• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rejection of Holy Books & Divine Inspiration

Neo Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works were by anonymous authors. Not to mention large portions of the stories are nothing more than hearsay...3rd parties retelling what happened. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. No human is perfect and free from any type of mistakes. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That armor is heavy and extremely hot, not "cool." That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago, translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period and speak the language, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands, dictated the words verbatim and thus the book is free from error. Bah...that is just an excuse to justify a position. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...
 
Last edited:
Baladas

Baladas

An Págánach
The Deist said:
Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works are by anonymous authors, or there are theories as to who wrote what. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. There is not a human on the planet that is perfect and free from any type of mistake. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval English knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That **** is heavy and hot, not cool. That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago and translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands and thus the book is free from error. Bah, drivel. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...
Click to expand...

I know that this is a DIR, but I just wanted to say that I completely agree.
I treat scriptures of any flavor as I would any philosophy book, and I believe it is dangerous not to do so.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
The Deist said:
Deists typically reject holy books and divine inspiration. Far too often we are asked why. I wanted to take a moment and touch on this so that present/future deists can answer those questions logically.

For starters, every single holy book on the planet was written by the hands of humans, and many of those works were by anonymous authors. Not to mention large portions of the stories are nothing more than hearsay...3rd parties retelling what happened. That in and of itself makes such books subject to error. No human is perfect and free from any type of mistakes. Think about it...when you type a letter, how many times do you have to backspace, use error check, spell check, etc.? To further complicate holy books, when you translate outside of the original language and era, there will be a loss of meaning. Cultural idioms from the time period play a large role in the written works of that period.

If you were to go back in time and speak to a medieval knight decked out in full plate armor during July, and you said, "man that is cool!" he would look at you like you were the village idiot. That armor is heavy and extremely hot, not "cool." That is an example of an idiom that would be lost on him. The same happens when you take written works from thousands of years ago, translate them into a different language, and try to make sense of it in a modern culture. Unless you can put yourself in the mindset of the person and time period and speak the language, you really don't have a clue what is being said.

Some people will say that the holy book writers were divinely inspired, and that God guided their hands, dictated the words verbatim and thus the book is free from error. Bah...that is just an excuse to justify a position. I could easily say that I was divinely inspired to write a message that says no holy book was divinely inspired. Now we have a problem because clearly someone is wrong. Neither position can be proven true or false. The reason people say that holy book X was divinely inspired was so that others would not question it. "God said it and you have to accept it, no questions asked!" That is the real reason...those with power and influence want to maintain that power and influence.

So in summary:

Holy books: written by humans and subject to error, idioms and time period
Divine inspiration: an unprovable position used so that something can't be questioned

Edit: to be continued soon...
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's also the reason God doesn't intervene in the universe, the same reason God (if It exists) would have created the universe--Free Will.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Deist Mentor said:
I am a big advocate of free will, I just did not have time to touch on it during the OP writing.
Click to expand...

I'm just proselytizing (if you will) the idea of free will's ultimate, singular importance. It's the sole purpose for this sentient spawning universe, and thus, why God, if It exists, would be a deist/laissez faire God.
 
Neo Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Neo Deist said:
Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.
Click to expand...

Exactly and vice versa with good things happening to bad people. Someone spent a lot of time writing the Book of Job, spinning his wheels getting nowhere, trying to placate those asking "Why?" in ever louder voices. ("Pastor, Rabbi, Shaman, this just doesn't make sense. My crops just died after I tended to them daily, while my worthless cousin across the river who sleeps 20 hours a day [and is drunk the other 4], just had a bumper crop!?!?!") There is just no good reasonable explanation for an interventionist God not intervening, or intervening when It shouldn't have.
 
G

GoodbyeDave

Well-Known Member
It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel. Well, we can all feel inspired, but whether we are or not is another question! As for Muhammad's encounters with Gabriel, how could he know just who he was talking to? And, as with any channeled text, how much actually came from his own subconscious?

Many pagans (Africa, much of Native America, India) believe in a creator, but regard them in a deist way. Greek and Roman pagans were led to a belief in a creator by the arguments of philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle, but not usually as an object of worship, any more than a Hindu would pray to Brahman rather than to Vishnu or Ganesha.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
DavidMcCann said:
It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel. Well, we can all feel inspired, but whether we are or not is another question! As for Muhammad's encounters with Gabriel, how could he know just who he was talking to? And, as with any channeled text, how much actually came from his own subconscious?
Click to expand...

The usual technique is to couch a statement as a divine quote ("Thus sayeth the Lord....."), or making one's self into God's direct mouthpiece ("My temple should be a house of prayer!").
 
Neo Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
DavidMcCann said:
It's interesting that none of the people who created scriptures seem to have claimed an actual encounter with the Supreme Being: they felt inspired or were taught by an angel.
Click to expand...

Well, that is not quite accurate. Moses is accredited with writing the Torah (although modern scholars now question that) and he had quite a few encounters with God. Jacob had a wrestling match with God (and God had to cheat to win...he dislocated Jacob's hip). Yet the Bible also states that no one has seen God so, it seems contradictions run amuck.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Neo Deist said:
Free will also explains why bad things happen to good people. If God intervened, it would not longer be free will...even in cases of murder, rape, child abuse, etc.
Click to expand...

But that free will isn't compatible with supernatural baggage that comes with your Christian Deism.

Nice new logo, btw. The declaration of freedom (free will) at the center/nucleus of our atomic existence. Don't know if that's what was intended. And then then there's that pesky ever-present CD inconsistency problem.
 
Neo Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
ThePainefulTruth said:
But that free will isn't compatible with supernatural baggage that comes with your Christian Deism.

Nice new logo, btw. The declaration of freedom (free will) at the center/nucleus of our atomic existence. Don't know if that's what was intended. And then then there's that pesky ever-present CD inconsistency problem.
Click to expand...

There is nothing supernatural about my belief regarding Jesus as a man and teacher, with a moral message to follow. :D
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Neo Deist said:
There is nothing supernatural about my belief regarding Jesus as a man and teacher, with a moral message to follow. :D
Click to expand...

You've got to separate the man from the (myriad number of ) myths without having to deal with those myths, which for 98% of Christians IS Christianity. I know that doesn't seem to bother you, but if Truth isn't our ultimate goal, which is denying myths wholesale, then you're only offering confusion. Or do you say up front, "Christian deism" implies no acceptance of any divine interaction in this universe?
 
Neo Deist

Neo Deist

Th.D. & D.Div. h.c.
ThePainefulTruth said:
You've got to separate the man from the (myriad number of ) myths without having to deal with those myths, which for 98% of Christians IS Christianity. I know that doesn't seem to bother you, but if Truth isn't our ultimate goal, which is denying myths wholesale, then you're only offering confusion. Or do you say up front, "Christian deism" implies no acceptance of any divine interaction in this universe?
Click to expand...

The people that I talk to follow my logic perfectly and have a tendency to agree with me, after I explain my beliefs in full. No one is confused; they are however, enlightened and express it.
 
ThePainefulTruth

ThePainefulTruth

Romantic-Cynic
Neo Deist said:
The people that I talk to follow my logic perfectly and have a tendency to agree with me, after I explain my beliefs in full. No one is confused; they are however, enlightened and express it.
Click to expand...

Hard to know what you're telling them. Billions of adherents of different religions "feel" enlightened, e.g. Christian following the "logic" that salvation via somebody 2000 years ago ostensibly sacrificing his life for them, while ignoring the necessity of repentance; and they don't have the first idea of what Truth or free will is about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top