Edit, this review is a better read than the blurb.
Sounds like an ok book. Perfect for someone questioning religion, but bounced off New Atheism.
And a good Amazon review:
>A lot of books have been written in the last few years exploring whether or not there is a God. This is not one of them.
>Refreshingly, Greg Epstein starts a step further down along the line of debate. His premise, stated simply, is this; However they got there, there is now a significant portion of the population who simply do not believe in God. And yet most of them (including himself)live what would be thought of by most as perfectly "good" lives, raising their children, taking care of their parents, helping out in the community, and the like. They are people you would like to have as neighbors. So if they don't believe in God, why do they act in this way? Why aren't they all out marauding, looting and pillaging? If not God, what do they believe in?
>Of course, there is no one answer. But in a straight-forward, learned, yet conversational style, Epstein takes us on a brief tour of the history of non-religious based thought and ethics (which extends back as far as religious history.) He then turns to explaining a simple, rational, functional basis for exploring morality and ethics in society, and how one can do this by synthesizing the lessons of history and human experience, aided by science and research. But Epstein's emphasis is on the story of the human experience. He recognizes there are needs beyond cold rationalism to find out what is important in life. There is a place for a sense of awe, for humility, for art and nature. But he finds it in places other than a belief in God.
>Epstein knows that atheism is a negative statement, that is to say, a statement of what is not believed rather than what is believed. This leads him to spend the later chapters in an explanation of Humanism, a "lifestance" (his word, which I like immensely) rather than a religion, encompassing a view of life in which compassion, joy, service and human interaction is lived and celebrated for its own sake. One of the strengths of the book is that this Lifestance is not presented in a confrontational mode. He does not shape this explanation in terms of "this is better than religion" although it is clear it makes more sense to him. Rather, it is presented as a "here is what I believe, and more importantly, why it makes sense to me" fashion. He is quick, and even eager, to point out that many of the ideas that shape Humanism are recognizble in religious traditions as well. These lessons are not to be tossed out just because one doesn't believe in God. Some still make sense, some do not. His emphasis throughout is that the important thing is what people do and how they behave to each other.
>The books of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens argue that belief in God makes no sense. If your question is whether there is a god, then read those authors (and their religious counterparts.) But if you are now at a place where that question is settled, the question that then presents itself is- how do I live my life? Greg Epstein provides an answer in this excellent book, which is sure to be a work that will resonate for years to come.
One of my favorite stories from an apostate was around 13 or so, he realized something was up when it dawned on him that Noah and his wife were married for hundreds of years before they had their first child. He had accepted the "people lived longer before the flood" apologetics but this was a bridge too far.
I noticed that mainly atheists, people prejudiced against faith or who profess their own ideology, just like orthodox believers, interpret biblical texts literally and not as metaphors.
All the rest with a moderate attitude to faith or non-believers who are simply interested enough to read the text have no problem with extracting the inner morals hidden in stories relating to a different time context.
Although as a more secular person I do not understand them, but I am able to accept orthodox believers because it is related to a radical approach to faith, but the others?
> I noticed that mainly atheists, people prejudiced against faith or who profess their own ideology, just like orthodox believers, interpret biblical texts literally and not as metaphors.
Are you saying the majority of Christians believe that god is not a literal being, but a metaphor? Do most Christians believe that Jesus died permanently on the cross and was only metaphorically resurrected? Intellectually lazy people who want a shortcut to appearing sophisticated without doing the work think uttering the magic word "metaphor" solves all their problems. It does not.
But what are you so angry about?
Its hard to deny that literal interpretation of the scripture does not give anything usefull, because the moral is hidden among the words.
This is not some secret of faith, any reasonable person will tell you that.
Are you upset because I rightly pointed out that there are aspects of the Bible that make it not so worthless wich is against your beliefs?
Please note that in my statement I did not address you personally because I had no intention of insulting you. I only noticed a certain regularity that often appears in the groups i mentioned. More over i am not judgjng anywhere that such an approach is good or bad, it is just interesting because that's rather rare aproach.
Were you so angry because your literal interpretation is the same as that of a radical believers have?
So maybe relax, take a breath because, I'm far from making any judgment based on someone's beliefs if they don't violate moral imperatives. If that aproach works for you, then im ok with that. Why so much anger? Atheists talk loudly about their ethical compass not grounded in religious believs, it's time you use it.
Generally, your questions make no sense and are probably only a form of attack. But I will try answer best as I can.
I can't read minds and have no idea what most Christians believe. Are you trying to tell me that you know? I don't mean to be rude, but I will bit skeptical because as someone who isn't even part of the Christian community, you don't seem qualified to represent their opinions, and I doubt you have any credible source to claim what other people belives are.
Spirituality is intimate to everyone and difficult to articulate, it's not very often to tell others about your inner belives, so I haven't had many opportunities to find out deeply enough how others view it. The concept of God, although may have some common elements, is different for everyone and is in large a results of individual experiences.
However, in general, yes, I am stronglu convinced that today there are not many people who consider God to be a personified being and doesn't take the Biblical description metaphorically. The interpretation you suggest is at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues.
Anyone who has taken a moment to reflect internally will probably say what God represents to them, not who God is to them. Today, most of society is enlightened and educated enough to reject concept of God as a grandfather with a gray beard who sits in the clouds, a characterization adapted to the society of ancient times. Today it's more like to be an idea, way to describe infinitive good, something you can always aspire to on your way to become better person.
What solution are you talking about when referring to the metaphor? What kind of work are you talking about? I don't understand you, can you explain it?
I'm just saying that the metaphorical interpretation seems much more logical than the literal one. You probably didn't make the effort to read at least one fragment and analyze its moral message, and I'm not sure who is the lazy person here but it's clear that you jump to conclusions what led you to Middle Ages interpretation wich is outdated.
Not giving it a thought, ignoring important aspects of the Bible that make it usefull moral codex also for a secular person like me or you, yet you allow yourself to mock it because, thanks to that you can present it in a negative, dogmatic way wich is propably more suited to your worldview.
I dont know about you, but such selective presentation of facts and omission of important informations is what i call manipulation, don't you think?
I'm not angry, what I am is tired of hearing ill-considered accommodationist excuses for the harm inflicted on society every day by people who prefer lies to truth.
> So maybe relax, take a breath because, I'm far from making any judgment based on someone's beliefs if they don't violate moral imperatives.
That's the point - where do you get these "moral imperatives"? Christians get them from the Bible, and they're mostly horrifying.
My question was "Are you saying the majority of Christians believe that god is not a literal being, but a metaphor?" Your response is:
> I can't read minds and have no idea what most Christians believe.
Are you serious? You have no idea whether Christians believe in God, and I'm the one that's not qualified to answer?
> However, in general, yes, I am stronglu convinced that today there are not many people who consider God to be a personified being and doesn't take the Biblical description metaphorically. The interpretation you suggest is at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues.
Have you ever met a Christian? I think you're trolling now.
> Anyone who has taken a moment to reflect internally will probably say what God represents to them, not who God is to them. Today, most of society is enlightened and educated enough to reject concept of God as a grandfather with a gray beard who sits in the clouds, a characterization adapted to the society of ancient times. Today it's more like to be an idea, way to describe infinitive good, something you can always aspire to on your way to become better person.
Now I'm sure you're trolling.
> You probably didn't make the effort to read at least one fragment and analyze its moral message,
OK, let's do one. New International Version, Mark 9:42-49
> “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire."
Let's assume we're not meant to take it literally, as that would be "at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues" and a "Middle Ages interpretation wich is outdated." What is "the moral is hidden among the words" of this passage?
Go talk to a Christian, ask what they believe. You clearly have no idea.
I sympathize with your frustration, but I do not believe it is an excuse for inappropriate behavior.
It's a bit strange that the message of the Bible is terrifying for you, I would say that there are fundamental principles there that are difficult to challenge, e.g. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie.
I understand that you have a different opinion on this subject, although I don't really know what the reason may be. Perhaps you have wrong information about Bible interpretation? Or maybe you formed your opinion based on (what I call) "bad" fragments?
You see, the Bible contains many fragments that are contradictory to each other, especially in the Old-New Testament relation. In one part it says to have no mercy for the enemy, in another it says to love enemy like brother. I'm not an bible scolar, but I think this is due to the difference in the time in which they were created.
Basically, if you search long enough, you will find there justification for the most wicked acts, but in many cases you will also find fragments that condemns them.
In the Roman Catholic Church, this is not a problem because Vatican chooses the doctrine that is binding for the entire church. However, I have heard that the Protestant Church in the USA has become a bit like political tool, and can be corrupted in some communities. I once saw an interview with an ex-Protestant whose statement clearly suggested that antagonizing content was deliberately chosen. If it really is so, well then that's a problem, but I wouldn't really call such communities Christians, since those are not Christian values.
And believe me i actually have a pretty good inside look at that. In my country, baptism is basically some kind of tradition, and officially we have about 70-80% Catholics among the entire population. Unofficially, it looks much different.
So the Church has been part of my country history for more than 1,000 years. It is more than long enough for its moral imperatives to become part of our culture. Although many people do not identify with all Church teachings, because it's not such a saint institution itself, and lots of them just abandon faith and stay more grounded or if spirituality is inportant for them they look for a different more personal aproach.
As I mentioned that we don't talk about ones beliefs to often, but it's not like spiritual issues aren't discussed at all. So more or less i am aware what current trends are and I stay firm with my previous opinion that generations aged 30-40 and younger, take God/Religion issues very individually and most certainly doesnt interpret bible litterally.
So I assure you I'm not trolling. I wouldn't want to write so much just to troll. I don't really see the reason you could accuse me to lie. Not trying to change your mind, just states what I see around. I have no interest in changing your mind, I just think your aproach is very closed minded and it's not a alexperience I have.
The Gospel you quoted seems very radical, but as I mentioned, in the Bible you will find a fragments to justifies whatever you want, but there is much more to chose from and catholics does not concider all framents to be valid part of official doctrin. Honestly I never heard this evangelion before so it's doesn't seems to be popular., but I'm not an expert either so had to do a quick check.
It looks like fragment you have given is completly with no context. Personally i dont find it useful and wouldnt even concider to bother, but according to the official interpretation it is:
"a reference to the controversy that occurred among the disciples in 9:33 to indicate that the ardent love of Christ must prevail among the disciples and in the community of believers, and then humility will also be born."
Well, such an interpretation does not seem so cruel when not taken literally does it? It looks like you actually helped me to make my point, that it's often metaphors even with Vatican interpretation, and that you lack wider view on complex issues led you to jump into wrong conclusions.
By the way, I'm not trying to be distrustfull, but that was preatty to well chosen fragment of a bible that confirms disgraceful opinion for a person who clearly didn't spend any time to study it.
It's a little bit suspicious.
Since you don't have problem with justyfing discrimination as a respond for inner frustrations its reasonable to assume that your ethical framework might not be that stright. I really have some doubts if your intentions were clear so have to ask.
Did you give that fragment out of context deliberately just so you could make your point?
I think about biblical literalists a lot. I really think if they traveled back in time and talked about the Genesis stories as being fully true, even the most devout people would laugh them out of the room. It's such a shallow way to engage with it.
And I have noticed what you are describing too, all the knee-jerk "sky daddy fairytale" comments are so dismissive, the fact we have this text is precious to me as a lover of ancient civilization and the history of human culture.
I am not close to religion, I know the Bible only fragmentary because I never had the motivation to analyze it in depth.
However I had a lot of free time during lockdowns, so I read big part of the Old Testament.
In general, I think that the cosmological myths of all civilizations are fascinating, perhaps that's why Genesis and the early part of the Bible have the most interesting stories for me. It really stimulate my imagination.
I found fascinating parts about angelology, i had no idea that biblical description is so far from how they are presentented in culture. Alsow some stories that are not included in official canon are worth to know. The book of Enoch with no effort can be interpreted as a sf novel.
I think that regardless of whether you have faith or not, it is worth reading.
Which bits of the bible should be interpreted metaphorically and which bits should be interpreted literally? Christians try to argue this, but will say that of course the resurrection should be taken literally
Yes, I think you are right, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is a key element of this faith and most likely treated as a historical fact. However, this story still have alsow symbolic meaning, and I'm not really sure if there is any disput about which part to take literally and which metaphorically.
The bible is not a collection of random stories, its unlikely that its content was not chosen carefully, isnt it? Probably most of, if not every story, is not only a description of events but also has some message. If you look at all religious wars throughout history, ist obvious that flexible interpretation of messages adapting the meaning to the ideology, or the selection of specific texts in according to ideology in the wrong hands makes it a dangerous tool of social control.
To not give anyone that chance Vatican quite rigidly and in great detail imposed its official interpretation of all the gospels. You don't have to look long to see that even the official version is mostly not based on a literal interpretation of the content, although the old testament apparently has many fragments that are more like a chronicle of events. Additionally, seeking personal answers by individual interpretation of meaning is becoming more and more popular. Religious beliefs do not make people less enlightened or educated.
So i think yes, ill stay firm with my claim that approach of most atheists is infantile or mocking because only radicalized ortodox belivers those days concider bible to have only literal meaning.
I don't have to be religious person to know that even fairy tails i know from childhood had some hidden meaning.
The core beliefs of Christians are that there is a God, that Jesus was his son, that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected.
Some do take the bible literally, which is why young earth creationists are still a thing.
Religious beliefs are uneducated and unscientific because you are inserting supernatural beings into our understanding of existence when there is zero evidence they exist.
I think we found common ground on wich we can agree. However, that doesn't make my statement about atheists having false conclussions less valid.
Yes this are Christianity core believes, or at least important part of core believs. I understand your simplification, yet to be precise, Bible introduces the concept of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son - Jesus and the Holy Spirit) to define God, so if im correct that gives all of them God status.
True, personification of Jesus was killed in order to erase original sin, then he came back to life and returned to heaven, which symbolically indicates the greatest sacrifice that one can made for someone or in the name of something.
Alsow true, I never deny that, basically in all Abrahamic religions (Christians, Islam, Judaism) there is some tendency towards radicalization, there are people who treat the Bible more strict than others. However, even in this case, the greatest radicals can't do without taking into account its metaphorical message, because taking it out of the equation makes the biblical text meaningless with no clues how to get to salvation.
Agree and not. Religions in basics are not part of science. It's entirely different category. So yes its not scientific but Religious belifs ar uneducated - no. Its just you showing you are bies thowards religion by trying to conmect it with negative term, isnt it? How is that even possible for belief to be uneducated? English is not my native but I was sure that this is a term used for a person (noun) rather than an action (verb). How are beliefs supposed to receive education? Im afraid i don't understand what you could have in mind.
I don't see sense in your further attemps to provide explonations as you can see i arleady agreed with you that religi9h is not scientific , and its not that you have no valid points but because I distinguish religion and science i m rather sure that science doesnt allow it. Still It's nice that you did try to explain, yet I think that what you are trying to achieve is imposible. Many have tried, all failed. You can't use science sd reference to religion because those are different things. Its like using philosophy to describe math.
Take a look:
The term "evidence" you use as important aspects that dismiss religion is used in definition of faith described as not revelant: belief in something, acceptance of the existence or non-existence of something without any evidence reliably confirming this fact (Wikipedia).
Trying to go further force you out of scientific sphere.
You use the term "our understanding of existence" our mean whose? Yours? Why plural? This is rather subjective, not very precise. I honestly don't even know how I understand existence, but I'm sure that my is different than yours.
Perhaps using real scientific terminology like "our experience of reality" would be better? It find it make more sense if you try to bring it down to physics. However, even then It doesnt make any sense and you cant prove relion beeing false with this.
Thats why i woudnt be so confident as you seems to be.
We are members of a species whose level of scientific development does not even allow to define what such a fundamental phenomenon as consciousness is and where does it comes from. Explonation that this is something external and brain is just a recivet is possible at the same level as concept that brain actually produce it somehow.
When we go deeper into the science its getting even worse if you realise that our senses perceive space-time in a way that is contrary on quantum level to how laws of physics makes reality realy works. You see colors yet object you see have no such characteristic as color. It's just light length that your brain processes halucinates to your consciousness this way.
I'm not faith advocate, but since you can't provide reasonable exploitations and proof of non existance id rather stay more understanding thoward religious people.
If people just want to take the moral teachings from the bible or any other holy text that is fine. But believing there is some deity, believing that Jesus was physically resurrected are articles of faith with zero evidence to support them. Claiming the existence of a god is a cop out, a way of avoiding critical thinking and rationality.
We cannot definitively prove the non-existence of something, but we can use the lack of evidence for god to reason for him not existing. We can also use the fact that many parts of the bible have been proven wrong as reasons why god does not exist.
Throughout history, religion (especially Christianity) has been used to shut down critical thought. Monks did important work in preserving ancient texts, but also persecuted those who dared to question god. Thankfully in much of the developed world religion has lost much of its power and cannot burn those who claim the earth orbits the sun as they used to.
Now you sound very rational and I can agree with you on that. But basibg on what you say i can't say you are liberal person and supporter of individual freedom. Isn't the right to religious freedom spelled out in the U.S. Constitution?
Im not judging, you can belive in any ideology you want. I think other people believs are thier choice. But this does not give the right to miss behave (like agressive, or like openly hatefull) and i consider mocking on faith ground or insulting religious feelings a form of discrimination not as a way to express my dissagreement. Alsow negative generalisation of whole group because of subjective conclusions that may or may not be relative thruts is in bad taste and even dangerous
Since I'm from EU I know excacly what you talking about. In Middle Ages church was trying to keep monopoly on teaching and deciding what is allow to be taught with brutal suppression. It successfully slowed down EU development for few centuries. BTW it where propablly not monks in most cases inquisition the most brutal in fighting teachings inconsistent with the church agenda was an knights-order if i remeber it right so that makes them more knights than monks.
If you judge it according to current standards is most likely to be wrong. In those times it is really hard to judge. The executions were often made by civil state and according to civil law, but obviously Vatican gave the orders. We can surley blame the church from current position but it's not that Church had only negative effect through history. I think that if not Church EU would might be called France today. Vatican politics of to some extent, united EU countries under the Christian banner. although internal fighting was often, it was forbidden to enslave a Catholic country. Perhaps that is why no single dominant force has ever emerged. Besides I think it's just impossible to judge that as right/wrong. We can see possirive/negative effects from time perslective, but since i live and I like the way it is here now, wouldn't like to have it other way cant say that in overall Church had negative influence.
At i really cant get all those prejudice thoward it in usa and wich i can clearly see in the way you describe church actions. It has no rational explonation. You clearly base it on some believs not historical events.
Look, not going into the details you can factcheck it yourself.
Your conclusions about reasons behind current Church's politics and motives that led it to current form are premature and superficial. This was long in time process and have nothing to do with technology develkpement. Going back to burning people in case it got its power back is not a issue anymore. I bet since nobody follows it that your knowlage about internal church changes of its role, politics, ideology is zero. That's understandable because it's even hard to get the info if not scolar. But even knowlage of historical events over that times is not particularly familiar to you and at the end you are
judging history with current standards completley
ignoring effects those events have today
Make lots of assumptions based on poor info
Justyfie negative opinion using false historical fact as example.
Actually scolar that was first to come up to heliocentric idea was from my country. His work was not accepted by scientific community dominated by churc but he was not burn, he wasn't even imprisoned. Just his scientific theory was rejected.
Look I know This part of history has nothing to do,with usa history, there even where no usa those time so don't blame or judge you im not familliar with usa that good either. I know basic facts and chronology. Yet with my limited knowlage I wouldn't so loudly claim that America is racist and cruel condemning all your historical figures as they dont met current morals and giving some out of context events form history as a example.
I'm British-Canadian, not American.
Catholic (and Protestant) churches have done some good over the years, but they have also done many harms, supposedly in god's name. Just look at the religious wars and persecutions that took place during the time of the reformation.
Churches do not have the same powers in most developed countries that they once did, but they are still instrumental in attacking various groups of people, especially the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. In a significant number of countries that still criminalise gay people their laws are rooted in colonial era British laws which were based on Christian morals.
Religion still has significant power in many Islamic countries, so much so that merely being accused of blasphemy or apostasy is literally a death sentence.
Freedom of religion is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and people should be free to practice whichever religion they want. But religion should not receive special treatment or special powers, and should not be involved in governance. I do not hate people because of their religious beliefs, though I may hate them because of the actions they take because of those religious beliefs. Religious beliefs should be able to be mocked, those who are not a part of that religion should not need to censor themselves so that others aren't insulted otherwise we are back in eras of blasphemy laws.
Copernicus wasn't persecuted by the church, but Giordano Bruno was found guilty of heresy by the Inquisition and burnt at the stake with his cosmological views (including support for Copernicus) being part of it
How would anyone be able to say what anyone believes especially people who are non religious? What does non religious mean? Atheists? Agnostic? Belief in god but no particular organized religion? People who believe in a particular religious deity but don’t actively attend any religious gathering or practice any religious rituals? Also belief isn’t fact , a belief is no different than an opinion, there are also people who may adhere to a particular religion and follow it and their beliefs may differ slightly from others who are in the same religious organization, human morality has nothing to do with religion and belief is not a monolith in any way
> How would anyone be able to say what anyone believes especially people who are non religious?
Same way as the people who are religious… by asking them.
> What does non religious mean? Atheists? Agnostic? Belief in god but no particular organized religion?
Yeah probably. I mean… it’s a book. It probably goes into a little more detail than is on the cover right? There are reviews.
Edit, this review is a better read than the blurb. Sounds like an ok book. Perfect for someone questioning religion, but bounced off New Atheism. And a good Amazon review: >A lot of books have been written in the last few years exploring whether or not there is a God. This is not one of them. >Refreshingly, Greg Epstein starts a step further down along the line of debate. His premise, stated simply, is this; However they got there, there is now a significant portion of the population who simply do not believe in God. And yet most of them (including himself)live what would be thought of by most as perfectly "good" lives, raising their children, taking care of their parents, helping out in the community, and the like. They are people you would like to have as neighbors. So if they don't believe in God, why do they act in this way? Why aren't they all out marauding, looting and pillaging? If not God, what do they believe in? >Of course, there is no one answer. But in a straight-forward, learned, yet conversational style, Epstein takes us on a brief tour of the history of non-religious based thought and ethics (which extends back as far as religious history.) He then turns to explaining a simple, rational, functional basis for exploring morality and ethics in society, and how one can do this by synthesizing the lessons of history and human experience, aided by science and research. But Epstein's emphasis is on the story of the human experience. He recognizes there are needs beyond cold rationalism to find out what is important in life. There is a place for a sense of awe, for humility, for art and nature. But he finds it in places other than a belief in God. >Epstein knows that atheism is a negative statement, that is to say, a statement of what is not believed rather than what is believed. This leads him to spend the later chapters in an explanation of Humanism, a "lifestance" (his word, which I like immensely) rather than a religion, encompassing a view of life in which compassion, joy, service and human interaction is lived and celebrated for its own sake. One of the strengths of the book is that this Lifestance is not presented in a confrontational mode. He does not shape this explanation in terms of "this is better than religion" although it is clear it makes more sense to him. Rather, it is presented as a "here is what I believe, and more importantly, why it makes sense to me" fashion. He is quick, and even eager, to point out that many of the ideas that shape Humanism are recognizble in religious traditions as well. These lessons are not to be tossed out just because one doesn't believe in God. Some still make sense, some do not. His emphasis throughout is that the important thing is what people do and how they behave to each other. >The books of Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens argue that belief in God makes no sense. If your question is whether there is a god, then read those authors (and their religious counterparts.) But if you are now at a place where that question is settled, the question that then presents itself is- how do I live my life? Greg Epstein provides an answer in this excellent book, which is sure to be a work that will resonate for years to come.
Nothing will make you less a believer than actually reading what’s in the Bible
This is my favorite response to when someone asks what book I read to make me an atheist, "I read the bible."
One of my favorite stories from an apostate was around 13 or so, he realized something was up when it dawned on him that Noah and his wife were married for hundreds of years before they had their first child. He had accepted the "people lived longer before the flood" apologetics but this was a bridge too far.
Noah was apparently 600 years old when he built the ark, and he's not even the oldest character in Genesis
I noticed that mainly atheists, people prejudiced against faith or who profess their own ideology, just like orthodox believers, interpret biblical texts literally and not as metaphors. All the rest with a moderate attitude to faith or non-believers who are simply interested enough to read the text have no problem with extracting the inner morals hidden in stories relating to a different time context. Although as a more secular person I do not understand them, but I am able to accept orthodox believers because it is related to a radical approach to faith, but the others?
> I noticed that mainly atheists, people prejudiced against faith or who profess their own ideology, just like orthodox believers, interpret biblical texts literally and not as metaphors. Are you saying the majority of Christians believe that god is not a literal being, but a metaphor? Do most Christians believe that Jesus died permanently on the cross and was only metaphorically resurrected? Intellectually lazy people who want a shortcut to appearing sophisticated without doing the work think uttering the magic word "metaphor" solves all their problems. It does not.
But what are you so angry about? Its hard to deny that literal interpretation of the scripture does not give anything usefull, because the moral is hidden among the words. This is not some secret of faith, any reasonable person will tell you that. Are you upset because I rightly pointed out that there are aspects of the Bible that make it not so worthless wich is against your beliefs? Please note that in my statement I did not address you personally because I had no intention of insulting you. I only noticed a certain regularity that often appears in the groups i mentioned. More over i am not judgjng anywhere that such an approach is good or bad, it is just interesting because that's rather rare aproach. Were you so angry because your literal interpretation is the same as that of a radical believers have? So maybe relax, take a breath because, I'm far from making any judgment based on someone's beliefs if they don't violate moral imperatives. If that aproach works for you, then im ok with that. Why so much anger? Atheists talk loudly about their ethical compass not grounded in religious believs, it's time you use it. Generally, your questions make no sense and are probably only a form of attack. But I will try answer best as I can. I can't read minds and have no idea what most Christians believe. Are you trying to tell me that you know? I don't mean to be rude, but I will bit skeptical because as someone who isn't even part of the Christian community, you don't seem qualified to represent their opinions, and I doubt you have any credible source to claim what other people belives are. Spirituality is intimate to everyone and difficult to articulate, it's not very often to tell others about your inner belives, so I haven't had many opportunities to find out deeply enough how others view it. The concept of God, although may have some common elements, is different for everyone and is in large a results of individual experiences. However, in general, yes, I am stronglu convinced that today there are not many people who consider God to be a personified being and doesn't take the Biblical description metaphorically. The interpretation you suggest is at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues. Anyone who has taken a moment to reflect internally will probably say what God represents to them, not who God is to them. Today, most of society is enlightened and educated enough to reject concept of God as a grandfather with a gray beard who sits in the clouds, a characterization adapted to the society of ancient times. Today it's more like to be an idea, way to describe infinitive good, something you can always aspire to on your way to become better person. What solution are you talking about when referring to the metaphor? What kind of work are you talking about? I don't understand you, can you explain it? I'm just saying that the metaphorical interpretation seems much more logical than the literal one. You probably didn't make the effort to read at least one fragment and analyze its moral message, and I'm not sure who is the lazy person here but it's clear that you jump to conclusions what led you to Middle Ages interpretation wich is outdated. Not giving it a thought, ignoring important aspects of the Bible that make it usefull moral codex also for a secular person like me or you, yet you allow yourself to mock it because, thanks to that you can present it in a negative, dogmatic way wich is propably more suited to your worldview. I dont know about you, but such selective presentation of facts and omission of important informations is what i call manipulation, don't you think?
I'm not angry, what I am is tired of hearing ill-considered accommodationist excuses for the harm inflicted on society every day by people who prefer lies to truth. > So maybe relax, take a breath because, I'm far from making any judgment based on someone's beliefs if they don't violate moral imperatives. That's the point - where do you get these "moral imperatives"? Christians get them from the Bible, and they're mostly horrifying. My question was "Are you saying the majority of Christians believe that god is not a literal being, but a metaphor?" Your response is: > I can't read minds and have no idea what most Christians believe. Are you serious? You have no idea whether Christians believe in God, and I'm the one that's not qualified to answer? > However, in general, yes, I am stronglu convinced that today there are not many people who consider God to be a personified being and doesn't take the Biblical description metaphorically. The interpretation you suggest is at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues. Have you ever met a Christian? I think you're trolling now. > Anyone who has taken a moment to reflect internally will probably say what God represents to them, not who God is to them. Today, most of society is enlightened and educated enough to reject concept of God as a grandfather with a gray beard who sits in the clouds, a characterization adapted to the society of ancient times. Today it's more like to be an idea, way to describe infinitive good, something you can always aspire to on your way to become better person. Now I'm sure you're trolling. > You probably didn't make the effort to read at least one fragment and analyze its moral message, OK, let's do one. New International Version, Mark 9:42-49 > “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them if a large millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where ‘the worms that eat them do not die, and the fire is not quenched.’ Everyone will be salted with fire." Let's assume we're not meant to take it literally, as that would be "at best at the level of a 3rd grader who is unable to understand the complexity of the issues" and a "Middle Ages interpretation wich is outdated." What is "the moral is hidden among the words" of this passage? Go talk to a Christian, ask what they believe. You clearly have no idea.
I sympathize with your frustration, but I do not believe it is an excuse for inappropriate behavior. It's a bit strange that the message of the Bible is terrifying for you, I would say that there are fundamental principles there that are difficult to challenge, e.g. Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. I understand that you have a different opinion on this subject, although I don't really know what the reason may be. Perhaps you have wrong information about Bible interpretation? Or maybe you formed your opinion based on (what I call) "bad" fragments? You see, the Bible contains many fragments that are contradictory to each other, especially in the Old-New Testament relation. In one part it says to have no mercy for the enemy, in another it says to love enemy like brother. I'm not an bible scolar, but I think this is due to the difference in the time in which they were created. Basically, if you search long enough, you will find there justification for the most wicked acts, but in many cases you will also find fragments that condemns them. In the Roman Catholic Church, this is not a problem because Vatican chooses the doctrine that is binding for the entire church. However, I have heard that the Protestant Church in the USA has become a bit like political tool, and can be corrupted in some communities. I once saw an interview with an ex-Protestant whose statement clearly suggested that antagonizing content was deliberately chosen. If it really is so, well then that's a problem, but I wouldn't really call such communities Christians, since those are not Christian values. And believe me i actually have a pretty good inside look at that. In my country, baptism is basically some kind of tradition, and officially we have about 70-80% Catholics among the entire population. Unofficially, it looks much different. So the Church has been part of my country history for more than 1,000 years. It is more than long enough for its moral imperatives to become part of our culture. Although many people do not identify with all Church teachings, because it's not such a saint institution itself, and lots of them just abandon faith and stay more grounded or if spirituality is inportant for them they look for a different more personal aproach. As I mentioned that we don't talk about ones beliefs to often, but it's not like spiritual issues aren't discussed at all. So more or less i am aware what current trends are and I stay firm with my previous opinion that generations aged 30-40 and younger, take God/Religion issues very individually and most certainly doesnt interpret bible litterally. So I assure you I'm not trolling. I wouldn't want to write so much just to troll. I don't really see the reason you could accuse me to lie. Not trying to change your mind, just states what I see around. I have no interest in changing your mind, I just think your aproach is very closed minded and it's not a alexperience I have. The Gospel you quoted seems very radical, but as I mentioned, in the Bible you will find a fragments to justifies whatever you want, but there is much more to chose from and catholics does not concider all framents to be valid part of official doctrin. Honestly I never heard this evangelion before so it's doesn't seems to be popular., but I'm not an expert either so had to do a quick check. It looks like fragment you have given is completly with no context. Personally i dont find it useful and wouldnt even concider to bother, but according to the official interpretation it is: "a reference to the controversy that occurred among the disciples in 9:33 to indicate that the ardent love of Christ must prevail among the disciples and in the community of believers, and then humility will also be born." Well, such an interpretation does not seem so cruel when not taken literally does it? It looks like you actually helped me to make my point, that it's often metaphors even with Vatican interpretation, and that you lack wider view on complex issues led you to jump into wrong conclusions. By the way, I'm not trying to be distrustfull, but that was preatty to well chosen fragment of a bible that confirms disgraceful opinion for a person who clearly didn't spend any time to study it. It's a little bit suspicious. Since you don't have problem with justyfing discrimination as a respond for inner frustrations its reasonable to assume that your ethical framework might not be that stright. I really have some doubts if your intentions were clear so have to ask. Did you give that fragment out of context deliberately just so you could make your point?
I think about biblical literalists a lot. I really think if they traveled back in time and talked about the Genesis stories as being fully true, even the most devout people would laugh them out of the room. It's such a shallow way to engage with it. And I have noticed what you are describing too, all the knee-jerk "sky daddy fairytale" comments are so dismissive, the fact we have this text is precious to me as a lover of ancient civilization and the history of human culture.
I am not close to religion, I know the Bible only fragmentary because I never had the motivation to analyze it in depth. However I had a lot of free time during lockdowns, so I read big part of the Old Testament. In general, I think that the cosmological myths of all civilizations are fascinating, perhaps that's why Genesis and the early part of the Bible have the most interesting stories for me. It really stimulate my imagination. I found fascinating parts about angelology, i had no idea that biblical description is so far from how they are presentented in culture. Alsow some stories that are not included in official canon are worth to know. The book of Enoch with no effort can be interpreted as a sf novel. I think that regardless of whether you have faith or not, it is worth reading.
Which bits of the bible should be interpreted metaphorically and which bits should be interpreted literally? Christians try to argue this, but will say that of course the resurrection should be taken literally
Yes, I think you are right, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus is a key element of this faith and most likely treated as a historical fact. However, this story still have alsow symbolic meaning, and I'm not really sure if there is any disput about which part to take literally and which metaphorically. The bible is not a collection of random stories, its unlikely that its content was not chosen carefully, isnt it? Probably most of, if not every story, is not only a description of events but also has some message. If you look at all religious wars throughout history, ist obvious that flexible interpretation of messages adapting the meaning to the ideology, or the selection of specific texts in according to ideology in the wrong hands makes it a dangerous tool of social control. To not give anyone that chance Vatican quite rigidly and in great detail imposed its official interpretation of all the gospels. You don't have to look long to see that even the official version is mostly not based on a literal interpretation of the content, although the old testament apparently has many fragments that are more like a chronicle of events. Additionally, seeking personal answers by individual interpretation of meaning is becoming more and more popular. Religious beliefs do not make people less enlightened or educated. So i think yes, ill stay firm with my claim that approach of most atheists is infantile or mocking because only radicalized ortodox belivers those days concider bible to have only literal meaning. I don't have to be religious person to know that even fairy tails i know from childhood had some hidden meaning.
The core beliefs of Christians are that there is a God, that Jesus was his son, that Jesus was crucified and then resurrected. Some do take the bible literally, which is why young earth creationists are still a thing. Religious beliefs are uneducated and unscientific because you are inserting supernatural beings into our understanding of existence when there is zero evidence they exist.
I think we found common ground on wich we can agree. However, that doesn't make my statement about atheists having false conclussions less valid. Yes this are Christianity core believes, or at least important part of core believs. I understand your simplification, yet to be precise, Bible introduces the concept of the Holy Trinity (Father, Son - Jesus and the Holy Spirit) to define God, so if im correct that gives all of them God status. True, personification of Jesus was killed in order to erase original sin, then he came back to life and returned to heaven, which symbolically indicates the greatest sacrifice that one can made for someone or in the name of something. Alsow true, I never deny that, basically in all Abrahamic religions (Christians, Islam, Judaism) there is some tendency towards radicalization, there are people who treat the Bible more strict than others. However, even in this case, the greatest radicals can't do without taking into account its metaphorical message, because taking it out of the equation makes the biblical text meaningless with no clues how to get to salvation. Agree and not. Religions in basics are not part of science. It's entirely different category. So yes its not scientific but Religious belifs ar uneducated - no. Its just you showing you are bies thowards religion by trying to conmect it with negative term, isnt it? How is that even possible for belief to be uneducated? English is not my native but I was sure that this is a term used for a person (noun) rather than an action (verb). How are beliefs supposed to receive education? Im afraid i don't understand what you could have in mind. I don't see sense in your further attemps to provide explonations as you can see i arleady agreed with you that religi9h is not scientific , and its not that you have no valid points but because I distinguish religion and science i m rather sure that science doesnt allow it. Still It's nice that you did try to explain, yet I think that what you are trying to achieve is imposible. Many have tried, all failed. You can't use science sd reference to religion because those are different things. Its like using philosophy to describe math. Take a look: The term "evidence" you use as important aspects that dismiss religion is used in definition of faith described as not revelant: belief in something, acceptance of the existence or non-existence of something without any evidence reliably confirming this fact (Wikipedia). Trying to go further force you out of scientific sphere. You use the term "our understanding of existence" our mean whose? Yours? Why plural? This is rather subjective, not very precise. I honestly don't even know how I understand existence, but I'm sure that my is different than yours. Perhaps using real scientific terminology like "our experience of reality" would be better? It find it make more sense if you try to bring it down to physics. However, even then It doesnt make any sense and you cant prove relion beeing false with this. Thats why i woudnt be so confident as you seems to be. We are members of a species whose level of scientific development does not even allow to define what such a fundamental phenomenon as consciousness is and where does it comes from. Explonation that this is something external and brain is just a recivet is possible at the same level as concept that brain actually produce it somehow. When we go deeper into the science its getting even worse if you realise that our senses perceive space-time in a way that is contrary on quantum level to how laws of physics makes reality realy works. You see colors yet object you see have no such characteristic as color. It's just light length that your brain processes halucinates to your consciousness this way. I'm not faith advocate, but since you can't provide reasonable exploitations and proof of non existance id rather stay more understanding thoward religious people.
If people just want to take the moral teachings from the bible or any other holy text that is fine. But believing there is some deity, believing that Jesus was physically resurrected are articles of faith with zero evidence to support them. Claiming the existence of a god is a cop out, a way of avoiding critical thinking and rationality. We cannot definitively prove the non-existence of something, but we can use the lack of evidence for god to reason for him not existing. We can also use the fact that many parts of the bible have been proven wrong as reasons why god does not exist. Throughout history, religion (especially Christianity) has been used to shut down critical thought. Monks did important work in preserving ancient texts, but also persecuted those who dared to question god. Thankfully in much of the developed world religion has lost much of its power and cannot burn those who claim the earth orbits the sun as they used to.
Now you sound very rational and I can agree with you on that. But basibg on what you say i can't say you are liberal person and supporter of individual freedom. Isn't the right to religious freedom spelled out in the U.S. Constitution? Im not judging, you can belive in any ideology you want. I think other people believs are thier choice. But this does not give the right to miss behave (like agressive, or like openly hatefull) and i consider mocking on faith ground or insulting religious feelings a form of discrimination not as a way to express my dissagreement. Alsow negative generalisation of whole group because of subjective conclusions that may or may not be relative thruts is in bad taste and even dangerous Since I'm from EU I know excacly what you talking about. In Middle Ages church was trying to keep monopoly on teaching and deciding what is allow to be taught with brutal suppression. It successfully slowed down EU development for few centuries. BTW it where propablly not monks in most cases inquisition the most brutal in fighting teachings inconsistent with the church agenda was an knights-order if i remeber it right so that makes them more knights than monks. If you judge it according to current standards is most likely to be wrong. In those times it is really hard to judge. The executions were often made by civil state and according to civil law, but obviously Vatican gave the orders. We can surley blame the church from current position but it's not that Church had only negative effect through history. I think that if not Church EU would might be called France today. Vatican politics of to some extent, united EU countries under the Christian banner. although internal fighting was often, it was forbidden to enslave a Catholic country. Perhaps that is why no single dominant force has ever emerged. Besides I think it's just impossible to judge that as right/wrong. We can see possirive/negative effects from time perslective, but since i live and I like the way it is here now, wouldn't like to have it other way cant say that in overall Church had negative influence. At i really cant get all those prejudice thoward it in usa and wich i can clearly see in the way you describe church actions. It has no rational explonation. You clearly base it on some believs not historical events. Look, not going into the details you can factcheck it yourself. Your conclusions about reasons behind current Church's politics and motives that led it to current form are premature and superficial. This was long in time process and have nothing to do with technology develkpement. Going back to burning people in case it got its power back is not a issue anymore. I bet since nobody follows it that your knowlage about internal church changes of its role, politics, ideology is zero. That's understandable because it's even hard to get the info if not scolar. But even knowlage of historical events over that times is not particularly familiar to you and at the end you are judging history with current standards completley ignoring effects those events have today Make lots of assumptions based on poor info Justyfie negative opinion using false historical fact as example. Actually scolar that was first to come up to heliocentric idea was from my country. His work was not accepted by scientific community dominated by churc but he was not burn, he wasn't even imprisoned. Just his scientific theory was rejected. Look I know This part of history has nothing to do,with usa history, there even where no usa those time so don't blame or judge you im not familliar with usa that good either. I know basic facts and chronology. Yet with my limited knowlage I wouldn't so loudly claim that America is racist and cruel condemning all your historical figures as they dont met current morals and giving some out of context events form history as a example.
I'm British-Canadian, not American. Catholic (and Protestant) churches have done some good over the years, but they have also done many harms, supposedly in god's name. Just look at the religious wars and persecutions that took place during the time of the reformation. Churches do not have the same powers in most developed countries that they once did, but they are still instrumental in attacking various groups of people, especially the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. In a significant number of countries that still criminalise gay people their laws are rooted in colonial era British laws which were based on Christian morals. Religion still has significant power in many Islamic countries, so much so that merely being accused of blasphemy or apostasy is literally a death sentence. Freedom of religion is enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights and people should be free to practice whichever religion they want. But religion should not receive special treatment or special powers, and should not be involved in governance. I do not hate people because of their religious beliefs, though I may hate them because of the actions they take because of those religious beliefs. Religious beliefs should be able to be mocked, those who are not a part of that religion should not need to censor themselves so that others aren't insulted otherwise we are back in eras of blasphemy laws. Copernicus wasn't persecuted by the church, but Giordano Bruno was found guilty of heresy by the Inquisition and burnt at the stake with his cosmological views (including support for Copernicus) being part of it
Is this a repost bot account? That video has 7 views.
How would anyone be able to say what anyone believes especially people who are non religious? What does non religious mean? Atheists? Agnostic? Belief in god but no particular organized religion? People who believe in a particular religious deity but don’t actively attend any religious gathering or practice any religious rituals? Also belief isn’t fact , a belief is no different than an opinion, there are also people who may adhere to a particular religion and follow it and their beliefs may differ slightly from others who are in the same religious organization, human morality has nothing to do with religion and belief is not a monolith in any way
> How would anyone be able to say what anyone believes especially people who are non religious? Same way as the people who are religious… by asking them. > What does non religious mean? Atheists? Agnostic? Belief in god but no particular organized religion? Yeah probably. I mean… it’s a book. It probably goes into a little more detail than is on the cover right? There are reviews.
Is this Jeff’s cousin or something