Thoughts/Perspectives on the Bible

[Unclean]

Ok, let's please be civil about this one...

 

What are your thoughts on the bible? Is it the literal word of god, inspired word by god, or a book written by man for an ulterior motive? If it's one of the first two, do you believe the bible is all literally true, or parts are fables/allegories meant to convey a message?

 

My thoughts are that it's a book written by man, and there's no more conclusive evidence that shows that the bible is a holy book of supernatural origins than any other religious text. What's yours?

[dragonfly]

I figure it has to be one of the first two options, because I can't imagine a book being written by men that essentially has the innocent die for the guilty. Especially spanning over thousands of years. We hate injustice (unless people show us mercy, then it seems ok) so to make that law of righteousness earned through innocence suffering for the guilty... I can't believe it's from human origin. Especially if one guy fulfilled hundreds of prophecies written about him over hundreds of years. Oh, and all other holy books I've read / read about have included something we do to earn our 'salvation', so in that way the Bible is at least certainly unique.

 

Skipping WAY ahead in the argument, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, written by men through the Holy Spirit. To read it all completely literally would just be bad hermeneutics. I'm sure preacher will be able to say it all a lot better than me.

[Preacher]

Well I believe that the Bible is true, the inspired word of God, written by man, written by over 200 people (as analyzed by writing style) that makes up a complete work. When comparing the oldest copies to the newest it has fewer errors and changes than the Iliad by Homer or Shakespeare's works. Those that claim contradiction of the Scriptures are focusing on small or inconsequential items that have nothing to do with the message of the text (usually numbers of people). There are many portions of the scripture that are told as stories rather than an historical record, such as the parables of Jesus. That being said the Bible is the foremost archaeological resource of the ancient world (according to Oxford School of Archeology).

 

That's a good start I suppose

[Clueless]

Man, where do we even start.....I started a long time ago by studying and understanding humans of that time and the power struggles between the different regions. If you are able to "put away" the blind faith for a period of time and research things with an open mind..it begins to paint a very different picture, a picture where the bible and christianity itself was developed and used as a tool to control behavior and obtain objectives while at the same time giving them the right to do so and absolving them of any crime. It really is a brilliant creation, I cant take that away from them.

 

There is plenty of information out there...more than I think I could type here without bleeding from my fingers, lol. Most of the stories in the bible and the main characters are borrowed myths from ancient cultures and rewritten for the use of consolidating the various religious sects and finally ending paganism, which at the time..put the people responsible for this in control of a VAST amount of people and wealth.

 

Constantine was a good example of this, he became the so called defender of the christians not because he himself was one, but because he was in control of western Gaul where there was nothing and he wanted control of the eastern provinces which had all the money and ALOT of early christians that were still relatively free of the persecution that the west suffered, so by befriending them, he made himself a very strong and powerful man with alot of support...and a huge army. He needed this strength to mount a serious bid for the throne...he already held the position of Caesar, but wanted to be Augustus(emperor).

 

There are so many things about the writings in the bible itself that are claimed fabricated over the centuries...and all of them were done so for a political agenda...religion ruled the world, and it was a world of very paranoid and primative humans, and to me, it is easy to see how such beliefs could be evolved and "crafted" to suit the needs of those behind it.

[Leveller]

I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you Unclean on this.

 

I believe that the bible is a collection of writings by people trying to understand something greater than themselves either through their own faith, a wish for something more than just a mortal life or the demands of ancient society to create a "moral textbook".

 

I am certainly a believer in something more powerful and omnipresent than man but what appears to me as a double standard around Christian belief that the bible is God's word, and “we're rightâ€Â, despite being told not to be arrogant in the same book doesn't gel with me. How is it possible discount the writings within the Qur’an, Torah, Kohiki, Sruti or Tripitaka as "not" the word of God if you not have read them all to make a genuine value judgment on belief in the bible with an impartial and unbiased mind?

 

I was a pupil at a Christian boarding school from the age of 7 until I was 18 and can't count how many times I have in total read the bible, been to church (we had to go at least once a day), hours I have spent dissecting the bible etc. But during all that time the only thing I was convinced of was that there was something greater than humanity.

 

My indecision/non commitment around religion may well be founded in that I did read many other religious texts and studied other religions as part of my scripture classes, there is often a central theme to them which doesn't differ dramatically from one religion to another although the phrasing may be different and open to interpretation.

 

I would describe us having and leading Christian lives within our home, and the moral set that my wife and I raise our children with is very much a mirror of those found in the Bible's teachings. But this is because I believe them to be a good moral standard for human beings to live to rather than them being "the word of God".

 

I am not saying that those who believe the bible to be the word of God are wrong to do so, just that I am certainly not convinced and that more often than not when "the word of God" is used in a phrase by a Christian it's often to back up an opinion that someone else is wrong (where my religious arrogance issue comes from). Some of the most extreme examples of "the word of God" being the Spanish inquisition, the crusades and the AFA’s boycott of Ford, this has been used to control and manipulate people AND government for hundreds of years.

[Unclean]

@Dark - it sounds like you went with option 2 - the inspired word of god, written by man.

 

@Preacher - I don't think anyone would disagree with ya on the bible being a historical text. Believers and nonbelievers alike can agree that there's a LOT of historical data in the bible. However, there are those out there (myself included) that also believe you shouldn't believe everything you read. So why believe the bible instead of the Koran or another religious text?

 

@Clueless - it's interesting that you bring up pagan influences. I've also seen quite a few parallels to pagan stories that pre-date the bible:

1. the flood: The Epic of Gilgamesh

2. Jesus: Mithra, Krishna, Horus

3. Pagan holidays a few days after the Winter solstice (Dec 25th)

 

I don't think that adds to or detracts from the authenticity of the bible... it just shows that there were cultural influences also included in the writings.

 

On a side note, I just thought I'd point out that this was Leveller's 666th post.

[Clueless]

@Clueless - it's interesting that you bring up pagan influences. I've also seen quite a few parallels to pagan stories that pre-date the bible:

1. the flood: The Epic of Gilgamesh

2. Jesus: Mithra, Krishna, Horus

3. Pagan holidays a few days after the Winter solstice (Dec 25th)

 

Exactly...and what about the virgin Mary? Pagan gods were often the offspring of virgin godesses...2 famous examples are Vesta...a roman version, and Artemis by the greeks.

 

Although I think the bible is mostly christian propaganda, it is a very useful history book, there are accounts of many historical wars in there that cant be found in many other places due to loss of records, including the battle of Armageddon which has now of course been mis interpreted to mean the end of the world.

[dragonfly]

Unclean, I think it's the literal word of God, written by man (not saying that everything should be taken literally, ie Parables). God is big enough to use each man's own unique writing style to send us His very Words. I mean, we're persons, based on a template of His person(s) so it's not like men as persons are completely independent of God. This just being my view of course.

 

Leveller: those who lead the Spanish inquisition, the crusades, etc, obviously didn't know who Jesus (or God) really is. The thing that sets the Bible (and Christianity in general) apart from all the other religions is grace. THAT is something no one else really has (CS Lewis). If you think about it, it's impossible to be unbiased since every single thing you believe someone else has told you at one point.

 

...the bible and christianity itself was developed and used as a tool to control behavior and obtain objectives while at the same time giving them the right to do so and absolving them of any crime.

The Bible certainly has been used as a tool to do just that. Its creation, however, was something different. Christianity's creation brought liberation to thousands of people, and true Christianity continues to do so, since it is to be holistic. Jesus Himself said that there were going to be people claiming to follow Him, but they're liars and you'll know them by their actions.

 

As a side note, you'll find some truth in every single 'holy' book. I would never claim that besides the Bible, truth does not exist anywhere.

 

EDIT:

 

I absolutely love that there are other stories that are so similar to the Bible. If you study history, you'll see right before the arrival of Jesus there were many many people coming claiming to be the messiah, but there was only one. For me it's more proof that the Bible is true.

Edited March 12, 2008 by DarkArchon

[Unclean]

Btw, I don't want anyone to think that I'm "attacking" the bible - I have nothing but respect for it and the people that follow its teachings. It's just not something I find particularly convincing.

 

@Leveller - I think your upbringing presents a very interesting perspective. By all accounts, you SHOULD be a Christian. However, you're not. What would you classify yourself as? An agnostic theist? A pantheist? Something else?

[dragonfly]

I dont mind at all Unclean. If you can't look at something you believe critically, then it can't be very solid.

[Unclean]

I dont mind at all Unclean. If you can't look at something you believe critically, then it can't be very solid.

Great perspective! Rabbis are required to question their faith, and I think it's very healthy. It can help solidify one's faith or re-evaluate it, yet some people fear that questioning. Pansies.

 

Since we're kinda on the topic, your note to Leveller about the Inquisition, Crusades, etc was dangerously close to being a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. I think we agree on this one, though - it's possible for people to take a good thing (the bible) and twist it in a bad way (Crusades, Inquisition). Crap, now I'm falling into the same fallacy. I guess it's just a belief I have that the bible is inherently good, but I'm not sure how I can justify that belief. Time for more thinking...

[Clueless]

I am not attacking anyones beliefs either, but I dont think the bible is a solid basis for those beliefs. As Dark pointed out as well, there are many writings that predate the bible and I think those should be looked at more seriously since the bible obviously has more political influence behind its creation, and we all know how honest politicians are, LOL.

 

Here is another example that is kinda long so i copy/pasted it. Took me forever to find it, but since I had read it before, I knew it exsisted, but if you look hard enough, you can find all kinds of interesting things from both perspectives.

 

Josephus (c37-100 AD)

 

 

Flavius Josephus is a highly respected and much-quoted Romano-Jewish historian. The early Christians were zealous readers of his work.

 

A native of Judea, living in the 1st century AD, Josephus was actually governor of Galilee for a time (prior to the war of 70 AD) – the very province in which Jesus allegedly did his wonders. Though not born until 37 AD and therefore not a contemporary witness to any Jesus-character, Josephus at one point even lived in Cana, the very city in which Christ is said to have wrought his first miracle.

 

Josephus's two major tomes are History of The Jewish War and The Antiquities of the Jews. In these complementary works, the former written in the 70s, the latter in the 90s AD, Josephus mentions every noted personage of Palestine and describes every important event which occurred there during the first seventy years of the Christian era.

 

At face value, Josephus appears to be the answer to the Christian apologist's dreams.

 

In a single paragraph (the so-called Testimonium Flavianum) Josephus confirms every salient aspect of the Christ-myth:

 

1. Jesus's existence 2. his 'more than human' status 3. his miracle working 4. his teaching 5. his ministry among the Jews and the Gentiles 6. his Messiahship 7. his condemnation by the Jewish priests 8. his sentence by Pilate 9. his death on the cross 10. the devotion of his followers 11. his resurrection on the 3rd day 12. his post-death appearance 13. his fulfillment of divine prophesy 14. the successful continuance of the Christians.

 

In just 127 words Josephus confirms everything – now that is a miracle!

 

BUT WAIT A MINUTE ...

 

Not a single writer before the 4th century – not Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Arnobius, etc. – in all their defences against pagan hostility, makes a single reference to Josephus’ wondrous words.

 

The third century Church 'Father' Origen, for example, spent half his life and a quarter of a million words contending against the pagan writer Celsus. Origen drew on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to his arguments in his fierce defence of Christianity. He quotes from Josephus extensively. Yet even he makes no reference to this 'golden paragraph' from Josephus, which would have been the ultimate rebuttal. In fact, Origen actually said that Josephus was "not believing in Jesus as the Christ."

 

Origen did not quote the 'golden paragraph' because this paragraph had not yet been written.

 

It was absent from early copies of the works of Josephus and did not appear in Origen's third century version of Josephus, referenced in his Contra Celsum.

 

 

 

Consider, also, the anomalies:

 

1. How could Josephus claim that Jesus had been the answer to his messianic hopes yet remain an orthodox Jew?

The absurdity forces some apologists to make the ridiculous claim that Josephus was a closet Christian!

 

2. If Josephus really thought Jesus had been 'the Christ' surely he would have added more about him than one paragraph, a casual aside in someone else's (Pilate's) story?

 

In fact, Josephus relates much more about John the Baptist than about Jesus! He also reports in great detail the antics of other self-proclaimed messiahs, including Judas of Galilee, Theudas the Magician, and the unnamed 'Egyptian Jew' messiah.

 

It is striking that though Josephus confirms everything the Christians could wish for, he adds nothing that is not in the gospel narratives, nothing that would have been unknown by Christians already.

 

3. The passage is out of context. Book 18 starts with the Roman taxation under Cyrenius in 6 AD, talks about various Jewish sects at the time, including the Essenes, and a sect of Judas the Galilean. He discusses Herod's building of various cities, the succession of priests and procurators, and so on.

 

Chapter 3 starts with a sedition against Pilate who planned to slaughter all the Jews but changed his mind. Pilate then used sacred money to supply water to Jerusalem, and the Jews protested. Pilate sent spies among the Jews with concealed weapons, and there was a great massacre.

 

Then comes the paragraph about Jesus, and immediately after it, Josephus continues:

 

'And about the same time another terrible misfortune confounded the Jews ...'

 

Josephus, an orthodox Jew, would not have thought the Christian story to be 'another terrible misfortune.' It is only a Christian who would have considered this to be a Jewish tragedy.

 

Paragraph 3 can be lifted out of the text with no damage to the chapter. It flows better without it. Outside of this tiny paragraph, in all of Josephus's voluminous works, there is not a single reference to Christianity anywhere.

 

4. The phrase 'to this day' confirms that this is a later interpolation. There was no 'tribe of Christians' during Josephus's time. Christianity did not get off the ground until the second century.

[dragonfly]

Yeah, I see what you mean.

 

I see it sorta like this: Jesus based all of his teaching first on the Torah, then on His own authority (which built off of the Torah anyway). I can't think of one of Jesus' teachings that is 'bad'. I mean, "love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you" and "love your neighbor as yourself", "forgive your brother from your heart" and others like them... If Jesus can build His theology off of the Torah, as a picture of God's interaction with humanity, then it's meant for good, not evil. Especially when the Torah has been used SO MUCH for evil purposes (ie we shouldnt have to respect homosexuals, the list is endless).

 

I know we're talking about the Bible, so in reference to Clueless's post/reading, I'm not sure what they mean by "off the ground" in the last line there... I'm assuming they mean it wasn't big enough to be considered a religion? Because obviously lots of books were written before 200AD by Paul, Peter, John, etc... Paul himself being a Roman citizen. Oh, and by books I mean letters.

 

Anyway, time to go write an essay about education. Yay. Have a good night guys!

Edited March 12, 2008 by DarkArchon

[Clueless]

I know we're talking about the Bible, so in reference to Clueless's post/reading, I'm not sure what they mean by "off the ground" in the last line there... I'm assuming they mean it wasn't big enough to be considered a religion? Because obviously lots of books were written before 200AD by Paul, Peter, John, etc... Paul himself being a Roman citizen. Oh, and by books I mean letters.

Yes, meaning that it was accepted by the state as "the" religion, before that time christians were no different than many other groups who had their own versions of god and/or gods. So there were many books written before then, but it is still debatable as to whether or not they were meant for christianity or re-written/edited by the christians to add legitimacy to the new religion. The long post above is just one of the many examples of how things were changed/added centuries later to serve a purpose. So my real point is that the bible in and of itself is just a book, its the people responsible not for writing it, but accurately compiling it that are questionable, therefore the bible doesnt seem to be a reliable basis for a religion. Now faith in god on the other hand could be...which is a very personal faith and shouldnt be reliant on the bible to maintain that faith. Although I do not share those beliefs, i do not claim to be more correct than those that do, none of us will know until we die, I totally respect peoples right to believe what they want to. I am merely a person who enjoys studying human evolution and the mindset of the people from that time period, which gives me a different perspective on the evolution of different religions and the reasoning for them.

[Preacher]

No book predates the Bible. The first five books of the Bible Gen-Deut are called the Pentateuch. They were written down by Moses (and possibly Joshua as well), but the creation story was an oral account of history. In all ancient cultures oral history predates their written history. The Jewish Talmud goes into this in depth. The epic of Gilgamesh is actually considered to be about the same age as the oldest text of Exodus that we have a portion of. I encourage all Christians to have an open mind and to question every part of their faith and to research both history and the origins of the scripture. If we don't know why we believe something I don't think we truly believe it. Laziness is the excuse why more Christians don't understand their own faith, because research takes time and it's easier to just say "sure I believe that".

 

As far as us being cocky about our faith, there is only one difference in christians and non-christians in my opinion and that is the fact that we are forgiven for being idiots. I am no better than any of you, don't claim to be and would be embarrassed to be called better. The Bible is a great resource of truth. I have never met someone who could prove that something in the Bible was not true. If you can I will personally write an apology, resign as a pastor and join you for a doobie and a beer at the local strip club. lol I say this with complete confidence as I have been an amateur apologist for a few years now.

 

Translation issues do exist but none of them change the meaning of the passage, just use different wordings. Also you need to understand that oral traditions written down often use numbers very differently because numbers have a figurative meaning in the Hebrew language's history. The number 7, 6, 40 etc all are tied to more than numerology. The number 40 is a common theme for basically the concept of "a long time". The number 7 has a theocratic concept of perfection ie 7 days, 7 golden lamp stands, 7 trumpets etc. The number 6 is a symbolic number that represents falling short of perfection. This can be seen in the number of the beast being 6.

 

I encourage you to avoid attacking any passage or the Bible as a whole until you have fully read it. Then I encourage you to have specific points, because you wouldn't let me get away with saying that clueless is wrong or unclean is wrong unless I stated what was wrong with their statements and why I believe they are wrong. And the whole " I don't need to read it to know it's stupid, illogical or wrong" is an exercise in blind faith, and that's the basis for your argument against it.

 

edit: sorry for the bad grammar/spelling etc

Edited March 12, 2008 by Preacher

[Clueless]

There is no proving it right or wrong, you can be no more sure of it's accuracy than I can be of it's questionability. To say that it is for sure 100% all true is faith talking, and that does not prove anything either, not that we need to have a proven winner here, lol. Btw...I have read it, and I have also read many other things that contradict it.

 

The fact of the matter is that I could produce passages and potential evidence to the contrary and it would mean nothing, you would argue that I am wrong based on your faith, and I could not argue that I am right because there is no way short of a time machine to verify either case. To say no book predates the bible is a bit disturbing...just because some religious writings never had the fortune of being accepted and backed by a powerful empire does not mean that the people that wrote them felt any less faith than you do. Religious writings date back FAR beyond the bible..sure, egyptian writings on walls cannot be called a book, but it was the accepted medium of the time. And we cannot forget the fact that many writings were destroyed throughout history purposely...and many by christians, so we do not have the ability to know what was out there, but I wish we could because that would be fascinating to me, I love reading the differences and similarities between various ancient cultures.

[dragonfly]

When the Pentateuch was written, Israel was FAR from a powerful nation. They didn't even have an army. I just thought I'd point that out.

 

Yes, I'm procrastinating doing my homework.

Edited March 12, 2008 by DarkArchon

[Unclean]

Slacker!

 

I'll respond tomorrow too - gotta drive home, and ponder a few things.

[Leveller]

@Leveller - I think your upbringing presents a very interesting perspective. By all accounts, you SHOULD be a Christian. However, you're not. What would you classify yourself as? An agnostic theist? A pantheist? Something else?

 

Just to echo some above posts, I'm certainly not attacking the Bible or people's beliefs in it's "authentisity". They are just that, beliefs.

 

If I had to class myself it would be as a Fideist, I have faith in something bigger/a deity/whatever it may be.

 

This kind of highlights one of my issues with the belief that without doubt the Bible is ultimately God's teaching, dictated to mankind.

 

If "through your faith you will be saved" is a fair representation of some of Christianities beliefs, then with the proof of God's existance i.e. his dictation of the Bible, then there is no need for faith as we've proved he exists?

 

I think the Bible contains great teachings, great moral stories, but as the foundation of a religion it really undermines itself.

 

I hope the above makes sense, I'm just trying to articulate some of my reasoning behind my thoughts on this.

 

Edit:

I know that the above is contentious and I know that saying you have faith, but aren't clear what that faith is probably seems illogical. I guess from my stand point, I have studied (although I don't claim to be an expert in any) several religions, and I don't doubt that my knowledge of the Bible is far behind many people here. However, I do have faith but fear that if something were to "prove" a religion or particular theology to me, it would be counter productive as at the same time it would remove my faith and make it a "reality".

Edited March 12, 2008 by Leveller

[Clueless]

If you read into Mithraism, I think you will find it interesting. It predates Christ by hundreds of years, even thousands in some tracebale form,yet has many of the same elements, right down to the 12 followers, the last supper,working miracles, self sacrifice for mankind, and the returning from the dead. This was a very mainstream religion in the Roman empire, but had no formal structure, unlike the rising christian religion, and it was finally ended when all state funding was given to the christian church by Constantine.

 

Another thing I have learned from reading over the years is that the reason the writings and stories are so similar to other religions is because it was very difficult to get everyone on the same page, which was neccesary in order unify everyone and put an end to the many wars over the issue, so to please everyone, different aspects of the various religions had to be included so that everyone felt well represented.

 

Again, to be clear, I am not on a mission to prove the bible wrong, its not about that for me, I just think its important to understand history and the people responsible for it, knowing the truth of our history does not in ANY way make your faith in whatever you believe less important.

[Preacher]

I have tried to be unemotional and analytical about this but I have to agree with Ty here. There is no way you can deny the power of God, the validity of His word and the peace you get by following Christ once you are a witness to it. I have seen people healed, watched the lives of awful people become not just productive but people who change other people's lives for the better and I have been there when all seemed hopeless and God gave me hope.

 

If I make a statement, you can tear it down by saying that part or this part is not true because of this or that. You can't say that it's not true because I just don't believe in it. A few of you have said things like " I could cite specific examples" I would love a chance to answer these. I don't try to prove my faith with the answer faith. I prove my faith with factual scientific, historical or empirical evidence. If I don't know I say that I don't know, but to say prove the Bible is real all I can do is show evidence like fossils of fish on K2 that prove a world wide flood, archaeological evidence that shows stuff where it is long before we discovered it again, basic medical truths like burying your poo when in camp to show practicality of it and historical evidence of people like Jesus existed, backed up by secular texts based in Rome and Jewish historians like Josephus.

 

I would love it if one of you had something other than that there are similar stories other places, so that this can be a real debate instead of another place I spout off lol.

[shaftiel]

Through out history every society has created God(s), there are millions of them. The one thing they all had in common was that people trully believed in them. Each and every religion had proof of the validity of their belief through an oral tradition or the written word. What makes Christianity any different? Christians are no more devout than those that worshiped the myriad of other gods from the past/present. Christians have no more proof of God than they did. Why are Christians right and they were so wrong? And if Christians are right, why then are there so many schism's? Each one with a slightly different take on what God wants or needs from us. Christians can't even agree on God. Many beleive in the Holy Trinity, others scoff at the idea and worship Christ as the Son of God, still others reject that Christ was anything less than God himself, not his son at all. Christians worship so many variants it can almost be labeled as polytheism.

 

My point is, yes, Christians do believe with all their heart and soul that Christ is the saviour and that without him there can be no everlasting life. But that belief is not purer or more heart felt than that of any other true beleiver of other Gods. The Christians faith is not stronger than those of other faiths. Christians can point to their holy text and historic accounts of their messiah, just as every other religion with a prophet could.

 

The world is a huge place. The Galaxy and Universe beyond are so vast we just can't grasp it. unlike any other animal we know of, we have awareness of self. We can think and ponder things like, "Why am I here?" or, "What is my purpose?". Unlike the 'lesser' animals who go about the endless cycle of birth and death with out wondering why... we do. And that is where religion comes in. The idea that there is nothing special about us, that we have no greater purpose other than to simply breed is really pretty depressing. With out a higher calling or reason for our exsistance what would motivate us to do anything? We used religion to explain the unexplainable. Why did the river flood? What caused that lighting? How did that cave form? As our culture and society evolved so did our understanding of the world, and in turn so did our religions. They became less tied to the earth and more spiritual.

 

OK, I'm starting to ramble on here...

 

Basically what I'm struggling to say is that while Christians 'KNOW' they are right, and that their God is 'THE' God, they are no different in that belief than anyother religious group in the history of the Earth.

 

<pant> <pant> I think I have a finger cramp...

 

I wish we could have this discusion in person, that way there wouldn't be any hard feelings or percieved slights. Ah well, maybe a simple smile will suffice...

 

 

 

 

 

Shaftiel

 

 

Edit: Er... forget to spell check before I posted... sigh

Edited March 13, 2008 by shaftiel

[Clueless]

And if your saying its a book Clueless and just something people have used. Are you saying 80 percent of Americans that claim it to be their faith are morons and that the human race as a whole hasn't been able to kick stupidity off for the last 2000 years. Cus if it was a tool and not real then that makes us tools. for 2000 years.

 

I never said anything of the sort, you should read it again to see that I made statements to tell you that it was not my intention, I am speaking from a human historical perspective, not a faith driven one. A debate like this is useless unless you can, like I said in the first post, put away the blind faith and consider other things, and I never said it made god any more or less real, we are talking strictly about the bible, and the fact that it is a MAN written book, surely no one here can deny at least that.

 

Sorry if you are offended, again, that is not at all my intent.

[Unclean]

I would love it if one of you had something other than that there are similar stories other places, so that this can be a real debate instead of another place I spout off lol.

How about an "opposite story"?

 

I've heard a lot of stories about people with strong religious convictions and how they attribute their experiences to a higher power because there's no other explanation. What about those of us that don't attribute the unexplainable to a higher power?

 

For example, when I was 18, my appendix ruptured. The doctors told me the only reason why I survived is because my intestines "walled up" around the appendix to stop the infection from spreading. By all accounts I should have died that day, but I didn't. And the thought never crossed my mind that "hey, I survived... god MUST exist!"

 

Another example deals with grief - a few years ago, I went to 6 separate funerals for close family members over the span of 2 years. That's a LOT to deal with at once, but I came to terms with their passings. In that grieving process, I never took comfort in religion either.

 

So my point here is that some people can use religion as a way to explain the unknown or extreme probability working in our favor, but it isn't necessary. So to me, religion is a comfort, not a necessity.

[crazyninja]

I believe the King james version of the bible to be the ineherent inspired by God written by man Word of God.