You may be missing the point.

It’s happened before. 😉 I’ll take another look.

so the bible is not a book of facts
well it tells me how everythign was made

You think that’s what it’s telling you. kja78 told us Genesis is not facts, and he’s a minister. You can’t get much better evidence of Christian belief than that can you?

why do you defend something you dont believe?

I am defending something I believe in – the search for understanding, in favour of simple facts.

By the way, fact and fiction aren’t the only two options.

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.

Otherwise known as ‘a point of view’ you mean?

When I read anyone defending the bible it sounds like a petulant child with fingers stuck firmly in it’s ears insisting that Father Christmas exists. These threads are always circular because believers believe no matter what evidence is given to the contrary – That’s what faith is, belief without evidence.

The bible at best is a book of fables with a few decent points, at worst it’s the basis of three faiths that bring misery to millions. It’s also a chameleon of a book that changes meaning depending on the values of the person hitting you over the head with it -It’s a hateful thing and I despise it.

When I read anyone defending the bible it sounds like a petulant child with their fingers stuck firmly in it’s ears insisting that Father Christmas exists

I was thinking the same thing about those attacking it! (and I’m not a believer either)

to demand the kind of checks that Cougar’s after

Hang on, I wasn’t demanding anything. I was simply highlighting the inherent difficulty in validating what’s written and offering a possible suggestion as to how it might have come about.

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

Is it Put Words in Cougar’s Mouth Thursday? I wasn’t making any assumtions about anyone, I was just thinking out loud; I said as much in the sentence you quoted, “I wonder…”

It’s mine (the part of man). If the speaker told me what to write in the blog then it would be his word (the part of god).

… assuming no bias, spin or hyperbole in your writing. It’s no longer the speaker’s (god’s) word if you miss bits out and add a few of your own.

You can’t get much better evidence of Christian belief than that can you?

Its clearly evidence of belief. whether that moves the debate any further forward or tells us something that we dont already know is another question

It’s no longer the speaker’s (god’s) word if you miss bits out and add a few of your own.

I am of the assumption that if god guided the writing of it then no words are added other than his own.

If man wrote it then we could be dealing with anything from the Daily Mail to a historic school textbook or anything in between.

Just think of it as a history book. Does that help?

If man wrote it then we could be dealing with anything from the Daily Mail to a historic school textbook or anything in between.

I think that’s where the faith bit comes in.

I don’t respect it Molgrips and I’m afraid it shows, prolly best I duck out. I’ve done what I can, my children are godless heathens that think for themselves and do the right thing because it’s right and not for fear of eternal punishment..

comparing the bible to the daily mail is a bit harsh

I think that’s where the faith bit comes in.

Your losing credibility by moving the goalposts all the time. JY was right, your not doing the cause any good. Your not as adept at this “devils advocate” stuff as you like to think you are.

I think that’s where the faith bit comes in.

Faith in what? The bible?

I fail to see how anyone can have faith in the bible without establishing the author first.

To me this – belief in the bible – is quite separate to belief in god.

I’ve done what I can, my children are godless heathens that think for themselves and do the right thing because it’s right and not for fear of eternal punishment..

Mine to, along with me. However that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

Your losing credibility by moving the goalposts all the time.

Seriously – where? I’m interested to know where you think I’m being inconsistent. And just to make it clear, I’m not playing devil’s advocate for the sake of it, I’m just trying to make a point.

I’m just trying to make a point.

This is quite apparent.

Whereas for the most part everyone else was having a discussion.

I apologise.

I thought that this was a discussion. What am I doing wrong?

Is that aserious question ? i dont think your style helps these chats – you are [ not intentionally] inflamtorry and give a more empahtic supportive stance to an ideology you dont support than the minister you like quoting.
It riles folk and is IMHO is not helpful, I am simply turing the other cheek to your posts on this subject from now on as I realy dont think they help – like Whoppits posts dont help tbh but more well intentioned

comparing the bible to the daily mail is a bit harsh

On which one?

I start writing a post get distracted by work

Noob- i keep loosing the Internet

On which one?

i was being enigmatic biblical and letting you draw your own conclusions

on the one hand the bible promotes fish butties on the other DM has tv listings.

give a more empahtic supportive stance to an ideology you dont support

Ok let’s get this straight.

My ideology is to find the value in everything. Many atheists are overly dismissive, so this is against my ideology. It’s nothing to do with Christianity or any other religion. I could seek value in supporting a football team or making a pile of coal into art, and we would be having the same conversation.

I admit I have been inflammatory in a few posts earlier in this thread. I apologise fully. They were intented to be slightly toungue in cheek, but I am finding it hard not to consider some points of view as ridiculously literal-minded.

However that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

I don’t think anyone has said that they hate the bible, I certainly haven’t. I’ve criticised it for being inconsistant and for what it has to say about women and other minorities (well what it apperently says depending on the translation!) but that is a world away from hate.

I also don’t not respect people because they are religious; I start off with the same amount of respect for everyone. When people start to use such beliefs as an excuse for bigotry, intolerance, anti intellectualism or for demanding special treatment then I start to lose respect for them, but that’s pretty much the same as I would do for anyone else who expressed such opinions.

My ideology is to find the value in everything.

You don’t need religion in order to have morals, understanding, love and peace.

If anything mixing these up in a religion / god based scenario attributes these values to a faith, thus making them easier things to dismiss or ignore in everyday life.

So wouldn’t there be a greater value in having no religion, instead putting the focus and effort into living harmoniously.

So wouldn’t there be a greater value in having no religion, instead putting the focus and effort into living harmoniously.

Quite possibly yes.

I don’t think anyone has said that they hate the bible

Joolsburger did up there.

I agree with the rest of your post though except for the criticism for being inconsistent. It’s not actually one book, it’s 66 books, with different authors, they just come in the same volume. So why should they have to agree? It contains any different impressions of what God is or could be.

So why should they have to agree?

For the non-religious, no reason why they need to.

For the religious, as a cornerstone of their faith, if it is truly the word of god then it needs to be consistent or else god is inconsistent.

If religions take the view (as yours is) that it is not a direct word of god, rather a collection of opinions then they need to say as much. Move on, and stop referring to it as being any more important than any other book of worthwhile opinions.

I just wish they could collectively agree to do one or the other.

why should they have to agree?

I can’t immediately lay my hands on the exact quote, but someone said earlier that they believed that the bible was written by men guided by god; so everything in there is god’s word, with nothing added and nothing taken away. Literary Shredded Wheat, if you will.

If that’s the case, then it would seem logical that they’d agree. If they don’t then either the writers aren’t all that accurately guided by god at all, or god is telling them different things for some reason. Which sounds a bit vindictive to me.

Ok so as an example of what I mean. Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson. They might differ in their opinions of his motivations or opinions of other things. They ought not differ on simple facts like his birthday or where he lived.

If I were really into Nelson I might read both, and appreciate both. I might not even have to believe one or the other. I might be happy to think that some people think X about him, and some Y. And I’d probably read more books on Nelson when they came out too.

However, if I’m obsessed with Nelson, then it’s fair to say ANY book about him is much more important to me than say, Wayne Rooney, isn’t it?

or god is telling them different things for some reason. Which sounds a bit vindictive to me.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren’t there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I’m still not seeing a problem here.

Literary Shredded Wheat, if you will.

🙂 I like that… Is the bible Shredded Wheat or Shreddies?

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren’t there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I’m still not seeing a problem here.

“Opinions” vs “facts”, perhaps?

To quote one Mark Knopfler, if “two men think they’re Jesus, one of them must be wrong.”

Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson…

What if both described different motivations and thoughts Nelson had regarding a particular event.

While the facts surrounding the event may be accurate. The arguably more interesting information, (and in the case of the bible more important) Nelsons thoughts and opinions are not.

Now, if Nelson had written it himself, or dictated it to a staff member, then the thoughts and opinions are going to be accurate as well as the event facts.

Would this third book not be a lot more valuable than the others?

In fact we’ve established the first two are full of the writers opinion, not the subjects, and therefore not that reliable after all.

And anyway, that dodges my point.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions

Under normal circumstances yes; but you’ve missed out the other half of that argument. They’re being directed by god, remember, so they’re not in a position to draw their own conclusions.

If they are able to make their own conclusions, then that negates the whole “it’s god’s word” argument. It clearly isn’t if we’ve just established that they’re making it up. Can’t have it both ways.

Joolsburger did up there.

I agree with the rest of your post though except for the criticism for being inconsistent. It’s not actually one book, it’s 66 books, with different authors, they just come in the same volume. So why should they have to agree? It contains any different impressions of what God is or could be.

Fair enough I skipped over that

As for the inconsitances well it is presented as one book as well as being the world of god so I don’t think it is unreasonable to expect them to agree. To use another example if I were to look at the all the published works on a scientific topic I’d expect them all to be consistant and if inconsistancies were found I’d expect them to be at the very least recognised and hopefully resolved. I don’t mean resolved by saying “that bit doesn’t count” or “well translation is tricky”.

In any case the examples that I used to highlight the inconsistancy (“thou shall not kill” and “eye for an eye..” were two extracts from the same book that were contradictory. I don’t think I’m being unresonable in questioning that.

Ok so as an example of what I mean. Imagine I was reading two biographies of say, Nelson. They might differ in their opinions of his motivations or opinions of other things. They ought not differ on simple facts like his birthday or where he lived.

If I were really into Nelson I might read both, and appreciate both. I might not even have to believe one or the other. I might be happy to think that some people think X about him, and some Y. And I’d probably read more books on Nelson when they came out too.

…

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren’t there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I’m still not seeing a problem here.

If both parties accept that what is presented is opinion then I’d agree however the fact is that there are two biographies of Nelson/books in the bible that are inconsitant but some Nelson devotees are claiming that these books are opinion and others that they are absolute truth. Both groups can’t be right.

It’s a re written fable.
But you can’t deny all those folks that believe in it.

Cougar, seriously, there is a lot within the bible that has actually been validated as true…

The same could be said for any Harry Potter novel (Ford Anglias, steam trains, London, etc. etc.)

I admit I have been inflammatory in a few posts earlier in this thread. I apologise fully. They were intented to be slightly toungue in cheek, but I am finding it hard not to consider some points of view as ridiculously literal-minded.

TBH imo you’re the only one who brings a bit of sanity to these threads molgrips. And I admire your tenacity, most wouldn’t bother, specially as militant atheists tend not to be very tolerant or good humored towards those who challenge them.

Nobody can prove that God is a fictional character.

Oh dear.

No body can prove than elephants don’t turn pink and fly around in circles, but only when not being watched or recorded. Your point?

Edit: Without wishing to sound rude, any discussion on belief religions should, in my humble, at least require any prospective discusser to pass a basic IQ test.

Now, if Nelson had written it himself, or dictated it to a staff member, then the thoughts and opinions are going to be accurate as well as the event facts.

Would this third book not be a lot more valuable than the others?

Yes, but in this case we don’t have it. Or rather, in the case of Christianity we don’t. The Mormons have their single definitive book, as do (afaik, please correct me if I am wrong) the Muslims.

To further my own example, Nelson is reported to have said ‘Kiss me, Hardy’ as he died. Let’s assume this is accurate, you’d expect all bios to contain this fact. Now, why did he say this? Was he delirious, or did he have homosexual feelings for Hardy? You could discuss this for ages, and the discussion itself would be interesting, you could go back over his life and look for other things that could be interpreted as hints of homosexuality. Or, you could think about the context of the time and read that hetero kissing was a common thing amongst friends at the time, and he just wanted to feel close to his friend as he died. I THINK (not sure though) I remember reading that even people who were there at the time were in some disagreement about this.

The facts are not in dispute, but what they mean is. God may have specifically said or done certain things, but you could debate forever what that actually meant.

If both parties accept that what is presented is opinion

It’s implicit that any historian presents their own interpretation of events.

To use another example if I were to look at the all the published works on a scientific topic I’d expect them all to be consistant

I’d say that’s an entirely different subject. This is most definitely NOT science. I’d say it’s a lot more like history. There are always new history books being published about the same subject, even though only one set of facts actually happened. We don’t seem to have a problem with this.

In any case the examples that I used to highlight the inconsistancy (“thou shall not kill” and “eye for an eye..” were two extracts from the same book that were contradictory.

Well yes. Let’s assume God did in fact say ‘Thou shalt not kill’. Did he mean at all, or was he just talking about wanton aggression? Is capital punishment ok? If there are two contradictory indications, which one takes precedent?

Did God actually say “An eye for an eye”? Or is that just Jewish common law at the time? I suspect the latter. Which is where the context comes in – the Jews were a race with their own religion, so the cultural identity and law are intertwined with their religious beliefs.

What does the original Hebrew say? Is there more than one word for ‘kill’? Perhaps there’s a different word for an act of aggression or one of capital punishment, and they both got translated into the same? Anyone know?

It’s far from black and white imo.

imo you’re the only one who brings a bit of sanity to these threads molgrips

Thanks ernie I appreciate that.

Without wishing to sound rude

Too late 😉

Many atheists are overly dismissive

well our view is that it is wrong with no basis in fact and no observation to verify it. What exactly are you expecting?
i can see little benefit * in believing in what is essentially a myth about the meaning of life….if you want to search for value in this, even though you think it is incorrect, knock yourself out.

Just think of it as a history book. Does that help?

not really because its central theme/narrative of god is incorrect – it seems it is not very accurate historically either so just as history book it is quite bad and probably worse than even the Historia Regum Britanniae.

However that doesn’t mean I don’t respect people just because they are religious. Or hate the bible.

Neither do I but they are still fundamentally wrong and what we are discussing is how wrong they are not their worth as people. Hate is a strong word to use here – would you like to recall their account of what non believers are here – its not exactly filled with warmth and love but even that is not hate.

Two people can very easily witness the same thing and draw different conclusions. If you weren’t there, it seems appropriate to listen to both and take both opinions on board. I’m still not seeing a problem here.

it really depends on what you mean yes we can all intepret things differently here but in discussing whether the biblke is the word of god or not it is not unreasonable to expect them to agree – if those who believe it dont agree then it hardly strengthens its claims. Re nelson we all agree he lived and that folk can take different views on his life[opinion] I dont see how you can draw an analogy with discussing a fact – nelsons life – and an opinion about a fact [ which is either true or false] – god made us all etc

I dont think you help really leave it someone who actually believes what they are saying they do it far better than you tbh.

specially as militant atheists tend not to be very tolerant or good humored towards those who challenge them.

you took my comments towards marxist/leninist very well though ernie, I like someone who practices what they preach 😉

I dont think you help really leave it someone who actually believes what they are saying they do it far better than you tbh.

You miss my point, really.

could you not look for the good in my wrongness though – like say it was a religious text 😉

I’d say that’s an entirely different subject. This is most definitely NOT science. I’d say it’s a lot more like history. There are always new history books being published about the same subject, even though only one set of facts actually happened. We don’t seem to have a problem with this.

The point is that no one (sensible) tries to claim that a small selection of books about history is the absolute literal truth, some christian do do this with the bible.

It’s far from black and white imo.

Which were you a christian would put you in the “open to interpretation” camp rather than the “absolute truth” clamp. However if it is the work of man/men/woman/women and by implication a work of collective fiction to codify customs of the time then it seems a very strange thing to base a belief system on, especially several thousand years later. If on the other hand it is the “absolute truth” directly from a deity then why the inconsistencies? I would have thought that an all powerful supernatural deity would have been able to create this work without them. There are significant fundamental problems with either argument.

As I and others have pointed out it can’t be both things and unless and until christians decide which one it is they will forever (rightly) be accused of moving the goalposts by flip flopping between them when such debates occur.

Also can I be a militant atheist? I’ve never been a militant anything before 😉

When I turned the computer off late afternoon my time on Wed., I thought this thread had about reached the end, but obviously not the case. Always interesting on subjects like this to see how new posters pick up the gauntlet/carry on the discussion–but see that Cougar is still solidly in the mix.

We aim to please.

Or be bloody awkward. One of the two.