Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, I think I can see where this is going. If you lack the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious then there's not much I can do.
Quite obviously, you're negatively predisposed towards the Bible and, while you're certainly entitled to your view, to find fault (your post #78) with those having found the Bible to be trustworthy comes off as pure hypocrisy. While being dogmatic in your rejection of the Bible, you decry those having found it perfectly reasonable to accept it at face value.
It is NOT rejecting the Bible . . stop using that lie as cover . . .it is a rejection of your asinine literal acceptance of it at face value!!There is nothing remotely reasonable about taking the Bible at face value given the state of knowledge that exists about it, its history, those who wrote and translated it, the entire preceding "spiritual fossil record" of even more primitive versions, etc.etc. It is a case of "Abandon all reason and intelligence . . . all ye who enter here!!" . . . because that is the likely fate of those who do so.
It is NOT rejecting the Bible . . stop using that lie as cover . . .it is a rejection of your asinine literal acceptance of it at face value!!There is nothing remotely reasonable about taking the Bible at face value given the state of knowledge that exists about it, its history, those who wrote and translated it, the entire preceding "spiritual fossil record" of even more primitive versions, etc.etc. It is a case of "Abandon all reason and intelligence . . . all ye who enter here!!" . . . because that is the likely fate of those who do so.
Lead on maestro!
Tell me the things I accept about the Bible that should not be accepted.
Why should the Bible not be accepted as a basically reliable historical document?
Okay, I think I can see where this is going. If you lack the intellectual honesty to admit the obvious then there's not much I can do.
Quite obviously, you're negatively predisposed towards the Bible and, while you're certainly entitled to your view, to find fault (your post #78) with those having found the Bible to be trustworthy comes off as pure hypocrisy. While being dogmatic in your rejection of the Bible, you decry those having found it perfectly reasonable to accept it at face value.
wow. somehow we got back to my intellectual dishonesty. way to try to distract from the actual topic at hand.
i'm not dogmatic in my rejection of the bible. there are parts of the bible i wholeheartedly agree with. i just listed the parts that don't seem like they could have been written by a divine being (many of which i also disagree with) but i don't reject the bible in its entirety. i simply reject that it was 1) authored by a divine being and 2) that it accurately describes the god that created the universe, if there is one. but there are many verses in the bible i agree with, both from a philosophical point of view and a moral one. and i also don't reject that there may be some sort of divine being.
...
Why should the Bible not be accepted as a basically reliable historical document?
Given the numerous blatantly implausible stories told in the Bible, I find it hard to believe that anyone could accept it literally as a historical document. Generally speaking, when wild stories are reported (like the kinds of stories you find in tabloid newspapers about strange monsters, space aliens, magical events, etc.) the standards of verification required before such stories can reach the status of being accepted as historical fact are extremely high. The reason why the standards need to be so rigorous can be summed up this way: For any given claim (e.g., "I saw Bigfoot yesterday") there are numerous possible explanations. (e.g., I saw something that I mistook for Bigfoot, or I was the target of a hoax, or I was drunk, or I am lying in order to get attention, etc.) and the probabilities for each of these alternatives must be weighed against the plausibility of the initial claim. If you step away from your prior commitment to the literal truth of the Bible and simply analyze these claims in the stark light of rational thought, I think you will see the problem clearly. I could list hundreds of absurd claims, but here are a few of my favorites:
1) Following the Bible's supposedly historical links of who-begot-who back to Adam and Eve, we conclude that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. This flies directly in the face of powerful, interlocking, highly-confirmed evidence from at least three major branches of science (biology, geology, and astronomy). My favorite argument is one that I made up myself. It goes like this: Counting stars is relatively easy. The speed of light is well-known. The laws of gravity are well-confirmed. If you try to pack all of the stars in the universe into a radius of 10,000 light years, the universe would collapse under gravitational attraction within just a few years. Thus, the astronomical calculations for interstellar and intergalactic distances must be roughly correct (millions of light years, billions of light years, etc.) Light from those distant stars could not have reached us in 10,000 years.
2) Noah's ark: Do I really need to spell out the multiple absurdities of this? But what really bothers me about this story is that, if it is true, then the creator of the universe seems to have the intelligence and emotional maturity of a four-year-old child. Either that, or God is simply evil. How many children suffered in the flood? Did they deserve to suffer? Why did God – who created all of the animals in the first place – have to save so many animals in an ark? Why not just recreate them? And if you really needed to save animals, why not just save the pregnant females, thus cutting the boat load in half? Or better yet, but save the genetic material. Certainly God almighty could create animals from their genetic material. Does anything about the flood story make sense to a rational mind? How can you rationally call this "history"?
3) The fall of Adam and Eve: A talking snake? Really? Do I need to spell out the reasons for thinking that this is pure mythology?
It would appear that you're relatively new here. If that be the case, welcome to the forum.
Normally, I would ignore a post such as this one under the assumption that the poster is most probably close minded and solidly entrenched in a negative sense towards God and or Christianity. If this is the case for you, please save us both time by letting me know up front. Not that I expect to be able to persuade you one way or the other - it's just really difficult to have an honest-to-goodness back and forth with a committed dogmatic.
I'm curious about your profile. What is a "spiritual adventurer?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
[b][i]Given the numerous blatantly implausible stories told in the Bible, I find it hard to believe that anyone could accept it literally as a historical document. Generally speaking, when wild stories are reported (like the kinds of stories you find in tabloid newspapers about strange monsters, space aliens, magical events, etc.) the standards of verification required before such stories can reach the status of being accepted as historical fact are extremely high. The reason why the standards need to be so rigorous can be summed up this way: For any given claim (e.g., "I saw Bigfoot yesterday") there are numerous possible explanations. (e.g., I saw something that I mistook for Bigfoot, or I was the target of a hoax, or I was drunk, or I am lying in order to get attention, etc.) and the probabilities for each of these alternatives must be weighed against the plausibility of the initial claim.
I would certainly agree. However, we must define our terms. What constitutes 'extraordinary' evidence?
If the examples you've been kind enough to provide here are the most glaring examples of stuff that's hard to believe, well, you've 'got sum splain'n' to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
If you step away from your prior commitment to the literal truth of the Bible and simply analyze these claims in the stark light of rational thought, I think you will see the problem clearly. I could list hundreds of absurd claims, but here are a few of my favorites:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
1) Following the Bible's supposedly historical links of who-begot-who back to Adam and Eve, we conclude that the earth must be less than 10,000 years old. This flies directly in the face of powerful, interlocking, highly-confirmed evidence from at least three major branches of science (biology, geology, and astronomy). My favorite argument is one that I made up myself. It goes like this: Counting stars is relatively easy. The speed of light is well-known. The laws of gravity are well-confirmed. If you try to pack all of the stars in the universe into a radius of 10,000 light years, the universe would collapse under gravitational attraction within just a few years. Thus, the astronomical calculations for interstellar and intergalactic distances must be roughly correct (millions of light years, billions of light years, etc.) Light from those distant stars could not have reached us in 10,000 years.
Does the Bible assert how old the earth or universe is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
2) Noah's ark: Do I really need to spell out the multiple absurdities of this? But what really bothers me about this story is that, if it is true, then the creator of the universe seems to have the intelligence and emotional maturity of a four-year-old child. Either that, or God is simply evil. How many children suffered in the flood? Did they deserve to suffer? Why did God – who created all of the animals in the first place – have to save so many animals in an ark? Why not just recreate them? And if you really needed to save animals, why not just save the pregnant females, thus cutting the boat load in half? Or better yet, but save the genetic material. Certainly God almighty could create animals from their genetic material. Does anything about the flood story make sense to a rational mind? How can you rationally call this "history"?
Well, for starters, you're making a moral value judgment on God. Do you even believe God exists? If not, how do you presume to be in any position to make an objective moral judgment upon God, or anyone else for that matter?
Concerning your other point, could God have done things differently? I believe certainly yes. Does God need to comport to our way of doing things in order be viewed as acting logically? Well, if God exists and if God is 'omni-everything' then it strikes me as logical that God could basically do whatever it is that God chooses to do.
As an aside, does the Bible assert whether or not the flood was world wide as opposed to local?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylenwoof
3) The fall of Adam and Eve: A talking snake? Really? Do I need to spell out the reasons for thinking that this is pure mythology?
I've actually done quite a bit of reading - both the Bible and ancient mythology. The Bible just doesn't read or come across to me as anything remotely akin to mythological writing in style and composition.
"A talking snake?" (I believe the Biblical account speaks of a serpent.) As well, there is an account of a talking donkey and a great fish that swallows humans whole and spits them out again. Yes, there are all sorts of things that we can find very difficult to accept as literally and factually true. I've never denied that Christianity requires faith just the same as all world views. Again, if God is the all powerful 'omni-everything' as presented in the Biblical account, and if this God created everything that exists in this natural realm, logically speaking, wouldn't this same God be capable of doing all of these things 'with his feet up' so to speak?
Why should the Bible not be accepted as a basically reliable historical document?
Are you kidding? Well, for starters, the Exodus as described in the bible never happened.
The fact that it's ethnocentric is another reason.
It goes into great detail mentioning ethnic groups living in an area centered on Sumer and Akkad, but apparently even god didn't know there were aborigines in Australia, various tribal groups in North and South America and also numerous peoples in Asia, and even worse, doesn't seem to understand there are people living in sub-Saharan Africa and in northern Europe.
Well, for starters, the Exodus as described in the bible never happened.
The fact that it's ethnocentric is another reason .
If you're dogmatically entrenched in the religion of "Agnostic Atheism" (a contradiction in terms by the way) why bother? Any evidence I produce will be considered as outright non-evidence by you and any logical reason I give will be considered by you to be illogical and unreasonable. So why bother?
I have your opinion that the Exodus is complete fabrication. So what? Am I supposed to be impressed? What would make one layman's (as in Biblical hermeneutics) view carry any more weight than any other layman's view?
Concerning your comment on "ethnocentricity," if you want assertions like this to carry any weight with me you would first need to define your terms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
It goes into great detail mentioning ethnic groups living in an area centered on Sumer and Akkad, but apparently even god didn't know there were aborigines in Australia, various tribal groups in North and South America and also numerous peoples in Asia, and even worse, doesn't seem to understand there are people living in sub-Saharan Africa and in northern Europe.
So, by your logic, because the Bible doesn't appear to mention all these other tribes, peoples/ethnic groups, this is proof of or reason to conclude falsification?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
