Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!:mad:

Because it is a belief, and because it is a major political force. Don't agree with it, but don't disrespect it.

also probbably becuase it was written long ago and devised by religous leaders

Don't agree with it, but don't disrespect it.

Well, see, that's the thing. Everything else is open to disrespect. As a practical measure, sure, you have a point. But there's no genuine reason that the Bible should not be subject to the same sort of criticism as everything else, respectful or otherwise.

Especially in consideration of the fact that some of the greatest disrespect shown the Bible is visited by its alleged believers.

It's old. It was one of the first books in wide circulation due to the printing press.

But it also has a meaning, a history, a teaching, and whether you believe it or not, it does deserve respect.

But it also has a meaning, a history, a teaching, and whether you believe it or not, it does deserve respect. And disrespect, depending on what it's meanings and teachings are at the moment.

Especially, anyone's interpretation of it.

Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!:mad:

Frankly, the bible gets more right than it should if it were just an ordinary book. It touches on the past and our origins, it's accurate in it's telling of it's current events. It contains much wisdom about the human condition, morality and explains why things are now they way they are. Profoundly it's prophecies have been fullfilled in clarity and detail. For a book written over 1500 years by 40 different men and remain completely harmonious is quite staggering. It stands at attention and speaks quite well for it's self and has passed through thousands of years to come to the point where it is today with startling little change despite all the attempts to alter it. I would say it's about a dozen to many coincidence to be normally possible and yet there it is, confirmable and intact.

Science had it's early conficts with religion. The Church was powerful and did not take well the upsurping of any other explanations, like the state of the Earth's shape and it's position in the universe. Religious inviduals were drenched in ignorance and few asked why. It spurred a siginificant few to rebel. But while the church was being to see at least some light some early scientist did see the logic behind the bible. Others scorned the unquestioned faith in the book and essential became two seperate parties.

The fist party intrinsicly accepted that changes in the earth have generally been effected suddenly by physial forces. They're called Catatrophist

The other group developed a doctrine that existing processes, actin at present are suficient to account for all geological changes call Uniformitarianist

The Uniformitarinans are essential todays Evolutionist
Catastrophist are today's Creationist.

The Early Uniformitarians include. James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin.

The Castrophist included George McCready Price, Alfred M Rehwinkel, Henery M Morris. halley, Newton, Whiston, Cassini, Lehman, and Hugens.

The long and short of it all is that in the 18th century the catastrophist views held sway but by the 19th century uniformitarian views had come forward. While the catastrophist of the day were receptive but skeptical currently evolutionist are just the opposite, harsh and exclusive.

There were strong objections brought up by men like Pasteur, Mendel and Agassiz but eventually the two sides have established front lines and unfortunatly Creationist today are relying mostly upon there faith as motivation. Oppositely so Evolutionist rely are their disdain of anything theological to motivate there work.

But it also has a meaning, a history, a teaching, and whether you believe it or not, it does deserve respect.

no it doesnt

Respect for the Bible because it is sacred to billions of people around teh world. You owe it to them to respect what they hold sacred.

That too is a good reason.
Respect is a two way street. You don't burn a flag and claim that you respect that country. Clearly that is not an act of respect toward what that country sees as a symbol of their soveriegnty.

Similarly the Bible is a book which exemplifies the faith of many. It would do good in the name of diplomacy to excercise good relations even in the light of disagreements.

Note: neither side is especially good at that. Needless to say relations could be improved.

Respect for the Bible because it is sacred to billions of people around teh world. You owe it to them to respect what they hold sacred.

No I don't. The Bible certainly has some literary and historical significance, but it also caused alot of bloodshed, fear, repression, and intellectual stagnation. I have no obligation to respect what other's consider sacred. When I'm in a hotel, the first thing I do is find the Bible and throw it out.

No I don't. The Bible certainly has some literary and historical significance, but it also caused alot of bloodshed, fear, repression, and intellectual stagnation.

Oh I agree, the Bible has some really dark sides. The old testament should be an embarrassment to anyone that believes the bible is the word of god.

Oh I agree, the Bible has some really dark sides. The old testament should be an embarrassment to anyone that believes the bible is the word of god.

"Should be", If One doesn't understand national sovereignty and integrity then one may see the actions taken as an embarassment. Israel's actions against false worship in the light of human error would appear to be gross immorality. However as God's sovereignty and the shielding of the nation he endorse were of the up most importances, and actions taken by them were directed by God then it is matter of judgement action was taken.

Not every one can appreciate this.
The most current example of from which an outside observer will compare Israel's action is the national law of Iran to execute for homosexuality. And outside observer will see the same. In truth of perspective of Iran I'm sure they believe their actions are God endorsed aswell.

So I understand the perspective you have. It depends on who's God you worship from your pov, of which is an understanding you do not share. Thus there is a pivotable lack of a common frame of refrence.

"Should be", If One doesn't understand national sovereignty and integrity then one may see the actions taken as an embarassment. Israel's actions against false worship in the light of human error would appear to be gross immorality. However as God's sovereignty and the shielding of the nation he endorse were of the up most importances, and actions taken by them were directed by God then it is matter of judgement action was taken.

Not every one can appreciate this.
The most current example of from which an outside observer will compare Israel's action is the national law of Iran to execute for homosexuality. And outside observer will see the same. In truth of perspective of Iran I'm sure they believe their actions are God endorsed aswell.

So I understand the perspective you have. It depends on who's God you worship from your pov, of which is an understanding you do not share. Thus there is a pivotable lack of a common frame of refrence.


You speak so readily of god's sovereignty and yet you can offer nothing beyond subjective evidence of its existence. As to prophecies being fulfilled, how about Nostradamus ? Lots of people believe he got all sort of things right.

That too is a good reason.
Respect is a two way street. You don't burn a flag and claim that you respect that country. Clearly that is not an act of respect toward what that country sees as a symbol of their soveriegnty.

Similarly the Bible is a book which exemplifies the faith of many. It would do good in the name of diplomacy to excercise good relations even in the light of disagreements.

Note: neither side is especially good at that. Needless to say relations could be improved.

not entirely true pen and teller burn an american flag in one of thier acts in celabration of what the flag stands for

I think there are other ways...more respectable way to symbolize freedom and human rights but yes...you are most correct.

"Should be", If One doesn't understand national sovereignty and integrity then one may see the actions taken as an embarassment. Israel's actions against false worship in the light of human error would appear to be gross immorality. However as God's sovereignty and the shielding of the nation he endorse were of the up most importances, and actions taken by them were directed by God then it is matter of judgement action was taken.

.

This could only be valid if one believes the ancient jews were indeed God's chosen ones. It's only their claim that they are..absolutely not one shred of outside corruburation exists to support this notion.( 1st and 2nd century scribblings by roman or jewish poets,scribes or priests do not count)
Even with such a belief they were..it still does not excuse the horrific immoral actions of Yahweh which are rampant throughout the OT.

This could only be valid if one believes the ancient jews were indeed God's chosen ones. It's only their claim that they are..absolutely not one shred of outside corruburation exists to support this notion.( 1st and 2nd century scribblings by roman or jewish poets,scribes or priests do not count)
Even with such a belief they were..it still does not excuse the horrific immoral actions of Yahweh which are rampant throughout the OT.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer that makes sense !

The more you tell lies about something the more those lies become the truth.

Talking about anything keeps it in the front of everyone and therefore it doesn't stop spreading. Whenever I hear a starting of something about the bible I tend to stop talking and just leave the area of conversation about the bible. I try very hard to abstain from getting involved with those who believe in religions but have succumbed to them many times. I'm finding it easier to avoid those conversations today but still do get involved just out of spite.

The more you tell lies about something the more those lies become the truth.

Talking about anything keeps it in the front of everyone and therefore it doesn't stop spreading. Whenever I hear a starting of something about the bible I tend to stop talking and just leave the area of conversation about the bible. I try very hard to abstain from getting involved with those who believe in religions but have succumbed to them many times. I'm finding it easier to avoid those conversations today but still do get involved just out of spite.

My motivation is to show their crap for what it is in the hope that it may prevent a few people from being taken in by such nonsense. I don't give a damn what people believe but when, because of their superstition, they would hold back progress I feel it appropriate to jump on them.

I had one character on here tell me that evolutionary theory was a "premise, still up in the air "

This could only be valid if one believes the ancient jews were indeed God's chosen ones. It's only their claim that they are..absolutely not one shred of outside corruburation exists to support this notion.( 1st and 2nd century scribblings by roman or jewish poets,scribes or priests do not count)
Even with such a belief they were..it still does not excuse the horrific immoral actions of Yahweh which are rampant throughout the OT.


Logicly...The creator of the universe would have the right to execute judgement on what he created, especially from a spirtual point of view. If you don't have a spiritual point of view you will no understand.

Why is there so much respect for the bible?

Because it was written by God.

Logicly...The creator of the universe would have the right to execute judgement on what he created, especially from a spirtual point of view. If you don't have a spiritual point of view you will no understand.

Is that an example of religious logic. something in a category of its own ? Logically, parents have a right to do what they like with their offspring as long as they have a spititual point of view ?

I know a little boy who got bored playing with a model aeroplane he had made, so he smashed it to pieces. His mother said he was throwing a tantrum and what elese could one expect from a child who had not learned self-control. The funny thing is that she felt it inappropriate to refer to his behaviour as logical.

Because it was written by God.

I'm guessing he'd ask you. "how do you know?"

Because it was written by God.

In what language ?

A very casual view of the history of the world shows the incredible impact of the Bible - meaning the message of the Bible - throughout the world.

As mentioned, the Bible was written (physically) by more than forty different people over a period of some 1500 years. From the time the earliest parts of it were written, opponents of the Bible have attempted to destroy it. Since the earliest writings of the Bible some 3,000 years have passed, more or less. Oddly, the Bible is still not only extant, but important enough for lots of people to want to discredit it.

Has anyone noticed the same attention and hatred is never mentioned regarding the teachings of Confucius? How many threads has anyone read lately championing the destruction or disregarding the holy books of Hinduism or Buddhism?

Curiously, those who seek to destroy the Bible are those who indirectly give it some of its greatest importance. If the Bible were not so important, people wouldn't be so offended by it. That simple self-evident truth evades many, many folks. Obviously some of the posters here.

The Bible has provided more people with the enlightenment of God's love than any other document, teaching, theology or ideology in human history. Biblical truth has survived – thrived – intense periods of singular persecution and ostracism. Despite the horrors invented by those who twist the meaning, ultimately the Bible's message has always uplifted and bettered the status of humankind more than any other teaching or philosophy in history.

That is why the Bible has so much respect. That is why the enemies of the Bible show it the extreme respect of recognizing it as the single most threat to their life style; and therefore want to destroy it. So far, without much effect.

Its ok to believe in God. Its ok to not believe in God. The bible influences both decisions equally.

Some questions before I go. I'd like to debate it but I have to go soon.

Is the bible logical from start to finish? Where does it fall down? Is it right to prove a biblical passage by using the very book its contained in? Is only part of it worthwhile if it suits your belief? If Satan can manipulate the minds of men(I know this is biblical in nature) then how does any bible scholar know for sure who's words he/she is actually reading? Why isn't God updating it on a regular basis?

Very articuate and I concur that the biggest threat receives the most attention. However that threat is justified if it had a balance of zero credibility the contention would not exist. This doesn't prevent perceptional views but it is true all threads on Bible contradictions were established by individual with a mere secular view of the scriptures but not the study of the purpose...of course because they beleive there is no point. It's the essential line of reasoning that prevents the consideration of all available possibilities.

IMHO the bible has to be a human construct because its the only way it makes sense. If so then it is not important what it contains. If you want to believe the bible metaphorically, verbatim or not at all then that is the conclusion you've reached but because they conflict the logical conclusion for me is that it could not be the work of a God.

I am no authority nor am I qualified to categorically state God doesn't or does exist because I simply do not know. I make this decision without the confusion of a bible and if it was up to me I would wish more people did the same. It reduces religion to its most simple form which is a Yes or a No as to belief in God. Anything else is make believe and unnecssary. There is no need to go on, no need for religion or atheism and any other ism you can think of.

In what language ?

Hebrew

Its ok to believe in God. Its ok to not believe in God. The bible influences both decisions equally.

Some questions before I go. I'd like to debate it but I have to go soon.

Is the bible logical from start to finish? Where does it fall down? Is it right to prove a biblical passage by using the very book its contained in? Is only part of it worthwhile if it suits your belief? If Satan can manipulate the minds of men(I know this is biblical in nature) then how does any bible scholar know for sure who's words he/she is actually reading? Why isn't God updating it on a regular basis?


Hmmm...I've not seen these questions before in sucession.
I shall attempt to respond.

The Bible is logical from start to finish. It follows the theme of providing a correction to the initial problem of man and answering the question which led to the problem in the first place.

The question which led to the problem was. "Does God have the right to rule." Related questions were. "Can man be loyal? and "Can God's creations rule themself?." Rebelion from God's standards were basicly caused by these questions or accusations which were primarily brought up by Satan.

The Bible does fail in one aspect.
The human aspect of the bible in relation to human behavior is faliable. We have seen that Bible individuals whether God fearing or not consistently fall short of God's requirements. There behavior however as imperfect humans should not bear any significance on God himself who inspired the scriptures to be written. They are a frank disclosure of events that occured in Israels history good and bad.

Is it right to prove a biblical passage by using the very book its contained in? Is only part of it worthwhile if it suits your belief?
Of course most often a single bible book can be used to verify the biblical position. That being said it is imperative according to the scriptures to establish and "follow the pattern of health words." 2 Tim 1:13. So the consideration of the whole is necessary to appreciate every view in the bible and thus eliminate contradiction through logical reason...The immortality of the soul, the Trinity and other false doctrines can be determined correctly by following the pattern.

If Satan can manipulate the minds of men(I know this is biblical in nature) then how does any bible scholar know for sure who's words he/she is actually reading?
It is understood that Satan does not have absolute control. The control he excercises is that which we afford him which is why the avoidance of spiritistic practices that leave us open to strong suggestion such as movies and other forms of entertainment or even palm reading, channeling, using mediums, and hypnosis. All leave the mind susceptible to control.

Secular Study of the bible will often will not reveal the patterns which are quite pervassive in almost all sixty-six canonical books. Secular studies establish historicity such as where it was written, time, author and impact on the civilization. It if far too clinical to decipher the prophecies which in the bible ALL prophecies are written in metaphorical form hence a stark familarity with Bible symbolism is required aswell as the entire view of the Bible pattern. Hense i'd venture to state that a certain spirituality is required, this does not mean faith is necessary to understand however. The bible shows that God too has excercised a certain amount of control of minds to keep his "sacred secrets" from enemies of his purpose. So obviously from a biblical view it is possible to have no faith and yet understand the bibel in it's spirtual capacity.

Essentially this means...knowing when to read for the litteral understanding and when a metaphorical perspective is needed for the Bible is not strictly Litteral or metaphorical.

Why isn't God updating it on a regular basis?
The Bible's primary purpose is prophesizing and exemplifying God's requirements. Israel was the only nation on earth under his sovereignty. Israel was to extend this knowledge to the nations however Israel had issues with obedience which takes us back to the original problem. Right to Rule.
According to the Bible God dictated a period of time call the "Gentile Times" in order for the nations to attempt to prove they could indeed rule sucessfully with out God. These are also called the "Appointed Times of the Nations." This resulted in the destruction of Israel after the failure to accept their King Jesus Christ despite all the signs pointing to his fulfilling prophecy. According to the Bible this period of time started with the last vestige of jewish leader ship and continues currently and will go on untill Armageddon, which is the fiinal judgement of God on the issue of the right to rule.
Thus this is like a temporary moratorium on executing judgement.

Enough time should have passed to determine whether humans can indeed rule themselves or do they really need God to direct their steps.

A very casual view of the history of the world shows the incredible impact of the Bible - meaning the message of the Bible - throughout the world.

As mentioned, the Bible was written (physically) by more than forty different people over a period of some 1500 years. From the time the earliest parts of it were written, opponents of the Bible have attempted to destroy it. Since the earliest writings of the Bible some 3,000 years have passed, more or less. Oddly, the Bible is still not only extant, but important enough for lots of people to want to discredit it.

Has anyone noticed the same attention and hatred is never mentioned regarding the teachings of Confucius? How many threads has anyone read lately championing the destruction or disregarding the holy books of Hinduism or Buddhism?

Curiously, those who seek to destroy the Bible are those who indirectly give it some of its greatest importance. If the Bible were not so important, people wouldn't be so offended by it. That simple self-evident truth evades many, many folks. Obviously some of the posters here.

The Bible has provided more people with the enlightenment of God's love than any other document, teaching, theology or ideology in human history. Biblical truth has survived – thrived – intense periods of singular persecution and ostracism. Despite the horrors invented by those who twist the meaning, ultimately the Bible's message has always uplifted and bettered the status of humankind more than any other teaching or philosophy in history.

That is why the Bible has so much respect. That is why the enemies of the Bible show it the extreme respect of recognizing it as the single most threat to their life style; and therefore want to destroy it. So far, without much effect.


So, the fact that it is ancient and that many people believe it testifies to its veracity. How about Herodotus, Plato and Thucidides whose works pre-date the Bible by about 5. 000 years.

Ans don't forget the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Ghitam the Pali Canon and the Koran, all of which hjave inspired people. In what sense is the Bible more creible than these sacred texts which tell a diffrent story ?

Hebrew

HOw do you know god spoke Hebrew ? And how much Hebrew is there in the NT ?

BTW Jesus spoke Aramaic.

Hmmm...I've not seen these questions before in sucession.
I shall attempt to respond.

The Bible is logical from start to finish. It follows the theme of providing a correction to the initial problem of man and answering the question which led to the problem in the first place.

The question which led to the problem was. "Does God have the right to rule." Related questions were. "Can man be loyal? and "Can God's creations rule themself?." Rebelion from God's standards were basicly caused by these questions or accusations which were primarily brought up by Satan.

The Bible does fail in one aspect.
The human aspect of the bible in relation to human behavior is faliable. We have seen that Bible individuals whether God fearing or not consistently fall short of God's requirements. There behavior however as imperfect humans should not bear any significance on God himself who inspired the scriptures to be written. They are a frank disclosure of events that occured in Israels history good and bad.

Is it right to prove a biblical passage by using the very book its contained in? Is only part of it worthwhile if it suits your belief?
Of course most often a single bible book can be used to verify the biblical position. That being said it is imperative according to the scriptures to establish and "follow the pattern of health words." 2 Tim 1:13. So the consideration of the whole is necessary to appreciate every view in the bible and thus eliminate contradiction through logical reason...The immortality of the soul, the Trinity and other false doctrines can be determined correctly by following the pattern.

If Satan can manipulate the minds of men(I know this is biblical in nature) then how does any bible scholar know for sure who's words he/she is actually reading?
It is understood that Satan does not have absolute control. The control he excercises is that which we afford him which is why the avoidance of spiritistic practices that leave us open to strong suggestion such as movies and other forms of entertainment or even palm reading, channeling, using mediums, and hypnosis. All leave the mind susceptible to control.

Secular Study of the bible will often will not reveal the patterns which are quite pervassive in almost all sixty-six canonical books. Secular studies establish historicity such as where it was written, time, author and impact on the civilization. It if far too clinical to decipher the prophecies which in the bible ALL prophecies are written in metaphorical form hence a stark familarity with Bible symbolism is required aswell as the entire view of the Bible pattern. Hense i'd venture to state that a certain spirituality is required, this does not mean faith is necessary to understand however. The bible shows that God too has excercised a certain amount of control of minds to keep his "sacred secrets" from enemies of his purpose. So obviously from a biblical view it is possible to have no faith and yet understand the bibel in it's spirtual capacity.

Essentially this means...knowing when to read for the litteral understanding and when a metaphorical perspective is needed for the Bible is not strictly Litteral or metaphorical.

Why isn't God updating it on a regular basis?
The Bible's primary purpose is prophesizing and exemplifying God's requirements. Israel was the only nation on earth under his sovereignty. Israel was to extend this knowledge to the nations however Israel had issues with obedience which takes us back to the original problem. Right to Rule.
According to the Bible God dictated a period of time call the "Gentile Times" in order for the nations to attempt to prove they could indeed rule sucessfully with out God. These are also called the "Appointed Times of the Nations." This resulted in the destruction of Israel after the failure to accept their King Jesus Christ despite all the signs pointing to his fulfilling prophecy. According to the Bible this period of time started with the last vestige of jewish leader ship and continues currently and will go on untill Armageddon, which is the fiinal judgement of God on the issue of the right to rule.
Thus this is like a temporary moratorium on executing judgement.

Enough time should have passed to determine whether humans can indeed rule themselves or do they really need God to direct their steps.

In my estimation , what you write is pure nonsense. Before being so certain what god wants. don't you feel an obligation to provide evidence of his existence ? Start at the beginning. Blessed are the blinkered

We are considering the evidence...
It's called the Bible.

Has anyone noticed the same attention and hatred is never mentioned regarding the teachings of Confucius? How many threads has anyone read lately championing the destruction or disregarding the holy books of Hinduism or Buddhism?



.

That could be because:

A) More than any other religous document the bible constantly attempts to demonize other belief systems.

B) people just don't agree with its idealogy, or take it literally (myself included..although I agree with much content from the NT..but not on a literal level)

C) Righteousness is stressed throughout the bible but the God of the bible especially the OT demonstrates little of what we today consider morally appropriate. Righteousness seems to be more equated with unquestioning obedience to Yahweh.

Unquestioning? That's the only inaccurate word in your statement.
Mosess questioned Yahweh, Job questioned Yahweh or (Jehovah,)
There was punishment for questioning God only for rebelling against God. No commandant required unquestioning devotion. In fact one scripture if I recall says to test these things

The differences betwen the Hebew and Greek are only a matter of language and of course the arrival of the promised seed which was rejected by the Jewish leader yet embraced by the people due to their circumstance of Roman occupation.

Respect for the Bible because it is sacred to billions of people around teh world. You owe it to them to respect what they hold sacred. If anything, they owe me: for inflicting that book on the people, landscape, and beings I care for; for submitting all human inspiration, decency, knowledge, and virtue to the Procrustean bed of their Bible-derived theocratic edicts; for exalting sincerity of superstition and psychological kinks above kindness and reason in their imposition of Biblical authority and Biblical justification.

Of course I owe courtesy and dignity respect for the beliefs of the people among whom I live. I respect their sacred objects - Bibles, amulets, drawn patterns, figurines, whatever - and rituals btw, not because billions of others share their beliefs but because they have them. Among five or five billion, reverence is to be honored.

But respect for the Bible in abstract, not the one on my neighbor's nightstand? No more than any other book.

We are considering the evidence...
It's called the Bible.

Why not the Koran or some of the many other texts ?

Unquestioning? That's the only inaccurate word in your statement.
Mosess questioned Yahweh, Job questioned Yahweh or (Jehovah,)
There was punishment for questioning God only for rebelling against God. No commandant required unquestioning devotion. In fact one scripture if I recall says to test these things

The differences betwen the Hebew and Greek are only a matter of language and of course the arrival of the promised seed which was rejected by the Jewish leader yet embraced by the people due to their circumstance of Roman occupation.

So, the Bible wasn't written by god . as claimed earlier. It was written by men who claimed to have been inspired by god. So now we are playing in an entirely different ball park, one step removed from god, so to speak. Why believe these authors as opposes to authors of the Pali canon which never mentions god, or other books which mention many gods ?

HOw do you know god spoke Hebrew ?

is he god or what? he can speak any language because he's allknowing!

And how much Hebrew is there in the NT ?

i don't know because i've not read the original bible because i don't know hebrew or aramaic or whatever language it's written in.

is he god or what? he can speak any language because he's allknowing!



i don't know because i've not read the original bible because i don't know hebrew or aramaic or whatever language it's written in.

But, if you have not read the Wizard of Oz maybe that is true. Do you judge a book by what you haven't read ?

So, the Bible wasn't written by god . as claimed earlier. It was written by men who claimed to have been inspired by god. So now we are playing in an entirely different ball park, one step removed from god, so to speak. Why believe these authors as opposes to authors of the Pali canon which never mentions god, or other books which mention many gods ?



Why not the Koran or some of the many other texts ?

Why wouldn't YOU consider the others?

Why wouldn't YOU consider the others?

I am comfortable with the Pali canon other than the references to re-incarnation. But don't take that to mean I am a Buddhist.

Why is re-incarnation uncomfortable?

Unquestioning? That's the only inaccurate word in your statement.
Mosess questioned Yahweh, Job questioned Yahweh or (Jehovah,)
There was punishment for questioning God only for rebelling against God. No commandant required unquestioning devotion.
I did not say the hebrews were "unquestioning"...but it is what ultimately was demanded of them..whether they heeded it or not is a different matter.

In fact one scripture if I recall says to test these things

Other scriptures do not..thus the contradiction within.

I did not say the hebrews were "unquestioning"...but it is what ultimately was demanded of them..whether they heeded it or not is a different matter.

I knew exactly what you meant, Nova.
The comment remains the same.



Other scriptures do not..thus the contradiction within.
Other scriptures do not -what?"

Does not continue to say to test
Or says the opposite?

If it is the scripture i believe you're talking aboutt. Matt. 4:7 which was quoting Deuteronomy 6:16 where Moses said: “The way you put him to the test at Massah.” Massah was a place so named because there the Israelites quarreled with Moses and complained because of lack of water. ‘If you’re in our midst, why don’t you give us water? This quarreling and dictation is disrepectful even to another human let alone to the sovereign creator of the universe. It was a contemptable behavior much like Pharoh's The Isrealites weren't dying of thirst.

When God directs us to test it is to take him at his word and see the result. Thus Mal. 3:10
My favorite scripture, I inquired of God and he answered me and out of all my frights, he delivered me. Psalms 34:4 One is a good way of testing the other is not. Just as there is a good way to ask for someone to pass the potatoes and a bad way. The bad way being..."Can't you pass the potatoes'?

When you are in distress you ask to recieve assistance you don't demand it.

Why is re-incarnation uncomfortable?

Because there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Do you believe in it ?

Because there is not a shred of evidence to support it. Do you believe in it ?

Are all things real evident?

So, the fact that it is ancient and that many people believe it testifies to its veracity.That's a complete miss, bunky. Do you fail to understand people like you have been trying to destroy the Bible and message for three thousand years and have failed completely? Or do you just not comprehend the meaning and import of your continuing communal failure?

How about Herodotus, Plato and Thucidides... Herodotus, Fifth Century B. C., or about the time the books of the Old Testament were being finished.
Plato, Fourth Century B. C., just after the Old Testament period.
Thucidides, Fifth Century B. C.

All of them were historians and or philosophers. None of them even claimed to be inspired by God or any god. What's to compare with the Bible? How many people today have their lives changed and problems solved and a renewed outlook on life by studying any of these good gentlemen? They have had a definite effect on the way we think in Western Civilization, but to suggest they have a greater or more important impact on mankind than the Bible is pretty silly....whose works pre-date the Bible by about 5. 000 years.You really have to explain to me Myles; how did these three men execute works that pre-dated their lives by some 6, 500 years? I just gotta know how they did that, okay?

Ans don't forget the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Ghitam the Pali Canon and the Koran, all of which hjave inspired people.Upanishads were written between the Seventh Century B. C. and modern times.
Bhagavad Ghitam was began to be written in the Fifth Century B. C.
These are the Hindu sacred texts and are similar to the Bible in that they are not a single book, but collections of writings from various times and authors. The dates shown are the dates of the earliest known written copies, and not unlike the Bible, some bits are the codification of oral tradition from earlier times.

Interestingly, the oldest stories dealing with the cosmology of the Hindu universe are not so far removed in some aspects from the Jewish Biblical account of the first several chapters of Genesis. (In some regards, they are very different.) The earliest mentions of Brahma suggest a similarity to the Creator God of the Jewish-Christian Bible. It could be argued originally the Hindu God was a single God with multiple 'persons' or facets; similar to the Hebrew God of Creation. However, as the works continue, additional 'gods' are added into the sacred texts showing absorbtion of other minor religions.

Pali Canon is the name given to the collection of works forming the Buddhist framework of belief. The earliest written form was done in the hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus. However, it is clear some portions of the collection of works are oral traditions from much earlier times. The core of beliefs are attributed (naturally enough) to the teachings of the Buddha, generally known as Siddhārtha Gautama or Siddhattha Gotama or more familarly Gautama Buddha who lived - as best as can be determined - in the Fifth Century B. C. Perhaps as early as the Sixth Century B. C. (To compare, that is about the time the nation of Israel was conquered by the Babylonian King Nebbuchadrezzer - or whatever way that name is being transliterated this week.)

Koran was compiled or written by the prophet Muhammad (and again, the name is spelled in various ways in English). Muhammad died around 632 A. D. and the book was not then in fully compiled form. According to the Koran, the parts recorded by Muhammad were given to him over a period of some twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel; in turn sent by God for that purpose. The Koran also is a collection of writings and oral traditions taken from the Jewish – Christian Bible, Arabian tradition and Arabian culture.

Again, to provide a bit of time comparison, Muhammad lived some six hundred years after Jesus. The Christian Bible was canonized in it's modern form about the last half of the Fourth Century. The Roman Emperor Constantine had accepted Christianity in 327 A. D. and 'the Church' in Western Civilization was in full swing. The Roman Empire sputtered and died out about 475 A. D. The Bible had been translated by this time into Latin (for commoner in Rome and Europe), Syriac, Coptic and Armenian.

Let's recap here. So far, none of your rival writings or authorities are older than the Bible. None.

In what sense is the Bible more creible than these sacred texts which tell a diffrent story ?In order to answer that question adequately, we need to examine how it is those other sacred texts '…tell a different story…' than the Bible. Since I've done a bit of research in this already, it's your turn, Myles.

Myles, how does the stories of the Hindu texts, the Buddhist texts and the Koran differ from that of the Bible? Please explain the essential difference in nature in the various sacred writings. Then I'll pitch back in with the argument for the Bible's greater credibility.

And don't forget to explain how the Greek philosophers wrote philosophy 6,500 years prior to their own births.

I'll be waiting for you.

Are all things real evident?

Don't answer a question with a question.

That's a complete miss, bunky. Do you fail to understand people like you have been trying to destroy the Bible and message for three thousand years and have failed completely? Or do you just not comprehend the meaning and import of your continuing communal failure?

Herodotus, Fifth Century B. C., or about the time the books of the Old Testament were being finished.
Plato, Fourth Century B. C., just after the Old Testament period.
Thucidides, Fifth Century B. C.

All of them were historians and or philosophers. None of them even claimed to be inspired by God or any god. What's to compare with the Bible? How many people today have their lives changed and problems solved and a renewed outlook on life by studying any of these good gentlemen? They have had a definite effect on the way we think in Western Civilization, but to suggest they have a greater or more important impact on mankind than the Bible is pretty silly.You really have to explain to me Myles; how did these three men execute works that pre-dated their lives by some 6, 500 years? I just gotta know how they did that, okay?

Upanishads were written between the Seventh Century B. C. and modern times.
Bhagavad Ghitam was began to be written in the Fifth Century B. C.
These are the Hindu sacred texts and are similar to the Bible in that they are not a single book, but collections of writings from various times and authors. The dates shown are the dates of the earliest known written copies, and not unlike the Bible, some bits are the codification of oral tradition from earlier times.

Interestingly, the oldest stories dealing with the cosmology of the Hindu universe are not so far removed in some aspects from the Jewish Biblical account of the first several chapters of Genesis. (In some regards, they are very different.) The earliest mentions of Brahma suggest a similarity to the Creator God of the Jewish-Christian Bible. It could be argued originally the Hindu God was a single God with multiple 'persons' or facets; similar to the Hebrew God of Creation. However, as the works continue, additional 'gods' are added into the sacred texts showing absorbtion of other minor religions.

Pali Canon is the name given to the collection of works forming the Buddhist framework of belief. The earliest written form was done in the hundred years prior to the birth of Jesus. However, it is clear some portions of the collection of works are oral traditions from much earlier times. The core of beliefs are attributed (naturally enough) to the teachings of the Buddha, generally known as Siddhārtha Gautama or Siddhattha Gotama or more familarly Gautama Buddha who lived - as best as can be determined - in the Fifth Century B. C. Perhaps as early as the Sixth Century B. C. (To compare, that is about the time the nation of Israel was conquered by the Babylonian King Nebbuchadrezzer - or whatever way that name is being transliterated this week.)

Koran was compiled or written by the prophet Muhammad (and again, the name is spelled in various ways in English). Muhammad died around 632 A. D. and the book was not then in fully compiled form. According to the Koran, the parts recorded by Muhammad were given to him over a period of some twenty-three years by the angel Gabriel; in turn sent by God for that purpose. The Koran also is a collection of writings and oral traditions taken from the Jewish – Christian Bible, Arabian tradition and Arabian culture.

Again, to provide a bit of time comparison, Muhammad lived some six hundred years after Jesus. The Christian Bible was canonized in it's modern form about the last half of the Fourth Century. The Roman Emperor Constantine had accepted Christianity in 327 A. D. and 'the Church' in Western Civilization was in full swing. The Roman Empire sputtered and died out about 475 A. D. The Bible had been translated by this time into Latin (for commoner in Rome and Europe), Syriac, Coptic and Armenian.

Let's recap here. So far, none of your rival writings or authorities are older than the Bible. None.

In order to answer that question adequately, we need to examine how it is those other sacred texts '…tell a different story…' than the Bible. Since I've done a bit of research in this already, it's your turn, Myles.

Myles, how does the stories of the Hindu texts, the Buddhist texts and the Koran differ from that of the Bible? Please explain the essential difference in nature in the various sacred writings. Then I'll pitch back in with the argument for the Bible's greater credibility.

And don't forget to explain how the Greek philosophers wrote philosophy 6,500 years prior to their own births.

I'll be waiting for you.

Don't hold your breath

Don't answer a question with a question.
Why?

What surprises me is that there is so much respect for the Pauline Letters. Just from the overt evidence from the Bible itself, Paul never met Christ and made it a point to NOT teach what Christ had taught. And then there is much internal evidence that Paul was held as an enemy by the Real Apostles, and was even considered as a False Apostle.

He taught AGAINST the Law, and taught a doctrine that Sins could be automatically forgiven, that is, that sins could be ALLOWED as long as one held to a simplistic Religious Formula that depended on the most part in agreeing that the Pharisees were correct to crucify Jesus. Paul was a Pharisee.

So, why this Faith in Paul, as being the Very Mouthpiece of God Himself?

Easy. What an attractive doctrine for those who would wish to advance themselves by Corruption. Paul's forgiveness of Sin -- that is a Religious Authorization to Sin all one wants -- it was a Doctrine that Every Dishonest and Corrupt Person would KILL for.

Religion through self interest.

Why?

Because I asked whether you believe in re-incarnation, having told you that I don't. So stop playing your little games and answer the question. You are not obliged to answer.

Do you think I am Chrisitian?

Do you think I am Chrisitian?

That is a complicated question.

You see, paradoxically enough, Paulists have coopted to themselves the Title of "Christian".

"Christian" has come to mean a set of beliefs that the Mission of Mesianic Glory can be sacrificed, by killing the Messiah, so that everybody can sin as much as they like. "Christians" believe that it is a good thing that the Messiah was killed so that every crime and perversion could flourish.

But the Messiah himself would never subscribe to such a thing.

We need to wonder whether the Appelation "Christian" has not been coopted by the Forces of the Anti-christ.

If the appelation "Christian" had been coopted by the Antichrist, then any TRUE follower of Christ would certainly be appalled at being called a "Christian".

Perhaps any TRUE follower of Christ would rather be called.... hmmmm... I never though of it before.... but the word would be "Messianic". One who believes in a Religious, Social and Political Order that are built upon the supporting pillar of Righteousness.

Do you think I am Chrisitian?

I don't know how you define yourself. Do tell !

So, why this Faith in Paul, as being the Very Mouthpiece of God Himself?

Easy. What an attractive doctrine for those who would wish to advance themselves by Corruption. Paul's forgiveness of Sin -- that is a Religious Authorization to Sin all one wants -- it was a Doctrine that Every Dishonest and Corrupt Person would KILL for.

.

Paul provided the easy way to salvation.Expecting Jesus to bear our sins and do the dirty work for us. I also do not believe that was the original intent of Christs' message. I cannot find any logic at all in believing God would incarnate he/she self into human form to act as a sacrifice back to himself so that he/she can tolerate our non perfect selves in the afterlife..wtf??:confused:

Paul's easy way to Salvation"!? Salvation had never been an issue.

Before Paul nobody had ever considered it a very Great Religious Priority to find a way for people to sin all they liked.

Remember that Paul's Religious Doctrine DESTROYED a Civilization. You cannot tell people that they can sin all they like without expecting adverse consequences.

Catholic Civilization succeeded largely because EVERYBODY was illiterate and the letters of Paul could simply be left undiscussed.

Look at the Moral Imperitives of all of the Major Religious Orders that BUILT Christian Civilization out of the chaos of the Dark Ages. They were not Paulists. They asserted RIGHTEOUSNESS.

The Catholics Today are not the same Catholics that gave us the "Thousand Year Reign of Christ on Earth". You see, after the Protestants had won their battle, after thirty years of rape and unlimitied pillage and murder, the Catholic Bishops gave in. They held the Council of Trent and adopted Protestant Theology.

But while the Catholic Bishops, those child molesters, are effective Protestants, thos Catholics of the Marian Religious Orders are not. Well... to be intellectually honest, one of the accords of the Council of Trent was that EVERY ordained Priest would have to go through 7 years of Paulist Protestant Indoctrination. So it is that most candidates to the Priesthood, no matter how pure when they start out, can't stand up to the Antichristical indoctrination and come back spouting how Saved Christians can sin all they want as long as they have Faith... just like Protestants, but unlike any Priest who had served during the 1000 Year Reign of Catholic Civilization.

Its heartbreaking to see a Franciscan Friar telling a room full of Catholic Bible Studiers that they can sin all they want. One can ask that Ordained Idiot to point out any instance where Francis, his Patron Saint, had ever told anybody they could drink, gamble and copulate (exploit the poor and murder their competition) as much as they liked, and he would look in amazement and wouldn't understand the point at all. He forgets that the Original Franciscans were not required to undergo the same indoctrination as himself.

Look at the Catholic Religious Orders and examine their specific beliefs. How very few of them are Paulists.

Remember that Martin Luther's Battle Cry during the bloody Protestant Rebellion, where it was urged that Priests and monk be killed and nuns be raped, was that the Catholic Establishment had ELIMINATED PAULIST DOCTRINE from any studied curriculum. So we KNOW that Catholics BEFORE the Reformation WERE NOT PAULISTS. Now, at least the Child Molesting Bishops ARE Paulists. The Seminaries TEACH Paulism.

But that is NOT Catholicism. That is Catholicism under duress. Those Fat Cat Bishops were threatened with revocation of their Country Club Memberships and so they decided that God WANTS PEOPLE TO SIN.

yeah, right.

Although I am a fine Catholic, I can certainly assert with the utmost confidenct that there is perhaps no lower moral being in earth or in hell than a Catholic Bishop, or a priest who has accepted a degree in the teaching of Free Sin.


Paul provided the easy way to salvation.Expecting Jesus to bear our sins and do the dirty work for us. I also do not believe that was the original intent of Christs' message. I cannot find any logic at all in believing God would incarnate he/she self into human form to act as a sacrifice back to himself so that he/she can tolerate our non perfect selves in the afterlife..wtf??:confused:

Leo Volont said the following:

Indeed, Paul went so far as to preach that those who strove for Righteousness were REJECTING FAITH and trying to earn their way into Heaven, thus deserving Hell.


Here's what Paul himself says in 2 Timothy 2:22:

"Flee also youthful lusts; but pursue righteousness, faith, love, peace with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart."

Need anything else be said about Leo's thoughts on Paul?

As someone once said: "Read Up or Shut Up"

That is a complicated question.

You see, paradoxically enough, Paulists have coopted to themselves the Title of "Christian".

"Christian" has come to mean a set of beliefs that the Mission of Mesianic Glory can be sacrificed, by killing the Messiah, so that everybody can sin as much as they like. "Christians" believe that it is a good thing that the Messiah was killed so that every crime and perversion could flourish.

But the Messiah himself would never subscribe to such a thing.

We need to wonder whether the Appelation "Christian" has not been coopted by the Forces of the Anti-christ.

If the appelation "Christian" had been coopted by the Antichrist, then any TRUE follower of Christ would certainly be appalled at being called a "Christian".

Perhaps any TRUE follower of Christ would rather be called.... hmmmm... I never though of it before.... but the word would be "Messianic". One who believes in a Religious, Social and Political Order that are built upon the supporting pillar of Righteousness.

Intresting...
Certainly superfluous, analytical, perspicacious but perhaps missing the obvious.


I don't know how you define yourself. Do tell !

Of course you don't know. What have you discerned from experience?

The only thing I have discerned is that you refuse to declare yourself time and again and that when asked for evidence to support a claim you never provide any. Based on your performance to date I would say you are a sophist or a casuist. You might want to tell me I'm wrong by answering a straight question with a straight answer.

Why is my disclosure important to you?

If it is not important then why do you ask?
[Note: Miles has deleted his response. He states this information is not important to him. Yet he continues pursuit. There would seem to be some sort of internal contradiction.]

If it is not important then why do you ask?

You are playing your usual games again. I was polite enough to respond to your request to tell you what I had discerned about you. You set that hare running. As usual you are avoiding the isue because you do not want to answer but, at the same time give the impression that you are indulging in discourse. If that's the mentality you brought to your study of the bible, it explains everything. We can look forward to the Gospel according to Saquist, which will make all others redundant. Just get out there and tell all those millions of Chritians they are wrong but you have the truth.

Is it possible that you are the second coming and we are failing to recognize you ? Arcadians, 2.11 and Eugenics 1.23.

Show us a sign and we shall believe !

Do these questions offend you?

Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!:mad:

i believe as all believers that the bible is a divine book revealed to jesus

is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment be tween right and wrong). (The Noble Quran, 3:3)"

"To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute; (The Noble Quran, 5:48)"

"That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the Truth,- confirming what was (revealed) before it: for God is assuredly- with respect to His Servants - well acquainted and Fully Observant. (The Noble Quran, 35:31)"

There is more truth in the books of Darwin than in any bible or koran.

There is more truth in the books of Darwin than in any bible or koran.

If you are in need of a good laugh , may I suggest you read a transcript of the debate between Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce, aka Slippery Sam.

Then consider how many people today are still using the worn out arguments used by Sam.
They pop up with each generation. So much for progress.

we're saying 'the' bible, but how substantial is the difference between editions? i thought different churches had different numbers of verses in their bibles?

The Bible should be respected: it's an important historical account of the creation of a religion, and somewhat of the Hebrews history and customs. Although it got a bit shredded in the Middle Ages, it isn't exactly meaningless.

Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!:mad:

It's because people bind it's content to their identities and disrespecting the bible is equivalent to attacking their identities... which is often interpreted as attempted murder by the individual feeling attacked.

The Bible should be respected: it's an important historical account of the creation of a religion, and somewhat of the Hebrews history and customs. Although it got a bit shredded in the Middle Ages, it isn't exactly meaningless.

It actually isn't an account of the creation of a religion. It is an account of the creation of the world in the religion's mythology. It's a work of fiction.

I think the only respect it deserves is as literature. If you read the King James version, you're actually reading fine literature, worthy of praise, even, for its style and beauty. But the beliefs within it do not require any respect.

Isn't "literature" another word for "historical account"..?
It's just I thought it was.

Would the Essene Gospel, or the Dead Sea scrolls be literature, or a historical account?

Isn't "literature" another word for "historical account"..?

Not at all.

Would the Essene Gospel, or the Dead Sea scrolls be literature, or a historical account?

The King James version of the Bible is beautifully written, which I don't know if is a result of a very lenient translation, or what, so I can't say that the Dead Sea Scrolls or Essene Gospel are of the same quality. But there is no reason to believe they are historical accounts.

But there is no reason to believe they are historical accounts.So, it goes in the SF & Fantasy section?

I would say there might be one or two, um, historians, anthropologists, linguists, archeaologists, etc, who would be a little upset with the classification, but, what the hey?

So, it goes in the SF & Fantasy section?

Yeah, pretty much.

I would say there might be one or two, um, historians, anthropologists, linguists, archeaologists, etc, who would be a little upset with the classification, but, what the hey?

Well, I'd like to meet those one or two, um, historians, anthropologists, linguists, archaeologists, etc., and ask them just what the hell proof is there that the accounts in the bible are accurate.

there is no reason to believe they are historical accounts.And the Dead Sea scrolls have nothing whatsoever to say about how the people who wrote them lived, or what their customs, languages and beliefs were?
No historian or anthropologist would consider consulting them, or any part of the Bible, because everyone knows that they're total fantasy?

Thanks for sorting that one.
I 'spose it's a good thing I'm into SF then?

And the Dead Sea scrolls have nothing whatsoever to say about how the people who wrote them lived, or what their customs, languages and beliefs were?
No historian or anthropologist would consider consulting them, or any part of the Bible, because everyone knows that they're total fantasy?

Well, they might give some insight to how people lived, yes. But that does not mean the stories told within are true. They aren't true, as a matter of fact.