The Bible was NOT man made, it was Godly made

I agree Pilate. Another point should be made about the faith vs. works issue. This is a very complex issue and at one point in time both were true. In the old testament, salvation was certainly based on works...the works of following the law. Jesus ended that system, however, and instituted one of salvation by faith. This isn't to say that works aren't required...it's largely a chicken and egg issue. Even though the actual salvation is now bought through faith, works are the fruit of that faith. So by definition, without displaying works you really have no faith and therefore won't be saved.

Hi Paul,

quote:

---

You're not a professional apologist, but you certainly are an apologist and showing all the faults associated with apologetics

---

What's that got to do witn the correctness or error of my view? Ad hominem? How would you feel if I tell you that you are a an aetheist who is trying to ape advocates of "higher criticism" of the bible?By the way if you belong to this group have you heard of the term: "judgment by default", or "prescribed action", or in simpler term: "johnny-come-lately-critics"?I think I'll take a long vacation again. As the saying goes: "if you can't stand the odor, don't go near the sewer".Edited by pilate_judas, : for clarity.

Pilate, my point is that these are not mere "loopholes" but major rips in the continuity, consistency and validity that one would expect to find in a book "authored" by the deity that created the world and that is unchanging.The main philosophies and key concepts, such as salvation, evolve over the time span of the writing of the text that make up the Bible.This is true even though the Bible was *selectively compiled* from a collection of works. In other words, one would expect some increased consistency in a book that compiled from a larger body of works by a group of men with a common philosophic outlook.Yes, there has been centuries of apologists struggling to answers these inconsistencies. I have avidly read most of these mainstream explanations. In some cases, I can give ground and accept some explanations as plausible. In most, however, the apologetics are strained, forced, implausible and unsatisfactory. The simple fact that this issue has divided Christians for ages and spawned denominations attest to the lack of consistency within the text. Even within the small sampling of *self professed holy ghost inspired* Christians that post here, you will find wide discrepancies in belief on this very issue.More generally the fact that there are a multitude of denominations is evidence of the inconsistency of the Bible. How does one judge the unborn? What sort of judges rules that innocent young virgin girls are to become righteous war booty?That is not mercy unless one alters the normal meaning of the concept mercy. In the below passage, where is the mention of "repeated warnings" by the alleged god of the OT? This is conquest! Not judgment of the unrighteous. There is no mercy, kindness, neighborly love to be found here.If the question is: is the Bible written by Man or God? I believe there is a preponderance of evidence that it is authored, written, copied, edited, redacted and compiled by humans.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What's that got to do witn the correctness or error of my view? Ad hominem?

---

It's a drect contradiction of your expressed view that you aren't an apologist. And I've got the evidence of your posts to prove it.

quote:

---

How would you feel if I tell you that you are a an aetheist who is trying to ape advocates of "higher criticism" of the bible?

---

I'd feel that you were expressing the usual fundamentalist hatred of Biblical scholarship.
It's not as if I'm putting forward anything that's especially controversial, let alone my own proposals.

quote:

---

I think I'll take a long vacation again. As the saying goes: "if you can't stand the odor, don't go near the sewer".

---

It's amazing how the truth repels your sort of "Christian"Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Faith vs Works - the concept itself is very simple.The only reason it is a complex issue is because the Bible is very inconsistent about addressing it. This is because you have people expounding in texts, different view points, evidence of the text being written by humans and not some higher being. In the old testament there is even inconsistency about the concept of salvation itself - let alone faith vs works.

iceage,I don't see an inconsistency. Confusing wording perhaps, but not an inconsistency. Without works, you have no faith...so it's largely an issue of semantics. Granted, it's a large issue of semantics which eventually lead to the Protestant Reformation, but semantics nonetheless.

iceage,I don't think a fractured church is a sign of inconsistencies in the Bible. It's a matter of interpretation. Let's keep in mind that the Bible wasn't even written in the language most read it in and deals in Philosophical areas that can be hard to grasp. I chalk-up the fracture more to the limited knowledge of the religious than any shortcomings of the religion.Not even athiests are in agreement on all philosophical points other than there is no God. Similarly, some Christians have a hard time finding common ground other than there is a God. The fact that some athiests are New Agers and some believe in evolution doesn't automatically discount athiesm. I think most people would plainly agree with this until the issue of religion is brought into play.

Things are sort of on topic, but perhaps a little more focus? Things seem to be getting rather diffuse.I think that pilate_judas agrees with the idea that the Bible is "man made", with some sort of guidance from God.Not one of my better moderator messages - And the standards are not that high,Adminnemooseus

---

and yet paul says you just need faith in jesus to go to heaven? he says works are meaninglessif anything the fact alone that its confusing should tell you that it isn't produced by any higher power in anyway
if you have to argue what god is saying because parts say different things then you have to wonder if any part is right

Confusing or inconsistent, however you wish to color it, the point is that because it is confusing and/or inconsistent is evidence of the book's less than divine origin and compilation. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

iceage:Actually, if it is human in origin, we should expect humans to understand it.Personally, I think we should expect divine wisdom to be rather puzzling to us.Alien even...

Inconsistent/confusing != DeepThe message is not deep; just inconsistent. The inconsistency is indeed consistent with many different authors, editors and cultural time periods.The stories, myths and messages are quite human. For example, worshiping a vision of god that:

Requires and demands adoration (similar to kings and high priests)

Requires blood and sacrifice for atonement of sin

Anthropomorphizes God, an Alpha Male (typical of many religions)

Elevates men and degrades women

Seduces with promises of immortality

​

Is very much human and very much a product of its time period.

​

Rob writes:

​

Personally, I think we should expect divine wisdom to be rather puzzling to us.

​

And it is, try studying quantum mechanics, relativity, cosmology or molecular biology!

​

Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

Well, that was a short conversation...Feel free to adore the image of reality that is prescious to you. Not required, but rather inescapable.Feel free to require that others give blood (if necesssary) for the survival of the 'fittest'.Feel free to envision man as the measure of all things.Feel free to elevate women and degrade men.And feel free to seduce with whatever promise of moral autonomy you decide is right for others.Makes no sense at all right? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

precisely what you are doing. You claim that Christ is reality--sadly though, all you have is your image of Christ, not christ himself. Actually, don't you believe that Christ died (gave his blood) for your sins? I wish I could remember how I destroyed the common understanding of that phrase (man being the measure). Let's put it this way--those so oft derided "sophists" don't deserve the reputation given them. And here you prove yourself to be a mysogynist. How? Well, this is in response to "elevate men and degrade women". and at the end of your post, you have : well good for you. hope your wife doesn't see this. the hell? this is a problem how? and I should add, we're not actively (at least, I'm not) seducing other's to my belief system, or morality system. If it doesn't, then why are you? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Actually I was saying the opposite.The Bible inflates mans position in the universe.The Bible talks about the earth as the center of creation. That man is distinct from the animal kingdom. That man is made in the likeness of God. Pure hubris.Science has slowly discovered a different picture. First, it was an insult to the religious minded that the earth is not the center of the universe, but is subserverent to the Sun and is embedded in a galaxy that is a member of larger galaxy cluster.Then it was a second insult to discover that humans are branch of the animal kingdom and share a common heritage with other lifeforms. That we are not some separate creation, as is taught in the Bible. We share DNA with other animals and there is considerable DNA overlap with our nearest neighbors. Many of our complex social interaction traits can be found in more primitive forms in other primates. We are an interesting species with unique capabilities but not separate or distinct from the animal kingdom.Next the Bible incorrectly paints god as an alpha-male warrior and this god requires adoration and glory. This is the stuff of egotistical megalomaniac rulers, which the writers of the Bible naturally transfered to the next level of hierarchy.These are all clues that the Bible is a man made product and not "Godly made" as some suggest.The Bible makes God in the image of Man - blasphemy I believe.God loves a humble man and science has given us a humbling perspective. Religion on the other hand attempts to undeservingly elevate us to just a notch below God. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.