The take of atheists on Scripture - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

hiredgun · 08-08-2003, 08:54 PM

This is entirely out of curiosity and a desire for discussion (just wanted to say that before I inadvertently offend anyone

)

I've always wondered how atheists view the principal religious scriptures. Do you view them as all frauds/forgeries? Do you have doubts about their origins, their authenticity? Do you think the "prophets" in question simply invented them, or that they've been crafted over time by adherents of their respective religions? Atheists always ask for proof of God, but I've rarely seen one actually account for the scriptures.

Dragonlich · 08-08-2003, 09:22 PM

I see them as nice books, but nothing more. What's so spectacular about them anyway? Why should I "account for the scriptures" at all?

Do I ask random Christians to account for yesterday's newspaper or the latest Harry Potter book?

bermuDa · 08-08-2003, 09:31 PM

i see them as a pile of contradictive bullshit that's been rewritten so many times the original message has been long since forgotten.

It bothers me to no end when people use the bible as justification for any point. God's word? what language does god speak in anyways?

The_Dude · 08-08-2003, 09:50 PM

things written to make feel better or con them for money or both.

they were written to pounce on people's fears and make them believe in the garbage so they can be conned.

chavos · 08-08-2003, 11:34 PM

not to be horribly snide, but how much do you actually read the scriptures before deciding that it's written for decietful purposes, or has no original message left? I just find it hard to believe we're talking about the same book.

dfgjhdfjghjdf · 08-09-2003, 07:37 AM

I just see them as parables, true, but not literally so. More true in the way they describe man's nature.

nietzsche · 08-09-2003, 07:54 AM

I just view them as a game of "telephone". There at once was an original truth involved, but through time it has been told and retold so often that the original meaning has been clouded by a lot of rhetoric.

bermuDa · 08-09-2003, 08:49 AM

I could never get through the books, they were either horribly boring when I didn't make an effort to understand, or annoyingly hypocritical when I did.

CSflim · 08-09-2003, 01:46 PM

I account for them in the same way that I accound for Homer's Odyssey, or various other myths and legends (recorded or not). A man named Jesus who was crusified by the Romans probably did exist. This man probably did promote a philiosophy of peace and forgiveness, but as for the rest of it...mere embelishment.

Pellaz · 08-09-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CSflim
I account for them in the same way that I accound for Homer's Odyssey, or various other myths and legends (recorded or not).

Wow, CSfilm, just take the words right out of my mouth why don't you. I also tend to think of most religious figures as I think of Socrates-the message might be real, but there's no accounting for the actual person.

rainheart · 08-09-2003, 04:09 PM

I think it's probably just bs to make people complacent.

Edit: Okay let me add to that some more,
I think it's there to explain things that can't be explained easily. A story made up that at that time could've made sense but now we know in all probability it can't.

hiredgun · 08-09-2003, 04:24 PM

Well, I'll just use the Quran as an example because I'm most familiar with it, and because it's the most recent of the principal scriptures.

It exists today, word for word, in the original Arabic in which it was either "revealed" or written by someone. The life of Muhammad is the most well-documented of all the prophetic figures; there are several extremely detailed biographies, written by impartial, non-Muslim authors. The most important point is that he was illiterate, being able to neither read nor write. It is impossible for him to have written the extremely poetic verses. Hundreds of firsthand accounts from the period corroborate his character, his illiteracy, and that he was the source of the verses. He left behind children and a bloodline; many still claim that they can trace their genealogy back to him.

So his existence is irrefutable. His character, at least in public, once you read the unanimously praising accounts (even secular ones) of his life, is beyond doubt as well. The only question left is whether or not a man whose character and honesty shaped and transformed an entire region and sparked an empire was lying about being a messenger of god.

bermuDa · 08-09-2003, 07:03 PM

I'd heard in high school that muhammad was a caravan robber, and his first religious followers were members of his gang, who he shared the booty with.

don't call out any fatwas, i'm just wondering if there's any validity to this.

hiredgun · 08-09-2003, 08:20 PM

wow, that's the first time i've ever heard anything like that. as far as i know that's totally untrue. he was a well-respected merchant, and his first followers were his wife and closest friends. he remained in high esteem in Meccan society until he began to advocate the new religion publicly, at which point he was denounced by arab pagans (and.. this little history lesson could go on a long time, so i'll stop now). but there's nothing on the record about him stealing anything, ever.

tehblaed · 08-09-2003, 11:47 PM

They're just books. Harry Potter is a book, Mein Kempf is a book, The Shining is a book. Doesn't mean it's real.

Macheath · 08-10-2003, 12:03 AM

I see them as documents that have been written, rewritten and reinterpreted down through the centuries for a whole variety of reasons. I think a whole lot of them have been rejected, thrown in the wastepaper basket of history and lost forever.

It'd be amazing to be able to read all that lost scripture, especially in the context of the time it was written.

John Henry · 08-10-2003, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hiredgun
So his existence is irrefutable. His character, at least in public, once you read the unanimously praising accounts (even secular ones) of his life, is beyond doubt as well. The only question left is whether or not a man whose character and honesty shaped and transformed an entire region and sparked an empire was lying about being a messenger of god.

You don't think that maybe the stuff about Mohammed claiming to be a messenger of God might be someone else's lie? Anyone with a political agenda can forge a first-hand eyewitness account purporting to be written by a reputable source.

Also, just because someone says something that is not true, they are not necessarily a liar. Mohammed may have genuinely believed he was a messenger of god, without being anything of the sort. A lot of otherwise rational, intelligent people of impeccable character can suffer from delusion for one reason or another.

Your assertion that because he was illiterate and wrote poems, they must have come from God is tantamount to saying 'It's so ridiculous it MUST be true. Discrepant facts about folklorish characters are usually best explained as the result of an amalgamation. Take Robin Hood and King Arthur, two characters of English folklore: Tales of their adventures are known to come from various differrent sources, in Arthur's case spanning several hundred years and most of Europe.

If the onus rests, as you seem to believe, on the atheist to account for the scriptures, rather than on the believer to justify themselves, then surely in turn, the believer must explain the existence of scriptures of conflicting religions. Lets start with, say
Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Jainism, Asatru, Shinto and Sikhism.

Pellaz · 08-10-2003, 08:13 AM

Another point on the lying question-many a good and righteous man has been forced to tell untruths to achieve their cause.

hiredgun · 08-10-2003, 08:25 AM

It's misleading to compare Robin Hood and King Arthur to Muhammad; as I said, his life is very well-documented and is not an amalgamation of different stories.

Not all scriptures claim to be the direct word of God... Sikh scriptures, for example, were written piecemeal over a few centuries, by the Gurus, bards, and certain poets. Hindu scripture, as well, deals with supposed divine stories but is known to have been written by men.

The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are in fact not in conflict. Each successive book acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of its forebears.

The idea that Muhammad was possibly delusional is something I've wrestled with myself. My position in this thread is for the sake of argument, but in fact I am not very religious, and am rather confused at this time in my life.

splck · 08-10-2003, 11:57 AM

Nothing more than a book from the old days. I guess it makes for a good story and all, but that's all it is.

hobo · 08-10-2003, 07:48 PM

There are people today that believe they are prophets, or were abducted by aliens. We lock them up. They may not have done that back then. Those people probably knew how to speak and write.

Dragonlich · 08-10-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hiredgun
The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are in fact not in conflict. Each successive book acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of its forebears.

Ah, but what about the other way around? Do previous books acknowledge or even accept the newer ones? No, they don't, do they?

Examples of essential conflicts:
Either Jesus is the messiah (Christians), or he's not (Jews, Muslims). Either Muhammed is God's prophet (Muslims), or he's not (Christians, Jews)...

jwoody · 08-11-2003, 06:47 AM

An undeniable fact about all scripture is that it was all originally written by human hands.

Had it been carved in granite with the accuracy of the most powerful cutting tools available today, then I'd be impressed (but still not convinced that it was the word of god).

It is also a bit too coincidental that god chose to reveal his words to people of a, relatively, small geographical area, and an area where people were routinely stoned to death for not believing in the 'word of god (tm)'.

Fibrosa · 08-12-2003, 10:53 AM

I'm not an atheist, but I don't take the bible literally either. The problem with saying the bible is holy because of what it's about, is that there are how many other religions that claim similar things?
Shit, how many people today believe that they are God or the son of God? Why should we believe an ancient account?

Because someone you don't know, can not vouch for, said so? That might not be enough of a reason for an atheist to change their mind.

lurkette · 08-12-2003, 01:40 PM

I am more agnostic than atheist, but I certainly don't believe in the divinity of the Bible. (And I have read it through, cover to cover, several times.) I think you have to look at different pieces of it through different lenses. Some of the Old Testament is mythology, some of it is history, some of it is advice for how to live in those times in those places. I don't think any of it is the literal truth or divinely inspired - I think it's the written record of an ancient oral tradition. The New Testament is even more problematic. The gospels were written at different times, by people who may or may not have been present at the events described. The entire works of Paul are suspect IMHO. He exhibited what would be described in modern terms as schizoid symptoms, and much of his work is vitriolic and small-minded, and I don't know why they saw fit to include so many of his epistles. The canonization of the New Testament was full of political intrigue, and many books were discarded because they didn't suit the purposes of those present at Nicea. (I think there's a book called The Lost Books of the Bible that describes other works that were left out and why - I heard the author on NPR. If anyone knows the actual title I'd be grateful.)

Again, I don't think the New Testament is divinely inspired and I don't think that Jesus was the son of god. Look at the Dionysus myth for a suspiciously similar resurrection story that precedes the supposed resurrection of Jesus by a whopping number of centuries, and tell me that the divinity of Jesus wasn't invented by a bunch of opportunists who saw a way to spread their interests throughout the Latin and Hellenic cultures.

Meaty Urologist · 08-13-2003, 08:47 PM

It's a bit like the chicken and the egg thing, really. As I don't believe in God, naturally I don't believe that it is even remotely possible that the bible is the "word of god". Thus, I have no reason to "account" for the scriptures. Much like people used to think that the sun was carried across the sky in a giant chariot, many people now believe that Noah somehow managed to get two of EVERY FRIGGIN' ANIMAL ON THE PLANET onto his boat. The bible does have very good lessons to teach, afterall, who doesn't believe in "thou shalt not kill" (except George W. Bush). But I think that to believe that the bible is literal is a bit naive. You can only discount science for so long.

Meaty Urologist · 08-13-2003, 08:51 PM

Oh, and HOLY CRAP lurkette, you shore is one heck of a smarty pants! (and I do mean that as a compliment!)

cowlick · 08-13-2003, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lurkette
The canonization of the New Testament was full of political intrigue, and many books were discarded because they didn't suit the purposes of those present at Nicea. (I think there's a book called The Lost Books of the Bible that describes other works that were left out and why - I heard the author on NPR. If anyone knows the actual title I'd be grateful.)

Both the old testament and the new testament are literary canons. There's been in each sect much debate as to what books are part of the canon and what books do not. Some sects include books others do not.

Those books generally not accepted into the canon are known commonly as apocryphal texts. Some of these texts were well respected in centuries past but have fallen in stature. Often the apocryphal texts will starkly oppose books with in the canon.

You can find annotated bibles containing apocryphal texts in most book stores. Additionally, there are many hundreds of religous studies that concerning the meaning, authors, time period, political significance, etc. of these texts.

jwoody · 08-14-2003, 04:35 AM

The Skeptics Annotated Bible says more about my personal take on scripture than I ever could in this discussion.

mjollnir · 08-15-2003, 07:05 AM

Well ya know there are many versions of the Bible, in the original text, Hebrew i think it was, Adam had a wife brfoe Eve. her name was Lilith, perhaps you have heard of her. Lilith was cast out of heaven because she would not obey Adam. So then Eve was created. The bible was compiled from many diferent texts at different times in history, until we have what we have today.
Every culture has its own creation myths, whos to say which is correct. A cultures creation myth is a direct result of the enviornment that the culture has developed in. The yanamamo of the amazon for instance have some creation myth, I cant remember exactly, about a vine with a fruit that looked likea vagina and the moon became so filled with lust that it screwed the fruit and That roduced women I think, then some how I forgot, the moon became involved and it was shot with an arrow and the blood dripping to the earth created men who became warriors. that may not be right the moon thing may have been first, but its been a long time, you get the idea. A westerner would never believe this creation myth, but they swear to it.

John Henry · 08-16-2003, 06:17 AM

If God really has something to say, why doesn't he come and tell us himself, instead of sending round all these crazy bums?

btw: Quality post, Lurkette, I'm just looking up some Dionysus stuff now.

snicka · 08-18-2003, 02:18 PM

No one seriously believes anymore that the stories about Roman/Greek pantheon of Gods are true and inspired by the gods. The same will happen to the bible. They are interesting stories about how ignorant people thought the universe was run coupled with some entertaining stories about how to live life.

chavos · 08-18-2003, 03:54 PM

snicka-there is a difference though...roman/greek theology stopped working to help explain life as we know it...people ceased to find them efficient. so it makes sense that they have fallen aside. however, many traditions have continued to evolve and expand to be able to address relevant issues today, and show no sign of such a death. it's not that religious ideas simply have a shelf life, its all a matter of "do they work?" if they stay static...they don't for long. but if there is a balance between change and tradition, i don't think thats as safe a bet.

08-08-2003, 08:54 PM	#1 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	The take of atheists on Scripture This is entirely out of curiosity and a desire for discussion (just wanted to say that before I inadvertently offend anyone ) I've always wondered how atheists view the principal religious scriptures. Do you view them as all frauds/forgeries? Do you have doubts about their origins, their authenticity? Do you think the "prophets" in question simply invented them, or that they've been crafted over time by adherents of their respective religions? Atheists always ask for proof of God, but I've rarely seen one actually account for the scriptures.

08-08-2003, 09:31 PM	#3 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	i see them as a pile of contradictive bullshit that's been rewritten so many times the original message has been long since forgotten. It bothers me to no end when people use the bible as justification for any point. God's word? what language does god speak in anyways? __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

08-08-2003, 09:50 PM	#4 (permalink)
The_Dude The GrandDaddy of them all! Location: Austin, TX	things written to make feel better or con them for money or both. they were written to pounce on people's fears and make them believe in the garbage so they can be conned. __________________ "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

08-09-2003, 07:54 AM	#7 (permalink)
nietzsche Upright Location: The middle of a cold country	I just view them as a game of "telephone". There at once was an original truth involved, but through time it has been told and retold so often that the original meaning has been clouded by a lot of rhetoric. __________________ Man is condemned to be free

08-09-2003, 08:49 AM	#8 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I could never get through the books, they were either horribly boring when I didn't make an effort to understand, or annoyingly hypocritical when I did. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

08-08-2003, 09:22 PM	#2 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I see them as nice books, but nothing more. What's so spectacular about them anyway? Why should I "account for the scriptures" at all? Do I ask random Christians to account for yesterday's newspaper or the latest Harry Potter book?

08-08-2003, 11:34 PM	#5 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	not to be horribly snide, but how much do you actually read the scriptures before deciding that it's written for decietful purposes, or has no original message left? I just find it hard to believe we're talking about the same book.

08-09-2003, 07:37 AM	#6 (permalink)
dfgjhdfjghjdf Upright	I just see them as parables, true, but not literally so. More true in the way they describe man's nature.

08-09-2003, 01:46 PM	#9 (permalink)
CSflim Sky Piercer Location: Ireland	I account for them in the same way that I accound for Homer's Odyssey, or various other myths and legends (recorded or not). A man named Jesus who was crusified by the Romans probably did exist. This man probably did promote a philiosophy of peace and forgiveness, but as for the rest of it...mere embelishment. __________________

08-09-2003, 04:09 PM	#11 (permalink)
rainheart Psycho	I think it's probably just bs to make people complacent. Edit: Okay let me add to that some more, I think it's there to explain things that can't be explained easily. A story made up that at that time could've made sense but now we know in all probability it can't.

08-09-2003, 04:24 PM	#12 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	Well, I'll just use the Quran as an example because I'm most familiar with it, and because it's the most recent of the principal scriptures. It exists today, word for word, in the original Arabic in which it was either "revealed" or written by someone. The life of Muhammad is the most well-documented of all the prophetic figures; there are several extremely detailed biographies, written by impartial, non-Muslim authors. The most important point is that he was illiterate, being able to neither read nor write. It is impossible for him to have written the extremely poetic verses. Hundreds of firsthand accounts from the period corroborate his character, his illiteracy, and that he was the source of the verses. He left behind children and a bloodline; many still claim that they can trace their genealogy back to him. So his existence is irrefutable. His character, at least in public, once you read the unanimously praising accounts (even secular ones) of his life, is beyond doubt as well. The only question left is whether or not a man whose character and honesty shaped and transformed an entire region and sparked an empire was lying about being a messenger of god.

08-09-2003, 07:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
bermuDa don't ignore this--> Location: CA	I'd heard in high school that muhammad was a caravan robber, and his first religious followers were members of his gang, who he shared the booty with. don't call out any fatwas, i'm just wondering if there's any validity to this. __________________ I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

08-09-2003, 08:20 PM	#14 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	wow, that's the first time i've ever heard anything like that. as far as i know that's totally untrue. he was a well-respected merchant, and his first followers were his wife and closest friends. he remained in high esteem in Meccan society until he began to advocate the new religion publicly, at which point he was denounced by arab pagans (and.. this little history lesson could go on a long time, so i'll stop now). but there's nothing on the record about him stealing anything, ever.

08-09-2003, 11:47 PM	#15 (permalink)
tehblaed Insane Location: land of the merry	They're just books. Harry Potter is a book, Mein Kempf is a book, The Shining is a book. Doesn't mean it's real.

08-10-2003, 12:03 AM	#16 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	I see them as documents that have been written, rewritten and reinterpreted down through the centuries for a whole variety of reasons. I think a whole lot of them have been rejected, thrown in the wastepaper basket of history and lost forever. It'd be amazing to be able to read all that lost scripture, especially in the context of the time it was written.

08-10-2003, 08:13 AM	#18 (permalink)
Pellaz Addict Location: Texas	Another point on the lying question-many a good and righteous man has been forced to tell untruths to achieve their cause. __________________ " ' Big Mouth. Remember it took three of you to kill me. A god, a boy, and, last and least, a hero.' "

08-10-2003, 08:25 AM	#19 (permalink)
hiredgun Addict	It's misleading to compare Robin Hood and King Arthur to Muhammad; as I said, his life is very well-documented and is not an amalgamation of different stories. Not all scriptures claim to be the direct word of God... Sikh scriptures, for example, were written piecemeal over a few centuries, by the Gurus, bards, and certain poets. Hindu scripture, as well, deals with supposed divine stories but is known to have been written by men. The scriptures of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are in fact not in conflict. Each successive book acknowledges the existence and legitimacy of its forebears. The idea that Muhammad was possibly delusional is something I've wrestled with myself. My position in this thread is for the sake of argument, but in fact I am not very religious, and am rather confused at this time in my life.

08-10-2003, 11:57 AM	#20 (permalink)
splck it's jam Location: Lowerainland BC	Nothing more than a book from the old days. I guess it makes for a good story and all, but that's all it is. __________________ nice line eh?

08-10-2003, 07:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
hobo Archangel of Change	There are people today that believe they are prophets, or were abducted by aliens. We lock them up. They may not have done that back then. Those people probably knew how to speak and write.

08-11-2003, 06:47 AM	#23 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	An undeniable fact about all scripture is that it was all originally written by human hands. Had it been carved in granite with the accuracy of the most powerful cutting tools available today, then I'd be impressed (but still not convinced that it was the word of god). It is also a bit too coincidental that god chose to reveal his words to people of a, relatively, small geographical area, and an area where people were routinely stoned to death for not believing in the 'word of god (tm)'. __________________ .

08-12-2003, 10:53 AM	#24 (permalink)
Fibrosa Insane	I'm not an atheist, but I don't take the bible literally either. The problem with saying the bible is holy because of what it's about, is that there are how many other religions that claim similar things? Shit, how many people today believe that they are God or the son of God? Why should we believe an ancient account? Because someone you don't know, can not vouch for, said so? That might not be enough of a reason for an atheist to change their mind.

08-12-2003, 01:40 PM	#25 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I am more agnostic than atheist, but I certainly don't believe in the divinity of the Bible. (And I have read it through, cover to cover, several times.) I think you have to look at different pieces of it through different lenses. Some of the Old Testament is mythology, some of it is history, some of it is advice for how to live in those times in those places. I don't think any of it is the literal truth or divinely inspired - I think it's the written record of an ancient oral tradition. The New Testament is even more problematic. The gospels were written at different times, by people who may or may not have been present at the events described. The entire works of Paul are suspect IMHO. He exhibited what would be described in modern terms as schizoid symptoms, and much of his work is vitriolic and small-minded, and I don't know why they saw fit to include so many of his epistles. The canonization of the New Testament was full of political intrigue, and many books were discarded because they didn't suit the purposes of those present at Nicea. (I think there's a book called The Lost Books of the Bible that describes other works that were left out and why - I heard the author on NPR. If anyone knows the actual title I'd be grateful.) Again, I don't think the New Testament is divinely inspired and I don't think that Jesus was the son of god. Look at the Dionysus myth for a suspiciously similar resurrection story that precedes the supposed resurrection of Jesus by a whopping number of centuries, and tell me that the divinity of Jesus wasn't invented by a bunch of opportunists who saw a way to spread their interests throughout the Latin and Hellenic cultures. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

08-13-2003, 08:47 PM	#26 (permalink)
Meaty Urologist Upright Location: Albuquerque, N.M.	It's a bit like the chicken and the egg thing, really. As I don't believe in God, naturally I don't believe that it is even remotely possible that the bible is the "word of god". Thus, I have no reason to "account" for the scriptures. Much like people used to think that the sun was carried across the sky in a giant chariot, many people now believe that Noah somehow managed to get two of EVERY FRIGGIN' ANIMAL ON THE PLANET onto his boat. The bible does have very good lessons to teach, afterall, who doesn't believe in "thou shalt not kill" (except George W. Bush). But I think that to believe that the bible is literal is a bit naive. You can only discount science for so long.

08-13-2003, 08:51 PM	#27 (permalink)
Meaty Urologist Upright Location: Albuquerque, N.M.	Oh, and HOLY CRAP lurkette, you shore is one heck of a smarty pants! (and I do mean that as a compliment!)

08-14-2003, 04:35 AM	#29 (permalink)
jwoody Shackle Me Not Location: Newcastle - England.	The Skeptics Annotated Bible says more about my personal take on scripture than I ever could in this discussion. __________________ .

08-15-2003, 07:05 AM	#30 (permalink)
mjollnir Tilted Location: Near Gainesville, FL	Well ya know there are many versions of the Bible, in the original text, Hebrew i think it was, Adam had a wife brfoe Eve. her name was Lilith, perhaps you have heard of her. Lilith was cast out of heaven because she would not obey Adam. So then Eve was created. The bible was compiled from many diferent texts at different times in history, until we have what we have today. Every culture has its own creation myths, whos to say which is correct. A cultures creation myth is a direct result of the enviornment that the culture has developed in. The yanamamo of the amazon for instance have some creation myth, I cant remember exactly, about a vine with a fruit that looked likea vagina and the moon became so filled with lust that it screwed the fruit and That roduced women I think, then some how I forgot, the moon became involved and it was shot with an arrow and the blood dripping to the earth created men who became warriors. that may not be right the moon thing may have been first, but its been a long time, you get the idea. A westerner would never believe this creation myth, but they swear to it. __________________ Yes I am a Pirate 200 years too late, Cannons don't thunder theres nuthin to plunder I'm an over 30 victim of fate...

08-16-2003, 06:17 AM	#31 (permalink)
John Henry Addict Location: Grey Britain	If God really has something to say, why doesn't he come and tell us himself, instead of sending round all these crazy bums? btw: Quality post, Lurkette, I'm just looking up some Dionysus stuff now. __________________ "No one was behaving from very Buddhist motives. Then, thought Pigsy, he was hardly a Buddha, nor was he a monkey. Presently, he was a pig spirit changed into a little girl pretending to be a little boy to be offered to a water monster. It was all very simple to a pig spirit."

08-18-2003, 02:18 PM	#32 (permalink)
snicka Crazy	No one seriously believes anymore that the stories about Roman/Greek pantheon of Gods are true and inspired by the gods. The same will happen to the bible. They are interesting stories about how ignorant people thought the universe was run coupled with some entertaining stories about how to live life.

08-18-2003, 03:54 PM	#33 (permalink)
chavos Banned Location: St. Paul, MN	snicka-there is a difference though...roman/greek theology stopped working to help explain life as we know it...people ceased to find them efficient. so it makes sense that they have fallen aside. however, many traditions have continued to evolve and expand to be able to address relevant issues today, and show no sign of such a death. it's not that religious ideas simply have a shelf life, its all a matter of "do they work?" if they stay static...they don't for long. but if there is a balance between change and tradition, i don't think thats as safe a bet.