At the cost of thousands of deaths, enslavement and I’m not sure the building of any tomb, temple or church is an achievement.
We do not need religion to have morals - they were built into us as a part of our evolution.
Agreed that stupidity knowns no social, gender, economic or religious bounds…
It’s a line from Dawkins, we’ll never know what Michelangelo’s evolution or quantum physics looks like as it was the church that had the power and money in his day. That money and power did not come from upright and moral conduct. Yes, I get your point. I really like old churches but worth it? Valuable? A benefit to society at their cost? Questionable.
I commented on what you said about women being allowed to teach in the Bible. Since I did that, you have widened the frame of reference to try to make me answer this question. It feels like a bait and switch. I commented on x. But you now want me to answer y?
Still, in good faith, I could offer my viewpoint.
Before I do, I want to make clear, you don’t believe in any divinity, right? And you said earlier that the Bible was an abhorrent rag. So your perspective is pretty clear, and you are entitled to it!
I can offer my view, but first please tell me what you mean by “divine word of god” so I’m clear on what you have in mind by the words you are using. Cheers.
For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not playing a game with asking for clarity here.
Off the top of my head there are many ways to interpret the phrase “divine word of god.” For example: Do you mean inspired? Do you mean inspired in a literal sense, as in God-breathed, or inspired in the usual way we might use that word? Do you mean inerrant? Do you mean infallible? Do you mean reliable? Do you mean historic? Do you mean audibly spoken by God? Do you mean actually physically written down by God? Do you mean written down by different people in different times and places throughout history, but inspired by God? Are you asking if it is all to be taken literally? Are you asking if it is to be treated as authoritative? And authoritative for what? And authoritative for whom? Everyone, or a particular covenant people? And are all parts equally authoritative?
There are so many ways that the question could go. So please tell me what you mean by the words you use when you ask “is the Bible the divine word of god or not?”
When I know what you are getting at, I will give you my perspective. Thanks.
I vaguely remember earlier in the thread - it has been a long time - there was a good section on the contribution of religion to cultural advancement throughout history. But it all got a bit circular. So one person would say that the church, for example, is responsible for establishing some of the leading universities in the world, advancing the cause of medicine, setting up hospitals, feeding the poor, and advancing architecture with some amazing buildings. (When I say the church, I might easily also say Islam, or another great religion that has had a significant cultural impact, but I am more familiar with the church in the history of the western world).
So that would be one side of the discussion.
But then the other side would be quick to say, but what about the shit things that were done in the name of religion?
And then around and around we go….
It’s pretty clear what Klopptimist is asking. He’s not the type to beat about the (burning) bush.
Many Christians believe that the bible is the word of God. His thoughts channelled through scribes and not to be questioned in any way.
If so, why is it full of inconsistencies and dubious instructions? If God is all knowing, why didn’t he just say women are equal to men, or homosexuality is fine? Why leave it open to (mis)interpretation?
If it’s not the word of God, what’s the point of it at all?
Nailed it.
Klopptimist, in your own words, what are you saying?
I gave a lot of texture as to some of the things I thought you might mean, but I am genuinely not sure.
OK, let’s try this. On my phone so briefer than a keyboard would enable.
Do you believe that god itself wrote / influenced through humans the whole of the bible?
It feels like the start of a circular logic type of argument to confirm preexisting bias.
Edit:
I should also add that we don’t have the same concepts in mind when we use religious language. When you say “god itself” I don’t know who you are talking about.
I guess what I am saying is it’s difficult to imagine a world as if religion had never existed. From Marvel movies using various gods, to Elvis being influenced by gospel music. It’s like trying to imagine what Liverpool football club would look like today if Shankly had never joined.
I absolutely agree that morals exist without religion. But I think it works both ways. Wars happen simply because of the perception of difference. Riwanda is a great example. The people separated artificially not because of culture, or religion but economics. It all ended in genocide. Many of the wars fought in the name of religion I think would have occurred as a primary motive was greed/land/power. Different wars I think would have occurred in place of those that didn’t.
I generally see religion as a construct . It’s like forms of government. We could say socialism/capitalism/communism/ monarchies are all bad. While they all have their basis in good, but have also all lead to shitty outcomes. At a philosophical level do the benefits of government outweigh the loss of life and suffering they have caused ? (to draw parallels)
What I am trying to say I guess is some things are the nature of man, rather than the nature of religion.
There are lots of shitty things done in the name of religion, some views are abhorrent. Moving forward I generally view them as less and less relevant. But historically they served a key role in the development of man.
If you answer the questions, which is nigh on impossible, the question will just change.
Its how some debates on social media seem to work.
I had an exchange with an anti masker/vaxer who sought peer reviewed evidence of the efficacy of wearing face coverings to prevent the soread of virus. Six studies later she demanded random control trial studies.
The same things happened on the Bias/Conspiracy thread on TIA. When cogent argument and “proof/evidence” was submitted then the requirement changed. Because you will not convince people who are entrenched in their belief.
I am including myself in that, for fear anyone needs to point that out.
No matter what you answer regarding the word of God, @Klopptimist is going to glibly walk all over it and pick holes in it.
Thats the way it is, and he COULD be correct!
He has studied something for 30 years, you only did a degree!
I’m not making the assumption that god is male. Feel free to define your concept of god then give the answer 
I don’t understand why the question is impossible to answer. It’s really simple.
Bible. Word of God. Yes or no?
Well, just a GCSE and A Level (both A) Only did the A level as it was a free hit.
Then
Can you answer the question that you posed?
Is it the divine word?
Is it written by God?
Is it written by men?
Is it a revised text?
Is it a blueprint for living?
Is it taken literally?
Is in an interpretation?
Did God exist or is this a work of fiction?
Was the Bible written by society leaders to gain control?
Did Jesus commence a conversation?
Is it transferable to contemprary times?
Does/did God exist?
Simple?
Yes. No.
From the top. I can’t state these things as facts as I don’t claim that god or gods don’t exist.
No
No
Obviously
Yes
No
Yes
Mostly
Fiction
Absolutely about control
I don’t believe he (as an individual) existed
No
No
I can. The bible is not the word of God because God does not exist.
The bible was written by some desert nomads thousands of years ago in order to explain their world and keep their people under control.
It is a work of fiction.
Fucking woah there.
You’re drawing an equivalence between the anti-vax movement and atheists with regard to entrenched views? That’s very naughty.
Every atheist I know, and every one of us in thread have been very clear that we would change our viewpoint in a heartbeat if you provide us with evidence.
The anti-vaxers don’t believe in evidence and science. There is one side of the debate this applies to more, and it isn’t me and Klopptimist.