Great arguments to use against Bible Thumpers!

[marshlander]

... So my way of thinking is that argueing against the bible is like arguing against Gone With The Wind, or Harry Potter.

Except you are unlikely to encounter anyone who will try to tell you that either Margaret Mitchell or J.K.Rowling is a supreme being whose every word is to be obeyed with the substantial subsequent effects on individuals, families, society and nations attributed to those who ascribe a supernatural origin to their texts of choice.

[dfiant]

Those Potter fans can be a little fanatical :tongue:

[Genersis]

People will interpret their holy scriptures however they want, and find others who agree with them.
That's why there are so many denominations of....any religion.
So the likeliness of swaying someone's views is pretty hard when they have so many people who agree with them, which reinforces there views, which make them spend more time around said people.
It's one of those circular self perpetuating systems, Something the religious tend to have a lot of.(I'm not saying it's purely a religious phenomenon though.)

It's best just to remember the bible is the ONLY evidence they have that there religion is true, and while it IS good being able to prove them wrong with there own holy book(which i guess would be more likely to make someone DOUBT their religion), it's better to simply remember that there's no evidence the bibles remotely divinely inspired...or even correct on many things.

Unfortunately, with blind faith, and the willingness to follow a religion out of it "feeling right", it's nigh impossible to convince someone that their religion is false without the person doubting their faith beforehand.

...
Hope that all makes sense.:redface:

[jbrowder24]

I often use the soulforce link as well, but I try to be sensitive to those that believe and say that while I think there are some great lessons to be learned, that some of it no longer applies (this is what drives me crazy with a lot of anti-gay usage from the same section talking about shellfish, mixed fabrics, pigskin, etc) or was perhaps not meant to be taken literally - like Adam and Eve. I remember reading in the book Ishmael that Adam meant man and Eve meant life, and if that's true, then that story is really about humankind being tempted by life to gain wisdom. And yet Creationism is being taught in some schools now?

It's amazing the similarities between some stories in the Bible and other religions. As taken from wiki's page for 'flood myth', for example: "A flood myth or deluge myth is a mythical or religious story of a great flood sent by a deity or deities to destroy civilization as an act of divine retribution. It is a theme widespread among many cultures, though it is perhaps best known in modern times through the biblical and Quranic account of Noah's Ark, the Hindu puranic story of Manu, through Deucalion in Greek mythology or Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh." How do people then think one version must be the absolute right one? It was a common myth and it's far from the only myth in the Bible.

[Gabbyboy]

For me this is actually good considering that i live in a very religious country, i need something to defend myself from religious people who thinks being gay is sinful. And yes i am a Christian and i do believe in God, but i believe that He does not have any problems with gay people and that he made us that way.

[red06sc]

IMO...there is never going to be a right or wrong with this subject. as their will never be a 100% agreement, so i stay out of these conversations lol

[Merging]

Do not believe in something takes sometimes more strength as to believe

Fenris you remind me of Yoda from Star Wars ( I freaking love Star Wars :biggrin: )

oh and I love the wolf picture!!

[GeezUS]

I need no church, no war, I´m my own pope,... lucky me... but.... oops .. now I have sinned ... the Eternal mother don´t like selfishness, and direct comparisons of religions.... :redface:

There isn't so much any mentioning of church as it is nowadays as being important in the bible as much as simply gathering for the sake of remembrance and discussion and community. Personally I do that on a thing called the internet. Doesn't say anything about a pope. Honestly Hinduism is great if one still likes the monotheistic approach...It is not polytheistic it believes in the one God, as they call it Vishnu, and the many manifestation, more reasonably unlimited, unlike the trinitarian approach. Plus it has atheists sects believe it or not, it is a very polytheoristic religion, and plus it stems also to Buddhism...

[GeezUS]

That's not the really the point. The validity of ideas, whether they are influenced by a bronze age text or not (which they aren't, but are rather at most influenced by a developed culturally determined understanding of the text), is independent of the virtue of its disparate influences. Whether the thinkers were agnostics, Calvanist, or Catholic is not a testament to the value of the Bible as moral guide in any sense.

i apply the same logic to reckoning value from the bible, and the abrahamic religions in general. Regardless of who support the ideas or the values of some of those that influenced it a good bit of it has value.

I think that is a trite tautology.

That wasn't really a tautology.

The Bible is plenty useful to help understand the cultural attitudes of people who have held it as an important text, unfortunately it's mostly useless in that task without the aid of secondary sources.

You can say that depending on what version is being read, if one is reading the Torah for example in the Hebrew, there is not so much need for secondary sources, but even then it is valuable to get such, and a good history of the people is needed to be understood as is of many ancient texts.

It is also of no inherent value as a source of ethical prescription. I hold ethical arguments to a standard that they should be defended without recourse to an appeal to some arbitrary authority of source. The Bible contains moral prescriptions which are defensible, but there is nothing about the Bible that suggests that its moral guidance is useful.

Its guidance has been, and it can be, unfortunately much of it is silly, the Torah is more reasonable. But it does have valuable morals, much of which either informed or gave increase to the morals we have today. Unfortunately for the most part it is out dated, I am mostly opposed to the dissonance to spirituality that is lead to by much of the associations brought out by Christians. And would prefer that the bible and what good is in it not be devalued for the sake of its misuse.

That wasn't the point, the point was that we do not look to Oedipus Rex or The Iliad, which both had religious purposes, for moral guidance merely because of the virtue of some Greek ideas.

I beg to defer, I know plenty of people that have read those things for the reason that they might learn many things including values. But regardless one cannot expect all texts of any culture to be equally respected. Unfortunately Plato and Aristotle are the shining stars that make it hard to see much else, at first glance.

[GeezUS]

Except you are unlikely to encounter anyone who will try to tell you that either Margaret Mitchell or J.K.Rowling is a supreme being whose every word is to be obeyed with the substantial subsequent effects on individuals, families, society and nations attributed to those who ascribe a supernatural origin to their texts of choice.

Oddly people recognize that the bible was written by men, but also insist that it was the direct word of God... It may have been influenced, but then i imagine everything is, one cannot base reason-ability by the idea that something is influenced by God, rather it should be by reason.