The Friendly Atheist comments on what "may be the most disturbing thing I’ve ever seen in my life." It's the book Illustrated Stories from the Bible. He wrote about it here.
I, too, look forward to getting a copy. Do you think it'd be inappropriate to gift copies to my Fundamentalist Christian parents and in-laws, or maybe I should just stick with John's book?
People, this is how the God of absolute morals and ethics deals with sin; be they babies or adults.
As most inerrant Bible Believing Christian should surly know about Elisha and the 42 child, those little bastards had it coming! Praise Jehovah God!
Hey, this book waters down God’s Word the Holy Bible anyway. It only shows 6 of these brats getting thrown apart by the she bears when there was 36 more to go. Glory! (I think I could start preaching right now!)
People, lets at least give God the benefit of the doubt. These kids were probably dirty little Canaanite children who God wanted destroyed anyway so Israel could take their parent’s land.
Anyway, just why are you people upset? Jesus surely (as the all knowing son of God) knew about this story and endorsed it.
I am a public school librarian in Zoloft-Jesusville. I had to chuckle when I saw this Bible.If I were to include it in my collection, I'd have the Women's Order of Baptist Extremists (WOBE)breathing down my neck. These church ladies are known to be committed scourers of all live radio and tv programming for any traces of violence, curse words or Jessica Simpson's butt. LOL!
It WAS very disturbing, simply because the stories cited are that violent and because people believe them to be true! Inerrantists are a sadistic lot and love to point out all the bad things that happen to people in the Bible. But the worst thing about them is that, being in a sense Christofascists, they use the Bible and its stories as a weapon.
There are basically two types of inerrantists: one's Elmer Gantry and the other is another Elmer: Fudd. But beware: Fudd's the one with the gun!
I’d like to make four comments regarding the book. I’ll be concise, since I elaborate in my blog at www.sophiesladder.com.
1) There’s nothing in the gospel of Christ that demands or compels me to accept these stories literally or at all, for that matter, even as an illustration of God’s character.
2) I read some of these stories, those relating to David in particular, as illustrations of our free will and the consequences of our actions, rather than some teaching on God.
3)To enter into a critique of God’s actions, we would need to define justice and morality and whether a higher being should be held to man’s standard of morality.
4)I find it curious that atheism would object to such definitive acts of God – if you’re going to take them as such – such as portrayed in Illustrated Stories. I don’t think Nietzche would condone such whining. Isn’t the meekness of Christ a better target?
1. Arn't they in the gospel of god? Admittedly remade into a story.
2. Still god with the whip dealing out his merciless punishments, breaking his own rules.
3. How about his own rules? Or shouldn't a higher being be held to a higher standard?
4. Well a definite act of god would require proof. This isn't proof anymore than the bible. And it's just one more example of god being a sadist, murederous, monster instead of a loving god of peace.
2. Only if you take it literally, rather than spiritually. See my blog at www.sophiesladder.com.
3. What are his own rules? Where do you find them? What higher standard? Who defines the higher standard? Can the higher standard be beyond man's conception?
4. I said definitive, not definite. If there is no morality, then these acts cannot be described as immoral. Read Nietzche, "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "Beyond Good and Evil".
Wow. I read your blog and all I can say is; The gold for mental atheletics goes to...
Okay serously point by point;
1; The Bible Is Unnecessary for the Gospel of Christ
A.Chrisitians retuinly proclaim the bible the true word of god and litterally true. Whta makes you qualifies to reject any piece of it? Couldn't someone else argue that's worthy of a ticket to hell?
B. Of course inn't the gospel of christ in the bible? you just proclaimed it unessicary. How can it be unessicary if it the source?
C.Parables are made for morales. Why is your morale of the sotry correct without outside verfication (or even inside the bible)? It seems to me the whole of bible shows god is a sadist, and as such the story should be taken as true.
2.Questions for the Literal Minded;
A: What proof do you have that anything in the bible happened? Using that argument against specific cases is great till, someone flips on you.
B: Let me follow these atheletics: God didn't "zap" the child. David's sin allowed it to happen while god stood back.
Okay. But by your own example wasn't god doing something to protect the innocent child before he withdrew his protection to punish the father?
Trying to find exact quotes as burned my daily tolerance for the bible. Dons't god say that this is davids punishment. (If you object please give me the chapters before my head explodes)
Therefore god has unleashed this punishment on the child, just like I might do with a large trained animal. Say a dog who I could have recalled to prevent the carnage about to begin.
3;God and Justice
A: Question is why would a god who is suppose to be kind and merciful do something like this?
You can keep the arobics up, but this contradicst what god demands of us and claims to be.
Don't even you have to admit that demanding something and doing the opposite as highly hyprocritical?
1. I am terrified by Rancid True Believers whose reasons for not raping children,stalking women, supporting slavery, engaging in disturbing animal cruelty/sacrifices along with other psychotic behaviors are the "pleasant" passages in the Bible. They can easily find passages to justify the behaviors listed above with just a flip of the pages. You don't have to look long. You don't have to look hard.
2. Yahweh Sabbaoth is certainly the most sadistic of all fictional characters.
3. "Nonetheless, the working assumption is that we should have no moral compass if we were not in thrall to some celestial dictatorship. What a repulsive idea! As well as taking an axe to the root of everything that we have learned about evolutionary biology (societies that tolerate murder and theft and perjury will not last long, and those that violate the taboos on incest and cannibalism do in fact simply die out), it constitutes a radical attack on the very concept of human self-respect."
1) In the gospel that came to me, there was no requirement that I believe in the Bible as a condition of salvation. I know you read my blog but you must have missed the part where I said that people – people who had no knowledge of the Old Testament – were becoming Christians before the New Testament was even written, proving that no allegiance to either O.T. or N.T. is necessary. 2) The source of the gospel is not the Bible. It can be, has been and is easily transmitted by word of mouth. Research early Christian missionaries, like Paul. 3) I think that’s clear. You’re looking for a sadist, so you see a sadist. I’m looking for goodness, so I see goodness. 4) I don’t need proof that anything in the Bible happened, since it is not necessary to my faith. 5) As I said elsewhere, David’s actions were responsible for the evil. God didn’t unleash the dog, David did. The idea of our free will, our own personal responsibility and God’s relation to those things would take too long to develop here. I will do this, however, I will develop the idea, post it on my blog and notify you when it’s been posted. 6) Keep in mind I believe David is responsible. I directed my questions to those who felt God was responsible. The question I asked was, Is it possible that higher purposes would justify the actions? Just because you can’t think of one doesn’t mean there’s not one. Anyway, what is it that God demands of us? What does he claim to be? How do you know what he demands of us and claims to be?
Jeff just invented his own religion which, coincidently, revolves around someone called jesus.
This way he can concoct any theological doctrine he wants and still call himself a true christian.
Hey, all of you other true christians, why don't you take a look at what Jeff has to say and tell us if you think he's got it right? Especially the parts about the bible not being god's word.
Jeff Carter, can you provide a link to a written version of the word-of-mouth gospel that every Christian seems to know apart from the Bible?
If asked to transmit it, I don't think they would all be saying the same thing.
I'm not here to ridicule you, and like some of what you're attempting to do with your site. I hope you can pull it off, but it doesn't seem like an easy thing to do.
Also, if the book being talked about here distorts the stories in any way, as you say, it will have been a wasted opportunity.
"This is just another smear."
I've been thinking for years that such a thing should exist, but I would have compiled the best attempts to explain the events from well-known apologists and let them dig their own graves. This should be about truth, so what purpose would any distortions serve?
I've been unable to find again a website I recently saw, that had the same purpose as the book. It also did something else I'd always had in mind - it linked to pictures and videos of atrocities in which people were killed in similar ways.
Jeff Carter is a great example of my Post on making God “Theo - logical”. Thomas Jefferson did the same thing with the New Testament; that is, he cut out anything he thought made the Gospels unbelievable with a pen knife and made the Jefferson Bible.
Jeff Carter thought process proves that if you want to believe in something hard enough, there is a way to do it and it’s called “selective denial”!
The scientific arguments that render literalistic Christianity absurd also give the rational reasoner pause to consider the many Hindu sects as mythical expression. Despite that religion is not and cannot be objectively true, the possibilities of religions are not exhausted. Joseph Campbell pointed out that religion as the willing suspension of disbelief can enrich the human experience. There must be peace and respect between all parties to the religious discussion.
I didn't want to think I was ignoring you, so here are my responses. I will describe them in more detail on my blog in the coming days and weeks. This will be my last comment this chain, for practical reasons.
1. First, I never stated the Bible was not God's word, I said it was irrelevant to salvation or the truth of Christianity. Everyone seems to be ignoring my statement that early Christians converted with no knowledge of the Tanakh, even before the New Testament was written. How is this possible if the Bible is the critical source of Christianity?
2. I confirm that my faith is personal, as it should be. No priest, no board of overseers or deacons, no BOOK, no cathechism or articles of faith, no preacher, NOTHING - tells me what to think or do or stands between me and my immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. It makes no difference to me if other religious people disagree with me. The religious people of the day wanted Jesus dead, after all.
3. Can I provide a written version of the word-of-mouth gospel? I take your questions very seriously, but no, it cannot be done. Can the Spirit be put into a box? The letter kills, the spirit gives life. The closest I can get (and the written words can not possibly do it justice) would be something like "Believe that the Lord Jesus was crucified for your sin and that He is risen from the dead and you will be saved." That was circulating word-of-mouth long before it was penned down = but what is missing in the written word is the power of the Spirit that gives it life.
4. Do not confuse the Gospels with the Gospel. The Bible is not the fourth part of the trinity. It is not God, nor is it to be worshipped. If you continue to believe the Bible is the source of the Spirit or Christianity you will remain in error.
I look forward to discussing theology and atheism with all of you at some future date.
jef said...First, I never stated the Bible was not God's word, I said it was irrelevant to salvation or the truth of Christianity. Everyone seems to be ignoring my statement that early Christians converted with no knowledge of the Tanakh, even before the New Testament was written. How is this possible if the Bible is the critical source of Christianity?
The gospel is what saves people when people believe that message, true?
Okay. I guess.
Isn't it true that before there was a NT people were saved by hearing the word preached, and the word that was preached was a continuation of the OT and subsequently written down and is now what you call the NT? Where do we learn about the gospel if not from the Bible? And how can we know the gospel message you preach is true if the Bible is not true?
My problem with your logic is pretty simple jeff. All those people converted before the bible. wern't they (assuming they where even real) converted by Jesus or his apsotles?
Without the handy apsotles the bible becomes the default source for their message. Yes or No?
And you admitted the bible is the word of god, yet you are willing to discount it. How can you reject the word of your god?
As I promised I have posted my elaboration on the relation between God and man's free will on my blog at www.sophiesladder.com. I'm interested in any comments or responses you might have.
26 comments:
Disturbing.
*shudders*
I think I need a copy.
I immediately tried to buy a copy yesterday but they're out of stock. It's gonna make a great coffee table book!
Yes it's temporarily out of stock, but don't let that fool you. Sometimes they can get their books within days, you never know.
That's great! Elijah and the Bears has always been my favorite bible story.
I stumbled across that one flipping through my girlfriend's bible one night in college and was extremely amused.
I, too, look forward to getting a copy. Do you think it'd be inappropriate to gift copies to my Fundamentalist Christian parents and in-laws, or maybe I should just stick with John's book?
People, this is how the God of absolute morals and ethics deals with sin; be they babies or adults.
As most inerrant Bible Believing Christian should surly know about Elisha and the 42 child, those little bastards had it coming! Praise Jehovah God!
Hey, this book waters down God’s Word the Holy Bible anyway. It only shows 6 of these brats getting thrown apart by the she bears when there was 36 more to go. Glory! (I think I could start preaching right now!)
People, lets at least give God the benefit of the doubt. These kids were probably dirty little Canaanite children who God wanted destroyed anyway so Israel could take their parent’s land.
Anyway, just why are you people upset? Jesus surely (as the all knowing son of God) knew about this story and endorsed it.
I am a public school librarian in Zoloft-Jesusville. I had to chuckle when I saw this Bible.If I were to include it in my collection, I'd have the Women's Order of Baptist Extremists (WOBE)breathing down my neck. These church ladies are known to be committed scourers of all live radio and tv programming for any traces of violence, curse words or Jessica Simpson's butt. LOL!
Two thumbs up!!
Barbiebrains
It WAS very disturbing, simply because the stories cited are that violent and because people believe them to be true! Inerrantists are a sadistic lot and love to point out all the bad things that happen to people in the Bible. But the worst thing about them is that, being in a sense Christofascists, they use the Bible and its stories as a weapon.
There are basically two types of inerrantists: one's Elmer Gantry and the other is another Elmer: Fudd. But beware: Fudd's the one with the gun!
I ordered ten copies from Amazon. They'll make great future gifts!!
A heretic in Alabama
I’d like to make four comments regarding the book. I’ll be concise, since I elaborate in my blog at www.sophiesladder.com.
1) There’s nothing in the gospel of Christ that demands or compels me to accept these stories literally or at all, for that matter, even as an illustration of God’s character.
2) I read some of these stories, those relating to David in particular, as illustrations of our free will and the consequences of our actions, rather than some teaching on God.
3)To enter into a critique of God’s actions, we would need to define justice and morality and whether a higher being should be held to man’s standard of morality.
4)I find it curious that atheism would object to such definitive acts of God – if you’re going to take them as such – such as portrayed in Illustrated Stories. I don’t think Nietzche would condone such whining. Isn’t the meekness of Christ a better target?
1. Arn't they in the gospel of god? Admittedly remade into a story.
2. Still god with the whip dealing out his merciless punishments, breaking his own rules.
3. How about his own rules? Or shouldn't a higher being be held to a higher standard?
4. Well a definite act of god would require proof. This isn't proof anymore than the bible. And it's just one more example of god being a sadist, murederous, monster instead of a loving god of peace.
1. No
2. Only if you take it literally, rather than spiritually. See my blog at www.sophiesladder.com.
3. What are his own rules? Where do you find them? What higher standard? Who defines the higher standard? Can the higher standard be beyond man's conception?
4. I said definitive, not definite. If there is no morality, then these acts cannot be described as immoral. Read Nietzche, "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "Beyond Good and Evil".
Wow. I read your blog and all I can say is; The gold for mental atheletics goes to...
Okay serously point by point;
1; The Bible Is Unnecessary for the Gospel of Christ
A.Chrisitians retuinly proclaim the bible the true word of god and litterally true. Whta makes you qualifies to reject any piece of it? Couldn't someone else argue that's worthy of a ticket to hell?
B. Of course inn't the gospel of christ in the bible? you just proclaimed it unessicary. How can it be unessicary if it the source?
C.Parables are made for morales. Why is your morale of the sotry correct without outside verfication (or even inside the bible)? It seems to me the whole of bible shows god is a sadist, and as such the story should be taken as true.
2.Questions for the Literal Minded;
A: What proof do you have that anything in the bible happened? Using that argument against specific cases is great till, someone flips on you.
B: Let me follow these atheletics: God didn't "zap" the child. David's sin allowed it to happen while god stood back.
Okay. But by your own example wasn't god doing something to protect the innocent child before he withdrew his protection to punish the father?
Trying to find exact quotes as burned my daily tolerance for the bible. Dons't god say that this is davids punishment. (If you object please give me the chapters before my head explodes)
Therefore god has unleashed this punishment on the child, just like I might do with a large trained animal. Say a dog who I could have recalled to prevent the carnage about to begin.
3;God and Justice
A: Question is why would a god who is suppose to be kind and merciful do something like this?
You can keep the arobics up, but this contradicst what god demands of us and claims to be.
Don't even you have to admit that demanding something and doing the opposite as highly hyprocritical?
1. I am terrified by Rancid True Believers whose reasons for not raping children,stalking women, supporting slavery, engaging in disturbing animal cruelty/sacrifices along with other psychotic behaviors are the "pleasant" passages in the Bible. They can easily find passages to justify the behaviors listed above with just a flip of the pages. You don't have to look long. You don't have to look hard.
2. Yahweh Sabbaoth is certainly the most sadistic of all fictional characters.
3. "Nonetheless, the working assumption is that we should have no moral compass if we were not in thrall to some celestial dictatorship. What a repulsive idea! As well as taking an axe to the root of everything that we have learned about evolutionary biology (societies that tolerate murder and theft and perjury will not last long, and those that violate the taboos on incest and cannibalism do in fact simply die out), it constitutes a radical attack on the very concept of human self-respect."
1) In the gospel that came to me, there was no requirement that I believe in the Bible as a condition of salvation. I know you read my blog but you must have missed the part where I said that people – people who had no knowledge of the Old Testament – were becoming Christians before the New Testament was even written, proving that no allegiance to either O.T. or N.T. is necessary.
2) The source of the gospel is not the Bible. It can be, has been and is easily transmitted by word of mouth. Research early Christian missionaries, like Paul.
3) I think that’s clear. You’re looking for a sadist, so you see a sadist. I’m looking for goodness, so I see goodness.
4) I don’t need proof that anything in the Bible happened, since it is not necessary to my faith.
5) As I said elsewhere, David’s actions were responsible for the evil. God didn’t unleash the dog, David did. The idea of our free will, our own personal responsibility and God’s relation to those things would take too long to develop here. I will do this, however, I will develop the idea, post it on my blog and notify you when it’s been posted.
6) Keep in mind I believe David is responsible. I directed my questions to those who felt God was responsible. The question I asked was, Is it possible that higher purposes would justify the actions? Just because you can’t think of one doesn’t mean there’s not one. Anyway, what is it that God demands of us? What does he claim to be? How do you know what he demands of us and claims to be?
Oh, I get it.
Jeff just invented his own religion which, coincidently, revolves around someone called jesus.
This way he can concoct any theological doctrine he wants and still call himself a true christian.
Hey, all of you other true christians, why don't you take a look at what Jeff has to say and tell us if you think he's got it right? Especially the parts about the bible not being god's word.
Jeff Carter, can you provide a link to a written version of the word-of-mouth gospel that every Christian seems to know apart from the Bible?
If asked to transmit it, I don't think they would all be saying the same thing.
I'm not here to ridicule you, and like some of what you're attempting to do with your site. I hope you can pull it off, but it doesn't seem like an easy thing to do.
Also, if the book being talked about here distorts the stories in any way, as you say, it will have been a wasted opportunity.
"This is just another smear."
I've been thinking for years that such a thing should exist, but I would have compiled the best attempts to explain the events from well-known apologists and let them dig their own graves. This should be about truth, so what purpose would any distortions serve?
I've been unable to find again a website I recently saw, that had the same purpose as the book. It also did something else I'd always had in mind - it linked to pictures and videos of atrocities in which people were killed in similar ways.
I'm guessing most people check that box asking if they want responses emailed to them.
If so, can it be checked by default, with the option to uncheck it? I forget to do that a lot.
Jeff Carter is a great example of my Post on making God “Theo - logical”. Thomas Jefferson did the same thing with the New Testament; that is, he cut out anything he thought made the Gospels unbelievable with a pen knife and made the Jefferson Bible.
Jeff Carter thought process proves that if you want to believe in something hard enough, there is a way to do it and it’s called “selective denial”!
The religious violence that is wracking India is unacceptable.
Link to Article.
The scientific arguments that render literalistic Christianity absurd also give the rational reasoner pause to consider the many Hindu sects as mythical expression. Despite that religion is not and cannot be objectively true, the possibilities of religions are not exhausted. Joseph Campbell pointed out that religion as the willing suspension of disbelief can enrich the human experience. There must be peace and respect between all parties to the religious discussion.
Myths to Live By
Hero With a Thousand Faces
I didn't want to think I was ignoring you, so here are my responses. I will describe them in more detail on my blog in the coming days and weeks. This will be my last comment this chain, for practical reasons.
1. First, I never stated the Bible was not God's word, I said it was irrelevant to salvation or the truth of Christianity. Everyone seems to be ignoring my statement that early Christians converted with no knowledge of the Tanakh, even before the New Testament was written. How is this possible if the Bible is the critical source of Christianity?
2. I confirm that my faith is personal, as it should be. No priest, no board of overseers or deacons, no BOOK, no cathechism or articles of faith, no preacher, NOTHING - tells me what to think or do or stands between me and my immediate experience of the Holy Spirit. It makes no difference to me if other religious people disagree with me. The religious people of the day wanted Jesus dead, after all.
3. Can I provide a written version of the word-of-mouth gospel? I take your questions very seriously, but no, it cannot be done. Can the Spirit be put into a box? The letter kills, the spirit gives life. The closest I can get (and the written words can not possibly do it justice) would be something like "Believe that the Lord Jesus was crucified for your sin and that He is risen from the dead and you will be saved." That was circulating word-of-mouth long before it was penned down = but what is missing in the written word is the power of the Spirit that gives it life.
4. Do not confuse the Gospels with the Gospel. The Bible is not the fourth part of the trinity. It is not God, nor is it to be worshipped. If you continue to believe the Bible is the source of the Spirit or Christianity you will remain in error.
I look forward to discussing theology and atheism with all of you at some future date.
Regards,
J.C.
jef said...First, I never stated the Bible was not God's word, I said it was irrelevant to salvation or the truth of Christianity. Everyone seems to be ignoring my statement that early Christians converted with no knowledge of the Tanakh, even before the New Testament was written. How is this possible if the Bible is the critical source of Christianity?
The gospel is what saves people when people believe that message, true?
Okay. I guess.
Isn't it true that before there was a NT people were saved by hearing the word preached, and the word that was preached was a continuation of the OT and subsequently written down and is now what you call the NT? Where do we learn about the gospel if not from the Bible? And how can we know the gospel message you preach is true if the Bible is not true?
You confuse me. ;-)
My problem with your logic is pretty simple jeff. All those people converted before the bible. wern't they (assuming they where even real) converted by Jesus or his apsotles?
Without the handy apsotles the bible becomes the default source for their message. Yes or No?
And you admitted the bible is the word of god, yet you are willing to discount it. How can you reject the word of your god?
As I promised I have posted my elaboration on the relation between God and man's free will on my blog at www.sophiesladder.com. I'm interested in any comments or responses you might have.
In reply to bahrathered:
1. No, they were converted by the living Holy Spirit.
2. No, the source is and always has been the Holy Spirit, neither a book nor a man.
3. I didn't reject it. I said it was unnecessary for salvation and therefore the gospel of Christ.
Now that I object too. Childern are usually read bed time stories and there is no way the majority of the bible is appropiate for your minds.
Post a Comment