Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,906 Year: 4,163/9,624 Month: 1,034/974 Week: 361/286 Day: 4/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   There is no such thing as The Bible
CK
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 181 of 305 (242989)
09-13-2005 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Steve8
09-13-2005 2:31 PM


Re: Value of a saying
quote:
I think it's healthier to question authority, find out what's behind it, to make sure it is the real thing, than just go along with it without knowing why you are.
Thus describing most of the atheists on here

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 2:31 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 4:32 PM CK has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 182 of 305 (242993)
09-13-2005 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Steve8
09-13-2005 2:08 PM


Re: Christians against morality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 2:08 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 7:08 PM Rahvin has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 183 of 305 (242998)
09-13-2005 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Steve8
09-13-2005 2:31 PM


Re: Value of a saying
quote:
They can disagree with me if they want..
Well you were the one who raised the issue of disagreement. If it isn't a problem why raise it ?
quote:
..but that raises the mystery, if there is no authority for what they are saying, why believe it???
And this is exactly the problem I've been trying to point out. Why would you need an authority ?
quote:
Convenience? Because their parents did? Because that's what they were taught in school? Because their culture says it's the 'right' thing to do, for whatever reason?
And how are these differnet form the reasons for accepting any alleged authority ?
quote:
I think it'shealthier to question authority, find out what's behind it, to make sure it is the real thing, than just go along with it without knowing why you are.
And without being able to make moral judgements independently of your supposed authority you cannot do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 2:31 PM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 305 (243028)
09-13-2005 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by PaulK
09-13-2005 2:01 PM


Re: Value of a saying
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by PaulK, posted 09-13-2005 2:01 PM PaulK has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 185 of 305 (243037)
09-13-2005 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by Steve8
09-13-2005 1:26 PM


Re: Value of a saying
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 1:26 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 4:34 PM jar has replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 305 (243038)
09-13-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by CK
09-13-2005 2:35 PM


Re: Value of a saying
Well, you may be questioning others' authority, but you aren't questioning your own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by CK, posted 09-13-2005 2:35 PM CK has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 305 (243040)
09-13-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by jar
09-13-2005 4:31 PM


Re: Value of a saying
No, but it would make you look awfully arrogant! Not sure that would be wise!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 4:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 4:36 PM Steve8 has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 188 of 305 (243041)
09-13-2005 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Steve8
09-13-2005 2:08 PM


Re: Christians against morality
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 2:08 PM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 7:16 PM jar has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 424 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 189 of 305 (243044)
09-13-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Steve8
09-13-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Value of a saying
Why wouldn't you like to be addressed like that?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 4:34 PM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 190 of 305 (243086)
09-13-2005 7:08 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Rahvin
09-13-2005 2:42 PM


Re: Christians against morality
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Rahvin, posted 09-13-2005 2:42 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rahvin, posted 09-13-2005 7:38 PM Steve8 has not replied

Steve8
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 305 (243091)
09-13-2005 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by jar
09-13-2005 4:35 PM


Re: Christians against morality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by jar, posted 09-13-2005 4:35 PM jar has not replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4046
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 7.6


Message 192 of 305 (243100)
09-13-2005 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Steve8
09-13-2005 7:08 PM


Re: Christians against morality
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Steve8, posted 09-13-2005 7:08 PM Steve8 has not replied

enton
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 305 (243119)
09-13-2005 8:34 PM


In reply to "What is the Bible anyway?"
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


Message 194 of 305 (243187)
09-14-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by PaulK
09-12-2005 3:18 AM


Re: Once again on Canon
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by PaulK, posted 09-12-2005 3:18 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by PaulK, posted 09-14-2005 3:09 AM Steve8 has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17828
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 195 of 305 (243224)
09-14-2005 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Steve8
09-14-2005 12:19 AM


Re: Once again on Canon
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:
Re. Daniel 5 and Darius the Mede...like the historical record of Belshazzar, which modern scholars questioned until archaelogical evidence vindicated Daniel's accuracy
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:
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...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Steve8, posted 09-14-2005 12:19 AM Steve8 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Steve8, posted 09-15-2005 2:49 PM PaulK has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024