Osama Bin Laden killed

[dataDave]

Ah yes, there's nothing quite as refined as an argument that uses cartoon stick men.

The truth is, Ady, it doesn't matter what explanation is given. Your a priori assumption that the bible is not true, means that you haven't the slightest interest in properly finding out whether or not it might be true.

It can't be true, at least within the confines of this physical realm, or if you take the whole thing literally.

[MartyG]

In fairness, you can find plenty of unkind things about non-believers in the Bible as well. In any religion it's the idiots who act on that stuff that are the problem.

Quoted for truth.

There aren't bad religions, there are just bad people.

[Howiee]

It can't be true, at least within the confines of this physical realm, or if you take the whole thing literally.

Personally, I do take it literally because I believe that the God of the bible operates outside of this physical realm (and time), so why not? If I were God, I would too. I'd also go back in time and see to it that the Dreamcast was shipped with a built-in DVD player to ensure its future success.

Of course, it's never going to be true if you only ever presuppose that it isn't without actually giving it a chance.

[Charlie]

The video was an intereting one. What I'd really like to know but won't until I read the Bible and Qur'an in their entirity (and the same goes for any other holy text) is is the underlying message a positive or a negative one? Taken as a whole, do they preach love, tolerance and forgiveness for example, or pettiness? Personally, if it's a positive message, then the means by which that message is delivered, whether by talking snakes and other seemingly impossible acts, or by things grounded in the world we see and understand around us, doesn't really matter to me.

[EDDIE M0NS00N]

Quoted for truth.

There aren't bad religions, there are just bad people.

I believe that all religions are supposed to follow the old Wild Stalyuns phrase, which is: "Be Excellent To Each Other". Something that in all honesty doesnt need religion to tell you this, as its usually called your conscience

[dataDave]

Personally, I do take it literally because I believe that the God of the bible operates outside of this physical realm (and time), so why not?

My idea of God also operates outside of the confines of space and time, or more like parallel to our currently perceived spectrum of reality, so how can we possibly document this with man-made words and stories? I don't think there's any chance of someone walking on water, someone parting the Red Sea, a virgin birth, the earth being made in 6 days, or anything else mentioned. It simply cannot exist within this reality and I think the opening verses of Genesis get that point across right at the start.

Instead of being absorbed as a literal documentation of events how about looking on it all as a philosophical and inspirational muse from various spiritualists throughout the short history of documented history? Instead, we have various groups arguing violently over what actually happened, and some would actually sacrifice themselves physically, taking others with them no less, in order to get their point across.

[Ady]

My idea of God also operates outside of the confines of space and time, or more like parallel to our currently perceived spectrum of reality, so how can we possibly document this with man-made words and stories? I don't think there's any chance of someone walking on water, someone parting the Red Sea, a virgin birth, the earth being made in 6 days, or anything else mentioned. It simply cannot exist within this reality and I think the opening verses of Genesis get that point across right at the start.

Instead of being absorbed as a literal documentation of events how about looking on it all as a philosophical and inspirational muse from various spiritualists throughout the short history of documented history? Instead, we have various groups arguing violently over what actually happened, and some would actually sacrifice themselves physically, taking others with them no less, in order to get their point across.

This is pretty much how I see it, too. I think the bible stories need to be taken for what they really are: myth and allegory. By trying to argue that they are literal, historical accounts, you have to justify some pretty bizarre (and sometimes cruel) things that one would ordinarily dismiss as fiction were it not for the bible's own claim that it is the word of god.

900 year old men, talking animals, unicorns, Noah rounding up EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL on the planet and putting them in a wooden boat, god wiping out all of mankind save 8 people (how loving and kind is that?), and the entire population of the planet initially coming from just 2 humans (resulting in a lot of incest...) and, of course the world only being 6000 years old just doesn't hold up in reality. Also, dismissing science in favour of "god did it all by magic" (which is the only way any of the aforementioned stories can ever be substantiated) doesn't really hold much weight.

Beyond that, the world is too large and diverse for one religion to be the "only way". It implies that hundreds of native cultures are "wrong"; and one only has to look into the history of christianity itself and how it was birthed to recognise that "divine inspiration" didn't really have anything to do with it. The same applies to the bible itself, which was compiled over time by a group of bishops; it didn't just fall out of the sky having been written by the creator of the universe.

And we're supposed to believe the bible is the word of god simply because it says so. Circular logic FTW!

Personally, if it's a positive message, then the means by which that message is delivered, whether by talking snakes and other seemingly impossible acts, or by things grounded in the world we see and understand around us, doesn't really matter to me.

Two words: Original Sin.

The crux of the message of christianity is that because a woman was tricked into eating a magical fruit by a talking snake several thousand years ago, YOU are going to burn in hell for all eternity unless you convert to a religion that's only a few hundred years old and accept a human sacrifice that was made on your behalf as atonement for your misdeeds and the inheritance of "original sin", as the god within is unable to forgive mankind without his own son being killed and tortured first. Revelation ends with most of humanity burning in a lake of fire.

[Neon Ignition]

I always found the bit in Red Dwarf funny with the news reporter who reports:

"Archeologists have discovered what is believed to be a missing page of the Bible. It is believed to read 'To my darling Candy, any similarity to real events or individuals living or dead is purely coincidental'. Church leaders have rejected the page"

Can you imagine if that happened

[Howiee]

And we're supposed to believe the bible is the word of god simply because it says so. Circular logic FTW!

You're right, that is circular logic. If I were a non-believer, I wouldn't accept that argument. It's a logical fallacy. I would be keen to hear, though, how you can logically prove that bible is not the word of God.

Two words: Original Sin.

The crux of the message of christianity is that because a woman was tricked into eating a magical fruit by a talking snake several thousand years ago, YOU are going to burn in hell for all eternity unless you convert to a religion that's only a few hundred years old and accept a human sacrifice that was made on your behalf as atonement for your misdeeds and the inheritance of "original sin", as the god within is unable to forgive mankind without his own son being killed and tortured first. Revelation ends with most of humanity burning in a lake of fire.

The crux of the Christian message is that man is bad and Jesus is the answer. Is man not bad? Has man not behaved abhorrently throughout time? Or are we essentially good but only our behaviour lets us down?

If the bible really is the net sum of myth and allegory, Ady, then why the emotionally-laden, oftentimes scathing opinions? Would you feel this way about a Stephen King novel? Surely real knowledge and reality itself would have dismissed the bible years ago, no? No one I know has super-opinions on people who throw salt over their left shoulder to bring luck. It is laughed off and tolerated. In fact, "religion" itself doesn't even provoke this kind of ire, but rather Christianity specifically - and, in particular, the biblical Christianity that believes the Bible to be literally true.

What is it that people find so threatening about the bible, if it's only myth?

[Ady]

You're right, that is circular logic. If I were a non-believer, I wouldn't accept that argument. It's a logical fallacy. I would be keen to hear, though, how you can logically prove that bible is not the word of God.

The burden of proof lies with the believer who makes the initial assertion. It is not possible for someone to prove that the bible isn't the word of a god they don't believe in.

The crux of the Christian message is that man is bad and Jesus is the answer. Is man not bad? Has man not behaved abhorrently throughout time? Or are we essentially good but only our behaviour lets us down?

Of course we have behaved abhorrently through time. As for whether we are collectively good or bad, I don't think it's something that can be quite so easily quantified. It depends on the individual and the situation but yes, you're right we certainly do have a propensity towards things that may be considered evil. Similarly, we also have the propensity towards good as well. It's not either/or and it isn't black and white.

If the bible really is the net sum of myth and allegory, Ady, then why the emotionally-laden, oftentimes scathing opinions? Would you feel this way about a Stephen King novel? Surely real knowledge and reality itself would have dismissed the bible years ago, no? No one I know has super-opinions on people who throw salt over their left shoulder to bring luck. It is laughed off and tolerated. In fact, "religion" itself doesn't even provoke this kind of ire, but rather Christianity specifically - and, in particular, the biblical Christianity that believes the Bible to be literally true.

What is it that people find so threatening about the bible, if it's only myth?

Well first of all, you're assuming my words to be "emotionally laden", when I am in fact just stating my opinions.

Secondly, real knowledge and reality has dismissed much of what the bible claims as historical fact, the ongoing debate between creationists and science being a good example of that.

The reason why some appear to hold such strong opinions with regard to religion is due to the fact that, christianity in particular posits itself as Absolute and unquestionable and has done so for centuries to deleterious effect. Historically, the Church has used political leverage to gain its authority and has used it to control and exploit. Beyond that, a lot of people have a problem with chritianity's claim that all non-believers will be tortured eternally by a god who is also all-loving, which is really just a way of threatening people into believing things that otherwise make no real sense. This is one of the major contradictions of the religion and one we are not supposed to question.

Also, whilst there is opposition to christianity, I do think it is often exaggerated. One only has to look at the US, for example where fundamentalist christianity has a lot of power and influence. However, as soon as any dissenters speak against any aspect of the religion, then they play the "persecution" card. Additionally, problems arise when beliefs get in the way of other people's personal freedoms or impede progress. Wanting creation myths taught in school over factual science, for instance.

So, the reason some find christianity "threatening" isn't because they secretly "know" it to be true, but because, if taken to its full, logical conclusion, will (and has throughout history) resulted in oppression for many on a large scale, especially if taken literally.

Common sense alone should tell you that biblical edicts such as stoning disobedient children or burning "witches" and people who believe other things alive is abhorrent in this day and age, and yes, I know you are not condoning these things, but you have to accept that if you take the bible fully and literally, then these things are also a part of it. Beyond that, there is the problem that christianity is not in any way progressive. The words written by people from ancient times are still held up as being correct and relevant today, which is why so many christians get up in arms about modern advances or developments if they happen to contradict scripture. Another good example is the way christianity, centuries back blocked medical advances to prevent women from receiving anaesthetic during childbirth because they believed it flew in the fact of god's "curse" on women for the Fall. Obviously, that has long since been overturned, but is a good example of how regressive christianity can be and how damaging that can be when coupled with power and control.

Either way, my responses or opinions to biblical stories do not somehow validate them as being absolutely and unquestionably correct.

[endo]

You're right, that is circular logic. If I were a non-believer, I wouldn't accept that argument. It's a logical fallacy. I would be keen to hear, though, how you can logically prove that bible is not the word of God.

As Ady says, it's not possible to prove a negative like this and the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion. I can't prove to you, logically, that Father Christmas doesn't exist. Equally though, you and no one else can logically prove that the bible is the word of god. You can assert it but you can't prove it.

If the bible really is the net sum of myth and allegory, Ady, then why the emotionally-laden, oftentimes scathing opinions? Would you feel this way about a Stephen King novel?

Come on, you're not being fully serious here are you? People tend not to live their lives according to Stephen King novels or use them to justify their beliefs or their actions. I would have thought that much was clear. Equally obvious IMO is that the bible tends to arouse stronger feelings in some people than the average novel precisely because others live their lives according to it.

[Charlie]

In my experience when some one is threatened by another's faith and tries to disprove another's faith as nonsense, it's down to an uncertainty in their own personal beliefs - be they religious, spiritual or philosophical, and an uncertainty in their own path; and that the more comfortable a person is with their beliefs, the more in harmony they feel with them, the more tolerant they are of those on different paths.

Religion is a free choice. Nobody is forced to believe in God or punished for not doing so, least not in this day and age , so why try convincing others they made an unwise choice (be it their belief in God or their disbelief in God). Make your choice and move on. Live and let live.

[dataDave]

What is it that people find so threatening about the bible, if it's only myth?

Because a lot of people in power use it as leverage, somewhat like a tool.

More like a weapon in my opinion.

But hey, I'm all for bible stories, I think they're ace - and they can teach you how to critically think and live to an extent. I learned to read through them even.

When I see 'grown-ups' throwing around the religion card as a means to justify war it makes me a bit sick.

...and every time I hear the US President (they have all said it) telling the people that "God is on our side..." it makes me just want to revolt, I don't know why that gets me angry, it just does.

[Neon Ignition]

I don't think debating against a particular faith means the arguer is doing so due to uncertaintly in their own faith. I'd say aggressive stances tend to be more from people who are either frustrated by what they see to be fairly obvious aspects or through a desire to convert others. Every faith is guilty of it as it's a method often used as a method of survival. There's every chance that as the annums of time pass by many of the current religions will die out and be replaced by new ones but you can guarantee they'll go out kicking and screaming. I think religion can offer a supportive basis for people, in it's defence, and it's interesting that Atheism numbers rise the more you gravitate towards first world developed nations.

[Dogg Thang]

Nobody is forced to believe in God or punished for not doing so, least not in this day and age

Not true in all parts of the world, unfortunately.


Here's a question I thought of last night. There may be an answer or there may not, I don't know. Does it state in the Bible or Qur'an that what is written, the holy words, apply for ever? Like, is there a best before date? That's a serious question. We change and the world changes. The world of 2000 years ago is so different to the world of today. And the Old Testament is even older. So, even if it IS the word of God, wouldn't he be tailoring his word for the people and time he is delivering it to? Delivering messages in a way people could comprehend them. In a way they needed to hear at the time. Meaning, firstly, that differences in approach (Old and New Testament, for example) could be accounted for. But also meaning that, even if it's absolutely infallible, it won't always apply and may not apply now. How one, even God, would deliver a message to people now would be quite different.

So I guess the question is, even if you took them as the word of God, were those words really meant to survive this long?