THE ANGRY OLD MAN

IN RESPONSE

 

 

HOME

INTRO

HUMOR

ESSAY

COMMENTS

PREV.

NEXT

After one of our discussions on religion the person 
I was with  gave me the pamphlet "WHAT ABOUT 
THE BIBLE", a religious tract that his wife gave him 
to give to me. After reading it I sat down and in 
response I wrote up the following answer to the 
material in the pamphlet. I asked him to take it 
home to his wife. Needless to say, he didn't. Neither 
one of them will accept, or even read anything that 
disagrees with their narrow view.

This is in response to the pamphlet 
"WHAT ABOUT THE BIBLE"
A fundamental and basic difference that separates 
 me from the orthodox Christians and which more than
 likely precludes any serious discussion on the subject
 is that I do not blindly accept the bible as the infallible
 word of God. I agree with the statement in the pamphlet
 that the Bible is a collection of books...and the bible is
 the foundation and touchstone for everything that the
 church believes, teaches and practices. But to claim,
 with undying certainty, that every word was inspired
 by God is both illogical and irrational. Such an 
 acceptance and belief is based on faith rather than
 any proof or solid evidence.
Such self-proclamations of correctness and 
 righteousness that is used to validate the Bible do not
 mean that it's so. China's Mao Tse-tung in his little red
 book made such claims. As did Hitler in Mein Kampf.
 Whatever religious holy book or teachings you examine,
 this self-proclamation of correctness and
 righteousness is present.
The Bible is a collection of books, but a collection
  that was selected from a much larger collection of
  books from that period of history. The individuals
  that wrote, as well as the individuals that selected
  the 66 books of the Bible, all had an agenda and a
  philosophy which they were promoting. It would be
  nonsense to expect them to write or select writings
  that didn't agree with that philosophy.
You also have to take into account those individuals
  who, over the years, have attempted to translate and
  interpret the Bible. They also have an agenda and a
  philosophy to promote. A result of this built in bias can
  be seen in the variety of Bible versions and
  interpretations as well as the numerous denominations
  within the Christian camp alone.
One example of this agenda/persuasion driven effect is
  the current attempt to interpret the Dead Sea Scrolls.
  Teams of scholars have been working on this for years
  without any concrete results. Because of their various
  and often conflicting agendas and belief systems
  they spend months on deciding the meaning of a single
  word. Not that they don't know what that word means,
  but they can't agree, within their individual bias', on
  how to use it. Thus we have a collection of com-
 promises which don't solve or help solve the effort.
The bottom line, as they like to say today, is that belief
  in the Bible is based on one's faith and need. Despite
  all the claims to the contrary, no one KNOWS what
  transpired 2000 years ago. We think, we believe and
  we accept, but we do not know. We can speculate,
  postulate and make all sorts of claims, but in reality,
  no one knows the how, why or when of mans' origin.
  And for the vast majority, this is intolerable. 
Thus man invented religions, a vast array of them.
  Religion is a creation of man for man (generic
  speaking) to help explain the unknown. But the
  unknown remains unknown.