Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Are you a bible basher?
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein
It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?
I'll be the first to admit that I never read through the whole Bible. I did try to read through it but it was just so boring and full of plot holes that I just could not get through it. I did manage to read the book that I was named after but it was arduous. Why is the "Good Book" so poorly written? Or is that just a symbolic title?
A friend of mine tried to break down the Christian message and I want to see if it's accurate. Here is his version of what the Christian message is to non-believers...You are a sinner, and because of that you are going to hell. God, in his love for you, sent Jesus to forgive your sins, all you have to do is believe in him in both heart and mind. Aside from the MASSIVE plot holes and contradictions the Jesus story inherently has, is this an accurate version of the Christian message?
So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book? Or do you believe anything you read in it on faith? If it's faith why this book and not some other?
Or rather, a group of people who had some understanding of God lived and worked with a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, saw him crucified, gave up hope, and then saw something they knew to be as impossible as we do happen - that he resurrected from the dead. When they rebuilt they lives and thinking around that and formed communities those communities recorded their story and the ways that connected with the previous stories of Israel.It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?
It is not, but then that is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?
Or rather, a group of people who had some understanding of God lived and worked with a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, saw him crucified, gave up hope, and then saw something they knew to be as impossible as we do happen - that he resurrected from the dead. When they rebuilt they lives and thinking around that and formed communities those communities recorded their story and the ways that connected with the previous stories of Israel.
Why treat it as anything other than fantasy - because they would not have written what they did if they were not utterly convinced that the impossible had happened on Easter morning. Something extraordinary had to have happened to cause these communities to exist and write what they did.
Using terms like superstitious attempts to prejudge the case. They knew that dead people stay dead. They knew that resurrection was something that could only happen at the end of time when it would happen to all, or all of God's, people. The idea that ancient people would swollow anything is arrogant modernist bul..it.
It is not,
but then that is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.
That's not how it works. Otherwise I could claim that the president was a reptile alien and then claim validity when people point out holes in my argument.The fact that someone who claims to not believe feels need to attack the validity of the Bible and justify why they do not find it valid on the other hand is at least one point in favor of there being something there.
Are you sure you want to be comparing the Bible to works of fiction?How many posts have such people made attacking the veracity of the X-Files? Or the X-Men?
It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?
The point is if one believes the Bible is a fairy tale for superstitiuos people, then just like the X-files or the X-Men, why feel the need to attack the veracity of a fairy tale?
As someone has already pointed out, this argument is not compelling.
What is compelling, however, is that skilled scientists, philosophers, historians, mathematicians, and writers (among many others) over many centuries now have found the Bible convincing and powerful. Funny that. I mean, how has a book that has its beginnings in such "primitive" environments as you describe managed to be so admired, and studied, and shared by people who are so educated, and knowledgeable, and thoughtful? Now that's a question worth pondering, I think.
None of what precedes your last concluding statement actually supports it.Statistically speaking that is not true, nowadays at least. A census of members of Mensa found that a good majority were not Christian, same thing with doctors, at least in America. People at the university level are notoriety non-Christian. It seems that the more you know the less Christian you are.
None of what precedes your last concluding statement actually supports it.
Statistics have been shown again and again to be easily manipulated and made to show whatever is desired. As Benjamin D'Israeli, former Prime Minister of Britain, once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damnable lies, and statistics."
In the past it was almost a requirement that people study the Bible inorder to study other high level topics.What may be statistically true today does not negate the fact that many brilliant men of the past did believe the Bible to be true. And don't confuse having access to a greater body of information with being smart.
I fail to see how knowing less would make you more critical. Historically people have filled gaps in knowledge with fantasy, lightning coming from Zeus or hurricanes coming from Poseidon for example.People may know more today than they did a century or so ago, but this in no way means they are better able to think and assess facts critically - often the reverse.
The census only tells of what people report themselves as, many go with the religion of their family as it is part of their origin. For example, my cousins might mark Catholic as their religion as we were all raised Catholic but that does not mean we go to church or believe in Catholic teachings. It's likely it's the same with a majority of those but we can't tell for sure. As for the small minority that would ACTUALLY believe then they are outliers. I've met a few people I would consider smart but seemed to truly believe, from what I've seen they believed because of social pressure (mostly from their parents). I really felt bad for one guy because I can see his struggle to reconcile what he is SUPPOSED to believe and the facts.It is interesting that you focus on those in Mensa who aren't Christian as if they somehow dissolve the fact that smart people, people who are members of Mensa, are Christian. What do you say about these folk? How is it that they are both highly intelligent and believers in Christ? According to you, their intelligence should have led them away from faith in God.
A statistical parallel between the number of self proclaimed Christians and people we consider intelligent. As it is there are far fewer people then would be predicted.People at the university level are notoriously non-Christian? So? If, as you say, the more you know the less Christian you are, I should not be a Christian and neither should my wife. We are both university-level in our education and we both believe in Christ as Saviour. I suppose we are exceptions to the rule? But what about the many others we know who are both university graduates and Christians? How many intelligent Christians does there have to be before they are more than merely exceptions to your rule?
We are far off topic as it is but I do want to know more about this philosophy you feel is moving people away from Christianity. I'll create a thread on this.The fact is, intelligence has nothing to do with the current trend away from a Christian worldview in North America. The shift has much more to do with philosophy than knowledge or intelligence.
That's nice but thats 600 out of how many?Here's a list of about six hundred notable exceptions to your contention that "the more you know the less Christian you are":
Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science
He was quoting Mark Twain, and yes stats can be manipulated but you cannot contest that a majority of people we would call "intelligent" are not Christian.
I fail to see how knowing less would make you more critical. Historically people have filled gaps in knowledge with fantasy, lightning coming from Zeus or hurricanes coming from Poseidon for example.
The census only tells of what people report themselves as, many go with the religion of their family as it is part of their origin. For example, my cousins might mark Catholic as their religion as we were all raised Catholic but that does not mean we go to church or believe in Catholic teachings. It's likely it's the same with a majority of those but we can't tell for sure. As for the small minority that would ACTUALLY believe then they are outliers. I've met a few people I would consider smart but seemed to truly believe, from what I've seen they believed because of social pressure (mostly from their parents). I really felt bad for one guy because I can see his struggle to reconcile what he is SUPPOSED to believe and the facts.
That's nice but thats 600 out of how many?
Here I thought the more dangerous person would be the one swinging thier arms at windmills that they think others apparently see as attackers.Because YOU believe the tale, and that is a dangerous proposition for everyone.
It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?