what do atheists/others think of the bible?

[ih8censorship]

i was just curious as to what atheists/non-christans thought about the bible. i mean like do they agree with anything in it, or a large percentage or nothing or havent they read it at all? ill look at it from a different prospective- i havent read much as to other religeons religeous texts (unless you want to count a big book on greek mythology that i read in 7th grade...) but id be interested in it just to know what the other religeon belives and why they do the things that they do (such as various buddists burning themselves alive and this "jihad" were hearing so much about).

[Gilgaron]

If you're attending a university, I recommend taking a Comparative Religion course. I certainly enjoyed the one I took a great deal, and learned a lot about various religions. If you're not, you could simply visit a bookstore and look for a Comparative Religion textbook. It won't be as in depth as a course, but it will be cheaper :smile:

I view religious texts more from an academic standpoint than anything else. Interesting, insightful, or anachronistic depending upon what I'm reading.

[technomage]

i was just curious as to what atheists/non-christans thought about the bible.
It depends on the context I am investigating in it.

1: If I'm examining the Bible as a piece of literature )actually, as an assemblage of literature written across at least an eight-hundred year span), I tend to take each book as a separate entity. "History Myth" (parts of the Pentateuch) is different in character from "Hero Tales" (such as other parts of the Pentateuch, Judges, Esther, and parts of the Kings-Chronicles books), which is different from Poetry (Psalms) or Wisdom Texts (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) or Liturgical Accounts (again, parts of the Pentateuch), or Apocalyptic Texts (such as parts of Daniel). The Old and New Testaments present different problems, because they were written in different cultures with different purposes.

2: If I'm looking at the Bible historically, I tend to place a far greater weight of historicity on parts that can be verified through other resources. Thus I tend to give little historical credence to the books depicting earlier times (such as the Pentateuch and Deuteronomic Histories), and a greater credence to historical books (such as some of the Pauline Epistles, portions of the Kings' Histories, portions of the Prophets). I also tend to give the Bible text a far higher relevance for the time that it was actually written, as opposed to the time it depicts: thus, I give far more weight to the impact and relevance of the Pentateuch to the early years of the Babylonian Captivity, rathe rthan the supposed Patriarchal Age.

3: If I'm looking at the Bible doctrinally (i.e., with a view of understanding Christian doctrine), I tend to see it as a piece, because Christians have historically interpreted as a monolithic work. In that case, I tend, as Christians do, to compare Scripture with Scripture, and to see the Bible as a "process story," a history of God's dealings with the world.

4: If I'm reading the book for enjoyment, I tend to concentrate more on those books that I enjoy, such as Ecclesiastes and the Pauline Epistles. (And I usually read the King James Version, just for the sheer poetry of that edition.)

The Bible is not a simple book, and any "simple" approach would beggar the complexity of the Bible. To answer your other questions--yes, I am quite familiar with your scriptures, and though I do not see them as "spiritually authoritative," I understand that Christians do, and I respect their beliefs in that matter, even though I disagree with them.

Justin

[EvoUK]

I view it a a story book basically, with some historical insignificata to add depth if nothing else. Whilst it gets some of the easier stuff right, it also gets many things wrong- especially morally speaking.

I find the character described as "God" not to have a consistent personality of any kind, but instead seems to be the construct of many different imaginations. If it is intended to represent a single entity, said entity is either schizophrenic or subject to serious mood swings.

Having read it twice I'm not impressed by the penmanship, with the vast majority of the book being overly simplistic and not even particularly interesting.

Though apparently it's a special book which is obviously the work of a god for the following reasons:

1. It says it is.
2. Lots of other people say it is.
3. Early biblical writers predicted things and later biblical writers said they came true.
4. The bible predicted there would be a lot of turmoil in the world and there is a lot of turmoil in the world.


Perhaps I'm just in a cynical mood today.

[zorathruster]

i was just curious as to what atheists/non-christans thought about the bible.
Which bible?

The original bible was assembled in the early 300s by Constantine. Since that time, the Greek, Latin, King James and over one hundred more have been written and assembled. Most scholars admit none of the proclaimed Gospels were written by the actual apostles and are possibly compilations.

Which one are you asking about? :wink:

[ih8censorship]

If you're attending a university, I recommend taking a Comparative Religion course. I certainly enjoyed the one I took a great deal, and learned a lot about various religions. If you're not, you could simply visit a bookstore and look for a Comparative Religion textbook. It won't be as in depth as a course, but it will be cheaper
yeah im not in school at the moment, maybey later maybey not. but yeah i would be interested in comparative religeons studys, the way i like to study is drawing my own conclusions so i probly wouldent have a comparative religeon textbook id probly just take religeons text and compare them to what i belive, and learn the reasons behind why people of other religeons do what they do.

man i could just see me in a comparative religeon class.... i bet i could get the proffessor to not like me in the first 15 minutes :lol: :teeth: now that i think about it me in a programming class would probly turn out simmilar.


And I usually read the King James Version, just for the sheer poetry of that edition. sometime read the 1611 edition of the KJV. it kind of makes me wonder if people actually talked like that.


I view it a a story book basically, with some historical insignificata to add depth if nothing else. yeah thats how i viewed the book on greek mythology i read but i really dont even think there was that much history in that :lol:


Which bible? i dont care what translation... i was just kind of using it as a general term. (however i did not mean the small game hunters "bible"... i read that once :lol: )

its nice to know others opinions ^_^

[Gilgaron]

yeah im not in school at the moment, maybey later maybey not. but yeah i would be interested in comparative religeons studys, the way i like to study is drawing my own conclusions so i probly wouldent have a comparative religeon textbook id probly just take religeons text and compare them to what i belive, and learn the reasons behind why people of other religeons do what they do.
Well, drawing your own conclusions is fine, but if you want to know what other people think about a text their vantage point is equally important, which is where a textbook comes in handy. If you'd rather talk to actual practioners you could look for a temple and call or ask them if they'd mind discussing their religion with you. We went on some field trips when I took the class, and it was worthwhile.


man i could just see me in a comparative religeon class.... i bet i could get the proffessor to not like me in the first 15 minutes :lol: :teeth: now that i think about it me in a programming class would probly turn out simmilar.
I don't know if my professors were representative of most of them, but they would have been very difficult to get to dislike you.

[Zeluvia]

I find it pretty fascinating as a socialogical comment on mankind. If you consider the age of the stories, the probabilty most are based on factual persons its quaint and humorous to see how little mankind has actually changed.

I think the most telling lesson of Christ is that someone who understands true human compassion and tries to live the best life possible, will cause anger, fear, worship, villification, reverance, and awe in the general populace. Although I don't believe Christ was the son of God, I do believe he was an outstandingly powerful personality, and alot of what he allegedly said has merit.

The Bible does contain alot of human wisdom, but also alot of ...well...embroidered mythology.

Genesis is clearly several different mythological systems blended to explain specific theological situations, probably an attempt by Moses to take all the different versions of the people and consolidate and coalesce what was probably a multitude of oral traditions into a coherent and semi-logcial whole. The first section of Genesis is very close to some other prehistoric creation myths. After that, it's pretty literal and acurate history, if only about a very small population in a very small geographical area.

The new Testament to me is people trying to explain that they found a better way to live life, and trying to convince everyone else. While I respect what they felt, and what they tried to do, I don't need to see a God's hand in it, I can believe that it came from the mind and spirit of man.

[zorathruster]

Religion took a wonderful idea and raped it. A man once said, “I know you are aggressive and you have contempt and hate for your fellow man. I know this because you are a human. Humans hate those who are not their family. But I want you to ‘not hate’ your fellow man. I want you to embrace fellow humans that you would not otherwise hold. Embrace the poor and your enemy. But I know you still hate and want to kill someone. So here is the deal. My life is precious to me, more precious than anything. But you can take it, you can kill me. After that you must love your enemy, you must help poor in spirit and sustenance. And if you ever again want to kill someone, remember you have killed me and never let your anger overwhelm you again.”



It’s just a story with a moral but wrap a wonderful idea in mysticism and magic, set up a power structure and now you have modern religion. Throw in Tilson, Baker, Falwell and literally hundreds more scoundrels and you have enough to make you want to wretch.

[lucaspa]

i dont care what translation... i was just kind of using it as a general term. (however i did not mean the small game hunters "bible"... i read that once )

He wasn't talking translations. Different parts of Christianity have different books in their Bibles. Catholics have a couple the Protestants lack, for instance. Then, there are books the earlier Christians had that later Christians dropped. For instance, do a web search on the Book of Enoch, the INfant Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas. So "the Bible" that you are reading is not necessarily "the Bible" other Christians have read.

[lucaspa]

I view it a a story book basically, with some historical insignificata to add depth if nothing else. Whilst it gets some of the easier stuff right, it also gets many things wrong- especially morally speaking. Morals change. THe morals were correct for the time. The Bible is a guide, not a rulebook. Eventually, Jesus gave a set of morals Mat 7:12 and Luke 6:31 that is very correct and provides a touchstone for all other discussions of ethics.


find the character described as "God" not to have a consistent personality of any kind, but instead seems to be the construct of many different imaginations. If it is intended to represent a single entity, said entity is either schizophrenic or subject to serious mood swings.Or said entity is quite complex and people understood that entity differently depending on how "grown-up" their culture was. IF teh depictions of God were all identical, THEN I would suspect fraud. When people encounter overwhelming situations, the accounts always differ. Have a major accident and 5 witnesses, you will get 5 different versions of what happened. Oftentimes the differences are major. And, of course, sometimes teh authors blame God for actions that were probably due to humans. I'm particularly thinking of the burning of the opposition to Moses and Aaron.

Having read it twice I'm not impressed by the penmanship, with the vast majority of the book being overly simplistic and not even particularly interesting.


Though apparently it's a special book which is obviously the w...ork of a god for the following reasons:

1. It says it is.
2. Lots of other people say it is.
3. Early biblical writers predicted things and later biblical writers said they came true.
4. The bible predicted there would be a lot of turmoil in the world and there is a lot of turmoil in the world. 1. Actually, the Bible NEVER says it is the w...ork of God. In Mark 10 Jesus specifically says the Pentateuch was not written by God, but by Moses, and Moses got it wrong. All the Bible really says -- 2 Tim 3:16 -- is that it is useful for instruction and understanding God.
2. For many people, the encounters of God described in the Bible are close enough to their own spiritual encounters that they view the Bible as accurately recounting encounters with God.

You aren't being cynical, but building strawmen based on what one segment of Christians say.

[Brian37]

I view it a a story book basically, with some historical insignificata to add depth if nothing else. Whilst it gets some of the easier stuff right, it also gets many things wrong- especially morally speaking.

I find the character described as "God" not to have a consistent personality of any kind, but instead seems to be the construct of many different imaginations. If it is intended to represent a single entity, said entity is either schizophrenic or subject to serious mood swings.

Having read it twice I'm not impressed by the penmanship, with the vast majority of the book being overly simplistic and not even particularly interesting.

Though apparently it's a special book which is obviously the work of a god for the following reasons:

1. It says it is.
2. Lots of other people say it is.
3. Early biblical writers predicted things and later biblical writers said they came true.
4. The bible predicted there would be a lot of turmoil in the world and there is a lot of turmoil in the world.


Perhaps I'm just in a cynical mood today.


I see it as strictly religious literature written by people of the time who truely believed that their deity would come back in their time to save that generation. Prior pagan religions and the newer ones that have evolved over the centuries all make the same claim. "My deity will save the world and save it's chosen people."

Mind you I go to a Unitarian Church as an atheist, so dont think that my criticisms are out of hate or bigotry.

I see no need for a deity of any lable to tell me what common sense is.

For example. There are things that I can do to make things better for myself and to the community around me. Then there are things that will never change. I must learn for myself to balance the difference.

"You cant change everything" is not a philosophy that is new to Christianity, it simply was phrased in a different way in the bible, same meaning though.

I also think that people only want to view the "God" character as being good all the time.

I dont.

The plot of the bible quite frankely scares me, and should certainly scare Jewish people.

1. God demands that everyone be a Hebrew and obey his laws, if they dont, they get smashed, crushed and distoryed.

2. Part 2: Somehow the Jews lost favor with God and now Christians are the only ones who will make it up to heaven, which means that just based on the 6 billion people on the planet today, 4 billion are going to hell, including the Jews. Even more than that if you interpret the Evangelical version where only 100,000 or so will make it.

3. Part 3. The only way that Christians can make it to heaven is if the signs of the "end times" start. That means, the faithfull Jews must get a nation from God. This dispite that they wont make it to heaven, only in order so that Christians can make it to heaven.

Jews have the Same God as Christians but dont believe in Jesus, are just as "faithfull", but are going to burn in hell because they dont believe in Jesus. So why give them a nation as a reward only to condemn them to eternal torture?

I dont know about you, but it scares me that simply having a different religion is cause for eternal damnation.

[ih8censorship]

In Mark 10 Jesus specifically says the Pentateuch was not written by God, but by Moses, and Moses got it wrong. well you know i dont agree with you. Jesus said that what moses said was no longer the way things should be. theres a difference between the old testament way of doing things and the new testament way.
Old Testament=strict laws
New Testament=guidelines, grace and mercy

and besides that none of the books of the bible were written directly by God...... you should know that by now. they were inspired works.


He wasn't talking translations. Different parts of Christianity have different books in their Bibles. Catholics have a couple the Protestants lack, for instance. Then, there are books the earlier Christians had that later Christians dropped. For instance, do a web search on the Book of Enoch, the INfant Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas. So "the Bible" that you are reading is not necessarily "the Bible" other Christians have read. im still using it as a general term....because of the scope of this thread if you wanted you could almost replace bible with "holy book of a religeon" .


character described as "God" not to have a consistent personality of any kind, but instead seems to be the construct of many different imaginations. If it is intended to represent a single entity, said entity is either schizophrenic or subject to serious mood swings. well that would be understandable if one person wrote the bible, but there was so many, and so many differenet writing styles and points of view. because to one person one thing God did might be great and respectible and awsome but to the person on the other end its terrible. people are like that.


I also think that people only want to view the "God" character as being good all the time.

I dont.
again, i think thats the authors/readers point of view at work.

Brian37- what if jews turned away from their messiah? could that why they are no longer "safe"? i think the faithful/sincere jewish in the old testament are in heaven on the basis that what they were practicing was the way to do it before jesus came. and your talking as if jews cant also be christians. its not hard to become a christian, you just have to belive that jesus died for you, admit that your a sinner, and try hard not to do things that you know are wrong.


Mind you I go to a Unitarian Church as an atheist, so dont think that my criticisms are out of hate or bigotry. ive never heard of atheists going to church.. is this a farily common practice?


Throw in Tilson, Baker, Falwell and literally hundreds more scoundrels and you have enough to make you want to wretch. yeah i think any religeon is like that... full of deceivers , hypocrites, and extremeism.

[JamesD]

i mean like do they agree with anything in it, or a large percentage or nothing or havent they read it at all?
Many Atheists are former xtians and know the buy-bull quite well.
You might try a few Atheist boards on line. I could send a few address if you like. The public library is open most days. Barnes and Noble has a huge section on religion.
but id be interested in it just to know what the other religeon belives and why they do the things that they do (such as various buddists burning themselves alive and this "jihad" were hearing so much about).
There are 6 billion people on this planet and about 2 billion are followers one of the xtian sects. You'll find many of those other 4 billion ask the same questions about xtians blowing each other up, or the crusades, wars ect. They'll also ask why they don't believe in our holy book or worship our god.
Good luck on your studies.


"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - - Stephen Roberts

[wattsr1]

i was just curious as to what atheists/non-christans thought about the bible. i mean like do they agree with anything in it, or a large percentage or nothing or havent they read it at all? ill look at it from a different prospective- i havent read much as to other religeons religeous texts (unless you want to count a big book on greek mythology that i read in 7th grade...) but id be interested in it just to know what the other religeon belives and why they do the things that they do (such as various buddists burning themselves alive and this "jihad" were hearing so much about).

Hello ih8censorship,

There are many things to think of about the Bible.

Largely “it” is a collection of disparate books written by various authors over many centuries – deemed to be relevant in some way (sacred texts) with respect to the deity of western culture.

It is arguably the most influentual book in western culture.

Like most books of its genre it contains many stories, some of which are factual in some ways, and non factual in other ways.

Its books center on various aspects of Jews and Jewish life through the ages and thus contain laws, letters, stories (mythical, and historical), prophecies etc.

As a book, parts of it are beautifully written while other parts are badly written.

There are a wide range of reactions to the Bible. These range from the most noble with respect to human behaviour through to the most damnable. There are a wide range of opinions amongst those who accept it as a sacred book, as to the central message (if there really is one) of the Bible.

It probably reflects different attitudes and opinions of the various authors towards the central deity.

The above reflect some of my views of the Bible.

As for the reality of that central deity? I am an atheist.

Regards, Roland

[Mark Little]

i was just curious as to what atheists/non-christans thought about the bible.I think that it is a folk history in the old testament, with a lot of advice that was relevant to the time/culture woven into it.

The new testament is also a collection of stories, but essentially about a charasmatic person who offered some rather good advice in most cases. I believe that the stories have most likely been embelished (virgin birth, son of god, etc) by the story tellers to enhance his status in the eyes of followers and potential followers.

I think it is like most holy texts used by other religions, fact mixed with embellishment and fantasy.

[lucaspa]

well you know i dont agree with you. Jesus said that what moses said was no longer the way things should be. theres a difference between the old testament way of doing things and the new testament way.
Old Testament=strict laws
New Testament=guidelines, grace and mercy Well, you agree that Jesus is saying Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not God. And, if you look, Jesus' view is stricter on divorce than Moses' Moses allowed divorce. Jesus doesn't. :smile:


and besides that none of the books of the bible were written directly by God...... you should know that by now. they were inspired works.Ah, but you claimed they were. Nice to see you abandon the claim. Now, however, you have to decide when the human author got the inspiration correct and when he didn't. After all, Moses didn't get it correct.


lucaspa:

He wasn't talking translations. Different parts of Christianity have different books in their Bibles. Catholics have a couple the Protestants lack, for instance. Then, there are books the earlier Christians had that later Christians dropped. For instance, do a web search on the Book of Enoch, the INfant Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Thomas. So "the Bible" that you are reading is not necessarily "the Bible" other Christians have read.im still using it as a general term....because of the scope of this thread if you wanted you could almost replace bible with "holy book of a religeon" You are ignoring the specific claims. The poster wanted to know which Bible since there have been different compilations of books. You responded by talking about translations. You two were talking about apples and oranges. I tried to clarify.

Yes, "the Bible" is viewed as the holy book of Judeo-Christianity. But not all of Judeo-Christianity has the same text in their Bible even today and certainly not thru history. And that different text conveys different theology. So you can't talk about only different translations. You still have the problem of which Bible? The Catholic one? The Protestant one? The one before the Council of Trent? The Bible before the Council of Antioch? All contain different books.

So please specify which Bible you are talking about. The Protestant Bible since the Council of Trent?


lucaspa: ive never heard of atheists going to church.. is this a farily common practice?

yeah i think any religeon is like that... full of deceivers , hypocrites, and extremeism.I wasn't talking to you. You have no idea whether those atheists are any of the things you list. They are going to the Unitarian Universalist church. Now, let's wait and get some more information first before you start complaining about the dust mote in your neighbor's eye, OK?

[shunyadragon]

Well, you agree that Jesus is saying Moses wrote the Pentateuch, not God. And, if you look, Jesus' view is stricter on divorce than Moses' Moses allowed divorce. Jesus doesn't. :smile:

Ah, but you claimed they were. Nice to see you abandon the claim. Now, however, you have to decide when the human author got the inspiration correct and when he didn't. After all, Moses didn't get it correct.

You are ignoring the specific claims. The poster wanted to know which Bible since there have been different compilations of books. You responded by talking about translations. You two were talking about apples and oranges. I tried to clarify.

Yes, "the Bible" is viewed as the holy book of Judeo-Christianity. But not all of Judeo-Christianity has the same text in their Bible even today and certainly not thru history. And that different text conveys different theology. So you can't talk about only different translations. You still have the problem of which Bible? The Catholic one? The Protestant one? The one before the Council of Trent? The Bible before the Council of Antioch? All contain different books.

So please specify which Bible you are talking about. The Protestant Bible since the Council of Trent?

I wasn't talking to you. You have no idea whether those atheists are any of the things you list. They are going to the Unitarian Universalist church. Now, let's wait and get some more information first before you start complaining about the dust mote in your neighbor's eye, OK?
Yes some atheists go to the Unitarian Universalist Church which is Humanist, and consists of an eclectic mix of alternative beliefs that find common ground in the humanist doctrine. When I was younger I attended the this church as very pleasent and rewarding alternative to the establishment Churches.

[yuzuha]

Like the Koran, Upanishads, Kojiki etc., I simply find it an interesting collection of stories and parables peppered with occasional bits of subjective oral history (There is usually some bit of history behind folktales).