NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you believe that "the" bible (and I use this term loosely, as there are so many versions of the Christian bible in existence) is the true word of God?

Or do you believe it is simply a work of fiction - a group of fables and superstitions collected and written down by bronze-age tribesmen.

Also consider - how much has been lost or changed by translation into other languages (from hebrew to English, for example)? How much has been unscrupulously changed by religious and/or political authority figures in the last 2000 years.

I'd be interested to hear all points of view.

The bible is the word of men - it cannot be anything else.

Pure fiction from bronze age tribal men.

If I believed God existed, it'd be "God's Word Diluted By Man" with the addition of "Very Diluted. Very." since it's been translated and screwed with over the centuries. ("Poisoner = Witch" and "Male Prostitute = Homosexual", anyone?)

If it's literally God's word, then a lot of stuff has gotten messed up in translation--like dates that don't match up with archaeological findings.

Please don't flame me, mock me, or insult me for this, but I sincerely believe the Bible is the Word of God. I respect anyone who disagrees, so please respect me, in return.

It's like a set of contemporary (with the culture that authored it) moral fables. That's why so much of it no longer makes sense in light of current morals, for instance 'owning' people is not considered morally proper in modern main-stream Western culture, however obviously in the culture in which the bible was generated, ownership of people 'just was' and no one even considered if it were right or wrong, it was just 'the self evident norm'. So much of it no longer makes sense and it can be interpreted in so many ways, because it was writen by encultered humans. A deity would have done a much better job, and if that diety really wanted everyone 'saved' and that could only happen if they knew what to believe, the bible would have been created as incorruptable and timeless as God is premised to be.

I look at the bible as something like "Just-so Stories" by Rudyard Kipling... excpet it's 2000 years old, and over time men have come to believe that the stories were historically accurate, instead of mere fables.

I commend you Roach-Busters, for posting what you truly believe on a board where, so far, everyone has believed differently.

I look at the bible as something like "Just-so Stories" by Rudyard Kipling... excpet it's 2000 years old, and over time men have come to believe that the stories were historically accurate, instead of mere fables.

I commend you Roach-Busters, for posting what you truly believe on a board where, so far, everyone has believed differently.

Thanks. :)

The bible is the interpretations by man of the word and actions of gods, of course parts have since been added and removed but we do not need to get into the inaccuracies of the bible, devout Christians always go insane when you bring up the hypocrocies of the bible.

After all, how could it be the word of god? Mine clearly says Holy Bible: King James Version on the spine.

I look at the bible as something like "Just-so Stories" by Rudyard Kipling... excpet it's 2000 years old, and over time men have come to believe that the stories were historically accurate, instead of mere fables.

I commend you Roach-Busters, for posting what you truly believe on a board where, so far, everyone has believed differently.

The vote is tied, so obviously not everyone believe's different from Roach-Busters, they just have not posted for some reason, but that is their choice.

If it's literally God's word, then a lot of stuff has gotten messed up in translation--like dates that don't match up with archaeological findings.

and the cultural refernces are all off, as if it had been compiled and edited and pretty much written many hundreds of years after most of the events are alleged to have happened.

Other, a mix of all. Fictional stories mixed with what people believed was the message of God, all mutated over time.

and the cultural refernces are all off, as if it had been compiled and edited and pretty much written many hundreds of years after most of the events are alleged to have happened.
There's an argument made by more than one archaeologist and exegetist that says pretty much everything from Genesis through to the prophetic books was compiled during the time of King Josiah as an epic narrative for a kingdom that was trying for the first time to see itself as a power in a wider world. It was a sort of "Iliad" for them, a way of giving themselves a solid history from the tales and legends that had surrounded them for generations.

The bible is at the least a mythology and at best the worst history book ever written. Personally I think it and the whole religion are based off of fear.

Please don't flame me, mock me, or insult me for this, but I sincerely believe the Bible is the Word of God. I respect anyone who disagrees, so please respect me, in return.

is every word of it the word of god, or is some of it subject to a little bit of editorializing?

The Bible is, and always was, a work of complete fiction.

The entire point, was a lesson in social behaviour.

The purpose was to teach people how to behave themselves.
It contains moral lessons, and little else.

The New Testament especially, is nothing more than a excercise in mind control.

Its original texts were written in an entirely different language, and re-translated several times, into Latin.

Then...to English. Imagine what was lost in translation...

The first English translation of the Bible was called "The Book of Common Prayer."
It was written in English so that the poor could read it.
If they could read at all.

Why was this done?
Becuase the Church wanted to show people how to worship, and what to think. This is why only certain parts of the entire bible were translated.

The King James version was a further hippocracy, as entire passages were changed even further to suit the times.

"Poisoner" was changed to "witch"......(inquisition)...

Not to mention that entire books were not included becuase of the very contradictiory nature of the contents.
(Book of Mary, Book of Thomas)

With all the changes, omissions, and editing that has been done to the modern bible.....is there any wonder as to its legitimacy?

If it ever WAS the word of god..you can be sure that very little of its meaning, is even present in that book.

I personally don't. I believe that there are quite possibly mistakes in it as it was written by Man and not God. The general meaning and the hidden meanings are what we need to look out for and follow, rather than reading the words and taking them literally as the truth. Also, we need guidance from holy men and women (such as the Church), especially in this modern day.

Before God could let His words be written down, He should exist. As long as there is no evidence for His existence it's foolish to guess what he has done - or not done.

Being an agnost I just want to say that believe is nice, but when it is without any evidence it's as good as believing in Santa Clause.

What I want to add also, is the following: the ancient Greeks believed the stories about their Gods too, however science and common sense have proven that these stories were wrong. Perhaps with the Bible, were not that far yet and perhaps it's only a matter of time before it can be proven to be fantasy too. Don't mistake the things you don't know for things being done or said by God.

However, I don't deny that there is a chance that something like a God exists, but I doubt he would resemble the One we find in the Bible.

Roach-Busters you have another allie ( i can never spell that right) here.
w.o.g. without a doubt

God probably sat there and wondered what to do now, so it tested its talent as a writer.
Behold!
So many people got its book, it went back to write two others, that were snatched from the stores in even larger amounts!
And thus god was happy.

All I know is that there is nothing on the planet more annoying than someone telling me how to pray ...

If I were there when Jesus was telling people how to pray, I'd have slapped him and said "Shut up, bitch!"

Not because I would want to be so rude, but because such things apparently (according to the Bible) are what causes God to "curse" you with immortality (you know, "wander the earth forever" a la curse of Cain) ...

So .... worship Jesus = spiritual immortality, slap Jesus = physical immortality.

Neat!

The Bible is not the undiluted word of god thats for sure. Apart from the fact that Christianity and the bible got a face lift during Vatican 2 and that it has been translated numerous time as mentioned by others previously, and that even today you'll be pressed to find two bibles that have exactly the same translation, due to being aimed at different age groups, Christianity is a paulism interpretation of the gospels.
It is however convienient for die hard Christians that there have been so many translations and changes to the bible as it can be used for a reason to the numerous contradictions that have been found.

Side note: Although those of you at all remotely bible savvy may think due to my NS name that I am intensely christian, I am not. It is just my favourite book from the bible at the moment...soooo much better than job.

God doesn’t even say the bible is his own words and that quite frankly he’s rather sick and tired of people saying that it is. But he’s bearing with it and has a special afterlife lined up for such fundamentalists. Well that's all he's told me anyways. I keep asking him and asking him what his plan is, but he just gives me this strange smile anytime I ask.

I went on "Other". I don't belive in God. I said that in another thread. The Bible gives him contradictory qualities. He is outside of time, yet he created the world. Any creation must take place in time, for there needs to be a time when there was nothing and then when there was something. He is supposed to be outside time and space, yet he keeps intervening in them somehow. And, of course, the Old and New Testaments are completely opposed to each other. This might sound slightly anti-Semitic, but it is not intended that way. If Jesus was really the Messiah predicted in the New Testament, then why was he not recognised as such by the Jewish priests? If you read the predictions in the Old Testament, I can't see how anyone would expect the sort of figure Jesus was from such texts. Jesus's teaching went against the optimistic, legalistic teaching of Judaism and so he was crucified. Why would he have been crucified if his teachings had been in line with Judaism? Jesus said that the Devil was the ruler of this world, which goes against the Old Testament, where the Devil is mentioned about two or three times; this shows how Christianity is pessimistc, whilst Judaism is optimistic.

However, the New Testament does have a lot of metaphysical truths in it. This is why people do find comfort in Christianity. Those that see the inner-message of Christianity are not people like Pat Robertson and George Bush, but are the monks and ascetics. The early Christians renounced all worldly pleasures, abstained from meat and did not have priests. Jesus said, "Call no man your father on Earth." The message that the world is full of suffering and evil; that men are born selfish and inconsiderate; that all worldy pleasures - from sexuality to great wealth - do not produce happiness for any more than a few minutes; that pity is a way out of this cycle; that selfless, ascetic living - that requires a change from man's innate nature - is preferable: all these all very true. This is the same message preached by Buddha, some Hindu texts and other minor religions. The "Holy Spirit" that drives Christians out of their Original Sin is the same as the liberation that Buddhists receive from clinging. These ideas have popped up in different texts all over the world, because there is truth beyond the myths.

Anyone who has done philosophy will have worked out by now that I am in awe of Arthur Schopenhauer and have just given a noddy version of one area of his great philosophy.

Before God could let His words be written down, He should exist. As long as there is no evidence for His existence it's foolish to guess what he has done - or not done.
I respect your position. Its reasonable. But I can not stop believing in a Creator. I dont know why. Maybe I'm crazy. If you don't believe in God/s then that is your honest belief...er..disbelief. You have nothing to be ashamed of for being honest or practical. Besides if you are right then we are all gonna be worm food. So what of it? I don't worship the Deity because I'm some sniveling ass kisser looking for a handout. I see beauty in all creatures, the world and the universe. I'm grateful to the Deity for that.
If you are wrong maybe all honorable people regardless of thier beliefs or lack of belief will find themselves in a wonderful afterlife. Besides Atheist and Agnostics keep us superstitious folks in check. Its a needed balance. And my gut feelings are that the Creator intended it that way. As far as hell goes.... The hell concept is absolutely illogical. Only the Ass Kissers value such an illogical concept. Or the church especially. Go figure hey?


Being an agnostic I just want to say that belief is nice, but when it is without any evidence it's as good as believing in Santa Clause. DIE HERITIC! SANTA DOES TOO EXIST! You will burn for that one. :p

What I want to add also, is the following: the ancient Greeks believed the stories about their Gods too, however science and common sense have proven that these stories were wrong. Perhaps with the Bible, were not that far yet and perhaps it's only a matter of time before it can be proven to be fantasy too. Don't mistake the things you don't know for things being done or said by God.
They did thier primitive best to worship the Deity/s. Some story tellers can sometimes inspire folks to appreciate the good feelings that come with heeding the divine spark (empathy) Some acts of heroism are prodded by human empathy. Hercules. This is of course is what my heart tells me.

However, I don't deny that there is a chance that something like a God exists, but I doubt he would resemble the One we find in the Bible.
jehovah or gawd is a bloody bastard of a pretender. A slanderer of the true Creator!!!
Woops. There I go again thinking with my heart. Well no harm done so long as I only hurt the Ass kissers feelings. Besides who would champion the "We are CHURCH! Resistance is Futile! Prepare to be assimulated or BURN FOREVER IN gAWDs EVER LOVING HELL!!!
Believe it or not there are some Christians that don't believe that a person is going to hell for having a different perception of the Deity/s Heck those ones don't believe in a hell period. Not all of them are ass kissers.

I look at the bible as something like "Just-so Stories" by Rudyard Kipling... excpet it's 2000 years old, and over time men have come to believe that the stories were historically accurate, instead of mere fables.

I commend you Roach-Busters, for posting what you truly believe on a board where, so far, everyone has believed differently.
i wonder if you would so commend a person who stepped forward with their belief that the Wizard of Oz is factually true and something they base their morality upon.

Please don't flame me, mock me, or insult me for this, but I sincerely believe the Bible is the Word of God. I respect anyone who disagrees, so please respect me, in return.
Not flaming you.
I am a Christian myself, the bible is all I have.
However the translations alone done by so many for so long so many times.
Points that are still argued today by many respected scholars as to the meaning s of things.
You have to diluted by man, I mean, my wifes bible was bought at a store, it has a publishers name on it.
My bible was..::blushes::.. stolen from a hotel by my mother because she said I needed a copy of the bible--any copy ---any translation.
I read what Christ is said to have done and try to follow those examples(I fail).
I however have no doubt that many truths were removed because they threatened the strength of the church, the subjigation of women.
I was always taught that Mary Magdilan was not prostitute, that she was a pagan preistess who held much sway over people, that Jesus trusted her most above the other disciples-not only because she was very spiritual, but also because she knew how to lead people.
That would not be something you would want taught in 13th century europe.
It would count as volumes of goodness towards the Faith nowadays, but then it would have threatened the order of things(not the natural order).
I dont know where my mother and others got the idea Mary Magdilyn was preistess, but it makes more sense then a whore.
Whiich by the way I was very suprised to hear when I reached Catholic school(I am not from a Catholic family so they didnt like a lot of my opinions, especially on preists).Ro-Bu you can have faith and still question what MEN are spoon feeding you.
God wants you to test your own faith.
Now I hope I dont get flamed.

I voted other because I simply don't know. I would say it isn't the directly unaltered word of God, but it may contain some of god's sentiments. But, I don't know if there is such a thing as God, but on the other hand I have not proof that there is not either! So, I'm agnostic. I'm awaiting proof that god does or does not exist - at the moment I'm willing to believe it could be either.

i wonder if you would so commend a person who stepped forward with their belief that the Wizard of Oz is factually true and something they base their morality upon.
I would. Why not? As long as the OZites find the Word of Baum to be a reasonable and coherent set of moral guidelines, what does it matter to me if they follow them? As it happens, nobody in the Baum books has or mentions sex, so it would be a fairly short-lived cult.

The problem with belief begins when you try to require me to adhere to your beliefs at the expense of my own. Whether you're a Baumist, a Christian, a Satanist or a follower of Charles Manson, your beliefs are your own up to the point where you inflict them on me. The Baumists and Christians tend to do their inflicting by persuasion (though certainly not always), the Mansonites tend towards guns and knives to do their persuading.

Whether the Bible is the actual word of God is immaterial to those of us who don't believe it. Those who do believe it, more power to ya. I respect your convictions. Just don't push them on me.

I, too, believe the Bible is the Word of God.

Pure fiction from bronze age tribal men.

Bronze age? are you really meaning to date it as circa 1800BC? Iron age, surely? Even Biblical scholars date the first writing of the word of God to the delivery of the tablets to Moses and place a date of about 1400BC to that event, which is firmly within the Iron Age.

All I know is that there is nothing on the planet more annoying than someone telling me how to pray ...

If I were there when Jesus was telling people how to pray, I'd have slapped him and said "Shut up, bitch!"

I've still got some more to read on this thread before making my post, but in regards to this one....

What Jesus was trying to do with what is now known as "The Lord's Prayer" is teach a framework on how to pray. It was mostly meant as a lesson for those who really had no clue. He had laid it out in a framework with example words. It basically goes... Salutation, praise, request for needs/wants, request for forgiveness(with a note to forgive others), request for guidance and protection, final praise and closing.

just a guide line. It was never meant to be the end all of prayer. All the stuff about having to kneel and bow your head; I've not seen anywhere in the bible that requires that, so that must be a man made thing.

Prayer is basically a conversation (albeit seemingly one-sided) between you and your deity. Personally I talk in a conversational tone to my Diety.

Whether the Bible is the actual word of God is immaterial to those of us who don't believe it. Those who do believe it, more power to ya. I respect your convictions. Just don't push them on me.
i dunno. i tollerate those who believe in God or the Wizard of Oz, but i wouldn't say i respec their conviction to live in a fantasy world. i don't think it's something to be proud of, personally.

if you have such respect for these people and their convictions, then surely you cannot support most conventional definitions of insanity, right? because if somebody really believes that invisible leprechauns are ordering them to save humanity from the forces of King Ice Gnome, and if they hold to their convictions, shouldn't we support and respect their efforts? who are we to judge them wrong? they are fighting for our freedom! how could we sentence them to an asylum just because we don't happen to share their view of reality?

i dunno. i tollerate those who believe in God or the Wizard of Oz, but i wouldn't say i respec their conviction to live in a fantasy world. i don't think it's something to be proud of, personally.

This judgement only holds up if you can prove that they are living in a fantasy world, or that you are not. So what evidence to we have for the world as described by science (which is to what I assume you are contrasting their world) isn't a fantasy world and that it doesn't require a conviction to believe in it?

ok my turn! :D

First of all I am a Christian...not a Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, whatever....just a plain simple Christian.

I do believe that the books that were included in the bible come, via the people who wrote them, from God (note: While I use the term God and the male pronouns, it is mostly from habit and convience. I personally do not believe that He, has an actual gender).

There is no doubt that translation and time have shifted the words around, not counting human error and intentional tampering. However, believing as I do, the original meanings are still there, protected by the influance of God.

Note above that I said the books included in the bible. The bible is an anthology, a collection of books. More books than the ones included were written. The Catholic bible includes more of these books than do most other bibles. Therefore we can not assume that any given bible is the end of of spiritual guidance.

One must also look at the time that the books were written. Man then could not grasp certain concepts as we do now. Indeed, there are probably concepts that we can't currently grasp that future generations will find as common sense. Thus concepts as the 7 days of creation were written as explainable. Think on this. We call a day the time it takes the earth to make one full turn, going from sunrise to sunrise (or whatever time point you use, but it is still based on the sun). The sun and the moon wasn't even created until the 3rd day. Therefore we can logically conclude that the days were based on God's perceptions.

In referance to a previous post of God being outside of time: this is not too far a logical leap to make. First of all by the very definition of what a Diety is, we will never be fully about to comprehend Him, at least as mortals. Secondly, when he lives outside lineir(sp) time, that would allow for the ability to make accurate predictions (not necessarily the accurate interpertations of those predictions). 2 examples:

think of creation as God making a cake. Because He exsists outside of the time line, He can see the finished product even as He is mixing the ingrediants, baking it, and so on. Thus he can see when it is time to pull it out of the oven, when there are still lumps in it, etc.

also, and this will solve the predestined/free will delemia: you own a time machine. You witness Joe, shooting Andy in cold blood. Joe of course made that choice by free will. Now hop into your handy dany time machine and go back into the past. You can now go an observe the event from another angle. You know what will happen, after all you've already seen it (assuming you don't try to interfer). So is Joe predestined to shoot Andy or is it still Joe's free will? It is still free will. Such is with God. He give us the free will to do as we wish, even though He knows what that will be, exsisting outside of linier time.

Free will is the key. If we were forced to love and worship Him then it would be empty. That toy doll doen't love you because it wants to, but because you make it do so.(an allusion, don't take too litterally). He can try to influence us, by His own rules, we have to choose what to believe and how to act on those beliefs.

Pulling back to the main topic, God really isn't all that condadictary (yes I know my spelling is pitiful today). We go through mood changes and change how we view the world. Since we are modeled after Him, why can't He. He is still the same person and overall, is constant. When mankind was still infants and toddlers, he was strict and used punishments. Now we're older and, like we do with children, has shifted how He tries to influance behavior. Thus the shift in basic philosiphy, from vengeful God to Forgiving God. We just have to try to look at it in a larger scale. Remember that an dog goes through a lifetime in about 10-15 years. Development is highly accelerated; events and changes occur in a short period of time. Thus God's changes happen over a longer period of time, spanning generations (the old joke of a second to Him is a 1000 years to us)

I thikn I've wandered enough. Remember that ultimately we have to choose our own beliefs. That is what faith is about: believeing with a lack or emphrical evidance (personal evidance may exsist). I believe in the bible and the message that it hold. I do not try to take it litterialy word for word....unless I'm kicking some fundie's philisophical arse.

Oh and one last thing; Jesus DID exsist. There is not doubt about it. Too many historical recors to confirm it. As to whether or not he was the Messiah, THAT is what is debatable

Do you believe that "the" bible (and I use this term loosely, as there are so many versions of the Christian bible in existence) is the true word of God?


Not when Constantine was the force behind the creation of the bible.

i dunno. i tollerate those who believe in God or the Wizard of Oz, but i wouldn't say i respec their conviction to live in a fantasy world. i don't think it's something to be proud of, personally.

if you have such respect for these people and their convictions, then surely you cannot support most conventional definitions of insanity, right? because if somebody really believes that invisible leprechauns are ordering them to save humanity from the forces of King Ice Gnome, and if they hold to their convictions, shouldn't we support and respect their efforts? who are we to judge them wrong? they are fighting for our freedom! how could we sentence them to an asylum just because we don't happen to share their view of reality?

The only crazy people that get the strait jackets are the ones that are a pain in the ass. All the other crazy people are free to live thier fantasies if they want to.
These people are known as eccentrics. And yes there are certain kinds of christians that are begging for meds and strait jackets.

Since my God is'nt about bribes and threats and does'nt demand that I try to get other people to forsake thier gods or lack of belief in God/s I am harmless.

SCREW GOD!...................See I am still alive. My God hasn't hurt me.

Now if you will excuse me I have to put cornflakes and milk in my ears to appease The sacred Virgin Dove Goddess. The Prophet Bird Toucan Dan has told me this is wise. Fruitloops!

I thikn I've wandered enough. Remember that ultimately we have to choose our own beliefs. That is what faith is about: believeing with a lack or empirical evidance (personal evidance may exsist). I believe in the bible and the message that it hold. I do not try to take it litterialy word for word....unless I'm kicking some fundie's philisophical arse.
:cool: Damn! I mean ..... I am speachless!!! Well almost.
Don't change. Not for anyone. Fight the good fight brother or sister! keep them damn fundies in thier place! Better yet get them to go to whatever church you go to!!! PLEASE!!!

Okay, I think the Bible is "other." I think that it is not fiction so much as a book of laws/the best explanation of the world people could come up with at that point in time/stories meant to establish morality among the Israelites/propaganda (not necessarily in the original texts, but after the Council of Nicea, definitely). And some more stuff too. This is a total oversimplification, but I don't feel like writing pages on this.

I believe the Bible that we know of today is not the real words of God. Why? Like many others, I believe/feel that human-kind has had too much influence on it. Whether it be the Church, Kings, emperors, etc....... and then to combine it with the numerous translations - How could none of the message have been changed by now?

Not sure if any of the original message is left or not. *shrugs* But I still believe there is a "higher power" everyone will have to answer to someday.

I have to agree with the first bit of Vale's post.

The ORIGINAL bible was written by God, through Man. And while those scriptures might be timeless and perfect, they are interpreted from long forgotten (or not clearly translated) language. Anyone who has ever been fluent in a second language can explain that while we can go between the two languages, the words are similar - not the exact same.

Ex. zapatos (spanish) and shoes (english) refer to the same item. However zapatos are not shoes, and vice-versa. We allow that they refer to the same thing, but their defintions aren't exactly the same. Now, that is an example of something easily definable. Apply this concept to something more abstract, such as, say...parables, or morals, etc. and you can understand why today's current bible must be taken with a grain of salt.

Another argument is this:

The Roman Catholic Church for many generations was a major POLITICAL force in the known world. This, of course, affected - whether intentionally or not - the interpretation of the biblical scrolls, attempting to influence the world through church services - think of it as mass brain-washing. The Church determines what is taught, and the people are required to attend. Thus, the Church's power is extended through the generations.

Now, let's turn to the KJV (King James Version). There's a reason it's titled the King James Version. This particular version was interpreted by order of King James for King James and was directly influenced therein. Remember why there's a Church of England? King Charles didnt like the rules of The Roman Catholic Church, so he made up his own religion with rules that he liked?

Everyone starting to get the picture?

Can anyone actually read the original scrolls and interpret exactly what is meant after over 20 centuries of change in the languages? Can anyone read and correctly interpret English from 250 years ago? It's not easy, is it...

I've still got some more to read on this thread before making my post, but in regards to this one....

What Jesus was trying to do with what is now known as "The Lord's Prayer" is teach a framework on how to pray. It was mostly meant as a lesson for those who really had no clue. He had laid it out in a framework with example words. It basically goes... Salutation, praise, request for needs/wants, request for forgiveness(with a note to forgive others), request for guidance and protection, final praise and closing.

just a guide line. It was never meant to be the end all of prayer. All the stuff about having to kneel and bow your head; I've not seen anywhere in the bible that requires that, so that must be a man made thing.

Prayer is basically a conversation (albeit seemingly one-sided) between you and your deity. Personally I talk in a conversational tone to my Diety.

In addition, there is another time in the New Testament gospels in which Jesus decries those who show off their prayers on the street corners, and praises those who pray while in their bedrooms. The point? Dont show off with it.

I firmly believe that there is not set structure to prayer - any teaching to the contrary is simply a fallacy perpetrated by whichever church you, or whomever is attempting to teach you there is a structure, belong to.

Prayer is supposed to be a direct link between God and Man (Man = Human), something to be done in your own home, with no set structure. It is a time for a Man to talk one-on-one with God - whether you approach God with the format Vale refers to, or you approach God in your own manner is entirely your decision.

I believe a little bit differently what the Lord's Prayer is about. I do not believe it is a set structure to follow, as in, what part of the prayer is to follow what part. I believe, rather, that it is a suggestion. If you're not sure what to pray to God for, it gives you a starting point - but it is NOT the manner in which you HAVE to pray. Prayer, in it's correct nature, is purely free-form.

This is why I hate churches in which they start off with:

Preacher/Paster/Whathaveyou:
"Now, let's pray." (cue soft organ music in the bkgnd)
Preacher/Paster/Whathaveyou:
"Think about the person to your left, pray for him/her." (Pause)
Preacher/Paster/Whathaveyou:
"Think about the person to your right, pray for him/her." (Pause)
Preacher/Paster/Whathaveyou:
"Think about yourself, pray for you." (Pause)
Preacher/Paster/Whathaveyou:
"Dear God, we thank your for your kindness and ask....Amen" (end music)

When it's time to pray, each man/woman/child should be able to approach God in their OWN way. Not as directed by someone else, as was in my example above.

ok my turn! :D

First of all I am a Christian...not a Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, whatever....just a plain simple Christian.

I do believe that the books that were included in the bible come, via the people who wrote them, from God (note: While I use the term God and the male pronouns, it is mostly from habit and convience. I personally do not believe that He, has an actual gender).

There is no doubt that translation and time have shifted the words around, not counting human error and intentional tampering. However, believing as I do, the original meanings are still there, protected by the influance of God.

Note above that I said the books included in the bible. The bible is an anthology, a collection of books. More books than the ones included were written. The Catholic bible includes more of these books than do most other bibles. Therefore we can not assume that any given bible is the end of of spiritual guidance.

One must also look at the time that the books were written. Man then could not grasp certain concepts as we do now. Indeed, there are probably concepts that we can't currently grasp that future generations will find as common sense. Thus concepts as the 7 days of creation were written as explainable. Think on this. We call a day the time it takes the earth to make one full turn, going from sunrise to sunrise (or whatever time point you use, but it is still based on the sun). The sun and the moon wasn't even created until the 3rd day. Therefore we can logically conclude that the days were based on God's perceptions.

In referance to a previous post of God being outside of time: this is not too far a logical leap to make. First of all by the very definition of what a Diety is, we will never be fully about to comprehend Him, at least as mortals. Secondly, when he lives outside lineir(sp) time, that would allow for the ability to make accurate predictions (not necessarily the accurate interpertations of those predictions). 2 examples:

think of creation as God making a cake. Because He exsists outside of the time line, He can see the finished product even as He is mixing the ingrediants, baking it, and so on. Thus he can see when it is time to pull it out of the oven, when there are still lumps in it, etc.

also, and this will solve the predestined/free will delemia: you own a time machine. You witness Joe, shooting Andy in cold blood. Joe of course made that choice by free will. Now hop into your handy dany time machine and go back into the past. You can now go an observe the event from another angle. You know what will happen, after all you've already seen it (assuming you don't try to interfer). So is Joe predestined to shoot Andy or is it still Joe's free will? It is still free will. Such is with God. He give us the free will to do as we wish, even though He knows what that will be, exsisting outside of linier time.

Free will is the key. If we were forced to love and worship Him then it would be empty. That toy doll doen't love you because it wants to, but because you make it do so.(an allusion, don't take too litterally). He can try to influence us, by His own rules, we have to choose what to believe and how to act on those beliefs.

Pulling back to the main topic, God really isn't all that condadictary (yes I know my spelling is pitiful today). We go through mood changes and change how we view the world. Since we are modeled after Him, why can't He. He is still the same person and overall, is constant. When mankind was still infants and toddlers, he was strict and used punishments. Now we're older and, like we do with children, has shifted how He tries to influance behavior. Thus the shift in basic philosiphy, from vengeful God to Forgiving God. We just have to try to look at it in a larger scale. Remember that an dog goes through a lifetime in about 10-15 years. Development is highly accelerated; events and changes occur in a short period of time. Thus God's changes happen over a longer period of time, spanning generations (the old joke of a second to Him is a 1000 years to us)

I thikn I've wandered enough. Remember that ultimately we have to choose our own beliefs. That is what faith is about: believeing with a lack or emphrical evidance (personal evidance may exsist). I believe in the bible and the message that it hold. I do not try to take it litterialy word for word....unless I'm kicking some fundie's philisophical arse.

Oh and one last thing; Jesus DID exsist. There is not doubt about it. Too many historical recors to confirm it. As to whether or not he was the Messiah, THAT is what is debatable

Well... I was going to post... but you just said pretty much everything I'd want to. :D

I voted for "other", as I think the Bible is an edited compilation of mostly myths and mythologised history, and I don't think the latter can be counted as "purely fiction". The historical bits are mostly written long after the events they describe, and from a very partial angle. Other bits (like Deutoronomy) were invented and "found" to justify political and religious innovations. Most of the history in the Bible is about as reliable and historical as tales of king Arthur: there might be a grain or two of reality somewhere in there, but the bulk of it is just legend.

The first five books of the Bible were supposedly written by Moses (other parts of the Bible, including the New Testament, make this claim). One problem with that is that three of these five books are written in the third person. Numbers 12:3 is particularly hard to explain:

Now Moses was a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth.

If Moses actually wrote that about himself, surely that would make him the most arrogant man on the face of the earth...

I voted for "other", as I think the Bible is an edited compilation of mostly myths and mythologised history, and I don't think the latter can be counted as "purely fiction". The historical bits are mostly written long after the events they describe, and from a very partial angle. Other bits (like Deutoronomy) were invented and "found" to justify political and religious innovations. Most of the history in the Bible is about as reliable and historical as tales of king Arthur: there might be a grain or two of reality somewhere in there, but the bulk of it is just legend.

The first five books of the Bible were supposedly written by Moses (other parts of the Bible, including the New Testament, make this claim). One problem with that is that three of these five books are written in the third person. Numbers 12:3 is particularly hard to explain:



If Moses actually wrote that about himself, surely that would make him the most arrogant man on the face of the earth...

Read my posts...

I have to agree with the first bit of Vale's post.

The ORIGINAL bible was written by God, through Man. And while those scriptures might be timeless and perfect, they are interpreted from long forgotten (or not clearly translated) language. Anyone who has ever been fluent in a second language can explain that while we can go between the two languages, the words are similar - not the exact same.

Ex. zapatos (spanish) and shoes (english) refer to the same item. However zapatos are not shoes, and vice-versa. We allow that they refer to the same thing, but their defintions aren't exactly the same. Now, that is an example of something easily definable. Apply this concept to something more abstract, such as, say...parables, or morals, etc. and you can understand why today's current bible must be taken with a grain of salt.

Another argument is this:

The Roman Catholic Church for many generations was a major POLITICAL force in the known world. This, of course, affected - whether intentionally or not - the interpretation of the biblical scrolls, attempting to influence the world through church services - think of it as mass brain-washing. The Church determines what is taught, and the people are required to attend. Thus, the Church's power is extended through the generations.

Now, let's turn to the KJV (King James Version). There's a reason it's titled the King James Version. This particular version was interpreted by order of King James for King James and was directly influenced therein. Remember why there's a Church of England? King Charles didnt like the rules of The Roman Catholic Church, so he made up his own religion with rules that he liked?

Everyone starting to get the picture?

Can anyone actually read the original scrolls and interpret exactly what is meant after over 20 centuries of change in the languages? Can anyone read and correctly interpret English from 250 years ago? It's not easy, is it...
Say sputnik, can anyone even get the scrolls?
Arent they all in the care of the vatican?

Bronze age? are you really meaning to date it as circa 1800BC? Iron age, surely? Even Biblical scholars date the first writing of the word of God to the delivery of the tablets to Moses and place a date of about 1400BC to that event, which is firmly within the Iron Age.
The Iron Age started at around 1200 BCE. Well depending on your sources. I used Wikipedia, but maybe some other sources have it at another date.

For my part, I believe the Bible (as originally written) was the word of God.

the translations we have now -- well, enough of it makes sense to me (note 'to me', so I don't get jumped on with a billion cut and pasted quotes from the skeptic's annotated Bible) to make me think it's relatively close to the original.

And I think modern translations of the Bible use the earliest manuscripts possible and compare with as many manuscripts as possible. I think there's a fairly good correlation between them, I heard a figure in the region of about 99.5% although I guess this is subjective, but still. The translaters do their jobs the best that they can, and I trust them!

Read my posts...

Apart from your claim that the "original" Bible (whatever that means) was written by God, through man -- which is solely based on faith, but you are free to beleive what you want -- I don't have too much of a problem with what you've said. The Bible has indeed been garbled, edited, re-edited, translated and generally buggered about with for reasons political and theological over the centuries. Although I have to wonder why, if an all-powerful God could transmit his Word to man, he didn't take more care in ensuring that the message didn't get so horribly garbled over the centuries. Has He never felt it necessary to issue any corrections?

Has He never felt it necessary to issue any corrections?
Depends on who you ask, doesn't it? Ask Mohammed or Joseph Smith if the Koran and the writings of the Nephite prophet-historians (esp. Moroni) qualify as amendments or enhancements of the Bible.

Ah, religion. Ultimately it's all about filtering it through the human mind, isn't it.

The ORIGINAL bible was written by God, through Man.

i'm not sure it makes sense to talk about there being an original bible. just a number of different (often contradictory) collections of writings from different sects and traditions that were at some point collected into one document - variations of the same stories and all.

i'm not sure it makes sense to talk about there being an original bible. just a number of different (often contradictory) collections of writings from different sects and traditions that were at some point collected into one document - variations of the same stories and all.


So, would you like me to edit my original post to include that distinction? I think everyone actually partaking in this discussion could readily determine what you posted above.


And, DeFuny, please, dont mess with my posts, ok? Ask anyone around here, I've no sense of humor, and you wouldnt want to upset me.

Apart from your claim that the "original" Bible (whatever that means) was written by God, through man -- which is solely based on faith, but you are free to beleive what you want -- I don't have too much of a problem with what you've said. The Bible has indeed been garbled, edited, re-edited, translated and generally buggered about with for reasons political and theological over the centuries. Although I have to wonder why, if an all-powerful God could transmit his Word to man, he didn't take more care in ensuring that the message didn't get so horribly garbled over the centuries. Has He never felt it necessary to issue any corrections?


Just because God can work through man does not mean that man cannot act on his own and claim it was from God...Nor does it mean that man cannot refuse to be used by God. The original compilation of manuscripts (as noted by whomever a couple posts before this one) was written by God, through men that allowed God to use them to write them. Remember, the whole free will thing?

I'm going to go ahead and write a lengthy post in response to the myriad ideas that I see attacking the validity of the Bible.

A lot of people apparently have some very mistaken beliefs about the scholarship behind the Bible. There is no conspiracy to modify the Bible, the Catholic Church has not changed the Bible, and translators have not made countless errors in their understanding of Hebrew or Koine Greek. In fact, the oldest Greek texts are still available, held in various collections around the world (not just by the Vatican). With regards to the New Testament (the more important of the two, I'd argue), we have hundreds of fragments of the Gospels and the Letters dating back to about the third century, with the earliest complete copy of the Gospels dating back to 350 A.D., while the earliest fragment, containing part of John 18, dates back to somewhere between 100 and 150 A.D. As we push into the middle ages, thousands upon thousands of manuscripts are available, none of them indicating any substantive change in the translation.

Also, a point regarding the apocryphal gospels, e.g., the Gospel of Thomas and its ilk. The Gospel of Thomas is the earliest of these, dating back to the second century--all of the other apocryphal writings were written centuries after the authentic Gospels, after legends had had enough time to emerge and be distorted by the ideas of gnosticism. The Gospel of Thomas, however, contains a picture of Jesus that does not agree with the testimony of the other Gospels (which were probably written slightly earlier) or the Epistles of Paul (which were written several decades earlier), and it was probably also distorted by gnosticism.

Regarding Mormonism and Islam, the revelations of both religions differ in two key respects from the original Christian revelations. First, both religions do not involve the participation of eyewitnesses. There were eyewitnesses to the miracles of Jesus, His crucifixion, and His resurrection, and therefore the validity of the writings and claims of early Christians was subject to the scrutiny of a community that did not believe in them. In fact, it is particularly noteworthy that contemporary and medieval Jewish writers did not argue that the claims of Jesus' miracles were false, but rather that He was a sorceror, and thus His miracles did not come from God. Smith and Mohammed, on the other hand, did not provide any physical evidence that they were sent from God--they simply declared that they had received divine revelation and then wrote it down. Second, particularly in the case of Mohammed, there was much to be gained (in a worldly sense) by founding a new religion. Mohammed and his followers built an empire and accumulated massive quantities of loot by conquering in the name of Allah. Mohammed even allowed an exception in Islam for him to marry multiple wives--I believe it was four. While Smith also endured persecution and was ultimately killed, he also was able to marry multiple women and to become the leader of a new religion. Jesus and His apostles, on the other hand, endured a life of poverty before finally being martyred. They had nothing to gain, in a worldly sense, for teaching what they taught.

Now, perhaps a gap of about 70-120 years between the death of Jesus and the availability of manuscripts still seems too long, but the documentary evidence behind any document in the ancient world is sparse--for example, the earliest copy of Caesar's "Conquest of Gaul" date back to about 800 A.D. If we are to reject the New Testament, I have to wonder how much of our knowledge of secular history we must reject as well.

Now, the scarcity of documents on any matter of the first century being as it is, obviously the lack of documentation behind the events of the Old Testament is going to be even more troublesome. Now, I think that even if a Christian, if his reason warrants it, is entitled to believe that certain parts of the Old Testament are not literally true--whether or not they are literally true, I still have not decided. The entire purpose of the Old Testament is to set up for the arrival of Jesus Christ, and the instructions that God handed down over that period were the process of preparing the Jews for the arrival of the Messiah. Most of the instructions that people appear to be superficially hypocritical (for example, Old Testament passages that allow for slaveholding) are instead calls for moderation, demanding that the Jews uphold to standards of behavior that exceed those of the pagans around them. As Christians, we don't look to the Old Testament law for guidance in our lives, but only to improve our understanding of God and the manner whereby he led and instructed the Jews until finally revealing Himself to them in the form of Jesus Christ.

Now, of course, you can take what evidence there is of what exactly happened in the Roman provinces of Judea and Galilee in the first century A.D. and dismiss it all. The physical evidence behind what happened then will never begin to approach that of events that occurred, say, last year. Perhaps the apostles preached the Good News until they achieved martyrdom because they were just a bunch of loons. In fact, maybe everyone who believes that Jesus Christ was the Son of God is completely devoid of rational thought.

OR...

Maybe reason doesn't have all the answers. I hold that faith is greater than reason. After all, to accept the validity of reason requires a leap of faith--we cannot use reason to prove the validity of reason. The most that reason alone will tell you about this matter is that there's a good deal of evidence that some fellow named Jesus of Nazareth convinced a whole lot of people--many of them smart, reasonable people who had a lot to lose by believing in Him--that he was the Son of God. Many of you have, through faith, come to the conclusion that this Christian God could not possibly be real, but no amount of reason, of evidence of any sort, will ever prove that point of view to be valid. Now, I do believe that one day some very physical evidence will arise to prove the Christian point of view to be valid, but by then, it will be far too late.

Now, C.S. Lewis once wrote that "Christianity must either be of infinite importance or of no importance. The one thing that it cannot be is moderately important." It seems to me, however, that many people make a choice of infinite importance--a choice that will potentially condemn them to eternal hellfire--without even taking a serious look at what exactly the evidence is.

Now, my guess is that I will not sway one person's mind with what I have written here, because most of you have, in your hearts, made that choice already, and no argument will dissuade you. But it is precisely because I regard this matter to be of infinite importance that I write this, not for my sake but the sake of whoever may read it, that they may go ahead and take a closer look at what exactly is at stake in this discussion.

My opinion is that it's more of a historic text, changed and modified by man, intentionally and unintetionally through the thousands of translations.

"Other": A collection of stories, some of which are true, some of which started as truth but have become twisted or embellished, and some of which are the historical equivalent of propaganda, and most of which has been muddled during the translation between various languages, which means it still retains some wisdom, but also much fallacy, and may have started out divinely inspired, if a conscious god exists, which I'm not sure of.

Actually, I'm very surprised that there are more who believe it is "the true word of god" than the "true word of god diluted and tampered with".

Not trying to insult anyone, but how can you ignore documented facts about faulty translations and deliberate tampering by various royal, religious and other figures through history.

I mean, I'm willing to allow people their faith, but come on...if you can so adamantly ignore historical facts, doesn't that almost put you in the "fanatic" category? Is it that you don't trust this proof?

is every word of it the word of god, or is some of it subject to a little bit of editorializing?

I believe the original version was all the Word of God, but of course humans tinkered with it, tweaked or omitted a few parts here and there, or mistranslated it, but I still think the very first Bible was by God.

Another argument is this:

Now, let's turn to the KJV (King James Version). There's a reason it's titled the King James Version. This particular version was interpreted by order of King James for King James and was directly influenced therein. Remember why there's a Church of England? King Charles didnt like the rules of The Roman Catholic Church, so he made up his own religion with rules that he liked?

WRONG!! King Charles did NOT create the Church of England. Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, because the pope(Clement VII) wouldn't give him a divorce from his wife. He issued the Act of Supremacy, making him leader of the Anglican Church.

FYI: Charles I's wife, Henrietta Marie, WAS a Catholic.
FYI: Charles II's wife, Catherine of Braganza, WAS a Catholic.

Everyone starting to get the picture?

Not from this!

Just because God can work through man does not mean that man cannot act on his own and claim it was from God...Nor does it mean that man cannot refuse to be used by God.

So... how do you tell the difference between something that man has made up, something that man has altered, and something that man has faithfully jotted down as God dictates? If you can't tell the difference, how do you know there IS a difference?

The original compilation of manuscripts (as noted by whomever a couple posts before this one) was written by God, through men that allowed God to use them to write them. Remember, the whole free will thing?

The original compilation of manuscripts in what you refer to as the Bible was assembled, by an editorial committee, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD from what is best described as "a whole bunch of stuff". This Council selected which books should be included in the Bible, and which should not -- leaving out OT elements like the Book of Enoch and NT ones like the Gospel of Thomas. They also decided which versions of the books that they were to include were to be used, and made other editorial adjustments to the text as they saw fit. Maybe the committee was "inspired by God" to pick the right texts -- but then again they did manage to introduce a whole bunch of errors in the process.

I also don't think that the concept of free will fits with the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing Deity. You can't have one AND have the other. By definition, if he's all-knowing, then since the dawn of time he's know that I was going to write this -- which impacts negatively on the concept of free will, no? But this is probably veering off-topic.

So, would you like me to edit my original post to include that distinction? I think everyone actually partaking in this discussion could readily determine what you posted above.


And, DeFuny, please, dont mess with my posts, ok? Ask anyone around here, I've no sense of humor, and you wouldnt want to upset me.

Quite right . I sincerely apologise. You have every right to be angry.
I am very childish. hehe. I will delete my post. and again sorry.

An oldy but a goody. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.html

Apart from your claim that the "original" Bible (whatever that means) was written by God, through man -- which is solely based on faith, but you are free to beleive what you want -- I don't have too much of a problem with what you've said. The Bible has indeed been garbled, edited, re-edited, translated and generally buggered about with for reasons political and theological over the centuries. Although I have to wonder why, if an all-powerful God could transmit his Word to man, he didn't take more care in ensuring that the message didn't get so horribly garbled over the centuries. Has He never felt it necessary to issue any corrections?

No. If GOD/s wants us to know something WE WILL KNOW IT.
There will be no honest reasons to doubt.
If you take a look at The Creators handy work in nature and compare it to an errant copy of a copy of a copy etc.... well.... The bible is glaringly wanting as GOD inspired. The bible reads as a story book and only as a story book.

If GOD/s wanted to communicate to us by handing down laws and moral codes for us to live by in a book, then that book would be cut and dry and readable by everyone in the world consistantly through out mankinds existence. Also the book would be available to all people through out mankinds existence. The bible is wanting as an instrument of a GOD in informing every person that has ever lived of jehovahs will. Some people are in hell right now because while alive have never heard the "gospel" or of jehovah. The bible is a mythology book and nothing more. Well... poetry too. (Song of Solomon. My favorite.)

God could have everyone to know its will. GOD/s have the power and the know how to get what it wants. If that is what it wants.

I see nothing wrong with trying to have a realtionship with the Creator.
But I think that it is pathetic that one would rely on a pathetic book.
I feel that anyone who worships a book is a lowly creature and an idolater.

There's an argument made by more than one archaeologist and exegetist that says pretty much everything from Genesis through to the prophetic books was compiled during the time of King Josiah as an epic narrative for a kingdom that was trying for the first time to see itself as a power in a wider world. It was a sort of "Iliad" for them, a way of giving themselves a solid history from the tales and legends that had surrounded them for generations.

Interestingly, the Iliad turned out to have some truth behind it...people didn't believe that for a long time until Schliemann actually discovered the location of Troy. While you'd have a harder time with things in the Bible, I do believe there is truth in it even if humans DID manage to mess up some stuff.

Especially with the Old Testament, I think there's a huge poetic element...but that doesn't mean there aren't important truths to be found--I just don't always read literally. I also think that there are some things that people put in there as reflections of the culture of that time and do not necessarily bear theological significance. The way I read, anyway, the test to pick up on the latter has to do with the one commandment in the New Testament, that we love one another as we love ourselves...and things that do not fit this commandment need to be reconsidered and not followed.

Furthermore, I DO think mistranslation has been an issue, and for that reason I do not read any one translation, but several, including translations into both English and Spanish, hoping I'll get as close to the intended sense of the passage as possible. If I spoke more languages beyond those I would also look at translations into those as well, and certainly if I could read the original Hebrew and Greek I'd read it in those languages.

This doesn't negate, for me, the idea that the Bible was intended as the word of God, but I do think human error has gotten in (as it does into everything given to us) and for that reason you've got to read carefully, not blindly. As to why God has allowed a process like this to take place instead of doing something much more blatant, it seems to me that to do otherwise would destroy free will, which I fully believe we were intended to have. It would take away the element of choice that we have to decide if we do or don't believe, and how we want to act.

I know not everybody agrees with this and I respect that, but I just wanted to give an opinion.

I think its an unfair question, becuase while most of the Bible is the word of God a good chunk of it is just historical reccord

Especially with the Old Testament, I think there's a huge poetic element...but that doesn't mean there aren't important truths to be found--I just don't always read literally.

I agree with most of this. But just because a book has a few gems in it doesn't necessarily make the whole book valueable let alone to be considered "The word of God".
When considering the gems I would rather
say that the writer is using his heart and intelligence which is a gift from God.

In every barrel there can be some rotten apples. As for the bible ,its as if the shop keeper has not bothered to pick out what is rotten from the barrel.

Besides many other holy books have good stuff in them. Does that make them "The word of God"?

Anyways most religionists do not have the ability to just appreciate the gems.
They worship the book blindly thus clinging to the good ideas and the bad ideas.

How can a person grow from a system based off threats and bribes?
Life experience expands our empathy. Threats and bribes only teach us to be thugs.
China is practically a nation of atheists but has lower crime rate than countries that have a high rate of religionsts.

How many of the folks who are in prison say they are believers in thier religion verses non religious inmates. In prison the religionists out numbers the non religious by a landslide.
Bribes and threats at best do nothing for a persons spiritual growth. and at worst reinforces the thuggish world view of criminals.
The "good book" my ass.

People do good because they can empathize. Bad people dont have thier empathy developed.
Bribes and threats do nothing in developing a persons empathy.

The bible clumps the good people with the bad people as it spews " Man is sinful" Everyone is sinful by degrees. And there is a big differnce between some one who is boastful and some one who murders for example. We must all look alike to jehovah. Heh, to jehovah Im just an uppity human. hehe.

In this regard people who clutch the bible to their bosoms are sado/masichistic. Which is not healthy. That books philosophy in regards humans is not love but is antihuman.
I have always known this intuatively growing up as a religionist


Most miracle beggers have no balls and are lazy.

I think its an unfair question, becuase while most of the Bible is the word of God a good chunk of it is just historical reccord

Go to University and then see if you still believe that the bible is very accurate as a history book.

No christian should ever be a theologan or a scholar or a archeologist as they have preconcieved notions and biases that scew thier understanding of the actual evedence. Also many religionist are intellectually dishonest.

Buy the buy. allah has managed to put together a book with fewer problems.
Does that make allah the true god?

We have in one corner, a meek, humble man who would be the first to concede that he is a sinner. In the other corner, we have an omniscient, omnibenevolent super deity, who's reportedly gone undefeated in just about any sort of contest you could contemplate, since the dawn of time. (Well, he has one draw, if you count the old testament account of god's wrestling match with Jacob...)

But, let's at least take a look at what each has is on record for saying, regarding some very important moral matters, before deciding. Then I will ask Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg, eminent psychologist and creator of a theory of moral reasoning, to choose the winner

On Honesty:

jehovah : "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." - I Kings 22:23

vs Gandhi :Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it.

On Physical Threats and Coercision

jehovah :"But God will shatter the heads of his enemies..." - Psalms 68:21

vs Gandhi : One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman. The more efficient a force is the more silent and the more subtle it is.

On the Use of Physical Force as a Means of Justice

jehovah :Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you.
- Jeremiah 50:21
"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished." - Isaiah 13:9, 13:15

"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..." Ezekiel 32:5

'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'" - Ezekiel 9:5

vs Gandhi : Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. Love is the subtlest force in the world. Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing. Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

Satyagraha has been designed as an effective substitute for violence. Satyagraha and civil disobedience and fasts have nothing in common with the use of force, veiled or open. The force of nonviolence is infinitely more wonderful and subtle and powerful than the use of violence.

On Women and Equality

jehova :For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man." - 1 Corinthians, 11:8

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11-14

vs Gondhi :There is no occasion for women to consider themselves subordinate or inferior to man. Woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacity.

On Slavery

jehovah :"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." - Leviticus 25:44

vs Gandhi : No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom.

Now, to decide our winner, Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg

My (Kohlberg's) classification can be outlined in the following manner:



Level :Pre-conventional : Stage :1 Obedience and Punishment. Stage :2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,and Exchange



Level: Conventional: Stage:3 "Good boy/girl". Stage:4 Law and Order

Level: Post-conventional: Stage:5 Social Contract. Stage:6 Principled Conscience




Jehavah is operating on the first level of moral thinking - a sort of reasoning usually found in pre school children. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.
The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

The second level of moral thinking is typical of the morality generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

The third level of moral thinking is one that I (Kohlberg) feel is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal
principle and the demands of individual conscience. It is this stage that Mr. Gandhi is operating on.

A mere Mortal who is more mature than jehovah.

Please don't flame me, mock me, or insult me for this, but I sincerely believe the Bible is the Word of God. I respect anyone who disagrees, so please respect me, in return.
That's like asking someone to respect the beliefs of the KKK.

WRONG!! King Charles did NOT create the Church of England. Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church, because the pope(Clement VII) wouldn't give him a divorce from his wife. He issued the Act of Supremacy, making him leader of the Anglican Church.

FYI: Charles I's wife, Henrietta Marie, WAS a Catholic.
FYI: Charles II's wife, Catherine of Braganza, WAS a Catholic.



Not from this!

Excuse me for the inaccuracy. Regardless of the name, the point remains.

The Bible is entirely a human creation. However, that does not make it a complete fiction. The book is most likely legendary; some parts contain actual historical events and people, while others are mere fable.

When I took a look at the results of the poll, I was a bit surprised. 26 people have so far indicated, that they believe the Bible to be the true and accurate word of God. Somewhat scary.

The Bible is entirely a human creation. However, that does not make it a complete fiction. The book is most likely legendary; some parts contain actual historical events and people, while others are mere fable.
Ah yes. You are a man that can appreciate something without worshiping it. You are wise. Enjoy the bible. I do. There is some good stuff in there too mixed in with all the crap. GOD Bless.

That's like asking someone to respect the beliefs of the KKK.

Christians have to remember that us non-religionist judge christians by the book that they "might" be worshiping.

In most cases folks worship the bible. They are idolaters.

What does the bible say about atheists and people of other faiths who refuse to be assimulated into the christian borg collective?
If a christian believes that thier God hates and will punish the ones unwilling to convert , then to that christian I say oink,oink, chauvinist biggot.

If GOD/s wants us to know something WE WILL KNOW IT.
There will be no honest reasons to doubt.
If you take a look at The Creators handy work in nature and compare it to an errant copy of a copy of a copy etc.... well.... The bible is glaringly wanting as GOD inspired. The bible reads as a story book and only as a story book.

If GOD/s wanted to communicate to us by handing down laws and moral codes for us to live by in a book, then that book would be cut and dry and readable by everyone in the world consistantly through out mankinds existence. Also the book would be available to all people through out mankinds existence. The bible is wanting as an instrument of a GOD in informing every person that has ever lived of jehovahs will. Some people are in hell right now because while alive have never heard the "gospel" or of jehovah. The bible is a mythology book and nothing more. Well... poetry too. (Song of Solomon. My favorite.)

God could have everyone to know its will. GOD/s have the power and the know how to get what it wants. If that is what it wants.

I see nothing wrong with trying to have a realtionship with the Creator.
But I think that it is pathetic that one would rely on a pathetic book.
I feel that anyone who worships a book is a lowly creature and an idolater.

This should be enough for any rational person.



THOMAS PAINE " The Age of Reason" A good read.

Sure, I believe the Bible is the word of God. But I believe all words are the word of God, as I believe everyone is God.

Sure, I believe the Bible is the word of God. But I believe all words are the word of God, as I believe everyone is God.
:cool: I can respect that. Please then, Bless me fellow God.

It's all a bunch of superstitious nonsense...
I hope someday man will outgrow the childish need for religion.

:cool: I can respect that.

thanks :)

I would never claim that the bible is infallible though! and I can't stand people who try to claim that it is so.

I'll just state this to get my opinion out there. I feel that the Bible, really in any translation, is the destinct Word of God. I defend this by saying first of all that the Bible I use has been over thrise checked by specialists in Arameic, Greek and Hebrew using as many original doccuments as possible. Second, as long as the Bible (in any form) is still a guide for others to find Jesus, then it's still good. The Holy Spirit is a major factor is showing that the Word really is right.

Feel free to disagree with me if you would like. Send me telegrams at the Right Arm of U C if you so choose. I will happily defend my points and even debate there if you should like.

-R. S. of UC

I'll just state this to get my opinion out there. I feel that the Bible, really in any translation, is the destinct Word of God. I defend this by saying first of all that the Bible I use has been over thrise checked by specialists in Arameic, Greek and Hebrew using as many original doccuments as possible. Second, as long as the Bible (in any form) is still a guide for others to find Jesus, then it's still good. The Holy Spirit is a major factor is showing that the Word really is right.

Feel free to disagree with me if you would like. Send me telegrams at the Right Arm of U C if you so choose. I will happily defend my points and even debate there if you should like.

-R. S. of UC

A likely story.... Well then daddy warbucks why don't you share this bible with the world. Ah never mind! You have convinced me thoroughly with your doging and naked assertions and feelings on the matter.
Here maybe this will help you since you are obviously a very emotional guy.

Logic 101 http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

I believe a little bit differently what the Lord's Prayer is about. I do not believe it is a set structure to follow, as in, what part of the prayer is to follow what part. I believe, rather, that it is a suggestion. If you're not sure what to pray to God for, it gives you a starting point - but it is NOT the manner in which you HAVE to pray. Prayer, in it's correct nature, is purely free-form.
Yes this is pretty much what I was trying to say. What Jesus was giving out was something to aid those who weren't sure how to pray. Just like they teach you how to do certain things in one manner and then once you're proficent at it you can embellish upon it till it is your own.

There is something to be said about "formal" prayer as well. When in a group, these types of prayers are good. It aids those gathered in praying the same thing. Not necessarily in exactly the same words or methods. I know when I am praying during a service when the pastor or layperson is praying, I'm usually listening and saying mentally "yes what he said" or maybe adding some comments or requests of my own that come to me. Structured prayer is good for a group, it doesn't have to be part and parcel of your whole life.

That's like asking someone to respect the beliefs of the KKK.

I respect the beliefs of the KKK....I just don't respect their methods of showing those beliefs nor do I agree with them

I also don't think that the concept of free will fits with the concept of an all-powerful, all-knowing Deity. You can't have one AND have the other. By definition, if he's all-knowing, then since the dawn of time he's know that I was going to write this -- which impacts negatively on the concept of free will, no? But this is probably veering off-topic.

I addressed this in my post which is on page 3 of this thread. But for your conveance I will place the referencing paragraph here:

also, and this will solve the predestined/free will delemia: you own a time machine. You witness Joe, shooting Andy in cold blood. Joe of course made that choice by free will. Now hop into your handy dany time machine and go back into the past. You can now go an observe the event from another angle. You know what will happen, after all you've already seen it (assuming you don't try to interfer). So is Joe predestined to shoot Andy or is it still Joe's free will? It is still free will. Such is with God. He give us the free will to do as we wish, even though He knows what that will be, exsisting outside of linier time.

I also believe that the Bible is the Word of God. I am also in full belief that certain elements have been changed and/or deleted over the years by various churches, peoples, etc. However, any Christian can easily explain the principle theories of the Bible... details are simply that: details.

first the bible cannot be infallible since fallibility refers to the capacity to make an error rather than contain one. It is however, the inerrant word of the one true God written in the words He inspired men to write.

Those who claim otherwise do so for one or both of the following reasons:

Ignorance- They either cannot reconcile the existance of any God with what they perceive as the status of the world around them or they cannot reconcile the existance of the God of Abraham and Isaac with their perceptions. This condition stems from a severely limited intelligence.

Arrogance-usually coupled witgh ignorance, they cannot believe there is a being who has a claim on them and who by rights can make demands of them. This is found in those who cannot outgrow adolesence.

all the liberal mutual-gratification that goes on on this sorry excuse for a debate is sickening

I believe that the Bible (Torah) is a large collection of history, laws, and commandments, that can ultamately represent the Word of God. At least that is what my Rabbi tells me, and it seems pretty practical.

Reform Judaism is smart enough not to take the bible's writings literally. We find different meanings for some verses, so that it is more realistic for this time in the world.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

you should check out this site...

I'm also for very dilluted. I feel this way mainly because the vast majority of offensive christians I've met worship the book more than the being(s) behind it. "If God wanted us to have another book, he would have sent one to us."
"He DID send another one. It's called the Koran."

religion is drugs for the people.
i would go further and say, its dope for the stupid and uneducated to keep them quite. some king had a good idea with the invention of religion, and it worked. even today it does.

I personally dont believe a word that is printed in the bible but i respect other peoples beliefs and i wont begrudge them for believing.

I personally dont believe a word that is printed in the bible.
Then by inference the following is true for you:

1. I am NOT the Lord thy God. Thou shalt have other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt make unto thee graven image, such as Playstations and X-boxes. Thou shalt bow down thyself to them, and serve them.
4. Forget the sabbath day, whenever possible. More football for everyone!
5. Dishonor thy father and thy mother, for they contributed nothing to your upbringing.
6. Thou shalt kill with heartless abandon.
7. Thou shalt commit adultery, as thy wife is as useless as the day is long.
8. Thou shalt steal, 'cause it's cool.
9. Thou shalt bear false witness against thy neighbour. Who friggin' cares? Besides, his daughter has a great ass.
10. Thou shalt covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt covet thy neighbor's wife, and his manservant, and his maidservant, and his ox, and especially his ass, and anything that is thy neighbor's. It's thine for the taking, after all.

Does that sum up your personal philosophy for starters, or do you actually respect some of these common shared moral rules that the Bible quite reasonably includes? Remember, this one's for credit. Your statement was an all-or-nothing exclusion. Is that your final answer?

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

you should check out this site...

It is not morally acceptable to say ... our story is truth but yours is myth; ours is history but yours is a lie. It is even less morally acceptable to ... manufactur[e] defensive or protective strategies that apply only to one's own story.
[John Crossan, The Birth of Christianity, 1998, pg 28 - 29]

The popular idea, the one we grew up with, the one you read about in books and maybe studied at school, is that Christianity began with Jesus, who had completely new (basically Jewish, but new) ideas about God and us. The truth is, Christianity didn't start with Jesus. Like every one else who ever started a religion, the first Christians got things going by adopting and adapting the ideas -- the theologies and rituals and myths -- that were part of the culture they lived in.


OH! ........ YOU HERETIC! YOUR GONNA BURN YOU FILTHY DEVIL!

Hehe. The fundies are so stupid! what a bunch of ROOBS! HAHAHAHAHA! LOL! I have known this for only 2 years now. It was a shock at first.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

Christians are like the Emporer with no clothes! Thier whole belief system is nothing but naked assertions! They are so chauvinistic biggoted and arrogant when it comes to different belief systems yet they have no clothes! ROFL!