0
   

Is the bible reliable?

 
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 03:47 pm
MA,
That says a lot to me about it's reliability.
0 Replies
 
flushd
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 03:54 pm
neologist wrote:
flushd wrote:
Could you clarify your question, neo?

Are you asking if the bible is a verifiable integrated whole?
or
Are you asking if the bible can be trusted to be a reliable source of God's word?
or
Are you asking if the bible is reliable historically?
or
something else...

The question is quite vague. It is open to intepretation. Can't really answer a question if I don't understand what it is.
All of the above. So far, only Terry has offered specific arguments against any of those propositions. She made statements about the internal harmony of the bible which I attempted to answer. No one has yet seen fit to critique my reply.

So, to restate my topic:

If any folks have specific arguments against the bible. I invite you to post them.

I believe they can be answered.


Ahhh! Loaded question. Laughing

One would have to be a monotheist to begin with to even play that game with you and get anywhere. And if that were the case; it would be a silly fight over scraps.

"Dichotomised morality is so integral to the Judaeo-Christian moral idiom that those brought up in its tradition have great difficulty conceiving of any alternative. The Genesis story of creation does not imply moral ambiguity. Instead, it can be seen as a succession of binary pairs. Day: Night. Adam: Eve. There is no intermediate figure, no third term, representing some middle way between good and evil." H.Brody.

In other words, by the very nature of your beliefs (an absolute belief with no space for ambiguity), you have closed the doors to discussion.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 03:54 pm
MOAN wrote:
Neo's interpretation or understanding of it is different than mine. The words in the Bible are the same. It's our understanding that is different.


One of the prime objections to the thesis that the bible is reliable is the inherent ambiguity. More than that, it is an imperative objection to allowing anyone to make social decisions based upon a religious thesis.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 04:11 pm
Setanta wrote:
MOAN wrote:
Neo's interpretation or understanding of it is different than mine. The words in the Bible are the same. It's our understanding that is different.


One of the prime objections to the thesis that the bible is reliable is the inherent ambiguity. More than that, it is an imperative objection to allowing anyone to make social decisions based upon a religious thesis.


What Momma said about the bible made me think of a Rorschach Test. The picture is the same, but people can make anything out of it that they wish. And then, as Santanta has said, people are making important decisions, and attempting to pass laws, based on a work of complete ambiguity. That does not sound like the bible has a very firm basis for anything that would have a profound effect on people!!
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 04:33 pm
The whole point is that it is not God that is ambiguous. It is not the Word of God that is ambiguous. I don't know why Neo does not believe in (accept, whatever the word is) in hell or not. I have not had that discussion with him. I only know that he has a different understanding than I do.

The main message is the same no matter what. God is love. God loves us. God wants us to love Him. God wants us to love each other. I don't see what is so hard about understanding that BASIC message. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 04:48 pm
So the God of Love made the sun stand still on Gibeon so that Joshuah et all could more effectively slaughter the tribes they sought to displace in Canaan? Your deity tells you not to kill, and the facilitates the slaughter. The silly quibble that the true wording ought to be thou shalt not murder does not significy either, because your deity calls for and facilitates the slaughter of women and children, which is murder by any reasonable defintion. Your God of Love has a special covenant with the tribes of the Hebrews, which is racist. Your God of Love has a law which allows the stoning to death of women who are adulterers, but not men, and that's sexist. Your god is most definitely ambiguous, as well as capriciously and murderously violent and vengeful.

You will now happily trot out your new covenant tripe, but that's both exclusionary if it were true, and a dodge, in that you, personally, still decry homosexuality on the basis of more than simply the reputed teachings of the putative Jesus, who does not condemn homosexuality.

You have a huge set of double standards by which you justify your attitudes, MOAN, and the worst is that when one condemns christians for their crimes against humanity you will say that those things are not typical of all christians, but you will also demand tolerance for the points of view of all christians.

I consider you to be a terribly illogical and confused thinker.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:10 pm
Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:9


God thinks bashing little kids heads on rocks and killing them is fun.

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
Hosea 13:16


Fetuses in women's bellies are evil and must be destroyed.

Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
Zephaniah 3:8


Killing people because of a jealous rage; what better way to show love.

In vain have I smitten your children; they received no correction: your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion.
Jeremiah 2:30


When someone is bad kill their children. That's what he did in Egypt.

And the LORD God of Israel delivered Sihon and all his people into the hand of Israel, and they smote them: so Israel possessed all the land of the Amorites, the inhabitants of that country.
Judges 11:21


Kind of like today; kill the people and steal their land.

Yes, this world needs more of this type of love. Thank God we have the Bible to teach us how to kill other people. God of the Bible showed us the way and he is our example.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:12 pm
Setanta,

Thank you for saving me the time to put all those answers up there that I have given before. I appreciate that. But could you please point out in the Bible where Jesus does not condemn homosexuality? 1 Corinithians 6:9 says that He does.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:18 pm
A letter from Paul to the Corinthians does not constitute evidence of what the putative Jesus taught--it only provides evidence of Paul's prejudice.

The King James Version of First Corinthians, Chapter 6, Verse 9 wrote:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind . . .


By that tract, a homosexual who was not effeminate (such as a gay body builder, or a "butch" lesbian) would not be included. But the real crux of this is that Paul is making a set of assertions to the Corinthians, which assertions he definitely does not describe as the teaching of the putative Jesus.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:30 pm
So, I suppose God changed His mind about homosexuality altogether from the Old Testament then? Sounds like to me that you may be doing what others have accused some Christians of doing? Taking a verse to mean what they want it to mean?

Call it prejudice if you like, Setanta. God is prejudice against sin. Yes, He is. I can't and won't deny that.

And no, I have not done any gay bashing whatsoever today. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:34 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
So, I suppose God changed His mind about homosexuality altogether from the Old Testament then? Sounds like to me that you may be doing what others have accused some Christians of doing? Taking a verse to mean what they want it to mean?

Call it prejudice if you like, Setanta. God is prejudice against sin. Yes, He is. I can't and won't deny that.

And no, I have not done any gay bashing whatsoever today. :wink:


How would you interpret that passage MA?
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 05:55 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
So, I suppose God changed His mind about homosexuality altogether from the Old Testament then? Sounds like to me that you may be doing what others have accused some Christians of doing? Taking a verse to mean what they want it to mean?

Call it prejudice if you like, Setanta. God is prejudice against sin. Yes, He is. I can't and won't deny that.

And no, I have not done any gay bashing whatsoever today. :wink:


The fact that many Christians refer back to the old testament in order to back up their prejudices is the reason that I often bring up the barbarity and absurdity of that document.

Did you pick up any useful info from the Westboro Baptist's website that I linked for you MA?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 06:40 pm
Questioner,

I'm not really sure what you meant.

Mesquite,

I am sorry that you think I am prejudice against homosexuals. I have told you before, I treat them no differently than I treat anyone else. You just don't accept it.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 06:46 pm
MOAN wrote:
So, I suppose God changed His mind about homosexuality altogether from the Old Testament then? Sounds like to me that you may be doing what others have accused some Christians of doing? Taking a verse to mean what they want it to mean?

Call it prejudice if you like, Setanta. God is prejudice against sin. Yes, He is. I can't and won't deny that.

And no, I have not done any gay bashing whatsoever today.


First, to refer to your last post, i was not the one who provided the list of atrocities attributable to your god, that was Xingu, although it was certainly welcome evidence of what i had referred to--but you need to keep the different members straight in your mind.

Next, you are makin one of my points for me. When people accuse the god of the old testament of being brutal and vicious, you start spouting your new covenant mantra. But here, you refer back to the old testament, because it is convenient to your argument. You constantly contradict yourself in that manner.

I take the verses at face value. Nowhere in First Corinthians Chapter six does Paul claim that he is repeating the teachings of Jesus. If--as you claim when taxed with the vicious habits of the god of the old testment--there is a new covenant which supercedes the old, then one can only look to your putative Jesus for the straight skinny on the divine attitude toward homosexuality. You provided the verse, and i pointed out to you that, first, Paul does not claim to be repeating the teaching of the putative Jesus, and, second, that it refers to the effeminant, which means it doesn't cover butch lesbians or buffed gay male bodybuilders. In fact, it does not mention homosexuality specifically, so we are left with you making a verse mean what you want it to mean, and not me.

It is your claim that "god is prejudice against sin," for which you do not provide scriptural substantiation. If this is true, you still have not demonstrated that homosexuality is considered to be sinful according to your vaunted new covenant. You have completely failed to make your point on your own terms.

Stop shoving strawmen at me--at no time have i accused you of "gay-bashing."
0 Replies
 
Doktor S
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 06:51 pm
neologist wrote:
Sorry, Dok. There was so much going on, I overlooked your remark.
Are you saying your main objection to the bible is the implausibility of miracles? Would you say they would not be possible given any definition of God or that they are not possible given your definition of God?

Note: Adding Dok to the list of reasonable objectors.

Sweet, I made the list. I think I'll throw a sexy party.
Anyway..as to your first question... not just the implausibility of miracles, but also spirits,souls,deities,creation,..basically all given superstition to be found within its pages. These are the primary obstacles to my finding it reasonable as anything more than a work of history/legend. Don't get me wrong, I'm not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater, there is some powerful legend and useful history inside that sucker. However, to take it as more than that is to me intellectually problematic.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 07:02 pm
Setanta wrote:
MOAN wrote:
So, I suppose God changed His mind about homosexuality altogether from the Old Testament then? Sounds like to me that you may be doing what others have accused some Christians of doing? Taking a verse to mean what they want it to mean?

Call it prejudice if you like, Setanta. God is prejudice against sin. Yes, He is. I can't and won't deny that.

And no, I have not done any gay bashing whatsoever today.


First, to refer to your last post, i was not the one who provided the list of atrocities attributable to your god, that was Xingu, although it was certainly welcome evidence of what i had referred to--but you need to keep the different members straight in your mind.

I am sorry, Setanta. I wasn't referring to that specifically. I will try to word things better.


Next, you are makin one of my points for me. When people accuse the god of the old testament of being brutal and vicious, you start spouting your new covenant mantra. But here, you refer back to the old testament, because it is convenient to your argument. You constantly contradict yourself in that manner.

Again, the laws that changed in the Old Testament were the ritual and hygiene laws. Not the Ten Commandments, etc., but the ritual and hygience laws were done away with. The only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament is the one about keeping the Sabbath.

I take the verses at face value. Nowhere in First Corinthians Chapter six does Paul claim that he is repeating the teachings of Jesus. If--as you claim when taxed with the vicious habits of the god of the old testment--there is a new covenant which supercedes the old, then one can only look to your putative Jesus for the straight skinny on the divine attitude toward homosexuality. You provided the verse, and i pointed out to you that, first, Paul does not claim to be repeating the teaching of the putative Jesus, and, second, that it refers to the effeminant, which means it doesn't cover butch lesbians or buffed gay male bodybuilders. In fact, it does not mention homosexuality specifically, so we are left with you making a verse mean what you want it to mean, and not me.

Fair enough. But, the only laws done away with by the New Testament are the ritual and hygiene laws.

It is your claim that "god is prejudice against sin," for which you do not provide scriptural substantiation. If this is true, you still have not demonstrated that homosexuality is considered to be sinful according to your vaunted new covenant. You have completely failed to make your point on your own terms.

Perhaps prejudice was the incorrect word. God hates sin. See above for the rest of that.

Stop shoving strawmen at me--at no time have i accused you of "gay-bashing."

Embarrassed My small attempt at humor. Forgive me. No, you have never accused me of that. Embarrassed
0 Replies
 
Questioner
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 07:26 pm
neologist wrote:
Y'know I gave a response to Terry's post. You have conveniently ignored it. Why not try cutting it up instead of adding new straw men?

For example, the word omniscience. It doesn't appear in the bible. It implies that God is under necessity to know all things in advance - sort of like the world famous chef who is unable to stop himself from cooking.

Bon appetit


Just out of curiosity, why did you opt to disregard the list of 'contradictions' that Sozobe displayed in this post? You merely took the last sentence of said list and threw up this little jig and ignored the rest. I'd be curious to hear your take on those contradictions. And on the following:


Quote:

Matthew 27:3-10 (KJV): "3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he
saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the
thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, 4 Saying, I
have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said,
What is that to us? see thou to that. 5 And he cast down the pieces of
silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself. 6 And
the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful
for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood. 7
And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury
strangers in. 8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood,
unto this day. 9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the
prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price
of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me."

Acts 1:16-19 (KJV): "16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs
have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake
before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. 17
For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. 18
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling
headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as
that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say,
The field of blood."

How do these verses contradict each other?

1. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money to the priests before
dying, then he went to hang himself. After that, the priests
bought a field. In Acts, Judas used the money himself to buy a
field.

2. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money before dying, and then a
field was bought. In Acts, the field was bought before Judas died.

3. In Matthew, he died by hanging himself, whilst in Acts he fell
headlong and his bowels gushed out.



Source

I acknowledge that I got this tidbit from the web, but this particular contradiction was brought up to me before at the university I attended. It wasn't really explainable then, and I'm wondering if you feel it even needs to be.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 07:56 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Questioner,

I'm not really sure what you meant.

Mesquite,

I am sorry that you think I am prejudice against homosexuals. I have told you before, I treat them no differently than I treat anyone else. You just don't accept it.


That is a load of horse poopy. In Your own words....

Momma Angel wrote:

If someone is a homosexual, then that is between them and God. But, as long as I believe it is against God's laws, yes, I will lobby to not allow homosexual marriages and I will not apologize for that. But, it doesn't mean I am homophobic or a gay basher.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1654848#1654848

IMO if you support restricting their rights and unduly causing hardships in a family situation then you ARE treating them differently than anyone else. It is a pity that you cannot grasp such a simple concept.

In case you missed it the last time I posted it, for a real life example of the affect of such bigotry...

Quote:

Meet the Soterwoods[/u]

The above link to an article that appeared in the local paper last month features real people and a slide show to help put faces on the quandary that same sex couples face when raising a family.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 08:03 pm
Mesquite,

I realize this issue is personal for you. I am sorry that you cannot understand my stand on this. Like I have said before, if my two friends who are lesbians don't have a problem with the way I feel about this, treat them, and how I would vote if I could, then I sure don't understand why you do when you only know me on this forum.

We don't even get to vote for this issue, Mesquite. The extent of my lobbying is talking on this forum and discussing it with my friends. I think you are taking this way too seriously. I could understand it if I was out there carrying signs or something, but I am not.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 18 Jan, 2006 09:35 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
Again, the laws that changed in the Old Testament were the ritual and hygiene laws. Not the Ten Commandments, etc., but the ritual and hygience laws were done away with. The only one of the Ten Commandments not repeated in the New Testament is the one about keeping the Sabbath.


First, as you've never tried to make that point with me before, you have no business prefacing your remarks with "again." Second, when i have told you that the god of the old testament is childish, capricious, vengeful, murderously violent, racist and sexist, you have responded with your new covenant mantra. If the new covenant only refers to laws governing ritualistic behavior in a narrow range, you were contradicting yourself to have tried to exculpate your version of god by citing a new covenant.

Quote:
Fair enough. But, the only laws done away with by the New Testament are the ritual and hygiene laws.


See my remarks above--you have consistently cited a new covenant when taxed with the character flaws of the god of the old testament--that was convenient to your thesis then. Now, when it is convenient to your anti-homosexual thesis, you claim that the only laws dispensed with are ritualistic laws. You contradict yourself over time, even if it is not apparent in these exchanges of posts.

If, as you say, then, the new covenant only refers to ritualistic procedure, you're still stuck with a god who is puerile, vengeful, murderously violent, racist and sexist. In which case, your deity is a hypocrit with no moral authority.

Quote:
Perhaps prejudice was the incorrect word. God hates sin.


Religious people spend a lot of time telling us what god hates. I am reminded of Bishop Burnet, later Archbishop of Canturbury (and therefore spiritual head of the Church of England) who was the confessor of King Charles II, and the principle source on the day to day life of that King and his court. He once wrote to a friend, and remarked that "the King has an odd notion of God's love." He then quoted King Charles as saying: "The only things which God hates are that we be evil and that we design mischief." Bishop Burnet called that an odd notion of god's love because the good Bishop very likely had a long laundry list of things god hates, being a man of his times and his religion in every respect.

There is, of course, the ludicrous aspect of talking about "sin," and that god hates sin--given that many sins are products of quite natural behavior, and therefore a direct product of what the alleged deity has created. Gluttony, sloth, envy, lust . . . and a host of other "sins" have quite natural origins in a species which intends to reproduce and dominate its environment. It all rather reads as though this goofy deity sets up the human race for a fall, and then says: "See, i told y'all you were sinful--but i hate the sin, not the sinner, so get down on your knees and beg for my benevolent forgiveness and i'll let you spend eternity telling me what a swell guy i truly am." What a comic book character!

Quote:
My small attempt at humor.


Given that gay bashing has killed people, and that i personally know a man who was blinded for life in one eye as a result of a gay-bashing incident, it is not something which i am likely to construe as humorous.
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 0.04 seconds on 05/01/2024 at 08:51:14