Catch 22 of the Bible

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Gorlitz, Dec 4, 2012.

  1. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    False dilemma, as there can always be some agreement even if there is no universal agreement. Christian morality does not differ significantly among various Christians, although doctrine and priorities often do. And right before that quote, I said:
    Can people twist it to justify anything they want? Yes, but people can do that with anything.

    This is true of the law, and especially true of atheists "making their own choices based on intuition, empathy, and experience".

    How are these at odds?

    That depends on what you think the aim of enlightenment is.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    But none are contemporary. They could have very well only reported what Christians were saying at the time about Jesus. I generally accept that Jesus was a real person crucified by the Romans, but that still doesn't prove anything about his alleged supernatural nature. I too could write a book including contemporary references and it can still be a work of fiction.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    There are basic differences between the Old and New testaments which are not trivial. The Old Testament tells you to kill your own children under certain circumstances, the new one says let he who is without sin to cast the first stone.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,713
    As is the Bible. Hence the intensive study that some people put into that interpretation.

    And Americans boast that the Constitution is superior because it's so stable and it grants so many rights. Are they wrong? It's not a question of wrong or right; it's a question of what their opinion on the topic is.

    ?? So? There are no contemporary accounts of Augustus Caesar, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great; they did in fact exist as well, even if those accounts were often exaggerated.

    Yes, you could. But if you wrote a book about Alexander the Great and called it fiction, Alexander the Great would not also suddenly become fictional.

    And the Constitution tells you that you have to return escaped slaves. That's not trivial either.
     
  8. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    Which seems to me to reveal the fact that the Bible was written by a collection of human beings with different opinions.



    But we don't boast that the Constitution is superior because it is a perfect objective guide to human behavior. That's why I (and the OP) object to about the Bible.


    That simply isn't true.



    The issue isn't if Jesus was real, but if Jesus was a god or something like that capable of subverting the laws of nature, able to come back from the dead, etc... Also that such things as parting the Red Sea were true. There is just no evidence that the Bible is true, and much evidence that it isn't. Parts of it are certainly true, that certain cities existed, the Red Sea exists, Jewish people existed. It's the supernatural parts that make it special.



    No it doesn't, because later amendments forbid slavery. Unlike the Bible where Jesus said he didn't come to change the laws but to fulfill them.
     
  9. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,713
    And translated by people with different views of what it is.

    Right. And most Christians don't boast the the Bible is superior because it is a perfect objective guide to human behavior. Indeed, one of the central tenets of Christianity is that people are imperfect and unpredictable, and that it's hard to be any kind of "perfect."

    What simply isn't true? That they existed? That accounts of their lives were often exaggerated? Or that there are no contemporary accounts?

    Exactly. Parts are certainly true, and many people gain a lot of insight and comfort from those parts. It does not need to be true in its entirety to have parts of it be valuable.
     
  10. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    It isn't true that there are no contemporary accounts of those people. There were.

    And Christians do boast exactly that the Bible is superior in that it's a perfect and objective guide to moral behavior.

    If the Bible is even partially wrong, then it's entire origin as the word of god comes into doubt.
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,713
    Most don't.

    Again, many American boast that the Constitution is superior and that it is a perfect guide to government, and the ultimate guarantor of our rights. Are they right?

    We have gone round and round on this. Your insistence on invalidating the whole based on an error in a part is fine if you apply such principles to the rest of your life. Most people do not, but you are certainly free to do so.

    However, if you are OK with errors in the Principia, Constitution etc and feel those documents are still valid despite their errors, but feel that any such error in a religious text renders it invalid, you are operating under a double standard.
     
  12. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    I have already addressed that in this thread:

    So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. -Matthew 7:12​

    The difference is only one of going from children needing to be told to keep out of the street to them developing the maturity and common sense to understand why they should do so without anyone enforcing it.
     
  13. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,714
    No.



    It's only because the standards ARE different. Your God is infallible. Otherwise, he's not worth worshiping. The book represents his word. If you don't think so, that's fine, but I can't address every variation of religious thought.
     
  14. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    No one can deny that it was men who penned the bible. It would be overly optimistic, to say the least, to assume that all these men were perfect conduits.

    That is a cop-out, as there are are really only three variations, at a maximum. Biblical inerrancy and infallibility (both of which often equated) and this:

    There is only one instance in the Bible where the phrase "the Word of God" refers to something "written". The reference is to the Decalogue.... The idea of the word of God is more that God is encountered in scripture, than that every line of scripture is a statement made by God. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy#Meaning_of_the_.22Word_of_God.22


    So you cannot necessarily equate the fallibility of god with the fallibility of scripture, unless of course you are one of the people who claim they are equivalent. But you would have to belief in god for that to be the case. So your argument seems designed to address only the most easily criticized and studiously avoid everything else.
     
  15. Photizo Ambassador/Envoy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,519
    Duly noted.
     
  16. R1D2 many leagues under the sea. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,300
    The bible was written in several languages.

    The bible though is filled with clues or promises. And some answers, and hope. As Romans 15:4 says "Everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through endurance and the encouragement of the scriptures we might have hope."

    We have many different Christian sects. Each looks at the bible. And each has a opinion and a point of view. But each Christian's can draw hope, answers, and promises from the words written. For instance you may find scripture that pertains to Jesus , God, heaven, depression, divorce, drugs, abuse, faith, love and so forth.
     
  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,713
    Agreed! But that does not mean the Constitution is useless.

    OK. You can believe that if you so choose. I don't - but to each their own.

    That's the beauty of it. You don't have to. You only have to decide for YOURSELF if you want to believe whatever religious maxims you choose.
     

Share This Page