[Closed] Anyone read the Bible?

I stopped reading when someone said "the whole world being covered in water over just 40 days would really churn up the soil layers and muck up the dating systems used currently" and I spilt me tea everywhere.
Can someone summarise the rest as I've got 4 wheels to build before bedtime

Hora got excited about Chris Hoy whilst watching a Nigerian wedding and wants us all to praise someone with love.

Well one things a given. No matter what Hoy wont be riding behind me.

Imagine his disappointment, etc.

So not very many then.

So not very many then.

Well I wouldn't expect very many to admit on STW that they read the bible, in the same I wouldn't except many to admit on here that they take homeopathic medicine or like Piers Morgan.

It's a good point actually, I never actually answered the OP.

I haven't read it in the sense of sitting down at page one and wading through it to the end, no. But I expect few people have out of choice, it's heavy going. I have however read good chunks of it in isolation during RE lessons at school, and have revisited it subsequently on numerous occasions during discussions like this one.

Whilst I can't quote it verbatim and have never 'studied' it, because frankly I've better things to do, I think I know enough to get by, and certainly enough to form an opinion.

Mooly, care to expand on where you're going with the question? Have you read it? Have you read any other competing texts, the Qu'ran for example?

In answer to the question : yes, three times. Once enforced, two out of choice.

There's probably not a lot in it that would work for me, I think.

so no, 'part from school I sppose

Nope.Got expelled for asking 'awkward' questions in RE aged 10 and refusing to sing hymns.It sounded stupid to me aged 10 and still does 29 years later.

Just to tangent on the subject of hymns for a moment,

I learned hymns at school by nature of listening to the older kids who already knew the words and joining in. For [i]years [/i]I cheerfully sang "Oh come little sadollie, Chri-ist the lord" all the while wondering what the hell a 'sadollie' was.

At Infant school I was made to stand outside at morning assembly countless times for refusing to sing praise to religon. THAT young. Glad.

I read several pages in my early teen (think it was my cousin's) because I was learning English ... ahem ... So the answer is No.

Then I started reading Lighthouse (I think that's what they were called then ... free handout/mag) given to me/us by two nice/polite elderly Jehovah Witness ladies every time they visited us.

I think they were spreading the gospel 12 noon in a very hot country (34c to 37c) so my mother invited them in to give them drinks and some biscuits to eat. Nice people that my mum could chat to from the other part of the world.

That's ace.

"Have you heard the good news about Jesus?"

"We have biscuits."

"You win."

I don't think I ever thought enough about it to rebel or anything, went to sunday school, sang hymns, all that stuff, then grew up. I think after school, unless you're really bothered about it, you just stop thinking about religion and god and all that, don't you?

Something's just occurred to me.

In a lot of religious debates, the Christians assume the atheists are ignorant about religion, and the atheists assume the Christians are preachy and judgemental.

With a couple of notable exceptions, neither of these assumptions are true on STW. And that makes for very interesting discussions. For that, I thank you all.

With a couple of notable exceptions, neither of these assumptions are true on STW. And that makes for very interesting discussions. For that, I thank you all.

Definitely agree with that---my thoughts when the thread started echoed the trepidation you implied on the first page "this is going to end well"

Cougar - Moderator

That's ace.

"Have you heard the good news about Jesus?"

"We have biscuits."

"You win."

LOL! No harm having biscuits with two elderly ladies (my mum including me but I never stayed more than 5 mins) ...

Really, they were two nice elderly ladies. My mum could not just let two elderly ladies walking in the heat of noon with everyone turning them away. Nobody offered them drinks etc. No, we did not hate them but more like my mum welcoming friends from afar. We knew they were spreading the gospel but my mum only sympathised them for their hard work at their age. Always wish them well.

Nope. None of us (mum or me) were converted if you wish to know.

p/s: I think one of my mate is some sort of preacher but for whatever reasons he never wanted to convert us (the lads) ... hhmmmm ... 😆

Cougar +1

And in answer to your question about being like God. The Anglicans seem very bad at explaining simple things like that IMO. So you have to turn to the RC and their Catecisms. Form there, the argument seems to be that

1. The likeness to God is chiefly that we have a soul
2. Our souls are like God because they/it is spirit and immortal.

Cougar, good point well made.

To answer the OP (and to go along with Cougars point) I'm not religious and have read the Bible quite a few times, and studied Theology too.

I don't know if I class myself as an Atheist as such, I just know I'm not Religious.

To answer the point, I too have read bits of the Bible, although not all the way through. The bits I have read were quite well written (or at least translated), but not massively convincing.

Still not quite sure what the OP's point is, though - if you can't deny Christianity unless you've read the Bible, I guess apart from the particularly well-read we're all also Mithraics, Hindus, Wodinists etc. etc. And the secret texts of Scientology - has the OP read them? Can s/he, hand on heart, from a position of ignorance, deny their truth?

With a couple of notable exceptions, neither of these assumptions are true on STW. And that makes for very interesting discussions.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but I certainly have seen more hatred on religious threads on this site than on any other topic. Although, there has been some improvement of late - due to a few posters with thick skins and extraordinary reserves of patience. I also have seen, at best, an average understanding of faith.

if you can't deny Christianity unless you've read the Bible, I guess apart from the particularly well-read we're all also Mithraics, Hindus, Wodinists etc. etc.

Isn;t that basically a repackaging of the idea that atheists and Christians both disbelieve in several thousand gods, the only difference is that the atheists believe in one fewer?

It's an interesting point though, in as far as it goes. Say there's a film you don't like the sound of (let's say 'the human centipede'), it's ignorant to slag it off without ever seeing it, but plain stupid to forcibly sit yourself though an hour and a half of viewing being appalled before complaining about it to anyone who'll listen. There's a valid argument there that you need to be familiar with the source material in order to criticise it, alternatively avoid it but shut up.

I think the bullet being dodged there though is, it's generally not the Bible that the more militant atheists have an issue with, beyond deconstructing "ah, but it says in the bible..." type arguments; rather, their issue lies with people who use it to justify their bigotry and get their own way.

Sorry to rain on everyone's parade but I certainly have seen more hatred on religious threads on this site than on any other topic.

As a, eh, vocal user on the religion threads myself, I'd suggest that's unfair.

a) most of the serial arguers and trolls have been banned for life now, and

b) the "hatred" (such a strong word and I'd contest it, "intolerance" perhaps) you describe is applicable only to a very small minority.

I don't think it's fair to judge the current forum by the actions of some of its users several months ago. This thread alone surely must demonstrate that, no?

I also have seen, at best, an average understanding of faith.

I'm sure that corrections to any misunderstandings would be gratefully received. I'd welcome it, at any rate.

Ernie got it bang on with this post

As someone who has attended marxist-leninist education/talks/discussions, for a period literally spanning decades, I have never encountered hostility towards religion which even begins to approach the levels that it does on here.

Even Karl Marx, possibly the most famous atheist in history, had a more relaxed attitude to religion than some of the Guardian-reading wannabe lefties that post on here

Intolerance is hardly a virtue.

That's commies for you.
I'm lactose intolerant...can I not be virtuous? 😥

I think you probably can...if you choose to be.

But you may wish to refer to higher authority.

There's a valid argument there that you need to be familiar with the source material in order to criticise it, alternatively avoid it but shut up.

Can see where you're coming from, but that argument falls down when you consider child porn, for example - I feel no need to read it to be able to criticise it. Second-hand familiarity with the contents is often more than sufficient.

Not that I'm comparing the Bible to child porn, I'm not a huge fan of Christianity but I don't equate it with child abuse, even taking into account the Catholics 🙂

(And fortunately the last few marathon religious posts have been generally better-tempered than they were in the past, the shrill parroting of Dawkins seems to have faded a bit).

Sure, you can reasonably say cold that you're unlikely to approve of the genre; but if you (for some bizarro reason) wanted to debate the quality of photography or the skills of the director say, you'd have to watch it.

So, I don't think that's a very fair analogy, and if it's ok I'm going to use a slightly less emotive example to explain what I mean!

I don't particularly like rap music. I could say blindly that it's unlikely that I'll enjoy, say, Eminem, but I couldn't (fairly) be critical of him unless I'd heard a few of his "songs".

I've read enough of the Bible to be able to discuss it critically from a semi-informed position. However, I couldn't use that knowledge to critique religious texts as a whole; I've never read any of the Qu'ran, as a random example.

cougar

Interesting one, this. It's a bit 'damned if you do and damned if you don't.'

As someone who has attended marxist-leninist education/talks/discussions, for a period literally spanning decades, I have never encountered hostility towards religion which even begins to approach the levels that it does on here.

So what happened to religion in Russia?

Intolerance is hardly a virtue.

mefty +1

Well I'm certainly intolerant of the logical fallacies (special pleading, moving the goalpost, arguments from authority) and intellectual denialism that are put forward by a lot of religious people. I don't see this as a bad thing.

So you're tolerant of your own intolerance, gonefishin? 😉

There's a valid argument there that you need to be familiar with the source material in order to criticise it, alternatively avoid it but shut up.

The list of things i have not personally experienced but speak out on is endless, child labour, sexual abuse, rape, human rights violations , good moderators [ 😉 do i get away with that one ]etc
I get the broader point made but it really depends and it is not always a fair criticism.

As someone who has attended marxist-leninist education/talks/discussions, for a period literally spanning decades, I have never encountered hostility towards religion which even begins to approach the levels that it does on here.
Even Karl Marx, possibly the most famous atheist in history, had a more relaxed attitude to religion than some of the Guardian-reading wannabe lefties that post on here

Is Buddhism no longer a religion then?

Sorry to be pedantic! But not sure that it is correct to claim that the centre point of religion is "there is a god."

Are you calling me a liar hora ? Are you claiming that [b][i]I have[/i][/b] encountered hostility towards religion approaching the levels that it does on here ?

Perhaps to prove your point you could link me to an article in the Morning Star which vilifies religion to the level it is on here ?

Karl Marx's most famous quote on religion is that it is the opium of the people, which for the most famous atheist in history is hardly the most damming comment to make.

The full quote is : [i]"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"[/i]

Can you imagine some of the punters on here reducing their hostility to religion down to that level ?

Interestingly i had this discussion with a Buddhist yesterday - fair to say they thought there was no god and that buddhists generally dont believe in god in a omnipresent creator sense- they have gods though - devas- but yes you are correct,fair point

You would probably not have had enough time to be show your hatred towards the real enemy of the proletariat - the guardian reading wannabee lefties- if you had discussed religion though.

Haha how hilarious Junkyard 🙄

camo16 I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I don't think that there is a person on the planet that is tollerant of everything (many examples being given in this thread) so by that definition everyone is intollerant of something and are happy with that fact. If you mean that I have committed some of those fallacies that I criticise others for then by all means point them out. I am only to willing to change my mind when I have been proven wrong.

JY, only mention that because I enjoyed reading Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hahn a few years ago. The central point being that there is a lot of common ground between a theist and a non-theist religion. Which for me is key. I believe that most religions are essentially trying to answer the same questions that challenge us all, but have different starting points and contexts. But we learn as much, if not more, from understanding the similarities and why they exist, than insisting (as some appear to do) that a specific religion is the unique path to the answers.

But I also accept that some may (mistakingly IMO) conclude that there is nothing to learn from any of them!

Good thread this, I'm really enjoying reading kja78's posts, I hope he comes back.

This thread more than most of the religion threads is making me laugh. The smug atheist crowd are looking really stupid. Trying to slag something off without knowing much about it. A lot of people far clever than you lot have spent a lot of time thinking about it, you're just dabbling at the edges. It's like you've read about theology in a daily mail feature and think you've got it all sussed out.

The smug atheist crowd are looking really stupid. Trying to slag something off without knowing much about it. A lot of people far clever than you lot have spent a lot of time thinking about it, you're just dabbling at the edges. It's like you've read about theology in a daily mail feature and think you've got it all sussed out.

You know those logical fallacies I was talking about. Ad Hominum [i]and[/i] Argument from authority right there.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you've included me in the "smug athiest crowd" and ask what exactly you think has made me look stupid, because I certainly don't feel it?

I don't think those two things are actually logical fallacies, but I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I posted that. I didn't take notes over 9 pages of back reading. I can go over your own contributions if you like though 😉

(that's a joke btw)

tend to read mainly the new testament in the bible as its easier to understand for me, quite like some of Eckhart Tolles teachings too. I guess one of the big problems that remain is instead of deneying other peoples views and religeon we need to learn to accept them and give them careful consideration even though we may not agree.

You don't think that Ad Hominums and Arguments from Authority are logical fallacies? Can you tell me why?

And now we have special pleading!

I guess one of the big problems that remain is instead of deneying other peoples views and religeon we need to learn to accept them and give them careful consideration even though we may not agree.

Well ad hominem is just insulting someone. It's not a flaw in reasoning, is it?

But since you asked, when you say stuff like this:

Can you lot have a chat amongst yourselves and decide whether the bible is the word of god or some stuff that some men wrote down?

It makes you look silly. If you simply read a bit and go 'oh well that's rubbish' then condemn the whole thing, then I think you're being rather dismissive.

It seems a bit like putting Animal Farm in the kids section of a bookshop cos it's about talking animals.

of course i would give that thought very careful consideration and if i had not already lost the plot seek immediate help

It makes you look silly. If you simply read a bit and go 'oh well that's rubbish' then condemn the whole thing, then I think you're being rather dismissive.

Well my point with that was that there were two people, austensibly christian, with one of the opinion that the bible was the word of god and the other that it was the work of men. It can't be both and if they could come to an agreement on that point, it would make discussions much easier as the goalposts wouldn't keep shifting.

I believe that the Bible was written by loads of different writers, but as all of the books seem to agree even though some writers didn't have the other books to hand, there must be one constant; I believe that all of the writers wrote by inspiration from God

The "it's by god" part by poltheball who also came out with some young earth creationist stuff.

and

The two different creation stories in Genesis are not supposed to be taken literally, if you understand the context in which they were written, and the purpose for which they were written, then reducing them to ancient scientific theories is to seriously devalue them.

from kja78 the "it's not meant to be literal" bit.

Oh and ad hominums are generally considered to be logical fallacies for precisely the reason that they do not address the point that is being made.

It makes you look silly. If you simply read a bit and go 'oh well that's rubbish' then condemn the whole thing, then I think you're being rather dismissive.

It seems a bit like putting Animal Farm in the kids section of a bookshop cos it's about talking animals.

That's a pretty [i]silly[/i] argument, it's the Bible not some arbitrary book you have no idea about.

It makes you look silly.

It makes him look flippant perhaps, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me for him to be asking for consistency.

It appears as though different people pick and choose what bits of their religion to believe in, and cherry-pick from their bibles as to what is FACT and what is allegory. To an observer such as myself, this seems, well, cheating.

If you don't believe what your religion tells you, you have the wrong religion (or at least, the wrong denomination). If you're basing a faith on a book which you freely admit isn't supposed to be factual, that's a pretty shaky foundation on which to start building a supposedly unshakable belief system. It's no wonder some people are scared of having their faith tested or challenged.

Can you lot have a chat amongst yourselves and decide whether the bible is the word of god or some stuff that some men wrote down?

It makes you look silly.

I think it is a reasonable point to ask tbh *
Every single aethist gets insulted by you at some point on theses threads despite the fact you have a degree in pyhysics and looked at the objective evidence and concluded their world view was wrong and you dont beleive a word they say either ...but yes,clearly, we look silly for our view
*if the bible is not the word of god then it does loose some of its appeal as a religious text as it is now a book. People are confused as the position seems to be it is should not be taken as literally the word of god in say genesis but it is literally the word of god to allow us to see the master plan
Like much of religion itis fair to point out this is a confusing and contradictory positon not unlike your own

PS ad homs are considered fallacies as they address the person not the argument - someone may be a weasel eyed worm with no scruples but that does not mean their argument is incorrect.

one of the opinion that the bible was the word of god and the other that it was the work of men. It can't be both

To be honest, I can't see the problem here.

The Bible, as I understand it, is believed to convey the word of God through the writings of men. These men were inspired by the word of God, many reportedly having direct experience. Due to their lack of divinity, the word of God is couched in human terms.

Is that problematic?

EDIT: as an agnostic, I'm probably not the best person to reply to this - hopefully, kja78 will turn up later and give the proper explanation.

Because I'm not here looking for a virtual scrap...

[img] [/img]

The central point being that there is a lot of common ground between a theist and a non-theist religion.

And aethist sas many of us are searching for meaning in this confusing universe...I suspect that is what brings us to these threads ...we have considered the big questions

I believe that most religions are essentially trying to answer the same questions that challenge us all, but have different starting points and contexts.

But we learn as much, if not more, from understanding the similarities and why they exist, than insisting (as some appear to do) that a specific religion is the unique path to the answers.

Discussed this last night and as Buddhism is a method rather than a rule book it can move with the times and stay "current" re say homosexuality or female emmancipation or modern issues. Abrahamic faiths are stuck as their rules are [ literally?] chisseled in stone and inevitably make them lok old and outdated [ for it is a 200 year old view]

I am here just having a very busy day, got lots of ministerish things to do like drink tea and visit the sick. If I get a few moments this eve I'll try and comment on a few things that have been said.

Is that problematic?

is it problomatic that the Bible is not accurate ?
Apparently not if you have faith 😉

You cannot tell me what god thinks if you state the book you base it on is not accurate or really his word and you dont know what bits are accurate and which are not and then you preach to me about the message - the one you just admitted you dont know etc

Is that problematic?

is it problomatic that the Bible is not accurate ?
Apparently not if you have faith

You cannot tell me what god thinks if you state the book you base it on is not accurate or really his word and you dont know what bits are accurate and which are not and then you preach to me about the message - the one you just admitted you dont know etc

I don't know quite how to reply to this.

I would say though, that:

is it problomatic that the Bible is not accurate ?

If a reporter reports on a news story about, say, a sportsman, is it problematic that we're reading the reporter's words and not those of the sportsman? No. Because both convey the same essence.

You cannot tell me what god thinks if you state the book you base it on is not accurate or really his word and you dont know what bits are accurate and which are not and then you preach to me about the message - the one you just admitted you dont know etc

Well...

First off, I'm not telling you what God thinks...

...plus I never said the Bible isn't accurate or not God's word

...and I preach to you? Seriously, when was that? I have no recollection of preaching... or of admitting that I don't know the message, although others are clearly more qualified... you're putting words in my posts.

What I did say is that I am agnostic. That's all.

I still love you, Junkyard. 😉

It's just ironic to me that a religion based around love should cause this much antagonism.

It is problematic if we can't rely on the reporter to be factual, accurate and unbiased.

It's very hard to be unbiased. Leaning one way or another seems to be part of human nature and I doubt reporters from any era are any different TBH.

Well my point with that was that there were two people, austensibly christian, with one of the opinion that the bible was the word of god and the other that it was the work of men. It can't be both

It's not a problem for me.

The way I see it, the Bible is a collection of writings by people, which were assembled by the church authorities. It's even labelled as such, many of the books are known by the names of their authors. From what I've read, the later books of the OT are actually essays by scholars that were deemed important enough to be included, and were known as such at the time. It's not EVERYTHING that was written, they had to decide what was worth it and what wasn't.

In the NT even, they have included four different accounts of the story of Jesus. Why would they do that? Because they are writings about Jesus which are useful to read, not a definitive account.

So as a body of scholarly work, it can definitely be cherry-picked from. You may like certain bits, but not others. You are free to disagree, as scholars have been since it was written. In fact, for a while most scholarly activity was just analysing the bible I think. If you read some of what was written about it, there are some pretty advanced things being said a very long time ago, when most modern day atheists are happy to dismiss people as ignorant peasants.

Now as I've said often on here, I'm an atheist. However, I like to try and find the value in everything I can, and it's fairly obvious to me that a lot of religious people are very clever and have a lot of interesting things to say. I don't mind that they believe in God. That may (or may not) result in some daft ideas about the origins of the universe, but it's definitely not a reason why they can't have valid insights into how people and society work.

There are literal minded fools and intelligent insightful people on both sides of the fence. Or all sides of all fences, since there are intelligent insightful Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Bhuddists etc.

It is problematic if we can't rely on the reporter to be factual

It isn't, if the book is not a book of facts. Shakespeare was not accurate in his history plays. Does that make them garbage?

You cannot tell me what god thinks

Are we trying to? Do all religious people think they know what God thinks?

For who knows a person's thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God

Corinthians 2:11

then you preach to me about the message - the one you just admitted you dont know

What? THE message? This is what makes me think you look silly JY. Do you really think the Bible is meant to contain just one message? Quite a lot of pages for that, don't you think?

there are some pretty advanced things being said a very long time ago

Can you name some? Things said in the bible that where not merely a reflection of scientific knowledge of the time?

Does that make them garbage?

No. It makes them a work of fiction.

Can you name some?

No but if I get bored I can maybe have a look, see if I can find some people and then some quotes.

As for scientific knowledge: You're assuming that Genesis is intended to be a literal account of creation exactly as it happened. Can you provide a reason for this assumption? Can you provide evidence that biblical literalism was the most common belief throughout the pre-scientific period?

I'll take it on faith then 🙄

No. It makes them a work of fiction.

But do they have value?

You all remind me of this 🙂

As for scientific knowledge: You're assuming that Genesis is intended to be a literal account of creation exactly as it happened. Can you provide a reason for this assumption? Can you provide evidence that biblical literalism was the most common belief throughout the pre-scientific period?

I'm more interested in the statement you made rather than one I didnt.

But do they have value?

Thats for individuals to decide and not a way to order our lives.

It's seminally important. If the bible is the direct word of god, written by man guided by god, then it has to be taken as accurate, factual and infallible.

If it's written by man, exercising free will, then it's simply an account of what happened. Views, opinions, bias, and every other human trait come into it.

These two potential books are vastly difference in terms of how they need to be approached, trusted, read, believed.

Imagine the difference between an autobiography and an un-authorised biography. They can both tell the same story but the former is going to have a much greater level of insight and depth into the subjects life.

It is problematic if we can't rely on the reporter to be factual, accurate and unbiased.

You're going to need to see background checks for the writers of the Bible?

Reports of many historical events before the modern era would fail to meet these requirements... but does that mean we should distrust history?

If the bible is the direct word of god, written by man guided by god, then it has to be taken as accurate, literal and infallible

I don't think so.

If you went to see someone famous speak, and then you blogged about it afterwards - you're not quoting verbatim (probably) but you are still relaying the event. Whose word is it?

These two potential books are vastly difference in terms of how they need to be approached, trusted, read, believed.

Well, quite so. That's been a topic of debate for a long time. However, just because it's the work of man, doesn't make it worthless.

EDIT: what camo16 said - nailed it.

but does that mean we should distrust history?

Yes, or at least treat much of it with skepticism unless it is reasonably verifiable. Isnt that healthy?

It's very hard to be unbiased. Leaning one way or another seems to be part of human nature and I doubt reporters from any era are any different TBH.

Sure.

Now, applying that school of thought to the good book in question, where does that bring us?

It isn't, if the book is not a book of facts.

Is the bible not a book of facts? I wonder how many people of faith would agree with that?

If that's the case then we can no longer consider the Bible as anything more than a collection of stories and fables. Which I can wholly get behind. As I said before, in isolation as a source of inspiration you could do worse, but it seems somewhat foolhardy to construct yourself a faith system encompassing an unwavering belief in the supernatural on the back of what may well be a work of fiction.

You know what it suddenly reminds me of? These "made for TV" movies like the recent Feynman Challenger tale, which are based on true events but heavily dramatised under artistic licence.

It's not a great leap from there to conclude that the "Jesus" protagonist was based on a real person, or perhaps inspired by a number of real people, but over a few hundred years' worth of Chinese whispers he's been embellished from a charitable street magician to the son of god.

It's not a problem for me.

of course it is not you dont believe it so why would it being innacurate be a problem.
I dont care either as it is all worng - A voiew they do not share
as for what your view is of a book you dont believe in - really why would I care?
Why do you do this - why do you defend something you dont believe?

It isn't, if the book is not a book of facts.

well it tells me how everythign was made , what my role is and my duty and how I should live my life - are you really going to argue it is not about facts but simply a work of fiction - i am happy to accept this but the faithful are not so it is a really silly point to make,

Do all religious people think they know what God thinks?

This thread was so much better before you "helped" - leave the folk with faith to defend their view - they were doing a better job than you anyway as they actually believe what they are saying.

However, just because it's the work of man, doesn't make it worthless.

Only in the sense that any work of fiction may have a greater or lesser value to some people.

Yes, or at least treat much of it with skepticism unless it is reasonably verifiable. Isnt that healthy?

Sure it's healthy... but to demand the kind of checks that Cougar's after for people who died c. 2,000 years ago is like a gambler who only bets on dead certs.

Shakespeare was not accurate in his history plays. Does that make them garbage?

edit: sorry, I start writing a post get distracted by work then later on hit the post button, already been covered

I wonder how many people of faith would agree with that?

Have you tried to find out? Before making assumptions about them?

It contains a lot of people writing about God. Secondary evidence, I think it's called. There's also people writing about the time they spent with Jesus.

It may be simply a historical record, but a lot of people think it's a historical record of events involving God and Jesus. In that sense it's no different to Heroditus or Bede, and we are happy to study those for what value they contain.

Well, quite so. That's been a topic of debate for a long time. However, just because it's the work of man, doesn't make it worthless.

So you agree is important that it's known which it is. Regardless of it's worth. Thats just introducing a shield to hide behind.

If you went to see someone famous speak, and then you blogged about it afterwards - you're not quoting verbatim (probably) but you are still relaying the event. Whose word is it?

but to demand the kind of checks that Cougar's after for people who died c. 2,000 years ago is like a gambler who only bets on dead certs.

He can speak for himself but I dont think that was what he was saying. You may be missing the point.