D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
My recommendation isn't one or the other but a spiritual belief in god, love thy neighbor etc. It's an uphill battle though. If you have to LIE about its origins you're going to have a hard time bringing in new people. Common sense says to me it's a dark ages book with some good in there but also a garbled mess with some dark stuff that the pastors have to flip by. It's a BIG volume so you can flip to what ever section you like. Reinterpreted and rewritten. I thought this was a good summary.....



The Bible consists of a collection of sixty-six separate books. These books were chosen, after a bit of haggling, by the Catholic Council of Carthage in 397 A.D.—more than three hundred years after the time of Jesus. This collection is broken into two major sections: The Old Testament, which consists of thirty-nine books, and The New Testament, which consists of twenty-seven books. (Catholic Bibles include additional books known as the Apocrypha.)

The Old Testament is concerned with the Hebrew God, Yahweh, and purports to be a history of the early Israelites. The New Testament is the work of early Christians and reflects their beliefs about Jesus; it purports to be a history of what Jesus taught and did.

The composition of the various books is thought to have begun around 1000 B.C., and to have continued for about 1,100 years. Much oral material was included. This was repeated from father to son, revised over and over again, and then put into written form by various editors. These editors often worked in different locales and in different time periods, and were not always aware of each other. Their work was primarily intended for local use and it is unlikely that any author foresaw that his work would be included in a "Bible."

No original manuscripts exist. There is not likely even one book which survives in anything like its original form. There are hundreds of differences between the oldest manuscripts of any one book. These differences indicate that numerous additions and alterations, some accidental and some purposeful, were made to the originals by various authors, editors, and copyists.

Many biblical authors are unknown. When an author has been named that name has sometimes been selected by pious believers rather than given by the author himself. The four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are examples of books that did not carry the names of their actual authors; the present names were assigned long after these four books were written. And—in spite of what the Gospel authors allege—biblical scholars are now almost unanimously agreed that none of the Gospel authors was either an actual disciple of Jesus or even an eyewitness to his ministry.

Although some books of the Bible are traditionally attributed to a single author, many are actually the work of multiple authors. Genesis and John are two examples of books which reflect multiple authorship.

Many biblical books have the earmarks of fiction. For example, private conversations are often related when no reporter was present. Conversations between God and various individuals are recorded. Prehistoric events are given in great detail. When a story is told by more than one author, there are usually significant differences between one and the other(s). Many stories—stories which in their original context are considered even by Christians to be fictional—were borrowed by the biblical authors, adapted for their own purposes, given a historical setting, and then declared to be fact.

The Flood story is an example of this kind of adaptation. Its migration from the earliest known occurrence in Sumeria, around 1600 B.C., from place to place and eventually to the Bible, can be traced historically. Each time the story was used again, it was altered to speak of local gods and heroes.

But is the Bible, nevertheless, the work of God? Is it a valid guidebook? How can we know?

If the Bible were really the work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God, one would reasonably expect it to be superlative in every respect—accurate, clear, concise, and consistent throughout—as compared to anything that could possibly be conceived by human intellect alone.

Fundamentalists, in fact, hold this to be true. Using a circular argument, they say that because the Bible is without error or inconsistency it must be the work of God, and because it is the work of God it must be without error or inconsistency. It seems not to matter which proposition comes first, the other is thought to follow.

Notwithstanding the fundamentalist viewpoint, however, the Bible does contain a number of real problems, and some of these problems are absolutely fatal to its credibility.

Many passages relate God-ordained atrocities; such passages are unworthy of the Christian God. Some biblical precepts are both unreasonable and unlikely since they are in obvious disagreement with common sense as well as the qualities of character which are attributed to God. Some biblical statements are absurd in that they represent primitive, discredited beliefs. The believability of many biblical stories—stories that are crucial to Christianity—are discredited by numerous inconsistencies. The picture is further complicated by the many different and conflicting interpretations that are often given to a specific passage by sincere, well-intentioned believers.

While biblicists are capable of offering some sort of explanation for nearly every biblical problem that has been uncovered, such explanations should be unnecessary. The point is not whether some explanation can be conceived, but rather that a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God certainly could, should, and would do a much better job of it were he to have anything to do with the writing of a book. In fact, anything less than perfection would necessarily negate God's alleged omnipotence and/or perfection.

The evidence which follows, taken from the Bible itself, is but a small portion of that which exists. This evidence demonstrates that the Bible cannot be the literal, complete, inerrant and perfect work of a perfect, all-powerful, and loving God. It also demonstrates that the Bible is not especially useful even as a guidebook. In addition, because the Bible reflects every important belief of traditional Christianity—the foundation of Christianity itself rests on shaky ground.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
From my days as a libertarian. Both sides have their own, but here I'll highlight the right specifically. The author is anonymous.

Another justification for socialism is the vague concept of "virtue." Under this kind of socialism, society is manipulated toward the goal of creating a society based on certain religious ideals. The individual is largely left alone in his economic activities, but his non-economic activities are regulated if not banned, even though those activities are conducted between consenting adults with a clear and honest agreement regarding their association.

This form of socialism is as destructive of individual liberty as the more recognized Marxist form of socialism. Bizarrely, the proponents of virtue socialism refuse to recognize their socialism, despite their constant invocation of terms like society, the greater good, and the majority, in the context of manipulating them using government fiat -- classic rhetoric of all socialists.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Hoo boy. Yeah. Lots of post-hoc rationalization involved with trying to square the bible with anything moral...

I will say there are good things in the book. No doubt, but the things that are good and true in it are good and true whether they're in the bible or not, and can be derived through purely secular means with truth, logic, compassion and reason based on the facts about reality without the need for divine authority or belief in something for which there is no good evidence is even possible.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Weird definition of socialism, to put it mildly.
Basically bringing the bible/prayer into public schools, the extreme side of abortion restrictions, manogamy/abstinence despite human nature, etc. Those are some of the examples I'd find under theocratic rule, and it isn't entirely religious conservatives imo. But what is unique about the republic was the separation of church and state. Therefore when it's conservatives that do it, it contradicts the founders vision. The recent Michigan Republican on banning the pill, or Abbott saying he's working diligently to prevent rape (vs it being covered in abortions). It comes across to me as religious extremism and cow towing.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Hoo boy. Yeah. Lots of post-hoc rationalization involved with trying to square the bible with anything moral...

I will say there are good things in the book. No doubt, but the things that are good and true in it are good and true whether they're in the bible or not, and can be derived through purely secular means with truth, logic, compassion and reason based on the facts about reality without the need for divine authority or belief in something for which there is no good evidence is even possible.
The predictions in the Bible that are vague and can be used as truths in any time in human history. However, if they were prophets of God, wouldn't they be able to tell you the exact time and event?
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Basically bringing the bible/prayer into public schools, the extreme side of abortion restrictions, manogamy/abstinence despite human nature, etc. Those are some of the examples I'd find under theocratic rule, and it isn't entirely religious conservatives imo. But what is unique about the republic was the separation of church and state. Therefore when it's conservatives that do it, it contradicts the founders vision. The recent Michigan Republican on banning the pill, or Abbott saying he's working diligently to prevent rape (vs it being covered in abortions). It comes across to me as religious extremism and cow towing.
What has that to do with socialism, as commonly understood? The "definition" of socialism in post #2 is codswallop.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
What has that to do with socialism, as commonly understood? The "definition" of socialism in post #2 is codswallop.
Any measure designed to manipulate society into an ideal is socialism. Not all of socialism is bad, but there is tendency for Democrats to increase taxes for programs and Republicans to cut taxes but regulate things like marriage.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Any measure designed to manipulate society into an ideal is socialism. Not all of socialism is bad, but there is tendency for Democrats to increase taxes for programs and Republicans to cut taxes but regulate things like marriage.
Really? So GOP is socialist?:rolleyes:
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Really? So GOP is socialist?:rolleyes:
Yes, but they don't think they are because they think their ideals are virtuous. I mean who can argue over traditional marriage, pro-life, and God. It becomes stickier though if you have to force those ideals via govt intervention. In that regard I think the two-party system is the best arbiter. Secularism vs non-secularism. Though it's probably more grey than that.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Yes, but they don't think they are because they think their ideals are virtuous. I mean who can argue over traditional marriage, pro-life, and God. It becomes stickier though if you have to force those ideals via govt intervention. In that regard I think the two-party system is the best arbiter. Secularism vs non-secularism. Though it's probably more grey than that.
Your made-up definition of ‘socialism’ is pretty useless as all political parties, ideologies or religion is socialism. What then is not socialism?

I’m aware that in USA the right like to brand anything to the left of them as socialism, but yours is the widest one I’ve seen yet as it basically includes everything.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Your made-up definition of ‘socialism’ is pretty useless as all political parties, ideologies or religion is socialism. What then is not socialism?

I’m aware that in USA the right like to brand anything to the left of them as socialism, but yours is the widest one I’ve seen yet as it basically includes everything.
What isn't socialism? You're probably right there. Nothing.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Regarding a theocracy, it sounds virtuous, but then when I think about one has to use force to achieve the ends....I'd say it isn't so great. I thought my friend described liberty pretty well: People have a right to make the wrong choices. Obviously not things like the usual like rape, murder, assailt, theft etc. More the mundane that deep religionists find intolerable.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Overlord
Regarding a theocracy, it sounds virtuous, but then when I think about one has to use force to achieve the ends....I'd say it isn't so great. I thought my friend described liberty pretty well: People have a right to make the wrong choices. Obviously not things like the usual like rape, murder, assailt, theft etc. More the mundane that deep religionists find intolerable.
As long those decisions do not impede on the rights and freedoms of others. That's when it should stop. Freedom is a responsibility and not a god given right that so many people mistakenly believe in.
 
Old Onkyo

Old Onkyo

Audioholic General
Yes, but they don't think they are because they think their ideals are virtuous. I mean who can argue over traditional marriage, pro-life, and god.
really….

Virtue = possesing high moral standards.

just because trump said there were good people on both sides of the white supremacy debate does not make it true.

people might want to ask women about the virtue’s of traditional marriage. ( they were property)

Then ask about the virtue in forced childbirth. (free labor)

maybe ask indigenous people worldwide about the virtue of the “god” they were introduced to. Slavery, forced labor, breeding and rape for pleasure and a source of cheap labor.

and then there are the books they want banned from public school to rewrite the history of these virtuous things.

edited to remove you and your, as i understand these may not be your personal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
highfigh

highfigh

Audioholic Slumlord
Your made-up definition of ‘socialism’ is pretty useless as all political parties, ideologies or religion is socialism. What then is not socialism?

I’m aware that in USA the right like to brand anything to the left of them as socialism, but yours is the widest one I’ve seen yet as it basically includes everything.
I think the position of 'them' needs to be defined, as well as where they believe in conservatism- some Conservatives are somewhat socially liberal and this is where I think labeling creates problems. Maybe a C1 through C5 as well as L1 through L5 designation could be used.

It's time for the US to address the real problems but too many palms are being greased and to many heads are in the sand.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
Another favorite line of mine is It isn't religion I fear. It's people in religion i fear.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Ninja
Religion is highly organized superstition and irrational make-believe as well as a effective tool for suppression and tyranny.
 
D

Dude#1279435

Audioholic Samurai
really….

Virtue = possesing high moral standards.

just because trump said there were good people on both sides of the white supremacy debate does not make it true.

people might want to ask women about the virtue’s of traditional marriage. ( they were property)

Then ask about the virtue in forced childbirth. (free labor)

maybe ask indigenous people worldwide about the virtue of the “god” they were introduced to. Slavery, forced labor, breeding and rape for pleasure and a source of cheap labor.

and then there are the books they want banned from public school to rewrite the history of these virtuous things.

edited to remove you and your, as i understand these may not be your personal beliefs.
I meant like if they had enough power and creating a theocracy, which the founders I believe didn't approve of. I think it was the European theocracy that drove them towards the gov't we have today. Someone can correct me on that if I'm wrong.

I don't have a problem with the best parts of religion. Where they're singing in joy over the lord. It's quite beautiful imo, but when the lyrics and text start to come than my roadblock goes up. I'm more a deist. You look outside and figure something must have created this whole thing, but that's about the end of my religion. My mother is agnostic, and that's about where I am.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
It did have certain aspects for the advancement of civilization....and has fueled much of the opposite as well. Nice fairy tale for its time, not particularly relevant except for the good/encouraging parts I suppose. Interpretations are all over the place. Think it was mostly brilliant PR in its day.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top