Bible verses often ignored by Christians (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Next time I'm at my local library I'm gonna move all the bibles to the fiction section.

 

[SashatheMan]

Next time I'm at my local library I'm gonna move all the bibles to the fiction section.

lol.

good idea

 

[Lexicographer]

Interesting thought, since the Bible contains more historical credibility than everything we have available about Julius Caesar.

You believe in Caesar, don't you?

I'm not talking about the interpretations of Jesus being divine, or the prophecies regarding the end of the world and all that. I'm talking about the facts, the events that happened. The things written about even by those who did not believe that Jesus was God the Son, sent to fulfil the Hebrew Prophecies. Even Tacitus mentions Christ, and he's one of the most respected historians in history itself - he certainly wasn't a Christian.

You've got more reason to put the Bible in the History - Ancient section than fiction. Of course, you'll just believe whatever keeps you thinking you're the smart ones, "too clever to be hoodwinked into religion".

 

[SashatheMan]

yeh , but writting a fictional story about an archeologist who travels to Egypt , in the 1950 and explored the great pyramids can be written containing all the truth about egypt, the locations he traveled and the oppropriate clothing he wore. It doesnt make it the truth, the story can just describe a place in a period of time which can be accurate , but still be fictional story.

 

[HotShot]

Interesting thought, since the Bible contains more historical credibility than everything we have available about Julius Caesar.

You believe in Caesar, don't you?

I'm not talking about the interpretations of Jesus being divine, or the prophecies regarding the end of the world and all that. I'm talking about the facts, the events that happened. The things written about even by those who did not believe that Jesus was God the Son, sent to fulfil the Hebrew Prophecies. Even Tacitus mentions Christ, and he's one of the most respected historians in history itself - he certainly wasn't a Christian.

You've got more reason to put the Bible in the History - Ancient section than fiction. Of course, you'll just believe whatever keeps you thinking you're the smart ones, "too clever to be hoodwinked into religion".

thats exactrly what i am saying jesus was into roman orgys (not greek, whoever said that).

Caesar was a loser who got stabbed in the back by a few guys,tacitus had some sexuall encounters with Jesus...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Interesting thought, since the Bible contains more historical credibility than everything we have available about Julius Caesar.

You believe in Caesar, don't you?

I'm not talking about the interpretations of Jesus being divine, or the prophecies regarding the end of the world and all that. I'm talking about the facts, the events that happened. The things written about even by those who did not believe that Jesus was God the Son, sent to fulfil the Hebrew Prophecies. Even Tacitus mentions Christ, and he's one of the most respected historians in history itself - he certainly wasn't a Christian.

There are many historical/scientific inaccuracies that have been found within the bible by the same way in which we have found historical/scientific 'fact' about ceasar. For example, the bible claims the egyptians had jewish slaves then they lived for years and years out in the desert... there's no evidence that anyone can find for this outside of the bible.

By the way, what is the 'count' of historical evidence? Is it the 'believability' of the evidence as a whole, or is it simply the number of historically accurate things? I have no idea how you've come up with such a claim.

Of course, you'll just believe whatever keeps you thinking you're the smart ones, "too clever to be hoodwinked into religion".

Well it's not that most people are 'hoodwinked' into religion, most people don't rationally decide that this is what they believe... it's usually either a family/cultural thing or whatever, like many things are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence

Make of that what you want.

 

[Lexicographer]

There are many historical/scientific inaccuracies that have been found within the bible by the same way in which we have found historical/scientific 'fact' about ceasar. For example, the bible claims the egyptians had jewish slaves then they lived for years and years out in the desert... there's no evidence that anyone can find for this outside of the bible.

The problem with discussing the old testament is that our view of history is derived from a Greco-Roman genre, whereas the old Scriptures were written by and for a Semitic people. The culture, traditions and understanding of the Hebrews are what we must look at, even in their ideas regarding a reliable history. I'm not a Fundamentalist, and by no means do I believe or tell others that everything written about in the Bible literally happened - a lot did (everything in the New Testament for a start) but not everything. However, the whole Bible is, in its entirety, true in the sense that every part of it reveals to us spiritual truths about God, who is himself Truth.

An example of things that are true but not historical are the creation accounts (yes there are two, Genesis chapters 1 and 2). This narrative uses certain imagery such as an individual man (whose name means "man") and an individual woman (whose name means "woman") to illustrate higher truths in a way understandable to the ancient Hebrews. Such statements regarding the creation of the night and day, light, the waters and the Earth, and subsequently animals and humans served a higher purpose than simply that of bedtime story. All of these were responses of spiritual truth to the surrounding false beliefs, that animals and the moon and water and light were "gods", the real meaning is that God is greater, above and before all these. The naming of the beasts and the different address of Adam to the animals shows how humanity is set apart from ordinary animals, and our "Lordship over them" indicates not only authority but responsibility to care and defend them as stewards of the world.

By the way, what is the 'count' of historical evidence? Is it the 'believability' of the evidence as a whole, or is it simply the number of historically accurate things? I have no idea how you've come up with such a claim.

Your questions about the "count" of historical evidence (I guess you mean something like "how many SI units of historical reliability does the Bible have against other ancient texts"?) is good, and difficult to answer. With things like this it really depends on the educated opinion of scholars in the field. Regarding believability, I don't think that applies. We humans have done a lot of unbelievable things, and still we are compelled to acknowledge the truth of their occurrence by the testimony of evidence. If the pyramids in Egypt were not there for all to see tomorrow, would you seriously believe that they had ever been built? We still can't give a reasonable explanation as to how it happened, and yet we are forced by the simple tactile evidence of their existence to acknowledge the event. Thus as I understand it the count of historical plausibility is the verifiability and strength of evidence.

Well it's not that most people are 'hoodwinked' into religion, most people don't rationally decide that this is what they believe... it's usually either a family/cultural thing or whatever, like many things are.

The sad truth is you are right. A great number of people do not give due consideration to their faith, and those who do decide whether or not to believe (yes both ways) often do so for the wrong reasons, through ignorance or misunderstanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiousness_and_intelligence

Make of that what you want.

Hmm yes a common presentation. Of course, there's no denying that there is also an exponential collaboration between intelligence and pride, a trait incompatible with religious faith. Pride is the worship of oneself, and unchecked it leads to an individual becoming their own god. This kind of self-indulgence is in direct contradiction to the need for our natural desires to make way to the demands of the supernatural. The beauty of the simple is that they are not so tainted by pride, because they have very little in worldly terms to be proud of, and thus are more ready to accept greater things than themselves.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The beauty of the simple is that they are not so tainted by pride, because they have very little in worldly terms to be proud of, and thus are more ready to accept greater things than themselves.

Do you really believe that it is pride that causes more intelligent people to sway from god? I don't particularily see that much pride amongst more intelligent people, but perhaps they're better at hiding it?

I'll get back to the rest of your post when I'm back from holidays. It was a good post

 

[Lexicographer]

I don't believe that it is the whole story, no. But I do know that it's a big part of it. Religious people are not devoid of pride, and often I'm just as guilty if not worse because I find myself acting as though my faith and rudimentary (though more advanced than most) understanding of theology somehow makes me better, more clever than others.

Besides pride though, one must acknowledge that there is a lot out there that tries very hard to disprove God - from the simple "how can God be totally good and yet allow evil to exist?" to the complex scientific (?) and philosophical arguments. The truth of the matter is it takes only one sentence to level an apparently fatal charge against religion (specific ones or in general) and yet the response, in order to be totally orthodox and address all aspects of the charge, takes a book to present. Most people, let alone educated (and presumably "succesful") ones simply don't believe have the time to dedicate to an extended consideration of apologetics and advanced theology. Furthermore, most Catholics and indeed most Christians they meet (let alone those of other religions) also do not have this education in faith and reason, and are unable to provide an adequate rebuttal. Thus a convincing yet fundamentally wrong argument is accepted as true through failure on both parts - that of the inquirer to make an adequate search for balance, and that of the believers inquired of to present this balance.

This is why I personally have an interest in Catholic Apologetics. I'm sick of not being able to stand up adequately and intelligently for my faith, even though I have heard the reasoning behind it and know it to be true (having heard and being able to re-present are very different things).

 

[vanush]

This may have a vague relation to this thread, but here goes;

Have you observed anything with your _own_ ten senses which substantiates belief in your faith?

Or is this in paradox to 'faith' itself?

 

[Lexicographer]

Ten senses?

I am confused.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't believe that it is the whole story, no. But I do know that it's a big part of it. Religious people are not devoid of pride, and often I'm just as guilty if not worse because I find myself acting as though my faith and rudimentary (though more advanced than most) understanding of theology somehow makes me better, more clever than others.

I think it's a bit of a baseless ascertion to claim that with intelligence comes pride. In our lives we each live in our little niche's, we place high value on certain things close to us and have pride in them... while 'the masses' may not from some people's perspective have anything from their perspective they have the world.

Now of course, like anything... you can have pride in intelligence - However, I imagine intelligence has a built in buffer and that is that an intelligent person would be more aware of their small place in the world... and when we're talking about atheists... I mean, what is more humble than a natural view of the universe? I find it quite an odd claim given that it is monotheists that believe we are the 'special' species and that believers are 'chosen' people.

Besides pride though, one must acknowledge that there is a lot out there that tries very hard to disprove God - from the simple "how can God be totally good and yet allow evil to exist?" to the complex scientific (?) and philosophical arguments. The truth of the matter is it takes only one sentence to level an apparently fatal charge against religion (specific ones or in general) and yet the response, in order to be totally orthodox and address all aspects of the charge, takes a book to present.

It is true for both sides.

Most people, let alone educated (and presumably "succesful") ones simply don't believe have the time to dedicate to an extended consideration of apologetics and advanced theology. Furthermore, most Catholics and indeed most Christians they meet (let alone those of other religions) also do not have this education in faith and reason, and are unable to provide an adequate rebuttal.

Well not all atheists are evolutionary biologists but they do a decent job of explaining the basics of it. While there may be some catholics out there that do attempt to use reason to base their belief, I think you have admitted here that there are many catholics whom simply do not have any reason.

For example, when an argument is levelled at me... as an atheist, I take it upon myself to look into it and try to find an adequate answer. It's just better than accepting something out of hand. If you want to contribute... post a link to an article and get us to provide our thoughts on it, do not hide behind something like this:

have heard the reasoning behind it and know it to be true (having heard and being able to re-present are very different things).

If there is good reasoning out there for accepting catholicism - I want to hear it! I honestly do, I would love to have good reason to believe, I just haven't found it yet.

 

[Lexicographer]

I do not take kindly to being accused of "hiding" behind a statement, especially a statement in which I very clearly admit my inability to give offer something at the present time. As for evolutionary biology, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The Church was not given to teach in matters of science, but matters of faith and morals.

Of course, religion isn't something easily argued out in "articles" - most of what I have learned has come from good old fashioned books. I've already mentioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church twice, and that is still the best source when it comes to finding out what Catholics believe and why, including references to more in-depth discussions. The Catholic apologetics site Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com) is also an excellent place to find answers to questions you may have - ignore the ads and look at the sidebar labelled "library".

I think you have admitted here that there are many catholics whom simply do not have any reason.

Yes, quite freely. It's true - there are many catholics who have not seriously considered their faith, who have not thought it through. Then again, it could be argued that they aren't actually Catholic either, merely "Catholic" in name. That's beside the point though, since having many people confessing faith without reason is very different to all people doing so - there are still many who have reason to believe, and do so with great joy and fulfilment.

 

[withoutaface]

Wow that catholic website just pushed me so far in favour of gay marriage it's not funny :/

 

[Lexicographer]

Hmm I'm not touching that here.

 

[volition]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, so here it is:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I do not take kindly to being accused of "hiding" behind a statement, especially a statement in which I very clearly admit my inability to give offer something at the present time. As for evolutionary biology, that is totally irrelevant to this discussion. The Church was not given to teach in matters of science, but matters of faith and morals.

Well you were hiding behind it, it's like me saying you have to read 'blah blah' to get the answer... I mean are you telling me you've read the theology of every religion? I find that hard to believe. Evolutionary biology is not totally irrelevant... it is a complex topic, it requires some complex answers.

Of course, religion isn't something easily argued out in "articles" - most of what I have learned has come from good old fashioned books. I've already mentioned the Catechism of the Catholic Church twice, and that is still the best source when it comes to finding out what Catholics believe and why, including references to more in-depth discussions. The Catholic apologetics site Catholic Answers (www.catholic.com) is also an excellent place to find answers to questions you may have - ignore the ads and look at the sidebar labelled "library".[/quote]

Ok, I haven't read these books but I'm imagining they're full of alot of colourful use of logic and fancy language to fool the reader into submission. Surely you can write up some of the key concepts in a page?

This is much like the argument used by the muslims earlier 'if all the water of the world was ink we would still not be able to explain god' or some crap like that... I just think, Ok - that's fine for you... but I want some substance.

If you are happy not contributing and simply saying 'good catholic logic is out there if u read 100's of books!', that's fine for you... but for me it doesn't quite cut it.

 

[Lexicographer]

You want me to simplify several thousand years of debate and consideration for your own personal convenience? Now who is making excuses? If you really did want answers, you wouldn't demand that others present them - you'd find them for yourself.

 

[withoutaface]

You want me to simplify several thousand years of debate and consideration for your own personal convenience? Now who is making excuses? If you really did want answers, you wouldn't demand that others present them - you'd find them for yourself.

I've read aquinas' arguments and he makes the mistake of using what we have established about objects within the universe to apply it to the universe itself, which is a rather dubious jump of logic. And obviously most of the catechism is dedicated to informing people how to live a good catholic life, you could at least tell us which parts are relevant.

 

[funnybunny]

i dont care about which religion's right or which one's wrong but what makes me laugh my head off (not literally, obviously..just for those ...those..way out there..) is when christians say "that was the Old Testament ..no one listens to THAT anymore"...
i mean, not respecting your history or changing *publications* when the need arises sure smells fishy to me.. HOW ABOUT YOU???
Why should we hav faith in things that in as little as 10 years are passed off as completely false?? A little insight into the future:2010: "after much republishing and editing to correspond with scientific evidence that previously, completely and utterly contradict Christian theology, the pope says that the 45th testament* is a sure thing"
*any relevance or connections made with the 45th testament and the Old testament is completely coincidental
For those ppl who say the Bible's the most read book in the world should also consider that it's the most revised and republished book in the world.