Another sincere question for theists...

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Clippity-clopping over old stuff again

......................................

Oh well. That galloping sound you hear is me riding my favorite hobby horse yet again: There is no descriptive way you can distinguish a false from a true religion.

But God could clear it up right away if he chose to..

In any other scenario the most devoutly religious would choose to believe, that the alchemist cannot turn lead into gold, not that he chose not to.

Religion shares the same part of the brain that enables the most horribly abused children to still love and worship those that abuse them.


My horse is faster than your horse.. ( beats coconuts together faster.... )

 

[bluess]

Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice?

 

[Lithrael]

Re: Re: Re: Karen

********************
My point about the Bible is that while I have oft heard the refrain,"Why doesn't God show Himself?", you refuse to consider the evidence of a book that claims to be His word. If I wanted to know about chemistry, I'd take out a chemistry book. If I wanted to know about God, why wouldn't I read the Bible? Because Randy's good buddies had apparently already debunked it?
****************************

This probably goes without saying, I guess, since nobody else said it... But you don't have to trust the chemistry book. With humanly attainable amounts of study and resources, you can check and measure the stuff it says for yourself, and see it work. And this will be true of any book people here would consider as evidence.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

This probably goes without saying, I guess, since nobody else said it... But you don't have to trust the chemistry book. With humanly attainable amounts of study and resources, you can check and measure the stuff it says for yourself, and see it work. And this will be true of any book people here would consider as evidence.

Good point. Wish I'd thought of that..

 

[Kitty Chan]

Heres a thought / question

its said that the bible is not trustworthy. A chemistry book was brought up. Now early chemistry books are not trustworthy anymore but perhaps newer ones are because the writers have found out new ideas and experiments.

But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one. Why its said the Word of God does not change.

Why hasnt the bible been rewritten (not that some have tried) and all the bad parts taken out (like said earlier)? If it was truly a human creation it should be on one more revision and past new and improved.

And it should be up for a prequel about now.

 

[KingMerv00]

Heres a thought / question

its said that the bible is not trustworthy. A chemistry book was brought up. Now early chemistry books are not trustworthy anymore but perhaps newer ones are because the writers have found out new ideas and experiments.

But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one. Why its said the Word of God does not change.

Why hasnt the bible been rewritten (not that some have tried) and all the bad parts taken out (like said earlier)? If it was truly a human creation it should be on one more revision and past new and improved.

And it should be up for a prequel about now.

I think I understand what you are saying here. Since the Bible has not changed, it must be the word of God.

Why? Other religions haven't changed. Are they the word of God too?

 

[Atlas]

I think it would be very hard to walk back from a book of the Bible that for more than 50 generations has been called the living word of God and say, "You know what? This one isn't but all the rest are, as far as we know... We are going to leave it out, but here's something from Pat Robertson that we like so hey, here ya go... the Bible II, new and improved."

There might be another reason too. Nobody owns the rights. Somebody will complain and then you'll have 2 Bibles. And after 10 or so revisions it's going to lose its primacy.

(2 Bibles? Well, the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible so it's not like revising through subtraction would be unheard of. But you almost need a Reformation to get anything done. )

 

[Kitty Chan]

I think I understand what you are saying here. Since the Bible has not changed, it must be the word of God.

Why? Other religions haven't changed. Are they the word of God too?

That was sorta where I was rolling. Im under the impression the Koran is the same without revisions. The Torah for sure. I wonder what it would shake out to be? Which ones have changed. If I get a moment I may surf out belief net or if anyone else wants they could.

One thing for sure is a respect from the readers and keepers of the texts.

 

[Kitty Chan]

I think it would be very hard to walk back from a book of the Bible that for more than 50 generations has been called the living word of God and say, "You know what? This one isn't but all the rest are, as far as we know... We are going to leave it out, but here's something from Pat Robertson that we like so hey, here ya go... the Bible II, new and improved."

There might be another reason too. Nobody owns the rights. Somebody will complain and then you'll have 2 Bibles. And after 10 or so revisions it's going to lose its primacy.

(2 Bibles? Well, the Catholic Bible has more books than the Protestant Bible so it's not like revising through subtraction would be unheard of. But you almost need a Reformation to get anything done. )

Good observation on the living Word of God and leaving Pat Robertson out of the decisions would be a good thing

(oops Kitty let that slip I agree and disagree with the guy)

Thats another good one about the rights I guess God Yes, some groups have written their own versions mostly to the disagreement of the rest. I think in christian circles with everyone naturally having a opinion (ie ole Pat) its best to leave one original to base all else from.

The bible II I guess has been attempted by the catholics, mormans, jehovahs, 7th day I think aside from whatever "smaller" groups out there. And the bible has had bits and pieces borrowed from many other groups. It is amazing that it has remained, gotta be all that faithful believers

 

[Ossai]

The bible II, the book of Mormon? Do I hear any disagreement?

Oh, wait. The bible II would be the revised protestant version. Which would meant the book of Mormon would at best be the bible III.

Ossai

edited for that mad god spelling

 

[farmermike]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

No need to apologize.. Got to go with what you have.

And what would you think might cause us to underestimate Christianity? Surely not all those warts and flaws?

The warts and flaws that I had in mind were courtesy of humanity's attempts to wield Christianity as a weapon, nothing intrinsic unto its foundational premise that God so loved the world...

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Karen

The warts and flaws that I had in mind were courtesy of humanity's attempts to wield Christianity as a weapon, nothing intrinsic unto its foundational premise that God so loved the world...

Ahhh. God so loved the world, that he decided to drown everyone and start all over again..


Why do people so easily accept the Idea that God had to have someone killed in order to redeem everyone else, when it would be a simple matter ( when you are God ) to just forgive everyone who repents? ( assuming repentence is necessary )

 

[farmermike]

farmermike

Oh, showing up and proving he was god would be a good start. Since god is omni-, he could really tailor make any evidence required by anyone.

And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.
Ossai

 

[Skeptical Greg]

And then you would have no choice but to acknowledge/love him and that wouldn't count for beans.

It wouldn't? Why would God revealing itself invalidate free will?


Besides, what kind of choice is " love me or die " ( without any evidence of my existance, no less )?



P.S. Why did you address only this one point of Ossai's commentary? What about the ' resonance of the Koran ' etc.?

 

[farmermike]

uniqueness of the Bible

Karen (or Mrs. Farmermike):

Thanks for your discourse.

My question - Have you explored the sacred texts of other religions?

If you have, what is about the Bible that so attracted you?

If not, do you think that such exploration could benefit your religious practice?

No. What I tried to express at the outset was that I'm a pretty hands on kind of person and not naturally given to contemplating the mysteries of the universe. My substandard aprreciation of world religion however, would lead me to believe that they contain elements of the truth but nothing like the real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ. Like C.S. Lewis said, when he was an atheist he had to believe that the majority of humanity had always been dead wrong about what mattered to them most but upon becoming a Christian he was able to take a more liberal view.
And yes, I do hope to become better versed in this area.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: uniqueness of the Bible

..... real time/space- objectively verifiable life and death of Jesus Christ

Evidence?

 

[Jessica Blue]

Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.

I'm surprised God Himself hasn't updated it, since so many of it's moralities and directives are stagnating in a past *socio-historical* context.

Funny that a book which purports to contain the divine revelations of God for infinite generations of mankind to hold sacred should contain such barbaric, era-specific guidance that no-one but the most mouth-frothing, fist thumping rabid fundamentalist could possibly accept it. Why would a handbook of divine moralities be subject to a past context? Shouldn't Gods book be eternally relevant and morally perfect?

 

[pgwenthold]

It wouldn't? Why would God revealing itself invalidate free will?


Besides, what kind of choice is " love me or die " ( without any evidence of my existance, no less )?

This is back to the old question of whether someone with a gun pointed to their head actually has "free will."

Besides, her point is laughable nonsense, anyway. I have material evidence that my dog exists. Doesn't seem to invalidate free will.

Moreover, even if we did know that Yahweh did exist, there is still the question of whether he is worthy of adoration or contempt. Personally, I'm not convinced that you could do better with an honest straightshooter like Satan then with the sadistic SOB who claims to be a loving God (note that even when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, he never lied to him, and in the end, the only defense Jesus could come with is that it is wrong to tempt God)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by farmermike
But I notice that the bible has changed very little since the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( Missed this one.. Thanks jessica )


Farmermike,

What are you referring to as the ' First ' Bible ?

 

[Atlas]

The bible II, the book of Mormon? Do I hear any disagreement?

Oh, wait. The bible II would be the revised protestant version. Which would meant the book of Mormon would at best be the bible III.

I've never read the Book of Mormon but I have heard it discussed on a South Park episode - so it's not like I'm completely ignorant.

I think that adding new books for the new revelations is the way to go. Sooner or later people will get the idea that they are just being gullible to believe the myth and not the meaning.

(O who am I kidding. They can see god in a toasted cheese sandwich and not feel stupid.)

The meaning of a toasted cheese sandwich is food for the belly NOT food for the soul.

Has anyone marketed JESUS wine? Perhaps science can help us turn water into wine and we can market it under the name of JESUS. I wonder if it would help to have a rabbi come in and bless it as kosher. On the label we could add a tag line... "Drink it or go to Hell." That way folks would know we mean business.