Proof the Bible is not the Word of God: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Proof the Bible is not the Word of God » Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

Page: 1 2 3

Proof the Bible is not the Word of God

crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 62

Posted 05/07/08 - 07:18 PM: Subject: Proof the Bible is not the Word of God	#1
I am curious as to how any Christian would answer the following arguments that I found on a site: if God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder? Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry? Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible? In this case, we find modern Christians trying to defend a God who obviously dislikes women on many different levels. Why didn't God understand how he would look to intelligent human beings in the twenty first century, and get it right when he wrote the Bible? The fact is that we are forced to completely ignore God when he says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." No one believes that, most especially the 50% of the population who are female. Key Point To any unbiased observer, the reason for rampant sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by God. It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible. God had nothing to do with this book. If you are a Christian, I would ask you to consider the two possible ways to explain the sexism that we are seeing in the Bible: You can assume that God actually did write the Bible and truly is sexist and misogynistic. In that case we are directly defying God's word today by allowing women to be equal to men. Or you can assume that God had nothing to do with the Bible. In that case, the Bible is meaningless and we can discard it, as discussed in Chapter 13. Drawing a simple conclusion To any unbiased observer, the reason for sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by God. It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible. And we all know it -- Christians and non-Christians alike. The reason why modern societies (including most Christians living in those societies) completely reject sexism is because we all know that the Bible's sexism is wrong. It is exactly the same situation we see when Christians face slavery and animal sacrifice in the Bible. Christians and non-Christians alike reject the Bible's teachings in these areas because the Bible is obviously wrong. The part that is profoundly strange is that, while completely rejecting these parts of the Bible, Chistians will claim that other parts of the Bible are God's word. They seem to be blind to the obvious contradiction. At some point, Christians have to accept the evidence that we all can see: Either God wrote the Bible, or he did not. If he did, then he is wrong, and we should reject the Bible and him. If he did not, then we should reject the Bible. This fact should now be apparent to every woman, and to any rational man. ***************** Argument given in detail at: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god17.htm http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/bible.htm To me these arguments make perfect sense. I may not be a full-fledged atheist yet but I am convinced of the stupidity of all organized religion. I’m really wondering how Christians [and I used to be one] cannot reason out the above arguments for themselves or at least can’t be convinced even if they were to read the above. To me the most telling argument is, if the Bible is the Word of God, then why doesn’t it contain some truths we can't figure out for ourselves yet, like how the universe came into being? Because no rational person believes the snakes and naked ladies version any more.

giveiota
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 08, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:04 AM: Subject: Have you read any of C.S.Lewis?	#2
I read what you wrote. Some of your arguments are good and valid. However, was wondering if you have read any of the writings of C.S. Lewis? His books look at the question of god in some other interesting ways. Many scholars believe that he was a gifted writer. He was once a staunch atheist. Another book that is quite interesting is a book by Francis S. Collins called The Language of God, and it comes from a scientist's point of view. The bible was edited and revised many times over and again over a multitude of centuries by a group of people who were in a position of great power. Sometimes there was corruption, sometimes there was omission for the purposes of gaining more power or control over a group of people. The bible is not perfect and is not flawless. It has been handled by human hands. For me personally, the Gospels, or the actual words that Christ spoke are what you should focus on. Scholars agree that there are many contradictions in the bible. As to the question of misogyny there...yes that is true it is there. But if you look closer at what God has done, not man, you will see that God chose a woman's body in which to place himself and be born. The creator of all that seen and unseen, the ruler of the universe comes down from heaven and places himself inside a woman and is born out of a plain and humble vessel. Now in my mind, God is not misogynistic, but holds women in the highest reverence. Without woman and her contribution, Christ cannot have 2 natures, both human and divine. Don't focus on whether every single paragraph in the bible is logical with another in a different part of the book. Focus on what Christ actually did while he was on this earth. Focus on what he told us to do. This will show you why this religion has spread and kept on spreading for over 2000 years now. The message is love.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 138

Posted 05/08/08 - 08:51 AM:	#3
crossword wrote: I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; crossword wrote: we find modern Christians trying to defend a God who obviously dislikes women on many different levels. Christians would not have to defend God to you people if you people would stop taking Bible passages out of context and misconstruing their meanings. If you want to zero in on that one passage in 1 Timothy and take it out of context and ignore the countless passages that shows how much God loves us all equally, even women, and how he views all human life is precious, even women, then fine, be my guest. But don't spread your ignorance and intolerance all over the place without first understanding what it is you are critiquing. For starters, even if the only sinners on earth were women, Jesus still would have come down here and laid down his life for them. Edited by gesler0811 on 05/08/08 - 09:42 AM

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 138

Posted 05/08/08 - 09:39 AM:	#4
I read most of those articles and they are total nonsense. It is hardly a rational or even an intellectual argument being put forth. It is merely some guy's rant. Such is typical of people who don't understand the subject matter. crossword wrote: if God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? What are these problems? Try being a bit more specific. crossword wrote: Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder? seriously, the Bible has done just that for me. I don't expect you to understand that or take my word for it, but you could try to actually understand the book. If you approach it with this arrogant "I am going to flip through this book to point out all the mistakes I can find" attitude then it is no wonder you have completely missed the point. Your attitude going into something is always going to effect what you get out of it. Find me one part, just one part that advocates this alleged hatred of women. And I don't mean tht same 1 Timothy quote that people always try to use. Even if you take that completely out of context and isolate it from everything else, and then evaluate it with the utmost strict meaning of the words, there is no logical grounds for inferring a "hatred" of women. At the most you could argue that God wants women to not talk and not teach, but saying that equates to a hatred of women is like going from Point A to Point G with no credible explanations for your Points B, C, D, E, amd F. If you only knew half the things God has done for me. Half of them, you wouldn't be so smug. crossword wrote: Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry? I can only assume you're again referring to the woman issue. I can only assume, because again you are not making a specific argument. Just a wild generalization. I could take the time to explain, but if you can so completely misread the Wrod of God, what chance do I have to explain it in a way that you will understand? First you have to approach the material with an open mind, something you do not seem to willing to do. You claimed you used to be a Christian. Is this the gibberish that convinced you otherwise? Because surely you realize these articles or just rants, nothing more nothing less. You can tell by the sarcastic way the author presents his 'case.' There is nothing objective about it. I am sorry for you that you fell victim so readily to this nonsense. If you were a member of any good biblically based Church, with a pastor worth half of a penny, he could put this into proper perspective. crossword wrote: Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible? Because people like you keep misinterpreting it. I've never had to do any of the above with a rational open minded person who read the book in search of answers and not just ammunition for an anti-Christian rant. crossword wrote: Why didn't God understand how he would look to intelligent human beings in the twenty first century, and get it right when he wrote the Bible? The fact is that we are forced to completely ignore God when he says, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent." No one believes that, most especially the 50% of the population who are female. Again, context is everything. Paul wrote that letter to Timothy because Timothy needed guidance in running a church. Those views reflect church life only, and even then, you are making an illogical leap if you even suggest that women are not as important to the church. Contrary to this complete trash article you posted, the Bible does NOT say that women cannot be teachers or that women cannot talk. That's why you need a historical and cultural bit of knowledge to properly understand the Bible, with a whole lot of consideration for who the original audience was. The guy that wrote this trash seems to possess none of the above, so no wonder he completely missed the point and assumed God hated women. In my opinion he has no credibility at this point for even engaging in a religious discussion, let alone trying to voice his opinions to lead others astray. I hope you can see past his one sided attitude and consider the truth for yourself. crossword wrote: Key Point To any unbiased observer, the reason for rampant sexism in the Bible is very easy to understand: The Bible was not written by God. It was written by primitive men who were flagrant sexists. Just look at how men in primitive countries like Afghanistan treat women today. Those are the kind of men who wrote the Bible. God had nothing to do with this book. It's hard for me to keep a straight face when you use the word "unbiased" in light of the two articles you posted. Go back and re-read them if you must, and then ask yourself if the guy that wrote those articles seems unbiased. Hopefully you will have enough sense to answer "No, clearly he is not unbiased at all" at which point you can ask yourself what you think his motivation is. Clearly his motivation is to undermine that which he does not understand. I would advise you not to fall into the same trap. Go into a scientific community sometime and poke fun at the Big Bang theory without understanding it, and the scientists will say the same thing to you: "Go learn about the Big Bang first. What you are saying is not even consistent with what the model says." Well, this is no different. Clearly you do not understand what the Bible says. Nor did the guy that wrote that other crap. You shouldn't put down something you don't understand. And if you do read up on Christianity, you shouldn't rely on one-sided biased trash like that stupid article as the sole method of study. If you do that it's no wonder you have been led astray. crossword wrote: I’m really wondering how Christians [and I used to be one] cannot reason out the above arguments for themselves or at least can’t be convinced even if they were to read the above. Because again these conclusions are not arrived at in any objective or logical or even rational manner. You can't take a work so complex and filter it down like that and call your conclusions rational or even logical. As an example, there is a quote in Deuteronomy pertaining to divorce that the Pharisees took out of context in Jesus' day to permit divorce. The passage in its entirety was not at all an endorsement of divorce, but a warning about avoiding adultery. But if you single out that one statement, it sounds like God is advocating divorce, and a lot of Jews were misled. Jesus sets the record straight in the New Testament. There are also other passages that show how God views divorce. But if somebody is obtuse enough, they can ignore those passages and focus on the one passage that only sounds like it advocates divorce, in order to reinforce their own preconceived affinity to divorce. In a similar way, this article you seem to think so highly of is guilty of the exact same thing. The guy clearly pored through the Bible looking for suspicious sounding passages that he could single out for his website. Do you honestly believe otherwise? Do you think he read the Bible from cover to cover while saying "I am going to read this book, in hope that it is the truth about God," only to find out that he was wrong? Or do yo think he opened the Bible while saying "I am going to find as much stuff in here as I can to try to discredit Christianity?" Clearly this guy has an agenda and I hope you are smart enough to see that. If you want to be open minded on the issues at stake here, feel free to reply or PM me to let me know. I will discuss at length if it helps and if you genuinely seek the truth objectively. That doesn't obligate you to accept what I say, but it does obligate you to see both sides and make an unbiased decision. If you think you can do that I will discuss with you all day and all night. Otherwise, if you insist on being like this guy and making up your mind BEFORE you hear all the facts, then I can't help you. Like I said, this guy clearly went into the Bible looking for cannon fodder, so it's no wonder he missed it. Don't be like him.

JGMU
Fartipigolist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 237

Posted 05/08/08 - 02:42 PM:	#5
gesler0811 wrote: Christians would not have to defend God to you people if you people would stop taking Bible passages out of context and misconstruing their meanings. If you want to zero in on that one passage in 1 Timothy and take it out of context and ignore the countless passages that shows how much God loves us all equally, even women, and how he views all human life is precious, even women, then fine, be my guest. But don't spread your ignorance and intolerance all over the place without first understanding what it is you are critiquing. For starters, even if the only sinners on earth were women, Jesus still would have come down here and laid down his life for them. Are you trying to deny what the bible says or changing it's contexts to suit your personal belief? You completely changed the subject by making this about god, this thread is about the bible which was written by humans and has been moulded to fit early human dogma.

gesler0811
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 138

Posted 05/08/08 - 06:35 PM:	#6
That's funny because I counted the word 'God' 17 times in the original post. How can you say this post has nothing to do with God? The post is meant to undermine God's authorship of the Bible, by (1) making it look like God didn't know what he was doing and (2) calling God's values into question. To say I tried to change the subject by bringing God into it is pretty obtuse. JGMU wrote: Are you trying to deny what the bible says or changing it's contexts to suit your personal belief? Are you serious? To you more than anybody else here on this forum I would think I have demonstrated my biblical knowledge. While I am far from being what I would call a biblical scholar, nevertheless my biblical knowledge is pretty formidable. Formidable enough to realize when somebody (ahem ahem) who is trying to criticize it is doing so without the requisite knowledge necessary to understand it. Seriously, let's remove the Bible and God from the equation for just a second. Typically speaking, when somebody steps foot into a discussion on a topic they do not really understand, and are surrounded by people who do understand it, that person sticks out like a sore thumb. That's why I have stopped participating in the more scientific discussions on here. I tried that a few times and quickly realized I did not understand properly some of the things being discussed and therefore was really not contributing anything of value to the conversation. On the contrary I was making myself look foolish by trying to assert my opinions when I did not understand things fully enough to even support those opinions. I was big enough to recognize I was out of my league, so you will not typically find me discussing these types of things any longer. The anti-Christian rants I have read in this topic so far have been along those same lines. I have been studying my Bible in depth for quite a while now, attending Bible study classes two and three times per week, and faithfully going to church and listening to great sermons. I am quick to point out when a topic exceeds my knowledge.... for example our recent conversation about angels, JGMU. I was very honest that I did not really know a whole lot about angels. You will find I typically keep silent about things I don't understand, and occasionally when I do open my mouth about something I don't understand and somebody points that out to me, I either brush up on the topic or I bow out gracefully. Angels I don't understand. But God's love I do understand. So by the same token, when I read some ridiculous rant about how God hates women, I roll up my sleeves and go to work defending my faith. Because that's all it was, a ridiculous rant. Nowhere really did I see any kind of attempt at what I would consider a rational or logical or even an objective argument. The author of those articles was on a witch hunt. Now let's remove God from the equation one more time. I think you would agree there is more than one way to approach a topic that you want to learn. You can approach something open mindedly, reserving judgment until you learn enough facts to formulate an opinion, or you can follow a hunch or first impression into a topic and only look for facts that support your own convictions, however appropriate or inappropriate they might be. Now I will pose a challenge to you. Go back and read the two articles referenced in those links and tell me which of the following scenarios do you think best describes this situation: Scenario 1: The author went on a quest for truth, read the Bible objectively, studied the scholarly commentaries to try to figure out what the texts say, and decided the Bible was completely in error. He then went about voicing his concerns publicly OR Scenario 2 The author was already harboring ill feelings toward the Bible and went searching for the passages that sounded the worst, and presented them to the public. Factor in the snide remarks and sarcastic commentary, and you have all the makings of somebody who read the Bible IN SEARCH OF THE PASSAGES HE COULD USE TO MAKE HIS CASE and presented absolutely no context whatsoever, and then took it even an extra distasteful step forward and exaggerated what he thought they meant. Case in point that God hates women. Seriously. Just seriously.

crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 62

Posted 05/08/08 - 07:32 PM:	#7
Thanks for your responses, everyone. Gessler, I was not basing my reactions on only the 2 URLs I gave. “crossword wrote: if God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? What are these problems? Try being a bit more specific.” The answer to that and many of your other questions can be found in the rest of what this guy says. Since you reject the articles I referenced, I supect you wil not want to read the rest of what he says. “If you want to be open minded on the issues at stake here, feel free to reply or PM me to let me know. I will discuss at length if it helps and if you genuinely seek the truth objectively. That doesn't obligate you to accept what I say, but it does obligate you to see both sides and make an unbiased decision. If you think you can do that I will discuss with you all day and all night. Otherwise, if you insist on being like this guy and making up your mind BEFORE you hear all the facts, then I can't help you. Like I said, this guy clearly went into the Bible looking for cannon fodder, so it's no wonder he missed it. Don't be like him.” If you are really willing to take some time over this, I request you to go here: http://www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com/god-toc.htm it is the table of contents for his “book.” I went through every chapter. It may take a little time but he does develop his argument from beginning to end and a lot of what he says does make sense. He is way too repetitive and covers the same ground again and again but one can easily see when he repeats an argument he made earlier and can skip or skim over that bit. Yes I am genuinely interested to know how any Christian could continue to defend Christianity in the face of the kind of logical arguments this guy makes. And no I did not lose faith in Christianity because of what he said. I lost faith in ALL organized religion some time ago. I read his book not to be convinced one way or the other about Christianity but because I was seeking logical arguments for and against the existence of God so that I could decide one way or the other what I could accept. I have already read various arguments in favor of God’s existence and I have read some of Dawkins’ articles. Yes I’ve read the Bible extensively too.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 05/09/08 - 07:26 AM:	#8
I was a Christian for 20 years, and studied quite a bit, so I'm not just an outsider criticizing, but an insider who not only accepted it once, justified it, but even wrote a lot about the literature itself in my youth. The Bible never makes the claim that it was written by God. It is not written from his perspective, (except for 1 or 2 very strange exceptions), but is clearly a narrative from human perspective. Claiming it is the "word of God" is nothing but hyperbole, (if anyone thinks it is more, then they are claiming some very absurd things about God). Christians mostly apply that idea from an emotional position and arguing against the emotion is equivalent to arguing that someone doesn't is illogical for being happy or depressed or attracted to something. The Bible supports a lot of ideas that are strongly condemned by nearly every human in the world today. It gives tacit approval to slavery, (by Jesus telling slaves to obey and not run away from their masters). Women are most definitely treated as inferior throughout the Bible. Women are depicted as not being able to work as anything outside the family except prostitutes. Then there is the overt racism. Entire populations are wiped as territory is seized for a relatively small group of people. That can all be dismissed as the culture or specifics of the time -- but there hasn't been an update to the Bible since then and many groups have used the old passages to justify re-applying the old laws. The real contradiction is between the idea of an omnibenevolent deity and the evidence presented. The Christian transformation of the New Testament is a fairly different beast. It upholds a nationalistic tradition of a particular people, then re-invents it to fit within the cosmopolitan world powers that were taking over at the time. It is better to say that what passes for "Christianity" today is nothing like what is depicted in the Bible, but that the Bible merely stands as a token symbol of identity and the contents are pretty much ignored. Many parts are never taught in Sunday school because of the disturbing nature of the material. The vast majority of Christians don't even know the real 10 commandments, (the ones that are actually called "the 10 commandments" -- the ones which were written to replace the ones Moses allegedly smashed).
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 05/09/08 - 07:55 AM:	#9
giveiota wrote: For me personally, the Gospels, or the actual words that Christ spoke are what you should focus on. By all means, focus on these. Since the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person, these statements seem like a good place to start.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 62

Posted 05/09/08 - 08:42 AM:	#10
Swstephe, I’m glad to know you could overcome the brainwashing. Both my parents are practicing Christians. It makes me sad sometimes to see how much time my father has devoted to studying the Bible, this silly book written by ignorant primitive men. He also has shelves full of books about the Bible and various religious topics. He studies all these tomes in earnest. I just feel so desperately sorry for him, for anyone who has devoted and wasted so much valuable time on this book of nasty fairytales, studying it as if it is indeed the word of God. My parents and I have had a few arguments about religion. Not too many. Unfortunately I’m not really the argumentative type. I don’t really enjoy arguing and debating much. I suppose that sounds odd in a philosophy forum but that’s why I generally simply withdraw when arguments here turn nasty. So anyway when I saw my parents were as stubborn and deluded as most people who can defend such a senseless book and religion, I gave up trying to discuss the topic with them. What helped you to see the truth, if you don’t mind my asking? Not that that would necessarily help my parents. I wonder if it is kinder to let some people be happy in their delusions? They are in their 60’s. they may not have that many years left. Why should I take away all their hope for an afterlife? What would I replace it with? You take something away from someone, you better have something good to replace it with. I remember the despair and hopelessness I felt when I started seriously considering the very real possibility there may not be any kind of superior being. I can now live with that idea but of course it was painful when I first started coming to grips with it. it took me a few years at least to really be ok with it. What do you [or anyone here] think? It still makes me angry sometimes to see the time and money my parents spend on their church. On the other hand as I said above...

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:16 AM:	#11
Religion for the vast majority of people is not really about the propositional content of the particular beliefs, which is just wild card babble in any given religion. Religion for most people is about connections with other people, belonging, acceptance in the group, shared values, morality, identity, an attempt at understanding and meaning, etc. Some people do get caught up in the dogmatic apologetics of their particular beliefs, but these rationalizations are merely attempts to deal with the cognitive dissonance they experience because of the blatant incompatibility of the propositions of their belief system and reality they engage with every day, and are defensive postures against all other belief systems. Just a little self-delusional game they play. Probably a great deal of the Bible study is focussed on ethical/moral behavior and on the practical and psychological effects of behaviors (even though they're not actually presented nor explicitly thought of that way.) The vast majority of Christian teaching in our society is focussed on being kinder, gentler people in routine dealings with others, and in faithfully meeting obligations to spouse and family. Although there commonly is a bogeyman rhetoric regarding the many dire "threats" such as homosexuality, liberal moral laxity, evolution, and of course the Enlightenment rejection of received authority. Pretty much the same sort of rhetorical style that works so well for Fox News. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:22 AM:	#12
jdrw wrote: Some people do get caught up in the dogmatic apologetics of their particular beliefs, but these rationalizations are merely attempts to deal with the cognitive dissonance they experience because of the blatant incompatibility of the propositions of their belief system and reality they engage with every day, and are defensive postures against all other belief systems. Just a little self-delusional game they play. It is true that "some people" do that. For example: Kwalish Kid wrote: ...the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person... Can't get more self-delusional than that.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

JGMU
Fartipigolist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 08, 2007
Location: God knows
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 237

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:32 AM:	#13
gesler0811 wrote: Are you serious? To you more than anybody else here on this forum I would think I have demonstrated my biblical knowledge. While I am far from being what I would call a biblical scholar, nevertheless my biblical knowledge is pretty formidable. Formidable enough to realize when somebody (ahem ahem) who is trying to criticize it is doing so without the requisite knowledge necessary to understand it. But the whole point of a book like the bible is to spread beliefs, that's beliefs. Scientific debates are about facts and if you don't understand them you can't contribute, but you can't say that anyone's opinion is wrong no matter how bias or misguided you may think it is. Crossword has an opinion of the bible (which is shared by many others) and he/she is entitled to it. Instead of just stating that he/she is wrong why don't you come back with a proper argument. And I know you're almost an expert on the bible but you can't deny what's clearly written in it.

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 05/09/08 - 11:49 AM:	#14
Mariner wrote: It is true that "some people" do that. For example: Can't get more self-delusional than that. Yes, I am so self-deluded, I actually believe biblical scholars when they present their research.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 05/09/08 - 01:34 PM:	#15
Kwalish Kid wrote: Yes, I am so self-deluded, I actually believe biblical scholars when they present their research. I don't dispute that you believe that. You probably think that their (whoever "they" are; obviously, you select your experts based on whether they conform to your prejudices or not. Or are you claiming that a majority of "biblical scholars" would agree with this statement?) research supports your contention that "the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person". That's a great example of self-delusion; and not only that, it is a self-delusion fueled by the exact biases pointed out by jdrw. You are "caught up in the dogmatic apologetics of your particular beliefs, and you have to concoct some rationalization to deal with the cognitive dissonance you experience because of the blatant incompatibility between the propositions of your belief system and reality". It is also a defensive posture (as shown by your avoidance to defend your statement with arguments, preferring to bluff your way with an argument of authority). By the way, if you wish to prolong this, come back with the "available textual evidence which speaks against the existence of this Jesus person", rather than arguments based on (misinterpreted and misunderstood) authority.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 05/09/08 - 02:26 PM:	#16
Well, there are the number of different Jewish hero stories that spring up around the time of the "historical Jesus", right? There are also the lack of references to Jesus from sources close to the time of the "historical Jesus" save in a single controversial work. It seems that there is just as much evidence for Xenu as there is for Jesus.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 196

Posted 05/09/08 - 03:16 PM:	#17
With such catch phrases as "self-delusional game," "bogeyman rhetoric," "silly book written by ignorant primitive men," "nasty fairytales," "senseless book and religion," and even an appeal to U.S. politics, this thread is practically pure assertions backed by rhetoric. In light of this, I will happily join in this happy debate. Seriously now, I will engage in it as if it were a dialogue with minor rhetoric and hope others make it so. The inflammatory words and assertions are fine for motivation, but I would hope we would argue for them after making such claims. crossword wrote: To me the most telling argument is, if the Bible is the Word of God, then why doesn’t it contain some truths we can't figure out for ourselves yet, like how the universe came into being? Because no rational person believes the snakes and naked ladies version any more. Science is a gift from God, but it isn't man's ultimate purpose. Why should the Bible be concerned with such things? Oh ya, I believe in the 'snakes and naked' version, so am I irrational? (You should note, though I am no scientist, I believe in evolution and the big bang theory as the most viable theories out there and to be compatible). if God is going to take the time to write and publish "the Word of God," why does the book contain so many problems? Problems? Why isn't each page of the Bible astonishing us with its brilliance and insight, and filling us with wonder? I agree with gesler0811 that it often does. When it does not, I do not lose sleep over it. Sometimes good and true things are not accompanied by a ‘fuzzy wuvy’ feeling, even though I accept them as such. Feelings are not a good criterion for truth. Why, instead, does the Bible contain so much nonsense or, in this case, bigotry? Because the Holy Lord is dealing with fallen man. Why are Christians constantly having to justify, rationalize, excuse and explain the Bible? Because men are rational animals and because of 1 Peter 3:15: “but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope,” Those pesky non-believers (and even believers !) are always questioning . Why didn't God understand how he would look to intelligent human beings in the twenty first century, and get it right when he wrote the Bible? Hmm? Where does that foolish author derive God’s ignorance from? Take this into consideration: How would God have looked to other generations if it were different? God doesn’t change man does. And yes, unfortunately this generation is very inflated with pride in ignorance. Man hasn’t become menaingfully more intelligent as of late. Man is still man. However, we have probably lost some wisdom while increasing our reservoir of scientific knowledge. Of course that would derail us into what ‘intelligence’ and ‘wisdom’ are defined as. Unfortunately I’m not really the argumentative type. I don’t really enjoy arguing and debating much. I suppose that sounds odd in a philosophy forum but that’s why I generally simply withdraw when arguments here turn nasty. That is unfortunate. You will not be able to put your beliefs to good logical scrutiny unless you are not overly worried about the feelings that your emotional attachments to them will bring. Perhaps it is just the feeling of discomfort when disagreeing with others. However, if it is more than a feeling, and you are just worried about the people you are dealing with, you should hope that together (with them) you can find the truth and false beliefs can be exposed. You take something away from someone, you better have something good to replace it with. It is good you understand that. There are many atheists who adhere to the doctrine that 'misery loves company.' But ask yourself why you are worried here. Isn’t truth always good for people? I have read some of Dawkins’ articles. For your own sake pick up some better arguments than his. He is like an eight-grader (mmm rhetoric ) when it comes to philosophy. I can build straw men up all day and tear them down without much effort. It is taking on the real thing that requires a truer version of strength. Swstephe wrote: That can all be dismissed as the culture or specifics of the time -- but there hasn't been an update to the Bible since then and many groups have used the old passages to justify re-applying the old laws. As you mention, indeed it can be dismissed this way. I would also agree that to justify one’s beliefs with one's self-interpretation alone can lead to those dangers and false beliefs. The real contradiction is between the idea of an omnibenevolent deity and the evidence presented. The Christian transformation of the New Testament is a fairly different beast. Can you demonstrate the former? As for the latter, it depends on how one interprets the Bible. JGMU wrote: But the whole point of a book like the bible is to spread beliefs, that's beliefs. Scientific debates are about facts and if you don't understand them you can't contribute, but you can't say that anyone's opinion is wrong no matter how bias or misguided you may think it is. Two things: 1.) There are some objective standards depending on the version of Christianity you are speaking of. Yes some versions come down to the individual's beliefs, but not all. 2.)I cannot call some opinions wrong? All legislatures would disagree. Edited by Dranu on 05/09/08 - 03:21 PM

crossword
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 11, 2006
Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 62

Posted 05/09/08 - 07:12 PM:	#18
“You take something away from someone, you better have something good to replace it with. It is good you understand that. There are many atheists who adhere to the doctrine that 'misery loves company.' But ask yourself why you are worried here. Isn’t truth always good for people?” No. some people are not strong enough to handle the truth. Many who have been religiously brainwashed fall into that category. If they were strong enough to live life without the hope of life everlasting after death, or without the help of an imaginary friend in the sky, then they wouldn’t have been so easily brainwashed in the first place. And when, like my parents, they make no attempt at all to question their conditioning, no attempt to put their beliefs to the test, then you know they are really clinging to the only thing that gives them any hope. They simply don’t dare question this because what will they have left if they lose this? in fact they take pride in the fact that no logic or common sense will make them lose their blind faith. As if blind faith is something to be proud of. “blessed are those who have not seen, yet they believe.” What self-serving logic. That Jesus was one smart dude to have known human nature so well. Or to have gauged people’s credulity so well. Some people are just more delicate and more prone to depression and one has to handle them with care.

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 196

Posted 05/09/08 - 09:20 PM:	#19
Ahh I see, when you said "you better have something good to replace it with" I infered you meant what you had was not good. “blessed are those who have not seen, yet they believe.” What self-serving logic. Self-serving? Take Kant for example. What is better, one who acts with beleif in God as a principle or one who does not? It becomes hard for one to be moral (and be rational) without a belief in 'the Good'. Edited by Dranu on 05/09/08 - 09:25 PM

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 05/09/08 - 10:40 PM:	#20
Kwalish Kid wrote: Well, there are the number of different Jewish hero stories that spring up around the time of the "historical Jesus", right? There are also the lack of references to Jesus from sources close to the time of the "historical Jesus" save in a single controversial work. It seems that there is just as much evidence for Xenu as there is for Jesus. And you think (apparently) that this amounts to saying that "the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person". It is an interesting phenomenon. If you were studying any other subject, you'd be quick to realize that "there is no evidence saying that X" and "the available evidence says that not-X" are different claims. But, when dealing with this particular subject, you conflate the two. (Note that I'm not even getting into the substance of your new claims, which would deserve a thread of its own, in another forum, that of non-philosophical questions. What is of interest here is your misjudgment, and the fact that this kind of misjudgment is quite common, even in people with good logical skills -- like you -- when dealing with matters about which they're prejudiced. Whether or not they are religious. It is something that all of us should look out for, when we argue about anything close to our hearts).
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 20
Total Posts: 2412

Posted 05/10/08 - 04:36 AM:	#21
How is that a misjudgment? You seem to want to extend to one mythological story with no external support something that no reasonable person would extend to any mythological story with no external support. There's the prejudice. There are many sets of documents where we could expect "historical Jesus" to be discussed, yet these documents simply do not have any such mention. This is not simply lack of evidence and it is reason to suppose that the Jesus character is simply fictional. Would you be willing to claim that Sherlock Holmes existed? There is a wealth of documentation discussing his existence outside of the works of Arthur Conan Doyle.
_____________________ "Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P "A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger "…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1380

Posted 05/10/08 - 05:02 AM:	#22
crossword: I would prefer to leave people with their delusions and sense of identity, and in fact I find it useful. Humans live with a lot of delusions -- that emotions, art and morality have value. Dranu: Examples? My premise is just that examples are useless. You want examples of cruelty and violence in the Bible, go read the "skeptic's annotated bible", (their list is at about 900). But all these examples can be explained away, (an example of such an argument -- "this verse shows God ordering the death of thousands of people, including women, babies and animals", counter-argument: "well, since God is omnibenevolent, then they must have all deserved getting killed"). Its not that the Bible has contradictions, (it is full of contradictions), because that doesn't prove whether it is the "word of God" or not. My premise is that it never claims to be the word of God. It is a tradition and interpretation by an ancient people that got adapted by Roman era pagans into a world-wide theological framework. That's not the fault of the book, but the intention of the writers. For a while, I was playing with a different direction. Trying to convince a "believer" that his beliefs are false is very difficult. It might be easier to propose that his beliefs are founded on the wrong agents. Specifically, by re-interpreting the entire Biblical scripture as a work of "Satan". He, (as a personification of evil), is often portrayed as the winner in the Bible, and sometimes it gets confusing about who is the cause of evil. I think it gets close to the gnostic ideas about the blind creator.
_____________________ A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 4198

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:19 AM:	#23
Kwalish Kid wrote: How is that a misjudgment? You seem to want to extend to one mythological story with no external support something that no reasonable person would extend to any mythological story with no external support. There's the prejudice. There are many sets of documents where we could expect "historical Jesus" to be discussed, yet these documents simply do not have any such mention. This is not simply lack of evidence and it is reason to suppose that the Jesus character is simply fictional. Would you be willing to claim that Sherlock Holmes existed? There is a wealth of documentation discussing his existence outside of the works of Arthur Conan Doyle. I'm merely willing to claim that you have shifted your original statement. When you once defended that "the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person", now you claim that "there is not sufficient evidence supporting the existence of this Jesus person". And I'm also willing to claim that you did not see the difference between the two formulations in this context, while you would be quick to point it out in any other context; furthermore, I also claim that this is an instance of the phenomenon indicated earlier by jdrw. Once you acknowledge the difference between your two propositions, then we can open another thread to discuss your new claim (if you want to). There is plenty to discuss there, but at least we'll be talking about the same proposition. I can't start a discussion about what is "sufficient evidence", which is a difficult subject requiring a meeting of minds, with an interlocutor who does not acknowledge the difference in these propositions. We'll be talking different languages.
_____________________ "In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

jdrw
definitely ~d1

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 11, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1490

Posted 05/10/08 - 08:51 AM:	#24
Kwalish Kid wrote: By all means, focus on these. Since the available textual evidence speaks against the existence of this Jesus person, these statements seem like a good place to start. Indeed the textual evidence available includes not only the particular writings that were chosen by believers as the canonical Gospels, but all the many narratives that were well-known at the time and in the place of the composition of those Gospels. The claim that someone called Jesus (actually, Yeshua) actually existed is possible and even probable, and that he actually said many of the things recorded in the Gospel narratives is entirely possible. However, virtually everything else said about him in the narratives is not only implausible, but was said about any number of other people in naratives throughout the world, and these motifs were well-known at the time and place of the composition of the Gospel narratives. The heavenly messengers from the deity, the fathering of a hero by a deity, the signs in the heavens at the birth of the hero, the threat to the newborn hero, the precociousness of the young hero, healings, saving from storms at sea, changing water to wine, promise of life after death, the special test of the true-heartedness of the hero, the death and resurrection of the hero, the journey to the dark places of the dead, the mysterious reappearance of the hero, the elevation of the hero to divine immortality--are all well-established narrative motifs. So the total textual evidence does indeed speak against the actual existence of a Jesus that heavenly messengers announced the coming and then the birth as the Son of God of, who escaped persecution an an infant, impressed the rabbis in the temple with his wisdom, performed various signs and wonders, passed a test with the devil, died and went to hell, rose from the dead, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead etc. The textual evidence is that these claims were standard motifs in numerous narratives that were well-known at the time of the composition of the Gospel narratives. Cheers. jd
_____________________ OTOH I might be exhaustively wrong about everything I've ever thought--with the possible exception of this sentence.

Dranu
a student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 03, 2007
Location: UGA
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 196

Posted 05/10/08 - 08:53 AM:	#25
swstephe wrote: Examples? My premise is just that examples are useless. Well then, work in another direction. If your faith is valid that the Bible and Christianity is not the of true religion, try to go about demonstrating it in ways that actually would raise issues. If the internal structure of a religion shows your examples to be non-problems then that isn't very useful ammunition is it? Perhaps you could demonstrate why their solutions are not reasonable? Otherwise, why evangelize to us (especially since you would prefer to leave Christians with their 'delusions')? Its not that the Bible has contradictions, (it is full of contradictions) Again, this is a claim that can be mute under certain interpretation. The question you must ask yourself is: "Does the Christian religion call for self-interpretation of the Bible, or is the Bible part of something even greater that cannot be taken out of the context?" Even the Sola Scriptura folk can give good defenses against all the 'contradictions' you can raise in the same way other types of Christians might after clearing up the above point. My premise is that it never claims to be the word of God. Well it does at times, and vindicates certain sections as well. However, any book could do the same. How about asking questions about the structure that canonized it and their history and legitimacy as a religion. The majority of Christians are not Sola Scriptura followers. That being, it is the Church that legitimizes the Holy Bible to them, not the Bible alone.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.