A Command Forgotten
"you shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses...he shall not multiply horses for himself...neither shall he multiply wives for himself...nor shall he greatly increase silver and gold for himself" (Deuteronomy 17:16-17)
Really?
After King Solomon asks the Lord for wisdom in a dream, the Lord decides to make him Bill Gates times 10.
Perhaps Jehovah needs to brush up on the laws he gave Moses.
Really?
After King Solomon asks the Lord for wisdom in a dream, the Lord decides to make him Bill Gates times 10.
Perhaps Jehovah needs to brush up on the laws he gave Moses.
posted by R.K. at 11:34 AM
7 Comments:
Keep in mind that I haven't read all your posts.
Are you basing or heavily weighting an opinion of atheism on contradictions within the bible and/or the belief that the bible is somehow inerrant/historical?
If so, it's not a very strong argument. You should look into Joseph Campbell or Paul Tillich for a course in myth/symbol/metaphor.
Rhett,
I grew up in evangelical Christianity, so yes, a part of my atheism is focused on the inerrant/historical reading of the Bible and on Jehovah, the tribal god of the OT. I'm an atheist to the literal god of the bible. I don't see a problem with that, besides, millions of people still worship that god daily. But even if the Bible was meant to be read as myth and symbol, and God becomes some sort of abstract concept like the Ground of Being, my atheism would remain the same. I'm not really sure I see where the problem lies.
Well, it's just all a little too modern, isn't it? A little too, this or that. When truth, in my opinion, would resemble a paradox. If atheism could exist, it would exist as a paradox--wouldn't it?
I am not saying this as a means of conversion. My point is, if the only reason you don't agree with theism is due to the evangelical approach it's a fairly limited argument. Or perhaps that rationally approaching atheism is about as useful as rationally approaching faith (if they could actually be opposing terms).
There has to be a better argument for atheism than pointing out some fairly irrelevent contradictions in the bible.
The 'evangelical approach' is definitely not the only reason I disbelieve in theism. I post on traditional Christianity simply out of choice.
To state the obvious, I find other religions and concepts of God just as unbelievable, however, I'm generally not that compelled to expound at length, on say, the Hindu Vedas, or some other part of theism that holds little interest for me.
If my atheism only addressed you and whatever your concept of God is, then 99.9% of the world would also be saying I had a fairly limited argument.
Allow me to ask you some questions. What kind of God do you believe in? If he's based on the Bible, and if the Bible is mostly(?) myth, symbol and metaphor, where do you get your concept of God from? What becomes the basis for your beliefs?
How is it you can argue against something that you don't believe in? It's just a contradicton in terms. It makes no sense logically.
God, for me, is based out of the bible/saying of Jesus. I briefly contemplated taking up Islam, but presumed I would inevitably end up at the same place as I did with Christianity. So I agree with you there.
I pick and choose with the guidance of community and greater thinkers. I suppose I would use Bonhoeffer for a lot of my ideas on how God might/should be interpreted.
The bible/any sacred text is going to be like the crib/food box that Jesus laid in. It's going to be shotty craftsmanship, splinter-y wood (and I'm a poet!), and nails sticking out; yet, it still holds divinity. (Have you heard this before? I'm not this original.)
My point is, you will never find perfection on earth and if you are looking for it in a bible or an institution or a man/woman, you will never find it. Thus, if you are arguing that there is no perfection (aside from Jesus, HALLUJAH! sp?), which seems to be the case, then you are right. But that doesn't prove anything.
And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but his end has come. (Mark 3) To echo where I started.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you are Satan in any way.
I can argue against the God of organized religion because I find it filled with absurdities and contradictions that are readily disputable. I've been given lots of ammunition. But don't get me wrong, when faced with a new or different concept of God my "argument" is simply this: prove it. The onus falls on the one making the claim to back it up.
I don't believe in God but I can't say 100% that there is no God just like I can't say there isn't a teapot orbiting mars (to use Bertrand Russell's analogy). You can’t prove a negative. But you can analyze the arguments that back it up and make a reasonable decision from there.
Post a Comment
<< Home