502 replies to this topic

[Fyxe]

The Bible, even though I never read it, is the only thing I can take as fact. Everything else, including what I learned in school and what I read in encyclopaedias, is wrong.

*Brain just explodes*

Holy bloody hell. Religion tells us to be nice to each other, not to have no minds of our own.

[arunma]

I did give up on religion not on God. We don't need a book or religion to say we believe or love God. God loves you no matter what. I just feel the Bible is too corrupted with human arrogance to be 100% trustworthy. As if humans were cramming words into God's mouth. Like you stated "to each his own" (or to each his/her own).

It's fine if you want to believe that. The only thing I'm contesting is where you got this belief. It isn't a good idea to base your belief system on a television documentary.

Besides, we do have a commonailty. Most of us believe in God. Maybe we should think more about that than the Bible or religion.

But as the Scriptures say, even the demons believe in God. Belief in God isn't much of a commonality. The Christian religion unifies many people under a faith in one God, one faith, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Mere theism is so broad of a belief system that it is not very unifying.

*Brain just explodes*

Holy bloody hell. Religion tells us to be nice to each other, not to have no minds of our own.

I think he was joking.

[Nevermind]

But as the Scriptures say, even the demons believe in God. Belief in God isn't much of a commonality. The Christian religion unifies many people under a faith in one God, one faith, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Mere theism is so broad of a belief system that it is not very unifying.

Now they just need to find a way to do it without also alienating people. I mean, there's nothing wrong with Christianity. In all theory, it's fantastic. However, put into practice, the effects of people have to be factored in, and that is where things go downhill. I guess it's all part of the tolerance vs acceptance debate, but because of the line between those two variants becoming very blurred, Christianity is becoming a very exclusive, "holier than thou" kind of arrangement. Now, a majority of it is not like this, it's just that outsiders, as with media, tend to focus on the bad rather than the good, because our human nature loves turmoil, so the ones we see and pay attention to ARE like this.

So, unifying for some, maybe, but alienating for [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of others, even those who are quite strong and faithful believers. And it seems that with Church corruption, hypocrisy, contradictions, and the advancements of technology bringing us closer to being gods ourselves, the balance between unification and alienation is starting to tip, and in favour of the alienation side.

The belief in God, et al, should be enough of a commonality, because something about a 'kingdom cannot be against itself', or somewhere along those lines. And when factions split and debate back and forth between one another, then you've got a kingdom fighting itself.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

The problem, here, is that this is a "would have, should have" argument. It isn't valid to contest the Biblical account of Pontius Pilate on the basis that it doesn't perfectly fit with a single, separate account of him.

Actually, it doesn't square with Josephus' account of him nor that of Herod Agrippa. That's two accounts. Still, I agree there is not enough evidence to prove anything either way.

Edited by Wolf_ODonnell, 10 January 2006 - 06:48 AM.

[deuterium]

It's fine if you want to believe that. The only thing I'm contesting is where you got this belief. It isn't a good idea to base your belief system on a television documentary.
But as the Scriptures say, even the demons believe in God. Belief in God isn't much of a commonality. The Christian religion unifies many people under a faith in one God, one faith, and one Lord Jesus Christ. Mere theism is so broad of a belief system that it is not very unifying.

Arunma, who said I got my belief from a documentary? Now, you are putting words in my mouth. You know, first came the belief in God. Then came the ideals and then organized religion. I just think it is better to have the belief in God and trying your best to be a good person. Like I stated before, we don't need religion or a book to say we believe in God or love God. If you believe in the Bible, then good for you. I'm not trying to crush your belief system. I'm merely stating my opinion as you are and the other members in this forum.

Edited by deuterium, 10 January 2006 - 12:24 PM.

[Fyxe]

It's fine if you want to believe that. The only thing I'm contesting is where you got this belief. It isn't a good idea to base your belief system on a television documentary.

As much as it to base it on a book?

Sorry, it had to be said.

[arunma]

Arunma, who said I got my belief from a documentary? Now, you are putting words in my mouth. You know, first came the belief in God. Then came the ideals and then organized religion. I just think it is better to have the belief in God and trying your best to be a good person. Like I stated before, we don't need religion or a book to say we believe in God or love God. If you believe in the Bible, then good for you. I'm not trying to crush your belief system. I'm merely stating my opinion as you are and the other members in this forum.

Fair enough.

As much as it to base it on a book?

Sorry, it had to be said.

The book had a bit more thought put into it than a one-hour documentary. Besides that, the Bible has been analyzed and debated for quite a long while. Has such scrutiny and criticism been applied to a random TV show?

Actually, it doesn't square with Josephus' account of him nor that of Herod Agrippa. That's two accounts. Still, I agree there is not enough evidence to prove anything either way.

Two questions. First, was Josephus' account of Pilate in Antiquities or Wars of the Jews? It would be nice if you could cite a specific passage, so that I can look it up. Secondly, when you mentioned Herod Agrippa, were you referring to Josephus' account of Herod, or an account that was actually written by Herod (because I'm not aware that Herod Agrippa ever wrote anything)?

Edited by arunma, 11 January 2006 - 01:57 AM.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Fair enough.
The book had a bit more thought put into it than a one-hour documentary. Besides that, the Bible has been analyzed and debated for quite a long while. Has such scrutiny and criticism been applied to a random TV show?
Two questions. First, was Josephus' account of Pilate in Antiquities or Wars of the Jews? It would be nice if you could cite a specific passage, so that I can look it up. Secondly, when you mentioned Herod Agrippa, were you referring to Josephus' account of Herod, or an account that was actually written by Herod (because I'm not aware that Herod Agrippa ever wrote anything)?

The passage I read cited both of them.

cf. Josephus, Jewish War 2.169-174; Antiquities of the Jews 18.55-59

Then there's Book 18.63-64, which mentions that Pontius ordered Jesus's crucifixion.

Can't remember about the Herod Agrippa account. He wrote something, but it was included in someone else's work. I think it was Josephus again or Philo of Alexandria.

[Fyxe]

The book had a bit more thought put into it than a one-hour documentary. Besides that, the Bible has been analyzed and debated for quite a long while. Has such scrutiny and criticism been applied to a random TV show?

I know, I know, I was merely making a point.

However, I should say that some people would argue that the Bible doesn't stand up to some of the scrutiny that is aimed at it, while many Tv shows probably do. The apparent contradictions within the Bible, for instance, seem to make it clear that it's not infallible. Of course, many adament supporters of the Bible argue that there are no contradictions, but of course anyone can say that if they're the ones making the rules.

Also, if people say 'the Bible is just a book made by human hands, and thus infallible', that would be a worthwhile arguement against any book that claims itself as truth. But since the Bible says it's the word of God, then somehow that arguement doesn't hold water.

Basically, my point is that no matter how much scrutiny and criticism the Bible recieves, it's not going to change what people think about it.

Prove to a blind man that the sky is blue, if he's been told by someone calling themselves infallible that it's red and warned that everyone else is lying.

[Koji]

The book had a bit more thought put into it than a one-hour documentary.

Actually, I can write whatever the hell I want. It's a lot harder to translate that into one hour of film.

The Bible is merely a book written by people. You can still believe in God but not in the Bible. The two are only slightly linked. Give me something that was written by God, and I'll go by that. People are too accident prone. For all you know, the Bible could just be one big game of Telephone. God told him this, he wrote this, it was translated by her, he read it, she interpretted the meaning of it, and he told you. To think that nothing was lost or gained in the process is stupid.

Edited by Koji, 12 January 2006 - 09:17 AM.

[Nevermind]

For all we know, it could be a game of Telephone, yes. But for all we know, it also couldn't be. Like Fyxe's example, it is near impossible to shake a person's faith, whether in a book or in someone else, when they are aware that their faith is all they have.

[Alakhriveion]

Actually, I can write whatever the hell I want. It's a lot harder to translate that into one hour of film.

The Bible is merely a book written by people. You can still believe in God but not in the Bible. The two are only slightly linked. Give me something that was written by God, and I'll go by that. People are too accident prone. For all you know, the Bible could just be one big game of Telephone. God told him this, he wrote this, it was translated by her, he read it, she interpretted the meaning of it, and he told you. To think that nothing was lost or gained in the process is stupid.

God® has a product just for you.

[Reflectionist]

I'm a little confused as to why you'd need a scientific debate on wether the bible is true or not....

How many times in Contro have I asked for there to be a scientific debate on wether or not George Washington was the first president of the United States?

Because this is history, and not all of history can be explained through science. It just doesn't make any sense.

I think it's pretty stupid for someone to say that God can't exist because Science can't prove it. Well, science can't prove that George Bush is the president now, any more than George Bush can, but that's a different story.

And besides, if it was all made up, why wouldn't the Disciples (and bunches of other Christians) just siad so whenever they were brought before Nero and the other Roman people? I'd much rather have confessed I was making everything up, and that Jesus wasn't God and all that rather than have my skin burned off or, nailed to a load of wood.

Slightly irrelevant, but you know the Bible can be made to appear to say whatever you want it to say... Kinda like how a Lawyer can mak you look guilty by phrasing a question the wrong way. That's what most of these 'holes' are that people say are in the Bible. They'll find specific verses that contradict each other, but they actually don't when you read them in the context of the chapter they're in.

It's quite simple really, you just have to read the Bible before you scrutinize it.

Amazing how many people don't get that.

Edited by Reflectionist, 12 January 2006 - 09:23 PM.

[Alakhriveion]

I'm a little confused as to why you'd need a scientific debate on wether the bible is true or not....

How many times in Contro have I asked for there to be a scientific debate on wether or not George Washington was the first president of the United States?

Not comparable.

Because this is history, and not all of history can be explained through science. It just doesn't make any sense.

The stuff that makes sense makes sense. The stuff that's made up doesn't.

And besides, if it was all made up, why wouldn't the Disciples (and bunches of other Christians) just siad so whenever they were brought before Nero and the other Roman people? I'd much rather have confessed I was making everything up, and that Jesus wasn't God and all that rather than have my skin burned off or, nailed to a load of wood.

The accuracy of the Bible doesn't measure the spiritual value of the Bible, unless your faith really does rest on that. "Praise God, Lord of all Creation, who reveals unto us historical minutiae." This is a religious document, not a textbook. What's there to confess to? "All right, all right, I admit! It isn't a factual account of the God that tells us to topple Rome, it's an allegorical account of the God that tells us to topple Rome!" Also, confession doesn't usually result in exoneration, especially not in cases like treason, especially not in Rome. But that isn't all bad. The fact you'd sell out to avoid death is unfortunate, but martyrdom doesn't bother a lot of people..

Slightly irrelevant, but you know the Bible can be made to appear to say whatever you want it to say... Kinda like how a Lawyer can mak you look guilty by phrasing a question the wrong way. That's what most of these 'holes' are that people say are in the Bible. They'll find specific verses that contradict each other, but they actually don't when you read them in the context of the chapter they're in.

It's quite simple really, you just have to read the Bible before you scrutinize it.

Amazing how many people don't get that.

I've read it. It really doesn't cut it for factuality.

Edited by Alakhriveion, 12 January 2006 - 10:28 PM.

[Koji]

Everyone keeps equating religious belief with the Bible. THEY'RE NOT THE SAME, PEOPLE! Besides - if your faith rests solely on the Bible, then you are in fact worshipping an idol. And that goes against what the Bible says.

[Doopliss]

For all we know, it could be a game of Telephone, yes. But for all we know, it also couldn't be. Like Fyxe's example, it is near impossible to shake a person's faith, whether in a book or in someone else, when they are aware that their faith is all they have.

Actually, I have no faith.

And besides, if it was all made up, why wouldn't the Disciples (and bunches of other Christians) just siad so whenever they were brought before Nero and the other Roman people? I'd much rather have confessed I was making everything up, and that Jesus wasn't God and all that rather than have my skin burned off or, nailed to a load of wood.

It is probable that they weren't killed for that. The people who wrote the gospels modified everything to make it look nice.

[arunma]

It is probable that they weren't killed for that. The people who wrote the gospels modified everything to make it look nice.

That's a rather lofty claim. Can you substantiate it? After all, if you claim that the Gospels offer a modified account of the truth, then this infers that you perhaps know what the truth actually is.

[Reflectionist]

I've read it. It really doesn't cut it for factuality.

Ah, the Torah as well, then?

[Alakhriveion]

Ah, the Torah as well, then?

Regularly.

[Korhend]

You do realise the bible contradicts itself, at some points indisputably, and therefor cannot be entirely true?

And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

Edited by Korhend, 14 January 2006 - 01:19 PM.

[Reflectionist]

and, when was this??

Was this census taken minutes apart? Or was it years?

[Coltxdoom]

It's on the first page so I can still respond right? xD

Anyway, I was just thinking of this very same question. And for some reason LA came into my mind so I wandered back....


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/b...%20evidence

Here is a site (probably highly biased, but still).

It's SOME scienfic evidence, no?

I read that the Jews that wrote the Old Testament were very meticulus in their writings, and when they found the Red Sea Scrolls, that it was compared to translated copies and they were almost identical.

My problem isn't with the translation, it is about how many contradictions are within the bible & how do we know that the writers were as reliable? I mean, in Psychology we talk about how the eye witnesses often get it wrong because of memory mistakes. It's easy for mere humans to be mistaken.

[arunma]

Welcome back Colt.

I read that the Jews that wrote the Old Testament were very meticulus in their writings, and when they found the Red Sea Scrolls, that it was compared to translated copies and they were almost identical.

The New Testament is a bit more accurate, simply because of the sheer volume of manuscripts. But yes, this is correct.

My problem isn't with the translation, it is about how many contradictions are within the bible & how do we know that the writers were as reliable? I mean, in Psychology we talk about how the eye witnesses often get it wrong because of memory mistakes. It's easy for mere humans to be mistaken.

The eyewitness issue isn't true of ancient cultures. Today, we have pens and paper everywhere. In these days, people regularly passed along oral traditions. We can see, for example, that Native Americans have passed down their ancient stories with remarkable accuracy. Since oral tradition was very important to the children of Israel, the disciples of Christ would easily be able to accurately record the Gospel.

Besides that, the central issue of the resurrection is rendered essentially moot by the letters of the Apostles, especially those of the Apostle Paul. His writings are the earliest Christian Scripture; Galatians was written less than 20 years after the resurrection of Christ. Paul's writings are replete with references to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. Even if we assume that the details of the Gospels are false, the testimony of Paul makes it difficult to deny the resurrection.

Of course you could just say that Paul was lying or hallucinating. For that matter, you could say that about all of the Biblical authors. But at this stage, we begin to leave the realm of logic and reason, and enter that of faith.

[Koji]

The eyewitness issue isn't true of ancient cultures.

Arrugh? What does the age of the culture have to do with the very nature of human memory? People forget things, details get muddled, and events can be switched around completely. Besides - what evidence do you have that Native American tales are accurate? Eyewitness accounts can be EXTREMELY unreliable.

Anyways, certain historical events in the Bible are very accurate - so in that sense, the Bible IS true. As far as God and Jesus being the son of God - that part's all faith. But I don't care how you slice it, the earth is still BILLIONS of years old. Not however long the Bible says. I trust modern day science to tell me how old something is.

[Emiko]

for the record, there is no book of Mary...it is just a marketing ploy..why else are they sold in magazines for "EVERYTHING ONLY $14.95!!!" You've been had....

[arunma]

Arrugh? What does the age of the culture have to do with the very nature of human memory? People forget things, details get muddled, and events can be switched around completely. Besides - what evidence do you have that Native American tales are accurate? Eyewitness accounts can be EXTREMELY unreliable.

What does a culture's age have to do with human memory? Quite a bit, actually. It turns out that our bad memories are not due to our nature, but because of the way in which we are raised. Most people are essentially born with pencil and paper in our hands (or I suppose keyboards, in recent years). We are used to being able to record information on paper, so that we do not have to remember it. In ancient times, this was not usually possible. Therefore, people were trained from an early age to remember narratives with much greater accuracy.

The Jews, for example, memorized large passages of the Old Testament. This is how Jesus was able to have meaningful discussions with them about the Old Testament, despite that it would be impractical to carry a collection of all the Scriptures. Likewise, Muslims have a related explanation as to how Quran was recorded. They claim that Mohammad was illiterate. But in his day, there existed professional memorizers, who could memorize a passage of recitation after hearing it only once. In this way, they claim that their Quran was accurately recorded. Whether this is true or not, the fact remains that the idea of being able to memorize a recitation with near perfect accuracy was not far-fetched in these days.

For the same reasons, it would have been much easier for the Apostles of Christ to memorize his teachings. This is only hard to believe because of differences in modern culture.

[Selena]

If you want to get into the 'accuracy of oral storytelling,' then you might want to consider the fact that there are generally several or even dozens of version to one particular myth. If they were so accurate, there would be just one version, correct? Rather than having 5+ ways that Artemis killed Orion, for example. Oral storytelling, while the ancients were probably better at it than us, was still essentially a game of telephone.

[Nevermind]

for the record, there is no book of Mary...it is just a marketing ploy..why else are they sold in magazines for "EVERYTHING ONLY $14.95!!!" You've been had....

There is a Book of Mary written by former Pope John Paul II. That is the one you are probably talking about.


In the apocryhpa, however, there is a 'Gospel of Mary', 'Questions of Mary (Great and Little)', 'Descent of Mary', 'Epistle of the Blessed Virgin', 'Infancy Gospel of James', 'The Transitus Mary by St. John the Apostle', and a few others. So mayhap people have not quite been 'had'.

[Koji]

Oral storytelling, while the ancients were probably better at it than us, was still essentially a game of telephone.

Selena swoops down and saves me yet again.

Edited by Koji, 11 March 2006 - 05:02 AM.

[dcLx]

The Church didn't even mention of the Gospel of Mary! The problem also dictates how accurate these accounts are because the Bible was written hundreds of years after the events took place and the translation also poses a problem. Now, do I believe in God? Yes. I just feel that the events in the Bible were twisted.

its like every generation, if the crowd believes that its worthless, then the gospel is worthless, so they banned it from the bible

im a christian but im not really sure if god is really all that real, i mean my sunday school teacher says all the parts in the bible fall into place. but why hasnt god come to us yet, why doesnt he speak to us? or guiding us to what is right and what is wrong? We've been waiting for jesus for 2006 years now and still not even a single sign that he will ever come