Hacker News Reader

Comment by geocrasher | Hacker News Reader

First and foremost: The Bible. Not the watered down "everybody goes to heaven" theology that most people subscribe to, but rather an evidence based approach that uses the Bible to interpret itself as it was designed to do.

Secondarily, this book saved my life in the sense that it helped me understand my depression, a clinical depression so deep that my psychologist had never seen such a thing previously:

Get Out of Your Mind and Into Your Life: The New Acceptance and Commitment Therapy - Stephen C. Hayes https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0054M063A/

Its scientific approach to understanding our own thought patterns gave me control- coping mechanisms- for dealing with my own feelings instead of ignoring ("Burying") them and letting them slowly destroy me from the inside out.

View on HN

I agree. I would also add continues to change my life. I read the Bible every day and am constantly amazed how relevant ancient wisdom is today.

In recent years teaching from Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament taught me how to understand my work. There is such a lot of nonsense on HN and the net about success. So many are pursuing a pipe dream. Below helped me to work hard, enjoy what I have, and not be concerned about what others have. See below, written in Ecclesiastes 5, thousands of years ago.

10 Those who love money will never have enough. How meaningless to think that wealth brings true happiness! 11 The more you have, the more people come to help you spend it. So what good is wealth—except perhaps to watch it slip through your fingers!

12 People who work hard sleep well, whether they eat little or much. But the rich seldom get a good night’s sleep.

13 There is another serious problem I have seen under the sun. Hoarding riches harms the saver. 14 Money is put into risky investments that turn sour, and everything is lost. In the end, there is nothing left to pass on to one’s children. 15 We all come to the end of our lives as naked and empty-handed as on the day we were born. We can’t take our riches with us.

16 And this, too, is a very serious problem. People leave this world no better off than when they came. All their hard work is for nothing—like working for the wind. 17 Throughout their lives, they live under a cloud—frustrated, discouraged, and angry.

18 Even so, I have noticed one thing, at least, that is good. It is good for people to eat, drink, and enjoy their work under the sun during the short life God has given them, and to accept their lot in life. 19 And it is a good thing to receive wealth from God and the good health to enjoy it. To enjoy your work and accept your lot in life—this is indeed a gift from God. 20 God keeps such people so busy enjoying life that they take no time to brood over the past.

Solomon knew what he was talking about!

Man, I tried reading the bible, maybe some pages are to be skipped, I couldn't keep after 5 ... too many "don't have sex with your cousin's wife unless her father owned a goat" logic.

My suggestion: Start reading in Matthew. Once you get through, go back to Genesis and Exodus. Leviticus is a harder read, but worthwhile because it provides so much context for the rest. But if need be, skip to Judges- it's an action packed book, and I genuinely enjoy it, as I do Ruth. If you get stuck on Chronicles, skip to Ezra. Esther is an especially wonderful book!

What I'm really trying to say is: The Bible isn't a book that HAS to be read in order. It's not presented in chronological order and every book has individual value. Once you develop a love for the Bible, then the harder reads will be that much easier :)

I'd like to suggest: 1)include Acts with Matthew for initial reading 2) get people to Samuel and Kings ASAP. You probably need to read genesis and exodus first, but after that, David seems like the archetype of God-fearing Jew, and you need to know his story.

To be clearer: I meant to start reading the entire Bible at Matthew- not reading JUST Matthew.

Yeah I'm also slightly confused by those comments. I tried reading it from start to end, and it wasn't that enjoyable. It was mostly lost listings of names about peoples grand grand parents... and things that didn't really fit what was say two sentences ago.

Am I missing the "proper" way of reading it? But if there is, that would eventually just leave to cherry picking...

I made the same mistake as yourself. Read from the beginning. To make it worse in 16th century english. This is a good resource, https://www.biblegateway.com/.

I enjoy the NWT translation, it's in modern English but also very true to the original text.

https://www.jw.org/en/library/bible/study-bible/books/

It's also available in the JW Library app. Both are 100% free, no signups or membership, and makes reading so much easier and more enjoyable.

Be aware that the NWT is a translation produced by a single church, a single sect of Christianity. Those wanting to study the Bible as a literary exercise should consider a translation accepted by more than only one sect of Christianity. Another comment here suggests an interesting translation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30735352

It's important to compare translations and understand why they exist and where they differ. Books like "New Age Bible Versions" by G. A. Riplinger give insight into changes with modern versions like the NIV and NKJV that make deliberate alterations to the text. But even still, it's important to remeber that translations like the KJV has replaced words like "She'ol" and "Hades" with "hell", or even replacing the name of God with "God".

I personally find myself comparing the KJV with the original Greek as well as the pre-Challoner version of the Douay-Rheims when I want more insight into certain passages.

Commentaries also provide interesting insights. They typically cite the translations that were used as well so you can see how their conclusions were drawn

The only translation of the bible that I can tolerate is the "plain english" translation. Otherwise it's just too cryptic and give me a headache

Do you also read commentaries or study guides? They can help with grokking some of the more difficult parts of the text

I agree that there is a huge difference between literal and dynamic translations of the text. That being said, I was recommended "New Age Bible Versions" before and was not impressed, I read through the first several chapters and compared the accusations to the other translations actual text and found most of them to be blatantly false. False as in, her charts said the other translations used words they did not use. I really enjoy the KJV also but do not consider other translations satanic like the Riplinger's book attempts to portray.

I'll have to look into that further. I wasn't aware of there being discrepancies between her book and the sources she used. I wonder if it's related to some of the newer translations being constantly updated. For example, the NKJV has been revised since it was originally printed. Here's a short example showing it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD_r3_aCvsw

Another book similar to Riplinger's is "Corruptions in the New King James Bible" by Jack Mundey. The writing style is a little enthusiastic, but the author compares several editions of various bibles, showing where and how they changed over time. Both Mundey and Riplinger draw the conclusion that the NKJV and NIV are deliberately changed to mislead people, and therefore are Satanic, though neither one makes any point about the KJV's edits themselves, such as the name of God or translations of "Hell" as I've mentioned earlier.

I guess my conclusion from reading different literal translations is that most of them do not deviate significantly from each other. Personally, I haven't really found any significant differences that would change a person's understanding on who Jesus was and what He taught, contrary to the point "New Age Bible Versions" is trying to make. Comparing single words or phrases between translations is not an effective way to demonstrate that the meaning as a whole has changed. Reading the NKJV, I feel the same need to honor Jesus Christ both as Lord and Savior and obey His teachings. In the end, we need to hear what we read and obey it. https://biblehub.com/matthew/5-19.htm

Overall, I agree with this. Though there are some interesting cases that people bring up around certain translations, like certain translations referring to Joseph as Jesus's father, calling Jesus the "morning star", and ones that lend themselves more to the Trinity being real versus it not existing. Those cases are more interesting as deeper knowledge and whose debates shed a lot of insight on the history of the Bible and its translations. But overall, the teachings of Jesus and His disciples are not often debated between versions since they do not change significantly, as you've noted.

For the benefit of other readers, as is mentioned elsewhere the NWT is a translation which amongst Christians is only accepted by the Jehovah's Witnesses. Mainly because they produced it.

It's actually reasonably readable but there are differences in meanings due to the decisions of the translators. This is true with all translations, so not a direct criticism, but the NWT tends to differ on areas where the JW belief system itself differs from the mainstream. So personally I'd suggest avoiding it as it will give the new reader a very exclusive perspective on the faith.

A lot of the difficulty in approaching the Bible is that we are unaware of just how much modernism and the Enlightenment affects our worldview, and the ancient world did not see the world that way. A good place to get an introduction to their worldview is Language of Creation by Mattieu Pageau or another book called The Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser.

1. Luke and Acts 2. Genesis and Exodus 3. (1 and 2) Samuel and (1 and 2) Kings

There are lots of answers to this question floating around the thread. Maybe mine will be helpful:

First of all, so much of the Bible references and builds on itself that it's a battle to establish the initial framework of knowledge so you can try to fill everything in.

The most important question of Christianity is, as Jesus put it, "who do you say that I am?" Start working on this with a Gospel (either Mark, more focused on a clear message; of Luke, more of a detailed narrative). (Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, so the perspective isn't as helpful, and John is just different in ways that make it better saved for later.) After this, read Acts, which finishes the story begun by the gospels. If you pick Luke, then you have the advantage that Luke and Acts have the same author.

Read Genesis. There's so much to unpack in this huge book. Jordan Peterson released lectures on many stories of Genesis as early podcasts of his; they do a good job of presenting the stories in the modern day, and are probably his best work, far better than recent work.)

Exodus. It is narrative and explains God's relationship with the Jewish people.

If you want to keep digging into that story, you could go next to Joshua and Judges. But I recommend next reading 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings. They're the story of David, who is the archetype of a God-fearing, yet only human, Jew.

As to a "proper" way: slowly, carefully, repeatedly, with humility, and with help.

I tried the same, gave up after Lot's daughters got their father drunk and raped him.

The bible is the story of Israel, the life of Jesus, and the birth of the new testament church. It is history, teaching, prophecy and songs. The penny dropped for me many years ago that because it says it in the bible doesn't mean God is happy about it. Just as I am not happy about my own mistakes or many of the goings on in the world today.

p0d's comment is right - much of the Old Testament is an illustration of fallen human nature. It's a stumbling walk towards redemption. The characters of the OT do not always act heroically. In fact the point is largely that they do not - that they need to be saved somehow. How that happens is described in the New Testament.

I've commented elsewhere (in this same discussion), but it was a long one so in summary here's my own perspective on the order: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30745865

Not a bible expert, but the old testament in particular has books that are effectively 'legal' (rather than theological) in nature. The kind of thing you quote here is likely from that kind of book (and typically the kind of thing quoted in TV shows needing to show how 'silly are the things Christians believe in').

If you put it in that context, then it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)

Yes, and I don't think anybody reached enlightenment after an encounter with Maine law books

I would invite you to re-evaluate your position on books like Leviticus not being "theological". For example, Leviticus 16, the Day of Atonement, shows you on so many levels what Christ accomplished. The reasons many of the rules and laws are put into place is to show how reality is structured ontologically. And to show you that mixing categories can be harmful, and that fringes are necessary to keep the rest of the cloth whole. I could go on and on about this.

A good place to start is Language of Creation by Mattieu Pageau and Unseen Realm by Michael Heiser. Nothing in the Bible is there by accident. It all has meaning and connects with the rest of what's there. And the "contradictions" are there on purpose, to draw you in. Think of them like Zen koans that are inviting you into contemplation of what is meant, rather than "oh those ancient people must have missed this one".

Leviticus is a good book to read if you are stranded somewhere in a low technology environment that is relatively warm.

I'm not saying the 'legal' books shouldn't be part of the bible because they have 'no theological value'.

I'm saying that when a hollywood actor in a film makes fun of christians and says something like "oh go sacrifice a goat like it says in your bible", they are willfully misrepresenting those verses as "cherry-picking your beliefs and conveniently leaving out the goat stuff", when in fact typically they're quoting verses of legal/historical significance, rather than of a dogmatic/theological nature.

Hold on a minute - You lost me here - how can description of animal sacriface on na altar not have theological nature?

> typically they're quoting verses of legal/historical significance, rather than of a dogmatic/theological nature

This distinction dos not make sense. The laws in the Bible is literally given by God.

>it's not that much sillier than stuff like "Owning a pet lobster in Maine is illegal when that lobster is pregnant" kind of laws. (true law btw)

I agree about the old testament, but this is only silly when taken out of context. Long before I got into network security I worked in the Maine Lobster industry shoveling bait (which is half-rotten fish mixed with salt, lobsters love it!) into buckets and weighing/storing lobsters at a fisherman's co-op.

An important part of conservation revolves around people putting fertile female lobsters back in the ocean when they are inadvertently caught. Maine puts a lot more effort into conserving them than the surrounding states/countries do (who frequently get caught poaching in Maine waters and keeping lobsters that would be illegal to keep even if they were allowed to fish in Maine.

Hahah. Thanks for this.

Yes, this is kinda the point. It's the Chesterton's Fence argument. Before mocking something which appears silly, try to find out the reason it was created in the first place. Maybe there was good reason, maybe that reason still holds, maybe it doesn't.

ahahahah that quote killed me

Approach it as a collection of very different books. There is myths, history, genealogies, law, poetry, short stories, philosophy, deep wisdom and mad ramblings. The books are collected over a thousand years in different cultural environments.

If you just start from the beginning, expecting to read it as one book, you will probably lose interest when it gets into the mosaic law.

There are countless opinions/suggestions on how to read the Bible (and the same applies to the Qu'ran for example).

If you are totally new to the Bible the important thing is probably to try and get enough from it at the start that you'll be interested enough to continue. I've read it through many times and some/much of it is pretty impenetrable, obscure, and even dull.

So from this perspective, and note that this isn't a great sequence theologically, I'd go with the book of Acts, the gospel of John, the books of Proverbs and Psalms, and then the letters of John.

As for which versions of the Bible, avoid older ones like the King James (KJV, NKJV) or Revised Standard (RSV, ASV, NRSV); the archaic language and structure will be off-putting. I'd perhaps go with the Contemporary English Version (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+1&version=...) but the linked page will let you see the various translations of the same text using a drop-down.

There is no one ideal version of the Bible but personally I'd avoid any translation used by a single denomination or sect such as the NWT - which is produced by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and I'm meaning this not as a judgement regarding the organisation but as an example of a group whose translation has alternative readings at various doctrinal points (eg the trinity) and it is not worth getting sidetracked by theological disagreements at this stage.

Whatever route you choose be prepared for a hard slog as a casual reader.

I’m so excited by this comment.

1) As gp said, the historical grammatical hermeneutic is the way to go for interpretation.

And

2) the book of Ecclesiastes is definitely a beautiful way to stay grounded. Just the mere fact that Solomon, the author, had access to everything his age could offer and still ended up writing Ecclesiastes Ch 11 is mind blowing. Everything passes away. This world, your legacy, your wealth, memories of you, things you care for, everything. The only thing that doesn’t is God, his word, and your spirit. It puts this world and it’s fleeting pleasures in perspective.

Of course, the natural reaction to this is “so what? Nihilism then?”. The Bible unabashedly says “yes, if you don’t have God”

People search for the meaning of life in a variety of ways. The Bible answers this clearly:

“To love God and worship him forever.”

What do Christian’s do in this world? Ecclesiastes would say “to enjoy your lot with the one you love, to worship God and to accept what comes your way.”

> Nihilism then?”. The Bible unabashedly says “yes, if you don’t have God”

I am not trying to argue theology here, just giving another perspective.

I was raised an an observant Catholic household, and I went every week from ages 5-19 and missed only a few times due to illness. But I never believed, I just don't have a spiritual bone in my body. None of what you quoted from Solomon about the impermanence of our material acquisitions sounds profound -- it seems obvious.

But the main reason I'm commenting is this idea that non-believers must be nihilists [1]. I want to assure you that I find meaning and purpose in life, but it isn't dictated by some holy person. Pain and suffering and happiness are real and even though we are all reduced back to molecules when we die, what we do and how we act during out lives matters to the people (and wider world) around us during out lives and for a while after we die. I get the same impression from other non-believers. It is a colossal failure of imagination to think that without God people must believe nothing matters.

[1] This footnote is to acknowledge that different people have their own interpretations of what "nihilism" means, and so any statement I make about nihilism will result in some group of people saying "you don't even know what it means!"

Humanism might he the term that you are describing.

The idea that a deity is not needed to find meaning and derive morality.

What's the term for when the pursuit of knowledge is regarded as the highest morality? That's where I mostly get my meaning at least.

There might not be one because a morality requires considering others, but simply pursuing knowledge does not. Unfortunately, you’ll soon have to reckon with how that knowledge affects your actions in order to call it a morality.

In Stoic virtue ethics, practical wisdom (phronesis) is the central virtue. But it doesn’t mean pursuing book knowledge, it means learning how to handle, think about and navigate all aspects of life well. In short, how to live “the kind of life worth living” (eudaimonia).

Ah yes, the Stoic 'considered life', exactly. I recommended Derren Brown's book 'Happiness' if anyone is interested in that.

> I was raised an an observant Catholic household, and I went every week from ages 5-19 and missed only a few times due to illness. But I never believed, I just don't have a spiritual bone in my body. None of what you quoted from Solomon about the impermanence of our material acquisitions sounds profound -- it seems obvious.

I had a similar upbringing. I attended Catholic schools until college. And the whole time it all just struck me as pageantry. I perceived that it was very real for many of the others, but to me it was as you imply.

Thank God the scales fell from my eyes. Interestingly it was not preaching, but my meditations on the three normative sciences that convinced me of the necessity of God. I realized that culturally Christian atheists conception of ethics is just a more or less attenuated Christian one that will continue to wither as any plant cut from its roots will. I further concluded that the same holds for the other two normative sciences. This was so unsatisfactory to me that I had an epiphany.

None of what you quoted from Solomon about the impermanence of our material acquisitions sounds profound -- it seems obvious.

Of course, the answer is always obvious when you've been provided it beforehand.

You state that as-if you somehow shipped from the womb knowing wisdom, when in fact that implicit knowledge you take for granted has been lived and transferred by your ancestors and most certainly derived from your own social and spiritual milieu.

Let me ask some questions. Do you think Solomon was the first person to realize this, did he come up with this de novo? Or, perhaps, he was also a product of his cultural environment. Is it possible that he has been lionized by the hagiography that surrounds him to make it seem as if nobody had ever had such moral insights until he came along? Do you think it is likely or unlikely that cultures which don't have any Abrahamic tradition have also arrived at the same conclusions?

More importantly, whatever contributions Solomon's wisdom has had on our culture, there are thousands of other competing (and often contradicting) ideas in the milieu. Even if Solomon was the author of the wisdom ascribed to him, it isn't obvious to me that those ideas are at the center of our culture or at the forefront of everyone's thoughts, and so it isn't "obvious [that it has] been provided beforehand."

I can pinpoint when I had my own epiphany. Probably like many people on HN, I did quite well in school. I took standardized tests every year starting in grade 1 and a few weeks later I'd receive a breakdown of what percentile I scored in math, vocabulary, reading, etc, and a combined score. I wouldn't say I had an ego about it, but it was planted in my mind that I was smart and would grow up and do great things: maybe I'd invent something amazing, or discover some deep scientific principle.

Early in high school I had the thought: no matter what I do, it is unlikely that I'll ever be as famous as, say, US President John Tyler, and nobody gives a damn about him. In fact, very few people achieve lasting fame, eg Jesus or Buddha or Isaac Newton. Heck, I don't give a moment's thought about my great grandparents. Each of us is just a ripple in a pond, and as the diameter of our ripple gets larger, its amplitude shrinks. Conceptually, the effects last forever, but only in the most diffuse, indirect manner. Thus my goal became not to do something great that would impress everyone, but to focus on making a positive difference to the people nearest me in space and time; everything else that ripples out of that is gravy.

Why tell this story? Because culturally I had been programmed, and I still see it in full force, that fame and influence are desirable goals. Look at how many people try to become influencers on social media, or do the dumbest things on youtube or tiktok to get eyes to look at them. Yet despite that programming, that thought really changed my life philosophy. Just a realization to a sheltered 14 or 15 year old, so I'm sure there are many people who have had similar thoughts.

> It is a colossal failure of imagination to think that without God people must believe nothing matters.

I haven't ever talked to an unbeliever who believes nothing matters, though I've heard of nihilist philosophers. I suspect non-philosophers who believe in nihilism usually have something from which they're trying to escape; they're not being honest with themselves. Of course each moment matters - it's a time of lived experience for billions of people.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I'm accustomed to thinking a lot about eternal destiny and how things will end up in an ultimate sense. For me, the idea of no God existing opens up a yawning chasm of eternal emptiness I find frightening to imagine -- it would mean when I die, there's nothing more for me; and when we all die and no humans are left, that'll be it for all of us. At that point, will anything that transpired previously matter at all?

I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding. But Christianity is primarily about what to do with that guilt -- that God's son Jesus paid the price for your sin and mine, and he offers forgiveness to those who will trust him and call on his name. (And I'm sure you've heard that before.)

So while I agree stuff matters right now even without belief in a God, for me the meaning of the past and present pale compared to what matters (if anything) in the eternity of time that lies ahead.

Yes, I'm sure it is scary if you have lead your life assuming that there was a blissful afterlife. But you must recognize that that was Jesus' main selling point: follow me and you'll have eternal life. Judaism believed that when a person dies, they are simply gone. Yet somehow they found purpose and meaning and weren't frightened of a yawning chasm of eternal emptiness.

> when we all die and no humans are left, that'll be it for all of us. At that point,

Yup, just like the universe existed for 14B years before humans came along.

> will anything that transpired previously matter at all?

Here is a thought experiment I've heard before. Say I'm really rich and have a tropical paradise, and I invite you to spend a month there. "It'll be great!" I promise, so you come. When you arrive you find I'm actually a twisted genius. I have developed a pill which will completely reset your memory back exactly like it was 30 days prior. In front of you is a spinner which alternates between: "party" and "torture".

I tell you, go ahead and spin. If it comes up on "party," you'll have the most amazing time for the month. You'll have private snorkling trips with Jacques Cousteau's grandson; you'll eat the finest food cooked by 5 star Michelin chef's I have flown in. Name your favorite bands and I'll arrange for them to fly in and perform for you. No expense will be spared to entertain you. But if you spin "torture", oh boy, it will be bad. Nothing that will leave a physical scar, mind you, thinks like waterboarding, being shocked by high voltages, capsacin injected into your urethra, etc. But at the end of 30 days, I'll give you a pill that will wipe any trace of memory from the previous 30 days, no PTSD or future nightmares.

So the question is: does it matter if you spin "party" or "torture"? After all, in 30 days, there will be no memories nor after effects. I'm sure that just about everyone would pick party. Why does the choice matter? Even though the memory of the torture will be wiped out, while you are actually experiencing it it is very real suffering (or joy in the other case).

To someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife, the fact that all of our memories dissolve when we die (in the case of dementia, even before we die) and nothing outlives our body, the joy and suffering we experience in life matter.

> ... sin ...

Look up the definition of sin: transgression of God's moral law. As someone who doesn't believe in God, I also don't believe in sin. I believe some events are good and some are bad, but I don't believe in sin. I am consciously or unconsciously worried about upsetting God by transgression His laws to the exact same degree you are consciously or unconsciously worried about upsetting Odin for transgressing his wishes.

I said originally I don't want to argue theology. I was just pointing out that non-believers are not nihilists, contrary to the claim of the person I was responding to. I have lots of thoughts about the other things you've written, but this doesn't seem like the right forum for them.

Jews did not think that people were simply gone after death. Read about "Sheol", for example.

> On the other hand, as a Christian, I'm accustomed to thinking a lot about eternal destiny and how things will end up in an ultimate sense. For me, the idea of no God existing opens up a yawning chasm of eternal emptiness I find frightening to imagine -- it would mean when I die, there's nothing more for me; and when we all die and no humans are left, that'll be it for all of us. At that point, will anything that transpired previously matter at all? I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding.

But that’s the thing, you’re completely failing to understand how a non-believer (speaking for myself) feels about there not being an afterlife. What you’ve said is not in any way how I feel - I die, but the actions and efforts and (hopefully) descendants I put out there go in to hopefully contribute positively, in this magical thing we call life; and even in still there, the bits of me continuing to be recycled in the universe. As someone who has had many psychedelic experiences my non-believer side still has a spiritual axis to it; I can’t believe we all get to walk into a place where everyone who’s ever died is cutting around alive again; and Jesus and some older dude who created the universe sit at the head of the table, but that doesn’t have to be true in order for a life to have meaning, and it’s a failure of imagination (and really, and I don’t mean this to belittle your faith, but ultimately an indoctrinated fear - you use the word yourself - that is- ‘frightening yawning chasm of emptiness’) to believe that unless that is the way it pans out then everything is pointless and people are subconsciously compensating or blocking out that fear because they’re sinners.

“I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding.”

This kind of quite literally holier-than-thou pretension is a large reason why, despite being raised religious, I want nothing to do with it today. Especially Christianity.

> holier-than-thou pretension

Could you elaborate? I certainly didn't mean to imply I'm any better than someone in the position I described. I'm as much guilty of sin as anyone else.

I don't think it's pretentious either to say that all have sinned in some way or another. As Solzhenitsyn writes, the line between good and evil runs right through every human heart -- all are capable of great good and great evil.

The attractive option of atheism bit.

Plenty of other reasons why someone would turn to atheism. Eg the massive occurrence/support/obfuscation of sex abuse in the Catholic Church.

Ah, understood. I didn't mean characterize atheists or conversions to atheism.

It's just that from my own frame of reference, that's the most attractive aspect of atheism.

Misinterpreted on my end, then - nothing personal!

>I suppose for those who consciously or subconsciously know they're guilty of sin, the idea of annihilation is far preferable to facing judgment for their sins in the past, so I can see how atheism would be an attractive option, ultimate meaninglessness notwithstanding. But Christianity is primarily about what to do with that guilt -- that God's son Jesus paid the price for your sin and mine, and he offers forgiveness to those who will trust him and call on his name. (And I'm sure you've heard that before.)

  Your comment and a lot of others seem to presuppose that atheists don't genuinely not believe in God, there must be some sort of rejection of a God that exists or some conscious/unconscious attempt to avoid taking responsibility for something.

  My not being a Christian is really simple. It has nothing to do with my ideas on the bible or morality in general. nothing to do with whether or not I'm a sinner (I agree with you and Christianity that everyone falls very short of moral perfection), it has nothing to do with my personal happiness or making it easier for me to sleep at night.

  I simply don't believe that supernatural events exist. Nothing I have heard, discussed, read, watched or experienced in my life has convinced me that supernatural things happen in a general sense or that the specific supernatural things that are essential to believing in Christianity have happened.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30381923

I think you're not driving far enough to the conclusion of what you're saying. If there is no afterlife, then eventually there will be nobody left in the world, in which case nothing that anyone had ever done or said would have really mattered.

I completely disagree. Scan this thread for my thought experiment about the pill that wipes your memory back to the state it was 30 days ago. I haven't overlooked the point you are making.

> If there is no afterlife, then eventually there will be nobody left in the world,

Whether or not there is an afterlife, it is inevitable that the earth will become uninhabitable. It seems far more likely that humans will die off before that becomes a problem.

> in which case nothing that anyone had ever done or said would have really mattered

Like the old joke about fish not being aware of water, I think people who have spent their entire lives in a Christian mindset forget that the novel thing Jesus was offering was an afterlife. Many cultures and religions believe a person simply stops existing when they die (including Judaism), yet the people without a belief in the afterlife still seem to care if they are happy or miserable.

Let me try another tack along the lines of the thought experiment I stated elsewhere in the thread. Christians believe in a personal soul that outlives the body it is tied to. I'm sure some Christians might think that some animals have souls as well, but I'll go out on a limb and say most don't believe, say, a beetle, has a soul. If you came across me torturing beetles with salt, or fire, or pulling their legs off, you'd rightfully think I'm a horrible person. Why would it matter? After all, the beetle has no soul and will be dead in a few months anyway. It is because even though the pain is temporary, it is very real while the beetle lives through it.

To be fair, several (at the time) large religious groups believed in a spiritual afterlife. What disgusted many Greeks & Romans was the concept that a _bodily_ afterlife was the ultimate destiny of a human.

Jews did believe in an afterlife - read about Sheol, for example. Not sure where you got that idea from. They thought that death was permanent, but that is a very different thing from thinking there's no afterlife. There are also two Old Testament figures - Enoch and Elijah - who were brought up into heaven. What Jesus taught that was new in this regard is a bodily resurrection.

Also, all animals have souls according to Catholicism, and so do plants. The distinct thing about humans is that we have rational souls. But the soul is the form of any living thing.

Torturing an animal is wrong because it does harm to God's creation for no legitimate purpose. A theist doesn't have any problem explaining this - it's the atheist/materialist who does.

If you enjoy that, while they are considered "deuterocanonical", you may also enjoy Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. Especially having only read them as an adult, I keep finding more good advice each time I peruse them.

Seminarian here. One word of caution here, is plenty of people think they discover something new by reading some authors. Whatever the view is, a lot of them aren't new, and there exists notable scholars (from the early church fathers to modern theologians) that can disagree and agree with it.

When people think they knew. They actually don't know. Not even close.

Love there's a passionate discussion/touch point about the Bible on this site. For anyone interested, biblehub.com is a tremendous resource to help deep-dive themes, passages, words, etc...

I actually highly recommend The Word on Fire series by Bishop Barron, it's not a full Bible yet but the two books are out (Gospels and Act) I believe.

They have great commentary, beautiful artwork and are high quality overall. Leaving the link here for anyone interested: https://www.wordonfire.org/bible/#volumeii

Word of caution: if you are an Atheist, please remember that the Bible is a religious text, many verses are in parables and should not be taken literally. It is not a scientific textbook or a historical one either. It is also a _collection_ of books called the Canon. You must read it with an open heart and mind to get the most out of it!

> evidence based approach that uses the Bible to interpret itself as it was designed to do

I don't understand what that means. But I do think Misquoting Jesus is one of the better biblical criticism books I've read, and can recommend it for interested folks. Your recommendation reminded me of that.

It means not taking individual verses out of context and using only the rest of the Bible to provide that context such as who the Bible writer was writing to, in what circumstance, even in what time of year if it was a farming analogy, or what other Bible writers say on the same subject. That's only scratching the surface, but hopefully gives you an idea what I meant.

> but rather an evidence based approach that uses the Bible to interpret itself as it was designed to do.

Can you expand? Did you create this approach yourself or just read the Bible directly?

No, I did not create this approach at all. It is the approach taken by Jehovah's Witnesses who started out by questioning beliefs and looking directly at the Bible to figure out whether a belief was Biblical or not. That's how they came to the conclusion that hellfire is a lie and many other things that the Christendom accepts aren't actually Biblical. It's a very balanced approach. It also avoids all the "God hates $group" garbage and gives solid reasons for what's going on in the world. If you want to learn about that method of Bible study, check out jw.org.

Ironically, the name "Jehovah" is a misunderstanding. It comes from applying the vowels from "Adonai" (my lord) to "Yahweh" (the name of God).

The Hebrew alphabet initially didn't have vowels, so the name was written as YHWH. When vowels were introduced they decided to write the vowels for Adonai above YHWH, to remind readers not to say his name, as it was too holy. Eventually people forgot this logic and assumed it was the normal spelling of his name.

Even so, it's the most recognized way to pronounce the name in English. Yahweh is also acceptable, but isn't as widely used.

The funny thing about it is that we also don't know how Jesus' name would have been pronounced for the same reasons, but nobody ever has an issue using "Jesus", but people say "Jehovah" and it causes a stir. ¯\(º_o)/¯

Well Jehovah's witnesses think it's important to use the personal name of their god, so it's a bit amusing that they get the name wrong. It's like they fell at the first hurdle.

To be fair, the mistranslation predates them. I see they acknowledge the issue and think it doesn't matter.

I guess it's a bit of a coordination/communication issue with other JWs and with the world at large. The fact that they stick with this mistake doesn't mean that individual Witnesses, or the group as a whole, are stupid, or don't understand their own religion.

Another, non JW or LDS answer is the historical grammatical hermeneutic. One tenant of this method is that the grammar and history of scripture will always confirm what it says in other areas. Scripture supports scripture

This has always been a key approach to Quranic exegesis. I wouldn't be surprised if they were influenced by Islam when it comes to this topic. Of course, Islam also has very rich bodies of information such as Hadith, and authentic quotes by the Companions and the Righteous Followers, all of which are used.

I would recommend getting the Ancient Faith Study Bible, which uses a very readable translation, and has extensive footnotes that consist of commentary on the Bible from the Early Church Fathers.

From my understanding, this is the oldest approach to understanding scripture. To keep from deviating from the truth you must examine the text in light of what has been written before. Acts 17:11 bears this out, "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so."

The "only thing" worth reading from the The Bible are the "Wisdom Books". Robert Alter's translation The Wisdom Books: Job, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes: A Translation with Commentary is pretty good.

I mean if you like those you'd probably like Jesus's sermon on the mount.

> The "only thing" worth reading from the The Bible are the "Wisdom Books"

From the perspective of Wisdom you're probably right.

From the perspective of the modern Christian Faith I'd include the complete New Testament. From the perspective of historical reference (I know archaeological opinions vary) include the Old Testament too.

>but rather an evidence based approach that uses the Bible to interpret itself as it was designed to do.

Can you elaborate on this? I'd be interested to hear more about your approach.

Do you also read about the history of the Bible? For example, scholars consider the book of exodus to be highly inaccurate/mythologised.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com