Flappy
Star
Grrr! But not really....
Posts: 577
|
Post by Flappy on Dec 22, 2010 14:17:50 GMT -5
Sorry for bringing this stuff back but... When looking through this thread, what I saw was opinion. There wasn't much fact, which could be use to prove the Bible true (or false). Here's a few: 1. The Gospels were written 70 to 90 years after Jesus went back to heaven. Although it seems like a long time, it really isn't. For one, there were still plenty of eye-witnesses alive. Also, anything written during or within 500 years of the end of a person's life (or time on earth in this case) is believed by historians and important people who write history to be accurate and true. For example, we all know who Alexander the Great is. The documents that we have to base our information in textbooks and stuff on was written 300 years after his life, yet everyday people are taught about him. We believe in him and what we know, do we not? So, if anything, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are accurate. Point 1: Pyshcology tells us that our memory is actually really really bad (look it up for more info.) My point is that, even if the eyewitnesses had written about it a week after, chances are extremely good that facts would be misplaced, changed, and other things would be thrown in that were thought to have happened, but really didn't. Point 2: There is power in solidarity. If one person writes something down, more people are likely to believe it word for word (especially during those times, because not a lot of people did write stuff down, and what was written down was important.) Also, since no one else was writing it down, what reason did they have to believe that it might differ from the actual event? (they didn't have the psychological knowledge we do today.) Point 1: Psychology, again, tells us about something called the "Confirmation bias". The confirmation bias tells us that humans naturally accept information that supports what they already believe. The deciples of Jesus had been believing that what Jesus taught was truth for damn near their whole lives. They had been conditioned (whether or not it was true) to believe pretty much anything Jesus told them or that whatever he did backed up the claim that he was the son of God. Point 2: Psychology tells us about "Belief Preservation", this is the tendency for humans to keep on believing what they believe even when presented with evidence that proves them wrong. Overall point: People will die for something they believe in, regardless of whether or not it is true. Point 1: Would you mind providing some of these quotes (and the context they are used in) Point 2: If I were to talk to you about Harry Potter and a lot of other people were to talk to you about Harry Potter, and how great he was, it wouldn't make Harry Potter exist, nor that what JK Rowling said Harry said was actually said by him. Point 3: Even if Jesus did exist, it wouldn't mean that Christianity is true, or that he was the son of God. Point 1: The first five books of the Bible were written before Jesus was even born. Point 2: Memorization of the Old Testament meant one thing: Memorization of the Old Testament. It wouldn't mean that they had a great recollection of what Jesus said. This isn't a valid argument because the two things you are comparing (The Old Testament, and the words/actions of Jesus) are not comparable. (A physical book can be looked at again and again. Point 3: What evidence do we have that the Gospels aren't forgeries? Point 4: What about all the other gospels, that weren't included in the Bible? (Including, but not limited to, the Gnostic Gospels.) This is most certainly not the case. Prophecy can be attributed accordingly. In other words, the prophecy of the Bible may or may not come true, it is open for interpretation, but you can basically say whatever you want is the fulfillment of the prophecy, whether or not it actually is. ...and? Is this supposed to prove something? On sort of the same note, this is a series of videos about, what the title says, " The Psychology of Belief". I should also include: The Bandwagon Effect: the tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Confirmation Bias: the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. The Framing Effect: drawing different conclusions from the same information, depending on how that information is presented. The Semmelweis reflex: the tendency to reject new evidence that contradicts an established paradigm The Anchoring effect – the tendency to rely too heavily, or "anchor," on a past reference or on one trait or piece of information when making decisions (also called "insufficient adjustment"). ...there's more, but...I think that's good for now.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 14:17:59 GMT -5
Oh, OK, no I think I unerstand.
Of course, we can't understand everything about God, he is supposed to be outside our range of understanding, that's fine. But the holy-books are supposed to portray the history and the lessons of religions, and the bible fails at that when it doesn't tell what part is supposed to be history and what parts are supposed to be wonderful magical stories with a meaning. Sure, it would be fun to throw some fantastical stories here and there in history books, but it would make them useless for teaching history.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 14:37:07 GMT -5
Even if some of the Bible happened to be false, there are parts that are true. The Israelites were slaves in Egypt, and one day they left. King Saul was the first king of Israel, and the kings in the Bible after him were actually kings. The kingdom of Israel was divided into Israel and Judah. The kings stated in the Bible are correct. Also, the kingdoms that conqured them are accurate. Jerusalem was re-built. The decree to do this was on March 5th, 444 B.C. The night Babylon fell, October 12, 532 B.C., Belshazzar, the man filling in for the king (whose name escapes me), was killed. If Jesus was not the Son of God, we do know that he most likely existed. We also know he was most likely cruxified. We know all about Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament letters. We also know about the first church, and the Bible is accurate on that. We know how all of the disciples died from other sources than just the Bible. (Actually, I don't think that all of their deaths are recorded in the Bible, but they are recorded in outside sources.) Much more than what is mentioned lines up with what history teaches. What there is, I think is more than enough to show that much of the Bible is true. Plus, our Bibles line up with the Dead Sea scrolls and other old documents we have of the Bible. Not to mention, many of these have been verified to have been written before any of the prophecy they may contain. Speaking of Bibles, I just got this Bible called The Action Bible. It's all of the cool stories done in comics. (Yes, I'm 15. Yes, I sometimes still read little kids' books and Bibles.) EDIT: There are also other manuscripts that are out there, just not in the Bible. There is one called The Book of Jasher, which is mentioned in the Bible. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Joshua 10:13 Also he bade them teach the children of Judah the use of the bow: behold, it is written in the book of Jasher. 2 Samuel 1:18 Why isn't it included in the Bible? I guess it just wasn't meant to. Although it does line up, there must be a reason.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 14:57:33 GMT -5
Again, is not that the bible is completely wrong. There is some historical context, kings, emeperors, crucifiction, etc, that of course the bible is bound to get right. The thing is. Let's say I'm writing the story of my life. And everything is correct. Everything seems right, in some events I'd talk about maybe SPOTM, which obviously exists, I would talk about computers, and consoles or about my parents who also exist. That's the context. But let's say that just because, I decided to throw some cool fake stories in there, that I fought a tiger and barely won, that I had taken parachute classes, that I was really good at piano, etc. Now, I pass this to my hypothetical children and I don't tell them anything about what it's true and what not. Not only that, but I make witnesses of all these stories write some portions from their view-points for me, and they start to contradict themselves, and throw some more crazy stories. How are my children and anyone who reads that supposed to get what it's true about what I did in my life and what is not. With time it would even be doubtful if I ever existed. If I were to write my history, throwing random crap along with the real events, and having contradiction, would only render almost everything in there useless.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 22, 2010 15:03:47 GMT -5
Religious debates are pointless. Its a huge thing of "PROVE IT" "DISPROVE IT" "IM RIGHT BECAUSE OF A B AND C" "BUT IM RIGHT BECAUSE D E AND F" etc.
I am a catholic. I believe in everything the church teaches about jesus and the bible. I dont believe in the way the church acts in the modern age with regards to homosexuality, atheists, and the world as a whole. But others need to respect that people have other beliefs than them. Just like we do. Religion is so close to the heart that you wont change anything by fighting. The only thing you can do is talk about it, not try to call the other one stupid or a heathen. (Just paraphrasing, none of you have done that, yet) So just talk about it, treat it like a learning experience, not a fight.
Yea, I went there. Me who starts everything
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 15:08:12 GMT -5
Well, many different people wrote the Bible. Not all of them would have been the type to lie. Four different people wrote the Gospels. And, well there are some slight differences, they are the same. We know they were written at different times by different people. Why do we believe biographies? The authors could have thrown stuff that's completely untrue into those as well, but we still believe them. In fact, history book teach that it's complete fact, even though some were written decades or even centuries after the person of interest died.
Joey: I'm not saying I'm right. I'm using the evidence that there is, and they use their's. Figures, everything we say contradicts eachother. However, if anybody ever agrees to disagree, I'm up to it.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 15:30:23 GMT -5
Hm, that's true, auto-biographies do have that flaw that the person could be lying. Biographies are different because are treated as informative and are not supposed to be lies, just like any other piece of history written by historians. The thing is that the bible does have metaphores and contradictions and crazy stories that are not necessarily supposed to be true, and they teach that, like "Hey father why does that happen in the bible, that's no possible/doesn't make sense", "Well little Timmy the thing is, that's a metaphore". So once we have that little metaphore/lie in there, it makes all the rest harder to really understand.
If on a biography, it said that X man fought a bear and won, but then it's revealed that that's a lie. Then I won't buy the rest of the biography, because, who knows what else could be fake or truth. But as long as nothing seems fake, then I don't see reason to doubt that much (depending on whose biography is, context, etc).
Biographies are supposed to be all truth, if there is a metaphoric story there or whatever, it is supposed to tell us what is true and what not. The bible, on the other hand, has some metaphores and stuff, but it doesn't tell you what is and what is not. Maybe the bible was all intended to be taken literally (which christians should hope not to be the case), who knows really?
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 15:41:00 GMT -5
I take it literally. (Most of the time. I'm not going to gouge my eye out.)
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 15:43:58 GMT -5
Well, you could have said that earlier 0_0 xD. At this point I have some questions about stories of the bible and what do you think of them {no, let me be honest, the implied question would be "how the hell do ou take that literally}, Adam and Eve, the 7 days of creation, the stuff about slavery, etc. But meh, that's relatively fine with me, besides, I haven't read the bible, so I would be entering a realm outside my grasp of discussion (I've read some things and heard some others, but not all of it)
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 15:47:48 GMT -5
Before the first day, it says that the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. The Bible also mentions earth. I believe that this section before the time I consider the start of the first day to be Big Bang, earth forming time. As for Adam and Eve, yes, I believe that they were the first people on earth. I believe the Garden of Eden was real.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 15:59:01 GMT -5
When you say. "To be Big Bang", you mean "To be the biblic equivalent of Big-Bang" right? Not really, Big Bang. Anyways, seriously =/, the creation thing, when taken literally, it doesn't make much sense, I mean, three days pass and light, day and night are created, before he even makes the Sun (which is not catalogued as a star btw xP)... It would have been awesome thou if it said "And God put voids of darkness that absorb even light in the middle of our spiral of stars... and it was good", that would have certainly disconcerted scientists ;D
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 22, 2010 17:28:04 GMT -5
Nessie(is that what I should call you?): I didnt say you were. (But to be honest, if you are debating, you better believe that you are right) These last few posts have been what a good debate is. Calm, no shouting, actually discussing, not just back and forth disapproval of each other, but listening and CALMLY questioning one another.
Oh, and I have a thing on here about all these religious debates, so I'll just jump in if thats okay TWSS.
Creation is not necessarily the exact historical reference of what happened to make it. Its not a science book. The basic jizz we need to take from it is this:
-God created everything in the universe, and he created us specifically. The day dosen't necessarily mean 24 hours. Its just a way to show that there was a creation. Basically "He did this then this then this" etc. It just is a figure of saying "He made it all" The first day could have been 1 billion years, or 1 day, the next day 1 billion years, or 1 day, etc. The logical scenario would point to 1 billion years. Now to humans.
1)Adam and Eve were made as the human species deliberately set apart. In whatever form they were(Be it full humans , unicellular orgainism, or some ape like thing. whatever you believe), they were created specifically to be the dominate species and God's chosen.
2)They lived in a perfect world(Eden)
3)They fell for temptation, and screwed it up for humanity
4)Everything went bad
5)God promised a savior(Establishment of the first covenant)
6)God took care of them(Showing he still loved us)
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Dec 22, 2010 17:44:54 GMT -5
Why is the Bible correct, and not, say, Native American creation stories?
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 22, 2010 17:59:19 GMT -5
Why is the Bible correct, and not, say, Native American creation stories? Its correct to me, and I believe it to be the correct teaching because of things revealed to us, and I feel in my heart it is right. Native American's might believe that there creation stories are correct for the same reasons. For the answer that you know dosent exist, there is no scientific proof that my beliefs are correct. There are no scientific proof that anyone's beliefs are correct, just enough to let us know that some are wrong. You win. I can't prove it right. I can't prove myself wrong either. Lets make peace... But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse. In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits. (Please say someone knows that)
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 22, 2010 18:01:49 GMT -5
@joey: See, that's the problem I referred to earlier because now that's figurative (according to you) D= Anyways. The problem I had with the "day" thing is not in the sense of day = 24 hours. Is in the sense of day and night being made before the sun. Anyways, if you take it figuratively that's not really important. The whole Adam and Eve thing seems rather odd to me. Although it depends on how you think God is. It seems like Adam and Eve were failed experiments, what's worse is that God should have known that (again, depending on the limits and strenghts of th god you believe in). Also, I don't like that he...He, blames all humanity for something our ancestors did. I think there was a reason for that but I don't quite remember (was it like all humans souls were corrupted or something like that?), still, seems kinda cruel to me. I'll take some time to look for that o the internet and read it. EDIT: Yay for long time to post and two posts being done before mine =D! ... Btw, I know I've heard that before, but I don't remember where (the reference you made)
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 18:22:12 GMT -5
Joey: Yes, I believe everything I say. And, yes, you may call me Nessie.
Alex: This is where it gets tough. There is no scientific proof to prove any belief correct. Each requires a leap of faith.
The thing with Adam and Eve being able to sin and turn against God made it so we have choices. If there was a perfect world where no man could sin, we would be robots programed to do one thing: worship God. The reason God let us sin is because love isn't love without choices. He wants us to love Him on purpose, not because we have to. We all of the choice not to sin, but trust me when I say that if it wasn't Eve, it would have been me. Would have been my best friend, or my pastor, or that guy walking down the street. Would have been anybody.
EDIT: I meant the Big Bang. I believe in that.
|
|
|
Post by Joey on Dec 22, 2010 18:26:01 GMT -5
The bible is a mix of figurative and literal word. Its our job(and the job of the Magesterium who is the Pope and Bishops in union with him, they have the final say) to decipher which is which, and if its figurative, what it means.
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 18:28:46 GMT -5
Things like gouging our eyes out is figurative. Anytime that there is a parable, for that matter, it is (usually) figurative. Things like the stories that can be acted out are not figurative, unless they are in a parable. If it's in prophesy book, it's often figurative.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 22, 2010 19:37:11 GMT -5
God I hate freedom of religion so much!
|
|
|
Post by nessieisreal on Dec 22, 2010 19:45:09 GMT -5
Why?
If you live in the United States, you should be thankful for it. This country was founded because of people's want for freedom of religion. The people of England were sick of how they were being told to worship, so they left so they could have any religion they wanted in any way they wanted.
But, what does religious freedom have to do with the Bible?
|
|