Forums → WEPR → The Religion Debate Thread

Sure. I consider biblical authorship important. It would be irresponsible if I didn't.

The conclusions of who actually wrote which books varies between denominations, the same as every other discrepancy, which you considered minor and all valid reflections of God's perfect will. Clearly it wouldn't make sense to say Moses both did and didn't write the books, since the stances are mutually exclusive, but, as you claimed, vagueness is part of God's plan, so conflicting conclusions are intentional. Either you care about accuracy, or you accept that God's vagueness is the message. You can't hold both stances without cognitive dissonance.

I do care about accuracy. Those who add the Apocryphal or whatever to the Bible are wrong. Other than that, different interpretations of the Bible are acceptable as long as the gospel is presented the same.

There is actually plenty of evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. First of all, you can tell by his style of writing that it reflects an Egyptian environment at the time it was written. This makes sense because Moses was adopted and raised by Egyptians.

I do care about accuracy. Those who add the Apocryphal or whatever to the Bible are wrong.

I do care about accuracy.

It does not reflect what was happening in Egypt at all. For example, anyone familiar with Egyptian life would know that the Nile turning blood red is an annual occurrence.

If you're trying to argue that Moses himself wrote the Pentateuch, you're going to need more evidence than "the author seems to have heard a bit about Egypt".

If you say Moses wrote it, you're taking a stance against the multitude of denominations that disagree. You can't take that stance and also claim that both sides propagate God's Will.

You can't take that stance and also claim that both sides propagate God's Will.

But it depends on which denominations you are talking about.

If "The Bible in all its variations and flaws account for God's will," that includes the variations you don't like. I see you keep going back to specific denominational sites in order to regurgitate their arguments. You can't hold that all variants are God's Will, and cower back to a shell of familiarity whenever it's convenient. What is your basis for favoring one denomination's views over another, if they're all valid extensions of God's will?

Well I guess I was wrong about "The Bible in all its variations and flaws".

"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."

"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."

"Yes, here we are again. A scumbag deity who only saves His very own chosen people under very specific conditions, and is completely oblivious to everyone else."

I'm sticking to all of the variations that makes sense to me.

This is due to cognitive bias. You've already got an idea of what you believe, so you gravitate toward the denominations that agree with you. This flawed reasoning mirrors the guidelines for constructing the bible in the first place.

With jehovah's Witnesses, I believe they're a separate religion though by the way.

With jehovah's Witnesses, I believe they're a separate religion though by the way.

Just curious as to why this is. I'm guessing it's because they reject trinitarianism. Though if you accept trinitarianism, that could be problematic since it's a straightforward logical contradiction (what many denominations like Catholicism identify as a 'divine mystery of faith').

but that doesn't mean I haven't looked at the evidence of which variations convey the right message.

Just curious as to why this is. I'm guessing it's because they reject trinitarianism. Though if you accept trinitarianism, that could be problematic since it's a straightforward logical contradiction (what many denominations like Catholicism identify as a 'divine mystery of faith')

"the right message" being the one you already agree with.