But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ,
And later you write:
reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity,
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.
(heck, what am I doing here! Jeg er faret vild)
The thing is, while I agree with your comment, it really sounds strange if you’re coming from an atheist perspective. It seems to imply that the truth has to be dictated to you, and not discovered by your own experience.
As an Italian author said, we have to rid ourselves of the false images of God we created ourselves, otherwise we cannot follow Him and we’re just following an idol that we, or our society, created ( the god-justice, the god-will-do-things-instead-of-me, …). Sadly, the book is available only in Italian.
It’s also really warming to read people discussing about faith on the net.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t think you have to have the same beliefs as me to be a good person. There’s a reason why people choose to be religious (and which one) or not.
I’ll just conclude you can’t answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that’s not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam’s razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you’d expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
there is always a counter scripture
I answered that later in my message.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn’t, that’s what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don’t really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don’t understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don’t.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you’re reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you’re obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @zloubida@lemmy.world has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you’re talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.
Back when I read the Bible it was not with critical scrutiny in mind, I was actually seeking to understand it, But I can’t just shut off my brain, and if you don’t there are very clear problems, the four guides I had access to were unable to explain. Like why it is legal for a slave owner to kill his slaves, as long as they don’t die within a day.
My point is there is no rational reason to believe any of the fantastic claims of the bible. And doing so is demonstrably harmful, just like holding other forms of false beliefs without reason are in general.
I am now of the strong conviction that we shouldn’t have a state religion, and religion shouldn’t have special privilegies.
The fact that the Danish folkekirke was allowed to discriminate against women until recently is abhorrent, WHY was that allowed when we had clear regulation that forbade it?
They are AFAIK still allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality, and there are stories about priests denying marriage based on sexuality or because they have been divorced. Since it’s a state church, their services are public services, but as an institution it does not abide by basic rules against discrimination.
Other churches are AFAIK also allowed to discriminate based on sexuality or gender, despite it’s clearly illegal, why?
My point is there is no rational reason to believe any of the fantastic claims of the bible.
I don’t think the other commenter ever claimed that or even thinks that. I think most religious people know perfectly well that religion is not a rational thing, but rationality is not the purpose of religion.
I agree with you that organized religion can be very harmful and we should work for a secular society, but dismissing religion because of facts and logic is like disproving mathematics via the word of God - its simply entirely different domains and perspectives.
dismissing religion because of facts and logic is like disproving mathematics via the word of God
Wow really? Superstition is equal to facts and reason based on evidence now?
Goddam and it’s the 21st century!
That’s exactly the mindset that makes religion harmful.
I never claimed people can’t have faith, what I claim is the illegal practices should not be legal, and it shouldn’t have special privileges.
Superstition is equal to facts and reason based on evidence now?
I never said such a thing and I don’t think you understood what I wrote. Try reading it again, and I’ll rephrase:
Dismissing religion from an atheistic point of view based on facts and logic doesn’t make sense, because religion is not about facts and logic.
Disproving mathematics from a religious point of view via the word of God is equally absurd, because mathematics does not deal with faith.
You’re trying to apply facts and logic to religion which is obviously a perspective that will not work (not saying you have to try to make it work or that religion makes sense, but just that criticising the Bible from this perspective doesn’t make sense).
Dismissing religion from an atheistic point of view based on facts and logic doesn’t make sense, because religion is not about facts and logic.
Again they can believe what they want, but where religion and “secular world” intersect, we cannot bend to religion when it’s contrary to more modern standards that are based on way better knowledge than primitive iron age standards.
You’re trying to apply facts and logic to religion which is obviously a perspective that will not work
Only to show where it does harm to others isn’t validated.
Any religious person that removes such practices can have my blessing.
But for instance the belief in a life after death, which there is absolutely no reason to believe is true, can be very harmful for the individual believers themselves.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
And later you write:
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.
(heck, what am I doing here! Jeg er faret vild) The thing is, while I agree with your comment, it really sounds strange if you’re coming from an atheist perspective. It seems to imply that the truth has to be dictated to you, and not discovered by your own experience.
As an Italian author said, we have to rid ourselves of the false images of God we created ourselves, otherwise we cannot follow Him and we’re just following an idol that we, or our society, created ( the god-justice, the god-will-do-things-instead-of-me, …). Sadly, the book is available only in Italian.
It’s also really warming to read people discussing about faith on the net.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t think you have to have the same beliefs as me to be a good person. There’s a reason why people choose to be religious (and which one) or not.
I’ll just conclude you can’t answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that’s not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam’s razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you’d expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn’t, that’s what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don’t really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don’t understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don’t.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you’re reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you’re obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @zloubida@lemmy.world has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you’re talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.
Back when I read the Bible it was not with critical scrutiny in mind, I was actually seeking to understand it, But I can’t just shut off my brain, and if you don’t there are very clear problems, the four guides I had access to were unable to explain. Like why it is legal for a slave owner to kill his slaves, as long as they don’t die within a day.
My point is there is no rational reason to believe any of the fantastic claims of the bible. And doing so is demonstrably harmful, just like holding other forms of false beliefs without reason are in general.
I am now of the strong conviction that we shouldn’t have a state religion, and religion shouldn’t have special privilegies.
The fact that the Danish folkekirke was allowed to discriminate against women until recently is abhorrent, WHY was that allowed when we had clear regulation that forbade it?
They are AFAIK still allowed to discriminate against people based on sexuality, and there are stories about priests denying marriage based on sexuality or because they have been divorced. Since it’s a state church, their services are public services, but as an institution it does not abide by basic rules against discrimination.
Other churches are AFAIK also allowed to discriminate based on sexuality or gender, despite it’s clearly illegal, why?
I don’t think the other commenter ever claimed that or even thinks that. I think most religious people know perfectly well that religion is not a rational thing, but rationality is not the purpose of religion.
I agree with you that organized religion can be very harmful and we should work for a secular society, but dismissing religion because of facts and logic is like disproving mathematics via the word of God - its simply entirely different domains and perspectives.
Wow really? Superstition is equal to facts and reason based on evidence now?
Goddam and it’s the 21st century!
That’s exactly the mindset that makes religion harmful.
I never claimed people can’t have faith, what I claim is the illegal practices should not be legal, and it shouldn’t have special privileges.
I never said such a thing and I don’t think you understood what I wrote. Try reading it again, and I’ll rephrase:
Dismissing religion from an atheistic point of view based on facts and logic doesn’t make sense, because religion is not about facts and logic.
Disproving mathematics from a religious point of view via the word of God is equally absurd, because mathematics does not deal with faith.
You’re trying to apply facts and logic to religion which is obviously a perspective that will not work (not saying you have to try to make it work or that religion makes sense, but just that criticising the Bible from this perspective doesn’t make sense).
Again they can believe what they want, but where religion and “secular world” intersect, we cannot bend to religion when it’s contrary to more modern standards that are based on way better knowledge than primitive iron age standards.
Only to show where it does harm to others isn’t validated.
Any religious person that removes such practices can have my blessing.
But for instance the belief in a life after death, which there is absolutely no reason to believe is true, can be very harmful for the individual believers themselves.