Is The Bible worth reading in its entirety for atheists?

Is The Bible worth reading in its entirety for atheists?

Yep. Most culturally influential and historically relevant book to ever grace this planet.

>atheists

This. Read the bible to know what NOT to do.

didnt richard dawkins (living meme) say that the only book you need to read to become an atheist is the bible?

It was also the only book I needed to read to become a devout Catholic.

Yes but its unfortunate. Its necessary to understanding a lot of elements in literature, especially allusions. However the book itself is turgid, tedious, thoroughly morose and very little of it offers much in the way of insight. There are some fairly unintentionally hilarious parts though. Like everything involving Samson.

>implying the Catholic Church wants you to read anything really

>Most influential book of mankind
>The backbone of western civilization
Is it worth checking out guise xd?

...

>Catholic
>Reading the Bible
You heretic.

thank you for apprising me of your anger.

Not really. If you aren't culturally illiterate, you already know most of it.

He said in its entirety. It sounds like you are saying specific parts are worth reading

well I guess you could get away with skipping 2 Kings or something. Basically the list of things that might be referenced is so long you might as well read the whole book.

It wouldn't hurt for you to understand what you're rejecting.

this

It's not even worth it for believers

What is a pearl worth to a swine?

What books in OT is worth reading? I've tried reading OT from cover to cover but I can't get through Book of Deuteronomy.

Read the beautiful stuff: Ecclesiastes, Job, Song of Solomon, proverbs

Read Isaiah, the only prophetic work required to fully understand the weight of the NT

The rest is mostly Jewish history, which is interesting. Besides genesis and exodus the Torah is pretty hard to get through and mostly outlines Jewish traditions and laws which Christians don't have to follow.

Why is it that so many atheists are unable to tell the difference between "this is what happened" and "here is how humans ought to behave?" One is a historical retelling of events that happened and the other is a moral prescription. Not every historical retelling is a moral prescription.

Thanks a ton I'll read all of your suggestions.

this

to be honest, I don't see any inteligent allusions in that book, it's just fantasy book made to control masses

>Made for God to control the masses

ftfy

repent

Are you saying that the hundreds of different writers separated by thousands of years were all united by an overarching objective of controlling the masses through their writings? You must have good reasons to believe such a claim.

I am the Rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.

I know that you're just shitposting, but that's still a shockingly garbage opinion.

...

>I am not a Muslim, but I want to read the Quran.
>I am not a Buddhist, but I wish to speak to one to learn of their beliefs.
>I am not an atheist, but provided they are not obnoxious and pushy about their beliefs or non-beliefs nor do they insult me and berate me for my own then I am willing to hear them out.
>I am an Anglican Christian, I am learning of the Bible and I am open to hearing the Roman Catholic and Protestant side of things.

Whatever your belief, if you think religion is at all an important thing, then you should learn of other's beliefs as well as your own, and do so with an open mind. Do not seek specifically the bad in others and only the good in yours, but both. Leviticus Chapter 20, I'm sure any aggressive atheist worth their salt is familiar with it, specifically 20:13. What they likely DON'T know is that Jesus Christ himself goes against putting people to death or even stonings. Leviticus is in the Old Testament and we should look to the Old through the lens of the New, and through the lens of Jesus Christ.

Also, a tea kettle in the asteroid belt, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, I don't care what anyone's beliefs are as long as they don't try to push them on me, and likewise, I shall not push my beliefs on others. I guess you could call me a Christian agnostic?

As for Islam, from what I've learned thus far... I'm mostly in the camp of it being a religion of hate, distrust, religious discrimination, and conflict. Unlike Christianity, which as I learn more, thanks to Jesus Christ, it has developed into a religion of tolerance and love. Yes, there is the 'Westborough Baptist Church', and they are our extremists. At least they don't fucking kill anyone, even if they are supreme and utter assholes if they're indeed the ones holding those "God Hates Fags" or "God Loves Dead Soldiers" signs or whatever. They do not represent the majority of Christians. Gay marriage becoming legal across so much of Christian-dominated western society represents the majority of Christians, but if ANY Christians start to perform terrorist attacks, then I will accept stricter airport security, and would understand travel bans to nations with large populations of specific branches of Christianity.

>implying religion is about the bible.

Deus Vult brother!

You're not a proper Atheist if you didn't read it. How would you go arguing religion if you didn't read it's foundation?

simply untrue. have you read it lol

jews

>as long as they don't try to push them on me

That's the thing with most religions, you're part of it the moment you're born. You do not get a choice.

If a choice was not present then there would be no such thing as atheist or agnostic. Similarly if homosexuality was hereditary then it would not exist for all children are born from heterosexual relations or scientific application of aspects of both sexes. No?

I didn't know that freedom necessarily needs god or religion

The Bible is the greatest trigger for atheism.

Essential reading.

I can't make any sense of this.

then go back to elementary school, I'm not your babysitter

Yes, I'd pick a more modern version though like ESV or NIV. Unless you like old English sounding stuff. But for me it's harder to read

If you haven't read the bible you have no business speaking about any subject in Western philosophy or history. It is essentially mandatory. I have no religious background whatsoever but I have read it. It's a fascinating piece.

It doesn't. That has no bearing whatsoever on what was being said though.

It doesn't make any sense to me because nobody is talking about freedom in relation to the existence of God. If my reply to you consisted of nothing but talk of French fries you would rightly be confused, not because the reply is saying something intelligent or profound but because it's totally random.

>like ESV or NIV
Just
Fucking
Stop.

yes, so you'll get some sense and believe in God

In an interview not so long ago (about two years? cannot find) he says he reads it all time. His nature's essentially religious (according to S. J. Gould). When all's said and done he'll probably convert. He's rather fond of the C of E.

>implying atheist read.
Nice try, Sam Harris doesn't count.

>t. person who has never read the Bible in its entirety

Did he really say that? A more pseud statement I've never heard.

>I-I-I don't like this b-book guys!
>G-God's not real!

>Pretentious

I've repeatedly told this to my atheist mother and she gets triggered everytime. How can one be so retarded?

>the only prophetic work required to fully understand the weight of the NT

HAHAHAHAHA! You DEFINITELY don't fully understand the weight of the NT.

In fact, you don't understand the weight of the OT either.

>mostly Jewish history
>not relevant to NT
>not relevant to Christians

????

Don't listen to that pleb. Read all of it. If you really study well, you'll understand why that user is a pleb once you're done.

dawkins addresses the religion an egdy,superficially cynical 13 year old of above average intelligence is wrestling with.most of us have gone through that phase,but escaped successfully and intelectually unschated,i hope.

>very little of it offers much in the way of insight
Jordan Peterson extracted enough insight out of it to create interest among atheists to listen to a series of lectures on the biblical study.

No, people just call themselves whatever their parents are and grow up with inherited sense of identity from childhood. Although most Anglo Americans would check off the "Christian" box on a census report, they hardly even consider themselves Christians by any means other than, "Well my parents were Christian so I guess I am too". They're not going to church, they're not reading the bible, and they are regularly taking the Lord's name in vain. They are adulterous, they engage petty thievery, they are dishonest especially to themselves, and you could perhaps say this self-deception is self-evident in the fact they proclaim Jesus as their Lord and their adherence to Christianity.

A good barometer is to see how many people actually stand up for Christianity when it's under attack, which it has been for a number of years now.

What you refer to are "Christians in name only," akin to RINO if you can understand that parallel.

>m-muh no true scotsman

"The Bible is the most influential book in the world therefor the Christian god must be real."

-Veeky Forums

That would be a silly thing to believe of that were what people were actually saying.

honestly if you dismiss the Bible as an account of what "literally" happened you're doing nothing more than taking a casual pseudointellectual glance at it. If you read it as a metaphor for how to live things suddenly make a lot more sense.

We are not limited to saying that every story in the bible is either literal history or poetic fictions. They could instead be nonliteral accounts of actual historical events. Think about how a parent might explain to his child that babies "come from a seed daddies give to mommys that grow inside the mommys tummy." That's a true explanation, but it shouldn't be taken literally since it was accommodated for a childs level of understanding. Likewise, the stories in genesis are true but consist of nonliteral language that comes down (or condescends) to the level of understanding found in the audience that first heard these stories.

Are Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy the most red-pilled parts of the Old Testament?

If you are a lazy reader just stick to Ecclesiastes, it is by far the best part of the Bible.

Yes
You would be a very ignorant westerner otherwise.

If you dont want to read all, but you want to know the most important "stories", read this:

Old testament

Pentateuch

Genesis:
-Creation myths, Noahs flood, tower of Babel, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob

-Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy:
Moses, burning bush, Israel freed from Egypt, Moses receives the law in Mount Sinai, the golden calf, wondering 40 years in the desert, the death of moses, and also, the civil and penal code of a Bronze Age religion. When atheists make fun of chritians, they often do it by making fun of Israelite dietary laws that Christians never followed.

-Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1 and 2, Kings 1 and 2:
Conquest of Canaan, Israel as tribal nation with many leaders, King Saul, King David, King Salomon

New Testament

The 3 synoptic gospels are very similar.
Basically
you have Mark.
Matthew is Mark + Matthew Expansion pack
Luke is Mark + Luke Expansion pack

-If you only want to read one of those, read Luke, because the Luke writer also wroter Acts of the Apostles. Which is the immediate continuation. Those are really one book divided in 2 and are must reads.

-The gospel of John is very different from the synoptic gospels, and is a must read, one of the best books in the bible. It is the gospel in which Jesus is refered to clearly as God.

-Read the 7 epistles of Paul all specialists agree were written by him, Romans, Corinthians 1 and 2, Galatians, Thessalonians, Philippians, Philemon.
-read Hebrews (nobody knows who wrote that one)
-and the apocalypse

this leaves some of the best written books of the bible, like Ecclesiastes or Job, the History of the divided kingdoms of Israel and Judah, and all the prophets, but if you want the main stories, I you can get them with that.