Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Because God is supposedly divinely inspiring these authors. Is he divinely inspiring them to write errors, contraditions, absurdities, forgeries, false prophecies,etc.?proglodite said:
Who seriously can believe in bible?
- Thread starter cfh
- Start date
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
proglodite said:
Furthermore if a relgion/religious text is proven false in areas in which we can test it against evidence (i.e. science, history, etc.) then how can we trust it in areas that can't be tested (i.e. theology, etc.). Also if you allow that your own relgious text can be full of errors and falsehoods then you must logically also allow that same luxury to other religions in which case you can't prove any of them wrong in which case you can never know if any of them (yours included) is true or not.
profskett
Member
- Jun 18, 2005
- 191
- 0
- 16
That's lovely, thanks for your tasteful sensitivity on this subject. I was under the impression this forum was for 'Intelligent (and mature) discussions only.' I don't see how that post fits those criteria.Consuming Impulse said:
You still haven't provided me with any actual examples of these supposed 'contradictions' within the Bible. Now I'll be the first to say there are many parts of the bible which cannot be taken literally (the genesis creation story for one - something that was mentioned a little while back on the thread) but that doesn't mean they're not 'true' - true does not always mean 'literally true down to the last letter'. The fact is the Bible wasn't written as a scientific text book. In the same way I feel a lot of your supposed 'contradictions' come from misinterpretation.Thoth-Amon said:
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
profskett said:
Actually the Genesis creation story must be taken literally as Ex. 20:4-11 interprets the passage literally. Secondly the other stories in the first part of Genesis (the Flood, the tower of babel, the geneolgies of man, the origin of mankind, etc.) all contradict known facts of science, history and anthropology. And as I am sure you know other writers in the bible interpret these passages literally and base doctrines upon literal interpretations of these passages. A very well known example would be Romans 5:12-14 where Paul bases the doctrine of original sin on the existence of a literal Adam and his fall in paradise. Of course if those stories were not hitsorical or literal to begin with then Paul's entire basis for his argument on Original Sin is fallacious. There are numerous other examples of this sort of thing.
Seconldy I did give several examples of contradictions in that link. One was on the date of Jesus' birth. Matthew places it circa 4BC while Luke places it circa 6AD. Read the link again for more details.
Demilich
Remember
profskett said:
Where I come from, everything one reads has to be interpreted, so I guess I'd say that anything you take out of the bible could be a misinterpretation. You can't ask the guy who wrote it. What other authority remains? The Vatican? As if they're looking out for the best interests of their subjects and not trying to enforce an antiquated vision of morality.
What I'm trying to say is, there is no ultimate authority on how to interpret the Bible. People are going to take all kinds of different things out of it. I see all kinds of contradictions in the bible, as you'd expect from a work compiled from stuff written over the course of hundreds of years by vastly different sources. Aren't there even two consecutive yet different creation stories? A lot of the potential contradictions are probably hidden by over-zealous translators anyhow. Who's to say?
proglodite
Member
Regardless of the integrity of the text, the deity remains. My 'religion' is based on God, not the bible.Thoth-Amon said:
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
The Judeo-Christian deity? Why that one? Why not the Hindu deity or the Deist deity?proglodite said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
there's the possibility for misinterpretation, thus proving it's false, a "real" religion would have everything in black-and-white with absolutely no posibility for any type of "misinterpretation"profskett said:
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
this kinda proves my pointDemilich said:
how can it be taken seriously when there's so many different possible ways to interpret it
every person mentioned in Genisis (and also Jesus Christ) are mentioned in the Koran
if you say the "Bible" is accurate, then wouldn't you have to also say that the Koran is also acurate???
you couldn't say the Catholic's extra apocrypha text is accurate if you also say the book of mormon is real
so how do you seperate the real from the fake texts???
Demilich
Remember
this is why i hold my own values only as important to myself and anyone who chooses to share them. i might try to convince people, but at the end of the day, if you want to be a terrorist, a rapist, Christian, etc, go for it!
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
LORD_RED_DRAGON said:
Actually only Orthodox and Catholics can answer this one... because they believe their churches are divinely guided by God in the process of canonization.
Demilich
Remember
This is where groups like Orthodox Christianity lose me. When they start justifying their moral codes, etc. by reference to a shadowy higher power. At this point it becomes a matter of faith, I know, and I guess those who choose to follow these faiths are expected to be prepared to follow the rules. I don't know how I could ever go for something where I fear performing certain actions because of the ramifications in subsequent lives. Meh. To each his own.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Demilich said:
Here we can determine whether or not these Churches are divinely inspired by God using a few simple tests.
1. Have they ever infallibly and officially proclaimed something that is demonstratably false?
2. Have they ever infallibly and officially proclaimed something that contradicts something they have previously infallibly and officially proclaimed?
3. Does their divinely inspried scriptures show evidence of human errors, contradictions, false prophecies, etc.?
4. Have these churches ever officially done or sanctioned something that contradicts their own morality?
I think when we examine the history and teachings of these churches you will see that they fail several of these tests and hence they are not to be taken seriously when they claim divine inspiration.
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
mormons believe their book of "mormon" describes Jesus of nazereth being on the amirican side of atlantic between the incident of mary and josheph not knowing where he is when he's 12 and "starting his ministry at about 30"Thoth-Amon said:
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Demilich
Remember
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
LORD_RED_DRAGON
New Metal Member
i'm trying to point out the fallacies inherent in each of all the judeo-christianity denominationsDemilich said:
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
