The Bible

[GodlessHeathen]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truethful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undenyable truth of God.

Comments?

 

[metherion]

Question.

By "made up", do you mean lies, or do you mean fables/parables?

'Cause there is a difference, but both fit under the label of "made up".
Also, examples, maybe?
That would illustrate the bits you are talking about.

Metherion

 

[Verv]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truethful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undenyable truth of God.

Comments?

You beg your own question...

If some parts are true, what is to say the whole thing isn't true?

Everything inside of it has to stand entirely independent of itself.

Anyone can write a book full of 10,000 true statements and then randomly throw in one that can easily be proven false... But should that throw the whole book out? If that is the case, then that is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

It seems to work, but in reality, it doesn't because everything stands independently of each other.

Personally, I believe that the Bible is free of error.

 

[Upisoft]

Anyone can write a book full of 10,000 true statements and then randomly throw in one that can easily be proven false... But should that throw the whole book out? If that is the case, then that is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

Anyone can easily write a book full of 10,000 true statements and add ONE that could be true or false, without proof in either side. Should we accept it on faith?

 

[Verv]

Anyone can easily write a book full of 10,000 true statements and add ONE that could be true or false, without proof in either side. Should we accept it on faith?

I agree with with the philosopher Berkeley (sp?) which basically summed up everything as requiring Faith.

Renee Descartes came to the same conclusion, that, essentially, you cannot prove anything other than cogito irgo sum.

Really, the basic idea is that you know so little, and so much has to be accepted on Faith...

I think it is hared to know much without some faith.

 

[Stinker]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truethful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undenyable truth of God.

Comments?

Well, many things have been found to be true in it. We have to remember that it was written to the understanding people had in those times.

 

[us38]

Anyone can write a book full of 10,000 true statements and then randomly throw in one that can easily be proven false... But should that throw the whole book out? If that is the case, then that is a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

Let's try this a little differently. Let's say you have a book containing 10,000 true statements and 10 statements that can't be shown to be either true or false. Do we assume the 10 are true. It would be a reasonable assumption that they are, but they certainly don't need to be true.

Let's take this even further. Let's say there are 10,000 true statements, 10 false statements, and 10 ambiguous statements. What, then, is reasonable to assume about the 10 ambiguous statements?

Really, the basic idea is that you know so little, and so much has to be accepted on Faith...

However, these aren't necessarily the same kinds of faith. I assume that when I wake up tomorrow and step on the floor, I will not get electrocuted. I wouldn't argue if you said I took it on faith that I wouldn't be electrocuted. But why do I have faith that I won't electrocuted? Simple: because the alternate is useless. Allowing the possibility of electrocution leaves me no recourse other than to lie in bed and worry about it.

Now, can you say that faith in the bible is the same kind of faith as non-electrocution?

Verwirrung

-- D

 

[Merlin]

You're right.
It is safe.
It's not true, but it's safe to say whatever you want.

 

[Upisoft]

I agree with with the philosopher Berkeley (sp?) which basically summed up everything as requiring Faith.

Renee Descartes came to the same conclusion, that, essentially, you cannot prove anything other than cogito irgo sum.

Really, the basic idea is that you know so little, and so much has to be accepted on Faith...

Oh, no. You can prove many things. The problem is they're not directly connected with the reality outside. Take for example mathematics. You can prove plenty things there, but unfortunately mathematics is useful only indirectly as a modeling tool on the reality.

 

[ClericJohn]

Does the question of who gets to decide which 10000 quotes goes into the "bible" come into play? If so; you need to decided who was truthful in all of there writings. There were a LOT of writings that had just as much weight as the "4 gospels" in there respective times.

Cleric JRY

 

[DailyBlessings]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truthful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undeniable truth of God.

Comments?

If my American History textbook incorrectly identifies one of the commanders present at the Battle of Gettysburg, is that reason to assume that the entire text is inaccurate? One might conclude that it would be wise to consider the statements therein carefully, and as individual claims rather than collective truth, but one ought to do that in the first place, with or without evidence of inaccurate data in one section. The history book, though not infallible, is still a reasonably valid source of information about American history. And, I note, the Battle of Gettysburg did occur, in spite of the very likely possibility that our knowledge of it is tainted by false data and folklore wrongly interpreted as fact.

 

[MedicMan]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truethful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undenyable truth of God.

Comments?

A fair assumption, if you are aiming for a position of philosophical scepticism. However, we are not questing for the absolute truth; rather, we are looking for specifc examples of truth. Therefore, your scepticism should be confined to situations where you can be certain of your doubt.
And how to be certain of your doubt? Trust your feelings. The messages Jesus wanted to teach us will still be conveyed whether you take the Scripture as literal or metaphorical.

~MedicMan~

 

[coons786c]

The Bible does not contrdict itself. Everything From the Old Testament to the NT Lines Up. There is nothing out of wack in the bible. You either believe it or not. This is the choice God has given us.

 

[livingone]

I think that it is safe to say that the Bible is... not entirely truethful, and that some things in it are made up.

If there are made up things (lies) in the Bible, then who's to say the whole thing isn't made up, including all parts concerning the existence and undenyable truth of God.

Comments?

They say the bible is the word of God and therefore the will of God. If that is true then their God has a sick and twisted will considering what the bible has unleashed upon the earth--Christendom, a place where un-believers are killed by the sword and then preached peace to. Not to mention the fear of God they instill within man. They say Jesus is the prince of peace; where is the peace that he supposedly possesses? Should not a peaceful God cast peace upon the world, no, instead Jesus said he comes not to cast peace but division: fire, sword and war. I thought God was love, then where is the love that God supposedly possesses.
A Christian says that he loves; but make a demonstration, trample their cross and they cave into hate. It is the holy deception, the holy believe that they are the only ones that have a right to life, that 'sinners' should perish in everlasting hell and damnation. Sin and death are the children of wisdom. The priests and nuns seek wisdom so prudently that they begin to despise the body, saying that a portion of that body is sinful, the genitals, they say that it is an unclean thing and deemed a part of original sin. Naturally, this is where the sinner comes from--the genitals, they think that since man has genitals then that means he is a sinner. So what is their answer, as is their answer to everything--abstinence. They believe that the virgin spirit is the cleanest thing that they can invent, if they are so pure then how is it that they condemn men by calling them sinners when the 'sinners' action does not meet their expectations? It is the holy hate. They say they are holier than thou, contradicting their belief in a humble life, exalting themselves above sinners.
If these holy people were truly wise then they would know that sin and death are the children of wisdom. They say let us become a child to enter the kingdom. Then why not become a child of wisdom and embrace sin and death, instead of calling them the devils work. Sin naturally falls to the body. The sinner is way more wise than the priest, as the sinner sees the body as desireable. The priest says it, the body, is a part of sin. Do you see how they despise the body?
Never repent for your sins, you fall into their trap, which makes you less than a saint; as saints are lifted up above sinners--sinners are placed under their feet and are deemed ready for hell and damnation. It is the holy hate. Never repent for your sins. If you see you have sin and you cleansed yourself of that sin; just say, I was born without knowledge, so how could I know that I was doing wrong?

 

[Photios]

They say the bible is the word of God and therefore the will of God. If that is true then their God has a sick and twisted will considering what the bible has unleashed upon the earth--Christendom, a place where un-believers are killed by the sword and then preached peace to. Not to mention the fear of God they instill within man. They say Jesus is the prince of peace; where is the peace that he supposedly possesses? Should not a peaceful God cast peace upon the world, no, instead Jesus said he comes not to cast peace but division: fire, sword and war. I thought God was love, then where is the love that God supposedly possesses.
A Christian says that he loves; but make a demonstration, trample their cross and they cave into hate. It is the holy deception, the holy believe that they are the only ones that have a right to life, that 'sinners' should perish in everlasting hell and damnation. Sin and death are the children of wisdom. The priests and nuns seek wisdom so prudently that they begin to despise the body, saying that a portion of that body is sinful, the genitals, they say that it is an unclean thing and deemed a part of original sin. Naturally, this is where the sinner comes from--the genitals, they think that since man has genitals then that means he is a sinner. So what is their answer, as is their answer to everything--abstinence. They believe that the virgin spirit is the cleanest thing that they can invent, if they are so pure then how is it that they condemn men by calling them sinners when the 'sinners' action does not meet their expectations? It is the holy hate. They say they are holier than thou, contradicting their belief in a humble life, exalting themselves above sinners.
If these holy people were truly wise then they would know that sin and death are the children of wisdom. They say let us become a child to enter the kingdom. Then why not become a child of wisdom and embrace sin and death, instead of calling them the devils work. Sin naturally falls to the body. The sinner is way more wise than the priest, as the sinner sees the body as desireable. The priest says it, the body, is a part of sin. Do you see how they despise the body?
Never repent for your sins, you fall into their trap, which makes you less than a saint; as saints are lifted up above sinners--sinners are placed under their feet and are deemed ready for hell and damnation. It is the holy hate. Never repent for your sins. If you see you have sin and you cleansed yourself of that sin; just say, I was born without knowledge, so how could I know that I was doing wrong?

This is a gross misunderstanding of history and theology that I simply haven't the time to go through. The only other thing I will say about it now is that it is also an unfair lumping of everyone together, without regard for the differences in belief of different Christian groups.

With statements like this one, how do you justify registering as a Christian?

 

[MorkandMindy]

This is a gross misunderstanding of history and theology that I simply haven't the time to go through. The only other thing I will say about it now is that it is also an unfair lumping of everyone together, without regard for the differences in belief of different Christian groups.

With statements like this one, how do you justify registering as a Christian?

He may have registered as a Christian on the principle you gave in your second sentence; that he isn't going to be lumped together with the neo gnostics / Pauline Christians; he may well be a Jesus / gospel Christian.

You said not to lump all Christians together and he has taken the timely step of getting as far from the trouble makers as possible.

 

[Photios]

He may have registered as a Christian on the principle you gave in your second sentence; that he isn't going to be lumped together with the neo gnostics / Pauline Christians; he may well be a Jesus / gospel Christian.

You said not to lump all Christians together and he has taken the timely step of getting as far from the trouble makers as possible.

While I didn't know at the time I said that, other things he has stated show that he is utterly non-Christian.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The Bible does not contrdict itself.

The Bible contradicts itself on multiple occasions. Not only does it make little reference to external reality, it is not even internally consistent. On that basis alone it is not worthy of a great deal of serious consideration, let alone becoming the foundation on which we build our lives.

peace

 

[MorkandMindy]

While I didn't know at the time I said that, other things he has stated show that he is utterly non-Christian.

I have heard a totally genuine Christian state that the best argument against Christianity is Christians.

There is history and there is history. The documents the Vatican release give one story, odd bits collected from Northern Africa, Southern Europe, Judah, give a very different picture, the one livingone is giving.

Many Christians are ashamed of the history of the Church; burning people alive was the main form of execution for centuries. Some Christians have turned their back on an incredibly nasty past and are trying to work out a way ahead.

 

[MorkandMindy]

On the other hand, he's written total junk in several other threads so I think you are right Photios.