So, where should we put the Bible in the Library?

So, where should we put the Bible in the Library? Shelf might be a good place to start; libraries have plenty of them.

 

If you feel the need to burn them, make sure you burn them in an in an energy absorbing system; keep accurate records on the amount of energy being absorbed; and then report your findings to one of those government groups that are concerned about conserving energy.... you might get lucky and get a discount on your taxes. If on the other hand, you decide to throw them in the trash can, why don't you instead, recycle them... you could get an immediate payout per hundreds of pounds of recyclable paper.

 

As much as that idea might appeal to you, no one has the right to tell you what you can and cannot read.

 

If we're going to ban pornographic or violent material, the Bible should be the first to go.

 

Yep, any non-fiction or fiction book that depicts violence or sexual content should be banned.

So, atheists, or at least the jerkish version thereof, have libraries that consist of children's books. Now we see why we get such notions like the one above.

The intent is not flame bait BTW, it supposed to be people actually providing an opinion and some insight. You atheists claim you are quite good at that - that is not what the evidence is pointing to. It seems rather the opposite, that the atheists that CAN make an intelligent point are in the minority.

Maybe those who cannot should spend some time in an actual library?

 

I'm not an atheist. I'm anti-organized religion. The Bible is the oral heritage of a people passed down, transcribed and then translated. It is a poor moral compass because it requires intensive guidance lest the weaker minds walk away with a "hate the gays and kill all the Muslims" type meme originating from biblical ideas cherry-picked to make followers horrible individuals.

 

No, the OT is. The NT is completely different animal.

Maybe you should familiarize yoruself with both so you can see and understand the differences.

But I am glad yoru revelations about God are better than everyone else's, which should be burned?

BTW - what organized religion gives you, what I just gave you, is something you lack: accountabiliy.

 

Warning to everyone - please discuss the topic, and do so 'respectfully', as specified in the forum's Mission Statement. Do not discuss other members, moderators or moderation on public threads.

thank you,
Cenydd
Site Moderator

 

Yes, I know that. I've read most of the Bible.

I do understand the differences. That's why I shake my head in disgust when I witness the actions of many so-called "Christians".

Love thy neighbor? (*)(*)(*)(*) that, he let his dog (*)(*)(*)(*) on my lawn.
Turn the other cheek? Sure, after I've bombed the hell out of everyone with a 2,000 mile radius.
Charity? As long as I get a tax right off.
Humility? What's that?
Love thy enemy? See "Love thy neighbor".

They are... in terms of relevance for me.

I'm accountable to the society and community that I live in. I doubt highly that some omniscient, omnipotent being gives a rat's ass about my everyday activities.

Organized religion is just another method of control. To me, the word of God, if he/she/it is truly omnipotent, would be less open to interpretation and wouldn't need translation.

IMO, there are many paths to the top of the mountain. Some are easy walks, others require a bit of climbing and still others will send you spinning over the precipice to be dashed upon rocks.

I don't care what path you choose to walk, just realize that while you may prefer the easy path up, I don't mind climbing at times.

 

That does not tell me ou know anything about the creation processes of the two Canon of the Bible - does it?

What does that have to do with your dsire to burn the Bible?

Well, as Christian who has actually been to war, I will say that Christian values are important. When we catptured insurgents, they were usually treated with respect and dignity, within the confines of safety.

This is one of te key reasons behind the Suna Awakening in Iraq, where our enemies, who often captured the same villagers would torture, rape, and assult their captives.

Did teh Bible cause me to go wrong by treating me enemies with respect? Or does the world revolve around only what you see?

And teh world is not about you.

Oh, but you are not an atheist? Because that is exactly what an atheist would say.

And yes, when you sign up for a set of standards, a organized religious community will hold you those standards and help you stay to those standards.

Of course, you don;t need that - neither does any atheist.

So, how is that going for the Catholic Church referrence abortion which is legal in this and many other overwhelmingly Catholic countries?

Don;t let reality intrude.

So define it, then people can do to your solution exactly what you do to others. We'll see if the process is as wonderous as you think.

Apparently, if you want to burn my holy book, you very much care about the choice that I and others make.

And if you think it is easy, go ahead and sign up.

 

If we ban ALL religion it would at least stop those that are stupid enough to believe in the BS their holy books contain waging war on others because " their imaginary friend is the one true imaginary friend". All religions have had their go at it, just look at the harm Christians have done in the past, look at what the jews have done and continue to do to the arabs and of cause look at what the muslims have done. What is done in the name of religion is sickening.

 

You seem to be confused. At what point did I EVER say that I wanted to burn "your" holy book?

You seem to think that humans are incapable of possessing morality and ethics unless they have someone looking over their shoulder telling them what to do.

Organized religion is nothing more than a power grab. It is a rigid, hierarchical power structure that is more interested in ceremony than actual spiritual development.

You can call me an atheist all you want, I don't care and it doesn't make it any more true. Perhaps you should look up the definitions of what differs between an atheist and agnostic. Then avoid categorizing others based on your hangups.

Religion is just another tool to justify conflict and the "us against them" mentality. That doesn't just apply to Christianity.

“You have heard the law that says, ‘Love your neighbor’ and hate your enemy. But I say, love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you! In that way, you will be acting as true children of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and he sends rain on the just and the unjust alike. If you love only those who love you, what reward is there for that? Even corrupt tax collectors do that much. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? (Matthew 5:43-47 )

 

Agh, yes, another fan of Hitchens.

As you are now an expert on conflict, perhaps you would care to offer us some insight into what drives FARC? The Naxalite Insurgency? North korean Agression? The Opium Wars? The Iran-Iraq War? Lybian stuggle? What is going on in Syria? Why China and its neighbors are fighting over the South China Sea? Narco terrorism on our Southern border? The rise of militant right wing groups in America? And please tell me that Islam is responsible for its sensible detractors like Geert Wilders?

And while you are at it, please feel free to tell us about Stalins purges and Mao's Cultural Revolutions.

What's sickening is the cresendo of ignorance and unquestioning intoleranec that comes from this indoctrinated propganda from atheism.

Even more sickening? The fact that many atheists seem to think that people want to hear these randomly introduced, but uneducated, diatribes about a simple question about whether to classify the Bible as fiction or non-fiction.

the lack of civility and intellectual basis behind the post above is telling.

 

You claimed the Bible, which you know about is pronographic and violent. ye, know you claim to be a lover of its material?

You are confsed and your standards contradictory.

Loving your neighbor does not translate into tolerating things that are flat out wrong in a dbate forum. In fact, I see atheists use that quote all the time to try to justify being called to task on inexcuseabe behavior.

Let me bear it to you brother, a lack of standards and accounability is not Love.

Indeed, how are YOU doing at loving your neighbor?

 

Nice try at diversion bud... But it had NOTHING to do with the examples i posted.

 

It has everything to do with something as complex as conflict.

The fact that you avoid them? Including conflicts that involve atheists at the helm?

Yep, that has NOTHING to do with your propoganda! When fact you do not wish to acknowledge come up ... its a diversion I tell you!

It was yours that was the diversion, and now, neither can you cannot offer anything insightful on the Bible and how to classify it, nor on the reality of conflict.

Well, played.

 

Dear, dear Neutral. You continue to misrepresent my post. Is that what they taught you in bible class?

 

That is called an excuse and a common one from those who eschew accountability.

Your words are in English, they are well understood by all who read them. It really is that simple. If you find yourself being misunderstood, then clarify your presentation.

However, if you find that you are unable to do this and need to take cheap pot shots at someone else ... well, just as I said, its the opposite of accountability you seek.

 

I dont see where you're coming from

Unless it's creationist history, History books really just go off of what's known through historical records. Any peroids unkown in any history class i've ever been in hasnt replaced the gaps with whimsical stories.

Not sure what your point is about gaps in the evidintary record means, just becasue there are gaps, doesnt make it the rest of the record fiction.

Now if the bible properly cited it's sources, perhaps it could go into the history section.
P.S. god isnt a credible source (unless it's a protestant history class).

Not sure what you're argument is here or how you drew your conclusion.

A law book on the 1st ammendemnt, law's and cases dealing with the establisment of religion, ect doesnt make it a religious book, it's just a law book which is focused on the legal aspect of religion or what not.

But i'll condece, if we where in Egypt or El Paso, Texas, we might find the Bible or Koran in the LAW section of the libary.

 

Oh, there are no other oral traditions or histories for any other people anywhere in the world?

Guess what the New Testament is? Particularly the synoptic gospels? Why, its a collection of first person accounts about Jesus that is terms of evidence is quite a bit stronger than much of the ancient figures of history that you say are NOT just whimsical stories.

"The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend."

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Are you willing to eliminate Socrates from the historical record because he is merey a whimsical story?

Then you have never written history. We do not have evidence of every second of a persons life, and even critical meetings where decisions are made have either no record, incomplete records, or is recorded ONLY afterward in journal, etc. That also includes an incomplete record of many of the priciple subordinates who then carry out these decisions.

And yet, a historicn has to go through and assemble the evidence painstakingly and portray and narrative that is convincing and supported by the evidence. Again, what do you think the New Testament is? Large chuncks of the Old Testament?

You should probably look up something about Biblical Creation. Who is the author of the Gospel of Luke? Why do you think we call them the Pauline Epistles?

 

Please, if it was a collection written historys of Jesus, then it would include the Gospel of Judas or the Gospel of Pontius Pilate. Of course when you're creating religion things like that don’t fit the narrative. Some of the books alone are historical; some are pure B.S. like Paul who never actually met Jesus while he was alive.

I'm not disputing there was a Jesus. After we filter out all the rigamarole, look at other documents left out by Christians, undo the edits done 100 or so years later by Marcion and other opportunist trying to create a religion of their own, and so on, we find out a bit about what he was like. The New Testiment was just created for the sheep tired of being pagans.

And to Socrates. There probably was once a man but we don’t know much about him. Many of Plato’s writings contradict other Socrates students, and a lot of time Socrates just seems like a sounding board for Plato’s writings.

 

Where do you obtain your FACTUAL data that clearly shows and PROVES that Paul never met Jesus while Jesus was still alive?

Where are the FACTUAL data that will PROVE that Socrates even was in existence other than in the minds of those that wrote about this mythical Socrates? Where is the tomb of Socrates?

 

Well, someone does not know about how the Synoptic gospels were created.

They are a collection of the works of Jesus deemed MOST authentic, those that are deemed inauthentic include the gospe of Judas (who was dead BTW and clearly did not author it) because these texts:

1) obviously conflict with the rest of the historical record. Casting doubt on their authentic record of one Jesus.

2) Contain passages about secret gospels which conflicts with Jesus's teaching about the openess of the faith.

We call these either gnostic gospels or heretical. Most historians simply call them bad sources.

Modern Historians BTW, use exactly the same processes as did the monks and priests who created the Synoptic gospels. that is one way why we know that the gospel of Judas is inaccurate.

But I am glad to see that you would include faulty sources, fiction, in a list of works that would make something non-fiction? Hmmm ... no historian I know would do such a thing. In fact, if they saw another historian do this, they would probably call him out on it.

Hence the modern process of peer review.

 

Paul's own writings of course. unless he was lieing and did actually meet jesus before his execution, but that would make Paul a liar.

And i said Socrate's Probably existed, probably being the key word here. i also said "a lot of times Socrates just seems like a sounding board for Plato’s writings" which is pretty much what you want me to disprove now.

which is odd.

Odd isnt it? This peer review you lay out rejected Judas and other books. What happens if you Hold Paul to the same standard ? This man either met jesus but wrote as if he only met him after ressurection, which is what is called fiction, Or he never met jesus but claims to have seem him after his resurection, which is impossible and a work of ficiton. In fact most of the people that where there, and their decendents (the Jews and Romans) say his ressurection didnt happen.

 

I still have yet to hear from ANYONE, the design of an experiment based on the creationist/intelligent design mythos, that can be used to teach students the scientific process in a SCIENCE class.

But you're willing to overlook that little inconvenience, amiright?