|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: There is no such thing as The Bible | |||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4157 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
quote: Thus describing most of the atheists on here
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
la lala lala....
How long can you go without responding to my main point? Whether a story is the retelling of actuakl events or simply made-up fiction is irrelevant to the value of its message. A fairytale can teach good lessons. A parable can teach good lessons. Noeither have to be based in reality to teach people how to live a good life.
But you are simply proving my point..if we are all so inherently good, why is there so much evil in the world, even when we are taught to be good??? The fact is, the Bible has got that point nailed...we ignore that at our peril. I never said that we are all inherantly good. I just said that the Bible, while an example of one good moral guide (depending on how far you take it, but that's another topic), its moral value has nothing to do with whther you believe it to be literally true or not. People who believed in literalism committed atricities. People who don't believe in the Bible at all are often very good people.
Re. Christians and racism for example....the racists were a perfect example of people going according to the cultural traditions of their day. If it weren't for the Christians of the day who fought it, it would still be with us. The fact is sometimes a culture can be right and sometimes it's wrong...but if there is nothing other than one's own opinion re. morality, it makes it that much harder to correct a culture's course. But you haven't answered the question, why do people believe it's wrong to do the things that have been listed...because that is just the way the culture is right now??...do you think 'going with the flow' is always the right thing to do??? If not, why not? What else is guiding you...do you know??? I see. So if Biblical literalism leads to racism and gay bashing and atrocities, then that obviously must have been the result of the cultre at the time. We'll ignore the fact that the culture at the time was Christianity-based. And I'm not basing morality on my own personal opinion. Nobody ever said that. "Do unto others" just makes sense because I'd like people to be nice to me. Empathy tells me others would probably like me to do the same.
Re. the past, yes atrocities have been done in the name of God...but, going by bodycount, there were far more deaths under secular regimes (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, China) in the 20th century than the whole of history put together...if you think the world is safer when people become their own gods and own arbiters of morality, then I'm afraid you haven't learned the lesson of the 20th century...which means no doubt, if your view holds sway, that the 21st century will be no different. I hope not. Get your facts straight. Hitler was a Christian, and used Christian rhetoric in his political speeches and his personal motivations for killing Jews. And Christians have killed more than you seem to think. My point has nothing to do with the specific deathtoll anyway. Literalism, with "authority" behind its moral dogma, still has the potential to result in evil. The authority you claim is necessary apparently didn't change anything. If MY view holds sway, people will stop hating and feel some more empathy for their common man. I don't care if people get "do unto others" from the Bible, or Buddha (who taught along similar lines), or anything else. A little more empathy would make the world a better place. You don't want that? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Well you were the one who raised the issue of disagreement. If it isn't a problem why raise it ?
quote:And this is exactly the problem I've been trying to point out. Why would you need an authority ? quote: And how are these differnet form the reasons for accepting any alleged authority ?
quote: And without being able to make moral judgements independently of your supposed authority you cannot do that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
Well, it would be nice if they could show me why they disagree, they're not going to convince most people any other way. Why do you think America is so divided right now about so many things?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You are still evading answering my question you nasty little child. Why did they let you sit at the grownup table? Why aren't you over with the other children? If you are going to sit with the grownups then you are expected to behave like a grownup. We don't expect you to uderstand anything, you're just a fundie. If they were capable of thinking they wouldn't remain fundies. Just sit quietly and listen to those older and more experienced than you. Perhaps, though I doubt it, you'll learn something. Okay. Now if someone spoke to you in the tone of the quote above, would it make you feel good? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
Well, you may be questioning others' authority, but you aren't questioning your own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
No, but it would make you look awfully arrogant! Not sure that would be wise!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
You know, you really need to study some history.
In the issue of racism, christians were as promentent on the side orf the oppressors as on the side of those opposing it. It was Christian Churches that refused to have black members, Christian cops loosing attack dogs on the demonstrators and Christian Pastors swearing that blacks were the Sons of Ham. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Why wouldn't you like to be addressed like that?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
To clarify...I am not debating that parables can't teach good lessons...only the assertion that the whole OT is just a parable!!
But again, I ask the question - what is your defintion of good and where do you get it from??? Do you even know? Or is morality just a feeling for you? If you were born to a cannibalistic tribe from the recent past where betrayal was the ultimate good, would you go along with that or would you say 'I disagree'? The fact is, that what it takes to be liked by others is not universal in all cultures...are you going to go with the culture every time, or are you going to stand on your principles? Re. empathy...are you saying that you have to condone someone's actions before you can empathise with them? Jesus didn't teach that...re. treating people badly because of their sin...Christians are supposed to believe that we are sinners saved by grace, so empathy should be present, obviously they're not reading their Bibles very closely!...just another cultural norm which should be changed, without making the wrong, right. Re. authority, I did not mean just any old authority and certainly not a dictator lol. Hitler was involved in the occult, certainly not a Christian, he used any argument he could find to get people to carry out his plans. Of course, there were German Christians who knew he was manipulating people and tried to stop him, unsuccessfully alas, paying with their lives in the process. You know what guys...I'm wondering if we are off topic for this thread? What do you think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
Yes, Jar, because they had bought the lies of the culture of the day...which is why it's so dangerous to hang our own morality on our national culture, because culture can be wrong. Some seem to think that Christianity and American culture are indivisible, but there are certainly differences. But, if we don't pay attention to what Jesus taught, some are liable to miss that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
To clarify...I am not debating that parables can't teach good lessons...only the assertion that the whole OT is just a parable!! But that's not what you're saying. You're claiming that stories without factual basis have no authority to be useful in teaching. You're claiming that if Jesus never existed, and was simply a fairy tale, that "do unto others" would somehow lose its meaning. And it's not true. Even if He never existed, His message rings of truth.
But again, I ask the question - what is your defintion of good and where do you get it from??? Do you even know? Or is morality just a feeling for you? If you were born to a cannibalistic tribe from the recent past where betrayal was the ultimate good, would you go along with that or would you say 'I disagree'? The fact is, that what it takes to be liked by others is not universal in all cultures...are you going to go with the culture every time, or are you going to stand on your principles? My definition of good is "that which helps others and reduces suffering." Or something approaching that. I get it from a sense of empathy with my fellow man, and understanding that at the core we are all the same, and deserve the same basic rights. The message of Jesus coincides with that belief, and so I maintain my faith in Him because He tells me to live my life the way I would want to, anyway. And I never claimed that such morality and empathy are universal. Certainly other cultures have different beliefs. A tribe of cannibals likely does not see human beings outside of the tribe as similar to themselves, or deserving of the same rights. It's an education issue. The point is that even people who do not believe that the Bible is literally true, people like myself, jar, and a good many atheists and people of other faiths, are decent people, and would wholeheartedly agree that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an excellent basis for a good and healthy society. The fact that it comes from the Bible is irrelevant - even if it's all myth and allegory, it still rings true to those who understand that all people are fundamentally the same and deserve the same rights.
Re. empathy...are you saying that you have to condone someone's actions before you can empathise with them? Jesus didn't teach that...re. treating people badly because of their sin...Christians are supposed to believe that we are sinners saved by grace, so empathy should be present, obviously they're not reading their Bibles very closely!...just another cultural norm which should be changed, without making the wrong, right. Where did you get that idea? No, you don't have to condone other people's actions! I don't condone murder, or killing kittens, or theft, or a whole host of other actions that cause suffering! But I can still empathize and try to help them. Even the Bible tells us to visit people in prisons. No one is so far gone down that path that they cannot change themselves and become decent people. They are worthy of help, though we certainly don't condone their actions.
Re. authority, I did not mean just any old authority and certainly not a dictator lol. Hitler was involved in the occult, certainly not a Christian, he used any argument he could find to get people to carry out his plans. Of course, there were German Christians who knew he was manipulating people and tried to stop him, unsuccessfully alas, paying with their lives in the process. Read some more history. Specifically, try and stomach a little of Mein Kampf. Hitler poured out his black soul in that book, and his motivations and reasons for the Holocaust. Hell, people should have seen it coming after that book. He clearly uses Christian rhetoric and a belief that God was on his side to justify the murder of millions. The idea that Hitler was not a Christian is blattantly false - he just wasn't a very good Christian. He believed in Jesus as his saviour, and he believed int he Biblical God. He just twisted the Bible to match his anti-Semitism, like all religious bigots. Including the gay-bashers.
You know what guys...I'm wondering if we are off topic for this thread? What do you think? Perhaps you are right. We certainly aren't talking about the different versions of the Bible any more. Perhaps a new topic to continue this discussion? Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
enton Inactive Member |
Strictly speaking, the Bible is a book consisting statements of prophecies and declarations of past events and workings of God and men. Moreover, it contains words of angels and other beings not so familiar in everyday life of men today. Thus I can say that the Bible tells truths, a variety of truths.
Specifically speaking, the Bible is just intended for those who follow the orders and commandments of God as we can chronologically sum up in 1 Kings 8:61 (Let your heart therefore be perfect with the LORD our God, to walk in his statutes, and to keep his commandments, as at this day.) But it cannot be denied that God wants all people to be saved from sinning. So he covenanted the new testament for the entire race of men as you can hear popularly John 3:16 (For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.) The Bible is used by different religious organizations which claim they are of Christ or of God in the Bible. And the Bible is used by different anti-God organizations too for the purpose of twisting the message of God written in the Bible. Lastly the Bible is the best merchandise of most men. For more information about the Bible, click http://www.addbible.com/bibart.php?id=6 This message has been edited by enton, 09-13-2005 08:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Steve8 Inactive Member |
Re. historians and documents, I never said a historian should trust a document because it is OLD...I said trust until proven otherwise! Please don't put words in my mouth that I never said!
Interestingly, as far as Daniel as a book goes...apparently, in the 4th cenury, though it was placed among the miscellaneous books that made up the third division of their canon, which they entitled 'The Writings"...yet in the older arrangement attested to by Josephus around the first century A.D. (who was not a Christian), Daniel did stand among the "Prophets", following the "Law" and preceding the four "Poets" (Psalms-Song Of Sol.), which is curious given what has been said at this site in earlier discussions I've had. Of course, Jesus in the first century NT calls him a Prophet too, which he was by ministry, in Mt. 24:15. Was it that Daniel was not a Prophet by vocation unlike the other Prophets in the "Prophets" section? (he was a Statesman)... Until we have clear evidence of their thinking back in the 4th century, I guess we can only speculate. Re. Daniel 5 and Darius the Mede...like the historical record of Belshazzar, which modern scholars questioned until archaelogical evidence vindicated Daniel's accuracy, Daniel has again recorded the existence of a man that other ancient documents omit. Some modern scholars claim that the author of Daniel mistakenly thought that the Medes conquered Babylonia instead of the Persians. They claim that this author then confused Darius I, king of Persia (521-486 B.C.) with the conqueror of Babylon and identified this figure as Darius the Mede. However, there is no reason to assume that the book of Daniel is in error. Why? Darius the Mede is a different person from Darius I of Persia. Darius the Mede was a subordinate to Cyrus the Great. Cunieform texts refer to Darius the Mede as Gubaru who was appointed by Cyrus to be governor over all of Babylonia. Darius seems to be another word for 'king' or like the Romans would say 'Caesar', it is not a personal name, more of a title... I'll get back to you on the Roman Empire stuff, seems to be the majority view up till the 18th century and those 3 folks I mentioned before. I've got a lot of stuff to look thru. I never said it was a mistake NOT to adjust the text, only that if a text doesn't fit the 'facts' of your interpretation, then perhaps your interpretation is wrong!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
OK so you didn't mean "ancient" to be a qualification and you menat that a historian should unquestioningly trust ANY document until significant evidence is gathered against it. That really is absurd.
Historians DON'T and shouldn't trust documents automatically. Documents are often inaccurate either through errors (by the author or late rcopyists), the biases of the author, intentional falsehoods by the author or even intentional distortions by copyists.
quote:Can you provide any evidence that "modern scholars" questioned he existence of Belshazzar, rather than the status Daniel attributes to him ? I've never seen ANY reliable source make this claim or any support for it whatsoever. quote: The claim that Darius is a title is belied by the fact that it IS used as a name by later Persian Emperors. Daniel also uses it as a name, not a title - thus the very theory you promote to "defend" Daniel assumes a historical inaccuracy on the writer's part. Daniel is supposedly a high official under Darius, considered for a position second only to Darius himself. If Daniel is accurate historically Daniel should know and use the name of this Darius, not mistakenly use a title as if it were a name. While Ugbaru, the general who took Babylon was governor for a time and did appoint sub-governors (Darius the Mede appoints satraps) he died aparently a month later and there is no evidence that he was a Mede or granted the title King. (Based on the Nabonidus Chronicle Error 404 - Livius) a genuinely ancient document. Cyrus himself claims the title King of Babylon on the Cyrus Cylinder (Error 404 - Livius) anooher genuinely ancient document. If Cyrus is King of Babylon, why is a mere governor using the same title ? As to your attitude to "adjusting" the text, thanks for admitting that you ARE in favour of it. Isn't it interesting that you were against it when (falsely) accusing others of doing so ! I notice that you don't try to defend your claims about Daniel 11:40 or deal with the fact that Daniel 11 is strong evidence that the 4th Empire is Greek, not Roman.r
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024