The war on faith.

[kurto]

oh, Boy... Here comes my favorite thumper.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the repeated attempts to destroy the Bible and wipe it off the face of the planet?


[/ QUOTE ]

(1) I'm not aware of any such attempts. (2) What does that have to do with anything? Are you just typing random non-sequitors?

[ QUOTE ]
What about the fact that it is still in existence?


[/ QUOTE ]

I love when you get nonsensical. What about the fact that documents of Mithraism are still in existence? What about the fact that the Koran is still in existence? What about the "Adventures of Mark Twain?" What about The Illiad and the Odyssey?

[ QUOTE ]
What about its popularity given the first question?


[/ QUOTE ]

Meaningless. It has nothing to do with the discussion. You love to go off track.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the prophecy contained within, such as when crucifixion was described by a man who had not only never seen a crucifixion, but the crucifixion process had not yet been invented before he died?


[/ QUOTE ]

You're all over the place here. Meaningless to our discussion. Do you see why?

[ QUOTE ]
What about the other prophecies?


[/ QUOTE ]

What about Nostradamus' prophecies? What about prophecies that are contained by pretty much all over religions? What about horoscopes in the daily paper? What about psychics who make predictions?

[ QUOTE ]
What about the percentage of error between manuscripts when compared to other historical works like the Illiad?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why don't you answer it? There are more variations in the manuscripts for the New Testament then there are words in the New Testament. There is no 'original' Bible... one can only count the variations of older manuscripts with newer manuscripts... the BEST version of the Bible is still a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy.... No one can even say have perverted our oldest manuscripts are, since it has already suffered centuries of alterations.

So.... you can answer the question yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
What about the fact that many of the writers knew Jesus personally when he walked this earth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well.... then it must be directly inspired by God. LOL You're fun.

[bunny]

Please treat this as a reply to both kurto and luckyme.

I agree that the bible or quotes from the bible provide no assurance that it is divinely inspired, nor that any particular passage you have deemed divine is indeed the word of god, not something slipped in by a human with an agenda. My point is not that an atheist or agnostic should be particularly impressed by any claim resting on biblical arguments (I'm not a fan of the "Page 3 predicts what's written on page 20 - isnt that amazing!" argument).

My point is that if god exists and the bible is divinely inspired (although distorted over the ages) then it can still be valuable in providing hints to what god meant. You cant look at it objectively and scientifically determine which bits are real and which arent - but if there is someway to know god directly (I think most theists believe this) then there may well be benefit in studying the bible and examining how that fits in with the god you know.

Again - I am presupposing god is real, the bible is divinely inspired and humans can know god in some sense. Obviously, I believe these three premises and you dont but that isnt the point - the point is that you can believe in god and even in christianity without believing the bible is infallible. My claim is that although this is of less value than a tome of divine dictation - it is not worthless.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
Please treat this as a reply to both kurto and luckyme.

I agree that the bible or quotes from the bible provide no assurance that it is divinely inspired, nor that any particular passage you have deemed divine is indeed the word of god, not something slipped in by a human with an agenda. My point is not that an atheist or agnostic should be particularly impressed by any claim resting on biblical arguments (I'm not a fan of the "Page 3 predicts what's written on page 20 - isnt that amazing!" argument).

My point is that if god exists and the bible is divinely inspired (although distorted over the ages) then it can still be valuable in providing hints to what god meant. You cant look at it objectively and scientifically determine which bits are real and which arent - but if there is someway to know god directly (I think most theists believe this) then there may well be benefit in studying the bible and examining how that fits in with the god you know.

Again - I am presupposing god is real, the bible is divinely inspired and humans can know god in some sense. Obviously, I believe these three premises and you dont but that isnt the point - the point is that you can believe in god and even in christianity without believing the bible is infallible. My claim is that although this is of less value than a tome of divine dictation - it is not worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm comfortable with your response. Though your casual attitude makes it more acceptable.

You have a more liberal interpretation of the Bible.

Someone who is much more adament that the Bible is the word of God and is unquestionable, .... for me, they have more of an onus to overcome the problem of the human problems with the Bible. And, as you know, there are many Christians how believe the Bible is the literal word of God.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the bible or quotes from the bible provide no assurance that it is divinely inspired, nor that any particular passage you have deemed divine is indeed the word of god, not something slipped in by a human with an agenda. My point is not that an atheist or agnostic should be particularly impressed by any claim resting on biblical arguments (I'm not a fan of the "Page 3 predicts what's written on page 20 - isnt that amazing!" argument).

My point is that if god exists and the bible is divinely inspired (although distorted over the ages) then it can still be valuable in providing hints to what god meant. You cant look at it objectively and scientifically determine which bits are real and which arent - but if there is someway to know god directly (I think most theists believe this) then there may well be benefit in studying the bible and examining how that fits in with the god you know .

Again - I am presupposing god is real, the bible is divinely inspired and humans can know god in some sense. Obviously, I believe these three premises and you dont but that isnt the point - the point is that you can believe in god and even in christianity without believing the bible is infallible. My claim is that although this is of less value than a tome of divine dictation - it is not worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it seem very circular to you? or is it just me. Say you never saw a bible in your life, could you have gotten to know the christian god directly? ... nobody seems to, it takes a missionary with a bible ( or a mom).

So, a person is told 'some part of this bible is true, some is false, some analogy, some metaphor, etc. A person bring their belief in their direct line to god to their reading of the bible and lordie, lordie we know how many varieties of readings we have to hear about.

I have no issue with a person fitting the bible into religious beliefs and it serving as a way to model it or to help extract more meaning frow what a person thinks is right/wrong, etc. But once each person is extracting a personal fit, then whether any particular part of the bible is true or false or metaphoric or anything doesn't matter... it's merely a tool of 'faith-building' and a good poem, music, an inspirational biography or a good friend may serve the same or better purpose.

It is 'virtually useless' as a bible because clearly all the input is actually coming from the person and even if it was guaranteed to be divinely inspired it can't on-it's-own add anything.

I have various incidents that occured in my life that were life-changing for me. Yet, if I relate them some are really ho-hummers. All the incident did was crystallize an idea, an emotion, an ideal, for me... but the crystallization isn't in the situation ( or I'm the worlds worst story teller :-).

hope that's clearer, luckyme
( burn the book... the realizations are still going to come in).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it seem very circular to you? or is it just me. Say you never saw a bible in your life, could you have gotten to know the christian god directly? ... nobody seems to, it takes a missionary with a bible ( or a mom).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think a theist would say yes (a theist of my persuasion certainly would). If the christian god really exists and my experiences are not delusions or wishful thinking of some sort then there are two ways to know about god - reading the bible and personal experience.

[ QUOTE ]
So, a person is told 'some part of this bible is true, some is false, some analogy, some metaphor, etc. A person bring their belief in their direct line to god to their reading of the bible and lordie, lordie we know how many varieties of readings we have to hear about.

I have no issue with a person fitting the bible into religious beliefs and it serving as a way to model it or to help extract more meaning frow what a person thinks is right/wrong, etc. But once each person is extracting a personal fit, then whether any particular part of the bible is true or false or metaphoric or anything doesn't matter... it's merely a tool of 'faith-building' and a good poem, music, an inspirational biography or a good friend may serve the same or better purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
We cant tell which is correct objectively - that doesnt mean that those using the bible arent closer to the truth than those interpreting Winnie the Pooh(for example). The fact we dont know which mystical tradition is true is frustrating but doesnt mean that one isnt correct. Obviously, I am arguing from the position that the bible is divinely inspired and Winnie the Pooh isnt - my only claim is that if that is the case - the bible has value. Even though it provides no way of demonstrating that it actually is the case.

[ QUOTE ]
It is 'virtually useless' as a bible because clearly all the input is actually coming from the person and even if it was guaranteed to be divinely inspired it can't on-it's-own add anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont agree - from the framework I am adopting, there is clearly input from the bible. The person has to decide which is true, how to interpret it, etc and they will almost certainly get it wrong. Nonetheless, it is perfectly conceivable that they will be closer to the truth through making the effort than if they "go it alone".

[ QUOTE ]
I have various incidents that occured in my life that were life-changing for me. Yet, if I relate them some are really ho-hummers. All the incident did was crystallize an idea, an emotion, an ideal, for me... but the crystallization isn't in the situation ( or I'm the worlds worst story teller :-).

hope that's clearer, luckyme
( burn the book... the realizations are still going to come in).

[/ QUOTE ]
I understand your position, I think. I think our difference is that you are adopting a "How could we know?" position and I am adopting an "Is it true?" position. I am not concerned with the question of how do we validate it as I dont think it is validatable (although I do think it is falsifiable). I dont think there is a rational way to choose which religion is right, merely a rational way to discard some as wrong.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand your position, I think. I think our difference is that you are adopting a "How could we know?" position and I am adopting an "Is it true?" position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. I'm claiming ( among a few other things) that once we realize that we are selectively choosing what 'truths' we are getting from the bible, the bible itself is not actually contributing anything. I'm not asking "how could we know" because the 2 billion personal interpretations out there show that we can't.

I read a poem, it brings tears to my eyes. My buddy reads it and bursts out laughing. Is the message in the poem or are we creating it?

I don't buy your story about reaching the xtrian god sansbible. At least I've never heard of the missionaries stumbling into the clearing and the natives were saying hail mary's ( hey, it's an analogy).

luckyme. ok,ok, I don't know what we're debating ...but you're wrong !! ;-)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. I'm claiming ( among a few other things) that once we realize that we are selectively choosing what 'truths' we are getting from the bible, the bible itself is not actually contributing anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
I havent realized that. I dont think I am choosing, I think I am struggling to find the truth and failing a lot. Nonetheless, I think I am succeeding some of the time and that is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not asking "how could we know" because the 2 billion personal interpretations out there show that we can't.

[/ QUOTE ]
It seems like most of the objections you've made in this thread have focussed on - the bible is valueless because we cant know if we're right or not - no?

[ QUOTE ]
I read a poem, it brings tears to my eyes. My buddy reads it and bursts out laughing. Is the message in the poem or are we creating it?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it has content and I think the two of you are interpreting that content differently. I would think it odd if you were claiming that the poet had no part in the creation of the message.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't buy your story about reaching the xtrian god sansbible. At least I've never heard of the missionaries stumbling into the clearing and the natives were saying hail mary's ( hey, it's an analogy).

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the paraphernalia of religion (when to stand up in church, how exactly one should sacrifice a goat, etc etc) is not important. I certainly didnt mean to imply that one could become aware of what is in the bible through personal inspection or somesuch.

[ QUOTE ]
luckyme. ok,ok, I don't know what we're debating ...but you're wrong !! ;-)

[/ QUOTE ]
I concede.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it has content and I think the two of you are interpreting that content differently. I would think it odd if you were claiming that the poet had no part in the creation of the message.

[/ QUOTE ]

I worship at the alter of Sokal. I'm not a postmodernist. Sure the poet may have had a message he was tryng to send, but my sentimental extraction and my buddies humorous one stand on equal ground ( we treat each other as equally valid beings), so in that sense the message of the poet is irrelevant "virtually useless" since what we get out of it obviously depends on what we're bringing to it.

There certainly is no reason to think any 'enlightenment' that I ( or my buddy, or his gfriend, or...) extract from it .. and it may be a biggie and life-changing is an inherent property of and targeted message from the poem.

good luck on finding somebody who arrived at a belief in a xtrian god ( sans trappings) prior to exposure to a bible-peddlar of sorts.

luckyme

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
I worship at the alter of Sokal. I'm not a postmodernist. Sure the poet may have had a message he was tryng to send, but my sentimental extraction and my buddies humorous one stand on equal ground ( we treat each other as equally valid beings), so in that sense the message of the poet is irrelevant "virtually useless" since what we get out of it obviously depends on what we're bringing to it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It partly depends on you and partly on the message. I would still maintain that two christians interpreting the bible and coming to two different views are more likely to get closer to god's intended message than if they interpret winnie the pooh (again assuming that the bible was divinely inspired and then modified). This is even if they disagree or form diametrically opposed viewpoints. We cant tell if either of them is correct - it doesnt mean one of them isnt.

[ QUOTE ]
There certainly is no reason to think any 'enlightenment' that I ( or my buddy, or his gfriend, or...) extract from it .. and it may be a biggie and life-changing is an inherent property of and targeted message from the poem.

[/ QUOTE ]
I am claiming the poem was a necessary condition for the exact enlightenment you experienced (different stimuli would produce slightly different enlightenment). So I would claim that it's inherent properties were at least partly responsible for your enlightenment, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
good luck on finding somebody who arrived at a belief in a xtrian god ( sans trappings) prior to exposure to a bible-peddlar of sorts.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt expect to be able to find anybody (I live in a society which has evolved from a christian society so cant imagine anybody who doesnt know about christianity at some level). My whole reason for maintaining a belief in God is based on personal experience - without that I am an atheist. Again I am not trying to demonstrate it is true, I am saying it is possibly true (and in my view has to be true if theism is correct) that you can know god without the bible.

[Le Sug]

Care to expand on the personal experiences which convinced you god exists?