The bible

[Cearbhall]

Your icon says agnostic

I'm an agnostic atheist.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm an agnostic atheist.

So am I, but I think atheist makes it more clear as an icon than an agnostic one would.

 

[Cearbhall]

So am I, but I think atheist makes it more clear as an icon than an agnostic one would.

I feel that the agnostic icon makes my beliefs clearer than the atheist icon.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is it so important? I'm not going to make any claims or assumptions, I just want an honest answer as to why the bible is so important.

In the religious sense... Because that's the book they believe contains the truth as revealed by the god they worship. Because they've been told that the book is important.

In other cultures, the bible is not import. There, they've been told that other books are important.

It's kind of a package deal.

Objectively, all these books off aren't any more important then any other ancient book. And depending on what area of historical study you are engaged in, the books will most likely be completely irrelevant.

They are important to understand the history and the development of specific cultures, as religion has been interlaced with society for a really long time. And in many parts of the world, still is.

Thankfully, not in my part of the world
I really would have a problem with living in a country where truelly anti-scientific groups are given a platform to spread their shenannigans while pretending that we should take them seriously.

 

[Albion]

So am I, but I think atheist makes it more clear as an icon than an agnostic one would.

The two words are mutually exclusive, though.

 

[hedrick]

Why is it so important? I'm not going to make any claims or assumptions, I just want an honest answer as to why the bible is so important.

There are three reasons, corresponding to the three major approaches to Christianity:

1) It's a foundational document for our community. This is one version of a Catholic view. Ultimately Catholics believe that the Church was founded by Jesus, and that he passed on to it spiritual authority. The Bible describes the key formative period for the Church, but it's not the only source of authority.

2) It's God's Word. This is the conservative Protestant viewpoint (though Catholics and mainline Protestants believe this also in a somewhat different form). As far as I can tell, conservative Protestants don't think you can prove this. What other authority could you use to establish the highest authority? Rather, it's best to consider it an axiom. It's part of the definition of Christianity.

3) It contains God’s Word. This is the mainline Protestant viewpoint. For us, God revealed himself through his interactions with Israel, and through Jesus. The Bible is the only primary source describing this. This is the only view in which normal historical evidence is important for evaluating the credibility of the Bible, and even then not all mainline Christians would consider it relevant.

In addition, many people think that the Bible constitutes historically credible evidence for God’s interventions. However this position is controversial even among Christians.

Some people accept more than one of the three positions above. E.g. many mainline Protestants believe that Scripture is the foundation of the Church, as Catholics do, but also think that tradition can err, and give the Bible more of a role in correcting it. Similarly, many Catholics believe something close to the mainline position as well at the Catholic position.

None of these responses proves the authority of the Bible. It has authority only within a specific faith. So the other question is why do we have that faith? That’s harder, because your specific faith is probably best regarded as a properly basic belief. Not everything can be derived from something else. However even for basic beliefs, there can be things pointing them. For most people I think faith comes from sources such as the following:

* religious experience. Obviously there are ambiguities in interpreting this, but something like 1/2 the people in the US report experiences that they think are contact with God or things done by God.

* results. The best analysis I’ve seen of why Christianity spread in the early Church is that it resulted in a better life than the alternatives, and that this was visible to people’s non-Christian friends. In the modern context, I still think many people are Christian because they find that it makes sense of their lives.

* historical evidence. As noted above many belief (at times somewhat naively) that the Bible constitutes evidence of God’s intervention, and / or that there is other evidence — historical and contemporary — for miracles and other activities of God.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Hey guys, thanks to everyone for your replies. I'll work on replying back to each of you tonight when I get home.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I feel that the agnostic icon makes my beliefs clearer than the atheist icon.

Obviously, you have 'denominational' differences in interpretation with PsychoSarah! (lol)

 

[Cearbhall]

The two words are mutually exclusive, though.

Not at all. Agnosticism describes a person's lack of belief that there is evidence, whereas atheism/theism refers to what conclusion the person draws based on what evidence (or lack thereof) he or she thinks exists. For example, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in divine beings, but I'm agnostic because I don't think I can disprove the existence of divine beings. They're two different dichotomies.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Not at all. Agnosticism describes a person's lack of belief that there is evidence, whereas atheism/theism refers to what conclusion the person draws based on what evidence (or lack thereof) he or she thinks exists. For example, I'm an atheist because I don't believe in divine beings, but I'm agnostic because I don't think I can disprove the existence of divine beings.

Exactly. As opposed to a gnostic atheist, who thinks they could disprove or have sufficient evidence against the existence of deities. Agnostic and gnostic are knowledge claims, while theist and atheist are view claims.

 

[Lollerskates]

Sorry, didn't mean to be pushy.

Ok. I can get that.

My reason for asking this is because I tend to see a lot deference to what the bible has to say on just about any given subject. Truly, the authors were brilliant in how they covered just about everything that could ever come up.

Now, we all know the bible is the inspired word of God. But, how do we (I) know that God actually uttered those words. How do we tell the difference between the writings of men from 20 to 30 centuries ago and what God actually said?

I am critical of the biblical canon, for historical reasons. I believe the bible is important if for only that the Old Testament was an extremely precise and accurate medical guide, food safety guide, familial guide, a guide on genetic mixing (cousins ok/not ok), and so much more. For example, only recently have scientists found that a baby's highest clotting factor is eight days after circumcision - the time God told the Hebrews to wait before circumcision.

The message is also a great one.

Where it gets messy is the incredible amount of contradictory books added by humans, and the amount of books that were removed that would make sense of those contradictions. Each human is responsible for his or her own soul, and it is not right a group of people make spiritual decisions for the masses. But, they do.

God is in command, but He does allow people to be evil. Still, He doesn't let His word be lost in lies. Contradictions in the bible are actually blessings: the first indication that the canonical bible a hindrance. Apocryphal books, and hidden texts "suddenly coming to light" are another bread crumb leading to the actual Truth. Even questions by non-believers, and apologies are like a flag He waves to lead people to truth.

I say all that to say this: it is a common mistake believers make believing the bible canon answers every single life minutia. God doesn't even provide every minutia of life; He expects us to use our mind He gave us to draw conclusions based on sets of information. He is also detailed enough to cover all bases, unless one just isn't using their head, or is highly confused. I would say the bible is important for art, history, violence, subjugation, slavery, and justifying political tyranny and ecumenical power worship. The word of God doesn't need a written text. Indeed, the Hebrews began as an oral tradition of song and story for the Word of God, which is why there are older written texts than the books of Moses.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I wouldn't look to the bible for medical advice. Really, you'll get yourself killed

 

[Lollerskates]

I wouldn't look to the bible for medical advice. Really, you'll get yourself killed

*sigh*...

Of course you wouldnt, because you do not believe in God, what He says, and I would assume you dont think any merit to the books of Moses as relevant and useful especially today - in any degree.

But I do, and I would. Is that OK with you - if only I use it for med advice (and not you?)

 

[Cearbhall]

But I do, and I would. Is that OK with you - if only I use it for med advice (and not you?)

As long as you don't subject your kids to it or act against the interests of public health.

Is this really an issue? There was a case a few years ago where a couple let their daughter die of diabetes because they had mental problems and thought they weren't supposed to do anything, but I don't see the conflict between science and religion.

 

[Lollerskates]

As long as you don't subject your kids to it or act against the interests of public health.

Hmm, well that is a line cross. No one tells me how to raise ky kids - no one. Today, good parenting is tantamount to acting against "public" everything e.g. spanking.

Yea, you can try to boss me around all you like, but no one has say with my kids except my wife and me.

 

[Cearbhall]

Hmm, well that is a line cross. No one tells me how to raise ky kids - no one. Today, good parenting is tantamount to acting against "public" everything e.g. spanking.

Yea, you can try to boss me around all you like, but no one has say with my kids except my wife and me.

I'm sorry, you don't have the right to let a child die. Their right to life is much more important than your pride. You can make as many strongly-worded posts as you want. The law is not in your hands, nor is it in your favor.

 

[Lollerskates]

I'm sorry, you don't have the right to let a child die. Their right to life is much more important than your pride. You can make as many strongly-worded posts as you want. The law is not in your hands, nor is it in your favor.

Who is talking about letting my child die except you - as a talking point against full parental rights of children no less. Let me repeat: you or anyone else will never be able to tell me how to raise my kids...no matter how right you think you are. Never.

And, good luck trying I will overturn this planet, putting up a hell of a fight before anyone controls my kids. You will have to kill me first which I am sure most of you would delight in "for the sake of my child's safety." I know what is best for them, not someone who doesn't even think too much of their parents in the first place.

 

[Cearbhall]

Who is talking about letting my child die except you - as a talking point against full parental rights of children no less. Let me repeat: you or anyone else will never be able to tell me how to raise my kids...no matter how right you think you are. Never.

That's not how the law works, and I'm sure you know that. I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Go talk to your congressman.

And, good luck trying I will overturn this planet, putting up a hell of a fight before anyone controls my kids. You will have to kill me first which I am sure most of you would delight in "for the sake of my child's safety." I know what is best for them, not someone who doesn't even think too much of their parents in the first place.

Great. Go try to get the law changed instead of complaining to me.

 

[Lollerskates]

That's not how the law works, and I'm sure you know that. I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Go talk to your congressman.

Great. Go try to get the law changed instead of complaining to me.

You are the one complaining and nagging someone else about their own kids. You should be ashamed of yourself. And, you started out by assuming I would be so negligent of my kids I would let them die. I could revile you all up and down the ladder but I wont, because anyone who has the nerve enough to tell someone how to raise their kids and feign guilt trips has enough unseen problems. You need to watch your mouth about things culturally off limits. It is just poor taste and uncivilized. You dont even know if I have kids, or how I raise them. You are an unbelievable person. Go bother someone else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

How have they "held up?"

In what ways do you think the bible has "held up"?