are you an atheist?

Irenaeus et al wanted Christians who all agreed about what it meant to be a Christian, but more importantly all agreed that the CHURCH would be a final arbiter of what it meant to be a Christian.

and he also originated the falsehood that the four synoptic Gospels were written by the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John....as apostolic gospels were seen as superior at the time.

I totally feel Shakey's paragraph 100%.

assuming an organized religion is a homogeneous entity made up of a singular-minded stereotype is boring.

Also feel this! Everyone have a great day!

everyone gets to ignore or overrule those parts of their chosen religion that they deem inconvenient, demonstrably untrue, etc. It's big reason why, say, Xianity is still going strong. No no, it's all allegory, you see! No no, shellfish is ok, and you guys missing a testicle, come on into the Lord's house. And then, rather than this lack of agreement/cohesion being a knock against a religion, can turn around and say hey you can't criticize me (and my sect), that only applies to THOSE people, they're doing it wrong.

how dare you try to lump me in with everyone else who calls themselves a Christian, you got some nerve!

Otm! The problem isn't god or no god, it's tolerance vs. intolerance.

That one-testicle thing is just common sense if you ask me.

and you guys missing a testicle, come on into the Lord's house

tbf there is no third temple to deny entry to

think I agree, but don't think I'll ever be convinced that religion doesn't give rise to more insidious intolerance than would exist without it

xp to Adam

For me, it's just about evidence and experience. I have my experience of the world, and God. Then there is an account of God in the Bible. They don't perfectly overlap - the parts of the biblical account that do not match my experience of God or the universe I of course reject. It's not cherry-picking, it's just like any other evaluation of evidence. The role of the Bible for me is that it is an account of God by people who had a closer relationship to Him than I have, who can help explain what I experience, or just supply me with language to express such.

I'm an unreliable witness, of course (not least because I have severe mental health problems), and I don't expect anyone to accept claims of religious experience, and I have no interest in evangelism. But I'm not irrational. I think people often think that faith in God emerges from the Bible somehow, that it is it's source, so are understanable confused when that faith doesn't match the source. But for me that's not the case; faith exists independently of the Bible, which helps you to understand your faith.

good post. the idea that the holy books of each religion are the sole or even the main expression of those religions is a big mistake imo.

this religion isn't that, it's THIS! your criticisms of it are invalid, whamo!

the bible is THE WORD OF GOD...who are you to reject ANY of it?

Me? I don't believe the Bible is the word of God.

why not?

why believe it's an "account of God by people who had a closer relationship to Him"? Why God and not Allah or Ganesh or Thor? Why Him not Her or It?

Well, it's the book that most closely matches my experience of God. I believe that other holy books were written by people who had insight into God too, and can sometimes inform my faith, or provide insight into it. But the God of the Bible is closer to the evidence I have available (and the only evidence I will ever have): my subjective experience.

isn't it odd how there was this flurry of accounts of God by people who had a close relationship with him during such a brief span of human history? nothing for a couple hundred thousand years, and then coinciding with ability to leave behind written record there's God everywhere, then He goes away, not to be heard from once his blessed children developed the ability (in large part through people rejecting Him) to have not just written records but audio and visual records, which can be beamed around the world into people's homes almost instantaneously. mysterious ways and all eh

http://intentblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/20111220144241_1323535423003.jpg

I suppose I don't see the prophets as privileged. I think Paul, or Elijah, or other prophets are by nature much different from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Desmond Tutu, The Dalai Lama, or your local priest. They write about the nature of God. I don't believe that God dictates books to people.

funny how they all existed around the same era and locale, and no one around like them before or since

Same era here is covering quite a long period, prom the Pentateuch to the Koran is not exactly a blink of an eye.

it is when compared to the time span humans have been around

Sure, but it also coincides with the spread of writing. Anyway, I have more doubts than answers when it comes to these things. And, as I said, mental illness has a role in that - I recently had a manic episode that crossed into psychosis where I felt I had been specifically blessed as a prophet to distribute a new message. What I wrote was pretty hilarious, and meandering, and often wildly off topic. I never felt that words were being dictated to me (this can be an important distinction in psychiatry), but I did feel that a special sense of grace meant that my writings would be an accurate account of God. Of course, I'm better know and recognise my delusions; this raises an obvious objection - how do I know the prophets weren't crazy like me? Well, I don't. But their writings are beautiful, and help me understand my relationship with God, and that's all I want them to do. I'd be surprised if some of them weren't loopy.

Sure, but it also coincides with the spread of writing. ----exactly, now all these kooky myths could be written down, and given validity through their permanence, circulation, and the mists of time.

it's a fair point, there has been zero writing about Christianity or work that claims to be divinely inspired since the 1st century AD

once the Bible was established that was definitely the end of the process and all the faith that's existed since then has been people unquestioningly acknowledging its absolute authority

of course they might have quibbled a bit about its "true" meaning because lol

unless it turns out that the concept of Biblical inerrancy is largely a very late one, say mid-19th century or something

A 2011 Gallup survey reports, "Three in 10 Americans interpret the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. That is similar to what Gallup has measured over the last two decades, but down from the 1970s and 1980s. A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, consistently the most common view in Gallup's nearly 40-year history of this question. Another 17% consider the Bible an ancient book of stories recorded by man."

you're on a fucking roll bro

the Bible isn't that, it's THIS, whamo

I think the normal view (certainly my Church's stance) is 'inspired' rather than dictated.

let me know when they've figured things out exactly

and there are Bibles, not just in the sense of translation but in broader chains of context. interesting to think about the Catholic Bible vs the Bible as a key American text in 2014

how bout that Book of Mormon eh? what a load of nonsense! unlike the Bible, which is totally "divinely inspired"

i mean Granny, you said you weren't just kneejerkly rejective of every opinion bar your own, and yet i identify as more or less an atheist, and i don't think i've said anything that bends the truth, and yet here we are

and Scientologists and their Dianetics, whoo boy, karazeees

I quite like the Book of Mormon. :)

i understand why clinging to the least nuanced possible understanding of religion is fun tho

now I'm kneejerky rejecting all opinions cause I happen to be rejecting yours?

"nuanced" is such bullshit here gtfo

if you feel the need to hide behind "nuanced", your stance is very flimsy

"your broad criticism doesn't exactly strike at my special snowflake of a view on religion" yeah who congrats who cares

you don't think that pretending that there wasn't a "biblical era" and written works about god from then aren't still the most prevalent authorities on the matter for the major religions is "bending the truth"?

i'm done tbh, you seem to have it all sorted

thank god

i understand why clinging to the least nuanced possible understanding of phrenology is fun tho

good post. the idea that the holy books of each phrenology are the sole or even the main expression of those phrenologies is a big mistake imo.

it may further be that phrenology helps these people make sense of that aspect of their apprehended reality. i'm willing to accept that possibility. why not? what irrational arrogance could possibly incline me to define the perceptions of someone who isn't me?

Then to be blunt surely if there will always be gaps in what we can know then there will always be room for phrenology.

Lol im up for clownin theists but ffs actually tryin to argue away the god they have is p lame

Can u indicate on the doll where god touched u GD, because cmon mayne whats up ya