while i consider it a part of modern literacy
to have a fundamental grasp of what the
bible says, i do not find it any more practical,
in fact even less so, than a good translation
of the tao te ching
Do You Accept ALL Of The Bible As Being 100% Truth?
by minimus 64 Replies latest jw friends
-
chickpea
-
Wasanelder Once
It is many books without a narrative. It is not a unified story, nor is infallible. It is a collection of tribal and societal observations and imaginings. W.Once
-
Farkel
:It is many books without a narrative. It is not a unified story, nor is infallible. It is a collection of tribal and societal observations and imaginings. W.Once
It is the unfailing and infallible word of the one and only divine God, you insufferable twit. It has survived every attack, malicious lie and slander brought forth upon it for thousands of years and still it is the most popular selling novel in the world.
It has a clear and unmistakable narrative throughout its 1,400 pages: God will FUCK YOU UP.
It's story is very unified, despite the long periods of time covered: God will FUCK YOU UP.
Anyone who cannot see the clear consistency of the Bible needs to read it more, but in only moderation, otherwise severe braindeadness can occur.
Farkel
-
AK - Jeff
I've found many here ask a Q, but really have no interest in an honest response.
Honest responses can still be 'weak' responses. And I have seen many Christians duck and hide when the volleys fly with 'difficult' questions. On these threads that Min has started, I have found much stimulating thought, some of it quite emotional, some of that even from me, which is somewhat unusual lately. I think it has opened some portals that I was unaware of - places that still needed healing, though I thought they were.
They have helped me to see just how beggarly the Christian position is on these matters. I have watched my own sincere questions float past without reply, because they are impossible to answer with Christian dogma and not look foolish in the extreme. It brings to mind a time not long past when I was on the other side of the debate, unable to answer intelligent questions completely, having to rely instead on 'my faith' instead of objective reply.
Lill and other Christians that I know on this board all seem very pleasant people. All very sincere. But the fact remains that sincerity, credulity, and 'faith', do not prop up the Bible's failures. As well demonstrated by many fine posters, the Bible gives me no basis for 'faith' - why not just accept Alice in Wonderland as 'inspired' and 'true'? It's fable-like style is quite reminiscent of much of the Bible. Why not accept Nostradamus's' prophecies as those worthy of 'faith'? They are believed by many to be true, and there is at least as much evidence that they are true as those contained in the Bible? Why not accept Santa Claus as 'real'? His existence can be no less accepted than that of a man who died 2000 years ago, was raised from the dead, and has been idly sitting in heaven on God's right hand for two full millenia watching men suffer and die below while doing nothing. Why not accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No one can disprove his existence, any more than that of 'God'.
These objections will be rejected as just 'silly'. And they are. The same people who reject these notions as foolish however, are also unable to make arguments that strongly support their choices in God, Saviour, miracles, prophecy, and faith, can they? I could make arguments in favor of Alice in Wonderland all day by saying 'I just have faith in those words'.
Empty reasons are empty reasons no matter the source-book being defended.
Jeff
-
Aussie Oz
The Jury is now out.
i have no idea anymore! frankly i dont want to think about it either!
After i sweep up the crap of my disintergrating belief system perhaps i will look at the merits of a book that is used to control our thinking.
-
HappyGuy
Here is what I believe.
No man or woman can tell me (or anyone else) what the true nature of the First Cause is. There must be a first cause because the material universe exists and existence cannot spring from non-existence, existence has always been. From Einstein's E=MC2 we can then posit that since the material universe came into existence at a fixed point in time and existence cannot spring from non-existence, then what came before the material universe was the E in Einsteins equation, or energy. At some point in time matter came into existence, this matter sprang from E, or energy by the transposition of E in Einstein's formula M=E/C2.
The bringing into existence of the material universe was a deliberate act. A delberate act by who or by what? We can only call this entity the First Cause. That which caused the material universe to be. No man or woman can describe in detail the true nature of the First Cause for a very simple reason. We live in a material universe, the First Cause exists outside of that universe. Therefore we have no frame of reference to comprehend the true nature of the First Cause. Without a frame of reference we have no language to describe it. We have no imagery with which to imagine it. It isn't must a matter of the First Cause being a higher dimension than us. This cannot be because you would always need a First Cause for the First Cause no matter what number dimension you gave the First Cause. We are 3 dimensional, 4 dimensional if you consider time to be a dimension. If you say that the First Cause is 5 dimensional, then how did the 6th dimension come into being? No, either the First Cause is infinity dimensional or it is zero dimensional. A human being can understand neither concept.
The Bible is an attempt to provide a frame of referenece for the First Cause using familiar language, familiar imagery, familiar constructs, familiar characterists. Because the First Cause existed before our universe existed there is no reason to believe that it possesses characteristics found in our universe.
If the First Cause an "individual"? Does the First Cause have a name? Doe the First Cause love or hate or have feelings or emotions? Is the First Cause happy? Can it know a concept like happiness? Does the First Cause exist at a fixed point in space and time? Does it have thoughts? Can it communicate? Does it want to communicate?
The idea that men could write a book that gives the definitive answer to these and other questions about the First Cause is the height of arrogance and is preposterous, therfore I do not believe that The Bible is the "Holy" book that provides insight into the true nature of First Cause or "god" as some would prefer to call it.
-
shopaholic
No...never did....not even when I actively recruited new members.
-
dissed
D. None of the above
Most of the OT was just passed on goofy stories based on myth and exasgerations. King David, THEE most famous of god's old servants, whom he loved, made Sadaam look pretty nice by comparison
The gospels are peoples interpretations and embellishments of a now created godman by men, similar to the greek gods stories
Paul's letters, just his opinions based in Jewish tradition. His disrespect for women is shockingly deplorable.
Revelation, an interesting old mans halucinations recorded for us to figure out. Nostrodamus was more intrigueing
-
minimus
Jeff
-
WTWizard
The Bible lies.