, do this that and the other or god will smight you down, the fear of god no matter what religion was enough to keep the people in check. We are better educated nowadays and the reason why there's far more non believers, hundreds of years ago the vast majority couldn't read or right and did as they were told, that's all changed.

[marinello59]

This one has veered away from the appreciation of the Bible as a work of art then. :greengrin
The only thing we all know is that nobody can prove God does exist and nobody can prove he doesn’t. The certainty of angry Atheism though has almost become a pastiche of religion itself , with quotes from high profile non-believers replacing scripture as the fountain of truth.:greengrin
Religious beliefs should be robustly challenged but implying that holding them shows a lack of education is just a wee bit unfair. Well that’s wot I thinks. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

For me, the book of Revelation is one of the finest pieces of writing there is.

I won't tell you how it ends 😉

[Hibernia&Alba]

This one has veered away from the appreciation of the Bible as a work of art then. :greengrin
The only thing we all know is that nobody can prove God does exist and nobody can prove he doesn’t. The certainty of angry Atheism though has almost become a pastiche of religion itself , with quotes from high profile non-believers replacing scripture as the fountain of truth.:greengrin
Religious beliefs should be robustly challenged but implying that holding them shows a lack of education is just a wee bit unfair. Well that’s wot I thinks. :greengrinAbsolutely it's unfair, and such a suggestion would be ignorant. There is a vast range of people within religious beliefs of all kinds; in the contemporary West (America aside perhaps) which is strongly secular, you could argue that religious belief (particularly Christianity and Judaism) is now countercultural. I think capitalism (and not philosophy and science, as folk like Nietzsche argued) has done the most to kill off religion in the West. Money, not God, is the main object of worship in society, and I think it's a good thing that there remain challenges to its dominance; religion being one method. I think another positive of religion is the way it provides an eternal anchor for believers, in a rapidly changing world which can seem frightening and out of control. It's one way of looking beyond the chaos, in order to make sense of the world. Modern life provides few opportunities for quiet reflection, as we are constantly bombarded with information and pulled this way and that by various demands upon us. Buddhism has always interested me in that regard: gaining inner peace in a crazy and fast moving society, without the need for a deity.

This is Doubting H&A, getting ready to head to Mass. :greengrin

[Hibernia&Alba]

For me, the book of Revelation is one of the finest pieces of writing there is.

I won't tell you how it ends 😉


I always suspected you are one of those fundamentalist Protestants, praying for the Rapture of the End Days, CWG :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

I always suspected you are one of those fundamentalist Protestants, praying for the Rapture of the End Days, CWG :greengrin

Me, John Lennon and Charlie Manson. 😁

[Hibrandenburg]

Would you be happier without free will and with an omnipresent entity controlling your every thought and action? Surely to allow humans free will a God that existed would have to wilfully limit his powers? That doesn't even require a belief in God to understand. You can't have free will and also a total reliance on a singular entity to ensure you encounter no problems, sadness or badness in your life.

If would appear some eople who are nominally atheist or anti theist are very, very angry at a being they don't even believe to exist and/or angry at people for believing in that being. Both those angers seem misplaced to me. I have no real issue with the anger aimed at organised religion, in fact I'll happily join in when it comes to a great number of areas. The idea that a belief in any kind of supernatural or spiritual entity is a character flaw or a mark of inferior critical thinking seems flawed to me though. How many people who don't believe in God will happily accept that yoga involves some kind of 'spiritual energy'? Does that encounter the same level of mocking or implication of impaired intelligence? There are many great thinkers and scientists who failed to actively give up on the idea that there could be a God: Darwin, Carl Sagan, Ian Barbour. Einstein believed the problem too vast for his brain or the brain of others. With that in mind I'll stick with my stance of 'agnostic theist'. I just don't know. I think my favourite take might be that of Freeman Dyson though:

'Science and religion are two windows that people look through, trying to understand the big universe outside, trying to understand why we are here. The two windows give different views, but they look out at the same universe. Both views are one-sided, neither is complete. Both leave out essential features of the real world. And both are worthy of respect. Trouble arises when either science or religion claims universal jurisdiction, when either religious or scientific dogma claims to be infallible. Religious creationists and scientific materialists are equally dogmatic and insensitive. By their arrogance they bring both science and religion into disrepute. The media exaggerate their numbers and importance. The media rarely mention the fact that the great majority of religious people belong to moderate denominations that treat science with respect, or the fact that the great majority of scientists treat religion with respect so long as religion does not claim jurisdiction over scientific questions.'

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want, if I examined my own beliefs I'd probably surprise myself at how ridiculous some of them would sound to others.

My problem is not with peoples beliefs, it's when those beliefs cross the line and try and influence my life based on what they believe or insists that others are obliged to follow the moral code that they themselves have.

I guess my problem is with organised religion, especially the hypocrisy of it demanding special protection against criticism and simultaneously being critical of that what doesn't comply with its ideology.

[Kato]

Old testament god is a bit of a c*** , taking the 1st born, wiping out people who dont keep in line, wars in his name etc, then suddenly the NT comes along with good old Jesus and suddenly God turns into a bit of a hippie, turn the other cheek and help your fellow man no matter who he is. One minute it's kill the heathens then suddenly it's the heathens are our friends, welcome them.

Religion is there to control the population, do this that and the other or god will smight you down, the fear of god no matter what religion was enough to keep the people in check. We are better educated nowadays and the reason why there's far more non believers, hundreds of years ago the vast majority couldn't read or right and did as they were told, that's all changed.Those OT God and the NT God have different characters as those collections of books were written by different people/tribes. The OT "Yahweh" was a God of War, the priests wore armour and treated anyone who was an outsider as unclean. The NT God doesnt bare any resemblance to that at all. The varying characters called God differ because those books have been brought together as one, which makes them contrary and confusing.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Kato]

I'm on 1 Chronicles, about 400 pages in. Big cliff-hanger at the end of Kings, whereby Judah has fallen to the Babylonians. Chronicles is a another interpretation of previous books, so it's going to be a while before the narrative picks up again. Those Old Testament writers knew how to keep the reader hooked :greengrinAn actual bit of the Bible which is historically verifiable.

The Babylonians took 10-20 thousand people from the Kingdom of Judah into captivity. Once there their religious outlook changed forever. Their religion up until that point revolved around the Temple and visiting it when required. Once that was impossible they diverted there religious impulse to building a temple "within themselves" which is a far more spiritual pursuit than claiming God gave them a but of land forever. That in turn led to a belief in following strict rituals and beliefs which ain't spiritual at all.

When they were released and returned to Jerusalem they were called "Persians" i.e. Parsees, Pharisees .

https://youtu.be/HTq7vE_5un4


Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

I've no problem with people believing whatever they want, if I examined my own beliefs I'd probably surprise myself at how ridiculous some of them would sound to others.

My problem is not with peoples beliefs, it's when those beliefs cross the line and try and influence my life based on what they believe or insists that others are obliged to follow the moral code that they themselves have.

I guess my problem is with organised religion, especially the hypocrisy of it demanding special protection against criticism and simultaneously being critical of that what doesn't comply with its ideology.This thread has been a very informative one for me, this post is very close to my own take on religion(s).

I'm still an atheist who is comfortable with my reasons for being one and definitely not an angry one[emoji16]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Bangkok Hibby]

God

Did he create the universe?
Is he still alive?
If so is he benevolent and helps black American athletes win races?
What about the white guys who don't win?
Do we praise him for good stuff?
Do we absolve him of blame for bad stuff?
If the answer to bad **** happening is "we have free will" what do we continue to praise him for?
Must we thank him forever more for allowing us to destroy each other and the planet?

It's all absolute nonsense isn't it?

[CropleyWasGod]

God

Did he create the universe?
Is he still alive?
If so is he benevolent and helps black American athletes win races?
What about the white guys who don't win?
Do we praise him for good stuff?
Do we absolve him of blame for bad stuff?
If the answer to bad **** happening is "we have free will" what do we continue to praise him for?
Must we thank him forever more for allowing us to destroy each other and the planet?

It's all absolute nonsense isn't it?

So you don't hold to the concept of the Divine Feminine, then? :greengrin

[Bangkok Hibby]

So you don't hold to the concept of the Divine Feminine, then? :greengrin

😀 nah mate, even more bollocks 😄

[CropleyWasGod]

😀 nah mate, even more bollocks 😄

I think you'll find it's "fewer". :greengrin

[Bangkok Hibby]

I think you'll find it's "fewer". :greengrin

😂😂😂

[Hibernia&Alba]

So you don't hold to the concept of the Divine Feminine, then? :greengrin

What kind of blasphemy is this :greengrin? Allow me to quote this morning's Gospel reading at Mass:

'Give way to one another in obedience to Christ. Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything'.

St. Paul to the Ephesians.

That is the sacred Word; there's no getting around that. Suck it up Germaine Greer and all the other left wing subversives, yeez are telt :greengrin.

[Pretty Boy]

What kind of blasphemy is this :greengrin? Allow me to quote this morning's Gospel reading at Mass:

'Give way to one another in obedience to Christ. Wives should regard their husbands as they regard the Lord, since as Christ is head of the Church and saves the whole body, so is a husband the head of his wife; and as the Church submits to Christ, so should wives to their husbands, in everything'.

St. Paul to the Ephesians.

That is the sacred Word; there's no getting around that. Suck it up Germaine Greer and all the other left wing subversives, yeez are telt :greengrin.

We have a (permanent) Decaon who gave the homily last night at the Vigil Mass. He began by saying his wife was scheduled to give the 2nd reading at the equivalent Mass last year and refused to read that. When I got home I suggested to my fiance that should be one of the readings at our wedding....... I actually think the 2nd half of the reading puts a bit of a different slant on it accepting the context of the time of course.

The Gospel reading for this week is always an interesting one. It seems even back then people found some of the teachings difficult and were happy to walk away:

'This saying is hard; who can accept it?' followed by: 'As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.'

[marinello59]

We have a (permanent) Decaon who gave the homily last night at the Vigil Mass. He began by saying his wife was scheduled to give the 2nd reading at the equivalent Mass last year and refused to read that. When I got home I suggested to my fiance that should be one of the readings at our wedding....... I actually think the 2nd half of the reading puts a bit of a different slant on it accepting the context of the time of course.

The Gospel reading for this week is always an interesting one. It seems even back then people found some of the teachings difficult and were happy to walk away:

'This saying is hard; who can accept it?' followed by: 'As a result of this, many of his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.'

I read it last night and thought of this thread. It’s problematical to say the least.:greengrin
As your post shows though, nothing is unthinkingly accepted, nor should it be.

[J-C]

One day, a farmer was out mending fences and at some point along the way he lost his Bible.

A month later, one of his sheep walks up to him clutching the Bible between its teeth.

"Oh, Lord," exclaims the farmer as he drops to his knees, "Thank you Lord, it's a miracle!"

"Not really," says the sheep, "Your name's inside the cover, you daft *******.”

[Hibernia&Alba]

I'm up to Book 25, Ecclesiastes, about 750 pages in. I'm enjoying reading the full Bible more than I expected. Whether it's the divine Word of God, I shall maintain a diplomatic silence.....:greengrin

[Keith_M]

I decided to finally get into the spirit of the thread, and read a book in which I'm a non-believer.


So I read The Highway Code.



What a load of utter nonsense that was. I have no idea how anybody could be naive enough to believe that stuff.

:rolleyes:

[Hibernia&Alba]

I decided to finally get into the spirit of the thread, and read a book in which I'm a non-believer.


So I read The Highway Code.



What a load of utter nonsense that was. I have no idea how anybody could be naive enough to believe that stuff.

:rolleyes:

I would recommend the Old Testament for those who like action stories. God puts on quite a show:

Genocide
Blood Magic
Infanticide
Child brides and paedophilia
Rape
Land theft
Racism
Slavery
Torture
Genital mutilation
Plagues
Famines
Floods
Earthquakes

Plus other exciting phenomena

Remember, God is all loving and all merciful :greengrin

[w pilton hibby]

I would recommend the Old Testament for those who like action stories. God puts on quite a show:

Genocide
Blood Magic
Infanticide
Child brides and paedophilia
Rape
Land theft
Racism
Slavery
Torture
Genital mutilation
Plagues
Famines
Floods
Earthquakes

Plus other exciting phenomena

Remember, God is all loving and all merciful :greengrin

So it's more or less Hollyoaks in sandals 😀

[Keith_M]

So it's more or less Hollyoaks in sandals 😀


I would have said it's more of a Brookside, but I get your point

:wink:

[Keith_M]

I was just watching yet another story on the news about widespread paedophilia and child abuse in the Catholic church (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183), this time in France.

This one was about the THOUSANDS of Priests, and other associated Church members, that abused HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children over the decades.

Thank God (pun intended) for Free Will.... and God's apparent disinterest in the welfare of those children... AND the fact that those people claim to be his representatives on earth.

Those in charge of the various Churches must be absolutely delighted that their followers still blindly believe... after centuries of hideous behaviour from those in positions of power in said churches... that these same people represent God on Earth, and even have the right to tell others what is and what is not wrong.

And God, in his infinite wisdom, sits up there and lets them carry on like that, while those down on earth still blindly believe, or even blindly still try to defend the indefensible


But to be fair, they have some lovely church buildings and never hold back from filling them with pointless paintings of 'Saints' and 'Virgins', crosses of Gold and precious stones..... so that makes it all worth while, I suppose.

:rolleyes:

[Keith_M]

"Some 216,000 children - mostly boys - have been sexually abused by clergy in the French Catholic Church since 1950, a damning new inquiry has found.


The head of the inquiry said there were at least 2,900-3,200 abusers, and accused the Church of showing a "cruel indifference towards the victims"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183


"The inquiry found the number of children abused in France could rise to 330,000, when taking into account abuses committed by lay members of the Church, such as teachers at Catholic schools."

[Hibernia&Alba]

I was just watching yet another story on the news about widespread paedophilia and child abuse in the Catholic church (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183), this time in France.

This one was about the THOUSANDS of Priests, and other associated Church members, that abused HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children over the decades.

Thank God (pun intended) for Free Will.... and God's apparent disinterest in the welfare of those children... AND the fact that those people claim to be his representatives on earth.

Those in charge of the various Churches must be absolutely delighted that their followers still blindly believe... after centuries of hideous behaviour from those in positions of power in said churches... that these same people represent God on Earth, and even have the right to tell others what is and what is not wrong.

And God, in his infinite wisdom, sits up there and lets them carry on like that, while those down on earth still blindly believe, or even blindly still try to defend the indefensible


But to be fair, they have some lovely church buildings and never hold back from filling them with pointless paintings of 'Saints' and 'Virgins', crosses of Gold and precious stones..... so that makes it all worth while, I suppose.

:rolleyes:


"Some 216,000 children - mostly boys - have been sexually abused by clergy in the French Catholic Church since 1950, a damning new inquiry has found.


The head of the inquiry said there were at least 2,900-3,200 abusers, and accused the Church of showing a "cruel indifference towards the victims"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183


"The inquiry found the number of children abused in France could rise to 330,000, when taking into account abuses committed by lay members of the Church, such as teachers at Catholic schools."

It's both utterly outrageous and tragic. I will say from the outset that this issue is certainly not unique to the Catholic Church, but, being a huge organisation of 1.3 billion people, with thousands of priests around the world, it will have more of these appalling cases than any other organisation. All religions have been hit with this issue. The Church of England, for example, continues to uncover new scandals each year. The perverts who commit such terrible crimes join professions/vocations where they will have easy access to children and hold authority over them. What better position of trust than the clergy? Other professions, such as teaching, are also vulnerable for the same reason, and there are inquiries into almost every boys boarding school in the UK. Organisations such as the Boy Scouts have also been infiltrated by paedophiles.

If institutions hit by child abuse allegations dealt with it in the proper way, the crimes would be bad enough; but the cover ups are what really destroys trust. When institutions care more about their reputation than the well being of children, abuse can continue for decades. There are so many examples of the Catholic Church putting public reputation before the safeguarding of children: paedophile priests being moved from parish to parish when scandal erupts, which only spreads the abuse to new areas! It has to be said the vast majority of priests are good men who genuinely want to serve God. However, the response of the Church to paedophile priests has on numerous occasions been woeful: cover ups, hush money, victim blaming, denial - there are examples of each. In many countries church attendances have dropped, due to child abuse scandals. I'm sure any Irish posters can attest to that. The Church, indeed all institutions which work with children, must be compelled to transparency. Zero tolerance, robust safeguarding policies, and criminal investigations of all allegations must be a legal requirement. Thousands upon thousands of young lives have been destroyed already.

[marinello59]

I was just watching yet another story on the news about widespread paedophilia and child abuse in the Catholic church (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58801183), this time in France.

This one was about the THOUSANDS of Priests, and other associated Church members, that abused HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of children over the decades.

Thank God (pun intended) for Free Will.... and God's apparent disinterest in the welfare of those children... AND the fact that those people claim to be his representatives on earth.

Those in charge of the various Churches must be absolutely delighted that their followers still blindly believe... after centuries of hideous behaviour from those in positions of power in said churches... that these same people represent God on Earth, and even have the right to tell others what is and what is not wrong.

And God, in his infinite wisdom, sits up there and lets them carry on like that, while those down on earth still blindly believe, or even blindly still try to defend the indefensible


But to be fair, they have some lovely church buildings and never hold back from filling them with pointless paintings of 'Saints' and 'Virgins', crosses of Gold and precious stones..... so that makes it all worth while, I suppose.

:rolleyes:
Surely this is a totally different topic from what the thread was intended for? I get your utter contempt for Catholics and the religious in general but this is a whole new topic.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Surely this is a totally different topic from what the thread was intended for? I get your utter contempt for Catholics and the religious in general but this is a whole new topic.

Fair point there. I'm about to start Book 28, Sirach, p. 795.

I enjoyed the previous Book, The Wisdom of Solomon, more than any so far. Here we clearly see the philosophy of the ancient Greeks, such as Plato, Aristotle, Aeschylus and Euripides at work: mortality and the shortness of life; how to find meaning when we know we shall die; how to avoid fear of death. It's ancient stoicism and existentialism, which is much more my thing than the miracles of the Old Testament. I'm sure The New Testament in full will be more to my way of thinking than the wrath of the O.T. God.

I just noticed that The Wisdom of Solomon is one of the books that Protestant Bibles do not include. That's a real shame, as it's a very interesting philosophical tract. Was it Martin Luther who decided which books Protestant should dispense with, and does any Biblical scholar on here know why that book is omitted from Protestant Bibles?

[Keith_M]

Surely this is a totally different topic from what the thread was intended for? I get your utter contempt for Catholics and the religious in general but this is a whole new topic.



Wow, that's an amazing way to interpret what I wrote. I most certainly don't have contempt for all my mates who are Catholics or for the abused children, it's the self-righteous, hypocritical religions in general I have a serious problem with


Anyway, I was responding to an ongoing discussion on this subject in this thread, but I'll happily move this to another thread.

[Hibrandenburg]

Anyway, I was responding to an ongoing discussion on this subject in this thread, but I'll happily move this to another thread.

Go for it, my popcorn stocks have been replenished.

[Kato]

I'm sure The New Testament in full will be more to my way of thinking than the wrath of the O.T. God.



After you've done with the NT a good follow up is the writings of Josephus. He shows what happens to the "wicked generation" JC preaches against and the actual fate of the temple "*I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The Vespasian/Titus campaigns in Palestine is great movie waiting to be made.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

After you've done with the NT a good follow up is the writings of Josephus. He shows what happens to the "wicked generation" JC preaches against and the actual fate of the temple "*I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

The Vespasian/Titus campaigns in Palestine is great movie waiting to be made.

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

My next book is either going to be the new Jilly Cooper or Katie Price's autobiography. Actually at the weekend I bought Thomas a Kempis' 'Imitation of Christ' and might go straight into that. Not being religious, I've read very little theology.

[Kato]

My next book is either going to be the new Jilly Cooper or Katie Price's autobiography. Actually at the weekend I bought Thomas a Kempis' 'Imitation of Christ' and might go straight into that. Not being religious, I've read very little theology.[emoji1]

Sent from my SM-A405FN using Tapatalk

[Keith_M]

I just saw this and thought it was quite funny...


https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQF6y_QC_SrdrykgXcxdfyi2TWDgTqkw 8VAhQ&usqp=CAU

[Hibernia&Alba]

Finished it, all 1588 pages. The New Testament is much more my thing; if we could all (not least those who claim to be Christians) actually live by the code Jesus commands, we'd have an infinitely better world. Do I believe it's literally true? Deep down, no I don't, but the social message is commendable. I've been attending Mass again since my best friend died earlier and the year, and I completely understand the comfort it provides to true believers. It would be wonderful if there is something better after death, but I just don't buy it. I think all religions are ultimately an attempt by human beings to come to terms with our mortality. As far as we know, we are the only species aware we will die; it's the ultimate question, and I think religions of every hue try to answer that, telling us that our lives do have meaning and comforting us in the face of our mortality. Those of us without that belief can easily slip into nihilism, and religion attempts to tackle that problem.

[WeeRussell]

Finished it, all 1588 pages. The New Testament is much more my thing; if we could all (not least those who claim to be Christians) actually live by the code Jesus commands, we'd have an infinitely better world. Do I believe it's literally true? Deep down, no I don't, but the social message is commendable. I've been attending Mass again since my best friend died earlier and the year, and I completely understand the comfort it provides to true believers. It would be wonderful if there is something better after death, but I just don't buy it. I think all religions are ultimately an attempt by human beings to come to terms with our mortality. As far as we know, we are the only species aware we will die; it's the ultimate question, and I think religions of every hue try to answer that, telling us that our lives do have meaning and comforting us in the face of our mortality. Those of us without that belief can easily slip into nihilism, and religion attempts to tackle that problem.

First of all - good effort. Seems like it’s been a worthwhile exercise at least somewhat for you.

I’ve always said to my pals that religion serves a purpose, or at least it should. It’s a form of guidance to try and help human beings be good people and live decent lives (obviously it leads to the opposite in some cases). Maybe advancements in science, technology and people generally not being god-fearing faithful people that fall into line means it’s lost the effectiveness it once had and some would argue religion has had its time.

As long as it continues to help and comfort people without them forcing their views on others then no harm is being done.

Unfortunately we’ve full scale wars and horrendous acts being carried out with people using “religion” as the reason, or indeed using their position in the church in negative (and horrible) ways. I’m sure the teachings in the bible never intended it this way…

[Keith_M]

Finished it, all 1588 pages. The New Testament is much more my thing; if we could all (not least those who claim to be Christians) actually live by the code Jesus commands, we'd have an infinitely better world. Do I believe it's literally true? Deep down, no I don't, but the social message is commendable. I've been attending Mass again since my best friend died earlier and the year, and I completely understand the comfort it provides to true believers. It would be wonderful if there is something better after death, but I just don't buy it. I think all religions are ultimately an attempt by human beings to come to terms with our mortality. As far as we know, we are the only species aware we will die; it's the ultimate question, and I think religions of every hue try to answer that, telling us that our lives do have meaning and comforting us in the face of our mortality. Those of us without that belief can easily slip into nihilism, and religion attempts to tackle that problem.


So your next task is the Koran.

Then the Book of Mormon.



Happy reading.

[Hibernia&Alba]

So your next task is the Koran.

Then the Book of Mormon.



Happy reading.

I have the Pali Canon of The Buddha. "Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream..." :greengrin