# Reading > Religious Texts >  Why do you believe in the Bible?

## Christian

Just wondering what reasons you other Christians may give for your belief in the word.

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Christian,

By 'believe in the bible', do you mean without question--absolute 100% certainty that the bible is the word of the one and only creator of the universe?

[For me, I don't. I think this notion is silly] 

Or do you mean that there are some common sense lessons that are imparted via the Bible, the Dhamapada, sacred scriptures of the Baha'i Faith and others?

[Because experience has shown me that there is wisdom in such ideas as: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" (Matthew 7:12). And: "But I say to you who listen: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you. . ." (Luke 6:27). They make sense, and are not rooted in paranormal mysticism. In my opinion they help guide us to true happiness here on earth, which it heaven.]

Naturally, being uncertain, I could be wrong.

----------


## kari

I agree, I am a bit uncertain how specific of a question you are asking. For myself, I mainly believe in the Bible because I believe Jesus is the Christ, son of God. Since the Bible supports that, there must be some good in it. Although, I also keep in mind that the Bible was recorded by people, and no person on earth is perfect. Therefore, at times I do come across something that slightly disagrees with me, or is unsettling. I don't rule out that idea that things were not recorded perfectly, maybe not how it was intended...or that translations were not perfect. Or that simply my mind can't get around the common interpretation of it, which may not be what was intended. So I guess I believe in a lot of it, the general idea of it, and what it promotes and tells. But I don't believe that it is 100&#37; accurate. I also don't believe it is the only written truth about God or Jesus. I believe that we can recognize truth, and it can be found in many places, many different ways. But the Bible is an easy reliable source, that's for sure.

----------


## Pendragon

Oh, the question is clear enough, don't cloud the waters, please! What reason do I give for believing in the Bible? Because there came a day in my life when the Bible was more than words on paper. Because one day words like "forgiveness", "mercy", "grace", "faith", "salvation", "heaven", "Jesus Christ", meant something to me on a spiritual level. Unless the words become true for you, I guess you don't know what I mean. If the words have become true for you, you know exactly that feeling.

----------


## weepingforloman

I believe in the Bible (I believe) because God has opened my eyes to it. Limited though my understanding may be, I at least recognize the validity of the Word because God has blessed me and showed me the way.

----------


## dzebra

I believe in the Bible because I am convinced it is the word of God.

----------


## Christian

Wintermute and Kari:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth" John 1:14

Here we can see the corporate nature of the word within the person of Jesus Christ and that both he and the word are one. You cannot select that which suits your own personal theology disregarding other aspects and then call yourself a believer. It does not work that way. 

"It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by *every* word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" Matt 4:4

----------


## mtpspur

I also believe the Bible to be the revealed word of God. I also believe that God is morewonderful, mysterious and loving to me every day. If something about the Bible displeases me the fault lies with me. Much like a child disagreeing with a parent without understanding his place in the scheme of things. I actually enjoy a God who insists He be believed and is v-e-r-y patient with doubters. My experence with unbelievers and rebeliious Christians is that they usually have a problem accepting a portion of the Bible that reflects less then stellar approval of their life as lived. Only by pride cometh contention and I believe that's the first sin that leads to all others with coveteousness a very close second.

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Christian,

*"You cannot select that which suits your own personal theology disregarding other aspects and then call yourself a believer. It does not work that way. "*

If you mean a believer in the Christian god, you are correct. I am not a believer. 

If you mean a believer in treating others as I would be treated, then you are wrong, because I do. If you mean a believer in turning the other cheek then you are wrong, because I do. If you mean a believer in love, then you are very wrong, because I do. 

I do not believe in some omnipotent sky daddy that was sitting in an empty void for infinity, then suddenly 13 billion years ago decided to create a really huge universe full of galaxies, star systems, and planets and then deposit humanity on a single little planet in the corner of one of billions of galexies. Then, realizing that things weren't going it's way decided to flood the entire planet killing all the babies and kids. Then, later, decided that it needed to send it's son to this little planet to get nailed to a cross in order to somehow allow these humans to enter a place called heaven to live for infinity.

I do believe that there is something amazing going on Christian. Something that is absolutely, breathtakingly amazing. I just don't think it's mean spirited and vengeful or for that matter cares much about this little planet in particular. We all like to feel special. I'm not convinced that we are.

----------


## Christian

The following is a parallel showing the mirror image of creation within the New Testament. It would help if those who read are reasonably literate within the Bible. However I have tried to give more explanatory detail, which may of course prove a distrction to the development to the parallel, so excuse my repeating an emphasizing points.

This is not about doctrine so much as it is about appreciating the symmetry of God's word, I hope it may increase your faith and desire to understand more.

---------------------------------------------------------

"In the beginning" God created the world in six days and on the seventh he rested

What is interesting is that when you look at the Genesis account one can see a pattern arise in the actions of God. In the first three days God creates the physical space. 

Day One : Night and Day
Day Two: The Firmament, The Sky
Day Three: Sea and Earth

Following onwards we can see that God proceeds to fill this space that he has now created

Day Four: He fills the night and day with the two great lights and the stars
Day Five: He fills the seas and heavens with fish and fowl
Day Six: He fills the earth with animals and Man

Man is the last creation in this account and in reading of it we see the same pattern coming to light

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7

So first God creates the physical form and then he fills this space. *Important Note : God breathed upon him*

But we know that Adam sinned and fell from grace. But God in is mercy, even though he passed judgment upon the sinners and earth, did nevertheless in the same strain declare a plan of redemption. "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel."

A redeemer was to come and a plan of redemption to be enacted. Jesus was to sacrifice his life as an atonement for our sins and then give to us his spirit so that his promise, given in Ezekial, may be fulfilled.

"A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them" Ezekial 36:26-7

When Jesus came upon the earth his ministry was to direct the peoples attention from the physical to the spiritual, they had been given a sanctuary, festivals, laws and prophets all witnessing of him as the Messiah and it was his desire that they should understand the spiritual lessons given by these means. He wanted them to understand that it was he that had life and he would give it to them if they would but believe, he was to give them this precise spirit spoken of in Ezekial.

We witness in the interview between Nicodemus and Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane this teaching being delivered to a leading Pharisee, and the importance of it.

"Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of *water* and of the *Spirit*, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" John 3:5

Now something remarkable is here related

The water here spoken of is baptism and the Spirit the second baptism. We see this baptism of the Spirit with the disciples on Pentecost where the Holy Spirit is represented by Fire.

This baptism was made possible by Jesus' sacrifice, for when we read in John 7:39

It states: (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

It would also appear as though this same cleansing process prescribed for man is also applied to the earth at large.

For the world has already been baptized by water and will one day, as we read in Revelation, be baptized by fire.

But it becomes even more interesting in that when Jesus was resurrected he returned to his disciples, the church so far formed, and *breathed* on them the Holy Ghost.

"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost" John 20:22

Here we see the parallel with Adam, and I'll develop this further.

This was the church so far formed just as God first formed Adam and we find within the New Testament that the church is referred to as a body.

"There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling" Ephesians 4:4

This body will continue to mature until the final day when Jesus returns and changes our corruptible bodies into incorruptible. 

So first he shall recreate his church(his people) spiritually then he shall recreate them physically at his second coming. They return to heaven with him, and reigning with Christ for a thousand years, returning thereafter to the earth for the final judgment.

Then God shall fill the earth with his fire and consume all sin away, ready for the recreation of the earth.

And so here I can give the synopsis of the overall parallel

A.The Lord in the first three days of creation created the physical space and then he filled it in the next six.
B. He forms Adam of the ground then he breathes his spirit upon him, filling him and giving him life

So he creates the physical then fills the physical and then with Adam he creates the physical and fills the physical

After the Cross

B. Jesus breathes the Holy Ghost upon his currently formed church, which develops and is transformed spiritually until the end and then each follower is recreated physically
A. Then in returning to the earth for the final judgment he fills the earth with fire(spirit) and then recreates it physically

So here we see the creation reversed and paralleled:

For he fills the physical body and then recreates it, and the same with the earth when he fills it and then recreates it.

-------------------------------------------------

I know that I have not managed to depict, as accurately as I would like, the beauty of this parallel. It is late and I must sleep but I wanted to show anyone the beauty of this inspired book (I'll edit and improve later). I hope I may by some means inspire you to search within God's word for this is much much more of this that it simply is not possible for man to have written this alone. 

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me" John 5:39

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi Christian,
> 
> *"You cannot select that which suits your own personal theology disregarding other aspects and then call yourself a believer. It does not work that way. "*
> 
> If you mean a believer in the Christian god, you are correct. I am not a believer. 
> 
> If you mean a believer in treating others as I would be treated, then you are wrong, because I do. If you mean a believer in turning the other cheek then you are wrong, because I do. If you mean a believer in love, then you are very wrong, because I do. 
> 
> I do not believe in some omnipotent sky daddy that was sitting in an empty void for infinity, then suddenly 13 billion years ago decided to create a really huge universe full of galaxies, star systems, and planets and then deposit humanity on a single little planet in the corner of one of billions of galexies. Then, realizing that things weren't going it's way decided to flood the entire planet killing all the babies and kids. Then, later, decided that it needed to send it's son to this little planet to get nailed to a cross in order to somehow allow these humans to enter a place called heaven to live for infinity.
> ...


One question, mon ami:

The first law of thermodynamics is that energy cannot be created or destroyed

Einstein's equation is E=MC squared.

Now when the universe was created, a massive amount of energy was needed. An incalculatable amount, using Einstein's equation, for first we must determine the mass of the universe to get the M for the equation, and how to do that, as the universe is still expanding? Then we would have to multiply that staggering number by the speed of light squared (another staggering number) to find this Energy, which could not be created nor destroyed. I.E., its still there. 

Now, I call that Energy source God, infinite, unable to be created or destroyed, having power beyond calculation. He who spoke something out of nothing, and it was. I didnt leave my science book behind me when I became a Christian. In things that science states, I still can find God.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## kari

Christian...You cannot select that which suits your own personal theology disregarding other aspects and then call yourself a believer. It does not work that way.

I do not personally select which suits me. Yes I am a believe in God, and Jesus Christ. But like I said before, I think we can recognize truth. Things are unsettling for me isn't because I just choose for it to be. I have a very strong relationship with God, and have trusted Him so far in my life. I wouldn't change that with the things I read just because you tell me I have to believe your way.

It bothers me that so many people (speaking more specifically geared towards the Christian religion) think it is is always a one clear cut way for everyone. Everyone wants to voice their individuality, everyone is taught (which I believe) is special, unique...different, and loved for it by God. But yet it is so hard for people to understand that some aspects of spirituality or religion can be different for different people, mean different things for different people...intentionally. If it isn't bad, and steering people away from God and down the wrong path....by definition, isn't it of God? All good comes from God. If I have a close relationship with God, am leading a good life, staying on the straight and narrow...who is anyone to say that they are not "full" or "complete" believers? Isn't that the point of any of it? To get you back to God? Just doesn't make sense to me why some people are so worried about you following the same way they do, rather than being joyful that someone else loves God, and is on that same path.

By the way...I am not mad or offended at anything...I just continually find this with every discussion I am ever in. Ironically, that "right" way to believe is always different in each discussion as well.

----------


## weepingforloman

Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." If we are to call ourselves Christians, we must believe what Christ said. If we are to believe what Christ said, we must believe this. If we must believe this, then we must disbelieve other "ways to God." Universalism is not an option for the Christian.

----------


## kari

I just said I do believe in Jesus Christ. And yes, I do believe you get to the Father through Him. I am not referring to that, which I was considering to fall under the pretty basic "requirements" of being a Christian. If you look at all the different sects that claim to be Christian based religions..within those sects, there is a million differences, "requirements", interpretations to the Bible. What does that mean to you? All I said before was when I read something in the Bible that is unsettling, I don't agree with what I know and understand it to mean, the way it is coming across to me at the point in time. That could be for several reasons that I listed. Just because I am not agreeing to say that other men aside from Christ were perfect, and could write a perfect account of what happened, a perfect record, or even translate the Bible perfectly...doesn't mean I don't believe in the Bible. What I don't believe in is others aside from Christ being perfect. And the Bible was written by other men. Yes, about Christ, but written by others. If you even pick a couple of different types of translations off a bookshelf today, and open to the same scriptures, the way they are written a lot of times means different things. At least certain scriptures, some very important, tend to imply different meanings, with simple word change. So which is right? Which is true? They are both Bibles read by probably a lot of Christians. I agree, to be a Christian and on the right path, you need to get to God through Jesus Christ. I was never disputing that. I do know what a Christian is. I also think that we are taught, even through scriptures, to turn to God when there is a question about some truth. And if I get my answer from Him, that what I am understanding from what I read, no matter the reason, it is not right. Wether it was translated incorrectly, recorded originally with a different intention in the meaning, or simply that I myself don't get it. Either way, you telling me I need to take anything without thought to be true, even the Bible...without God's validation, is never going to be something I will believe. It helps me, for myself, to weed through things that aren't important or true. In different churches, things said by different ministers, pastors, bishops,sunday school teachers, friends, and even scriptures. And in my eyes, I guess I don't see the problem? I mean, if what you read, the way you understand the scriptures is 100&#37; correct, then you shouldn't be worried about my ways and not being on the right path, because then God should lead me to understand them in the same manner. Right?

----------


## pantagathus

Hi, I have been doing some research into why some people are religious. In particular, I am investigating the hypothesis that religiious belief, is a form of 'madness' I have been writing an essay into the psychology of religious belief and irrationality. Would like your opinion this.

----------


## andrew23

This is history in the making baby!

1. At first there was no bible and there is lesser noise
2. Then came the bible
3. Bible tries to test man's faith
4. They say "God has given us free will so that we can choose between good and evil." Then Andrew examined the sentence..

Christians somehow provied consolation to those forsakened atheists by saying there is "free will." And that they can choose between Good and Evil. Or can they?

But first, what is "free will?" Let us try to define words first, since incorrectly defined words putted in a sentence, can dangerously mislead us. For example, we define apple as a dark inedible object, then someones says an apple is sweet. One can be mislead to these series of contradictions. You may say that the sentence is right, however the fact the word "apple" was incorrectly define nullifies the sentence, misleads people, and makes it ambiguous.

And since we have entered the realm of debate, and we want to extract the TRUTH, it is critically necessary that we use correct terms. For incorrect terms and erraneous definitions of it will certainly lead us to a place where truth is void and colorful lies (which are pleasing to the naive eyes of men) are abundant.

Back to defining "free will". What is free will anyway? They say free will is the ability to accept or reject something, to choose this or choose that, to think about this and think about that, and etc., and do this all conciously.

However what we do not understand is that "free will" is not an ability, it's not a mental magic power, it's not something that was given to you or can be given to any man.

What we thought of free will, as an ability, is simply being concious of what you will do and what you want to do. It is not an ability but simply a consciousness of your options. For example, I'm thinking about whether geting that black ballpen or getting that pencil. You see, you are only conscious about what you are thinking and what you want to do. However, what actions you will do in life is left to be determined by various factors and forces around this cosmos. So then, which is more likely, do I get the ballpen or pencil, since I am for example sketching a draft, it is more probable that I'll be getting the pencil instead of the ballpen.

For this fact, we realize that "free will" isn't what we thought to be. It isn't an ability or some mental magic power. It is only a fancy term made by man to make us somehow feel powerful and have control to our destiny.

And speaking of our destiny, I am afraid we cannot choose our destiny, for it is left in the structure of nature what we will be going to be in the future. 

However we have developed this state of consciousness after many years. We can see colors with our eyes, we can hear beautiful music with our ears, we can smell the fragrance of fresh flowers. And we may not be able to control our destiny but we can somehow enjoy this life being conscious of what is happening to us. I expect someone will argue and brag to me that can't we control our destiny of being hit by an asteriod? I have already told you, it's all about forces and factors, including our present technology, and our planetary knowledge and labor. What will happen will ultimately happen. Now I know you'll also say "If what you're saying is true, then I cannot even choose what I will think?!". It's funny but that's the truth. What you think is induced by your environment, both internal and external. It's quite simple if you will think about it, it ain't that a complex idea. But that doesn't mean that you will stucked there and you can't think anymore because you can't choose what you want to think. You're brain is intelligent enough (courtesy of evolution) to maintain balance in your body, and accept again incoming stimulus in your environment. That's why no matter how you cover your ears, you'll still hear your mother knocking on the door during morning hehehe.

"God has given us free will so that we can choose between good and evil." Let us examine this sentence again..

a. free will isn't an ability, it's not a magic mental power that is given to anyone. it is only a term used to describe that consciousness what you are thinking and what you are going to do. free will is a process inside our anatomical and physiological body.

b. therefore, saying that god has given us free will is illogical, invalid, or worst..stupid .

c. free will won't let us choose between good and evil, because free will isn't an ability. and we cannot really choose anything in this world, for all that will happen in this world is only determined by certain factors and forces.

d. if free will is a term used to describe a process, and is not an ability, then it doesn't exist, but is only a term used to describe the process inside us. And if "free will" doesn't exist, God never has never really given as "free will", for how can you give something that doesn't exist? And therefore, there was no really test given at all.

e. there was never "free will" as you have thought. there is only a misconception of it. this misconception enables many to believe that they can choose between good and evil, and somehow they feel life's a big adventure or something hehe. however we cannot really choose what will do in life and what we are going to be. all is determined by certain forces and factors.

f. but as i have said, what will happen will happen. some will believe in bible and some will not. some will be wise and some people are really meant to be foolish. but it is not their fault. it's just destiny. only certain factors and forces have molded them into their very present souls (what i meant by soul is their character, it's not something spiritual hehe).

g. infact no one is to blame for what all that is happening to the world. we must not blame anything or anyone. "blame" is another misconception like "free will". people are meant to commit mistakes, but these mistakes make us human beings better. for we can learn from our mistakes and somehow proceed to the attempt of making things better, which wasn't fullfilled at the time of the mistake.

the emotion of "blaming" another person is simply a reaction of the body to the annoyment that was made at any certain circumstance. it somehow occurs to maintain stability in our body. it's rather a result of misunderstanding.

h. and surely one of the most undesirable things in this world is misundestanding. we must understand each other. we must reach out our hands to each other. we must feel each other. we must become one. we must become one in our hearts. cause what is happening with the world is division. races fighting against each other, religion against religion, clan versus clan. let's put all the pieces of the world into a one whole complete body. we can never be one with god, for he doesn not exist. but we can be all one interconnected species. let us all be one!


5.We realized the fact that there's no such thing as a "test". Test is an illusion. We cannot choose what we like. All is determined by mere forces and factors. What you will eat and what you will say is determined simply by mere forces and factors. Therefore, a test cannot used to determine the end of man, for it is illogical. Some people are more likely to be bad, and some are more likely to be good. It's all about factors and forces shaping us into our inevitable destiny. It's all about chances. And if God is that powerful as what people claims him to be, he should know about all this. In other words, he doomed some men to hell haha  :FRlol:  
6. However you realize there's an alternative story in this. God didn't really doomed some men to hell. For God never really did exist, and there is really no hell..
7. We realize how precious we are to have come up at this great moment..after endless years of molding...the triumph of life  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Gadget Girl

I believe in the Bible. That is where God tells us the whole story of the truth. The story which and only we should believe.

----------


## kari

wow andrew. That was an bit of an interesting read...but I admit, I skimmed most of it. A bit too long for my attention span this early in the morning. But I did have a couple of things pop out at me. In your theories...why would some people be destined to be "bad". First, what are the certain forces and facters that determine everything? And then what is the point of it? Also, if we don't have free agency, why do we make mistakes? To me, that would be a bit dumb to be some great force and predestine everything, but factor in a bunch of mistakes. But then how are people without choices able to make mistakes? Doesn't make sense to me. It looked to me like there was a bit of contradicting theories going on in there?

----------


## andrew23

:Smile:  hey there kari, sorry it was long, i needed to predefine words first before proceeding to lay statements for utmost preciseness of my thoughts.

1. some people are destined to be bad due to certain factors and forces (or F and F). examples of those F and F are their community, their friends, the people around them, the things they watch and they read.
2. certain factors and forces that determines everything is a bit too long to put in this site. you see, it's like i have to explain every single event in this world. so then i'll just talk about a particular thing, for example, what factors and forces determine the nature of a person. i have already answered it in no.1
3. what's the point of it. there's simply no point in it. 
4. why do we make mistakes. because this world isn't a perfect world. this is rather a world of continues progression and change. mistakes makes something better. mistakes musn't be taken as a negative notion therefore.
5. Yes you're right we are quite dumb. There's stupidity all the time. Many people die all the time due to mistakes and dumbness. However, we learn from mistakes, and it is slowly making human beings better. Just imagine how much is the progression since Ice Age hehe. 
6. How are people without choices able to make mistakes. People don't need to force themselves to make a mistake, it just happens all the time due to certain F and F. For example, if I am about to answer what was the middle name of Einstein, there's large probability that I'll make a mistake by guessing. The factor involving is my present knowledge disposition.
7. It does not make sense to you? Why? These are rather easy to comprehend and shallow ideas to ponder. It will make sense once you understand it. Just as you'll cry when you felt a deep pain.
8. Contradiction was absent in my post. What was contradicting are my statements and your incorrect notion of it.
9. My neck hurts. I think I need to sleep and dream about something. (Like sitting in the crescent moon while gazing on those beautiful twinkling stars.)

----------


## Pendragon

Major contradiction: 




> however we cannot really choose what will do in life and what we are going to be. all is determined by certain forces and factors.





> but we can be all one interconnected species. let us all be one!


If the first is true, that we cannot really choose (i.e. free will is illusion), then the second cannot take place. We cannot choose to do it, to unite in a common cause, by your first statement. Logic dictates the world is doomed.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## kari

While I agree that our environments affect us, how we think, act...I am not really on the same page as you with all else. Especially having no free agency. I believe that I had the choice to write this response, or not really care enough to...I don't think it was predestined for me to write this. But however, I do believe in a "force" or power greater than us, but I think of it as God rather than our environments. Also, I believe that God gives us free agency in our life, but knows us so well, well enough to already know every choice we are going to make, mistakes and all. I don't think that the environment and people around us is the strongest "force". And as for their being no point in anything...what would be your purpose of sharing your beliefs? I think it would be quite sad, for myself, to try and live through life with the idea or notion that it is all pointless. Why bother trying to do anything then? Why bother getting in relationships with people, reading those books, or being a part of our environments? I think if you look at people who truly, deep down inside, really believe that life is pointless...you can tell by comparing their happiness to someone who believes quite the opposite. So, if you think about it...even if you really do believe it is all pointless, why not believe the opposite anyways to lead a happier life, feeling full of purpose while alive, rather than nothing waiting for death? It just doesn't make sense to me. I am not really saying to be happy you have to believe in God (although I believe that for myself), I am referring to your idea of it all just being pointless.

Penn, that is the type of contradiction I was meaning. I still don't agree that we make mistakes due to anything but our own faults really. If andrew chose to name Einstein's middle name, he doesn't have to most likely be wrong because of his "present knowledge disposition". Anyone can choose to look the answer up before guessing, and know the name instead. Or simply just say you don't know. Don't just guess then? And Andrew...human's are getting better? Yikes! Technology is becoming more advanced, I agree to that extent. But I don't think that our news channels, newspaper articles are saying people in general are getting better. Unless you think how horrible a lot of people treat eachother is better. Anyways, I will stop now!

----------


## byquist

In terms of critical thinking, as well as intuitive feeling, it is unsurpassed, although there is a lot to wade through as well.

----------


## crazefest456

I believe the bible exists (although I'm not Christian...am I allowed to post here?) because it is a real part of history, among other divine texts. Its revisions do not make it unreal. I respect that its original form had a good, true message about how a person should go about life.

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Pendragon,

*"Now, I call that Energy source God, infinite, unable to be created or destroyed, having power beyond calculation. He who spoke something out of nothing, and it was."*

I'm ok with that. The problem, naturally (and I shall not dwell on it because there are no answers), is where did God come from? Surely some form of energy must have been necessary to create it, no? Kinda causes an issue with science, doesn't it?

I do think something amazing is going on Pen, I just think it is much more than an old man (male) in the clouds somwhere telling me homosexuality is evil, shaving is bad, and I am doomed to eternal torment if I don't accept 100&#37; that a human was his son and god nailed to a cross to somehow forgive my sins. It just makes no sense to me.

The human fear of death does make sense to me. I see the idea of heaven in the christian sense as man's evolved mythology to help buffer this natural fear.

----------


## Pendragon

> Hi Pendragon,
> 
> *"Now, I call that Energy source God, infinite, unable to be created or destroyed, having power beyond calculation. He who spoke something out of nothing, and it was."*
> 
> I'm ok with that. The problem, naturally (and I shall not dwell on it because there are no answers), is where did God come from? Surely some form of energy must have been necessary to create it, no? Kinda causes an issue with science, doesn't it?
> 
> I do think something amazing is going on Pen, I just think it is much more than an old man (male) in the clouds somwhere telling me homosexuality is evil, shaving is bad, and I am doomed to eternal torment if I don't accept 100% that a human was his son and god nailed to a cross to somehow forgive my sins. It just makes no sense to me.
> 
> The human fear of death does make sense to me. I see the idea of heaven in the christian sense as man's evolved mythology to help buffer this natural fear.


Shaving is bad? Scripture, please. You may note that I sport a mustache and often a beard. 2 Samuel 10: [2] Then said David, I will shew kindness unto Hanun the son of Nahash, as his father shewed kindness unto me. And David sent to comfort him by the hand of his servants for his father. And David's servants came into the land of the children of Ammon.
[3] And the princes of the children of Ammon said unto Hanun their lord, Thinkest thou that David doth honour thy father, that he hath sent comforters unto thee? hath not David rather sent his servants unto thee, to search the city, and to spy it out, and to overthrow it?
[4] Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
[5] When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.

This would seem to indicate that the men were shamed by having their beards shaven. So where does it say you cannot shave? Or are you refering to this: Leviticus 21: 
[1] And the LORD said unto Moses, Speak unto the priests the sons of Aaron, and say unto them, There shall none be defiled for the dead among his people:
[2] But for his kin, that is near unto him, that is, for his mother, and for his father, and for his son, and for his daughter, and for his brother,
[3] And for his sister a virgin, that is nigh unto him, which hath had no husband; for her may he be defiled.
[4] But he shall not defile himself, being a chief man among his people, to profane himself.
[5] They shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard, nor make any cuttings in their flesh.

For a different reason entirely. A type of morning ceremony in which the people among whom the Isrealites lived did for the dead, involving head shaving, beard shaping, and cutting the flesh. Not in every day life, where you certainly may choose how you wish to look. I don't blame some people for shaving their heads, it looks much more natural than a ridiculous and obvious comb-over. I am afraid I do not agree with homosexuality, I find it abnormal as it cannot produce children, but I have friends who are that way. I am not their judge and I will judge not. It isn't for me to say. The Bible does condemn it, yes. But I am not God, I judge no one. 

God Bless

Pen

Call me Dale, Winter. I think you earned the right.






> Hi Pendragon,
> 
> *"Now, I call that Energy source God, infinite, unable to be created or destroyed, having power beyond calculation. He who spoke something out of nothing, and it was."*
> 
> I'm ok with that. The problem, naturally (and I shall not dwell on it because there are no answers), is where did God come from? Surely some form of energy must have been necessary to create it, no? Kinda causes an issue with science, doesn't it?


Sorry about splitting these up, but they were two different issues, really. Yes, it makes a problem anytime you make a statement as I did that that force was God. Then comes the question of who or what created God, despite the original scientific premise that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If I substitute "Big Bang" in the place of "God", no one is going to question what created the "Big Bang" they will simply refer back to the first law of theromodynamics. I must conclude therefore, that it is not a mistake in the reasoning, nor in the equation, but merely that people are convinced that God is impossible, so no amount of using their own science will make them see any different. 

Some would perhaps say that this can be expected due to years of working with flawed data concerning God. They are quick to jump on every difference between science and The Bible, or any other Holy Writings. If the Bible had never been written, there would remain enough evidence for God in what we know about the world.

God Bless

Dale

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Dale,

I'm Doug. It was actually Lev 19:27 I was referring to. But my point is not the details of the specifc dogma. It is that by my logic, something much more amazing is going on in the universe than a God that would concern its self with these types of details--that it would in fact treat our planet as though it were special amongst the gazillions. It a very natural human desire to be 'special' or 'chosen'. It's also very human to fear death. Can you imagine our early ancestors sitting around the cave watching a loved one pass away, and knowing that thier fate would be the same? To deal with that eventuality it would be absolutely natural to imagine a wonderful afterlife. Then, naturally, when someone does you a serious wrong, it would be nice if they were condemed to someplace a little less wonderful.

Dale, I just think (and as an agnostic, I could be dead wrong) that when and if we survive our human condition (don't nuke ourselves or consume ourselves with our greed) we will find that the truth is much, much more amazing and wonderful than the Christian (insert any other human religion here), imagines.

It's great discussing things with you by the way Dale. Cheers.

Well Hi again, hehe,

"If I substitute "Big Bang" in the place of "God", no one is going to question what created the "Big Bang" they will simply refer back to the first law of theromodynamics."

Not me. My first degree is in Mechanical Engineering. Thermodynamics is 50% of the curriculum. All of the thermodynamic laws refer to closed systems. No one knows if the universe is closed (contained) or not, therfore the laws can not be applied.

By my logic there should be nothing, just a big black, empty void. Physicists can refer to 10 dimesions splitting to 6 and 4, or a vacuume imploding on itself to creat energy/matter, etc., But all one needs to do is take another step back and ask where did that come from-the vacuum, the 10 dimensions, and so on? That's why I think whatever is really going on is unknowable and so I remain an agnostic.

Doug

----------


## andrew23

pendragon,

think,

remove my statement no.1, i admit that was a mistake, however it's so easy to remove that weak arguement.

after this clarification, other statements are still unmoved.

and we're back on the track..

imagine, this thread is a bloody arena, we're knights fighting with our swords called "words". hehehe this is exciting..

----------


## kari

Wintermute...did you ever wonder if the amazing thing happening is truly God, but that people in general misunderstand a lot about Him? Or are somehow lacking quite a bit? And maybe that limitation or lack of info portrays God in a lesser light for you, rather than what He really is. Sometimes when I read your comments, you think a lot of the same things I do...only I consider God to be the amazing thing happening. But like you, I think He doesn't care so much about the little details. I've stated before, it doesn't have to be so hard to love God and try your best. Anyways, just wondering if you have ever thought about that before.

And Andrew...I'm not so sure I would like to refer to gospel related discussions as a bloody arena, and fighting.

----------


## Wintermute

Hey Kari,

"Wintermute...did you ever wonder if the amazing thing happening is truly God, but that people in general misunderstand a lot about Him?"

Yep, I sure did, and still do. 'Wonder' is a good word. Certainty is a bad word.  I am not certain of anything. It's possible, though not probable in my opinion, that a thinking entity similar to the one described in the bible created the universe. The problem with that is what created it? Christians will say something like, "God is eternal, he lives outside the bindings of time. Time has no meaning to God." All I can say to something like that is, "perhaps."

Assigning a gender to it makes me very nervous. Why would we assume God has a penis? Penises are used for urinating and sex, and testicles produce hormones and semen. Why would the creator of the universe need such utility? This seems like a very human construct to me. Naturally, I could be very, very wrong.

----------


## Pendragon

> pendragon,
> 
> think,
> 
> remove my statement no.1, i admit that was a mistake, however it's so easy to remove that weak arguement.
> 
> after this clarification, other statements are still unmoved.
> 
> and we're back on the track..
> ...


I am thinking Andrew, and have been for more than twice as long as you have been alive. I'm afraid removing the first point won't solve your problem.

Point (b) depends on point (a), already shown by your own admission to be a weak argument. 

Points (c), (d), and (e) are also predominately given strength on the premise of (a) being true. 

Point (f) begins to hold more solid matter, but you end it with a slur at others, something no debater who wishes to be taken seriously should do. It is not needed to down another to prove them wrong.

Point (g) is a good explanation of the "blame factor". Well done. But you slip the old "free will" argument back in there.

Point (h) is certainly where we want to be, yes. I advocate it myself. Break down barriers, learn to focus on agreement instead of disagreements, and all row in the same direction. It is not likely to happen, but it is the ideal world.

(5, 6, 7) I would not be so quick to laugh at hell. An underworld of punishment is in every religion and among every people. My own Native American ancestors spoke of the Dark Lands. You are literally betting everything that there is no hell. Big bet. 

This is life, a triumph for some, perhaps, I am positive that in your own country there are those who live a day to day life they would consider not a triumph but a curse.

God Bless

Dale (Pendragon)

----------


## kari

wintermute-
That is why I say I believe in the Bible, but yet have my own opinions about certain things as well, as I feel it is not perfect (truthwise) in its entirety. You may be interested in reading a mormon doctrine (that is a bit deeper than those taught to "new members" or those reading up on it). I am not even for sure exactly where you would find it in scriptures (BoM), I just know about it. I am guessing though with a bit of research online, you would find lots of info...but there is a doctrine (is that the word?) or explanation as to where God came from, in sort of an ongoing cycle. I was very active in the mormon (or LDS) church for 6 years, it is interesting to know...but for myself, it has been a bit hard for me to fully accept it I guess. Let me know if you need help finding the info...but I am guessing if I post anything about it, everyone would go nuts with trying to prove/disprove..convert me to other ideas (wether I stated I believe it or not).

----------


## andrew23

just wondering. in heaven..

in some point of this endless eternity, won't there come a point in time where you're tired of it?

just my thought this day,, what do you think,,

----------


## dzebra

Wintermute, 

In regards to God being called male, the Jewish tradition was very patriarchal in nature, so part of why God is called "He" is because God fulfilled the role of what men in the culture did: he guided and protected his people.

But God also has female attributes. In the beginning, when God created Adam and Eve, "in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."

Also, Jesus, who was God in flesh said "I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings," which is feminine, but still shows Godliness.

So though God is called "He," doesn't mean God is strictly male. And God is spirit, so I'm not sure that he has a penis...

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Kari,

"I was very active in the mormon (or LDS) church for 6 years, it is interesting to know...but for myself, it has been a bit hard for me to fully accept it I guess."

I tend to get hooked on authors. I'm currently reading Orson Scott Card who's a SF writer of some acclaim (a couple of Hugo awards). He also hails from an LDS background and has apparently written about his experiences. I haven't read them yet but I intend to--along with a Sylvia Browne book I ordered a couple of days ago at your suggestion 8-).

One of the coolest things about being alive, in my opinion, is being able to share ideas about life and the universe with other folks. I am so glad that I've chosen an agnostic path, because it allows me to entertain any theory or idea without a need to protect or defend my own beliefs. I see some of this in your postings too. Thanks.

----------


## Wintermute

Howdy dzebra,

"So though God is called "He," doesn't mean God is strictly male. And God is spirit, so I'm not sure that he has a penis..."

I see your point, well said. 

It's kind of interesting that some of the more vocal critics of the possibility of extraterrestrial life seem to be religious folks. I mean, can't God and Jesus be considered extraterrestrials?

"When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." Matthew 2:9

Dzebra, do you think humans, assuming they don't destroy themselves, and setting aside the possibility of rapture, will some day advance technologically and medically the othe point where they are immortal? It was about a hundred years ago that Frank and Orville flew a few hundred yards in NC. Today, we have rovers exploring Mars! In just 100 years. I wonder where we'll be in say 1000 years, or 10,000 years? Just some nutty thoughts, hehe.

----------


## kari

That would be scary! I personally don't think that would happen. I am thinking impossible...simply because it doesn't fit into what I feel is our purpose on earth. So if that did happen, it would make me have to rethink a lot of things!

----------


## kari

Okay, I had to look up agnosticism. LOL! I have read a lot about gnositc beliefs, and somehow was thinking they were related? Anyways...I would have to say, after reading about it...not so sure I would fall under that catagory? As I do have a strong belief that there is God, I can see his workings in my own life. But after being involved in a very "strict" church (in the sense of what is considered to be righteous, what isn't), I have learned quite a bit. We were even instructed on details down to how many earrings we could wear. So while I was doing everything possible (happily, and without regret- I have always had the strong desire to be "good"), my life was not turning out to be as blissful as I was expecting. My Temple experience (if you read up on it, mormons can only enter Temple if worthy to do so by following doctrines) was not at all what I was expecting. I grew up a bit more, got married, had two children...and you see things through different eyes. That is why I always say you need different things at different times in your life to keep you uplifted. The church had been wonderful for me at that time, but then when I hit a different period in my life, it no longer fit. But God still did. Anyways, that is why I guess I am "skeptical" (word used in agnostic definition) about people knowing specific details about the Gospel. You know, the ones that vary with each sect of Christianity. I just don't think we are even suppose to know, that is all to come. And for people who say the Bible is 100&#37; acurate...I don't think that they consider some things when claiming that. For example, people from other Christian sects might be surprised to know that according to LDS church, there are quite a few scriptures within the Bible that actually support the Book of Mormon, I believe even the prediction of it coming out of obscurity. I will garauntee that most Christians would start huffing at that. There are SO many interpretations of just one scripture, I have a hard time believing that same personal thinking wasn't involved in any manner while writing or translating. Granted, yes it is divine, yes it teaches so many wonderful things...but scriptures in general are a personal thing, I don't expect the writer or translators of the many different versions of the Bible to be miraculously void of that. That said, I am skeptical that makes me agnostic! LOL! By the way Wintermute...you may be very interested in reading a book I have read called The Secret Magdalene by Ki Longfellow. This book explains the initial Gnostic beliefs of the first Christians so well. I have read about them before, but never understood it like I did after reading this book. This is stuff that really makes me think. It definitely falls in line with the thinking that Christians really have something, but it may be greatly misunderstood. I think you would like the book.

----------


## Pendragon

> Howdy dzebra,
> 
> "So though God is called "He," doesn't mean God is strictly male. And God is spirit, so I'm not sure that he has a penis..."
> 
> I see your point, well said. 
> 
> It's kind of interesting that some of the more vocal critics of the possibility of extraterrestrial life seem to be religious folks. I mean, can't God and Jesus be considered extraterrestrials?
> 
> "When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was." Matthew 2:9
> ...


Here's an interesting thought, this was just before the Tower of Babal:

Gen.11
[6] And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Are we not getting back to where people begin to speak a Universal Language, how that was chosen to be English, I am not certain, for English has so many idioms and irregular verbs. Esperanto was a better choice but people refused to learn it. Makes one think though.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Wintermute

Kari,

The Secret Magdalene by Ki Longfellow sounds really intersting! I just checked out the web site, and I'm sold. Next stop Amazon.com, hehe. Thank you.

To me agnostic is synonymous with uncertain. Most everyone I talk to has different ideas of what's really going on. Like heaven. Ask ten of your friends to describe what they think heaven is like. Ask for specifics. Ask them if they will remember their time on earth in the afterlife. Ask them if their pets will be heaven. You will almost certainly get ten different visions. Now extrapolate this to all the religions and cultures on our little planet. If you imagine other worlds existing, you can take this even further. It just seems logical to me that with so many possibilites, the chances of one amongst so many being the absolute, 100% certain truth, is so small.

One of the great 19th century poets said something like: "We all circle around and suppose, while the truth sits in the middle and knows..."

Doug

----------


## Wintermute

Hi Dale,

"Are we not getting back to where people begin to speak a Universal Language, how that was chosen to be English, I am not certain, for English has so many idioms and irregular verbs. Esperanto was a better choice but people refused to learn it. Makes one think though."

Yeah, I think the very vehicle we're using to discuss this amazing universe is a prime mover towards a common language--the internet. 

I speak Norwegian (lived there for 13 years), but I can say with certainty that every one in Norway under the age of 50 or so can speak English. Many of them have stronger vocabularies than folks I come into contact with daily in the US. Conversely, I was in Italy last year for a couple of weeks, and I was struck by the number of people in their 30's and 40's who had virtually no spoken English skills. I imagine their reading skills are probably a bit better.

----------


## brainstrain

> just wondering. in heaven..
> 
> in some point of this endless eternity, won't there come a point in time where you're tired of it?
> 
> just my thought this day,, what do you think,,


Hmm, looks like you've been ignored in the discussion  :Frown:  . But first - it's Darth Vader (that was really bothering me  :Tongue:  ).

Well, that's something I've often pondered. The proper Christian explanation would probably be along the lines of 'We could not possibly hope to comprehend the happiness and contentment of heaven'.

It's a beautiful thought. But honestly, I'd really rather not live forever. Just give me a few decades and be done with it  :Biggrin: . I doubt the most Christians can fully comprehend eternity. I've heard entire lessons preached on the subject, and it was apparent the speaker didn't quite grasp the concept. By it's nature, you can't fully grasp eternity, but the concept is quite well within reach.

Even with reincarnation, which has always been quite appealing to me, you'd run out of fun animals to reincarnate as eventually (I know that's not how it works, that's just my idealized interpretation of it).

----------


## dzebra

I've thought about what it'd take to live forever. Machinery can take the place of most body parts when they get too worn out to function. I wonder how long the human heart can continue to beat. Even with a pacemaker, it probably has a limit. I wonder if the brain will be able to last an eternal lifetime. Then, it also may come to the point of "what all does 'life' entail?" I don't know enough about biology to have much of a discussion about that.

Anyway, I doubt humans' capability to last long enough to reach that technology. Maybe it's because I'm a US citizen, but it seems that capitalism promotes selfishness, which leads to dependency on self, which creates conflicting interests between people, and then it eventually spirals downhill.

That's all mostly a rant. My final answer is: if the world could all cooperate, then I think technology could be advanced enough to provide very very long lives to the people with money and power. But, since power corrupts (usually), then this would cause greater corruption, since the powerful would live longer, then humans would increase the probability of destroying themselves.

I don't know.

----------


## kari

Exactly wintermute. People are interpretting scriptures (or just their own ideas really) so differently. I don't even doubt that many of the different religions and Gods that are worshipped are somehow even all related into one big picture, and that in some way, each of our ideas about purpose, life, afterlife is right. I think we are suppose to focus on faith, and believe, and follow...just be a good person. Too much emphasis is on what will happen, too many debates. When really, no one can say for sure. And really, if you have faith in God and that you will be blessed for doing so, you should have faith and trust that the afterlife will be worth it. That should be enough for people (not that I don't wonder what it will be like or anything). No matter of the different ideas, I don't think any of us will be disappointed.

----------


## Wintermute

Dzebra,

"I don't know."

The perfect answer for an agnostic! 

The immortality question can be extended outward. Consider the size of the universe--I won't go into the billions of galaxies full of billions of star systems, etc. But, there are indeed lots and lots of galaxies and stars that are billions of years older than our little solar system. Suppose a few of these did get past the greed stage, found forms of free energy, developed medical technology to the point of being able to live forever if desired, etc. They have a million year advantage in technology from us! Isn't immortality one of the properties many humans assign to their gods? Isn't an eternal, utopian existance the core of many ideas of heaven?

I understand that this is pure speculation. But to my limited mind, a scenario like this is much more probable than a humanoid (in his image) sitting in a total void for eternity (because infinity goes both ways, forward and backward) and then suddenly deciding to create a universe for some undefined purpose about 13 billion (+- a billion) years ago. Then, a while later, impregnating a human so that her child could eventually be nailed to a cross to fix something that it already knew was going to happen. It just doesn't make any sense to me! I know we all need hope, and love. But surely this is possible without all the paranormal stuff?

Anyway, enough of this. Hehe, We've strayed very far from Christian's original intent for this thread. This seems to always happen in religious discussions.

----------


## Pendragon

I was just thinking the same thing, Winter. Why do we always stray so far from the point on these discussions is something that amazes me, and worse, I find myself in the middle of it often enough!

I will just reiterate my point on Christians question: Because The Bible came to mean more than words on paper to me. I do not take everything literally, but I don't think arguments over what the Bible means or does not mean to be productive to Christian life. Jesus was a simple man who taught a simple message, he found time for everyone but those who thought their lives untouchably righteous, whom He condemned for hypocrisy

God Bless

Pen.

----------


## Thinkerr

I believe the Bible for slightly different reasons. First of all it is THE most accurate book ever written. If your in Lit class at college, you don't hear the prof say that the Homer could be inaccurate about Troy. But we only have 7 copies, all made 100+ years after the original! The Bible has 10,000+ copies made 20 years after the original. That must provide a much greater amount of authenticity than any other ancient text. For instance, the Koran used to have many variant versions, but most were destroyed when an emir burned an opposing emir's city to the ground including one of the largest libraries ever known.

----------


## Etienne

> I believe the Bible for slightly different reasons. First of all it is THE most accurate book ever written. If your in Lit class at college, you don't hear the prof say that the Homer could be inaccurate about Troy. But we only have 7 copies, all made 100+ years after the original! The Bible has 10,000+ copies made 20 years after the original. That must provide a much greater amount of authenticity than any other ancient text. For instance, the Koran used to have many variant versions, but most were destroyed when an emir burned an opposing emir's city to the ground including one of the largest libraries ever known.


 :Rolleyes:  The lit class teacher doesn't talk about the Iliad being inaccurate probably only because he doesn't approach the book with an historical perspective, but a literary one. Or he/she is simply ignorant. Same applies to the Bible. And no, the Bible wasn't written 20 years after Jesus either. It was written by different people at different times and then compiled arbitrarily by other people after that. And while the Bible is a good source for historical information but mostly as clues (for example they refer to a certain people living at a certain place about whom information is very scarce, and sometimes non-existant), it shouldn't at all be read as an historical book. Just like the Iliad, it provides clues (who all need double-check anyways) and shouldn't be read as to be historical.

And that's only for the historical part of the Bible, let's not even get to the mystic part.

Your arguments are quite weak for such a statement as yours...

----------


## Wintermute

> Your arguments are quite weak for such a statement as yours...


I couln't agree more Etienne, thanks. There is a well written book, "Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", by Bart D. Ehrman. I have read several rebuttals to Mr. Ehrman's work, but none show nearly the depth of reasearch and authenticity as his. 

In my opinion the bible, as most spiritual texts do, provides folks with hope. Hope that there is something to look forward to after death. Its easy to sympathize with these people and share thier fears of death--I know I do.

----------


## Pendragon

And if one does not fear death, for there are those of us who must live in constant daily battle with our own bodies or minds, there are worse things than death, mon ami, what then? What reasoning do you think you could give for an obviously intelligent person who knows well how to think things through, would still choose God over anything else?

----------


## Dark Star

In cases such as that it often tends to happen that the religion manifests itself at a young age before rational thinking comes into play and people aren't willing to give it up later on and thus start coming up with reasons for believing in such a thing (although I've yet to see a good one).

As Michael Shermer says, smart people are good at coming up with excuses and explanations for ridiculous ideas.

----------


## dzebra

I argue that people who are capable of rational thinking would freely give up something they are not convinced is true. The people who argue for the truth of a religion are the ones who are convinced the religion is right. These people have done the rational thinking and come to that conclusion.

Suppose a child is born into a Christian family. He is taught Christianity since birth. He reaches an age when he is able to make his own decisions. At this point, he either thinks and becomes convinced that Christianity is right, or he thinks and becomes convinced the Christianity is false, or he doesn't think about it.

The people who took one of the last two ways will not offer reasons as to why Christianity is true. Sometimes, the third person (the one who did not think about it) will continue to do some of the physical actions commonly associated with the religion, but without fully believing it, he will not defend its truth.

I say all this to make the point that even if someone is born into a family that teaches them things from birth, I don't think it ultimately affects whether or not they come up with reasons they believe. The people with their own reasons are the ones that would have believed anyway.

The smart people who are good at coming up with excuses are also smart people who truly and rationally believe what they are defending.

----------


## Etienne

> I argue that people who are capable of rational thinking would freely give up something they are not convinced is true. The people who argue for the truth of a religion are the ones who are convinced the religion is right. These people have done the rational thinking and come to that conclusion.


This argument could also mean that they are not capable of rational thinking. And if you believe that there is only rational thinking involved, then you are deluding yourself. It's emotional conclusion, followed by rational thinking trying the best it can to justify the emotional conclusion. Don't forget the fathers of the Church Tertullian saying: "Credo quia absurdum" or "I believe because it's absurd". Rational thinking of religion came after it's metaphysical conclusions had been set. The rational thinking (there has been plenty) has always been in view of it's preconceived conclusions, so you can say that it's false rationality.

----------


## mazHur

Rational thinking in matters of religion-any religion--goes in creating ''fundamentalists' . One believes in Bible because he's born and brought up in a Christian family, dinned about Bible all the time, and made to believe it. If one studies the Bible with rational approach he'll find it no more than a book of fables and literary juggling. Most of the things in it are beyong rationale, logic or commonsense.

----------


## Etienne

Well philosophy developed in the Middle-Ages around religious thinking so it's possible to have rational thinking in religion, but most premises will be irrational, so the premises and by extension, the conclusion will be irrational.

----------


## mazHur

I agree

----------


## dzebra

I disagree. I think that belief in the Bible can be completely rational. It may be even more rational than not believing in the Bible. To tie this in to the original post, part of the reason I believe in the Bible is that it is consistent with what can be observed and it is logically sound.

----------


## Midas

Haven't read all the posts in this thread, and, usually I do not join in religious debate as I found it invarioubly leads nowhere except to prove what we already know - people will believe, unshakingly, in that which some singular circumstance has brought to them their reason for being.

However I noticed how the word 'bible' was immediately assumed to mean the New Testament. The Old Testament is the basis of both the Judaism, and its offshoot Christianity.

Christ, only appears in the New Testament which is more or less based on His teachings. However, and please correct me if I am wrong, Christ was a Jew, and not only a Jew but a Rabbi who preached in the Temple. He would have preached from the Old Testament.

Nowhere have I read that His mission was to start a new religion. As I understand from my research, and assuming the written records of His life only go back to some years after His stated death and were written in Greek, His mission was to fulfill a prophesy as the Messiah ( a word that has had a variety of meanings)and, among other things, bring His religion, Jusdaism back from the brink over which He felt it was sliding.

About the only time it is written that He showed any anger was when He went into the Temple (His father's house) and threw out the money lenders who were using it with the blessings of the Sanhedrin (Jewish High Priests)
for their nefarious activities.

He was a what today would be called an Orthodox, or Torah, Jew (probably an insurgent or even terrorist) and maintained all the Jewish religious rites. He would not have understood the word 'Christianity', even in Aramaic His native language, and I would say that assuming He was a person and not a composite figure of the historical times, He would be appalled at the thought that a new religion had been formed in His name. I use a capital H, when I remember, in deference to those following the religion based upon His attributed teachings.

But religion can get bent in all directions as it is used to serve many purposes,
and that is why discussion on it where opposing views are involved, quite honestly, if the desire is for something meaningful to result, is best avoided.

But then, that is just my opinion.

----------


## mazHur

Both Moses and Jesus are among the Prophets of the Book or Scripture as you may call it. Jesus certainly brought a new religion overriding that of Moses but he did not cancel it altogether. Hence Judaism is distinct from Christianity.
Finally, came in Islam which is yet another off shoot of Judaism and christianity. It claims to believe in all the previous scriptures and prophets including Jesus and Moses but does not regard Jesus as son of god who according to them is ALL in All, One and the Only One, Unique and Indivisible. Islam also believes in the Hereafter and claims to be the Last BooK of All and Prophet Muhammad the last Prophet of All Prophets. Teachings of Bible and Quran are almost same as far as ethics and morals are concerned----Quran teaches Humanity and Peace and is mistakenly construed as ''fundamentalist'' or ''terrorists'',,,,those are not Muslims though they may pose to be so! This is the reason Sunni and Shia both of them claiming to be muslims are cutting each others throats.

----------


## Midas

> Jesus certainly brought a new religion overriding that of Moses but he did not cancel it altogether.


Where? Please support.

----------


## mazHur

that's why we have Old and New Testaments , don't we? Moreover, I think one has to research out of one's own regiment to get at the truth. for this it is imperative to study comparative religions, history and philosophy.

----------


## Midas

> that's why we have Old and New Testaments , don't we? Moreover, I think one has to research out of one's own regiment to get at the truth. for this it is imperative to study comparative religions, history and philosophy.
> __________________


A little ambiguity here. Do you mean He brought directly, or indirectly a new religion. I see no evidence to say He ordered any 'New Testament; or anything to replace the writings of the Old Testament from which He preached, and followed, as a Rabbi.

Now others, after His death took it upon themselves to write accounts, and 'letters (Paul) of his Life which were later - much later, compiled into a book which became known as the 'New Testament from which followers later became known as 'Christians'. However, nowhere I know of is it written
that He sanctioned, or even would have sanctioned such a book.

When He asked that people follow Him, it was meant, surely, that which He believed and followed Himself because that followed the word of God. This was the Old Testament. Remember, the Jewish religion had been straying from the teaching of Moses.

One big 'no no' was the charging of interest on the loaning of money we refer to as usury. This was being practised in the Temple by the money lenders which runs against the teachings of Moses.

It is this which, even today, marks the the big difference in the Jewish, and Muslim religious observances.

----------


## jon1jt

> I believe the Bible for slightly different reasons. First of all it is THE most accurate book ever written. If your in Lit class at college, you don't hear the prof say that the Homer could be inaccurate about Troy. But we only have 7 copies, all made 100+ years after the original! The Bible has 10,000+ copies made 20 years after the original. That must provide a much greater amount of authenticity than any other ancient text. For instance, the Koran used to have many variant versions, but most were destroyed when an emir burned an opposing emir's city to the ground including one of the largest libraries ever known.



i rarely get involved in this debate but i think this is a good time for me to reveal something insidious about the claim made in the OP. 

I'm curious why the bible is hardly ever challenged on the grounds that it's haunting internal _accuracy_ is exactly why readers ought to mistrust it. Has anyone heard of Gospel Q? Q is considered to be the source material Matthew and Luke used as the basis of their own NT writings. Christians who...ahem...actually read their bible would know that there are at least 200 strikingly similar, almost verbatim passages, from Matthew and Luke. this, in my opinion, calls into question their own personal accounts and supports the theory of a mystery writer (Q). Why was document Q written and by whom? scholars on both sides have theories but I'm not going to get into all that. 

Again, why would Matthew and Luke need a source document to fashion their own accounts of Jesus if they had had first hand accounts?? it's inexplicable. More inexplicable is how Christians dismiss apocraphal/noncanonical writings (church fathers/nag hammadi) for partly authorship concerns! c'mon. 


here's a flavor of Matthew's and Luke's writings (btw: the historical record shows the two never actually met, further supporting the existence of Gospel Q)

NIV

Matthew:
26 So do not be afraid of them. *There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known*.

Luke: 
2 *There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known.*

Matthew:
27 *What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the roofs.*

Luke:
3 *What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs*.


etc etc etc

are these parallel writings a mere coincidence? i don't think so.

----------


## mazHur

Midas!

If you are concerned about the authenticity of the Bible , I may say it is NOT. Shakespeare is more authentic that it as no one tried to edit and improve it till this day. Like all other books or scriptures, except the Quran which remains unchanged/unadulterated for the last more than 1400 years, all books have been tampered with. Hence, the authenticity of the contents of Bible is not proven. Muslims do believe in Injeel (bible) and Torah but they do not trust their contents for being tampered later on by their followers. 
As far as Moses (or Jesus) is concerned, Muslims revere them as one of their greatest prophets and NO muslim dare talk **** about them ! If he does he is NOT a Muslim.

As regards Usury, it's absolutely forbidden in Islam.

----------


## Midas

MazHur. Read my posts properly if you wish to comment. I show no concern for the 'authenticity of the bible, nor do I refer to its 'authenticity' nor the Koran, nor the Torah. They exist, that I know, but as to their authenticity I have no idea. (I only know what I think).

As to usury, you would see I mentioned that was abhorrent to the Muslim religion by saying that is where they remain faithful to the original teachings of Moses, and the Old Testament but where Judaism as practised by certain elite Jews of the hierarchy even at the time of Christ was not honouring this
dictate. 

So why was your need to mention it as though you were informing me of something of which I was not aware. All it tells me is that you responded without really reading my post.

----------


## mazHur

> Originally Posted by Thinkerr View Post
> I believe the Bible for slightly different reasons. First of all it is THE most accurate book ever written. If your in Lit class at college, you don't hear the prof say that the Homer could be ina



sorry, Midas. I did get mixed up!
my reply to the authenticity of Bible should have been addressed to thinkerr,anyway

----------


## Pendragon

Well, as for myself, I have explored a little bit of everything. With my mother, there was no question of missing church, but I could read from the age of four and often corrected ministers who misquoted the Bible. This did not endear me to them at all. Disgusted, I explored other religions, and always questioned the very existence of God. I was a firm believer in science, and that rules of science could not be broken. Yet I became an Ordained Non-Denominational Minister in 1982. By then I had resolved my questions to my satisfaction. I found God beyond everything I had been taught, the pale arguments of others just didn't do it for me anymore. 

God defies explanation, you either reach a point where He's real or He isn't. I have used scientific principles to speak of God and often, I don't get an answer because there is none to give. The logic is there, but you must accept or decline it. I get a lot of weaseling, and sarcasm. That isn't an argument, anymore that it would be if I fired off that "That's just how it is!" They step through the logic and nod until it equals God and then huff "You must have missed something somewhere, God is impossible!" Very well, if you want to believe that, it is a world where freedom is allowed. 

The real problem with God, and the Bible (of for that matter, any Holy Writing with rules) is people don't want to be told what to do. Do what I want to, is their battle cry. Interestingly enough, this comes not from The Bible, The Torah, or The Koran. "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law." From the Book of Thoth, Alestier Crowley, self professed world's wickedest man. You are basing your lifestyle on the words of a man who was so depraved, he was thrown out of many countries, and highly suspected of ritualistic murder of one of his own friends. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

> I disagree. I think that belief in the Bible can be completely rational. It may be even more rational than not believing in the Bible. To tie this in to the original post, part of the reason I believe in the Bible is that it is consistent with what can be observed and it is logically sound.


Yes, yes, as much as any other religious book...

----------


## mazHur

> I found God beyond everything I had been taught, the pale arguments of others just didn't do it for me anymore.


This is very true of God and I agree with Pen's observations. The basic point in religion is Faith and Faith doesn't know logic. No religion teaches evil but it is how we or the clergy interprets it and preaches it. If someone is true to his belief he's branded as a ''fundamentalist'' or a ''radical'. How could one shine in any discipline if he doesn't stick to its basic principles, be it religion, science or arts???

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Like all other books or scriptures, except the Quran which remains unchanged/unadulterated for the last more than 1400 years, all books have been tampered with. "

This statement is frequently made in this forum, but it is scarcely valid. 

The laws of Hammurabi, for example, still exist on their original stone, after nearly 4000 years, and innumerable cuneiform and heiroglyph writings are still available on original tablets, walls or papyri that have survived intact for millennia. 

Many of these bear witness to gods and goddesses, so, if longevity without change is any mark of truth, we should worship Bel or Amun or some such.

----------


## mazHur

You have a point there which I appreciate. However, I may clarify that none of them were scriptures or Holy literature sent by God to his Prophets as is in the case of Bible, Torah or Quran.
Your argument is thus off topic

----------


## Etienne

> "Like all other books or scriptures, except the Quran which remains unchanged/unadulterated for the last more than 1400 years, all books have been tampered with. "
> 
> This statement is frequently made in this forum, but it is scarcely valid. 
> 
> The laws of Hammurabi, for example, still exist on their original stone, after nearly 4000 years, and innumerable cuneiform and heiroglyph writings are still available on original tablets, walls or papyri that have survived intact for millennia. 
> 
> Many of these bear witness to gods and goddesses, so, if longevity without change is any mark of truth, we should worship Bel or Amun or some such.


The code of Hammurabi is hardly a religious document. It says that the Babylonian gods inspired Hammurabi the laws, but just in the same way so many monarchs were "chosen by god(s)". My point is the laws are about civil or criminal offenses with very down-to-earth retribution. The religious element stops at the appeal to credibility of the laws.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"The code of Hammurabi is hardly a religious document. It says that the Babylonian gods inspired Hammurabi the laws, but just in the same way so many monarchs were "chosen by god(s)". My point is the laws are about civil or criminal offenses with very down-to-earth retribution. The religious element stops at the appeal to credibility of the laws."


http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM "When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. "

The preamble to Hammurabi's laws is a statement of religious belief - maybe only three or four lines, but enough, for instance to describe relationships between gods, and to declare that righteousness is one of their attributes. There are also clearly stated moral principles, that weak should be protected from strong, that the duty of a prince is to increase the well-being of his people and that evil should not go unpunished. 

"Anu and Bel called me by name ... to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land" That is a statement of divinely appointed prophet rulership, at least as credible as any claim made by Moses, and without the possibility of corruption by intervening editors. It is the claim to be the mouthpiece and agent of the Gods, exactly similar to that made by the prophets throughout the Old Testament, and indeed by prophets of any time and any religion. 


And I only mentioned Hammurabi's code as an example. Many equally ancient, but still existing, writings provide descriptions of elaborate belief systems and comprehensive theology.

I am not saying that any of those writings must be regarded as the truth - On the contrary, I am, if anything, pointing out that it is absurd to claim that the age of a document and its consistency over time have any relevance to the truth or otherwise of its religious content.

----------


## mazHur

Code of Hamurabi is just like present day Dode of Civil and Criminal procedure or the Penal code,,,,,,,,,it's off topic and not a word of God.

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Code of Hamurabi is just like present day Dode of Civil and Criminal procedure or the Penal code,,,,,,,,,it's off topic and not a word of God."

I don't think you read my previous post - The code is, or claims to be, a set of laws delivered to his people by Hammurabi, on behalf of sublime Gods Anu and Bel. This is just the same, in nature, as those codes of civil and criminal procedure that fill up Deuteronomy and Leviticus, and are, or claim to be a set of laws delivered by Moses on behalf of his God Yah. The obvious difference is that Hammurabi's tablet of stone still exists, and those of Moses don't. (Another difference is that Hammurabi's laws were almost certainly sanctioned if not written by him, whereas much of Deuteronomy and Leviticus was probably written after the Jews' return from Babylon by Esra pretending to be Moses.)

The subject is on topic, because some people in the thread have claimed that they believe in their scriptures because they are old and unchanging. Disregard the legal statements of Hammurabi, and you are still left with religious statements that are older than most of the Bible, and guaranteed not to have been tampered with in more than 3500 years.

I am sure that, without too much effort, you could find other purely religious scriptures that pre-date Moses and that still exist in their original form. 

If you don't believe them to be the word of God, fine - as I have said, the age and immutability of a document are no indication of its religious truth.

----------


## Etienne

That doesn't make the laws religious. Claiming to be inspired or appointed by gods was the norm back then (and for many years still) for kings and emperors. The laws themselves don't have anything to do with religion, and so claiming it's a religious document is opening a Pandora box to absurdities.

----------


## mazHur

so? how many followers of hamurabi do you find in the world? 
How many people learn latin or Sanskrit today? 
I suppose we are talking about living religions and not dead stuff.

----------


## dzebra

mazHur, you state that faith does not know logic. What prevents logic from being a part, or the whole, of faith? Many people have faith because it is a logical conclusion from what they know. What do you say about that?

----------


## mazHur

Faith has no logic; that's true. If you use your logic then you won't believe in religion at all. Religion is blind faith, blind love. If you employ logical tool to religion then you will not digest the fact that there exists an unseen God; or Jesus was born without a human father; or Mary gave birth to Jesus without being touched by a man. Logic denies existence of prophets and then what is the criteria to be a prophet? you can't assume miracles go in the making of a prophet. If that was true there have been many men who were wierd and adept at miraculous shows such as Houdini. Then, what logic do you have in believing life after life? Hell and Heaven? Has anyone returned from these places to tell you ? Logic would thus only confound and confuse us in matters of religion. Best is to keep to your faith or belief without indulging too much in arguments which have led men nowhere. For this reason only you find all the chaos, anarchy and quarrels going on between most of the religions and many sects therein.

----------


## Pendragon

At the risk of getting totally off the subject here, may I say that the last several posts have been an exercise in circular logic. Wiff points out that the age and unchangeability of a document doesn't make it Gospel, where upon others begin to tack off on a course that states that it was reasonable for rulers to claim divine authority for their law. Can't you see this could be applied by an unbeliever to the Bible, or any other Holy Writing? "Oh, well of course they claimed God gave it to them!" See, you open yourself for your own argument to be tossed back in your lap. 

I said logic could be applied to God, and I have before and cornered people, who get out by not arguing with the logic, but saying it cannot produce God, because God is impossible. There is where mazHur's Faith comes in, you must either accept or deny it. They choose to deny what is logically true, because they wish no part of God.

But this isn't the Does God Exist? Thread, But the Why Do You Believe In the Bible? Thread and we need to focus on that. I found my way in spite of what others tried to tell me and in spite of my education. That part of the Bible is lessons rather that pure fact is reasonable. I am not the person to ask which is which. I am like Joshua, "For me and my house". I dare not weaken the faith of another. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

> mazHur, you state that faith does not know logic. What prevents logic from being a part, or the whole, of faith? Many people have faith because it is a logical conclusion from what they know. What do you say about that?


When talking about religion, the premises of a syllogism will always involve faith. Logic has been use thoroughly in religion (think about saint-Anselm proof, for example, or Descartes') but that doesn't mean that it was used correctly. So we can say that logic is applicable in religion, but in a wrong way (and it's the case for most of metaphysics anyway).

----------


## mazHur

I Agree

----------


## dzebra

> When talking about religion, the premises of a syllogism will always involve faith. Logic has been use thoroughly in religion (think about saint-Anselm proof, for example, or Descartes') but that doesn't mean that it was used correctly. So we can say that logic is applicable in religion, but in a wrong way (and it's the case for most of metaphysics anyway).


When talking about anything, faith of some sort is required. Even in something like:

Elephants are animals.
I see an elephant.
Therefore I see an animal.

You have faith that you are actually seeing an elephant. Faith that your eyes are working correctly, faith that no one is deceiving you, faith that you aren't mistaken. You have faith that the definition of "elephant" has not changed since you last checked. Sure, it's easy to have faith in those things, but that's still a kind of faith involved. I don't think anyone can say anything without having faith in something.

So if using faith makes logic wrong, then logic is always wrong.

----------


## mazHur

this is how an elephant is viewed,,,,,,,,,three cheers for faith !

THE BLIND MEN AND THE ELEPHANT

A picture of 6 blind men feeling an elephant for the first time and what they are imagining in their minds.

John Godfrey Saxe's ( 1816-1887) version of the famous Indian legend,


It was six men of Indostan,
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach'd the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -"Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approach'd the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," -quoth he- "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," -quoth he,-
"'Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said- "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
"I see," -quoth he,- "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL,

So, oft in theologic wars
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean;
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!


The above version of Saxe's poem was published in 1878 in Linton's "Poetry of America" and can be found via Google Book Search. It is the oldest and hence best version I am aware of.

Linton, William James, (1878) "Poetry of America: Selections from one hundred American poets from 1776 to 1876." pages 150-152.

Originally, I posted a version compiled from two sources which differed with respect to one line, but differing lines. It turns out my best guess of the poem was quite accurate, and only differs in some of the punctuation and the absence of italics.

Fabun, Don (1968), "Communications, the Transfer of Meaning," New York: Macmillan, pg. 13.

Saxe, John Godfrey, (1963), "The Blind Men and the Elephant; John Godfrey Saxe's version of the famous Indian legend. Pictures by Paul Galdone," New York:Whittlesey House.
Older versions of this webpage can be found by typing the above url into the Wayback Machine.

The original parable originated in China sometime during the Han dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) and goes as follows:
"Three Blind Men and an Elephant"
One day, three blind men happened to meet each other and gossiped a long time about many things. Suddenly one of them recalled, " I heard that an elephant is a queer animal. Too bad we're blind and can't see it."

"Ah, yes, truly too bad we don't have the good fortune to see the strange animal," another one sighed.

The third one, quite annoyed, joined in and said, "See? Forget it! Just to feel it would be great."

"Well, that's true. If only there were some way of touching the elephant, we'd be able to know," they all agreed.

It so happened that a merchant with a herd of elephants was passing, and overheard their conversation. "You fellows, do you really want to feel an elephant? Then follow me; I will show you," he said.

The three men were surprised and happy. Taking one another's hand, they quickly formed a line and followed while the merchant led the way. Each one began to contemplate how he would feel the animal, and tried to figure how he would form an image.

After reaching their destination, the merchant asked them to sit on the ground to wait. In a few minutes he led the first blind man to feel the elephant. With outstretched hand, he touched first the left foreleg and then the right. After that he felt the two legs from the top to the bottom, and with a beaming face, turned to say, "So, the queer animal is just like that." Then he slowly returned to the group.

Thereupon the second blind man was led to the rear of the elephant. He touched the tail which wagged a few times, and he exclaimed with satisfaction, "Ha! Truly a queer animal! Truly odd! I know now. I know." He hurriedly stepped aside.

The third blind man's turn came, and he touched the elephant's trunk which moved back and forth turning and twisting and he thought, "That's it! I've learned."

The three blind men thanked the merchant and went their way. Each one was secretly excited over the experience and had a lot to say, yet all walked rapidly without saying a word.

"Let's sit down and have a discussion about this queer animal," the second blind man said, breaking the silence.

"A very good idea. Very good." the other two agreed for they also had this in mind.
Without waiting for anyone to be properly seated, the second one blurted out, "This queer animal is like our straw fans swinging back and forth to give us a breeze. However, it's not so big or well made. The main portion is rather wispy."

"No, no!" the first blind man shouted in disagreement. "This queer animal resembles two big trees without any branches."

"You're both wrong." the third man replied. "This queer animal is similar to a snake; it's long and round, and very strong."

How they argued! Each one insisted that he alone was correct. Of course, there was no conclusion for not one had thoroughly examined the whole elephant. How can anyone describe the whole until he has learned the total of the parts.

From:
Kuo, Louise and Kuo, Yuan-Hsi (1976), "Chinese Folk Tales," Celestial Arts: 231 Adrian Road, Millbrae, CA 94030, pp. 83-85.

----------


## Etienne

> When talking about anything, faith of some sort is required. Even in something like:
> 
> Elephants are animals.
> I see an elephant.
> Therefore I see an animal.
> 
> You have faith that you are actually seeing an elephant. Faith that your eyes are working correctly, faith that no one is deceiving you, faith that you aren't mistaken. You have faith that the definition of "elephant" has not changed since you last checked. Sure, it's easy to have faith in those things, but that's still a kind of faith involved. I don't think anyone can say anything without having faith in something.
> 
> So if using faith makes logic wrong, then logic is always wrong.


Oh come on. Senses are the only data we can have, if you doubt your senses, then you doubt everything. You can doubt everything if you like, but then you'll get nowhere. It's just like saying "everything is relative" then you're just shutting the discussion. This objection is not valid one unless you bring forth something that gives us a better hold to reality than our senses.

Belief in religion and belief in senses is completely at two different levels. One is believing in what gives you access to reality and based on the fact that f I see dog and it bites me, if the dog is true or not and if the bite is true or not, what do I care as it is what happens in the only reality I have access to. And even if all this is an illusion, it is still a reality with which we interact, and data about this "hallucination" is valid within the "hallucination". So in a sense you could say "belief concerning religious faith is valid withing that faith" so be it, but this religious world has no concern with the "sensitive world" from what we can tell and therefore should not have any influence and shouldn't be brought in the sensitive world.

While for religions there is nothing linking the belief to anything else beside what books/people tells you of some people's fancies or imagination any concrete data lead to think that religions were made by humans. How do you explain it's plurality, for example? How do you explain that monotheism is a relatively recent concept that all spanned from one source? If humans had some link with this reality, God, then it would have been a more universal, in time and space, expression. How come the religious feelings change with time? If humans did have some link to a metaphysical reality like senses are to reality, then there would be a common denominator among humans in general, no?

----------


## dzebra

When I pray to God and something happens, reality is changed and I can see that. I have faith in something that affects the reality I know. When the promises of God that are recorded in the Bible hold true in my life, they are present in the reality I know.

One common denominator among humans is that from the beginning of recorded time, people have believed that there is an invisible world or invisible being that affects the world we know. Every culture has had religion. This should be evidence that something of that sort exists. It's natural in humans to believe it. You say monotheism is recent, but atheism is merely a baby.

----------


## Etienne

> One common denominator among humans is that from the beginning of recorded time, people have believed that there is an invisible world or invisible being that affects the world we know. Every culture has had religion. This should be evidence that something of that sort exists. It's natural in humans to believe it. You say monotheism is recent, but atheism is merely a baby.


The first part of your post isn't really worth answering to, but I think you misunderstood my argument here. My point is not "who's oldest is the best", so saying that "atheism is merely a baby" is no argument. And besides, saying that "freedom of speech is merely a baby" would be more accurate.

And you missed my point about the plurality of religious sentiments as well. The fact that religions are set in space and time shows that there is no universal feeling. Generalizing the religious feelings is absurd unless you want to tell me that the Norse gods are in fact the same thing as the Christian God.

----------


## Pendragon

> Oh come on. Senses are the only data we can have, if you doubt your senses, then you doubt everything. You can doubt everything if you like, but then you'll get nowhere. It's just like saying "everything is relative" then you're just shutting the discussion. This objection is not valid one unless you bring forth something that gives us a better hold to reality than our senses.


And senses are easily fooled. Optical Illusions exist both naturally and man-made. Try to catch the next magician you watch in the act of misdirection. I recently watched a case of them once more trying to explain the JFK assassination using the actual films shot at the time, and then re shooting with both vintage and modern film. Even with a planted sniper, you really couldn't have found him there, and if you did, he would have been long gone. The eyes are fooled by shadows. 

When you hear a noise, are you certain of the source? If smell and taste could not be fooled, no one would be poisoned, for they would either taste or smell something unusual about their food and refuse to eat it. Touch is hardly perfect either, especially if one has their sight. One's sight will fool their touch. In cases where absolute smoothness is needed in products, often people who have lost their sight are used as inspectors. Having come to depend on touch, they will not miss a rough place a sighted person might insist was not there. Your five senses alone won't do. 

You need the five inner gates as well: imagination, reason, conscience, memory, and affection (emotion). See, take the Wright Brothers. They could not build a plane just by watching birds fly. It took the imagination to create the plane, the ability to reason out how it should work, and during wind-tunnel tests, the memory of how birds flew to work out the bugs in the system. 

Belief in the Bible requires more than the five outer senses. We must learn to listen to our conscience, see beyond imagination, allow reason to touch a world besides this one, stop tasting bitter emotions, and allow the stench of bad memories to fade away. These are all two pronged attacks on our belief. Take two gates and align them, then take them both out with one shot. The Enemy is nothing if he isn't a good General.

You will probably think I came up with this, not so: John Bunyan _The Holy War_. Long, Long before I was even thought about. It happens to make very good sense to me. It went way beyond stuff I had been stuffed with. I found a reason to believe. 

What you do is up to you.

God Bless.

Pen

----------


## mazHur

I agree with Pen's observations.
Some of our senses are not as developed as animals. So, we cannot rely on our senses. Disney proved one point through his ''sleight of hand'',,,,The Hand is Faster than the Eye !!

----------


## Etienne

> And senses are easily fooled. Optical Illusions exist both naturally and man-made. Try to catch the next magician you watch in the act of misdirection. I recently watched a case of them once more trying to explain the JFK assassination using the actual films shot at the time, and then re shooting with both vintage and modern film. Even with a planted sniper, you really couldn't have found him there, and if you did, he would have been long gone. The eyes are fooled by shadows. 
> 
> When you hear a noise, are you certain of the source? If smell and taste could not be fooled, no one would be poisoned, for they would either taste or smell something unusual about their food and refuse to eat it. Touch is hardly perfect either, especially if one has their sight. One's sight will fool their touch. In cases where absolute smoothness is needed in products, often people who have lost their sight are used as inspectors. Having come to depend on touch, they will not miss a rough place a sighted person might insist was not there. Your five senses alone won't do. 
> 
> You need the five inner gates as well: imagination, reason, conscience, memory, and affection (emotion). See, take the Wright Brothers. They could not build a plane just by watching birds fly. It took the imagination to create the plane, the ability to reason out how it should work, and during wind-tunnel tests, the memory of how birds flew to work out the bugs in the system. 
> 
> Belief in the Bible requires more than the five outer senses. We must learn to listen to our conscience, see beyond imagination, allow reason to touch a world besides this one, stop tasting bitter emotions, and allow the stench of bad memories to fade away. These are all two pronged attacks on our belief. Take two gates and align them, then take them both out with one shot. The Enemy is nothing if he isn't a good General.
> 
> You will probably think I came up with this, not so: John Bunyan _The Holy War_. Long, Long before I was even thought about. It happens to make very good sense to me. It went way beyond stuff I had been stuffed with. I found a reason to believe. 
> ...


This is all very well, but I think you missed the point of my post. You objection to the senses is merely based on a few examples that do not really change the general course of things. And by the way, it's not our senses that are fooled, its their interpretation by the brain.

----------


## mazHur

fooled? by the brain or the heart?

----------


## Pendragon

And you have obviously missed mine as well. Said I not that it took both an inner and outer gate? Where are those inner gates, mon ami, if not in the mind?

Once again we see that logic equaling God is brushed aside as "Not enough evidence." "Failure to understand the science." "Can't prove the impossible."

I am forced to draw this conclusion about belief in the Bible, The Qu'ran, The Torah, or any religious work. 

The people that believe have found reason to do so that supersedes any hazing that non-believers can and will do. There is reason enough to believe, but don't expect others to understand for even the very clearest of explanations will still be rejected if people do not wish to believe. He that wishes to believe will find a way, regardless of the obstacles in his path.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## mazHur

> He that wishes to believe will find a way, regardless of the obstacles in his path.


Pen, this is very universal and prolific statement for the present times!

----------


## Pendragon

> Pen, this is very universal and prolific statement for the present times!


Thank you, mon ami. I must speak the truth. For the one who chooses to believe, there will come a dawning in that one's life, so that they may believe.

----------


## Etienne

"And you have obviously missed mine as well. Said I not that it took both an inner and outer gate? Where are those inner gates, mon ami, if not in the mind?"

I do see your point, but it was irrelevant to my point. That's how many people manage to justify beliefs they aren't always able to explain rationally (I am not referring only to religions here) is that by taking someone's point then bringing it somewhere else. Someone talked about not being able to trust their senses, I answered him. Then you talk about inner gates, which is another topic that I was not referring to, we can discuss it, but it doesn't follow the previous arguments of the discussion. So when quoting something, I would ask you to stick to what the argument is about.

"The people that believe have found reason to do so that supersedes any hazing that non-believers can and will do."

Yes it's called faith. I'm not trying to tell people to stop believing, I am discussing for people who are perhaps are open to the dialectic of "other schools of thoughts"... 

"He that wishes to believe will find a way, regardless of the obstacles in his path."

But I don't see this quote to be flattering to the believers. As it can very well apply to me wanting to believe that the Earth is flat and to believe in the theory of the flying teapot. Your quote just shows that anyone can convince himself of anything if he wants to, even when he has nothing serious to hold on to. And I agree.

----------


## andrew23

> "The people that believe have found reason to do so that supersedes any hazing that non-believers can and will do."


Yes they have found reason. However, that reason isn't always valid in all cases. A single reason or answer of a man regarding something may either be in the "universal true set" or "universal false set." 




> He that wishes to believe will find a way, regardless of the obstacles in his path.


One may find a way but that way isn't always the way of the truth. 

All I can say is, I hope that we find the right reason and right way. Good luck to all hehe..

----------


## Pendragon

Andrew and Etienne: I choose not to allow those who have not walked the distance I have, nor have a single clue as to what I may or may not know decide what I may say, for I was asking questions for which there were no clear answers before I was 10, and have explored the depths of legends to their probable beginning, there is no set of Deities I find completely unknown to me. Both of you are wise beyond your years, what you lack is the ability to think you might somehow be wrong. I am well aware that many disagree with me, and perhaps they are right, I am but human. I am willing to take my stand on what I believe, die for it if necessary, but I will allow wiggle room. This is my last post on this thread, as I have no use for pointless arguments. No one is going to concede, correct? Then it is pointless to continue.

God richly bless you both:

Pen

----------


## thescholar

This may be the wrong thread to post in, but I, as a non-religious teeneager, have religion questions and no-one to ask. I believe in the bible, but not in a religious sense. I believe that as a subject of faith and joy, it is unparalled in its success. I believe that millions of people get a joy and fulfillment from religion that I have never experienced. However, for some reason I can't "throw myself" into a religion. Any theories on why?

as an afterthought, I don't think anyone has the right to tell anyone else that what they believe in is wrong.

----------


## Etienne

> Andrew and Etienne: I choose not to allow those who have not walked the distance I have


That's quite a sophism there, how do you know I have not walked as far. I'm younger than you, but I am a full grown adult, well-read and well-traveled studying successfully at university. I do not think that to rational arguments you can simply evade by simply saying: "I'm older". Actually you can, but as to say if this is respectful or wise, I would think about it two times.




> for I was asking questions for which there were no clear answers before I was 10


Do you honestly think that this makes you any special?




> and have explored the depths of legends to their probable beginning, there is no set of Deities I find completely unknown to me.


Have you ever studied how christianism became what it is? That christianism was a jewish religion but Paul decided to take away the jewish part to appeal to roman gentility, for example? Or the well-known controversial history of all those who's been representing your religion since the beginning? Or how the beliefs changes with time, which is exclusive of a "revealed religion"?




> Both of you are wise beyond your years, what you lack is the ability to think you might somehow be wrong.


I do not think I am "wise beyond my years", as there is no standard for that, but for the second part, I'd like to return you the compliment.




> I am well aware that many disagree with me, and perhaps they are right, I am but human.


I am not even saying anyone is right or wrong, this is called dialectic, opposing arguments to attain a better understanding, and saying "I can't listen to you because I am older" is only entrenching you on your position behind cheap sophisms.




> I am willing to take my stand on what I believe, die for it if necessary, but I will allow wiggle room.


No one asks you to die for anything, discussing, if you do not wish to (or can't) and want to say: Credo quia absurdum, you are free to do it without dying...




> This is my last post on this thread, as I have no use for pointless arguments. No one is going to concede, correct? Then it is pointless to continue.


The main point of this is not reaching a conclusion.

Good night and have nice dreams.

----------


## thescholar

this thread asks people who believe why they believe, yet "CERTAIN" posters are attacking the very foundations of this thread.

----------


## Thinkerr

I agree Jihad. This thread was created to establish a firm arguement against, or for belief in the bible. The point is not to create childish name-calling games about who's older. If "some people" are "adults" and studying in "university", they should be more mature and keep their tempers, just like naughty little children.

----------


## mazHur

Good but you don't have to be sarcastic about others........

I believe in the genuine Bible which was revealed to Jesus (which is unfortunately not there at all ! ) but not the edited one on the market ,,,OK

----------


## Pendragon

Very well. My apologies. It just manages to get to me when people, and even if you are in University, you are young enough to be my son, think that those of us who have paid our dues do not know that of which we are speaking. I stated that I believed in the Bible. How could I not have read Acts.13
[46] Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles. 

Does this answer your question? It was first a Jewish religion, but since many or most of the Jews would not believe, they turned to the Gentiles. 

No, you won't catch me on something as simple as that. I have always stated that I felt the greatest theological statement I ever heard was: "Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?" You may check this forum and see. I do not have a moratorium on the truth. I don't think anyone does. 

But the Bible tells me if I think my brother is offended, for me to be the one to ask forgiveness. And so Andrew and Etienne, and anyone else I may have offended by my comments as long as I didn't quote scripture, it was something I said on my own, I apologize. I don't apologize for the scripture because I didn't write it, you see.

Now God Bless you, and may He grant me Grace to keep my big mouth shut at times. 

You may call me Dale.

----------


## Etienne

[QUOTE=Pendragon;486106]Very well. My apologies. It just manages to get to me when people, and even if you are in University, you are young enough to be my son, think that those of us who have paid our dues do not know that of which we are speaking. I stated that I believed in the Bible. How could I not have read Acts.13[|QUOTE]

My point was not to somehow brag about being at university, but I was simply trying to tell you that age has nothing to do with anything, it's the argument that counts. If a three year-old can outbeat me in rational argument, then I cannot claim to escape from it because I'm older or because "he's young enough to be my child" (you apologize, but still continue)




> Does this answer your question? It was first a Jewish religion, but since many or most of the Jews would not believe, they turned to the Gentiles.


But the jewish apart of the cult was part of the Jesus message. So you are saying that they corrupted Jesus' message for political reasons?




> No, you won't catch me on something as simple as that. I have always stated that I felt the greatest theological statement I ever heard was: "Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?" You may check this forum and see. I do not have a moratorium on the truth. I don't think anyone does.


Same as me, the difference being that I'm trying to bring rational arguments to get a discussion going, but then you say that you're more right because you're older, how's that for a simple thing?




> But the Bible tells me if I think my brother is offended, for me to be the one to ask forgiveness. And so Andrew and Etienne, and anyone else I may have offended by my comments as long as I didn't quote scripture, it was something I said on my own, I apologize. I don't apologize for the scripture because I didn't write it, you see.


I do not really find it offensive, but pathetic would be the word that you have to hide behind cheap arguments as "I'm older", no scripture you quoted goes in that sense, but this is behind, let's leave it behind.

----------


## Pendragon

[QUOTE=Etienne;486143][QUOTE=Pendragon;486106]Very well. My apologies. It just manages to get to me when people, and even if you are in University, you are young enough to be my son, think that those of us who have paid our dues do not know that of which we are speaking. I stated that I believed in the Bible. How could I not have read Acts.13[|QUOTE]

My point was not to somehow brag about being at university, but I was simply trying to tell you that age has nothing to do with anything, it's the argument that counts. If a three year-old can outbeat me in rational argument, then I cannot claim to escape from it because I'm older or because "he's young enough to be my child" (you apologize, but still continue)


And why do I get the feeling that anything short of total agreement with you is going to be useless? You quote me, for which I am glad, because I said very clearly that it was the fact that people, and it has been a lot of younger generation people, think that us older people, having learned from things not available in our school time, do not understand basic science, and cling to religion out of ignorance. I was saying I grow weary of that argument. I have used science before but they will go with me until we reach a point where science seems to give any credence to the Bible or to God. Then they tell me I must not understand or am generally ignorant. 

I cannot even make a simple apology without a book being written about it, pointing out where I am still in the wrong. Que sera. sera. I cannot change who or what I am. For disservices to any, my apologies. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

> And why do I get the feeling that anything short of total agreement with you is going to be useless? You quote me, for which I am glad, because I said very clearly that it was the fact that people, and it has been a lot of younger generation people, think that us older people, having learned from things not available in our school time, do not understand basic science, and cling to religion out of ignorance.


Now you are putting words into my mouth. And exactly contrary to what I'm saying. What I'm saying is I don't care who is behind the argument, the value is in the argument, not the speaker.




> I was saying I grow weary of that argument. I have used science before but they will go with me until we reach a point where science seems to give any credence to the Bible or to God. Then they tell me I must not understand or am generally ignorant.


Perhaps you could explain this better, no one here has said that you do not understand or are generally ignorant. I do not remember science giving credence to the Bible or God (at least in this topic), maybe you can enlighten me, because what you talked about was inner gates, reasons enough to believe (left unspecified), etc. I never saw scientific reasoning used, but I might be wrong, I'd be interested if you clarify this.




> I cannot even make a simple apology without a book being written about it, pointing out where I am still in the wrong. Que sera. sera. I cannot change who or what I am. For disservices to any, my apologies.


I understand that, I only found strange the fact that you were still blabbering about your being older, which was the whole point in the start. Let's blame misunderstanding, and as I said now it's behind.

----------


## Pendragon

> Perhaps you could explain this better, no one here has said that you do not understand or are generally ignorant. I do not remember science giving credence to the Bible or God (at least in this topic), maybe you can enlighten me, because what you talked about was inner gates, reasons enough to believe (left unspecified), etc. I never saw scientific reasoning used, but I might be wrong, I'd be interested if you clarify this.


See here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...0&postcount=11 Basically this went ignored, until it was asked "Then what created God?" which as I told them never comes up if you substitute "Big Bang" instead of "God" there they simply refer back to the first law of thermodynamics and point out it was both unnecessary and impossible to create the energy that created the universe. I understand that law perfectly, and find it both unnecessary and impossible to create God. That's how I believe. 





> I understand that, I only found strange the fact that you were still blabbering about your being older, which was the whole point in the start. Let's blame misunderstanding, and as I said now it's behind.


In this, I quite agree. Thank you. 

God Bless

Pen

----------


## Etienne

> See here: http://www.online-literature.com/for...0&postcount=11 Basically this went ignored, until it was asked "Then what created God?" which as I told them never comes up if you substitute "Big Bang" instead of "God" there they simply refer back to the first law of thermodynamics and point out it was both unnecessary and impossible to create the energy that created the universe. I understand that law perfectly, and find it both unnecessary and impossible to create God. That's how I believe.


Well the energy can simply always have been there under a form or another, it didn't have to be created. And besides in different conditions (pre Big Bang conditions, for example, of which we can know nothing) laws of physics as we know them may not have applied in the same way. I'm just making wild guesses as we (and especially I, more specialised people might tell you better) do not know, and perhaps there is some theories with some credits, I have at best a very basic knowledge of physics, but I do not see how this would prove a God. Also there is this theory of the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch (and perhaps not cyclic, simply Big bang/Big Crunch). But the fact that we don't know something doesn't prove de facto that there is a God, or even that it is outside of science's reach (consensus is that we can never go farther back than exactly right after the Big Bang, which makes sense, but hey we keep surprising ourselves too, so who knows).

Historically God/gods have pretty much always been filling the gaps in scientific knowledge, until science got there, and I suspect the same here. But I'd like to make the distinction that using science in an argument doesn't make it a scientific argument, as science in itself is a method, not a field of knowledge.

----------


## thescholar

it is clear to me that pendragon is being mature and open minded in his discussion of faith, and in fact listening to the points of the other views, yet etienne is vehemently against religion of any sort. i believe he should consider that people have the freedom to choose their faith, and it not up to others to decide whether their choice is "logical," nor do they have the right to attack someones faith. these statements go beyond non-comprehension of the logic of religion, and isntead directly attack the basis on which many live their lives. Etienne, your point about the lack of factual basis for religion is duly noted, considered, and subsequently ignored.

----------


## NikolaiI

Granted I'm going only on the most recent comment by Etienne, but that isn't personal or attacking the faith or anything. Both are sowing good seeds.  :Smile:

----------


## Etienne

> it is clear to me that pendragon is being mature and open minded in his discussion of faith, and in fact listening to the points of the other views, yet etienne is vehemently against religion of any sort.


I am not "against" in the sense you seem to mean...




> i believe he should consider that people have the freedom to choose their faith


But I do... I am discussing, I am not persecuting anyone, am I?




> and it not up to others to decide whether their choice is "logical," nor do they have the right to attack someones faith.


I do not attack people's faith, I put it in doubt. And by the way, I fear logic or reason doesn't obey nor me, nor you. So it's not about deciding anything.




> these statements go beyond non-comprehension of the logic of religion, and isntead directly attack the basis on which many live their lives.


Oh oh, I am attacking? I am discussing.




> Etienne, your point about the lack of factual basis for religion is duly noted, considered, and subsequently ignored.


Well, I see some irony in your post considering what you said above. So if you do not wish to discuss, just step aside and let "mature" and "open minded" people discuss. Those who can handle being disagreed on without feeling attacked. When you can't handle rational discussion, then it might be time to take a walk and enjoy some fresh air? 

None of my post attacked (or at least were meant to, but who knows what some crooked minds might twist and distort to feel abused, it isn't the first time it happened, there's some paranoia on here) religion other than in the form of argumentation and discussion.

----------


## Pendragon

Joe, I appreciate the support, but not at the expense of Etienne.

Now Joe, I am not discomforted with Etienne and his latest reply. We have come to a gentleman's agreement to put childish arguments behind us. My word is my bond, and I see nothing in Etienne's latest reply that oversteps the bounds of a decent discussion. He has as much right to how he wishes to believe as I do, and probably is convinced as much or more than myself that he is correct. I will do what I should have done before, allow my opponent his own views while holding steadfastly to my own, and in all things neither taking nor giving offense. 

If we could but live by those words, then whether saint or sinner, any religion or none, we could discuss things without resort to giving full vent to our feeling and hurting others. We should simply say, "You may be wrong about that, but I would defend to the death your right to say it. Now let's get on to something else." And we would. But it sticks in the craw to have to eat crow. To have to admit that maybe the other has a good point. This is the basis of all arguments. None wish to appear a fool.

God Bless. 

Pen

----------


## thescholar

For the information of all members of this thread, I am agnostic based on the lack of foundation for religion. However, I feel that a person's choice of religion is deeply personal, and that to question a person's religion is akin to attacking them deirectly. Furthermore, i never claimed logic obeys anyone, just that a person's choice of religion is based of FEELING, rather than KNOWING.

----------


## manolia

> Well the energy can simply always have been there under a form or another, it didn't have to be created. And besides in different conditions (pre Big Bang conditions, for example, of which we can know nothing) laws of physics as we know them may not have applied in the same way. I'm just making wild guesses as we (and especially I, more specialised people might tell you better) do not know, and perhaps there is some theories with some credits, I have at best a very basic knowledge of physics, but I do not see how this would prove a God. Also there is this theory of the cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch (and perhaps not cyclic, simply Big bang/Big Crunch). But the fact that we don't know something doesn't prove the facto that there is a God, or even that it is outside of science's reach (consensus is that we can never go farther back than exactly right after the Big Bang, which makes sense, but hey we kep surprising ourselves too, so who knows).
> 
> *Historically God/gods have pretty much always been filling the gaps in scientific knowledge,* until science got there, and I suspect the same here. But I'd like to make the distinction that using science in an argument doesn't make it a scientific argument, as science in itself is a method, not a field of knowledge in itself.


Hehehe Etienne, i liked that phrase of yours  :Wink:  That's is why i never liked the Big Bang theory. It always leaves the question "and who triggered the explotion"  :FRlol:  . 

Do go on i like your conversation  :Wink:

----------


## Etienne

> For the information of all members of this thread, I am agnostic based on the lack of foundation for religion. However, I feel that a person's choice of religion is deeply personal, and that to question a person's religion is akin to attacking them deirectly. Furthermore, i never claimed logic obeys anyone, just that a person's choice of religion is based of FEELING, rather than KNOWING.


I think you're beating on a horse that never existed my friend.

----------


## thescholar

hahaha I'm beginning to feel that way as well. Pardon my overkill, I just have a thing for personal choices. I have come to the conclusion that rather than making analyses on the conversation, I rather jumped in without any background information, and my thoughts were clouded by my judgements.

----------


## Thinkerr

I agree. I haven't posted for a while because for the last page the only conversation going on is a back-and-forth between Pen and Et. Anybody have anything to say on the TOPIC? Discussion is well and good, but please discuss the right thing. Please!

----------


## Metanoia

I believe in the bible. I believe it is a book of pretty little storys made to teach children to behave. Oh and jesus rocks...GO JESUS.

----------


## AdoreroDio

I have not read this whole thread and do not know what the current discussion is about but I thought I might answer the question in the title of the thread " Why do you believe in the Bible?"- 

I believe in the Bible because I have always relied on my intelligence and my need for facts to get me through life. I have always been somewhat of a good judge of truth, and when I'm unsure I search for the truth. I believe in the Bible because it is the only absolute truth that I know 100&#37;. Yes I have seen people try to prove and disprove the Bible and yes I have heard good evidence for the validity of the Bible but that is not what I rely on. All I know is God has done amazing things in my life that only a God, the God, could do. I know that the Bible is God's word. When I read the Bible I KNOW it is truth. When I speak of God, hear of God, and am touched by God, I KNOW he exists. That is my simple belief and I know it can be torn apart by many. But in my heart (though technically feelings come from the brain) I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God.

----------


## Etienne

> I have not read this whole thread and do not know what the current discussion is about but I thought I might answer the question in the title of the thread " Why do you believe in the Bible?"- 
> 
> I believe in the Bible because I have always relied on my intelligence and my need for facts to get me through life. I have always been somewhat of a good judge of truth, and when I'm unsure I search for the truth. I believe in the Bible because it is the only absolute truth that I know 100%. Yes I have seen people try to prove and disprove the Bible and yes I have heard good evidence for the validity of the Bible but that is not what I rely on. All I know is God has done amazing things in my life that only a God, the God, could do. I know that the Bible is God's word. When I read the Bible I KNOW it is truth. When I speak of God, hear of God, and am touched by God, I KNOW he exists. That is my simple belief and I know it can be torn apart by many. But in my heart (though technically feelings come from the brain) I believe the Bible is the authoritative word of God.


Question: Do you believe that the Bible is the only 100% absolute truth, even though it has been written by many different hands and after manipulated by many other human hands?

----------


## mazHur

etienne, that's a good question

----------


## Whifflingpin

"Do you believe that the Bible is the only 100&#37; absolute truth, even though it has been written by many different hands and after manipulated by many other human hands?"

Well, why not? Common sense says that it is more likely that the truth would be reached over a long period of time by the work of many people than that it would be delivered to one man by an angel.

----------


## Etienne

But I thought it was delivered to one man... Jesus... I mean that's what revelation is all about, no?

----------


## Whifflingpin

"But I thought it was delivered to one man... Jesus... I mean that's what revelation is all about, no?"

No

----------


## Etienne

> "But I thought it was delivered to one man... Jesus... I mean that's what revelation is all about, no?"
> 
> No


I think this opinion is against Christianity's belief though. Of course, I might be wrong.

----------


## mazHur

Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.

----------


## Whifflingpin

Etienne: Do you believe that the Bible is the only 100% absolute truth, even though it has been written by many different hands and after manipulated by many other human hands?

MazHur: that's a good question

Etienne: But I thought it was delivered to one man... Jesus

Mazhur: Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.


???

----------


## Etienne

> Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.


What is the status of the Revelations? Should it be considered as what it was by Earthly diagnostic: hallucinations?

----------


## Etienne

> Etienne: Do you believe that the Bible is the only 100&#37; absolute truth, even though it has been written by many different hands and after manipulated by many other human hands?
> 
> MazHur: that's a good question
> 
> Etienne: But I thought it was delivered to one man... Jesus
> 
> Mazhur: Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.
> 
> 
> ???


I think what he means is that the Bible would only be a kind of "journal" of things Jesus has taught and should not be considered as an absolute truth for this reason. That the general message would be right, but many particulars and passages are most likely distorted from their passage through human hands.

Although again this is against Christian beliefs, or at least Church beliefs.

----------


## FacialFracture

Book of Revelations = Not Jesus. It's attributed to John the Revelator (not the same as John the Baptist, who was a contemporary of Jesus; John the Revelator lived years later). Apparently John the Revelator (like some other prophets and martyrs) starved himself, and this contributed to his being in the semi-delusional state in which he conceived of his vision of armageddon...so, if you don't buy that it was a truly divine revelation, you can go with that explanation.

Only the New Testament is about Jesus. The whole rest of the bible has nothing to do with him. If you believe in the Bible as a Christian, then you believe that the authors were inspired by God himself to write what they did, therefore it is absolute truth; the idea that specifics might be watered down or compromised over time becomes meaningless if you believe that God inspired the writings. If you don't believe in it, then you're never going to buy into it, and it is unlikely that any explanation will satisfy you.

----------


## Etienne

> Book of Revelations = Not Jesus. It's attributed to John the Revelator (not the same as John the Baptist, who was a contemporary of Jesus; John the Revelator lived years later). Apparently John the Revelator (like some other prophets and martyrs) starved himself, and this contributed to his being in the semi-delusional state in which he conceived of his vision of armageddon...so, if you don't buy that it was a truly divine revelation, you can go with that explanation.
> 
> Only the New Testament is about Jesus. The whole rest of the bible has nothing to do with him. If you believe in the Bible as a Christian, then you believe that the authors were inspired by God himself to write what they did, therefore it is absolute truth; the idea that specifics might be watered down or compromised over time becomes meaningless if you believe that God inspired the writings. If you don't believe in it, then you're never going to buy into it, and it is unlikely that any explanation will satisfy you.


Ok, I thought the Book of Revelations was part of the New Testament. Thanks for the precision.

----------


## FacialFracture

The Book of Revelations is part of the New Testament, and is supposedly an account of Jesus, revealing to John; I'm sorry I was unclear. I was replying to "Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.", not so much to you, Etienne.

----------


## Etienne

What are the basis to give The Revelations credibility? The man admittedly had hallucinations while on a deserted island and his scribe transcribing what the man saw. Did they just said: Wow that looks great, it probably did come from God? I mean believing in the Bible isn't simply believing Jesus was the son of God etc. etc. etc. It's also believing in the hallucinations of some people, people whom, were they living right now would be in an asylum and the Church wouldn't give half a thought about giving them some credibility.

What's up with this?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Bible was revealed to Jesus and no one else.


What? The Bible wasn't "revealed" to anybody in its current form. It was assembled over a span of time by various writers who were composing under the inspiration of God/the Holy Spirit. The New Testament did not exist when Jesus was walking among us. I don't understand this statement.

Unless you're trying to say that the New Testamemt is the revelation of Jesus Christ. That would be correct.

----------


## Pendragon

> What are the basis to give The Revelations credibility? The man admittedly had hallucinations while on a deserted island and his scribe transcribing what the man saw. Did they just said: Wow that looks great, it probably did come from God? I mean believing in the Bible isn't simply believing Jesus was the son of God etc. etc. etc. It's also believing in the hallucinations of some people, people whom, were they living right now would be in an asylum and the Church wouldn't give half a thought about giving them some credibility.
> 
> What's up with this?


You are using "hallucinations" rather freely. Now if you are having a vision of things to come, that means you have no way of understanding what you are seeing. I'll give you an example. Had you lived in the 1600's and suddenly had a vision of the Wright Brother's flight at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1901, you may have very well described men with a giant bird. These prophets may have seen far into the future, and being unable to know what they were seeing described it in terms they did know: a helicopter becoming a giant buzzing insect with death in it's tail (attack copters have missiles that fire from near the tail section).

And reverse this. You suddenly have a vision that allows you to solve once and for all time who Jack the Ripper was, and exactly how many victims there actually were. (I say this because the Ripper crimes are an interesting forensic study, and there is every possibility that more women were killed than were found, and there were more found than 5, and some only allow 4.)

You know this now, but how will you even get permission to work the case? If you say "Oh, but I had a vision from God!" You will probably get a odd stare and "'E's been 'itting t'auld bottle, 'e 'as!" Daft as a kipper!" Yet you would know you were right. 


But you don't want my input, as you already don't believe. God Bless, anyway.

Pen

----------


## Metanoia

Hey, my church told me the bible was the word of God. Dare I question my own church? I honestly belive they would not lie to me. Why would they? What would be the purpose of that? Maybe the problem with todays society is because no one belives in the bible anymore. It's such a shame.

----------


## Etienne

> You are using "hallucinations" rather freely. Now if you are having a vision of things to come, that means you have no way of understanding what you are seeing. I'll give you an example. Had you lived in the 1600's and suddenly had a vision of the Wright Brother's flight at Kitty Hawk, NC in 1901, you may have very well described men with a giant bird. These prophets may have seen far into the future, and being unable to know what they were seeing described it in terms they did know: a helicopter becoming a giant buzzing insect with death in it's tail (attack copters have missiles that fire from near the tail section).
> 
> And reverse this. You suddenly have a vision that allows you to solve once and for all time who Jack the Ripper was, and exactly how many victims there actually were. (I say this because the Ripper crimes are an interesting forensic study, and there is every possibility that more women were killed than were found, and there were more found than 5, and some only allow 4.)
> 
> You know this now, but how will you even get permission to work the case? If you say "Oh, but I had a vision from God!" You will probably get a odd stare and "'E's been 'itting t'auld bottle, 'e 'as!" Daft as a kipper!" Yet you would know you were right. 
> 
> 
> But you don't want my input, as you already don't believe. God Bless, anyway.
> 
> Pen


But tell me, how do you differentiate a lunatic from an illuminated? Just by the way what he tells you fits what you would like it to be? Why are those visions considered as word of God and therefore doctrine, while there is nothing more to assure us it is than the choice of a few men of Church. And when we know what those same men of Church have been through history, I wouldn't bet that these were particularly better than later ones, no? 

Admitting those books as saintly truth is rather the same as endorsing the crusades, the witch hunts, and the inquisition if you see it from a completely objective perspective. The only thing that make you say "a" is true and "b" was a mistake, is that "a" agrees with what you want to believe and "b" is compromising to what you want to believe. But in the end, both have the same justification: a decision of Church authorities. I am not saying that those decisions might never have been good BECAUSE they have sometimes been bad decisions, what I am saying is that those decisions (which includes what constitutes the Bible) cannot be taken as dogma, because the Church itself admits mistakes done in the past (and many mistakes not yet admitted which clearly contradict their own Bible), and therefore the Bible itself cannot be taken as dogma.

But I don't think you will admit this as it would make your whole system of belief, I would be interested however if there is somewhere where I have made a mistake in my reasoning?

----------


## dzebra

Revelation (which I think is a vision that has been mentioned in this thread) was written by a man who knew Jesus (in skin and bones) and was very familiar with his teachings, and was a good friend of the man. He has a history of serving God with all his heart. What he wrote goes along perfectly with what Jesus taught.

Other things, like the crusades, were not led by men who personally spoke with Jesus, and they did not go along with Jesus' teachings. I am much more likely to believe that visions reported in the Bible are true than the words of someone else.

In that vein, I don't think admitting those books as saintly truth is the same as endorsing the crusades, witch hunts, and the inquisition.

The difference is not whether or not the words fit what I want them to be, it is whether or not the words fit what Jesus said.

----------


## Etienne

> Revelation (which I think is a vision that has been mentioned in this thread) was written by a man who knew Jesus (in skin and bones) and was very familiar with his teachings, and was a good friend of the man. He has a history of serving God with all his heart. What he wrote goes along perfectly with what Jesus taught.


John was thought to be the same person as John the Apostle although many believe it was a different person. Also the most recent dating would be around 68. The fact is: we know almost nothing of this book. And what? This book is dogma.




> Other things, like the crusades, were not led by men who personally spoke with Jesus, and they did not go along with Jesus' teachings.


I'm sorry, but it was leaded by the same people "in title" as those who decided what the Bible would be made of. Every crusades was started by the pope.




> I am much more likely to believe that visions reported in the Bible are true than the words of someone else.


Why?




> In that vein, I don't think admitting those books as saintly truth is the same as endorsing the crusades, witch hunts, and the inquisition.


I am not saying it is about endorsing it. What I am saying is that the Bible has as much "justification" as those events, and therefore considering the Bible as dogma and absolute truth and "word of god" also means considering these events as "will of god", and if you don't, then you have no other reason then blind faith to consider the Bible as the "word of God".

----------


## mazHur

I think many things cannot be tested on the touchstone of reason. Reason may work with logic and sciences but necessarily fail in many cases such as love, hate, desire, faith, and religion. Hence, this debate is quite futile and redundant in its very nature and scope. Visions or dreams have no reason, hence you cannot base most of the religious and spiritual phenomena on the basis of reason. Why do we love our parents? why do we hate? why are we loyal to our friends, tender patriotism to our countries, leave inheritance for our children or next of kin only, sometimes go by our sixth sense, etc ? All these things and more cannot be explained on the basis of reason. As far as faith is concerned, it is invariably based on blind faith. It is either 'take it or leave it''.....no grumbling, no grouching, no reason allowed. This is how faith goes !!

----------


## Etienne

> I think many things cannot be tested on the touchstone of reason. Reason may work with logic and sciences but necessarily fail in many cases such as love, hate, desire, faith, and religion.


Your mistake here is to compare love, hate, desire faith and religion together. Faith and religion are not simply emotions but implies "knowledge" of the world as a reality. This means that if I love, it doesn't mean anything else than I feel this. If I believe and have faith in Christianity, just to take this example, it means that I claim to have a knowledge that applies to all the world and to everyone. It is not just a simple feeling. Big difference.




> Hence, this debate is quite futile and redundant in its very nature and scope.


Absolutely not. Don't take that way out, saying "God is outside reason and logic" but the origin and legitimacy of a book is not outside that scope.




> Visions or dreams have no reason, hence you cannot base most of the religious and spiritual phenomena on the basis of reason.


You are completely twisting the debate here. But if I follow you: "Credo quia absurbum?" If you tell me that, I cannot argue anymore, my whole point will be proven. My point is not that you shouldn't believe in whatever you want to, but that the belief is irrational and absurd.




> Why do we love our parents? why do we hate? why are we loyal to our friends, tender patriotism to our countries, leave inheritance for our children or next of kin only, sometimes go by our sixth sense, etc ? All these things and more cannot be explained on the basis of reason.


Yes they can (but let's leave the sixth sense out of this, as this is, to say the least, a very debatable affirmation). And it all has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyways. You are trying to divert the topic to other subjects, it seems.




> As far as faith is concerned, it is invariably based on blind faith. It is either 'take it or leave it''.....no grumbling, no grouching, no reason allowed. This is how faith goes !!


Well then we agree! But not everyone admits that their faith is blind (or ignorant, perhaps).

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Why do we love our parents? why do we hate? why are we loyal to our friends, tender patriotism to our countries, leave inheritance for our children or next of kin only,


It is quite easily explainable through Evolution. Yes. Even Love!

Question is are you prepared to accept it?

----------


## mazHur

now you are on to genetics,,,,,but genetics is a real science unable to explain abstract things. Love this moment, hate the other,,,how would evolution justify it??

I think most of the religions including Christians stick to their religions on blind faith only., those who don't ,,,,,,,well, you know that's their own outlook,,,,somewhat like '' being in the sea and denying it'' at the same time. 
I am glad that Et agrees with me atleast on one point, viz, religion is blind faith. the same holds true for scriptures when adherents deem them as word of God. 

There is no way to explain reason for yet many things such as the beginning of life on earth, death and after death, ,,,,,we cant even explain why men yawn or dream ! When such simple )so to say) phenomena cannot be reasoned out it is impossible to hit religious beliefs or books with reasoning---the adherents accept them for empirical and historic reasons plus some horse sense.

It just occurred to me as to why we are wasting our otherwise constructive energies in this futile debate the mysteries of which have not been unfolded by the brightest brains in history not there is any chance of it in future mainly due to the human need for some spiritual belief to hold on

well, you have all the right to differ,,,,,I said what I thought best without having any mind to twist or detract from the issue,,,,which is very prolific in nature and as wide as the seven heavens !

----------


## Lote-Tree

> how would evolution justify it??


Evolution can but are you prepared to accept it?




> There is no way to explain reason for yet many things such as the beginning of life on earth, death and after death


There is but are you prepared to accept it.




> we cant even explain why men yawn or dream!


Erm there are explanation for these too.




> It just occurred to me as to why we are wasting our otherwise constructive energies in this futile debate the mysteries of which have not been unfolded by the brightest brains in history not there is any chance of it in future mainly due to the human need for some spiritual belief to hold on


It is through this very desire for inquiry that human beings advanced.

----------


## mazHur

accept what? Rhetoric is not the answer to inquiry, come up with categorical reply.

I repeat and reiterate there are hundred of things or phenomenons which remain mystery since the beginning of life on earth, .,,,,please check it out on your own and then try to substantiate them with reason.

Inquiries are dreamt not debated,,,,,,,,

----------


## Lote-Tree

> accept what?


Evolution as an explanation.




> I repeat and reiterate there are hundred of things or phenomenons which remain mystery since the beginning of life on earth


Off course. But we have the story. Some chapters are missing but in time they will turn up. This is how science works.




> please check it out on your own and then try to substantiate them with reason.


You said there are things we can't explain - Love for one. And I said it can...look up Oxytocin - the Love Drug ;-)

----------


## dzebra

In response to why I am much more likely to believe that visions reported in the Bible are true than the words of someone else:
I guess I neglected to link my thoughts. I am because (in the case of Revelation, which was the vision of topic) the guy who had the vision was someone who had talked with Jesus and knew him while he was living. The sentences at the beginning were intended to be the reasoning for the statements near the bottom.

On to the more recent topic. I don't think it is a mistake to compare love and hate with faith. I argue that love and hate are not emotions, they are mindsets* that are reasons for emotions and reasons for actions. The same goes for faith. Faith is the driving force behind actions and feelings.

*Note: the word "mindset" may be an inaccurate word for what I mean to say, but that's all I came up with.

----------


## Etienne

> In response to why I am much more likely to believe that visions reported in the Bible are true than the words of someone else:
> I guess I neglected to link my thoughts. I am because (in the case of Revelation, which was the vision of topic) the guy who had the vision was someone who had talked with Jesus and knew him while he was living. The sentences at the beginning were intended to be the reasoning for the statements near the bottom.


The authors refers to himself as John which led many people to believe it was John the Apostle, however there is nothing sure about it and many people believe they are in fact different people (and the dates at which the Revelations are said to have been written, which are again unsure) lead to think it is not the same person.

Fact is, we know almost nothing about the author, only extrapolations and still, it is taken as dogma.




> I repeat and reiterate there are hundred of things or phenomenons which remain mystery since the beginning of life on earth, .,,,,please check it out on your own and then try to substantiate them with reason.


First of all, almost all the phenomenons you named are explained by science to different degrees, sometimes only by relatively wild theories, but still. But let's consider what science doesn't know or cannot explain. How does that justifies anything? Everyday science discovers new things, that doesn't mean that they were unexplainable, but that they were not yet explained.

Religion has always used the gaps in scientific knowledge to justify itself, but as science caught up, religion moved to other gaps, until science filled them again, etc. etc. So, basically, your argument has no value. Not being able to explain them does not mean that they are unexplainable.

----------


## mazHur

Lote

evolution is yet one of the hypothesis,,,,if it were a complete science Hitler wouldn't have failed in producing his 'best men' ! It was Hitlers belief in Evolution which made him adopt evil mindset in dealing with others,,,,,,
evolution is generally put forth to oppose religious beliefs but mere hypotheses as such cannot be taken as the final word;

If someone believes in God then he has no reason for not believing in his revelations!
The discussion of God or belief in Bible or the reason for believing in the Bible or any other holy book for that sake is an exercise in futility with agnostics,,,,
who are overly curious and as they say ''curiousity killed the cat'', so would they try to 'kill' the faith whatever. This is why I said it is waste of time and energy discussing the issue with them as they won't trust, wont believe, wont think with the eye of faith which in the case of the believers is blind,

If someone doesnot have faith in himself or his parents how on earth can one make him understand the universal faith and its implications?? Religion is not meant for skeptics,,,,

Re Oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin),,,,,it has nothing to do with love,,,,,the love one has for his parents, children, family, God, Bible,Koran, Geeta, etc. Oxytocin is a hormone for sexual boost up, and sex is not love ,,,that's animal instinct !

----------


## mazHur

Et

science is not religion as physics is not biology. Physics cannot explain the mysteries of zoology neither can zoology explain the stipulates of economics and so on. Science is a branch of reason and I said earlier that reason has little value in matters of faith. If science was capable of explaining all phenomena it would not have taken millions of years to fail to explain religion or the manifestations of God( scriptures) or God itself. The world of mind and the world of heart are two different things,,,,,faith is born in heart not in mind

----------


## Etienne

> evolution is yet one of the hypothesis,,,,if it were a complete science Hitler wouldn't have failed in producing his 'best men' ! It was Hitlers belief in Evolution which made him adopt evil mindset in dealing with others,,,,,,
> evolution is generally put forth to oppose religious beliefs but mere hypotheses as such cannot be taken as the final word;


Evolution is not a complete science, that is true. However that allusion to Hitler is not an homage to what I believe to be your intelligence. First of all 60 years ago is not now, second of all evolution is not about "producing a best men", third, with more time he probably would have achieved his expected results, or something close, and fourth, I don't see what's the point in trying to link evolution with Nazism, as a "vehicle for evil mindset".




> If someone believes in God then he has no reason for not believing in his revelations!


Yes, because the whole point of the past discussion was about the authenticity of those revelations. If I tell you God has revealed to me stuff, would you believe it?




> The discussion of God or belief in Bible or the reason for believing in the Bible or any other holy book for that sake is an exercise in futility with agnostics,,,,
> who are overly curious and as they say ''curiousity killed the cat'', so would they try to 'kill' the faith whatever. This is why I said it is waste of time and energy discussing the issue with them as they won't trust, wont believe, wont think with the eye of faith which in the case of the believers is blind,


This is precisely the definition of blind faith.




> If someone doesnot have faith in himself or his parents how on earth can one make him understand the universal faith and its implications?? Religion is not meant for skeptics,,,,


But you are talking as if there was ONE religion, while in fact there is thousands and there has been even more in the past.




> Re Oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin),,,,,it has nothing to do with love,,,,,the love one has for his parents, children, family, God, Bible,Koran, Geeta, etc. Oxytocin is a hormone for sexual boost up, and sex is not love ,,,that's animal instinct !


I don't think that is the explanation for love, it's a more instinctual phenomenon, in the same way as it happens in many other animals. But again, perhaps before saying it's unexplained, you should consult academic sources on the subject?




> Science is a branch of reason and I said earlier that reason has little value in matters of faith.


Yes, yes, blind faith, you said it yourself.




> If science was capable of explaining all phenomena it would not have taken millions of years to fail to explain religion or the manifestations of God( scriptures) or God itself.


Wow, two points here. First of all science has not existed for millions of years (it's very young in truth), humans have not even existed for so long!

And then using the failure of science to explain God implies the premise that God exists, which is more than circular logic, it's some kind of strange concave shape of logic at best!  :FRlol:  




> The world of mind and the world of heart are two different things,,,,,faith is born in heart not in mind


Well the world of mind is the intelligible, and the world of heart is also the world of imaginary friends, and again as you said and i agree, blind faith.

----------


## dzebra

While I agree with you, mazHur, that faith is born in the heart, I also say that the mind can find very reasonable ways to support the faith of the heart. Science (nor philosophy, nor medicine) has neither proved nor disproved the existence of God, but faith has proved God to some and disproved God to others. Science, philosophy, and medicine can be used by anyone to support what his heart has decided is true.

----------


## mazHur

, 


> I don't see what's the point in trying to link evolution with Nazism, as a "vehicle for evil mindset".


because they had a penchant for it and practically employed it to produce a 'super generation'' but failed as the principals of evolution seemed to lack the ability to work,,,,,,






> If I tell you God has revealed to me stuff, would you believe it?


Yes, if you'll show me miracles like Kesus ! (no green gardens, please ! lol)




> This is precisely the definition of blind faith.


Religion is blind faith,,,,take it or leave it !
you can take syllabus books as an analogy ,,,you have to foll0w them with 'blinf faith'', don't you' ? same is true for the Criinal and Civil procedure code or Taxation laws,,,,you are boung to follow them, if you dont you are in trouble (because you know 'someone--the govt, the authorities'' could otherwise put you behind bars !) If man can 'govern' man that way why can't a Supreme Authority, God?




> But you are talking as if there was ONE religion,


Yes, there is just one Religion, One God---name them as you may like. In Shakespeare's words, A rose is a rose,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Well, if you dont agree with this then let me say Religion is like a bouquet of flowers,is like branches of a tree, seeds in a pod!




> I don't think that is the explanation for love, it's a more instinctual phenomenon, in the same way as it happens in many other animals. But again, perhaps before saying it's unexplained, you should consult academic sources on the subject?



there is difference between love and lust. We are not discussing 'erectile problem' or ''orgasmism''to which oxytocin,,,is basically related,,,
I did check with an academic source but he's not married and not sure if Oxytocin could persuade him to get attracted to someone and allow him to marry at all !! However, he says love is what a mother feels for his son, what a woman feels for her beloved,,what an adherent feels for his Gid and his books,,,, it is NOT sex,,,rather above sex !





> using the failure of science to explain God implies the premise that God exists, which is more than circular logic, it's some kind of strange concave shape of logic at best!


good that my comments made you laugh ! me too. 

Science is a genus of reason and faith is ''above reason'',,,,,even in hundred years science cant tell what's goin to happen a moment later, when and where you will die, why visions come to us,what is Soul, etc,,,,,,,,Science is still ababy in the cradle,,,,no need to be over impresed with science--the world existed ,people lived, miracles happened, etc , much before science began !!




> he world of mind is the intelligible, and the world of heart is also the world of imaginary friends


the world of mind is deception, the world of heart is real! :Smile:

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

But once we have decided, once and for all. that there _is_ a God it will be as if we have crossed the vestibule of ignorance and entered into a vast library, the Library of Knowing and Unknowing where there will be shelf after shelf after shelf full of books proclaiming in contradiction of each other the nature of this 'God,' the history of his activities, his intentions and commandments for us...

And each of these books will assure us that it is _THE truth_. And each of these books will have been read by thousands of readers each of whom will understand it to mean exactly what he or she needs it to mean.

----------


## Nightshade

*Can we please steer clear of any political refferances? 
Also I am invoking Godwins Law, have a nice day *

----------


## Pendragon

> But tell me, how do you differentiate a lunatic from an illuminated? Just by the way what he tells you fits what you would like it to be? Why are those visions considered as word of God and therefore doctrine, while there is nothing more to assure us it is than the choice of a few men of Church. And when we know what those same men of Church have been through history, I wouldn't bet that these were particularly better than later ones, no? 
> 
> Admitting those books as saintly truth is rather the same as endorsing the crusades, the witch hunts, and the inquisition if you see it from a completely objective perspective. The only thing that make you say "a" is true and "b" was a mistake, is that "a" agrees with what you want to believe and "b" is compromising to what you want to believe. But in the end, both have the same justification: a decision of Church authorities. I am not saying that those decisions might never have been good BECAUSE they have sometimes been bad decisions, what I am saying is that those decisions (which includes what constitutes the Bible) cannot be taken as dogma, because the Church itself admits mistakes done in the past (and many mistakes not yet admitted which clearly contradict their own Bible), and therefore the Bible itself cannot be taken as dogma.
> 
> But I don't think you will admit this as it would make your whole system of belief, I would be interested however if there is somewhere where I have made a mistake in my reasoning?


I do NOT endorse the crusades, the Witch Hunts in Salem became so depraved that Cotton Mather himself finally condemned them. The Inquisition was hell on Earth, carried out by those considered Holy. One thing you miss is this was an rabid attempt to ensure that there would be but one church, the Catholic One and it would be ran Roman style. Many early church Catholics rejected the Roman views on such things as celibacy for nuns, monks, and priests. Rather, they had communes where married couples raised their children in service to God. This wouldn't pass Rome. They would obey or be destroyed. Any Protestants would be the same, the Waldens and others. _Foxes Book of Martyrs_  contains in detail much of this. The quest for the Holy Grail was a waste of time, money, and life on a dream.

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Lote
> evolution is yet one of the hypothesis,,,,if it were a complete science Hitler wouldn't have failed in producing his 'best men' ! It was Hitlers belief in Evolution which made him adopt evil mindset in dealing with others,,,,,,
> evolution is generally put forth to oppose religious beliefs but mere hypotheses as such cannot be taken as the final word;


I guess there is no point continuing with this when you start bring Hitler into evolution.

Adios.




> Re Oxytocin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin),,,,,it has nothing to do with love,,,,,the love one has for his parents, children, family, God, Bible,Koran, Geeta, etc. Oxytocin is a hormone for sexual boost up, and sex is not love ,,,that's animal instinct !


[/quote]

It has everything to do with it. Take away this particular chemical - and love does not happen  :Biggrin: 

Amazing isn't it?  :Biggrin:

----------


## mazHur

Lote

Okay, then how do you explain the continued failure of evolution to make all apes men till this day??Conversely, if the theory of evolution was true all apes would be men by now !!

----------


## kilted exile

> Okay, then how do you explain the continued failure of evolution to make all apes men till this day??Conversely, if the theory of evolution was true all apes would be men by now !!


Jeez, do we not have enough threads in this section debating evolution already without this one becoming that as well? 

If you really want to discuss evolution I think you should firstly do some research on the subject though (it would be unfair otherwise) evolution does NOT say apes evolved into men it says there is a common ancestor.

----------


## mazHur

Ok , You Mean To Say That Ancestors Havnt Yet Passed Their Traits To Their Progeny And So Apes Remain Apes!
This Seems Falsification Of Genetic Theory, No??

We Are Not Discussing Evolution In This Thread But Certain Things Incl Evolution Etc Do Have To Be Discussed In The Passing As Required By The Thread Or Its Motion,,,,,,,,,

May I Say That We Believe In Bible Because We (adherents) Don't Believe In Darwinism,,,,,any Objection??

----------


## kilted exile

> Ok , You Mean To Say That Ancestors Havnt Yet Passed Their Traits To Their Progeny And So Apes Remain Apes!
> This Seems Falsification Of Genetic Theory, No??


No, that is not what I mean at all. I mean that a very long time ago there was a common ancestor some of which evolved into us and some into apes. If you really want to discuss the subject I will but please do some research first to learn what the theory actually is, I really have neither the time nor inclination to teach the theory of evolution. Once you understand the theory I will discuss it with you, until then however, it will be a fruitless discussion.

----------


## mazHur

> that a very long time ago there was a common ancestor some of which evolved into us and some into apes. .



Wow, it sounds like reincarnation ! some evolved into Pundits, Brahmins and other into shuudars (the untouchables ) ,,,,,! Evolution is based on the past and enters reincarnation related to the future?? Awake worses dreaming??

According to the Bible and all other revealed scriptures, including the Torah and Talmud and the Quran, Adam and Eve are the common ancestors of man only--all the rest were created as they are or were and they will continue to stay as that........

----------


## Wintermute

> If you really want to discuss the subject I will but please do some research first to learn what the theory actually is, I really have neither the time nor inclination to teach the theory of evolution. Once you understand the theory I will discuss it with you, until then however, it will be a fruitless discussion.


Hi Kilted,

Well said. I just backspaced over several paragraphs asking why folks seem so intimidated by evolution. It's fruitless. People that want to believe in the christian god are going to no matter what, and they will not expend brain power to understand evolution. 

Agnostics like me say, "Hell, evolution is a beautiful thing, there is no reason why a creator of the universe wouldn't use a tool like evolution to insure growth, spiritual and otherwise, in beings all over the universe." It only seems to become an issue when we confine our ideas of a universal creator to one of the eartly constructs like christianity, or islam. These religions were created by humans way before science had developed--shoot, the earth was flat back in Christ's time, and stars were not other galaxies and star systems, they were lights attached to the sky! Now if Jesus had told us about the spherical nature of our planet, or discussed DNA, subatomic particles, etc. then I might give the bible more credence. But it doesn't.

Anyway, being agnostic, I could be wrong.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Anyway, being agnostic, I could be wrong.


Being agnostic, you could of course be wrong; but being a zealous follower of any religion or of militant atheism, so also could you be wrong. Being agnostic, however, I assume you have a healthy degree of skeptical open-mindedness and your ego is not deeply invested in having all the 'right' answers!

----------


## mazHur

> Wintermute;501619]Hi Kilted,
> why folks seem so intimidated by evolution. It's fruitless. People that want to believe in the christian god are going to no matter what, and they will not expend brain power to understand evolution.


It's not the process of evolution which the adherents refute---it is the basis of it which is unacceptable in that humans originated from Adam and Eve not from apes or fish !




> why a creator of the universe wouldn't use a tool like evolution to insure growth, spiritual and otherwise, in beings all over the universe." It only seems to become an issue when we confine our ideas of a universal creator to one of the eartly constructs like christianity, or islam.


Creator does operate through evolution.But, you cannot expect a horse turn into a mouse or vice versa ,,,,maybe only the Lamp of Aladin can do it !





> These religions were created by humans way before science had developed--shoot, the earth was flat back in Christ's time, and stars were not other galaxies and star systems, they were lights attached to the sky! Now if Jesus had told us about the spherical nature of our planet, or discussed DNA, subatomic particles, etc. then I might give the bible more credence. But it doesn't.



this is a misconception and wrong. Science existed with the creation of Adam
,it is only being evolved, not Adam. 
Revealed religions are definitely not works of humans except in that they have been fouled and tampered with later by their followers. Bible may not contain reference to science but Quran does,,,,,,,it's better that you conducted some preliminary research so that discussing with you could be worthwhile. Here is one link which goes to prove how one of the revealed religion spoke of science:

http://www.sultan.org/articles/QScience.html

For more on Muslim scientists and their services to science go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists






> Anyway, being agnostic, I could be wrong.


After going through the above links I bet you would find yourself wrong!

----------


## Etienne

> It's not the process of evolution which the adherents refute---it is the basis of it which is unacceptable in that humans originated from Adam and Eve not from apes or fish !


So basically it's only that you do not like the idea that your very far ancestors were not humans. Your quote basically just admits that there is nothing wrong with evolution but you don't like it and so you say it's false. Typical, but at least your honest.




> Creator does operate through evolution.But, you cannot expect a horse turn into a mouse or vice versa ,,,,maybe only the Lamp of Aladin can do it !


Look it's no use trying to appeal to ridiculous to try to disprove evolution, as your twisting the whole thing. Also evolution is far from just being a "theory" it's been proved through concrete experimentation and data. The most famous of these experimentations was with fruit flies (which have a very short lifespan, and therefore it's easy to observe multiple generations and genetic mutations through these generations). Before trying to refute evolution inform yourself and come up with real arguments please, right now you're just spitting some pre-chewed sophisms for simple-minded who don't want to believe. 




> Revealed religions are definitely not works of humans except in that they have been fouled and tampered with later by their followers.


Oh and why are they "definitely not works of humans"? Yes, yes, I know, i know, you will tell me it's blind faith again and we will agree, but you won't convince people with an argument involving your blind faith.

They have been fouled ans tampered later by their followers? Well the bible was constituted "later" than the revelation. But of course it's another exception because you want it so.




> ,it's better that you conducted some preliminary research so that discussing with you could be worthwhile.


You are not in position to say this, I'm afraid.




> After going through the above links I bet you would find yourself wrong!


Your links only tell that medieval muslims had some physics knowledge, which is nothing new. However science is more recent, as science is a method and not a discipline, which is something people do mix up too often.

----------


## Niamh

*Another mod note.
A mod note has already been posted on this page. Can we please get off the topic of evolution and back to the topic of the thread which is "Why do you believe in the bible?" 
If you want to discuss evolution then please do in the millions of evolution threads that can be for in the philosophy and religion section. Further more disregard will result in the closure of this thread. 
Merry Christmas and have a nice Day*

----------


## mazHur

I believe in the Bible or any revealed book such as the Quran or Torah as I believe in my dreams,,,

----------


## brightfame

I believe in the Bible because for some reason God gave me faith to believe (I don't claim to deserve it, I know how character flawed and undisciplined I am). The Bible explains this by saying that He "...is the author and finisher of our faith...". He is the author of my faith, and of the faith of all my brothers and sisters who contributed to this topic. Without Him opening our eyes to believe, we would all be forever doomed in unbelief and its consequences, which is eternal condemnation. In the light of this, can you imagine someone mocking my faith, when there is absolutely nothing that they can do to save themselves, not even believe without God mercifully giving them faith.

So I hear you asking:
Why doesn't He give everybody that same saving faith then? 

I don't know. 

To speculate, maybe they don't want it. Maybe he doesn't give faith to people who actively reject it, like some of the contributors to this topic. It makes sense. The Bible does say "...do not cast your pearls before swine...". Maybe if you don't want it, you can't have it. Can you imagine mocking people for their faith, so that even while you were mocking you were totally dependent on God's mercy to even be able to belive to be saved, while totally oblivous to it? How embarrassing. I comfort myself with this theory because it's a bit scary to think that I could have been one of the unbelievers, except for God's soverign mercy to give me saving faith, which he obviously doesn't give to all. ...But I'm just speculating. The answer is: I don't know, sorry.

What do you think pendragon?

brightfame

P.S. Can someone please tell me if there is a spell checker on this thing, I'm new to all this.

----------


## Pendragon

> I believe in the Bible because for some reason God gave me faith to believe (I don't claim to deserve it, I know how character flawed and undisciplined I am). The Bible explains this by saying that He "...is the author and finisher of our faith...". He is the author of my faith, and of the faith of all my brothers and sisters who contributed to this topic. Without Him opening our eyes to believe, we would all be forever doomed in unbelief and its consequences, which is eternal condemnation. In the light of this, can you imagine someone mocking my faith, when there is absolutely nothing that they can do to save themselves, not even believe without God mercifully giving them faith.
> 
> So I hear you asking:
> Why doesn't He give everybody that same saving faith then? 
> 
> I don't know. 
> 
> To speculate, maybe they don't want it. Maybe he doesn't give faith to people who actively reject it, like some of the contributors to this topic. It makes sense. The Bible does say "...do not cast your pearls before swine...". Maybe if you don't want it, you can't have it. Can you imagine mocking people for their faith, so that even while you were mocking you were totally dependent on God's mercy to even be able to belive to be saved, while totally oblivous to it? How embarrassing. I comfort myself with this theory because it's a bit scary to think that I could have been one of the unbelievers, except for God's soverign mercy to give me saving faith, which he obviously doesn't give to all. ...But I'm just speculating. The answer is: I don't know, sorry.
> 
> ...


Your first question: There is on my computer, a red line appears under misspelled words. Now as to why some do not receive faith, I know one good scripture: 2Cor.4

1. [4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. These cannot receive faith because the devil has blinded them. The parable of the sower form St, Matthew 13: also deals with this. The seed by the wayside never got to the people, the Devil had then blinded, and snatched it away. On Rocky soil, it grew fast, but couldn't root in the rocks, so when trails came they got offended and left. Among the thorns they grew but so did the thorns, and problems in life choked them. On good ground they produced fruit. I believe everyone gets a chance to say yes to God. I believe everyone has a chance for redemption. God would not be God if He didn't already know what choice you will ultimately make. But He says He is not willing for any to perish, but for all to have eternal life. 

It is hard to go to hell. God doesn't want you there. Christians and other religious people don't want to see you go there. They pray every day for the random lost person. That means you, if you are lost. You will march into hell over top of all these prayers and against God's Will and over the blood of Christ. Tough job. Hope you are up to it if you choose to go, because that's the road to hell, your choice.

God Bless

Pen

----------


## elfiedaelf

i'm not a christian per se! but i think some of the bibles true, not thehole 'god is real, jesus is the son of god' more the 'earth had a guy called jesus that died, i only beleive that, because the romans talked about him!

Oh, and do you mean the original bible, the reritten one, or the commercilised version!

----------


## dzebra

Pendragon and brightfame, in Romans 9, from about 17 to 24ish, it says that God designates some people to not listen. Pharaoh in Egypt is an example of that. His purpose in life was to refuse to listen to God so that God could show his power. That could be a reason why some people don't believe; God is doing something big enough that one person needs to not be a believer in order for it to happen.

I like to look at God as a master storyteller. He knows the whole story, because he wrote it. In his story, there are good people and bad people. The bad people are just as necessary as the good people, and God loves them both because they are characters in his story, but in the end, the bad people will get what they deserve, even though God needed their badness to finish his story.

Well then, you might say, "Why does God blame people for not listening? Haven't they simply done what he made them do?"
No, don't say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to criticize God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who made it, "Why have you made me like this?" When a potter makes jars out of clay, does he not have the right to use the same lump to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into? (Rom 9:19-21)

----------


## brightfame

"...I believe everyone gets a chance to say yes to God. I believe everyone has a chance for redemption..."

No only one chance, but often countless chances, it's often brought to them on a silver platter, and still they mock.

Thanks Pen

In reply to dzebra:

"...In his story, there are good people and bad people..."

I understant what you are saying, but I differ slightly on one point. When I was saved I don't think I could have claimed to have been a "good person" (even now I'm only saved by grace, not because I am a good person). In other words, I don't claim to know why God shows mercy to some and not to others; He says something to the effect "...on whomever I have compashion, I will have compashion...", meaning to me that it is an act of soverign will, consistent with what you are saying; however, being good or bad doesn't seem to come into it, as we all start bad, get saved by grace, and then are progressively sanctified for the rest of our lives. After all, He "...came to call sinners to repentence, not the righteous..." (i.e. not the good people).

All the best

brightfame




> Oh, and do you mean the original bible, the reritten one, or the commercilised version!


Hmm...it sounds like you have neve read the Bible?
Correct?

Ok, thats fine.

To someone who has never read the Bible, it might seem like there are dozens of Bibles out there, all contradicting themselves. 

From someone who has read 5 or 6 different versions of the most widely accepted translations of the Bible, may I put your mind at rest by saying that it's not as nearly confusing as that. I won't burden you with the details, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask; if not me, someone else will pick it up.

brightfame

P.S. I still can't find how to make the auto spell checker work? Where are the computer whizes when you need them?

----------


## mazHur

One more reason for believing in the Bible is that more than a billion of Muslims around the world are commanded to believe it as a revelation from God. By Bible (or Torah or Talmud) the Muslim mean the ORIGINAL book that was revealed by God to Jesus (and MOses etc) and not the edited and tampered one which is available on the market and which differs in the actual content such as regarding Jesus to be the son of God, belief in Trinity, etc, etc. Otherwise Muslims would be thrown out of their faith if they point their finger at Bible or any revealed scropture of God.

----------

