[Zyx]

I am a bit curious on this subject; I was reading the capture account of Mary Rowlandson. It's about her survival of Native American captivity following her town's defeat. It is an interesting story from the late 17th Century. Anyway, it was a shock reading it because the lady was well able to reference the bible at nearly every instance of hardship in her commute; incredible! Some of the lyrics she spoke onto were somewhat impressive and I found myself immediately disadvantaged by the fact that I never really sat down and read the book in full. Disadvanted to what, I know not . . . but certainly there are some disadvantages I can imagine? Earlier, before committing myself to that short account, I had seen Michael Moore on "Hardball Plaza" speaking to someone insisting that non-citizens should not receive health care benefits and retorting to the suggestion some words on how Jesus would respond to the incident; feeling a little uneasy assuming Michael Moore were no Christian I realized the capacity of cruelties one can inflict in knowing the manifesto of one's enemies--since the religious tend to act out evils disguised behind their faith--I reflected on the power.

Now my questions are: Are there any atheists out there who have actually read a Holy Text and found it advantageous in being skeptical or not?

Also, are there any atheists out there who have not read the Holy Text and yet in the excercise of discussion reflect on this absence as a lost?

Do tell.

In addition and personally, I remember telling a religious friend of mine that I had never read the Bible and after recommending me too the friend gathered back the comment and admonished me that I should not since my intentions would not be right; is there truth to this? Should a near-resolute skeptic read the Bible or no? Exactly who is the Bible for?

Also, apologies to those who dislike the near-exclusive term "Bible" being used; it's too easy to put here even though "Holy text" or "religious manifesto" or some other representation would be more representing and including of a phrase. If someone has read a "Holy Text" but not the Bible even though they were a non-converted atheist than the account shared would be just as well.

[MB.]

Are there any atheists out there who have actually read a Holy Text and found it advantageous in being skeptical or not?

Define "Holy Text".

Would the Rig Veda, or the Analectics count?

As for the Bible, its boring.

So and so sacked and pilaged so and so who begot so and so who begot the son of so and so who etc, etc, and so on.

...And they said to the Lord give us ur Lord so we can Lord the Lord who is the Lord and Jesus the Lord is our Lord who Lords Lords Lords.

[Grun tu Molani]

The bible is useful to know for when some moron tells you that homosexuality is an abomination - quickfire questions about shellfish and clothing fabrics tends deal with them rather swiftly.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

The bible is useful to know for when some moron tells you that homosexuality is an abomination - quickfire questions about shellfish and clothing fabrics tends deal with them rather swiftly.

Not really, given that Homosexuality being an Abominiation makes more rational sense, than not eating shellfish and not wearing multiple kinds of clothing.

Since God made male and female, it would thus follow that heterosexuality is the intended order, thus homosexuality is thus an abomination.

Simple.

[Rodion]

Yes, I've read the Torah. Nothing special. For the most part, I was disgusted by God's frivolous use of smiting in solving her problems. "What? Jews praying to a golden cow? Pesky children bothering my True Prophet? SMITE! SMITE! SMITE you, too, for standing there!" Other than that, there's really nothing I can say I've gained from the read, as for every "thou shall not kill" it says "thou shall kill so and so with extreme prejudice" five times. I guess I'm in a better position to argue against religion now, than I was before.

But why bother?

Since God made male and female, it would thus follow that heterosexuality is the intended order, thus homosexuality is thus an abomination.

Simple.

I've never thought of it that way...

[noemon]

The argument against Homosexuality is that one of the Human characteristics besides eating, breathing, sleeping and taking a shit is to reproduce as well.

Homosexuals do not reproduce and that is Hybris against nature indeed. Even a brain dead dum ass can postulate that. However all we; are responsible for our actions, and on the death bed exactly before our life passes through our heads that moment exactly we only realize our mistakes.

And note there has never been a society on the planet that has encouraged through its legal system non-reproduction activities by legalizing homosexuality except for America, england, Holland and a couple of others the past years on the pretext that Ancient Ellas was legal, which is utter bullshit, and the legal codes of Ancient Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Macedonia are all available through the Perseus Project on the original, and not translated by various wannabe scholars. And explicitly state the forbidance of Homosexuals to be active in the political life of society, thus discouraging legally their presence without persecuting them or killing them.

The Torah specifically says death to Homosexuals.

And "thou shall not steal" is more actually "thou shall not steal from a Jew".

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I've never thought of it that way...

I'm suprised.

And "thou shall not steal" is more actually "thou shall not steal from a Jew".

That isn't written anywhere that I know of.

I think there are bits of the Bible that specificly command Jews to be nice to the 'Stranger and the Foreigner', "beacause we were strangers in the land of Egypt".

[noemon]

It does not need to be stated explicitly on that specific part, it is analyzed further in the Leviticus where it distinguishes between the people of Israel and the others, then explicitly stating that these Laws apply to the chosen people of Israel alone and not in relation to the heathens. The Torah explicitly distinguishes and further evidence is the various polemics the Torah makes against the heathens which brake the supposed "universal" rules of Moses and actively encourages the Jews to kill, steal and pillage the heathens.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

It does not need to be stated explicitly on that specific part, it is analyzed further in the Leviticus where it distinguishes between the people of Israel and the others, then explicitly stating that these Laws apply to the chosen people of Israel alone and not in relation to the heathens. The Torah explicitly distinguishes and further evidence is the various polemics the Torah makes against the heathens which brake the supposed "universal" rules of Moses and actively encourages the Jews to kill, steal and pillage the heathens.

Can you find me the bit you are talking about?

You are talking about the bits where the Jews exterminate other people's. Well, as you said earlier, we are talking about history, not moral teaching in those cases.

The fact the Isrealites did X or Y, does not necceserily mean that their own actions are right of wrong, only that such and such happened and they didn't try to whitewash things later.

[noemon]

Dude, the Torah says explicitly "Death to homosexuals." "Death to mediums", mediums we re everybody else except for the Jews. This is breaking the "universal laws of Moses" right there, and distinguishing between the chosen people and the rest who all of them were mediums, or at least considered themselves to be and that is why all the temples followed a geodetic pattern which acted as a medium of energy.

Mediums, not just tarot cards mediums, but people who meditate, people who consider themselves as mediums in the energy of the world, which are the Ellinic Pantheists, The Hindus, the Celts, Egyptians, basically the rest of the world.

Leviticus 20:27 GWT: "Every man or woman who is a medium or a psychic must be put to death. They must be stoned to death because they deserve to die." ...

This is explicitly stated in the Torah explicitly making you understand that these rules only apply to the Israelis since it tells you not to kill while further it tells you to kill everybody except for the Israelis who never managed to understand(and that is why they are Israel=struggle with El(God)) that they are mediums anyway, cause that is the Human indeed a scientific fact currently, an integral part of the world and thus a medium of energy, The Homo-ousion(which ofc cancels all these Jewish mediocricies) ya know it entered Christianity in the 4th century ACE after a vigorous Philosophical battle and allowed the Human to consider himself a medium since he is homo-ousios(one substance for everything thus a linear thread with cycles in the linearism of everything thus everything combined thus everything a medium of the medium of the medium). And this is not just a part of the Israeli History as you say(the usual Biblical argument) but is a part of the Holy Documents of Jews, Christians and Muslims.

This is not just Israeli History it is part of the Holy documents and active explicit distinction between Jews and others, active explicit violence is stated as above.

[Eauz]

I have not read the bible, only a few sections of it, but just those parts that I read, made everything sound like a story, as opposed to providing any proof or logic to what happened. It seemed more like a children's story adventure, than anything, but I guess you really don't need logic, only faith for a religion.

[Kiroff]

Yes, I've read the Torah. Nothing special. For the most part, I was disgusted by God's frivolous use of smiting in solving her problems. "What? Jews praying to a golden cow? Pesky children bothering my True Prophet? SMITE! SMITE! SMITE you, too, for standing there!" Other than that, there's really nothing I can say I've gained from the read, as for every "thou shall not kill" it says "thou shall kill so and so with extreme prejudice" five times. I guess I'm in a better position to argue against religion now, than I was before.

But why bother? Hmmm

Indeed. Reading the Bible texts made me hate religion because God was painted as such an asshole. Plus what Eauz said. Though it was during my first encounters, when I was 5, and everyone in Russia was a Jesus Freak, when my grandmother read condensed bible stories to me before bed(I remember the parts about Egypt, with the smiting, the Golden Calf with the smiting, etc. with the smiting), that I realized that I'd rather be an atheist. Sometimes I feel like Jesus Freaks only read the Book of Revelations and got really impressed with all the smiting so they became Jesus Freaks.

[Grun tu Molani]

Slayer, your reasoning is on par with a first year philosophy student.

[Verv]

If you would like to study things that happened in der guten alten zeitung, I recommend reading the Bible as it explains much of the psychology that people had at the time. It was a book that anyone literate would read and anyone illiterate would be preached to about. It is vital in understanding. At least read the New Testament and select books of the Old.

I think, though, citing the Bible and citing Christ against Christians when you are not a Christian is usually a really curious way of getting around. I know an annoying fool who tries to do it with me but being a militant atheist the only parts of the Bible he cites are generally old testament portions which makes no sense being that he is trying to make me stand by the Jewish law which Christ specifically came to overturn.

I also think that you would have an issue telling folks like myself about what is Christ-like in denying medical services to people... Being that the government and the people are two separate groups. Many very conservative Christians who oppose socialized health care are also the ones making donations to private charities that provide as much.

[Dan]

In addition and personally, I remember telling a religious friend of mine that I had never read the Bible and after recommending me too the friend gathered back the comment and admonished me that I should not since my intentions would not be right; is there truth to this? Should a near-resolute skeptic read the Bible or no? Exactly who is the Bible for?

No, yes, and everybody.

[Raoul]

Slayer, your reasoning is on par with a first year philosophy student.

I'm hurt by this claim - even during my first year of philsophy I wouldn't have come up with something that bad.

Since God made male and female, it would thus follow that heterosexuality is the intended order, thus homosexuality is thus an abomination.

Simple.

Putting aside the fact that if God made male and female, he also made male and female (if you catch my drift), it would also thus follow that reproduction is the intended order and thus all childless folk are as evil and sinful as the homosexuals.

Simple.


I've read parts of the Bible, but it is much too boring to attempt to wade through the entire thing. Also, no-one who has ever read the Bible has ever shown me any reason why I should spend my time on it rather than the multitude of other books, so why should I pick it over anything else?

Also, quick question - if Christ came specifically to overturn Jewish law and the general tone of the OT, isn't that sort of an admission that God screwed up in the OT?

[Lokakyy]

if Christ came specifically to overturn Jewish law and the general tone of the OT, isn't that sort of an admission that God screwed up in the OT?

No, since the coming of Christ was sorta prophesied in the OT. Messiah and everything. A divine masterplan of some sort.

One could only hope that dear God could update his law again.

[Raoul]

What do Jews and Christians believe their all-knowing/loving/powerful God was doing with the OT, then? Just messing with people? Testing them with cruelty and orders of genocide? That it was all part of his mater plan?

[The Immortal Goon]

I've read a good part of the Bible. I'd say most of it, but I read some sections here, and other sections there, so it's hard to say.

I found it rewarding in that western culture is steeped in it anyway. If have some kind of knowledge of the Bible then a lot of literature and other art will tend to pop out at you more effectively as biblical images are often used to convey an idea (the dove as a symbol of peace; the flood as washing away sin; the serpent as evil; washing your hands of responsibility - for easy interpretations).

I've also used it in debates before. It's not worth arguing with people who don't like gays - there tends to be a kind of Freudian correlation between how much one can't stand the ghey menace, and how much one can't stop thinking about some graphic rectal action.

For the most part the, "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's" has been the most effective part.

-TIG

[Lokakyy]

What do Jews and Christians believe their all-knowing/loving/powerful God was doing with the OT, then? Just messing with people? Testing them with cruelty and orders of genocide? That it was all part of his mater plan?

Something like that, I have understood. It all seems to be a rather complex jumble of things — perhaps the wikipedia article clears up it a bit.