Jump to content

Rock Beyond Belief


Recommended Posts

Oh Randy. The ten commandments are not part of Christianity. Jesus came to free us from that bondage. Unless the "rule" is explicitly restated in the New Testament it's no longer a commandment for Christians... only Jews.
Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true. Remember that as long as heaven and earth last, not the least point nor the smallest detail of the Law will be done away - not until the end of all things. So then, whoever disobeys even the least important of the commandments and teaches other to do the same, will be least in the Kingdom of heaven. -Matthew 4:17-20 John 14:15 says, "If you love Me, keep My commandments If you are supposed to follow a law that contradicts what is in the old testament, why even have the old testament in the first place? It is obvious that it simply creates confusion, so why not simply publish a version of the bible that is only the new testament and use that at church? Andit also makes me wonder, what makes the new testament more valid than the old testament? Why not throw out the new testament and follow the OT? What proof doyou have that it isn't simply heresy?I would point out that even if Jesus overturned the barbaric laws of the Old Testament, his dad still approved of them. Not to mention all the craziness in Judges. I mean what happened, did the Unchanging Truth of GOD change? I suppose we can dismiss all the creationism in the OT as well? I mean, who should we believe, God or someone saying he is his son?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 464
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I don't think your Matthew reference is correct.And I don't really understand any of your questions.
He got the chapter wrong, it's Matthew 5:17. I thought his question was pretty clear... I give you a rulebook that says Page 1: Eat lots of applesPage 2: Ignore Page 1!Seems pretty silly to keep publishing it that way. It would be like if publishers sent out their books with all the Track Changes left in.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for doing it this way...If you are supposed to follow a law that contradicts what is in the old testament, why even have the old testament in the first place? Which law contradicts what is in the Old Testament? I'm not sure what we're talking about here. But anyway, it's not about just knowing what the letter of the law is, it is important to understand the history and context of the laws. In the verse you quoted it said Jesus came to fulfill the law. If you didn't have the old testament, wouldn't people be saying "what law?"It's like with vb's example of the apple eating rulebook. The rulebook should actually say:Page 1: Eat lots of apples until X happens.Page 2: X happened, so now you only have to eat one slice of apple.You can argue that everything before "now you only have to..." should be left out. But then nobody would have any appreciation for X and why they only have to eat one slice of apple now.It is obvious that it simply creates confusion, so why not simply publish a version of the bible that is only the new testament and use that at church?Just because something creates confusion in some, doesn't mean that it has no value to anyone.And it also makes me wonder, what makes the new testament more valid than the old testament?Valid in what way?Why not throw out the new testament and follow the OT? Because you're...what? Where does this question come from?What proof do you have that it isn't simply heresy?I have no idea.I would point out that even if Jesus overturned the barbaric laws of the Old Testament, his dad still approved of them.I don't know what your point is.Not to mention all the craziness in Judges.I don't know what your point is.I mean what happened, did the Unchanging Truth of GOD change?Jesus happened. Also: what?I suppose we can dismiss all the creationism in the OT as well?What? Why? (I mean besides the scientific stuff, which I assume you aren't talking about.)I mean, who should we believe, God or someone saying he is his son?What?*shrug*

Link to post
Share on other sites

either joey felt so bad for the religious types and the beating they were taking in this thread at the hands of logic and reason, or he's finally taken a side on something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
either joey felt so bad for the religious types and the beating they were taking in this thread at the hands of logic and reason, or he's finally taken a side on something.
Depends on what you mean by taking a side.If you ask me if I think the Bible is infallible, then no, I don't believe that.I also don't believe, however, that the current attacks on it here are that compelling.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who Wrote The Bible and Why It Matters

Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors -- a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place. But is it possible that the problem is worse than that -- that the Bible actually contains lies?Most people wouldn't put it that way, since the Bible is, after all, sacred Scripture for millions on our planet. But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle -- Peter, Paul or James -- knowing full well they were someone else. In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery.Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. If you look at what ancient people actually said about the practice, you'll see that they invariably called it lying and condemned it as a deceitful practice, even in Christian circles. 2 Peter was finally accepted into the New Testament because the church fathers, centuries later, were convinced that Peter wrote it. But he didn't. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity.The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul. Most scholars will tell you that whereas seven of the 13 letters that go under Paul's name are his, the other six are not. Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi -- lies.This may all seem like a bit of antiquarian curiosity, especially for people whose lives don't depend on the Bible or even people of faith for whom biblical matters are a peripheral interest at best. But in fact, it matters sometimes. Whoever wrote the book of 1 Timothy claimed to be Paul. But he was lying about that -- he was someone else living after Paul had died. In his book, the author of 1 Timothy used Paul's name and authority to address a problem that he saw in the church. Women were speaking out, exercising authority and teaching men. That had to stop. The author told women to be silent and submissive, and reminded his readers about what happened the first time a woman was allowed to exercise authority over a man, in that little incident in the garden of Eden. No, the author argued, if women wanted to be saved, they were to have babies (1 Tim. 2:11-15).continued here...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrma...o_b_840301.html
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bible basics1. Every Bible is actually a collection of books. The word itself means something like "little library." Many of the Bible's books developed over a long period of time and include the input of a lot of people (ancient Israelites, Babylonian Jews and Greek pastors, to name a few), reflecting particular places (urban Jerusalem, the northern Galilee, rural Judah and ancient Persia, for example) and times (spanning as much as 1,000 years for the Old Testament and a couple of centuries for the New Testament). Plus, the collection as a whole developed over centuries. This helps to explain the tremendous variety of theological perspectives, literary style, and sometimes perplexing preoccupations (which animal parts go to which parties in which categories of sacrifices, e.g.), as well as why some texts disagree with others.2. Not everyone who believes in it has the same Bible. There are actually different bibles, though they all started with Jews (but before Judaism, per se). The Christian bible includes and depends upon the Jewish bible -- the Protestant Christian Old Testament is composed of the same books as the Jewish Hebrew Bible, arranged in a different order; and non-Protestant Christians include a few more books and parts of books (which also originated in Jewish circles) in their Old Testaments. The books of the Christian New Testament reflect the process of Jesus' followers gradually distinguishing themselves from his religion, Judaism.3. The Bible came after the literature it comprises. In other words, the material that became biblical wasn't written in order to be part of a Bible. This helps to explain the existence of a book of erotic love poetry (Song of Songs), one that doesn't mention God (Esther), another of intimate personal correspondence (Paul's letter to Philemon) and maybe why none of it was written by Jesus. The biblical texts are not disinterested reporting of objective facts but come from people of faith informed by particular beliefs.4. If you're reading the Bible in English, you're reading a translation. With the exception of a small minority of Aramaic texts, the books of the Old Testament or Hebrew Bible were all written in Hebrew. The books of the New Testament were written in Greek. Every translation is by nature interpretation. If you've ever studied a foreign language, you know that it's impossible to convert exactly and for all time the literature or speech of any given language into another. A translator has to make choices. There are often several ways to render the original text, and changes in English affect the meaning we read as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask me if I think the Bible is infallible, then no, I don't believe that.
then it isnt the word of an all powerful, all knowing god. and if it isnt that, then its just an old book that contains a lot nonsense.
I also don't believe, however, that the current attacks on it here are that compelling.
if you don't think it is the word of god, then why even bother defending it? it has nothing to teach us that modern science cannot. all it has is the fact that people think it's the word of god; without that, it's just another story about zeus and apollo.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I also don't believe, however, that the current attacks on it here are that compelling.
It would seem you haven't done your homework in regards to attacks made, not only in this thread or in this forum, then.It's pretty simple to apologize, contort or say "out of context" when presented with silly claim or inaccuracy after silly claim or inaccuracy, when presented one by one on a forum. It's really, really easy apparently. You can see it on any UFO, 9/11 or religion forum.However, when you actually do the research concerning, for example, the origins of any currently popular religion and religious text, there are only two ways to avoid how blatantly each is based on prior mythologies and blatantly absurd in terms of claims and what can be gleaned through science.1. Only read "historical analysis" authored by creationists/believers of the particular cult.2. Prop up a giant conspiracy theory concerning the overwhelming work of "secular" academics and "atheist" scientist. I suppose a third option can be proposed. 3. Suffer from such severe cognitive dissonance that reality no longer really applies to you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I always cringe when I've posted several times in here and then I see that Spade was the last to have posted.

It would seem you haven't done your homework in regards to attacks made, not only in this thread or in this forum, then.
I do skip over a lot.But anyway,
However, when you actually do the research concerning, for example, the origins of any currently popular religion and religious text, there are only two ways to avoid how blatantly each is based on prior mythologies and blatantly absurd in terms of claims and what can be gleaned through science.1. Only read "historical analysis" authored by creationists/believers of the particular cult.2. Prop up a giant conspiracy theory concerning the overwhelming work of "secular" academics and "atheist" scientist.
I don't disagree with this, which is why I'm never arguing for a specific religion in whole or a specific God. What I was arguing against here (I think, I'm never totally sure with the Bones) is the idea that the New Testament cannot exist with the Old Testament.The thing is, I don't know much about the Bible. So when somebody posts a verse, I look it up and read the whole passage for myself and see if I come to the same conclusion. In this case, it wasn't compelling to me and if it isn't compelling to me, I doubt it would be to a believer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends on what you mean by taking a side.If you ask me if I think the Bible is infallible, then no, I don't believe that.I also don't believe, however, that the current attacks on it here are that compelling.
The only thing I was attacking was brvheart's rationale for why he believed in the bible (he found it to be historically and scientifically accurate). This is a terrible defense of the bible since1) the bible is neither historically nor scientifically accurate2) even if it were, a book being correct in some regards has no bearing on whether it is correct in all regards
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are supposed to follow a law that contradicts what is in the old testament, why even have the old testament in the first place? Which law contradicts what is in the Old Testament? I'm not sure what we're talking about here. But anyway, it's not about just knowing what the letter of the law is, it is important to understand the history and context of the laws. In the verse you quoted it said Jesus came to fulfill the law. If you didn't have the old testament, wouldn't people be saying "what law?"It's like with vb's example of the apple eating rulebook. The rulebook should actually say:Page 1: Eat lots of apples until X happens.Page 2: X happened, so now you only have to eat one slice of apple.You can argue that everything before "now you only have to..." should be left out. But then nobody would have any appreciation for X and why they only have to eat one slice apple now.-This is actually a common argument. Athiests will throw darts at the bible point out the illogical rules of the old testament and then Christians will say, like Brv did, that the old testament is invalid or well, unimportent and dismiss it, and went so far as to say that even rules like the ten commandments don't count because they are in the old testament. Athiests or whoever are usually quick to point to the verses that I did where Jesus does seem to validate it's rules. I'll admit this all usually goes no where and I was pretty much adding things and rambling a bit while I was busy at work.It is obvious that it simply creates confusion, so why not simply publish a version of the bible that is only the new testament and use that at church?Just because something creates confusion in some, doesn't mean that it has no value to anyone.-Well, that value only seems to be to pick and choose the parts from it they like and dismiss the rest. It seems odd to dismiss God's words and history for the most part but claim undying loyalty to the second.And it also makes me wonder, what makes the new testament more valid than the old testament?Valid in what way?-Well, if you are going to say the things in the Old testament didn't happen or don't matter what makes the NT more valid? They were both written by people inspired by God yet you believe one set of writesr and not the others. Why not throw out the new testament and follow the OT? Because you're...what? Where does this question come from?-Well, that's kind of what I was just saying. If the NT invalidates the OT why keep it? I get your point of pointing back to it , but really they just do that selectively with no reasoning behind which laws they choose to like or dislike. Also when the ridiculousness of the OT is brought up as to things like historical soundess they dismiss it, so I guess the point is, is it a valid source for the history of the NT or not? You can't have it both ways.What proof do you have that it isn't simply heresy?I have no idea.-Again, how do you know if Jesus wasn't just making stuff up based ont he OT? What evidence is their to make his words more valid than the actual word of God from the OT? There is none.I would point out that even if Jesus overturned the barbaric laws of the Old Testament, his dad still approved of them.I don't know what your point is.-Well, I just made it prior to this.Not to mention all the craziness in Judges.I don't know what your point is.-Ha, you never read the OT either! In Judges their were a slew of wild characters that God inspired to further his cause that acted pretty crazy and were far from moral people. If he is omni-everything what the hell did he do all that for?I mean what happened, did the Unchanging Truth of GOD change?Jesus happened. Also: what?-Yeah, it ends up back here, Jesus happened and all the stuff God did didn't matter, but what Jesus did does matter. All Gods messages to people don't mean a hoot once Jesus showed up, unless Jesus says they matter and threatens people with hell if they don't follow them. God must have been kidding and simply changed his mind which is a tad odd for an omni-everthing being.I suppose we can dismiss all the creationism in the OT as well?What? Why? (I mean besides the scientific stuff, which I assume you aren't talking about.)-Meh, threw that in. If you are invalidating what happened in the OT are you throwing that story out as well?I mean, who should we believe, God or someone saying he is his son?What?-God spoke in the OT- Jesus in the NT.*shrug* *sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're jumping from A to Z without acknowledging there are some letters in between, but at least I understand what you're saying now.I would like to hear some of these historical inaccuracies though. Not because I don't believe they exist, but just because I'm curious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
How does God miraculously extending the day so that the Israelites could win a battle have anything to do with anything? I'm surprised that you could actually find those verses and type that all out and not see the obvious difference. One says that a group of people live right by the sun, the other says that God performed a miracle. That's a small difference, no???
The point is that the miracle he performed was to stop the sun from moving in the sky, as if the sun orbited the earth. You would know this if you actually read my post. I don't really think this is a particularly relevant criticism of the bible, but it's certainly in the same category as criticizing the Koran for the flat earth implications.
Are you next going to ask me how I could possibly believe that the Red Sea was parted or how Jonah got swallowed by a fish?I thought I made it clear that I believe that an omnipotent God can work miracles.
Yes, I understand.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're jumping from A to Z without acknowledging there are some letters in between, but at least I understand what you're saying now.I would like to hear some of these historical inaccuracies though. Not because I don't believe they exist, but just because I'm curious.
How about "Genesis"? Historical and scientific inaccuracy all rolled into one!
Link to post
Share on other sites
And that's what such writings are. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. But scholars everywhere -- except for our friends among the fundamentalists -- will tell you that there is no way on God's green earth that Peter wrote the book. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter.
I'm always fascinated how easily you guys buy this.Peter didn't write Peter...because you guys figured it out... 2,000 years later.....from your in-depth understanding of common literary copyright infringement practices being carried out in a small corner of the Roman empire...Because if there is one thing that secular scholars are good at, is knowing incredible details of tiny countries that were razed by Romans and the citizens forced to be without a homeland for 2,000 years.That and linguistic idioms of ancient nomadic African tribesmen with a degree of accuracy to determine which week the cave drawings were painted.Which is another thing that would be a little unbelievable to declare yourself an authority on.The truth is there are exactly two kinds of textual scholars:1. Textual scholars.2. Atheist selling books.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I always cringe when I've posted several times in here and then I see that Spade was the last to have posted.
Perfect.
I do skip over a lot.
I didn't just mean in the thread or on the boards, btw. I posted from my phone and it was, as a result, horribly worded and difficult to get what I meant. That's my fault. I meant researching deeper into the arguments being made. Specifically the most cogent, logical or compelling arguments.
What I was arguing against here (I think, I'm never totally sure with the Bones) is the idea that the New Testament cannot exist with the Old Testament.
I'm not going to lie. Bones loses me all the time. I honestly can't formulate an opinion on his posts because I usually gloss over them when they contain a selection of bible verse. And that's a bunch of posts. The whole "nit-picking particular verses" as the thrust of your argument thing is one of the least effective and most boring exercises I can imagine. It's far more effective to point people - people who aren't sticking their head too deep in the sand, people who show they aren't afraid or incapable of applying critical thought to their beliefs (or are making far too much money to want to want their fan base to do so... this is a depressingly common thing, Ray Comfort and Newt Gingrich as examples.) - toward the history of the bible. That video VB linked awhile ago, where the guy goes through his reconversion, at the end he gives examples of a number of excellent books and scholarship on the issue. (I bold this because I had read a number of those examples prior to seeing the video. I had already concluded that if one is a critical thinker and a fence-sitter when it comes to a particular religion, when you study the books mentioned it will close the case for you. All that could possibly remain is a nebulous and non-committal deist. This deism should fall to parsimony, as previously described.) Those books (of course there are others, but those mentioned are compelling enough on their own) are informative and interesting to those who aren't vigorously following a particular cult, and horribly well documented and cogent to those who are. The background of the bible and religion in general is far more devastating to the irrational belief in the bible's "accuracy" than pointing out how stupid single passages or verses are day after day.The content of my current post only applies to those who have a working understanding of the efficacy and importance of critical thought, logic and reasoning, obviously. Often those things must be addressed first. It's far too easy to ignore someone directing you toward actual evidence if you don't recognize what "evidence" is and how it applies to reality. Particularly if one is unwilling to actually study and research evidence that threaten their ideology.
The thing is, I don't know much about the Bible.
This is why I occasionally, as you may see it, jump on you. You are defending it, even though you present it as a sort of outsider position, an "I'm not taking a position" position, but the result is you defending it nonetheless. The "I don't have a position", when you are defending a position, is actually pretty annoying and comes off as cowardly and hints at intellectually dishonest. It should be clear where one stands on an issue before one engages in discussion on the issue.Like... oh, I dunno, scientific methodology. Like, logic. Like reason. Like anything that actually gets demonstrable results. And if one "doesn't really know", then their best guess, their hypothesis should be given at least. The most efficient route to knowledge and sound conclusions is to put whatever you conclude or are leaning to out there for critique and dissection. So when you come in and defend a claim "attacking" the bible or a "believer", even if you make a claim that is only about a particular approach to the "attacking" of the bible or the "believer", it compels me to come in and point out how you're neglecting everything else that's been pointed out. Because you haven't declared anything yourself, it translates simply to a defense of the bible or the believer. Know what I mean? I may not disagree with a certain objection you may have to one of Bone's posts perhaps, but I'm still compelled to come in and say, "So what? His point may not work... deal with this: awesome awesome awesome reason logic critical thought rarely assailable badassry." Your posts imply you are at the very least a free-range deist. This implication is derived from the meaning I find in your posts in the religious forum. I've never seen you express your "beliefs" explicitly. You may have and I didn't see the posts. I've never seen it however. I sometimes jump on you because I'm rarely wrong about the meaning people have behind their communication. If a guy who has admittedly and demonstrably slept with a ton of women says to a girl with the biggest vagina in world, "WOW, you have a tiny vagina" as he tilts his head, smirks and listens to the echo of his words... anyone would find his meaning clear. What he means is, "LOL, you have a huge vagina". Usually people are nearly as obvious as this extreme, to me.I am 99% sure you're at the very least a deist, and as a result your posts come off as a defense of deism. One time out of a hundred I'd be wrong on that. So they are responded to as such.
So when somebody posts a verse, I look it up and read the whole passage for myself and see if I come to the same conclusion. In this case, it wasn't compelling to me and if it isn't compelling to me, I doubt it would be to a believer.
With this, I have no issue. In fact, I fully support and encourage pointing out anything which is illogical, fallacious or un-compelling.But as I pointed out before, if I get a sense of defense of the irrational belief, rather than merely an attack on the method attempted to dispel the irrational belief, hackles are raised. Hackles are raised.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm always fascinated how easily you guys buy this.Peter didn't write Peter...because you guys figured it out... 2,000 years later.....from your in-depth understanding of common literary copyright infringement practices being carried out in a small corner of the Roman empire...Because if there is one thing that secular scholars are good at, is knowing incredible details of tiny countries that were razed by Romans and the citizens forced to be without a homeland for 2,000 years.That and linguistic idioms of ancient nomadic African tribesmen with a degree of accuracy to determine which week the cave drawings were painted.Which is another thing that would be a little unbelievable to declare yourself an authority on.The truth is there are exactly two kinds of textual scholars:1. Textual scholars.2. Atheist selling books.
I've figured out how to use BG's posts from time to time. Caveat that they should be summarily ignored due to irrelevance, outright lies, trolling or, at the very worst, incredible delusion and cognitive dissonance - then address the other readers. Have any of you ever looked at the little notes contained in many current bibles? I mean, in the bibles themselves. Where they point out where, even they, acknowledge that some of the authors are unknown, even though they are attributed to someone in particular? Have you read... anything... anything at all about the history of religion (Christianity in particular given the topic), the formation of the cult, the science behind the claims... anything outside of those written by people who have zero credentials related to science? Or outside of the embarrassingly small number of actually credentialed persons on the subject who are fundamentalist? Here is an interesting thing for you to note. Of the PhD's in biology and archeology, there is less than 1% who "don't believe" in evolution. Regardless of how many were raised in a fundy home, less than 1% make it through their education holding their stupid ass beliefs. So, when you hear people start talking about "scientists" or "secular scholars" having an "agenda" in regards to whatever threatens a cultist's beliefs, understand: The person is either blatantly lying to you, or is incredibly ignorant of science and scholarship. Is it true that the higher the education, especially in the hard sciences, the less (by an incredible degree) likely one is to be religious, and far far far less likely one is to be fundamentalist? Yes.The question you must ask yourself is whether this is due to a nebulous and gigantic conspiracy, or because the less ignorant (or stupid) one is about the nature of the world and the universe, the less likely one is to hold ignorant (or stupid) beliefs concerning the nature of the world and the universe.And this is only for people who aren't really invested in the issue either way. Because what I am saying suffers (though only slightly, because I'm confronting both the argument from ignorance and absurd conspiracy) from a tinge of both argument from authority and argument from popularity.Just a tinge is enough, though. This can be resolved, however, if you have any real interest in the subject and want to conclusively work out the issue.Instead of taking my word for it, you can research all of the evidence that scholars and scientists claim because it is out there. The very core of science is that one's work and conclusions are available for public consumption and refutation. If they are wrong, you are free to falsify their claims. You don't need to accept what I'm saying on faith.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are supposed to follow a law that contradicts what is in the old testament, why even have the old testament in the first place?
For the believer, the OT is full of rules on purpose. It shows what one must do to be "holy", and it's impossible. This was on purpose. Jesus came, and now we are no longer under the weight of those rules. Having the OT shows us how awesome it is and we aren't living under those rules any longer. The OT is not only important, it's vital to understanding the NT. I hope you get it now, because you seem to expend a lot of energy and time on your posting because you aren't understanding this very basic principle of Christianity.
Have you read... anything... anything at all about the history of religion (Christianity in particular given the topic), the formation of the cult, the science behind the claims... anything outside of those written by people who have zero credentials related to science? Or outside of the embarrassingly small number of actually credentialed persons on the subject who are fundamentalist? Here is an interesting thing for you to note. Of the PhD's in biology and archeology, there is less than 1% who "don't believe" in evolution. Regardless of how many were raised in a fundy home, less than 1% make it through their education holding their stupid ass beliefs. So, when you hear people start talking about "scientists" or "secular scholars" having an "agenda" in regards to whatever threatens a cultist's beliefs, understand: The person is either blatantly lying to you, or is incredibly ignorant of science and scholarship. Is it true that the higher the education, especially in the hard sciences, the less (by an incredible degree) likely one is to be religious, and far far far less likely one is to be fundamentalist?
Ideologues produce ideologues. (in religion and in higher education)
Instead of taking my word for it, you can research all of the evidence that scholars and scientists claim because it is out there. The very core of science is that one's work and conclusions are available for public consumption and refutation. If they are wrong, you are free to falsify their claims. You don't need to accept what I'm saying on faith.
I think I disagree with you here. Evidence and discovery are and have always been repressed by the establishment. It's harder now to keep everything under wraps, but anything that gets out is immediately dismissed as crazy and fringe, and then killed by the people in power. Have you seen the movie Tucker: A Man and His Dream? It's just like that in the scientific community. Global warming? yep. Btw, I'm not specifically trying to make the claim that proof of the Bible's accuracy has been purposely hidden. I'm just taking exception to this point that all scientific discovery is easily and freely available.Also, I didn't see VB's video. Do you have a list of these books I should read? I'm interested.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you're jumping from A to Z without acknowledging there are some letters in between, but at least I understand what you're saying now.I would like to hear some of these historical inaccuracies though. Not because I don't believe they exist, but just because I'm curious.
I understand Spade's point but I thought it was unfair, and ultimately boring to simply say the bible was wrong and felt it would be more fair to the believers and myself, spurred on by Southern Budhist actually, to take the time to reread it and learn something. It was fun and fascinating actually. And well, now they don't have the argument that I don't understand the bible. I clearly do, more than most anyway. But for SK, here is a brief synopsis...Ancient nomadic tribes were mostly illiterate and passed on information around nightly camfires through story-telling, poetry and songs. Kids were taught to memorize the lineage of their ancestors as a way of identifying with their culture and this practice is still popular amongst nomadic tribes in Africa today, (along with many other similarities to biblical nomadic tribes) and why you see page after page of people repeating their lineage in the bible. The Gods of the old testament were based on the Gods of the Caananites and surrounding tribes who lived in the area during and previous to the Israelites. There are a number of reasons that we can sure much of the old testament were simply tall tales. When reading the the OT the early chapters invovled a God that was always around appearing and talking to everyone. The further along you get, or the closer in time to the actual writers you get, the less God appears and the miracles become more sparse. This is similar to any folklore, in that as time goes on the tale gets more outlandish with each retelling. I can't say God came and flooded the earth 100 years ago now because, you know, it could easily be discounted. The OT is simply a collection of stories by a tribe trying to verify an outlandish claim to land in the name of thier God. The God story provided a reason for the justification of conquering and killing other tribes to obtain the land. That is what the book is about, the Israelites search and claim to land and them losing it. In fact, once you get to later chapters like Kings, it is written from the point of the writers from Judea (or Judah-desecndants of David) who criticize the Israelites of the north that lost their land to invasions from neighboring countries. Had the invasion happened in the south and the Israelites version collected and passed on the bible would have been vastly different. It also served other purposes obviously, such as providing moral guidelines that the writer's wanted to impose or that was their culture. Myths also have value in reducing human anxiety and creating cooporation amongst people as well.There is all types of critical analysis of the bible showing that is was plagarized, rewritten, sections added etc. Most of this donein the NT was to align the Christians with the Romans who held power at the time and to appease them. Others things were added simply to further someone's apparent agenda. Their are entire chapters about one thing only to have a few lines tacked on at the end that obviously don't fit with the story and were simply added because the story didn't actually put god in that great of a light.Religions of the day were all meant to support one tribe, or sect or group. This is why Jesus was pretty radical for the times. You had sects like the Israelites telling everyone that anyone could be saved, not matter who you were and could everlasting peace and rewards. Given that life was so hard at the time, this was pretty appealing. And easy. You could sin as everyone obviously did, but still be forgiven. Ironically, the ones who started the whole religon and whose God it was based on got left out, (the Jews) because they didn't want to give up on being the chosen people. This led the Christians and later the muslims to ostracize them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
For the believer, the OT is full of rules on purpose. It shows what one must do to be "holy", and it's impossible. This was on purpose. Jesus came, and now we are no longer under the weight of those rules. Having the OT shows us how awesome it is and we aren't living under those rules any longer. The OT is not only important, it's vital to understanding the NT. I hope you get it now, because you seem to expend a lot of energy and time on your posting because you aren't understanding this very basic principle of Christianity.
No, I perfectly understand but look at it from a different point of view than you do.
For the believer, the OT is full of rules on purpose. It shows what one must do to be "holy", and it's impossible.
No kidding, just ask the Jews. God was smiting them left and right for not getting it. God was either pretty bad at spreading his rules or the people were to dense to get it. In either case this omni-everything God had alot of faults which is obviously a huge contradiction.
This was on purpose
Come again? God did everything in the old testament on purpose, killing over 2 million people, and he knew that following his rules were impossible?
Jesus came, and now we are no longer under the weight of those rules.
Right, becase he had the great idea to let everyone off the hook from the rules by coming up with the "asking forgiveness" clause.
I hope you get it now, because you seem to expend a lot of energy and time on your posting because you aren't understanding this very basic principle of Christianity.
Again, I am here to learn but I think I get it just fine. Look, having been raised under this mythology I doubted it's validity pretty early on. I lived my life a non-believer, though mostly in the closet because of prejudice from believers. Spurred on by alot of conversations on this forum has led me to more or less "come out". I have read numerous books by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and Barker, Shermer as well as others and as well as some books on religon. I blelong to a Freethought book club and hang out occasionally with the group as well. I might not be as eloquent or good at writing, but I understand the concepts perfectly well.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I perfectly understand but look at it from a different point of view than you do.
You can't look at it differently. That's the Bible. You specifically said, "What's the point of the OT for a Christian?". I don't even understand what you are saying you look at differently. I told you exactly why the OT is important to a Christian.
No kidding, just ask the Jews. God was smiting them left and right for not getting it. God was either pretty bad at spreading his rules or the people were to dense to get it. In either case this omni-everything God had alot of faults which is obviously a huge contradiction.
You need to reread Leviticus. The Jews weren't dying left and right. They just had to jump through a lot of hoops. They had like 10 different sacrifices they had to make, including one that covered them if they did something they weren't supposed to unknowingly.
Come again? God did everything in the old testament on purpose, killing over 2 million people, and he knew that following his rules were impossible?
I missed the section where he murdered 2 million people. Also, again, the rules were impossible but the continual sacrifices were the way out. Jesus is the final sacrifice and now we don't have to do that anymore.
Right, becase he had the great idea to let everyone off the hook from the rules by coming up with the "asking forgiveness" clause.
?? That was always there, he didn't come up with a new plan.
Again, I am here to learn but I think I get it just fine. Look, having been raised under this mythology I doubted it's validity pretty early on. I lived my life a non-believer, though mostly in the closet because of prejudice from believers. Spurred on by alot of conversations on this forum has led me to more or less "come out". I have read numerous books by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and Barker, Shermer as well as others and as well as some books on religon. I blelong to a Freethought book club and hang out occasionally with the group as well. I might not be as eloquent or good at writing, but I understand the concepts perfectly well.
Are any of those guys scientists? Dawkins rejected the idea that "god" created the universe and instead proposed that aliens planted life on this planet. Is that really any different?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...