Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-15-2012, 07:06 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,081 posts, read 20,543,087 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Because we have seen it before and the title itself 'Search for Purpose in the universe' immediately sets off the alarm bells 'agenda - setting out to prove a belief rather than look at the evidence and see what it says'.

It is the video that shouts 'closed mind' not our reaction. And it's off topic, anyway. This is about whether Christians can talk Faith without referring to the Bible.... maybe it's On Topic after all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-15-2012, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Sierra Nevada Land, CA
9,455 posts, read 12,490,840 times
Reputation: 16449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ilene Wright View Post
No I don't mind but I do mind being misrepresented. I never said I didn't have a "relationship" with a god, and my relationship with it was just as real to me as the next Christian. I truly believed there was a god and that Jesus/god was always with me. There can be NO faith without the bible, however. That blind faith is what I lost, or I should say I simply accepted the reality of the situation. And yes, after studying the bible more in depth and realizing it's errors and contradictions, that's when the blind faith started to fade.

The fact is that no matter how you slice it, your "faith" is based solely on a book. No matter how much lip service you give it, you can't prove faith or even have knowledge of a supposed god without the bible telling you about it. The book tells you HOW to have faith, it tells you that there is a god and that you should worship it and have a relationship with it. So the bible comes first, then the blind faith and imagined relationship with the sky fairy. You can't get around the fact that the entire book is written by men who were obviously very superstitious and delusional.

.
I rest my case. Your faith was based on a book, not God.I also note that you have adopted the gramatically incorrect small g used by atheists as a sign of disrespect.

And a fact has to be proven. Something that has not occured when it comes to the Bible. So what proof do you have that the writters of the books of the Bible were delusional? You make a claim. I assume you have evidence to back it up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
8,468 posts, read 10,883,721 times
Reputation: 10717
I consider myself a christian, and think most of Moderator cut: deleted in the bible is just Moderator cut: delete
All I need for my christian belief is what is in my heart, and my mind.
The undying love, and understanding between me and my creator is all I need to profess my faith, and not a day goes by that I am not made acutely aware of his love, and presents in my life.
I certainly do not need some worthless book to show me the way.
My God does a great job at doing that.
Bob.

Last edited by june 7th; 06-16-2012 at 08:31 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-15-2012, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Central Virginia
834 posts, read 2,271,657 times
Reputation: 649
Ilene, that's sad that you threw the baby out with the bathwater. But honestly you are the perfect example of why it's dangerous to be a bible literalist. Take everything as fact and once you prove one thing wrong, it all comes unraveling like pulling a thread on a sweater.

It's not your fault. It's the fault of the churches who teach that the bible has all of the answers. Oh boy wouldn't that be nice if all the answers to life were found in a book? It's just not like that.

Also it drives me crazy when people say, "The Bible says". The Bible is a book. Books don't say anything. People say things. And when you are talking about a book that is 2,000 years old and has been translated in numerous languages, things are bound to be lost in translation. The Bible isn't wrong. Men have translated it wrong. Truth be told the Bible isn't near detailed enough to be right or wrong. It's simply a glimpse into what life was like at that time in history.

The bible is a reference point for me. But it does not encompass my faith. If you believe in God, you believe in God. How the bible has been translated by men over the years is neither here nor there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 12:19 AM
 
Location: South Africa
5,563 posts, read 7,194,852 times
Reputation: 1798
All these folk claiming not to take the bible as is are merely reinforcing the concept that gods are all man made. They only exist in your head. All experiences are self willed or induced.

Ilene realised this like many other folk that came to their senses.

It becomes necessary to walk away from the bible as it is disproven and unreliable, no literal genesis, no fludd, no exodus etc. so what you lot are left with is a version that is cherry picked and suits your bias. You lot base your hopes and dreams on your own imaginations, congregate with folk that do the same.

If your gods were real, and I use the plural deliberately here, then there would be no argument or need for apologetics.

Reality and science does not have an apologetics branch. IT IS self evident to those that would dare to look outside the box.

It is kinda embarrassing to admit that you still believe in santa clause as an adult.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 07:50 AM
 
2,994 posts, read 5,752,280 times
Reputation: 1822
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed067 View Post
Says the baised website.
They are not 'biased websites' because they use external historical evidences for The BIbles credibility which is the same criteria used on all other secular literary works . If something or someone totally fulfills 200 very narrow predictions written down hundreds of years before the event or person came on the scene, then that is not 'biased' . What biased is, is : Coming to the table with a preconcieved idea that it must never be so , regardless of the evidence (and, not being willing to investigate the evidence which they dont want to exist so its more palatable to make up an unsubstantiated excuse) .

THE worlds top Law Professor who specialized in Court Evidence techniques , named Prof. Simon Greenleaf (he is still taught in Law Schools today nationwide and has a Law School named after him) , was challenged by his class to put the Bible on trial . He did so and the evidence was so strong that the Bible was true, credible , and supernatural in origin...that he left agnosticism immediately and became a follower of Christ. The evidence is readily available for anyone who wishes to get it with a few clicks of some computer keys...but even that simple effort is veto'd by some who dont want it to be so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 08:42 AM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,776,578 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by 007.5 View Post

THE worlds top Law Professor who specialized in Court Evidence techniques , named Prof. Simon Greenleaf (he is still taught in Law Schools today nationwide and has a Law School named after him) , was challenged by his class to put the Bible on trial . He did so and the evidence was so strong that the Bible was true, credible , and supernatural in origin...that he left agnosticism immediately and became a follower of Christ. The evidence is readily available for anyone who wishes to get it with a few clicks of some computer keys...but even that simple effort is veto'd by some who dont want it to be so.
First, let me point out the appeal to authority here. The fact that Dr. Greenleaf was very important figure in American Jurisprudence in no way affect the strength or validity of his arguments. His arguments must stand on their own merits. I have not read the entirely of his apologetic work, but I have managed to get several pages in, so far. In all fairmess, let me point out that he wrote this tract in 1846 , so I cannot judge him too harsly when he doesn't incorporate modern scholarship into his work. What it does mean is that most of his premises, that may have seemed so obvious when he wrote it, now have glaring holes.

First, appeals to the federal standards for the admissibility of ancient documents ( more than 20 years old). The standards explicitly say however that such a document should be presumed authentic, but that does not mean one has to assume it is truthful, just that it is not a forgery. He tends to make the leap that since it is assumed authentic, it is also assumed true. Additionally, modern biblical scholarship has since shown that the bible as we have it today has been subject to numerous revisions, interpolations, and redactions. This throws the entire issue of authenticity back into question again.

The other major probalem I saw, just in the first few pages, as his assumption that the writers of the 4 gospels were the traditional authors. We now have significant reasons to believe that the Apostle Matthew did not actually write Matthew, Mark did not write Mark, and that John was written over a long period of time by several authors. There is also some skepticism of the authorship of Luke, however this seems at least more likely than the other gospels to be true. Thus his entire concept of treating the four gospel writers as eyewitnesses (even though only two would have been, even if the traditional authorship held) is undermined from the get-go. His analysis of their character likewise fails, as the men analyzed are not his witnesses. The whole thing kind of falls apart once modern Biblical scholarship is introduced to the equation.

I don't mean to be too critical, since much if this is information that was unavailable when he wrote his tract, however it still does not prove very compelling.


-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 09:41 AM
 
Location: SC Foothills
8,831 posts, read 11,588,712 times
Reputation: 58253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
I rest my case. Your faith was based on a book, not God.I also note that you have adopted the gramatically incorrect small g used by atheists as a sign of disrespect.

And a fact has to be proven. Something that has not occured when it comes to the Bible. So what proof do you have that the writters of the books of the Bible were delusional? You make a claim. I assume you have evidence to back it up.
YOUR faith is based on a book, I do not possess said faith. All Christians faith is based on a book, that is what I said but you refuse to admit that. So basically, you are denying the bible. Hmmm, would you look at that! And using a small g has nothing to do with respect or disrespect, it's just a simple reference to something that doesn't exist.

You have nothing useful to say so you turn it around and make lame accusations against me. The OP wants you to prove your faith without quoting the bible and you have yet to do that. Why is that? Maybe it's because you can't do it? The burden of proof falls on you my friend, not me. You're the one claiming that there is definitely a god and that you have a personal relationship with it. So prove it.

The proof that the writers of the bible were delusional is written in the pages of the book itself. Talking snakes, donkeys and bushes, parting seas, people returning from the dead.......are these things that you have seen happen in your lifetime? Do you honestly believe that they happened? If you say yes, then that puts you in the same category as the writers.

You're talking in circles and not really saying anything. Provide proof to the OP and then there might be a chance at some sort of dialogue worth participating in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Central Virginia
834 posts, read 2,271,657 times
Reputation: 649
Quote:
All these folk claiming not to take the bible as is are merely reinforcing the concept that gods are all man made. They only exist in your head. All experiences are self willed or induced.
I disagree. I stand by the fact that what is written in a book and whether or not there is a creator are two different things.

So because man has translated the Bible wrong and believed things to be wrong means that there is no God?
Science has been wrong many times. "We used to think this, now we think that." "Remember that thing we said was bad for you? Well turns out we're wrong! It is bad!Oops! " Does the fact that scientists have been wrong and interpreted things wrong mean that all of science is a farce? Of course not!

Like I said before, know it all atheists are as annoying as know it all Christians. They both need to stop acting like they know everything. We don't know everything and we never will.

By the way, my faith is not based on a book. In fact, many Christians know very little about the bible and frankly don't care. To say that the Christian faith is based on a book is not only wrong but honestly very offensive.

But I do blame the Christians for this observation because some of them have meltdowns at the notion that not everything in the Bible is true which only perpetuates this belief that all Christians base their faith on the bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2012, 11:11 AM
 
3,402 posts, read 2,776,578 times
Reputation: 1325
I think the confusion sets in becasue we are talking about Christianity. One can logically and reasonably get to Deism or possibly some other generic theism without a scripture. To get to Christianity requires the Bible, since without it there would be no concept of original sin, salvation, Jesus, or any of that. To be fair every religion, apart from some very abstracted forms of theism (Deism for example) require their holy writings or traditions to differentiate themselves from other traditions.

Even the idea of a personal relationship with a triune creator God specifically comes from the Bible. Even if you don't accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God, it seems a little disingenuous to say that the Bible is not essential to Christianity. It is what defines the religion nd separates it from Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, polytheism, and really any other religion out there.

As far as the original topic, of course the Bible will have to enter in to Christian apologetics. For me the problem comes not in the use of the Bible, but in the blind use of the Bible. We see over and over posters cut and pasting reams of scripture without any other logical justification or coherency in their argument. This kind of proof texting is useless to those of us who don't accept the bible as divinely inspired. It is much better when posters are able to tie their arguments together in ther own words. Of course there will be references to the Bible, but it helps when there appears to be some thought behind the argument, instead of a wall of disassociated verses out of any context.

-NoCapo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top