And I think one of the best ways to make an atheist is to have someone actually read the Bible. As awareness of that book increases, so will disbelief.
And I consider that a *good* thing.
-
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!
Is "American Christian" an Oxymoron?
- Thread starter Hockeycowboy
- Start date
And I think one of the best ways to make an atheist is to have someone actually read the Bible. As awareness of that book increases, so will disbelief.
And I consider that a *good* thing.
Shad
Veteran Member
Sure simplification of beliefs or just simpler beliefs are appealing be it the simplicity itself or just the lack of "hoops" one must go through. I wouldn't credit all due to be overwhelmed without more data. Some could be holding such a views because they no longer believe in say the organization or it's doctrine. For example "52 % of Americans agree “Jesus is the first and greatest being created by God.”. I could see such a person joining a Unitarians Church. Availability of a specific congregation could be a factor for "sitting at home".
Shad
Veteran Member
You're beating us with our own basket there.
Ooh good point.
Strumming my pain with his fingers...
My comment is slightly off topic. This quote with 'Slave' always sounds painful to me, because I am used to reading 'Servant' there. Its more exotic sounding and less related to USA and our eventual segregation based on color. Slave is such a violent term to me now, though I've no objection to your use of the term. I think servant is easier on the ears, sounds less horrible. Slave just sounds like an imprisoned worker who cannot own anything and gets 4 hours of sleep and no days off. It just sound that way to me.
Actually a lot of people read it and have various reactions. Actually reading it through probably is a good idea these days, however most people only read parts. In that case discourage them reading it at all or stick to things that can make sense on their own such as proverbs.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Knowledge of the Bible and Level of Religiosity are (in general) negatively correlated. Atheists and agnostics tend to have the most Bible knowledge, professing "Christians," much less.
Most people don't give much thought to their belief, they just flow with what's going on around them and are easily swayed. When pressed on the finer points of theology, they have no idea. I'd venture to guess they don't really want an idea.
A full 100%, or near enough, of voters cast a ballot for a candidate that in some way espouses a position anathema to the teachings of Christ.
Now, I disagree, strongly.
(Awareness is already global, being published in over 2400 languages, and many become Christian.)
Newton was no atheist, neither was Boyle nor Kepler.
You can't just 'read' it, of course.....that has lead to confusion and disillusionment, especially if you read it in concert with those widely accepted church teachings in mind.
But, remove those biased viewpoints -- like believing the Bible teaches that a person receives immediate life after death (it doesn't), or that the goal to reach is to get to heaven (it isn't), etc., etc. -- clear them from your mind and begin to study it categorically, that is, looking up and meditating on all the passages related to a specific topic, having no preconceived ideas about those topics.... the focus of it's pov can become clearer.
Unfortunately, many don't want to individually study it. I mean, it's 1500 pages! With a lot of boring genealogies and whatnot. Plus, it's not written "categorically." Or even chronologically. It requires effort.
But there's one other major point involved and it can't be overlooked..... If you found a great painting that apparently included some abstract ideas, wouldn't it be wise to ask the painter (if he was still living) what he had in mind? No one else would know. Well, it's the same with the author of the Bible, and that happens to be the God of the Hebrews, aka Yahweh / Jehovah. He's still living, lol.
Jesus agreed, saying his Father reveals the truth (no one else, not even Jesus himself), @ Luke 10:21.
I appreciate your post, though.
Take care.
If you would mention one specific topic at a time that you find objectionable, we could discuss those issues .
One at a time, please. Don't inundate me, lol!
Last edited:
Many times, that's the case. My Grandpa used to ask a friend of his after he came from church, "How many Scriptures did you read today?" "None" was usually the answer. They just listened to the preacher.
They're not heretics, they're just clueless. Heresy in the formal sense assumes culpability.
My personal impression of Evangelical Christianity is that it is little more than a crude emotive fideism. It does not inculcate the study of doctrine, of history or philosophy, it rather boils the faith down to little more than to a subjective emotional experience of being 'saved'.
I've seen the term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism tossed around in some circles as a description for what constitutes the real faith of the average American Christian. It's Christianity only in a superficial sense thus the unsurprising findings of the survey.
My personal impression of Evangelical Christianity is that it is little more than a crude emotive fideism. It does not inculcate the study of doctrine, of history or philosophy, it rather boils the faith down to little more than to a subjective emotional experience of being 'saved'.
I've seen the term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism tossed around in some circles as a description for what constitutes the real faith of the average American Christian. It's Christianity only in a superficial sense thus the unsurprising findings of the survey.
Last edited:
Polymath257,
Are you trying to put yourself as an enemy of the Almighty God?
God’s son, Jesus said that God’s word is truth, John 17:17. God Himself said that He would protect His word from all generations, Psalms 12:6,7.
You are a very brave soul, calling The Almighty a lier, when He says that He hates liars, and will destroy all liers, Psalms 5:6, Revelation 22:15.
Remember this; nobody can call God a lier with impunity. Just because He does not act immediately, people may think that God will not ever act, Ecclesiastes 8:11-13. You have made a very bad mistake!!! Please beg God for forgiveness!!! Do you have a death wish???
Any person who thinks the Bible is inconsistent, shows his lack of Bible knowledge. The Bible was written by men as they were borne along Holy Spirit, 2Peter 1:20,21. God, Himself inspired the Bible, so He is, actually, the Author, Job 40:2,8,9.
Heresies have a bad reputation that they do not deserve, perhaps in part because they used to be perceived as justification for military action in the past.
If one is brutally honest, they are very similar to political or ideological disagreements: only important if people lend them importance.
I just don't understand how one can sincerely believe that it matters whether a given person believes that God is one or triple, or how many Avatars it has, if any. Or even why that would be consistent among different people.
Actual doctrine is not IMO supposed to rely on such minor, inherently inconsequential things.
If one is brutally honest, they are very similar to political or ideological disagreements: only important if people lend them importance.
I just don't understand how one can sincerely believe that it matters whether a given person believes that God is one or triple, or how many Avatars it has, if any. Or even why that would be consistent among different people.
Actual doctrine is not IMO supposed to rely on such minor, inherently inconsequential things.
No, I am not trying to be an enemy of Almighty God.
I simply don't believe such a being exists. I think the quotes you make are from a book of myths and speculations.
I consider it a good thing when people give up superstitions. I consider it a good thing when people learn to think for themselves. And hence, I consider it a good thing when people read the Bible and realize it to be a book of myths and superstition.
And this is part of what is happening.
Please look at John 17 again. The written word is not mentioned once in that speech. Read it again and see how many times Jesus speaks of himself with the pronoun "I" and his relationship to The Father. "Your word is truth" means Jesus. Jesus is the word. John 1:1.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No politician is a "saint", and I ain't one either, but I expect anyone whom I may vote for to at least try and be moral. Trump doesn't even try as we've seen.
When it comes to his words and behavior, we see excessive hedonism, dishonesty, and his many blatant lies. I don't find that as being moral nor acceptable, and I'm not playing partisan politics here because I was also one who felt that Bill should have resigned from his presidency.
That's because fundamental USA values are nearly antithetical to the values Christians claim are Christian. Representative government, personal liberty, and Capitalism are nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Quite the opposite, really.
Tom
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Why comment? You'll say "no true Scotsman fallacy" if I say people who love Jesus Christ love sound doctrine, and know sound doctrine, in most cases.
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
That’s probably one of many misconceptions non-theist have about the Bible. It was never meant as a be-all and end-all……That’s a modern invention. Specifically one that is rightly aimed at Protestants that believe the Bible Alone is the only source. That is a phenomenon unique to Islam and Protestant Christianity. Older forms of Christianity like Catholicism/Eastern Orthodox (really they were one for a long time) and Judaism did not operate in this fashion.
So it’s rather odd that on one end you recognize man has a hand in the extrapolation of creating a moral code, but then turn right around and critique it for apparently using the bible as a source. Even worse, you seemed completely inept about the verity of your own personal interpretation of the Bible. You can’t interpret such a controversial text as the Bible, question its validity as a source due to inconsistencies (or any additional reasons you may have) and then turn around and critique someone else’s interpretation. Its obvious man has a hand in extrapolation process and anyone in the first 1,400 years would chuckle at how modern non-theist see the Bible. As if you are reading Mark Twain or any other book. It was always understood to have an organic element to it and like many scholarly works today, accuracy and consistency was of the up-most importance. Skirmishes and struggles were always intended to be part of the organic process and the man element is something non-theist seem to get a hard on about. Unless of course it comes to them interpreting it, that’s perfectly fine and acceptable. The spaghetti monster god is bound to protect them.
I'm quite fine with that concept. Sure, take the Bible as one source of inspiration. Take more modern texts on ethics as other sources, and maybe take the opinions of your friends also. That is all well and good.
But don't complain when someone arrives at different conclusions than the 'orthodox' version. Don't be so quick with the word 'heretic' when someone decides that the Trinity doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or that Jesus, being a son of God came afterwards and was created.
Yes, I see the Bible as I would any other compendium of writings from any other society. Understanding the historical context of the writings is crucial. We can use the Iliad, for example, to learn some things about Mycenaean society even if the gods described are mythological.
The very natural of having an extrapolation process or that apologetics is necessary is enough to show the basic unreliability of the Bible. It isn't even taken to say what it says by those who believe in it! The conclusions would be too evil. That is why even believers moderate it by saying not all sins are treated equal.
I hope for a time when the Bible is considered the same way as any other book of myths: as a collection of stories, some with moral value, others with none, some historical value, but some complete fiction and one source among many for how the West views itself.
Nevertheless, that isn't a misconception nontheists really have. We are nearly always responding to a claim made by a Christian. Even the indirect sort of claim, like starting a personal claim with "God says. .."
Tom
Quiddity
UndertheInfluenceofGiants
God knows that's been regurgitated ad nauseum on both sides; I get that......However, being fine with the concept means what exactly to you? That you listen to what Christian Tradition actually means by this or that text? That there is historical evidence outside the Bible that said interpretation is more likely true? Most times, it doesn't really matter how much data is presented because ultimately there is a difference in interpretation and that's that. Christian tradition had a solution to that and a structure was created to combat that.