Confused about the Bible... Atheism doesn't seem as crazy as it used to

[rose.gold]

I’m sure there are a million threads similar to this already but I just have to get this outta my head. I have a very strong faith and I know I have more reasons to believe in God than to not.
But after seeing so many atheists’ arguments and their criticisms of certain bible verses and such, I really can understand why someone who lacks the gift of faith would not believe in God. I really don’t see how I can blame them or how they could be at fault for denying God’s existence (at least the God of the Bible anyway) after seeing some of the questionable passages in the Bible (specifically genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, etc- usual atheist complaints). Another thing that confuses me is why the Bible doesn’t condemn certain things that are obviously wrong such as slavery and pedophilia. It just seems that sometimes in the Bible, God allows things that are very obviously wrong or just doesn’t condemn them when it would be very easy to do so. As God exists outside of time, He would be able to see the future arguments atheists use to criticize the Bible. So why wouldn’t He avoid this by not giving them anything to criticize? (Obviously people can find a way to criticize anything, but I think you get my point).
I’m just so lost and sad that everything has to be so confusing lol. I know that was a bit of a rant but I’d appreciate any help understanding this. Thanks so much. God bless.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

In my experience, a lot of these latter day Bible malcontents are okay with bad behavior for themselves, but not for God.

For instance, abortion okay, but God better not decide who lives or who dies.

Okay to use women for sex or enjoy porn, but real mad about mistreatment of women in the Bible.

 

[Guest1]

genocide

Do you mean when God commands the taking of life or does it Himself?
Since God is the Author of live He alone is morally allowed to take it. It’s like If I made a painting and you burned it that would be wrong because it’s not yours.
But if I destroy my own painting there’s nothing wrong with that.

rape, mistreatment of women
Where?

Another thing that confuses me is why the Bible doesn’t condemn certain things that are obviously wrong such as slavery and pedophilia

Slavery - Do you know of the story of Sparticus? It didn’t fair well.
Remember what it took for people in America to get rid of slavery. A war. Death.

Matthew 19:1-8
New International Version
Divorce
19 When Jesus had finished saying these things, he left Galilee and went into the region of Judea to the other side of the Jordan. 2 Large crowds followed him, and he healed them there.

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”

4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”

8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.

Keep this in mind when reading the Old Covenant law.

The Bible Is Not Silent on Slavery | Catholic Answers Magazine

Regarding Pedophilia I’m wondering if a priest would answer you that it falls under the love your neighbor commandment. I think I can try to find an RCIA video about the 10 commandments meaning more that just what they say on surface level.

 

[Guest1]

Start around 56:00

 

[lwest]

God reveals through the Bible the fall of man, the ugliness of sin, the need for a Redeemer, the fulfillment in Christ Jesus. So, yeah, sin is mentioned in the Bible. Where does God condone it?

 

[Dan_Defender]

I really don’t see how I can blame them or how they could be at fault for denying God’s existence (at least the God of the Bible anyway) after seeing some of the questionable passages in the Bible (specifically genocide, rape, mistreatment of women, etc- usual atheist complaints).

I disagree. ‘Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.’ - St John Henry Newman

 

[drac16]

Jesus didn’t explicitly forbid necrophilia, but that doesn’t mean that we are permitted to have sex with dead bodies.

 

[Freddy]

I’m sure there are a million threads similar to this already…

Now I’m an atheist, Rose. So bear that in mind when you read what I write…

The bible was written in a place and at a time when life was a lot different. It was written by different peope, each with a message to pass on. So it will contain descriptions of what we would consider today to be wrong. It will contain contradictions. It will contain stories that are meant to be read metaphorically and some that are to be understood literally. It will suggest punishments that we would now consider abhorrent. It will paint a picture of God that can be loving and kind and also angry and wrathfull.

Now some atheists may point out all of this to you (hey, I just did), and then use it as an argument against Christianity. Or at least, that’s what most Christians might tell you. But most atheists will be arguing against something that any given Christian might have suggested is correct ‘because it says so in the bible’ (an obvious example is six day creationism). And the atheist will argue that not everything in tbe bible is either meant to be taken literally or is applicable today.

When Jesus prevented a woman from being stoned to death, he said ‘those of you who are free from sin can cast the first stone’. Not ‘this is barbaric!’ Because stoning to death for what we would consider to be minor indiscretions was quite usual. As was nailing someone to a cross and leaving them to die for the crime of theft. We should read these various passages as they were written, when they were written and appreciate for whom they were written.

Now all this smacks of relativism. Which is anethema to most Catholics. But that’s my view. That you should treat the bible as a guide and not as a rule book. Get into an argument with an atheist where you take the position that everything in the bible happened exactly as written and you will lose a lot more arguments than you win. And you may end up questioning your faith, as you say. But only if your faith depends on reading it exactly as written.

You seem to have a strong faith. It shouldn’t be weakened by someone pointing out discrepancies in scripture.

Anyway, that’s my view for what it’s worth. I’m sure you’ll get good advice from everyone else.

 

[FiveLinden]

Another atheist here (at least I call myself one here so people won’t keep saying ‘ha! you are an athiest’ when I say I do not believe.

Anyway it is clear to me that a Christian who bases their beliefs on the Bible alone is in deep trouble because of the things you mention. Catholics have an easier time because they a rely not so much on the Bible but on tradition and Church teaching. This greatly reduces the difficulties because you no longer have to explain away the fact of evolution, or that there is not water held back by the sky. Many difficulties remain but in general the Church simply declares them to be a ‘mystery’.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

after seeing so many atheists’ arguments and their criticisms of certain bible verses and such, I really can understand why someone who lacks the gift of faith would not believe in God.

Two things I like about this statement: 1) communication is most effective when each party can understand why the other believes the way they do, even if they do not agree with that belief. An empathetic understanding is an excellent starting position from which to engage the subject of faith. If we are dismissive, the other person won’t feel heard and it shuts down communication, resulting in a lost opportunity to share the faith. You’re in an excellent position to really impact nonbelievers by virtue of the fact you can understand why they have come to their conclusions. 2) you mention ‘the gift of faith’. Whilst we always have the choice to accept or reject the offering, faith indeed is a gift. The wisdom of God is foolishness to the world and we truly must have eyes to see and ears to hear to receive and embrace the faith.

Catholics have an easier time because they a rely not so much on the Bible but on tradition and Church teaching. This greatly reduces the difficulties because you no longer have to explain away the fact of evolution, or that there is not water held back by the sky.

This is an excellent point. I struggled with many things as an evangelical, but what you mention here was a huge issue for me.

 

[Maximian]

Now all this smacks of relativism. Which is anethema to most Catholics. But that’s my view.

Im often impresed by the way that thinking atheists like you understand the logic of these things better than so many Catholics. Yes, it is relativism, which is completely consistent with atheism. The corollary is that, if one day you conclude that moral values exist objectively , you will have a very good chance of accepting the logical consequence - that God exists. Im going to pray that you reach this conclusion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Now all this smacks of relativism. Which is anethema to most Catholics. But that’s my view.

Im often impresed by the way that thinking atheists like you understand the logic of these things better than so many Catholics. Yes, it is relativism, which is completely consistent with atheism. The corollary is that, if one day you conclude that moral values exist objectively , you will have a very good chance of accepting the logical consequence - that God exists. Im going to pray that you reach this conclusion.

Moral values? You mean like kindness and honesty? Well, yeah. They are objectively good. By definition. I have no problem with that. You’d have to have a poor grasp of English or an extremely wierd set of moral values if you said that honesty, in itself, was a bad thing. But that isn’t relativism.

Relativism is when honesty is not the best policy. When it is better to be dishonest than to tell the truth. Although what some Catholics say is that, well…I guess there are occasions when the right think to do is lie…but it’s still a sin. And I have no problem with that. But others say that, no - it’s never allowed. Which, in some circumstances (‘there’s no-one in the basement’), is nonsensical to my mind.

So values? Yep, objective. But it’s how you utilise those values is what matters. It’s moral acts that are not objective. They are dependent on the circumstances. Dependent on the situation. Dependent on a variety of factors which need to be determined. Which leads to different interpretations as to whether an act was morally acceptable or not.

And if you and I disagree, then how do we determine who is correct (assuming it’s not a matter already determined by the Church)?

 

[Maximian]

They are objectively good. By definition. I

If so, how do you explain their existence?

If they are not subjective and a matter of personal or democratic choice, who has fixed them?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

They are objectively good. By definition. I

If so, how do you explain their existence?

If they are not subjective and a matter of personal or democratic choice, who has fixed them?

Let’s take honesty. If that wasn’t a norm, if nobody thought twice about being dishonest, then what do you think would happen to society? If you were dishonest with your wife and your friends, your colleagues and your clients and they were dishonest with you, do you think that society would effectively collapse? I’ll save some back and forth and assume that you’d agree with me that normal interactions at all levels would cease to have any meaning.

Now let’s look at the corollary.

Do you think any meaningful society could possibly emerge if everyone was dishonest? Not a chance. But what if some people were honest with each other? You’d be able to rely on simple transactions. You’d feel as if you could trust people. You’d have a tendency to group with those people and avoid those who didn’t pay you back in some way for anything you’d done for them. You’d have the beginings of a social group.

Now some people are naturally gregarious. Some are naturally mean. Some are natural brave and some cowardly. Some are trusting and some are not. This is generally a toss of the genetic dice. So those who were generally honest found that being in a group with like-minded people was a benefit. And the group would grow largerwith other like minded people joining. And those who were dishonest were excluded.

Honesty became a positive characteristic. That is, it enabled societies to form. And most people within that society had that characteristic. So it became described as being a good thing. And…we are here as proof of that. If it turned out to be a negative effect then we wouldn’t.

What works is good. What doesn’t isn’t.

 

[Maximian]

Let’s take honesty. If that wasn’t a norm, if nobody thought twice about being dishonest, then what do you think would happen to society?

It’s a good argument but it’s your view. That is a subjective view of honesty. There are plenty of people who in good faith believe it is right to tell a white lie in the interests of a greater good.

For honesty to be an objective moral imperative , you have to explain why it should be good even when most people might think otherwise.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Let’s take honesty. If that wasn’t a norm, if nobody thought twice about being dishonest, then what do you think would happen to society?

It’s a good argument but it’s your view. That is a subjective view of honesty. There are plenty of people who in good faith believe it is right to tell a white lie in the interests of a greater good.

For honesty to be an objective moral imperative , you have to explain why it should be good even when most people might think otherwise.

Didn’t I just do that?

The vast majority are honest. It’s expected of you. Your boss, your wife, your kids, your friends…everyone. Even people who take advantage by being dishonest know that they are doing wrong and generally try to hide the fact that they are acting dishonestly. And it’s good to be honest because that was what worked. Things that didn’t aren’t.

Don’t misunderstand me. We don’t do good things because they are good. We do them because they work and we then describe characteristics that are in line with what works as being good.

Let me use an example I have used before. Incest is wrong. And it’s wrong not because someone decided that. It’s wrong because we wouldn’t be here if it was acceptable. It causes too many problems from a genetic standpoint. So those who thought it might have been fine were removed from the gene pool. And those who thought it wasn’t a great idea went on to form societies. And here’s the uncomfortable clincher. If incest was an evolutionary benefit, then it would be the norm. Those who thought it was a bad idea would be the ones removed from the gene pool.

 

[o_mlly]

I really can understand why someone who lacks the gift of faith would not believe in God.

Absent faith, one cannot believe in God. The question is: Why does one lack faith? Either God withheld the gift or the one who lacks faith rejected it. A loving God eliminates the former as possible.

Why does one reject God? Adam rejected God out of pride; he wanted to be his own God. The atheists can speak for themselves but as you read their arguments for rejecting God, think of Adam. Do they simply wish to be their own God?

 

[PickyPicky]

I’m just so lost and sad that everything has to be so confusing

Please don’t let the arguments of atheists, good or bad, make you feel lost or sad. You say atheism doesn’t seem as crazy as it used to. That’s good, because atheism isn’t crazy. That doesn’t mean it is true, but to come to a realisation that it isn’t crazy is simply to cast off the blinkers and see it for what it is: another set of opinions, another way of viewing the world. You have a very strong faith and that’s great. Statements like these:

I really can understand why someone who lacks the gift of faith would not believe in God.

I really don’t see how I can blame them

simply show you have an intelligent, adult way of approaching these questions. Atheists may be wrong – your strong faith tells you they (we atheists) are wrong. That doesn’t mean they are to be blamed. We can live together in mutual respect, understanding each other’s standpoints.

 

[fhansen]

I’m just so lost and sad that everything has to be so confusing lol. I know that was a bit of a rant but I’d appreciate any help understanding this. Thanks so much. God bless.

From the catechism:
108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”. If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."

Catholicism understands the faith by understanding the God whom Jesus, first and foremost, revealed. Scriptural interpretations by individuals vary. And not everything attributed to God in the Old Testament is necessarily accurately attributed, or historical and cultural context can affect proper understanding of passages. In any case the Church teaches that,
“the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72 CCC 107

 

[bpd_stl]

Anyway it is clear to me that a Christian who bases their beliefs on the Bible alone is in deep trouble because of the things you mention. Catholics have an easier time because they a rely not so much on the Bible but on tradition and Church teaching. This greatly reduces the difficulties because you no longer have to explain away the fact of evolution, or that there is not water held back by the sky. Many difficulties remain but in general the Church simply declares them to be a ‘mystery’.

I would mostly agree on this point.

Just as some Christians paint with broad brushstrokes of generalizations that “all atheists say/believe/think…” The inverse is also true true.

A common error made by many low-information atheists is that all Christians hold to a literal interpretation of Scripture as it was a “requirement” for being a Christian. I have personally experienced this numerous times throughout my life. The sad part of it was…that was all that they had in way of argument, other than ad hominem attacks. I know because I myself went through my own period of low-information atheism in my 20’s.