Is it just me or do others find the average Christian knows relatively few aspects of their religion.

For myself, I find that the majority of Atheists (however one wishes to define the term) aren't even qualified to make such a determination in the first place. That is, while your average atheist may be able to point out various things contained in the Bible, they have little understanding of it's meaning. For instance, the assertion that God says it is okay to kill one's slaves. That being said, the assertion that the average atheist understands the Bible better than the average Christian is simply saying that the atheist sees it differently than the Christian, and because they do, they feel they understand it better. In the end, it simply means because the Christian doesn't see it as they do, they don't understand their own religion. 

Furthermore, the atheist insists that what applied to the covenant Jew of the past must therefore apply to the Christian of today. Such a viewpoint proves how little the atheist understands not only history and human nature, but Christianity itself. Such a view is argued from the assumption that God has nothing to do with Christianity. it is simply a man made creation created for the purpose of control. Since this is so, of course the atheist will claim they understand Christianity better than the Christian. 

For instance, the assertion that God says it is okay to kill one's slaves.

It is not an assertion, it is a biblical quote:  Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version and New King James Version:

20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money. 

20 "And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 
21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property. 

This is pretty clear language.    If a master beats his slave to death, the master is punished.   But if the master beats his slave to the brink of death and the slave survives (continues) a day or two the master is not punished.   The reason the master is not punished is that the slave is their property.   (Note that God is stating that one human being may be the property of another human being.)  Since this is ostensibly God imposing this rule, God allows the masters to beat their slaves to the brink of death as long as they still have enough life in them to survive a day or two after the beating.   What happens if the slave dies on the third day?   It would seem the slave must die within two days for the master to be held accountable.

Note:  Other interpretations of these passages vary to the point of contradiction.  Since there is no single interpretation of the Bible there are, in effect, many different Bibles each portraying their own version of God.   So, to be fair, the various Gods of the Bible do not grant freedom to kill one's slaves on purpose but if done unintentionally all the Gods seem to agree that this is okay because the slave is the master's property.

That being said, the assertion that the average atheist understands the Bible better than the average Christian is simply saying that the atheist sees it differently than the Christian, and because they do, they feel they understand it better. In the end, it simply means because the Christian doesn't see it as they do, they don't understand their own religion. 

I have not argued that the average atheist understands the Bible better than the average Christian.  Seems true, but I am not making that argument here.   Also, you are focusing on interpretation whereas I am speaking mostly of basic knowledge.   To be clear, in my personal experience the vast majority of Christians I know are unaware of most of the OT.   They know of select stories such as the flood, Tower of Babel, Adam & Eve, etc. but not even from reading the Bible but rather reading processed versions which, for example, portray the Tower of Babel as God simply punishing arrogance while leaving out this part:

6 The Lord said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

The average Christian, it would seem, is taught a very selectively picked Bible.  This is very easy to test - just show them a few passages from Leviticus or Deuteronomy.   Say Leviticus 20.  You might even want to explain that this is Mosaic law that no longer applies, but do not cover up the fact that these are ostensibly rules a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God imposed on ancient human beings.   Let them read as much as they want.  The response will include something on the order "well that is not what I was taught".

Furthermore, the atheist insists that what applied to the covenant Jew of the past must therefore apply to the Christian of today.

Quite incorrect.   Those who take old covenant rules and apply them today are typically those who are using the Bible to promote their own bigotry.   Others point out the old covenant rules to illustrate the God of the OT.   For example, in the OT God (insert whatever qualifications you wish) stated that homosexual relationships between men is punishable by death.   Now that is OC so it does not apply today, but that is not the point.   God used to hold the death penalty for homosexuality but has since changed His mind.   Most Christians would find the God of the OT to be quite foreign (and cruel) compared to the teachings of Jesus in the NT.

Such a viewpoint proves how little the atheist understands not only history and human nature, but Christianity itself.

You invented a claim (atheists think the OC applies to modern human beings).  That is a straw-man argument.  It is a common 'rebuttal' for theists to counter points made about the OT by noting this is the old covenant, but that does not mean that the individual discussing the OT was claiming that the rules apply today.   Rather, the point is usually to illustrate the attributes of the God of the OT vs. that of the NT.

It would seem the slave must die within two days for the master to be held accountable.

At that point, the Torah would have to be looked at as that is the Hebrew religious book.

At that point, the Torah would have to be looked at as that is the Hebrew religious book.

Agreed.  That would definitely take us closer to the original source.   

It is pointless, is it not, to try to interpret the OT from English sources as the actual word of God?    The closest we will get to the original sources is to follow the work of the biblical scholars who take this up as a career.   Trouble is, they tend to not deliver findings that are pleasant for theists to hear.

The best course I took in college, five decades ago... and the only one that I remember... was "The Bible". One semester each, for OT and NT, through literary, historical, etc analyses. The prof was excellent, making his subject fascinating for all of us, regardless of our religious situation. We asked him whether he was a believer, but he refused to answer. The way he sliced and diced the Book, it couldn't possibly be the Word of God... and yet he was always perfectly respectful. 

On the last day, he told us that, yes, he did believe in God. And that he found the Bible inspiring... once he had learned how to read it. Really read it. Not as the Word of God, but as the words of men searching for God.

On another note... Did you know that over half of American "Christians" insist on using the King James Version? And there are some who have elevated that particular translation to "inspired by God" status? 

On another note... Did you know that over half of American "Christians" insist on using the King James Version? And there are some who have elevated that particular translation to "inspired by God" status?

Oh, yeah.  Any other version is downright sinful to some of them.

And that he found the Bible inspiring... once he had learned how to read it. Really read it. Not as the Word of God, but as the words of men searching for God.

Sound like the position of a biblical scholar.    If the Bible (and the Qur'an) were seen that way by the religious of the world (rather than the Word of a perfect God) I see a much better world.   Belief in a God (by some definition) is still on the table but critical thinking now gets a permanent seat at that table.   Ultimately, with Christianity (but also true of Islam) it is the holy books that prop up the religions.   Put the Bible where -IMO- it belongs (on a shelf along with other works of man) and religion now becomes merely a comforting thought that there might be something good after we are gone.

Put the Bible where -IMO- it belongs (on a shelf along with other works of man) and religion now becomes merely a comforting thought that there might be something good after we are gone.

The keys words are... not words. They are the letters "IMO". You are a rationalist. You pride yourself on approaching the world with cold reason. But there are lots of people who approach the universe very differently. They operate on faith.

We all operate on faith to some extent. We believe that the Higgs boson exists, although we have never been even close to "seeing" one. I personally don't even understand the math that was used to deduce the particle's existence. But I have read about it in sources that I trust. 

So... in a way... everyone's perception of the universe is dependent on what their "trusted sources" are... 

We all operate on faith to some extent. We believe that the Higgs boson exists, although we have never been even close to "seeing" one.

Not to drag in an old Artie argument, but the Higgs-boson is not believed to exist on faith.   The evidence is there and those who wish to spend the time to dig into the details to their satisfaction can do so.   Your point I suspect is that we all stop at a certain level of abstraction and trust the integrity of those who have marshaled the details to our level.   You are of course correct.  But let's not gloss over the profound difference in meaning between trust as used in my earlier sentence and religious faith.   The trust in science comes from an adversarial system in which empirical scientists are motivated to disprove the theories of others.   If the Higgs-boson was not credibly discovered we would have heard about it.   

So... in a way... everyone's perception of the universe is dependent on what their "trusted sources" are...

Quite correct.   Now the trick is to manage one's information so that trusted sources are indeed worthy of said trust.   IMO the Bible is a poor choice to learn about a supreme being (if one exists).   It is a great source to learn how ancient men with pens imagined a supreme being.   But too many take it as the inerrant Word of a perfect God and I find that to be problematic.

Not to drag in an old Artie argument, but the Higgs-boson is not believed to exist on faith.

"Believe" is rarely a passive verb. "The Higgs is believed in" is a clumsy construction, because people believe... active tense. The team that did the work ar CERN "saw" the Higgs. Their first circle "had it from an excellent source". And thus in expanding circles to people like us, who have never been to CERN... but "believe" because we trust that our sources learned from sources who learned from... back to CERN.

The scientists at CERN didn't take Higg's existence on faith... but all of the rest of us did. 

This is absolutely necessary. It is unimaginable that we should personally observe everything before we can assume it to be true. When Mama says, "Don't touch! It's hot!", the child will trust (believe) or not, depending on how true previous maternal warnings have proven to be.

So we learn from earliest childhood to evaluate the credibility of our sources. Some people trust Fox News. Some people trust their preacher. Faith is not always well-placed. 

Now the trick is to manage one's information so that trusted sources are indeed worthy of said trust.   IMO the Bible is a poor choice to learn about a supreme being (if one exists).   It is a great source to learn how ancient men with pens imagined a supreme being.   But too many take it as the inerrant Word of a perfect God and I find that to be problematic.

Exactly. 

Trouble is too many grab hold of the word believe or belief and claim that science is a religion.   That is a new thing now, labeling science a religion to suggest to the masses that religion is as credible as science.

Trouble is too many grab hold of the word believe or belief and claim that science is a religion.   That is a new thing now, labeling science a religion to suggest to the masses that religion is as credible as science.

People have been taught... are being taught... that reality is whatever they want it to be. Using words to mean whatever one desires is an important part of that teaching. 

The conclusions of science are inconvenient to some powerful people... so science must be discredited. Science must lose its status as a "trusted source".

For myself, I find that the majority of Atheists (however one wishes to define the term) aren't even qualified to make such a determination in the first place.

Merry Christmas!!

I guess you'd be surprised that people aren't born atheists.  I'll bet 99+% of us were submerged in some religion or another and realized how it was all BS -- probably before we were out in the world on our own.  Paradoxically it was mostly helped by people like you who taught, unwittingly of course, just how much BS it mostly* was.  TIG is right on the money.   And,

Merry Christmas.

* I do realize there are some good people of real faith whom I respect and admire even though I do not share their beliefs. 

Actually, we probably are born atheists, but we're indoctrinated at a young age into whatever religion our parents follow.  And later on, some of us become atheists again.

Actually, we probably are born atheists... 

That's an interesting affirmation. Do you have any basis other than your own intimate conviction? That is to say, your faith? 

I have seen studies that say the opposite, that the human brain is predisposed to "belief". 

I've seen the studies.  In what do we believe?  At birth, can we articulate a belief in a deity, even to ourselves?

By the time any of us is able to articulate belief or nonbelief, we likely have already been indoctrinated into belief.

I have seen studies that say the opposite, that the human brain is predisposed to "belief".

I found an article that is about those studies.   We are born with the "ability" to learn to have faith in what our parents/mentors teach us.

I see this as being logical to the point that we learn facts that contradict belief to the point that "belief" is no longer an option - which the article pretty much states.  The biggest and most stable societies in the world today have the lowest rates of religious beliefs.

I also found a poll that states the countries with the happiest people are also the least religious.  This seems logical that people who are not being reviled as born sinners doomed to Hell could be happier than people who believe that themselves and all people are born evil in need of a blood sacrifice by a supernatural being in order to escape eternal torment.

motherboard.vice

Religion is therefore much like language. Humans aren't born with an innate knowledge of French, English, Chinese, or whatever. But we are born with the ability to learn those languages based on the societies into which we are born or raised, the video adds. They help us to make sense of the world around us. Likewise, none of us are born believers, but we can pick up our faiths depending on whether or not we're raised to believe.

It's pointed out that religion came to be so diverse because of the different needs of different types of societies. Agrarian tribes, for example, believed in gods that represented the things they found important such as crops, water, or fire. While larger, sedentary civilizations often worshiped entities responsible for protecting elements like human affairs.

But the larger these communities grew, the less they relied on the benefits that religion once provided, says the video's narrator. Currently, the biggest and most stable societies have the lowest rates of religious belief, according to New Scientist. Safety, they theorize, puts gods out of a job.

Of course, there's also the opposing theory that God does, indeed, exist. But as Carl Sagan once said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Actually, I think a atheist with some brains understands the bible passages just fine, possibly even better then the Christians who have to try to twist it into something that conforms their religious views. That's not especially a insult, mighty monitors, how else could a Christian read it? Christens expect it to mean what they already know, or they're looking for justification to back their own views. 

The problems start when Christians take one line or even part of a line from scriptures and use it for a basis for this or that point they want to make, usually against some other group. That's usually when they turn most to the old testament because there's not much to be used for that in the new testament, although there is a little, but not much condemnation from Christ himself. The only thing I remember that annoyed JC was greed (especially in a temple,) hate, injustice and olive trees that weren't ripe yet. He disliked rich people slightly more than the rest, maybe.

I think Religious people only pay attention to the parts of their religion they hear the most at church and remember from Sunday School and a lot of the sugared version from grade school, if they were send there if not there's always a bible study for children. It usually doesn't go into details much and certainly no history before their religion.

But for most Christians, that's more than enough.

I think when the King of England threw the Catholic religion out of England (because the Pope wouldn't grant him a annulment) many Catholics took off for the new world rather then give up being Catholic and join the Church of England. The bible the Catholics were using at the time was the King James version and they of course brought it with them. 

Because I knew that Henry VIII died in 1547 and the pilgrims were in the 1600s , I was curious.  The Kings James Bible was written for King James who took the throne after Elizabeth I's death in 1603.  The KJV Bible was completed in 1611.

Henry VIII established the Church of England in 1534.  There were some reformations, but basically the church was still run Catholic except with the King as head of the church instead of the pope.  Henry VIII did make some changes to doctrine and then reversed most of them.

When his daughter, Mary, succeeded her father, she placed England's citizens back under the control of the Pope and went about earning the label of "Bloody Mary" for the methods used to persecute non-Catholics.

I believe it is the legacy of violence associated with Christianity that prompted the men who founded the US government to include the separation of church and state wording that is contentious today because various religious sects are demanding to control the lives of all citizens in the same manner that the Catholic pope did in many nations not so long ago.

britannia

Like with a lot of men who have power, they like money, also.  Henry VIII did reclaim lands that had been controlled by the Pope in Rome.

The people who suffered the most upset was  likely the Pope and Catholic priests who raked in the dough before Henry VIII took over their operations.

Yet, by the end of 1534, the English Church was still a Catholic one. Although it was now free of Rome, its religious doctrine hadn't changed at all. There was plenty of debate over the form of doctrine the Church should take, and Henry incorporated some evangelical ideas into his Church. The Dissolution of the Monasteries, for instance, may have been primarily concerned with matters of money and land, but it also swept away a huge and privileged clerical society. This was a very visible attack on the pre-Reformation Church, and the whole task was completed within the four years between 1536-40.

In 1536, the Ten Articles were produced as a formulary of the new Church's faith. These articles referred to just three sacraments - baptism, penance and the Eucharist - rather than the usual seven. This was radical at the time, but also confusing, and there was much debate over the 'missing' four sacraments of confirmation, ordination, marriage and last rites.

However a great breakthrough for evangelicals did come in 1537 when royal permission was given for a vernacular version of the Bible. In 1538 Cromwell issued further Injunctions that required that all churches acquire a copy of the English Bible.

These three years 1536-38 marked the high watermark of officially sanctioned evangelical doctrine under Henry VIII. The King was a keen theologian, and was prepared to incorporate evangelical ideas into his new Church where he saw fit. But he wasn't comfortable with the alterations, and from 1539 onwards he reversed most of his previous policies.

Perhaps, but it seems to me it's mostly Protestants, and fundamentalist Protestants, at that, who insist on the KJV.  But that might be because most people I know are Protestants, and fundamentalists to some degree.

The people who suffered the most upset was  likely the Pope and Catholic priests who raked in the dough before Henry VIII took over their operations.

The words below are mine and should not have been in the block quote.

Like with a lot of men who have power, they like money, also.  Henry VIII did reclaim lands that had been controlled by the Pope in Rome.

The people who suffered the most upset was  likely the Pope and Catholic priests who raked in the dough before Henry VIII took over their operations.

Good post. Timelines are important for understanding. 

The Roman Catholic Church was at least as political as religious at the start of the 16th century. That's what provoked the Reformation, both Luther's and Henry's.

In England, as you say, the initial intent was to change nothing except the king in place of the Pope. But Henry soon realized that the monesteries.. now the king's monesteries... were worth a LOT of money. You can imagine what followed. 

The Church of England slid back and forth from Catholicism (under Bloody Mary) to militant Protestantism (under Oliver Cromwell) for the next couple centuries.

The KJV was both a religious and a political product, like everything involving the Church of England. 

The Roman Catholic Church was at least as political as religious

Still is.

Can you imagine how many confessions make their way to the ears of the religious men who know how to leverage them for personal benefit?

I believe that is the major reason that the Catholic church opposes a personal relationship with Yahweh/Yeshua and omitting the Catholic priest as the middleman who knows who been naughty, naughtier and naughtiest.

Yes.

Progressive Protestants use modern translations. There are several. The Catholic Church has its own translation. 

Good grief!

It is not an assertion, it is a biblical quote:  Exodus 21:20-21 King James Version and New King James Version:

Actually, it is an assertion, at least on your part. Being able to quote a passage doesn't guarantee your interpretation of it is correct. Your insistence that the verses be accepted without thought or consideration isn't realistic. Your approach is basically that the rest of the Bible should be ignored so that your interpretation gains more credence. 

Furthermore, your interpretation is simply a purely legalistic one, without any attempt at understanding the underlying principle. A modern day example would be to insist that the person who chased down the gunman who killed all those people in that Texas church was a criminal for breaking the speed limit. 

Other interpretations of these passages vary to the point of contradiction.  Since there is no single interpretation of the Bible there are, in effect, many different Bibles each portraying their own version of God.   So, to be fair, the various Gods of the Bible do not grant freedom to kill one's slaves on purpose but if done unintentionally all the Gods seem to agree that this is okay because the slave is the master's property.

I disagree. I have access to 19 different Bibles and none of them say anything significantly different concerning these verses. I would invite you to present what you feel is contradicting concerning these verses. 

Strangely, you argue against your own position by recognizing that God doesn't grant freedom for slave owners to kill their slaves intentionally, which is a departure from past discussions we've had. 

However, such a view strengthens my argument that the average atheist isn't qualified to judge these matters. That a slave owner might accidentally kill one of his slaves doesn't mean that it was accidental will absolve him on Judgement Day. God knows what is in an individual's heart better than the individual. 

I have not argued that the average atheist understands the Bible better than the average Christian.  Seems true, but I am not making that argument here.   Also, you are focusing on interpretation whereas I am speaking mostly of basic knowledge.

Be honest, TiG. You are arguing exactly that or we wouldn't be having this conversation. The basis for your argument is exactly what you say it is. That is, no more than what the words literally say rather than what they mean. In order to do so you isolate the verses from the rest of the Bible in order to make your point. 

 To be clear, in my personal experience the vast majority of Christians I know are unaware of most of the OT. 

I can't ague for or against this. However, I suspect that what you really mean is that, whatever the "average" Christian knows of the OT, it doesn't agree with your view of it. 

I have read every word of the OT. Even the seemingly boring parts such as Numbers. I, of course, can't say how many other Christians have. I suspect, however, that the number is significantly less than you imagine. I suspect this because you feel that if they had, they'd see it as you do. 

The average Christian, it would seem, is taught a very selectively picked Bible. 

Again, I can't ague with you. Still, since I am a Christian, I feel I have a better grasp of this than you do. I began life as a Catholic, but became a Protestant. In that much, you may be correct, although I can't be sure, no longer being a Catholic. 

That said, your comment assumes that the average Christian is incapable of determining for himself/herself who God is and what He wants from them. Apparently, you seem to believe that the Church is some sort of tyrannical organ designed to enslave it's followers. Understandable, considering your  point of view.

The thing you seem constitutionally unable to understand, however, is that Christianity is first and foremost about the relationship between the individual and God. Not the individual relating to God through what you consider the Church. This is evident by the prevalence of material any Christian has access to on the subject. No one is forced to believe what they do.  

You might even want to explain that this is Mosaic law that no longer applies, but do not cover up the fact that these are ostensibly rules a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God imposed on ancient human beings. 

This is why you are seriously outclassed in this discussion. You are only capable of looking at it from a human perspective. 

Imagine, if you can, that there is a perfect God. One who never does anything less that what is absolutely just. Said God is dealing with a creation that is anything but just. Evidence? Slavery. 

What could God do? Well, obviously He could smite the hell out of everyone who doesn't measure up to His standards. Or, He could show mercy to those who are incapable of meeting those standards. 

You see it as God saying this is what you will do with your slaves, while we see it as God saying you can only go so far from what is right. That is, you see it as permission whereas we see it as restriction. 

Quite incorrect.   Those who take old covenant rules and apply them today are typically those who are using the Bible to promote their own bigotry.

I'm afraid not. Otherwise, we'd not be accused of cherry picking. The average atheist does indeed believe that because something is in the OT it must therefore apply to today's Christian. Example, homosexuality is wrong but, according to the atheist, we must be prepared to stone the to death in order to believe it. 

God used to hold the death penalty for homosexuality but has since changed His mind.

In what way? That homosexuality is worthy of death or that human beings should carry out that sentence? 

You invented a claim (atheists think the OC applies to modern human beings).  That is a straw-man argument.

Oh, please. You can't be serious. For the love of what is true, you know this isn't. You know the crap I endured from the people in Newsvine. How can you possibly say this? 

Being able to quote a passage doesn't guarantee your interpretation of it is correct.

True.   That is why I quoted the passage.   I have done this quite a few times and each time my intent is for the reader to read the words, follow the link to the source and look at the context to his or her satisfaction.    

Your insistence that the verses be accepted without thought or consideration isn't realistic. Your approach is basically that the rest of the Bible should be ignored so that your interpretation gains more credence. 

But I do not insist that.  Read above.  I want people to explore the Bible - especially using passages like this as the launching point.

Furthermore, your interpretation is simply a purely legalistic one, without any attempt at understanding the underlying principle. A modern day example would be to insist that the person who chased down the gunman who killed all those people in that Texas church was a criminal for breaking the speed limit. 

Well I do not see how you make that connection Drak.   Seems an absurd analogy.   Note, I offered quotes from the Bible.   You should explain to the readers how this passage is something other than God condoning slavery under certain conditions.   Explain to people why God does not condemn the practice of beating one's slave (especially to the brink of death).   Explain to people the phrase 'for he is his property'.     In short, focus less on framing me manipulative and more on the actual content.   You will note that I always offer you that respect.

I disagree. I have access to 19 different Bibles and none of them say anything significantly different concerning these verses. 

You really should not disagree with me on this point.  There are variants that phrase this passage in a manner that is more to your liking.   But if you want to hold that my two quotes are representative then I will not argue with you.     

Strangely, you argue against your own position by recognizing that God doesn't grant freedom for slave owners to kill their slaves intentionally, which is a departure from past discussions we've had. 

My point in past discussions have been that God accepted slavery.   Remember?   You (here) modified it to God is okay with masters killing their slaves.   My comments (here) backed you off that into a form that I could agree with.   That form is that God will, under certain conditions, not call for punishment of masters who in effect beat their slaves to death.   So it is not strange at all.

However, such a view strengthens my argument that the average atheist isn't qualified to judge these matters. That a slave owner might accidentally kill one of his slaves doesn't mean that it was accidental will absolve him on Judgement Day. God knows what is in an individual's heart better than the individual. 

Maybe you were a little too quick on the trigger here?   Drak, I cannot do anything about how you interpret (or remember) my positions.   I am willing to repeat and explain, but you need to be willing to listen.   Now, on your point, I agree that one of the intents of this passage is that God does not want to punish a master who unintentionally beat his slave to death.   Your added point that God might nail the master on Judgement Day is certainly justifiable by scripture, but that does not change the meaning of what we are discussing.   To be clear, if God holds that a master should not beat his slave to death under any circumstances then God (obviously) should have left out that 2 day buffer period.   

Be honest, TiG. You are arguing exactly that or we wouldn't be having this conversation. The basis for your argument is exactly what you say it is. That is, no more than what the words literally say rather than what they mean. In order to do so you isolate the verses from the rest of the Bible in order to make your point. 

No that is not my argument.   Be honest?    Read what I wrote.  That is not my argument.   Also, note what you quoted.   I flat out told you that your conjecture might be true, but that I am not making that argument.   Bottom line, if you think I am not engaging you honestly then you are imposing a bias that is distorting how you interpret my words.   

Finally, it is a curious argument to say that I am trying to isolate a verse I quoted from the rest of the Bible.   I deliver two quotes, with two links to the balance of the Bible.   It is up to you to persuade people (through the context of the Bible) that somehow the words used in this passage do not mean what a direct read states.

(continued)

That said, your comment assumes that the average Christian is incapable of determining for himself/herself who God is and what He wants from them.

Why would you think that?   Who said anything about Christians being incapable to make up their own minds about what they believe?   

Apparently, you seem to believe that the Church is some sort of tyrannical organ designed to enslave it's followers. Understandable, considering your  point of view.

Yes!   Now this you did get correct.   Organized religion, IMO, is one of the most sophisticated systems for long-term, broad-range mind control ever devised.

The thing you seem constitutionally unable to understand, however, is that Christianity is first and foremost about the relationship between the individual and God. Not the individual relating to God through what you consider the Church. This is evident by the prevalence of material any Christian has access to on the subject. No one is forced to believe what they do.

Then please let's abolish the religions and the churches and just stick with individuals finding their own relationship with God as they perceive God.   A profound improvement as I see things.

This is why you are seriously outclassed in this discussion. You are only capable of looking at it from a human perspective. 

I have never known you to be arrogant Drak.   

Imagine, if you can, that there is a perfect God. One who never does anything less that what is absolutely just. Said God is dealing with a creation that is anything but just. Evidence? Slavery. 

Okay.

What could God do? Well, obviously He could smite the hell out of everyone who doesn't measure up to His standards. Or, He could show mercy to those who are incapable of meeting those standards. 

Mercy.  Explain Sodom & Gomorrah with that reasoning.  Explain Adam & Eve and the curse of Original Sin on all of their progeny?   And, of course, Noah's flood where God wiped out everyone and everything except for a few DNA samples to reboot?   Where do you find mercy here?

To answer your question, God is God.  God is omniscient and omnipotent.   God knows what you are going to do before you do it.   God created all the people as He saw fit and God knew that they would eventually resort to slavery.   If omnipotent God did not want His creatures to enslave one another He could have set us up with an anti-slavery instinct.   God is (again) omniscient and omnipotent.  God gets what God wants.   Further, God is still hanging around while slavery is in its infancy.  But He does not stop it.   Then as it grows into brutal inhuman treatment He does not stop it.   Makes a few rules, but does not stop it.   And let's not forget about all the other cultures engaging in slavery.   Did God make rules for them too?  Where are these rules?   Point made?

Now please try to focus on the content of these challenges.  These challenges exist even if I never did.   Explain God to your readers by directly addressing these challenges.    Your turn.

The average atheist does indeed believe that because something is in the OT it must therefore apply to today's Christian. Example, homosexuality is wrong but, according to the atheist, we must be prepared to stone the to death in order to believe it.

You might want to back that up with a study.   Pointing out hypocrisy and 'changes of mind' is quite different from claiming that the average atheist is unaware of the concept of the covenants.

Oh, please. You can't be serious. For the love of what is true, you know this isn't. You know the crap I endured from the people in Newsvine. How can you possibly say this? 

Drama does not work with me.   Here is what you wrote:

Drak @ 1.1 - Furthermore, the atheist insists that what applied to the covenant Jew of the past must therefore apply to the Christian of today . Such a viewpoint proves how little the atheist understands not only history and human nature, but Christianity itself. Such a view is argued from the assumption that God has nothing to do with Christianity. it is simply a man made creation created for the purpose of control. Since this is so, of course the atheist will claim they understand Christianity better than the Christian. 

Feigned ignorance of the covenants is not a tactic that I have witnessed by skeptics.   I suspect you are misunderstanding the point.   The point usually is that perfect, omniscient , omnipotent God apparently changed His mind.   The other point (and the more important one) is that at one point in time, the absolute moral authority (God) demanded that homosexual acts (but only those of males, not females) are punishable by death.

So what is the moral message here?   Male homosexuality was, at one time, punishable by death per God.   But now, with the new covenant, not so much?   Do we have a quote ?:

Romans 1:26-27   New International Version (NIV)

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.   27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another . Men committed shameful acts with other men , and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

No death penalty, just shameful?  Female homosexuality now a bad thing.  What, in your view, is God's current position on homosexuality?

I believe it is the legacy of violence associated with Christianity that prompted the men who founded the US government to include the separation of church and state wording that is contentious today because various religious sects are demanding to control the lives of all citizens in the same manner that the Catholic pope did in many nations not so long ago.

Hi mocowgirl. I thought this seeded article might be of interest to you:

This Gay Couple Left Iran For A Better Life. Now They Wonder If It Can Last In America.

The couple came to the U.S. as refugees several years ago, after fleeing Iran for Turkey. Things are better here in many ways, and they see their story as a hopeful one for other LGBTQ Iranians. They’re alive, they’re married, and they live openly as gay men.

But Haghjoo and Nia also find themselves in a country where the president tried to ban new refugees and immigrants from Iran and several other Muslim nations, on the argument that such people pose a threat to America’s safety.

And they worry now about what will happen ― is already happening ― to LGBTQ people in a country under Republican rule.

Link:  thenewstalkers

These individuals are perfectly normal, intelligent, knowledgeable human beings.   But when it comes to matters of faith, they seem to gloss over all the details and just go with the big picture:  God loves us and has our back.

In 2010   Pew conducted a survey   which formalizes my anecdotal comments.

So does the ordinary theist have a good command of his/her religion or are they mostly accepting the basic (comforting) Sunday School notions they have been told on faith?

It seems to me that in some ways your attitude may be a bit righteous..perhaps even condescending. 

 (Perhaps its the sort of Christians and Jews that you choose to associate with?)

As for myself, I hang with a different sort of crowd...

(For starters, they realize that the Bible is not meant to betaken literally. My Christian friends are not the sort of bigoted close minded Christians that apparently are the ones that

you know...and my Jewish friends laughed at me when I asked if they worshipped a Golden Calf at the Temple on their holy days).

If the Pew survey is the one I think it is, I did pretty well on it, but I also found it rather shallow. Akin to a middle school student doing well on a history test but not really understanding the impact of the history. 

God loves us and has our back.

That's the important part !

Although....most thinking believers don't take that statement "literally" as to "Real" life on this planet. It's more a "belief" for the after Life !

It seems to me that in some ways your attitude may be a bit righteous..perhaps even condescending.

Why?  I provided a Pew study and noted that my own personal experiences correlate with the study.

(For starters, they realize that the Bible is not meant to betaken literally. My Christian friends are not the sort of bigoted close minded Christians that apparently are the ones that

Most of my circle do not take the Bible literally either.   Indeed, reading my comments it is obvious that their understanding of the Bible is from Sunday School and church services and not from a literal read of the Bible.   In fact, one might recognize that my underlying point is that most Christian's knowledge of the Bible does not come from reading the Bible.   

If the Pew survey is the one I think it is, I did pretty well on it, but I also found it rather shallow. Akin to a middle school student doing well on a history test but not really understanding the impact of the history.

Your constant revisionist attempts to recreate Christianity according to your own belief is hilarious. Where did you get the supposed revealed knowledge to make these claims that everyone else is wrong about Christianity except for you? 

Your constant revisionist attempts to recreate Christianity according to your own belief is hilarious. Where did you get the supposed revealed knowledge to make these claims that everyone else is wrong about Christianity except for you?

Hello, epistte. Glad to see your post's are as irrelevant as ever. 

Hello, epistte. Glad to see your post's are as irrelevant as ever.

Your posts are the same as always.

Bullseye!!

Or is it just that if they don't agree with what you say Christianity is or should be you accuse them of not knowing as much as you think you know?

Or is it just that if they don't agree with what you say Christianity is or should be you accuse them of not knowing as much as you think you know?

In the case of the Pew study the results clearly have nothing to do with me.   And that is really the focus of the article so there you go.

Regarding my own personal experience, they are not about my interpretation but rather what people read for themselves.

For example, I can (and have) shown Christians (mostly Catholics by the way) in my circle of family and friends passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy.   When they read passages where God ostensibly states OC rules they often are surprised that God would ( under any circumstances ) make such rules.   Reading further, they are surprised that God of the OT would be so seemingly petty and so focused on sexual behavior.   When I ask what the OT God had to say about pedophilia they are surprised that with such detailed rules God did not seem to be concerned about pedophilia (or child incest even).

So it is not my interpretation, but rather the scripture as written in English Bibles.   

And Truett, don't come back and tell me this is Mosaic law, that it applies to the ancient Israelites and that it is Old Covenant.   Given, given and given.   Not the point.  The point is that the folks in my experiences are for the most part not even aware of 'God's early positions on matters' and find that the OT God is verrrry different from the NT God that they learned about in Sunday school.

To be clear, here are the list of laws established in Leviticus 20 .   With the nit-picky circumstances God has outlined, it is at least odd that God failed to mention pedophilia or child-incest.   Seems more like the words of ancient fallible men rather than those of the perfect, omniscient supreme being.   But you can read them yourself (you likely have them memorized) and others can read them right here and draw their own conclusions.   I have categorized these in blue for convenience.

10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.

11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife [ adultery ], he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law [adultery],  both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.

13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman [ male homosexuality; nothing on lesbians ], both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother [ masochism ?], it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.

15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal [ bestiality ], he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.

16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it [ bestiality ], kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

17 “‘If a man marries his sister [ adult incest ], the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.

18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period [ menstrual sex ], he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.

19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father [ incest with aunt ] for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.

20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt [ same as 19 ], he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.

21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife [ in-law incest ], it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.

Outside of the fact that this is an odd list to come from THE supreme entity, it gets into details such as having sex with a woman during her period (with rather harsh consequences based on a poor understanding of biology) yet says not one word about pedophilia or child-incest.  One would think that a God who is concerned about bestiality and menstrual sex would at least have a word to say about sexually violating a child.

So I am not surprised when my circle raises an eyebrow on some of things we can find in the Bible.   However I am quite surprised at those who try to defend this stuff.   Wonder what will be offered in excuse for God ostensibly not including a rule about pedophilia.

You must be consistent in how you treat the Bible, TiG. 

Do you consider it the Word of God, of the writings of men? If the latter, then you cannot feign surprise on discovering that social rules were different, harsher, in a pastoral society a few millennia ago. 

You must be consistent in how you treat the Bible, TiG.

I agree.

Do you consider it the Word of God, of the writings of men?   

The writings of men.   See:  Men with Pens (for example).

If the latter, then you cannot feign surprise on discovering that social rules were different, harsher, in a pastoral society a few millennia ago. 

I agree.   The social rules are expected to be different (and harsher) (and inconsistent) (and incomplete) (and ...) in ancient society.   What we see in Leviticus 20, etc. is exactly what we would expect if written by ancient men pretending to be God.

But Truett et.al. will likely argue that this is indeed the word of God (not men pretending to be God) ... and that is where this gets interesting.

I might quibble... but I won't. 

Have fun! 

But you totally ignore that the penalty for sin is the same in the old testament as it is in the new testament, the difference is instead of paying the penalty here and now the penalty is already paid by God if you accept it, if not you will pay the penalty after leaving this earth.

The OT penalty for homosexuality is death.  Mortal death.  Now what specifically is the NT afterlife penalty for homosexuality, how does it differ from punishment for other sins and what is your source?

I think it has to do with the way the two testaments are written. The OT is complicated. Sometimes it's parable and other times, it's laws. It is also a huge volume with a lot of laws and clarity on the laws are found elsewhere (the Talmud) and not fully understood. 

The NT is written as 4 different versions of Jesus' life. It has very little to do with the OT, other than reference by how Jesus viewed the OT and how it affected his beliefs. 

This makes for a varied interpretations, and misinterpretations and those who think they understand what would take a lot of years of bible classes to understand. 

This makes for a varied interpretations, and misinterpretations and those who think they understand what would take a lot of years of bible classes to understand.

What always strikes me are the know-it-alls who feel that they are the experts on all matters religious. (And I've seen the same sort of righteous judgementalness and obnoxious condescending ignorance amongst Atheists as well as Believers.).

Both of your comments are clearly trying to paint the author (me) as a 'know-it-all'.   Not the way to go.

This article is about knowledge theists have of their religions.  I noted that in my personal experiences the Pew study results seem to hold true.   It is a fact (anecdotal but nevertheless accurate) that my circle of friends and family are easily surprised by what is in the Bible.   Maybe my experiences are unusual but they correlate with the Pew study so I am inclined to think they are more typical than not.

This article is about knowledge theists have of their religions.

I know god thru the struggle to believe. (someone once said that)

I have made preachers question their own faithes if they dare to debate me on some of the finer points in the book.

I can have them flipping pages and scratching their heads in about 5mins. which almost always ends up in some blank statement like "god works in mysterious ways... yadda yadda.

that said, regardless and contrary.

I also believe religion was necessary to the creation of any stable society as all laws against things like "do not kill, and "do not steal started in religion. which was the first enforced law societies had before we got all uppity and techy.    what kind of society would we have today without the past religious notions of "do not kill and do not steal in our past? 

atheists running our country? simply not a good idea.

let's face it... without religion? people can find a way to rationalize murder in no time flat.  religion tends to slow this trend down by providing resistance to people like...

margaret sanger? atheist father? eugenics? abortions?    look her up.

 I seriously doubt either a fictional or factual jesus would support eugenics.

I seriously doubt either a fictional or factual jesus  would support eugenics.

but then again... they keep re-writing that book so give it time... LOL

I can have them flipping pages and scratching their heads in about 5mins.

Merry Christmas!!

Based on the indecipherability of the rest of that comment, I suspect those preachers are looking for a way to get out of the room.

Merry Christmas!!!

Based on the indecipherability of the rest of that comment,

since all you have is a personal attack? we can safely assume you have nothing else.

 Oh BTW Merry Christmas to you too

... atheists running our country? simply not a good idea.

Do you presume atheists are immoral?   I personally do not think that a person must be brought up as a Christian to understand that we should not kill each other, etc.  Indeed, consider Japan whose primary religions are Shintoism and Buddhism.   Neither of these religions correlate with the Christian God in any meaningful way.   So to Christians these religions are false religions with false Gods (and Buddhism does not even really have a 'god' - Buddhists could be labeled 'atheists').   The Japanese as a whole are not following the Word of the Abrahamic God, the 10 commandments, etc.   In effect a Christian would likely call them heathens.  A nation of heathens - the streets must be replete with evil and sin.  The crime rate must be crazy high.   Buildings are likely in shambles and inundated with filth from heartless heathens who do not care about anyone or anything.

Japan is a rather disciplined, civil, clean, low-crime nation and it is not because of its tiny, tiny minority of Christians.   

I can have them flipping pages and scratching their heads in about 5mins. which almost always ends up in some blank statement like "god works in mysterious ways... yadda yadda.

That doesn't invalidate anything. It takes integrity to admit that sometimes the answer is "I don't know." Atheists often employ a double standard. i.e., There are many things science can't explain and that's ok, but if a religious person can't answer a question, then the falsity of that religion has been exposed.

It takes integrity to admit that sometimes the answer is "I don't know.

duh

and for an open and educated mind that notion of "I don't know" was covered by "I know god thru the struggle to believe.

try this one sometime just for fun.

ask a preacher if jesus came to bring peace to this earth and see what he says.

most preachers will say yes, jesus came to bring peace to this earth

proving them either unfamiliar or not being completely honest about their own faith as this article suggests

if a religious person can't answer a question,

If the default answer is "God did it" or "we can't fathom God" or "God works in mysterious ways" instead of "we don't know", well, that just doesn't cut it for some of us.

I'm sure religion helped advance civilization especially in the beginning, as formally stating the basic laws of civilization and promising divine punishment if you broke them.

But I think even without religion, we had the basic unwritten laws. Anywhere people gathered to live after farming was discovered would almost automatically know them. Don't murder another member of your tribe (village) don't rape the women, don't steal from anybody or the least you could expect is to be kicked out in some nasty way up to being killed in some slow, nasty way. Your punishment was decided by who was punishing you OR the smartest and wisest man in the village. Religion was one more binding force that strengthen the bonds of community. Communities were made for mutual safety and any person that threatened that safety would have to go with or without religion.

 I don't think all that much of the human race, but you must think even less of us if you think the ONLY reason we have ANY morals is because religion forced us to.  

I think it has to do with the way the two testaments are written.

I think it's partly that, but it's also the fact that it's difficult to reconcile the NT version of God with the OT version.  I think that if many people were to really read the OT closely, their faith that they worship a loving, benevolent god would be shaken, because he certainly doesn't present as such in the OT.  So the focus of the ark myth becomes cute animals and rainbows, with little attention given to the story of a loving, benevolent god who just happened to wipe out nearly the whole of creation.  That just doesn't compute, so many gloss over the OT passages that portray God as wrathful and murderous.

I think that if many people were to really read the OT closely, their faith that they worship a loving, benevolent god would be shaken, because he certainly doesn't present as such in the OT.

Spot on.

I totally agree. But many of the stories in the OT are not supposed to be taken literally. They are parables. But for sure, it doesn't jibe with the NT. 

But many of the stories in the OT are not supposed to be taken literally.

That is a commonly held view and quite sensible.   

So here is an interesting question to ponder:   Who says the Bible is not to be taken literally -word for word- as the Word of God?    If the authority for this ruling is not God then is that not a problem?   And if the Bible is not to be taken literally then who determines what parts are to be taken literally?   Who is the uber-arbiter of meaning for the Bible?

Probably a topic for another article. 

I totally agree. But many of the stories in the OT are not supposed to be taken literally. They are parables. But for sure, it doesn't jibe with the NT.

My POV is that people miss the real meaning of both the OT and the NT is they take them literally. (And I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most people here don't agree with that-- in fact it seems to me that most people here feel very strongly that both should be taken literally.

Indeed, as evidenced by the fact that biblical scholars spend their lives (professionally) trying to analyze the Bible.   Even if the average individual were to read the Bible it is demonstrably obvious that the Bible (and other works such as the Qur'an) yield conflicting interpretations.

There are quite a few reasons why most Christians (especially) do not seem to have a great grasp of the Bible.   One might question why so many hold the Bible divine?   The immediate logical answer is that they are simply accepting what other (authoritative) human beings have told them.

The immediate logical answer is that they are simply accepting what other (authoritative) human beings have told them

Funny that you say that. The interpretation of God asking Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, is often interpreted to mean that we must follow authority. In fact, it is a cautionary tale about when someone in authority asks you to do something that immoral, and you follow through against your good common sense. 

Think about all the good Germans who were afraid to talk against the Nazis before their rise to power.  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

Critical thinking is good.

The immediate logical answer is that they are simply accepting what other (authoritative) human beings have told them.

I think that's also true of most people (not only Christians). They have a great respect for "authorities". 

I read the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Book of Mormon, and parts of the Koran. It took about a year. 

Guess what all had in common IMO Mostly they were seemingly written to manipulate and control other's beliefs and behaviours. Lots of great lessons and stories but more trying to manipulate and controlling of others than anything.  

After reading all that, one day I went to a meadow and sat and thought about what I believed.

I looked around as I sat there and a little voice in my head said everything is made of Atoms, What ever arranged those Atoms to be what it is , is GOD.

Other than that I dont know and I dont believe any human alive does either.

A Cut and Paste? wonder why one would do that?

Cut and paste my ass I just sat here and wrote it.

Sorry if my story doesn't change most reality is slow to change and my story is my reality,

LOL You know what though thanks for the idea, I might as well copy this and save it SO I dont have to keep re writing it.

THANKS 

............................................

Done, Great now I can post it over and over and dont have to rewrite the damn thing each time. Thanks

and I'm serious...

LOL !

PS: Maybe MY reality touches you and You dont like it.

A Cut and Paste? wonder why one would do that?

Its not his fault-- God made him do it!

PS I dont like RED  But purple is off limits (purple would have been so much more fitting for those words) (and meaning of them ) though.

LOL !!!

You've been told about using purple, Steve, now fall in line!   Purple is sort of like the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.  It's there, you can use it, but do so at your own peril! 

Steve, now fall in line!

As you will notice..............I DID.

As you can also notice, I didn't go quietly...

lol

You've been told about using purple, Steve, now fall in line!   Purple is sort of like the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.  It's there, you can use it, but do so at your own peril!

Everyone has their own spiritual beliefs.

And on this site-- we worship the colour purple!

Because it is decreed in our holy of holies-- the COC!

And so it is written:

Thou shall not use the colour purple-- because to doeth so may result in...something horrible happening to you (although its not always clear what that might be...)

Who amongst ye dare challenge the Law of Purple?

Not I....

Who amongst ye dare challenge the Law of Purple?

See now that's where I screwed up.. I inadvertently questioned and once even used a very close color to the forbidden color. 

Cast aside like a leper, I carry that burden to this day.

LOL

Had I realized that it has affected your well being to the extent that you've had to complain about it so much I would never have given you that advice. Forgive me please or I'll have to flog myself as the albino did in The DaVinci Code. I'll wear the scars for the rest of my life.   

Had I realized that it has affected your well being to the extent that you've had to complain about it so much I would never have given you that advice.

It Was a joke man, And more directed at management that at you for damn sure. 

(You may not have seen the Purple discution perrie and I had)

Like I said at the time to I believe to you  I hate being TOLD what to do. I had much more than enough of that growing up and yep I'm probably a little hyper sensitive to that and yes i may have over reacted to your "friendly advice." 

But this was a joke. I really dont care much about this, I hold no "grudges" and is sure isnt "coloring" my world....LOL

Have a great day and relax, you didn't hurt me. I am sorry if I hurt your feelings tough. 

Notice the LOL at the end of my last post ? (That was serious.) I was joking.

No problem. We're cool.

they were seemingly written to manipulate and control other's beliefs and behaviours

Something to consider about the NT in this regard: The people who wrote and compiled those texts weren't in a position to be manipulating or controlling anyone. They were ostracized, outcast, arrested,  tortured, and executed for their beliefs. There is also very little in there about how to behave. It's a chronicle of their experiences and a record of their correspondence. In fact, the fundamental message is that we are saved only through God's grace. There is literally nothing you can do to improve your situation short of trusting in Jesus. You can't possibly be good enough to earn an eternal relationship with God.

Several points... 

First. Early Christians most definitely did make decisions about what would be gospel. Books were edited, included, or excised.

Second. "How to behave" is the essence of Christ's message: "Love God and one another!"

Third. Jesus did not speak of "God's grace". He spoke of "following Him", and since His message was "Love God and one another", that behavior leads to salvation (which is a whole other topic). Some "Christians" later adopted a dogma of "God's grace" 

Christianity as an "organized religion" changed enormously in the three centuries between His death and the officialization as the Roman Empire's official religion. Not improved, IMHO. 

tortured, and executed for their beliefs. There is also very little in there about how to behave. It's a chronicle of their experiences and a record of their correspondence. In fact, the fundamental message is that we are saved only through God's grace. There is literally nothing you can do to improve your situation short of trusting in Jesus. You can't possibly be good enough to earn an eternal relationship with God.

The first four books are the ones with Jesus's teaching in it and, all of them are "how to behave" towards one another, the letters that you speak of some, were written by the original disciples some, by Paul, Paul never knew Jesus, never went to any of his sermons or, really talked with the disciples of Jesus so, he was giving his opinion of what he thought being a Christian was. As for the compiling of the books, that was first done three hundred years after the death of Christ by a Roman Emperor and, his priests, not by people who actually knew Jesus.  

Info on who wrote the NT that you may or may not be aware of. There are no eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus.  None, zip, zilch, nada.  Details in the link below.

humanreligions.info

The four canonical gospels comprise of   synoptic   gospels ( Matthew ,   Mark   and   Luke ) plus   John . None are eye-witness accounts of Jesus' life and they are all written in   Greek , not in the native tongues of anyone who met and followed Jesus. Many of the stories in the Gospels are copied from   Greek   god-man legends, especially those of Dionysus and Osiris. Although we now know them by the names of   Matthew ,   Mark ,   Luke and   John , they are all originally anonymous ₃ .

Mark   is the earliest gospel, composed between 60 and 80 CE , by a Roman convert who was unfamiliar with Jewish customs and who had not met Jesus. The oldest versions of   Mark   all ended at   Mark 16:8 [KJV]" jqpu_content="About: Mark

Matthew   and   Luke   both used   Mark   as their source material (92% and 54% copied, respectively), except they corrected many of his blunders about Jewish life and added additional material from a second source document that historians call "Q" ₄ .   Matthew   was written after 70 CE   and before 100 CE . The first two chapters of   Matthew   were not present in the first versions and were added later by an unknown author.   Luke   was written after 93 CE   and uses Josephus's   Jewish Antiquities . It claims to have been written by a travelling partner of Paul but the text contains too many mistakes with regards to Paul, and was written too late, for that to be true.   Matthew   and   Luke   copied such a large portion of their texts that it is clear neither were eye-witnesses, or friends-of-eyewitnesses, of Jesus.

John   was written last. Our earliest fragment of it dates from 125 CE . It has Jesus speak using completely different language, sentence structure and style to the other gospels. It contradicts the others on almost every point of history. Most people assume that John was writing figuratively writer and not attempting to record history, but was instead set out to write interesting and meaningful stories about Jesus, who was by then, famous. John is considered the least trustworthy of all the gospels.

"How to behave" is the essence of Christ's message: "Love God and one another!"

Absolutely, but what nefarious scoundrel would benefit from controlling people's behavior in that way?

Jesus did not speak of "God's grace".

Sure, he did. He said that no one comes to the Father except through him. He said that He was the way, the truth and the life. These statements make clear that the actions of people are not what puts them into an eternal relationship with God. We therefore require God's grace. It's not a different thing.

Christianity as an "organized religion" changed enormously in the three centuries

No question. That's why I think it's important to study scripture and learn from that rather than whatever some organized church tells us (I'm looking at the Catholics). Only in recent times (the last few centuries) have regular people had access to scripture for their own study. It's the best opportunity we have had to be like 1st century Christians.

humanreligions.info

I'm afraid there's a lot wrong with that. But rather than waste a lot of space writing a dissertation on it, let's assume this flawed scholarship is actually correct. What of it? There were still clearly Christians all around the Mediterranean in the 1st century. What brought that on? Fictional documents not even written until decades or centuries later? That doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

I'm afraid there's a lot wrong with that.

An outstanding article on the study of the history of the origins of Christianity and the earliest Christians and how the Pauline Christians slaughtered the Ebonite Christians (the earliest Christians) and re-wrote NT texts that disagreed with the message of the Pauline Christians.

Also, it explains how the teachings attributed to Jesus were predated by the teachings in the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

It is a long article so I am just citing a small portion.

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_historical.html 

So in the fourth century, they too searched in history to find the source of Christianity. They found the history of their religion to pre-date the actual founding of their own religion. The ancient history of Christianity is merged with the history of Paganism and the Church Fathers in the 4th century, so much closer to original Christianity than us, even mistook a group of pagans for early Christians. It wasn't the only time that they done this either, for when Bishop Melito in 160 CE   when in search of the ancient center of Christianity, he discovered only a group called the Ebionites, another ancient group that 4th century Christianity rejected as heretical.

The Ebionites were some of the original Christians: Jews who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They populated the legendary Jerusalem Church. 'Ebionite' was sometimes used as a term to describe all Christians ₁₅ . Those who we now know of as   Pauline Christians opposed the Ebionites , after discovering them and realizing that their beliefs differed.

Authors such as Tertullian, Origen of Alexandria, and many other intolerant "heresy-hunters" wrote at great length against the Ebionites. Many of the claims made against them were based on misunderstandings of their beliefs, and many anti-Ebionite claims were plainly ridiculous.

Pauline Christians eradicated the Ebionites, burning all of their books (none survived) and harassing and arresting the people until none were left.  

They edited   http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter2">Luke 2:33</a> [KJV]" jqpu_content="About: <a href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html">Luke</a><br>³³ And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." class="Subtle" href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter2" style="font-family: sans-serif; text-decoration: none; color: #000044;"> Luke 2:33   and   http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter2">Luke 2:48</a> [KJV]" jqpu_content="About: <a href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html">Luke</a><br>⁴⁸ And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." class="Subtle" href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter2" style="font-family: sans-serif; text-decoration: none; color: #000044;"> Luke 2:48   where Joseph was twice called the 'father' of Jesus so that it did not say so, and they also edited   http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter3">Luke 3:22</a> [KJV]" jqpu_content="About: <a href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html">Luke</a><br>²² And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." class="Subtle" href=" http://www.holybooks.info/luke.html#Chapter3" style="font-family: sans-serif; text-decoration: none; color: #000044;"> Luke 3:22   where it plainly stated, in accordance with Ebionite beliefs, that God   adopted   Jesus. Pauline Christians, as non-Jewish Romans, handily came across a mistranslated prophecy that said   Jesus would be born of a virgin (like other Roman sons-of-gods) , adding a whole two chapters to the beginning of   Matthew   to prove their point. These edits, when they were uncovered, have shown that the Ebionites were treated very cruelly and unfairly, and that the original readings of   Matthew   and Luke both support Ebionite Christianity, rather than the Pauline Christianity that the West has inherited.

If we were to guess which group was the more austere, holy and godly, we would have to guess it was the Ebionites rather than the Pauline Christians who slaughtered, slandered and oppressed them. Unfortunately the victors get to write history, and it is Pauline Christianity that became the legacy of the Roman Empire. After the fourth century, the Ebionites were vanquished.

more on the origins of Christianity...

vexen.co.uk

2.9. Roman Christianity / Pauline Christianity   (4th Century +)

Full page:   St Paul - History, Biblical Epistles, Gnosticism and Mithraism   and   How Modern Christianity Began: The Cappadocian-Nicene-Pauline Roman Amalgamation

The   gnostic Mithraists   and   Jewish Ebionites   formed the very first Christians of the first century, with practices and beliefs based respectively on Gnostic and   Judaistic   rituals, symbols and practices. Pauline Christians dispensed with the difficult Jewish laws and became popular amongst gentiles, soon out-numbering the Jewish Christians, causing them to be secluded and eventually suppressed. Increasing literalism amongst roman converts then led the Pauline Christians to become obsessed with enforcing their literal interpretation of Christianity's original stories, causing another huge rift with older gnostic-style Christians. With Roman power behind their press and with the favour of Emperors, the Pauline-Nicene Christians wiped out the gnostics, annihilated the   Arians   after long bloody campaigns, and murdered and burnt the   Marcionites   and many other small sects, to leave themselves as the sole Christians within the Roman Empire, free to edit their own books to 'prove' how all their predecessors had been wrong. The three Cappadocian scholars promoted the Holy Spirit to the godhead to create a Trinity, which was codified strictly in to the Nicene Creed of 381, which went to careful lengths to disclaim against 'heresy'. Emperor Theodosius published a series of forceful edicts intolerant of all non-Nicene sects. This state of affairs persisted in the West for over a thousand years from the 5th century, causing mainstream Christianity to become completely ignorant of their own past.

we would have to guess

That pretty much sums up that conspiracy theory.

they were seemingly written to manipulate and control other's beliefs and behaviours.

Well, we have that here on NT as well. For example, the rule that we can't use Purple. (That's an obvious attempt to manipulate and control our behaviour!

The average atheist is far more knowledgeable about the bible than your average Christian.  When confronted about the absolute horrors and atrocities committed by God himself in the Old, many Christians express disbelief.  "That's not in the bible" they say.  Uh, yes it is, perhaps you should actually READ your bible, and not just the passages your minister points out to you.  Biblegod makes Hitler look like a pussycat.  The idea that God, an all-powerful, all knowing creator of the universe had to mature and mellow out is completely ludicrous, but then, the whole idea of God and an afterlife is completely ludicrous to begin with.

The average atheist is far more knowledgeable about the bible than your average Christian

Link?

Link?

This was from 2010....

And atheists do score better than average Christians on knowledge of the Bible and just a few tenths of a point under the evangelical sects.

Why would it be surprising that US atheists are more educated when it comes to Christianity and world religions?

pewforum

Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.

On average, Americans correctly answer 16 of the 32 religious knowledge questions on the survey by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life. Atheists and agnostics average 20.9 correct answers. Jews and Mormons do about as well, averaging 20.5 and 20.3 correct answers, respectively. Protestants as a whole average 16 correct answers; Catholics as a whole, 14.7. Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons perform better than other groups on the survey even after controlling for differing levels of education.

I took the quiz and got 15 out of 15, but not one of the questions asked about the Gospel. The closest it came was asking about the Catholic teaching of communion. Most of the questions were about major religious figures or the law related to religion. This was more about a historical survey of religious institutions than about details of a specific faith.

Other than that I dont know and I dont believe any human alive does either.

Of course they don't know-- but that won't stop them-- whether Atheistic or Believers-- from pontificating* and acting so self-righteously obnoxious. 

*Pun intended

Some people do. I figure that's Their problem, I also figure that's why GOD gave me feet. And a door to close. LOL

But most people quietly go about their lives and Their believes Help them.

To each their own. I have no problem with that. Whatever gets ya thru. As long as it hurts no one and you're not trying to make your believes My believes do and believe WTF ever ya want. 

I listen , but please dont preach to me that You know the "Truth". 

Cause I believe that unless you are dead, you don't know for sure either.

I listen , but please dont preach to me that You know the "Truth".

I used to think much the same way but, then I realized something. If most (I say most because there are always exceptions) people are "preaching" they are doing so because they have found something that has made a difference in their lives and they feel so good about it they want to share it (in a magnanimous way) with the world, including you.  I generally do not take offense and simply politely listen. The exceptions are the obvious pamphlet bearing, door to door proselytizers that are generally quite pushy yet, I still politely decline them and close the door.

This brings me to this whole Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Happy Holidays business that will soon be entering the fray. If someone wishes me a holiday greeting (whatever the holiday from whatever the religion) or gives me a blessing from their religion, I simply take it in the spirit in which it is intended. Not need to get in a fit about it.

"If someone wishes me a holiday greeting,  I simply take it in the spirit in which it is intended. Not need to get in a fit about it."

                           I agree and do the same. To each their own ! 

If most (I say most because there are always exceptions) people are "preaching" they are doing so because they have found something that has made a difference in their lives and they feel so good about it they want to share it (in a magnanimous way) with the world, including you.

Probably for some. But I also feel that some, deep dpwn inside, have doubts about their faith. So they feelif they can gwet others to agree-- it validates their beliefs as being true.

And some people are just obsessed with "being right"-- or perhaps more accurately, proving others wrong. (And I think this is true whether they are preaching about their religion or preaching about their politics).

Hi, TiG...  Your article asks a good question.

I can think of a couple reasons why non-believers are more attentive to detail than believers. (This is not exclusive to Christians. I spent a lot of time in Tunisia some years ago, and found the ambient ignorance about Islam to be even greater than Christian ignorance of the Bible.)

First, believers are often satisfied with what they know, however little or much that may be. They want to believe... they do believe... and they need no more. Unless they have an intellectual curiosity, in addition to a desire for faith, there's no reason for them to dig deeper. Non-believers want to understand what's going on, so they make an effort... often greater than that of a believer!

Second, believers may be as lazy as any other people. If they can get someone else to do the heavy lifting, then why bother to do it themselves? They rely on their priest/pastor/whatever... and take whatever that person says as Gospel. They want something to believe, so if that need is satisfied, they're happy. A non-believer obviously cannot be satisfied in the same way.

So... "belief" and "faith" are irrelevant to knowledge of the Holy Book. Intellectual curiosity is needed. The Venn diagram is two distinct but overlapping circles, labeled "knows something about the Holy book" and "believes in God".

Bob - I have nothing of substance to add to this topic but I wanted to stop by and say "I'm so glad to see you post"!  :0)

TiG asks interesting questions about interesting topics. 

No argument from me.   Faith does not require analysis, just acceptance.

Faith does not require analysis, just acceptance.

That is why I am an atheist. My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.  The idea of being told to believe in something that cannot be proven is both illogical and impossible for me. Blind faith is for people who cannot or don't want to think because of what they might find. 

The Bible would be better renamed as the goatherders guide to the universe. Religion started out as an idea that ignorant people to explain what happened to them and then it was taken over by the authorities as a very effective means of controlling people. Relgious is the very worst idea that man has ever created.

My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.  

That's silly. There are a zillion things around you that you cannot prove, but that you and your mind take for granted. Can you prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow?

Everyone takes vast portions of their existence for granted, and that is a very good thing. We could not manage if we had to be able to prove everything. 

The interesting question is, "What do we take for granted, and why?" 

The Bible would be better renamed as the goatherders guide to the universe.

I agree.  

That's silly. There are a zillion things around you that you cannot prove, but that you and your mind take for granted. Can you prove that the Sun will rise tomorrow?

Unless something catastrophic happens physics proves that the sun will rise again in 18 hours.

That is why I am an atheist. My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.  The idea of being told to believe in something that cannot be proven is both illogical and impossible for me.

Indeed. I feel the same way. No evidence/proof = no "belief."

Blind faith is for people who cannot or don't want to think because of what they might find. 

Or are just plain intellectually lazy or require some mental comfort mechanism.

Unless something catastropic happens physics proves that the sun will rise again in 18 hours.

Your understanding of "prove" is... strange...

You need to slow down. Read more carefully. Think before posting.

Clever one-liners are fine in some contexts, but not in the midst of a thoughtful conversation, where they may label you as shallow and ignorant. 

Word to the wise.......... 

Or are just plain intellectually lazy or require some mental comfort mechanism.

Or are using a thought process that you do not understand. You are dismissive... 

Clever one-liners are fine in some contexts, but not in the midst of a thoughtful conversation, where they may label you as shallow and ignorant.

Please feel free to explain what I am missing or intentionally ignoring. How else can I say that religious belief is illogical? Wanting God to exist and believing that God exists doesn't make god exist, no matter how hard you believe or how many times that you pray. God either exists or it doesn't and as of now, there is absolutely zero empirical evidence that a supernatural religious deity of creation exists.

Please feel free to explain what I am missing or intentionally ignoring. 

Ummmm.... no. It doesn't work that way. There was a thoughtful article and some thoughtful conversation, before you jumped in with irrelevant and dismissive Comments. If you want to understand what others think, it's up to you to make an effort. If you don't care what others think, continue as before. 

Personally, I have debated gnostic atheists many times. I have heard many, many arguments, far more cogent than the shallow one-liners I have seen here. I don't care what you think / believe. I am egotistical. I want to expand my own thinking. That means engaging with thoughtful people, hearing ideas that I haven't heard before.

What is your purpose, here? 

Or are using a thought process that you do not understand.

Feel free to elucidate then.

You are dismissive...

I'm dismissive of any claims made based on religious belief only, with no supporting empirical evidence.

Or are using a thought process that you do not understand.

Feel free to elucidate then.

You are dismissive...

I'm dismissive of any claims made based on religious belief only, with no supporting empirical evidence.

I don't think we have the same notion of conversation. I'm not trying to teach. I'm trying to learn. Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]

Personally, I have debated gnostic atheists many times. I have heard many, many arguments, far more cogent than the shallow one-liners I have seen here. I don't care what you think / believe. I am egotistical. I want to expand my own thinking. That means engaging with thoughtful people, hearing ideas that I haven't heard before.

I am not trying to be flippant. How else do you want me to explain logic? God either exists or it doesn't exist and as of now, there is no empirical proof that a god exists. This is a black and white situation.

Do my humanist beliefs insult you, or maybe you believe that I should try harder to believe in a god. 

I don't think we have the same notion of conversation. I'm not trying to teach. I'm trying to learn. I don't care if you remain ignorant.

What is Gordy ignorant of? 

My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.

I know what you mean, but it would be clearer if you used a phrase such as 'corroborated with persuasive evidence' rather than proved.   We cannot even prove that the Earth orbits the Sun - we have some rather impressive evidence of it, but as quantum physics shows us what seems logical and intuitive is not always so.   Another example is the holographic principle which hypothesizes our reality is actually a projection (a grand illusion).    

The mind of the skeptic must be convinced before a notion is accepted as likely true.   The convincing must come from evidence and reason - not simply because someone (regardless of authority level) declared it to be so.   I would imagine you agree with me on this point.

there is no empirical proof that a god exists. This is a black and white situation.

That's the problem. You want physical proof of a metaphysical proposition. The person of faith then answers that you are a fool for not believing, that physical proof is irrelevant. 

Dialog of the deaf.

What do you want? If you want to prove that God does not exist... good luck! That's called proving a negative... and it is a logical impossibility. If you want to convert believers to unbelief... then you might want to start by learning how they think. If you want to enrich your own understanding of others...

"Black and white" is rare in the real world. 

e cannot even prove that the Earth orbits the Sun - we have some rather impressive evidence of it, but as quantum physics shows us what seems logical and intuitive is not always so.

Did you forget Copernicus? If we did orbit the sun we wouldn't have 4 varied seasons and a changing night sky, unless you want to argue for the lack of a tilt or maybe even support the geocentric universe theory.  How do you explain a solar eclipse, if we don't orbit the sun? 

1.) There is no empirical evidence of a god.

2.) The existence of God isn't needed to explain the world around us.

Did you forget Copernicus? 

Oh, please! 

If you are going to use the history of science as an argument, at least learn the subject! 

The Ptolemaic system was very sophisticated. Some would say, too complex to be real. Of course the seasons were explained.

Copernicus did not explain anything that had not been explained before. He explained the same things more simply, and Occam's Razor did the rest. 

If we did orbit the sun we wouldn't have 4 varied seasons and a changing night sky, unless you want to argue for the lack of a tilt or maybe even support the geocentric universe theory.

Do you truly think I was arguing against the heliocentric model of the solar system?

Come on epistte, obviously my post had a different message.   What was my message?

1.) There is no empirical evidence of a god.
2.) The existence of God isn't needed to explain the world around us.

The sky is often blue in color.   

When it rains things get wet.

Epistte often does not carefully read before she responds

( Worse, her reply had absolutely nothing to do with the point I made. )

You want physical proof of a metaphysical proposition. The person of faith then answers that you are a fool for not believing, that physical proof is irrelevant.

Superstitious folks claim that this "metaphysical proposition" not only interacts with the physical universe but is responsible for the very existence of the physical universe, yet have been unable to provide any evidence whatsoever to support those claims.

That's the problem. You want physical proof of a metaphysical proposition. The person of faith then answers that you are a fool for not believing, that physical proof is irrelevant. 

Faith is a decision that is made on emotion and not on facts. Therefore faith isn't proof.  Belief is the absence of proof is a delusion. religion is a socially acceptable mass delusion until there is empirical proof of god.

Dialog of the deaf.

What do you want? If you want to prove that God does not exist... good luck! That's called proving a negative... and it is a logical impossibility.

You are ignoring the logical burden of proof. I am not the one who is claiming that an omniscient and omnipotent deity exists. In the absence of proof of that deity, logic reverts to the idea that said claim is untrue. Believers are the ones who are claiming that something exists and therefore the burden of proof to prove their claim of gods existence lies on them. See Russell's Teapot analogy.

If you want to convert believers to unbelief... then you might want to start by learning how they think. If you want to enrich your own understanding of others...

That is why I love psychology. It explains how and why people think like they do.

"Black and white" is rare in the real world. 

Logic is black or white. 

Superstitious folks claim...

I do not make such claims, so please don't ask me to explain them. 

 I am not the one who is claiming that an omniscient and omnipotent deity exists. 

Nor am I. I am saying that I believe God exists. I fully understand that my belief proves nothing to others. Nor am I trying to convince anyone. You, OTOH, are affirming that God does not exist. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, your affirmation is an article of faith. Do you understand that your faith on this topic carries no more weight than mine?

TiG has repeatedly said (correctly) that there are only two rational, logical positions:
 - "I believe God exists, but I may be wrong." 
 - "I believe God does not exist, but I may be wrong." 

Being absolutely affirmative in either direction leads to inextricable logical contradictions. 

This topic has been batted back and forth for thousands of years. We would all be ridiculous braggarts to imagine that we will conclude anything at all. We may each of us hope, however, to learn something. That's why one-liners annoy me. They have zero content. They teach me nothing. They are useless. 

Do you truly think I was arguing against the heliocentric model of the solar system?

Yes, I did. You would have used a better analogy if you were not.  

Trying to claim that because of the world of quantum mechanics is weird so that what we now believe to be true might not be factual because of the weirdness of quantum mechanics would have been better stated in a different manner. You used a very poor analogy

Then you both need to prove that each other is wrong.

This should be interesting......

lol

Ding ding ding ding ding ding dingggg!!  We most certainly are Bfies, and this is why man made God in his own image!

Last time you got mad at everyone for pushing back on this very contention of yours.  Are you sure you wanted to say that again?  

My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.

If you look out the window and the trees are swaying back and forth, doesn't that mean the wind is blowing? Of course it does. But can you prove the wind is blowing without going outside and taking measurements? Do you need to?

Disingenuous comment and thinly veiled insult.  If you're accusing him of 'remaining ignorant' then you obviously think you are teaching and he's not learning.

Read the whole exchange. Think about it. Rinse and repeat. 

Yes, I did. You would have used a better analogy if you were not.

I picked one of the most commonly held facts of science to make a point and you inexplicably twist that into me arguing against the heliocentric model??   Seriously, it did not even occur to you that I probably would not argue against the Earth orbiting the Sun and maybe you should go back and read what I wrote ... maybe a little slower or more carefully?

Trying to claim that because of the world of quantum mechanics is weird so that what we now believe to be true might not be factual because of the weirdness of quantum mechanics would have been better stated in a different manner. You used a very poor analogy.

LOL.   I suspect no matter how well expressed the comment, the reply would be an amusing misread.

If you look out the window and the trees are swaying back and forth, doesn't that mean the wind is blowing? Of course it does. But can you prove the wind is blowing without going outside and taking measurements? Do you need to?

I don't need to measure the wind to know that it is blowing. 

How should you know that God exists?

We are ALL afraid to die

Why are you afraid to die?

That is my feeling as well concerning faith. I have to have sound proof. I have to be 100% sure that it is proven by science. Even as a child I wondered, it just didn't add up.

None of us will ever have that in our lifetimes.   First, science never proves, it simply improves on the quality of its findings.   Science always holds that its theories are falsifiable - that it is possible for them to be wrong (at least in part).

So treating your comment in its positive light, I think you are saying that you are agnostic.   Whether you lean towards theism or towards atheism, you recognize that the best any of us can do is come to a conclusion based upon what we currently know and revise it as we learn more.   Never 100% ... always refining.

yourlogicalfallacyis

burden of proof

You said that the burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove.

The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. The inability, or disinclination, to disprove a claim does not render that claim valid, nor give it any credence whatsoever. However it is important to note that we can never be certain of anything, and so we must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence, and to dismiss something on the basis that it hasn't been proven beyond all doubt is also fallacious reasoning.

Example: Bertrand declares that a teapot is, at this very moment, in orbit around the Sun between the Earth and Mars, and that because no one can prove him wrong, his claim is therefore a valid one.

TiG was illustrating one of the principles of science - we never prove anything with 100% certainty.  Not even that the earth orbits the sun.  We can say the likelihood is high, approaching 100%, but it's never quite there.  With such a high probability that we're correct, we can pretty safely act on the assumption that we're right, and we do - we couldn't have aimed the Cassini probe (or anything else we've sent into space) accurately if we weren't right about the position and orbit of Jupiter.  So from a practical standpoint, we treat the heliocentric model as fact, but strictly speaking we aren't 100% sure it's correct.

How should you know that God exists?

Good question.

I don't think we have the same notion of conversation. I'm not trying to teach. I'm trying to learn. I don't care if you remain ignorant.

I see you're unwilling to elucidate your point then. Duly noted. And your transparent personal attack only shows that you are the one being dismissive.

Of course, it is the unknown, and very scary in many ways.

I don't remember anything before I was over two years of age so I have no fear of death because I believe I will return to the state I was in prior to existing in this form.  Death is just a natural part of our life cycle.  We can eat well, exercise properly and do everything "right" and we still have no control over when, where and how we die unless we commit suicide.

I was raised on a farm.  I have witnessed death of animals via illness, via slaughter for eating purposes and via hunting for sport (& consumption) all of my life.   

Along the way, the adults in my life lost loved ones and I watched them process grief.  I was orphaned as an infant and had to process the  grief of losing my mother as an infant.  I still mourn the loss of my adoptive grandmother who passed almost two decades ago.  She lived to be almost 90 and was in good health until she developed Alzheimers a few years before her death.  It was extremely difficult to watch her deal with the fear and insecurities that occurred because of the disease.  I grieved for her inability to connect with others and care for herself for years before she died.   

I find Alzheimers Disease and being physically incapacitated to the point that I can't care for myself to be things that concern me, but not death.  I was happy to have lived long enough that my children were adults capable of caring for themselves.  I never want to be a burden to them because I love them dearly.

I don't need to measure the wind to know that it is blowing.

Exactly! You know the old saying:

You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows!

(BTW, the group took its name from Dylan's song-- rather than the other way around).

P.S: Yes, that is Allan Ginsberg....

It's nice that you do not have any fear of the unknown, you are a rarity.

I have worked around animals weighing over 800 pounds since before I entered grade school - not by choice.

I was run over by two bulls fighting with their heads locked together and inches from my face the summer before my 11th birthday.

I met my biological alcoholic, drug dealing, gun happy family when I was 17.  They told me that they would have me murdered if they were busted and thought I had anything to do with it (because I refused to have anything to do with drugs and drugs dealing).

Over the 4+ decades since then, I have made a living working on ranches risking life and limb on a frequent basis.  I spent as much time as I could riding horses.  I was thrown and knocked out cold once and only sustained minor injuries here and there otherwise.

I am 5' tall with a medium build.  I have never been physically imposing, but I do have an inquisitive mind and love of learning.  I've survived pretty much by wits and nerve.

I am not griping or bragging.  Life is life.  Survivors learn to adapt and survive in the environments that they are raised in.  It is not like any of us have a choice.  Since I was 20 years old, I have been a confident, happy, live and let live person who was happiest spending time with my assorted pets, music, books, doing a little bird hunting and a lot of fishing.  

You just have to find something in life that makes you happy inspite of what you went through.

I was usually happy, but I have been far happier as an atheist than I ever was as a Christian.

I no longer have to ignore or cherry pick scripture to justify things that I find morally contemptible or try to make sense of the atrocities committed and the ones promised to happen against mankind by a supernatural being in the name of loving us.  

In the few years that I have had internet access, I have spent time researching the origins of the Christian religion because I wanted to learn more about the church, not disprove it.  However, the more I learned the more I realized that I was worshipping a mythical god, Yahweh, based most likely on Mithra predominantly and a few other gods worshipped at the time thrown in for good measure.

I never feared death when I was a Christian, but. as an adult, I never really believed in Heaven or Hell or cared because I knew that people couldn't possibly resemble who they on Earth in Heaven.  There would be no judgment of others, no gossip, no competition, no marriage, no children, no thoughts allowed other than how wonderful Yahweh is because nothing could be allowed that could cause dissension or it would not be Heaven, it would be Hell.  Everyone would have to be identical in belief and appearance.  Individuality causes conflict.  It would be the ultimate group think experience.   Heaven is an eternal echo chamber.

How do you know why they practice religion?

There are various reasons why someone may practice a certain religion.

Maybe that is why you decided not to.

I decided not to because I generally find the concept of religion to be absurd as a whole. That, and there's no evidence for any deity at the center of any particular religion.

( Guess what.... We are ALL afraid to die, religious or not.)

Quite the gross generalization. It's not that I'm not afraid to die. I'm more afraid of growing old.

In the few years that I have had internet access, I have spent time researching the origins of the Christian religion because I wanted to learn more about the church, not disprove it.  However, the more I learned the more I realized that I was worshipping a mythical god

Knowledge does tend to undermine superstition, at least in those who are capable of critical thinking.

Not long ago Christian extremists were fretting that the internet would destroy their cult but it seems many of them now understand that it also enables echo chambers.

How will the Christian establishment respond? So far it’s employed much the same tactic it’s been using since the Jesus Movement: creating its own brand of popular culture instead of engaging pop culture at large. YouTube is too dangerous; try GodTube. Wikipedia is too liberal; use Conservapedia. Church remains the bubble in which rhetoric is exchanged; the bubble merely now extends to the web. The net result allows Christians to be “in the world but not of the world” and secularists to control the traffic flow on the largest thoroughfares of the information superhighway.

relevantmagazine

My mind cannot accept something that I cannot prove.

Well, we differ in that regard! I actually do accept many things I cannot prove!

Somene claims there is a god, someone claims there isn't. Then you both need to prove that each other is wrong.

I have explained many times that there is no evidence of a god.  If you have some evidence of god  I will consider it but until there is some empirical evidence of a god my current stance of being an atheist will not change.  I don't have to prove anything.

Where is the proof or even some evidence of a god?  Believing in a god or having faith in a god because that is what a religion teaches isn't proof. I spent years trying to believe because I was raised Roman Catholic but in my mind, it never made any sense. The more question that I asked the more holes developed in the story.  The way that my mind works I cannot accept blind faith or be told to do something that I don't believe. It might work for some people but it doesn't work for me.

Deism is the only theistic religious belief that has some semblance of logic.

( Guess what.... We are ALL afraid to die, religious or not.)

I am not afraid to die. I wonder what it will feel like to die but being dead doesn't scare me.

Well then why do you keep talking about it then?

Because it's the topic of discussion.

It's non productive. You are just wasting your time.

Then it's my time to waste.

Then I guess it's better then the alternative, because you claim we expire.

Uh yes, we all expire at some point. There's no alternative to that. That's just life.

In my experience, people cling to the parts of the Bible that they need to use as an unquestionable authority to justify whatever it is that they need to justify in their own lives.

Thanks to internet search sites, it has never been easier to type in a few words and find the "true" words of ancient men to sow discord in other people's lives and try to control them.

Today, divorce is common across the US.  A few decades ago, divorce was shameful in evangelical circles and had to be church approved if one was a Catholic if the sinner was to escape eternal punishment.

Now, most people largely ignore the NT's take on divorce, or simply justify it or play the "I am saved, but I will still sin" get out of Hell card.

Today's religion is comfort food so anything that makes it unpalatable (like actually reading and studying the Bible) is largely avoided.

The problem for the body of Christ today is that too few pastors fulfill their pastoral role.  it is a twofold responsibility

1.  Shepherd the body of believers who are under their authority

2. Teach the church so that they are mature in the faith and fully equiped to share in word and deed the message of Jesus and the demonstration of His love. And so they being mature will not be deceived by false doctrines that come along to deceive people away from their relationship with God

"And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ— from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love."  Ephesians 4:11-16

Rev Larry Robinson

The problem for the body of Christ today is that too few pastors fulfill their pastoral role.

The problem for the Christian religion today is that too many people don't believe in the Christian religion for any number of reasons.

Few people really want to spend their lives in fear of an evil mythical being waiting to torture them for eternity for not following its rules that are haphazardly interpreted by various sects of Christianity claiming to be the one and only, truer than true religious sect in the world.

You know, I have read your posts on this subject so many times.  The fact that you were made to succumb to Christianity and the fact that you live in an area where people impose their religion on you is not the way it is in all sectors of religion and/or faith.

If Christianity is becoming "less popular", I really could care less and I wonder why you care so much.

Your beliefs and my beliefs will never in this lifetime make one bit of difference.

is not the way it is in all sectors of religion and/or faith.

Where have I claimed otherwise?

I have said repeatedly that I believe that people are good in spite of the Christian religion, not because of it because the Christian religion teaches people to judge others and to actually interfere in the lives of others under the guise of "saving" them from the vengeance of Yahweh.

Is there a sect of the Christianity that does not teach the above?  

I admit that I have only attended the Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Pentecostal Church, the Presbyterian Church and  the Mormon Church, so I am definitely not an authority on every Christian sect, but I can definitely tell you that I heard the sermons on judging others, saving others, and putting other on the straight and narrow path proscribed by that particular sect's doctrine.

I care because of all of the harm done by self-righteous busybodies who seem to believe that they have a duty to rule the lives of others via their religious sect.

But, you judge all the time.   Constantly judging the Christian faith.  Who are you to do so?

I don't judge you.....why are you judging me?  I am willing to let you alone, but you keep on and on about Christians.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn, whether you are Christian or not,  but I care that you are berating good people who you don't even know nor will ever know.

But, you judge all the time.   Constantly judging the Christian faith.  Who are you to do so?

A person who has every right to judge the Christian and every other cult.

Who are you to say otherwise?  

You criticize those who are you say impose their religion on you, but, yet, you impose your atheists beliefs on others.

How does that work?

I think they are bitter about their lives and have to have something to blame.  So......it is religion!

Atheism is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.  Atheism is merely the default position of every human being; we are ALL born atheists.

you impose your atheists beliefs on others.

Yes, how DOES that work?

How does mocowgirl make you not believe in any gods, or live as if you don't believe in any gods?

we are ALL born atheists

E.A Is that Why all tribal Peoples and Cultures have " Religion " Theism, a Believe in a Higher order?

I care that you are berating good people who you don't even know nor will ever know.

I am a good person, yet you have no problem berating me.  

Perfect example of what I have seen and experienced all of my life when dealing with Christians who really believe that they have a Yahweh given right to judge people inside and outside of their Christian sect and then claim that their religion is all about love, tolerance and acceptance - which it is not and never has been.

Also, speaking facts about the Christian religion is not berating good people.

A thinkism.....whatever.

give it up!

Funny.....you are constantly and forever berating Christians. 

Can you support your accusation?

I explained my reasons for speaking out against God belief.  Comment 9.2

There is a substantial difference between critical analysis of religions and berating a theist.   Certainly it is sometimes difficult to separate oneself from one's identifying group but you should note that the comments are analytical and factual and are presented in a thoughtful (not emotional nor vindictive) manner.   Religion and politics are very difficult things to discuss.   Indeed forums such as NT are the only realistic means by which these topical areas can be discussed in any detail.

The good thing is that nobody is required to read comments or engage in the discussion.   

I think they are bitter about their lives and have to have something to blame.  So......it is religion!

Quite likely not.   Arguably more accurate to blame government and in particular the political operatives who run it. 

Is there a sect of the Christianity that does not teach the above?

Quakers, for starters. Also Unitarian Universalists. (Probably some other sects that I can't think of offhand).

Quakers

Some info on Quakers.  Quakers seem to be more spiritually oriented than monotheistic.

bbc.co.uk

Holy Books

Quakers do not regard any book as being the actual 'word of God'.

Most Quakers regard the   Bible   as a very great inspirational book but they don't see it as the only one, and so they read other books that can guide their lives.

Holy Days

Quakers do not celebrate Christian festivals such as   Easter   and   Christmas .

Worship

Quaker communal worship consists of silent waiting, with participants contributing as the spirit moves them.

Are Quakers Christian?

Although outsiders usually regard the movement as a Christian denomination, not all Quakers see themselves as Christians; some regard themselves as members of a universal religion that (for historical reasons) has many Christian elements.

Unitarian Universalists

Doesn't appear to be a Christian sect.

uua

Unitarian Universalism affirms and promotes seven   Principles , grounded in the humanistic teachings of the world's religions.  

The problem for the Christian religion today is

I wonder if its any different today than it was in the past?

For example, do you think people in the Middle Ages were more tolerant, loving, etc than people today?

And in terms of Christians specifically-- is there any evidence than in other times Chriatians followed the actual teachings of Christ more than people do now?

Have you actually ever known a Quaker?

I've known several-- they are definitely Christians.

(Not like the Christians you hang out with-- but they are definitely Christians).

Quakers  are members of a historically  Christian  group of religious movements formally known as the   Religious Society of Friends , ^[2]  or  Friends Church .

Members of the various Quaker movements are all generally united in a belief in the ability of each human being to experientially access "that of God in every person", and therefore they profess the   priesthood of all believers , ^{[3] [4]}   a doctrine derived from the  First Epistle of Peter . ^{[5] [6]}

Around 79% of Quakers worldwide belong to the "evangelical" and "programmed" branches of Quakerism ^[10] —these Quakers worship in services with singing and a prepared  message   from the  Bible , coordinated by a pastor.

The Quakers, especially the ones known as the   Valiant Sixty , attempted to convert others to their understanding of Christianity, travelling both throughout Great Britain and overseas, preaching the  gospel of Jesus Christ .

They based their message on the religious belief that " Christ has come to teach his people himself", stressing the importance of a direct relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and a direct religious belief in the universal priesthood of all believers.

They emphasized a personal and direct religious experience of  Christ , acquired through both direct religious experience and the reading and studying of the  Bible.

ICorrect me ifI'm wrong, but my impression is that you've never actually known a Quaker-- or if you have, you never discussed their relgiious views with them.

I've known several and have discussed their religious views with them. 

And the impression you're giving is that the only Christians you  have known-- (perhaps even your family (?) have been very intolerant, bigoted, etc. I don't deny these people exist-- I've also known many like that. But there are many, many Christians I've known well that were the exact opposites of the ones you've known!!!

Again, just because you personally do not hang out with-- or perhaps have not even known-- very positive Christians-- does not mean they don't exist!

Doesn't appear to be a Christian sect.

HMave you ever pwersonally known one?

You can google to your hearts content, and selectively post things that support your argument.

I dated a woman for a long time who was a Unitarian. In addition, went of a summer work project sponsered by theat church-- we did CD ("Community Development") in a poor Mexican village. So I got to know several very, very well!

Unitarian Universalism was formed from the consolidation in 1961 of two historically Christian denominations, the Universalist Church of America and the American Unitarian Association, ^[10]   both based in the United States; the new organization formed in this merger was the Unitarian Universalist Association

There is a lot of tolerance, so many incorporate teaching from other religions into their interpretations of Christianity.  And there are some who no longer identify with Christianity (although many of them actually follow the teachings of Christ more than most people I've known).

Quakers seem to be more spiritually oriented than monotheistic.

WTF?

What makes you think that if someone is monotheistic they can't be spiritually oriented?

That makes no sense (I:n fact its false).

I admit that I have only attended the Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, the Baptist Church, the Pentecostal Church, the Presbyterian Church and  the Mormon Church, so I am definitely not an authority on every Christian sect, but I can definitely tell you that I heard the sermons on judging others, saving others, and putting other on the straight and narrow path proscribed by that particular sect's doctrine.

Do you think that all the faults you ascribe to Chritianity also applies to other religions as well?

For example--do you think Islam is just as bigoted, and close-minded-- and generally as nasty-- as you think Christianity is? Or-- is Islam much better? (Or, for that matter, worse?)

No one has ever tried to impose their religion on me.

I've had some do it. Mainly various Christian denominations. but also some of the more evangelical Atheistic fundamentalists. (And some of the strong believers in Atheism can be just as obnoxious-- and certainly just as righteous!-- as some Christians).

That being said, they are a tiny minority of the people I've known. 

... there are some who no longer identify with Christianity (although many of them actually follow the teachings of Christ more than most people I've known).

That's a quandary faced by many today. I find the teachings of Christ both admirable and inspiring... but I don't agree with a lot of the "stuff" that others began loading onto His wagon before he was cold in His grave. (Yes, I did that on purpose. I need His teachings, not His resurrection.)

Much of what theoretically defines a Christian, such as the Nicene Creed, is completely outside the story and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. He never mentioned the Trinity or the Virgin Birth or sacraments... He said "Love God and one another!" That's really, really HARD... so most churches give their members other hoops to jump through: more complex and ceremonial, but ultimately far easier. "Just follow our ritual and you're good to go!"

I read the book "Through the Narrow Gate", written by former nun Karen Armstrong.  One of the senior nuns who mentored her explained it as she saw it - those who have the least faith and love, cling the most tightly to ritual and the letter of the law.

I think the outward things are easier - show up for church, tithe, help at church dinners and picnics and funeral lunches.  Teach at Vacation Bible School and Sunday School.  But loving your neighbor as yourself?  Turning the other cheek?  Refraining from passing judgement?  Those are a lot tougher, and those who fail at those instructions are the ones we see who tend to use their religion as a weapon, IMO.  It becomes simply a list of rules to be followed - shalts and shalt nots.  And too many of those folks aren't happy with clinging to those rules themselves, but attempt to make them the rules for everybody.

For example--do you think Islam is just as bigoted, and close-minded-- and generally as nasty-

Yes.

(Not like the Christians you hang out with--

including the Christians on cable saying natural disasters are Yahweh's judgement on homosexuals,

or the Christians in the government who believe that homosexuals should be barred from marriage, serving in the military and even sent to boot camps to unlearn being a homosexual...also, the same Christians who seek to use government to deny women access to birth control and freak out about teaching sex ed in school,

and the Christians insisting on placing their religions commandments on public property, and the Christians demanding that Adam and Eve are taught in science class,  and the Christians who try to force their prayers in public school,

and the Christians who make the news because their god won't allow them to make wedding cakes for homosexuals.

I don't know all of those Christians, but I am surrounded by Christians identical to them.

Yes. Good post. 

Quakers, for starters. Also Unitarian Universalists. (Probably some other sects that I can't think of offhand).

I like the Quakers and I have attended the local UU church on occasion.

In my experience, people cling to the parts of the Bible that they need to use as an unquestionable authority to justify whatever it is that they need to justify in their own lives.

In your experience.

Yes-- from what you've said here I believe that.

But its obvious that's your expedrience-- and your experience is relatively limited if you haven't met other types of Christians!

But in my experience, that is not true in many cases.

BTW-- do you consider Rev. Martin Luther King to have been a Christian? 

that is not true in many cases.

Of course.

There are outstanding people around the world regardless of religion or lack thereof.

people cling to the parts of the Bible that they need to use as an unquestionable authority to justify whatever it is that they need to justify in their own lives.

I have always said, the day the notion of God dies? that is the day our inalienable rights that used to quote "come from God" will become rights that are given and controlled by man.

I prefer to leave my inalienable rights in the hands of a god that does not exist rather than trust any person who does.

a god that does not exist is less likely than mankind to change his mind about what our inalienable rights are  

Cheers

Slavery has always existed, and for some time, did even here in the US, where we are told that one of our inalienable rights is liberty.  Does god exist for slaves?  If not, why don't or didn't they have their inalienable rights - you know, the ones god gave them?

Okay, you have forgotten the main thing about Jesus that eliminates the laws in the Old Testament: The law of Moses has been fulfilled.  That means that the law of Moses is no longer applicable and as such has been changed.  Just as the 18th Amendment of the US Constitution was wiped out by the 21st Amendment, the law of Moses was wiped out by the coming of Jesus and Jesus ended up making the new laws.  In other words, Jesus had the power to REPEAL the law of Moses and REPLACED it with his law of having a contrite spirit and a broken heart to be forgiven of your sins.

Actually, Jesus said that all previous law was included in His commandment to love God and one another. 

You can interpret His words in two ways:

 - Strictly. And if we truly love one another, it is a fact that it's kinda hard to steal, murder, etc

 - He was avoiding saying that the Old Laws were overthrown, because he didn't want conflict with the authorities... yet... 

His words in two ways

E.A  Like " Sin NO More " and that means what for those that Wishful continue to " Sin "?

" Sin NO More "

"Sin" no more implies that you've been sinning all along, up until now!

"Sin" no more implies that you've been sinning all along, up until now!

E.A and also a " Future Caveat " that if you wilfully SIN, then any " previous agreement is Null ( See Hebrews 10  " Sin Against the Holy Spirit "  )and Void " so those that think that when " Forgiven " then they can continue in the Old Way , have some surprises coming!

Okay, you have forgotten the main thing about Jesus that eliminates the laws in the Old Testament: The law of Moses has been fulfilled.

I did not forget that Tom.   Even if one presumes the new covenant is the only thing that applies, the OT is still part of the Bible and the Bible is still part of Christian religions.   I would certainly encourage said religions to drop the OT entirely and just go with the NT, but I doubt they would listen to me. 

The OT is (selectively) part of Christian religions.   The creation story, Adam & Eve, Cain and Abel, Abraham, Moses, burning bush, parting of the Red Sea, Tower of Babel, Sodom and Gomorrah, Noah's Flood, 10 commandments, etc.  are all OT.   No matter how one slices this up, the OT is at the very least the foundation and historical basis for Christianity so it makes sense that Christians understand the God of the OT before He transformed himself into the kinder, gentler Father of the NT.

He transformed himself into the kinder, gentler Father of the NT.

E.A Seems to me  more like " Never Mind what the Bible says, let just look at what I think .. "

⁵  So when he comes into the world, he says: “‘Sacrifice and offering you did not want, but you prepared a body for me. ⁶  You did not approve of whole burnt offerings and sin offerings.’+ ⁷  Then I said: ‘Look! I have come (in the scroll* it is written about me) to do your will, O God.’”+ ⁸  After first saying: “You did not want nor did you approve of sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sin offerings”—sacrifices that are offered according to the Law— ⁹  then he says: “Look! I have come to do your will.”+ He does away with what is first in order to establish what is second. ¹⁰  By this “will”+ we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all time.+

 The Bible makes it plain that the " Old Testament " was there  for a time and a reason, and when that was fulfilled then that was It! 

 It Also makes it Clear that " God is the Same for Ever " and that Jesus Christ is the Son, so who is twisting what and why?

                                                      END

The Bible makes it plain that the " Old Testament " was there  for a time and a reason, and when that was fulfilled then that was It!

Yes the new covenant and the old covenant.   Do you think that is being debated?   

It Also makes it Clear that " God is the Same for Ever " and that Jesus Christ is the Son, so who is twisting what and why?

If your analysis of the Bible convinces you that the God of the OT operates the same as the God of the NT then we simply disagree.   If, however, you are not even bothering with analysis and merely accepting as truth something written in the Bible I would suggest you do some research.   For example, is it possible for the NT God to be surprised?

The OT is (selectively) part of Christian religions.  

I think this depends on how we define "Christian religions"... and for me, any church that uses OT texts to sabotage Christ's overriding message of love is... not Christian. Preaching hatred is antinomic with "Christian".

John wrote that anything that distracts from love is a lie. Using OT excerpts to promote hate is "a lie". It is "swearing falsely in the name of the Lord". 

We don’t allow people to lie to label themselves. Why should we accept that people who blatantly disobey the clear, unambiguous message of Christ, usurp the title "Christian"?

Please use a periphrase. Something like "some self-styled Christians believe that".

I think this depends on how we define "Christian religions"... and for me, any church that uses OT texts to sabotage Christ's overriding message of love is... not Christian.

It does.   As with anything there are Christians-in-name-only.

Given your view on Christianity quite a few atheists would qualify as atheist Christians (similar to atheist Jews).

We don’t allow people to lie to label themselves. Why should we accept that people who blatantly disobey the clear, unambiguous message of Christ, usurp the title "Christian"?

Because nobody is in charge of the definition.   Same problem with socialism.

Given your view on Christianity quite a few atheists would qualify as atheist Christians (similar to atheist Jews).

Yes... and if they follow Kant's categorical imperative, God (if he exists) will welcome them with open arms.

Because nobody is in charge of the definition.   Same problem with socialism.

Exactly. And that is why anyone who respects words must distinguish between Christians-who-follow-Christ and Christians-who-betray-Christ. 

Yes... and if they follow Kant's categorical imperative, God (if he exists) will welcome them with open arms.

Depends upon how one defines God, right?

If your analysis of the Bible convinces you that the God of the OT operates the same as the God of the NT then we simply disagree.

But couldn't you argue that the OT was not meant to be taken literally-- rather its symbolic?

(Also, for that matter, the NT)>

Although personally I can believe that Jesus actually did create those miracles---but I have a rather unique belief system the discussion of which might lead to an interesting discussion-- albeit a derail).

But couldn't you argue that the OT was not meant to be taken literally-- rather its symbolic?

Of course, quite a few people do.   But who declares this?   Who is the authority that states the Bible is not to be taken literally?   How do we know this authority knows what s/he is talking about?

Serious questions from me by the way.

Who is the authority that states the Bible is not to be taken literally?   How do we know this authority knows what s/he is talking about?

Serious questions from me by the way.

The reader. 

Serious answer. 

We are responsible for everything we do. We, each of us, are responsible for our interpretation of any and all information we receive. We are responsible for distinguishing between real news and fake news, between fiction and non-fiction, and between inerrant and "not inerrant".

We are responsible for everything we do. We, each of us, are responsible for our interpretation of any and all information we receive. We are responsible for distinguishing between real news and fake news, between fiction and non-fiction, and between inerrant and "not inerrant".

I agree, but my question was who determines truth.   That question is independent of individual responsibility.   Regardless of how we act, there either is a knowable objective truth or there is not.   If there is a knowable objective truth (known today) then it certainly did not come from science because science is nowhere near that advanced.   It would have to come directly from the supreme entity.   We have lots of human beings claiming (in ancient writings and in modern day 'prophets') that they have indeed communicated with the supreme entity.   But we have nothing but their words as evidence.   

Without direct communication from the uber-authority of truth how can anyone claim to have a handle on truth?

Without direct communication from the uber-authority of truth how can anyone claim to have a handle on truth?

IMHO, no one can make such a claim unless they have heard it directly from God... and in that case, they "know" the truth but cannot transmit it. That would be a terrible burden, it seems to me, and at the same time an ineffable privilege. 

Of course, quite a few people do.   But who declares this?   Who is the authority that states the Bible is not to be taken literally?

Well, that brings up another issue--  if someone is a "believer"-- what should they base their views on? How can they determine what is true? Figuring it out by using "logic"? Or-- experience? Or faith? Or-- by the opinions of an "authority". (And if someone uses "authorities"-- they are likely to find that authorities disagree).

Of course trying to figure out what is true about the Universe (or any aspect of it) applies to other areas besides religion. How do you know what is true? If you go to authorities-- what if they disagree?

Of course trying to figure out what is true about the Universe (or any aspect of it) applies to other areas besides religion. How do you know what is true? If you go to authorities-- what if they disagree?

Another issue I see is that many people tend to trust some external authority figure rather than themselves. Might it not sometimes be better to look within rather than looking to external "authorities"? 

To put it another way:

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

--Luke, 17:21

Using OT excerpts to promote hate is "a lie".

But what if someone believes that the Bible (both OT and NT for that matter) are not meant to be taken literally? And that they don't use OT excerpts to promote hate? (And, in fact, the same for the NT).

There's an old saying:

The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose*.

And IMO that also implies that you can quote scripture for the good of all concerned....

_________________________________________

*Uncle Tony, AKA the Merchant of Venice, Act 1, Scene 3

How do you know what is true?

Truth, I submit, is impossible to ascertain.

But to answer your question, knowledge is a process of probability.   All we can do is verify our sources and corroborate what we call facts.   If we think we know something then the quality of the knowledge is a function of supporting evidence and reason.   If we know something simply because of desire rather than objective, evidence-based reasoning then -IMO- that knowledge is of poor quality - arguably not even knowledge.

But who declares this?   Who is the authority that states the Bible is not to be taken literally?

I have noticed that I tend to have a lot less respect for "authorities" and "experts" than many people do. I'm not claiming that that is "better" than other people's appraoch-- its just the way I am. 

I do listen to authorities-- but I almost always look for "a second opinion"-- and even more than two. And then, ultimately I go with my own thought, perception, and analysis.

And in actuality this does not contradict many religious teachings, for example:

Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

--Luke 17;21

(I believe I posted that before-- recently I've decided to repeat things occasionally if I think they're important. In the past I tried to avoid doing that).

Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

This seems to confuse some people into believing that they are a god instead of servants of a god.

This creates problems when the people who believe they are a god try impose their beliefs on others via government.  These people try to do away with the freewill that they claim their creator endowed on our species, but their hubris will not allow them to see themselves for the would be dictators that they really are.  There is nothing kind, benevolent, generous or loving (Christ like) in people who use government to bend others to their religious dogma.

If their god wants a person to have a personal relationship with it, then isn't their god capable of letting that person know or does their god really require an intermediary for communication?  If so, then how does any person have a personal relationship with the god?

I have noticed that I tend to have a lot less respect for "authorities" and "experts" than many people do.

I am not suggesting that people simply accept the word of authorities (my position is the opposite).  The reason I bring up authority is to emphasize that there is no authority on God and Godly things.   The only possible authority would be God and He is not talking.   So human beings go with the next best thing (as many see it) - words in books that are claimed (by human beings) to be the divine Word of God.   That claim fails due to lack of evidence, but it also fails because those words are vague and lead to many different interpretations.  Ergo, we have no single authority - no way to possibly know that we hold truth.   We are left with human reason and experience.   So let's just admit that and cease this will of God stuff.   In the extreme (as in Islamic terrorism) this would have some rather serious positive consequences.

Okay, you have forgotten the main thing about Jesus that eliminates the laws in the Old Testament

Merry Christmas!!!

So, none of the OT applies anymore?  Have you run that idea past your pastor, tom?  Seems to me a lot of christians are citing OT prohibitions and passages to justify a lot of their attitudes.  

Merry Christmas!!!

Have you run that idea past your pastor, tom?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't have pastors.  We don't have a conventional paid clergy.  Our bishops and stake presidents are unpaid and the members take unpaid callings to teach each other the doctrines of the OT, NT, Book of Mormon, and Doctrines & Covenants.  We use the King James version of the Bible, but believe it is incomplete as the Book of Mormon expands on what is in the Bible.  And, the Doctrines & Covenants are the modern revelations given mainly to Joseph Smith about how everything fits together and how the modern church is to be run.  We actually believe that we are re-formation of the church as it was during the days of Jesus Christ.

I understand most of what you said-- but some parts aren't totally clear. Give me a few minutes-- I need to go into