Who seriously can believe in bible?

[Thoth-Amon]

For me to explain fully would take a long, long time to explain, but let me start here:

If you look in any religious text of an old religion, such as Hinduism, Egyptian, or any other ancient civilization around the world, you'll find in each one a story about a Tropical Paradise, Paradise/ the old world disappearing after 40 days and 40 nights of rain, and in most of the texts, a story about how Paradise was lost in a Fiery Cataclysm that destroyed everything that was created. Suspiciously, as well, the names given in each text, suspiciously resemble something along the lines of Aztlan, Atitlan, and many others that essentially resemble, in essence, Atlantis. This is only the tip of the Iceberg, because when you look into details, alot of them line up in an almost suspicious manner. It goes far deeper, but this is a good place to start. If you want me to continue, I would gladly, but I'd probably have to do it at another time, and probably in a new thread, if need be. (I need sleep!)

OK... I follow. Isn't it possible that there was just one original old Atlantis myth that got carried over into various other mythologies... such as the flood myth in Genesis being carried over from earlier versions of the story... without Atlantis having been real?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

well
i agree with everything that Ptah Khnemu said in the last few pages
partially because the deties (plural) that try to communicate with me are all female

 

[Thoth-Amon]

well
i agree with everything that Ptah Khnemu said in the last few pages
partially because the deties (plural) that try to communicate with me are all female

 

[Abhorsen]

I tell you this; Open your eyes the next time you view a snow-capped mountain, or an open field of flowers and trees, a cyrstal-blue running stream and a crisp,beautiful Autumn day. Ask yourself, where did all this glorius beauty come from, that is mine to enjoy. Oh, a scientist put it here, or maybe it was a philosiphor, or maybe some great politician. My friends. There is a God. Your proof---take a walk into a forest and listen.Peace.

I love the images and the idea behind this post, but it just isn't so. Most of the year I live ten minutes away from Muir Woods in northern California and frequently go for walks in and around the area. Quotes from John Muir abound, himself a lover of the natural world and a believer in the Judeo-Christian god. A walk in the woods can cure many an ill, but the beauty of the natural world no more points to a god behind its creation than the most aesthetically unpleasing spot on the planet does. Nature just is, ever changing and frequently beautiful, much like the planet that sustains life itself. If you have a chance pick up a buddhist text by a 13th century zen master by the name of Dogen. The text is entitled the Mountains and Rivers sutra and is worth reading. Henry David Thoreau, 19th-Century American transcendentalist and author of Walden is also worth reading on the subject.

A recently closed thread in the Opeth forum got me thinking on this subject. The Bible, like most "sacred" texts, is a collection of writings that speak to an experience of what some term god and how one might go about in relation to this supernatural being/s. There is much value in this text as a record of human experience and understanding as it developed over many centuries. The story of Jesus is often an inspiring one. The historical Jesus was a reformer of the Judaism of his day and evidently a believer that highest property of God is love, unconditionally, and that this fact was the summation of the Law of Moses. It's a lovely story because it is capable of inspiring goodness and unselfishness in human beings, but at its base the myth of the dying god is not unique to Christianity. Indeed it is a part of many cultures and has many faces. One story is not magically more true than another.

 

[batastrophe]

Isn't there now an "intelligent design" theory being circulated by some scientists that attempts to reconcile science with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient creator?

Intelligent Design is another word for "creationism," which has no scientific value whatsoever.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

Intelligent Design is another word for "creationism," which has no scientific value whatsoever.

Um... not exactly. While many creationists obviously believe in intelligent design, intelligent design merely teaches that some features of the living world were designed/created. It does not postulate WHO that creator is. Creationism traditionally espouses biblical literalism. In fact many ID proponents reject both biblical literalism or Christianity entirely. They simply believe that numerous parts of the living world are too complex to have arisen through Darwinian evolution.

 

[Neith]

For me to explain fully would take a long, long time to explain, but let me start here:

I'd really enjoy reading a thread/article on this if you had time.

 

[profskett]

Actually there are reasons to disbelieve the New Testament accounts. Some examples would be contradictions, forged history/prophecies, false prophecies, incorporation of pagan elements into the Jesus story, etc. You can start by looking here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html

I've heard the 'contradictions' argument so many times now it just gets boring. I'll admit that the bible as a whole has some issues in it that are hard to resolve in the context of our modern life nowadays, there are some challenging things in there make even those who are very strong in faith question 'why does God work like this?' there are some places where the passages are difficult to understand/marry together, and there are some obvious cases where there are slight differences in the minor details of the accounts, but I can't see any 'direct contradictions', so to speak.

I've seen sites similar to the one you've linked to, and they all seem to me to fall down in that they shamelessly neglect two very important explanations of why certain details differ, and why certain things might appear to contradict each other but actually don't at all:
1) The individual gospel writers were writing about events, sometimes the same individual events, but told from a person's point of view. The key example is Luke and Matthew's gospels. The two gospels take a different slant on many issues, but that is because they are written by differnt people who had different sources in some cases and were aiming their accounts at different groups of people. If there are minor disagreements about 'who put the robe on Jesus when' or 'whether there was a crown of thorns', bear in mind it's entirely possible that different would have heard slightly different accounts of what from people who were observing from a different place/time relative to the event in question/etc. Also one or other writer may have decided to leave certain details out simply as an oversight, or because he didn't feel they were necessary in the grand scheme of things. In this respect it is remarkable that the gospel accounts actually marry up so well.
2) So many times people try to take passages from the Bible out of context when they clearly weren't meant to be. This accounts for a lot of the minor, niggly disagreements that most intelligent Christians understand well enough to explain perfectly well in conjunction but for some reason atheists/skeptics seem to pick up on very adeptly in a manner that suggests a struggle to find reasons to disbelieve it.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

I've heard the 'contradictions' argument so many times now it just gets boring. I'll admit that the bible as a whole has some issues in it that are hard to resolve in the context of our modern life nowadays, there are some challenging things in there make even those who are very strong in faith question 'why does God work like this?' there are some places where the passages are difficult to understand/marry together, and there are some obvious cases where there are slight differences in the minor details of the accounts, but I can't see any 'direct contradictions', so to speak.

I've seen sites similar to the one you've linked to, and they all seem to me to fall down in that they shamelessly neglect two very important explanations of why certain details differ, and why certain things might appear to contradict each other but actually don't at all:
1) The individual gospel writers were writing about events, sometimes the same individual events, but told from a person's point of view. The key example is Luke and Matthew's gospels. The two gospels take a different slant on many issues, but that is because they are written by differnt people who had different sources in some cases and were aiming their accounts at different groups of people. If there are minor disagreements about 'who put the robe on Jesus when' or 'whether there was a crown of thorns', bear in mind it's entirely possible that different would have heard slightly different accounts of what from people who were observing from a different place/time relative to the event in question/etc. Also one or other writer may have decided to leave certain details out simply as an oversight, or because he didn't feel they were necessary in the grand scheme of things. In this respect it is remarkable that the gospel accounts actually marry up so well.

-So when Matthew places Jesus' birth around 4BC and Luke places his birth around 6AD, is this also a minor discrepancy? Or when Jesus and the apostles teach on numerous occasions that the second coming would take place during the lifetime of those present is this also a minor error? If you admit there can be minor errors then where do you draw the line? In other words if you admit that some human error caused a contradiction somewhere is it not also therefore possible that a human error caused a big contradiction?

2) So many times people try to take passages from the Bible out of context when they clearly weren't meant to be. This accounts for a lot of the minor, niggly disagreements that most intelligent Christians understand well enough to explain perfectly well in conjunction but for some reason atheists/skeptics seem to pick up on very adeptly in a manner that suggests a struggle to find reasons to disbelieve it.

-Sure I understand that. But there are many passages when looked at in their own proper context reveal major errors/contradictions, etc.

 

[Dushan S]

Not seeing massive contradictions inside the bible both with facts and more imortant phylospohical differences, simply means that person does not have knowledge of history, and is not aware how bible we know it today was made.

Maybe someone could start arguing specifically about new testament, and how many contradictions is there, but old and new testament are so different in their basics that I guess only traditional christianity fanboy cannot see that.

 

[lycanthropyhowl]

i havent read this entire thread, so i dont know if this has been discussed, but religion isnt about waht makes scientific sense, its about how the individual feels, their faith, i guess what im saying is the bible doenst seem plausible in many parts, but i feel good about it, and thats all that matters to me.

 

[Consuming Impulse]

i take big fat shits on the bible

 

[MetalNub]

i take big fat shits on the bible

Amen

 

[Thoth-Amon]

i havent read this entire thread, so i dont know if this has been discussed, but religion isnt about waht makes scientific sense, its about how the individual feels, their faith, i guess what im saying is the bible doenst seem plausible in many parts, but i feel good about it, and thats all that matters to me.

Yeah but that's what Mormons say, that's what Muslims say, that's what Hindu's say, etc. In other words just because a religion makes you feel good it doesn't mean it is true.

 

[lycanthropyhowl]

Yeah but that's what Mormons say, that's what Muslims say, that's what Hindu's say, etc. In other words just because a religion makes you feel good it doesn't mean it is true.

i am mormon, sweet.

 

[Thoth-Amon]

i am mormon, sweet.

You fail to understand. Mormonism like Christianity and Islam, etc. are all demonstratably false. Their supposedly divinely inspired books are riddled with contradictions, historical errors, scientific errors, god-ordained attrocities, absurdities, forgeries, anachronisms, false prophecies, etc. And yes I have read the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants/Pearl of Great Price. So just because one of these religions makes you feel good or provides comfort it is a false comfort as it is based on a lie.

 

[proglodite]

How does a contradiction in a religious text deem that religion false?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

You fail to understand. Mormonism like Christianity and Islam, etc. are all demonstratably false. Their supposedly divinely inspired books are riddled with contradictions, historical errors, scientific errors, god-ordained attrocities, absurdities, forgeries, anachronisms, false prophecies, etc. And yes I have read the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants/Pearl of Great Price. So just because one of these religions makes you feel good or provides comfort it is a false comfort as it is based on a lie.

i've read these books as well and apparently more thouroughly than their followers that fail to see (as i have seen for myself) that what you say is accurate

 

[Horus]

Sorry I haven't been around too much lately. (I've been busy with my band.) Now, where to catch up..... I know!

How does a contradiction in a religious text deem that religion false?

Most people would think that if something contradicts itself, it's not believable. That usually is the case. So why wouldn't that apply to Christianity also?

 

[LORD_RED_DRAGON]

Sorry I haven't been around too much lately. (I've been busy with my band.) Now, where to catch up..... I know!


Most people would think that if something contradicts itself, it's not believable. That usually is the case. So why wouldn't that apply to Christianity also?

because part of Christianity is not questioning it
apparently