Thoughts/Perspectives on the Bible

[LoveForPriscillaChan]

1 - that is because there is no such thing as a god, because such thing cannot be proven to exist; therefore, that leaves religion as the factor that changes you

 

2 - as far as evolution being provable --

 

def of Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...

 

science doesn't claim evolution to be the end all, that it is always correct and that we know everything about it; that's the great thing about science! scientists say: "hey, we don't know everything, but here's the best we can do, as substantiated by evidence that we have collected as we have observed nature/experiments/etc; what we propose now may be false and untrue and in light of new evidence, we'll happily throw away our old theory and try to come up with a new one that is more correct"

 

a graphical part of what i say: http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/...vs%20faith.html

 

yes, i know that is probably a bit biased but if you look at it from a neutral point of view, is it really wrong? is it?

 

 

 

love (or any other emotion) out there can be proven by brain signals, release of certain chemical hormones by the body, etc.

 

god on the other hand...i go back to russell's teapot's argument

[Demoner]

In my opinion the Bible is a really old book with some facts, but no way for myself at least can I believe every word written in it. I honestly think some of the stories written in it are completely made up and some religious people go too far in believing every word written in it. Part of my reasoning for thinking this is because if you look back at history and you see corruption in various forms and various areas. So who is to say that when the bible was written it is 100% correct and true; sorry but if you say God that isn't a valid answer to me anyways. Some of the stories can be proven therefore it is save to say they are true but you can't validate them all. I do believe some it was made up just to get people to follow their beliefs. Just my two cents please rip into it all you want.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Demoner

[Unclean]

i already got 108 posts before that post, and after this, i'll have 110! don't you guys notice i post in other forums? (my first post was, however, to get unbanned ); i guess i have 2800 more to go to catch up to you so i better get cracking

 

as for the law of non-contradiction, i dont accept that as a valid response because if god is omnipotent, he should be able to do anything and everything; i dont care what laws it violates, he should be able to do it; if he can't, he's not omnipotent and therefore the bible is false

Oh, you misunderstood my welcome - I was saying "welcome to the thread/religious debates forum, not "welcome to gc". Still glad to have you around either way.

 

Regarding the omnipotence issue, you're still getting stuck with an invalid question. Perhaps one potential answer might show you that it doesn't get us anywhere:

 

A believer will say god is omnipotent, and god created logic, so god could also create illogic. God could turn us all into dogs and not dogs at the same time. I'm you, you're me, we're both jars of marmalade. All you have is a hypothetical situation that doesn't make any sense, and has no place in a logical discussion.

[dragonfly]

1 - that is because there is no such thing as a god, because such thing cannot be proven to exist; therefore, that leaves religion as the factor that changes you

...

 

def of Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of ...

 

Not that I believe what I'm about to suggest, but...

 

So if I said I believed in the Theory of God, that would be ok? lol Heh, I'm done debating God's existence with you anyway. HE has changed my heart though, through His Word.

 

Anyway, moving to your graphical interpretation of faith vs science, since that can definitely apply to the Bible:

Your pictures are very nice, but they're very very polarized. The faith one describes a completely blind faith that is afraid of the evidence.

 

Example: Every time you sit down you have faith the chair will hold you up. I've seen chairs break before and I assume you have too. Let's say you see a rickety chair. So do you just have blind faith that the chair can never ever collapse when you sit on it, or do you test it out first? Of course you put a little weight on it and see if it can hold your weight. Yeah, I'd say the picture is far to simplistic to be true.

 

I'm not afraid to look at the Bible critically. I'm sure Unclean can sympathize with this. Unclean's even said (as an agnostic) that he can't prove the Bible false (at least yet) because usually the arguments against it are either:

 

a ) so generalized that they are dismissed, (ex. people are corrupt, so the bible must be false - wait, which part? Just give me 1 part...)

b ) read completely out of context, disregarding the author's intent (ex. God is love, God is just)

 

So in regards to believing the Bible, I'm looking at it critically. I have yet to see it proven wrong or in error. Saying "God doesn't exist because He can't be proven true, therefore the Bible is not what it claims to be" is the easy way out, and really is not "logical".

 

Unclean: I'm pretty sure I'm not marmalade... I don't even like it!

 

By the way, I think logic has a HUGE place in the world, but it can't be used to explain absolutely everything. Life is too complicated for everything to be reduced to a mere formula. Humans are both logical and illogical beings - that alone is crazy if you think about it.

Edited March 19, 2008 by DarkArchon

[Unclean]

Yep, Dark recapped my view pretty well.

 

About evolution, there's a thread about it already:

http://www.gamrs.co/forums/in...showtopic=35555

 

I'd like to throw another question out there...

 

No one in this discussion has shown errors in the bible. Has anyone found errors in the koran? My guess is no, so why choose the bible over the koran?

[dragonfly]

I'm not going to lie, I have not read much of the Qur'an. However, how the Qur'an came about (through Muhammad) and the overall message within it is where I have a big problem with it.

 

I'll try to sum up why as precisely (and concisely) as I can:

 

Muhammad believed he was the next prophet in a line of prophets, which included Abraham, Moses, 3 other names, Jesus, and he was the 7th, latest prophet. He taught that the latest prophet trumps all the other prophets, making the Bible (including the Pentateuch, etc) obsolete, since he had the latest word from God.

 

But if you read the Bible, all the prophets said built upon the previous, or in the case of Christ, fulfilled the previous (but never abolished them!). So in theory, the Bible was a nice book, but now it's outdated, and no longer God's Word like the Qur'an is now. Also, the Qur'an is in Arabic, and it's blasphemous to translate it, whereas the Bible was first written in Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, and translation has been encouraged since God is not bound by language.

 

I've read parts of the Qur'an, but not the whole thing. Essentially, it teaches that Judaism and then Christians had it right, but now it should be Islam. The NT teaches that Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law (old Judaism), and what has been done is complete in reconciling humanity to God. If you read passages about heaven/hell, assurance of salvation, etc, you'll see very quickly that Allah is very different than Yahweh. So even though the Qur'an almost claims to be the "new word from God", it's very different than the Word God gave in the Bible.

 

So basically the Bible > Qur'an in my mind because of those contradictions it presents within God's character. Among many many other things, but I'm really trying to keep my argument limited to the text alone.

[Leveller]

By the way, I think logic has a HUGE place in the world, but it can't be used to explain absolutely everything. Life is too complicated for everything to be reduced to a mere formula. Humans are both logical and illogical beings - that alone is crazy if you think about it.

 

This I agree with, and it's precisely why I find myself having faith in there being a God, but at the same time have issues with the concept of the Bible being "God's word". Using the blind faith statement, I personally see a lot of people's belief in the Bible's validity being an example of blind faith. (This argument is open for interpretation, I'm not saying that I'm correct, but trying to explain my stance).

 

If you read enough horoscopes you can find those which match your day to day life, if you speak to an astrologer they'll tell you how it apparently works and will give you a book to read about it, does that make astrology or horoscopes real? I don't believe so, despite it predating Christianity as a concept. My faith in God is based around the influence he has in my life and how I can better serve him, much the same as an astrologers faith in the stars is based on their faith in there being a cosmic force acting on all of us. (Again this isn't me trying to pick fault with those who believe the Bible to be God's word, merely me trying to explain my stance on the Bible).

 

As a "thoughts/perspectives on the bible" thread, from what I can see people fall into 3 main areas (I'm going to change to letters for my points):

 

A ) Those who believe the bible to be God's word. (Preacher, Dark etc.) For whom dismissing the bible is effectively attacking the core of their belief/faith.

 

B ) Those who believe in there being a God (or a spiritual something greater than man), but don't necessarily believe the Bible to be God's word but perhaps a great "instruction book". This is very much a grey area, which I think depends on interpretation and life experiences, my interpretation that God is defined by his actions in my life instead of the written word (I see myself in this category).

 

C ) Those who need quantifiable proof before they can have faith or belief in anything (I made this statement to be quite black and white to encourage debate, if this is not the case, please elaborate because to dismiss the Bible based on a lack of quantifiable proof, would suggest to me that you dismiss anything that has not been scientifically proven).

 

While I personally don't believe the Bible to be "God's word", I am not going to even try to dismiss it as either a possibility or impossibility. For those in categories a) and B ), we both have a belief/faith in god, but it appears our stance on "the manifestation of God's word" differs.

 

edit: remove the and replace with B )

Edited March 19, 2008 by Leveller

[dragonfly]

I liked how you summed those 3 stances up Leveller. (side note: I don't feel like I've been attacked by you even though we differ)

 

Oh, and nice shades

[Unclean]

C ) Those who need quantifiable proof before they can have faith or belief in anything (I made this statement to be quite black and white to encourage debate, if this is not the case, please elaborate because to dismiss the Bible based on a lack of quantifiable proof, would suggest to me that you dismiss anything that has not been scientifically proven).

You're setting a trap, I just know it! But I'll bite... as someone that's kiiinda in category C, this should be clarified. Science doesn't have all of the answers. Also, science deals with the study of the natural world, and I think we'd all agree that the bible deals with the supernatural. So I think that's apples and oranges here. If you take the science part out, then you're not left with much for category C. Care to reword it?

 

While typing out this response, I was reminded of a question that I don't remember the answer to. And I think that it's important, so I'll put it in bold. Hopefully you won't think this is arrogant to ask/bold...

 

For the non-believer, what evidence/proof would it take to believe the bible is the one true source of god's word?

 

Crap, time for more thinking.

[Leveller]

Ok, fair point and I hope I understood what you were saying.

 

However, you've really hit the nail on the head with regards to how I've phrased C). The way it was phrased is that a lot of the arguments discounting the bible require logic/reason to be applicable, hence the "if it can't be proven, then I won't believe it".

 

If the Bible deals with/is supernatural and beyond the realm of science/provability, then is it simply impossible to discount that it could well be "the word of God", unless quite simply you don't believe in God.

 

This is where perhaps a D comes in.

 

A ) I believe the bible is the word of God.

B ) I believe in God, but am not convinced/have serious doubt that the bible is the word of God (proof either way doesn't really matter because I have faith in God)

C ) prove it with science or I won't believe it, and

D ) I don't believe in God: so the argument around the Bible being God's word is irrelevant regardless of logic/science or the supernatural.

 

I don't know if the question was aimed at a broader audience or to me, however, I'd like to know who "non-believer" applies to, I'm a believer, but I don't adhere to the view that the Bible is God's word. Maybe I'm misreading it, but the question seems to suggest to me, that if you don't believe the Bible is God's word then you're a "non-believer".

For me, proof of the Bible's validity is really irrelevant as I have faith in a God which is not currently hinged on the Bible existence (although I will not discount that with it being very core to the way I was raised, it has certainly had an impact on my beliefs and understanding of God).

 

Edit: The bible does have a place in our home, my life and the way my wife and I raise our children. We use it as a teaching aid, a moral guide and a means to clarify what could be termed a good way of living.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Leveller

[Unclean]

If the Bible deals with/is supernatural and beyond the realm of science/provability, then is it simply impossible to discount that it could well be "the word of God", unless quite simply you don't believe in God.

This is precisely why I'm not an atheist.

 

Can we get an E ) in there too?

 

E ) I don't think it's possible to know if God exists or not, and which religion is the right one.

[Demoner]

The bible for the nonbeliever is just a story book, but I'm thinking the Koran is the same way. In order to actually follow/believe in a religion you have to follow the book or books it goes along with. I honestly don't think you can truely appecriate or get the full meaning out of either book without being a person in that religion. You might be able to read it and understand the ideas behind the religions but would you fully understand unless your part of that religion??

[Leveller]

If the Bible deals with/is supernatural and beyond the realm of science/provability, then is it simply impossible to discount that it could well be "the word of God", unless quite simply you don't believe in God.

This is precisely why I'm not an atheist.

 

Can we get an E ) in there too?

 

E ) I don't think it's possible to know if God exists or not, and which religion is the right one.

 

 

I'm not sure E is valid, you might want to explain it more. I think I see where you're coming from, but it seems to be an "anyone of the above", hedging your bets kind of answer.

We know that God's not "provable" in the scientific sense, nor is the belief that the Bible is god's word, and I believe that this is where faith comes in.

 

If the Bible was "proven" would that change people's faith in God or purely their belief in his existence? I know that mosquito's exist but I don't have faith in them.

Equally, if someone was able to disprove the Bible being "God's word" would that destroy my faith in God, no it would not.

Would it have an impact on those who believe that it is God's word, yes, but would it destroy their faith, it would certainly get them to question their beliefs, but probably have no impact on their faith in God.

 

I'd be very interested to hear feedback from those who know the Bible to be God's word on my last statement because it isn't my stance so I'm really stating something based on what I think I have understood from this thread, (I know that there's the argument you couldn't disprove it because it is God's word, but questioning and understanding your beliefs and in what your faith lies is healthy isn't it?).

 

I guess this is becoming an increasingly controversial thread, but I've found it really interesting and enlightening to understand other people's take on the Bible.

[dragonfly]

From one who believes the Bible to be what it claims to be (we'll just call me a "believer")...

 

I study the Bible, I love the Bible, it's God's Word spoken through people, but I have not put my faith in the Bible. Christians are saved by grace, not by works, through faith. My faith, however, is not placed in "my faith" - like if I somehow have the wrong faith then I'm not saved - it's the GRACE that's saving me, not my faith. It's my faith that is a sort of medium, through which grace is received.

 

So in the same way, my faith is not in the Bible. It's useful, it's beautiful, but it's not what reconciled me to God - that's Christ's work. Of course someone could play devil's advocate and tell me to read John 1 where it talks about Christ being the Word, but no one here would do that now would they?

 

I guess to answer your statement Leveller, I can't imagine it happening. I mean, it almost makes me think, "If I can prove to you that you have no parents and aren't a clone, would you agree that you don't exist?" From my perspective the Bible has not only not been proven wrong, it's been proven right (to me, through the work of the Holy Spirit, wow I can get off topic easily). But if I had to absolutely say only yes or no, then no, my faith would not be destroyed.

[Leveller]

Dark, that's exactly what I expected the response to be. For some the Bible appears to be the foundation of their belief, however in other cases (such as yours) it's an extension of that belief/faith. It's healthy to hear.

 

Edit: and I see my x-fire link appears to have died in my sig....................

Edited March 19, 2008 by Leveller

[shaftiel]

The Bible was writen by man. Man is falible. Those that wrote the book claim that God inspired them, and that it is the Word of God. Again, man is falible. There is no other prove of Gods works or miracles other than those writen down by man. Remember, man is falible. As society has changed so has the religion. The Christian religion as it is now barely resembles what it was at its inseption. If those that knew Jesus personaly got the message wrong, how can we put faith in what they tell us? How are todays pasters and clerics better able to tell us what Jesus ment than those who actually heard him speak? If we concider the works of these people as 'gospel' shouldn't we worship God as they did? But we don't, why?

 

 

 

Shaftiel

 

 

P.S. Real questions, just want to know heh

[dragonfly]

Actually there are LOTS of stories from people even I know about miracles. Almost none of them come from America though, just so you know. Example: Africa, a Christian couple had 2 small kids. Daddy had to go away on a trip, so mom was left home with the two little ones (like 3 and 1 yrs old I think). The police show up intending to rob/rape and so she locks herself in the bathroom with a very flimsy door. The police try to break the door down, try to unlock it, try to smash it, nothing works. The mother, obviously very upset and crying notices her older daughter isn't scared at all, so she asks her why.

 

"The big shiny man said he won't let the bad men in, he's holding the door shut." The girl then goes on to quote many scriptures off of the top of her head, all of which talk about God being our protector and deliverer. Eventually the guys give up and take off.

 

Now you can choose to not believe that if you want to, it's up to you. But read books by just about any missionary and you'll hear stories like that. Read up on Jim Elliot if you want a specific name.

 

You're right though, humanity is not perfect. But Moses talked to God face to face (Pentateuch) and I would venture a guess that God is powerful enough to help people remember what He told them correctly...

Also, it was common practice for a Levite to have memorized the entire Pentateuch word for word before they turned 30, so their memories were far more exercised than ours.

 

Not sure what you mean by "worship God as they did" unless you mean meet in houses like they did in Acts... care to clarify?

And I'd say yeah, Christianity looks different now than it did, but even at its inception it looked different depending on if you were in Rome or at Antioch. But the basic premises were the same as they still are: baptism, scripture, teaching, fellowship, worship, etc.

Edited March 19, 2008 by DarkArchon

[LoveForPriscillaChan]

somebody between this post as my last post asked me what it would take for me to believe christianity and here goes:

 

definitive, indisputable proof that the christian god exists; some oral story passed from africa all the way over to the states isnt going to cut it; only god knows (yes, i know i shouldnt use these sayings...) how much that has been distorted, fabricated etc. as it passed from mouth to mouth

 

 

 

in regards to our discussion about the bible being the word of god, what we need to establish first is whether god exists or not, without using the bible because according to christianity, god -> the bible, not the other way around, so we need to establish the source before moving on

 

 

edit: btw, the last time society believed children + supposed vision of something religious, 19 "witches" died

Edited March 20, 2008 by Undies

[Clueless]

somebody between this post as my last post asked me what it would take for me to believe christianity and here goes:

 

definitive, indisputable proof that the christian god exists; some oral story passed from africa all the way over to the states isnt going to cut it; only god knows (yes, i know i shouldnt use these sayings...) how much that has been distorted, fabricated etc. as it passed from mouth to mouth

 

 

 

in regards to our discussion about the bible being the word of god, what we need to establish first is whether god exists or not, without using the bible because according to christianity, god -> the bible, not the other way around, so we need to establish the source before moving on

 

 

edit: btw, the last time society believed children + supposed vision of something religious, 19 "witches" died

Well, there is obviously no way to determine if god is real, unless someone here is willing to die and send us a postcard, so that debate is a useless waste of energy.

 

But the existence of god does not hinge on the legitimacy of the bible. As I said before, we are merely discussing the book itself, not the existence of god. Example...if someone years later writes a biography about you and gets it all wrong because the story was handed down, does that mean you did not exist?

 

I personally have no belief in a god, but the thought of the possibility is interesting, even that being said, the point is the book and the humans involved in it's creation.

 

Shaftiel made a very good post earlier today, in his usual "craftsman of words" kind of way....I wish I could convey my thoughts the way he does, he always seems to sum up the way I feel in a few sentences, but it never comes out as I intend...thus the reason I am misunderstood alot, lol.

[dragonfly]

some oral story passed from africa all the way over to the states isnt going to cut it;

 

If you're referring to my story above, I was not trying to prove God exists to Shaftiel, I was trying to show that stories about miracles are still being told and recorded - a remark towards one of his questions. And a person can travel personally "all the way" from Africa on a plane. I'm not sure why it's considered "all the way" though, since it's possible on a single flight (excluding connections).

 

This specific story about the mother and her 2 children was told to me by a very close friend last week, and was told to her by the mother of the story itself. I'm more sure I can trust the source than I'm sure everyone on GC are not spambots I've also met some of Jim Elliot's co-workers when I went to Briercrest Bible College for a year, so that source is extremely reliable as well.

Edited March 20, 2008 by DarkArchon

[NOFX]

By the way, I think logic has a HUGE place in the world, but it can't be used to explain absolutely everything. Life is too complicated for everything to be reduced to a mere formula. Humans are both logical and illogical beings - that alone is crazy if you think about it.

 

Now see I have a problem with this statement. I am a software engineer, so I pretty much live and breath logic.

 

Have you ever considered how complicated the computer software your using is? 99.9% of everyone is clueless when it comes to the logic behind it. Did you know Windows 2000 has 13.5 Million lines of source code behind it? Can you imagine 13.5 million lines of code? If we were to ask the 99.9% of people how windows came along, wouldn't they think it is to complicate to be built? I am writing a very small simple application that sends and receives about 20 different messages. Sounds simple right? Currently at 10,000 lines of source code and about 70% finished.

 

People have issues with life being reduced to a formula, but have no problem accepting that we create planes that fly themselves and have SAM missiles that travel at Mach 4 and intercept incoming missile's hundred's of miles away. If the time systems were off by a few milliseconds or the data was erred by a few centimeters, the whole system would be garbage. We have created machines and AI far superior to humans. A standard dual core PC can do 6 billion calculation's a second, apply logic to this and the possibilities are endless. If logic did not hold true, none of this would be possible.

Edited March 21, 2008 by NOFX

[Demoner]

By the way, I think logic has a HUGE place in the world, but it can't be used to explain absolutely everything. Life is too complicated for everything to be reduced to a mere formula. Humans are both logical and illogical beings - that alone is crazy if you think about it.

 

Now see I have a problem with this statement. I am a software engineer, so I pretty much live and breath logic.

 

Have you ever considered how complicated the computer software your using is? 99.9% of everyone is clueless when it comes to the logic behind it. Did you know Windows 2000 has 13.5 Million lines of source code behind it? Can you imagine 13.5 million lines of code? If we were to ask the 99.9% of people how windows came along, wouldn't they think it is to complicate to be built? I am writing a very small simple application that sends and receives about 20 different messages. Sounds simple right? Currently at 10,000 lines of source code and about 70% finished.

 

People have issues with life being reduced to a formula, but have no problem accepting that we create planes that fly themselves and have SAM missiles that travel at Mach 4 and intercept incoming missile's hundred's of miles away. If the time systems were off by a few milliseconds or the data was erred by a few centimeters, the whole system would be garbage. We have created machines and AI far superior to humans. A standard dual core PC can do 6 billion calculation's a second, apply logic to this and the possibilities are endless. If logic did not hold true, none of this would be possible.

Very good points NOFX. I also am a use logic too being a civil engineer intern. Logic is too large to be ignored and simply write it off saying its too complicated to make a logic formula or whatever. Logic is used to prove and provide a basis as to why something works the way it does such as windows granted it might be huge but doesn't mean you can write it off so easily. Whether you think logically or not in the end so many things are based on it, you shouldn't just write it off.

Edited March 21, 2008 by Demoner

[NOFX]

You are also right to that some people are illogical. These people base decision's on emotion rather than logic.

 

Number 1 rule in the stock market is NEVER trade on emotion. My favorite quote is "Fools who trade on emotion and their money will soon be parted."

Edited March 21, 2008 by NOFX

[dragonfly]

NOFX - I'm in university for math and computer science, so I do understand that logic is absolutely 100% essential for almost everything in life (to understand how it works anyway, as well as for making new technology). But what I'm trying to say is that life, heck, the universe itself is bigger than logic. Logic is used/needed everywhere it seems, but it's still contained in this universe. Just a small example: forgiveness is almost never the logical thing to do. If someone hurts you, why let them back in and/or get away with what they did?

 

Although computers may be able to do far more calculations per second than the human brain, the brain is far more complicated than a computer. Computers/AI cannot take emotion into consideration when making decisions (not base decisions on emotion, but have that factor as well) which is part of what makes people people. You yourself said people make decisions based on emotion, which is illogical. So if I try to explain to someone why my mom made a certain decision, I can't only use logical language.

 

lol sorry to get so off topic I'm really bad for that. What about the John stuff? Did any of that make sense (logical )

[dragonfly]

Actually, come to think of it, I'm going to invent the math that deals only with pure illogic. When I'm rich I'll send you all $10 000 just for pretending to be my friends