• Congratulations to the Class of 2024 on your results!
    Let us know how you went here
    Got a question about your uni preferences? Ask us here

Does God exist? (8 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,569

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
inasero said:
have you tried reading it for its own merit? i think you'll find it a whole heap more interesting than you realised :)
Tried it.
I walked away in frustration many times, thinking how the hell could anybody take this literally and seriously.
 

inasero

Reborn
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
2,497
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
Pascal said:
“There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus”
I totally agree with this sentiment- I've found answers to all the questions in life through the Bible and having a personal relationship with God. The Bible message isn't very complicated or mysterious- what it basically says is that God created us to be in a relationship with him but we screwed up...so God sent his only son to take our punishment and we can come to God confidently. Knowing God gives me reassurance in this life and I can look forward to the next.
 

Iron

Ecclesiastical Die-Hard
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
7,765
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Out of curiosity, how did you handle Nietzsche, inasero?
 

Slidey

But pieces of what?
Joined
Jun 12, 2004
Messages
6,600
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I think the Bible's actually pretty interesting from a historical perspective. I mean I know it's been edited and miscommunicated quite a bit, but it's still an interesting look into the minds, philosophies and problems of people 2000 years ago.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
Slidey said:
I mean I know it's been edited and miscommunicated quite a bit
Firstly, a lot of Christians actually don't read it or try to understand it properly. Exhibit a) with inasero quoting the four horsemen of apocalypse with the wrong fucking names. And yet idiots still bother arguing with him... If I argued with someone who's too fucking stupid to even pick up a basic guide to the Bible and search under "four horsemen of apocalypse", I think I'd go insane.

Secondly, people talk about it being so holy, yet they read it in translation. I find it so fucking hilarious that people spends hours and hours and hours talking about how important the Bible is, when they can't even comprehend the basics because they can't read it. Overall, reading the oldest versions of Biblical tradition (ie in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, etc) would take most intelligent Christians only slightly more time than in English - because instead of stopping and thinking "but what does this actually mean?", you've already got a basis for understanding and can spend far less time on interpretation. Your interpretation is of course not hinged on the frequently strange and idiomatic translations which may be actually foreign to you, without you knowing it. In fact, decent Biblical scholars will generally learn all the related languages; not just the primary ones.

NB: I totally agree with you about it being interesting, and I wouldn't criticise any atheists, or even "casual" Christians about reading the Bible in translation. However, when it comes to consistently referring to it, believing it to the point where you waste your time going to church just to listen to someone else talk about it, or when you're just passionate about it... You've really got to bite the bullet and actually be able to read it yourself. So yeah, I'm having a go at Christians which really talk about the Bible a lot, so don't personally take offence.

Thirdly, Biblical tradition extends far beyond "the Bible". The majority of Christians see the Bible as a source of normative law, inspiration, divine guidance, whatever, and yet don't read any of the non-canonical books. Many of these books are actually necessary in understanding the events and times of the Biblical writers. In fact, some of the books which may go against accepted theology (The Gospel of Thomas, for example), indeed force you to define your own beliefs more closely. In many cases of the non-canonical books (the pseudo-canonical Gospels especially), it's not that the "editing team" thought they were wrong, simply that they weren't read and viewed necessary to be part of the canon. Yes, (whilst there's discussion as to the extent and application of this) some books were viewed as heretical and not included, but many were just not included because they weren't read.

In relation to that, lastly, examining what you call editing and miscommunication should itself be a central task of Christians. Surveys conducted in the US show that over 99% of Christians there have no fucking clue how "the Bible" was formed. Simple questions were completely screwed up by the surveyed. I'll have to dig up the article again to have a proper look, but the most shocking revelation (lol) was that most Christians don't understand the relationship between their modern English (in this case) translation and the first records; something like 10% of surveyed correctly answered that the New Testament is written in Greek (most wrote Latin), less than one person in a hundred could identify that it is Koine and not Classical Greek. Over 90% of the surveyed Catholics said that anything that isn't included in "the Bible" was not of value, the following question revealed that actually most Catholics view their entire dogma to be based directly on the Bible. So effectively the Catholic people who filled out the survey were contradicting their own beliefs, but of course they don't know it, because they think it's all from the Bible.

Oops, edit: I would be very surprised if Australian results were significantly different.

TL;DR version:
1. You'd be surprised at how much Christians themselves don't understand the Bible.
2. People can't fully understand it until they read it in the original language. If you're a die-hard Christian, you need to fully understand it.
3. Christians need to read beyond the Bible.
4. Christians generally have no clue about the Bible as a text.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KFunk

Psychic refugee
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
3,323
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Pity we can't 'sticky' posts within a thread - great post Pwar.
 

boris

Banned
Joined
May 6, 2004
Messages
4,671
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
Would turn gay for Rob.

Edit: After I grew a penis.

Edit 2: Siiiiiiiiiin
 

inasero

Reborn
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
2,497
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
PwarYuex said:
Firstly, a lot of Christians actually don't read it or try to understand it properly. Exhibit a) with inasero quoting the four horsemen of apocalypse with the wrong fucking names. And yet idiots still bother arguing with him... If I argued with someone who's too fucking stupid to even pick up a basic guide to the Bible and search under "four horsemen of apocalypse", I think I'd go insane.
Sorry, it was an honest mistake, no need to get personal about it. Just so you're reassured you're not arguing with an idiot I've read Revelations many times and I know what the horsemen represent. :rolleyes:

PwarYuex said:
Secondly, people talk about it being so holy, yet they read it in translation. I find it so fucking hilarious that people spends hours and hours and hours talking about how important the Bible is, when they can't even comprehend the basics because they can't read it. Overall, reading the oldest versions of Biblical tradition (ie in Hebrew, Greek, Coptic, etc) would take most intelligent Christians only slightly more time than in English - because instead of stopping and thinking "but what does this actually mean?", you've already got a basis for understanding and can spend far less time on interpretation. Your interpretation is of course not hinged on the frequently strange and idiomatic translations which may be actually foreign to you, without you knowing it. In fact, decent Biblical scholars will generally learn all the related languages; not just the primary ones.
I agree it would be more worthwhile having an understanding of the original languages in which the Bible was written, however the Bible as the word of God is mean to be accessible to everyone and you don't have to be a biblical scholar to understand the basic gospel message- meaning that learning languages to understand the Bible in its "original" form would be helpful, but not essential. These days we have "dynamic equivalence" bibles compiled by biblical scholars so that the majority of people have the opportunity to read the gospel, which I would argue is better than trying to learn ancient languages for the sake of reading a text you might not necessarily agree with and give up on halfway due to frustration.

PwarYuex said:
NB: I totally agree with you about it being interesting, and I wouldn't criticise any atheists, or even "casual" Christians about reading the Bible in translation. However, when it comes to consistently referring to it, believing it to the point where you waste your time going to church just to listen to someone else talk about it, or when you're just passionate about it... You've really got to bite the bullet and actually be able to read it yourself. So yeah, I'm having a go at Christians which really talk about the Bible a lot, so don't personally take offence.
I don't claim to be a biblical scholar, but you're right in saying that someone who believes in something so strongly should be able to justify their beliefs. I should add people generally don't come to accept Jesus on the basis of historical and literary evidence (although it may be a contributory factor), but because they know that they're not right with God and accepting Jesus is the only way.

PwarYuex said:
Thirdly, Biblical tradition extends far beyond "the Bible". The majority of Christians see the Bible as a source of normative law, inspiration, divine guidance, whatever, and yet don't read any of the non-canonical books. Many of these books are actually necessary in understanding the events and times of the Biblical writers. In fact, some of the books which may go against accepted theology (The Gospel of Thomas, for example), indeed force you to define your own beliefs more closely. In many cases of the non-canonical books (the pseudo-canonical Gospels especially), it's not that the "editing team" thought they were wrong, simply that they weren't read and viewed necessary to be part of the canon. Yes, (whilst there's discussion as to the extent and application of this) some books were viewed as heretical and not included, but many were just not included because they weren't read.
Which books were non-canonical (talking about the ones viewed as non-necessary), and how would they change how I define my beliefs? I believe all 66 books of the Bible were divinely chosen for a reason and that it's not necessary to go around looking for other sources of information to justify my faith, which is one of the central issues to salvation.

PwarYuex said:
In relation to that, lastly, examining what you call editing and miscommunication should itself be a central task of Christians. Surveys conducted in the US show that over 99% of Christians there have no fucking clue how "the Bible" was formed. Simple questions were completely screwed up by the surveyed. I'll have to dig up the article again to have a proper look, but the most shocking revelation (lol) was that most Christians don't understand the relationship between their modern English (in this case) translation and the first records; something like 10% of surveyed correctly answered that the New Testament is written in Greek (most wrote Latin), less than one person in a hundred could identify that it is Koine and not Classical Greek. Over 90% of the surveyed Catholics said that anything that isn't included in "the Bible" was not of value, the following question revealed that actually most Catholics view their entire dogma to be based directly on the Bible. So effectively the Catholic people who filled out the survey were contradicting their own beliefs, but of course they don't know it, because they think it's all from the Bible.

Oops, edit: I would be very surprised if Australian results were significantly different.
Yes I agree people aren't well informed but that doesn't in any way detract from the truth and power of the Bible. Therefore it shouldn't matter whether they approach the Bible from an uninformed perspective since what matters most is the gospel message. I think the sheer number of Christian denominations today (and just recently a massive schism in the worldwide Anglican church) attests to the complexity of biblical interpretation that no amount of scholarly inquiry can reconcile. However the plain truth is that most denominations are united in their belief in Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

Anyway, why do people believe in what they do? Most of you here seem pretty intelligent and can hold your own in a debate, and that's great more power to you. However I doubt your average person would say they've read Darwin's "Origin of Species" and be able to justify why they believe in the theory of evolution they were taught back in high school, or why intelligent design is supposedly such a load or garbage.

If people learn something and it resonates with what they already know or believe, then there's no need to exhaustively investigate them.
PwarYuex said:
TL;DR version:
1. You'd be surprised at how much Christians themselves don't understand the Bible.
2. People can't fully understand it until they read it in the original language. If you're a die-hard Christian, you need to fully understand it.
3. Christians need to read beyond the Bible.
4. Christians generally have no clue about the Bible as a text.
TL;DR version:
1. You'd be surprised at how many atheists don't understand the Bible or their scientific traditions which they so highly esteem
2. God's word is meant to be accessible to everyone. Salvation doesn't depend on intellectual assent but on complete repentance in response to God's grace.
3. Therefore, you don't need to learn ancient lanuages to appreciate the basic Gospel message, although it might be helpful to iron out the nuances later on even then it won't significantly affect the original message
4. People are fallible. Fortunately God isn't.
 
Last edited:

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
He's correct. The average person doesn't read widely, and this is why the majority of average people will believe whatever they're told at face value.
There is nothing wrong with that. Atleast not until they start trying to bash people over the head with it.
 

inasero

Reborn
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
2,497
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
So, if someone criticises the Bible that's okay but heaven forbid if I start defending my faith? Oh noes I'm such a bible basher!
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
inasero said:
So, if someone criticises the Bible that's okay but heaven forbid if I start defending my faith? Oh noes I'm such a bible basher!
No, I was referring more to those who feel it necessary to knock on my door on a Saturday morning, and give me a leaflet with 'atheists are going to hell' on it.
 

inasero

Reborn
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
2,497
Gender
Male
HSC
2003
katie tully said:
No, I was referring more to those who feel it necessary to knock on my door on a Saturday morning, and give me a leaflet with 'atheists are going to hell' on it.
Sorry my bad.
Did they really? I think it's good to spread the word but I don't agree with scare tactics.
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
inasero said:
Sorry my bad.
Did they really? I think it's good to spread the word but I don't agree with scare tactics.
Yeah, Church of Latter Day Saints are regulars on a Saturday morning, dragging their 4 year old kid around behind them.
Hey, have a nice day. BY THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
inasero, I'm no-longer reading your posts. To be honest, they actually make me depressed. The fact that you may eventually be responsible for peoples' lives via medical knowledge, yet you don't even know the basics of your religion or a "single book", is really upsetting to me. Plenty of religious scientists seem to balance their beliefs against their duties, but, based on what I've read, I don't think you'll ever be able to do that.

Furthermore, the fact that you consistently chime on about the Bible, when you don't even know it well, is another reminder that there are so many religious people out there who are just fucking up the world because they consistently redefine beliefs to suit themselves. ie: I have no energy to discuss Christianity with a Christian who knows jack shit about the subject themselves, and yet who is unwilling to learn. I honestly find it saddening.

Generally speaking, discussions in NCA&P become some sort of tennis game where people feel like they have to quote every part of someone's post and disagree with it all, only for the other party to do the same. Back and forward. Haven't really seen anyone become the wiser for it. Most of the time, arguments become derailed on points of inconsequence and minutiae with the real core issues being ignored. Alternatively, some people now seem to just prefer throwing decontextualised Biblical quotatations as a response... I think the Bible should be understood and referred to, not quoted like some cheap t-shirt slogan.

I'm sure most people will be all :care: (not), but just so you understand why I'm not replying to you. Feel free to ignore my posts if you'd like, too. Don't really care. *shrugs*
 

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
me too.
i mean. sure, this argument has been circular for the last 7454 posts, and sure, none of us know jackshit (lol coz none of us are biblical scholars and never pretended to be (except the christians)) about the bible (SOME OF US KNOW SCIENCE THOUGH AND KNOW FOR SURE DISEASE ISNT A CONSEQUENCE OF MAN DISOBEYING GOD)

but ... i was enjoying it. albeit there have been moments of frustration which borderlined on homicidal rage, but still.

tbh tho rob, it would have been much better if you could have come in periodically and shared that wealth of knowledge between your ears (the one im always in awe of) ..
 
Last edited:
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
katie tully said:
Atleast not until they start trying to bash people over the head with it.
Not even that, it's when you try to argue it.

I don't really care about casual Christians not understanding the Bible; they have their beliefs, they (maybe) read the English translation (if at all), they don't know about the history of the Bible. That's cool, because they're not the people who will really try to convert or convince people of God. Yes I do think that they're doing themselves a disservice by not knowing, but who am I to say what someone else's priority's should be? Most people would say that I need to go for a jog more often, but I tell them to fuck off.

Anyway, but when you try to spread the word... It's effectively the salesman without any training problem.
 
X

xeuyrawp

Guest
katie tully said:
me too.
i mean. sure, this argument has been circular for the last 7454 posts, and sure, none of us know jackshit (lol coz none of us are biblical scholars and never pretended to be (except the christians)) about the bible (SOME OF US KNOW SCIENCE THOUGH AND KNOW FOR SURE DISEASE ISNT A CONSEQUENCE OF MAN DISOBEYING GOD)

but ... i was enjoying it. albeit there have been moments of frustration which borderlined on homicidal rage, but still.

tbh tho rob, it would have been much better if you could have come in periodically and shared that wealth of knowledge between your ears (the one im always in awe of) ..
I have HOURS for you. I'm not joking. I will sit here for hours and hours talking with you if there's a reason. Or if there's not, really...

Just can't emotionally handle reading what inasero says.

3unitz said:
feel kinda sad
I'm actually disappointed that I don't have the energy or reason to systematically go through his posts anymore, but it's really a waste of my time and makes me feel ill.

Edit: with the 7454 posts, I assume the thread's actually got something like 10,000 posts in it, some of which are deleted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

katie tully

ashleey luvs roosters
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
5,213
Location
My wrist is limp
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
How can we argue against it, logically.
Atheists who read the Bible are obviously reading the English translation and are taking it at face value. I know I did, and it's why I found it really hard to comprehend. or even accept that there was an element of truth in it, and is why I was confused that any logical person could take solace in it.

I don't think this thread has been in vain. Esentially we've been arguing against the beliefs that are held by the vast majority of fundamentalists (or atleast those who are only privvy to the English translation, as Rob has said)

So I really don't think this has been in vain. You can suggest that real Christians will read it in the correct language and the correct historical context, but I think we've just seen the excuse most will give. 'The Bible is the word of god, it's accessible in all languages'
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top