Atheistic Perceptive on the Bible: A debate

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Atheistic Perceptive on the Bible: A debate

Abstract:

the bible was written at a point in time and the times have changed - can we not update our thinking a little? is the bible not malleable in any way? I think we touched on this in book club.

if you do start to modify and update the bible, does that become a slippery slope? our judicial system and our system of laws and norms come from the bible, so if you start to update it it really starts to get grey: what do you edit, improve or leave out?

if we were all to come to the realization that the bible - and all religious tomes - are simply works of fiction that were created to help guide us through our lives, and we were to try and re-develop our society without the bible's influence, what would come up with? for example, what if "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife" had been left out of the bible? would we then have a society where infidelity and polygamy were the norm?

what is the opposite of religion? if we hadn't immersed ourselves in religion, what would have brought the collective masses together, and what would they have discussed? would we have been more reasonable and philosophical individuals?

http://breakthehabitsofliving.blogspot.com/





My response:

It depends if you reside on the side of the fence that states the Bible is the word of the Devine for all time and is unchangeable and within it there is consistency without contradiction, and it is up to us to understand/perceive this consistent, non-contradictory lessons. Or, if you reside on the side of the fence that says you need not to listen to the exact wording of the Bible (although you cannot act contrary to it), but instead listen/follow the Spirit of it lessons.

However, if you are a non-believer what right can you cite in wanting to update the Bible? As if you are truly a non-believer than your actions would not be based on Biblical lessons or, if you are going from the historical affect approach on society, then if you recognize the Bible affects then you should be able to resist those Biblical affects and as such what does it matter to you: as you are free to live and choose how to live your life (assuming we are indeed--more than less--a free-society and you can agree to live by society’s laws). Also, it could come across (possible unintentionally) that there is between the lines of your argument that non-believers should be able to assert control over the beliefs of believers (i.e., what behaviors are acceptable, etc.). Do not get me wrong I find it distasteful when people try to shove religion down the throats of others, but I find it equally distasteful when people try preventing others from practicing their faith(s).

I do not think updating the Bible would have much affect on our systems of justice—because while they are based on Christian teaching the systems of justice have long become their own masters. The question becomes on what grounds does a believer become justified in updating the Bible and how do believers know it is the will of God (i.e., what is being written, etc.).

From those I have spoken to they take serious thought whether or not there is a God. They often have doubts about the existences of God, and they are fully aware of the influence that culture has on religion (they also have trouble in reconciling that if people religion is based on people’s culture then how is it there is any true religion or purist of religion; as such, is it reasonable for them to think it is their religion or to practice any religion as none of them may have gotten it right enough give due respect to the Creator). They have difficulty of reconciling many faiths (if it is true that there is one God—especially if other religions are not willing to concede that those that believe in one God worship the same God just in a different way).

They have difficulty in reconciling the expectations of organized religion (or any group that requires a minimum amount of conformity) with their own personal internal beliefs (developed through how they were raised, their life experiences, etc.). Moreover, those belonging to organized religion often cannot freely comment on their doubts less risk being accused by others (both non-believers and believers) as being hypercritics and/or being non-devout. On top of this believers are thought by many non-believers as simpletons for their beliefs. If nothing else people should give believers respect for holding on to their convictions in the face of adversary.