4
   

Why does the Bible get misinterpreted so often????

 
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 08:16 am
Quote:
it more likely that "matter and energy" were created by a god....particularly one who slaughters innocents unnecessarily and who instructs people to kill other people for absurd reasons...


innocents......in whose eyes?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 10:52 am
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
it more likely that "matter and energy" were created by a god....particularly one who slaughters innocents unnecessarily and who instructs people to kill other people for absurd reasons...


innocents......in whose eyes?


In the eyes of anyone willing to look.

The "innocents" I mentioned included all (every one of) the "first born" of Egypt...all slaughtered by the god of the Bible...a huge number of which were children, infants, and babies.

The "innocents" I mentioned included almost all of the people who lived in Sodom and Gommorah...all slaughtered by the god of the Bible...a huge number of which were children, infants, and babies.

The "innocents" I mentioned included all of the people on Earth excepting Noah and his family...all slaughtered by the god of the Bible...a huge number of which were children, infants, and babies.


You mean you don't think of them as "innocents", Thunder?
0 Replies
 
Super Squirrel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 11:01 am
Well, to tell you my opinion, I don't even think that the bible is a holy book, I mean how do we know that some random guy, 2000 years ago didn't just sit down an think "now what would make a good story that would keep people questioning their lives and what they discover for thousands, possibly millions of years?" Then went and wrote about God, the Devil and Bob....oops thats a TV program but you get the idea!
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 11:14 am
I dont think it happened quite like that squirrel, but I know what you mean.

It was just the same witht he talmud and the body of Jewish law...came about by a process of evolution.

And with the Koran. But better not say so or they put a fatwa on you
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 01:05 pm
When it comes to understanding, acceptance, and tolerance, religionists in general are real big on the concepts - just so long as it isn't some other differently inclined religionist's point of view that is to be understood, accepted, and tolerated.
0 Replies
 
auroreII
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 02:09 pm
3drdre said......I asked my doctor why he thought he was a Christian if he didn't believe in every aspect of the Bible. He said "I believe that Jesus is the ultimate representation of what God is, even if he isn't the so-called son of God." Yes, he thinks there probably is a God, but he doesn't know for sure there is one, as no one does as I stated earlier. He doesn't necessarily buy into the all-knowing God that has control of every situation on the planet because there is too many falsifable questions like "If someone isn't brought up in Christianity, is it fair that they don't go to heaven" or "how come a person that isn't a Christian but lives a moral life wouldn't go to heaven but an immoral, evil Christian that lives a sinful life would go heaven."

I find medicine amazing. I am always amazed when I read about something scientific or medical. If you get too much insulin you go into a coma and die. If you get too little insulin you go into a coma and die. Most of us seem to walk that fine tightrope between the two. Why? There seems to be so much room for error, so many things that could go wrong. If you take a good look at how things work you have to wonder why everything isn't just chaos. It always makes me feel like there has to be more than science going on.

Falsifable questions?
"If someone isn't brought up in Christianity, is it fair that they don't go to heaven" or "how come a person that isn't a Christian but lives a moral life wouldn't go to heaven but an immoral, evil Christian that lives a sinful life would go heaven."
Interesting questions, but IMO they don't seem to have much support from the bible.
The bible says that we are not just supposed to live in word, but also in deed. Read James 2:14-18 about how faith without works is just empty words. I think there is a story in the bible about a man with two sons. The man asks the sons to go work in his fields. The one son says he will do it, but then he doesn't. The other son says he won't do it, but then he relents and does it. Who has done the will of the father?

...Rom 13;8-10.. he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Someone asked Jesus to tell him who was his neighbor?
Have you heard the story of the good Samaritan. I was told that the people of Samaria, which according to my dictionary is a part of Palestine, were looked down on by the Jews. Jesus tells this story of how a man was robbed and beaten and left for dead by the side of the road. The religious Jews passing him by actually crossed to the other side of the road to avoid him. Yet this Samaritan stopped to help him and took him to where he could be cared for. Jesus then asks the person who posed the question, who was this man's neighbor? Luke 10:29-37
This man, this samaritan, loved his neighbor. The Jews used to walk around thinking that because they were circumcised they would automatically inherit the kingdom of God, but Jesus tells them that circumcision is of the heart (where love resides).
God sees the good things you do.
I Samuel 16:7 For the Lord seeth not as man seeth for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart. None of us is perfect. The bible says love covers a multitude of sin 1Peter 4:8. Love covers a multitude of sin. The bible says love is the fulfillment of the law.
God will forgive. 2Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their tresspasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 18 Sep, 2005 09:57 pm
timberlandko wrote:
real life wrote:

E=MC² doesn't change the nature of the question, though you might like to think it does.

What I "like to think" or otherwise, nothing changes the nature of your "question"; howver you phrase it, your either-or presents a false dichotomy.

Quote:
The question is very easy to understand.

What is easy to understand is that only if the false dichotomy presented by the question is allowed to pertain - a logical absurdity - the question is meaningless.
Quote:
There are still two options on the table ( since you fail to reasonably postulate a third) :

Ahhhh, but you are mistaken, Grasshopper. I submit there exist an infinity of options - as I said, " ... Nobody knows what, if anything, might have come "Before", or if even there was a before - perhaps, for instance, there is more to what we characterize as time than currently encompassed by our understanding, or perhaps energy, mass, or the mass-energy equivalent were something other than now appears to be the case ... " There is much we do not know.

Quote:
a) 'Matter' ( or 'matter and energy' or 'just energy alone' . Take your pick.) were not created ; i.e. it or they were eternally pre-existent and had no beginning point

b) 'Matter' ( or 'matter and energy' or 'just energy alone' . Take your pick. ) were created ; i.e. it or they did have a beginning point

Nothing there from which to pick, given the current state of knowledge. Only a fool claims to have the answer before the question is understood.


Each of the possibilities that you outline fall into one of the two categories, Timber.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 02:38 am
Life keeps insisting there are only two choices...

a) matter and energy always existed...or...

b) matter and energy were created.

I have offered a third possibility...the fact that "matter and energy" may be nothing more than an illusion.



In response to Timber, Life wrote:

Quote:
Each of the possibilities that you outline fall into one of the two categories, Timber.


The fact that matter and energy MAY be nothing more than an illusion...

...does not.


In any case...even if one were to make the mistake Life is making and assume there are only the two possibilities...

...and even if one were to suppose that the more logical of the two is that matter and energy were created...

...that would still not lead to...


..."then matter and energy were created by a god"...

...and even more importantly, it would certainly not lead to...

..."then matter and energy were created by the god of the Bible when the god of the Bible was not too busy being a jealous, tyrannical, vindictive, vengeful, quick-to-anger slow-to-forgive, comical, petty, barbaric monster."


So what difference does it really make?

Anyone interested in Life's question should just toss a coin to decide on an answer...because it is not something that can be determined on the evidence...and it doesn't matter which way one comes down on the question.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 05:08 am
real life wrote:
Each of the possibilities that you outline fall into one of the two categories, Timber.



Nonsense - within "other" exists an infinity of possibilities. The fact of the matter is that we do not know enough about time or energy/matter to postulate what or indeed even if anything preceded the current state That some are able to conceive that only 2 mutually exclusive - and statistically improbable, btw - possibilities are the entire roster is a wholly laughable incidence of arrogance driven by determined ignorance. Unsurprising, given their wont, that religionists have convinced themselves theirs is the only answer when the very question remains undefined.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 05:56 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Life keeps insisting there are only two choices...

a) matter and energy always existed...or...

b) matter and energy were created.

I have offered a third possibility...the fact that "matter and energy" may be nothing more than an illusion.




I have thought about that a few times. The thing that comes to mind then though (for me at least) is if this matter and energy are all just an illusion then how do I know it exists if I would then not exist since matter and energy are an illusion? Can I have cognitive thoughts in a world of illusion?

Just wondering.
0 Replies
 
thunder runner32
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:36 am
Quote:
You mean you don't think of them as "innocents", Thunder?


I think God is capable of sorting the people out. I think the problem you have is your view on death. You don't see it as only the loss of the body, which is why you have trouble seeing that the God of the bible is not "barbarious." Innocents people will have life everlasting, those who seperate themselves from God and his will, shall be seperated from life.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 12:17 pm
Sturgis wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Life keeps insisting there are only two choices...

a) matter and energy always existed...or...

b) matter and energy were created.

I have offered a third possibility...the fact that "matter and energy" may be nothing more than an illusion.




I have thought about that a few times. The thing that comes to mind then though (for me at least) is if this matter and energy are all just an illusion then how do I know it exists if I would then not exist since matter and energy are an illusion? Can I have cognitive thoughts in a world of illusion?


Why not?

You...or your mind...could be the one and only thing that truly does exist. And the "illusion" is the illusion of that one reality.

I'm not saying this is so...just that it is one possibility other than the two Life wants to insist are the only possibilities.

Like Timber...I see existence as way, way, way too complicated and hidden to make any definitive statements about the subtler aspects of it.

And I want to leave as much in the way of "it is a possibility" open as I can. Excluding any "possibilities" is as much an exercise in silliness as insisting any particular "possibility" is the only (or best) possibility in these kinds of cases.

Quote:
Just wondering.


Aren't we all? Aren't we all!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 12:19 pm
thunder_runner32 wrote:
Quote:
You mean you don't think of them as "innocents", Thunder?


I think God is capable of sorting the people out. I think the problem you have is your view on death. You don't see it as only the loss of the body, which is why you have trouble seeing that the God of the bible is not "barbarious." Innocents people will have life everlasting, those who seperate themselves from God and his will, shall be seperated from life.


I appreciate your wild guesses on this, Thunder...even if you have trouble seeing and identifying them as wild guesses.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 12:57 pm
Eagle

Quote:
The only conclusion that may be drawn from the voluminous, mutually corroborative, multiply independently replicated studies is that the phenomonon is a well understood, thoroughly natural, remarkably consistent psychochemical process. The administration of any of several of a particular category of pyschoactive drugs will bring about a perfect mimic of the symptoms.


You don't know what your talking about. Psychochemical and drugs (ketamine) has been thoroughly discredited as a cause for NDE.

The notion that science understands NDE is ridiculous. If they know so much then why do they have so many theories?

the dying brain theory
Darwin's theory
hallucination theory
the temporal lobe theory
the lack of oxygen theory
the depersonalization theory
the memory of birth theory

Yup, they really have it nailed down.
0 Replies
 
CarbonSystem
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 01:04 pm
slkshock7 wrote:
Seems like in every debate or discussion with an agnostic or atheist...at some point, the agnostic or atheist will assert that something from the Bible is being misinterpreted...or misused in some way.

What is it with that?



Frank,
I might be willing to give a little credence to your argument if you could show me a book, any book, that couldn't be misinterpreted or misused.

Especially a book about subjects (gods, heaven, faith, etc) you yourself readily admit can't be proven or disproven.


Those books you speak of, do you mean fiction? Because if so, well fiction books aren't taken literally, and shoudln't be. If you are saying non-fiction books, well you cannot even compare them, because the bible is all fiction.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 01:29 pm
I dont know about it being fiction, but it sure causes friction.

(my little homily for the day)
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 09:23 pm
Didn't single out disassociative anesthetics, xingu; those are but one of several categories of psychoactive drugs that have been demonstrated to be instrumental to pharmacologic mimicry of NDE/OBE. And as for your "so many theories" theory, a bit more research - open, objective research - would disclose to you that the phenomenon is, at least among those board-certified and institutionally accreditted in clinical neuromedicine, widely thought to be the result of a combination and/or concatenation of a number of processes, not any one process. Of course, if you prefer, you're perfectly welcome to discard actual clinical evidence and embrace the fantasticalist views of the likes of Kubler-Ross and Moody. Their writings are ever so much more entertaining than your typically dry, data-laden, logic-driven, peer-reviewed, multiply cross-corroborating, independently reproducible studies.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 Sep, 2005 10:14 pm
timberlandko wrote:
real life wrote:
Each of the possibilities that you outline fall into one of the two categories, Timber.



Nonsense - within "other" exists an infinity of possibilities. The fact of the matter is that we do not know enough about time or energy/matter to postulate what or indeed even if anything preceded the current state That some are able to conceive that only 2 mutually exclusive - and statistically improbable, btw - possibilities are the entire roster is a wholly laughable incidence of arrogance driven by determined ignorance. Unsurprising, given their wont, that religionists have convinced themselves theirs is the only answer when the very question remains undefined.


Since you like to preach to others about verifiable and repeatable evidence, etc -- on what basis do you refer to either as statistically improbable? Whose assumptions and guesswork are you quoting?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 12:19 am
We've been over this before, RL, in detail - you apparently prefer not to see it. The guesswork and assumptions are yours; to whit (if in brief):

Assumption 1) There may be a deity or deities.
Assumption 2) There is a deity or deities
Assumption 3) There is but one deity
Assumption 4) That deity is independent of time and existence
Assumption 5) That deity is omnipotent
Assumtion 6) There was a creation which resulted in the current state or condition
Assumption 7) That deity soley and independently was causal to whatever you term creation
Assumption 8) That deity is the deity of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia
Assumption 9) That Abrahamic deity is in specific the Judaeo-Christian God of The Bible
Assumption 10) All the foregoing assumptions are, despite total lack of indepent corroboration, given as pertaining to the current state or condition.

That's way, way, way too many interdependent assumptions - by a factor of about 9 - to enable any meaningful conclusion. You just can't get to where you, the religionists, want to go other than by way of all your assumptions - each and every one of which, apart perhaps from the first, remains an unresolved proposition. An "if" or two may not sink an argument, but an argument wholly based on a 9-or-10--or-so-long unbroken chain of "ifs" isn't a valid proposition, its a guess at best.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 Sep, 2005 12:32 am
timberlandko wrote:
We've been over this before, RL, in detail - you apparently prefer not to see it. The guesswork and assumptions are yours; to whit (if in brief):

Assumption 1) There may be a deity or deities.
Assumption 2) There is a deity or deities
Assumption 3) There is but one deity
Assumption 4) That deity is independent of time and existence
Assumption 5) That deity is omnipotent
Assumtion 6) There was a creation which resulted in the current state or condition
Assumption 7) That deity soley and independently was causal to whatever you term creation
Assumption 8) That deity is the deity of the Abrahamic Mythopaeia
Assumption 9) That Abrahamic deity is in specific the Judaeo-Christian God of The Bible
Assumption 10) All the foregoing assumptions are, despite total lack of indepent corroboration, given as pertaining to the current state or condition.

That's way, way, way too many interdependent assumptions - by a factor of about 9 - to enable any meaningful conclusion. You just can't get to where you, the religionists, want to go other than by way of all your assumptions - each and every one of which, apart perhaps from the first, remains an unresolved proposition. An "if" or two may not sink an argument, but an argument wholly based on a 9-or-10--or-so-long unbroken chain of "ifs" isn't a valid proposition, its a guess at best.


The topic we were discussing is most closely associated with #6. If you think there was NOT a beginning point for the universe in which matter came into existence, prove the opposite. You cannot, but you believe it anyway.

The difference between us, Timber, is that I am upfront about faith being part of my viewpoint. You are not, even though it is.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 03:51:38