Validity of the Bible

[Backglass]

if he appeared in the sky tomorrow - doesn;t have to intervene at all, just show himself - then i'll believe, and i'll love him for making all this cool stuff, no questions. So why not do it?

You and I both know the answer to that question, yet the brainwashed will concoct elaborate self-fulfilling explanations for exactly why this wont happen. Some even go on to attend special schools where the finer points of such explanations are taught.

[MR. Nate]

Ok, kids, once more:

What about the millions of deaths caused by tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, malaria and famine each year? What have they got to do with our decision to exercise our free will?
It seems to me that the logic behind those kinds of suffering stems directly from the laws of physics themselves, which are the closest thing we have to absolute truth - unlike Job's suffering, which was arbitrary and pointless, or God's demand that Abraham commit filicide.

God created a perfect world in which people had the choice to follow Him or not. They chose not to. It was called sin. That first choice to not follow God was called original sin. Because people were supposed to be the caretakers for the world, their original sin impacted everything. Everything. That includes, by the way, the laws of physics, all of nature, and the attitude of people. As a result of original sin, the world has major problems, including tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes malaria and famine. So while YOUR free choice does not immediatly cause worldwide plauge, the legacy of human sin in the world does.

Faith and logic aren't compatible IMO. God wants us to love him, but refuses to demonstrate his existence. heaven knows, if he appeared in the sky tomorrow - doesn;t have to intervene at all, just show himself - then i'll believe, and i'll love him for making all this cool stuff, no questions. So why not do it?

There you go again, demanding that God prove His existence to you without first listening to what He sad. You want to find God? I want to find a billion dollars. And neither of us are going to find anything if we don't look.

And if he refuses to intervene because of his great free-will project, then why end it at the last judgment? Either free will is good, or bad. God should know. So either it continues, or it doesn't. A god who ends it abruptly didn't really know what he was doing in the first place.

If you pay attention, you'll discover that what ultimatly happens is not a blowing up of the free will project, but a cleaning up. God comes to earth, cleans up the rebellion, and sets up a kingdom full of those who chose to follow Him. It's only an abrupt ending for those who reject Him. For those who chose to follow Him, there's a brief transition period followed by a very nice eternity, chock full of free will. The difference is that since God will actually be physically present, nobody will question either His will or His existence.

[2dimes]

There you go again, demanding that God prove His existence to you without first listening to what He said. You want to find God?

I don't think he does, because like you say at the end of this if you want to find something you have to look.

I want to find a billion dollars. And neither of us are going to find anything if we don't look.

ALLRIGHT!! Now we're gettting somewhere with the crazy talk. If you find that billion dollars you have to hook me up with an airplane and pay off my house. Please please please, I believe in you.

[jay_a2j]

The tossing out left overs, though I personally think is a bad thing to do. It is a pretty dumb thing to bring up. What is the point, that people should mail their excess food to Africa?

Um no. The point about the left overs is, if you are throwing them out, don't blame God for starvation in the world. It seems a bit hypocritical to yell, "Why is God allowing children to starve to death!?" As we scape the fries and steak into the trash can.

[2dimes]

The tossing out left overs, though I personally think is a bad thing to do. It is a pretty dumb thing to bring up. What is the point, that people should mail their excess food to Africa?

Um no. The point about the left overs is, if you are throwing them out, don't blame God for starvation in the world. It seems a bit hypocritical to yell, "Why is God allowing children to starve to death!?" As we scape the fries and steak into the trash can.

Sort of. Like I say I personally don't and have helped my wife learn that you can actually eat left overs or at very least feed them to a dog.

However it's rampant in this country and your's. Again do you recomend to wrap them nice and mail them to the poor people?

I kind of see where you're coming from. I plan and hope to teach my kids not to walk in front of a moving vehicle, instead of "The pedestrian has the right of way." like they will be taught in school.

[vtmarik]

It sounds more like Kierkegaard, but it's also one of the bedrocks of postmodernity. And it's absolutly idiotic. Let's say for example, that I believe Backglass is a unicorn. And let's say that Backglass himself believes that he is a leprechaun. And let's say that vtmarik believes Backglass is an elf king. And 2dimes believes that he's a human being (albeit slightly unstable due to his self image ) Can all viewpoints be equally valid? No, clearly at least 3 of us are delusianal.

There's a slight difference between identifying someone as an elven king and looking at a piece of text and being able to accept multiple interpretations.

Just because your precious world view is so fragile, doesn't mean the rest of us are so afflicted. Let's try keeping our metaphors in the same realm, let alone with a sense of proportion.

[heavycola]

God created a perfect world in which people had the choice to follow Him or not. They chose not to. It was called sin. That first choice to not follow God was called original sin. Because people were supposed to be the caretakers for the world, their original sin impacted everything. Everything. That includes, by the way, the laws of physics, all of nature, and the attitude of people. As a result of original sin, the world has major problems, including tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes malaria and famine. So while YOUR free choice does not immediatly cause worldwide plauge, the legacy of human sin in the world does.

original sin? adam and eve eating an apple led to the evolution of the parasite that causes malaria? or to the tectonic shifts that cause earthquakes and tsunamis? It affected geological conditions that were determined millions of years before humans appeared on this planet? Dude you sound like a sensible, intelligent guy to argue with - please don't go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like you're a creationist.

As for 'looking for god' - I have never stopped, although i am not looking for God, as it were. I want to understand as much as possible about spirituality and i have read a great deal on the subject - so far, everything i have seen/experienced/read has only strengthened my belief that god does not exist. It's a little condescending to tell me (and to assume) that all i need to do to change my itty-bitty mind is 'look'.

[2dimes]

Wait, I think I'm a human or backglass?

[jay_a2j]

Dude you sound like a sensible, intelligent guy to argue with - please don't go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like you're a creationist.

Wow! If that wasn't close-minded. So, what? creationist = stupid and evolutionist = enlightened? Yeah OK, give me a break. The reality is that it takes more "faith" to buy into evolution than it does to come to the knowledge that God exists.

[heavycola]

Dude you sound like a sensible, intelligent guy to argue with - please don't go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like you're a creationist.

Wow! If that wasn't close-minded. So, what? creationist = stupid and evolutionist = enlightened? Yeah OK, give me a break. The reality is that it takes more "faith" to buy into evolution than it does to come to the knowledge that God exists.

THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Every xtian i know believes in evolution AND god AND all the jesus stuff.

But your maths is correct, as far as i can see

[2dimes]

As for 'looking for god' - I have never stopped, although i am not looking for God, as it were. I want to understand as much as possible about spirituality and i have read a great deal on the subject - so far, everything i have seen/experienced/read has only strengthened my belief that god does not exist.

Ok, sorry. I miss read you.

I figured you had come to the conclusion, "No God, no need to keep looking."

I left the itty bitty mind out because I never thought that part regarding you.

[jay_a2j]

THE TWO ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Every xtian i know believes in evolution AND god AND all the jesus stuff.

Yeah, and I know Christians that believe that there is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. (I do hope you sense the sarcasm there) You must be aware that just because a person identifies with the label "Christian" does not automatically make them one.

[vtmarik]

Yeah, and I know Christians that believe that there is NOTHING wrong with homosexuality. (I do hope you sense the sarcasm there) You must be aware that just because a person identifies with the label "Christian" does not automatically make them one.

I also know that some liturgical groups have stated that one should not accept full scientific accuracy from the Bible.

It's a creation story, an attempt to explain how we got here. It isn't proof of any scientific concept any more than the Norse or Greek mythological creation stories.

Don't attach more weight to something when it can't take the scrutiny.

[MR. Nate]

There's a slight difference between identifying someone as an elven king and looking at a piece of text and being able to accept multiple interpretations.

Just because your precious world view is so fragile, doesn't mean the rest of us are so afflicted. Let's try keeping our metaphors in the same realm, let alone with a sense of proportion.

Multiple interpretations are not the problem, claiming that all of the multiple interpretations have an equal weight is the problem. Personally, I lean toward the viewpoint that the Bible is actually the Word of God. You disagree. We cannot both be right. That was my point, and I apologize for momentarily degenerating into absurd hyperbole.

original sin? adam and eve eating an apple led to the evolution of the parasite that causes malaria? or to the tectonic shifts that cause earthquakes and tsunamis? It affected geological conditions that were determined millions of years before humans appeared on this planet? Dude you sound like a sensible, intelligent guy to argue with - please don't go and spoil it all by saying something stupid like you're a creationist.

Whether a creationist or evolutionist, Christianity holds to an original sin, meaning a point at which sin entered the physical universe. At some point in history, humanity as a race rejected God. Their rejection of God caused huge problems throughout the world. As in, we can't "know" what happened prior to that rejection because we can only theorize back. Spiritually, sin was the equivelant of a lead meteor the size of Texas hitting the south pole - it screws everything up more than we can possibly imagine.

As for 'looking for god' - I have never stopped, although i am not looking for God, as it were. I want to understand as much as possible about spirituality and i have read a great deal on the subject - so far, everything i have seen/experienced/read has only strengthened my belief that god does not exist. It's a little condescending to tell me (and to assume) that all i need to do to change my itty-bitty mind is 'look'.

I didn't mean to condescend, but it seems to me that your looking has consisted of running around the same hermeneutical circle. We've established earlier in the thread that you can believe either that something emerged from nothing, that the universe has existed from eternity past, or that God existed from eternity past. If you start from any of those positions, you will make up enough evidence to reinforce your belief. So the rejection of God fundamentally requires the same amount of faith as the belief in Him. It's easier to reject Him on a practical level, because that excuses us from personal responsibility.
Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on the development of morality and spirituality as a person with agnostic leanings?

[2dimes]

[I also know that some liturgical groups have stated that one should not accept full scientific accuracy from the Bible.

It's a creation story, an attempt to explain how we got here. It isn't proof of any scientific concept any more than the Norse or Greek mythological creation stories.

Don't attach more weight to something when it can't take the scrutiny.

Ugh, the new testament's mostly letters from a guy to churches.

The thing that makes them interesting is that if you're trying to live like the people that the letters are addressed to they still read valid. You tend to have the same problems trying to be faithfull in a marriage etc. The issues are timeless. Even though we have televisions, cell phones and cars the things in the letters have not changed.

They are just as scientific or lacking as this post or a letter from your uncle.

I agree with VT here, how can a letter that says "I heard someone at your church slept with their Dad's wife. That's worse than the things the people that don't believe in God are doing. Stop letting them be part of your church" Be a basis for anything scientific.

[heavycola]

We've established earlier in the thread that you can believe either that something emerged from nothing, that the universe has existed from eternity past, or that God existed from eternity past. If you start from any of those positions, you will make up enough evidence to reinforce your belief. So the rejection of God fundamentally requires the same amount of faith as the belief in Him. It's easier to reject Him on a practical level, because that excuses us from personal responsibility.
Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on the development of morality and spirituality as a person with agnostic leanings?

Surely one examines the evidence and then decides what one thinks about the universe and its origins? Unless one is a creationist, of course...

On morality/spirituality: way back during the Axial Ages - i guess around 900BCE to 700BCE - Indian, Greek and Hebrew sages (monotheism hadn't quite been invented yet) were beginning to work out that spiritual transcendence lay not in ritual per se but in looking within yourself. This is where i believe spirituality comes from - whether you are a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Christian or an atheist, it exists under different names and conceptions, that's all.
Morality also comes from within, but i don't believe we need a 3,000 year old guidebook to explain it. Are atheists immoral? In my experience, absolutely not, but as a group they are presumably no more moral or immoral than christians, or muslims. Religion has doubtless been a help in the past, but we don't need it as a guide to behaviour anymore IMO.

[2dimes]

On morality/spirituality: way back during the Axial Ages - i guess around 900BCE to 700BCE - Indian, Greek and Hebrew sages (monotheism hadn't quite been invented yet) were beginning to work out that spiritual transcendence lay not in ritual per se but in looking within yourself.

So you don't think the Hebrew sages were montheists or you didn't think about what you think you thought? Or did you accidentally lump them in there because that's the way you were told this tale?

Sorry if I'm being condecending, I'm a jerk.

[MeDeFe]

...If you start from any of those positions, you will make up enough evidence to reinforce your belief. So the rejection of God fundamentally requires the same amount of faith as the belief in Him. It's easier to reject Him on a practical level, because that excuses us from personal responsibility.
Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on the development of morality and spirituality as a person with agnostic leanings?

How does not believing in god excuse us from personal responsibility? You don't even say responsibility for what, so I'll just assume that you mean "responsibility for our actions".
Without a god or devil we're the only ones responsible for our actions. By applying reason and logic we can establish rules, mores and laws for ourselves. If that isn't responsibility I don't know what would be. There are no excuses like "God told me to kill those infidels" or "The devil made me murder those people". And I know you're going to say something along the lines of "people who say that are lying" or "they didn't REALLY have any visions". I say: You don't have a monopoly on god (provided he exists), so don't tell others that they don't have a connection to him, that's preposterous at best.

Without a god the only reason for doing something good is because it's good, not because you'll be punished if you don't or because you'll be rewarded if you do. Coincidentally that's what several christian groups have also said throughout history, that one shouldn't do good because god says so but because it is good.
And likewise the only reason for not doing something bad is because it's bad, not because some divine being told us to cut it out or we'd know the reason why.

[2dimes]

...If you start from any of those positions, you will make up enough evidence to reinforce your belief. So the rejection of God fundamentally requires the same amount of faith as the belief in Him. It's easier to reject Him on a practical level, because that excuses us from personal responsibility.
Just out of curiosity, what's your theory on the development of morality and spirituality as a person with agnostic leanings?

How does not believing in god excuse us from personal responsibility? You don't even say responsibility for what, so I'll just assume that you mean "responsibility for our actions".
Without a god or devil we're the only ones responsible for our actions. By applying reason and logic we can establish rules, mores and laws for ourselves. If that isn't responsibility I don't know what would be. There are no excuses like "God told me to kill those infidels" or "The devil made me murder those people". And I know you're going to say something along the lines of "people who say that are lying" or "they didn't REALLY have any visions". I say: You don't have a monopoly on god (provided he exists), so don't tell others that they don't have a connection to him, that's preposterous at best.

Without a god the only reason for doing something good is because it's good, not because you'll be punished if you don't or because you'll be rewarded if you do. Coincidentally that's what several christian groups have also said throughout history, that one shouldn't do good because god says so but because it is good.
And likewise the only reason for not doing something bad is because it's bad, not because some divine being told us to cut it out or we'd know the reason why.

I presume he means excused specifically from responsibility to God. If there is no God then you can't be responsible to follow the rules you believe to be from him.

Regardless there is other ramifications to a persons actions outside of that person.
ie. You kill someone and there's legalities involved, punishment. Conversly if you don't break that law it will be easier to get a job, reward.

[Backglass]

It's easier to reject Him on a practical level, because that excuses us from personal responsibility.

Huh? How does not believing in magical gods excuse anyone from personal resposibility? I would argue the direct opposite. It puts ALL the responsibility on the person, as opposed to "its gods will", "the devil made me do it", etc.

[heavycola]

On morality/spirituality: way back during the Axial Ages - i guess around 900BCE to 700BCE - Indian, Greek and Hebrew sages (monotheism hadn't quite been invented yet) were beginning to work out that spiritual transcendence lay not in ritual per se but in looking within yourself.

So you don't think the Hebrew sages were montheists or you didn't think about what you think you thought? Or did you accidentally lump them in there because that's the way you were told this tale?

Sorry if I'm being condecending, I'm a jerk.

In the 9th century BCE each middle eastern people had their own god - Israel had Yahweh, Babylon had Marduk, the Canaanites had Baal (if i remember rightly) etc. Worshipping only one god (monolatry) was the Israelite law, but it didn't mean they didn't acknowledge the existence of other gods. "You shall worship no other god but me". Monotheism - belief in the existence of only one god - came later.

[jay_a2j]

On morality/spirituality: way back during the Axial Ages - i guess around 900BCE to 700BCE - Indian, Greek and Hebrew sages (monotheism hadn't quite been invented yet) were beginning to work out that spiritual transcendence lay not in ritual per se but in looking within yourself.

So you don't think the Hebrew sages were montheists or you didn't think about what you think you thought? Or did you accidentally lump them in there because that's the way you were told this tale?

Sorry if I'm being condecending, I'm a jerk.

In the 9th century BCE each middle eastern people had their own god - Israel had Yahweh, Babylon had Marduk, the Canaanites had Baal (if i remember rightly) etc. Worshipping only one god (monolatry) was the Israelite law, but it didn't mean they didn't acknowledge the existence of other gods. "You shall worship no other god but me". Monotheism - belief in the existence of only one god - came later.

If you read closer the Israelites believed in one true God, "You shall have no other God before me" has meaning beyond its face value. It does not mean that they acknowledged "other gods". But things can "become gods" in one's life. Yes there was the time when they tired of waiting for Moses to return and made themselves an idol (also breaking this commandment).

[heavycola]

On morality/spirituality: way back during the Axial Ages - i guess around 900BCE to 700BCE - Indian, Greek and Hebrew sages (monotheism hadn't quite been invented yet) were beginning to work out that spiritual transcendence lay not in ritual per se but in looking within yourself.

So you don't think the Hebrew sages were montheists or you didn't think about what you think you thought? Or did you accidentally lump them in there because that's the way you were told this tale?

Sorry if I'm being condecending, I'm a jerk.

In the 9th century BCE each middle eastern people had their own god - Israel had Yahweh, Babylon had Marduk, the Canaanites had Baal (if i remember rightly) etc. Worshipping only one god (monolatry) was the Israelite law, but it didn't mean they didn't acknowledge the existence of other gods. "You shall worship no other god but me". Monotheism - belief in the existence of only one god - came later.

If you read closer the Israelites believed in one true God, "You shall have no other God before me" has meaning beyond its face value. It does not mean that they acknowledged "other gods". But things can "become gods" in one's life. Yes there was the time when they tired of waiting for Moses to return and made themselves an idol (also breaking this commandment).

Jay i'm not rubbishing judaism or the OT here, at all - i am just paraphrasing scholars and historians who would say that the Israelites back then - who were one collection of tribes among plenty of others - did believe in more than one god, but worshipped only Yahweh because he was their god and demanded as much.

[2dimes]

Ok I see what you're going for there. I kind of read in the bible that there was an acceptance or belief that the Egyptians had Gods that had some magical or mystic powers of some sort. Part of the concept of Exodus in my opinion was the death or elimination of them.

Obviously there was a period where the offspring of Abraham while in the dessert had decided that they would build a "God" to worship while Moses was off talking to his God due to the prolonged absence.

Exodus 32:1
The Golden Calf

When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, "Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him."

I don't think of that as polythiesm. I suppose it kind of is. Certainly there is massive amounts of warnings not to worship other Gods. Some of the ones you mention are listed.

I personally think that even though people have a tendancy to be drawn toward worshiping little statues, rocks, sticks and such I just don't consider that polythiesm.

I must conceed though, it really does fit the definition.

I have never talked to a practicing Toist about their feelings toward their oricle. I would not think they consider it a God though from a Judao/Christian's point of veiw it probably is thought of that way.

Even a professed aithiest who grew up in a westernized culture would probably view things in this manner.

Just like alcohol is often called spirits. Do you think there is a spirit in every bottle? I don't but I am certain someone did and there was some sort of consensus to start calling it that.

[AndyDufresne]

...Just like alcohol is often called spirits. Do you think there is a spirit in every bottle? I don't but I am certain someone did and there was some sort of consensus to start calling it that.

I thought the name came from the fact that it gave many people energy and 'spirit'.


--Andy