Do you think the Bible could be the word of G-d? /for atheists & agnostics

[Rick O'Shez]

You must also remember that times were different then.

But surely that's the point, things have moved on.

 

[Parsimony]

WHO VOTED "YES/I'M AN ATHEIST" IN THIS POLL? What?

I don't know, but it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. Why couldn't an atheist think that it could technically be possible that the Bible was inspired by God? A person could believe that something is possible without actually believing that it is true. For example, I think that it is possible that we live in a simulated universe, but do not actually believe that to be the case.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

I don't know, but it doesn't sound that unreasonable to me. Why couldn't an atheist think that it could technically be possible that the Bible was inspired by God? A person could believe that something is possible without actually believing that it is true.

Seems rather contradictory. I mean I suppose I get that far reaching so much so that you have to sever your arm to reach it kind of thinking but still.

 

[Parsimony]

Seems rather contradictory. I mean I suppose I get that far reaching so much so that you have to sever your arm to reach it kind of thinking but still.

Why should accepting the possibility of something be at odds with one's belief about that same thing? It's just an admission that, while you have reason to believe what you do, you still allow for the possibility of being wrong.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Why should accepting the possibility of something be at odds with one's belief about that same thing? It's just an admission that, while you have reason to believe what you do, you still allow for the possibility of being wrong.

Indeed. I still find it contradictory. Seems to stem from the "well anything is possible" philosophy. Not saying they were wrong. Just pointing it out. I assume you are the second one to have answered yes to that option?

 

[McBell]

WHO VOTED "YES/I'M AN ATHEIST" IN THIS POLL? What?

Could the Bible be the word of some god?
Yes it could.
Not that I would want anything to do with said god.

 

[Parsimony]

Indeed. I still find it contradictory. Seems to stem from the "well anything is possible" philosophy. Not saying they were wrong.

That is the philosophy I was referencing, yes.

Just pointing it out. I assume you are the second one to have answered yes to that option?

Nope, cause I'm not an atheist.

 

[viole]

WHO VOTED "YES/I'M AN ATHEIST" IN THIS POLL? What?

Me.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Monk Of Reason]

MYSTERY SOLVED

 

[viole]

MYSTERY SOLVED

Half of it, currently.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Ingledsva]

You need to be less sensitive and see how you come across to others.

That post was written before your comment of being an atheist. Either way, your comments are atheistic, that is obvious.

You are ignorant of this subject as we are all ignorant of something. This subject is "spiritually discerned", which you seem to have forgotten. It is a common mistake amongst atheist, and it seems agnostics who state atheists claims.
Your picture is of a one eyed woman. You are spiritually blind, that is fact. You should not be using sacred text, that is fact. But, in this free world we live in, you are entitled to use it. i am just speaking to you from a higher level, a level you obviously don't like.

"rebut"? Presumably you don't understand what that means. You have given an OPINION that is FALSE. That is all. And considering you are not considering you are wrong in a book that says it requires SPIRITUAL DISCERNMENT perhaps you are a troll.

There's that "dude" again.

So what? God proves not man. That is simple. Just try and listen for a change and accept the argument instead of sticking with your own warped version of it whic suits your atheistic comments.

Suddenly it has turned into the royal "we" has it.

Your last words are baseless and from someone woefully inadequate in this subject. Ignorance is bliss they say.
As an agnostic, depending on your defintion, you are not supposed to know one way or another if God can be proved or not. You are going out of your way to show you are an atheist yet claim to be agnostic. If you were truly agnostic, you would listen more and talk less. I think you should reconsider your title. It sounds like a cop out to me.

Same BULL!

Same falsehoods!

Same misunderstanding of what has been said to you.

Your post deserves nothing more then these few truths.

*

 

[Robert.Evans]

Same BULL!

Same falsehoods!

Same misunderstanding of what has been said to you.

Your post deserves nothing more then these few truths.

*

Your problem is, as one who does not know a subject that is spiritually discerned, you won't listen to anyone else. It no doubt suits you to hold your own views, but ultimately, they will take you no where. Your comments, as always, are offensive.

 

[Ingledsva]

*

You have a very strange idea of Agnosticism. Somehow YOUR idea of a God is the ONLY one, - thus those of us whom point out the flaws in the Bible must be Atheists???

What flaws? You don't like some of things that went on thousands of years ago so you think there is no God? Where does it say that God cannot do bad things? The OT tells you plainly, which I am sure you are aware of, that he does everything, good and evil. Even the initial evil came from a garden He planted. (that is not a literal garden) Please present your flaws. One at a time if you want them answering so you can then ignore them

There is more reason to believe the one of the bible than any other as the first three faiths are all Abrihamic faiths - so your words are vain. You have a problem with that God of the flesh perhaps. You said yourself that: "However, if there is".... so why then immediately contradict what you said by saying it isn't one, the reason for which appears to be, YOU don't like him.

Correct. but your comments do. You are not speaking as an agnostic, but as an atheist.

...

Again you misunderstand and misquote and say things you have been told repeatedly are FALSE!

Agnostics with a bent toward a God, - do not have to believe YOUR Bible's God, - is actually God. Not believing YOUR YHVH is GOD obviously does not turn all the religious people in the world, - believing in other Gods, - into Atheists! That is just ridiculous on your part.

I said only YOUR YHVH is not an actually God because of the skitzo crap attributed to him in your Bible.

The first religions are not Abrahamic, - you folks just like to claim fairy stories like Adam and Chavvah to falsely claim such.

You have already been given many flaws! Have you even read your Bible.

Your supposedly perfect being goes skitzo and murders innocent babies for the crimes of others.

Your supposedly perfect being - hands down laws that allow men to be horrific towards others - hold slaves forever (real slavery) - own women, rape women in wars, hold multiple sex slaves=concubines, etc.

This being called YHVH in the Bible is obviously not perfect, and not God.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

Your problem is, as one who does not know a subject that is spiritually discerned, you won't listen to anyone else. It no doubt suits you to hold your own views, but ultimately, they will take you no where. Your comments, as always, are offensive.

YOU are the one throwing in "spiritually discerned" because you can't counter the crap your Bible says your God, and supposedly chosen people, did!

I on the other hand am talking about what the Bible says YHVH did - and the laws supposedly given by YHVH to the Hebrew people.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

That depends on how the person take it. ALWAYS.



No idea what you mean there



The one twisting there is you. I was answering your comments where you
said women did not do as much wrong and therefore it appeared that it
didn't matter.



Really! You were not supposed to hurt, kill etc anyone. That was the law.
Love your neighbour. All you are pointing out is that men and woman
are not perfect and would not always keep the law. There is no difference
nowadays. That is why we have laws, police and prisions, for men and
women. Secondary laws would come in as they always do to make it
more usuable in a realistic way. Just like controlling a mob is not like
controlling one man or woman. Laws have to evolve because man will
not keep the royal law.



You could go on and on couldn't you. I noticed that. I think you will find
that there are still pedophiles now, men and women. Seems women are
coming down to our level. But they were not supposed to commit
adultery, nor adulterate anything. One man to one woman, was what
they should have followed. But mankind goes after many schemes. You
should not think that concubines are necessarily raped. They might have
been they might not have been. Times were different then. In times of
war, there were laws on how you could treat a woman if all their men
were dead. That was not rape. but it was certainly better than leaving
there to starve to death. What would you have done?
All you are showing is that mankind does things wrong and does not
keep the law. God is not the problem. The God of flesh that man raised
up is, as we are.
You must also remember that times were different then. We cannot judge
now with what we now have with what they had then. There has to be
practicality about decisions. People will not follow the law, so the law
evolved to counteract the actions of people. But I will repeat, you only
focus on the bad that is within the bible and the bad that men do. You
never consider that they provide for their women and keep them safe.
Just because the Israelites did not write down every good, nice and
boring act that every took place does not mean it did not happen. What
would modern day life look like if we just looked at all the bad now?
Wars, rape, theft, fraud, poor still existing, the list goes on.



There's that LOL again.
That is what it says. You say you use the bible to refute me (even though
you don't) and then you flat ignore what it says. Now that is rich!

okay



Stupid or not, that is the way it was then and still is now. The difference is, the strength can lie in wisdom and not physical strength. Do you not know of gangs in certain areas? How are they ruling that area, through intellect or power and strength?

Again BULL! You keep saying people just do these things, - when I am talking about actual HEBREW LAWS, supposedly from YHVH, that allow for rape, murder, and REAL slavery (only Hebrew indentured servants could go free after a time.)

"Times were different then" - is ridiculous!

There is no difference to the raped women - then or now! No difference to the murdered - then or now. No difference to the enslaved people - then or now!

Wrong is wrong - and your Bible's YHVH doesn't seem to know what wrong/evil is, - as supposedly he put in laws to allow it.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

*

When people are tortured and murdered for not staying within a roll that made women owned, sold, raped, objects, - ABSOLUTELY!

I agree. Where does it say that is allowed in the OT? Though for the life of me, I do not know why I have to keep defending Jewish scriptures. I suppose that is where the juicy ones are; is that it?

Good grief! Do you even bother to read the laws section of your Bible? I have posted ALL of the Bible information about rape - to YOU specifically - before!

LOL! You are going to pretend Tanakh doesn't exist? The stories of your God's supposed creation? The place you got that "oldest religion" from? LOL! Only you can use Tanakh when it suits you?

I might add - the Bible says all other people can be slaves owned FOREVER, and bred like black people in our past.

You like this idea of you being a slave?

Slavery was not meant as we think of it now. And, for your information, whites have been slaves to blacks and asians as well. Lets keep this debate balanced.
There idea of slavery was to help your brother who had nothing. Yes it was abused. but that is mankind isn't it. There was nothing wrong with the law, just the implimating of it. We are no different now. The OT, that grouge about so much, is happening NOW. Consider that for a moment. Not only our men doing the same things, but women are becoming more masculanized and as bad as the men. Why not complain about the countries that exist now? What is better now than then? It all has come from God, though not as you understand him.

Absolute BULL that it wasn't meant as it is now! AGAIN! I have given YOU specifically - the verses showing they could hold non Hebrew slaves FOREVER, and pass them on as an inheritance to the children!

Since you conveniently forgot the info - here it is again.


No mistake at all. The Hebrew Laws said they could own SLAVES from the other nations, forever, and breed them, and pass them on as an inheritance. We read about their concubines. - What is a concubine? A bought, or given, SEX SLAVE. We also have a verse telling us they can take war prisoners they find attractive.

*
Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

Lev 25:46 And you shall take them for inheritance to your sons after you, to hold for a possession; you may enslave them forever. But on your brothers, the sons of Israel, one over another, you shall not rule over him with severity.

*
Exo 21:4 If his master have given him a woman, and she have born him sons or daughters; the woman and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. (Breeding of slave to pass on.)

*
Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.
Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr.

In 20:11 it is a bought slave.

*
Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,


Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy woman;

Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;

Deut 21:13 and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days.And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

*
They were allowed to rape a woman once after the battle, - even the priests! = RAPE! We have writings discussing such.

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."

Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."

*

As to the return slave law you referred to - which is only concerning Hebrew slaves - not foreign -

Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:

Which is a VERY OBVIOUS misunderstanding of the text. Taken as is - it would mean total chaos! All slaves, indentured servants, concubines and other sex slaves, etc, - would just run next door and say I escaped from my master, - and demand to be set up as in verse 16. That is ridiculous! They never would have written such an illogical verse.

(Darby) Thou shalt not hand over to his master a bondman that hath escaped from his master unto thee:

Darby says this is a HEBREW BONDSMAN and it is talking to the HEBREW. He notes there actually is an "AS THEE" in there.

The law says it is ILLEGAL for a HEBREW bond holder to MISTREAT a HEBREW BONDSMAN. Therefore The HEBREW that the HEBREW BONDSMAN escaped to, can not LEGALLY return that HEBREW to that abuse he ran away from.

Nor obviously - hand a Hebrew slave back to a non Hebrew master.

It is not talking about slaves - but - Hebrew bondsmen.

As you can see they allowed real slavery - including sexual slavery.

*

 

[whereismynotecard]

How could someone who does not believe god is a real person/thing believe that a fictional entity wrote or said anything? The only way the bible could be the word of god would be if it's not in a literal sense. Such as "Twilight is the word of Bella Swan." Of course, Bella didn't literally write/say any of it, since she doesn't exist, but it is written from her fictional perspective. So in that sort of sense, yes, the bible could sort of be the word of God if the bible were written in first person... which I don't believe it is...

So I'd say no. Any atheist who believes god wrote a book might need to re-evaluate their lack of beliefs. Agnostics could reasonably believe that it's possible for a god to have dictated the bible though.

 

[psychoslice]

I personally don't believe that the bible is gods word, not at all, so it doesn't matter.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Good grief! Do you even bother to read the laws section of your Bible?

Yes, assuming you mean the OT Pentateuch – why not the law of the NT I wonder? Not that it is imperative. I live by the spirit of the law now, not the letter. That is what you are trying to force me to do.

I have posted ALL of the Bible information about rape - to YOU specifically - before!

LOL! You are going to pretend Tanakh doesn't exist? The stories of your God's supposed creation? The place you got that "oldest religion" from? LOL! Only you can use Tanakh when it suits you?

You are talking about a different God. Sorry, won't wash. Don’t recognise the word religion. I follow the spirit or “law of Christ”.

Absolute BULL that it wasn't meant as it is now! AGAIN! I have given YOU specifically - the verses showing they could hold non Hebrew slaves FOREVER, and pass them on as an inheritance to the children!

If you have, it has not been recently. I have told you what the law meant. You ignore it. You show what people did when they broke the law and the law was added to as a concession.

Since you conveniently forgot the info - here it is again.



No mistake at all. The Hebrew Laws said they could own SLAVES from the other nations,

Servants, yes

forever,

No, into distant time.

and breed them,

“breed them”? You make it sound like they are cattle.

and pass them on as an inheritance. We read about their concubines. - What is a concubine? A bought, or given, SEX SLAVE. We also have a verse telling us they can take war prisoners they find attractive.


*

Lev 25:45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.

The initial law was Exodus. Law was added. God spoke ten words of law only at Sinai. Nevertheless, I will answer about another God and another law that has nothing to do with me, (certainly not in the flesh, but perhaps in the spirit does.)

Why, I wonder, don't you attack the Jews of their book. Why me?


First of all it says:


"If your brother he is becoming poorer with you, and he sells himself to you; you shall not make him work as a servant. As a hired one, and as a temporary-resident, shall he Exist with you; he shall serve with you to the year of jubilee: then he goes out from you, he and his sons with him, and he returns to his own family, to the possession of his fathers shall he return.

For they are my servants, they whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not sell themselves as a work servant. You shall not rule in him with rigor, but you shall revere your mighty-ones"


So there is a clear difference between a brother and a stranger. In other words, family comes first. This is not a strange concept for anyone.


Your servant, and your maidservant, whom they are Existing to you, from the races that are round about you, of them shall you buy(create) servants and maidservants. Moreover of the sons of the temporary-residents the ones sojourning among you, of them shall you buy, and of their families that are with you, whom they have begotten in your land: and they Exist your possession. And you allot them as an inheritance for your sons after you, to hold for a possession; of them shall you make serve into distant time: but over your brothers the sons of Yisrael you shall not rule, a man over the brother of him, with rigor.


So yes, a poor servant (who has been bought from his father who cannot sustain himself and therefore has sold his son or daughter in hard times), can be passed on into distant time, therefore helping the one who owns and the one who would have starved to death. You must remember the times they lived in. There was no income support. What would you do?

But then, we see the boot can also be on the other foot. Read on:


And if a sojourner or temporary-resident with you, is affording in her hand, but your brother he is poorer compared with him, and he sells to the sojourner or temporary-resident with you, or to the members of the sojourners family: after he sold himself, he shall Exist redeemable to him: one of his brothers he shall redeem him! or his uncle, or his uncle's son, he shall redeem him, or any that is kin of the flesh of him of his family, he shall redeem him! or if she the hand of himself affords, then he redeems himself!


So effectively, the master can be sold to the slave. The Israelite would make money from being sold, the sojourner gains work from him, and both live. The only difference is the Israelite can be redeemed, which seems fair considering it is their own land. It also seems incredibly fair that they even allow them as sojourners to take Israelites as servants.

Lev 22:10 There shall no stranger eat of the holy thing: a sojourner of the priest, or an hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.

Lev 22:11 But if the priest buy any person with his money, he shall eat of it, and he that is born in his house: they shall eat of his meat.

I see no problem in saying someone cannot eat food that has been made holy.

Note that in 22:10 they have a hired servant – a sakiyr.


In 20:11 it is a bought slave.


Deut 21:10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives,

And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy woman;

Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails

and shall remove the clothing of her captivity from her, and shall live in your house, and shall morn for her father and her mother a month of days.And afterward shall go into her as master, making her your woman. (slavery, rape)

They were allowed to rape a woman once after the battle, - even the priests! = RAPE! We have writings discussing such.

Where are you getting rape from?

We are talking about a battle where the men are dead or fled. The women would die by themselves. Is that what you are suggesting they do, or do they kill them in the name of equality? A man likes a woman and the woman likes the man. Therefore, he takes her with him. What is so bad? Yes, it could be abused, but that it is not the point of it. It is a way of dealing with the after effects of war.

"In the Talmud Bavli 12 we see in Kiddushin 21b the general agreement that a soldier is allowed one act of intercourse with a captive, but not on the battlefield. Another opinion is also mentioned by the jews: "..it seems to Rabbenu Tam 13 that a first cohabitation is permitted in war.."


Maimonides (1195a: 5:8:4): "A priest is permitted to have relations with a captive woman once, for permission to have relations with a captive woman is a concession to man's evil impulse; but he is not permitted to marry her, because she is a proselyte."

What does that have to do with the Bible? That is comments after, opinion. If people wish to agree with them, as you do, then fine. It matters little to me.

As to the return slave law you referred to - which is only concerning Hebrew slaves - not foreign -


Deu 23:15 Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee:


Which is a VERY OBVIOUS misunderstanding of the text. Taken as is - it would mean total chaos! All slaves, indentured servants, concubines and other sex slaves, etc, - would just run next door and say I escaped from my master, - and demand to be set up as in verse 16. That is ridiculous! They never would have written such an illogical verse.

You shall not deliver to his sovereigns(adons) a servant, he who is being escaped to you from his sovereigns: rather he shall dwell with you in the midst of you, in the place which he shall choose within one of your gates, where it best-pleases him: you shall not oppress him.


It says in one of your gates, so obviously from another tribe.

The law says it is ILLEGAL for a HEBREW bond holder to MISTREAT a HEBREW BONDSMAN. Therefore The HEBREW that the HEBREW BONDSMAN escaped to, can not LEGALLY return that HEBREW to that abuse he ran away from.


Nor obviously - hand a Hebrew slave back to a non Hebrew master.


It is not talking about slaves - but - Hebrew bondsmen.


As you can see they allowed real slavery - including sexual slavery.

I see nothing in that verse that states it is just Israelites. But family always comes first so it is obvious that they would look after their own first and foremost, and rightly so.

The command, "love your fellow man" was interpreted largely as a fellow Hebrew and not anyone. That is what the Mashiyach pointed out in the NT. It should have been everyone.

CONTINUED....

 

[Robert.Evans]

........................CONTINUED
I would like to know from you what you would do, considering their times. What would you do if someone knocked on your door and said I have no food for me and my family. What would you do? If you had no money, would you let him work for nothing perhaps and cloth and feed him? Or would you turn him and his family away to starve? Would you give some money to his father that now had lost a son or daughter as compensation to help him as a brother or would you let him struggle on? What would you do? There was no income support recall. What would you do in battle with those that were left? What would the wives ask of their husbands when returning? perhaps they would ask, And what about the women? Did you leave them there to die of starvation? Perhaps the men would say, No, in the interest of equality, and being forward looking, we ran them through with the sword!

What would you do?

What infrastructure existed then that allowed them to do anything other than that. Other races held slaves with no laws. Servants with Israel had rights. They could be freed if they were mistreated.


Perhaps you think God could do better than that. What then exactly? He is dealing with people of their time that have freewill. What would you do?


Having said all that, and this is a complicated subject, the law still stands as far as I am concerned, but refers to the higher realms of consciousness that we come from. Thus each realm will have its own servants and possessions of them. Interesting really, as this is the where the law really belongs. We have intuitively used it in our own realm. We must then be possessions to a higher authority within the divine-print.


So in short, if used correctly, I see no problem with allowing a woman to have children (which is what she will probably want) whether it is his wife or a concubine or not. The concubine gave the wife rest from constant child birth to gain a larger tribe and therefore more men to fight and survive, and with little way of contraception. They should, however, have been following the first-print which is Adam and Chavvah, one man/one woman.

The servant taken into "distant time" or aeons, is not necessarily forever - as there is no such word in the OT or the NT, just poor translation.

And if you use that word "rape " with abandonment, you weaken its power as a word. There is no reason to think that all women taken in war were raped. Some might have been glad of their new mate.


Though you have brought up an interesting subject, and I am willing to discuss it more and see if you are right. So far I think you see it through the wrong eyes. Eyes that neither like God nor men in power; nor are you considering the times they lived in.