[Closed] "I asked God to help me"

"The Bible" is generally taken to be both the "Old" and the "New" testament.

Neither of them is a history book.

Fair enough, I'm all for politeness and respect, shame it's not always reciprocated

Yeah, if I've stepped over a line at any point then I'm sorry; I do try to be civil. (-:

In future I shall refer to the people opposed to the free and open public discussion of religious views as "people of unfaith" unless you have a better suggestion....

Well, no, that's saying that all atheists are opposed to public discussion, isn't it? I think it's pretty obvious from here that that's not the case, everyone here welcomes discussion.

Its either the word of god or its a made up story by fallible humans. If its the former it should be obeyed literally, if its the latter then what is the imperative to obey any of it?

Personally I believer its the latter, as it was never meant to be taken literally and pretty much all of the sane religious leaders agree on this, just as they all agree that evolution is as close to a fact as a theory can get.

As for why should you obey the bible? Well its a book of guidelines to help you find happiness and contentment from the indescribable (hence its not written down) joy of realising that there is something more in the universe than what you can just see and touch. However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego). The bible isn't the only book to do this the Koran, Buddist Dao's, The Veda etc all echo the same theme

Also 'obey' is the wrong word, the bible was IMHO never meant to be obeyed, it was mean to be followed willingly. So if you are happy to live in ignorance of this bliss, then you have no need to pay any attention to it.

BTW; I don't go to church, and I don't believe in a man with a beard watching over us. However I am fairly open minded to any ideas, and like to find out more about things before I decide for or against them.

You keep using the word "never." I do not think it means what you think it means.

Modern Christianity is relatively enlightened these days. It wasn't always the case. People have been executed for daring to disagree.

Has there been any new points made for awhile? I think its probably time for CFHs gif again. nO one is being persuaded by anything are they?

[img] [/img]

Sorry, were we supposed to be? I didn't get the memo.

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger - thats not the point - its this simple one

If you can pick an chose which bits of the bible to believe in/ to follow and this choice is made on the interpretations laid down by fallible humans then actually the bible has no more validity or weight than any other code laid down by people.

It's obvious you either "don't get it" or are being deliberately argumentative...

..as I see it (and leffeboy explained rather more eloquently earlier)
The Bible is an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
It has become one of the more important texts for teaching in the Christian religion, not the sole basis for it's existence.

It is semingly only some people of unfaith who want to stick to a literal word-for-word interpretation of the Bible rather than those who use it as a focus for spiritual development and religious inspiration...

...anyway as several have noted, it's all getting a bit petty and niggly now, we all seem to know where the other is coming from so it's no longer a discussion but a slanging match - enjoy.......

Steel hammer, rubber nail.

I've got to go and do some work. Talk amongst yourselves.

Cougar - Member
The bible was never intended to be taken literally
Never? I don't believe you.

Doesn't matter if you believe me or not, its still true.

I don't know for certain, but I'm pretty sure that that's a massive backpedal by Christianity. And even if it isn't, the Bible would have been taken literally by most of its largely uneducated audience back in the day, so if it's true that it was never meant to be taken literally then it's essentially fraud on a huge scale.

The real fraud was the bible being written in a language which only the church could read, and hence twist the message. As you didn't/don't have to believe in god to be in the church, especially as it was/is a way to make a lot of money (ie: selling Absolution to the rich)

Hence the protestant movement and Luther, who believed the bible was being twisted away from its intention of enlightened for the masses into a money making scheme

Throwing away belief in god, because you don't like the church seems to be a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water tbh.

I don't agree, TJ. I think that the increase in civility I have seen on this thread between many participants is precisely what discussion is about.

There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to

Exactly. Christianity is (as I understand it) embodied by the faithful, not by a book or a small group of people. At least Anglicanism seems to be, I suppose that's less so in the case of Catholicism. Although that has evolved a lot over the years hasn't it? In response to human progress.

TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

Hilldodger - I don't know how to explain it any better but you seem not to see the simple point. I am not claiming the bible is anything that it should be accepted literally. what I am saying is that if you don't accept it as the word of god then where does it legitimacy come from?

If the bible is this

.as I see it (and leffeboy explained rather more eloquently earlier)
The Bible is an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
It has become one of the more important texts for teaching in the Christian religion, not the sole basis for it's existence.

If all the bible is is

an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.

MOlgrips
TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

I am not bashing Christians - I am outlining a crucial theological point that you refuse to answer and that no one has made any answer to.

richc
Well its a book of guidelines to help you find happiness and contentment from the indescribable (hence its not written down) joy of realising that there is something more in the universe than what you can just see and touch. However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe(ie: overcome your Ego).

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

600 🙂

TandemJeremy - Member

If all the bible is....

...an amalgamation of religious texts, sermons, accounts & parables put together by many authors and subject to numerous translations and edits.
then what value does it have?

The really important question is what value does it have to you, not what value does someone else tell you it has......

TandemJeremy - Member

I am outlining a crucial theological point

perhaps go talk to a priest then, seriously I'm sure they would have a many deep and meaningful answers to your question.
I do not subscribe to any individual faith practise but have had many long and interesting discussion with ministers & priests of many religions - they really do find time for this and are keen to share their learning

Doesn't matter if you believe me or not, its still true.
...
The real fraud was the bible being written in a language which only the church could read

This is kinda where I was going with that. Do either of us, or anyone, actually know how the Bible was intended to be interpreted, or are we both speculating here?

It seems to me that if the Bible was never meant to be taken literally, it might have said somewhere? Maybe a little foreword at the beginning perhaps? It'd have saved a lot of bother in the long run.

I could be wrong, and I'd look it up if I had the time, but was under the impression that the concept of the Bible being allegorical is a relatively modern thing.

Hey, is Jesus an allegory? How do we know that he was the son of god rather than a construct to tell a story?

MOlgrips
TJ, the thread has moved from bashing Christians to a rather interesting discussion about theology, I think. Got some good posts recently.

I am not bashing Christians - I am outlining a crucial theological point that you refuse to answer and that no one has made any answer to.

Neither am I bashing christians per se, its anyone of faith I am bashing. I too am outlining a crucial point - if you insist on believing without evidence then there is some issue with your education, sanity, or intelligence. (which is a pathetically veiled attempt to satisfy the people who like to make underhand insults instead of manning up and saying straight)

what I am saying is that if you don't accept it as the word of god then where does it legitimacy come from?

Just because it's written by men doesn't mean it has no value. Originally the men were learned and well respected philosophers. In the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

Lots of important books weren't written by God, of course.

if you insist on believing without evidence then there is some issue with your education, sanity, or education

No - you seem to be limiting your idea of 'belief' to mean belief about the origins of life and the universe. There's a lot more to faith than that.

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

I don't think that was the intention there. "Ego" has a specific meaning in this case.

Teej, honestly when will you get it, who cares who wrote it. TBH it has more legitimacy in my eyes if its written by man, as he is real, if it's written by god then it's just part of the "faith" hegemony that has still got it's claws into some people.

its anyone of faith I am bashing

Please stop bashing, it's not nice.

There's a lot more to faith than that.

No there isn't, faith means beleif without proof/evidence. All the rest of the stuff about the bible and saints and all that is as a result of that faith.

There is a whole academic subject of Theology which involves the study of such matters and Christians rely on priests and others to help them determine what they should give greatest weight to

Exactly. Christianity is (as I understand it) embodied by the faithful, not by a book or a small group of people.

What are the faithfull following if not the stuff in the books or the stuff given to them by Priest and popes and archbishops?

The Bible itself says that "All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God". (2 Timothy 3:16-3:17) [33] Christians believe that the Bible consists of the inspired word of God, where God intervened and influenced the words of the Bible. For many Christians the Bible is also infallible, in that it is incapable of error within matters of faith and practice. For example, that the Bible is free from error in spiritual but not necessarily in historic or scientific matters. A related, but distinguishable belief is that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, without error in any aspect, spoken by God and written down in its perfect form by humans. Within these broad beliefs there are many schools of hermeneutics. "Bible scholars claim that discussions about the Bible must be put into its context within church history and then into the context of contemporary culture."[30] Fundamentalist Christians are associated with the doctrine of biblical literalism, where the Bible is not only inerrant, but the meaning of the text is clear to the average reader

n the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

No there isn't

Sorry, but we are back to the 29er analogy again. I don't see how, as a vehement atheist, you can pronounce on what faith means..?

Please stop bashing, it's not nice.

Cougar I was using their words, I don't feel I have bashed at all. I was trying to make a point, if someone is insulted because they dont like realising that they are poorlyinformed/stupid/mad then that is their choice.

toys19 - Member

There's a lot more to faith than that.

No there isn't, faith means beleif without proof/evidence. All the rest of the stuff about the bible and saints and all that is as a result of that faith.

its those who claim that critical and rigorous logical thinking can lead you to a position of faith I have issue with

its those who claim that critical and rigorous logical thinking can lead you to a position of faith I have issue with

Who are they then? Are you talking about creationists etc? Cos they are nutters, yes 🙂

Hilldodger - I have done so and as on this thread that simple point has no answer.

If some bits of the bible can safely be ignored then any of it can be if one applies a critical, rigorous and logical thought to it

molgrips - Member

No there isn't

Sorry, but we are back to the 29er analogy again. I don't see how, as a vehement atheist, you can pronounce on what faith means..?
Posted 10 seconds ago # Report-Post

Is this a terrible attempt at some kind of ad hominen attack? Or something else.
I know what Faith is, I used to be a catholic believer and I know how to use google [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith ]wiki article on faith[/url]

quote

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or entity.[1][2] Depending on the religion, faith is belief in a single god or multiple gods or in the doctrines or teachings of the religion. Informal usage of faith can be quite broad, including trust or belief without proof,[2] and "faith" is often used as a substitute for "hope", "trust" or "belief"

It all amounts to the same thing. Believing in something which you cannot demonstrate to be real or true.

You know what 'faith' meant for you. Quoting dictionary definitions of the word would seem to imply you're an extremely literal minded person. Other kinds of mind are available.

In the NT I think the books were supposedly written by people who knew Jesus and were there at many of the events, so clearly there's value there.

IIRC, the earliest NT book is dated at about 50AD. I don't think any of it is a first-hand account, though I'm not certain.

I said supposedly.

Cougar - Member

"So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?"

I don't think that was the intention there. "Ego" has a specific meaning in this case.

Really?

However to find this, you do have to accept that you are not the most important thing in the universe

You know what 'faith' meant for you. Quoting dictionary definitions of the word would seem to imply you're an extremely literal minded person. Other kinds of mind are available.

No it doesnt, it means I know how to use communication media, how else can one communicate the accepted defintion of faith? You are talking utter gobbeldygook.

Faith the word has a dictionary definition, yes.

Surely the concept of religious faith is a lot more complex?

Surely the concept of religious faith is a lot more complex?

Only if you want to obfuscate the issue, but lets play along, so instead of going about what I supposedly don't know why don't you tell us what you do know? What exactly is relgious faith then?

(Anyway that wikipedia link pretty much outlines everything you can think of to do with religious faith, even to precis it with a definition - belieiving in something which cant be proved.)

toys19 - Member

Teej, honestly when will you get it, who cares who wrote it. TBH it has more legitimacy in my eyes if its written by man, as he is real, if it's written by god then it's just part of the "faith" hegemony that has still got it's claws into some people.

I understand that

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

if someone is insulted because they dont like realising that they are poorlyinformed/stupid/mad then that is their choice.

You can still apply Wheaton's Law though. If you went up to, say, someone who'd lost an eye calling them 'cyclops' repeatedly, would that be a nice thing to do, do you think?

If you lack the mental capacity to make your point without being offensive to everyone, perhaps you're not in a position to be calling others stupid, hm? It's not constructive, it creates bad feeling and gives the theists ammo when they want to say how horrible the godless are. So, please, knock it off.

Lifer > I missed the other half of that post, sorry. As you were. (-:

TandemJeremy - Member
What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

It seems to me that if you do that then you give god legitimacy. I am happy to live by a code written by man, if I agree with it.

So it's unfair to call all theists stupid but okay to call all atheists egotists?

Everyone has an Ego, regardless of your own personal beliefs, its part of how we are believed to be wired up to survive, but you need to be careful not to confuse 'Ego' with 'Egotist' as whilst they are related they don't mean exactly the same thing.

Hence the whole enlightenment thing of getting over being totally focused on yourself and your survival, and learning to be a selfless person and open yourself up to find/observing more than just what you feel you want / need.

Cougar - Member
Lifer > I missed the other half of that post, sorry. As you were. (-:

No bother chap!

belieiving in something which cant be proved

This might actually be the major plus point for many people.

What I am trying to do is to get folk to explain why a text that is interpreted by men has any legitimacy as a code to live by if its not gods word?

I don't see why it can't have legitimacy simply because it was written by man. Some people do have good stuff to say.

RichC - a lovely illustration of the arrogance and assumption of superiority of the religeous