In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

[ttwtt78640]

Man, those first two Skynyrd albums were ... so _ damn _ good! :thumbs:

This wasn't only a Southern thing, either. Kids up North loved them, too. Young guitarists far up North were learning Duane Allman & Dickie Betts licks, note for note! I worshiped Duane Allman. And I played a lot of his material. I literally wore-out copies of "Eat A Peach" and "Live At The Fillmore" learning those licks!


But ... let's not forget this classic from - '69!

One more came to mind:

 

[Chomsky]

One more came to mind:

Yep. That was a big one! Chicago was kinda' a political epicenter of sorts come the 68' convention and just following. CSNY did "Chicago/We can Change the World" around the same time, with LaGrange released a bit later.

 

[MrWonka]

Sad.

Obviously we don't need nor want religious extremism. But a little spirituality & introspection is good for one's soul.

This would actually be properly classified as bigotry towards Atheists. The idea that spirituality is necessary for a person to have a good soul.

 

[MrWonka]

So...you draw an equivalence between being religious, and flat earth theory. I understand that flat earth theory is provably false...but how do you prove God is false?

The principle of non-contradiction in coordination with the attributes generally assigned to any god. Occam's Razor is a big help. I realize that in the minds of the religious no amount of evidence will ever cross the goal line for burden of proof, but it really does. The levels of logical gymnastics one must go through to continue convincing themselves that a god exist makes it fairly obvious.

To put it in perspective. No Liberal can definitively say with 100% certainty that Trump intentionally coordinated with Russia or offered a Quid Pro Quo to Ukraine, but the levels of Obstruction of Justice we've seen from this administration as well as the knowledge of Trump's lies and other abuses of power make it realistically undeniable that he's guilty of impeachable offenses. The endless and ridiculous stories and blatant lies that we know aren't true makes it increasingly obvious that Trump is guilty to the point where if you're still believing any of his lines you're a damn fool.

The same can be said for belief in a God. In order to come up with a god that could feasibly exist you have to strip said god of any quality that meaningfully defines a god. It's essentially becomes obvious sophistry on the order of "Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus" where god isn't really an actual god he's just some general idea or thought.

At that point any reasonable human being can go ahead and call it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Chomsky]

This would actually be properly classified as bigotry towards Atheists. The idea that spirituality is necessary for a person to have a good soul.

The bolded is an erroneous reading of my statement.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Christianity has historically united the country; it was the one thing that most Americans had in common, regardless of race, ethnicity, culture, or geographical differences. Now that the country seems to be abandoning Christianity in favor of vague spiritualism, other religions, or no religion, we're more fractured than ever.

A similar trend has been taking place in the UK in the past several decades, and it's safe to say that they're dealing with the effects of being divided and fractured as well. Brexit would have been unimaginable only a few decades ago. The battle for the UK's future demonstrates a strong resistance to all the changes brought about by the mammoth bureaucracy that is the EU Commission. We can look forward to similar battles here in the states.

Absolutely and almost comically ahistorical.

 

[OlNate]

The principle of non-contradiction in coordination with the attributes generally assigned to any god. Occam's Razor is a big help. I realize that in the minds of the religious no amount of evidence will ever cross the goal line for burden of proof, but it really does. The levels of logical gymnastics one must go through to continue convincing themselves that a god exist makes it fairly obvious.

To put it in perspective. No Liberal can definitively say with 100% certainty that Trump intentionally coordinated with Russia or offered a Quid Pro Quo to Ukraine, but the levels of Obstruction of Justice we've seen from this administration as well as the knowledge of Trump's lies and other abuses of power make it realistically undeniable that he's guilty of impeachable offenses. The endless and ridiculous stories and blatant lies that we know aren't true makes it increasingly obvious that Trump is guilty to the point where if you're still believing any of his lines you're a damn fool.

The same can be said for belief in a God. In order to come up with a god that could feasibly exist you have to strip said god of any quality that meaningfully defines a god. It's essentially becomes obvious sophistry on the order of "Yes, Virginia there is a Santa Claus" where god isn't really an actual god he's just some general idea or thought.

At that point any reasonable human being can go ahead and call it proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yeah...but if that was all it took, Trump would be in jail, no?

I think, if it's your goal to eradicate over 2000 years of belief, you'll need to come up with something a little more substantial. Maybe hold yourself to the same standards you hold us to, when we, foolishly, attempt to "prove" the presence of God. The fact is that you can no more prove the non-existence of God than we can prove his existence. That puts it into the realm of faith and mystery. Surely you don't hold to the notion that there is no mystery in the universe?

More importantly, though, why bother trying? God and religion haven't made your life bad, if you have any negativity in relation to religion, I'd suggest it was, more than likely, people who were at the center of your problem, not God - especially since you think he doesn't exist.

If you want to rid the world of all ideologies and initiatives that haven't been perfect in this world, you've got your work cut out for you....and far more important places to begin. People take every good idea and turn it to crap. Look at capitalism, communism, and democracy. Each of those have blood and atrocities on their resume. If you're looking for root cause, I'd suggest people, not God, are at the end of your search.

 

[Irredentist]

Our capacity to process information is limited implying there exists an upper bound on the number of things we can simultaneously juggle mentally. This simple fact has interesting consequences, not the least of which is the commonality of internal inconsistencies in our beliefs, actions, goals, etc. A more relevant aspect of this issue might be how we can sometimes focus on minute details at the expense of a larger picture. People can easily come to abhor each other over relatively inconsequential disagreements when those disagreements are put in the larger context of what they share.

Christians and Jews share even less at the theological level than most pairs of denominations among all those who call themselves Christians. On the other hand, all those groups share substantial amounts of values. Biblical scripture sowed the seeds of ideas we hold especially dearly in this 21st century, namely the equality of all human beings. The first of the two creation stories in Genesis proclaims that all human beings have been created in the image of God. The second one also states the equality of men and women, though not all English translations render the Hebrew properly according to Prager because the original text explicitly states that the woman is the equal of the man. Of course, this is just one example of profound values large swaths of people share because of their shared belief in some parts of biblical scripture. It's not exactly surprising that the Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." It's not surprising either that a biblical verse would be the only statement put on the Liberty Bell.

The common background is what made the United States and much of the western world possible. It's this idea that you're worth something, that it matters how you choose to behave yourself and that you should be judged based on those choices. Without those very old ideas, much of our sense of justice would be different. The idea that you have rights wouldn't exist. The idea that you are innocent until proven guilty would not exist. It is also very probable that slavery would still exist: Christianity has long despised slavery and it was Christians, in the name of a Christian doctrine that rose against the institution and finally overthrew it. Though the Bible did not forbid all slavery, it condemns theft and capturing people has long been understood as a form of theft by Christians and Jews who commented on the ten commandments. What was considered acceptable is indentured slavery where you accept to work off a debt by enslaving yourself for a predetermined number of years. However, going to Africa to get shiploads of people who got captured against their will... That was understood as a violation of the commandment not to steal long before the King of England introduced the commerce of slaves in the American colonies.

What Jews and Christians share are the ideas which sowed the seeds of many things we find valuable today. It's just that people often lose the forest in the trees.

While it is certainly true that shared western culture, which includes Christianity, has had positive societal impacts, it is also true that religion has inhibited progress and enlightenment at least as often as it has perpetuated it. It is also true that western culture is not the only culture to have contributed to the concept of human rights. Nor has western culture always respected those rights in any case.

 

[TheEconomist]

It's surprising how well educated some religious people are or how successful they've become. You have to wonder why is it that the existence of God is the only thing they take on "faith", not stock prices, medicine, engineering, etc.

First of all, the existence of God is not intended to be a scientific hypothesis, nor is biblical scripture concerned with history or physics. The primary interest of biblical scripture lies in its characterization of the human experience and its proposal for contending with life. Many of the stories you find in the Bible cover themes, emotions and problems we all encounter in one form or another. All of them display real human beings, none of whom are caricatures, and they tackle problems in the real world where things are messy and complicated. Short of Christ in the New Testament, you will not find another hero that is without fault. That contrasts quite profoundly with more superficial commentaries and fictions that you will encounter almost everywhere. Some people use a very expansive vocabulary to explain in the most convoluted manner possible that a group of people with whom they disagree is evil incarnate. It sounds sophisticated, but it is a caricature. It also contrasts with the sterilization effort of the woke crowd who will throw you under the bus at the first sign of ideological impurity and likewise with all pieces of literature, philosophy, art, etc.

You may find the idea of a divine being who cares about humankind somewhat perplexing: why the hell would someone accept that without further inquiry? On the other hand, it contains stories ripe with problems and a picture of humankind that is considerably less than shinning, which is unusual nowadays given the book begins by saying human beings have been created in the image of God. Hence, the ideas might have value independently of theological concerns with the existence. I am also saying that people who think scripture belongs in a physics or biology class should read again because they really missed the boat.

Second of all, there are many ways you can approach the statement that God exists. You likely see the concept of God as a primitive idea to be outgrown by rationally inclined individuals. Putting the concept in the context of the texts themselves, you can derive a lower bound on its value. One of the shortest and most profound stories you find in Genesis is the story of Kane and Abel. Although both of them made sacrifices to God, we learn that God was pleased by the offering of Abel, but not that of Kane. Kane grows mad at God and ultimately kills his brother. There is a lot to be said about this story, but you might be able to perceive the usefulness of God as a concept in this story. From a literary perspective, God personifies either nature or the future. The idea of a sacrifice is that you can give up something today to possibly be rewarded later, but it doesn't always work as planned. It needs to be sufficient. There are hints in the story that Abel made a bigger sacrifice than Kane, so you can think about the need to give up enough, that there is a question of quantity of effort involved. Another point of view you might take is that there is uncertainty involved: it might not always be obvious how you should go about doing something. Either way, it doesn't always pan out -- it doesn't always please God.

The lower bound on the concept of God is that it's at least a way to articulate a complicated idea in a straight forward manner, even if you can't quite put your intuitions in words. If you wanted to keep up the condescending tone, you could say it's a convenient fiction, though I largely suspect you will try to argue ground that all scripture is BS, dismissing both points.

 

[OlNate]

We can't prove that their is not god - and I use a legal definition of proof here
God is not guilty of existing

We can only prove that some gods and goddesses are false because of what they say is demonstrably false - such as the Abrahamic god(s) of the Bible

We can demonstrate that the Bible is false and therefore can make the assertion that the god(s) mentioned within in and draw their authority from it, are made made, therefore made up, therefore false.

You can....but I'm not sure your methodology is any better than those saying they can demonstrate that parts of the Bible are demonstrably true, and therefore God is real.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, merely trying to understand how you are so sure.

 

[Irredentist]

Because it has.

While Muslims only account for 1% of the official population of the USA, they commit interreligious violence in countries where they are becoming a large share of the population, such as in the Philippines.

Philippines church bombings: 20 killed and dozens wounded - CNN

So what? The Americans killed hundreds of thousands of Phillippinos during our occupation of that country, and this was despite a "shared religion."

 

[Irredentist]

First of all, the existence of God is not intended to be a scientific hypothesis, nor is biblical scripture concerned with history or physics. The primary interest of biblical scripture lies in its characterization of the human experience and its proposal for contending with life. Many of the stories you find in the Bible cover themes, emotions and problems we all encounter in one form or another. All of them display real human beings, none of whom are caricatures, and they tackle problems in the real world where things are messy and complicated. Short of Christ in the New Testament, you will not find another hero that is without fault. That contrasts quite profoundly with more superficial commentaries and fictions that you will encounter almost everywhere. Some people use a very expansive vocabulary to explain in the most convoluted manner possible that a group of people with whom they disagree is evil incarnate. It sounds sophisticated, but it is a caricature. It also contrasts with the sterilization effort of the woke crowd who will throw you under the bus at the first sign of ideological impurity and likewise with all pieces of literature, philosophy, art, etc.

You may find the idea of a divine being who cares about humankind somewhat perplexing: why the hell would someone accept that without further inquiry? On the other hand, it contains stories ripe with problems and a picture of humankind that is considerably less than shinning, which is unusual nowadays given the book begins by saying human beings have been created in the image of God. Hence, the ideas might have value independently of theological concerns with the existence. I am also saying that people who think scripture belongs in a physics or biology class should read again because they really missed the boat.

Second of all, there are many ways you can approach the statement that God exists. You likely see the concept of God as a primitive idea to be outgrown by rationally inclined individuals. Putting the concept in the context of the texts themselves, you can derive a lower bound on its value. One of the shortest and most profound stories you find in Genesis is the story of Kane and Abel. Although both of them made sacrifices to God, we learn that God was pleased by the offering of Abel, but not that of Kane. Kane grows mad at God and ultimately kills his brother. There is a lot to be said about this story, but you might be able to perceive the usefulness of God as a concept in this story. From a literary perspective, God personifies either nature or the future. The idea of a sacrifice is that you can give up something today to possibly be rewarded later, but it doesn't always work as planned. It needs to be sufficient. There are hints in the story that Abel made a bigger sacrifice than Kane, so you can think about the need to give up enough, that there is a question of quantity of effort involved. Another point of view you might take is that there is uncertainty involved: it might not always be obvious how you should go about doing something. Either way, it doesn't always pan out -- it doesn't always please God.

The lower bound on the concept of God is that it's at least a way to articulate a complicated idea in a straight forward manner, even if you can't quite put your intuitions in words. If you wanted to keep up the condescending tone, you could say it's a convenient fiction, though I largely suspect you will try to argue ground that all scripture is BS, dismissing both points.

There are parts of the bible that are historically accurate. You cannot say that the Bible is purely a metaphorical text on the human experience, or a history book, or just a list of religious dogma. It is all of those things at once.

 

[Rich2018]

You can....but I'm not sure your methodology is any better than those saying they can demonstrate that parts of the Bible are demonstrably true, and therefore God is real.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, merely trying to understand how you are so sure.

Who says that parts of the Bible are demonstrably true ? The Bible is true or it's not.


If parts (or indeed one part) of the Bible is untrue, then all of it is untrue. As it's been shown is it man made...therefore made up, therefore false.

 

[TheEconomist]

While it is certainly true that shared western culture, which includes Christianity, has had positive societal impacts, it is also true that religion has inhibited progress and enlightenment at least as often as it has perpetuated it.

My point is not that human beings, or Christians in particular, are without fault. My point is that the moral doctrines embedded in the many stories of the Bible sowed the seeds of most of what you or I would call progress.

It is also true that western culture is not the only culture to have contributed to the concept of human rights. Nor has western culture always respected those rights in any case.

I never meant to say that you cannot find consonance in other cultures with human rights, such as the various form of the so-called golden rule, nor that you cannot find interesting ideas elsewhere. The point is rather that our respect for the autonomy of the individual didn't just grow everywhere randomly. Our sense of individualism, that you have value, that you are to be judged for your actions, that you have a right to the fruits of your own labor, etc. take root in scripture. It's not exactly surprising Max Weber traced back the origins of the spirit of capitalism to protestants in Europe. It starts with the Netherlands, then England, then the United States and it's only later that you see places like France catch up with the trend. It's an oddly specific pattern that follows a very peculiar set of theological doctrines.

And no one says that the western world always upheld all human rights. I don't know where you got the impression you needed to add that detail, except perhaps if you felt the need to answer people who do not exist. We're all aware that places like the United States contained and still contains groups of people who violated human rights. Against the background of moral idealism, it is a visible stain, to say the least. However, against the background of human history and almost everywhere else even today, it is a bright example of moral rectitude. One of my gym teacher in high school caught a group of his students boasting after a victory in a volleyball game. He told them there was little to brag about because they won by being less incompetent than a group of poorly trained students. If you do not like my implicit characterization of the west as a good place, I am disposed to say it is a less ****ty place.

We don't stone gay people, we do not slit the throat our daughters when they are victims of rape and we do not strap bombs to ourselves to target innocents in a suicide bombing and we don't engage in violent revolutions that institute a one-party government that engage in genocides against their own people. Yes, we have armies. Yes, we engage in actions that result in deaths. Yes, we struck deals with bad people. But, that is visibly less bad. It's also visibly less bad than just some 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago.

 

[Rich2018]

There are parts of the bible that are historically accurate. You cannot say that the Bible is purely a metaphorical text on the human experience, or a history book, or just a list of religious dogma. It is all of those things at once.

Which parts are true ?

And I don't mean there was a country called Egypt an in it was a river called the Nile.

What stories do you regard as historically truthful ?

 

[Irredentist]

Which parts are true ?

And I don't mean there was a country called Egypt an in it was a river called the Nile.

What stories do you regard as historically truthful ?

There is a passage which describes how Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire, liberated Jewish captives held in the city of Babylon and returned them to Israel. This is corroborated by other contemporary texts.

 

[TheEconomist]

There are parts of the bible that are historically accurate. You cannot say that the Bible is purely a metaphorical text on the human experience, or a history book, or just a list of religious dogma. It is all of those things at once.

Read carefully what I wrote. What is the verb that I used? I said "intended." The message is not meant to be read in the context of a 21st-century scientific inquiry. Nothing in that statement implies that the Bible cannot contain some historically accurate or even physically accurate descriptions. It just says the primary point of it would be to talk about how to live your life. It's primarily concerned with your behavior, not with QED.

 

[OlNate]

Who says that parts of the Bible are demonstrably true ? The Bible is true or it's not.


If parts (or indeed one part) of the Bible is untrue, then all of it is untrue. As it's been shown is it man made...therefore made up, therefore false.

:lol: Cuz you say so, huh? Whatever helps you get to sleep at night, I guess. So far all I can see "proved" here is that you really seem to hope it's all false. Sounds like you've got to take it on faith for now. :lol:

Me, well, I'll be over here not caring much. The thing about faith is that you don't have - can't have - the expectation of proof. Given the foundational nature of that fact, all of this is rather moot.

 

[OlNate]

Which parts are true ?

And I don't mean there was a country called Egypt an in it was a river called the Nile.

What stories do you regard as historically truthful ?

I think you need to lay out what you would accept as historically truthful. In great detail. Because it really matters. :lol:

 

[MrWonka]

Yeah...but if that was all it took, Trump would be in jail, no?

No, because even though it is very very clear and without a doubt that Donald Trump is in fact a criminal who has committed crimes that SHOULD without a doubt require impeachment you still have millions of people in complete denial of that reality with enough political pull to block it.

I think, if it's your goal to eradicate over 2000 years of belief

My goal is not to eradicate over 2000 years of belief. My goal is not even to prevent another 2000 years of belief I just understand that it is an inevitably reality. Just like 40 years from now 90% of Americans will accept it as a fact that Donald Trump was a criminal corrupt President. We know this. In the same way that 95% of Americans accept the reality that Nixon was criminal. During the time of his resignation though only about 55% believed it.

I realize that in this day and age of social media lies it seems as though all this information leads to disinformation, but for young people who grew up on the internet and recognize the way in which scammers use it the internet is by and large a powerful tool for truth. The people who are overwhelmingly sharing false misinformation online are baby boomers who grew up in a world where their news and information were filtered for them so they didn't need the same critical thinking skills.

Maybe hold yourself to the same standards you hold us to, when we, foolishly, attempt to "prove" the presence of God.

By the admission of Religious people a Religion is a "faith". Faith by definition is a belief in something without a rational basis. If Proof of Gods existence were possible to obtain then it wouldn't be "Faith" anymore it would be science. The best that a religious person could ever attempt to do or try to do would be to sufficiently make excuses to deny the evidence contradicting their faith.

The fact is that you can no more prove the non-existence of God than we can prove his existence.

Have you ever been to space? Have you ever actually been in orbit around the earth? Like yourself personally? Unless you yourself are a former astronaut who has actually been in a space ship orbiting the earth and you've seen first hand with your own eyes that the earth as a whole is as it appears to be in photos from space you cannot with 100% certainty prove that the earth is even round. Even from an airplane or a very tall mountain on a clear day the best you can see is a slight curve.

Yet you would accept that the earth being round is an undeniable fact that can and has been proven. You have rationally derived that the likelihood of such a massive conspiracy to distort the true shape of the earth could never work in reality and that the only possible explanation for NASA and Astronauts and photos of the round earth must absolutely be true.

Too a flat earther however their own two eyes show them a flat earth and no amount of data, pictures or reasoning will every allow for them to accept anything else. Your intuition and your beliefs that you've been raised upon preclude you from accepting any level of proof on a subject such as the existence of god, but to those of us who are outside the cult it is very very obvious what is going on here.

Surely you don't hold to the notion that there is no mystery in the universe?

None that couldn't some day be rationally explained.

 

[MrWonka]

More importantly, though, why bother trying? Santa Claus hasn't made your life bad, if you have any negativity in relation to Santa, I'd suggest it was, more than likely, people who were at the center of your problem, not Santa Claus - especially since you think he doesn't exist.

If a bunch of people flew a plane into the World Trade centers because they were convinced that Santa would get them an Xbox for Christmas if they did. Or if your parents disowned you because they were convinced Santa would bring them a lump of coal if they didn't your feelings towards the people who believe in Santa might be very different. You say people are the problem, but people form Religions and people control religions.

My mother is not a bad person, but she has been convinced that Gay Marriage and Abortion are an a front to God. She under normal circumstances would never heart a fly, but her religion convinces her she must vote for a horrible human being like Trump because he's doing her religions work. Religion is the problem. Religion is the reason these silly notions were ingrained into her so deeply and at such an early age that she can be so easily manipulated.

If you want to rid the world of all ideologies

I do not. I simply understand that over time all ideologies gravitate towards a more perfect one given the open access to knowledge necessary to do so. The ability to brainwash a child grows ever more difficult with each advancement of technology. That is all I am stating. I have no other goal.

If you're looking for root cause, I'd suggest people, not God, are at the end of your search.

Again...People worshiping a god are the problem. That is a religion. There are almost no other ways to convince a large number of otherwise good people to do horrible things.

 

[Irredentist]

My point is not that human beings, or Christians in particular, are without fault. My point is that the moral doctrines embedded in the many stories of the Bible sowed the seeds of most of what you or I would call progress.



I never meant to say that you cannot find consonance in other cultures with human rights, such as the various form of the so-called golden rule, nor that you cannot find interesting ideas elsewhere. The point is rather that our respect for the autonomy of the individual didn't just grow everywhere randomly. Our sense of individualism, that you have value, that you are to be judged for your actions, that you have a right to the fruits of your own labor, etc. take root in scripture. It's not exactly surprising Max Weber traced back the origins of the spirit of capitalism to protestants in Europe. It starts with the Netherlands, then England, then the United States and it's only later that you see places like France catch up with the trend. It's an oddly specific pattern that follows a very peculiar set of theological doctrines.

And no one says that the western world always upheld all human rights. I don't know where you got the impression you needed to add that detail, except perhaps if you felt the need to answer people who do not exist. We're all aware that places like the United States contained and still contains groups of people who violated human rights. Against the background of moral idealism, it is a visible stain, to say the least. However, against the background of human history and almost everywhere else even today, it is a bright example of moral rectitude. One of my gym teacher in high school caught a group of his students boasting after a victory in a volleyball game. He told them there was little to brag about because they won by being less incompetent than a group of poorly trained students. If you do not like my implicit characterization of the west as a good place, I am disposed to say it is a less ****ty place.

We don't stone gay people, we do not slit the throat our daughters when they are victims of rape and we do not strap bombs to ourselves to target innocents in a suicide bombing and we don't engage in violent revolutions that institute a one-party government that engage in genocides against their own people. Yes, we have armies. Yes, we engage in actions that result in deaths. Yes, we struck deals with bad people. But, that is visibly less bad. It's also visibly less bad than just some 200 years ago, or even 100 years ago.

I like the idea of western moral idealism. Really I do. The problem is that it was never applied to the colonized peoples conquered by European powers. Which leads me to believe that this whole "right to the fruits of your own labor" thing is just so much bull****. Maybe the development of capitalism and human rights in the west was good for Europeans. But it didn't help the rest of the world very much, despite being under Europe's thumb.

 

[Rich2018]

First of all, the existence of God is not intended to be a scientific hypothesis, nor is biblical scripture concerned with history or physics. The primary interest of biblical scripture lies in its characterization of the human experience and its proposal for contending with life....

Maybe to you, to others the Bible is literally true

The Bible is indeed concerned with physics as it tries to explain how the world was created and how it works in the first book.

...many of the stories you find in the Bible cover themes, emotions and problems we all encounter in one form or another....

Yes, the stories they re-tell become mere metaphors when scientifically disproved.
Take the Tower of Babel for example

That said how do you explain groups like Answers in Genesis who say Noah's flood was literally true and, since the world is only a few thousand years old, there were dinosaurs on the Ark ?

...all of them display real human beings...

Which human beings in the Bible were "real" - Pilate and Herod I will give you.

....short of Christ in the New Testament, you will not find another hero that is without fault....

Christ was god - or don't you believe that
Was Christ guilty of the deadly sin of anger in the temple ? Or is anger excused in gods ?

...you may find the idea of a divine being who cares about humankind somewhat perplexing: why the hell would someone accept that without further inquiry?

Indeed, why do you ?

Of course there are those who claim Jesus was NOT divine or that his divinity doesn't mean he was god from god. How do you respond to those claims ?

...given the book begins by saying human beings have been created in the image of God...

If that means man looks like god, doesn't also mean god is physical and looks like man ?

...I am also saying that people who think scripture belongs in a physics or biology class should read again because they really missed the boat...

So you're saying that your god's teachings are philosophical in nature.

Great news if you're a slave owner, not so much if you're a slave


What does "Do not suffer a with to live" mean philosophically ?

....there are many ways you can approach the statement that God exists. You likely see the concept of God as a primitive idea to be outgrown by rationally inclined individuals. Putting the concept in the context of the texts themselves, you can derive a lower bound on its value. One of the shortest and most profound stories you find in Genesis is the story of Kane and Abel. Although both of them made sacrifices to God, we learn that God was pleased by the offering of Abel, but not that of Kane. Kane grows mad at God and ultimately kills his brother. There is a lot to be said about this story...

No there's not

There's as much to be learned from the tale of Ali-Baba and the 40 Thieves

...from a literary perspective, God personifies either nature or the future. The idea of a sacrifice is that you can give up something today to possibly be rewarded later...

Yeah, capitalism is based on that concept - so what ?

...there are hints in the story that Abel made a bigger sacrifice than Kane, so you can think about the need to give up enough, that there is a question of quantity of effort involved...

Again, so what ?

That giving more to your god angers others ?
That being pious/generous sparks feelings of jealousy in others ?

...it doesn't always please God...

How do you know what pleases god ?

...it's at least a way to articulate a complicated idea in a straight forward manner, even if you can't quite put your intuitions in words. If you wanted to keep up the condescending tone, you could say it's a convenient fiction, though I largely suspect you will try to argue ground that all scripture is BS, dismissing both points.

Either the Bible is fiction or it's true.

There is no middle ground.

A collection of books that speaks only in metaphor is about as useful as Nostradamus' poetry for predicting the future.

 

[Rich2018]

There is a passage which describes how Cyrus the Great, founder of the Persian Empire, liberated Jewish captives held in the city of Babylon and returned them to Israel. This is corroborated by other contemporary texts.

Which passage ?

 

[Irredentist]

Which passage ?

Ezra Chapter 1