Perfect arguments against biblicals

[Eye Sea Truth]

1. 1-No Evidence that it wasn't
2. 2-The Church made alot of money abusing the followers, the bible never assessed things that would prevent them from doing so.
3. 3-The Bible and Preaching Pushes people away, while my movement brought some together and aims to bring them together.
4. 4-Your bible preaches fear and submission like a puppet.
5. 5-Your bible makes absolute no sense in many ways such as the fear and submission from holy gods and preaching that satan is so powerful he created everything not-written in the bible like homosexuality
6. 6-Your bible claims God cares if you prefer carrots over cherries (homosexuality) literally subjective and worse things are happening.
7. 7-Your bible bans Occultism and its practice by exaggerating its claims and calling it from satan when its a complete utter BS lie as an occultist myself i don't have problems with ''satan trying to deceive me'' i actually learned how to protect myself from him and all various evil spirits aswell.
8. 8-Funerals are Necromancy, Occult by Definition, and Worshipping a God, is Occultism, Prayers are Spells, Occultism, Meditation is Occult, and Anything remotely religious or spiritual is Occult, so the bible technically Bans itself.
9. 9-Your bibles banned in 52 countries
10. 10-books were removed/added to it (7 or 14)
11. 11-One story claims a spear to pierce Jesus, The other an Arrow, An arrow or a spear?
12. 12: your bible preaches Ignorance and to have prejudice and rebuke the idea of knowing the facts about what you intentionally choose to be ignorant of, instead of having knowledge and common sense
13. 13: apparently you have free will, but all is pre-written and god knows your decisions in advance, One of these things Can't be true they conflict. 14- The only point you have is some verses are true, perhaps even a lot, but not all of them.

[Kellerman]

I don't understand the purpose of this?

There are a lot of Christians on this site who find a lot of value in the Bible. 

I have huge issues with how many Christians use the Bible as a justification for abusing others. I despise the oppression that has happened in the name of the church. That doesn't mean I hate the Bible. 

 

 

[PaulS]

On 5/2/2021 at 2:38 AM, Kellerman said:

There are a lot of Christians on this site who find a lot of value in the Bible. 

I have huge issues with how many Christians use the Bible as a justification for abusing others. I despise the oppression that has happened in the name of the church. That doesn't mean I hate the Bible. 

I agree.  I don't take the bible as THE literal word of a God, so most of the points made above mean very little to me.  I take out of the bible the inspiration and interest that I find of value, and leave the rest.

[Kellerman]

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

I agree.  I don't take the bible as THE literal word of a God, so most of the points made above mean very little to me.  I take out of the bible the inspiration and interest that I find of value, and leave the rest.

Lol, even people who claim to "take the Bible literally" only pick and choose what to take literally and how to interpret it "literally". 

I written text had one way to be interpreted, as wouldn't have lawyers. 

So even things that are meant to be taken literally are up for interpretation, and debated at the highest levels of subject matter experts, and even then, they often disagree. AND, their meanings change over time. 

So anyone who thinks that the Bible is "facts" and that that entitles them to be the arbiters of truth as to how other people should behave, well, they're just either disingenuous or an idiot who fell for that BS from a disingenuous person. 

Somewhere up the chain of BS, someone is disingenuous and knows that that what they're saying is total crap designed to try and control people through collective shaming. 

These "literalists" didn't read the Bible and come up with these interpretations themselves. They were TOLD how to interpret the Bible by OTHER PEOPLE. 

Edited May 6, 2021 by Kellerman

[romansh]

42 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

These "literalists" didn't read the Bible and come up with these interpretations themselves. They were TOLD how to interpret the Bible by OTHER PEOPLE. 

Is this true for the metaphorists as well? Or are they OK to make up their interpretations as they go along?

[Kellerman]

8 hours ago, romansh said:

Is this true for the metaphorists as well? Or are they OK to make up their interpretations as they go along?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, but based on what you quoted, yes, all religious interpretation is human, made up by people, and deeply affected by context. 

Truth is never permanent. You need both facts and context to ascertain any degree of truth, and understanding of both tend to erode over time. 

Is the story of David and Goliath about a small man standing up to a giant, or is it about an expert marksman basically bringing a gun to a knife fight? Depends on the facts and the context. The story is just a short, and there's rarely one reasonable interpretation of any story. 

Information is never complete and context is never fully known, so all interpretations of all information are limited, and flawed. 

That's why I don't get what your point is. Are you suggesting that there's a problem with making up interpretations as we go along? That's literally what we do with absolutely everything in the world. 

We interpret as best we can, and when things change, we change the interpretation, or the interpretation is changed for us by context. Like if I hold 'progressive' political views now and refuse to change them with changing times, they will become staunchly 'conservative' values as the world changes around me. So am I politically consistent or am I becoming more conservative as I age?

Also, on the broader scale of what we call "factual knowledge", just because an interpretation is co-signed by a major institution or community doesn't mean it's not essentially collectively "made up". All interpretations are to a degree. 

I have a world history book on my shelf written in the 1800s. It's amazing to read about history from a pre-world war perspective. It's the same ancient history as in text books written today, but it's a very different interpretation. 

I highly recommend reading very old history books. It's enlightening. 

So yes, I firmly believe in seeing all human sources of interpretation of religion as highly fallible and not able to represent themselves as authorities on my spirituality or anyone else's. 

Humans can't define spirituality for other humans. I know the Catholics wouldn't agree, but that's my position on it. 

This is actually built into Judaism and Islam; rabbis and imams are religious scholars, not human conduits to God. They aren't in a position of authority over your relationship with God, that's between you and God. They can just provide expertise of a scholar, help interpret scripture, but not interpret for you what your truth should be. 

At least, that's how they're supposed to function. It's obviously not the case in practicality, because most people have a hard time not looking to other powerful humans in positions of authority as the "source of truth."

Humans generally *want* to partially worship other humans and have faith in their very human interpretations. Humans like partially worshipping other humans in power and internalizing their interpretations as fact. 

One of the hardest things in the world is being comfortable with no one having a damn clue what's actually going on. It's terrifying. Truth-tellers are very comforting. 

A lot of Christianity maintained this concept of ministers as spiritual leaders, not just religious scholars. It comes from Catholicism, which leaned into that HARD.

Its classic idolatry, in my opinion, and the irony is very rich. 

Edited May 7, 2021 by Kellerman

[John Hunt]

On 5/7/2021 at 6:16 AM, Kellerman said:

Information is never complete and context is never fully known, so all interpretations of all information are limited, and flawed. 

Particularly as the Bible itself  is a bitterly-disputed selection of books out of many others over a thousand year period by flawed people (and different Churches still have different Bibles).

[murmsk]

this was obviously an advertisement for his book. Its too bad he hasn't shared a little more about himself and his perspective. Much of what he says has some relevance for the bible literalists but ignores the fact that all Christians and maybe even most Christians don't fall in his neat characterization.

 

steve