How true is the Bible... [Archive] - hibs.net Messageboard

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 06:05 PM

I have always thought the bible is as true as the individual who is reading it wants it to be. Personally i'm a non believer, but if anyone believes in god, then there's no argument, just because i dont happen to believe is just that, my belief, nobody else's, just like the reading from the bible.

At the risk of repeating some of what has been said in the "Evolution" thread, I think this view is something of a cop-out, and a potentially harmful one too.

If you are defining truth as accuracy then it is either right or it is wrong. It is the inerrant word of God or it isnt. There cant be a half way ground, and the same goes for any holy book.

Like you I have no issue with individuals having faith, or deriving comfort from their chosen book of religion - whatever works for an individual.

What does concern me is that uncritical, unquestioning obediance, and rigorous acceptance of dogma can cause massive social damage and suffering on a personal scale.

As an example, the Catholic church recently excommunicated a nine year old Brazilian girl because she had an abortion after being raped by her stepfather. This is the link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090718/wl_time/08599191149500 (http://http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090718/wl_time/08599191149500). They also excommunicated her family and anyone involved in the procedure. If you are a devout catholic, excommunication is a serious matter. The reason this happened was becuase of an unequivocal belief in the truth contained within the Bible relating (as the church sees it) to abortion.

The truth contained within the Qu'ran leads certain believers to inflict the Burkha on women.

The truth for Catholics relating to contraception in Africa leads to thousands of people dying from AIDS.

The truth for jews leads to the mutilation of male childrens genitalia through cirumcision.

From a comfortable existence in a (generally) comfortable country the defence of belief can easily be seen to be a more important than a critical analysis of what that belief is.

Dashing Bob S

19-07-2009, 06:22 PM

Allant1981

19-07-2009, 07:42 PM

(((Fergus)))

19-07-2009, 07:48 PM

How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 08:19 PM

How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

I know where this one is going Fergus - the bible is the instruction guide for a moral life? If you dont believe in God, are you therefore automatically corrupt, or is it purely co-incidental that I:

1) Dont have any other God
2) Dont make idols
3) Only occasionally misuse the Lords name (well, maybe more than occasionally)
4) Try to chill on a Sunday
5) Get on great with my Mum and Dad
6) Dont kill anyone
7) Dont cheat on Mrs Carpets
8) Dont nick stuff
9) Dont lie
10) Apart from admiring a few bits of electric gadgetry that number 14 has, dont covet any of my neighbours belongings, and certainly not his ass.

To go back to the OP's question, do you believe that the bible is factual? Which version do you believe?

Phil D. Rolls

19-07-2009, 08:28 PM

They reckon the great flood actually happened. The Mediterranean at one time was a lake, and the water level much lower. However an earthquake or volcanic activity is thought to have caused the dam at the Atlantic end to burst, leaving Gibraltar/

Towns which had been built on the shores of the lake were submerged, and IIRC one was recently pinpointed as the possible source of the Atlantis myth.

(((Fergus)))

19-07-2009, 08:43 PM

I know where this one is going Fergus - the bible is the instruction guide for a moral life? If you dont believe in God, are you therefore automatically corrupt, or is it purely co-incidental that I:

1) Dont have any other God
2) Dont make idols
3) Only occasionally misuse the Lords name (well, maybe more than occasionally)
4) Try to chill on a Sunday
5) Get on great with my Mum and Dad
6) Dont kill anyone
7) Dont cheat on Mrs Carpets
8) Dont nick stuff
9) Dont lie
10) Apart from admiring a few bits of electric gadgetry that number 14 has, dont covet any of my neighbours belongings, and certainly not his ass.

To go back to the OP's question, do you believe that the bible is factual? Which version do you believe?

No, that's not what I meant. Just answer the question so we can see if we believe the same thing.

Green Mikey

19-07-2009, 09:13 PM

How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

Because I'm watching a film right now:greengrin

If the Bible if just a set of moral instructions why do people continue to believe in the stories and worship God based on these stories when it is evident that the contents have been altered over time?

Onceinawhile

19-07-2009, 09:16 PM

I've not read the Christian bible yet, though it is on my to do list. Having said that, I find it funny that people believe that two of every animal in the world, were within walking distance of Noah's house.:faf:

The bibles are very, very dangerous, although many interpret the bible in a "good" way, there are also numerous people who interpret it, in a bad manner, this leads to extremism and fundamentalism, which isn't healthy at all.

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 09:26 PM

No, that's not what I meant. Just answer the question so we can see if we believe the same thing.

OK Fergus. For the sake of seeing what contrived metaphor awaits me, I'll answer your question.

Q. How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

A. Because (assuming you have read them and interpreted them correctly), the DVD works as it should.

AllyF

19-07-2009, 09:38 PM

(((Fergus)))

19-07-2009, 09:38 PM

Because I'm watching a film right now:greengrin

If the Bible if just a set of moral instructions why do people continue to believe in the stories and worship God based on these stories when it is evident that the contents have been altered over time?

That's the answer I came to, brother. :greengrin

I doubt whether the historical veracity of certain narratives is the basis for all belief in God. Are Aesop's Fables worthless because there's no proof that a crow put stones in a jug?

Also, there are many different "bibles" in the world, some of which have been altered a lot, some of which have been altered little or not at all.

(((Fergus)))

19-07-2009, 09:43 PM

OK Fergus. For the sake of seeing what contrived metaphor awaits me, I'll answer your question.

Q. How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

A. Because (assuming you have read them and interpreted them correctly), the DVD works as it should.

So what principle do you derive from that?

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 09:49 PM

So what principle do you derive from that?

What principle do I derive? What a strange question.

I dont derive any principle from the fact that a DVD players instructions allow a DVD player to be operated in a correct manner.

But, please, do tell what principle I should derive from it?

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 09:54 PM

That's the answer I came to, brother. :greengrin

I doubt whether the historical veracity of certain narratives is the basis for all belief in God. Are Aesop's Fables worthless because there's no proof that a crow put stones in a jug?

No, but, nobody tries to claim spritual superiority or wage wars or introduce Sharia Law (for example) as a result of reading Aesops fables

Also, there are many different "bibles" in the world, some of which have been altered a lot, some of which have been altered little or not at all.

Yes. And your point here is what, precisely? I would think that this points very strongly towards none of them being correct, wouldnt you think?
.

Green Mikey

19-07-2009, 09:57 PM

That's the answer I came to, brother. :greengrin

I doubt whether the historical veracity of certain narratives is the basis for all belief in God. Are Aesop's Fables worthless because there's no proof that a crow put stones in a jug?

Also, there are many different "bibles" in the world, some of which have been altered a lot, some of which have been altered little or not at all.

Aesop's Fables are fables:wink: many Christians believe the Bible is true and factual.

The historical veracity of the Bible may not be the only basis for belief in God but it is one of the cornerstones of the Christian religion. The events of Easter and Christmas can't be proven however the historical events detailed within these stories are used to evoke belief in God.

It has been proven that the Bible has changed over time so how can faith in a supreme being be based upon the text that has been altered by man?

fergal7

19-07-2009, 10:10 PM

[QUOTE=superhibi1;2101816]Are you for real? I am neither a moron or a coward and I am very religious. You make yourself sound like an utter idiot with those sentances. Why should you have the right to slag anyone off for what they believe in. Because you are obviously not a believer of what is written in the bible or religion then that does not mean that it is all fairy tales and myths

But it is though.........

GlesgaeHibby

19-07-2009, 10:30 PM

Are you for real? I am neither a moron or a coward and I am very religious. You make yourself sound like an utter idiot with those sentances. Why should you have the right to slag anyone off for what they believe in. Because you are obviously not a believer of what is written in the bible or religion then that does not mean that it is all fairy tales and myths

Care to present any evidence to the contrary then?

RmR

19-07-2009, 10:36 PM

Sir David Gray

19-07-2009, 10:40 PM

The Bible is just a collection of myths and fairy tales. There is no historical evidence for any of the nonsense written in it. If people feel inspired to live decent moral lives as a result of the messages it is supposed to contain, then good luck to them.

You would be as well to base a religion on Hansel and Gretel.

Christianity is utter garbage for morons and cowards who fear their mortality and want an insurance policy. (The same can be said of all the other religions.)

And Christians are supposed to be the intolerant ones....:rolleyes:

I would always defend your right to say whatever you like about religion, but to call people who follow Christianity morons and cowards is not only extremely ill-informed, it's actually also downright offensive.

What about the people in some staunch Muslim countries, who have chosen to leave Islam and become Christians, despite knowing that their decision could lead to their own family and the local community turning on them? In some cases they are even forced into hiding because they receive death threats.

I would be really interested to hear you explain to me, just how you think these people are cowards because I would say they are quite the opposite. :confused:

Anyway, to answer the OP, I believe that the Bible is true but that it all depends on how individual people who read it, actually interpret it.

Two people could read exactly the same version and come out with completely different takes on certain chapters or verses.

RmR

19-07-2009, 10:49 PM

And Christians are supposed to be the intolerant ones....:rolleyes:

Two people could read exactly the same version and come out with completely different takes on certain chapters or verses.

Genesis

God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan "forever". This promise is still used to justify the unending battles over the land in the Middle East. 13:14-15, 17:8

An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. 17:14

God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family.19:24

Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26

Abraham makes his servant swear that he won't let Isaac marry a Canaanite. 24:3

Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. 28:1

Jacob's sons can't stand the idea of their sister marrying someone who is uncircumcised. 34:14

"And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7

After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School, but it is the basis of many Christian doctrines, including the condemnation of both masturbation and birth control. 38:8-10

After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24
Exodus

God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26

God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7

After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." 12:29

No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover. 12:43, 45, 48

If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... 15:26

When the people complain to Moses, he tells them they aren't complaining about him, but about God, making them apostates and heretics, and therefore deserve severe punishment. Religious leaders have used this tactic ever since. 16:8

Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13

The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14

"The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:16

God favors Israelites "above all people." 19:5

The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. 20:3

"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18

"He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20

Don't even mention the names of the other gods. 23:13

Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property. 23:24

God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27

Stay away from those who worship a different god. 23:32

Don't let any strangers attend your animal sacrifices. 29:33

Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." 30:33

Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14

Moses burned the golden calf, ground it into powder, and then forced it down the throats of all the people. 32:20

God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor.... And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." 32:27-28

"Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." 32:33

God drives out the pagan tribes and commands the Israelites to destroy their altars and places of worship. 34:11-14

God, "whose name is Jealous", will not tolerate the worship of any other god. 34:14

Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3

RmR

19-07-2009, 10:50 PM

Leviticus

Two of the sons of Aaron "offered strange fire before the Lord" and "there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord." 10:1-2

Moses tells Aaron that his sons were burned to death to sanctfy and glorify God. 10:3

Moses tells Aaron's cousins to drag the burned bodies out of the camp, and he warns Aaron not to mourn the death of his sons or God will kill him too, along with everyone else. 10:4-6

God "put the plague of leprosy" into the houses of the Canaanites. 14:34

Homosexual acts are an abomination to God. 18:22

Don't eat anything with blood, observe times, round the corners of your head, mar the corners of your beard, make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, or print any marks on you. 19:26-28

Stay away from wizards and people with familiar spirits. 19:31

Stay away from people with familiar spirits and don't "go a whoring" after them either. 20:6

If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

People with "familiar spirits" (witches, fortune tellers, etc.) are to be stoned to death. 20:27

Handicapped people cannot approach the altar of God. They would "profane" it. 21:16-23

No stranger or slave can "eat of the holy thing." 22:10, 13

If a priest's daughter marries "a stranger" she can't eat any holy things. 22:12

God won't accept animal sacrifices from strangers, since strangers have blemishes and are corrupt. 22:25

Don't do any work on the day of atonement or God will destroy you. 23:29-30

A man curses and blasphemes while disputing with another man. Moses asks God what to do about it. God says that the whole community must stone him to death. "And the children of Israel did as the Lord and Moses commanded." 24:10-23

Anyone who blasphemes or curses shall be stoned to death by the entire community. 24:16

God tells the Israelites to make slaves out of their neighbors and their families. The "heathens" and "strangers" are to be their possessions forever. 25:44-46

If you don't follow all of the laws in the Old Testament, God will shower you with all of the curses in the next 25 verses. 26:14-15

"I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague, that shall consume the eyes, and cause sorrow of heart: and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it." 26:16

"I will set my face against you, and ye shall be slain before your enemies." 26:17

"And if ye will not yet for all this hearken unto me, then I will punish you seven times more for your sins." 26:18

"I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins." 26:21

"I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children, and destroy your cattle." 26:22

"I ... will punish you yet (another) seven times for your sins." 26:24

"I will bring a sword upon you ... I will send the pestilence among you; and ye shall be delivered into the hand of the enemy." 26:25

"And if ye will not for all this hearken unto me ... then ... I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins." 26:27-28

"And ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall ye eat." 26:29

"I will ... cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols, and my soul shall abhor you." 26:30

"And I will make your cities waste." 26:31

"And I will bring the land into desolation". 26:32

"And I will scatter you among the heathen, and will draw out a sword after you: and your land shall be desolate, and your cities waste." 26:33

"And upon them that are left alive of you I will send a faintness into their hearts in the lands of their enemies; and the sound of a shaken leaf shall chase them; and they shall flee, as fleeing from a sword; and they shall fall when none pursueth." 26:36

"And they shall fall one upon another, as it were before a sword, when none pursueth: and ye shall have no power to stand before your enemies." 26:37

"And ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies shall eat you up." 26:38

"And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies' lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them." 26:39

RmR

19-07-2009, 10:54 PM

And some new testament

Matthew

While insulting the Pharisees and Sadducees, John the Baptist calls an entire generation a "generation of vipers." 3:7

Those who bear bad fruit will be cut down and burned "with unquenchable fire." 3:10, 12

Jesus says that most people will go to hell. 7:13-14

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 7:19

"the children of the kingdom [the Jews] shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 8:12

Jesus tells his disciples to keep away from the Gentiles and Samaritans, and go only to the Israelites. 10:5-6

Cities that neither "receive" the disciples nor "hear" their words will be destroyed by God. It will be worse for them than for Sodom and Gomorrah. And you know what God supposedly did to those poor folks (see Gen.19:24). 10:14-15

Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death." 10:21

"Whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven." 10:33

Jesus says that he has come to destroy families by making family members hate each other. He has "come not to send peace, but a sword." 10:34-36

Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching. 11:20-24

"He that is not with me is against me." 12:30

"Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him." 12:31-32

Jesus often called people names. One of his favorites was to call his adversaries a "generation of vipers." 12:34

Jesus will send his angels to gather up "all that offend" and they "shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." 13:41-42, 50

Jesus refuses to heal the Canaanite (Mk.7:26 says she was Greek) woman's possessed daughter, saying "it is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to the dogs." 15:22-26

The ever-so-kind Jesus calls the Pharisees "hypocrites, wicked, and adulterous." 15:2-3

In the parable of the marriage feast, the king sends his servants to gather everyone they can find, both bad and good, to come to the wedding feast. One guest didn't have on his wedding garment, so the king tied him up and "cast him into the outer darkness" where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 22:12-13

Jesus condemns the Jews for being "the children of them which killed the prophets." 23:31

Jesus blames his the Jews (who were then living) for "all the righteous blood" from Abel to Zecharias, 23:35

The servant who kept and returned his master's talent was cast into the "outer darkness" where there will be "weeping and gnashing of teeth." 25:30

Jesus tells us what he has planned for those that he dislikes. They will be cast into an "everlasting fire." 25:41

"His blood be on us, and on our children." This verse blames the Jews for the death of Jesus and has been used to justify their persecution for twenty centuries. 27:25
Mark

Jesus becomes angry at those who said that he had "an unclean spirit," so he announces the unforgivable sin: "blasphemy against the Holy Ghost." 3:29

Any city that doesn't "receive" the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. 6:11

Jesus initially refuses to cast out a devil from a Syrophoenician woman's daughter, calling the woman a "dog". After much pleading, he finally agrees to cast out the devil. 7:27

If you're ashamed of Jesus, he'll be ashamed of you. (And you'll go straight to hell.) 8:38

Jesus says that those that believe and are baptized will be saved, while those who don't will be damned. 16:16
Luke

Those who fail to bear "good fruit" will be "hewn down, and cast into the fire." 3:9

John the Baptist says that Christ will burn the damned "with fire unquenchable." 3:17

Jesus says that entire cities will be violently destroyed and the inhabitants "thrust down to hell" for not "receiving" his disciples. 10:10-15

Jesus says, "He that is not with me is against me." 11:23

Those who "blaspheme against the Holy Ghost" will never be forgiven. 12:10

God is like a slave-owner who beats his slaves "with many stripes." 12:46-47

According to Jesus, only a few will be saved; the vast majority will suffer eternally in hell where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 13:23-30

Jesus also believes the story about Noah's flood and Sodom's destruction. He says, "even thus shall it be in the day the son of man is revealed ... Remember Lot's wife." This tells us about Jesus' knowledge of science and history, and his sense of justice. 17:29-32

In the parable of the talents, Jesus says that God takes what is not rightly his, and reaps what he didn't sow. The parable ends with the words: "bring them [those who preferred not to be ruled by him] hither, and slay them before me." 19:22-27
John

People are damned or saved depending only on what they believe. 3:18, 36

The "wrath of God" is on all unbelievers. 3:36

John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the Jews persecuted Jesus and "sought to slay him." 5:16, 18

John says that Jesus "would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." 7:1

No one could speak openly about Jesus "for fear of the Jews." 7:13

If you don't believe in Jesus, you will "die in your sins" (and then go to hell). 8:24

Jesus calls his opponents (the Jews) the sons of the devil. 8:44

Once again, "the Jews" are accused of trying to kill Jesus. 11:8

If you don't believe in Jesus you are going to hell. 12:48

Jesus is the only way to heaven. All other religions lead to hell. 14:6

John blames the Jews for the death of Jesus. 19:7, 12, 14-15

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father."
If you follow Jesus' teachings, God will love you -- otherwise... well, you know. 14:21

Those who do not believe in Jesus will be cast into a fire to be burned. 15:6

Now that Jesus has come, non-believers have no excuse for not believing in him. 15:22

"For fear of the Jews"
You've got to watch out for Jews wherever you go. 19:38

John, with his usual anti-Semitism, says that the disciples hid in locked room "for fear of the Jews." 20:19

Pete

19-07-2009, 10:55 PM

Twa Cairpets

19-07-2009, 11:10 PM

And Christians are supposed to be the intolerant ones....:rolleyes:

I would always defend your right to say whatever you like about religion, but to call people who follow Christianity morons and cowards is not only extremely ill-informed, it's actually also downright offensive.

What about the people in some staunch Muslim countries, who have chosen to leave Islam and become Christians, despite knowing that their decision could lead to their own family and the local community turning on them? In some cases they are even forced into hiding because they receive death threats.

I would be really interested to hear you explain to me, just how you think these people are cowards because I would say they are quite the opposite. :confused:

Anyway, to answer the OP, I believe that the Bible is true but that it all depends on how individual people who read it, actually interpret it.

Two people could read exactly the same version and come out with completely different takes on certain chapters or verses.

I agree that characterising all christians as morons and cowards doesnt help any discussion of the topic. Its also demonstrably wrong.

But I make the point again I made earlier. If you define truth as accuracy, then you can not have the luxury of varying interpretation - to use the "its how you interpret it" line is surely to turn it into a morality story rather than the personal message of an individuals' saviour.

So what do you actually mean when you say the bible is true? For example-

Do you believe that men lived to be hundreds of years old?
Do you believe that there was a global flood?
Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea?

Sir David Gray

19-07-2009, 11:47 PM

Sometimes sarcasm can be funny.

...well I certainly hope that's what it was.

Who is it you are talking to/about here? :confused:

I agree that characterising all christians as morons and cowards doesnt help any discussion of the topic. Its also demonstrably wrong.

But I make the point again I made earlier. If you define truth as accuracy, then you can not have the luxury of varying interpretation - to use the "its how you interpret it" line is surely to turn it into a morality story rather than the personal message of an individuals' saviour.

So what do you actually mean when you say the bible is true? For example-

Do you believe that men lived to be hundreds of years old?
Do you believe that there was a global flood?
Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea?

I believe that there was a global flood and I would say the other two are true to an extent, but are possibly not to be taken literally, particularly people living to be hundreds of years old.

When I say the Bible is true, I mean that I believe there are certain events that it mentions, which are unfolding right now.

I'm not a theologian by any manner of means, so I don't have even half the answers about the Bible or Christianity in general. It is something that I am interested in though and, whenever possible, I do try to read up on it.

Pete

19-07-2009, 11:54 PM

Who is it you are talking to/about here? :confused:

Sorry, the post you were replying to.

RmR

19-07-2009, 11:58 PM

When I say the Bible is true, I mean that I believe there are certain events that it mentions, which are unfolding right now.

Precisley which events are you referring to ?

Pete

20-07-2009, 12:11 AM

Precisley which events are you referring to ?

You're obviously just pasting some pre-constructed text...or you're the fastest typer in the world.

In the same time frame can you try and de-construct any other holy books in a similar fashion?

RmR

20-07-2009, 12:21 AM

You're obviously just pasting some pre-constructed text...or you're the fastest typer in the world.

In the same time frame can you try and de-construct any other holy books in a similar fashion?

Of course I am copying and pasting. As requested.

Intolerance in the Quran
As for those who disbelieve I shall chastise them with a heavy chastisement in the world and the Hereafter; and they will have no helpers.--3:56

The Quran, virtually on every page, is a manifesto for religious intolerance. -- Sam Harris

"Show us the straight path, The path of those whom Thou hast favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray."
Muslims generally interpret "those whom Allah has favored," "those who earn Allah's anger," and "those who go astray" as Muslims, Jews, and Christians, respectively. 1:6-7

Don't bother to warn the disbelievers. Allah has blinded them. Theirs will be an awful doom. 2:6

Allah has sickened their hearts. A painful doom is theirs because they lie. 2:10

Allah has blinded the disbelievers. 2:17-18

A fire has been prepared for the disbelievers, whose fuel is men and stones. 2:24

Disbelievers will be burned with fire. 2:39, 2:90

Allah stamped wretchedness upon the Jews because they killed the prophets and disbelieved Allah's revelations. 2:61

Allah turned the Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes. 2:65-66

If you believe in only part of the Scripture, you will suffer in this life and go to hell in the next. 2:85

Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. 2:88

The curse of Allah is on disbelievers. 2:89

Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. 2:96

Allah is an enemy to the disbelievers. 2:98

Only evil people are disbelievers. 2:99

For disbelievers is a painful doom. 2:104

Don't question anything Muhammed says or choose disbelief over faith. 2:108

"But those who keep their duty to Allah will be above them [non-muslims] on the Day of Resurrection." 2:212

For unbelievers: ignominy in this world, an awful doom in the next. 2:114

"And thou wilt not be asked about the owners of hell-fire." (They are the non-muslims.) 2:119

Disbelievers are losers. 2:121

Allah will leave the disbelievers alone for a while, but then he will compel them to the doom of Fire. 2:126

"Who forsaketh the religion of Abraham save him who befooleth himself?"
Cited in the Hamas Charter (Article 27) to condemn the idea of a secular state. 2:130

Those who reject the proofs, are accursed of Allah. 2:159

Those who die disbelievers, are cursed by Allah, angels, and men. 2:161

The doom of the disbelievers will not be lightened. 2:162

They will not emerge from the Fire. 2:167

Disbelievers will be deaf, dumb, and blind. 2:171

Those who hide the Scripture will have their bellies eaten with fire. Theirs will be a painful doom. 2:174

How constant are they in their strife to reach the Fire! 2:175

Believers must retaliate. Those who transgress will have a painful doom. 2:178

Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kil them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (But if they desist in their unbelief, then don't kill them.) 2:191-2

Fight them until "religion is for Allah." 2:193

Those who fail in their duty to Allah are proud and sinful. They will all go to hell. 2:206

War is ordained by Allah, and all Muslims must be willing to fight, whether they like it or not. 2:216

Those who die in their disbelief will burn forever in the Fire. 2:217

Intermarriage is forbidden. 2:221

The disbelievers, they are the wrong-doers. 2:254

Disbelievers worship false gods. The will burn forever in the Fire. 2:257

Allah does not guide disbelievers. 2:264

"Give us victory over the disbelieving folk." 2:286

Those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. 3:4

Those who disbelieve will be fuel for the Fire. 3:10

Those who disbelieve shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell. 3:12

Non-muslims will be punished by Allah for their nonbelief. 3:19

"If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the message."
(The message for those who won't surrender is "you're going to hell.") 3:20

Those who disbelieve, promise them a painful doom. 3:21

"They [Christians and Jews] say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion." (The Fire will burn them forever.) 3:24

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. 3:28

Allah loveth not the disbelievers. 3:32

Allah will punish disbelievers in this world and the next. They will have no helpers. 3:56

Don't believe anyone who is not a Muslim. 3:73

Theirs will be a painful doom. 3:77

All non-Muslims will be rejected by Allah after they die. 3:85

Apostates will be cursed by Allah, angels, and men. They will have a painful doom. 3:86-88

Disbelievers will have a painful doom. And they will have no helpers. 3:91

Disbelievers will have their faces blackened on the last day. They will face an awful doom. 3:105-6

Muslims are the best people. Most Non-muslims are "evil-livers." 3:110

Those who disbelieve will be burnt in the Fire. 3:116

Don't be friends with non-Muslims. They all hate you and want to ruin you. 3:118

The Fire is prepared for disbelievers. 3:131

Give us victory over the disbelieving folk. 3:147

Do not obey disbelievers. 3:149

We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Their habitation is the Fire 3:151

"Is one who followeth the pleasure of Allah as one who hath earned condemnation from Allah, whose habitation is the Fire?"
Unbelievers will burn forever in the Fire. 3:162

Theirs will be an awful doom. 3:176

Disbelievers do not harm Allah, but will have a painful doom. 3:177

Disbelievers will go to Hell. 3:196

Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will be burnt with fire and suffer a painful doom. 4:14

For the disbelievers and those who make a last-minute conversion, Allah has prepared a painful doom. 4:18

For disbelievers, We prepare a shameful doom. 4:37

"Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not." 4:46

Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers. (See 2:65-66) 4:47

Those who ascribe a partner to Allah (like Christians do with Jesus and the Holy Spirit) will not be forgiven. They have "invented a tremendous sin." 4:48, 4:116

Those who invent lies about Allah are guilty of flagrant sin. 4:50

Jews and Christians believe in idols and false deities, yet they claim to be more rightly guided than Muslims. 4:51

"Those (Christians and Jews) are they whom Allah hath cursed." 4:52

Hell is sufficient for their burning. 4:55

Unbelievers will be tormented forever with fire. When their skin is burned off, a fresh skin will be provided. 4:56

Those who refuse to follow Muhammad, follow false gods and are deceived by Satan. 4:60

Those who refuse to believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad are hypocrites. 4:61

Oppose and admonish those who refuse to follow Muhammad. 4:63

The hypocrites refuse to die for Allah and Muhammad. 4:66

Those who obey Allah and Muhammad are favored by Allah. They are the best company. 4:69

Allah will bestow a vast reward on those who fight in religious wars. 4:74

Believers fight for Allah; disbelievers fight for the devil. So fight the minions of the devil. 4:76

Allah casts the hypocrites back to disbelief. Don't try to guide those that Allah sends astray. 4:88

Have no unbelieving friends. Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them. 4:89

If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant. 4:91

Believers shouldn't kill believers, unless by mistake. If you kill a believer by mistake, you must set free a believing slave. 4:92

Believers who kill believers will go to hell. 4:93

The disbelievers are an open enemy to you. 4:101

For the disbelievers, Allah has prepared a shameful punishment. 4:102

Relent not in pursuit of the enemy. They have no hope from Allah. 4:104

Those who oppose the messenger and become unbelievers will go to hell. 4:115

They (those who ascribe partners to Allah) invoke in his stead only females and pray to Satan. 4:117

Allah will lead them astray and they will go to hell. 4:119-121

Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe and disbelieve again will never be forgiven by Allah. 4:137

For the hypocrites there will be a painful doom. 4:138

Allah will gather hypocrites and disbelievers into hell. 4:140

Allah will not allow disbelievers to succeed against believers. 4:141

Do not choose disbelievers as friends. 4:144

RmR

20-07-2009, 12:22 AM

The disbelieving people of the Scripture are liars. 59:11

The disbelievers fear the believers more than Allah. 59:13

The devil and disbelievers will be in the Fire. 59:16-17

The owners of the Garden and the owners of the Fire are not equal. 59:20

Don't be friends with disbelievers. They are your (and Allah's) enemy. 60:1

Don't be friends with those who have warred against you because of religion. Whoever makes friends with them is a wrong-doer. 60:9

Don't be friends with those who disbelieve in the Hereafter. They are Allah's enemies. 60:13

The worst thing you can do is tell a lie about Allah. 61:7

Allah gave Muhammad the one true religion and sent him to conquer all other (false) religions. 61:9

"O ye who believe! Shall I show you a commerce that will save you from a painful doom?" 61:10

A hypocritical Jew looks like an ass carrying books. Those who deny the revelations of Allah are ugly. 62:5

Allah seals the hearts of those who believe and then disbelieve so that they can understand nothing. 63:3

Disbelievers are perverted. They are the enemy, confounded by Allah. 63:4

Don't bother to ask Allah to forgive the disbelievers. He will never forgive them. 63:6

"Might belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers." 63:8

Those who disbelieve will have a painful doom. 64:5

Those who disbelieve are the owners of the Fire. 64:10

Be stern with disbelievers. They are going to Hell anyway. 66:9

Disbelievers will go to hell where they will hear its roaring and boiling. 67:6-7

Who will protect the disbelievers from a painful doom? (Nobody) 67:28

Refuse to obey the "rejecters" (Non-Muslims?) who seek compromise 68:8-9

Those who consider the Quran to be "mere fables" will be branded on the nose.68:15-16

"Shall We then treat those who have surrendered (Muslims) as We treat the guilty (Non-Muslims)?" 68:35

Those who do not believe in Allah will be chained up and cast into hell-fire where they will eat filth. 69:30-35

Doom is about to fall on all disbelievers. Only worshippers (Muslims) and those who preserve their chastity (except with their wives and slave girls) will be spared from "the fires of hell" that are "eagar to roast." 70:1-30

"Lo! the doom of their Lord is that before which none can feel secure" (except for maybe those who are fearful of it). 70:27-28

Disbelievers will enter hell with frantic with fear, knowing they will be tortured forever by Allah. 70:36, 44

Allah sent Noah to warn people about the painful doom he was planning to send. (It didn't work out well; Allah sent it anyway.) 71:1

Noah asked Allah to drown all the disbelievers. 71:26

The fires of hell will be fueled with the bodies of idolators and unbelievers. They will experience an ever-greater torment. 72:15-17

Those who disobey Allah and his messenger will dwell forever in the fire of hell. 72:23

Allah will take care of the deniers. He will tie them up, burn them in a raging fire, and feed them food that chokes them. 73:11-13

The last day will be a day of anguish for disbelievers. 74:9-10

Those who are stubborn to Allah's revelations will face a fearful doom. 74:16-17

Allah has appointed angels to tend the Fire and has prepared stumbling blocks for those who disbelieve. He sends some people (whoever he wants) astray. 74:31

Those who pay attention to this life and ignore the Hereafter will suffer forever in hell. 75:20-29

Allah has prepared chains, manacles, and a raging fire for the disbelievers. 76:4

Don't obey disbelievers. 76:24

Woe unto the repudiators on that day! 77:19, 77:24, 77:28, 77:34, 77:40, 77:45, 77:49

Depart unto that doom which ye used to deny." 77:29

Those who deny the revelations given to Muhammed will burn forever in hell. 78:21-30

"Lo! We warn you of a doom at hand, a day whereon a man will look on that which his own hands have sent before, and the disbeliever will cry: 'Would that I were dust!'" 78:40

Those who rebel by choosing this life over the next will go to hell. 79:37-39

Disbelievers are wicked people. On the last day they will be in darkness and have dust on their faces. 80:40-42

Those who reject Allah's revelations will burn in hell. 83:10-17

The disbelievers used to laugh at the believers. But the final laugh will be on them. 83:29-36

Disbelievers will be given a painful doom. 84:22-24

Those who persecute Muslims, without repenting, will burn in hell. 85:10

Allah plots against non-Muslims. 86:16

"Deal gently with them (non-Muslims) for a while. (How long is "a while"?) 86:17

Allah will punish disbelievers with the direst punishment. 88:23-24

Allah poured the disaster of His punishment upon those who rebelled against him. 89:11-13

Those who disbelieve Allah's revelations will have the Fire placed over them like an awning. 90:19-20

Those who deny Allah's revelations must endure the flaming fire. 92:14-16

Allah created humans to be "of best stature" but then reduced them "to the lowest of the low". Except for "those who believe and do good works." But what about those who don't believe but do good works? Are they the "lowest of the low"? 95:4-6

Allah will grab those who deny His guidance by the forelock and call the guards of hell. 96:13-18

Those who disbelieve will abide in the fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings. 98:6

Only religious people help orphans or those in need. 107:1-3

"I seek refuge ... from the evil of malignant witchcraft."

RmR

20-07-2009, 12:27 AM

You're obviously just pasting some pre-constructed text...or you're the fastest typer in the world.

In the same time frame can you try and de-construct any other holy books in a similar fashion?

Think I was a little bit quicker that time. By the way I am not deconstructing anything, just copying what is actually in these poisionous little books.

GlesgaeHibby

20-07-2009, 01:57 AM

I believe that there was a global flood and I would say the other two are true to an extent, but are possibly not to be taken literally, particularly people living to be hundreds of years old.

Why, then, write about something like people living to be hundreds of years old if they didn't?

Allant1981

20-07-2009, 05:30 AM

Why do you presume that your beliefs are immune to criticism ?

Why should my beliefs come under criticism when they are exactly that. MY BELIEFS. Does this make me a moron or a coward because i believe in something? People can argue whether or not the bible is a load of rubbish or not but to slag off people who do believe in something is very childish and the person who posted it earlier should think before he speaks. I'm sure he would not walk into a church and start calling everyone a moron or coward

Allant1981

20-07-2009, 05:32 AM

Care to present any evidence to the contrary then?

As i can obviously not go back in time then there is no way of proving anything that is written but why should that stop me or many other people believing in something. Can you prove to me that what is written in the bible did not happen?

GlesgaeHibby

20-07-2009, 06:34 AM

As i can obviously not go back in time then there is no way of proving anything that is written but why should that stop me or many other people believing in something. Can you prove to me that what is written in the bible did not happen?

You believe in the Bible --> You have to prove why the Bible should be believed --> You have to present evidence.

I don't believe in the Bible because no evidence supports it, just like I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. IF you believed in the flying spaghetti monster, it would be for you to prove why it exists.
There is no evidence for it --> why would I believe in it without evidence?

The Bible is similar, except many more people follow the Bible.

As a logical thinker, I cannot understand religion at all. To follow, in this case, the Bible/Christianity takes faith. Faith is a completely irrational thought process. I'd rather reason things out.

Back to the Bible, Science has shown the universe to be billions of years old, and evolution to be true ---> I can be pretty confident the Bible is not true.

Lucius Apuleius

20-07-2009, 07:06 AM

I reckon it all must be true. Lets face it there was a 365/1 (probably actually 366/1 as the yeard 0000 was a leap year I guess) that Jesus would be born on Christmas Day, yet that is what happened. Pretty big odds, man......

J-C

20-07-2009, 07:53 AM

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 08:06 AM

Who is it you are talking to/about here? :confused:

I believe that there was a global flood and I would say the other two are true to an extent, but are possibly not to be taken literally, particularly people living to be hundreds of years old.

When I say the Bible is true, I mean that I believe there are certain events that it mentions, which are unfolding right now.

I'm not a theologian by any manner of means, so I don't have even half the answers about the Bible or Christianity in general. It is something that I am interested in though and, whenever possible, I do try to read up on it.

Thanks for your answers.

Like you, I find this a very interesting subject, and do read up on it.

The biggest issue with the flood is that that there is not a single piece of geological evidence to back it up. The single source, therefore, for the theory that the whole world was covered in water is the bible. Not one corroborating bit of valid evidence has ever been put forward to support it.

As for the ages of the characters, the bible is fairly explicit on this: The following are all from Genesis 11: "Shem lived 500 years", "Arpaxhad lived 406 years", "Shelah lived 403 years", "Eber lived 430 years", "Peleg lived 209 years", and many many more. I dont see how this open to alternative interpretation.

Belief in the bible can only be achieved with abandonment of critical thinking and the acceptance of events that disobey all known laws of science. If you are born and brought up in a family/culture/society where such thought processes are passed on as correct, then from an early age the likliehood will be that it will be accepted as the norm and form the patterns for adult thinking. But it does not mean that the things you believe in are true.

Sergio sledge

20-07-2009, 08:34 AM

The truth for Catholics relating to contraception in Africa leads to thousands of people dying from AIDS.

Apologies for the total thread hi-jack, but...

This comment really gets my goat. Now I'm not Roman Catholic, and by no means a fan of the Catholic Church in general, but the old, "The Catholic Church is to blame for the spread of AIDS in Africa," argument is a total cop out in my opinion. Can people not see the hypocrisy of taking on teaching from the Catholic Church in isolation, and totally disregarding the others?

If these people who don't use contraception are such staunch Catholics, why are they going around sleeping with more than one sexual partner, or sleeping with prostitutes? If they were such staunch Catholics, they would abstain till marriage, and then stay with the same person their whole life. In reality, if someone follows the whole of the Catholic Churches teachings around sex, marriage and family, contraception shouldn't be necessary, and HIV/AIDS would not be spreading at the rate it is.

But yes, lets pick one of their teachings out in isolation and use it as a stick to beat them with.

To suggest that the Church is to blame for it is totally absolving the individuals of any blame at all, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa is partly down to the people picking and choosing which part of their religion to take seriously and which part not to.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 09:04 AM

Apologies for the total thread hi-jack, but...

This comment really gets my goat. Now I'm not Roman Catholic, and by no means a fan of the Catholic Church in general, but the old, "The Catholic Church is to blame for the spread of AIDS in Africa," argument is a total cop out in my opinion. Can people not see the hypocrisy of taking on teaching from the Catholic Church in isolation, and totally disregarding the others?

If these people who don't use contraception are such staunch Catholics, why are they going around sleeping with more than one sexual partner, or sleeping with prostitutes? If they were such staunch Catholics, they would abstain till marriage, and then stay with the same person their whole life. In reality, if someone follows the whole of the Catholic Churches teachings around sex, marriage and family, contraception shouldn't be necessary, and HIV/AIDS would not be spreading at the rate it is.

But yes, lets pick one of their teachings out in isolation and use it as a stick to beat them with.

To suggest that the Church is to blame for it is totally absolving the individuals of any blame at all, the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa is partly down to the people picking and choosing which part of their religion to take seriously and which part not to.

I understand your point, and by no means do I want to suggest or attempt to suggest that Roman Catholicism is the only reason for the high incidence of AIDS/HIV in Africa.

However, to have a hugely powerful organisation actively preaching against contraception cannot have anything but an impact on its use, regardless of the personal morals of those involved. And, like it or not, that must have a de facto effect on the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (not to mention the impact on the rate of pregnancies).

Onceinawhile

20-07-2009, 11:41 AM

Why should my beliefs come under criticism when they are exactly that. MY BELIEFS. Does this make me a moron or a coward because i believe in something? People can argue whether or not the bible is a load of rubbish or not but to slag off people who do believe in something is very childish and the person who posted it earlier should think before he speaks. I'm sure he would not walk into a church and start calling everyone a moron or coward

Hitler had beliefs, should his not have been challenged? Just because your beliefs are religious does not make them immune from criticism.

The problem with the bible, is that it's fairly ridiculous. God made Adam, then thought, "hmmmm something's missing, I know, I'll take one of Adam's ribs and make a woman!" (as an aside, does this mean Adam had an odd number of ribs? which is why we all now have an even number?) Then eventually, he decides to start all over, wiping everyone but Noah out. A bit later God comes down to earth (as one of his alter egos Jesus) and is born to a virgin, before wanting to die, so that he can rise from the dead.

I believe that there was a global flood and I would say the other two are true to an extent, but are possibly not to be taken literally, particularly people living to be hundreds of years old.

When I say the Bible is true, I mean that I believe there are certain events that it mentions, which are unfolding right now.

But if we can take some bits literally, and not others, how do we decide which is which? That is why religion is so dangerous, because it is open to interpretation and any wack job can have access and free reign to do so because "it's gods will" - http://www.godhatesfags.com/ -

Also, what events do you believe are unfolding? Do you believe we are in for Jesus's second coming?

I don't believe in the Bible because no evidence supports it, just like I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. IF you believed in the flying spaghetti monster, it would be for you to prove why it exists.
There is no evidence for it --> why would I believe in it without evidence?

No proof of FSM?:confused::bitchy:

http://www.venganza.org/

RAmen

Edit: one quick, serious question for those who fully believe: do you wish to die? Honest answers please

Brizo

20-07-2009, 11:44 AM

The Bible is just a collection of myths and fairy tales. There is no historical evidence for any of the nonsense written in it. If people feel inspired to live decent moral lives as a result of the messages it is supposed to contain, then good luck to them.

You would be as well to base a religion on Hansel and Gretel.

Christianity is utter garbage for morons and cowards who fear their mortality and want an insurance policy. (The same can be said of all the other religions.)

Dissapointing comments from someone who's posts I usually find balanced and well informed. To label hundreds of millions of people as morons and cowards is quite a ridiculous stereotype imho.

Religious faith helps a great many people get through crisis in their families such as bereavement or serious illness. If they gain comfort from that I find it a far better option than them going down the route of turning to alcohol, drugs or succumbing to mental health problems. Thats not to say that those with religious belief dont suffer these problems however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness. If belief in an invisible guy in the sky helps people deal with ther personal demons I personally dont see a problem with that.

We live in a secular wealthy western world where human natures need for a better tomorrow is mainly expressed in attaining the new car or next holiday. In many parts of the world where a better tomorrows basically staying alive religious faiths all that keeps many going. In that regard I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not. If it brings people a sense of comfort and purpose then that hardly makes them morons and cowards imho.

ArabHibee

20-07-2009, 12:04 PM

PeeJay

20-07-2009, 12:04 PM

Dissapointing comments from someone who's posts I usually find balanced and well informed. To label hundreds of millions of people as morons and cowards is quite a ridiculous stereotype imho.

Religious faith helps a great many people get through crisis in their families such as bereavement or serious illness. If they gain comfort from that I find it a far better option than them going down the route of turning to alcohol, drugs or succumbing to mental health problems. Thats not to say that those with religious belief dont suffer these problems however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness. If belief in an invisible guy in the sky helps people deal with ther personal demons I personally dont see a problem with that.

We live in a secular wealthy western world where human natures need for a better tomorrow is mainly expressed in attaining the new car or next holiday. In many parts of the world where a better tomorrows basically staying alive religious faiths all that keeps many going. In that regard I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not. If it brings people a sense of comfort and purpose then that hardly makes them morons and cowards imho.

'Moron' is OTT but 'cowards', hmm, yeah, I could go for that. German philosopher Immanuel **** put it perhaps more diplomatically ... I reckon he got it spot on!

“Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's own understanding without the guidance of another. This immaturity is self-incurred if its cause is not lack of understanding, but lack of resolution and courage to use it without the guidance of another. The motto of enlightenment is therefore: Sapere aude! Have courage to use your own understanding!“
1784

Maybe the following is worth a read for some?
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/~hkshp/wclassic/****-enlightenment.htm

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 12:23 PM

:top marks
I think people starts these threads to wind people up and start arguments.
IMO.

Maybe some do. But its also an opportunity not to descend into name calling and get an understanding through debate.

I have no problem defending my lack of religious faith, my views on why I believe religion to be - on balance - a restrictive influence on humanity, and my opinion on why I think that from a rational and logical viewpoint that the bible is, as a reference book for creation, morality and history demonstrably incorrect, contradictory and fallable.

People with faith I assume will be equally keen to put forward their views on why Im wrong and they are right.

Debating and discussing these things must be a good thing, surely? If there are wind-up merchants, ignore them. For example, in the "Evolution" thread, Doddies interpretation of my views led him to - I think - ignore me. All I asked him was when he thought the Earth was created, and whether he thought all life was placed fully formed on the planet. He didnt answer, so the debate ended.

I hope this one keeps going.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 12:29 PM

Dissapointing comments from someone who's posts I usually find balanced and well informed. To label hundreds of millions of people as morons and cowards is quite a ridiculous stereotype imho.

Religious faith helps a great many people get through crisis in their families such as bereavement or serious illness. If they gain comfort from that I find it a far better option than them going down the route of turning to alcohol, drugs or succumbing to mental health problems. Thats not to say that those with religious belief dont suffer these problems however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness. If belief in an invisible guy in the sky helps people deal with ther personal demons I personally dont see a problem with that.

We live in a secular wealthy western world where human natures need for a better tomorrow is mainly expressed in attaining the new car or next holiday. In many parts of the world where a better tomorrows basically staying alive religious faiths all that keeps many going. In that regard I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not. If it brings people a sense of comfort and purpose then that hardly makes them morons and cowards imho.

however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness.
What research is that Brizo - any link?

I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not.
Whilst personal comfort is undeniably gaind by peoples faith - and I use the example of Madeleine McCanns parents as an example - it must matter if it is true, surely?

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 12:52 PM

Dissapointing comments from someone who's posts I usually find balanced and well informed. To label hundreds of millions of people as morons and cowards is quite a ridiculous stereotype imho.

Religious faith helps a great many people get through crisis in their families such as bereavement or serious illness. If they gain comfort from that I find it a far better option than them going down the route of turning to alcohol, drugs or succumbing to mental health problems. Thats not to say that those with religious belief dont suffer these problems however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness. If belief in an invisible guy in the sky helps people deal with ther personal demons I personally dont see a problem with that.

We live in a secular wealthy western world where human natures need for a better tomorrow is mainly expressed in attaining the new car or next holiday. In many parts of the world where a better tomorrows basically staying alive religious faiths all that keeps many going. In that regard I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not. If it brings people a sense of comfort and purpose then that hardly makes them morons and cowards imho.

I don't think believers should take umbrage at Dashing Bob's remarks!

Scripture, after all, tells us that believers should expect to be persecuted, jeered at and mocked.

And it is under persecution that God's church flourishes!

So, DB is an unwitting worker for God's vineyard!:greengrin

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 01:19 PM

You believe in the Bible --> You have to prove why the Bible should be believed --> You have to present evidence.

I don't believe in the Bible because no evidence supports it, just like I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster. IF you believed in the flying spaghetti monster, it would be for you to prove why it exists.
There is no evidence for it --> why would I believe in it without evidence?

The Bible is similar, except many more people follow the Bible.

As a logical thinker, I cannot understand religion at all. To follow, in this case, the Bible/Christianity takes faith. Faith is a completely irrational thought process. I'd rather reason things out.

Back to the Bible, Science has shown the universe to be billions of years old, and evolution to be true ---> I can be pretty confident the Bible is not true.

Just a couple of points here, GH - not addressing your entire post.

It may well be difficult for a rational mind, a scientist to struggle to understand things from a faith perspective (though there are many scientists of Christian faith) when you are discussing matters of such a complex nature as the origins of the universe.

Faith is fundamentally a personal issue as a relationship between God and a believer, as God made clear in sending His Son into this world and as the Bible consistently makes clear. The famous opening words of the Gospel of John are important here:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26040a)] it.

For a believer, these are words that completely personalise the Creator God to each and which, in my eyes, allows the 'personal' to become the most important part of it all. As the words suggest (v4), the relationship between God and the world/universe is set at a higher level since it gave light to men. It is that relationship from a 'Damascus experience' to a pilgrim's progress over a lifetime that is the seedbed of faith. In that famous chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul expresses that tension between faith and rationality this way:

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Hope this helps the 'faith issue' a bit!

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 01:29 PM

Just a couple of points here, GH - not addressing your entire post.

It may well be difficult for a rational mind, a scientist to struggle to understand things from a faith perspective (though there are many scientists of Christian faith) when you are discussing matters of such a complex nature as the origins of the universe.

Faith is fundamentally a personal issue as a relationship between God and a believer, as God made clear in sending His Son into this world and as the Bible consistently makes clear. The famous opening words of the Gospel of John are important here:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26040a)] it.

For a believer, these are words that completely personalise the Creator God to each and which, in my eyes, allows the 'personal' to become the most important part of it all. As the words suggest (v4), the relationship between God and the world/universe is set at a higher level since it gave light to men. It is that relationship from a 'Damascus experience' to a pilgrim's progress over a lifetime that is the seedbed of faith. In that famous chapter of 1 Corinthians, Paul expresses that tension between faith and rationality this way:

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Hope this helps the 'faith issue' a bit!

The thread was about how "true is the bible" ancienthibby, not what faith is.

Do you believe the bible to be true as a description of histroical fact as well as a basis for faith? Do you believe in the flood like FalkirkHibs? Do you believe people lived 200, 300, 400+ years?

As for the personal element of your relationship with the Christian God, presumably this is developed on the basis of your bible learning from church, family and personal reflection. The accuracy and truth of the bible, as taught to you, must be central to your personal relationship.

Sergio sledge

20-07-2009, 01:33 PM

I understand your point, and by no means do I want to suggest or attempt to suggest that Roman Catholicism is the only reason for the high incidence of AIDS/HIV in Africa.

However, to have a hugely powerful organisation actively preaching against contraception cannot have anything but an impact on its use, regardless of the personal morals of those involved. And, like it or not, that must have a de facto effect on the incidence of sexually transmitted disease (not to mention the impact on the rate of pregnancies).

It sounded like you were trying to suggest that the Catholic Church was solely to blame for it, but I accept that you weren't now you have explained further. I also agree to an extent with what you have said in the second paragraph, however again, I feel that the Catholic Churches position has always been largely mis-represented by the press into purely an anti-contraception stance when in fact what they are saying is that contraception isn't and shouldn't be required if their teachings on sex, marriage and family planning is followed fully. IMHO, they need to be more careful with what they say and how they say it so that their teachings are properly represented. I don't think they should have to change what they believe/teach just because of the irresponsibility of some of their followers.

however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness.
What research is that Brizo - any link?

I seem to remember a news story about this, a quick google brings up these news stories: 'Praying aids mental health' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/516350.stm) and 'Churchgoing improves life expectancy' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm)

I'm sure there was a story more recently though....

Brizo

20-07-2009, 01:40 PM

however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness.
What research is that Brizo - any link?

I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not.
Whilst personal comfort is undeniably gaind by peoples faith - and I use the example of Madeleine McCanns parents as an example - it must matter if it is true, surely?

Tbh I cant remember where I read it but I did read it somewhere. Im not making it up ... that would be a sin :wink: As for a link it takes me all my technical knowledge to switch my computer on yet alone finding stuff called "links" :greengrin

Re the second highlighted bit if people gain comfort from religion thats because they have that unprovable, illogical thing called faith. Because of the nature of faith it doesnt really matter whether the wieght of scientific evidence is against the Bible and other religious texts or whether the writings in the different religions are proved to be interchangeable allegorial fairytales.

Faith by its very nature can never be proven and it is totally illogical so I can fully understand why people view religion as nonsense. I can also fully understand why people are hostile towards religion given many of the things that have been done in its name. However on an individual basis if a person has a religious faith that helps them cope with and get through lifes problems that imho is a great thing for them to have

I only got drawn into this debate by DBS pejorative language. Ive really not got any great theological or intellectual arguments to add so im bowing out ... not ignoring you Mr Carpets :thumbsup:

Sergio sledge

20-07-2009, 01:44 PM

As for the personal element of your relationship with the Christian God, presumably this is developed on the basis of your bible learning from church, family and personal reflection. The accuracy and truth of the bible, as taught to you, must be central to your personal relationship.

This is an interesting debate, I guess your comment could be turned around to say:

'The accuracy and truth of the bible, as taught to you, must be central to your lack of a personal relationship.'

In other words, what I'm saying is:

Non-believers don't believe, Believers, believe. :greengrin

As for the 'morons and cowards' comment, that's plain ridiculous, and (I hope) DBS knows that.....:greengrin

IMHO, if someone believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then that's fine, if someone believes its claptrap, then that's fine, as long as no-one is using their belief as a justification for persecution then its not a problem. We'll all find out one day whether it is true or not.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 02:04 PM

It sounded like you were trying to suggest that the Catholic Church was solely to blame for it, but I accept that you weren't now you have explained further. I also agree to an extent with what you have said in the second paragraph, however again, I feel that the Catholic Churches position has always been largely mis-represented by the press into purely an anti-contraception stance when in fact what they are saying is that contraception isn't and shouldn't be required if their teachings on sex, marriage and family planning is followed fully. IMHO, they need to be more careful with what they say and how they say it so that their teachings are properly represented. I don't think they should have to change what they believe/teach just because of the irresponsibility of some of their followers.

I seem to remember a news story about this, a quick google brings up these news stories: 'Praying aids mental health' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/516350.stm) and 'Churchgoing improves life expectancy' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/401091.stm)

I'm sure there was a story more recently though....

Cheers for the links.

The first one is a comparative study of different types of religiosity, and in essence found that personal prayer gives lower stress levels thanthose who demonstrate their religion through social chirch attendance. The second one I think (I cant find the original study, just the report on it), suggests that elederly people who go to church have greater life expectancy, which is fine but doesnt mean that it is their extra spirituality that keeps them going. Maybe the fact that they have a support mechanism?

But thats neither here nor there, really.

The thread has tried to move onto "faith is a personal decision and a personal relationship with God", which is fine. But I still ask the question of you if you are a believer "do you believe what is written in the bible as being factually true?".

Sergio sledge

20-07-2009, 02:29 PM

Cheers for the links.

The first one is a comparative study of different types of religiosity, and in essence found that personal prayer gives lower stress levels thanthose who demonstrate their religion through social chirch attendance. The second one I think (I cant find the original study, just the report on it), suggests that elederly people who go to church have greater life expectancy, which is fine but doesnt mean that it is their extra spirituality that keeps them going. Maybe the fact that they have a support mechanism?

But thats neither here nor there, really.

I don't think that was Brizo's point. It could be the support, sense of community etc gained from attending Church, or it could be divine intervention, depending on what you believe, but I think Brizo's point was that there are benefits of religion, i.e. it helps some people deal with personal issues, tragedies, etc, without turning to drink or drugs. He was saying that its for these reasons that he doesn't have any problems with it at all, if thats what people need to cope, then that's fine.

Anyway, as you said, its getting off topic now.

As to the original question, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic (that's catholic as in universal, not as in Roman Catholic) church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

I'm not going to get into the why's and wherefores of it, because I'll admit there are things I just don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I have come to this belief through a personal experience I have had, and not through indoctrination or ignorance.

I am not going to get into an debate over it, as I don't think I have the intellectual capacity or theological knowledge to debate these things with someone like yourself, and I'd just end up looking like a fool. judging by previous posts by some people, I'll get labelled that anyway, no matter whether I debate or not. :wink:

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 02:46 PM

I don't think that was Brizo's point. It could be the support, sense of community etc gained from attending Church, or it could be divine intervention, depending on what you believe, but I think Brizo's point was that there are benefits of religion, i.e. it helps some people deal with personal issues, tragedies, etc, without turning to drink or drugs. He was saying that its for these reasons that he doesn't have any problems with it at all, if thats what people need to cope, then that's fine.

Anyway, as you said, its getting off topic now.

As to the original question, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Maker of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
born of the virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;

He descended into hell.

The third day He arose again from the dead;

He ascended into heaven,
and sits on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from there he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost;
the holy catholic (that's catholic as in universal, not as in Roman Catholic) church;
the communion of saints;
the forgiveness of sins;
the resurrection of the body;
and the life everlasting.

I'm not going to get into the why's and wherefores of it, because I'll admit there are things I just don't understand, and I don't think I ever will. I have come to this belief through a personal experience I have had, and not through indoctrination or ignorance.

I am not going to get into an debate over it, as I don't think I have the intellectual capacity or theological knowledge to debate these things with someone like yourself, and I'd just end up looking like a fool. judging by previous posts by some people, I'll get labelled that anyway, no matter whether I debate or not. :wink:

Not in the slightest.

I completely agree that religion can do good things for people on an individual and community basis - thats absolutely demonstrable.

I have no religious belief, and I'm happy to discuss with people why I think the way I do. My position has hardened dramatically away from being agnostic to being an atheist because Ive tried to read, understand and look at both sides, as it were. The more Ive looked, the more I an convinced that a belief in any Deity that has an impact on our day-to-day life is fundamentally indefensible. I am not saying people should not be allowed faith or that religionists should be made to skulk in corners hiding from the glare of ridicule, but I do believe that open and honest debate, asking questions and responding to them can lead people to examine their faith critically. If after that, they still believe (possibly more strongly) then fantastic, if they re-evaluate their views after, then great too.

I dont label you a fool on the basis of your belief - how could I - I dont know you, but you shouldnt avoid defending your heart-felt position on the basis of potential negative reaction.

Woody1985

20-07-2009, 03:11 PM

Tbh I cant remember where I read it but I did read it somewhere. Im not making it up ... that would be a sin :wink: As for a link it takes me all my technical knowledge to switch my computer on yet alone finding stuff called "links" :greengrin

Re the second highlighted bit if people gain comfort from religion thats because they have that unprovable, illogical thing called faith. Because of the nature of faith it doesnt really matter whether the wieght of scientific evidence is against the Bible and other religious texts or whether the writings in the different religions are proved to be interchangeable allegorial fairytales.

Faith by its very nature can never be proven and it is totally illogical so I can fully understand why people view religion as nonsense. I can also fully understand why people are hostile towards religion given many of the things that have been done in its name. However on an individual basis if a person has a religious faith that helps them cope with and get through lifes problems that imho is a great thing for them to have

I only got drawn into this debate by DBS pejorative language. Ive really not got any great theological or intellectual arguments to add so im bowing out ... not ignoring you Mr Carpets :thumbsup:

I'm sorry but this made me :LOL: at work.

You have said that people with faith are less likely to have mental illness (or along those lines) and then when asked to substantiate it you said you read it somewhere, and therefore took that as fact to back up a point in a discussion. Just thought that was a hint of irony there. :greengrin

P.S I'm not disputing the fact that it may be true but just that you took something on face value after reading it somewhere.

Disclaimer! If you recall being happy with the source etc at time of reading then fair enough but just thought it was funny. I'm not taking the piss. :greengrin

Sergio sledge

20-07-2009, 03:14 PM

Not in the slightest.

I completely agree that religion can do good things for people on an individual and community basis - thats absolutely demonstrable.

I have no religious belief, and I'm happy to discuss with people why I think the way I do. My position has hardened dramatically away from being agnostic to being an atheist because Ive tried to read, understand and look at both sides, as it were. The more Ive looked, the more I an convinced that a belief in any Deity that has an impact on our day-to-day life is fundamentally indefensible. I am not saying people should not be allowed faith or that religionists should be made to skulk in corners hiding from the glare of ridicule, but I do believe that open and honest debate, asking questions and responding to them can lead people to examine their faith critically. If after that, they still believe (possibly more strongly) then fantastic, if they re-evaluate their views after, then great too.

I dont label you a fool on the basis of your belief - how could I - I dont know you, but you shouldnt avoid defending your heart-felt position on the basis of potential negative reaction.

I didn't mean you would label me a fool, I was referring to some others, but to be honest that was more tongue in cheek than anything else. :greengrin

The benefit of threads like this and the Evolution thread is that it has made me think more about what I believe than I had done in total in the past year or so, which is always a good thing. I am sure of what I believe, but that's not to say that what I believe is beyond question, and beyond discussion, its always good to see what the other side believe.

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 03:34 PM

Not in the slightest.

I completely agree that religion can do good things for people on an individual and community basis - thats absolutely demonstrable.

I have no religious belief, and I'm happy to discuss with people why I think the way I do. My position has hardened dramatically away from being agnostic to being an atheist because Ive tried to read, understand and look at both sides, as it were. The more Ive looked, the more I an convinced that a belief in any Deity that has an impact on our day-to-day life is fundamentally indefensible. I am not saying people should not be allowed faith or that religionists should be made to skulk in corners hiding from the glare of ridicule, but I do believe that open and honest debate, asking questions and responding to them can lead people to examine their faith critically. If after that, they still believe (possibly more strongly) then fantastic, if they re-evaluate their views after, then great too.

I dont label you a fool on the basis of your belief - how could I - I dont know you, but you shouldnt avoid defending your heart-felt position on the basis of potential negative reaction.

Just a couple of rejoinders on the highlighted sentence, TC.

First, do you believe that the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the humane genome was created purely by chance??, and;

Second, the renowned aetheist, Anthony Flew, became a theist saying this:
'The nature of the complexity of DNA can only be accounted for by an intelligent Creator' (BBC interview, 2004).

(Oh and thanks for taking some of the heated language out of your recent posts!)

Austinho

20-07-2009, 03:34 PM

Once upon a time, a bunch of people who still believe the Earth was flat set about writing a collection of short stories.

Thousands of years later, a large percentage of the population still believe it to be real, many even dedicating their lives to the main characters.

No wonder the aliens are laughing at us.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 04:25 PM

Just a couple of rejoinders on the highlighted sentence, TC.

First, do you believe that the 3.5 billion letter sequence of the humane genome was created purely by chance??, and;

Second, the renowned aetheist, Anthony Flew, became a theist saying this:
'The nature of the complexity of DNA can only be accounted for by an intelligent Creator' (BBC interview, 2004).

(Oh and thanks for taking some of the heated language out of your recent posts!)

I dont think there was any particularly heated language any where, but thats by the by.

The introduction of big numbers is a very common way of making the case for God, because on the face of it, it seems phenomenonally unlikely that something involving that amount of numbers is possible.

The human genome has 2,900,000,000 base pairs. The development of this over enormous time through the process of natural selection is entirely easy for me to see. Incidentally, amoeba have 670,000,000,000 base pairs within their genome, so on the face of it are even more unlikely than humans. Think of it this way - when you use large numbers, almost anything can be made to look dizzyingly unlikely. The odds against a pebble being constructed in exactly the way it is, with billions of molecules forming into any particular shape are astronomical, but you can see evidence of their existence any time you go for a walk.

The use of the word chance is misleading to an extent too. If you mean do i believe a huge genome sequence just puffed into existence, then no, I dont believe that, and science/evolutionary theory doesnt claim that. However, the christian version of creation would suggest that not only did God construct all the DNA for all the creatures of the universe at the same time, he also created them fully formed, which I find exceptionally hard to accept

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.htmlhttp://http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html

I dont quite get what Anthony Flew has to do with a debate on the accuracy of the bible, but a link to the transcript of the interview is above. I've had discussions in the past where Flews "conversion" is held up as being strong evidence for the veracity of the Christian view.

Flew is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. Your quotation suggests that he converted to Christianity. He didnt. He came to the conclusion that there was what he called "an Aristotelian God" - a deity which created the universe, and that was it. His view of God did not encompass a being which had day-to-day influence on creation or people. He did not believe in an after life, and I can find no quotation to suggest he believed the bible to be true.

Dashing Bob S

20-07-2009, 04:41 PM

Dashing Bob S

20-07-2009, 04:47 PM

And Christians are supposed to be the intolerant ones....:rolleyes:

I would always defend your right to say whatever you like about religion, but to call people who follow Christianity morons and cowards is not only extremely ill-informed, it's actually also downright offensive.

What about the people in some staunch Muslim countries, who have chosen to leave Islam and become Christians, despite knowing that their decision could lead to their own family and the local community turning on them? In some cases they are even forced into hiding because they receive death threats.

I would be really interested to hear you explain to me, just how you think these people are cowards because I would say they are quite the opposite. :confused:

Anyway, to answer the OP, I believe that the Bible is true but that it all depends on how individual people who read it, actually interpret it.

Two people could read exactly the same version and come out with completely different takes on certain chapters or verses.

I said 'morons and cowards' and didn't mean them to be discreet categories. They would obviously fall into the 'morons' camp, as they're merely subsituting one set of deluded nonsense for another.

I don't mean to be offensive to yourself or any one else who has deeply held views, but I reserve the right to state that I believe such views are underpinned by ignorance and fear.

Dashing Bob S

20-07-2009, 04:55 PM

Dissapointing comments from someone who's posts I usually find balanced and well informed. To label hundreds of millions of people as morons and cowards is quite a ridiculous stereotype imho.

Religious faith helps a great many people get through crisis in their families such as bereavement or serious illness. If they gain comfort from that I find it a far better option than them going down the route of turning to alcohol, drugs or succumbing to mental health problems. Thats not to say that those with religious belief dont suffer these problems however research indicates that those with some kind of faith are less likely to suffer mental illness. If belief in an invisible guy in the sky helps people deal with ther personal demons I personally dont see a problem with that.

We live in a secular wealthy western world where human natures need for a better tomorrow is mainly expressed in attaining the new car or next holiday. In many parts of the world where a better tomorrows basically staying alive religious faiths all that keeps many going. In that regard I dont think it really makes much difference whether the Bible or any other religious text is factual or not. If it brings people a sense of comfort and purpose then that hardly makes them morons and cowards imho.

Good points Brizo, and I accept my use of terms like 'morons' and 'cowards' was an overly emotive way of attempting to illustrate the (sometimes willful) ignorance and fear of mortality that underpins religious thinking. I accept that for many people it is a relatively harmless way of drawing comfort from an often inhospitable world, but it also has far more damaging and less benign impacts which have been well documented on this and other threads.

One of the things I detest most about Christianity and Islam is how they are expansive religions - they won't shut up and go to their churches and bother God in silence, they are in everybody's faces, and have a disturbing piety which seems to say its impossible to have a moral code unless you subcribe to our arrant nonsense.

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 05:31 PM

I dont think there was any particularly heated language any where, but thats by the by.

The introduction of big numbers is a very common way of making the case for God, because on the face of it, it seems phenomenonally unlikely that something involving that amount of numbers is possible.

The human genome has 2,900,000,000 base pairs. The development of this over enormous time through the process of natural selection is entirely easy for me to see. Incidentally, amoeba have 670,000,000,000 base pairs within their genome, so on the face of it are even more unlikely than humans. Think of it this way - when you use large numbers, almost anything can be made to look dizzyingly unlikely. The odds against a pebble being constructed in exactly the way it is, with billions of molecules forming into any particular shape are astronomical, but you can see evidence of their existence any time you go for a walk.

The use of the word chance is misleading to an extent too. If you mean do i believe a huge genome sequence just puffed into existence, then no, I dont believe that, and science/evolutionary theory doesnt claim that. However, the christian version of creation would suggest that not only did God construct all the DNA for all the creatures of the universe at the same time, he also created them fully formed, which I find exceptionally hard to accept

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.htmlhttp://http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/belief/scripts/antony_flew.html

I dont quite get what Anthony Flew has to do with a debate on the accuracy of the bible, but a link to the transcript of the interview is above. I've had discussions in the past where Flews "conversion" is held up as being strong evidence for the veracity of the Christian view.

Flew is not a scientist, he is a philosopher. Your quotation suggests that he converted to Christianity. He didnt. He came to the conclusion that there was what he called "an Aristotelian God" - a deity which created the universe, and that was it. His view of God did not encompass a being which had day-to-day influence on creation or people. He did not believe in an after life, and I can find no quotation to suggest he believed the bible to be true.

Eh, well no, I did not suggest that at all and I agree with the rest of your para as a fair reflection of Frew's last position (as I understand it). But Frew did state that a superintelligence is 'the only good explanation of the origin of life and of the complexity of nature'. In no way do I claim that he is referring to the Christian God, but it does suggest something far more theistic that your view:

'The more Ive looked, the more I am convinced that a belief in any Deity that has an impact on our day-to-day life is fundamentally indefensible.'

Stephen Jay Gould said this:

'Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid , or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religion - and equally compatible with atheism'; and then this: 'science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible existence. we neither affirm it or deny it; we simply cannot on it as scientsts'. (Both quotes Scientific American 267 no 1).

You deny it. That's your choice/belief. Even renowed agnostic scientists do not say that belief in a Deity is 'fundamentally indefensible'

sleeping giant

20-07-2009, 05:43 PM

How do you know if the instructions for your DVD are correct?

Just started reading this thread Fergus and that is a belter:agree: :top marks

RE the OP.
I dont know how God can expect anyone to believe in the bible teachings.
They have been altered , censored , tweaked , translated , stolen , sabotaged , burned and ruined by the winners of wars throughout history.

I like biblical stories and treat them as such.

I am still certain there is a creator even though i have no faith in the bible.

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 05:48 PM

Just started reading this thread Fergus and that is a belter:agree: :top marks

RE the OP.
I dont know how God can expect anyone to believe in the bible teachings.
They have been altered , censored , tweaked , translated , stolen , sabotaged , burned and ruined by the winners of wars throughout history.

I like biblical stories and treat them as such.

I am still certain there is a creator even though i have no faith in the bible.

That's progress, SG!

You are now on the prayer list!!:greengrin

sleeping giant

20-07-2009, 05:59 PM

That's progress, SG!

You are now on the prayer list!!:greengrin

I have always known deep down that we were created but I couldl not follow any other human into religion though.

I do not believe Elomine (sp) :greengrin would expect humans to believe lying cheating murderers spreading their word.

How can squillions of people worship the Pope , a man:bitchy:

I also think that our creators, if they are still around, do not really give a monkeys about what happens here.

We all know how to live and what is right and wrong.
I just try to be nice and gentle and treat folk as i would feel comfortable being treated myself.

I have no doubt that if there is a hell , i will be going:boo hoo:

sleeping giant

20-07-2009, 06:52 PM

:top marks
I think people starts these threads to wind people up and start arguments.
IMO.

Dont agree.
. People start these threads out of a genuine interest and its normally the atheists who get all annoyed and start abusing people and their beliefs.

Its a very interesting subject whether you believe or not but it will never get a good airing on here as too many folk are too quick to call folk morons for having faith.

Terrible shame tbh.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 07:07 PM

Eh, well no, I did not suggest that at all and I agree with the rest of your para as a fair reflection of Frew's last position (as I understand it). But Frew did state that a superintelligence is 'the only good explanation of the origin of life and of the complexity of nature'. In no way do I claim that he is referring to the Christian God, but it does suggest something far more theistic that your view:

'The more Ive looked, the more I am convinced that a belief in any Deity that has an impact on our day-to-day life is fundamentally indefensible.'

Stephen Jay Gould said this:

'Either half of my colleagues are enormously stupid , or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religion - and equally compatible with atheism'; and then this: 'science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible existence. we neither affirm it or deny it; we simply cannot on it as scientsts'. (Both quotes Scientific American 267 no 1).

You deny it. That's your choice/belief. Even renowed agnostic scientists do not say that belief in a Deity is 'fundamentally indefensible'

Ok, thats Stephen Jay Goulds opinion then, not mine.

What you are doing here is justifying your position with an appeal to authority. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a logical fallacy http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/http://http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/, and ultimately we can trade references from people on the pro and anti side of any debate.

But to again try to take the discussion back to the OPs topic:

One of the reasons I cannot believe the bible is a true report of events is that there are many areas of clearly impossible occurences. If they are not clearly impossible, then all of science is wrong. I offer by way of example:

- The many hundreds of years lifespan of people described in Genesis
- The flood of Noah
- Moses turning a staff into snakes
- The parting of the red sea
- The sun standing still for Joshua
- Jonah living in a whale for 3 days with suffocating or being digested
- Peter and Jesus walking on water
- The feeding of the five thousand

If you choose to believe these as fact, then thats fine. I cannot see however how in any way such a belief can tally with what you see and experience every day of your life.

Again: If these things are true, then all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and thermodynamics to name but a few are absolutely, fundamentally and completely wrong. I dont believe they are.

sleeping giant

20-07-2009, 07:18 PM

.

Some great posts on this thread :top marks

Not saying i agree or disagree with your stance but you are providing some cracking arguements as is AH:hnet:
Keep it going guys:greengrin

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 08:40 PM

Ok, thats Stephen Jay Goulds opinion then, not mine.

What you are doing here is justifying your position with an appeal to authority. Nothing wrong with that, but it is a logical fallacy http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/http://http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/, and ultimately we can trade references from people on the pro and anti side of any debate.

But to again try to take the discussion back to the OPs topic:

One of the reasons I cannot believe the bible is a true report of events is that there are many areas of clearly impossible occurences. If they are not clearly impossible, then all of science is wrong. I offer by way of example:

- The many hundreds of years lifespan of people described in Genesis
- The flood of Noah
- Moses turning a staff into snakes
- The parting of the red sea
- The sun standing still for Joshua
- Jonah living in a whale for 3 days with suffocating or being digested
- Peter and Jesus walking on water
- The feeding of the five thousand

If you choose to believe these as fact, then thats fine. I cannot see however how in any way such a belief can tally with what you see and experience every day of your life.

Again: If these things are true, then all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and thermodynamics to name but a few are absolutely, fundamentally and completely wrong. I dont believe they are.

One of the issues which exists between us is that we come to the matter from quite different perspectives. You seem to be a believer in the universalist view whereas I come to things from a personal relationship (one-to-one) with our Creator God. That need not divide us forever(!) but it does mean that one of my starting points is a strong faith in our Creator God, whereas yours is a rational, empirical scientific perspective. Yours is a top-down perspective, mine is a bottom-up one!

As I said to Glasgae Hibby, I am informed by Scripture and, in this case by the words of the disciple John who writes this:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26040a)] it.

Now, that tells me that the Creator God has put something above the created order and that is a personal relationship between failed human beings (such as me, at least) and God Himself, which relationship is only enabled by the life and death of His own Son - 'in him was life and that life was the light of all men'.

So that says to me that while the Creator God is the origin of the Universe what was more important to Him, was this direct personal relationship with failed human beings. Now believing in that is a faith starting point - and that's the 'bottom-up' befinning. Taking that into Scripture, I then have no difficulty in subscribing to the often made Biblical saying - 'with God all things are possible'

I then overlay on that the other quotation I gave GH from Paul:

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Verse 12 is the key for me. Faith in our Creator God gives me the capability to believe as Scripture repeatedly points out: 'with God, nothing is impossible'. (and, oh, that's not blind faith, that's experienced faith!).

If I can be persuaded that God became human and took life in the person of the Lord Jesus, lived, witnessed, worshipped, was put to death and was raised again to life, all for the sake of a fallen humanity, then I can also believe we will get all the answers we are prepared to trust for, come eternity. Scripture does not offer it any other way.

I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all that I have not seen'.

Twa Cairpets

20-07-2009, 09:08 PM

One of the issues which exists between us is that we come to the matter from quite different perspectives. You seem to be a believer in the universalist view whereas I come to things from a personal relationship (one-to-one) with our Creator God. That need not divide us forever(!) but it does mean that one of my starting points is a strong faith in our Creator God, whereas yours is a rational, empirical scientific perspective. Yours is a top-down perspective, mine is a bottom-up one!

As I said to Glasgae Hibby, I am informed by Scripture and, in this case by the words of the disciple John who writes this:

1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=50&chapter=1&version=31#fen-NIV-26040a)] it.

Now, that tells me that the Creator God has put something above the created order and that is a personal relationship between failed human beings (such as me, at least) and God Himself, which relationship is only enabled by the life and death of His own Son - 'in him was life and that life was the light of all men'.

So that says to me that while the Creator God is the origin of the Universe what was more important to Him, was this direct personal relationship with failed human beings. Now believing in that is a faith starting point - and that's the 'bottom-up' befinning. Taking that into Scripture, I then have no difficulty in subscribing to the often made Biblical saying - 'with God all things are possible'

I then overlay on that the other quotation I gave GH from Paul:

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Verse 12 is the key for me. Faith in our Creator God gives me the capability to believe as Scripture repeatedly points out: 'with God, nothing is impossible'. (and, oh, that's not blind faith, that's experienced faith!).

If I can be persuaded that God became human and took life in the person of the Lord Jesus, lived, witnessed, worshipped, was put to death and was raised again to life, all for the sake of a fallen humanity, then I can also believe we will get all the answers we are prepared to trust for, come eternity. Scripture does not offer it any other way.

I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson: 'All that I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all that I have not seen'.

Ancient. I understand - I think - the basis for your faith.

In summary, if I've got it right, your belief in scripture allows you to believe that anthing within it is possible, and that the strength of your conviction in your personal relationship with God overcomes any opposition from (for the want of a better phrase) any scientific arguments against it.

If Ive got it wrong, please feel free to correct me. I do have an almost overwhelming desire to talk about the circular argument within this level of faith:

"I believe the the bible is Word of God"
"But how do you know it is true?"
"Because it says so in the bible"
But I'll try to avoid going down that line, because it is a dead end.

But can I ask then if you believe that the scientific impossibilities I outlined above really did happen, and that they were allowed to happen as a result of Gods power? I dont believe this has anything to do with the personal nature of your spiritual relationship, it is to do whether or not you believe the bible to be literally true.

ancienthibby

20-07-2009, 09:39 PM

Ancient. I understand - I think - the basis for your faith.

In summary, if I've got it right, your belief in scripture allows you to believe that anthing within it is possible, and that the strength of your conviction in your personal relationship with God overcomes any opposition from (for the want of a better phrase) any scientific arguments against it.

If Ive got it wrong, please feel free to correct me. I do have an almost overwhelming desire to talk about the circular argument within this level of faith:

"I believe the the bible is Word of God"
"But how do you know it is true?"
"Because it says so in the bible"
But I'll try to avoid going down that line, because it is a dead end.

But can I ask then if you believe that the scientific impossibilities I outlined above really did happen, and that they were allowed to happen as a result of Gods power? I dont believe this has anything to do with the personal nature of your spiritual relationship, it is to do whether or not you believe the bible to be literally true.

TC, thanks for taking on board my ramblings!

I have highlighted the above from your own post, so that I can point you to a previous post, sometime last week.

In that, I made reference to the strong work which is continuing between scientists and Christian believers (from a journal I subscribe to called Science and Christian Belief). I did so because I absolutely believe that in some way we may well find that all our difference, our misunderstandings are reconciled when we no longer 'see in a glass darkly'! After all, God is above all the God of reconciliation.

I am no 'Sarah Palin' type believer. I could be quite glib and say that because the Bible says that with God all things are possible, I need go no further. On that line of thinking, therefore if God wanted it to be so, he could create a world which would totally confuse scientists and rationalists so that they would think that the world was 4.5 billion years old. And that could be the end of the argument.

But I don't take that view. However, I do subscribe to the view that the Lord had many a whimsical smile to himself during the creation process! He must have had many many indeed, thinking perhaps 'that will give the sceptics something to hang on to' or 'there's one for the believers'; and 'here's a little conundrum for everyone'!

I'll leave you for tonight with this quote from Allan Sandage, 'one of the fathers of modern cosmology':

'I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence - why there is something rather than nothing'. (my italics)

Dashing Bob S

21-07-2009, 06:54 AM

TC, thanks for taking on board my ramblings!

I have highlighted the above from your own post, so that I can point you to a previous post, sometime last week.

In that, I made reference to the strong work which is continuing between scientists and Christian believers (from a journal I subscribe to called Science and Christian Belief). I did so because I absolutely believe that in some way we may well find that all our difference, our misunderstandings are reconciled when we no longer 'see in a glass darkly'! After all, God is above all the God of reconciliation.

I am no 'Sarah Palin' type believer. I could be quite glib and say that because the Bible says that with God all things are possible, I need go no further. On that line of thinking, therefore if God wanted it to be so, he could create a world which would totally confuse scientists and rationalists so that they would think that the world was 4.5 billion years old. And that could be the end of the argument.

But I don't take that view. However, I do subscribe to the view that the Lord had many a whimsical smile to himself during the creation process! He must have had many many indeed, thinking perhaps 'that will give the sceptics something to hang on to' or 'there's one for the believers'; and 'here's a little conundrum for everyone'!

I'll leave you for tonight with this quote from Allan Sandage, 'one of the fathers of modern cosmology':

'I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence - why there is something rather than nothing'. (my italics)

Great last line - but how is that anything to do with the nonsense that is the Bible?

GlesgaeHibby

21-07-2009, 07:07 AM

One of the reasons I cannot believe the bible is a true report of events is that there are many areas of clearly impossible occurences. If they are not clearly impossible, then all of science is wrong. I offer by way of example:

- The many hundreds of years lifespan of people described in Genesis
- The flood of Noah
- Moses turning a staff into snakes
- The parting of the red sea
- The sun standing still for Joshua
- Jonah living in a whale for 3 days with suffocating or being digested
- Peter and Jesus walking on water
- The feeding of the five thousand

If you choose to believe these as fact, then thats fine. I cannot see however how in any way such a belief can tally with what you see and experience every day of your life.

Again: If these things are true, then all the laws of physics, chemistry, biology and thermodynamics to name but a few are absolutely, fundamentally and completely wrong. I dont believe they are.

Not true I'm afraid. The Laws of Quantum Mechanics do allow this, due to probabilities.

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 07:49 AM

Not true I'm afraid. The Laws of Quantum Mechanics do allow this, due to probabilities.

I bow to your knowledge of Quantum mechanics if this is accurate Glesage, but I dont thibnk you're right. Quantum Mechanics relate to ideas such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where it becomes imposible to determine both the momentum and position of a particle at any given point. Quantum Theory is concerned with - as far as I understand it, and granted its a long time since Ive studied it - the sub atomic world, wavicles, quarks, mesons, gluons, strange attractants and the like. it needs philosophical constructs like Schroedingers Cat to get your head around it, and I confess I never quite did (although I did used to be able to write down Schroedingers Wave equation from from first principles without really understanding it!). It does not affect established laws of physics, chemstry or biology.

One of the defining principles of the scientific method is that it should leave you with the ability to predict what will happen in certain circumstances.

I would be happy to predict that:

You cant live in a whale for 3 days (No oxygen leads to suffocation, never mind trying to survive in an environment of very low pH).

You cant walk on liquid water (The surface tension of the water is not sufficient to support the mass of a person).

You can't change the molecular make-up of a wooden staff and turn it into a snake (Atoms only change their atomic structure as a result of Nuclear fusion, as in the son, or radioactive degradation)

I think my initial point is still valid

J-C

21-07-2009, 08:02 AM

The Bible is a book of stories and fables written to guide the lives of those who choose to believe in a God Almighty, most of what is written is pure nonsense ans the stuff of fairy tales. If you want to believe in Noah, Moses, burning bushes, rivers turing into blood, people living for hundreds of years etc then go ahead, knock yourselves out and have fun reading this stuff. If I was going to read fairy tales, I'd stick with Lord of the Rings, a better book, more realistic and also about good v evil.

Scientists have explained what probably happened during Exodus, an enormous volcano larger than usual at Santorini.

http://geology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=geology&cdn=education&tm=23&gps=304_380_1156_679&f=00&tt=12&bt=0&bts=0&zu=http%3A//www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/santorini.html

Also what about the recent scriptures that were discovered, one believed to be the writtings of Judas and depicting a differing story to what's in the bible, saying that Judas and Jesus had been in cahoots and he asked Judas to do what he wanted as Judas was his most trusted follower.
And the scriptures which shows Mary Magdelene to be very close to Jesus ( some would say lover ) but due to her over familiarity has been ignored by the church ever since.

All these things were written thousands of years ago when man wondered why we were here and tried to explain it away by creating a deity who made the world for us to keep.

The Egyptians, Romans and Greeks all had beliefs but they had many gods to believe in, so who is to say who was right or wrong. A lot of the Greek myths are still taught in schools today, why, because they are good stories and help us to understand the ways and lifes of the ancient Greeks. Do you believe in Achilles and his heal, the Trojan Horse, which has yet to be proved.

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 08:18 AM

TC, thanks for taking on board my ramblings!

I have highlighted the above from your own post, so that I can point you to a previous post, sometime last week.

In that, I made reference to the strong work which is continuing between scientists and Christian believers (from a journal I subscribe to called Science and Christian Belief). I did so because I absolutely believe that in some way we may well find that all our difference, our misunderstandings are reconciled when we no longer 'see in a glass darkly'! After all, God is above all the God of reconciliation.

I am no 'Sarah Palin' type believer. I could be quite glib and say that because the Bible says that with God all things are possible, I need go no further. On that line of thinking, therefore if God wanted it to be so, he could create a world which would totally confuse scientists and rationalists so that they would think that the world was 4.5 billion years old. And that could be the end of the argument.

But I don't take that view. However, I do subscribe to the view that the Lord had many a whimsical smile to himself during the creation process! He must have had many many indeed, thinking perhaps 'that will give the sceptics something to hang on to' or 'there's one for the believers'; and 'here's a little conundrum for everyone'!

I'll leave you for tonight with this quote from Allan Sandage, 'one of the fathers of modern cosmology':

'I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery, but is the explanation for the miracle of existence - why there is something rather than nothing'. (my italics)

Sandage is an ineresting character. Good article here: http://http://www.alban.org/uploadedFiles/Alban/Conversation/pdf/Durbin%20Conversion%20of%20Allan%20Sandage.pdf

He took what is known as "Pascals Wager", which in summary is "Well, you might as wel believe because if youre right, you get the benefits of God, if youre wrong, youre dead anyway". My personal view on this is that is a bit intellectually bankrupt, but there you go.

If I'm honest, I think your picture of a chuckling God lobbing in philosophically debatabe points in his plan for creation is bizarre. The bible certainly doesnt suggest any such bouts of whimsy, and is fairly explicit on his desire for absolute, unquestioning faith.

But I'm still going to press you politely for answer to whether or not you believe the bible is factually accurate.

ancienthibby

21-07-2009, 11:54 AM

Sandage is an ineresting character. Good article here: http://http://www.alban.org/uploadedFiles/Alban/Conversation/pdf/Durbin%20Conversion%20of%20Allan%20Sandage.pdf

He took what is known as "Pascals Wager", which in summary is "Well, you might as wel believe because if youre right, you get the benefits of God, if youre wrong, youre dead anyway". My personal view on this is that is a bit intellectually bankrupt, but there you go.

If I'm honest, I think your picture of a chuckling God lobbing in philosophically debatabe points in his plan for creation is bizarre. The bible certainly doesnt suggest any such bouts of whimsy, and is fairly explicit on his desire for absolute, unquestioning faith.

But I'm still going to press you politely for answer to whether or not you believe the bible is factually accurate.

Let me try and shed some light on this, though I never said anything about a chuckling God!

As I have said previously, my starting point for the Creator God, is the God who reveals Himself in Scriptures, and to failed human beings, particularly in the New Testament which tells us about the fully divine God becoming fully human in the Lord Jesus. Jesus himself then says that ' he who has seen me has seen the Father'. In other words we should have no doubt that our Creator God lived amongst ordinary families, shared in all their own trials and tribulations and experienced shared emotions with them. I have no doubt that within his own family Jesus (fully human) laughed and cried with his parents and siblings, yet was without sin.

We also know that Jesus was a regular diner with numerous friends (a drinker of wine even!) an attender at marriages and a sympathiser and counsellor at times of bereavement. He was always dealing with the full range of human foibles which his twelve disciples exhibited all the time.

I was in Church on Sunday when we have a Praise Group who lead the singing of modern songs and hymns in praise of God. I saw a lot of happy faces, glad to be giving praise to God. I have no doubt that God rejoices when his people worship him. Indeed, Scripture tells us that there is rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner who repents!

I am not a supporter or condoner of the 'happy clappy' approach to worship, but I have no doubt that our Creator God does exhibit a full range of human emotions in His dealings with His Creation.

It may be that you have subconsciously taken too much on board of the caricature that is so often wrongly attributed to our Calvinistic heritage (he wrote whimsically!) and while you are right to point out that Jesus does seek our obedience to his teaching and livings, that experence should be a joyful one.

RyeSloan

21-07-2009, 12:17 PM

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Woody1985

21-07-2009, 03:04 PM

Thanks SiMar

I agree with you that the statement of fact presented by many people of religion can be frustrating - its one of the reasons why discussions can be "difficult" as if you have faith you must subscribe to a form of logical fallacy - that of presumption/begging the question http://http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/begging-the-question/. Its worth looking at this site - it does make you think.

Ancient - Im delighted that you gain personal pleasure and fulfillment from your faith, as per your last post.

But you're still not answering whether you believe that the bible is factually accurate, in particular with reference to the - as i see it - scientifically impossible acts described above.

Personally I always find that when posing this to a religious person I am answered with a questions or an alternative reason for their faith. Not a dig at anyone but that's my experience.

ancienthibby

21-07-2009, 04:21 PM

TwoCarpets..excellent debating as usual

Ancient...well done in presenting a coherant and well presented support for your faith and the reasons behind it.

Green Mikey...nice OP.

FWIW my views are that I have no problems with people having a faith and it's clear that a believe in God can be a very powerful thing for some.

However I do have serious issue with the bible (and it's ilk) when it is quoted...Jesus said this, Moses said that, this is the word of God.......I always want to scream and say "NO IT'S NOT!!"

Does my brain in that these statements (and there was a post or two full of them) get passed off as fact, like someone had a recording device at the Sermon on the Mount. Most of these 'stories' or 'scriptures' if that makes it sound more god like were written long after what was meant to have happened and by people that weren't even there...tens upto hundreds of years after. Add in the constant revision, the rather selective endorsement of the 'correct' stories to include and of course the multiple translations then the idea that the bible is somehow an accurate source book for what Jesus actually said is just total nonsense, plain and simple.

SiMar,

I join with TC in thanking you for your kind remarks!

I am concerned though with your final paragraph and, as I am no theologian, I hope that Doddie is still keeping his trained eye on these threads and will pick up the brief (and inadequate) points that I can offer and himself offer you some real substance!

The first point I would make is that believers (such as myself) believe that all of Scripture is inspired by God. We take this from the promise that Jesus made when he ascended into heaven and said that God's Holy Spirit would be gifted to us and would guide and direct us all. That is something that therefore affects every part of our lives including, for example, that the preachers and teachers of God's word would be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I have no issue at all with believing that the writers of Scriptures from all their varying backgrounds and experiences and languages were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That therefore means that what we use as the Holy Bible is in fact, God's Word, since it is His Spirit which inspired first the writers and then the compilers.

Do we therefore believe that Holy Scripture can be relied on as the inerrant Word of God??

Two responses: First, I have not the slightest doubt that contempories of the Lord witnessed his death and Resurrection and therefore are believable (for example, his brother James, his apostle John, his disciple Peter, the apostle Paul and, as Scripture avers, some 400 other witnesses).

Second, here's what someone (a renowned New Testament scholar), so much better qualified than me, offers:

A Note on the Percent of Accuracy of the New Testament Text

By Norman L. Geisler
Some have challenged the accuracy of the New Testament (NT) manuscripts based on a statement in our book A General Introduction to the Bible that inadvertently attributed to Bruce Metzer the figure that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. However, this is an inconsequential criticism for several reasons. First, NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above "trivialities" and can be called "substantial variations." In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 9/20 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and about 9/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a "thousandth part of the entire text." So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.
Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected "an article of faith." Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that "In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another" (Misquoting Jesus, 55).
Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established" (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

I hope this helps sparks some further investigation/reading by yourself.

And I would just add to TC re his final para: the answers are in my postings!!:greengrin

sleeping giant

21-07-2009, 05:04 PM

Get this thread in the vault:agree:

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 05:30 PM

[/B]

SiMar,

I join with TC in thanking you for your kind remarks!

I am concerned though with your final paragraph and, as I am no theologian, I hope that Doddie is still keeping his trained eye on these threads and will pick up the brief (and inadequate) points that I can offer and himself offer you some real substance!

The first point I would make is that believers (such as myself) believe that all of Scripture is inspired by God. We take this from the promise that Jesus made when he ascended into heaven and said that God's Holy Spirit would be gifted to us and would guide and direct us all. That is something that therefore affects every part of our lives including, for example, that the preachers and teachers of God's word would be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I have no issue at all with believing that the writers of Scriptures from all their varying backgrounds and experiences and languages were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That therefore means that what we use as the Holy Bible is in fact, God's Word, since it is His Spirit which inspired first the writers and then the compilers.

Do we therefore believe that Holy Scripture can be relied on as the inerrant Word of God??

Two responses: First, I have not the slightest doubt that contempories of the Lord witnessed his death and Resurrection and therefore are believable (for example, his brother James, his apostle John, his disciple Peter, the apostle Paul and, as Scripture avers, some 400 other witnesses).

Second, here's what someone (a renowned New Testament scholar), so much better qualified than me, offers:

A Note on the Percent of Accuracy of the New Testament Text

By Norman L. Geisler
Some have challenged the accuracy of the New Testament (NT) manuscripts based on a statement in our book A General Introduction to the Bible that inadvertently attributed to Bruce Metzer the figure that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. However, this is an inconsequential criticism for several reasons. First, NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above "trivialities" and can be called "substantial variations." In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 9/20 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and about 9/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a "thousandth part of the entire text." So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.
Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected "an article of faith." Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that "In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another" (Misquoting Jesus, 55).
Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established" (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

I hope this helps sparks some further investigation/reading by yourself.

And I would just add to TC re his final para: the answers are in my postings!!:greengrin

A note on your Geisler quote. I hadn't come across this chap before, but he does appear to be on the extreme evangelical, "young-earth" creationist end of the spectrum.

From my reading of your quote, the accuracy discussed relates to the accuracy of the translation as passed down through the years and language- to-language transition. They come to a figure which may be right or wrong, but draw the conclusion that "Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established". By authenticity, I imagine most readers would interpret this as "it being correct in every aspect", including its divine provenance. Otherwise its only an interesting statistic on the history of linguistic academic ability, and has nothing to do with the accurcy or otherwise of the facts contained - which is my take on it.

(Logical fallacy of non-sequiteur - http://http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx", if youre interested...).

(Incidentally, Doddie posted rather stridently on another thread about the impossibility of accurate translation ofthe bible, so would probably disagree with this analysis.)

Ancient, my apologies if i'm being dim here, but does this paragraph
"I have no issue at all with believing that the writers of Scriptures from all their varying backgrounds and experiences and languages were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That therefore means that what we use as the Holy Bible is in fact, God's Word, since it is His Spirit which inspired first the writers and then the compilers." mean that you believe that the words in the bible are reporting factual events? I'm sorry if this seems like I'm flogging this, but I've re-read your posts from beginning to end and I cant see anywhere where you say Yes or No.

The Baldmans Comb

21-07-2009, 08:31 PM

Woody1985

21-07-2009, 08:57 PM

It might have been mentioned by someone but could any of the pro bible lobby care to explain why it doesn't bother to mention the dinasaurs.

I mean they were around for millions of years so should have been worth a paragraph or to.:dizzy:

'Hansel and Gretel' :top marks and as Disraeli said 'Where knowledge ends religion begins.

When looking up on this I came across this site that tries to relate dinosaurs to passages. Not sure of the credibility of the site but found it interesting all the same.

Don't mean to thread hijack but did anyone see the thing about giraffe's last night. The scientist / biologists said that the giraffe was the perfect design, a laugh broke out and he said that it was perfectly formed via evolution. :LOL: Made me laugh after reading the recent threads here.

Twa Cairpets

21-07-2009, 09:23 PM

When looking up on this I came across this site that tries to relate dinosaurs to passages. Not sure of the credibility of the site but found it interesting all the same.

Don't mean to thread hijack but did anyone see the thing about giraffe's last night. The scientist / biologists said that the giraffe was the perfect design, a laugh broke out and he said that it was perfectly formed via evolution. :LOL: Made me laugh after reading the recent threads here.

No link Woody

Woody1985

21-07-2009, 09:39 PM

No link Woody

Doh!

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml

GlesgaeHibby

22-07-2009, 06:30 AM

Let me try and shed some light on this, though I never said anything about a chuckling God!

As I have said previously, my starting point for the Creator God, is the God who reveals Himself in Scriptures, and to failed human beings, particularly in the New Testament which tells us about the fully divine God becoming fully human in the Lord Jesus. Jesus himself then says that ' he who has seen me has seen the Father'. In other words we should have no doubt that our Creator God lived amongst ordinary families, shared in all their own trials and tribulations and experienced shared emotions with them. I have no doubt that within his own family Jesus (fully human) laughed and cried with his parents and siblings, yet was without sin.

We also know that Jesus was a regular diner with numerous friends (a drinker of wine even!) an attender at marriages and a sympathiser and counsellor at times of bereavement. He was always dealing with the full range of human foibles which his twelve disciples exhibited all the time.

I was in Church on Sunday when we have a Praise Group who lead the singing of modern songs and hymns in praise of God. I saw a lot of happy faces, glad to be giving praise to God. I have no doubt that God rejoices when his people worship him. Indeed, Scripture tells us that there is rejoicing in Heaven over one sinner who repents!

I am not a supporter or condoner of the 'happy clappy' approach to worship, but I have no doubt that our Creator God does exhibit a full range of human emotions in His dealings with His Creation.

It may be that you have subconsciously taken too much on board of the caricature that is so often wrongly attributed to our Calvinistic heritage (he wrote whimsically!) and while you are right to point out that Jesus does seek our obedience to his teaching and livings, that experence should be a joyful one.

That was a really interesting post ancienthibby. I enjoyed reading it. It is what you speak of that I enjoyed about religion, and gained peace from. I enjoyed playing in a praise band, and the more informal feel about the service, with the message being largely Jesus' message. A message of hope.

A prayer session would be open, anyone could pray out loud and pass on their thoughts and troubles to the whole congregation, rather than the minister praying for everyone.

Even for people that weren't believers this type of service can bring them a whole lot of peace and comfort knowing other people are thinking about them, and being able to share in the fellowship of others.

That is why I will never truly be 'anti-religion'. It can and does benefit so many people.

GlesgaeHibby

22-07-2009, 06:36 AM

I bow to your knowledge of Quantum mechanics if this is accurate Glesage, but I dont thibnk you're right. Quantum Mechanics relate to ideas such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, where it becomes imposible to determine both the momentum and position of a particle at any given point. Quantum Theory is concerned with - as far as I understand it, and granted its a long time since Ive studied it - the sub atomic world, wavicles, quarks, mesons, gluons, strange attractants and the like. it needs philosophical constructs like Schroedingers Cat to get your head around it, and I confess I never quite did (although I did used to be able to write down Schroedingers Wave equation from from first principles without really understanding it!). It does not affect established laws of physics, chemstry or biology.

One of the defining principles of the scientific method is that it should leave you with the ability to predict what will happen in certain circumstances.

I would be happy to predict that:

You cant live in a whale for 3 days (No oxygen leads to suffocation, never mind trying to survive in an environment of very low pH).

You cant walk on liquid water (The surface tension of the water is not sufficient to support the mass of a person).

You can't change the molecular make-up of a wooden staff and turn it into a snake (Atoms only change their atomic structure as a result of Nuclear fusion, as in the son, or radioactive degradation)

I think my initial point is still valid

It depends what interpretation you take of quantum mechanics. If you take the Many Worlds interpretation then when you make a choice to walk on water in one world you will sink, in one world you will be able to walk on water. (Although I personally do not believe in the many worlds interpretation, and as you can imagine discovering evidence for it is mightily difficult).

Quantum Mechanical probabilities state that I could one day walk through a solid wall. The probability of this happening is absolutely tiny (I can't remember the odds, but I think it's off order 10^60) and not even worth thinking about.

However, if Jesus was the son of God, then I don't think raising the dead, walking on water etc would be too difficult for him!

Onceinawhile

22-07-2009, 07:58 AM

However, if Jesus was the son of God, then I don't think raising the dead, walking on water etc would be too difficult for him!

But he isn't the son of god. He is the son of god, and god as well. The holy spirit is god as well isn't he/she/it?

GlesgaeHibby

22-07-2009, 08:02 AM

But he isn't the son of god. He is the son of god, and god as well. The holy spirit is god as well isn't he/she/it?

Yeah, the holy trinity. He is God among men.

J-C

22-07-2009, 08:44 AM

Yeah, the holy trinity. He is God among men.

In other words God is in us all, or to put it another way there's no big guy sitting on a cloud watching out for us, he's in our head if we wish him to be.:wink:

J-C

22-07-2009, 08:45 AM

PeeJay

22-07-2009, 09:03 AM

It depends what interpretation you take of quantum mechanics. If you take the Many Worlds interpretation then when you make a choice to walk on water in one world you will sink, in one world you will be able to walk on water. (Although I personally do not believe in the many worlds interpretation, and as you can imagine discovering evidence for it is mightily difficult).

Quantum Mechanical probabilities state that I could one day walk through a solid wall. The probability of this happening is absolutely tiny (I can't remember the odds, but I think it's off order 10^60) and not even worth thinking about.

However, if Jesus was the son of God, then I don't think raising the dead, walking on water etc would be too difficult for him!

Is this really relevant? Wouldn't this then apply to everyone in the Many Worlds interpretation and not just, e.g. a Son of God? :confused:

GlesgaeHibby

22-07-2009, 09:17 AM

Is this really relevant? Wouldn't this then apply to everyone in the Many Worlds interpretation and not just, e.g. a Son of God? :confused:

Two carpets was debating whether it was scientifically possible to walk on water etc.

PeeJay

22-07-2009, 09:44 AM

Two carpets was debating whether it was scientifically possible to walk on water etc.

Sure, but if this particular interpretation (Many Worlds) was real and we could all walk on water, for Jesus to impress he'd have to mybe be "unable to walk on water"? Changing the parameters for our existence in this way would surely induce Two Carpets to then ask: whether it was scientifically possible to not walk on water - then we're back where we started, surely?

Unless - dimwitted as I may well be - you're suggesting the disciples may have been in one of the many worlds (i.e. our one) while Jesus was in another, thus enabling him to walk on water in his world, which the disciples could see from theirs? If this is so, then Two Carpets definition of scientific method is scuppered, i.e. "One of the defining principles of the scientific method is that it should leave you with the ability to predict what will happen in certain circumstances"

I feel my brain is being dragged somewhere it is not used to ...

J-C

22-07-2009, 10:25 AM

Two carpets was debating whether it was scientifically possible to walk on water etc.

I seem to remember Paul Daniels walked on water in a trick, so do we now think Paul Daniels is the new Messiah or just a good bloody magician.:wink:

Twa Cairpets

22-07-2009, 12:41 PM

Sure, but if this particular interpretation (Many Worlds) was real and we could all walk on water, for Jesus to impress he'd have to mybe be "unable to walk on water"? Changing the parameters for our existence in this way would surely induce Two Carpets to then ask: whether it was scientifically possible to not walk on water - then we're back where we started, surely?

Unless - dimwitted as I may well be - you're suggesting the disciples may have been in one of the many worlds (i.e. our one) while Jesus was in another, thus enabling him to walk on water in his world, which the disciples could see from theirs? If this is so, then Two Carpets definition of scientific method is scuppered, i.e. "One of the defining principles of the scientific method is that it should leave you with the ability to predict what will happen in certain circumstances"

I feel my brain is being dragged somewhere it is not used to ...

Brain mangling stuff isnt it.

Ive lifted this straight from wikipedia. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

By this means many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[1][2] and Schrödinger's cat[3], since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world." In layman's terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes since everything that could possibly have happened in our past (but didn't) has occurred in the past of some other universe(s).

My highlights suggest that the theory is limited by what is possible, but not by probability. If something has zero possibility, then it has zero probability.

In fairness and to bring it back to the Bible, there is nothing whatsoever in it that I think could be used to suggest multiple universes, that Moses was conversant with Quantum Mechanics, or that differing physical laws applied. Now I can't prove that magic doesnt exist in the same way that I cant prove God doesnt exist, but the to believe in the scientifically impossible feats proclaimed in scripture is to belive in magic, and is to wilfully suspend "belief" in what science shows us is fact.

ancienthibby

22-07-2009, 03:38 PM

Brain mangling stuff isnt it.

Ive lifted this straight from wikipedia. http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

By this means many-worlds claims to resolve all of the correlation paradoxes of quantum theory, such as the EPR paradox[1][2] and Schrödinger's cat[3], since every possible outcome to every event defines or exists in its own "history" or "world." In layman's terms, this means that there is a very large, perhaps infinite, number of universes since everything that could possibly have happened in our past (but didn't) has occurred in the past of some other universe(s).

My highlights suggest that the theory is limited by what is possible, but not by probability. If something has zero possibility, then it has zero probability.

In fairness and to bring it back to the Bible, there is nothing whatsoever in it that I think could be used to suggest multiple universes, that Moses was conversant with Quantum Mechanics, or that differing physical laws applied. Now I can't prove that magic doesnt exist in the same way that I cant prove God doesnt exist, but the to believe in the scientifically impossible feats proclaimed in scripture is to belive in magic, and is to wilfully suspend "belief" in what science shows us is fact.

TC,

There are at least a couple of rejoinders to make to the core of this statement, so let me try.

First, I say that even now, science does not have all the answers and may never will! So just because science has not yet got to a certain point of explanation, does not mean that the gap that is left is therefore magic or some equivalent derived from limited human understanding.

Second, and this is the important point for me - as I have outlined in previous posts, the fundamental starting point for Christian believers is that our Creator God took on human form, lived in a normal family, proclaimed the truth about His father, was arrested, 'tried', crucified and rose from the grave to defeat sin and death for failed humanity and appeared to numerous witnesses thereafter.

Now that emboldened point is the critical one for believers since it is the kernel of Christian belief and faith. Because of that, Christians do belief that with God indeed 'anything is possible' and if our current understanding of the omnipotent God is limited ('who can know the mind of God') then most Christians do take comfort from the word of Paul, already quoted - 'now we see through a glass darkly, etc'. Faith in the Lord gives believers the wherewithal to go forward, without all the questions answered simply because in the risen Lord Jesus, there is all the sufficiency that's needed!

Twa Cairpets

22-07-2009, 04:44 PM

TC,

There are at least a couple of rejoinders to make to the core of this statement, so let me try.

First, I say that even now, science does not have all the answers and may never will! So just because science has not yet got to a certain point of explanation, does not mean that the gap that is left is therefore magic or some equivalent derived from limited human understanding.

Second, and this is the important point for me - as I have outlined in previous posts, the fundamental starting point for Christian believers is that our Creator God took on human form, lived in a normal family, proclaimed the truth about His father, was arrested, 'tried', crucified and rose from the grave to defeat sin and death for failed humanity and appeared to numerous witnesses thereafter.

Now that emboldened point is the critical one for believers since it is the kernel of Christian belief and faith. Because of that, Christians do belief that with God indeed 'anything is possible' and if our current understanding of the omnipotent God is limited ('who can know the mind of God') then most Christians do take comfort from the word of Paul, already quoted - 'now we see through a glass darkly, etc'. Faith in the Lord gives believers the wherewithal to go forward, without all the questions answered simply because in the risen Lord Jesus, there is all the sufficiency that's needed!

Your first sentence: Absolutely correct. Science doesnt have all the answer and it never will. I agree on this totally. Science doesnt claim to have all the answers, however. It does present theories for testing and affirmation/falsification to increase the sum of knowledge. It is not judgemental, it does not seek to explain metaphysical "whys", it exists to provide an explanation for what is observed.

However, the "gaps", as you call them as they relate to the the events in the bible I have highlighted above (Jonah living in the whale, staffs turning to snakes, water to wine etc, etc) don't - on any meaningful level - exist. The chemical composition and mass of a staff cannot, under any circumstances, transform itself into a snake. It just cant happen. If you believe it can then it must be through what we refer to as magic, and there is no evidence, anywhere, ever that "true" magic happens.

Faith in the Lord gives believers the wherewithal to go forward, without all the questions answered simply because in the risen Lord Jesus, there is all the sufficiency that's needed!

Ancient - the two of us, Glesgae, JH50, SiMar et al have had a good debate on this thread. Please don't think this is bringing the tone down, but I find this sentence one of the single most depressing things I've ever read.

You strike me as an articulate, intelligent and decent person. I am at an utter, utter loss as to how you accept - apparently joyously and unquestioningly - all the discrepancies and impossibilities that are contained within the bible. You have not given an unambiguous yes or no as to whether you accept as fact the stories and events in the bible. I'm working on the assumption you do, which is where my bafflement comes from.

My frustration with belief as seemingly intense and total as yours is that it must by definition divert thoughts processes away from critical examination of information, theories or observed phenomena. I think anything which encourages such lack of skeptical analysis is not healthy for either an individual or society as a whole.

Hibrandenburg

22-07-2009, 05:03 PM

My take on this is that the old testament was put together by Moses to lay down a set of rules to aid a large group of people undertake an arduous and burdensome journey.

He went up the hill and thought how the F*%k am I gonna do this? :idea: "Wait a minute, I'll tell the mob that when I was up on this here hill, God popped by and gave me a set of rules to follow".

Since then many have used religion to control/milk the masses including the modern church.

As for Jesus, well there is no doubt whatsoever that the geezer existed, there's far too much documentation to dispute the fact. However, I see him as a Ghandi type figure who meant well and who'd cottoned on to the fact that if he could sell his politics as being those of Gods (ala Moses), then there was a greater chance of people actually following his teachings.

As for there being a God, well there's things that science will never be able to explain and the thought of there being a creator is appealing, but man made in his image! Yer having a laugh.

Maybe there is a GOD (term used very loosely) but none of his so called churches/mosques/temples on earth come close to understanding him, never mind representing him.

ancienthibby

22-07-2009, 06:19 PM

Your first sentence: Absolutely correct. Science doesnt have all the answer and it never will. I agree on this totally. Science doesnt claim to have all the answers, however. It does present theories for testing and affirmation/falsification to increase the sum of knowledge. It is not judgemental, it does not seek to explain metaphysical "whys", it exists to provide an explanation for what is observed.

However, the "gaps", as you call them as they relate to the the events in the bible I have highlighted above (Jonah living in the whale, staffs turning to snakes, water to wine etc, etc) don't - on any meaningful level - exist. The chemical composition and mass of a staff cannot, under any circumstances, transform itself into a snake. It just cant happen. If you believe it can then it must be through what we refer to as magic, and there is no evidence, anywhere, ever that "true" magic happens.

Faith in the Lord gives believers the wherewithal to go forward, without all the questions answered simply because in the risen Lord Jesus, there is all the sufficiency that's needed!

Ancient - the two of us, Glesgae, JH50, SiMar et al have had a good debate on this thread. Please don't think this is bringing the tone down, but I find this sentence one of the single most depressing things I've ever read.

You strike me as an articulate, intelligent and decent person. I am at an utter, utter loss as to how you accept - apparently joyously and unquestioningly - all the discrepancies and impossibilities that are contained within the bible. You have not given an unambiguous yes or no as to whether you accept as fact the stories and events in the bible. I'm working on the assumption you do, which is where my bafflement comes from.

My frustration with belief as seemingly intense and total as yours is that it must by definition divert thoughts processes away from critical examination of information, theories or observed phenomena. I think anything which encourages such lack of skeptical analysis is not healthy for either an individual or society as a whole.

Now that the rain is off for a while I need to go and cut the grass so will just post a few matters regarding your last post, confining my thoughts to your last para.

First, I cannot object to your first assertion (first two lines), since that would clearly be a denial of what I have already posted! In other words, when you find that God in the Lord Jesus has touched your life, other matters simply dwindle in comparison - and if that conflicts with your perception of rational thinking, then I'd simply counter and say that's what faith creates in you.

But there's another angle - and here I quote from JC50's post No 97:

'In other words God is in us all, or to put it another way there's no big guy sitting on a cloud watching out for us, he's in our head if we wish him to be'

Inadvertently or not, JC50 has hit on a key truth for believers - the voice of God is in us all - it may be that still small voice that Scripture speaks about or sometimes it might be the whispering wind that Elijah discovered or, many times it is shouting and repeated when a crisis hits our life.

But, from our knowledge of Scripture, humans are the only species that God has chosen to make this type of relationship with. Whether we are created with a 95% or 98% commonality in DNA (if that's a right way of expressing the thought!) with primates is not the point. The point for believers that our Creator God has chosen to make failed human beings his people of choice and nowhere and no how did he demonstrate that more forcefully and eternally than in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus.

It may not still well with rationalists, but for believers nothing can come ahead of that principle! If that means that we are less questioning, even less 'objective' (in your terms) than rationalists would wish for, or can cope with, so be it. I have no issue with that!

Darth Hibbie

22-07-2009, 07:48 PM

Firstly fantastic thread. Wish I had not been working so much the last few days and I could have chipped in my wee bit earlier

The Bible is a book of stories and fables written to guide the lives of those who choose to believe in a God Almighty, most of what is written is pure nonsense ans the stuff of fairy tales. If you want to believe in Noah, Moses, burning bushes, rivers turing into blood, people living for hundreds of years etc then go ahead, knock yourselves out and have fun reading this stuff. If I was going to read fairy tales, I'd stick with Lord of the Rings, a better book, more realistic and also about good v evil.

:agree: Basically my feeling on it. The best example I can think of similar is the mostly tongue in cheek Jedi religion. It has an increasing set of followers and who is to say that in 2000 years times it is not the main religion in the world. Based on a fiction story but grows arms and legs. Far fetched I know but can we be certain its any different to how the bible started out.

what about the recent scriptures that were discovered, one believed to be the writtings of Judas and depicting a differing story to what's in the bible, saying that Judas and Jesus had been in cahoots and he asked Judas to do what he wanted as Judas was his most trusted follower.
And the scriptures which shows Mary Magdelene to be very close to Jesus ( some would say lover ) but due to her over familiarity has been ignored by the church ever since. Any links for this. Had heard a bit about it and would be interested in reading more

All these things were written thousands of years ago when man wondered why we were here and tried to explain it away by creating a deity who made the world for us to keep.

The Egyptians, Romans and Greeks all had beliefs but they had many gods to believe in, so who is to say who was right or wrong. A lot of the Greek myths are still taught in schools today, why, because they are good stories and help us to understand the ways and lifes of the ancient Greeks. Do you believe in Achilles and his heal, the Trojan Horse, which has yet to be proved.

I personally do not believe in a God however have studied Egyptology and their Gods are far more believable and the Greek myths far more interesting.

My take on this is that the old testament was put together by Moses to lay down a set of rules to aid a large group of people undertake an arduous and burdensome journey.

He went up the hill and thought how the F*%k am I gonna do this? :idea: "Wait a minute, I'll tell the mob that when I was up on this here hill, God popped by and gave me a set of rules to follow".

Since then many have used religion to control/milk the masses including the modern church.

As for Jesus, well there is no doubt whatsoever that the geezer existed, there's far too much documentation to dispute the fact. However, I see him as a Ghandi type figure who meant well and who'd cottoned on to the fact that if he could sell his politics as being those of Gods (ala Moses), then there was a greater chance of people actually following his teachings.

As for there being a God, well there's things that science will never be able to explain and the thought of there being a creator is appealing, but man made in his image! Yer having a laugh.

Maybe there is a GOD (term used very loosely) but none of his so called churches/mosques/temples on earth come close to understanding him, never mind representing him.

Great post in particular the last paragraph. Don't believe in God however if there is one I am certain he/she/it/them is not anything like the ones we are told about

Sir David Gray

22-07-2009, 08:07 PM

But if we can take some bits literally, and not others, how do we decide which is which? That is why religion is so dangerous, because it is open to interpretation and any wack job can have access and free reign to do so because "it's gods will" - http://www.godhatesfags.com/ -

I am only too aware of the group in that particular link and I don't like them any more than you do.

They promote anything but a Christian message in my opinion. They are extremely poisonous and in particular, I find their picketing of soldiers' funerals beneath contempt.

Also, what events do you believe are unfolding? Do you believe we are in for Jesus's second coming?

Precisley which events are you referring to ?

Without wishing to start a completely different discussion, I believe that everything that is happening in the Middle East just now and also things like the election of Barack Obama in the USA, are mentioned in the Bible and yes, I believe that it could be a sign of the Second Coming.

Although clearly I have no way of knowing this for certain and it is purely a hunch. I may well be completely wrong in that assumption.

Edit: one quick, serious question for those who fully believe: do you wish to die? Honest answers please

I don't want to die, I enjoy life but I do believe that everyone has their time to die and if that happens to be tomorrow, next week or in 60 years' time, then so be it.

I don't want to die but I'm certainly not frightened of death. I am, however, extremely fearful of close family members dying.

Why, then, write about something like people living to be hundreds of years old if they didn't?

I don't know the reason but perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Interpretations) may help to give an alternative explanation of some of the massive lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

Thanks for your answers.

Like you, I find this a very interesting subject, and do read up on it.

The biggest issue with the flood is that that there is not a single piece of geological evidence to back it up. The single source, therefore, for the theory that the whole world was covered in water is the bible. Not one corroborating bit of valid evidence has ever been put forward to support it.

As for the ages of the characters, the bible is fairly explicit on this: The following are all from Genesis 11: "Shem lived 500 years", "Arpaxhad lived 406 years", "Shelah lived 403 years", "Eber lived 430 years", "Peleg lived 209 years", and many many more. I dont see how this open to alternative interpretation.

Belief in the bible can only be achieved with abandonment of critical thinking and the acceptance of events that disobey all known laws of science. If you are born and brought up in a family/culture/society where such thought processes are passed on as correct, then from an early age the likliehood will be that it will be accepted as the norm and form the patterns for adult thinking. But it does not mean that the things you believe in are true.

In terms of the point you make about "Bible ages", check out the link I've provided in my answer to GlesgaeHibby, that might help to give an alternative explanation for the huge lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

I said 'morons and cowards' and didn't mean them to be discreet categories. They would obviously fall into the 'morons' camp, as they're merely subsituting one set of deluded nonsense for another.

I don't mean to be offensive to yourself or any one else who has deeply held views, but I reserve the right to state that I believe such views are underpinned by ignorance and fear.

I have no problem at all with anyone criticising religion, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I just objected to you describing those with a religious affiliation as "morons" and "cowards", that is all.

Twa Cairpets

22-07-2009, 09:51 PM

I don't know the reason but perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Interpretations) may help to give an alternative explanation of some of the massive lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

In terms of the point you make about "Bible ages", check out the link I've provided in my answer to GlesgaeHibby, that might help to give an alternative explanation for the huge lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

Ive checked the link Falkirk - thank you for this. I have to say though that the various explanations are flimsy to say the least.

As a general principle, attempts to somehow crowbar solutions to make the bible fit with reality seem to me to be a bit fraudulent. If God can do truly miraculous things, then (like Ancient) accept it joyously and get on with it. You cant have it both ways.

Either God can transmogrify wood into Adders or he cant.
Either Jonah can live in whales gut for three days or he can't.
Either Methuselah et al did live for hundreds of years or they didnt.

J-C

22-07-2009, 11:26 PM

Firstly fantastic thread. Wish I had not been working so much the last few days and I could have chipped in my wee bit earlier

:agree: Basically my feeling on it. The best example I can think of similar is the mostly tongue in cheek Jedi religion. It has an increasing set of followers and who is to say that in 2000 years times it is not the main religion in the world. Based on a fiction story but grows arms and legs. Far fetched I know but can we be certain its any different to how the bible started out.

I personally do not believe in a God however have studied Egyptology and their Gods are far more believable and the Greek myths far more interesting.

Great post in particular the last paragraph. Don't believe in God however if there is one I am certain he/she/it/them is not anything like the ones we are told about

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene

http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/The%20Gospel%20of%20Mary%20Magdalene.html

Onceinawhile

23-07-2009, 08:49 AM

I don't want to die, I enjoy life but I do believe that everyone has their time to die and if that happens to be tomorrow, next week or in 60 years' time, then so be it.

I don't want to die but I'm certainly not frightened of death. I am, however, extremely fearful of close family members dying.

You see, what I don't understand about that is, surely if heaven is such a wonderful place, people who follow god, would want their time to come quickly, so that they could share in his glory?

Twa Cairpets

23-07-2009, 09:17 AM

You see, what I don't understand about that is, surely if heaven is such a wonderful place, people who follow god, would want their time to come quickly, so that they could share in his glory?

The deeply sinister overtones here are that there are many, many people - in the USA in particular - who do welcome the rapture and do believe we are in the End Times.

It scared me senseless that Sarah Palin could have been Vice president of the USA - a young earth creationist, hugely anti-science and in absolute belief that the rapture was going to happen. People of religion with beliefs that give them succour is fine. It's when any given religious agenda suddenly seeks to impose its belief system as a political imperative that gives rise to concerns. A belief in the fundamental impossibilities of the bible must mean that decisions on science funding, for example, are likewise fundamentally flawed.

PeeJay

23-07-2009, 09:25 AM

The deeply sinister overtones here are that there are many, many people - in the USA in particular - who do welcome the rapture and do believe we are in the End Times.

It scared me senseless that Sarah Palin could have been Vice president of the USA - a young earth creationist, hugely anti-science and in absolute belief that the rapture was going to happen. People of religion with beliefs that give them succour is fine. It's when any given religious agenda suddenly seeks to impose its belief system as a political imperative that gives rise to concerns. A belief in the fundamental impossibilities of the bible must mean that decisions on science funding, for example, are likewise fundamentally flawed.

Good post - and it seems the US Christians are on the march yet again, albeit in Texas http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/christianity-religion-texas-history-education

I think your point about funding for scientific research et all is a highly valid one, particularly in the States - no doubt explains why so many (not all) scientists profess to be 'believers' - disconcerting all the same!

Twa Cairpets

23-07-2009, 11:17 AM

Good post - and it seems the US Christians are on the march yet again, albeit in Texas http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/22/christianity-religion-texas-history-education

:shocked::timebomb::faint::eek::Ummm:

I think your point about funding for scientific research et all is a highly valid one, particularly in the States - no doubt explains why so many (not all) scientists profess to be 'believers' - disconcerting all the same!

Ive mentioned it before, but there is an excellent programme (serialised on YouTube) about the Kitzmiller v Dover trial in Pennsylvania. It is even-handed in its approach, and gives equal air time to both sides of the argument when the Christian Right sought to seek that Intelligent Design was given as a valid alternative to Evolution. Again, to link this back to the thread topic, a literal, uncritical interpretation of the Bible led activists to impose their unsustantiated views on the populace as a whole.

Some people can, and do, take a literal interpretation of holy books as a source of personal strength and comfort. I'm happy for them - its not my bag, but I have no interest in denying anyone that comfort. Its when this literalism seeks to shape everyone elses life that we should all be worried - Christians included. I'm sure that Sharia law, for example, is something you would not wish to see imposed on people.

The link to the first episode of the Dover Case is : http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohxDRhji0C0&feature=PlayList&p=5C1AA08794E7A837&index=0 It takes a while to go through all the vids, but it is really good.

Speedway

23-07-2009, 12:37 PM

Twa Cairpets

23-07-2009, 12:59 PM

For me, anyone who takes a look at what we've discovered so far about the size and dynamics of the universe AND denies all possibility of a supreme creational force, isn't very bright.

Whether it's a guy in a white toga with a beard, I agree, is up for debate.

Even if you're an evolutionist or big bang theorist, what is your position on the origin of the Scientific laws governing those processes?

I dont know Speedway, and I am happy to admit that. What I dont seek to do is fill this lack of knowledge with a guess. However, if the physical laws were designed/invented by God, what explanation can you give that they were suddenly disregarded in a very narrow geographical area, over a very small timeframe. Doesnt seem to make sense to me.

For me, Galatatians in the New Testiment defines something being 'Good' as being 'of God'. In other words 'all good is from God'. It then throws in a few descriptors for guidance on what is defined as 'good'.

Nothing to do with the factual truth of the bible - this is moral philosophy.

Religion of any kind involving an omnipresent God, has always been a faith based concept both impossible to prove or disprove. One can only form a 'spiritual conviction' according to one's own dictates.

Agreed

Many advise those investigating religion to 'prove the word' by living it and as a lifestyle, it's hard to argue against the value that it brings.

I disagree with this. Depending on your interpretation of "Living the Word", the value is highly questionable. Abhorrence of homosexuality, the requirement to evangelise, excommunication as a result of being involved with abortion and the list goes on... Some things are good, of course - a more New Testament approach to life involving "being nice" is generally a good thing - but you can live a good life without recourse to god. I try to.

Anyway, the original question is, how true is the Bible and the only credible answer I can give is that it is true, as far as it has been translated correctly.

Thanks for the straight answer. Could I ask another couple fo questions? Do you believe that we evolved or were placed fully formed, and how old do you belive the Earth is? im not trying to lead you a down a route to make petty points, just interested.

.

steakbake

23-07-2009, 04:20 PM

The bible. Is it true? Some of the questions we try to tackle on h.net are quite staggering!

My tuppence worth is that the bible is a collection of disparate documents written by all kinds of sources, reliable and unreliable, which were pieced together in a political act at the Council of Nicea.

As if the bible isn't contradictory enough, it also leaves out many substantial writings which conflicted with the political aims of the council and with the accepted beliefs of Christians at the time. Not to mention the translations, the writings which didn't survive the cut, the fact that some of the authors were partisan and had reasons for saying one thing and not the other.

In summary, yes - it is an interesting book, but as for basing your entire view of life, death and the universe on it, it seems somehow deeply flawed.

Still, people can believe what they like.

Onceinawhile

23-07-2009, 09:07 PM

The deeply sinister overtones here are that there are many, many people - in the USA in particular - who do welcome the rapture and do believe we are in the End Times.

It scared me senseless that Sarah Palin could have been Vice president of the USA - a young earth creationist, hugely anti-science and in absolute belief that the rapture was going to happen. People of religion with beliefs that give them succour is fine. It's when any given religious agenda suddenly seeks to impose its belief system as a political imperative that gives rise to concerns. A belief in the fundamental impossibilities of the bible must mean that decisions on science funding, for example, are likewise fundamentally flawed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk

That's covered (15 years before rather worryingly) in here.

Funny how life just repeats

Twa Cairpets

23-07-2009, 09:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qmglGWMsdk

That's covered (15 years before rather worryingly) in here.

Funny how life just repeats

Excellent.

By way of return, have a look at this - Marcus Brigstocke from a couple of years ago http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

It sums up (very funnily, in my opinion) my views.

gringojoe

23-07-2009, 09:36 PM

I never understood the bit about Moses and the motorbike:confused:

Dashing Bob S

23-07-2009, 09:37 PM

I am only too aware of the group in that particular link and I don't like them any more than you do.

They promote anything but a Christian message in my opinion. They are extremely poisonous and in particular, I find their picketing of soldiers' funerals beneath contempt.

Without wishing to start a completely different discussion, I believe that everything that is happening in the Middle East just now and also things like the election of Barack Obama in the USA, are mentioned in the Bible and yes, I believe that it could be a sign of the Second Coming.

Although clearly I have no way of knowing this for certain and it is purely a hunch. I may well be completely wrong in that assumption.

I don't want to die, I enjoy life but I do believe that everyone has their time to die and if that happens to be tomorrow, next week or in 60 years' time, then so be it.

I don't want to die but I'm certainly not frightened of death. I am, however, extremely fearful of close family members dying.

I don't know the reason but perhaps this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah#Interpretations) may help to give an alternative explanation of some of the massive lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

In terms of the point you make about "Bible ages", check out the link I've provided in my answer to GlesgaeHibby, that might help to give an alternative explanation for the huge lifespans that are mentioned in the Bible.

I have no problem at all with anyone criticising religion, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I just objected to you describing those with a religious affiliation as "morons" and "cowards", that is all.

And you are quite correct to do so. I've conceded in another post on this thread that such terms were inappropriately emotive and insulting, and not helpful to advancing the debate. Apos for any offence caused.

bawheid

23-07-2009, 09:48 PM

I never understood the bit about Moses and the motorbike:confused:

You're getting mixed up with Alan O'Brien. :agree:

gringojoe

23-07-2009, 10:39 PM

You're getting mixed up with Alan O'Brien. :agree:

Naw it says 'The roar of his Triumph was heard through out Israel' ok long hair beard looks like a biker but no petrol in those days so wtf he doing on a motorbike?

Fantic

23-07-2009, 10:45 PM

Naw it says 'The roar of his Triumph was heard through out Israel' ok long hair beard looks like a biker but no petrol in those days so wtf he doing on a motorbike?

Can you prove there was no petrol

PeeJay

24-07-2009, 07:13 AM

Excellent.

By way of return, have a look at this - Marcus Brigstocke from a couple of years ago http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY-ZrwFwLQg

It sums up (very funnily, in my opinion) my views.

TC - something wrong here - NONE of your links work for me, but all the others seem to, is it just me ...? :confused:

Onceinawhile

24-07-2009, 09:53 AM

Onceinawhile

24-07-2009, 10:05 AM

1. For me, anyone who takes a look at what we've discovered so far about the size and dynamics of the universe AND denies all possibility of a supreme creational force, isn't very bright.

Whether it's a guy in a white toga with a beard, I agree, is up for debate.

2. Even if you're an evolutionist or big bang theorist, what is your position on the origin of the Scientific laws governing those processes?

For me, Galatatians in the New Testiment defines something being 'Good' as being 'of God'. In other words 'all good is from God'. It then throws in a few descriptors for guidance on what is defined as 'good'.

Religion of any kind involving an omnipresent God, has always been a faith based concept both impossible to prove or disprove. One can only form a 'spiritual conviction' according to one's own dictates.

Many advise those investigating religion to 'prove the word' by living it and as a lifestyle, it's hard to argue against the value that it brings.

3. Anyway, the original question is, how true is the Bible and the only credible answer I can give is that it is true, as far as it has been translated correctly.

1. I haven't denied all possibilities of there being a creator, given how massive the universe is, it is hard to understand how we got here properly, which leads to the possibility that there could be a creator. But that doesn't mean there is one that is looking in on us, reading our thoughts and judging us, which is where I have the problem. On top of that what species other than humans would believe that the "supreme creator" created us in his mould?!

2. I can't answer that, I don't know enough, but if god created us, who created god?

3. That doesn't make it true what so ever though does it

lapsedhibee

24-07-2009, 08:13 PM

As a general principle, attempts to somehow crowbar solutions to make the bible fit with reality seem to me to be a bit fraudulent. If God can do truly miraculous things, then (like Ancient) accept it joyously and get on with it. You cant have it both ways.

Either God can transmogrify wood into Adders or he cant.
Either Jonah can live in whales gut for three days or he can't.
Either Methuselah et al did live for hundreds of years or they didnt.
Have enjoyed your posts on this thread TC.
Would you care to comment on a throwaway line by a well-known scientist which da-robster (age 12) includes in his signature:

"Imagination is more important than knowledge, knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world." Albert Einstein

Twa Cairpets

24-07-2009, 08:54 PM

It doesn't appear to be working for me either:confused:

Sorry for making an erky out of the links - if you copy the address into the address bar and delete out the first http:// bit that should work. I think.

Twa Cairpets

24-07-2009, 09:04 PM

Have enjoyed your posts on this thread TC.
Would you care to comment on a throwaway line by a well-known scientist which da-robster (age 12) includes in his signature:

Never one to turn down an opportunity to wax lyrical lapsed... :greengrin

Originally Posted by da-robster
"Imagination is more important than knowledge, knowledge is limited, imagination encircles the world." Albert Einstein

I love this quote. The full quote as it appears in a Times HE page (http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=172613), for context is:

Berlin, 1929. The poet and journalist George Sylvester Viereck has charmed an interview out of an initially reluctant superstar physicist¹. He asks: "How do you account for your discoveries? Through intuition or inspiration?" Albert Einstein replies:

"Both. I sometimes feel I am right, but do not know it. When two expeditions of scientists went to test my theory I was convinced they would confirm my theory. I wasn't surprised when the results confirmed my intuition, but I would have been surprised had I been wrong. I'm enough of an artist to draw freely on my imagination, which I think is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

I interpet it is that for knowledge to increase, imagination needs to flourish unbounded by artificial barriers, minds need to think openly, skeptically and critically, and accepted norms and theories constantly challenged. Or science, as its known.

BEEJ

26-07-2009, 09:11 PM

I'm arriving at this thread somewhat late, for which apologies. :wink:

Ancient - Im delighted that you gain personal pleasure and fulfillment from your faith, as per your last post.

But you're still not answering whether you believe that the bible is factually accurate, in particular with reference to the - as i see it - scientifically impossible acts described above.

Ancient, my apologies if i'm being dim here, but does this paragraph
"I have no issue at all with believing that the writers of Scriptures from all their varying backgrounds and experiences and languages were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That therefore means that what we use as the Holy Bible is in fact, God's Word, since it is His Spirit which inspired first the writers and then the compilers." mean that you believe that the words in the bible are reporting factual events? I'm sorry if this seems like I'm flogging this, but I've re-read your posts from beginning to end and I cant see anywhere where you say Yes or No.

If God can do truly miraculous things, then (like Ancient) accept it joyously and get on with it. You cant have it both ways.

Either God can transmogrify wood into Adders or he cant.
Either Jonah can live in whales gut for three days or he can't.
Either Methuselah et al did live for hundreds of years or they didnt.
If God is worshipped as the all-powerful creator of the earth, everything on it and the universe around it, these events that you list are completely within His capability. Indeed they are trivial to Him.

Whether or not science as we understand it can explain them is neither here nor there.

Ancient - the two of us, Glesgae, JH50, SiMar et al have had a good debate on this thread. Please don't think this is bringing the tone down, but I find this sentence one of the single most depressing things I've ever read.

You strike me as an articulate, intelligent and decent person. I am at an utter, utter loss as to how you accept - apparently joyously and unquestioningly - all the discrepancies and impossibilities that are contained within the bible. You have not given an unambiguous yes or no as to whether you accept as fact the stories and events in the bible. I'm working on the assumption you do, which is where my bafflement comes from.

My frustration with belief as seemingly intense and total as yours is that it must by definition divert thoughts processes away from critical examination of information, theories or observed phenomena. I think anything which encourages such lack of skeptical analysis is not healthy for either an individual or society as a whole.
TC, this is a fascinating thread. And you show yourself to be both intelligent and incredibly widely read on this huge topic. I commend you.

The problem is that you will not find God (if indeed that is what you are endeavouring to do) solely by means of critical examination and seeking to understand. I speak as one who tried many years ago and failed. God is not able to be understood by the human mind; He is beyond our understanding. Indeed that is almost a definition of God (the one true God). If we were able to fully understand that which we worship then our god is no more than an idol.

I can well understand all the 'anti' faith / religion / God comments posted on here because I have uttered virtually all of them at one time or another in my younger years.

Although God has given us an intellect and the ability to reason and expects us to use these faculties, these are not the primary means by which we are to seek and to know Him.

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut 6:5) (and for important New Testament back-up to that see Matthew 22:34 -40)

[See also Psalm 119:2; Prov 3:5; Joel 2:12]

I didn't mean this to become a Bible lesson (particularly as the whole thread is about whether or not it's true. :greengrin I simply wanted to point out that there is a common theme on this running through Scripture.

There is no getting past the fact that the spiritual walk has to begin with a step of faith. To seek to by-pass that by intellectually satisfying yourself on all the topics covered in this thread and a whole lot more besides, is an ultimately fruitless exercise.

So however admirable and fascinating debates like this are, they will inevitably go round in circles if their purpose is to discover God / purpose / meaning / truth (delete what is not required).

That's my experience anyway! I realise it won't satisfy that voracious intellectual appetite of yours, for which profuse apologies. :wink:

Twa Cairpets

26-07-2009, 09:55 PM

I'm arriving at this thread somewhat late, for which apologies. :wink:

If God is worshipped as the all-powerful creator of the earth, everything on it and the universe around it, these events that you list are completely within His capability. Indeed they are trivial to Him.

Whether or not science as we understand it can explain them is neither here nor there.

TC, this is a fascinating thread. And you show yourself to be both intelligent and incredibly widely read on this huge topic. I commend you.

The problem is that you will not find God (if indeed that is what you are endeavouring to do) solely by means of critical examination and seeking to understand. I speak as one who tried many years ago and failed. God is not able to be understood by the human mind; He is beyond our understanding. Indeed that is almost a definition of God (the one true God). If we were able to fully understand that which we worship then our god is no more than an idol.

I can well understand all the 'anti' faith / religion / God comments posted on here because I have uttered virtually all of them at one time or another in my younger years.

Although God has given us an intellect and the ability to reason and expects us to use these faculties, these are not the primary means by which we are to seek and to know Him.

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart." (Jer. 29:13)

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut 6:5) (and for important New Testament back-up to that see Matthew 22:34 -40)

[See also Psalm 119:2; Prov 3:5; Joel 2:12]

I didn't mean this to become a Bible lesson (particularly as the whole thread is about whether or not it's true. :greengrin I simply wanted to point out that there is a common theme on this running through Scripture.

There is no getting past the fact that the spiritual walk has to begin with a step of faith. To seek to by-pass that by intellectually satisfying yourself on all the topics covered in this thread and a whole lot more besides, is an ultimately fruitless exercise.

So however admirable and fascinating debates like this are, they will inevitably go round in circles if their purpose is to discover God / purpose / meaning / truth (delete what is not required).

That's my experience anyway! I realise it won't satisfy that voracious intellectual appetite of yours, for which profuse apologies. :wink:

Thanks for the nice comments BEEJ. I've tried to read around a lot of this subject because to my mind it is both interesting and important, and to have a balanced opinion that you can defend its good to look at it from both sides.

I haven't tried to find God, and I dont intend to do so. Again, putting on my rational hat, the issues are:

1) Which version of God would one worship? On the basis that only a tiny, select band of individuals are worshipping the right God in the right way, the odds of getting even Pascals Wager right are very steep.
2) If there is an Christian God, then virtually every believer has broken a commandment, direction or biblical instruction within their life, so Heaven is likely to be a fairly empty place.
3) If there is a creator, then he's created me, flaws and all.
4) You said "If God is worshipped as the all-powerful creator of the earth, everything on it and the universe around it, these events that you list are completely within His capability. Indeed they are trivial to Him. Whether or not science as we understand it can explain them is neither here nor there." I have problems accepting this - it sets a dangerous precedence for unthinking credulity. The likliehood of every "impossible" happening ever recorded being restricted to a small timescale in an incredibly small part of the world is just, well, tiny.

There is a very interesting discussion between a guy called Thunderf00t (a YouTube atheist) and a fundamentalist creationist called Ray Comfort. Link Here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40). It summarises what I think you are saying - you can only accept what God/Jesus can do if you believe in him, regardless of any human, rational approach.

I'm afraid I'm likely to remain on the rational side of the fence.

BEEJ

26-07-2009, 10:07 PM

I haven't tried to find God, and I dont intend to do so. Again, putting on my rational hat, the issues are:

2) If there is an Christian God, then virtually every believer has broken a commandment, direction or biblical instruction within their life, so Heaven is likely to be a fairly empty place.
Indeed. That's why there is forgiveness. '... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... " (Romans 3: 23). And read on!

I'm afraid I'm likely to remain on the rational side of the fence.
I can entirely understand that viewpoint. All the best to you in your pursuit of understanding these important matters. :wink:

ancienthibby

27-07-2009, 02:12 PM

Indeed. That's why there is forgiveness. '... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God... " (Romans 3: 23). And read on!

I can entirely understand that viewpoint. All the best to you in your pursuit of understanding these important matters. :wink:

First, thanks to BEEJ for recovering this thread from the hi-jackers!:devil:

There are couple of points from TwoCarpets that can be taken forward:

from TC:

I haven't tried to find God, and I dont intend to do so. Again, putting on my rational hat, the issues are:

1) Which version of God would one worship? On the basis that only a tiny, select band of individuals are worshipping the right God in the right way,
the odds of getting even Pascals Wager right are very

This answer might seem a bit simplistic, but it's the One you find in His Son, the Lord Jesus, fully divine and full human. I know that there's a whole barrage of schisms that can be allowed to emerge, but the words of Christ alone are telling - 'he who has seen me has seen the Father'. So explore the New Testament and the promise that 'he who seeks me, will find me', will be fulfilled for you.

Previous posts (maybe JC50) touched on this topic - that there's an element of God inside all of us - 'not intending to find God' may be how you see it, but it will not be how God sees it!

2) If there is an Christian God, then virtually every believer has broken a commandment, direction or biblical instruction within their life, so Heaven is likely to be a fairly empty place.

Think you are a peddling a clear misconception here, TC. There is no 10 Commandments scorecard for getting into heaven!

The 10 Commandments were introduced to the Israelites as Exodus states:

Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a (http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020;&version=31;#fen-NIV-2055a)] me.

I have left the first Commandment in to show that the Commandments start after verse 2, which clearly shows that before the Commandments are given, God had already chosen the Israelites!! So, rather than being conditions for God's blessings, the Commandments are, in fact, key aspects of God's character which he task the Israelites with demonstrating to all other peoples. Of course God (before Jesus) meted out punishment for breaking the Commandments but there is utterly no aspect that says keep these 10 Commandments and you will enter Heaven. None at all!!

There is no '10C's' scorecard and Heaven will be filled with people who have broken every Commandment!

What's required for Heaven are not scorecards, or good works, but simple faith in Jesus and a transformed life thereafter.

3) If there is a creator, then he's created me, flaws and all.

That's the best starting point - that we are all created flawed (since the Fall)

4) You said "If God is worshipped as the all-powerful creator of the earth, everything on it and the universe around it, these events that you list are completely within His capability. Indeed they are trivial to Him. Whether or not science as we understand it can explain them is neither here nor there." I have problems accepting this - it sets a dangerous precedence for unthinking credulity. The likliehood of every "impossible" happening ever recorded being restricted to a small timescale in an incredibly small part of the world is just, well, tiny.

Here, I will only repeat what's been said before and that is - having a personal relationship with God in and through the Lord Jesus, completely changes your perspective of just what is possible with God. Scripture tells us repeatedly that 'with God, nothing is impossible'. For believers, that's one thing to testify about in their own lives.

And it's been known for the same thing to happen to atheists, even rationalists!

RigRoars

27-07-2009, 03:00 PM

Twa Cairpets

27-07-2009, 04:02 PM

First, thanks to BEEJ for recovering this thread from the hi-jackers!:devil:

There are couple of points from TwoCarpets that can be taken forward:

from TC:

I haven't tried to find God, and I dont intend to do so. Again, putting on my rational hat, the issues are:

1) Which version of God would one worship? On the basis that only a tiny, select band of individuals are worshipping the right God in the right way,
the odds of getting even Pascals Wager right are very

This answer might seem a bit simplistic, but it's the One you find in His Son, the Lord Jesus, fully divine and full human. I know that there's a whole barrage of schisms that can be allowed to emerge, but the words of Christ alone are telling - 'he who has seen me has seen the Father'. So explore the New Testament and the promise that 'he who seeks me, will find me', will be fulfilled for you.

Previous posts (maybe JC50) touched on this topic - that there's an element of God inside all of us - 'not intending to find God' may be how you see it, but it will not be how God sees it!

2) If there is an Christian God, then virtually every believer has broken a commandment, direction or biblical instruction within their life, so Heaven is likely to be a fairly empty place.

Think you are a peddling a clear misconception here, TC. There is no 10 Commandments scorecard for getting into heaven!

The 10 Commandments were introduced to the Israelites as Exodus states:

Exodus 20

The Ten Commandments

1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
3 "You shall have no other gods before [a (http://mobile.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus%2020;&version=31;#fen-NIV-2055a)] me.

I have left the first Commandment in to show that the Commandments start after verse 2, which clearly shows that before the Commandments are given, God had already chosen the Israelites!! So, rather than being conditions for God's blessings, the Commandments are, in fact, key aspects of God's character which he task the Israelites with demonstrating to all other peoples. Of course God (before Jesus) meted out punishment for breaking the Commandments but there is utterly no aspect that says keep these 10 Commandments and you will enter Heaven. None at all!!

There is no '10C's' scorecard and Heaven will be filled with people who have broken every Commandment!

What's required for Heaven are not scorecards, or good works, but simple faith in Jesus and a transformed life thereafter.

3) If there is a creator, then he's created me, flaws and all.

That's the best starting point - that we are all created flawed (since the Fall)

4) You said "If God is worshipped as the all-powerful creator of the earth, everything on it and the universe around it, these events that you list are completely within His capability. Indeed they are trivial to Him. Whether or not science as we understand it can explain them is neither here nor there." I have problems accepting this - it sets a dangerous precedence for unthinking credulity. The likliehood of every "impossible" happening ever recorded being restricted to a small timescale in an incredibly small part of the world is just, well, tiny.

Here, I will only repeat what's been said before and that is - having a personal relationship with God in and through the Lord Jesus, completely changes your perspective of just what is possible with God. Scripture tells us repeatedly that 'with God, nothing is impossible'. For believers, that's one thing to testify about in their own lives.

And it's been known for the same thing to happen to atheists, even rationalists!

There are some very worrying points here Ancient. If I was to take a stubbornly literal interpretation of what you have said above, you could make an argument that a true believer, worshipping God devoutly, could enter the Kingdom of Heaven irrespective of earthly sins committed. In fact the theological idea of antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) is an extreme way of doing just that. There are very many devout religionists who have gone down similar roads committing atrocity after atrocity on the way. I'm not convinced I would like to share heaven with, for the sake of argument, members of the Inquistion - individuals who were, by anyones definintion, devout in the defence of the Lord.

I am much, much more comfortable with the idea of an individual having a personal relationship with some spiritual creator that they accept they can't understand than an individual worshipping a man-made construct in any one of a thousand different ways.

Does it not concern you that whilst "anything might be possible with Jesus", why can't everything be possible with Allah, for example? Or Thor. Or Zeus. I dont think that for a moment you would suggest that believers in those deities are/were any less devout than you in your belief in a Christian god, but you base your faith on the truth as laid down in the bible. A book, that as a document, freely borrows from older belief systems, that is riddled with inconistency, that has passage after passage of appalling behaviour and actions that would, frankly, have him up for trial in The Hague as the worlds greatest violator of human rights - a species he apparently created.

Twa Cairpets

27-07-2009, 04:13 PM

My first post on this.

There is no rationality concerned with religion,imo.
You either have blind faith ,or you dont.

I apologise if i have offended anyone with the simplicity of my veiws on this.

I'm on the rational side also TC, although you put your views forward far better than i ever could.Thanks.

Beej a question on your comment on sins.
Can all sins be forgiven if you repent?

Whether that be a lie or mass murder?

I would like to add, i would never question anyones faith...EDIT-Sorry i obviously am.

I dont see anything wrong whatsoever in questioning anyones faith. As doddie suggested on another thread, he questions his own faith all the time, but it makes him stronger.

There is a difference between questioning faith and insulting it - and I dont mean something like the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, for example. Saying to someone "Why do you believe, you must be crazy" is very different to saying "Why do you believe"

Organised religion has no problem questioning peoples actions, morals and behaviour, therefore it can have no issue when its own behaviours, morals or actions are likewise criticised. Some forms of organised religion have as a core part of their existence evangelical proseltysing. Atheists dont try to "convert" people to atheism, they try to get people to reflect and think. If they give up a belief in a God as a result, well, good stuff in my opinion, but thats not the aim.

ancienthibby

27-07-2009, 05:13 PM

There are some very worrying points here Ancient. If I was to take a stubbornly literal interpretation of what you have said above, you could make an argument that a true believer, worshipping God devoutly, could enter the Kingdom of Heaven irrespective of earthly sins committed. In fact the theological idea of antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) is an extreme way of doing just that. There are very many devout religionists who have gone down similar roads committing atrocity after atrocity on the way. I'm not convinced I would like to share heaven with, for the sake of argument, members of the Inquistion - individuals who were, by anyones definintion, devout in the defence of the Lord.

I am much, much more comfortable with the idea of an individual having a personal relationship with some spiritual creator that they accept they can't understand than an individual worshipping a man-made construct in any one of a thousand different ways.

Does it not concern you that whilst "anything might be possible with Jesus", why can't everything be possible with Allah, for example? Or Thor. Or Zeus. I dont think that for a moment you would suggest that believers in those deities are/were any less devout than you in your belief in a Christian god, but you base your faith on the truth as laid down in the bible. A book, that as a document, freely borrows from older belief systems, that is riddled with inconistency, that has passage after passage of appalling behaviour and actions that would, frankly, have him up for trial in The Hague as the worlds greatest violator of human rights - a species he apparently created.

In fact the theological idea of antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) is an extreme way of doing just that.

Reply:

TC,
Let's be clear that that (antiniomianism) is not a road I would want you to travel!!

I hoped I made it clear in my earlier post that what is required is :

simple faith in Jesus and a transformed life thereafter.

I have no doubt that there is real validity for many people in 'death-bed conversions' and we should all recognise what the Lord said to the confessing sinner on the cross: 'Today you will be with me in Paradise'.;
That may suggest that no life is without hope, which is a truth, but there is no license to be obtained in toying with the life and works and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus!

On your other point:

'Does it not concern you that whilst "anything might be possible with Jesus", why can't everything be possible with Allah, for example? Or Thor. Or Zeus. I dont think that for a moment you would suggest that believers in those deities are/were any less devout than you in your belief in a Christian god, but you base your faith on the truth as laid down in the bible.'

I would just offer that there is no other religion where the Creator God offers His own fully human Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This is THE distinguishing feature of Christianity!!

Twa Cairpets

27-07-2009, 06:49 PM

In fact the theological idea of antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) is an extreme way of doing just that.

Reply:

TC,
Let's be clear that that (antiniomianism) is not a road I would want you to travel!!

I hoped I made it clear in my earlier post that what is required is :

simple faith in Jesus and a transformed life thereafter.

I have no doubt that there is real validity for many people in 'death-bed conversions' and we should all recognise what the Lord said to the confessing sinner on the cross: 'Today you will be with me in Paradise'.;
That may suggest that no life is without hope, which is a truth, but there is no license to be obtained in toying with the life and works and death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus!

On your other point:

'Does it not concern you that whilst "anything might be possible with Jesus", why can't everything be possible with Allah, for example? Or Thor. Or Zeus. I dont think that for a moment you would suggest that believers in those deities are/were any less devout than you in your belief in a Christian god, but you base your faith on the truth as laid down in the bible.'

I would just offer that there is no other religion where the Creator God offers His own gully human Son as a sacrifice for the sins of the people. This is THE distinguishing feature of Christianity!!

I am not sure if there are any other religions with a sacrificial son - the death of the beloved Baldir, Odins son, the attempt to resurrect him at Yule and the eventual binding of Loki pending the end of the world at Ragnarok has certain parallels to Jesus and the Apocalypse, but lets go on the basis that you are correct. A couple of things spring to mind.

Presumably every Old Testament character failed to be saved as Jesus hadnt sacrificied himself for our soul - there may be a standard theological reponse here, but I'm interested in your view.

Also -using the argument you put forward, it would be equally valid to say that any of the central foundations of a religion are unique to that religion. It does not make Jesus' actions any more special - another logical fallacy I'm afraid - that of non-sequiteur. "The christian God sacrificied his son, therefore it must be th eonly true religion"

Scientologists believe that souls reincsrnate as thetans that have existed as extraterrestrials previously - that doesnt make them right any more than it makes your beliefs right. Sacrifice of a child, whilst a noble thing in your eyes, does not strike me as being the behavious of an all-powerful benevolent being.

hstn747

27-07-2009, 08:06 PM

Twa Cairpets

27-07-2009, 08:25 PM

This isn't a debate about whether there is a god or not. It is more about whether the bible is a good and consistent source of guidance.

People so far have been very good at avoiding the original question by simply quoting passages from the text in question. This does not work as the people on the other side of the debate (bible is not true) will not accept as evidence, anything that comes from the bible. I believe that the bible was written by people passing their own ideas off as the words of a god and that the book we have now has changed hugely, through a long game of Chinese Whispers and misinterpretation, from the first editions.

As the years go on, people revise the things they take as being literal from the bible as society changes. To me it seems entirely ridiculous to pick and choose parts of the bible and use passages as evidence when conveniently ignoring other parts that do not agree or simply passing them off as metaphors.

The initial assumption that people who believe in the bible take is that it was not written by some person, or people, with their own agenda.

I think a valid question to ask would be; is there any evidence that would help me to pick one 'sacred' book over the others. Rules: I have no preset religion & passages from any 'sacred' text are not admissible as evidence.

As far as I am concerned, there is not any evidence and to pick a book to follow I would be as well tossing a coin. (Assuming I actually wanted to base the decisions I take in my life on one book.)

Excellent post hstn. Especially the bits highlighted, I think.

The answer you will likely get is that if you open yourself to Jesus, then you will accept it as truth.

I accept that being a committed atheist, this revelation is unlikely to happen for me. its also the reason why discussions of this type are ultimately circular, as the believers will always quote scripture, and the non-believrs will, as you say, never accept this as evidence or a basis for belief.

Looking forwad to answers from ancient, speedway, falkirk, BEEJ, Doddie and others to your poser though.

Jjust to remind everyone: is there any evidence that would help me to pick one 'sacred' book over the others. Rules: I have no preset religion & passages from any 'sacred' text are not admissible as evidence

GlesgaeHibby

27-07-2009, 09:30 PM

Some really interesting posts recently.

I've been reading bits of the Bible again recently and I find it completely fascinating to read the contrasts of the old and new testaments.

In the old testament I've been reading the book of Joshua, and as fascinating a story as it is I find it sick to think of a family getting stoned to death for the actions of one of their members.

In the new testament I've been reading 1 Corinthians and it is gorgeous, and I could definitely see myself still being a Christian if the religion was based entirely on the new testament.

BEEJ

27-07-2009, 10:20 PM

Beej a question on your comment on sins.
Can all sins be forgiven if you repent?

Whether that be a lie or mass murder?
Yes, I believe so. Provided the repentance is genuine before God.

I think a valid question to ask would be; is there any evidence that would help me to pick one 'sacred' book over the others. Rules: I have no preset religion & passages from any 'sacred' text are not admissible as evidence.
The answer to that specific question would be: None that people would be likely to find immediately intellectually acceptable.

I accept that being a committed atheist, this revelation is unlikely to happen for me. its also the reason why discussions of this type are ultimately circular, as the believers will always quote scripture, and the non-believrs will, as you say, never accept this as evidence or a basis for belief.
Exactly. :agree: As I stated above in post #132. An interesting discussion but ultimately a fruitless one.

As I cannot refer to scripture, I can only fall back on my own personal, tangible sense of God in my life. This is not like joining a club and wearing a badge saying 'Christian'. It is a genuine life-changing experience made available to anyone who seeks it.

Anyway, as this dialogue is, as you say, ultimatley circular, I'm going to bow out of this thread now and let the great minds have the floor. :wink:

RyeSloan

30-07-2009, 11:27 AM

Without wishing to start a completely different discussion, I believe that everything that is happening in the Middle East just now and also things like the election of Barack Obama in the USA, are mentioned in the Bible and yes, I believe that it could be a sign of the Second Coming.

Although clearly I have no way of knowing this for certain and it is purely a hunch. I may well be completely wrong in that assumption.

Falkirk, you need to stop this..you make my sides sore from laughing too much.

Barack Obama is mentioned in the Bible and it's a sign of the Second Coming.....:faf::faf::faf:

Speedway

31-07-2009, 08:35 AM

.

Hmmm, that quoting didn't work did it.

TC, about the two questions you asked. Politicians answer on the first one.

1. Evolution or Creation. I can subscribe to both, and I don't know which it was. The reason I can believe either, is that if we're working from a base assumption of a God of limitless ability, then I can fully accept we can evolve and I can fully accept we can just be created from 'the dust of the earth' which is what we're made up of anyway.

Whether or not a straight creation of human form out of very little, makes sense to the human mind is neither here nor there for me, if God is Omnipotent.

2. How old is the earth? My calculations get it to 6000200007 years old, but I could be wrong. That's assuming that God is a Hibbee. I understand that the scriptures refer to a day of God's time being equal to 1,000 years of our time. Human maths then sticks a number of 7,000 years to create the world and then the timeline begins with Adam.

Am I open to the idea that the number could be unrecognisably bigger? yes. Do I believe God created the earth no matter what that number is? Yes.

Sir David Gray

31-07-2009, 09:46 PM

Falkirk, you need to stop this..you make my sides sore from laughing too much.

Barack Obama is mentioned in the Bible and it's a sign of the Second Coming.....:faf::faf::faf:

First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am that I provide you with so much laughter. :wink:

Second of all, obviously he isn't explicitly mentioned but I do believe that there are some verses in the Bible which reflect certain things that are unfolding right now. I could be completely wrong (clearly I have no way of knowing for certain) but I believe that one of those things could be the election of Barack Obama.

GlesgaeHibby

01-08-2009, 09:15 AM

First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am that I provide you with so much laughter. :wink:

Second of all, obviously he isn't explicitly mentioned but I do believe that there are some verses in the Bible which reflect certain things that are unfolding right now. I could be completely wrong (clearly I have no way of knowing for certain) but I believe that one of those things could be the election of Barack Obama.

You aren't perhaps friends with this guy?

http://www.ronaldweinland.com/
:wink:

RyeSloan

01-08-2009, 02:01 PM

First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am that I provide you with so much laughter. :wink:

Second of all, obviously he isn't explicitly mentioned but I do believe that there are some verses in the Bible which reflect certain things that are unfolding right now. I could be completely wrong (clearly I have no way of knowing for certain) but I believe that one of those things could be the election of Barack Obama.

Sweet, I'm interested in what verses you could be completely wrong about that indicate the election of a black president in a country that doesn't yet exist 2000 years in the future.....

Dashing Bob S

01-08-2009, 02:35 PM

J-C

01-08-2009, 03:08 PM

I think Falkirk is referring to the book of Reveations which many strong christians believe to be prophecies of the future but can be interpreted in many ways.
I found this on the web, one of many.

http://www.christianwebsite.com/economic-collapse-and-bible-prophecy/

Green Mikey

01-08-2009, 10:11 PM

Anything on today's racing results?

:faf:

Nothing that useful in the bible!

Falkirk - Can you point me to the passages in the bible that detail the election of America's first black president? I'm curious as to how you have come to this conclusion.

Sir David Gray

01-08-2009, 11:43 PM

Sweet, I'm interested in what verses you could be completely wrong about that indicate the election of a black president in a country that doesn't yet exist 2000 years in the future.....

I think Falkirk is referring to the book of Reveations which many strong christians believe to be prophecies of the future but can be interpreted in many ways.
I found this on the web, one of many.

http://www.christianwebsite.com/economic-collapse-and-bible-prophecy/

:faf:

Nothing that useful in the bible!

Falkirk - Can you point me to the passages in the bible that detail the election of America's first black president? I'm curious as to how you have come to this conclusion.

As JC50 has already said, I believe that there are some verses in the book of Revelations which speak about someone coming in to a very powerful global position and people expecting great things of him. However, ultimately he will deceive everyone and not be the great person he was made out to be, right at the beginning.

Now, you only have to look at what has happened in the world, over the past 8 or 9 months or so, to see that Obama fits that description. He was treated like the Messiah upon his election and subsequent inauguration. Since becoming President, practically every country in the world has been falling over itself to try and get him to come to their country. People are also expecting him to single handedly solve every single one of the world's ills. On quite a few occasions, I have even heard a number of people comparing him to Jesus.

Also, regardless of what he might say publicly, I believe that he is less supportive of Israel than practically any other US President in the last 61 years. If that is indeed the case, I believe that it will be his (and America's) ultimate downfall.

Like I say, I could be way off the mark in my assessment but I do think that it's possible, that he is mentioned in the Bible.

No doubt that anyone who believes that the Bible is a lot of rubbish will laugh at what I am saying, some people who believe in the Bible might also laugh at me, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

People asked me to explain my thoughts and I have now done that.

RyeSloan

02-08-2009, 01:31 PM

As JC50 has already said, I believe that there are some verses in the book of Revelations which speak about someone coming in to a very powerful global position and people expecting great things of him. However, ultimately he will deceive everyone and not be the great person he was made out to be, right at the beginning.

Now, you only have to look at what has happened in the world, over the past 8 or 9 months or so, to see that Obama fits that description. He was treated like the Messiah upon his election and subsequent inauguration. Since becoming President, practically every country in the world has been falling over itself to try and get him to come to their country. People are also expecting him to single handedly solve every single one of the world's ills. On quite a few occasions, I have even heard a number of people comparing him to Jesus.

Also, regardless of what he might say publicly, I believe that he is less supportive of Israel than practically any other US President in the last 61 years. If that is indeed the case, I believe that it will be his (and America's) ultimate downfall.

Like I say, I could be way off the mark in my assessment but I do think that it's possible, that he is mentioned in the Bible.

No doubt that anyone who believes that the Bible is a lot of rubbish will laugh at what I am saying, some people who believe in the Bible might also laugh at me, but those are my thoughts on the matter.

People asked me to explain my thoughts and I have now done that.

Sounds like one of those 'the end is nigh' prohecies...taking vague comments from the bible and applying them to suit current events. Something that has been happening for hundreds of years so I suppose you are not the first!

Your supposition is simply that, it's flawed in many ways not least that less not more support for Israel might actually have a postivie effect for potential peace in that area...anyway surely the revelation passage you are talking about was in reference to Tony Blair not Obama!! :greengrin:greengrin

Still fair play for clarifying :agree: