God, Religion, & the Bible

Why would that be wrong?

It is wronger to believe in the Bible, and quite human to believe in some sort of God... What do father's become when the die??? What better explains all than all...

It would depend on which god you believe in I suppose. If you believe in the God of the bible why wouldn't you believe the bible?

It is not wrong to believe in anything. It is wrong to act on your beliefs in a manner which harms others.

I'm not going to comment on whether it's right or wrong, but I am going to say it's logically consistent. While believing in the Bible without believing in God would be inconsistent, the reverse is not true. Zoroastrians, for example, believe in God but not in the Bible. There's no logical contradiction in that.

Does this answer your question?

I guess I believe in the Bible...just not so much that it is the word of God. I know that doesn't make much sense to some people, but that is what I believe. There were no records of anything at that time. No one was alive at the time when God was around, so who knows if it really is God's word or not. So many of the things in the Bible have came true, but it's almost if someone made these predictions and they came true.

Only if one believes in the god of the Bible.

God as a final term is a personality in our Western tradition, so breaking thru this "personality" is blocked by our orthodox training and upbringing. This is so beaten into us, that "God" refers to a personality

However, mystics of many folds have broken past this "personality. The mystic Meister Eckhart said "the ultimate leave-taking is the leaving of God for God".

Throughout world history when we find that a culture or society is agrarian or that the ineffable power is generated from the Earth Principle, we find the Mother Goddess dominant, whereas in hunting cultures, we find a god principle, a thunder hurler, or solar light, as male.

Since we have begun to move past both of these societies and cultures, it is no wonder that the question of "what is God?" is on our lips.

It is not so much that we need a new "God", but those old concepts of "God" no longer affect us as once they did

I think it's a good idea, in life, to be your own arbiter of what you choose to believe and disbelieve.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

The Bible? As literature? It's good lit, isn't it?

Again, I'm not going to comment on whether you're right to believe in the Bible or in God. But this set of beliefs, too, is internally consistent, because you can believe in any two things independently. So if you believe in the Bible and in God, this doesn't have to mean the Bible is the word of God.

Not sure how anyone comes to that conclusion. It is horribly written and very boring of a read. In many cases the story is either completely convoluted or they end abruptly without any resolution. Yet in other cases there is information that is so vague you could put anything into it's meaning and therefore get absolutely no worth from them.

So I think the conclusion is that people "want" the bible to be some kind of great work of literature and they think by repeatedly saying it will make it true but in reality it is far from a great work. If it is suppose to be an inspired work, it leaves me wondering just how inspired the 40 some odd writers actually were.

I believe in God. And i dont really believe in bible cos it is written by human, not God. Well, just say I dont understand...

The bible was not written as a single document. It has numerous authors and was put together as a compilation centuries after the texts were first written. Much of the prophecies that "came true" were written as contemporary texts up to a certain point in the story and then a supposed conclusion was added by the prophet. This is how scholars sometimes date a text. They compare the story to history and separate fact (history) from fantasy (prophecy). The same is true for the canonical gospels. They were all written well after Jesus' death and can be dated based on where history becomes prophecy.

It's not at all illogical to believe in God but to see the bible as an historical novel - a collection of texts based on history with fictional characters and story lines.

I just don't see how people can rely so much on the Bible and say they live by it when there are so many versions of the Bible and it all depends on how the reader interprets it. People can interpret it to suit their own personal needs.

I don't understand your dilemma. Your opening posts asks if it's "wrong" to believe in God but not in the bible. Of course it isn't wrong. Now you seem to be hung up on what other people believe. What's your concern with what other people believe as long as it doesn't interfere with your ability to live your life as you see best?

Well it was written by humans, but these were humans who were inspired by God. Doesn' t that make it special?

Because people knew and followed the God of Abraham and Jesus of Nazareth long before there was a bible that describe them.

I agree with JPB. You seem to be all over the place with this. If you believe in (your best interpretation of) the bible, feel free to believe in it. If you believe in God, feel free to believe in her. What does it matter if we on A2K approve?

I do understand that. However, Jesus quoted from the OT quite often. He spoke of His father and the word of God. TO ME it is illogical to say you believe in God but not the Bible. As a Christian, the bible is what we study to learn about God and how we are to live according to His word.

I always have to grin when I hear someone say but the bible was written by men and that's why they don't really believe it. But yet, they will believe plenty of what other books have to say that were WRITTEN BY MEN but not inspired by God.