Desert Snake
Veteran Member
The Bible is a collection of Books, this is not some monolithic cultural and religious adherence, to these Scriptures. Aren't there other religious texts to criticize?
Last edited:
-
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!
Do you think the Bible could be the word of G-d? /for atheists & agnostics
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
Saying God (if one or more exist) is not a male with a secondary female manifestation - is not feminist agenda.
There is no reason what so ever for a God to be male or female.
The Bible was written by an Iron Age patriarchal tribe - thus Father.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The Bible actually says God is responsible for both good and evil.
However, the reality is that the Bible is made up by man. It is not the word of a God. That is obvious by the horrific content within it.
The God within it is psycho - murdering innocent babies, allowing slavery, rape, sex slaves, etc. This is what man wants, - not a God.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The Adam and Chavvah story - is just that - a story. It is not reality. Though of course you can believe in talking serpents and an evil Chavvah if you wish. Just don't expect the rest of us to believe it and fall under stupid patriarchal religious laws.
Also, - I have no problem with men, just with ridiculous patriarchal ideas about women, especially in religion.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
This is hilarious as YOU have no proof that your God even exists.
You thinking it does, doesn't make it so.
And I might add - why would a God need gender? Is there some sexy Goddess up there he needs male sex parts to have sex with? LOL!
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
because it is the word of God
"bunch"? sound like you have an agenda.
prove it
having roles is not negative. The word sexism has been brought about by women to fool men into giving them power and wealth. They have done a good job it seems.
homosexuality is not normal so there is nothing illogical about saying so
Wow! More of your ridiculous patriarchal ideas are coming out with every post now.
*
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
The Bible is indeed just a collection of edited works by humans, - not God.
As to criticizing other religious texts, - it would be ridiculous for me to start discussing Buddhism in a thread specifically asking if we think the Bible could be the word of God!
*
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yes but divine Scripture can still be written by people, you don't really think that any of think that G-d literally wrote the Bible? That's not even an argument.
I mean, there are many texts in other threads.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
And there is no way of knowing what IS or isn't so-called Divine Scripture, except perhaps by reading the material, and contemplating it.
However, just reading the Bible and it's descriptions of the actions of YHVH, - make it very obvious this is not the word of any God.
It is the writings of man, and what man wants the right to do, - steal land, murder people for being different, owning women, raping women, murdering babies and other innocents, slavery, sexual slavery, women murdered or raped for the action of men, etc.
The description of YHVH in the Bible, makes it obvious YHVH is not God. His description is pure evil.
*
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
So, your only reading the negative in Scripture. That's your prerogative, but I do not need to read it in that manner.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
So you just ignore all the evil the Bible says YHVH does, and allows?
It doesn't bother you that the being you call God - kills innocent babies, allows women to be raped and owned, sex slaves, etc. (according to the Bible?)
Pollyannaism at play?
*
Unification
Well-Known Member
The slavery "could" be something that has control over the mind and not referring to literal slavery outside of literal interpretation by the weak word(mind-thoughts) of how man commonly thinks and assumes.
Taking fictional events as facts is an enslaved mind itself.
If there were "God" and these texts are the word(mind-thoughts) of "God," then it is highly likely that how mankind interprets them would be utterly false, such as literal slavery, literal man and woman, literal husband and wife, literal countries, cities, nations, literal marriage, literal children, etc. Literal interpretations would be considered "the word(mind) of man."
Unification
Well-Known Member
The literal interpretations could be the word(mind-thoughts) of man.
Babies in these texts "could" be referring to mind children, that has a woman(mind) raped and owned.
In that case, in order to have a higher mind, those mind children that are controlled/raped/owned to believe fictional texts as facts need destroyed.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
There are various instances of metaphor used in the Bible, that ''look'' literal, imo.
Ingledsva
HEATHEN ALASKAN
King David is supposedly a real person.
According to the Bible YHVH kills his innocent baby, for David's crimes.
And then David the criminal gets promoted, a Bible hero. HUMMMM!
It is patriarchal thinking that kills children and women for the crimes of males.
The Bible is obviously not from any God.
It is the writings of a patriarchal tribe.
*
Ditto.
Unification
Well-Known Member
If there is "God," to the mind of "God," King David could be could be an ape or a gorilla and King of the jungle, or another specie and a blood line towards the human being.
Or King David could be the suprasellar cistern of the human brain and not a literal guy or animal.
Or it could simply be, that male/female are not literal guy/girl but positive/negative or conscious/subconscious or thoughts/emotions or knowledge/wisdom.
In the mind of man, it would be taken that a literal innocent baby is killed.
In the mind of "God," it could mean that a "thought," an "emotion," a "desire" was killed in ones mind due to a choice or action.
If there is "God," to the mind of "God," all or many of those tribes could have been various animal species evolving.
Kartari
Active Member
Hi Unification,
That's a lot of "could be's." Personally, I think the ancient authors of the Jewish/Christian scriptures very likely intended no such things. Ancient values (slavery, misogyny, extreme violence, etc.) are clearly portrayed as part of the "moral" worldview in these stories, made to appear acceptable to the authors' God. Rather, I think modern readers, like you, are actually reading into the archaic writings as if more interesting and metaphorical connotations were implied. But it seems clear to me that this is rather a lot of imaginative reinterpretation. The Bible seems to serve as a kind of Rorschach test for readers, where one can basically construe any meaning one wishes to see in it, or which one is predisposed or biased to believe. This is evinced by the wide plethora of contradictory beliefs all nonetheless claimed to originate with these stories.
Now, I do think it is a good thing when these stories are interpreted in more positive ways. But again, this is human imagination at work, seeking to adapt the old words to fit a changing worldview.
That's a lot of "could be's." Personally, I think the ancient authors of the Jewish/Christian scriptures very likely intended no such things. Ancient values (slavery, misogyny, extreme violence, etc.) are clearly portrayed as part of the "moral" worldview in these stories, made to appear acceptable to the authors' God. Rather, I think modern readers, like you, are actually reading into the archaic writings as if more interesting and metaphorical connotations were implied. But it seems clear to me that this is rather a lot of imaginative reinterpretation. The Bible seems to serve as a kind of Rorschach test for readers, where one can basically construe any meaning one wishes to see in it, or which one is predisposed or biased to believe. This is evinced by the wide plethora of contradictory beliefs all nonetheless claimed to originate with these stories.
Now, I do think it is a good thing when these stories are interpreted in more positive ways. But again, this is human imagination at work, seeking to adapt the old words to fit a changing worldview.
Last edited:
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
That is merely a feminist mysandristic bent, whether you wish to admit it to yourself or not. Would you jump up and down if it were written by women I wonder? I doubt it.
It was written by men as men represent the masculine side of the consciousness that we are all apart of, that is why there is male female, hot cold, fat thin, life death etc
Robert.Evans
You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Not THE God. But we are talking, oh ignorant one, of the God of the Flesh. And there is a huge difference between the two