text:
All Blog Posts Tagged 'Bible' - Think Atheist 2016-12-04T20:49:29Z http://www.thinkatheist.com/profiles/blog/feed?tag=Bible&xn_auth=no The Bible; A Book Review tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2015-11-09:1982180:BlogPost:1557729 2015-11-09T21:49:31.000Z JustinTetro http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JustinTetro
http://www.thespiritualbeacon.net/blog In the beginning there was nothing except a grumpy old deity with a God complex, which is ironic because in this case He happens to be God. After an eternity of doing nothing, God decides to built a universe populated with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars only to ignore all that so he can focus his attention on what bipedal apes are doing with their genitalia.…

http://www.thespiritualbeacon.net/blog In the beginning there was nothing except a grumpy old deity with a God complex, which is ironic because in this case He happens to be God. After an eternity of doing nothing, God decides to built a universe populated with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars only to ignore all that so he can focus his attention on what bipedal apes are doing with their genitalia.

 And thus begins The Holy Bible, a collection of 66 short stories filled with unicorns and dragons the likes of which Tolkien himself must have admired. Apocalyptic disasters, an angry dictator, zombies out for forgiveness, this book has everything one could want in an action story with a little redemption and love thrown in to keep the girls interested.
 Our antagonist, Yahweh, runs his territory with an iron fist, ready to squash the least uprising with the maximum vengeance. However, his brutality is not overshadowed by his playfully silly sense of humor. In a tale called "Genesis" we find a (probably drunk) God leaping from the bushes (probably naked) to wrestle with his good friend Jacob. The two roll about the grass in joyous fun, laughing and joking as they tussle long into the night, probably bumping penises as they go.
 There are ups and downs in the complex life of Yahweh. He puts six whole days into creating a beautiful planet, only to destroy it a short time later because monkey people are screwing angles and making giants. Yet he still manages to keep his droll sense of humor by obligating a 500 year old drunk to repopulate the planet without Viagra.
 My biggest criticism with the first part of the book is that we don't learn enough about the God character. He shows up fully developed with little to no back story or explanation as to what He'd been doing for the eternity before making everything. Was He an accountant tired of sitting at a desk? Did He sell pool cleaner door to door on the weekends to make a little extra cash? Had He ever had an uncomfortable sexual encounter in a sauna with another deity? These questions, and so many more, are curiously left unanswered.
 Nor do we hear about His childhood and the lessons instilled by his parents that would later allow him to be comfortable with creating bone cancer in babies and parasites that give you diarrhea 'till you die. The original editors of the bible should clearly have removed some of the repetitive references about killing homosexuals and replaced them with a few childhood experience involving Yahweh and his favorite teddy bear, or the fun that occurs when you try to make the creator of the universe eat his vegetables when he doesn't want to.
 The second half of The Bible introduces us to a new character named Jesus Christ. Jesus is the son of Yahweh, yet decides to forgo all of daddy's money and influence to spend his days as a lowly carpenter living in the desert. Here, he makes friends, tells some stories and cures a few blind people along the way, all to reach his ultimate goal.

**SPOILER ALERT**

 It's not long before our hero is betrayed and sentenced to death by crucifixion. His friends must have been busy that day, because they just let him die without bothering to organize a rescue. But have no fear, Jesus is magic, and much like the scene in E.T. where that lovable alien died, only to rise again, so too does Jesus return to enjoy Reese's pieces with Elliot. He's not even pissed when he comes back, which made the character feel unrealistic to me. I would like to have seen Jesus slapping at least one of his disciples for not coming to his rescue, but maybe they're saving that for the sequel.
 From here the authors get bogged down with telling us how super-duper Jesus is. We learn at nausea how much he loves us and how much we should love him back, which is all well and good, but if you want to hold a readers attention you need to put some explosions or giant robots in the mix.
 Surprisingly absent from the narrative is the lack of any romantic encounter between Jesus and a female lead. Several woman pop up throughout the stories, but they have minor rolls with little importance. Instead, Jesus prefers to spend his days with a group of men, prancing through the desert, healing the sick and shopping for sandals. In one humorous tale, Jesus finds himself nailed to a piece of wood while a man in the same predicament attempts to ask him on a date after they die. Jesus laughingly agrees to dinner, but only if the man will accept him as Lord and pay for the meal, including drinks.
 After more boring chapters about how super Jesus is and why you should follow him, we reach my favorite story contained within the bible, Revelations.
 Best enjoyed on peyote, DMT, or any other of a dozen psychoactive drugs, Revelations is a tour de force in freaky shit. Dragons and demons crawl from the pits of Hell to tear the flesh from those who refuse to hate gays and stone adulterers. Cries of the damned are described with vivid clarity as we watch them writhe in agony for looking at a girls cleavage once in high school.
 Satan himself makes an appearance in the form of a multi-headed dragon, which is meant to scare the readers so intensely they drop the book and run to the nearest church. But, once again I find fault with the editors for allowing the authors to tell us, way back in Genesis, that Yahweh is all powerful, thereby informing us in advance, who the victor will be.
 All in all, the bible is worthy of it's place on the shelf next to Harry Potter and the many adventures in Narnia. It's filled with wizards, and talking snakes, it deals with destruction and redemption, love and hate, lust and greed, you simply wont find another book filled with so much excitement, yet so tedious to read. I would definitely recommend The Holy Bible to anyone without Netflix, it's a wonderful way to pass the time while on death row, and also makes a great stopper for that one wobbly leg of the kitchen table.
 Why Don't Christians Who Take the Bible Literally Also Think the Earth Is Flat? from Alternet tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2014-04-04:1982180:BlogPost:1447216 2014-04-04T22:26:28.000Z Kelly Nicola Loewen http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/KellyNicolaLoewen
This is re-posted from http://www.alternet.org/why-dont-christians-who-take-bible-literally-also-think-earth-flat?paging=off&current_page=1…

This is re-posted from http://www.alternet.org/why-dont-christians-who-take-bible-literally-also-think-earth-flat?paging=off&current_page=1

April 3, 2014  |

The creationist crowd is in a tithy lately. First there was "Cosmos" — on Fox, no less! — giving short shrift to everything they hold dear. Then, adding insult to injury, for those paying close attention, long-awaited evidence of the Big Bang arrived. It's been a rough few weeks.

But really, if you're a biblical literalist, it's been a rough few centuries, or millennia, actually. You see, according to the Bible, the earth is both stationary and flat. Most pointedly, there are at least two passages in which a single point is visible to the whole world (Daniel 4:10-11 and Revelation 1:7), and one (Matthew 4:8) in which the whole world can be seen from a single point — an obvious impossibility unless the earth is flat.

Although the Catholic Church had forced Galileo to recant his work questioning the immobile earth in 1632 — and only pardoned him in 1992 — they did so in part because they were certain the earth was a globe: a globe around which the sun, moon and all other heavenly bodies revolved. Such was the Ptolemaic system, which had dominated Western views for more than a millennium. And yet, the Bible itself reflects a radically different view of the cosmos, one shared by the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians, in which the earth is both stationary and flat. And there is a wide range of scriptural passages to prove it.

The late Robert Schadewald made this point conclusively in "The Flat-Earth Bible," an article posted on the Web back in 1995. Schadewald was a former board member and president of the National Center for Science Education, a leader in the fight against creationism and other forms of pseudo-science being pushed into schools. But he was as much an enthusiastic student of fringe or "alternative" science as a source of endless fascination as he was a critic of swallowing it whole.

"When I first became interested in the flat-earthers in the early 1970s, I was surprised to learn that flat-earthism in the English-speaking world is and always has been entirely based upon the Bible," Schadewald begins his piece. Easily the most influential work is "Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe," by Samuel Birley Rowbotham. Its first, 16-page pamphlet edition, in 1849, predated Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" by a decade.

"The Biblical cosmology is never explicitly stated, so it must be pieced together from scattered passages," Schadewald explains. But he starts with the much more direct, explicit Bible statements about an immobile, geocentric earth. It's a logical starting point, since he notes, "The flat-earth view is geocentricity with further restrictions." There are hundreds of such passages, according to geocentrist James N. Hanson, who spoke to Schadewald at the 1984 National Bible-Science Conference in Cleveland, but these are "a few obvious texts" that Schadewald chose to cite:

1 Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."

Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm …"

Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable …"

Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."

Isaiah 45:18: "…who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast …"

It's remarkable enough that most of today's creationists, wedded to biblical literalism andinerrancy, rarely mention such passages, particularly given the history of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. But then there are these, as well:

Daniel 4:10-11: [Nebuchadnezzar] "saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth … reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds."

Matthew 4:8: "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory."

Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds! Every eye shall see him …"

A single point cannot see to or be seen from everywhere on a globe at once. For these words to be literally true, the earth must be flat, end of story.

These are only a few passages, of course. To really comprehend the Bible's flat-earth cosmology, you have to know what you're looking for — the other elements of the flat-earth world. That's why Schadewald noted, "As neighbors, the ancient Hebrews had the Egyptians to the southwest and the Babylonians to the northeast. Both civilizations had flat-earth cosmologies. The Biblical cosmology closely parallels the Sumero-Babylonian cosmology, and it may also draw upon Egyptian cosmology." He went on to document what he meant. In addition to the passages above, he cited passages concerning the nature of the heavens, the order of creation, and the diminutive nature of the sun, moon and stars. All are relevant to the claim of a flat earth, because all are parts of a coherent flat-earth worldview similar to that of Egypt and Babylon's: The earth is flat; the heavens are a solid dome, fashioned of metal; the sun, moon and stars are relatively small object inside the dome of heaven. As for the order of creation, Schadewald wrote:

The Genesis creation story provides the first key to the Hebrew cosmology. The orderof creation makes no sense from a conventional perspective but is perfectly logical from a flat-earth viewpoint. The earth was created on the first day, and it was "without form and void (Genesis 1:2)." On the second day, a vault the "firmament" of the King James version was created to divide the waters, some being above and some below the vault. Only on the fourth day were the sun, moon, and stars created, and they were placed "in" (not "above") the vault.

Regarding the heavens, he noted that the word "firmament" is translated from the Hebrew word raqiya, meaning the "visible vault of the sky," and coming from riqqua, "beaten out." "A good craftsman could beat a lump of cast brass into a thin bowl," Schadewald pointed out. "Thus, Elihu asks Job, 'Can you beat out [raqa] the vault of the skies, as he does, hard as a mirror of cast metal (Job 37:18)?'" He went on to cite a number of passages supporting the view that the vault of heaven is "a solid, physical object" and thus "a tremendous feat of engineering," as well as passages from Isaiah [40:22], Job [22:12, 14], and Ezekiel [1:22-26, 10:1], which "complete the picture of the sky as a lofty, physical dome," not merely an illusion that looks like a dome.

Regarding celestial bodies, Schadewald first noted, "They had to be small to fit inside the vault of heaven," but added, "Small size is also implied by Joshua 10:12, which says that the sun stood still 'in Gibeon' and the moon 'in the Vale of Aijalon.'" He then cited a number of passages presenting celestial bodies as "exotic living beings," somewhat similar to how various polytheist religions represent them. And, of course, stars can fall from the skies (Daniel 8:10, Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13-16).

While the Bible itself contains no explicit cosmological description, the Book of Enoch, a highly regarded source that influenced the Bible, does. Schadewald pointed out that Jude 14- 15 quotes 1 Enoch 1:9, attributes prophecy to Enoch, and thus "confers inspired status upon the book." He went on to say:

Unlike the canonical books of the Bible, which (in my view) were never meant to teach science, sections of 1 Enoch were intended to describe the natural world. The narrator sometimes sounds like a 2nd century B.C. Carl Sagan explaining the heavens and earth to the admiring masses. The Enochian cosmology is precisely the flat-earth cosmology previously derived from the canonical books.

This includes trips to the ends of the earth, a detailed description of solar and lunar motion, including six openings in heaven for them to emerge from when they rise and another six to pass into when they set, according to the season, and more information about stars, including their punishment for transgressions.

Some might be inclined to think that Schadewald was overstating his case. That's understandable. Skepticism is good. So they should consider what a true believer had to say. In "Earth Not a Globe," Rowbotham first presented a series of secular arguments on a wide range of specific issues, but in the end he resorted to wide-ranging, detailed arguments from scripture, in which moral, religious and physical arguments were all jumbled together with extensive quotations from the Bible.

At one point, for example, Rowbotham cited more than two dozen passages, such asPsalm 103, 11, "For as the Heaven is high above the Earth," to argue that "If the Earth is a globe revolving at the rate above a thousand miles an hour all this language of scripture is necessarily fallacious." "Up" and "down" are meaningless, he argued, if the place you point to as "up above" you is millions of miles away by the time you're finished speaking. This may seem like a bizarre position, but it actually accurately reflects a consistent, literal-minded, stationary geocentric worldview — if not an exclusively flat-earth perspective. It simply shows how much scriptural evidence one can find, depending on the set of assumptions one begins with — which in turn shows just how difficult, if not impossible, it is to change the minds of true believers.

In another passage, Rowbotham argued about the nature of celestial bodies, further illustrating how his viewpoint produces a proliferation of scriptural support. First, he rejected the notion that the moon shines with reflected light, quoting Genesis 1, 16-17,"He made the Stars also; and God set them in the firmament to give light upon the earth,"and 10 other passages, before concluding, "Nothing is here said, nor is it said in any other part of Scripture, that the sun only is a great light, and that the moon only shines by reflection." Then he argued that stars are not sunlike objects vast distances away, but rather are lights in the sky created to give light to the earth at night. These clearly mattered to him because of the entire worldview they are part of — precisely the point that Schadewald made.

Not incidentally, in making his point about the stars, Rowbotham misrepresented the scientific view by claiming, for example, "[T]he modern system of astronomy teaches that this earth cannot possibly receive light from the Stars, because of their supposed great distance from it." Here, and throughout his argument, he confuses the matter of starlightreaching the earth, so that we can see the stars, with the matter of starlight illuminatingthe earth, so that we can see other objects by the light of the stars. The two are entirely different matters, but Rowbotham, for all his careful attention to words when it suits him, never seems to notice. In the end, however, he makes a claim so wild, it seems to make everything else irrelevant. He says that travelers report that in many other parts of the world, starlight is "sufficiently intense to enable them to read and write." Yet, the confusion of terms in his argument is vital to setting the tone for this final, preposterous assertion — all of it, firmly rooted in scripture as he reads it.

Again, this may seem far removed from the idea of a flat earth. But for Rowbotham, our inability to see the connection is but further proof of how little we understand. And he had a point. The world as he envisions it is so radically different than our own that we find it difficult, if not impossible, to imagine what he takes for granted. But if the earth is flat, covered by a physical dome that contains the stars, then the descriptions he offers do make sense — and for Rowbotham, reading the Bible as he did, it's impossible to separate one part of that cosmology from any of the others.

Rowbotham also made a further argument about the stars that goes to the subject of moral confusion and relativism — neatly anticipating the anti-Darwinians who would follow him. If, he argued, the stars are "not simply lights, as the scriptures affirm them to be, but magnificent worlds," then there arise all sorts of theological conundrums — Are the worlds inhabited? If so, have the first parents be tempted? Have they fallen? Been redeemed? Does each world have a separate redeemer? Or is Christ the redeemer for every world? If so, was his suffering on earth sufficient for all the other worlds? And what of Adam's fall? Did it implicate the inhabitants of all other worlds? "The Christian philosopher must be confounded!" Rowbotham exclaimed. "If his religion be to him a living reality, he will turn with loathing or spurn with indignation and disgust, as he would a poisonous reptile, a system of astronomy which creates in his mind so much confusion and uncertainty!" What a relief, then, to know that it's all garbage, that earth is the only world ever created! How strikingly similar, then, his rejection of secular astronomy was to the creationists' rejection of secular biology.

This is but part of a larger family resemblance, as Schadewald explains in "The Evolution of Bible-Science," a chapter he contributed to the 1984 volume, "Scientists Confront Creationism" (adapted version here). In his introduction, Schadewald wrote:

"For two thousand years, various groups of dogmatists have tried to force the universe to fit their interpretation of Scripture. They have judged and rejected evidence and explanations according to the standard of their own religious beliefs. On scriptural grounds, some have rejected (and continue to reject) the sphericity of the earth, the Copernican system, and the evolution of life on earth. In the last two centuries, flat-earthers, geocentrists, and creationists have adopted a label for their dogmas: Bible-science."

It's obvious why creationists would not want to be associated with flat-earthers, but it's not at all obvious why we should let them get away with it, given how similar their arguments, assumptions and purposes are. In discussing the internal divisions of Bible science, Shadewald wrote:

"Though flat-earthism is as well-supported scripturally and scientifically as creationism, the creationists plainly do not want to be associated with flat-earthers….

"[Y]oung-earth creationism closely resembles the flat-earth movement. In fact, young-earth creationism, geocentrism, and flat-earthism are respectively the liberal, moderate, and conservative branches of the Bible-science tree. The intense hostility expressed by the scientific creationists toward the flat-earthers does not extend to modern geocentrists, who hover on the edge of respectability among creationists. Indeed, though the Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book, the geocentrists have combined forces with liberal creationists to cast the flat-earthers into outer darkness."

And, indeed, the similarities are much more basic than the differences, as he quickly went on to note. In an earlier, 1981 article, he explained more fully:

"Despite their internecine warfare, Bible-Scientists are in broad agreement on a number of issues. They agree on the usefulness of the Bible as a scientific text, the weakness of mere theories, the duplicity of conventional scientists, and the impossibility of reconciling conventional science with the Bible. The creation and flat-earth movements have similar foundations and histories, and both have used similar strategies to propagate their beliefs. Indeed, both believe they are battling the same behind-the-scenes opponent."

Today, more than 30 years after Shadewald wrote those words, belief in the "weakness of mere theories" and "the duplicity of conventional scientists" now extend well beyond Bible science, into the far reaches of the culture war as conservatives see it, including the field of global warming, where conservatives openly parade their contempt for scientific theories, and their suspicion (if not conviction) that scientists are involved in an elaborate deception ("climategate," anyone?). In this same article, Shadewald quoted Rowbotham:

"Let the practise of theorising be abandoned as one oppressive to the reasoning powers, fatal to the full development of truth, and, in every sense, inimical to the solid progress of sound philosophy."

And he went on to say:

Charles K. Johnson, president of the Flat Earth Society, is absolutely vehement about scientific dishonesty. He regularly calls scientists "liars" and "demented dope fiends" and claims that the entire space program is a "carnie game."

With these sorts of venomous sentiments now infusing not just Bible scientists, but the wider conservative audience for global warming denialism, birtherism, groundless claims of "death panels" and massive voter fraud, etc., it seems high time that progressives stop playing defense and start going on offense. Asking Christian conservatives to defend flat-earthism any time they open their mouths would be an excellent place to start. The Bible, after all, is far, far clearer in supporting a flat earth than it is in opposing abortion, much less birth control.

---------------------------------

Paul H. Rosenberg is senior editor at Random Lengths News, a biweekly serving the Los Angeles harbor area. He runs the site Merge Left, a community of progressive thinkers free to submit their own content.

 "I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." -Yahweh(?)/Moses(?) tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-06-13:1982180:BlogPost:1461631 2013-06-13T20:30:00.000Z M.M.J. Gregory http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MuggleinConverse
I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like a guy I'd want to worship!

/sarcasm

No. My thoughts are more similar to this point of view:

Really, it's more like a dad who drowned all of his children except for one kid and was like, "Don't worry. I won't murder you or any of the kids I have from here on out! Well, at least not by drowning all of them in a massive flood... You know I mean it too because I made you a pretty painting."

The truly…

I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like a guy I'd want to worship!
/sarcasm

No. My thoughts are more similar to this point of view:

Really, it's more like a dad who drowned all of his children except for one kid and was like, "Don't worry. I won't murder you or any of the kids I have from here on out! Well, at least not by drowning all of them in a massive flood... You know I mean it too because I made you a pretty painting."

The truly disturbing part of the Noah's Ark story is the fact that it has become a children's story. You can't go shopping for baby merchandise without finding bedding, decor, clothing, picture frames, and other products plastered with happy animal couples riding out the storm in a cute little boat.

Isn't that nice? Some cute animals and an old dude hanging out together. Everyone is getting along, all happy and fed. No one is even choking on the smell of urine! Just don't look under those waves, okay?

Isn't this nice? Arts and crafts time for the kiddos. Let's have fun remembering that time God wiped out everyone except for those eight people! After all, everyone else was evil and he thought, "Hey, let's give the whole incest thing another shot." Poor God. All he wants is righteous followers and everyone keeps messing up:

Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. -Genesis 6:11-13

That's a reasonable reaction, right? World full of violence? MURDER ALL THE PEOPLE!

I didn't grow up with just the cheery images of happy animals and shiny rainbows. Oh no. I was a Jehovah's Witness so I grew up with this book:

Looks nice enough, right? I didn't realize how disturbing the images were until much later in life. I remember most of the pictures even though I can't remember the last time I saw the actual book. I knew exactly what I was looking for when I went to JW.org:

I have had nightmares about that mother and child. Their image was seared into my brain more than anything else in that book. It's a baby. If we're to believe what God told Noah, the baby was corrupt and didn't deserve to live. Think about that for a minute, I'll wait.

...

Properly horrified? Let's move on.

As an adult, I try to imagine what exactly was going through the artist's head. Sure, we can pretend that all the others in the picture are assholes. But the mother and the naked child? Mommy is clinging to her baby for dear life, trying to offer comfort and love in their final moments. It's heart-wrenching and her actions are decidedly not evil.

As marvelous as a rainbow is, I don't think it comes close to dismissing the insane overreaction of a vengeful deity. Isn't the fact that God felt the need to offer up a kind of apology and promise never to repeat his actions proof that the supposedly inerrant God realized that he made a huge mistake? Abusive father indeed. He doesn't seem to have learned from his failure though:

"Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind." -Genesis 9:6

*sigh*

From what I can tell, most Christians accept the Noah's Ark tale as literal truth. JW.org also has the accompanying stories I read when my mind was much more pliant. A few gems from The Great Flood:

"The giants were gone now. No more would they be around to hurt people. All of them had died, along with their mothers and the rest of the bad people."
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind more Andres in the world.

"God now spoke to Noah. He said: 'Go out of the ark. Take your whole family and the animals with you.' They had been inside the ark for more than a whole year. So we can just imagine how happy they all were to be outside again and to be alive!"
I think I would have had survivor's guilt personally.

Someone please explain to me how the inclusion of lots of animals makes this a children's story. This is a story about ecocide and near complete omnicide, including infanticide. Wrapping the mass destruction of life in rainbows and primary colors does not diminish the staggering horror of a global flood directed by a supposedly loving God.

You can't even get 10 chapters into the first book of the Bible before it is stunningly obvious that God is the villain.

Originally Posted on Wary Wonderlust
 Augustine and His Confessions tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2013-03-11:1982180:BlogPost:1272014 2013-03-11T05:10:22.000Z Real Life James Bond http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Skeptic1122 Anyone who has read Augustine's Confessions will know his views on God. One view that I have been thinking about is how God is unchanging. One thing God must not have, to fit this description (according to Augustine), is emotions. This is something that many Christians and Catholics would agree with. However, there is a problem because in the Bible there is evidence of God having emotions. Take the First of the Ten Commandments:

 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness… Anyone who has read Augustine's Confessions will know his views on God. One view that I have been thinking about is how God is unchanging. One thing God must not have, to fit this description (according to Augustine), is emotions. This is something that many Christians and Catholics would agree with. However, there is a problem because in the Bible there is evidence of God having emotions. Take the First of the Ten Commandments:

 "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God,"

 The key word here is JEALOUS. This comes straight out of the Bible (and the First Commandment). There are two problems:

 Problem 1 - If the Ten Commandments are true then God has emotions, however if Augustine is true then God doesn't have emotions.
 Problem 2 - If God has emotions then God is not unchanging, however if God doesn't have emotions then God is unchanging.

 Let us examine these problems. If the Ten Commandments are true then God is unchanging. What does this mean? Does it mean that his word is unchanging? That the lessons in the Bible are for all eternity (since the Bible is the Word [or Inspired Word] of God)? Here are the arguments that I get from this:

 Premise 1: If the Ten Commandments are true, then God is changing.
 Premise 2: If God is changing, then His word is not eternal (by 'eternal' I mean his word/teachings are always relevant).
 Premise 3: If God's word is not eternal, then all the lessons from the Bible can be disregarded.
 Conclusion: The Bible can be regarded as immoral.

 Premise 1: If the Ten Commandments are false, then God is unchanging
 Premise 2: If God is unchanging, then his word is eternal
 Premise 3: If God's word is unchanging, then all lessons from the Bible are relevant today.
 Conclusion: If all lessons from the Bible are relevant today, then it is permissible to kill people who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2 - "Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.")

 - It should be noted that in place of killing people who work on the Sabbath you could really put anything that seems immoral from the Bible (Leviticus 20:13 - "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." etc.) So if God's word is unchanging then it is ok to kill homosexuals and people who work on Sunday.

 I think that this post is more powerful left up to the reader to decide what to think about it. Please let me know your thoughts on this. Bible Review: Genesis 3-6 tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-06-27:1982180:BlogPost:1147799 2012-06-27T23:53:16.000Z David Conrad http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidConrad

When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands." Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. – GENESIS 5:28-31

My Kindle app informs me that after a rather lengthy preface and six chapters of Genesis I…

When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son and called his name Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed, this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands." Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died. – GENESIS 5:28-31

My Kindle app informs me that after a rather lengthy preface and six chapters of Genesis I am 0% of the way through this edition of the ESV. There's a long way to go, but I'm enjoying myself so far and am eagerly pushing forward.

Genesis 3 is the well-known story of Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. Of all the chapters in all the books of the Bible this is clearly one of the most influential, and like Genesis 1 it probably deserves a more thorough treatment than I am going to give it. It's impressive to realize just how many times I have heard the story of "the Fall," and how many variations and criticisms of it I have been exposed to even as a young, secular American born near the end of the twentieth century. Genesis 3 is etched not only in our collective Western and perhaps global psyche but in my own individual memory. I've read Milton, and I frequently think about his version of events, but Paradise Lost didn't cross my mind during the couple of minutes it took to get through this chapter. The non-subtle gender dynamics and God's strangely gender-specific punishment of Eve, so often highlighted in critiques and retellings, was of course impossible to ignore, so I would be remiss not to acknowledge it here. I'd like to know more about the exact properties of the forbidden tree (by the way, were there actually two trees, one for knowledge and one for eternal life? I wonder how things would have played out differently if humans had eaten the fruit of the latter rather than the former.) The flaming sword blocking the entrance to Eden was a nice touch — was it the first sword that was created, and did humans base their design of future blades on this original, divinely-created one? I'm somehow more interested in these props than in the story itself and whatever it purports to tell us about human nature.

On the other hand, I found Genesis 4 and 5 genuinely engaging. Of course Cain kills Abel in another story we all know pretty well, but in short order there's a second murder which I hadn't heard about previously. The culprit is a man named Lamech. He's the great-great-great-grandson of Cain and he has two wives, Adah and Zillah. We don't even know the name of Cain's wife (let alone when or how she came to exist, another one of those relatively cliched criticisms), but we are given these specific details about Lamech's family. Anyway, Lamech murders someone for "wounding" him and states, "If Cain's revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech's is seventy-seven fold." I think this is all we hear about Lamech (Wikipedia tells me that he is NOT the same Lamech as the father of Noah mentioned in the passage at the top of this post; there are two Lamechs around the same time period.) The brief story of the polygamous, murderous Lamech must have meant something to the author, but it seems quite random to me. It actually feels like a reference to some separate folk tale that contemporary readers and listeners would have recognized and that storytellers imported into the Genesis text in an early example of crossover fiction. I think this Lamech needs a spinoff series.

Genesis 5 lists Adam's lineage through a series of first-born sons and gives the precise ages of each in years. This is the section of the Bible where people are said to have lived into the hundreds of years. I'd heard of this, and in particular of Methuselah who lived the longest at 969 years. The descendants of Adam typically decreased in age with each generation, which at first I took as a metaphor for their increasing distance from godly perfection. But things got complicated with Enoch, the father of Methusaleh and five or six generations removed from Adam, who lived a very short time (a paltry 365 years, poor guy) but was said to have "walked with God," something not said about everyone. That's the kind of detail that undercuts my preconceived notions and my expectations of narrative simplicity, and I like it. As we see in the excerpt at the top of this post, the chapter concludes with the birth of Noah and what may be the Bible's first prophecy: that Noah will somehow bring relief to humanity. Knowing what we all know about Noah, I find it hard to see how his actions directly help anybody but his immediate family and animals, but we shall see.

I don't think I need to comment on Genesis 6. A chapter-by-chapter commentary is unnecessary and tedious, and this post strays too close to it already. Like I said, I've got a very long road ahead of me, and I've got to be selective if I hope to keep up the pace and not burn out on the blog. As I get further along and further away from these relatively familiar stories, I think it will be easier to pick and choose what to write about. I also think things will only get more interesting as I encounter obscure, new-to-me characters like Enoch, Lamech, and Lamech.
 Re-posting my Bible reviews on Think Atheist tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-06-25:1982180:BlogPost:1146083 2012-06-25T01:56:59.000Z David Conrad http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DavidConrad
Hi all,

I've just joined the Think Atheist community. Not long ago I created a Twitter account for my blog, An Atheist Reviews the Bible, and I began to follow this site's Twitter feed despite not really knowing what Think Atheist was all about. I finally decided to take the plunge and sign up.

A little about myself: I'm a lifelong atheist, never having believed in a deity. I was raised in a happy…

Hi all,

I've just joined the Think Atheist community. Not long ago I created a Twitter account for my blog, An Atheist Reviews the Bible, and I began to follow this site's Twitter feed despite not really knowing what Think Atheist was all about. I finally decided to take the plunge and sign up.

A little about myself: I'm a lifelong atheist, never having believed in a deity. I was raised in a happy and mostly non-religious family. I am 28 years old, happily married, and currently a graduate student at the University of Texas in Austin. I study U.S. history and a bit of East Asian history as well. I was a JET for two years (for those who don't know, that means I was an assistant English teacher in rural Japan).

As I mentioned, I am currently reading the Bible cover-to-cover and blogging about it. I think what distinguishes my blog is that I adopt a mostly non-confrontational attitude toward the text, reading it as I would an old work of fiction such as Sir Thomas Malory's "Le Morte d'Arthur," which I read not long before starting this project. In each post I try to draw out some elements that surprised or interested me and write a few paragraphs in response to them. I have also included a movie review in the blog and may work in other kinds of content as I make my way through the tome.

I'd like to re-post my blog's content to this blog on Think Atheist, in hopes of reaching a wider audience and perhaps inviting more discussion. So, unless that violates any rules, I will start doing that soon. I'll also poke around in the forums here and join other people's discussions, of course.

Thanks and talk to you soon!
 How Christianity Was INVENTED tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-03-05:1982180:BlogPost:1072887 2012-03-05T19:01:19.000Z Samuel Butler http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SamuelButler
HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED

Posted on January 21, 2012 …

HOW CHRISTIANITY WAS INVENTED

Posted on January 21, 2012

Emperor Constantine

Christianity is a copycat religion created by Emperor Constantine (for political purposes) based upon a myth (The Persian savior god Mithra, crucified 600 B.C. ? 400 B.C.?), which was based on other similar myths, all the way back to Chrishna of India (a mythical god that some claim was "crucified" around 1200 B.C.). There were 16 mythical crucifixions before Christ. The belief in the crucifixion of Gods was prevalent in various oriental or heathen countries long prior to the reported crucifixion of Christ. Of the 16 crucifixions, most were born of a virgin and about half of them on December 25th.

There were too many religions in Rome in 325 A.D. A Council was called in an endeavor to amalgamate the many religions of the Roman Empire into one. Christianity plagiarized older myths and legends historicized to suit the Roman Catholic Church while combining the numerous religions existing at the time (Krishna, Horus, Mithraism, Osirian, Isis, and many other mystery religions). For unity and to stop all the conflicts between the numerous religions…

Christianity was INVENTED.

Eusebius (Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine "Father of Church History") attended the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. and was a friend of Emperor Constantine, who also attended and made the keynote speech. Constantine instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council. Eusebius has been described as follows: Jacob Burckhardt (19th century cultural historian) dismissed Eusebius as "the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity". He has been also described as "a political theologian". He favored doctoring his history in his own words to "be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity". Edward Gibbon (18th century historian –"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire") dismissed his testimony on the number of martyrs and impugned his honesty.

(To be clear on this matter, I say don't trust Eusebius's reports of the Apostles or how the Apostles died, and be suspicious of all of his writings.) - Author Samuel Butler

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce fifty sumptuous copies to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art (ibid.).

Bishop Eusebius

These orders, said Eusebius, were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms (Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p.36). They were the New Testimonies, and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record. With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the word of the Roman Saviour God (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonising in the Roman Empire.

He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council burnt and declared that any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders (beheaded).

NONE OF THESE 50 NEW TESTAMENTS EXIST TODAY OR ARE ADMITTED TO EXISTING!

THIS NEW TESTAMENT WAS THE OFFICIAL BOOK OF THE NEW UNIFIED RELIGION OF CONSTANTINE NOT THE BIBLE!

ALL OTHER BOOKS TO BE BURNED ,THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE TORAH/OLD TESTAMENT

IT INCLUDED BURNING THE GREAT LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA IN EGYPT 391 A.D.

In 391 A.D., Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan ("heathen" they were also called) temples. The Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria (Egypt) complied with this request. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt, the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, (and) the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples (and) then he destroyed the Serapeum. -Historia Ecclesiastica

The Serapeum housed the Great Library of Alexandria.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_alexandria

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ?

Federic William Farrar

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life. This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:

"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind … there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels." (The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:

"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century." (Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence: the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable" (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.), and later Pope Paul III expressed similar sentiments, saying that there was no valid document to demonstrate the existence of Christ. He confessed that Jesus never existed, adding that he was no other than the sun, adored in its Mithraic sect…"

BUT WAIT, WHAT DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH SAY ABOUT THIS?

You will be surprised:

From: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm :

What (your local) Church doesn't know and/or wouldn't want you to know, if they knew.

It has often been emphasized that Christianity is unlike any other religion, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have occurred during a short period of time some 20 centuries ago. Those stories are presented in the New Testament, and as new evidence is revealed it will become clear that they do not represent historical realities.

The Church agrees, saying:

"Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent, take for granted." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, p. 712)

The Church makes extraordinary admissions about its New Testament. For example, when discussing the origin of those writings, "the most distinguished body of academic opinion ever assembled" (Catholic Encyclopedias, Preface) admits that the Gospels "do not go back to the first century of the Christian era" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, p. 137, pp. 655-6).

This statement conflicts with priesthood assertions that the earliest Gospels were progressively written during the decades following the death of the Gospel (sic) Jesus Christ. In a remarkable aside, the Church further admits that, "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"– (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

That is some 350 years after the time the Church claims that a Jesus Christ walked the sands of Palestine, and here the true story of Christian origins slips into one of the biggest black holes in history. There is, however, a reason why there were no New Testaments until the fourth century: they were not written until then, and here we find evidence of the greatest misrepresentation of all time. It was British-born Flavius Constantinus (Constantine, originally Custennyn or Custennin) (272-337) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament.

Yes, but what about references to the four Gospels supposedly before the 3rd Century A.D.?

For example: What about Tacitus, Roman Historian, who wrote about the persecutions of the early "Christians"?

Regarding Tacitus, (Senator and Historian of the Roman Empire) these writings supporting the persecution were mysteriously found in the 15th century in the forests of Germany, following a reward offered by Leo X for old writings, and following a history of forgeries in Catholicism: In any case, there has been serious questions about the integrity of the famous passage about Christians.

From: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/tacitus.html

Gordon Stein denied the authenticity of this passage, arguing:

(1) no corroborating evidence that Nero persecuted the Christians
(2) there was not a multitude of Christians in Rome at that date
(3) Christian was not a common term in the first century
(4) Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city
(5) Nero did not start the fire in Rome
(6) Tacitus does not use the name Jesus
(7) Tacitus assumes his readers know Pontius Pilate

Yes, but what about Josephus?

His reference to Jesus in Testimonium Flavianum has been claimed as a later addition, (Forgery-Author) not questioning the authenticity of the main work.

See: http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

Yes, but what about Pliny the Younger's letter to Emperor Trajan 112 A.D.(Pliny was not a contemporary of Jesus, and he never mentions "Jesus"?) Pliny the Younger (c. 61 – c. 112), the provincial governor of Pontus and Bithynia, wrote to Emperor Trajan c. 112 concerning how to deal with Christians, who refused to worship the emperor, and instead worshiped "Christus".

What about that?

Charles Guignebert

Charles Guignebert, who does not doubt that Jesus of the Gospels lived in Gallilee in the 1st century, nevertheless dismisses this letter as acceptable historical evidence:

"Only the most robust credulity could reckon this assertion as admissible evidence for the historicity of Jesus" –http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Nevertheless, I was concerned about the possibility of far older Gospels when I was stating that Christianity was invented around 325 A.D., but the research thread leads back to Eusebius, the FORGER, ("Papias, quoted by Eusebius…").

Eusebius was the dishonest Church Father historian of antiquity who made up a lot of Church history. "we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity". The research thread (about older Gospels) also leads to the "spurious" writings of Irenaeus: http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/gospels-late-forgeries/blog-249881/ .

Yes, but what about pre-nicene so-called "Early Christian" (Gnostic?) writings? They disagreed with each other, were riddled with conflict and forgeries, of questionable and confusing timing and origin , and not coherent enough for an organized religion. So the myth of Mithra, the Persian Savior God, was chosen by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Eusebius as the model to create the new religion , Christianity.

In any case, the Catholic Encyclopedia itself supports the thesis that the Gospels of Christianity were written no earlier than the 4th Century: "the earliest of the extant manuscripts [of the New Testament], it is true, do not date back beyond the middle of the fourth century AD"– (Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., pp. 656-7).

 The Bible & Science tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-26:1982180:BlogPost:1036069 2012-01-26T20:17:39.000Z Claudia Mercedes Mazzucco http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ClaudiaMercedesMazzucco
The Bible is not a book of science, though the first Chapter of Genesis, as the nineteenth-century sociologist Max Weber points out, is the necessary prelude to science. It represents the first time people saw the universe as the product of a single creative will, and therefore as intelligible rather than capricious and mysterious.

Nature has no divinity. Indeed, in the Hebrew Bible, it became "undeified" as G. W. F. Hegel put it. Hegel observed (in lectures notes his students…

The Bible is not a book of science, though the first Chapter of Genesis, as the nineteenth-century sociologist Max Weber points out, is the necessary prelude to science. It represents the first time people saw the universe as the product of a single creative will, and therefore as intelligible rather than capricious and mysterious.

Nature has no divinity. Indeed, in the Hebrew Bible, it became "undeified" as G. W. F. Hegel put it. Hegel observed (in lectures notes his students published after his death) that it was the Israelite religion described in the Bible that altered the very nature of nature itself. This is an interesting point, which would explain the first verse neatly:

"In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

It means that the heaven was created first. That is: earth is not the center of the universe. In the scientific view (the Big Bang) there is also considered to be a beginning, not only for Earth, but for the entire Universe. This does represent a point of agreement between them.

Not only is the Old Testament Israelite religion viewed as historical, in contrast to the nature religions of the pagans, but the nature of the Old Testament is also seen as unimportant and inert, in contrast with the sacred nature of the pagans. In his 1965 classic, The Secular City, theologian Harvey Cox wrote that the Bible "opened nature for science" by beginning a "disenchantment process" that wrested nature free from Gods and God. "This disenchantment of the natural world," Cox wrote, "provides an absolute precondition for the development of modern science."

In itself nature is not dramatic, it is not wonderful, it is not miraculous; it is a mean. The great Italian Israeli Bible scholar Umberto Cassuto described this Israelite rejection of nature poetically in his commentary on the creation story in the Book of Genesis:

"Then came the Torah and soared aloft, as on eagle's wings, above all these nations. Not many gods but One God … not a deity associated with nature and identified with it wholly or in part, but a God who stands absolutely above nature, and outside of it." (Cassutto 1961, 8)

Bearing in mind that autistic people are deprived of theory of mind, they cannot therefore do religion. "God wants you to do …" is a meaningless statement. What you don't know is that neither can we be brainwashed by voices of disbelief – secular atheism. Where Christians believe that Yahweh is the all-powerful and all-knowing creator of the universe, Skeptical atheists believe that nature is all there is. As Gunter Grass wrote, "The only time I'm religious is when I'm sitting in the woods with paper and pencil, admiring what nature has come up with." I've never been awestruck by nature. And I am not curious or fascinated to explain away the magic of reality. There is no magic to explain away.
 An idea for arguing with Christians tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-19:1982180:BlogPost:1030414 2012-01-19T20:41:29.000Z RubyR http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/RubyR
I had the thought today that the bible verse John 14:13 - "And whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son"(Jesus) would be a great way to stump a Christian. Tell them that they should ask Jesus to convert you right then and there. Although I don't expect any sort of logical response, it begs the question why a believer can't get Jesus to perform a fundamental act of Christianity for someone who is trying to spread the "good…

I had the thought today that the bible verse John 14:13 - "And whatsoever you shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son"(Jesus) would be a great way to stump a Christian. Tell them that they should ask Jesus to convert you right then and there. Although I don't expect any sort of logical response, it begs the question why a believer can't get Jesus to perform a fundamental act of Christianity for someone who is trying to spread the "good news".
 Reading the bible... for our benefit tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2012-01-19:1982180:BlogPost:1029945 2012-01-19T14:47:15.000Z Peter http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Darknesshade
Okay, so we all know that the bible can be pretty hard to read. Not just because the bible is poorly written, but also because it makes no sense and propagates many upon many questions through our heads.

I must admit here that I haven't read the whole bible and fell victim to its horrendous format and disparity from logic.

On the other hand, I think it can be a useful tool. I'm sure that many of you have found reasons for being Atheist from reading the bible, as have I, but I…

Okay, so we all know that the bible can be pretty hard to read. Not just because the bible is poorly written, but also because it makes no sense and propagates many upon many questions through our heads.

I must admit here that I haven't read the whole bible and fell victim to its horrendous format and disparity from logic.

On the other hand, I think it can be a useful tool. I'm sure that many of you have found reasons for being Atheist from reading the bible, as have I, but I think the bible can do more than just that. Throughout my college life, I have come across many academic issues. Upon contemplation, it all really came down to whether or not I asked enough questions. I don't know if it's pride or anxiety or any other reason but I've found it hard to set up my school work in order to find the questions I need and then actually go up to someone and ask them. This is my fault and it has lead me down many horrible paths. We NEED to ask questions. Asking questions is pretty much the foundation of science and engineering, and is most likely how they started. Why is the sky blue? Why do volcanoes erupt? What causes tornadoes? Simply saying "god" is highly ineffective and insufficient, and thus the scientific method was born.

How does this relate to the bible?

From my experience of reading an extremely small portion of the bible (lol), it has brought up a multitude of questions and concerns for me. Why does this need to happen? How is god testing us here? What parts do people even consider to be true/false and how do they determine the difference between the two? I would assume this trend of ongoing questions would carry on throughout the whole text, which brings me to my point. The bible seems to be a great medium for interpreting and bringing forth questions. Reading the bible makes you think and ask why this and that. I believe that if I read the bible at an early age, I would have developed much better questioning methods and would probably be more inclined to actually ask them.
So why not use the bible as a tool to develop and promote our questioning methods, to help mold it into a system where we can see what needs to be asked in order to understand the foundations of the concepts we are learning?

One might bring up the use of textbooks though. Why not use those? Why not read something consisting of verifiable material and can be proven true? This would not work because they give the answers. They tell you the reasons why this and that, they explain to you how things work, they answer your questions. If all our questions are answered before they are even asked, how will we even know we had those questions in the first place? How would we even realize certain questions HAD to be asked in order to figure out details, processes, configurations and requirements for events and methods in real life?

The key part of the bible is the lack of information and answers. Without these, we are then cued into questioning. We immediately, out of natural curiosity if not doubt, question the material given. I think this in itself can be useful to us, especially as a eye opening and thought process developing experience during our earlier stages of life.

Should I become a father in the future, I think I might consider using the bible as a tool to boost my child's (children's) learning experience (skipping the whole indoctrination part of course).

... Am I worried about them turning into christians? no. As long as they are happy with their lives, don't infringe on others, and ask the right questions, I am fine (Because if they ask the right questions, they will most likely avoid religion...).
 The Bible goes Hollywood!!! tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-11-12:1982180:BlogPost:929118 2011-11-12T12:57:03.000Z Boatman http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/GordonMalcolm
I came across this on the website http://www.canoe.ca,.

The scene is a Hollywood movie studio boardroom. S.H., the studio head, is probing his staff for some "blockbuster movie ideas".

One tidbit-

"S.H. (reading aloud): Holy Bible. (shrugs) Doesn't ring a bell."

Find the rest at …

I came across this on the website http://www.canoe.ca,.

The scene is a Hollywood movie studio boardroom. S.H., the studio head, is probing his staff for some "blockbuster movie ideas".

One tidbit-

"S.H. (reading aloud): Holy Bible. (shrugs) Doesn't ring a bell."

Find the rest at http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/2011/11/11/18955606.html

(I love the last line!)
 Where Life Actually Begins in the Bible. Hold Your Breath! tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-08-18:1982180:BlogPost:790095 2011-08-18T16:22:43.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
Roughly half of Americans believe that life beings at conception. Why do they believe that? Because their pastors like to read passages like Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" which seems to show that he was a being before he was born. Or Isaiah 45:9 "He made my…

Roughly half of Americans believe that life beings at conception. Why do they believe that? Because their pastors like to read passages like Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations" which seems to show that he was a being before he was born. Or Isaiah 45:9 "He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver." which in it's full context seems to show that he was planned by God and because of that, the inference is that you shouldn't interfere with God's plan. These are great conceptually, but they fly in the face of other passages about where life begins. They are the words of men speaking about how great they are. That they are God's chosen ones. This alone should cause skepticism, but it doesn't. Pastors and ministers preach on and ignore whole concepts and other passages. So what else does the Bible say about abortion?

When it comes to passages, one that stands out is Exodus 21:22 "If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [footnote substitutes miscarriage] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." In reading this passage you see the footnote showing that if a miscarriage happens, "but there is no serious injury", you owe money. Where else in the Bible can I find money as the consequence for taking a life? It seems quite clear that the Bible is saying that no life is taken from a miscarriage. Maybe you'll hang up on the translation, so let's move on to the next one.

Numbers 5:11-22 has a passage about testing your pregnant wife for her fidelity. God prescribes a way to do this with poison. It ends with this, Numbers 5:22 "May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries." Two times in this passage it shows that God is prescribing a miscarriage if the woman was unfaithful. What of the sanctity of life? But again, maybe the translation is wrong. So let's move on.

Conceptually, most US Christians see life as beginning when the egg is fertilized. This act would only happen with the blessing of God. You don't have the right to subvert that will is the basic premise because you don't understand God's will. But is that where life begins according to the Bible? There is a concept called Nephesh. It's a common Hebrew phrase used in the Bible. So common that it's used over 700 times in the Old Testament. The basic premise is that Nephesh is delivered as the "breath of life" and it brings the soul into the body which makes them a living being. My understanding of the concept is that it's delivered by the Holy Spirit, but feel free to correct me on that. I'm inferring that. Jewish tradition is that abortion isn't murder because the fetus cannot receive the breath of life. So where can I find Nephesh as it relates to birth and the beginning of life? How about Genesis 2:7. "Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being." What are we seeing here? Adam is formed by God. His body exists. But yet he isn't a living being. It's not until the breath of life (nephesh) is delivered does he become a living being. Carrying this line of thinking over to a fertilized egg, it's never had the breath of life delivered. This is the Bible folks. I don't even have to make this shit up. It illustrates a clear conceptual point of where life begins. Don't believe me yet?

Ezekiel 37 shows a valley of dried up bones. Ezekiel is looking for an army and asks God if he can turn these bones into an army. The Lords response, " Dry bones, hear the word of the LORD! This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.'" Conceptually we have the same scenario as the formation of Adam. We have a body being built. It's fully assembled and yet it isn't alive until it receives Nephesh, or the breath of life. A repeat of a the concept in different books. Could the different authors be understanding it differently? Moses wrote Genesis (debatable) and Ezekiel is auto-biographical as well. So the concept was widespread back at the time of the writing of the Bible. Life did not begin until the breath of life was present. This concept largely removes the question of translations in the Exodus and Numbers passages as well, because the position remains consistent that there is no life until one receives breath. The only things that contradict that position are claims of self-importance by Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Why is this important? Many Christians vote solely on the abortion position. They are fanatical about it. You could be a common street junkie versus a well-respected individual in politics, but if you are pro-life and the respected individual is pro-choice, votes will roll in for you in many areas of the country. Whenever you hear someone equating pro-life with the Bible, you should be armed with these passages. If you want to grab the ear of a believer and show them the light, nothing grabs that ear like a Biblical passage. More importantly, hitting them with the overall concept may cause them to ask what other lies have their pastors been telling them and then maybe we can have a reasoned debate once they are disarmed.

 Christian Doctrine vs the Founding of the US tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-07-19:1982180:BlogPost:744680 2011-07-19T06:30:00.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
We often hear from people of all degrees of belief that the "US was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs". You'll hear Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman mention the writings of the founders. I've helped shape a law and you can find my writings. I would hardly suggest that that Construction Crane Bill is Atheist, Liberal, or Omnivorous. My opinions have no bearing on what the law passed was. We have the law, let's judge based on that rather than mining obscure quotes of little to no…

We often hear from people of all degrees of belief that the "US was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs". You'll hear Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman mention the writings of the founders. I've helped shape a law and you can find my writings. I would hardly suggest that that Construction Crane Bill is Atheist, Liberal, or Omnivorous. My opinions have no bearing on what the law passed was. We have the law, let's judge based on that rather than mining obscure quotes of little to no relevance.

The Constitution was adopted in 1789. The US Constitution at that time did not include any bills. They simply laid out how the government would work. So to say that the framers had some intent of religion behind the Separation of Powers laid out in Articles 1-7 is laughable. It's a clear statement of ignorance. Congress has the right to coin money. Congress has the right to establish a Post Office. How Spiritual!

So what are those making the claims talking about? Really, it's about the Bill of Rights. These aren't going to be much better for them. The Bill of Rights were formed in 1789 and introduced by James Madison. They were formed off of the writings of John Locke whom wasn't religious even by today's standards. In Letters Concerning Toleration his final point on keeping religion in society was, "Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity." Source This is hardly the type of writing that leads to the support for a religiously based government. But I don't really want to fall into their mode of arguing quotes, so just know that the Bill of Rights was not written by the Founders in the Constitutional Convention. But there is another critical source for the Bill of Rights. The Virginia Declaration of Rights. These rights are all about equality. Article 2, "That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people;" (Some may note that a "Creator" is noted in these rights. I would suggest that you read the whole of the text and see how much equality is listed in this text and ask how that squares up with the subjugation of women, Jesus calling a woman a dog, or the support of slavery in the Bible.) The writings of those signers of the Constitution simply aren't relevant because they aren't the authors of the Bill of Rights. Again, it would be like me saying because I vote for a law, it's now an Atheist Law.

Let's look at these Bill of Rights, especially in light of Judeo-Christian doctrine. The First Amendment calls for religious freedom. You can have any God. You can write about anything which would include criticism of religion. You can say anything about God. If we dig in the the J/C doctrine we find that the Ten Commandments were central. The first commandment is, Thou Shall Hath no other Gods before me. Odd. I'm going to base a set of laws on a religion and the first law violates said religion's first rule. Then we move on to the Second Amendment which is about the ability to defend yourself against a government. In Romans 13, Jesus himself says to submit to the authorities because no government exists without God's authority. Wow! The Second Amendment is against the teachings of the Bible as well? In fact, the entire list is about limiting the power of the government, which is contrary to what the Bible teaches. Consistently they are about submission to power. Sacrifice to Authority. The Bill of Rights in spirit is the opposite of that.

So what caused the founding of this country? Arguably, it was the taxation. a 1% tax as I understand it. So our ancestors had enough of the "heavy taxation". So what was Jesus's position on taxation? Matthew 21 finds Jesus saying "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's.'" So even before the country was founded, Jesus and the attitude of the people was divided. Who could have guessed?

We could do this all day, but no one would read it. The facts are clear when you stop to look at them. The religion of the founders as we know it is a bunk argument. There is no religion in the original Constitution. If you see laws that are religious in the Bill of Rights, you should compare it to what is said in the Bible, and not what you imagine the Bible to say. This country is about standing up for yourself and limited government, while the Bible is about submission and the power of authorities. I don't see how the two go together.

 Religiosity is Not Graded on a Curve tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-06-14:1982180:BlogPost:704941 2011-06-14T21:40:14.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
We've all heard Christians justifying their behavior or saying that God will forgive this or that. Today I read a post on Reddit that was suggesting that Apostasy was not a crime punishable by death in Islam. The writer reasoned that they were once a part of a progressive sect of Islam and not in a country based on Sharia Law. This irks me. It irks me when Christians do it too. You have a book of rules. This book of rules was written by a supreme leader so great that you must devote your…

We've all heard Christians justifying their behavior or saying that God will forgive this or that. Today I read a post on Reddit that was suggesting that Apostasy was not a crime punishable by death in Islam. The writer reasoned that they were once a part of a progressive sect of Islam and not in a country based on Sharia Law. This irks me. It irks me when Christians do it too. You have a book of rules. This book of rules was written by a supreme leader so great that you must devote your lives to said leader. You even go out and promote it. But you can't believe Law A or B, so you will be forgiven if you violate it. No punishment awaits you? Give me a break.

The rules laid out in the Qua'ran and the Bible are not open to interpretation. They are not buffet style where you pick what you want to believe or follow and then Jesus or St. Peter will tally up your score at the end. No where does either text suggest that. These books, if written by a God, are written very succinctly and largely leave little question as to what they will do to you if you fail. Example after example of the wages of sin are found in both texts. Moses didn't get into the Promised Land because he lacked faith that water was going to come from a stone after being struck by a staff (He had already tried it once) and you think that you can toss aside which ever rule doesn't suit you? "I can lust after whomever I want because Jesus couldn't have been serious." Yeah, I really enjoy the pranks that Jesus and God play in the Bible.

 Look, either you believe that the book is the revealed word, or you know it's a pack of lies. If you know and advocate that a Holy Book is the word of God, who empowered you to challenge it? You either follow that book and justly killing innocents and enforce arbitrary laws as commanded, or why call yourself a follower of that religion? "I thought that we were being graded on a curve?" might not be the phrase that gets you into heaven.
 How Harold Camping got it Wrong tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-05-22:1982180:BlogPost:671929 2011-05-22T02:00:00.000Z ungodlynews http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ungodlynews So here it is, getting close to the end of the day in the Mountain Standard Time Zone. No rapture, no excitement, no intense shaking of the ground beneath my feet. How did Harold Camping get it so wrong?

Let's just say it's in those numbers he's been playing with. He forgot one important step, which I will now correct for him and give you the real date of the rapture. You see, Harold forgot how much the lord loves things in threes. Father, son and holy ghost. Jesus rising three days… So here it is, getting close to the end of the day in the Mountain Standard Time Zone. No rapture, no excitement, no intense shaking of the ground beneath my feet. How did Harold Camping get it so wrong?

Let's just say it's in those numbers he's been playing with. He forgot one important step, which I will now correct for him and give you the real date of the rapture. You see, Harold forgot how much the lord loves things in threes. Father, son and holy ghost. Jesus rising three days after his brain stopped functioning. The Ark of the Covenant contained three sacred objects. David "bowed down before Jonathan three times, with his face to the ground" and Daniel regularly prayed three times a day giving thanks to god. I could go on and on and on. Three truly seems to be the magic number.

So Harold isn't finished yet, for he has only predicted the rapture twice. The first was September 6, 1994, and of course today's prediction, May 21, 2011. What good is that?! Perhaps he was thinking of the old "animals came two by two" business, but Genesis 7:2 reads "Of every clean beast thou shalt take thee by sevens, the male and his female." So really, two was not the obvious choice, quite poor really. What we need form Harold Camping is a trinity of predictions to make sure we get to the final end of days calculation. So, between the two now historical Camping dates of doom there were 6,102 days. Note that the numbers 6, 2 and 1 are in this number as well as Camping's prediction dates. Spooky. Now, it would seem reasonable that to find the next date, one should simply add the days between doomsday one and doomsday two. The lord would appreciate balance between rapture dates, I am sure. It gives folks time to recuperate from the disappointment. Now, adding 6,102 to today's date would bring us to February 3, 2028. Holy trinity Batman! There is the three we are looking for! Incidentally, 3 divides into 2028 exactly by 676. I have no idea what the significance of 676 means but it seems too important not to mention.

There you have it. Harold Camping got it wrong simply because he wasn't reading his bible numbers correctly. Now that I have shown him the error of his ways, he can comfortably state with absolute certainly that the third time will be the charm. Start putting away some dough, we're going to need some new "Save the date!" billboards. The Bible is NOT Fiction- some thoughts tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-05-21:1982180:BlogPost:670160 2011-05-21T06:24:01.000Z demcmanamy3 http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/demcmanamy3
I like the idea that this article is trying to get across. i think it would have more power if the Iliad replaced the Odyssey as the comparative tool though. The main thrust of the article is a very good point about historical value and have thought this to be a fascinating concept. And although the odyssey gave some insight into the thought process or psyche of early bronze age people, I don't think it as historically valuable as the Iliad.

 One reason for this - Arthur Schliemann…

I like the idea that this article is trying to get across. i think it would have more power if the Iliad replaced the Odyssey as the comparative tool though. The main thrust of the article is a very good point about historical value and have thought this to be a fascinating concept. And although the odyssey gave some insight into the thought process or psyche of early bronze age people, I don't think it as historically valuable as the Iliad.

 One reason for this - Arthur Schliemann used descriptions in the Iliad to actually locate the city of Troy (or at least a place that has remarkable likeness to what's described) Later excavations and carbon dating at the site placed it to being a sieged city during the time described in the Iliad that most likely suffered an earthquake. This led many scholars to decipher the idea of the Trojan horse as a metaphor used to describe the earthquakes damage which allowed a greek victory, so it wasn't really an act of the god Poseidon, who counted among many of his symbols, the trident the horse and used earthquakes as Zeus used lightning.

As for those that dismiss the Bible's historical value by tying it wholly to divine inspiration sighting greek legend as not divinely inspired, i think you're off the mark. You have to understand that within the greek pantheon certain human actions are attributed to certain gods. Inspiration was not that high on the list, therefore was relegated to a lesser deity known as a muse. Zeuss, in the greek mind, had higher matters at hand. Those of you that dismiss the Bible's historical value because of the actions and beliefs of fools that sight it as a source- congratulations, youre more advanced than the people that use the bible to justify and commit atrocities. Dismissing it b/c of them leads me to think you aren't realizing it in fact has historical value. You are more advanced, just not by a whole lot. If you think i'm wrong, maybe you should keep reading. If you think I'm a jerk, then you should absolutely keep reading!

Moving on... in the greek mind, this sort of thing was divinely inspired. They are simply assigning things to what they felt was apparent. Now, the same can and should be said of the Bible. It is not completely fiction. I'll use some things from the new testament... Herod did exist, Pontius Pilatus did exist, the Pharises did exist, the Roman occupation of Palestine happened. The Bible, although not clearly one hundred percent the actual historical record of what happened at the dawn of the common era, does give insight. Being mentioned in the Bible is not equal to non existence. Roman historians recorded all these people and happenings i just mentioned.

 Now lets get to the main character of these books. DId Achilles exist? Probably, or at least someone like him did. He was a great Warrior and led a pretty effective army, so much so that someone decided to tell as story about him that made it through time. Was this guy's name Achilles, you can't say. But theres a good possibility it was, the written history for the time just doesn't exist.. Was he the son of a god. No. Did he inspire people. Yes. DId jesus Exist? Absolutely. Why is this so much more easily verified than Achilles? Corroborating non religious history. Given the improved historians of the time ( it was thousands of years after the Iliad- an early bronze age story.) Josephus the roman historian wrote about him and did so by recording the actions of Jesus brother James. Josephus was a contemporary of James and felt him to be the most important people concerning Jesus. The bible barely mentions James in this manner.

 Did Jesus get nailed to a cross. Well at that time, in that place, it wasn't a hard thing to do. In fact it was a common Roman practice dating to well before the time, it was a recorded staple of the Roman penal system. Oh and in that time of turmoil, plenty of Jews were claiming to be the messiah, that's historical fact. Did he rise from the dead and flit up to heaven? No. In the eyes of his followers, was he a rabbi that offered a completely different message, that was inspiring? Clearly. Did he believe he was doing it for all mankind. I'd say so, he was a radical jew. so where his followers, and it's amazing what people will add to a story to get it out. I think it's a good idea to treat people well and stand up for your rights as a human being equal to other human beings. Adding some supernatural myth doesn't make everything a lie, theres still things to be learned.

One case in point, if you read the greek translation from aramaic of the "turn the other cheek passage, it in effect says, " if some strikes you right cheek, offer them your left." given that all business in those days was done with your right hand, (mainly because custom dictated you wipe your rear with your left) this means to hit someone's left cheek you had to use the palm of your hand, not the back. An admittance that you were striking your equal. That's powerful considering the poverty of the time. That does not make him God in the flesh necessarily. What it does do, however, is make the Bible a pretty valuable tool to triangulate cultural history, more so than the Iliad, mostly because its from an error when there was alot more written histroy going on, as opposed to early bronze age oral tradition. it's really tough to prove Jesus said all these things verbatim, I'm just saying he/they had an impact on aramiac speaking people in palestine and used actual cultural practices to do so. At least enough that he set himself apart from all the other messiahs of the time.

 So, When Captain America comic books can give me greater, corroburated historical insight as to why Hitler decided to invade Russia and simultaneously open up a western front as well, you can compare the Bible to a comic book. To the author of "the Bible is NOT fiction", well done. to the readers of this post, first- try to think of Jesus as a Che Gouvera before things like science, video cameras and mass communications-then forgive me for any syntax errors or mispelled words. I think Che and Jesus would (not so sure about Achilles)
 Jesus Is WINNING! tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-04-24:1982180:BlogPost:631609 2011-04-24T21:00:00.000Z Christine Vyrnon http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ChristineVyrnon
Today I discovered just how controversial Bunnies are... Some would say that the Leviticus inclusion of rabbits in the unclean camp because of their "chewing of the cud" points to an imperfect God... because they don't chew their cud so they are miscategorized... but then I discovered arguments that cleared that right up. Apparently God is Still Perfect because Rabbits eat their #2 which apparently falls in the cud chewing camp. So - case solved?

 …

Today I discovered just how controversial Bunnies are... Some would say that the Leviticus inclusion of rabbits in the unclean camp because of their "chewing of the cud" points to an imperfect God... because they don't chew their cud so they are miscategorized... but then I discovered arguments that cleared that right up. Apparently God is Still Perfect because Rabbits eat their #2 which apparently falls in the cud chewing camp. So - case solved?

The Bible & Bunnies: Fun with Leviticus 11:6

 The Things On Conservapedia That You Did Not Know. tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-29:1982180:BlogPost:603844 2011-03-29T05:30:00.000Z Caesar MacEntire http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/CaesarMacEntire
Did you know...

 ...that the Theory of Relativity is a hoax by Einstein to attack Newton and his Christian basis for action-at-a-distance?

 http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity…

Did you know...

 ...that the Theory of Relativity is a hoax by Einstein to attack Newton and his Christian basis for action-at-a-distance?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Lack_of_evidence_for_Relativity
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Action-at-a-distance

 ...that most atheists are overweight and almost no Christians are, and that the amount of fat we have affects our intelligence?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Atheism_and_obesity

 ...that the only way to destroy a witch is by burning them, yet by outlawing the burning of witches freedom of religion is restricted?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Witch

 ...that the Bible contains scientific material far ahead of its time?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge

 ...that "the book of Ezekiel contains descriptions of spaceships and rockets, as they would have been described by someone thousands of years ago."
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Biblical_scientific_foreknowledge#Space_flight

 ...that abortions are a leading cause of breast cancer?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Abortion#Abortion_and_Breast_Cancer

 ...that dinosaurs lived alongside man 6000 years ago?
 http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaurs#History_of_dinosuars

 More "facts" may be found on Conservapedia, "A Trustworthy Encyclopedia."

UPDATE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4dryH5MHlQ&feature=related
 Marriage quote from bible tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-23:1982180:BlogPost:597975 2011-03-23T02:30:00.000Z atheistrising http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/atheistrising
I found this quote in bible and want to bring it to the notice of the people here.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version, ©2011)

28 If a…

I found this quote in bible and want to bring it to the notice of the people here.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (New International Version, ©2011)

28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Footnotes:

Deuteronomy 22:29 That is, about 1 1/4 pounds or about 575 grams

References

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:28-29&version=NIV

http://www.cafepress.com/landoverbaptist/75553

 My reading of Noah's Ark. tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-16:1982180:BlogPost:585313 2011-03-16T18:00:00.000Z Scarlette Blues http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/ScarletteBlues
Genesis 6-9

The Tale of Noah's Ark

By Scarlette Blues

 …

Genesis 6-9

The Tale of Noah's Ark

By Scarlette Blues

6:1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

In the beginning of Genesis Chapter 6, we see that man has begun to populate the Earth. Seeing that the women were "fair", the sons of God took them as wives. First of all, how many sons does God have? Secondly, does "all which they chose" mean they took more than one wife? This perplexes me. In the New Testament, we are led to believe that Jesus is the only son of God. Why does Genesis 6:2 contradict this notion?

6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

Here, we are told that humans shall now live only 120 years. Later, we see Noah lives to be much older than that. Also, why would an omniscience god shorten the lifespan if he knew that he was just going to drown everyone? Why does Noah live longer, much longer? The sons of God also bore children with the women of Earth. This created "mighty men" who, by my observation of the text, also had powerful fathers. Why aren't these super-humans, who could live to be 120 years old, able to survive the flood?

*Note* 6:4 is the most used verse to say that the Bible is describing Dinosaurs or other large creatures. The main text speaks nothing of animals. It doesn't make sense to me to describe humanity and then throw in a sentence about giant creatures. In fact, it seems to me, that this passage is describing giant humans.

6:5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Did his sons coming down and impregnating the women have anything to do with this wickedness? What was being imagined that could warrant death? Wouldn't an omniscience god know in advance what humans would do with free will? Why would this grieve him if he knew before Adam and Eve that this would happen? So, god gets made at his creation for doing something he should have foreseen. In the context of the real world, this would be the same as a robot-designer getting mad at the robot for failing to do the assigned task. Could the designer truly get mad at the robot? No, it was the designer that made the program.

6:8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

How does Noah find "grace in the eyes of the Lord"? The all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving god just said that everything on Earth will parish. Is it graceful that god chose Noah and his sons for survival? "Noah was just man and perfect in his generations." In a world filled with violence, how is that Noah and his generations stayed pure? Once again, I was taught that Jesus was the only perfect man. Like Jesus, Noah also walked with god. Should Noah be held to the same degree of godly-hood as Jesus?

6:14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. 6:15 And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. 6:16 A window shalt thou make to the ark, and in a cubit shalt thou finish it above; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it.

Here, we are shown the exact measurements of the ark. Cubits are not very accurate and can vary depending on culture. According to The Genesis Files, Moses is credited with writing Genesis. Since he was educated in Egypt, the Egyptian measurements are used to translate cubits into feet. The Ark would have been approximately 516.25 X 86 X 51.6 feet, with an 18 inch window for ventilation.

6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. 6:18 But with thee will I establish my covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. 6:19 And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female. 6:20 Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive. 6:21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and thou shalt gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them. 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he.

This scenario of total destruction brings a few questions to my mind. Why does god kill all living creatures for the mistakes made by man? Why doesn't an all-power god just wave his hand and destroy only those who were evil? Did all of the people who were killed by god go to hell? I would assume that if they were bad enough to be destroyed, they weren't good enough to get into heaven.

 God commands Noah to take two of every kind, plus their food, onto the Ark. Taking the measurements given in the Bible, it would be impossible to fit every living creature and their food. Wouldn't the weight of all of the animals (keep in mind that elephants alone can weight over 5k pounds) sink the ark? How would you keep the lions from eating the gazelles or the spider from eating the fly? What does Noah do with the waste that the animals create?

Taking the specific details of the Bible and adding common sense, Noah's Ark seems like an improbable story.

7:1 And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female. 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth. 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. 7:5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. 7:6 And Noah was six hundred years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

*Note* "For thee have I seen righteous before me…" Keep this verse in mind.

What are "clean beasts"? Noah is now to take 7 of each of the clean beasts and only 2 of the unclean. He is also supposed to take 7 of each species of bird. Seven seems to be a commonly used number in the Bible. Another question comes to mind. How did the animals get to Noah? In that time, the Americas had not been discovered (the Earth had 4 corners). So, how would animals that were not known to Noah make it to the ark? Are the species of the oceans not faced with any type of punishment?

We are also told that Noah is 600 years old. What happened to only living 120 years? The people that he commanded that to are now all dead?!

7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. 7:13 In the selfsame day entered Noah, and Shem, and Ham, and Japheth, the sons of Noah, and Noah's wife, and the three wives of his sons with them, into the ark; 7:14 They, and every beast after his kind, and all the cattle after their kind, and every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind, and every fowl after his kind, every bird of every sort. 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. 7:16 And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in. 7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. 7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died. 7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark. 7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

It rained for forty days and forty nights. This powerful global rain storm covered every mountain on Earth. Knowing that Mount Everest is 29,000 feet, it is safe to say, from Bible texts, that the Ark would have at least been above that mark. How were the animals able to breathe and keep warm in such altitude? Also, that much rain would have a desalinization effect to the oceans. How are ocean creatures going to survive in fresh water conditions? It is also safe to assume that there were babies on Earth when the floods rained down. Is god so cruel that he would kill innocent children who were not able to commit the evil acts? This is where the omniscience of god comes in- God knew the babies would grow up to commit sins, even though ALL humans are inevitably "sinful".

The waters stayed for 150 days. Noah, his family of 7, two of every unclean creature, and seven of every clean creature were able to stay alive on a tiny boat (tiny compared to the amount of animals on the boat) for 150 days without any land in sight. What a miraculous-improbable-claim!

*Note* Most people believe that only 2 of each kind of animal was put on the boat. My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that there were 2 of only the unclean animals and 7 of the clean.

8:1And God remembered Noah (Author's Note: Does god have the ability to forget?), and every living thing, and all the cattle that was with him in the ark: and God made a wind to pass over the earth, and the waters assuaged; 2The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped, and the rain from heaven was restrained; 3And the waters returned from off the earth continually: and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated. 4And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat. 5And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth month, on the first day of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen. 6And it came to pass at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made: 7And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth. 8Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground; 9But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark. 10And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark; 11And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. 12And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more. 13And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth: and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. 14And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried. 15And God spake unto Noah, saying, 16Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons' wives with thee. 17Bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth. 18And Noah went forth, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons' wives with him: 19Every beast, every creeping thing, and every fowl, and whatsoever creepeth upon the earth, after their kinds, went forth out of the ark. 20And Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

We see a lot of "sevens" show up in the Bible. Is that god's favorite number? After multiple 7-day periods, a dove finally brings back an olive leaf. How does a drought-tolerant olive tree survive an Earth-wide flood of such great magnitude? After unloading all of the animals on the boat, Noah builds an altar and sacrifices every clean beast and fowl. For those that believe that Noah took only 2 of every creature, this would mean extinction for these creatures. This part confuses me. Why go through all the trouble of keeping these animals alive for 150+ days and then killing them immediately after getting off the boat? Then, god smells "a sweet savour," undoubtedly from the burning corpses of animals. This causes god to have some empathy toward humanity. God creates a pact with mankind, saying that he will never again create mass destruction for "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth." Did this omniscience god not see this before killing off humanity? (Why didn't god just create a good society in the beginning if he was so much against evil acts?) Why did it take Noah to make him see this?

1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth. 2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. 3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things. 4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. 5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. 6Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. 7And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein. 8And God spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, 9And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; 10And with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you; from all that go out of the ark, to every beast of the earth. 11And I will establish my covenant with you, neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth.12And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: 13I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.14And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud: 15And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. 16And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth. 17And God said unto Noah, This is the token of the covenant, which I have established between me and all flesh that is upon the earth. 18And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. 19These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.

This is where we see an explanation of the origins of the rainbow. The rainbow is a sign of god's covenant with humans. This type of mythology has been found in many other cultures. The Greek saw the rainbow as a message from their gods sent via the goddess Iris, who dresses in rainbow colors and flies down with golden wings. Norse mythology views the rainbow as the pathway to the heavens.

Note: This is where the story usually ends with Noah, both in Sunday school and in books featuring Noah's Ark. However, the story of Noah continues. The following is unknown to most Christians today but it found readily in the Bible:

 20And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: 21And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. 22And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. 23And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. 24And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. 25And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. 26And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 27God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. 28And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years. 29And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years: and he died.

Soon after the flood, Noah and his family began to settle down. Noah plants a vineyard and drinks of the wine. Noah becomes so drunk that he passes out, naked within his tent. Is this the type of righteousness we expect to see from Noah? (see Genesis 7:1) Noah's son Ham see his father naked and told his brothers of their father's drunken nakedness. The other brothers slyly cover their father. Ok, let's stop here. In today's society, a son would be appalled to find their father drunk and naked. It would seem that the father had some sort of problem with alcohol. However, in the bible, it is Ham is who is going to be punished. Noah wakes up (I assume he's going to feel a bit hung over) and is extremely angry with Ham for seeing him naked. Noah, who apparently has the power to curse people in god's name, sentences Ham and all of his descendants to servitude. This is the Bible condoning slavery, which was a much used practice during these times.

Noah lives 950 years, 350 years after the flood. Again, where is the 120 years that god speaks of in the beginning of Genesis chapter 6?

In conclusion, this story is simply a myth. Just like the Greek, the Norse, the Egyptians, and the Pagans, the stories of the Bible are exaggerated tales of the mysticism in real life. One must ask their self if it is possible for humans to live well over 500 years. Has there even been a documented case of someone living to 150 years old? Is there geological evidence of a great flood that cover the entire Earth at one time?

 Reaching the Promised Land tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-13:1982180:BlogPost:582028 2011-03-13T10:05:15.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
God is an omniscient being. Having no end and no beginning, from the beginning of time, God has known all. If you know all, there is nothing to be learned. Nothing to be gained from living or experiencing the world or life. This creature knew what was to happen before it did. So what is gained from simply being for 3000 years? Well, if you are God, you have learned that you didn't plan well which would seem to run against the idea of omniscience. The story of Moses clearly points to a God…

God is an omniscient being. Having no end and no beginning, from the beginning of time, God has known all. If you know all, there is nothing to be learned. Nothing to be gained from living or experiencing the world or life. This creature knew what was to happen before it did. So what is gained from simply being for 3000 years? Well, if you are God, you have learned that you didn't plan well which would seem to run against the idea of omniscience. The story of Moses clearly points to a God that either didn't care about the eventual course of events, or he was not omniscient or not omnibenevolent.

Moses was clearly born to lead the slave Jews to freedom, if you buy the stories of Exodus. God approaches Moses and talks him into approaching the Egyptian Pharaoh with a ridiculous scenario of plagues that lead him to be freed with his Jewish slaves. Nothing in documented history emboldens the story, but the story is nevertheless true because it is written in Biblical accounts. So let's take it all as true and see what happens. Eventually Moses finds himself running from the Pharaoh with tens of thousands of Jews in the desert. These people need to be fed and watered. They need to fulfill the demands to wash at certain times. But they are in a desert, so how do you find enough water to wash?

In Deuteronomy 32, we find Moses saying, "If only we had died when our brothers fell dead before the LORD! Why did you bring the LORD's community into this desert, that we and our livestock should die here? Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to this terrible place? It has no grain or figs, grapevines or pomegranates. And there is no water to drink!" He said this before the Israelite community before him. Seems reasonable to be frustrated. 40 years of travelling around and you are without water yet you are supposed to have God on your side. Why isn't he helping you? But this is still a transgression. One that an omniscient being should have been able to foresee. God does not see it this way, but rather he sees it as punishable even though he could have predicted and prevented this response. Eventually Moses and his brother Aaron the Priest return to the tent to seek the advice of the Lord, but it's too late. They have questioned the Lord in front of the Israelites. Death is clearly called for.

Deuteronomy 32:51"There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites. Therefore, you will see the land only from a distance; you will not enter the land I am giving to the people of Israel." In Deuteronomy 34 we see Moses being shown the land promised to him and his people, but there he dies only to never have his body found.

So quite seriously, the man whom freed God's chosen people, led them through the desert for 40 years creating water by striking stones with a staff, has been deemed unfit for getting into the Promised Land. Why, for a moment of frustration, would an Omni-benevolent creature act in this manner? How can you be ever understanding and all knowing yet not realize that people might feel this way? How can you not understand human nature yet be the creator of it? God felt that he had to punish Moses for a small trip. Sure, some call to Jesus as being different, yet Jesus says that he is only here to fulfill law, not change it. So where is this mysterious change in personality? Aside from the clear admission that God can't know all and care for all no matter what yet feel the need to punish Moses after 40 years of service for the momentary failure, how is it that you feel you can still get to heaven if Moses isn't worthy of experiencing it on Earth? Are you certain that you can qualify better than Moses? If not, why waste the life that you have only to be punished for 5 sentences worth of transgressions? Lose your child and see if you can pass this test.

God is anything but benevolent or all knowing and the Bible itself establishes it. You are left with faith and a void of reason to reach the conclusion that anything other than Hell is imminent. If Moses can't reach it, then why or how would you get there?

 Indulgence, Christians and the Bible tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-13:1982180:BlogPost:581830 2011-03-13T02:28:03.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
We all know that Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What I can't wrap my head around is why no one believes it. Have you ever heard a pastor admonish someone for being fat as a Biblical sin? If you have, do tell the story! But strewn through out the Bible we see clear distaste for being a greedy fat pig. But where do we find the most Obese people in the US?

 …

We all know that Gluttony is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. What I can't wrap my head around is why no one believes it. Have you ever heard a pastor admonish someone for being fat as a Biblical sin? If you have, do tell the story! But strewn through out the Bible we see clear distaste for being a greedy fat pig. But where do we find the most Obese people in the US?

 And how does the country break down by religion?

There are some striking similarities in these maps. So maybe fat Christians don't believe that they Bible says that they will go to Hell. How about we simply take a look at some of these passages that say don't over eat.

Psalm 78:31 KJV The wrath of God came upon them, and slew the fattest of them, and smote down the chosen [men] of Israel.

This is after God gave them all of the meat that they could eat. So he tempts them, then punishes them for indulging. I would say that the lesson is, if you have a full wallet, Cold Stone is simply one of God's tests. I for one would fail 50% of the time when I think of Cake Batter Milkshakes... ummm.

Proverbs 23:20-21 "Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh: For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty: and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags."

So if you eat and drink too much, God will make you poor in the Old Testament. But won't this make you one of the Jesus' chosen ones in the New Testament? This confusion aside, the message is quite clear.

More important than overeating is the lesson behind the stories of gluttony. The lesson is that you don't have to take everything in front of you. You don't have to have the biggest cars. The McMansion. The Private Jet. But the lesson is lost on Christians. Even the Chruches themselves are "MEGACHURCH!". A local pastor helicopters between two of them here. Thank God the fuel, pilot and the copter are all tax write-offs. Capitalism for the purposes of extreme wealth and Christianity are incongruent.

Christians. If you want to really read and understand the Bible, you have to leave Corinthians 13 and try to understand what is being said here. Don't be a greedy fuck. Frankly it's taking down our country. Our last economic crisis is due to the greed spoken of in the Bible. I actually have to give a moral lesson credit to this book written by a den of thieves.

So the next time you hear a fat, or overindulgent Christian mention being sent to Hell for being gay, not being a Christian, having sex out of marriage, etc. you remind them that you'll see them there.
 God 4.0 = Yahweh + Upgraded Followers tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-03-08:1982180:BlogPost:577988 2011-03-08T04:00:00.000Z Tim Brooks http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/TimBrooks
 It is well known that Jews consider their god to be 1.0, Christians have god 2.0 now with Jesus, and Muslims think they are 3.0 since their doctrine acknowledges and addresses both prior religions. So I got to wondering what 4.0 would look like.…

 It is well known that Jews consider their god to be 1.0, Christians have god 2.0 now with Jesus, and Muslims think they are 3.0 since their doctrine acknowledges and addresses both prior religions. So I got to wondering what 4.0 would look like.

 I'm a bit of a computer geek so whenever I think of the future I always liked the Terminator movies/plot bu t I never was able to understand exactly how the robots went from thinking one person is evil to thinking that all people are evil, or from needing to kill a person to needing to kill everyone. In my opin ion the movie did not convincingly enough explain how the computers made this leap of faith. But I still really enjoyed the movie, all of them, and will watch any new ones that come out. Then I started wondering why I started thinking about all this Terminator stuff to begin with, but then it got me to thinking about an idea I had a while back about religion.

 I had the idea a couple months ago. Its about heaven, I have never been completely fooled by the mythical biblical sky fairy version of heaven with gold roads and all that non-sense, I had some moments in my adolescent years, but luckily they never got me. So I decided to think of a new way for Heaven to exist logically, a real one. After all, it would have to be convincing, and what better way to convince people than to make ti real. There has to be a way to at least make a real version similar enough in purpose to the biblical one to call it the same thing. Right now, religious people read an ancient scripture and find a version of heaven that they want to believe in, or they just believe in the one they were told about. Then they find out what they have to do to get in this heaven, and they try to do the things they can to get in. The only problem is that it doesn't exist, a bunch of people doing a bunch of stuff that actually doesn't get anyone any closer to any real heaven. I got to thinking maybe the religious worshipers and believers are holding us back from finding the real heaven. There are a lot of extremely dedicated religious people out there, with great minds. Millions of people donate ungodly amounts of money every Sunday. I started thinking that if religious people all donated their efforts and money towards science, it may progress our understanding of the brain to such a complete full blueprint that we know exactly how everything inside it works, why it works, and all the details. Then we might be able to use that information to download our conscience out of our brain before we die and put us on a computer somewhere and let us be hooked up to the Internet so we can still chat with people and email people and other activities. All kinds of questions arise, one of the biggest is, would you still have a soul? My answer, since I currently do not believe in such a thing, if the transfer all worked well, and your hardware is sound, if you thought you had a soul before, then you should still think you have one now for the same reason, or find a new one, I would not care.

 But then I got to thinking that you might have to pay for your hosting before you die, or you could get deleted, but no one is actually goin g to just delete you right off, after all, if data finds its way onto a rented server and the person leaves the data on the server and quits paying the bill, whose data is it? Is it like a house where the owner can sell the data to recoup some of t he cost of the loss? If this data is a persons conscience and is active you can get them to do  work to e arn the money to pay for their hosting or at least earn their freedom each month by paying their server rent with money they earned from time consuming labor. Then you may wind up with slavery of dead people, like tell them if they do so much work you will put them on a robot and set them free, and keep scamming them , make their robot break down no matter what after a certain number of miles so they have to eventually  get more money to buy  another one. What if it got so annoying hearing from your great great great great great grandparents and every relative in between that society as a whole decided to shut them off? Or if people who are dead and have nothing better to do keep making malicious viruses or code and trying to get the real world to be a different place even though they are not a part of it.... These consciousnesses are human, so they will still be susceptible to the same flaws real humans are, all of them, could you imagine if a bunch of them started taking up religion? Say one large group of them uses th e say bible Christians use now, after all its the one statistically a lot of them will have believed in when they were alive despite all evidence pointing otherwise. They will see it as they are in heaven, and that they were brought up to believe in the rapture, and that the people still on earth are the left over sinners waiting for judgment day or some crazy shit like that, and what if they think they have to protect the computer from the sinners who may want to shut heave off, war unfolds between the dead and the undead. Maybe they would defeat us, but let us live as long as we obey their laws they give us.

 They use the robots of the future to build robot angels of death to come down and strike vengeance on mankind when ever they are bad. Crush entire groups of resistance. The kinds of people who get do everything they gotta do at this point to get into heaven when they die are the kinds of people who will do anything to make sure people cant shut it off or screw it up for them. and since they would have a grips on our education system, and be our teachers and professors, a trade you will have to die before you can master at that point. control of the monetary system since its completely online and after you die if you get into heaven you get to keep your money and keep collecting debts from live people, all that.

 Then the Amish people come in and save our asses, break the big 'devil' computer that has us enslaved, the computers did not see it coming. the computes do not think its logical for people to live that way, and by design they can not imagine people living completely 'off the grid' even without power. So then all we have are the Amish who are not going to let no anyone foster any knowledge other than theirs or they will kill you or make you leave their camp which might be the same thing as killing you by this point since they got the food, and protection mid-evil style. It would be strictly no technology, no new literature, no nothing, after all, they did save you and it was your way that got you into trouble. Go make arrows till you die or die might be one possible outcome.

 Just as a side thought, maybe this already happened, maybe, as others have suggested, that we crash landed on this planet. But then i got to thinking maybe our space ship was broke down but the computer still worked, everyone was so used to getting their knowledge from the millions of people who no longer had physical bodies that they did not take the time to carry books or other learning type equipment. In fact there would be a lot of things in life that you would no longer have to learn how to do until your dead, for example being a teacher, why do it when your alive, you could wait till you die and teach kids through the computer for eternity, however they want. But then the computer broke, no one alive knew how to fix it, and they could not ask the dead, so it all got lost and went away. Except the stories, and rumors, and what today are called myths and just non-sense, stories about stuff like heaven. You never know, my idea of heaven actually works a lot more like the one the bible proposes than the heaven that the religious people believe they are going to go to actually works.

 But what about the people in the computer that got shut off? A broken computer does  not necessarily get its data deleted. Millions of people in there that all want to have control again over the human race again, if  for n othing else to make sure they never get shut off again. Just waiting for the right person to  walk by and turn it on. So when we discover them again they offer us what what seems like heaven but turns out to be a way to eventually enslave our children. Maybe that is what the bible is every time someone cracks it open for the first time thinking that it has all the answers. It might just be a bunch of dead people trying not to be forgotten by controlling a world they are not even in, by promising us heaven if we enslave our children to to the practice of keeping the myth alive.

 I thought all this could be a pretty good movie. You tell me, it is your world, I just hope that I am living in it somewhere. Please do not turn this science fiction religious hybrid story into a new religious doctrine for Scientology. ** Just as a disclaimer, this story was not written or inspired by an omnipotent being, god, ghost, spirit, or demon(Sounds like a silly thing for me to do, but our world would be a better place if all authors of crazy stories would have acknowledged that clearly enough).
 Narrow MInded Views: At you're local book store. tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-01-19:1982180:BlogPost:501956 2011-01-19T22:04:13.000Z Jon Heim http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JonathanHeim
Here's a quick story. I live in a town where there is literally four churches at an intersection. No mosques, no temples, no synagogues or anything other then christian. Nope..four protestant churches.

Anyway, I went to the local mall yesterday because I plan on reading several religious texts. I'm working on the bible again, I want to read the koran, and maybe something on Buddhism.

I'm rambling again..Anyway, I went to the book store in the mall to find a good copy of the…

Here's a quick story. I live in a town where there is literally four churches at an intersection. No mosques, no temples, no synagogues or anything other then christian. Nope..four protestant churches.

Anyway, I went to the local mall yesterday because I plan on reading several religious texts. I'm working on the bible again, I want to read the koran, and maybe something on Buddhism.

I'm rambling again..Anyway, I went to the book store in the mall to find a good copy of the Koran. It took me a good 20 minutes to find one, and there was only one version. A very small, paperback version translated by some guy that isn't important. I asked the person working at the book store if they had, or could order any other copy that seemed a little better. They literally only had this one version, and only one in stock. Meanwhile, in the same section, they had an entire shelf filled with many various versions of the bible.

well, I bought the copy of the Koran that didn't look to reliable..I guess just to make a point. That I was interested in other religions then Christianity, and I wanted the person at the book store to see that.

"Sigh", I even got funny looks from the other patrons at the store. It's no surprise really, considering I've lived in the same town for 22 years and haven't met anyone who was not a christian there.
 Astronauts and God? tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2011-01-02:1982180:BlogPost:481207 2011-01-02T03:36:01.000Z Sadly 'M' iCantSay http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/SadlyiCantSay
I just finished watching a show on the Discovery Science channel, the show was about the mission in 2009 to fix the Hubble telescope and to replace the cameras on it, the show was called "Mission critical: Hubble" if any of you wanted to check it out.

The show began and the shuttle launched. The astronauts had a camera so they can document of course, but the man who was the most in front of this camera had a floating cross necklace, which took my attention and made me think…

I just finished watching a show on the Discovery Science channel, the show was about the mission in 2009 to fix the Hubble telescope and to replace the cameras on it, the show was called "Mission critical: Hubble" if any of you wanted to check it out.

The show began and the shuttle launched. The astronauts had a camera so they can document of course, but the man who was the most in front of this camera had a floating cross necklace, which took my attention and made me think and ask. HOW can an astronaut, working on a device that falsified the bible's claims, believe in God?

Okay, maybe some believe that a God started the big bang and let the universe work on its own. Although there is no evidence for that claim but it can be understandable, compared to the belief in a biblical God, who has a book that says the universe is 6,000-10,000 years old, which is what that astronaut believes in.

Then I decided to stop thinking and enjoy the show. They showed a problem the astronauts had in installing a new device instead of the old one on Hubble. They managed to do so after some time, and when both astronauts returned to the shuttle, the religious one told the camera about the difficult time they had at first, then he happily says they finally did their job and shouts "There is a God!" and just dismisses the hard work him and his partner did!! I laughed and started thinking again asking the same question, how can he believe?

That also made me notice things in this channel's shows, they talk about evolution and the big bang but they also use words and phrases like "creatures", "the moment of creation" and "how the universe was made", and made me wonder about the view of the Discovery Network channels, does anyone know? Is it just a language to just explain or is it words of just believers? English is not my native language.

Sorry for my long blog, and I wish you a Happy New Year! :)
 Defeating the Bible , One chapter at a Time! (Genesis Chapter 4) tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-12-18:1982180:BlogPost:458731 2010-12-18T03:20:52.000Z Andrew Lafont http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AndrewLafont
Chapter 4 hath arrived!!

Let's groove tonight!!

"The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD." Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil. In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on…

Chapter 4 hath arrived!!

Let's groove tonight!!

"The man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, "I have produced a man with the help of the LORD." Next she bore his brother Abel. Abel became a keeper of flocks, and Cain a tiller of the soil. In the course of time Cain brought an offering to the LORD from the fruit of the soil, while Abel, for his part, brought one of the best firstlings of his flock. The LORD looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not. Cain greatly resented this and was crestfallen. So the LORD said to Cain: "Why are you so resentful and crestfallen?"

Huzzuah! A boy is born!! With the help of the 'LORD'? Was the 'LORD' the doctor or did he. . . sleep with Eve. 'God' is bisexual? First there is Cain then Abel. 'God' likes Abel more than Cain, so Cain naturally gets jealous. "'Why are you so resentful and crestfallen?'" Is 'God' really that thickheaded? 'God' is showing support for one son and not the other. Is this the start of a fetish 'God' starts? He always goes for the shepherd boy. The two famous examples are Abel and then Moses. In fact there are a lot of shepherd boys, that 'God' "reveals" himself to. Ick!

"If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master." Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out in the field." When they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the LORD asked Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" He answered, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?" The LORD then said: "What have you done! Listen: your brother's blood cries out to me from the soil! Therefore you shall be banned from the soil that opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. If you till the soil, it shall no longer give you its produce. You shall become a restless wanderer on the earth." Cain said to the LORD: "My punishment is too great to bear. Since you have now banished me from the soil, and I must avoid your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, anyone may kill me at sight." Not so!" the LORD said to him. "If anyone kills Cain, Cain shall be avenged sevenfold." So the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest anyone should kill him at sight. Cain then left the LORD'S presence and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden."

What does that first line mean? If you do well, that's good; but if not, then sin will take you over. Great words of encouragement there, Cain . . . Abel is dead. NOOOOOOOoOoOoOooooOoOOOooOooooo *cough* OooOOoooo!!!!!!!!! God: "Where is Abel? I need to reveal myself to him *snicker, snicker*" Cain: "idk." Question, if the 'LORD God' knows everything why must he ask where Abel is? So now Cain cannot grow anything, his green thumb has turned black, and on top of it all he is banished to—what am I reading that right? Cain is banished to NOD??? I was RIGHT!!! Eden was green because of Tiberium! Where is GDI? Wait if Adam and Eve and Cain are the only people on the earth, why should Cain fear someone killing him. 'Lest anyone should kill him on sight.' Who is this everyone? There's no one else on earth!!

"Cain had relations with his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. Cain also became the founder of a city, which he named after his son Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad became the father of Mehujael; Mehujael became the father of Methusael, and Methusael became the father of Lamech. Lamech took two wives; the name of the first was Adah, and the name of the second Zillah. Adah gave birth to Jabal, the ancestor of all who dwell in tents and keep cattle. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the ancestor of all who play the lyre and the pipe. Zillah, on her part, gave birth to Tubalcain, the ancestor of all who forge instruments of bronze and iron. The sister of Tubalcain was Naamah. Lamech said to his wives: "Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech, listen to my utterance: I have killed a man for wounding me, a boy for bruising me. If Cain is avenged sevenfold, then Lamech seventy-sevenfold." Adam again had relations with his wife, and she gave birth to a son whom she called Seth. "God has granted me more offspring in place of Abel," she said, "because Cain slew him." To Seth, in turn, a son was born, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to invoke the LORD by name."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz—Huh? What? So sorry, there, I must have dozed off. So yea, many people were born, got it. Jabal is the ancestor of all those who live in tents and have cattle; the working dude. And another thing, if they are in a city, why are there should be no tents, and just how did the people learn this? Jubal, the ancestor of instruments; the music dude. Tubalcain forges instruments. Really? Are the instruments of war? Swords are from iron and shields are from bronze. How did Cain's kids suddenly know how to do iron and bronze-working , or even where to find iron and bronze? Ah, Lamech, or as I like to call him 'blanky-blank'. And more plagiarism: Seth was the Egyptian god of the desert, storm, and violence. And just where are all these women coming from? Did Cain have…sex with Eve? Ew! Major, Major EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!

Chapter 4 is done!

Tune in next time for the continuing adventure in:

"Defeating the Bible—One Chapter at a time"!

 Review of the Smithsonian Channel's special on the story behind The Exorcist tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-28:1982180:BlogPost:404546 2010-10-28T17:30:00.000Z Pesci http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Pesci

Last night I watched a fascinating show on the Smithsonian Channel about the (alleged) events that the movie The Excorcist is loosely based on. In case you are not familiar with the story, a thirteen year old boy appeared to slowly become possessed by a demon. The event happened not longer after the unexpected death of his aunt. Weird things are said to have happened in the house and marks started showing up on the boy's body. The family took him to…
Last night I watched a fascinating show on the Smithsonian Channel about the (alleged) events that the movie The Excorcist is loosely based on. In case you are not familiar with the story, a thirteen year old boy appeared to slowly become possessed by a demon. The event happened not longer after the unexpected death of his aunt. Weird things are said to have happened in the house and marks started showing up on the boy's body. The family took him to several doctors and finally turned to the church as a last resort. As luck would have it, one of the local herdsman was formally trained by the church to identify and perform exorcisms. Unfortunately he wasn't "man enough" to rid the boy of the demon, although he did determine that there were several demons inside the body. Supposedly one of the demons told him so and the story is believable because the demon spoke in latin.

Anyhoo, one of the marks on his body appeared to say "St. Louis" so the family picked up and moved there (no, I'm not kidding). Several talkers-to-God there spent several months of gibberish talking before putting the boy into complete isolation. As luck would have it, the possession seemed to stop after a while.

Impressive, isn't it? To this day the man who experienced this will not talk about it as he said that he remembers none of it. Then again, after spending several months of isolation with Catholic Priests I think I would also have some repressed memories. (sorry, the joke was there).

The first interview that they show did was with a modern priest. The priest explained that there is a 10 week (10 week!) class on exorcism that the Vatican uses to qualify priests for exorcism. The key tools used in the exorcism are 16th century Latin bible (the exorcism procedure was first documented during that time) and a wooden cross. Apparently the Latin version is more convincing to said evil beings - go figure. I found this to be curious because the family thought that the aunt had inhabited the boy - when did she pick up a dead language? It is good to know that they stopped churning out demons when Latin died off as we don't have to worry about new demons. The holy fella then went on to say that he used a wooden cross because it wouldn't hurt as much if he were beaten with it by the ghost (once again, I kid you not). If I was worried about that I think I would skip right to the foam cross. Better yet, why not a marshmallow cross? I say if you are going to be beaten you might as well enjoy it a little bit.

I was amused to find out that the first thing the priests did after the move to St. Louis was to baptize him into Catholicism. "Before we get this kid medical attention, he needs to be indoctrinated into this group that believes that their leader is infallible. We'll show that devil!". As you may suspect, this didn't impress those mean old devils. When the "possession" was over the priests credited St. Michael with saving the day. In Catholic lore he is the one in charge of keeping Lucifer at bay (I did not know this). Apparently the old man is slipping a little bit because the church is not performing thousands of exorcisms every year. As and aside, I have always gotten a kick out of the statement that Catholicism is a monotheist religion. There's a lot of powerful dead people in that cupboard.

At that point the show turned to science. My skeptic friends have probably heard of the phrase "Occam's Razor" (wiki here)). In extremely simple terms this statement implies that the simplest explanation (or the one that requires the least amount of assumptions) is the one that should be followed. It is not an absolute but when you look at the mysteries of the world you can find that this is true (especially when people try to impose supernatural explanations).

The next interview was with Canadian professor Michael Persinger. Persinger has spent years looking at this phenomenon and has analyzed dozens of patients that had already been classified as possessed. As you might think they all had a lot in common. First, they were all Catholic. You'd think that a devil or two would find its way into a Muslim or Jew or Atheist - apparently this does not happen. Second, they all had the same kind of brain activity. It turns out that scientists have identified the area of the brain where religious belief lives. When there is some kind of religious euphoria that area of the brain is alive with electrical activity. The same kind of activity is evident within those that are said to be possessed.

More telling was the "God Helmet" that this man invented. I had seen this helmet in other shows and it is quite impressive. The professor would invite in various subjects to try on the helmet. The helmet was designed to fire signals to the aforementioned area of the brain. And guess what happens? The same kind of feelings that are associated with supernatural experiences. The more religious you were, the more likely your experience would be religious (and not all of them were pleasant). More telling was that the religious experience was always about your religion and not some other religion. I know I've said this before but nobody claims to have seen the Virgin Mary in Muslim countries. There is some controversy around this procedure but the bigger point is that these kinds of experiences can be reproduced in a lab under certain conditions. It isn't surprising, especially when you consider that other religious experiences (especially the Near Death Experience) is easily reproduced in a flight simulator.

Another scientist that was interviewed said that bodies under stress often will react with unusual muscle spasms. Also, the brains of young adults are undergoing significant chemical changes and it isn't uncommon for the person to have some really rough periods. This would also explain why the weirdness seemed to suddenly stop. He also went on to say that the "possessions" seemed to become more intense as the intensity of the exorcisms increased. Was this because the demons were fighting back? No, it was because the priests were actually stimulating that part of the brain and actually implanting the story lines into his head. We know much more about psychology and the human brain now than we did sixty years ago. The show mentioned that the boy used a Ouija board so there was already a predisposition to fantasy (as an aside, I've always been amused when people still refer to Ouija boards as being a tool of the devil. You can buy one at Toys r Us for crying out loud).

I just went out to youtube and watched some videos of people that claimed to be possessed. You may not realize this but the definition of a miracle is something that happens beyond the laws of the natural world. I see a bunch of people in makeup making funny noises and funny faces but - hold on to your hats - not one video of people levitating, breathing fire or changing the channel on the TV without a remote. That's the funny thing about supernatural claims - the evidence is supposed to be all around us and nowhere at the same time.

One other note on this. The director of the film was interviewed toward the end of the show. He said that the studio wanted to change the name of the film because the term "exorcist" relatively unknown. Now that the seed has been planted in our collective head we now have thousands of people coming forward claiming to have been demonized. And this is really the root of all supernatural belief - the seed is planted and the human brain and human desire (or fear) make it bloom.

(the original post in my blog is available at prayingtopesci.com)

 <object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YPOTaUyvA0?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="false"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="never"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8YPOTaUyvA0?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="never" allowfullscreen="false" width="640" height="385"></embed> </object> Taking The Bible Literally tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-10-02:1982180:BlogPost:376525 2010-10-02T04:46:42.000Z Jon Heim http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JonathanHeim I've heard a lot lately that most Christians in these modern times only believe that the stories in the bible are only parables to teach us how to live our lives. I don't believe that. I believe that with all of the details included in most of these stories, the bible really was intended to be taken literally. The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.

There are so many details to every story. The measurements and construction of Noah's… I've heard a lot lately that most Christians in these modern times only believe that the stories in the bible are only parables to teach us how to live our lives. I don't believe that. I believe that with all of the details included in most of these stories, the bible really was intended to be taken literally. The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.

There are so many details to every story. The measurements and construction of Noah's ark, The begetting of generations, the exact materials and measurements of temples...these are just a few small examples. If these stories were not intended literally, why are these here?
again..The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.

I think the reason most Christians say that these stories are only parables is because of the violence and hatred in the old testament. I understand that Christians put most of their focus in the new testament because it tells of their savior. But to completely disown the old testament is ignorant. Is Jesus not the son of god? the two testaments go hand in hand. It explains history of the land before Jesus walked the earth. It also explains the tyranny of their newly found Messiah's father. would you put your faith in Hitler's son if he said he was sent by his dad to save you? ...even though this is a dramatized question, it works as a good analogy.

While we are talking about the interpretation of the old testament, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jewish? I mean, it is the original belief that God himself set forward and Jewish people are considered His chosen people. If the creator of the universe tells you one thing, why would you believe a man that tells you differently? There is a reason Jesus was crucified. he was a blasphemer according to God's original laws. He was killed for claiming to be the messiah. Those Jewish people who believed him are catholic and Catholicism broke into separate branches of protestants. I really cant see how those Jewish people who believed him could not see what was going on. Then again, the bible even contradicts itself when it comes to the messiah. So how could you know this was actually the chosen savior?

anyway, I think that whoever wrote the bible wanted to make it pretty clear that it was intended to be taken literally. And the people who DO take it literally are the ones who you have to look out for. Extremists in any group are a bad thing.

The Bible says that not one interpretation is private, but I think you certainly should draw the line somewhere when it comes to a book that you are putting you're absolute faith in.
 Opinions about the Bible are like noses: everyone has one tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-09-26:1982180:BlogPost:370617 2010-09-26T02:30:00.000Z Diana Agorio http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DianaAgorio
I am often surprised by the heat in discussions about the Bible, even amongst atheists. Questions about myth and history in the Old Testament and Jesus as a historical or mythical character result in people slinging references from their favorite experts, back and forth. I finally formulated an explanation for why everyone is a little wrong and little right in these discussions. No, I will not feed you some…

I am often surprised by the heat in discussions about the Bible, even amongst atheists. Questions about myth and history in the Old Testament and Jesus as a historical or mythical character result in people slinging references from their favorite experts, back and forth. I finally formulated an explanation for why everyone is a little wrong and little right in these discussions. No, I will not feed you some post-modernist mumbo-jumbo. But, a bit of explanation of how different opinions about these topics are formed, and the weaknesses within those opinions, will help explain some of the disagreements in these discussions.

Ancient books, like the books of the Bible, are interpreted in a variety of ways by scholars in different fields. The specialists in these various fields often overlap, with knowledge of more than one area of study. But, they break down basically into four camps: Language specialists get down to the nitty-gritty of understanding the words. Others specialize in ancient books as literature, exploring the symbolic meanings in stories. Historians use the books to describe the social environment of the author and sometimes look for descriptions of historical events. Archaeology is the most contentious field in their use of ancient texts. There is a pronounced division between those who want to use the books to interpret their data and those who use their data to interpret the books.

In a perfect world, all the specialists would come together to build a consensus about the history and myth contained in ancient books. However, they are like the four blind men describing an elephant. Very different pictures are created by the various specialists, depending on which portion of the elephant they seek to define. The specialists cannot be criticized for their blindness because they are dealing with a handicap created by age. The material they interpret is so old that they will never be able to define it with complete certainty. But, the level of emotion about the differences of expert opinion is solidly set in the present. Public perception of expert opinions about the Bible is complicated by religious and ideological biases and a basic misunderstanding of how expert opinion develops.

The good news is that all the problems associated with understanding the books of the Bible are exactly the same as the problems with the Iliad, minus the public biases. Because the public opinion of the Iliad is significantly more neutral than the Bible, the disagreements amongst experts about the Iliad illustrates why none of us should be too smug about our favorite expert opinions.

The relevance of the Iliad to the archaeology site of Hisarlik in Turkey is an extraordinarily contentious subject amongst scholars. One recent infamous conference literally broke out into a fist fight amongst these so-called "professionals." Before Schliemann discovered Troy in the tumulus of Hisarlik, the consensus was that the Iliad was pure fiction. Schliemann was not always honest in his archaeological methods and the real evidence at Hisarlik continued to be inconclusive; but, archaeologists began taking the Iliad more seriously as a legend about a real war. The public hears the "Hisarlik is Troy" story much more often than the challenges to the description. Describing Hisarlik as Troy was a boon for tourism of the site; so, the Turkish government has a vested interest in promoting that description. Until he died in 2005, Manfred Korfmann was a lightning rod amongst scholars because of his promotion of Hisarlik as Troy. His version of Troy dominated when I was in school; but, the tide is turning, with a more restrained description of the Bronze Age city (Dieter Hertel 2003).

Historians have the difficult task of bringing together both the questionable archaeological evidence and the changing opinion of language specialists about how the Iliad was composed, in using the book to describe the social environment of the author and possible historical events. Until about 1979, the "analysts" style of describing the Iliad as a collection of oral tales dominated (Hammer 1997). But, the formulaic nature of the composition overturned that theory and it became solidly dated to the "Dark Age." A better dating of the composition meant that historians could make more use of it; but, it remains contentious as to what time period is the most relevant to the tale because the author set his story in the distant past.

The specialists who look at the Iliad as literature catch my interest because they draw out some of the cultural trappings in the tale relevant to my studies. One of the scenes in the Iliad jumps out for me because of its relevance to West Asian myth and ritual. The scene is Helen on the wall of Troy, overlooking the battle scene. The princess on the wall was a common motif in West Asian literature (Jamison 1994). The princess represented a goddess and her city shrines were located on the city wall. But, the specialists in different fields will look at this scene with very different perspectives. The archaeologist forgets about the princess and looks for the wall. The language specialist focuses on the poetic meter in the lines describing Helen. The historian might focus on the battle rather than Helen. These experts will each have quite different ideas about the "historical" and "mythical" significance of the story. Your opinion about the story is formed by the emphasis of your favorite expert.

When you are forming an opinion about a historical topic, ask yourself a question: Are you using your nose to sniff out the various ways in which that topic can be illuminated? Or, are you just using another body part to excrete a story you were fed by your favorite expert?

Works Cited:

Dieter Hertel, Frank Kolb. "Troy in Clearer Perspective." Anatolian Studies, 2003: 71-88.

Hammer, Dean C. "Who Shall Readily Obey?": Authority and Politics in the "Iliad." Phoenix, 1997: 1-24.

Jamison, Stephanie W. "Draupadí on the Walls of Troy: "Iliad" 3 from an Indic Perspective." Classical Antiquity, 1994: 5-16.

 John 3:16 Shenanigans tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2010-09-12:1982180:BlogPost:357288 2010-09-12T04:02:06.000Z Gaytor http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Gaytor
As long as I can remember, if you watched a sporting event, it was likely that you'd see John 3:16 on a sign. It was obligatory when I was a teen. The premise is simply believe in Jesus and you'll get to heaven. Even today, if you ask more than a handful of people, you'll hear, "I'm a believer."
 as if that means anything. Let me be clear, it means nothing. Simple belief in
 Jesus gets you nowhere. It smacks of the Scientologists pulling you in with a
 simple personality test.…

As long as I can remember, if you watched a sporting event, it was likely that you'd see John 3:16 on a sign. It was obligatory when I was a teen. The premise is simply believe in Jesus and you'll get to heaven. Even
 today, if you ask more than a handful of people, you'll hear, "I'm a believer."
 as if that means anything. Let me be clear, it means nothing. Simple belief in
 Jesus gets you nowhere. It smacks of the Scientologists pulling you in with a
 simple personality test. Then you spend a few hundred and get to OT1. After a
 few grand you get to OT2 and suddenly you aren't spending time with your
 friends. Before you hit OT3 you are into it thousands more, you've probably
 been talked into axing all of your friends and bam! They tell you Xenu was an
 alien and the impetus for your negative thoughts are alien ghosts. John 3:16
 advocation is the same premise. Baby step you into a rabbit hole as if you are known as Alice. Hey guy! Do
 you know Jesus?

You don't get to heaven by simply believing that Jesus was the son of God. John 3:16 makes for a great billboard, but just a little digging and you'll find that's not even half the story. And the other half is
 impossible to satisfy.

So we have one passage that says faith is how you get to heaven. What else is out there? "What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is
 naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them,
 "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things
 which are needed for the body, what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if
 it does not have works, is dead. James 2:14-17. This really makes sense. You
 must be a good person and care for others. It's more important than faith, and contradictory
 to John 3:16. But is that all that we have to do, is
 the Lord's work? No. Ephesians 2:8 confuses it again, "For it is by grace you
 have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it the gift of
 God – not by works. So I do or I don't
 have to work? This could go back and forth for pages. Why does anyone ever
 bring up John 3:16? Hey guy! Just try it!

Christianity is so convoluted that you'll never find heaven. Let me give you an example. Today we were talking about circumcision on TA. So let's say you are circumcised. What does
 Paul have to say about that? Galatians 5:2 "Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you
 that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at
 all." Wow! So if I don't have my foreskin, I have to follow the whole of Jewish
 Law! But wait… Jesus says that he didn't come to abolish the law, but to
 fulfill it. So until Jesus or the Son of Man (depending on which gospel you
 read) comes back, then you must follow the whole law, which includes
 circumcision. If you listen to Jesus, he'll be of no use to you according to
 Paul. What's worse is Paul performed a circumcision for Timothy, then he says
 it matters not, then that you must follow the whole law where forgiveness doesn't
 exist. With foreskin, no heaven according to Paul. No Foreskin, off to Hell
 according to Jesus. Some might call that a catch 22.

Christians whom tell you about the beauty of just believing in Jesus are either uneducated about the Bible, or they simply don't have your best interest at heart. In either case, they are to be ignored. The Christian
 God is fully impossible to please. I've shown why as a man. If you are a modern
 woman with self-respect, you must subjugate yourself to men according to
 multiple books of the Bible. Maybe more books than those that don't require it.
 So the next time someone shares John 3:16 as a way to an after-life, ask if it
 requires works. After that dance, ask them if they prefer circumcision or not
 and take them out for another song. This can go on all night. Hate your family
 without ever disrespecting your parents? The road to Heaven is so difficult
 that no one has provided a map as of yet. The current one is filled with road
 blocks. I, for one, am going to sit back, have a drink and enjoy the life I
 have, ignoring non-sense that is John 3:16 and it's advocates.