Hi

[theistic_sheep]

I am a theist, not so sure I am a sheep. Fairly liberal, and tolerant, I don't want to condemn gays nor do I think atheists are evil or immoral creatures.

I have an interest in the construction of the bible and how it has changed over the years. I don't think it is perfect, or inerrant, or even inspired (though parts might be) but it is a really interesting look at the history of religious belief among a select group of people over time.

That's me .

[Stargazer]

Hi, theistic sheep. What is the basis of your belief? Why do you believe what you believe?

[theistic_sheep]

I believe what I believe mostly due to perceived personal experience with God. I have nothing tangible or scientific I can shove in your face and say "hey looser, come with me".

I can talk more about my personal experience if you like, but I would be doing so just as a description and not a proof of anything.

[Stargazer]

theistic_sheep wrote

I believe what I believe mostly due to perceived personal experience with God. I have nothing tangible or scientific I can shove in your face and say "hey looser, come with me".

I can talk more about my personal experience if you like, but I would be doing so just as a description and not a proof of anything.

This is the problem that atheists have with religion. We are asked to believe something based only on faith, without any logic, or concrete evidence of same.

If we ask for proof, we are told to "look at the birds in the sky, or the power of the ocean, or the complexity of the eye," and the expectation is the we will suddenly gape slack-jawed at something because it is big,/powerful/complex and assume that because it is so, it MUST have had a creator. This is a logical fallacy called the "leap of faith," that we cannot stomach. If, instead, the atheist is not convinced by these things, and says so to the theist, often the theist shows anger/disgust/hostility and then begins character assassination on the atheist.

We sincerely hope you are not here to follow that tired pattern.

With that said, welcome.

[Eternal]

theistic_sheep wrote

I believe what I believe mostly due to perceived personal experience with God. I have nothing tangible or scientific I can shove in your face and say "hey looser, come with me".

I can talk more about my personal experience if you like, but I would be doing so just as a description and not a proof of anything.

Hello. Call me sceptical but you misspell looser the same way that a resident nutter misspells loose instead of lose. Are you Ex Atheist?

Welcome anyway, look forward to hearing your particular take on the buybull and it's implications etc.

[West491]

Welcome to this pool of heathens.

Why is it that you chose to come to a forum called "Raving Atheist" ?

[theistic_sheep]

No I am not Ex-Atheist.

I am also not asking you to take a leap of blind faith because a flower looks pretty. I think if God does exist, He should be able to make Himself known in a language that is convincing for you. Either He has done that and you have ignored it, or He has not done that. The first option seems to be a logical contradiction, which leaves me with the second.

Why He does not seem to do that for everyone I honestly do not know. The prevailing theory seems to be the hardness of the atheists heart, I am not so sure I believe that though I am pretty hard hearted towards the FSM and pink unicorns myself, so I sure as hell wouldn't be condemning others for similar lack-of-evidence based thinking about the Christian God.

I don't think there is a whole lot of rational evidence for God in the world so I am stuck with being honest and just saying "I believe I experienced this".

Why am I here? Because I'm really freaking bored. And because I want to see what this forum has to say about the construction of religious documents, because I think there is some interesting sociology underpinning it all.

[Stargazer]

theistic_sheep wrote

No I am not Ex-Atheist.

I am also not asking you to take a leap of blind faith because a flower looks pretty. I think if God does exist, He should be able to make Himself known in a language that is convincing for you. Either He has done that and you have ignored it, or He has not done that. The first option seems to be a logical contradiction, which leaves me with the second.

Why He does not seem to do that for everyone I honestly do not know. The prevailing theory seems to be the hardness of the atheists heart, I am not so sure I believe that though I am pretty hard hearted towards the FSM and pink unicorns myself, so I sure as hell wouldn't be condemning others for similar lack-of-evidence based thinking about the Christian God.

I don't think there is a whole lot of rational evidence for God in the world so I am stuck with being honest and just saying "I believe I experienced this".

Why am I here? Because I'm really freaking bored. And because I want to see what this forum has to say about the construction of religious documents, because I think there is some interesting sociology underpinning it all.

OK. Glad you're not Ex Atheist. One of him is enough. Why don't you start by citing a specific document. I have some background in that area and as a writer and storyteller, have some interest in the way mythology develops over time. You WILL need to accept the fact that I see the Bible as mythology. But the document can be discussed on a purely academic basis, certainly.

[theistic_sheep]

I think that the old testament was heavily edited after Christ to make the prophesy in the old testament appear as though it was pointing to Christ. There ARE prophesies in the OT relating to Christ, but many Jewish people believe that prophesy unrelated to their promised coming messiah have been twisted textually to appear about the Christ.

I guess the biggest example of developing mythology is the Noahic flood. I tend to think that the scribes took existing mythology and wrote it how they think their God would have had it dictated. I don't think they wrote is as truth the way we think of literal truth, but correcting the mythology of others with their own mythology. Same with both creation accounts really.

I've also read some interesting articles about the development of the mythology of Abraham and Isaac. There is some evidence to indicate the person these stories are based on really did sacrifice Isaac.

So I guess you see I don't read the bible as an inspired inerrant text. But it is fascinating to read how people think they experienced God over the centuries. I don't think that necessarily means God didn't exist though, it isn't proof of no-God.

[Eternal]

theistic_sheep wrote

No I am not Ex-Atheist.

I am also not asking you to take a leap of blind faith because a flower looks pretty. I think if God does exist, He should be able to make Himself known in a language that is convincing for you. Either He has done that and you have ignored it, or He has not done that. The first option seems to be a logical contradiction, which leaves me with the second.

Why He does not seem to do that for everyone I honestly do not know. The prevailing theory seems to be the hardness of the atheists heart, I am not so sure I believe that though I am pretty hard hearted towards the FSM and pink unicorns myself, so I sure as hell wouldn't be condemning others for similar lack-of-evidence based thinking about the Christian God.

I don't think there is a whole lot of rational evidence for God in the world so I am stuck with being honest and just saying "I believe I experienced this".

Glad to hear that you are not Ex.

Anyways, my main problem with this seems to be gods choices. Hypothetically making the leap of faith that he exists, then why does he choose the people he chooses. There are plenty of people suffering in the world that think they have a connection to him, do they and he doesn't help them, or are they mistaken. Also what about all the people that he either doesn't connect with or do not have the chance to connect because they are one of the millions of babies or toddlers that die every year. What happens to these, presumably as a more liberal christian an eternity in hell isn't on the cards, so what is your take?

Do you also not think that as you state the more liberal amongst you are not just cherry picking according to what is acceptable in todays society. If so, why can you then disregard some bits but not others. If it is societal, then why give it any authority over your life at all when your own morals override the bible.

It would probably make it easier if you could give us an idea of what your definition of god is.

[Stargazer]

theistic_sheep wrote

I think that the old testament was heavily edited after Christ to make the prophesy in the old testament appear as though it was pointing to Christ. There ARE prophesies in the OT relating to Christ, but many Jewish people believe that prophesy unrelated to their promised coming messiah have been twisted textually to appear about the Christ.

I guess the biggest example of developing mythology is the Noahic flood. I tend to think that the scribes took existing mythology and wrote it how they think their God would have had it dictated. I don't think they wrote is as truth the way we think of literal truth, but correcting the mythology of others with their own mythology. Same with both creation accounts really.

I've also read some interesting articles about the development of the mythology of Abraham and Isaac. There is some evidence to indicate the person these stories are based on really did sacrifice Isaac.

So I guess you see I don't read the bible as an inspired inerrant text. But it is fascinating to read how people think they experienced God over the centuries. I don't think that necessarily means God didn't exist though, it isn't proof of no-God.

The Noah story is a more simplistic version of the older Sumerian Gilgamesh story (which I think is more interesting because it's more complex). Many other stories in the Bible are versions of more ancient mythologies, giving the Bible continuity, at least as far as narrative goes, back to the earliest recorded religions. It seems, in order to be taken seriously as a god, EVERY god had to have his Flood story. Which makes God just another deity, along with Baal, El Shaddai, and Ra.

Stories, especially religious ones, get edited, or redacted, over time, errors are made, changes are made in order to support the propaganda of the current monarch or the current dogma. The stories evolve, and not always for the better.

Do you know that there are actually two versions of the Noah story very nearly back to back in Genesis, and they disagree with each other on the number of animals taken, and various other details?

With errors like that as well as the obvious plagarism (sorry, can't ever spell that one) from other stories belonging to other deities, it's hard to take the Bible seriously as the "Word of God."

[Kinich Ahau]

Sometimes I think wet christians are as bad or worse than the backward variety. If you know the bible is a compilation of myths, political and moral propaganda and outright fantasy history then how do you justify belief? Did God find you car keys one day?

[orangeitis]

Hello new face!

[Stargazer]

Eternal wrote

It would probably make it easier if you could give us an idea of what your definition of god is.

Yes, theistic_sheep, I think Eternal's right. Can you tell us what you think God is?

[Kate]

I think "an idea of your definition" would be more appropriately vague. We already know sheep thinks it has a penis.