"Top 10 Grievances Against the Bible"

by leavingwt 41 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    Lady Atheist. . .

    My Top Ten Grievances Against the Bible

    1. Authority -- NOT -- it was compiled, copied, edited, codified and translated by men. Men with agendas. Over the hundreds of years it was put together there were perhaps hundreds of "hands" tinkering with the unalterable "holy" words.

    2. Inconsistency. Two Adam & Eve stories. Two genealogies for Jesus. Discrepancies amongst the Gospels. Too many inconsistencies to mention, and anyway The Skeptics Annotated Bible did it already.

    3. God's nature is fickle and inconsistent. He is forgiving or resentful depending on the situation. Sometimes he tinkers in the Affairs of Man and sometimes not. He wants you to follow his rules, but then there's the parable of the prodigal son. He made the world and all the animals, including people, and yet made all sorts of really horrible and stupid things. For instance, why do humans have "tail" bones if we don't have tails? Having broken mine I can tell you I'd rather not have it. If he wanted us to protect the useful parts of our spine in a fall, then why put nerve endings there?

    4. Miracles. They have no corroboration outside of the Bible. They could have been faked or made up as propaganda or exaggerated over time. If Jesus really did walk on water, how do we know he didn't go there in advance and put a table just under the water line? How do we know there wasn't a sandbar there? And yet he couldn't make a fig tree yield fruit out of season, which would have been a more difficult feat than appearing to be walking on water. Couldn't pop the nails out of his hands and feet and jump off the cross, either.

    5. Revelation. Dreams, voices, visions... they are all reminiscent of what today would be considered symptoms of psychosis. If they're psychotic symptoms now, they very likely would have been then, if they even happened. Primitive people can't be faulted for believing that dreams or migraine auras or psychotic breaks came from some supernatural entity, but we shouldn't believe them now. The opposite is possession by an evil spirit. Also mental illness that was misunderstood by bronze age superstitious people.

    6. Scientific inaccuracy. God could have revealed the truth about the Sun revolving around the Earth, at the very least. All of God's words seem to be consistent with what humans would have known at the time, and not at all revelatory or helpful. Every human culture has a creation story. The Judeo-Christian-Muslim one is just one of many with no claim to accuracy in the least.

    7. Similarity to mythologies in other Middle Eastern religions. Just a little too many similarities to dismiss. Mithras, for example.

    8. Speaking of Paul, Paul's role is a little too important in early Christianity. He never met Jesus, yet he supposedly explains Christianity with authority. He has a completely different message from Jesus' supposed words. A lot of Biblical inconsistency right there. Why should anyone believe anything he said? None of it was of a nature that couldn't have come from psychosis, imagination, or calculation. If he was divinely inspired, he could have set people straight about the Sun, for instance.

    9. The Book of John. Written much later than the other "gospels" and seems very biased. Coincidentally, "fundamentalist" Christians are fond of quoting John. They like his brand of Christianity so much that their whole theology would crumble if that "book" was taken out of the Bible.

    10. Disturbing "morality." Over and over there are truly disgusting examples of God or his favorite people doing the most heinous things. The worst of all for me is the central tenet of Christianity: that Christ was sacrificed for the sins of mankind... all of us or some of us, depending on your denomination. This means that a "loving" God practiced scapegoating, punishing his one good child for the sinfulness of all the others. No actual sinning is required to be defined as a bad child, since sinfulness is inherited. Inheriting the "sins of the fathers" is also immoral. Other repugnant practices are portrayed without any negative judgment: war, genocide, polygamy, rape (but only of women!), and slavery to name a few. Then this "loving" God will send everyone who doesn't say they "accept" him to eternal fire and pain. What kind of "love" is that?

    10a. Cannibalism. Yech! You can say it's just metaphorical and wine doesn't really turn into blood, but still, it's a repulsive practice and extremely barbaric. Early Christians already had the practice of baptism for the cleansing of sins, so they really didn't have to have eat their god in a repulsive ritual meal. That practice is also waaaay too similar to that of other religions to be taken seriously as a true historical tale.

    I could probably come up with more but these are the big ones for me. Much ink has been spilt explaining the problems in the Bible. People get Ph.D.s in something aptly called "apologetics." They call the Book "god-breathed" or inspired rather than taking it as the literal gods-ear-to-man's-pen truth, because they know deep down it's really a bunch of ridiculous nonsense. To believe in this book is to believe in a God that's mercurial, vengeful, narcissistic, and possibly insane.

    Or... you could believe that the Bible is just like all the other holy books of all the other religions, just a bunch of fairy tales with supernatural buddies and/or bullies as the main characters.

    Some of my smaller grievances don't get much attention, but for what they're worth:

    • If all of creation was 'good' then wouldn't Adam & Eve have been exiled to a pretty nice place?
    • Why is it an "abomination" for men to have sex with men but not for women to have sex with women? Isn't that also homosexuality?
    • Why was there no judgment against Lot's daughters after they got him drunk then got pregnant by him? His wife was turned into a pillar of salt just for looking over her shoulder at her former home. That seems a little harsh.
    • If Jesus' conception was immaculate, then why does he have a genealogy traced through Joseph's side of the family?
    • And the fig tree, wtf? Why doesn't Jesus regret his temper tantrum if he's such a great guy? Come to think of it, why did he smite the tree in the first place? Is this some kind of metaphor that a woman who won't have sex during her off-cycle will be smote?

    http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2011/01/my-top-ten-grievances-against-bible.html

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    Why dude? WHY ?

  • Finally-Free
    Finally-Free

    I only have one grievance against it - the claim that it comes from God.

    I operate under the assumption that a loving, all powerful, all knowing God who actually gave a crap about us would have sufficient communication skills to provide us with information and instruction that people could actually understand. Yet the bible, in spite of being around for thousands of years and scrutinized by many people, can still not be understood or agreed upon. If God truly cared about us he'd communicate with us in a clear and concise manner. If God exists, and if the bible is from him, then he's playing a very cruel and sick game with us.

    I'd love to say more, but I have to go and hunt down a few Philistines. I'm trying to expand my foreskin collection, as I'm saving up to buy a hot new wife. I'm sure God won't mind.

    W

  • dgp
    dgp

    Marked

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt
    the claim that it comes from God

    If you were like me, you were raised in a culture that told you that The Bible was "God's Word", while you were still in diapers.

    The points raised in items #8 and #9 above were totally unfamiliar to me when I was a JW.

    8. Speaking of Paul, Paul's role is a little too important in early Christianity. He never met Jesus, yet he supposedly explains Christianity with authority. He has a completely different message from Jesus' supposed words. A lot of Biblical inconsistency right there. Why should anyone believe anything he said? None of it was of a nature that couldn't have come from psychosis, imagination, or calculation. If he was divinely inspired, he could have set people straight about the Sun, for instance.

    9. The Book of John. Written much later than the other "gospels" and seems very biased. Coincidentally, "fundamentalist" Christians are fond of quoting John. They like his brand of Christianity so much that their whole theology would crumble if that "book" was taken out of the Bible.

    It's interesting to step back and take note of how Paul has influenced Christianity. It's undeniable that WT and many others have setup their legalistic framework of rules and regulations based upon (what may or may not be) Paul's writings.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    The points raised in items #8 and #9 above were totally unfamiliar to me when I was a JW.

    Those points are an issue only in the minds of people that don't understand Christianity or the development of the NT (canon or otherwise).

    As for the rest, they show a very bias and rudimentary "knowledge" of Christianity and only of "fundamentalist" Christianity at that.

    I mean look at them!

    There not even very well though out ! LOL !

  • Finally-Free
    Finally-Free
    It's interesting to step back and take note of how Paul has influenced Christianity.

    In some ways Paul reminds me of JF Rutherford. Both seem to have sensed an opportunity to move in, take over, and play the bigshot. It seems like Paul had more influence over Christianity than Jesus did, and not in a good way. I haven't done any bible reading lately, but my own recollections of Paul are mostly negative. Even as a JW I thought he was a bit of an a-hole.

    W

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    In some ways Paul reminds me of JF Rutherford. Both seem to have sensed an opportunity to move in, take over, and play the bigshot. It seems like Paul had more influence over Christianity than Jesus did, and not in a good way. I haven't done any bible reading lately, but my own recollections of Paul are mostly negative. Even as a JW I thought he was a bit of an a-hole.

    Yeah, what an ass:

    The Gift of Love

    13 If I speak in the tongues of mortals and of angels, but do not have love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give away all my possessions, and if I hand over my body so that I may boast, a but do not have love, I gain nothing.

    4 Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; 6 it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. 7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

    8 Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, b but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love.

  • snowbird
    snowbird
    And the fig tree, wtf? Why doesn't Jesus regret his temper tantrum if he's such a great guy? Come to think of it, why did he smite the tree in the first place? Is this some kind of metaphor that a woman who won't have sex during her off-cycle will be smote?

    Black Sheep, where are you?

    Syl

  • ProdigalSon
    ProdigalSon

    PSac, that quotation from "Paul" also appears in the Essene Gospel of Peace. Chances are, considering the way the Roman church councils put the Bible together, that "Paul" was the plagiarist.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit