using the bible as proof or a verifier in religous discussion and debate - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

high_jinx · 10-16-2004, 02:49 PM

something that has always driven me crazy when talking about religion is when people say, "because it's in the bible!" or "read the bible!" when a legitimate point or question is brought up. while i have immense respect for anyone's belief that extends to their holy scripts, the bible is a book.it's an old book, but to me that only makes it and all the changes it's gone through for the past two millenia all the more suspect when it comes to proving a point or explaining where you're coming from. i have read the bible, and no lightbulb went off in my head to say anything one way or another on whether it was anything more than a good story like the john grisham novel i just read. i definitely understand it's historical importance and it's use as a tool for our growth as a lawful society, especially when all we were for a long time was a bunch of loosely connected tribes and villages. but beyond that, theres' no compelling reason for it to be accepted as any kind of difference maker in any kind of discussion.

another thing i've noticed is that this trend is peculiarly focused in christians... i've encountered this faulty logic far less often while discussing religion with other faiths... i don't hear anyone say "because it's in the koran" when i'm talking to a muslim... i'm curious about this as well.

thoughts anyone?

Willravel · 10-16-2004, 04:48 PM

The bible is obviously an ancient text. It has been translated right and left for hundreds of years or more. If someone wants to use it as a guide to living life, that's their decision. Arguing against believers in the bible about the bibles validity is obviously a waste of time. If you believe that the bible is a poor source of information, that's fine and it seemingly fits with reality as we understand it, but as long as a believer in the bible doesn't do something stupid in the bible's name, it's okay.

Run on sentances aside, it can be very frustrating to have your questions turned away by something you consider circular. I think the problem is that people ask these questions of believers too often. People ask Christians (for example) about why they believe in a document that is so old and is suspect. Why would you ask someone that? It seems like questions like that clearly do not have a simple or even feasable resolution. It all boils down to the old 'pick your battles' addage. Unless the believer is doing something wrong in the name of faith, just let them be happy.

Let us be happy.

thefictionweliv · 10-16-2004, 05:28 PM

I honestly have so much respect for someone who has faith in the bible and that where they go when they die will be a place of eternal happiness. It takes an equal act of faith to believe in no god as it does to believe in God. Those who defend everything with the Bible are those who are not hypocratic in their faith which is hard to be especially in this day and age. I have so much respect for people that truely love and beleive in their faith for the glory of God and not themselves.(No I'm not reffering to terrorists)

Kalnaur · 10-17-2004, 10:41 AM

You will find fanatics everywhere, and you will find "sheep" in every religion. It is an unfortunate side effect of mass belief in a higher power; some people just don't know when to stop and analyze the things they put faith in.

tecoyah · 10-17-2004, 11:18 AM

I have actually used "take it on faith" replys as an understanding that a conversation is over. While I do realize that this is a relatively closed minded way to look at a situation, I have also found that continuing a debate in these circumstances is generally, a waste of energy. I can respect the faith of another individual, and still decide not to waste time in an often futile gesture of explaining science to one who is not open to it.
While I feel the Biblical interpretation of earth history is seriously flawed, I cannot, and will not claim to "know" the truth, as it will always be subjective to perception.

martinguerre · 10-17-2004, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

I have actually used "take it on faith" replies as an understanding that a conversation is over.

Snarl. The reason i say that is that while perhaps some people are done talking at that point...most aren't. The bible isn't a self-interpreting document, nor is any belief system transparent to outsiders.

There are times when a persons has to interpret according to their values...say for instance if someone is trying to force the judgement of a particular faith upon them. But there are other times when we are best served by simply trying to understand the motivations and logic of the other.

One of the most intelligent discussions of this idea that i've seen so far, is in "Speaker for the Dead" by Orson Scott Card. Worth a read for fiction's sake as well...but has a discussion of how we classify strangers according to what we see, and not what they are.

asaris · 10-18-2004, 05:44 AM

I try to only use the Bible if it's a question specific to Christian belief -- since, at the very least, all Christians, almost by definition, take the teachings of the Bible very seriously, there's no better place to look if you want to know what Christians believe. If it's a more general question I'll try to use the methods of philosophy, at least if I think it's a question philosophy can answer.

aRs3N1c42 · 10-18-2004, 07:38 AM

The use of the Bible as a source for supporting an argument is based upon the Christian belief that the Bible is more than just a book. Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired written word of God. Humans did the actual writing but God determined what should or should not be written. Since the Christian belief is that God is the ultimate authority on everything, it is natural to look to what Christians believe to be God's written guideline for life, the universe and everything.

I understand your point in that when communicating with people who do not share the same belief about the authority of the Bible, using the Bible as a reference is not terribly helpful. I am perhaps guilty of this very same mistake.

I have a degree in psychology and am currently employed as a computer programmer. I have not had opportunity to develop my skills as a philosopher and debater. I'm hoping that my involvement in this community will help to hone these skills. As I see it, threads like this one are instrumental in helping me to have a better grasp on the concepts, ideas and faith which I hold dear. Thanks y'all!!

As a side note, I'm currently reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It's a rather deep philosophical discussion on the existance and or possibility of supernatural events taking place in history. Might be interesting reading for you philosophy buffs.

Kalibah · 11-02-2004, 01:38 AM

Same thing with the Pope. The pope is not infalliable unless hes speaking 'from the chair'. There is a latin term for it ' ex cathedra' or something of that nature.

His OPINION on the death penatly is just that.

So often have people quoted his statements towards abolishment of capital punishment as a valid argument- when its just opinion. The Catechism can lay thing out in a way that bible cannot though.

But i understand- too often persons, religious especially, are unable to argue their point clearly, and so they resort to things like taht

Fibrosa · 11-02-2004, 04:11 AM

You know, it's funny and anecdotal, but most of the people who tell me to read the bible and then I'll 'see' haven't actually read the bible themselves.

I've actually read the bible and it was instrumental for my deconversion.

asaris · 11-02-2004, 10:19 AM

You're right, but a little hard on the RCC, Kalibah. Every time I've read one of their Encylicals, I've been impressed by the standard of argument they uphold. I often disagree with them, but this is most often because of differing premises, not because their argument in invalid.

flstf · 11-02-2004, 11:40 AM

The problem with discussing/debating with people of faith is just that, they have faith. Once you have complete faith in something almost eveything can be explained away based on your beliefs.

One interesting debate I read recently was about the flood story and Noah. Apparently the Mesopotamians had written the Epic of Gilgimesh flood story very similar to the Bible's version hundreds of years before the Bible was written. One would logicly think that the writers of the Bible borrowed and rewrote the story. But a true believer may say something like, well God inspired the story and it was probably not written down for centuries and instead passed down verbally and the Bible's version is the correct one. There is no way to really refute something like this. You just gotta believe.

asaris · 11-02-2004, 12:45 PM

Actually, there are a number of different explanations. One is that they borrowed. Another is that there really was a great world-wide flood -- if there really was such a thing, it stands to reason that multiple cultures would have it reflected in their myths. And another is just that a big flood is a pretty traumatic event for a primitive society, and so it tends to get reflected in their myths.

flstf · 11-02-2004, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Actually, there are a number of different explanations. One is that they borrowed. Another is that there really was a great world-wide flood -- if there really was such a thing, it stands to reason that multiple cultures would have it reflected in their myths. And another is just that a big flood is a pretty traumatic event for a primitive society, and so it tends to get reflected in their myths.

I agree. And there are many flood stories in ancient cultures. But in these two there are too many details almost the same. IMHO, one must have morphed from the other. That's my point, the Bible writers probably borrowed it from the Epic of Gilgimesh. This does not sit well with some folks.

asaris · 11-02-2004, 02:23 PM

The Greek myth is also very similar, at least in the same details as the other two. The Gilgamesh epic is different enough from the Biblical epic that, even if some material was borrowed, some material is unique. I don't believe, for example, that the Gilgamesh epic has anything about "two of every kind". Also IIRC, Utnapishtim was the only human survivor, rather than eight survivors as in the Biblical story.

Incidentally, the mere fact that the Babylonian epic was written down earlier doesn't entail anything about who borrowed from who. There could be a third source, or there could be an earlier Hebraic tradition that just didn't get written down until later. And I'm sure there's other. even less likely possibilities.

prosequence · 11-02-2004, 04:43 PM

It's in the Bible. Hehe, yeah I can see how that would be frustrating.
But taken from another point of view:
1. The person they are conversing with does not have an open dialogue with God.
2. The person also does not share the experience with God, or in fact faith.
3. The said person also does not have a willingness to search out God.
4. One of the few "tangible" (often requested by non believers) products of God IS the Bible.

So I can understand why a believer might resort to "because it's in the Bible", if the other won't accept their word or faith.

solaron1 · 11-04-2004, 02:50 AM

Alot of people who respond that way, "because it's not in the bible", generally don't have a balance between using the bible as a basis, and using common sense. I've been taught how to reason with the reasonable, and how to recognize those who can't be reasoned with. When possible, I use history science and info people have gained from specifically studying the bible to talk about things.

"Because its in the bible" is a phrase that I leave reserved for extremely bothersome Christians who can't take no for an answer. I've yet to use it.

Not to say there aren't bothersome Christians, I just avoid them.

The bothersome ones that is.

Wheat King · 11-05-2004, 06:52 AM

I think it makes perfect sense that Christians always revert back to their ultimate document for proof of their beliefs. The Bible is their source, their lifeblood. Why wouldn't they use it for backup?
If in a discussion with a Christian, the Christian could defend his beliefs based on what he thinks, or what he's pretty sure of. But it's pretty clear that automatically his opinions would be dismissed as invalid if he didn't have any kind of proof to back up his feelings.
The CHristian is convicted that the Bible is true. How strong could that CHristian truly be if he believed his main source of information was filled with inaccurate information, and was essentially a collection of mens opinions and feelings? I argue that he can't be very strong.
I think that's why there are such criticisms of Christians today. Because many Christians don't believe their Bible is true. Because they don't know their Bible, don't read their Bible they are open and succeptible to attacks from skeptics and critics who find faults with the Bible. These unlearned Christians are swayed by the critics and more liable to take what they say for truth because they don't really know what their faith document teaches.

Where is the intellectual Christian? Can they argue against the skeptics in this day and age? Can they refute the arguments attacking the legitimacy of the Bible and existence of Jesus Christ? Can the Bible stand up to todays criticisms???

yster · 11-05-2004, 08:52 AM

Only a living document can stand up to criticism and changing moral values. The bible is long since dead, attempts to reinterpret what has already been decided ring incredibly hollow. The Mormons have an advantage in this way. They keep all of their religious documents locked up where there is very limited access, and can bring out a new passage whenever they need to make a point, without worrying that it will have already been torn down by disbelievers.
As for it taking equal courage to believe or disbelieve in god, people will inevitably take the easier path. When religion offers a perfect authority figure and pre-established moral codes with no need for agonizing reflection over what is best for humanity, acceptance is easily done. In war-time, soldiers take comfort in 'only following orders', because it is a very ego-comforting way to absolve themselves of the taking of lives. God provides this same absolution, and with faith it is even stronger than the soldier's, since god is perceived as infallible.
I'm not saying these are negative adaptations; they are absolutely necessary to preserve the human psyche when the world seems out of control. But everyone must find their own rudder, and we should be respectful of alternative ways of beating back the darkness.
If some of these rudders seem overly-vulnerable to manipulation by those above, it is the choice of those who follow. As long as the follower is happy and does not oppress others through their actions, people should leave them be, no matter how deluded they seem to others.

alpha phi · 11-06-2004, 12:18 PM

I have no problem with christians who quote from the bible.
That is ....IF they get it right.
most times in a religious discussion, said christian will miss-quote the bible
to prove their point!
I was raised in a ....christian......erm, church going home
so I've read a good deal of the bible (should finish that book)
so, most of the time I can catch their lack of knowledge.
It's very satisfying to say "no what really says is...."
"I think You need to read your bible!"

SecretMethod70 · 11-06-2004, 12:48 PM

Know your audience. If you're trying to debate with someone who is not Christian you simply can't use the Bible as a source. And if you can't explain, at least to a reasonable degree, your beliefs without falling back on "the Bible says so," I think you probably need to reevaluate your beliefs. This is lost on many fundementalists I think.

prosequence · 11-07-2004, 07:20 PM

What do atheist have in the way of documentation?

TawG · 11-07-2004, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosequence

What do atheist have in the way of documentation?

empirical thinking.

martinguerre · 11-07-2004, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yster

Only a living document can stand up to criticism and changing moral values. The bible is long since dead, attempts to reinterpret what has already been decided ring incredibly hollow.

Amazing that you got to decide this. Really though...how do you justify this assertion?

"We limit not the truth of God to our poor reach of mind --
By notions of our day and sect -- crude partial and confined
No, let a new and better hope within our hearts be stirred
For God hath yet more light and truth to break forth from the Word. "

These are some of the words that consecrated the journey to America by the Pilgrims...and are now used by GLBTQ Christians to claim their equal share of God's salvation. There is more light...and i think studying the church will make that clear.

RedbeardUH · 11-07-2004, 10:37 PM

Christians use the bible because it is their "a priori" so to speak. It is the foundation of their culture. It is a perspective. Reading the bible from a Jewish perspective, vs a christian perspective, vs a muslim all reveal different viewpoints. While I agree that it is futile to argue the bible as fact, it is equally futile to argue the bible as false. Someone posted "the text to aethiesm is empiricism." But is not our sight flawed (mirage) or hearing impaired (tennonitus) our flesh weak? (paralysis).

On top of that, do we not all have "faith" in our very language? To use the bible as a backdrop for proving this is no 'absurd' than to use our very own language to prove anything. There is no definite way to define anything. Why try? A tree is only a tree arbitrarily. Might it not be a reet, or a eter? And the only way to define a language is with....language! (ie: dictionary) And even then it is still weak, how do you define something like the word "love" in mere language?

Yes it is silly to portray the bible as empiricle, but is it not equally silly to claim the bible is faithless using language? We all have faith, whether we like it or not.

kollege_gal2000 · 11-10-2004, 09:16 AM

My boyfriend and I are quite different. I am southern baptist while he is agnostic. Needless to say we have had some interesting conversations based off of the religion conversation.

First, when speaking to a "christian" you have to understand that the Bible is their foundation. The Bible will be used as a source of reference.

I have used the "read the Bible" phrase myself. Up until my current boyfriend came along, I never thought anything of it. If someone reads the Bible, in my mind that's that. They will read the Bible and understand where I come from discussion closed.

However, my current boyfriend messed up that philosophy of mine which is a good thing.

I've had to work on why I truly believe the way I do. He constantly comes at me with questions as to why I believe in a book that was, in this mind, written by some guy who wanted to have control of people. In his mind, the Bible is just a book that was written in order to have people do what you say. "I don't want people to kill each other, therefore I will write it in this book and they won't kill because they believe what is written in this book."

I think Christians get tired of having to defend their stance and because of this they refer people to read the Bible. It's their way of changing the subject.

People do not go around having discussions with atheists on why they do not believe in God, but they will have discussion with Christians on why they believe in a bible. After a while it gets old. I know I used the phrase "read the Bible" as a way of ending the discussion.

The way my boyfriend and I work now is: first we have decided to disagree on the subject, so now we do not go into the discussion trying to change each others mind, and second we respect each others belief.

Although, I am still working on the "read the Bible" phrase.

Bill O'Rights · 11-10-2004, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kollege_gal2000

People do not go around having discussions with atheists on why they do not believe in God...

Wanna bet?

sobedrummer · 11-11-2004, 11:50 AM

Whenever i enter into a conversation with a christian, and they begin to argue "the Bible says", i stop them, pointing out that if they can use the Bible to argue their side, i can use the Aeneid to argue most roman beliefs. The conversation has always ended there...

prosequence · 11-12-2004, 08:01 AM

sobedrummer, do you believe in the Aeneid ? Do you take faith in what is written in it? Do you base your life around it? Just curious, never heard of anyone (recently) who has.

sobedrummer · 11-13-2004, 01:35 AM

At the moment, no, but people in the past have, and i very easily could begin to live by it, making it acceptable to my argument.

prosequence · 11-14-2004, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TawG

empirical thinking.

I was kind of looking for documentation.

flstf · 11-15-2004, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

The Greek myth is also very similar, at least in the same details as the other two. The Gilgamesh epic is different enough from the Biblical epic that, even if some material was borrowed, some material is unique. I don't believe, for example, that the Gilgamesh epic has anything about "two of every kind". Also IIRC, Utnapishtim was the only human survivor, rather than eight survivors as in the Biblical story.

Incidentally, the mere fact that the Babylonian epic was written down earlier doesn't entail anything about who borrowed from who. There could be a third source, or there could be an earlier Hebraic tradition that just didn't get written down until later. And I'm sure there's other. even less likely possibilities.

Many of the similarities between Gilgamesh and the Bible are in table form in the following link:

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/floodorigins.html

asaris · 11-15-2004, 08:57 AM

Interesting page, flstf. I'll just point out that, even if the Bible borrowed the story from the Babylonians, it doesn't mean it's not true and that I've long been unsure about the historical veracity of the flood story, which I've mentioned here before.

WillyPete · 11-15-2004, 09:45 AM

We also have to realise that the current bible was compiled by people who agreed on what god should be like and some very weird philosophical points.
There's a lot of books referenced in the bible that do not appear in the King James version (considered most accurately translated). Why were they not included?
Who gave the people who compiled our current bible the right to claim that they were not appropriate?

Even the books in the new testament are out of chronological order.

prosequence · 11-15-2004, 01:31 PM

They were not included because God did not want them to be included. And once again, it would be the big guy who gave them the "right".

As far as chronoogical order, think of it as kind of Pulp Fictiony... skips all over.

Coppertop · 11-15-2004, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosequence

They were not included because God did not want them to be included. And once again, it would be the big guy who gave them the "right".

... effectively ending any chance of rational debate with you.

Quote:

This morning there was a knock at my door. When I answered the door I found a well groomed, nicely dressed couple. The man spoke first:

John: "Hi! I'm John, and this is Mary."

Mary: "Hi! We're here to invite you to come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Pardon me?! What are you talking about? Who's Hank, and why would I want to kiss His ass?"

John: "If you kiss Hank's ass, He'll give you a million dollars; and if you don't, He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "What? Is this some sort of bizarre mob shake-down?"

John: "Hank is a billionaire philanthropist. Hank built this town. Hank owns this town. He can do whatever He wants, and what He wants is to give you a million dollars, but He can't until you kiss His ass."

Me: "That doesn't make any sense. Why..."

Mary: "Who are you to question Hank's gift? Don't you want a million dollars? Isn't it worth a little kiss on the ass?"

Me: "Well maybe, if it's legit, but..."

John: "Then come kiss Hank's ass with us."

Me: "Do you kiss Hank's ass often?"

Mary: "Oh yes, all the time..."

Me: "And has He given you a million dollars?"

John: "Well no. You don't actually get the money until you leave town."

Me: "So why don't you just leave town now?"

Mary: "You can't leave until Hank tells you to, or you don't get the money, and He kicks the shit out of you."

Me: "Do you know anyone who kissed Hank's ass, left town, and got the million dollars?"

John: "My mother kissed Hank's ass for years. She left town last year, and I'm sure she got the money."

Me: "Haven't you talked to her since then?"

John: "Of course not, Hank doesn't allow it."

Me: "So what makes you think He'll actually give you the money if you've never talked to anyone who got the money?"

Mary: "Well, He gives you a little bit before you leave. Maybe you'll get a raise, maybe you'll win a small lotto, maybe you'll just find a twenty-dollar bill on the street."

Me: "What's that got to do with Hank?"

John: "Hank has certain 'connections.'"

Me: "I'm sorry, but this sounds like some sort of bizarre con game."

John: "But it's a million dollars, can you really take the chance? And remember, if you don't kiss Hank's ass He'll kick the shit out of you."

Me: "Maybe if I could see Hank, talk to Him, get the details straight from Him..."

Mary: "No one sees Hank, no one talks to Hank."

Me: "Then how do you kiss His ass?"

John: "Sometimes we just blow Him a kiss, and think of His ass. Other times we kiss Karl's ass, and he passes it on."

Me: "Who's Karl?"

Mary: "A friend of ours. He's the one who taught us all about kissing Hank's ass. All we had to do was take him out to dinner a few times."

Me: "And you just took his word for it when he said there was a Hank, that Hank wanted you to kiss His ass, and that Hank would reward you?"

John: "Oh no! Karl has a letter he got from Hank years ago explaining the whole thing. Here's a copy; see for yourself."

From the desk of Karl

1. Kiss Hank's ass and He'll give you a million dollars when you leave town.
2. Use alcohol in moderation.
3. Kick the shit out of people who aren't like you.
4. Eat right.
5. Hank dictated this list Himself.
6. The moon is made of green cheese.
7. Everything Hank says is right.
8. Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.
9. Don't use alcohol.
10. Eat your wieners on buns, no condiments.
11. Kiss Hank's ass or He'll kick the shit out of you.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead."

Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper."

Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting."

John: "Of course, Hank dictated it."

Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?"

Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people."

Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the shit out of people just because they're different?"

Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right."

Me: "How do you figure that?"

Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!"

Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up."

John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too."

Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong."

John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure."

Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..."

Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese."

Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese."

John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!"

Me: "We do?"

Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so."

Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'"

John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking."

Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?"

Mary: She blushes.

John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong."

Me: "What if I don't have a bun?"

John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong."

Me: "No relish? No Mustard?"

Mary: She looks positively stricken.

John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!"

Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?"

Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la."

John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..."

Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time."

Mary: She faints.

John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the shit out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's ass for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off.

FngKestrel · 11-15-2004, 03:19 PM

I find it interesting that the divine word of God has so many contradictions. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html

I find that people using it to argue are akin to a post I made about horoscopes and James Randi, they find what they like about it, accentuate those aspects, and practically ignore the rest.

asaris · 11-15-2004, 04:29 PM

Coppertop: appreciate the humor, but it was little long. I trust you understand the disanalogies between worshipping God and kissing Hank's ass.

Well, I'm not going to take the time to debunk all of those 'contradictions', but let me say a few things. First of all, I'm suspicious about his responses to responses to these contradictions. Since I'll probably be using some of these, I'll respond to some of them at length.

Quote:

1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant.

Obviously, he doesn't understand metaphor. It's that simple -- the Bible is a work of literature encompassing several different genres. Just as we would for any other text, in order to understand scripture, we have to take into account what genre whatever section was written as.

Quote:

3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view.

There's a difference between quoting to support a point and taking something out of context. If I'm quoting Nietzsche, I'm not going to quote whole books, whole chapters, or even, generally, whole aphorisms. I'm going to pick a sentence or two that, in my opinion, best summarizes the intent of the whole. You're welcome to disagree with me; the proper method is to argue that that doesn't best represent what the text says, in other words, that I'm taking it out of context. I don't know why quoting scripture should be treated differently than quoting any other text.[/quote]

I'll also mention, as I've mentioned in many other threads that I, and many other rather conservative Christians, don't necessarily think everything in the Bible is true simpliciter. This goes with what I said about genres; if something is written in the style of myth, or parable, or analogy, it simply can't be understood literally. Even the most ardent fundamentalists don't think that Jesus is literally a vine. But I don't even think some of the things more or less represented as history are true. The question is, what is the point of scripture? The point, as far as I can tell, is to tell us about God and his plan for us. So who killed Goliath is pretty irrelevant, as long as the story is accurate about what God's relation to his people is like. And a lot of Jim's supposed contradictions are just, if you'll forgive me, dumb. If I'm not mentioning one you particularly like, feel free to bring it up.

Quote:

Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

Well, welcome to the mysteries of the Trinity. The Trinity is one of the very few things I'll just say straight out "I believe it because the Bible says so". But, of course, I've never really been sure why the fact that there are aspects of God we can't understand is evidence against him. If he could be put neatly into a nice box, I'm sure that would be used as evidence he was just made up. But in any case, this specific 'contradiction' is easy. The fact that one verse says that the Father and the Son are one doesn't entail anything about their relative importance.

Quote:

Is it folly to be wise or not?
PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.
ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

1 Cor.1:19: "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and wil bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

Well, the Ecclesiates passage doesn't clearly contradict the other two. Now, it's pretty clear that the other two are talking about two different types of wisdom. Consider the audiences: Proverbs was written to a Jewish audience, who could be presumed to know already that "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom". But Corinthians was written to Greeks, who for the most part did not yet know God. If this is confusing to you, consider the idea of Plato's "To be wise is to know that one is not wise". Is this a contradiction, or is it merely a conundrum? There's a difference, you know.

Quote:

Snakes, while built low, do not eat dirt
GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life.

This one was just particularly amusing. Have you ever used the phrase "Eat my dust"? Did you have a package of dust you were offering, or did you mean this metaphorically? It seems pretty clear that God is here referring to the humiliation of the serpent, not anything literal.

Quote:

Ascend to heaven
"And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (2 Kings 2:11)
"No man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven, ... the Son of Man." (John 3:13)

He forgot Enoch, who was snatched up into heaven. But this misses the point of Christ's statement: he was claiming authority to talk about heaven, since he had seen it. And it's not like Enoch or Elijah were coming back to talk about their experiences.

Quote:

Who bears guilt?
GAL 6:2 Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.
GAL 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

A better translation is the following, under which the supposed contradiction vanishes:

Quote:

2Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. 3If anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he deceives himself. 4Each one should test his own actions. Then he can take pride in himself, without comparing himself to somebody else, 5for each one should carry his own load.

Quote:

Marriage?
Proverbs 18:22
1 Corinthians 7 (whole book. See 1,2,27,39,40)

Proverbs is always tricky, but I don't really see any contradiction here. There is a bit of tension, but the main tension is between Proverbs and what Paul admits explicitly is his own advice, and not the Lord's.

Quote:

Judging
1 Cor 3:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God."

The difference is between judging someone's actions, and judging what is in his heart. There's a lot more that we can say about judging, but I'll leave it at this: it is clear from scripture that we are not only entitled, but called to judge actions. To speak out against injustice, for example. But to judge someone's heart is for God alone. Both of these positions are found throughout scripture, both in the OT and NT, and it's hard to see how they contradict each other.

There's lots more there, most of which I don't really care about. Like I said earlier, if you have a favorite, feel free to mention it.

Coppertop · 11-15-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by asaris

Coppertop: appreciate the humor, but it was little long. I trust you understand the disanalogies between worshipping God and kissing Hank's ass.

Of course I do. I just find that little story to be an excellent indicator of the ridiculousness of religious dogma. And no, I didn't write that, it is from here. All too often it is religious people themselves who take the stories literally. I get from the bible the same values I get from, say, Greek mythology - but I hold neither to be the literal truth.

martinguerre · 11-15-2004, 06:25 PM

"King James version (considered most accurately translated)"

Not at *all.* One of the worst translations ever produced in terms of accuracy to the text. They had less accurate (later) manuscripts to start from, and less material to compare word use with. Excellent for devotional use, completely unreliable for biblical criticism, questionable for theological use.

10-16-2004, 02:49 PM	#1 (permalink)
high_jinx Psycho Location: venice beach, ca	using the bible as proof or a verifier in religous discussion and debate something that has always driven me crazy when talking about religion is when people say, "because it's in the bible!" or "read the bible!" when a legitimate point or question is brought up. while i have immense respect for anyone's belief that extends to their holy scripts, the bible is a book.it's an old book, but to me that only makes it and all the changes it's gone through for the past two millenia all the more suspect when it comes to proving a point or explaining where you're coming from. i have read the bible, and no lightbulb went off in my head to say anything one way or another on whether it was anything more than a good story like the john grisham novel i just read. i definitely understand it's historical importance and it's use as a tool for our growth as a lawful society, especially when all we were for a long time was a bunch of loosely connected tribes and villages. but beyond that, theres' no compelling reason for it to be accepted as any kind of difference maker in any kind of discussion. another thing i've noticed is that this trend is peculiarly focused in christians... i've encountered this faulty logic far less often while discussing religion with other faiths... i don't hear anyone say "because it's in the koran" when i'm talking to a muslim... i'm curious about this as well. thoughts anyone? __________________ -my phobia drowned while i was gettin down.

10-17-2004, 10:41 AM	#4 (permalink)
Kalnaur Psycho Location: Portland, Oregon	You will find fanatics everywhere, and you will find "sheep" in every religion. It is an unfortunate side effect of mass belief in a higher power; some people just don't know when to stop and analyze the things they put faith in. __________________ PC: Can you help me out here HK? HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags. PC: And the other 2 percent? HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

10-17-2004, 11:18 AM	#5 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	I have actually used "take it on faith" replys as an understanding that a conversation is over. While I do realize that this is a relatively closed minded way to look at a situation, I have also found that continuing a debate in these circumstances is generally, a waste of energy. I can respect the faith of another individual, and still decide not to waste time in an often futile gesture of explaining science to one who is not open to it. While I feel the Biblical interpretation of earth history is seriously flawed, I cannot, and will not claim to "know" the truth, as it will always be subjective to perception. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-18-2004, 05:44 AM	#7 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	I try to only use the Bible if it's a question specific to Christian belief -- since, at the very least, all Christians, almost by definition, take the teachings of the Bible very seriously, there's no better place to look if you want to know what Christians believe. If it's a more general question I'll try to use the methods of philosophy, at least if I think it's a question philosophy can answer. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-02-2004, 04:11 AM	#10 (permalink)
Fibrosa Insane	You know, it's funny and anecdotal, but most of the people who tell me to read the bible and then I'll 'see' haven't actually read the bible themselves. I've actually read the bible and it was instrumental for my deconversion. __________________ D'oh!

10-16-2004, 04:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The bible is obviously an ancient text. It has been translated right and left for hundreds of years or more. If someone wants to use it as a guide to living life, that's their decision. Arguing against believers in the bible about the bibles validity is obviously a waste of time. If you believe that the bible is a poor source of information, that's fine and it seemingly fits with reality as we understand it, but as long as a believer in the bible doesn't do something stupid in the bible's name, it's okay. Run on sentances aside, it can be very frustrating to have your questions turned away by something you consider circular. I think the problem is that people ask these questions of believers too often. People ask Christians (for example) about why they believe in a document that is so old and is suspect. Why would you ask someone that? It seems like questions like that clearly do not have a simple or even feasable resolution. It all boils down to the old 'pick your battles' addage. Unless the believer is doing something wrong in the name of faith, just let them be happy. Let us be happy.

10-16-2004, 05:28 PM	#3 (permalink)
thefictionweliv Insane	I honestly have so much respect for someone who has faith in the bible and that where they go when they die will be a place of eternal happiness. It takes an equal act of faith to believe in no god as it does to believe in God. Those who defend everything with the Bible are those who are not hypocratic in their faith which is hard to be especially in this day and age. I have so much respect for people that truely love and beleive in their faith for the glory of God and not themselves.(No I'm not reffering to terrorists)

10-18-2004, 07:38 AM	#8 (permalink)
aRs3N1c42 Upright Location: Somewhere over the rainbow	The use of the Bible as a source for supporting an argument is based upon the Christian belief that the Bible is more than just a book. Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired written word of God. Humans did the actual writing but God determined what should or should not be written. Since the Christian belief is that God is the ultimate authority on everything, it is natural to look to what Christians believe to be God's written guideline for life, the universe and everything. I understand your point in that when communicating with people who do not share the same belief about the authority of the Bible, using the Bible as a reference is not terribly helpful. I am perhaps guilty of this very same mistake. I have a degree in psychology and am currently employed as a computer programmer. I have not had opportunity to develop my skills as a philosopher and debater. I'm hoping that my involvement in this community will help to hone these skills. As I see it, threads like this one are instrumental in helping me to have a better grasp on the concepts, ideas and faith which I hold dear. Thanks y'all!! As a side note, I'm currently reading Miracles by C.S. Lewis. It's a rather deep philosophical discussion on the existance and or possibility of supernatural events taking place in history. Might be interesting reading for you philosophy buffs.

11-02-2004, 01:38 AM	#9 (permalink)
Kalibah Insane Location: Padded Playhouse	Same thing with the Pope. The pope is not infalliable unless hes speaking 'from the chair'. There is a latin term for it ' ex cathedra' or something of that nature. His OPINION on the death penatly is just that. So often have people quoted his statements towards abolishment of capital punishment as a valid argument- when its just opinion. The Catechism can lay thing out in a way that bible cannot though. But i understand- too often persons, religious especially, are unable to argue their point clearly, and so they resort to things like taht

11-02-2004, 10:19 AM	#11 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	You're right, but a little hard on the RCC, Kalibah. Every time I've read one of their Encylicals, I've been impressed by the standard of argument they uphold. I often disagree with them, but this is most often because of differing premises, not because their argument in invalid. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-02-2004, 11:40 AM	#12 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	The problem with discussing/debating with people of faith is just that, they have faith. Once you have complete faith in something almost eveything can be explained away based on your beliefs. One interesting debate I read recently was about the flood story and Noah. Apparently the Mesopotamians had written the Epic of Gilgimesh flood story very similar to the Bible's version hundreds of years before the Bible was written. One would logicly think that the writers of the Bible borrowed and rewrote the story. But a true believer may say something like, well God inspired the story and it was probably not written down for centuries and instead passed down verbally and the Bible's version is the correct one. There is no way to really refute something like this. You just gotta believe.

11-02-2004, 12:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Actually, there are a number of different explanations. One is that they borrowed. Another is that there really was a great world-wide flood -- if there really was such a thing, it stands to reason that multiple cultures would have it reflected in their myths. And another is just that a big flood is a pretty traumatic event for a primitive society, and so it tends to get reflected in their myths. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-02-2004, 02:23 PM	#15 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	The Greek myth is also very similar, at least in the same details as the other two. The Gilgamesh epic is different enough from the Biblical epic that, even if some material was borrowed, some material is unique. I don't believe, for example, that the Gilgamesh epic has anything about "two of every kind". Also IIRC, Utnapishtim was the only human survivor, rather than eight survivors as in the Biblical story. Incidentally, the mere fact that the Babylonian epic was written down earlier doesn't entail anything about who borrowed from who. There could be a third source, or there could be an earlier Hebraic tradition that just didn't get written down until later. And I'm sure there's other. even less likely possibilities. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-02-2004, 04:43 PM	#16 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	It's in the Bible. Hehe, yeah I can see how that would be frustrating. But taken from another point of view: 1. The person they are conversing with does not have an open dialogue with God. 2. The person also does not share the experience with God, or in fact faith. 3. The said person also does not have a willingness to search out God. 4. One of the few "tangible" (often requested by non believers) products of God IS the Bible. So I can understand why a believer might resort to "because it's in the Bible", if the other won't accept their word or faith. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

11-04-2004, 02:50 AM	#17 (permalink)
solaron1 Upright	Alot of people who respond that way, "because it's not in the bible", generally don't have a balance between using the bible as a basis, and using common sense. I've been taught how to reason with the reasonable, and how to recognize those who can't be reasoned with. When possible, I use history science and info people have gained from specifically studying the bible to talk about things. "Because its in the bible" is a phrase that I leave reserved for extremely bothersome Christians who can't take no for an answer. I've yet to use it. Not to say there aren't bothersome Christians, I just avoid them. The bothersome ones that is.

11-05-2004, 06:52 AM	#18 (permalink)
Wheat King Loser	I think it makes perfect sense that Christians always revert back to their ultimate document for proof of their beliefs. The Bible is their source, their lifeblood. Why wouldn't they use it for backup? If in a discussion with a Christian, the Christian could defend his beliefs based on what he thinks, or what he's pretty sure of. But it's pretty clear that automatically his opinions would be dismissed as invalid if he didn't have any kind of proof to back up his feelings. The CHristian is convicted that the Bible is true. How strong could that CHristian truly be if he believed his main source of information was filled with inaccurate information, and was essentially a collection of mens opinions and feelings? I argue that he can't be very strong. I think that's why there are such criticisms of Christians today. Because many Christians don't believe their Bible is true. Because they don't know their Bible, don't read their Bible they are open and succeptible to attacks from skeptics and critics who find faults with the Bible. These unlearned Christians are swayed by the critics and more liable to take what they say for truth because they don't really know what their faith document teaches. Where is the intellectual Christian? Can they argue against the skeptics in this day and age? Can they refute the arguments attacking the legitimacy of the Bible and existence of Jesus Christ? Can the Bible stand up to todays criticisms???

11-05-2004, 08:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
yster Tilted	Only a living document can stand up to criticism and changing moral values. The bible is long since dead, attempts to reinterpret what has already been decided ring incredibly hollow. The Mormons have an advantage in this way. They keep all of their religious documents locked up where there is very limited access, and can bring out a new passage whenever they need to make a point, without worrying that it will have already been torn down by disbelievers. As for it taking equal courage to believe or disbelieve in god, people will inevitably take the easier path. When religion offers a perfect authority figure and pre-established moral codes with no need for agonizing reflection over what is best for humanity, acceptance is easily done. In war-time, soldiers take comfort in 'only following orders', because it is a very ego-comforting way to absolve themselves of the taking of lives. God provides this same absolution, and with faith it is even stronger than the soldier's, since god is perceived as infallible. I'm not saying these are negative adaptations; they are absolutely necessary to preserve the human psyche when the world seems out of control. But everyone must find their own rudder, and we should be respectful of alternative ways of beating back the darkness. If some of these rudders seem overly-vulnerable to manipulation by those above, it is the choice of those who follow. As long as the follower is happy and does not oppress others through their actions, people should leave them be, no matter how deluded they seem to others.

11-06-2004, 12:18 PM	#20 (permalink)
alpha phi seeker Location: home	I have no problem with christians who quote from the bible. That is ....IF they get it right. most times in a religious discussion, said christian will miss-quote the bible to prove their point! I was raised in a ....christian......erm, church going home so I've read a good deal of the bible (should finish that book) so, most of the time I can catch their lack of knowledge. It's very satisfying to say "no what really says is...." "I think You need to read your bible!" __________________ All ideas in this communication are sole property of the voices in my head. (C) 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 "The Voices" (TM). All rights reserved.

11-06-2004, 12:48 PM	#21 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	Know your audience. If you're trying to debate with someone who is not Christian you simply can't use the Bible as a source. And if you can't explain, at least to a reasonable degree, your beliefs without falling back on "the Bible says so," I think you probably need to reevaluate your beliefs. This is lost on many fundementalists I think. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

11-07-2004, 07:20 PM	#22 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	What do atheist have in the way of documentation? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

11-07-2004, 10:37 PM	#25 (permalink)
RedbeardUH Upright	Christians use the bible because it is their "a priori" so to speak. It is the foundation of their culture. It is a perspective. Reading the bible from a Jewish perspective, vs a christian perspective, vs a muslim all reveal different viewpoints. While I agree that it is futile to argue the bible as fact, it is equally futile to argue the bible as false. Someone posted "the text to aethiesm is empiricism." But is not our sight flawed (mirage) or hearing impaired (tennonitus) our flesh weak? (paralysis). On top of that, do we not all have "faith" in our very language? To use the bible as a backdrop for proving this is no 'absurd' than to use our very own language to prove anything. There is no definite way to define anything. Why try? A tree is only a tree arbitrarily. Might it not be a reet, or a eter? And the only way to define a language is with....language! (ie: dictionary) And even then it is still weak, how do you define something like the word "love" in mere language? Yes it is silly to portray the bible as empiricle, but is it not equally silly to claim the bible is faithless using language? We all have faith, whether we like it or not.

11-10-2004, 09:16 AM	#26 (permalink)
kollege_gal2000 Tilted Location: Edinburg, TX	My boyfriend and I are quite different. I am southern baptist while he is agnostic. Needless to say we have had some interesting conversations based off of the religion conversation. First, when speaking to a "christian" you have to understand that the Bible is their foundation. The Bible will be used as a source of reference. I have used the "read the Bible" phrase myself. Up until my current boyfriend came along, I never thought anything of it. If someone reads the Bible, in my mind that's that. They will read the Bible and understand where I come from discussion closed. However, my current boyfriend messed up that philosophy of mine which is a good thing. I've had to work on why I truly believe the way I do. He constantly comes at me with questions as to why I believe in a book that was, in this mind, written by some guy who wanted to have control of people. In his mind, the Bible is just a book that was written in order to have people do what you say. "I don't want people to kill each other, therefore I will write it in this book and they won't kill because they believe what is written in this book." I think Christians get tired of having to defend their stance and because of this they refer people to read the Bible. It's their way of changing the subject. People do not go around having discussions with atheists on why they do not believe in God, but they will have discussion with Christians on why they believe in a bible. After a while it gets old. I know I used the phrase "read the Bible" as a way of ending the discussion. The way my boyfriend and I work now is: first we have decided to disagree on the subject, so now we do not go into the discussion trying to change each others mind, and second we respect each others belief. Although, I am still working on the "read the Bible" phrase. __________________ I am not afraid of tomorrow; for I have seen yesterday and love today!

11-11-2004, 11:50 AM	#28 (permalink)
sobedrummer Upright	Whenever i enter into a conversation with a christian, and they begin to argue "the Bible says", i stop them, pointing out that if they can use the Bible to argue their side, i can use the Aeneid to argue most roman beliefs. The conversation has always ended there...

11-12-2004, 08:01 AM	#29 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	sobedrummer, do you believe in the Aeneid ? Do you take faith in what is written in it? Do you base your life around it? Just curious, never heard of anyone (recently) who has. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

11-13-2004, 01:35 AM	#30 (permalink)
sobedrummer Upright	At the moment, no, but people in the past have, and i very easily could begin to live by it, making it acceptable to my argument.

11-15-2004, 08:57 AM	#33 (permalink)
asaris Mad Philosopher Location: Washington, DC	Interesting page, flstf. I'll just point out that, even if the Bible borrowed the story from the Babylonians, it doesn't mean it's not true and that I've long been unsure about the historical veracity of the flood story, which I've mentioned here before. __________________ "Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht." "The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

11-15-2004, 09:45 AM	#34 (permalink)
WillyPete Addict	We also have to realise that the current bible was compiled by people who agreed on what god should be like and some very weird philosophical points. There's a lot of books referenced in the bible that do not appear in the King James version (considered most accurately translated). Why were they not included? Who gave the people who compiled our current bible the right to claim that they were not appropriate? Even the books in the new testament are out of chronological order.

11-15-2004, 01:31 PM	#35 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	They were not included because God did not want them to be included. And once again, it would be the big guy who gave them the "right". As far as chronoogical order, think of it as kind of Pulp Fictiony... skips all over. __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

11-15-2004, 03:19 PM	#37 (permalink)
FngKestrel Junkie	I find it interesting that the divine word of God has so many contradictions. http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...adictions.html I find that people using it to argue are akin to a post I made about horoscopes and James Randi, they find what they like about it, accentuate those aspects, and practically ignore the rest.

11-15-2004, 06:25 PM	#40 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	"King James version (considered most accurately translated)" Not at all. One of the worst translations ever produced in terms of accuracy to the text. They had less accurate (later) manuscripts to start from, and less material to compare word use with. Excellent for devotional use, completely unreliable for biblical criticism, questionable for theological use. __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16 Last edited by martinguerre; 11-18-2004 at 11:28 PM..