History Of The Bible, Accuracy Etc.

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
Either you believe or you dont. If you dont then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it. It really is pretty simple.

this is flawed. i am, of course, generalising but i have to because you set the scene.

so, either you believe or you don't. let's call these two groups, for want of better terms 'those with faith' and 'scientists' respectively.

those with faith, believe. period. they don't care what proof you come up with because that's the very definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

if you could prove to these people that (for example) jesus was just some guy, they will not change their minds because they have faith.

the scientists don't believe because their world revolves around proof. if you could prove to these people that jesus wasn't just some guy, they would change their minds because it was proved.

so, your statement: "If you dont [believe] then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it." is not necessarily true.

you yourself are proof that it's not necessarily true. you didn't believe, something happened and you found a reason to believe.

your new-found faith is proof that these words you have written are false.

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
Well, i already knew that whcih proves i know who does and who does not know the bible, you are a perfect example.

sohi

in the past you have dismissed discussion from people who clearly have studied, and know, the bible.

further, your argument is, as is often the case, conveniently self-reinforcing.

alasdair

 

[michael]

^Deflecting the question!? How so???

because my question was about people who have read the bible - not studied it in depth.

You better never call someone closeminded my friend - ever. You have no ground to stand on.

why? because i read something and then made a determination as to the believability thereof?

i still don't understand why it is so hard for you to believe that someone may have reached a different conclusion than you. for some reason you find this to be some sort of out-of-this-world idea. now that is being closed-minded.

 

[alasdairm]

Originally posted by michael
because my question was about people who have read the bible - not studied it in depth.

indeed. we have been through this before in ce&p:

poster: i think the bible is questionable
sohi: that's because you haven't read it
poster: actually i have read it
sohi: then, you haven't studied it
poster: actually i have studied it
sohi: then you haven't studied it enough
poster: actually i have studied it a great deal
sohi: then you haven't studied it properly
etc.

alasdair

 

[quiet roar]

It is all about perception folks...Either you believe or you dont. If you dont then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it. It really is pretty simple. (

Not true, SoHi. I for one would like to have the faith that many profess to have. However, I am unable to ignore the issues that stop me from having that faith

 

[Turbo Monk]

quiet roar - you exercise faith every day of your life.

You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown or prepared by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.

If you did not have faith, if you did not trust others you wouldn’t be able to drive, eat, or get help in times of sickness. Your life would be very difficult.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

alasdair, your example is way wrong...I attack those that make statements that are completely false regarding the Bible, especially when they think they know what it says or doesnt say in it, but are blatantly wrong. I do tell people that reading the Bible a few times, or even just a book or two is almost just like not reading it at all. You are right, for those who answer me "i have read the Bible" i immediately challenge them just to show them that reading it does NOT mean you know even a tiny % of what is written in it...

To be able to even have a decent discussion of the bible you MUST have had done more than read it a couple or few times before! Becasue that means you havent read the entire thing! How much of a movie could i tell you about if i only watched the first 15 minutes? not much at all right? Now imagine if someone who had watched it all overheard me making claims about this paticular movie (that i only watched 15 minutes of) that were blatantly false. What would they say? They would tell me i may have watched a few minutes of it but i certainly have no idea what the movie is really about. Same rule applies to you all with the Bible, you may have picked it up a few or several times but darn near none of you have read it in depth enough to carry an educated debate on it...It is so obvious to me it is sickening. So why wouldnt i call you out on it? You tell me that?

And as far as those who i have debated who have studied it (beanergrl and Sweet e are about the only two that fall into this category), our debates were almost exclusively over interpretations of verses and books, not whether they had read or studied it before. So you are wrong again. Sorry.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

Not true, SoHi. I for one would like to have the faith that many profess to have. However, I am unable to ignore the issues that stop me from having that faith

I ask you, have you ever just objectively sat down and tried reading the Bible and praying to God for guidence? I am not even talking about church at this point. You can experience faith, trust me, it just takes an open heart and mind and a little tiny bit of effort on your part and a world will be opened to you and you will find God. That is, if there is one, right? If there is a God and you want to truely know Him/It and are willing to actually put your actions to meet your words, then i have no doubt you can find faith and find God...Or, He will find you

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

because my question was about people who have read the bible - not studied it in depth.



why? because i read something and then made a determination as to the believability thereof?

i still don't understand why it is so hard for you to believe that someone may have reached a different conclusion than you. for some reason you find this to be some sort of out-of-this-world idea. now that is being closed-minded.

I talk to peopel almost daily who have read it and even studied it and have come to a different conclusion as me...I just know from all of your posts that you have little to no knowlege of this book we frequently discuss. It is that simple Michael.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

Originally posted by SoHiAllTheTime
Either you believe or you dont. If you dont then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it. It really is pretty simple.

this is flawed. i am, of course, generalising but i have to because you set the scene.

so, either you believe or you don't. let's call these two groups, for want of better terms 'those with faith' and 'scientists' respectively.

those with faith, believe. period. they don't care what proof you come up with because that's the very definition of faith: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof".

if you could prove to these people that (for example) jesus was just some guy, they will not change their minds because they have faith.

the scientists don't believe because their world revolves around proof. if you could prove to these people that jesus wasn't just some guy, they would change their minds because it was proved.

so, your statement: "If you dont [believe] then no matter what is presented to you you will always find a reason to not believe it." is not necessarily true.

you yourself are proof that it's not necessarily true. you didn't believe, something happened and you found a reason to believe.

your new-found faith is proof that these words you have written are false.

alasdair

The only thing that changed in me was that i believed and had faith...The same info was there for me to see, only now i believe it. It wasnt a scientific conclusion i came to, trust me. It was something inside of me heart and soul that changed and gave me my faith.

 

[Acidfiend]

quiet roar - you exercise faith every day of your life.

You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown or prepared by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.

If you did not have faith, if you did not trust others you wouldn’t be able to drive, eat, or get help in times of sickness. Your life would be very difficult.

These examples are flawed if you are trying to create a parallel between "faith" in these examples and faith in God.

You get in the car and drive on faith. You don’t know if you’re going to make it to your destination alive or not, but you go.

Actually, the only "faith" present in this example is faith in one's own abilities to drive. A person usually drives themselves to work, and their faith in their ability to drive (without dying) is based on the fact that they were competent enough to pass their license exam and they have survived every day they have driven since. This sort of faith is not blind, and is in fact based on quantitive experience (observable data).

You have faith that the food you buy that is grown or prepared by strangers is not harmful, so you eat it.

Again, the faith is not in the strangers who prepare your food but in the entire government agencies that regulate food quality (dep. agriculture, FDA, dep. health, etc), which holds it to a higher level of scrutiny as there are many more people involved in the process. Additionally, every restauraunt now has a ratings system based on annual assements in quality. Even if these attributes of the food industry were voided, the faith in the food quality would be subject to the relative experience of the customer who frequents the distributor. Blind faith would only exist if
a) there wre no government agencies regulating or enforcing quality
b) the customer was making their very fist purchase from a brand spankin' new supermarket/restauraunt that he/she has never heard any reviews on, ever.

You have faith that the doctors you see are competent. So you put yourself in their hands.

Again, the faith is not placed on a single point (the doctor), as a doctor's qualifications are freely available via university degrees, the company who employes him, and the government agencies responsible for maintaining the legitimacy of both the university and the business. Anybody who chooses to do so can examin their doctor's qualifications for themselves, and any sort of malpractice is subject to the law.

Diest philosophy is not subject or responsible to any power or institution. Believers even hold that Thiesm cannot be subject to scientific scrutiny as God "exists" outside of existance (how something can exist outside of existnace is another debate within itself). The faith you speak of is, in no way, parallel to faith in a supernatural being responsible for the creation of reality.
----------
[edited] stupid argument[/edit].

 

[quiet roar]

Although I don't see it as a "santa claus" parallel, Acidfiend has expressed the differences I see between faith in day to day issues and faith in God. The faith I have in people performing their tasks has come from many experiences of said tasks.

SoHi: you may be right that with prayer and reading the Bible I may find this faith, but I doubt it because although I have some lingering belief that there is a God, I have very little belief in the Bible for all the reasons that have been mentioned in this thread and others.

 

[SoHiAllTheTime]

^Exactly, which is why you wont ever find it...You have defeated it before even giving it a chance! You have allowed arguments to taint your mind before you have allowed yourself to objectively approach the subject with an open and clean mind...Remember something, any subject one earth can have doubt cast upon it , especially one 200 years old. Dont aloow that to keep you from at least exploring all that is out there with an OPEN mind!

Seriously, think about that. It is your life, your soul, you owe it to yourself to at least explore all sides.

 

[David]

Trust
n.

1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4.
1. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
2. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Law.
1. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
2. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
3. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industrfaith


Faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
y.


See they are different. I trust other people on the road to at the very least stay in their lane while driving. Not much else.

 

[quiet roar]

Not necessarily true SoHi. I was brought up believing, and did believe most of what I was taught. It was only when I started to think about things myself, and delve into the topic that I lost faith (whether it can be called faith before it is questioned is another question, I guess)

 

[Turbo Monk]

Actually, the only "faith" present in this example is faith in one's own abilities to drive. A person usually drives themselves to work, and their faith in their ability to drive (without dying) is based on the fact that they were competent enough to pass their license exam and they have survived every day they have driven since. This sort of faith is not blind, and is in fact based on quantitive experience (observable data).

Licensed, competent drivers DIE EVERY DAY AS A RESULT OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS! You are indeed putting blind faith to the test when you embark on a trip driving because there is no guarantee you are going to arrive safely. Websters def. #1 of faith applies here: confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. You are believing the trustworthiness of your abilities, your vehicle, and other drivers and also the idea that you are going to arrive safely.

Again, the faith is not in the strangers who prepare your food but in the entire government agencies that regulate food quality (dep. agriculture, FDA, dep. health, etc), which holds it to a higher level of scrutiny as there are many more people involved in the process.......

Just because the FDA and health dept regularly monitor food quality doesn't mean people don't get food poisoning on occasion. Websters def. #1 applies here too: confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. You are confidently believing that the food was inspected by the FDA & health dept. and prepared properly by the establishment.

a doctor's qualifications are freely available via university degrees, the company who employes him, and the government agencies responsible for maintaining the legitimacy of both the university and the business. Anybody who chooses to do so can examin their doctor's qualifications for themselves, and any sort of malpractice is subject to the law.

Tell the patient who had his wrong leg amputated that he can sue for malpractice, that'll make everything alright eh? Doctors are always competent and qualified until they botch something up, which they do every day. Websters def #1 covers this as well: confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. You are believing in the trustworthiness of your doctor to help you get better.

You are putting confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. Therefore, you are showing faith.

 

[michael]

I talk to peopel almost daily who have read it and even studied it and have come to a different conclusion as me...I just know from all of your posts that you have little to no knowlege of this book we frequently discuss. It is that simple Michael.

sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring the truth doesn't make it any less so, but if that's what helps you live your life the way you want, rock on.

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

Here's the difference that xtians never seem to get.

Within my arm's reach, here at the computer, is the bookshelf containing my old engineering physics textbook. If I take it off the shelf, and open it to the chapter about gravity, I'll find that the acceleration caused by the force of gravity at the surface of the earth is 9.8 m/s/s.

Said textbook, however, does not expect me to blindly accept that figure as a matter of faith. It describes the process and circumstances through which that number was discovered. And it describes a number of experiments that I can conduct to confirm, FOR MYSELF, that 9.8 m/s/s is, in fact, the (average) acceleration caused by gravity at the surface of the earth. In fact, to do so is usually REQUIRED in just about any physics course. Generally, you won't even be ALLOWED to regiser for the lecture section, unless you also register for an accompanying laboratory section.

Xtianity, OTOH, no matter how much you "study" the bible, is based on nothing more than hearsay. It offeres no way for me, or a disintrested third party, to confirm it, FOR MYSELF. I'm just supposed to take their word for it. If I were to ask a priest "why", the answer is: "read your bible". If I ask why I should trust the bible, the answer is: "because it's the word of god". If that answer's not good enough for me, the response is: "you're not reading your bible enough".

Don't tell. Show. Or tell me, in specific and objective terms, how I can show myself. The bible just tells. My physics textbook does the latter.


cya,
john

 

[quiet roar]

^^^ To have it proven by scientific experiments is not possible, but it doesn't mean God is not possible.

 

[SvnLyrBrto]

^^^ To have it proven by scientific experiments is not possible, but it doesn't mean God is not possible.

Oh, don't get me wrong... I'm not an atheist. Given the impossibility of proving a negative, they're on ground even less logically sound than the xtians.

I generally describe myself as agnostic. If I were going to gravitate towards a religion, it would probably be Buddhism. "Find personal enlightenment." appeals to me a lot more than the "Believe everything I tell you, feel guilty about everything else, but if you confess the latter, eat this magic transubstantiating cracker, and go out and convert/slay some non-believers you might be okay." crap I was raised with*.

* Which is another thing that annoys me about xtians in discussions like this. They automatically assume that anyone who disagrees with them is an ignorant heathen who knows nothing about xtianity.... has never given it a chance. And if only we'd give it that chance, we'd be "enlightened". The idea that some of us might have BEEN xtians, and become disillusioned with it, seems to be completely foreign.

Yes, I used to be a Christian (Technically, I still am. I've never done anything bad enough to actually get excommunicated.). I was baptized. I studied my bible, said my catechisms, went to mass, took communion, confessed my sins, felt guilty, the whole shebang. (Heh... I could be a Christian in good standing, with clean soul and ticket straight to heaven, again with a ten-minute visit to a confessional. Ain't xtianity grand?)

I eventually started thinking for myself about what I was doing, instead of just going through the motions. And I decided, FOR MYSELF, that unless someone could give me a better reason than: "because I said so", that, wether there's actually a "god" or not, xtianity is about as credible as a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys.


cya,
john