My dear atheist posters, what would you recommend . . .

by pennycandy 51 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  dh

  for a reliable, accurate study of the authenticity of the Bible and/or the existence of God?

  when i see posts like this i wonder... is this the most rewarding thing us people can think of to spend our time studying? not that i haven't spent time looking into the existence or lack of existence of god, i just find it is such a negative path and think it's far better to look at improving ourselves than to try proving or disproving something that can be neither proven or disproved. i think if we do that and spend our time developing our own beings, the idea of god somehow becomes obsolete. slightly off topic but it's been one of those days.
• 

  Scully

  Lilly:

  I take exception to your continued bleating

  Some posters here were angry about the "rape" account and were writing their views in a way that looked like they were saying that the Bible or God condoned the rape and murder of the two women based on the fact that the account is recorded in the Bible.

  Again, I never claimed that god condoned these activities. For someone who had the audacity to chastise me about not reading the bible in context, you really should take your advice to heart and learn to read peoples' posts correctly, rather than attributing an inaccurate viewpoint to me or anyone else. For the record, I am not angry about the "rape" account(s). I would not say that "god condoned" those things for the simple reason that I do not believe in a supernatural entity known as "God" anymore than you believe in the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

  If the bible is anything to me, it is a series of airbrushed literary snapshots into the lives of the people who passed those stories along verbally among their tribesmen for decades. It is not inspired. It is not a guidebook on morality. The fact that it mentions "God" and "gods" is immaterial to me, because I'm of the opinion that Genesis got it wrong when it says "And God said, 'Let us make man in our image.' " IMO, it should read: "And man said: 'Let us make god(s) in our image.' " When you look at the kind of people they were, and the gods they worshipped, it really makes quite a lot of sense.
• 

  Abaddon

  lil

  And you, prehaps unconciously, fail to see you are defending the indefensible.

  The OT describes actions either instigated by god, or carried out by his followers without sanction, that are totally unacceptable violations of common decency and human compasion, let alone modern concept like human rights.

  You seem to want to provide 'clever' readings to glaze over this; you might feel you can do this with the one originally raised but you make no attempt I see to provide a 'clever' reading to glaze over ethnic cleansing, genocide, and child rape as also described in the acounts of the Israelite nation. Probably because such passages are impossible to justify if one considers god good or just.

  Worship god all you like, just have the self-respect not to compromise your intellect by thnking the Bible is all from god when the evidence shows much of if not all of it is just a historical account of sometimes dubious accuracy and morality.
• 

  Kaput

  pennycandy --

  Try this link (as well as the other topics listed there): http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/intro.html
• 

  PrimateDave

  Well, for starters, there is a series of essays that rebut Josh McDowell's Evidence That Demands a Verdict at
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/
  
  An old book that I found useful is Is It God's Word? by Joseph Wheless. It is not up-to-date accurate, nor is it scholarly, but you may find some useful information in it, nonetheless. I recommend starting in chapter 2. You can read it for free (a scanned version of the printed book with typos in HTML format) at
  
  http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/is_it_gods_word/
  
  Finally, there is a more recent book that you can also read for free (HTML or PDF) called Biblical Nonsense by Dr. Jason Long available at
  
  http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/
  
  You may also find the information at http://www.talkorigins.org/ interesting.
  
  Dave
• 

  beginnersmind

  Im pretty new here so please go easy on me. My point is not to comment on the God of the OT or other specific accounts but to stick up for Lilly as she seems to have been ganged up on a bit i think unfairly. Scully in your original post you thought that those verses were about a girl who was and i paraphrase "raped and according to Gods perfect law would have to marry the rapist and that was the vilest thing and thats supposed to be righteous and justice and that it was uttered by the mouth of a loving God". Lilly simply showed that that wasnt what the verse was about and then explained it in. I agree Scully you never "claimed that God condoned these activities" as Lilly said, but your original post clearly implied God was punishing an innocent rape victim. Although what Lilly said was technically wrong you have to admit Scully you were saying God was basically wicked because of your view of those verses. I know thats not the same as saying God condones those acts but im trying to make you understand why Lilly made that statement. As i said im new here and i dont want to make enemies with anyone well not just yet lol but i thought some were a bit harsh on her and i thought i would support her and hopefully we can all get along whatever our opinion.
• 

  Scully

  Hi beginnersmind, thanks for your comments. Goodonya for picking up where Lilly left off.

  Let me repost exactly what I wrote:

  The parts where the virgin girl who was raped and was required by God's Perfect Law to marry her rapist and remain with him for the rest of her life was one of the most vile, unjust, unloving, degrading requirement I have ever seen in print. This was supposed to be "righteous"?? This was supposed to be "justice"?? This was supposed to have been uttered by the mouth of a "loving" god?? Not my cup of tea, thanks.

  Apparently my attempt at sarcasm in referring to the bible as "God's Perfect Law" was missed. That's what this guy ~~> <~~ was meant to show: that I consider those laws anything but "perfect" or "righteous" or "loving".

  Something else to consider: if we find those culturally-acceptable-for-their-time practices appalling today, what does that say about wherefrom we derive our morality - can it really be based in religion or the bible at all? If those values are morally and ethically repugnant in the 21st century, how did we come to the point of modifying our morals and ethics, particularly if a person is of the opinion that the bible is an acceptable benchmark or standard of morality? Why was it good enough in its totality for them back then, but it isn't good enough in its totality for us now? Are morals and ethics things that evolve, allowing us to discard obviously flawed codes of behaviour? If someone is going to say that they live by the bible, yet they pick and choose only the parts that are convenient or palatable, how is that different from the JW who uses the bible to fit their own ideology?
• 

  lovelylil

  Dear beginnersmind;

  My point was that the virgin girl was NOT forced to marry her rapist in the way people think - because that word "rape" did not mean "rape" as we use this term in our present day vocabulary. It meant that the man had sex unlawfully with a girl because that girl was not bethrowed to him. Or, not promised in marriage to him. The law was to protect girls from being used sexually by men and then the men walking away and saying "well, I am not obligated to this girl just because I had sex with her". The man had to either 1. pay a fine to the girl and her family or 2. marry her because now she lost her chasitity and at that time men wanted to marry virgins and not girls who had sex with someone else. The purpose of this law was to protect a girl's chastity and to make men own up to their responsibility and to teach them that they cannot just use a women for their own pleasure, they would be expected to pay consequences. But again, the man did not forcibly rape or hurt the girl the way we would think of that word "rape" today. As far as we know the girl consented to the sex, but it did not matter. The man was held to a higher standard because the girl's chastity had to be protected. So God's righteous standards did not force anyone to marry their rapist. Peace, Lilly

  btw: see my post about the rape and murders in Judges.
• 

  wanderlustguy

  Dammit...someone comes along asking for recomended reading and it becomes a damn debate on Rape in the bible. I swear you guys may be out of the Dubs...but you still have the Dub Debate Programming in full swing...

  Back to the point of the original post...If you limit your research to the bible only. I think you'll miss a lot, as you will of you stick with a purely athiest view,there is agnostic as well.

  I'd recommend Joseph Cambell's "The Power of Myth".

  Oh...one more thing...Scully is right, just because I like her.

  And my dad can beat up your dad.

  WLG
• 

  5go

  Dammit...someone comes along asking for recomended reading and it becomes a damn debate on Rape in the bible. I swear you guys may be out of the Dubs...but you still have the Dub Debate Programming in full swing...

  Um dubs don't debate man ! WBTS is god there is no debating god. So some of us suck at it OK.

  By the way play xenosaga it's a good agnostic game.

  By any school text book long as it isn't from the bible belt.