To Believers: So... you think the bible is the word of god

[Sartanis]

 

This is a simple question to believers;

 

 

Why does anyone in this day and age believe in a collection of 2000 year old stories which make claims to the extraordinary without a shred of verifiable evidence?Oh of course some would make the claim that many individuals who are named inthe bible, many cities and even some events did in fact exist.

 

However it would be no different than if I were to write a story about Bill Clinton riding a flying unicorn and saving the world from evil with his magical powers... simply because Bill Clinton existed does not make it true in any way shape or form.The Bible is a story full of contradictions, atrocities, incest, murder andhate yet somehow makes claims of an unconditionally loving God. It is absolutely astonishing to me that anyone could truly believe that an omnipotent being would spew that as his word.

 

It is written (and in my opinion deliberately so) in such a way that it can,and is, interpreted in almost any way. Yet it seems that every individual Christian truly believes that they know the absolute truth, completely disregarding the views of other Christians.

 

How is any of this rationalized? Or is it simply a matter of choosing not toeven consider any of it even for a moment?

 

To any believers out there I would suggest reading the Viking myths and Sagas,yes they are wild and ridiculous... but they are at least consistent and opento very little interpretation. There is a reason we dont not believe these stories, what makes the bible any different?

 

 

Edited March 17, 2012 by Sartanis

[zapatos]

I apologize if I come across as ignorant or rude in any way. I am trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible...

Bollocks.

 

Your entire post ridicules the Bible and those who believe in it. Apologizing at the end just in case you said something that could be construed as offensive, and claiming that in reality you are on a quest to gain knowledge, is a joke.

[Moontanman]

Indeed, that was seriously trollish...

[Sartanis]

Perhaps your right... this is not the way to ask these questions. Although I am indeed curious I will have to find a less hostile way to ask...

Edited March 17, 2012 by Sartanis

[iNow]

I find it rather tame, actually. It is a WTF moment. Why are the things you read in the bible supposed to be different in any way from what people read in harry potter or narnia? Seriously, WTF?

[Sartanis]

I find it rather tame, actually. It is a WTF moment. Why are the things you read in the bible supposed to be different in any way from what people read in harry potter or narnia? Seriously, WTF?

 

 

Ya thats pretty much what i was getting at, though Im not sure how to word it nicely

[Phi for All]

Ya thats pretty much what i was getting at, though Im not sure how to word it nicely

You didn't really listen to what zapatos and Moontanman were saying. It's not about how nice you worded anything, it's that last apologetic sentence you tacked on. Coming here to rant is not "trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible". That's like trying to understand sports by going to a women's gardening club.

 

We're more than happy to discuss what you already know or think you know, but this is a science site and you're going to get called on your shit here. Oh, and welcome aboard!

[zapatos]

And I second the Welcome Aboard!

[Sartanis]

You didn't really listen to what zapatos and Moontanman were saying. It's not about how nice you worded anything, it's that last apologetic sentence you tacked on. Coming here to rant is not "trying very hard to understand the rationale behind the Christian belief in the Bible". That's like trying to understand sports by going to a women's gardening club.

 

We're more than happy to discuss what you already know or think you know, but this is a science site and you're going to get called on your shit here. Oh, and welcome aboard!

 

I see what your saying. Point taken! thanks!

[Moontanman]

I see what your saying. Point taken! thanks!

 

 

I live in the middle of the bible belt, I understand exactly where you are coming from. When I meet a person for the first time often one of the first questions asked is "where do you go to church" then if you say you don't go or that you go someplace they feel superior to they begin active proselytizing.

 

To me it's astounding that other wise intelligent people suck this slop up like it was cream and strawberries...

 

I see no reason to hunt a baited field, we get plenty of people here asserting their personal brand of horse feathers...

 

The real trick is trying to figure out how the republicans can field candidates who are no better than Moe, Larry, and Curly... And people are behind them like it is the best thing possible...

[Villain]

It's funny how we have gotten this far and not a single user has asked you to provide evidence of your existence, that somehow by the letters appearing on our screen we have assumed that your existence is real, yet many of these user's have insisted on evidence of God other than Him appearing in a written book much like us writing now.

[Edtharan]

It's funny how we have gotten this far and not a single user has asked you to provide evidence of your existence, that somehow by the letters appearing on our screen we have assumed that your existence is real, yet many of these user's have insisted on evidence of God other than Him appearing in a written book much like us writing now.

Nobody is denying that the bible was written, but we are questioning who the author was.

 

It would be a bit like me claiming to be JRR Tolkien.

 

There is proof that someone wrote these words, but there is no proof that I am Tolkien.

[Fuzzwood]

And in this fashion: why the Christian belief over all others? What makes you so sure they are wrong?

[Phi for All]

It's funny how we have gotten this far and not a single user has asked you to provide evidence of your existence, that somehow by the letters appearing on our screen we have assumed that your existence is real, yet many of these user's have insisted on evidence of God other than Him appearing in a written book much like us writing now.

It's funny that you're using this as an argument.

[Ophiolite]

This is a simple question to believers;

Why does anyone in this day and age believe in a collection of 2000 year old stories which make claims to the extraordinary without a shred of verifiable evidence?

Part of the reason they believe is that the claims are extraordinary. Humans are attracted to a greater or lesser extent to the different, to the exciting, to 'big things'. Scientists - good scientists at any rate - are not immune to this. It fuels their passion for their subject and energises their research. But then the two approaches part company. The scientist seeks evidence, the follower of religion seeks revelation and affirmation of faith. We would not expect a scientist to reject a hypothesis because he lacked faith in it; we should not expect a religious person to reject their beliefs because they lack evidence for them. The two approaches are quite different.

 

The Bible is a story full of contradictions, atrocities, incest, murder and hate ........

The findings of science are full of contradictions: if there were no contradictions then scientific investigation would be at an end. Contradictions are the life blood of science, why demand higher standards of religion?

As to atrocities, I have certainly read some atrocious research papers, and on a more serious note some of the marginalisation of unpopular scientists by the powerbrokers equate to professional murder. (And there cannot be a discipline that does not have its deep animosities.)

 

 

 

The Bible is a story full of contradictions, atrocities, incest, murder and hate yet somehow makes claims of an unconditionally loving God.

The New Testament wipes away the tenor of the Old Testament. The message of the New Testament is arguably best summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Therein is revealed a decidedly loving God who urges love on his people.

 

 

 

It is written (and in my opinion deliberately so) in such a way that it can,and is, interpreted in almost any way.

I don't hold with conspiracy theories, which is what you would need for the ambiguity to be a deliberate act. Yes, many interpretations are possible. How many versions of string theory do we have right now? By theorists all interpreting the same raw data. Theologists argue the Word, ut they do so with logic that may sometimes be much tighter than in a piece of scientific research.

 

 

Yet it seems that every individual Christian truly believes that they know the absolute truth, completely disregarding the views of other Christians.

Comparing the average Christian's views on theology with the views of the Church's leading scholars is akin to comparing the views of a Grade 10 student on science with those of a Nobel Laureate.

 

 

To any believers out there I would suggest reading the Viking myths and Sagas,yes they are wild and ridiculous... but they are at least consistent and opento very little interpretation. There is a reason we dont not believe these stories, what makes the bible any different?

Revelation and faith.

 

Just for the record Sartanis, since you are new here (and welcome), I am not a believer.

[Villain]

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store. They can read it and research the context of the time that it was written in and how it might serve the people that it was written for. If we are to discuss the Bible, then you should realise that the Old Testament was as much a law of the Israelite nation as it was the Word of God. There are large parts that are the voice of the Israelite people and not the Word of God. It will clearly say when God is speaking or when a prophet is speaking on God's behalf. The first four books of the New Testament are about Jesus, they were not written by Jesus. There are other books in the New Testament that describe the beginning of the church and how the young church should behave and teach the Gospel. Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God, if you personally don't want to read it or read it and don't agree with it, then do that. What else is there to discuss?

[iNow]

There are other books in the New Testament that describe the beginning of the church and how the young church should behave and teach the Gospel. Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God...

Or, as has happened with countless millions of former believers... The closer you read it and the better you understand it, the more likely you are to walk away from faith in the recognition that it's a ridiculous waste of time.

[Moontanman]

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store. They can read it and research the context of the time that it was written in and how it might serve the people that it was written for. If we are to discuss the Bible, then you should realise that the Old Testament was as much a law of the Israelite nation as it was the Word of God. There are large parts that are the voice of the Israelite people and not the Word of God. It will clearly say when God is speaking or when a prophet is speaking on God's behalf. The first four books of the New Testament are about Jesus, they were not written by Jesus. There are other books in the New Testament that describe the beginning of the church and how the young church should behave and teach the Gospel. Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God, if you personally don't want to read it or read it and don't agree with it, then do that. What else is there to discuss?

 

 

It never ceases to amaze me how believers always assume anyone who doesn't believe the way they do or in what they believe in has never bothered to actually read their religious texts and really really if we would only read we would see how their favorite fairy tale is really really the obvious truth... horse feathers.... it's an insult to begin with...

[Villain]

Or, as has happened with countless millions of former believers... The closer you read it and the better you understand it, the more likely you are to walk away from faith in the recognition that it's a ridiculous waste of time.

 

The self-serving are always worried about their own time. Why would someone subscribe to something that asks us to give instead of continually just taking? How does the Bible serve my desires, after all the universe revolves around the earth, no?

 

It never ceases to amaze me how believers always assume anyone who doesn't believe the way they do or in what they believe in has never bothered to actually read their religious texts and really really if we would only read we would see how their favorite fairy tale is really really the obvious truth... horse feathers.... it's an insult to begin with...

 

Not sure where you get this from.

 

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store.

 

Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God, if you personally don't want to read it or read it and don't agree with it, then do that.

 

Did you miss the first sentence in my post? Why do you assume that I am talking to those that have already read it? Surely if you have read it and don't agree then my post would not apply to you? Don't be so sensitive, let's try not make this an emotional debate.

 

The word 'might' is in reference to the possibility of something happening, it does not imply that it will.

[Ophiolite]

Unfortunately Villain two of the above sentences can be interpreted in more than one way.

 

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store.

I read this as "If some of you who are throwing barbed comments at Christians would actually like to take the time to read the Bible....etc." I accept you did not intend it that way, but in context that is what I read.

 

Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God

Read as: "Once you have actually got of your ass and tried to understand it you might frigging well realise why people.....etc"

 

Now while I concede that the faulty interpretation was mine, I wonder if I was not encouraged towards that by what I'll call "contextual hostility".

[Edtharan]

If someone would like to read the Bible or any other religious text they can pick up a copy at a book store. They can read it and research the context of the time that it was written in and how it might serve the people that it was written for. If we are to discuss the Bible, then you should realise that the Old Testament was as much a law of the Israelite nation as it was the Word of God. There are large parts that are the voice of the Israelite people and not the Word of God. It will clearly say when God is speaking or when a prophet is speaking on God's behalf. The first four books of the New Testament are about Jesus, they were not written by Jesus. There are other books in the New Testament that describe the beginning of the church and how the young church should behave and teach the Gospel. Once you have tried to understand it you might realise why people believe it is from God, if you personally don't want to read it or read it and don't agree with it, then do that. What else is there to discuss?

It was reading the bible that made me realise that Christianity could not be true. Haivng re-read parts of it in light of what I have learned up to now, when I re-read it I could not help but think of the medical definition of a psychopath.

 

Try it, you talk about understanding it and this is a way to understand it. Read the bible with a check-list of what psychopathy is, and compare it with any reference to God (or even just what God says) you will very rapidly fill in the list. Scarily so.

 

Basically, the personality of God in the bible (new testament or old testament) is pretty much a textbook case of psychopathy.

[Sartanis]

Part of the reason they believe is that the claims are extraordinary. Humans are attracted to a greater or lesser extent to the different, to the exciting, to 'big things'. Scientists - good scientists at any rate - are not immune to this. It fuels their passion for their subject and energises their research. But then the two approaches part company. The scientist seeks evidence, the follower of religion seeks revelation and affirmation of faith. We would not expect a scientist to reject a hypothesis because he lacked faith in it; we should not expect a religious person to reject their beliefs because they lack evidence for them. The two approaches are quite different.

 

Yes they are quite different. One is verifiable, one abstract. One is practical and useful to humanity, the other not so much.

 

The findings of science are full of contradictions: if there were no contradictions then scientific investigation would be at an end. Contradictions are the life blood of science, why demand higher standards of religion?

As to atrocities, I have certainly read some atrocious research papers, and on a more serious note some of the marginalisation of unpopular scientists by the powerbrokers equate to professional murder. (And there cannot be a discipline that does not have its deep animosities.)

 

I have to disagree completely here. While contradiction may be present in science it is hardly its lifeblood. Understanding of the natural world is the lifeblood of science. Contradiction leads to further invesigation, whenever contradiction is found it is due to a lack of understanding. Science is adaptive, able to change as we discover new methods and theories. Religion is static, it does not allow critical thinking or it would not exist. The standards we apply to science, which are in many ways the same standards we apply to everyday life, should absolutely apply to religion. Its not about asking for a higher standard at all, just an equal one. If a scientist claims he/she has discovered an unlimited energy source they had better have the evidence to back that claim up!

 

The New Testament wipes away the tenor of the Old Testament. The message of the New Testament is arguably best summed up in the Sermon on the Mount. Therein is revealed a decidedly loving God who urges love on his people.

 

It is not rational to pick and choose what to belive in a "HOLY" book. If it is the word of God then it must all be true.

 

I don't hold with conspiracy theories, which is what you would need for the ambiguity to be a deliberate act. Yes, many interpretations are possible. How many versions of string theory do we have right now? By theorists all interpreting the same raw data. Theologists argue the Word, ut they do so with logic that may sometimes be much tighter than in a piece of scientific research.

 

Not a conspiricy theory, it is a tatic used even today by fortune tellers and horroscopes. If you leave something ambiguous then anyone can find meaning. Why would God need Ambiguity? why not just say what you meant to begin with?

Comparing the average Christian's views on theology with the views of the Church's leading scholars is akin to comparing the views of a Grade 10 student on science with those of a Nobel Laureate.

 

Yes you are quite right.

Revelation and faith.

 

Faith in the bible for its own sake is not rational. Personal revelations that cannot be verified or quatified are of no value outside the individual.

 

Just for the record Sartanis, since you are new here (and welcome), I am not a believer.

 

Yes they are quite different. One is verifiable, one abstract. One is practical and useful to humanity, the other not so much.

 

This Btw is obviously a personal opinion.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Sartanis

[A Tripolation]

Welcome to SFN.

 

I am a theist, or, more specifically, a Christian. I believe the Bible is a collection of books written by man.