|
|
|
|
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:26:55 PM | | I guess it really comes down believing, and some people refuse to believe in if they acutally see a miracle in front of their eyes. The bible was here before them, and will be here after them. Way too many people have tried to pick apart the bible, unsuccessful. It is more noble to prove the bible searching it. Peroind | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:34:55 PM | | The Bible contradicts physics, biology, geology, geophysics, astrophysics, history, archeology, common sense, morality, and itself. I have no idea why anyone would try to argue that it's true. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:37:47 PM | Obviously, you are a newbie. If you haven't seen posts which give historically clear and rational reasons why the Bible is not as revered as you think it ought to be, stick around.
I suggest you cram four years of theology down your throat before you take on this lot...
I hope you have thick skin. Not everyone believes that Christian dogma is the be all to end all. Me included.
Good luck, Raven | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:40:34 PM | So you believe in the bible, do you?
Very well. I want to hear your explaination for what system you use to pick and chose what parts of the bible you consider acceptable and why you reject other parts and teachings.
For example, god commanded a man to be stoned to death for working on the Sabbath (NU 15:32-36), whereas he was just picking fire wood to build a fire and keep warm. Imagine his terror and pain as his fellow man threw rocks at him until he died, at the command of this 'god' of yours.
You claim to believe in the bible and it's teachings, therefore you must agree it's good to stone someone to death for working on Sabbath, right? After all god is good and therefore this example must be.
If you don't agree that's good, go back to my first request; explain the system you use to discard and ignore teachings of the bible you don't agree with.
I can provide you with many more examples (many of them far more horrific) from the bible, perhaps you'll be willing to explain why you ignore those as well (or perhaps you don't, and then you should be arrested as a sociopath). | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:42:13 PM | | Raveninns ^^^ I didn't want to be the first to point out the "bleedin obvious" - waiting for discountibli to get back on shift... | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:43:48 PM |
The Bible contradicts physics, biology, geology, geophysics, astrophysics, history, archeology, common sense, morality, and itself.
All of it? Some of it? Most of it? And what exactly does it contradict in each of the areas stated?
And, please, don't trot out the so-called contradictions that use the archaic English and poor translations of the KJV 1611. that would be the "error" of calling a bat a "bird" (the Hebrew is "flying thing", the KJV uses "fowl") . | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:45:03 PM | | I was not talking about my education of the bible, I was looking at other posting, and I have to pray for them. Yes, I have thick skin, sometimes too thick. As for my education of the bible, again it is more noble to prove it. It is my duty to prove myself in the bible, so yes I should know the bible, and that will always be a learning experience. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:45:17 PM | Several reasons:
The Bible is the foundation of the Christian religion, which is the vast majority religion on this continent. So, it will naturally have the most vocal critics, although Islam has been getting a lot of negative attention lately.
Most Christians claim that it is the word of God. That will lead to argument because, as Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Certain interpretations lead many Christians to think that unbelievers in the message of the Bible will have a bad afterlife. That will lead to arguments.
Many of the Bible's claims are controversial.
Beliefs based upon the Bible affect foreign policy and not always in the most constructive fashion. That causes people to debate certain interpretations.
Way too many people have tried to pick apart the bible, unsuccessful.
That is debatable, ironically enough. The unsuccessful part, I mean. See why the whole thing might lead to arguments?
Yes, you're correct that it really comes down to believing.
Edit: Yikes! This thread just exploded with responses. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:55:20 PM | | ok, you for one, want to pick apart the bible. Find out for yourself. I don't ignore the bible and please don't put words in my mouth. And again, back to the original question, why do you refuse to believe. Because you want to pick it apart for you own understanding!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Period. to answer you question, you are believing in your self and your own god. To understand God, you have to have His help! | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 10:55:32 PM |
It is my duty to prove myself in the bible, so yes I should know the bible, and that will
always be a learning experience.
So let me ask you this, do you think it is moral or good to kill people? What about men, women, elderly, children and babies?
The bibical god has encouraged and directly ordered people to do exactly that on multiple occasions (I can provide you with bible quotes if you wish). Therefore, if you believe the bible's teachings, if anyone kills men, women, elderly, children and babies, it's okay so long as that person is doing so at god's command, right? | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:04:39 PM |
if they acutally see a miracle in front of their eyes
There's a reason that churches rarely recognize "miracles". Most things people call "miraculous" are not. A coincidence is not a miracle. A miracle must obviously violate nature. Having witnessed the level of education apparent all too often in these fora, I'd have to say that a great many people have very little understanding of what is and is not within the laws of nature. Those who fail to see miracles are simply seeing reality.
The bible was here before them
Incredible weak argument. Many religious writings and theologies predate the Bible. By arguing age, you invalidate the Bible because it is not the oldest.
Way too many people have tried to pick apart the bible, unsuccessful
Logically and rationally successful. Unsuccessful in convincing the truly faithful. That's not a big deal; I don't begrudge anyone their faith. I prefer to believe in evidence, and evidence tends to contradict theology. It doesn't disprove God - it just disproves what the faithful like to consider evidence. There are numerous examples of Biblical events which were likely real events, but which did not take place the way people like to think. The Noachian Flood, for instance, was real. It was, however far from global, and not caused by rain. Whether Noah existed in any way is purely conjectural, but no ark could have existed which would do what the Bible claims. Even if God told Noah to build an ark...it was men who told his story, and it was men who passed on the story for thousands of years before anyone wrote it down for the first time. After that, it was copied by hand, translated, etc. You can call it divinely inspired, but as "fact" it is easily and successfully argued against - like many other parts of the Bible.
It is more noble to prove the bible searching it
I would think it more noble to seek knowledge and understanding, to have faith in your God and his ideals, and to read your scriptures thoroughly. Too many faithful cherry-pick verses and fail to understand the context. If you want to TRULY be noble. learn to read the original texts in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew - you won't have to wonder how others may have deliberately slanted the meanings of their translations. Fact may contradict scripture, but that shouldn't affect your faith. Put your faith where it belongs - in your God and his teachings, not in the stories told by man to illustrate those teachings.
I guess it really comes down believing
THAT is the essence of it. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:09:59 PM | | Hey flyguy, first every book to debate the bible disappears. Second, no book wins against the bible. It just does not win an arguement. And unsuccessfully is too vague, but that was not to my question. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:13:00 PM | Welcome to the forums.
As Raven said, you must be new. With that said, lets begin.
Your religion is not the be all end all. So sorry, but it isnt. Just because you believe as you do does not mean it is. Rather, it is a rather new religion in the grand scheme of things and it is a mish mash of pagan beliefs. Contrary to your belief that there is historical evidence of Jesus of the bible having lived, there is not. At least no proof that can be called absolute. I believe it is Mr. Bad Kitty that has pointed out that there were 12 (count them a full dozen) Jesus' that lived. So take your pick on which one you want.
The bible is a contradictory book that, in my opinion, has it's believers hopping from one foot to the other, never quite sure what it is they are suppose to be believing when the real message has been lost. I can honestly say I have met two christians who had the meaning of christianity right and neither of them tried to convert anyone.
Now... let us look at this.
He was born of a virgin on December 25th, and his birth was attended by shepherds.
He was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
He had 12 companions or disciples.
His followers were promised immortality.
He performed miracles.
He sacrificed himself for world peace.
He was buried in a tomb and after three days rose again.
His resurrection was celebrated every year.
He was called "the Good Shepherd" and identified with both the Lamb and the Lion.
He was considered the "Way, the Truth and the Light," and the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" and "Messiah."
His sacred day was Sunday, the "Lord's Day," hundreds of years before the appearance of Christ.
He had his principal festival of what was later to become Easter.
His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which he said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."
"His annual sacrifice is the passover of the Magi, a symbolical atonement or pledge of moral and physical regeneration."
I bet you are thinking I am speaking about Jesus there right??
Wrong.
It is the description of Mithra, a Sun God.
"CHRISTMAS (the 'Mass of Christ') ... When the Fathers of the Church in AD 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely (!) chose the day of the Winter Solstice, which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people, and which was their MOST IMPORTANT FESTIVAL."
The Encyclopedia Americana (1946, article "Christmas") says the same--
"CHRISTMAS, the 'Mass of Christ'... In the 5th century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the Birth of Sol (the Sun)... Among the German and Celtic tribes, the Winter Solstice was considered an important point of the year, and they held their chief festival of Yule1 to commemorate the return of the burning-wheel (the sun)."
And Everyman's Encyclopedia says--
"CHRISTMAS (the Mass of Christ)... It is certain that the time now fixed could not by any possibility have been the period of Jesus' birth. The choice of this season was probably due to the general recognition that the Winter Solstice was the turning point of the year."
EASTER is named from a pagan Saxon goddess of spring. Many ancient heathen nations revere the egg as the symbol of the beginning of life: it is from Teutonic mythology that rabbit-laid eggs appear among Easter superstitions. Dressing up in new clothes for Easter goes back to Constantine's time. The Encyclopedia Britannica says--
"The name Easter is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. It is derived from Eostre or Ostara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring
HALLOWEEN: Of this, the Encyclopedia Britannica says--
"Halloween long antedates Christianity. History shows that the main celebrations of Halloween were purely Druidical [ancient Britain]. The Druids believed in the calling together of certain wicked souls on Halloween by Saman, lord of death. Upon the Druidic ceremonies were grafted some of the characteristics of the Roman festival in honor of Pomona [pagan Italian goddess of fruits and gardens] held about November 1st, in which nuts and apples, representing the winter store of fruits, played an important part."
And this became the Roman Catholic "All Hallows", or "Festival of All Saints," and was so passed on to a besotted world. The Encyclopedia Americana says--
"Halloween is associated in the popular imagination with the prevalence of supernatural influences, and is clearly a RELIC OF PAGAN TIMES."
I could go on here, but the simple fact is, the christian religion is a mesh of pagan beliefs adopted to make the forced conversion of non believers easier to stomach.
A truly opened minded person can easily pick apart the bible. It is only those that cannot admit that there might be more out in the world that refuse to see that it is not divine. IMO of course.
~Freya  | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:28:02 PM |
All of it? Some of it? Most of it? And what exactly does it contradict in each of the areas stated?
Just some random ones off the top of my head:
Geology - The Earth is billions of years older than the Bible's time line.
Biology - People can live longer than the 120 years maximum lifespan outlined in Genesis. The oldest documented person was Jeanne Calment at 122.
Okay I'm going to stop here because it's stupid. The only way to get around scientific and historical error in the Bible is to selectively interpret every error, a posteriori, in a metaphorical way. In some cases the metaphorical interpretations may be warranted, but in other cases they are clearly not what the historical context dictates. For example, the Bible is a flat-earth book. We know that the ancient Hebrews had a flat-earth, geocentric view and the text reflects this. But Christians will find the flat-earth passages and attempt to creatively reinterpret them, outside of the historical context, to preserve preconceived beliefs about the Bible.
You can do this with any inaccurate old text. For example, you can go back to Aristotle or Rene Descartes and reinterpret biological inaccuracies creatively to make them reflect modern science. Does anyone do this? Hell no. Because everyone knows that isn't what the authors intended - they were less scientifically advanced than us and what they wrote reflects that. The Bible is the same way. Pretending that the Bible is accurate in every aspect is so insanely dishonest the only place we see it is from religious zealots who already believe in the Bible. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:33:38 PM |
Hey flyguy, first every book to debate the bible disappears. Second, no book wins against the bible. It just does not win an arguement. And unsuccessfully is too vague, but that was not to my question.
Boy oh boy, I feel sorry for you. Hopefully, most will be kind as you are a
(lol, I just found the smilies list, please indulge me)
"Second, no book wins against the bible".....was the Bible in a race? a p*ssing match? Are you challenging people to prove you wrong???
Once again, good luck, Raven | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:37:11 PM |
"Second, no book wins against the bible".....was the Bible in a race? a p*ssing match?
lol I was thinking the same thing. I got the mental image of book prize fighting. A bunch of men gathered around a pit with two books fighting it out. Michael Vick was there. It was barbaric. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:39:18 PM |  yayotters and Raveninns!!
I have to admit, I was wondering what contest it was in myself.
But it is late .. I could go on and on with picking the bible apart. I am just too tired and too lazy too at this moment.
~Freya | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:51:26 PM | I just had to add that a statement like, "No book beats the Bible" can only come from someone who hasn't read very many books. I mean you have people who enjoy reading - people who read for fun. And then you have people to whom reading is a chore and who never read. People in the "No book beats the Bible" camp are probably people in the latter category.
I keep running across statistics on Christian websites like "90% of Christians have never read the Bible" too. I'm not sure how accurate they are, but from my experience I'd say that is about on track. This would mean that Christianity is a religion made up of people who believe, unquestionably, in a book that they have never actually read. That explains the "No book beats the Bible" mentality - if you've never read it you wont see all of the flaws in it, will you? | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:56:21 PM |
I keep running across statistics on Christian websites like "90% of Christians have never read the Bible" too.
Can you cite some websites please??
All the Christians I know are well read in both the bible and other religious books. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/18/2007 11:56:38 PM |
I guess it really comes down believing, and some people refuse to believe in if they acutally see a miracle in front of their eyes. The bible was here before them, and will be here after them. Way too many people have tried to pick apart the bible, unsuccessful. It is more noble to prove the bible searching it. Peroind
...
Hey flyguy, first every book to debate the bible disappears. Second, no book wins against the bible. It just does not win an arguement. And unsuccessfully is too vague, but that was not to my question.
Didn't you sort've answer your own question in your OP?
Religion is not a matter of facts. It is about belief. But it is a collection of questions that absorbs people's lives and deals primarily with fear of death, ultimate existence, morality and the possibility of an afterlife, so people debate it.
As you have already had pointed out to you handily, the Christian religion is hardly the newest and is hardly demonstrable as more true, more real or for that matter more or less "anything" than any other religion in discussion here. You may also want to take this time to realise that while open and free discussion and debate of all religion is encouraged, proclamation of any one religion as the "One True Faith (pat.pend.)" is off-limits on the forums...the mods may "put you to the question" if you happen to ignore this and other forum niceties...you can't say you didn't get at least one friendly warning.
As to people picking apart the Bible or books "disappearing" that have debated the merits or lack thereof of the Bible...sorry that is simply untrue...the libaries are full of them and more are written every day...and if you want to see successful examples of picking apart theological concepts, you just have to hang around here for a few days, they happen on an hourly basis...but I'm afraid you may not like or agree with the results. This is not a mutual admiration society, but a discussion forum.
And the Bible was not written as a book of factual record but as a statement of faith...a cosmology...a mythology in the truest sense, not the perjorative sense but in the sense of a people recording their believed relationship between the divine and the mortal world. As such, "picking it apart" is a fish-in-the-barrel pursuit that no one need bother engage in, no more than you would looking to disprove the bad science in the tales of King Arthur. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:21:13 AM |
Can you cite some websites please??
All the Christians I know are well read in both the bible and other religious books.
I could, I don't think I could count all of the websites that claim that on my hands and feet.
This one says that only 41% of Christians read the Bible outside of church. It doesn't give any statistics on the number of Christians who have read it completely, cover-to-cover. Then again, if all of your reading occurs in church you probably aren't making much progress.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070522/27546_Study:_Fewer_Americans_Embrace_Traditional_View_of_God.htm
As an interlude, this website says that 71% of anyone who has attended high school believe that the Bible is fully accurate, but only 52% of people who have graduate from college believe it's fully accurate. So as education goes up, Bible belief goes down.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=7
And here we have another website that just claims, "Most Christians have not read the Bible in its entirety."
http://www.bible-knowledge.com/Site_Map.html
And here's some Church's website that also claims most Christians haven't read the Bible, but no specific statistics.
http://www.swedenborg.org/odb/sermon_detail.cfm?sermonID=3349
This one says 86% of Christians have not read the Bible in its entirety.
http://www.kaalaviewbaptistchapel.org/messageP.htm
Here's something from Tococa College (whatever that is) that claims the "vast majority" of Christians have never read the Bible all the way through.
https://secure.tfc.edu/adv/news/news.asp?ID=114
I mean it goes on and on, but the general consensus out there on the net seems to be that most Christians really haven't read the Bible and aren't reading it regularly. This doesn't surprise me. I also wouldn't be if there are people on these forums who claim to have read the Bible but haven't. After all, how stupid would someone be to claim that the Bible is perfect in every way without ever having read it? Pretty stupid! And yet, that seems to be exactly what most Christians are claiming. | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:28:16 AM | The sad thing is, even christians who have read the bible all the way through, fifty times, still tends to miss the real message. Go figure.
Somehow it all becomes "this is the be all, end all. This is the only true way. Believe this or burn in hell for eternity." | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:31:59 AM | I pick apart the bible the same way as I would pick apart any other piece of historical literature.
Or do you think that the bible is somehow special in that it alone should be taken at it's word? | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:35:15 AM | still tends to miss the real message. Go figure.
And the real message would be???
I keep running across statistics on Christian websites like "90% of Christians have never read the Bible
So your post was a little exaggerated?? | |
|
| why do people want to argue the bible
Posted: 11/19/2007 12:40:47 AM |
The sad thing is, even christians who have read the bible all the way through, fifty times, still tends to miss the real message. Go figure.
Absolutely. This is because they tend to be biased by the religion of Christianity before reading the actual text. Thus they make what are essentially revisionistic interpretations of Jewish texts completely outside of the historical and cultural contexts.
It's like if I started a new religion, got people to believe it, and then told them that the New Testament was in fact the Middle Testament and that a new set of books written by my followers was the New New Testament. Then the new believers in my religion would go back, read the New Testament (which is now dubbed the Middle Testament), and see how it fit perfectly with the new religion I invented.
This is essentially what Christians did to Judaism. It's what Islam and Mormonism did to Christianity. The Baha'i religion did this to all of them. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
