I’d have to agree with LFJ (and must I say WOW I was surprised I still have an account today) – the old testament, new testament, and the qu’ran are filled with some pretty backwards practices. The cherry-picking is another good point… Christians are quick to denounce the stoning practices in the old testament but get all up in arms when you start talking about taking the 10 commandments out of the courtroom (true story). I don’t think that’s bigotry – it’s just reality. Now if you want to start oppressing people because of their beliefs… sure that’s another story. LFJ is not saying that
Firstly I’d like to make it clear that I wasn’t saying LFJ actually is a bigot, but rather that some of his statements were at least close to slipping over into bigotry.
For example:
“…The quickest way to become an atheist for any decent, normal functioning mind is to read these books through …[…]… It’s embarrassing that in 2014 we still have human minds stuck in the bronze age. We need to come out of the dark already…”
What is the inescapable implication of this? That any and every person who doesn’t share your opinion of scripture does not have a “normal and functioning mind” and is “stuck in the broze age”!
Now for me that is an indiscriminate and sweeping view which is indeed close to bigotry (as opposed to intolerance which is actually something slightly different. ) It is the classic Dawkinsesque arrogance - dismissing and insulting a large number of people en masse, assuming that “they” are all dumb, “they” are all ignorant, that “they” don’t really know…etc, etc, blah, blah.
And you say: “…Instead believers want to denounce the fundamentalists, you know, the people who actually follow the religion and do the evil things written in their book, rather than just realize they are cherry-picking nice things that can nonetheless be found in a fundamentally disgusting religion…”
So for you, there is only one legitimate understanding of the bible - and that is one adhered to by depraved fanatics! Therefore the way that the vast majority of Christians understand the bible is - for you - wrong.
Well, who are you to arbitrate what the right or wrong reading of the bible is?!
(And, for that matter, where exactly are all these Christian bogey men who go around stoning people, etc? I’ve been around quite a bit, and I’ve got to admit I’ve never run into any of them yet…)
I agree with LFJ and spatterson on that. I do believe that the world would be a much better place without religions, not necessarily without religious people.
Another widespread misconception, in my opinion, is that people think you need religion to be “a good person”. I’m sure you can be religious and a good person but you certainly don’t have to pray to any God to be able to treat other human beings respectfully.
Nor do kids need to be taught religion to learn how to behave properly. As a matter of fact, in many cases stories from the Bible are more of an obstacle than anything else when it comes to teaching kids to be compassionate for example. How do you explain to a child that God sent the Deluge to kill so many people? There are also violent stories in the NT. We try to protect our kids from violent video games, movies etc. and then we have 6 year old kids listening to stories how an almighty God sent out his angels to kill. Strange…
Fortunately, most of the believers don’t take their “holy books” and try to interpret them word by word. If they were, we’d probably all be dead by now. I know these books talk about love and caring too, but there are so many passages inciting to violence and discrimination that these books probably would be banned in most Western countries were they not considered “holy books” of recognized religious groups.
If a political party published similar “pamphlets”, its representatives would most likely be taken to court.
However, there is obviously more to a religion than the book(s) it is based on - fortunately. Otherwise there would not be so many open-minded, helpful and kind believers out there and I am convinced they are the majority in all religious groups. Personally, I don’t know how these people manage to reconcile their daily lives with what is written in their holy books, but I am glad they do because if they did not, the whole world would be burning already (parts of it unfortunately are for exactly these reasons).
What I don’t understand is if these books are really holy and sent and/or inspired by God, why on earth is he making it so difficult for us to understand what he wants to say. Why do we have to decipher every word as if it was a secret code? Shouldn’t his message be an eye-opener for everybody? Why would he have his words translated (and many times incorrectly) in so many languages?
If God exists, I think reading the “holy scriptures” is about the worst thing you can do to find a way to join him. Since believers also often talk about the devil trying to keep people away from God I wonder if the Bible and similar scriptures (obviously and clearly written by men) are not a devilish trick to fool people and make them lose hope.
In modern terms I’d say the Bible is about as bad a PR instrument as it can get.
I prefer going by the way people (including believers) lead their lives. I find that much more impressive than people reciting holy scriptures.
P.S. There are many intelligent, open-minded and friendly believers out there I would not want to miss for the life of me 
@Easy_Rider: "So for you, there is only one legitimate understanding of the bible - and that is one adhered to by fanatics! Therefore the way that the vast majority of Christians understand the bible is - for you - wrong.
Well, who are you to arbitrate what the right or wrong reading of the bible is?!"
The language in the book is explicit… It explicitly sanctions owning other human beings as property that can be passed on to future generations. It tells you who you can enslave and how much to pay for them. However you “read” that, it is morally wrong to own another person as property. If you say I’m reading it out of context, I have to ask, in what context is it moral?
If you just pass it off as old covenant, when Jesus came along it would have been easy for him to say “by the way, owning other people is wrong”, but instead he told slaves to obey their masters. He condoned old testament slavery and said until heaven and earth pass, neither a jot nor tittle shall pass from the law. So the new covenant copout fails too.
Remember, this was a practice that was justified by this evil religion in the not-too-distant past.
Slavery is just one example of explicit sanctioning of immoral acts in the Bible.
Thank goodness the vast majority of Christians don’t actually accept the evil in their book anymore. It shows they are morally superior to the primitive cretins who wrote it. It’s probably time they recognize it’s not a book to call holy and even the good things they cherry-pick out of it are things that no one should have to be told by an authority. If they need a holy book to tell them not to kill, they should be locked up for everyone’s safety.
Okay, I’m calling you on this: where exactly does Jesus “condone slavery”? Chapter and verse please? (And don’t rely on some rubbishy recent translation either; we need to look at the original languages here. I suspect there was a much more complex concept of citizenship within the historical context of the Roman Empire in Palestine.)
I think you have also fundamentally misunderstood the point about “jot and tittle passing from the law”. The whole point, really, of the New Testament is that Jesus came to fulfil the law for men. But that’s another tangent.
(…) And don’t rely on some rubbishy translation either; we need to look at the original languages here. (…)
But, honestly Jay, if he were to look at the original wouldn’t the two of you have to translate it for us to understand what you are talking about. How could we then trust your translations if we are not supposed to trust the translations that have been sanctioned for ages by the highest representatives of the various religious groups?
It is well known that there have been lots of incorrect translations, but the main “story” is not really affected thereby, is it?
(…) Okay, I’m calling you on this: where exactly does Jesus “condone slavery”? (…)
If he says that slaves should obey their masters, isn’t that what he is doing? I mean he is said to have been so outspoken about many other things, why couldn’t he have been more explicit in this respect if he really was against it. Just remember the scene where they describe how angry he got because people had turned the Temple into some kind of bazaar. He shouted, threw people out of the temple, destroyed their tables etc.
That shows that if he was serious about something he was also quite outspoken about it. Why not say clearly “slavery is WRONG!”
That’s one of the things I don’t understand about the Bible. I mean if it can tell us what to eat and what not to eat, what to wear and what not to wear, who to love and who not to love, why can’t it be just as explicit about other things like slavery etc.?
I suspect, however, that we are not given the “whole truth” anyway since there are many scriptures that were not included into the “holy book” and again it was humans who decided what would be included and what not. Even if one were to accept that the Bible was written with the Holy Ghost inspiring those writing it, the question is what motives the people had who decided which documents would be considered part of the Bible and which not.
(…) within the historical context (…)
I wish people would keep that in mind when quoting many other passages from the Bible (divorced people, women’s role in the church, contraception, same sex relationships …). But whenever it comes to “condemning” certain life styles, I keep hearing them say: THAT IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS. THAT IS THE WORD OF GOD.
ad Robert:
“…If he says that slaves should obey their masters, isn’t that what he is doing?..”
No, what he is doing is telling “slaves” in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that it wouldn’t be good for their health to rebel against Roman law!
I’m not an expert on Roman history, but I’m pretty sure that “slaves” in the Roman context were not exactly the same as what we think of as slaves today. It wasn’t based on ethnicity, people could sell themselves into slavery, and there was an established mechanism by which slaves could become free citizens. (NB I’m not defending it - that’s just the way it was in the Roman empire.)
If god didn’t get it wrong the first time we wouldn’t need the new testament. Unfortunately he also got that wrong so he wrote the quran.
According to the religion, Jesus IS God, right? So every passage about slavery in the Old and New Testament can be attributed to “him”. Especially considering slavery still appears in the New Testament and Jesus never denounces it.
He should be shouting and breaking tables over such atrocities as slavery, not the defacement of his temple!
I’m not here to defend the Quran, BTW
I think my idea of O.T. slavery amongst the Hebrews is that it didn’t have the same connotation as it has today. The O.T. does mention horrible slavery conditions that the Israelites were subjected to by other nations.
But amongst the Hebrews, to me it seems it was more a forerunner of the employer/employee system. I don’t necessarily agree with everything, but It seemed to be a normal feature of the economy, and was regulated. Note that there was automatic manumission during the 7th year, and during the Jubilee year. Note too that historically slavery seemed to be practiced in at least Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures too, as an integral part of commerce in the day.
There is much I don’t understand. Much will remain a mystery. At face value several rules & regulations from Leviticus, for example, re cleansing et cetera, seem downright absurd in the light of our day. Consider, however, that we know more today about the sources of infection and pollution, about quarantine and isolation, hygiene and preventative medicine. Germs weren’t even discovered until something like 1860!! I find that quite astounding. Against that backdrop we can look at the regulations in a new light.
Think of how many lives would have been saved if god had just included the recipe for penicillin in the bible. He must have forgotten to write that verse down
@LFJ - Jesus did not throw a hissy-fit “over the defacement of his temple”! He was angry because the money changers and traders were extorting poor people, and the priests were turning a blind eye. Jesus was protesting at the dishonesty, hypocrisy and prejudice in that time in the heart of Israel’s religious life.
ad Jay: (…) No, what he is doing is telling “slaves” in the Roman Empire 2000 years ago that it wouldn’t be good for their health to rebel against Roman law! (…)
Isn’t that tantamount to telling women not to “rebel” against their oppressors in some countries because this “wouldn’t be good for their health” instead of clearly saying: Stop treating them like you owned them!
By the way, your line of argumentation is not new to me (and I don’t mean that in any sarcastic way). I’ve heard many people say that Jesus supposedly was quite progressive because he actually seemed to care about the slaves. But I’m pretty sure there were people at that time, maybe even non-believers, who explictly spoke out against slavery. After all, slavery was not abolished because of the Church or what was written in the Bible but because “ordinary people” (some were believers, others were not) stood up against it and sometimes even sacrificed their lives.
ad Julz: Interesting what you had to say about how slavery was conceived by the Israelites/Hebrews in those days. I’ll try to look that up. It certainly is worth doing some more reading up on that.
(…) Note too that historically slavery seemed to be practiced in at least Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures too, as an integral part of commerce in the day. (…)
Hmh, but shouldn’t Jesus have been able to free himself from that historical context? I mean, either we have a dignity as human beings or we don’t. If I am supposed to have one today, the people in Biblical times must have had exactly the same kind of dignity.
Some things might have been viewed differently, but there can be no doubt about the fact that no matter what kind of “light version of slavery” the Bible was talking about, it still was not something one human being should force upon another.
You and Jay are good examples for me that we can perfectly live in peace with each other despite our differences. The two of you seem to be very serious about your religion, and I’m totally fine with that. I have not heard anyone of you say anything that I’d view as a threat to my position as a non-believer in today’s society.
As for the Bible, I have to admit I don’t feel like arming myself with tons of other books or calling upon theologists to understand the meaning of a book that supposedly was written for ordinary people. If somebody wants to tell me something, including God, he needs to talk to me in a way I understand and not in permanent riddles.
I have to say though that I have met quite a few religious people who have inspired me by their deeds. All of them, however, would immediately discard about 90 % of the Christian dogmas. Maybe I should not call them religious people but believers.
@Julz611: “Jesus did not throw a hissy-fit ‘over the defacement of his temple’! He was angry because the money changers and traders were extorting poor people, and the priests were turning a blind eye. Jesus was protesting at the dishonesty, hypocrisy and prejudice in that time in the heart of Israel’s religious life.”
Yet he turned around and condoned slavery, telling the slaves to obey their masters no matter how cruel they were, rather than to revolt like a true moral leader would. Sure he cares about the poor and hates dishonesty, hypocrisy and prejudice… Remember, the slaves were allowed to be brutally beaten to death by law so long as they didn’t die within the first day or two. This honestly sounds like a pleasant kind of employer/employee system to you?
“Note that there was automatic manumission during the 7th year, and during the Jubilee year.”
If the slave got a wife from the master and had kids, only the salve would be free to go but the wife and kids would belong to the master. The only way for the slave to keep his family would be to have the master pierce his ear with an awl and own him as property for the rest of his life.
“Note too that historically slavery seemed to be practiced in at least Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman cultures too, as an integral part of commerce in the day.”
No matter how many cultures did it, it doesn’t ever make owning another human being as property moral!
ad LFJ: I’m truly impressed by your detailed knowledge, I really am.
ad Robert: “…Isn’t that tantamount to telling women not to “rebel” against their oppressors in some countries because this “wouldn’t be good for their health” instead of clearly saying: Stop treating them like you owned them!..”
The thing is, I don’t think Jesus was calling for change through rebellion or violent upheavals in society. (I think we can see all too clearly today why this is a bad thing - lots of innocent people are inevitably going to suffer and die if order breaks down.)
Yet, things DID change - the mighty Roman empire gradually faded and broke apart. Maybe it could be argued that change best comes gradually through affecting the hearts and minds of more and more people?
“…90% of Christian dogmas…”
Well many of these dogmas were cooked up by the church - specifically the Catholic church. In my opinion it’s (once again!) very often a case of the dogmas having ‘nichts mit der Bibel zu tun!’ 
@LFJ: “…yet he turned around and condoned slavery, telling the slaves to obey their masters no matter how cruel they were…”
It’s just so easy to keep throwing out allegations like this, isn’t it?
But I ask you again, LFJ, where is your exact basis for this? Chapter and verse?
@LFJ - I am not ignorant of the information you raised; that’s why I said I didn’t agree with everything. By the way, why do you view the awl ear-piercing in such a negative light? In my reading of it, the slave willingly had his ear pierced as a symbol that he voluntarily chose to stay with his master, even though he could have chosen freedom after 7 years. And it looks like you got your info off Wikipedia, no offence.
Maybe you could Google “ebed”, and you’ll see it denoted not only household or production slaves, but also persons in subordinate positions. Thus ebed is sometimes translated as “servant”. The Hebrews called themselves slaves of Moses and the prophets when addressing them. Ruth referred to herself as a slave girl of her relative Boaz - if you’ve read the whole book, you’ll know she wasn’t literally his slave.
Slavery in the Bible is a very complex issue, not meaning to sound like a cop-out. I’m certain though it had a very different construct from the connotations it has for us today.
I also didn’t mean to imply that something is okay just because it’s widely practised. Widespread practice of child-brides or female genital mutilation, for example, doesn’t make it right.
I don’t reckon you’ll ever understand that I view the N.T. advice given to slaves more akin to contemporary good advice about work ethic for day’s employers and employees. The Apostle Paul told the employer “masters” to serve their employees “slaves” in the same way or even better than brothers, and not to threaten them. Elsewhere Paul tells a guy called Philemon to treat his slave Onesimus as a beloved brother, and even as he would treat Paul himself.
I don’t know why Paul didn’t take the opportunity to tell Philemon that he had an obligation to manumit Onesimus, etc. Again, it’s complicated by the fact that seemingly in the N.T. all socio-economic institutions were neutral - they can be used for good or woefully abused.
You will certainly not understand that I choose to be a “slave” of Christ, because the word “slave” instantly has a negative connotation to non-believers. Jesus is my Lord and Master. That would be totally incomprehensible to you. Your mindset would conjure up images of blind servitude and what-not.
@Robert, with respect, one thing that comes to mind is that there wasn’t arbitration and union movements then like we have for today’s employees.