Validity of the Bible

by **kclborat** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:01 am

I have three questions.
1) What is the theological argument for the validity of the Bible?
2) What is the historical argument for the validity of the Bible?
3) What do you think?

by **s.xkitten** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:04 am

1. bible contradicts itself...humans wrote up all the books, and then only a select few were chosen (catholic has more then others) that showed god and jesus in their best light
2.umm, i don't remember my history lessons right now (doped up on pain drugs)
3.bible is funny as hell to read, but don't see how it is the basis of a religion...

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:04 am

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/gods_word.htm

by **s.xkitten** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:06 am

hey, thats the same website that said the The Malleus Maleficarum was okay...

by **kclborat** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:11 am

that page wrote:"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." -Titus 3:9-11

Ask no questions. And yet religion opens our eyes to the world around us. And btw, that site is full of inaccuracies. But its kinda the theological POV...

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:17 am

kclborat wrote:
that page wrote:"But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." -Titus 3:9-11

Ask no questions. And yet religion opens our eyes to the world around us. And btw, that site is full of inaccuracies. But its kinda the theological POV...

It doesn't say "to ask no questions", it says to avoid answering foolish questions.

by **s.xkitten** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:17 am

there should be a way to block certain people from posting on your thread...

by **kclborat** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:19 am

no i really don't mind him posting. its interesting, yet for me the biggest problem is that all he is doing is reinforcing my bias that fanatically religous people lose their reason in their church.

by **kclborat** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:26 am

it seems to me that we have a fundamental difference (obviously). i believe in reason and the power it gives to us as humans. Our reason lets us find answers to our world. This is why i believe in the importance and validity of science. jay does not believe that religion should be the pinnacle of human nature, and as such does not need to logically argue the points presented by myself and others. he uses theological arguments. theological arguments cannot prove questions. and reason cannot solve theological arguments. Can you answer, jay, rationally, (without using scripture!)why god exists given this: God is omnipotent and all loving. then why is there evil? if god chose to not have evil, he would not be all loving. if he didn't, then he is not omnipotent. i understand the Bible-based argument to this, but using solely reason, one cannot answer this question. to me, this does not mean reason is wrong because one cannot use theology to solve rational problems because theology is not proven. it can be used for you to set your life on a certain course, but to worldly problems it does not answer them for everyone. reason and theology are seperate.

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:40 am

kclborat wrote:it seems to me that we have a fundamental difference (obviously). i believe in reason and the power it gives to us as humans. Our reason lets us find answers to our world. This is why i believe in the importance and validity of science. jay does not believe that religion should be the pinnacle of human nature, and as such does not need to logically argue the points presented by myself and others. he uses theological arguments. theological arguments cannot prove questions. and reason cannot solve theological arguments. Can you answer, jay, rationally, (without using scripture!)why god exists given this: God is omnipotent and all loving. then why is there evil? if god chose to not have evil, he would not be all loving. if he didn't, then he is not omnipotent. i understand the Bible-based argument to this, but using solely reason, one cannot answer this question. to me, this does not mean reason is wrong because one cannot use theology to solve rational problems because theology is not proven. it can be used for you to set your life on a certain course, but to worldly problems it does not answer them for everyone. reason and theology are seperate.

Tring to avoid "it says to avoid answering foolish questions."

I can't answer : why is there evil in the world? without using references from scripture. Scripture explains why. But you want me to explain it without being able to quote were the answer comes from!

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:07 am

There's evil for didactic reasons. ;)

by **vtmarik** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 1:54 am

MeDeFe wrote:There's evil for didactic reasons.

Without evil there is no good, and without good there is no evil.

It's all about balance, unfortunately Christianity rejects the concept of a balance between good and evil, because leaving one immediately leads to the other. There is no fulcrum, no center point for the two sides to balance on and so you get the "It's God or Satan, good vs. evil, my way or the highway" mentality. Without balance, there can be no peace. The Bible denies balance by claiming that there are only two ways to go, Toward God or Away from God. One cannot walk between the two and follow the third path which acknowledges both sides of nature.

What do you hear whenever a family survives a tornado? "God saved us."

You never hear "God sent the tornado" because Christianity forces you to focus on the positive, using deflection to shift doubt from God to Satan; "God works in mysterious ways" or "God has a plan."

I prayed for guidance and for an answer like the Bible says to do. The answer I was given? The Bible's all psychodrama designed to teach you about Free Will. Jesus didn't come down here to die for our sins, because sin is guilt. Jesus was God's way of showing us "Here is a creature with no free will, he knows his inevitable fate and he does not make the choice to take another road. Do not do this. I gave you free will so you would make your own choice."

And what did they do? They cooked up this sin nonsense and started preaching that Jesus came down to redeem mankind from original sin (which, also, consequently does not exist). Mankind always manages to screw things up (because the mob mentality never works).

The Tree of Knowledge is the metaphor for consciousness, for self-awareness. It was a test, a test of this free will thingy that God had never worked with before. That is why they were taken out of Eden. It wasn't a punishment, it was a reward. "I told them not to do that, they did it anyway, Free Will works, I can put them in the real world now!"

But man felt guilty, because man didn't understand. Hence sin, the guilt man feels for exercising free will because he doesn't fully understand it. So, man dies, his soul is filled with guilt, he goes down to hell and begs for purgation. He thinks he has offended God, so he demands to be punished for his "transgressions."

God didn't create evil, man did. Satan is Freud's superego, the societal pressure that we all feel to conform and to not exercise our base desires. It is the inevitable side effect of civilization that we should feel this guilt whenever we do something "uncivilized." God created man, and gave man free will. Man rejects free will and feels guilty for his perceived transgressions against the lord, hence we have sin and Hell. Those that reject this unnecessary guilt, are free. They are without sin, simply because they reject the concept.

God gave us free will, and yet we have people like Jay who surrender it to a misinterpreted book and some authoritative figures who claim to know what various passages mean. f*ck that, I'm proud of what God gave me and I'll be damned if I let some sanctimonious preacher tell me that I should surrender it to "God's will" which, in reality, is that very preacher's will.

*anime sweatdrops, grins*

Um... here endeth the lesson.

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:29 am

You have some interesting points.

by **jay_a2j** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 6:47 am

MeDeFe wrote:You have some interesting points.

"interesting" is not the word I would have used. :wink:

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 8:49 am

You would have said "blasphemous", right? ;-)

by **OwlLawyer** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:03 am

The Bible is a book of stories inspired by God meant to give us lessons to live by. It was never meant to be a textbook to be read literally.

Those who believe it is amuse me. They believe certain parts of the Old Testament are to be read literally, but others are not. They can never explain their positon without cutting and pasting someone else's argument, and that's the thing. Those who are literalists are taught not to think for themselves. They are taught not to analyze. Jesus didn't teach that.

by **Bogusbet** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:31 am

It's all a load of shit. A good story, but a load of shit.

People who hide behind or live for religion are fucking tossers.

Here endeth the lesson.

by **MeDeFe** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:37 am

Thus spake the prophet with the whiney schild in his sig, and the righteous masses of the believers arose and flamed him.

by **Bogusbet** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:39 am

MeDeFe wrote:Thus spake the prophet with the whiney schild in his sig, and the righteous masses of the believers arose and flamed him.

A fine example.

by **Backglass** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:13 am

Bogusbet wrote:It's all a load of shit. A good story, but a load of shit.

People who hide behind or live for religion are fucking tossers.

Here endeth the lesson.

AAAAAAAMEN!

(Even though I dont have the slightest clue what a "tosser" is).

by **heavycola** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:27 am

Backglass wrote:
Bogusbet wrote:It's all a load of shit. A good story, but a load of shit.

People who hide behind or live for religion are fucking tossers.

Here endeth the lesson.

AAAAAAAMEN!

(Even though I dont have the slightest clue what a "tosser" is).

BB! how have you been?

by **Bogusbet** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 11:53 am

V well HC, not seen you around for a while fella.

You been working alot?

by **edmundomcpot** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:00 pm

i find the Bible unbelievable but what you have to remember it was written in a time when people didnt fully understand the world

whats sad is that religion is still stuck in those days and refuses to accept sceintific knowledge

one thing that i find very confusing in christian beleif

jesus in effect was a human being like any one else however they worship him, yet in the ten commandments 10 do not worship any false idols

also.. there is only one god...christians have the holy trinity..meaning three

by **Mirak** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:12 pm

Could one of the 'Bible experts" please try and explain how the Bible actually came into being..

If it is the word of God, did it just miraculously appear on a bookshelf?

by **heavycola** on Wed Dec 06, 2006 12:56 pm

aye bogus. I just play on here with a few friends these days, and occasionally pedro lets me ride on his coattails. How's the poker? We never made it to gutshot :cry:

Validity of the Bible

Validity of the Bible

Who is online