Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
But the Bible predicts history and suggests scientific knowledge that is impossible for it to have contained if it is written by merely Moses, Joshua, Luke and others. Moreover, it tells a story of God's attempt to communicate to us, which no other religion does (of course, religions based on Judaism are lumped into this category, though that includes departures that are neither Judaism nor Christianity). The Bible contains accurate history and is authenticated, historically, by secular accounts. You might not believe Christ was resurrected, but you have to believe he was real, that he impacted the people of his homeland, etc.
Why is there no mention of three additional continents in the bible? That seems a very large fact to be omitted from the bible, and outside of a few vague references that have been stretched to make that point, there's nothing concrete about that substantial and entirely unknown fact in the bible.
Sure, it's got some historical accuracy, but almost every work has some historical accuracy in it. The Illead and the Odyssey have historical facts in them. That doesn't mean that Zeus/Jupiter actually intervened in daily affairs. Stephen King's books have loads of historical information in them about modern life. They are not divinely inspired either.
Also, even assuming no other religion documents the attempts of the divine to communicate with man, why does this increase the validity of the bible? That's like saying that bananas are the best food because they're the only one with an inedible peel. Maybe the reason other religions don't include a claim that a divine being communicated with them directly because the written word is such a poor tool for communicating divine truths. It is subject to the drifts of language, the difficulty of interpretation. I don't buy that there are only a handful of ways a divine being could choose to communicate with humans, humans themselves have an enormous number of ways with which they can communicate with each other. There are touches, and facial expressions, art, images, smells. The range of human experience and methods of communication are far greater than the written word. The idea that a divine being, with access to all of these tools, would limit itself to a single volume, which has not been accessible to many cultures or people for centuries after its writing, seems absurd to me.
Ultimately, I have no doubt whatsoever that the bible was written by men.
Now, all that said, I think it's a fine book and contains some useful wisdom. I think there are worse things to do than live by its principals. But I can't for a second entertain the notion that it is an exclusive source of truth. It is a work of great art by great men, and deserves the same respect and admiration as all great works art by great men. But it is not unique, and it is not the product of the divine.
Now, all that said, I think it's a fine book and contains some useful wisdom. I think there are worse things to do than live by its principals. But I can't for a second entertain the notion that it is an exclusive source of truth. It is a work of great art by great men, and deserves the same respect and admiration as all great works art by great men. But it is not unique, and it is not the product of the divine.
The Bible certainly contains some ideas that even a die-hard secular humanist like myself could agree with. Love thy neighbor is fine stuff. I quite like the parable of the Good Samaritan, though I think the point that the Samaritan was a member of a different religious group is often lost on modern audiences who in deed, if not word, often equate moral uprightness with membership in their sect or one close to it.
It also includes some that I find frankly abhorrent, and which I think most honest and decent modern people wouldn't even try to make excuses for. The story of Abraham and Isaac is honestly one of the most sickening displays of raw divine evil I've ever read. Abraham is to kill his son as a test of his loyalty to his god. That's already outright abominable in my book. No decent god would even think of asking for such a thing. And Abraham is a righteous man because he was ready to do it? But then it's all ok because God was just kidding? What kind of person arranges character tests like that? It's sick, and if he's really all-knowing then he already knew the outcome. The same messed up, to me anyway, value structure is at play in the doctrine of substitutionary atonement.
I don't think the Bible's the word of God, but then I don't think there are any gods to have words with so the point is rather moot. It's not the word of aliens from Zeta Reticuli either. But even if it was, it's not the word of any God I could worship. I don't see how it's the kind that any person could worship. Which is the main reason that I think worship precedes doctrine, and is then used to rationalize the latter no matter how anachronistic or just plain sick it becomes.
So you know, it's fairly hit and miss on the morality front. There's some good stuff, and there's some amazingly bad stuff. Parts would be quite at home in a modern conception of morality, while others I would hope we could consign forever to the past. Which is exactly what I expect from a book written by many people with very different values from our own, very long ago, in a very different cultural milieu. Just like the Iliad, the Odyssey, or any other piece of ancient literature.
But the Bible predicts history and suggests scientific knowledge that is impossible for it to have contained if it is written by merely Moses, Joshua, Luke and others.
Coming from a more cynical standpoint, my predictions of past events are always 100% dead on as well. I'm no messiah, though, and no one would mistake my scribblings for scripture. Today, I can write 3 prophecies: (a) swine flu will fizzle out harmelessly; (b) swine flu will be severe, but not horrific; and (c) swine flu will become a global pandemic that kills millions. In 10 years, I'll go back and throw away the two that don't match and declare that they aren't "canonical." I'll keep the one that works, and handwriting analysis will show that I wrote that prediction, and testing the ink and paper will prove that I wrote it before the event came to pass! It's authenticated!
Also, as pointed out, the Bible contains "scientific" knowledge that is just flat-out incorrect unless God carefeully and meticulously arranged all phyical evidence on Earth, and all chemical and geological processes, to intentionally lead to the same false observations. Works in mysterious ways, indeed... or, more likely, the Bible is an excellent guide in some things, but is not 100% accurate in a literal sense in all things.
Don't get me wrong; as I've said, I believe that the Bible can be used as an excellent guide for a number of things. The Sermon on the Mount is beyond reproach. But I fail to understand how literal inerrancy in all matters is important or even desireable -- certainly not to the point where it requires us to impute all manner of underhanded skulduggery on God's part to make things not match the world around us.
Churches who believe the Bible is the word of God won't be renegging on the gay marriage thing in 400 years.
If you think the bishops in Rome did not feel the same exact way about heliocentrism 400 years ago, I think you are naïve.
Even if the Bible was god's truth, man's interpretation of it is imperfect.
Coming from a more cynical standpoint, my predictions of past events are always 100% dead on as well.
This echoes some of my feelings on the holy trinity. A concept that is stretched to try and make sense of an apparent contradiction. Jesus essentially said the old laws were irrelevant (apparently, some did not get the memo…I am looking at you Leviticus quoters) and that he was the new law. That immediately sends up red flags for me.
A lot of people claim 4e is not really D&D because it throws out so much of what came before. That is exactly what Jesus did. Is it any wonder a lot of jewish grognards disputed him?
To be sure, there are minor differences noted in every study Bible, like "Some mss add the phrase '..word to your mother'."
…not to mention all the different branches of Christianity. How do I know which one got it right?
…but you can't argue that as a definition for morality and ethics it sets the bar pretty high.
Pretty much every religion does. That is what they are suppose to do.
I grant you that that is somewhat anecdotal, but it is a widespread experience.
Even more widespread than just Christianity, I am sure.
God didn't create sin for humanity
Au contraire. Either god created everything or he did not. Which is it?
God determined a way to reconcile them all and set out to do just that.
And your explanation doesn’t make sense to me. The phrase ‘set out’, to me, suggest a journery or at least a multi step process. God created the universe with a word, but it takes him 2000 years and a little slice of himself to fix something he knew was going to happen? How does that make sense?
Criticizing the example by saying if God wanted us perfect he should have made us perfect ignores the idea that we are an experiment in freedom.
Freedom would mean we know the rules. God has not given me the rules. You can claim that the Bible is the rules, but just because you write down something on a piece of paper and tell me it came from god is not going to cut it for me. If these rules are that important, I want to hear them from the big guy himself. He knows where I am. I can wait.
there's no way for us to understand the character or nature of a being that made the world.
Of course not because there isn’t one. “God works in mysterious ways” works just as well as “There is no god.” Both theories work for the data provided. Why do you so casually dismiss Santa Clause simply because there is no proof of his existence yet believe in god despite proof of his existence?
I have seen Santa Clause at the mall. That is more than I can say about god.
…am I obligated to give the others something?
If you consistently treated one child with preference over the others, yes. I would call you a bad father. We are not talking about loaning the car for one night. We are talking about immortal souls. There is a huge difference.
And while we are on the analogy of god as a father, if someone in the real world disappeared on their children and those children ran around destroying the place and killing each other, we could him a bad father. Even if some of the child behaved themselves, we have very unpleasant labels for absent fathers.
There are plagues, starvation, wars, child molesters and god does nothing because of his big ‘mysterious’ plan to test our faith? I have very little kind to say about such a being.
…that would defy his nature and reward my rebelliousness.
Who made you rebellious? Are you suggesting you are capable of something god did not create? I doubt it. So god must have created the capacity for rebellion. Then he becomes angry when someone exercises it?
As a real father, I do not set my daughter up for failure and then get made at her when she does. It is unproductive and mean.
I know you might not accept this arguemt, but something isn't untrue because you don't believe it.
Likewise, it is not true because you believe it. I am certainly open to the possibility that I am wrong. Are you?
Just because you do not believe in Santa Clause does not mean he is not real.
My hope for you is that you'll think it merits examination
I have and I have examined it and found it wanting. There seems to be a common belief that once someone examines the Bible they will come to the same conclusion. The vast number of different branches of Christianity should be proof itself that is not true.
|
Just to add one question, just to those here who have used the divine inspiration of the Bible as evidence they're right:
The Torah and Qur'an also claim divine inspiration. They even claim it from the same divine source. None of them agree on the path to salvation. Why is your divinely inspired text right and the others wrong?
Why is your divinely inspired text right and the others wrong?
Let's toss in the Book of Mormon too, while we are at it.
God works in mysterious ways and all the variations of it crops up a lot. Let us take a closer look at this concept.
Why do humans do ‘mysterious’ things? Do we usually find the motive behind those ‘mysterious’ things? Are those motives usually less mysterious? Is the mystery often due to some need for obfuscation?
Why does god need to work in mysterious ways? If it is beyond our understanding, why did he not give us the capacity of understanding? Is god trying to hide something?
Why is the Tooth Fairy invisible? Why does she only come at night when children are asleep? Is it because the Tooth Fairy works in mysterious ways or is it because there is no Tooth Fairy and these deceptions are necessary for the parents to perpetuate the myth?
|
When I say I feel religion has stunted our growth, I am referring to things like the Catholic church trying to silence Galileo Galilei.
Oh you mean the guy they are putting a statue of in the vatican and have said a hundred Mea Culpas for and well have changed thier stance on science in the first place for.
Fair enough. Especially considering all the evidence. What other possible explanation could there be for the disappearance of the teeth and the appearance of money. I mean, it is not like someone would make that up.
Oh you mean the guy they are putting a statue of in the vatican and have said a hundred Mea Culpas for and well have changed thier stance on science in the first place for.
All the more reason to question any church’s interpretation of the bible. At least one of the early church fathers suggested that slaves should obey their masters. I disagree and doubt I am in the minority on this.
i would have more sympathy with your position though if you gave concrete examples of where the Bible was wrong in your view or of examples that show it is less than inspired.
Ah, where to start? How about the beginning. Oh, and I am using the King James version. If there is another version I should be using, please let me know.
Genesis
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Which heaven? The place where the good go when they die or the sky which surrounds the Earth? Did he bother to create any of the other planets at this time? What about the Sun, or is that when he later says let there be light?
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
Water? Without the sun? And how exactly was there water on a formless earth?
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Is this where he created the sun? Or is this light without the sun? Is it only light around the Earth or did he create all of the stars throughout the universe at the same time?
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
As long as we are talking about the concept of light and darkness. I can go along with the idea that you can not have one without the other, so I can see god dividing them. If we are talking about night and day on Earth…um…yeah, something is missing.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
In which language? And we are talking about night and day on Earth! Light and darkness may be split but light from the Sun is always on Earth, just not always on the same side.
|
|
Oh you mean the guy they are putting a statue of in the vatican and have said a hundred Mea Culpas for and well have changed thier stance on science in the first place for.All the more reason to question any church’s interpretation of the bible. At least one of the early church fathers suggested that slaves should obey their masters. I disagree and doubt I am in the minority on this.
Actually you are, but Oppinions are like @$$#oles every body has one.
|
|
i would have more sympathy with your position though if you gave concrete examples of where the Bible was wrong in your view or of examples that show it is less than inspired.Ah, where to start? How about the beginning. Oh, and I am using the King James version. If there is another version I should be using, please let me know.
How about anything that is a better translation from hebrew, aramaic or greek. You coudl start with this one Though I am sure others have different prefrences.
|
|
Actually you are, but Oppinions are like @$$#oles every body has one.Oh you mean the guy they are putting a statue of in the vatican and have said a hundred Mea Culpas for and well have changed thier stance on science in the first place for.All the more reason to question any church’s interpretation of the bible. At least one of the early church fathers suggested that slaves should obey their masters. I disagree and doubt I am in the minority on this.
But not everyone claims theirs are backed by the will of an omnipotent deity.
Also, are you saying slaves should obey their masters? Because I doubt Court Fool is in the minority regarding that. Of course, as he probably means because there should be no slaves, it might be a different interpretation.
|
|
Actually you are, but Oppinions are like @$$#oles every body has one.Oh you mean the guy they are putting a statue of in the vatican and have said a hundred Mea Culpas for and well have changed thier stance on science in the first place for.All the more reason to question any church’s interpretation of the bible. At least one of the early church fathers suggested that slaves should obey their masters. I disagree and doubt I am in the minority on this.But not everyone claims theirs are backed by the will of an omnipotent deity.
Also, are you saying slaves should obey their masters? Because I doubt Court Fool is in the minority regarding that. Of course, as he probably means because there should be no slaves, it might be a different interpretation.
Sorry I am posting during a lul at work and that did not come out the way it was intended.
|
|
To be honest, I kinda dig my religion best. We get to have naked dancing festivals under the moonlight and orgies. Sometimes with other people, even.
;)
And I don't think we've been in a war since the Romans kicked our butts, either, so that's kind of cool...
Yes but didnt they go away until the 19 century??
EDIT: ;D
I do not think there should be slaves and if someone is enslaved, I believe they should openly rebel if at all practical.
|
|
How about anything that is a better translation from hebrew, aramaic or greek. You coudl start with this one Though I am sure others have different prefrences.O.k. Is this acceptable?
yes sir that is a good website.
Please understand that no matter what I post. I will never meaningfully attack you or your beliefs or even your right to believe what you will. I wholeheartedly encourage debate and investigation. For it in questioning that I feel we find answers. Not always the ones we expect or want.
So implying my opinion smells a bit like human waste is not meant as an attack? ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
How about anything that is a better translation from hebrew, aramaic or greek. You coudl start with this one Though I am sure others have different prefrences.
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?
I am curious to hear people’s opinion on the similarities between Enûma Eliš and Genesis.
Were the Babylonians on to something? Did they just get part of the story right or was it complete coincidence?
|
|
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?
How about anything that is a better translation from hebrew, aramaic or greek. You coudl start with this one Though I am sure others have different prefrences.
Well, that is not my opinion. When we know that as a side gig, Shakespear(yes da' Bard) helped with the KJV trasnlation and put his own name into pslams 32, I believe. You have to take that as it is not immune.
That being said the oldest forms of the books of The Bible, are several thousands of years old. And our oldest manuscripts say the same things as our current ones. With a lot less errors then it should have. my Beef with KJV, it was/is using an older version of english and is harder to read.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
I am assuming by 'heavens' we are referring to the universe. So all the stars and planets were created at the same time?
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?
Not to mention the fact that obscure subtleties can often render exact translation impossible. Hasn't the bible gone from Greek to Latin to English, further compounding the problem? Add to that the fact that many of the English translations were performed with a secular political agenda (New King James, anyone?), and the very idea of an "accurate" translation doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
I would think an all powerful being who has a very important message to pass down to everyone for all time would make sure it contained no errors. I guess god is slippin’.
And our oldest manuscripts say the same things as our current ones. With a lot less errors then it should have.
Are you referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls which includes the Book of Jubilees?
|
|
And our oldest manuscripts say the same things as our current ones. With a lot less errors then it should have.Are you referring to the Dead Sea Scrolls which includes the Book of Jubilees?
among others. Naghammadi library. The oldest versions of the bible in Germany and the Vatican. The "dump" site being excavated currently in Egypt. ect..
|
|
Not to mention the fact that obscure subtleties can often render exact translation impossible. Hasn't the bible gone from Greek to Latin to English, further compounding the problem? Add to that the fact that many of the English translations were performed with a secular political agenda (New King James, anyone?), and the very idea of an "accurate" translation doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?
Depends....have you made up your mind already ? in which case yes there is nothing that con convince you.
Depends....have you made up your mind already ? in which case yes there is nothing that con convince you.Not to mention the fact that obscure subtleties can often render exact translation impossible. Hasn't the bible gone from Greek to Latin to English, further compounding the problem? Add to that the fact that many of the English translations were performed with a secular political agenda (New King James, anyone?), and the very idea of an "accurate" translation doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?
Nice try, but I'm not close-minded. As has been my position all along, evidence can convince me.
Got any?
6 Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."
7 God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.
8 God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.
So there is water floating around the Earth? Are we talking about clouds here? The choice of words seem suspect too. Around seems more appropriate than above…unless of course the Earth is flat. Oops. Did I just go there?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I would think an all powerful being who has a very important message to pass down to everyone for all time would make sure it contained no errors. I guess god is slippin’.or rather Man has slipped.
How do we identify the errors caused by Man? Did God really provide a guide to salvation but require us to understand an ancient and dead language to access it?
I would think an all powerful being who has a very important message to pass down to everyone for all time would make sure it contained no errors. I guess god is slippin’.or rather Man has slipped.
…and god is powerless to prevent it? Or does he not care that his word is being maligned?
Depends....have you made up your mind already ? in which case yes there is nothing that con convince you.
Isn’t yours?
|
|
Depends....have you made up your mind already ? in which case yes there is nothing that con convince you.Not to mention the fact that obscure subtleties can often render exact translation impossible. Hasn't the bible gone from Greek to Latin to English, further compounding the problem? Add to that the fact that many of the English translations were performed with a secular political agenda (New King James, anyone?), and the very idea of an "accurate" translation doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense.
I thought the bible was immune to misinterpretation because of the vagaries of mistranslation or poor translation. Which is the one true version again?Evidence can convince me, which has been my position from the beginning.
Got any?
Seriously: "Your mind is made up, so I won't even try" isn't a point; it's surrender.
I said the efort is wasted, I never said I woulndt try.
Seriously: "Your mind is made up, so I won't even try" isn't a point; it's surrender.
I disagree. It is not a surrender. It suggest the failure lies with the other.
Crimson Jester has made up his mind what the truth is. How is that any different than Sebastian's or my position?
I said the efort is wasted, I never said I woulndt try.
I am sorry you feel that way. If your purpose was to convince me the error of my ways, I am afraid you will end up very frustrated.
If, however, you approach it as Moff suggested, to gain a different perspective, it can be very enlightening.
I think it is arrogant to think you can change someone's mind. We grow into our perspective through many years and very different experiences. Change takes time. The best you can hope for is planting the seed of change.
|
|
someone's mind. We grow into our perspective through many years and very different experiences. Change takes time. The best you can hope for is planting the seed of change.
or to gain understanding as to why people other then myself choose to believe or choose not to.
I believe that [to quote an athiest] if a bus was going to run me down and I didnt believe it and you did. you have a moral obligation to push me out of the way. if there was a bus then you saved my life. If there was nto one, no harm done.
If there were undeniable proof that there was a god or that there was not a god, do you not think it would have been demonstrated already? It is just not that simple.
My take on it is that a lack of proof suggests there is no god. The same reasoning that I think most people apply to Santa Claus. Can I offer undeniable proof there is no god? No, I can not. So I remain open to the possibility there could be a god. Even more so to a god who is vastly different than the Judeo-Christian god.
Can anyone offer undeniable proof there is no Santa Claus? If not, why is he so easily dismissed?
If there was nto one, no harm done.
If there were no bus, do you think I might get a little irritated if you kept pushing me around?
If I believe there is no god and that you are wasting your life trying to convince everyone there is, do I have a moral obligation to save you from yourself not to mention all the other people you are going to lead astray?
|
|
If there were undeniable proof that there was a god or that there was not a god, do you not think it would have been demonstrated already? It is just not that simple.
My take on it is that a lack of proof suggests there is no god. The same reasoning that I think most people apply to Santa Claus. Can I offer undeniable proof there is no god? No, I can not. So I remain open to the possibility there could be a god. Even more so to a god who is vastly different than the Judeo-Christian god.
Can anyone offer undeniable proof there is no Santa Claus? If not, why is he so easily dismissed?
Technically you can't offer undeniable proof that there isn't anything. You test the positive and disprove it rather than proving the negative. This is one reason why you can never disprove God. He might just be hiding from you. But a complete absence of evidence in his favour is certainly indicative of his absence.
The onus is on those who assert the positive to provide evidence to support their assertion. In other words, atheists don't have to prove there is no God because it's impossible to prove there isn't a God, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens from the planet Krypton. Theists need to provide evidence to show that there is.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I believe that [to quote an athiest] if a bus was going to run me down and I didnt believe it and you did. you have a moral obligation to push me out of the way. if there was a bus then you saved my life. If there was nto one, no harm done.
Except you're not just pushing me out of the way. You're telling me not to cross the street at all and constantly warning me of the danger of busses in the streets that might run me down if I try to cross the street, including busses I can't perceive using my senses.
All I'm saying is to look both ways before you cross the street. If the busses have developed stealth technology, that needs to be verified and stopped. Otherwise, I just get pushed around a lot to protect me from threats I can't perceive or I am not allowed to cross the street. I don't find those to be acceptable alternatives to the risk of death by imaginary bus.