So yeah, our threads on religion have long since died out, so I figured it would be time to start afresh here!
Do you believe God exists (I know almost all of you don't)? Do you feel religion is important today? Is it a force for good? Discuss everything related to that here!
I'm going to start the ball rolling:
We all know about the rise of ISIS and the terrible acts it perpetuates. Does that show that Islam and religion in general is an awful concept? Is it the people who twist it? Or is it fundamentally an evil force?
Adding to that, isn't it circular reasoning? The Bible was written and composed by humans after all. Who's to say they weren't victims of hallucinations too?
Sure, we pray to God, but the way He communicates to us it through the Bible.
The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better.
We can know his will by reading his word, [...]
Uh, no. No you can't. There is no body of text that is definitively His Word.
Which one? There are hundreds of recognized variations, and thousands if not millions of contradicting interpretations.
You would really want to go and read the original documents, but I have faith that the message of those variation holds the same as the originals. Unless there is a major version of the Bible that people study that carries a different message of the gospel than other, those contradictions are minor.
Adding to that, isn't it circular reasoning? The Bible was written and composed by humans after all. Who's to say they weren't victims of hallucinations too?
Oh I see. I haven't thought about that. Well, how can you explain how many different authors from very different backgrounds write about the same God?
The Bible: A vague and heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement. I'd expect a supreme being of unlimited power to do a lot better.
I believe that its vagueness is what makes it timeless and is what allows it to apply to every walk of life.
Uh, no. No you can't. There is no body of text that is definitively His Word.
Sure there is. The Bible in all its variations and flaws account for God's will.
Well, how can you explain how many different authors from very different backgrounds write about the same God?
They don't. That's why they often can't agree on particulars.
I believe that its vagueness is what makes it timeless and is what allows it to apply to every walk of life.
1 In what sense does it apply to any walk of life?
2 It is nevertheless a heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement.
The Bible in all its variations and flaws account for God's will.
They don't. That's why they often can't agree on particulars.
Particulars such as...
1 In what sense does it apply to any walk of life?
Anyone can read the book and experience God the way I do. They can experience redemption.
It is nevertheless a heavily modified collection of texts written by several unknown authors before the birth of fact-checking which are even today the subject of considerable disagreement.
I have faith that the Bible is inspired by God meaning that it was written exactly as was intended by God. Its different versions are subject to flaws and everything.
Oh I see. I haven't thought about that. Well, how can you explain how many different authors from very different backgrounds write about the same God?
Oral tradition. The authors of the bible and apocrypha gospels simply wrote down their version of what was already a spreading faith by then - at that particular location and culture. I'm tempted to answer with a question: How can you explain how many different cultures from very different places and times wrote about very different gods?
Oral tradition. The authors of the bible and apocrypha gospels simply wrote down their version of what was already a spreading faith by then - at that particular location and culture.
Very well. I would like to point out the multitude of prophecies that were fulfilled through Jesus Christ. What can be made to explain this?
I'm tempted to answer with a question: How can you explain how many different cultures from very different places and times wrote about very different gods?
For a major starting point, Apocrypha: things that may or may not be considered "God's word" depending who you ask. Here's a table of glaring disagreements about which books are "true".
Including Exodus 21.
He's willing to ignore EVERY CONTRADICTION between EVERY BIBLICAL VERSION, including but not limited to (Non)Trinitarianism, afterlife views, methods of worship and idolatry, WHICH ENTIRE BOOKS ARE(N'T) GOD'S PERFECT WORD, and you come back with "What about slavery?" This isn't the time to get bogged down in specific apologetics. This is the time to ask "At what point is it 'too different,' and by whose measure?"
Very well. I would like to point out the multitude of prophecies that were fulfilled through Jesus Christ. What can be made to explain this?
For starters, does it matter? You've already conceded that the bible has flaws due to God's will. If He included prophecies that are fulfilled, or if they weren't really completed except "from a certain point of view," does it carry any weight? Would you stop believing in God if you found out that a prophecy was false? Or would it simply be a misunderstood part of "His plan" to be vague?
For starters, does it matter? You've already conceded that the bible has flaws due to God's will. If He included prophecies that are fulfilled, or if they weren't really completed except "from a certain point of view," does it carry any weight? Would you stop believing in God if you found out that a prophecy was false? Or would it simply be a misunderstood part of "His plan" to be vague?
Maybe. I would begin to doubt the Bible more for sure.
He's willing to ignore EVERY CONTRADICTION between EVERY BIBLICAL VERSION, including but not limited to (Non)Trinitarianism, afterlife views, methods of worship and idolatry, WHICH ENTIRE BOOKS ARE(N'T) GOD'S PERFECT WORD, and you come back with "What about slavery?" This isn't the time to get bogged down in specific apologetics. This is the time to ask "At what point is it 'too different,' and by whose measure?"
Let me tell you. I am very curious about those contradictions and if those contradictions actually would change my entire faith. I tend to agree with Protestant versions of the Bible.
How do you determine what is(n't) "the bible"?
First, it should be historically accurate. I know that for sure. Additionally, according to gotquestions.com, councils followed these guidelines to help discern the canon of the Bible: 1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle? 2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large? 3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
Very well. I would like to point out the multitude of prophecies that were fulfilled through Jesus Christ. What can be made to explain this?
Self-fulfilling prophecies and prophecies so vague they can be interpreted in any way you want? Sorry but I'm not particularly impressed. Especially if the prophecies and the events supposedly fulfilling them are mentioned in the same book.
Deja vu
I don't understand. Cultures that were apart by thousands of years and huge geographical distances came up with very different notions of deities, some of which have nothing to do with the Abrahamic God. What does déjà-vu have to do with that? Or rather, what do you mean by déjà-vu, considering that it typically refers to a neurological phenomenon related to our brain's memory checking system?
I tend to agree with Protestant versions of the Bible.
Have you read all the other ones and explored their interpretations, or is this the only type you're really familiar with? If the latter, then that goes back to where you were culturally and geographically raised, and is an unreliable measure. We're dealing with what counts as perfect scripture inspired by divinity, and you're going with "sort of this general branch".
1) Was the author an apostle or have a close connection with an apostle?
For the most part, we have no way to determine who the original authors were. We have no original copies of any books, and no method of discerning if the author is who they say they are, as opposed to the works being "ghostwritten," or secondhand or thirdhand accounts.
2) Is the book being accepted by the body of Christ at large?
There are plenty of books on the canon table where the Protestant interpretation is in the minority. Also, high popularity cannot be an accurate measure due to Matthew 7:13-14.
3) Did the book contain consistency of doctrine and orthodox teaching? 4) Did the book bear evidence of high moral and spiritual values that would reflect a work of the Holy Spirit?
These are completely open to interpretation based on the reader's preconceived notions. "Does this agree with what I already believe?"
I don't understand. Cultures that were apart by thousands of years and huge geographical distances came up with very different notions of deities, some of which have nothing to do with the Abrahamic God. What does déjà-vu have to do with that? Or rather, what do you mean by déjà-vu, considering that it typically refers to a neurological phenomenon related to our brain's memory checking system?
Haha I meant I think we talked about this already.
Self-fulfilling prophecies and prophecies so vague they can be interpreted in any way you want? Sorry but I'm not particularly impressed. Especially if the prophecies and the events supposedly fulfilling them are mentioned in the same book.
The fact is that the Bible is many books that confirm each other in one way or another. May I also bring up the argument that the Bible is historically accurate?
Have you read all the other ones and explored their interpretations, or is this the only type you're really familiar with? If the latter, then that goes back to where you were culturally and geographically raised, and is an unreliable measure. We're dealing with what counts as perfect scripture inspired by divinity, and you're going with "sort of this general branch".
No yeah. My faith in the validity of the Bible has really just been pure faith until now.
For the most part, we have no way to determine who the original authors were. We have no original copies of any books, and no method of discerning if the author is who they say they are, as opposed to the works being "ghostwritten," or secondhand or thirdhand accounts.
I am assuming this rule applies to the New Testament. We can determine the original author but we can't definitely confirm them. I know that's what you said and it doesn't really help my case, but I just wanted to point that out. However, if the author isn't who they say they were, wouldn't we expect some sort of contradiction in the fake author's own account in the same way we find continuity errors in fiction books?
There are plenty of books on the canon table where the Protestant interpretation is in the minority.
But the Protestant interpretation never adds anything to the canon that the majority does not. Also, wouldn't the majority be determined by the amount of believers and not by the number of denominations and such?
Also, high popularity cannot be an accurate measure due to Matthew 7:13-14.
This refers to salvation and not Biblical canon. I would also argue that true believers are for sure a minority.
These are completely open to interpretation based on the reader's preconceived notions. "Does this agree with what I already believe?"
Haha I meant I think we talked about this already.
Right 0.0 Sorry.
Still, coming from a slightly different angle now, I think. It is not surprising that several people from the same cultural background believe in roughly the same deity; as I argued based on bereavement hallucinations, believers may just invent their god because they expect it to be there, and so people from the same background would have similar expectations; although not necessarily exactly the same, which would coincidentally explain the disagreements on certain issues.
It would be truly intriguing if several cultures independently came up with Christianity or a very close form thereof, because that could indicate there might be a God inspiring all those people. This isn't the case, however, as we see wildly different belief systems all over the world. As I see it, this lends more credibility to gods being inventions of our minds rather than there being a single universal God.
The fact is that the Bible is many books that confirm each other in one way or another. May I also bring up the argument that the Bible is historically accurate?
Some aspects are, but that doesn't automatically mean that everything in the Bible is true. Even many Christians today claim that the Bible should not be taken literally. Take Noah's story for example; I can say with confidence that the Deluge and the animal pairing never happened.
