The worst things that have ever been written

[Phytotron]

Two seconds into the video, got yelled at by the title, closed the tab.

*****

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The "well regulated Militia" refers to the State militias of the time (not the modern-day private militias of the right-wing separatist, survivalist, and broader "Patriot" movement). The US Federal government did not originally, and was not intended by the Constitution to ever have a standing Army for longer than two years at a time. The State militias were meant to serve that function. The Second Amendment does not describe an individual right to bear arms, but a collective right, specifically that of the State militias. Since 1903, that basically means the National Guard.

Unfortunately, that's not the current interpretation of the bonkers conservative majority of the Supreme Court. But that's the thing. The US Constitution is a secular document written by humans at a particular time with a particular philosophy and practicality in mind, intended to set forth that philosophy and lay the groundwork and erect the framework to be interpreted by humans down through the years.

On the other hand, the Bible, contrary to your assertion that it is "a product of a completely different culture and time," is supposedly the literal and immutable word of God himself. And as a Catholic, you believe that the Pope is God's Vicar on Earth. So, either God changes his mind a lot, or a lot of people and Popes are getting it wrong. Or both. Or neither?

I'm not interested in this red herring about whether the Bible and Christianity produce more good or evil. That's a separate argument from whether it's true or not. Whether something is popular, old, or good, has no impact whatsoever on whether it's actually true. You're attacking a straw man when you say "you stupid, mean atheists only reject my god on the basis of some bad people doing things in his name." False. And I'm getting seriously tired of you making that assertion, as we've covered this several times before, yet you refuse to listen. One more time: The reason we don't believe in your god is because there's no evidence for him. Period.

The obvious fact that people do bad things because of their belief in a given religion is a separate subject altogether. But on that point, no, you can't give credit and glory to Christianity for every wonderful thing it inspires, but then eschew every evil thing done clearly because of Christianity by saying "no, that's just bad people misinterpreting and justifying their lunacy."


EDIT: "at a time" and a couple other little thangs. Also, King, or in the spirit of anti-monarchy...hmm...Champion?

[Lucifer]

Jesus didn't die for our sins and was invented by us. Jesus doesn't illustrate how our earthly sufferings aren't in vain. Jesus didn't conquer death.

It's not a question of interpretation, after all, it's merely a question of faith.

The "well regulated Militia" refers to the State militias of the time (not the modern-day private militias of the right-wing separatist, survivalist, and broader "Patriot" movement).

And, in context, the state militias at the time consisted of individual citizens voluntarily serving arbitrarily volunteer terms of service and often not getting paid for it, which led directly to the creation of a federal military. However, the federal military chain of command existed since at least the War of 1812, due to the need to coordinate the actions of all the state militias.

The US Federal government did not originally, and was not intended by the Constitution to ever have a standing Army for longer than two years.

And, more in context, the state militias existed in a state (heh) where they lived in fear of native raids, bordering states attacking, and slave uprisings. Oh, and the occasional Spanish (and later Mexican) raids across the border for random crap. And the pirates. Etc. It was a much more dangerous world at that time.

The second amendment never meant to address an individual right to self-defense via firearms. The founding fathers were very clear that they felt the use of deadly force by individual citizens was rarely authorized. They wanted the states to handle it.

As for hunting as a sport, well, again, in context, hunting wasn't a sport at the time the second amendment was written. It was a trade, and meat wasn't the object, skins were.

And who really truly believes that the constitution had in it built-in forms of revolution? Oh wait, it does! There's a process to AMEND the constitution! There's also a process to elect an entirely new government periodically! Revolution IS built into it, it's called VOTING.

[Word]

I'm not interested in this red herring about whether the Bible and Christianity produce more good or evil. That's a separate argument from whether it's true or not. Whether something is popular, old, or good, has no impact whatsoever on whether it's actually true. You're attacking a straw man when you say "you stupid, mean atheists only reject my god on the basis of some bad people doing things in his name." False. And I'm getting seriously tired of you making that assertion, as we've covered this several times before, yet you refuse to listen. One more time: The reason we don't believe in your god is because there's no evidence for him. Period.

No, I've basically tried to explain that most atheists here don't acknowledge the bible as a good book because they don't acknowledge god, are disgusted by fundamentalism, or simply because we believe that it's the word of God himself, which you said again. I don't question that many people get many parts wrong, myself included. All I'm asking you is to detach the question regarding the bible's quality from the questions if you believe in God or not, if you think most Christians are potentially delusional or not etc., and before you judge it, understand that it's full of symbolism most of us aren't able to grasp on the first glance. I never said it depends on whether Christianity is good or evil for the most part, or whether everything written in it is true in some sense; I know that this depends on my personal faith, but also on the knowledge to decode it (for example, if I understand the hints at the persecution of Christians by the Romans that one can find in the book of revelation - although that alone is still controversial). Judge it like any other piece of literature of that time, and it's already useful to science because of the languages in which it was translated (for example, Martin Luther was the first to shape what we today know as High German), or how people of ancient times perceived the world around them and wrote about it. You aren't trying to identify with these people and thus leave out scientific criteria one would have to apply to any non-religious book. The problem we have is that we need to interprete something that was absolutely clear to the people who read it 2000 years ago.

You also read Cesar's "Commentarii de Bello Gallico" in an entirely different way if you know what happened in Rome at the same time, and how he manipulated the senate as well as the people, and how his relationship to Pompey changed over the years, and that if he had died of some illness, someone else could possibly have turned the republic to an empire, given all the other exceptional people that unknowingly crippled the state since the days of Sulla, although many of them actually tried to help it (Cato, Marcellus, even Cicero). The difference between that and the bible is that we have more sources of evidence (inscriptions on buildings, biographies, archaeologic findings, administrative documents, different accounts of the same events). We just have to make the best out of what we have.

[Titanoboa]

The problem we have is that we need to interprete something that was absolutely clear to the people who read it 2000 years ago.

Um... Are you sure about that? :S

[Word]

The problem we have is that we need to interprete something that was absolutely clear to the people who read it 2000 years ago.

Um... Are you sure about that? :S

I didn't care to look up the exact numbers, perhaps 1900 years is more accurate if you're referring to the New Testament. Obviously the Jews who lived roughly 2000 years ago still had to deal with the Old Testament. Other than that, yeah, I have no problem to generalize here. There are countless studies that proved people of those times knew as many things as we today, even if it were completely different things. So that arrogance towards works which sound strange to us because they are from a different time is inappropriate, and, wait for it, arrogant. I forgot to mention that many people seem to ignore that the Pope's infallibility dogma is limited to ex cathedra announcements, so there's that - it's quite possible that a Pope misinterpretes the bible. After all they're just filling in for my patron saint who wasn't perfect either (and acknowledged that himself through the way he was crucified).

[Titanoboa]

That's not what I meant. My point is that it's false to state that all of the new testament was "absolutely clear to the people who read it" (1900-1950 years ago).

For example here's something S:t Peter - one of the twelve - says in one of his letters, about S:t Paul's letters (he wrote 13 of the NT letters).
"His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."

Though you're right that certain things in there are easier to comprehend if you were living in that time.

[Word]

I was mostly referring to the Old Testament here though, because today it's the more controversial part. I don't know that St Peter quotation but I guess any former fisher from Galilee would have had problems to understand a Greek thinker like St Paul, even without all the symbolism.

[Phytotron]

All I'm asking you is to detach the question regarding the bible's quality from the questions if you believe in God or not

I always have, very explicitly, several times over. I don't know why you fail to recognize or accept that. My disbelief in theism has absolutely nothing, nada, zilch, zero, zed to do with Christianity, in any respect. Understand that debating (or mocking) the specific claims of Christianity or the existence of its God is an entirely separate, though obviously related, subject from that of theism versus atheism. Theism is not defined as "belief in the Christian God." It is defined as "belief in the existence of a god(s)"—that's any conceivable god concept. Atheism is not defined as "disbelief in the Christian God." It is defined as "without belief in the existence of a god(s)"—that's any conceivable god concept. The Christian God(s) is only one of countless theistic concepts, but you have the niggling habit of equating Jesus with the generic concept of "god" or theism, because for you there is no other god. Well, as the also oft-repeated quote says, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."


Further, I personally don't really give much of a damn about the theology of the Bible, either. I mean, it's just not of much import to me. Why should I? Why should it be? It's nonsense, debating and "interpreting" (i.e., oftentimes just making shit up) the length of a unicorn's horn, or the fashion of fairies—or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Nor do I give a damn about the supposed "history" it contains, as much of it has been determined to be bologna (Kosher or not, I'm not sure) now that archaeologists have stopped going out into the field with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other. Not to mention all the supernatural silliness and contradictions and circularity and circuitousness—and interpretation. Even if a few bits are accurate, the sum total renders it unworthy of my time or consideration. It's not an historical document.

The only reason that silly little book has any relevance to me is because Christianity has been the dominant religion in my country and the 'West' broadly, as well as the vile imperialist tentacles it has stretched across the globe. The primary interest I have in it is more pragmatic. It's in the social, cultural, and political impacts carried out by people who follow it, here, on Earth. And that means all of it: the supposedly good and the obviously bad. There is no separation of the two. The effect is the same—someone doing something motivated by, or claiming to be motivated by, their belief in the Bible—regardless of whether you believe theirs is the correct "interpretation" or not. They believe it is, and there is no way, no objective measure whatsoever by which you can say you're right and they're wrong—precisely because it is subjective interpretation and faith, the belief in something despite a lack of evidence. As I've also said repeatedly, there are as many variations and interpretations of Christianity as there are people who profess to be Christians, and as far as I'm concerned, they all are "true" (or none are).


There is, of course, additionally the obvious fact that Biblical stories and allusions play a significant role in western art and literature, so at least a cursory familiarity with those stories is necessary to fully understand and appreciate works in those fields. Like Shakespeare. But, of course, that doesn't legitimize or glorify a single aspect of Christianity, nor can you claim as you have in the past that they were a sole result of Christianity. It's simply a cultural artifact, and a rather obnoxious one at that.


You're still getting your years wrong, by the way.

S:t

The heck is that?

[Lucifer]

No, I've basically tried to explain that most atheists here don't acknowledge the bible as a good book because they don't acknowledge god, are disgusted by fundamentalism, or simply because we believe that it's the word of God himself, which you said again.

What information do you have to back up that assertion? You can't read my mind, nor anybody else's.

The bible, as a book, sucks. The language is terrible, sentences poorly constructed. The stories themselves lack good characterization, and the dialogue is just plain terrible, where there is actual dialog. It's a sucky book.

For me, I don't understand why you'd read such a terrible book and then believe in what it says as fact rather than fiction. Do you also believe soap operas depict real people in real life? The bible is worse than a soap opera. Really, as a piece of literature, the Greeks had better stuff before the bible was written down anywhere. I'd rather read that stuff.

All I'm asking you is to detach the question regarding the bible's quality from the questions if you believe in God or not, if you think most Christians are potentially delusional or not etc., and before you judge it, understand that it's full of symbolism most of us aren't able to grasp on the first glance.

No it's not. Once you detach your belief in God from your assessment of the quality of the bible, it is painfully easy to understand. When you are no longer encumbered trying to justify the god depicted in the bible as being, essentially, a good guy, then the bible is so easy to read you can do it in one or two sittings. It's easier than Shakespeare. Even easier than the other guy, the one who wrote "John Faustus". The reason YOU have so much difficulty with it is because you believe it's fact in some form or other, and you have to construct this wild system of symbols and metaphors and allegories in order to avoid facing the simple fact that your god is an asshat.

[Word]

What information do you have to back up that assertion? You can't read my mind, nor anybody else's.

Never said I could. Why else would you criticize religion before you finally say that the bible sucks - to be fair you didn't, but Jonathan (saying I could worship the wheel just as well) and Phytotron (not seeming to take it seriously because we believe it's the word of God) did.

The bible, as a book, sucks. The language is terrible, sentences poorly constructed. The stories themselves lack good characterization, and the dialogue is just plain terrible, where there is actual dialog. It's a sucky book.

So you know what it's like in Hebrew and Greek, two languages that are far more polysemous than ours? Not that I do, but I remember back in school we spent whole lessons in religion where we discussed the different meanings of one or two sentences, and how they depend on the context. I'd assume it's only a little easier than Japanese poetry using a Kakekotoba.

No it's not. Once you detach your belief in God from your assessment of the quality of the bible, it is painfully easy to understand. When you are no longer encumbered trying to justify the god depicted in the bible as being, essentially, a good guy, then the bible is so easy to read you can do it in one or two sittings. It's easier than Shakespeare. Even easier than the other guy, the one who wrote "John Faustus". The reason YOU have so much difficulty with it is because you believe it's fact in some form or other, and you have to construct this wild system of symbols and metaphors and allegories in order to avoid facing the simple fact that your god is an asshat.

Did I say one already justifies God by reading the bible the way it was intended to be read? You're just assuming it's that easy, no evidence whatsoever. A lot of the "wild system of metaphors and allegories" was already present during early Roman and Greek times (concerning the New Testament), and we simply don't know for certain how much of it was used in the Old Testament. However, a lot of stylistic, symbolic and rhetoric motives appear in non-religious literature of that time as well as earlier periods, so that claim is just baseless, and scientifically incorrect. There are entire books about this. To use Phytotron's example, you have to know the length of the unicorn's horn and the fashion of the fairies and what they symbolize so they're less mysterious.

now that archaeologists have stopped going out into the field with a trowel in one hand and a Bible in the other.

...or the Illiad

There is no separation of the two.

I don't think there has to be a separation, I just think most of us misread the "bad parts" without spending time to think about it. And even if we do, most of the knowledge that is needed to understand them is lost. I'd say the same about many "good" parts, but one has to start somewhere.

precisely because it is subjective interpretation and faith, the belief in something despite a lack of evidence

Well, yeah - but I'd add that to me it's something self-evident, just like you're thinking if everyone would understand the game the way you do, they'd all singlebind again - their subjective interpretation wouldn't be as different from my own one, if they only tried to see it in a different light - which doesn't have to be blind faith. People from Kant's time and Kant himself thought that in the future there wouldn't be any disagreements because everyone wanted what is best for humanity. I think the bible has to be understood in a similar way (and again, I don't mean you already have to believe in God like I do, just take all the symbolism into account). Ask people why they became atheists and most of them name one specific detail in the bible that seems rather odd, like the immaculate conception, or the brutal exodus, or what the chosen people were supposed to do with at least equally violent non-believers to survive and overcome their enslavement, or even the scene where Jesus throws the merchants out of the temple (or why the world is as imperfect as it is, which the bible tries to explain as well). That one doesn't find scientific answers in it unless he's concerned with works that derived from it is clear.

[Titanoboa]

S:t

The heck is that?

Oops.. That's how we deal with such abbreviations (ones with just the first & last letters) in Swedish. Turns out you don't do it in English.

[þsy]

The reason for the poor language structures, as Word said, is because it's a translation from an ancient text, and most translations these days try and make their texts as exact as they can. I've studied biblical Hebrew and can read it to a reasonable level of competency. Whilst I totally disagree with the argument that you can only read biblical text in its original language, it really adds a lot of colour to the text, which could otherwise be interpreted as a poorly written sentence (if reading a translation)

[Jonathan]

What if, in 2000 years, someone murders some random person and claims Richard Dawkins said he should do so?

This about sums it up. How could you concoct such a thing? Do you not see the inanity of it?

Okay, I'm done with the counter-babble. Allow me to go full out.

The reasons I believe the Bible is a bad book are manifold: lack of veracity; very tedious to read—might have been slightly better in the original language when it comes to phrasing; stories severely lacking in depth; often childish, but not something we'd tell our children without heavy editing to hide the cruft. Most of all it centers on a jealous god, which, despite its infinite wisdom and the eternity it's had to find its bearings, will regularly flip-flop.

There is also the effect it has on people whose mind it has infected. They claim to find solace, but I find the opposite is true in most cases. It's a problem purporting to be its own solution, mixed with some Stockholm syndrome. It's painful to see the amount of distress caused by it, often even over itself. Another effect is that it clouds the mind. It opens people up to other kinds of bullshit that doesn't actually help them or anyone (except perhaps some quacks), and reinforces itself.

It has often hampered progress. Not to mention its justification for and active encouragement of bigotry. Fortunately, many people resolve the contradictions with itself and the world in a way that puts a damper on it, but it did and does happen.

None of this is separate from the Bible; books, while inanimate, can be very potent objects. Books are to humans as software is to hardware. Many books have more data-like aspects, but software-like aspects are not to be underestimated. Which doesn't make it okay to spread bogus data virally, by the way.

[sinewav]

I don't think there has to be a separation, I just think most of us misread the "bad parts" without spending time to think about it. And even if we do, most of the knowledge that is needed to understand them is lost. I'd say the same about many "good" parts, but one has to start somewhere.

I can't let you get away with this. We have gone over this topic before. The bad parts of the bible are bad, bad, bad and they are not allegory. They are clearly and specifically talking about the rape and subjugation of women, the abuse of children, and justifications for murder and genocide. Theologians do not try to abstract the divine, pure meaning of these passages as if there is some unseen poetic beauty to them. Instead they poorly rationalize the horror of the passages to absolve God from his evil ways. Which, coincidentally, is what you are doing right now. You failed the first time and you are failing again.

[Word]

This about sums it up. How could you concoct such a thing? Do you not see the inanity of it?

you don't see the inanity of blaming religion for someone's crimes, that's why I chose to use such an example.

They claim to find solace, but I find the opposite is true in most cases.

From my experience it's always the atheists who return to church whenever they get married, get a child, or know that they are going to die soon.

Which, coincidentally, is what you are doing right now.

Where? I just naively assume that

1) almost everything in the bible has been written for a purpose,
2) the writers/God intended to get more believers by convincing them of the religion's teachings.
3) So why would God want to be described as an evil being in his own book? Why would genuine believers describe him like that(this isn't necessarily a rhetoric question)? Is it meant to demonstrate how miserable the situation is, or what he's capable of? Why would you write such a violent book when you are already surrounded by daily carnage and your only aim is to reach a state of peace and some kind of order? How can anyone be sure that these crimes have to be seen as common law, instead of isolated incidents, meant to warn the reader that such a time mustn't return?

Whilst I totally disagree with the argument that you can only read biblical text in its original language

I haven't made said argument, in case that was directed at me. I'd just say that translations should probably be better and offer more commentary.