|
Post by SwimFellow on Dec 23, 2010 18:15:00 GMT -5
Uncalled for I agree. Ohai! Well, my perspective is that (at least the new testament) was taken from greek/roman myths. But I respect all religious people as long as try aren't infringing on my rights. I'll give an analysis tomorrow, but I have a plane to catch right now.
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 23, 2010 18:18:24 GMT -5
Faith is the thing to use when you really want to believe something but can't logically do it. Faith is not an ablity. Faith is not a gift from God. Faith is failing to your rational abilities and changing them for your desires. Faith is magic. Faith is alright sometimes I guess. But not now. The thing you said now it's pretty much like this: The bible should make a clear distinction between literal and figurative, because in a book where people revive, and walk on water, god knows what is true and with is figurative (ha, see what I did there ). Do not start to claim that some kind of magical ability is required to understand the bible (and yes, what you said is like saying that). Faith will not make you understand it any better, it will only make you more blind to whatever mistakes your faith may be presenting, it will make you more bias to believe anything that supports your faith. It's OK if you have faith in the bible, if you are a christian, then I suppose you should, but that doesn't make your beliefs any more right or wrong, it just makes you more reluctant to question them. BTW, there are a lot of believers who do question the bible, is not some kind of treason to your faith to do that. At this point I don't care if we get to "agree to disagree"... The bible does not need to make a clear distinction. First of all its that that hard to do. second it was writtten in a different time period. What kind of idocracy is it to judge a 1900 years old book by modern standards. Maybe it should have also be written in english MLA style. And it should have a bibliography at the end.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 23, 2010 18:46:40 GMT -5
That's a good, point, I wonder what the standards were on those times... wouldn't there be any objective book whatsoever? (that's not rethorical btw) But not having that distinction makes everything harder if not impossible to interpret, then it's impossible to know what was in fact meant to be figurative. Noah's ark is a good example of that, there's many believers who think that didn't happen and well... it was supposedly found like 3 times now. The believers can't even agree on what is meant to be figurative and what not, which makes it seem like the peoplewho wrote it are really bad at giving a message. It presents a problem because, if something that it's clearly impossible (besides Jesus'miracles) it's supposed to be not figurative, then from that point , one can easily think not much else besides historical context can be true. BUT, since it was written the way it was believers can change the meaning depending on needs like "Oh no, I know that didn't happen, but it's suposed to be figurative, so we are all fine". It's also a problem because even believers have problems with that and it can devide them. Maybe it was written like that with that in mind, so it would be harder to debunk the bible.
|
|
Flappy
Star
Grrr! But not really....
Posts: 577
|
Post by Flappy on Dec 23, 2010 23:21:59 GMT -5
I think saying "it's supposed to be figurative" is just a cop-out. You can't know which parts, if any, are supposed to be figurative because no one can know.
You can have all the faith you want, it doesn't make something more true, all that faith is is taking a probability and ignoring all except one aspect of it. (Religious people do this so often it's not even funny, and they take pride in it.)
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Dec 23, 2010 23:43:32 GMT -5
That's a good, point, I wonder what the standards were on those times... wouldn't there be any objective book whatsoever? (that's not rethorical btw) But not having that distinction makes everything harder if not impossible to interpret, then it's impossible to know what was in fact meant to be figurative. Noah's ark is a good example of that, there's many believers who think that didn't happen and well... it was supposedly found like 3 times now. The believers can't even agree on what is meant to be figurative and what not, which makes it seem like the peoplewho wrote it are really bad at giving a message. It presents a problem because, if something that it's clearly impossible (besides Jesus'miracles) it's supposed to be not figurative, then from that point , one can easily think not much else besides historical context can be true. BUT, since it was written the way it was believers can change the meaning depending on needs like "Oh no, I know that didn't happen, but it's suposed to be figurative, so we are all fine". It's also a problem because even believers have problems with that and it can devide them. Maybe it was written like that with that in mind, so it would be harder to debunk the bible. Noah's ark is a story that was in many other cultures, read the Greek mythology for example ( you find christianity copied much more then just that). The story if really simple in meaning, if the society goes south a higher power may decide to punish it, that's all there is to it.
|
|
Flappy
Star
Grrr! But not really....
Posts: 577
|
Post by Flappy on Dec 24, 2010 0:18:17 GMT -5
That's a good, point, I wonder what the standards were on those times... wouldn't there be any objective book whatsoever? (that's not rethorical btw) But not having that distinction makes everything harder if not impossible to interpret, then it's impossible to know what was in fact meant to be figurative. Noah's ark is a good example of that, there's many believers who think that didn't happen and well... it was supposedly found like 3 times now. The believers can't even agree on what is meant to be figurative and what not, which makes it seem like the peoplewho wrote it are really bad at giving a message. It presents a problem because, if something that it's clearly impossible (besides Jesus'miracles) it's supposed to be not figurative, then from that point , one can easily think not much else besides historical context can be true. BUT, since it was written the way it was believers can change the meaning depending on needs like "Oh no, I know that didn't happen, but it's suposed to be figurative, so we are all fine". It's also a problem because even believers have problems with that and it can devide them. Maybe it was written like that with that in mind, so it would be harder to debunk the bible. Noah's ark is a story that was in many other cultures, read the Greek mythology for example ( you find christianity copied much more then just that). The story if really simple in meaning, if the society goes south a higher power may decide to punish it, that's all there is to it. 'Twas almost copied exactly from Gilgamesh.
|
|
|
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Dec 24, 2010 9:51:41 GMT -5
It was just an example, which btw still works, because still, many believers do believe in that one and many others don't and is still hard if not impossible to interpret what was supposed to be fact and what not (have in mind that even if Noah's ark was copied and even if we think or know it to be just a story, they still could be writing it as a fact, we don't know, we can only guess what was supposed to be figurative and what not)
|
|
Flappy
Star
Grrr! But not really....
Posts: 577
|
Post by Flappy on Dec 24, 2010 10:02:15 GMT -5
It was just an example, which btw still works, because still, many believers do believe in that one and many others don't and is still hard if not impossible to nterpret what wa supposed to be fact and what not (have in mind that even if Noah's ark was copied and even if we think or know it to be just a story, they still could be writing it as a fact, we don't know, we can only guess what was suppose to be figurative and what not) Yeah, I think it was Alex who explained how there most likely was a flood, and at the time it just seemed like it covered the whole world because they hadn't yet explored the whole world and stuff...
|
|
0netnet0
Meteor
The things I do for love...
Posts: 50
|
Post by 0netnet0 on Jan 22, 2011 16:49:34 GMT -5
Here, in Israel we need to learn the old testament and we have a huge final on it. I think that most of it is myths and fairy tales. Some of the battles there are historically correct though. The only thing I don't like about how the Bible documents battles is that it's important to them to say that "It wasn't the general's clever planning, the enemy's idiocy or the awesome man and gunpower we had that won us the battle - it was god."
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Jan 23, 2011 1:31:16 GMT -5
Here, in Israel we need to learn the old testament and we have a huge final on it. I think that most of it is myths and fairy tales. Some of the battles there are historically correct though. The only thing I don't like about how the Bible documents battles is that it's important to them to say that "It wasn't the general's clever planning, the enemy's idiocy or the awesome man and gunpower we had that won us the battle - it was god." I was about to say something offensive bit I better not. Also, I'm sure it wasn't the gunpower that won the battles.
|
|
ryan
Moon
Posts: 110
|
Post by ryan on Feb 12, 2011 0:58:19 GMT -5
While a lot of it probably has basis in real events (for example: there could have been a large flood which got exaggerated into the Noah myth), however, I think it's clear that it's mythology. Yes indeed. I was actually thinking about bringing up the flood. umm...the flood was proven...it created th black sea....i thinnk...cause i heard they found houses underneath
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Feb 12, 2011 14:41:25 GMT -5
I don't think that proves it at all. It could've just been horses thrown away after they died..
|
|
|
Post by krzych32 on Feb 12, 2011 16:15:46 GMT -5
houses=horses?
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Mar 4, 2011 0:07:10 GMT -5
The Bible is kinda like an instruction manual to life. If you follow it you can live a happy, fulfilling, and fruitful one. And in the end you will enter the kingdom of heaven.
(That post will probably be debated A LOT)
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 4, 2011 0:19:03 GMT -5
The Bible is kinda like an instruction manual to life. If you follow it you can live a happy, fulfilling, and fruitful one. And in the end you will enter the kingdom of heaven. (That post will probably be debated A LOT) Either you're trolling or you seriously believe in that... either way, you're ATTEMPTING to provoke an emotional response.
|
|
|
Post by Flags_Forever on Mar 4, 2011 2:17:44 GMT -5
The Bible is kinda like an instruction manual to life. If you follow it you can live a happy, fulfilling, and fruitful one. And in the end you will enter the kingdom of heaven. (That post will probably be debated A LOT) Either you're trolling or you seriously believe in that... either way, you're ATTEMPTING to provoke an emotional response. Um, no, he's not. That's exactly what the Bible was intended to be when it was written. Why do you think he's trolling, because of the Heaven comment?
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Mar 4, 2011 17:04:53 GMT -5
Either you're trolling or you seriously believe in that... either way, you're ATTEMPTING to provoke an emotional response. Um, no, he's not. That's exactly what the Bible was intended to be when it was written. Why do you think he's trolling, because of the Heaven comment? Yeah.
|
|
|
Post by SwimFellow on Mar 4, 2011 17:42:26 GMT -5
Well, let me correct him..
"And in the end, you (at least believe you) will enter the Kingdom of Heaven."
|
|
|
Post by Flags_Forever on Mar 4, 2011 21:09:31 GMT -5
Thanks, Swim.
|
|
Quinn
Star
[AWD:191c07]
The eye of compromise.
Posts: 580
|
Post by Quinn on Mar 4, 2011 23:03:13 GMT -5
(That post will probably be debated A LOT) ...
|
|