Religion The Bible is not the WOG (Word of God)

[Mitsuo]

Cupid, why would someone have to teach God to speak? It's God. Supposedly, God knows all.

The thing that I would like to say is that I think the Bible is the word of man. I do in fact believe in God, but I think the bible is a story with a lot of symbolism. It's symbolic. The devil to me is the devil within all of us, Greed, power, lying, stealing, killing. The devil is just bad things that we think and do, but the bible went ahead and gave it an origin. Like Poseidon and how he controls the ocean. Get it?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Why bother arguing about the shoddiest piece of literature ever written.

Shoddy or not, many believe in it and it has caused a lot of suffering in the world. Therefore people who would like to see a world without superstitions that hurt people, should use reason to engage those who are deceived into believing that it is true or the WOG.

It's absolute shite and if anyone believes the Bible is the WOG then they are just insulting their own god by inferring that any omnipitant supernatural all powerfull being would have such an unbelievably dull intellect to write such utter lies and dodgy crap.

The Bible has some good things in it. I won`t deny that some of the things in it are good. But, just because something is good does not mean it is the word of God.

No... people wrote the bible, and other people did very bad translations of that, and all of them were dumb as ****. That's why so many people have created their own religions ever since. Just look what the Muslims have acheived since comming up with their own piece of tabloid propoganda to worship.

I wouldn`t call them dumb. I would call them (i.e. those that forged primitive/ancient superstitions into dogma) clever and calculating. But then again, so are many fraudsters and charletans. Now, those that created the first superstitions to explain what they did not know were just ignorant (in an academic sense).

Why would you bother reading a bible or a torah or a koran or anything like that anyway? Just go and rent the DVD man! Hell... go to 7/11 and find a good magazine with pictures to flick through if you think you need to find inspiration in a book.

lol.

Well, I read the Bible because I find it interesting. I also think it is important to engage the "Body Snatchers" who are amongst us waiting for their chance to get your mind. The knowledge of the Bible is the best anti-serum for the Christian virus. If you know it and can spray it like fumigation on bugs, they scatter. You may even be able to start the deprogramming processes of some who have been taken in by it. It is hard, but over time you can reach some.

You asked "why" -- so that is my personal answer. Others who decide to read the Bible for the expressed purposes of engaging Christians may have some different reasons.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

It amazes me that black people in the Americas consider the religion from the Bible they have as a result of their kidnapping and enslavement as the WOG from some loving being. In addition, the Bible has been used to justify their enslavement and assign to them a subserviant status/heirarchy with whites above them. After all, Ham was marked.

But, thankfully the voice of some blacks in the Free Thinker Movement has unmasked the Bible for the drug it is. Speaking through his character, the porter Dixon, in his book, Joel Augustus Rogers, a self educated black man and formor porter himself writes:

?gTo enslave a man, then dope him to make him content! Do you call THAT a solace? . . . The honest fact is that the greatest hindrance to the progress of the Negro is that same dope that was shot into him during slavery. . . . The slogan of the Negro devotee is: Take the world but give me Jesus, and the white man strikes an eager bargain with him. . . . Another fact ?\ there are far too many Negro preachers. Religion is the most fruitful medium for exploiting this already exploited group. As I said, the majority of the sharpers, who among the whites would go into other fields, go, in this case, to the ministry.?h

 

[No-name]

Strongvoicesforward: friend of the black man.

Perhaps you don't give African Americans quite enough credit for not only understanding their faith but actually knowing more about it than you do.

Perhaps you should also investigate the tribes that traded in human cargo in the interior of Africa.

Perhaps you should also investigate the faith of the abolitionists on both sides of the Atlantic, and include in your study the role Christianity played in the lives of John Brown, Fredrick Douglas and Abraham Lincoln.

 

[Rancid__]

It amazes me that black people in the Americas consider the religion from the Bible they have as a result of their kidnapping and enslavement as the WOG from some loving being. In addition, the Bible has been used to justify their enslavement and assign to them a subserviant status/heirarchy with whites above them. After all, Ham was marked.
But, thankfully the voice of some blacks in the Free Thinker Movement has unmasked the Bible for the drug it is. Speaking through his character, the porter Dixon, in his book, Joel Augustus Rogers, a self educated black man and formor porter himself writes:
?To enslave a man, then dope him to make him content! Do you call THAT a solace? . . . The honest fact is that the greatest hindrance to the progress of the Negro is that same dope that was shot into him during slavery. . . . The slogan of the Negro devotee is: Take the world but give me Jesus, and the white man strikes an eager bargain with him. . . . Another fact ― there are far too many Negro preachers. Religion is the most fruitful medium for exploiting this already exploited group. As I said, the majority of the sharpers, who among the whites would go into other fields, go, in this case, to the ministry.?

It seems clear to me that people, when they need a good excuse to do wrong to each other, use the bible or any other Holy religious book. They can twist the words as they please at the time being. You said it nicely, enslaving the poeple in the name of God is nothing else but twisting the words.

 

[kumo]

It seems clear to me that people, when they need a good excuse to do wrong to each other, use the bible or any other Holy religious book. They can twist the words as they please at the time being. You said it nicely, enslaving the poeple in the name of God is nothing else but twisting the words.

What makes you think that people who use the bible as an excuse to do "bad things" are necessarily twisting it? The bible is quite clear in its condonation of slavery; if anyone would say otherwise, I'd say they are the ones twisting it. Yet slavery is just the tip of the Bible iceberg of BS. The fact that so many people try to twist their way out of the most blatant Bible's sordid passages is a sad reflection of a society inordinately dominated by a pro-religious bias. Hopefully someday we won't be seeing this absurd double-standard being applied to religion anymore, but I doubt I'll be alive to see it...

-End of rant-

 

[strongvoicesforward]

That was not a "rant," Kumo. It was well said and right on the mark.

What makes you think that people who use the bible as an excuse to do "bad things" are necessarily twisting it? The bible is quite clear in its condonation of slavery; if anyone would say otherwise, I'd say they are the ones twisting it.

The funny thing is, some will say that just because you don`t believe it is the Word of God and say that in absolute terms, and then criticise the Bible by pointing out its contradictions and fallacies, -- that makes you insensitive and intolerant AND (God forbid), it means you are a "troll."

"Troll" this, "Troll" that -- Always the weak response for someone who doesn`t want to, or is unable to engage effectively in a debate. Or, they even may get snobby and declare themselves the ones who speak academically or scholarly about it -- as if they should have a monopoly on the right to speak about it and to dictate how it should be spoken about.

 

[strongvoicesforward]

The Bible not only contradicts itself -- it contradicts reality.

1 Cor 14:33
(KJV)
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

(ASV)
for God is not a God of confusion, but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,

(NIV)
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace.
As in all the congregations of the saints,...

NASB
for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

If Bible God is not the author of confusion, then why can`t he inspire a book and scribes to write exactly what he wants in a way that can`t be confused?

Looks like a good deal number of translators are confused as to how to render words. Looks like a good deal of Christians are confused about over which Bible and which denomination for that matter, to believe in.

Oh, what is a Christian to do with all this confusion brought about by a book that is clearly authored and translated with confusion abound?

Confusion, confusion! The **** crows how many times? A bat is a bird?

Confusion abounds and only those who rationalize things will feel Bible God is not the author of confusion. But, he did cause a lot of confusion when he destroyed the Tower of Babel and gave the world different languages so that they could not work together again to create such a tower.

Looks like he failed because now many people can work together with professional translators and computer software. But did he really think a tower from Earth could be built to his throne? Even our far traveling space probes havn`t bumped into it. His Babel story has confused me. I am confused as to why our space probes haven`t bumped into his kingdom if it is as close to being in reach of a tower -- the kind that could have been possibly made several thousand years ago?

 

[strongvoicesforward]

Is a loving father one that would purposely lie to and confuse us in matters of import?

In the Bible the Devil is reviled for his lieing:

John 8:44
You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.​

First, I have to ask where in the Bible does the devil murder anyone? To me it seems that all the killing is done by Bible God or his generals at his urging or consent.

Second, what does John mean when he says there is "no truth in him"? John fails to grasp that knowledge is "truth" and because of the act of convincing man to partake of the "tree of knowlegde" the devil unleashed truth to man -- knowledge which Bible God had hoped to prevent man from obtaining. John falls down over his words because he speaks in absolutes, unable to qualify his remarks.

Now, look at:

Ezek 14.9
"If a prophet is deceived, I the Lord deceived that prophet."​

So, is the devil in God, too? Is God doing the desires of the devil? Obviously if God created everything, then he is the father of the devil, too. Why is he holding it against him. Wouldn`t the devil be God`s child as well? Is Bible God such a bad parent that he could not raise his son correctly?

You see, all this "father" and "son" or "my child" or "my children" analogies that Biblicists try to employ fall down on themselves when held up to Bible verses. The only way they can stand is to continuously subvert reason.

 

[Revenant]

Those verses all appear to say the same thing. The word renderings in this case looks alright.

The Tower of Babel is more likely meant as a moral myth. The point being I cannot remember now.

God didn't kill everyone who died in the OT, neither directly nor at his bidding, which might leave room for a devil that murders, or rather a devil that creates desire for people to murder without good reason. But then the devil in Judaism might never have been portrayed as an evil person. Also that the demons in the OT were probably myths portraying humanities darker sides.

Is there any other way to define 'truth'. I think in that verse there might be. Could 'truth' be defined as 'love' (as broad and subjective term as that is, I still think there is a working definition). In that case, the devil wasn't holding to the truth.

 

[Mars Man]

There are some points of strongvoicesforward's latest post that I would tend to agree with. I would say the the author or authors' usage of the word 'truth' would have to define the intent behind it there.

One line that did seem to stick out like a sore thumb, ironically, was the one quoted below.

John falls down over his words because he speaks in absolutes, unable to qualify his remarks.