»The bible has no importance... unless you reject science«
|
|||
 Here comes a somewhat "logical" proof that the bible has no real importance. As you know humanity survived pretty long without the bible. It's not clear when the old testment was written, but some suspect only 100 years before Christ. Yes, yes, the stories of the Old Testament are going further back, but that's a different thing. Now there are cultures like Babylonian and Egyprian that are far older. Even if the old testament has been written 1000 before Christ, there are older cultures. In other words: The bible was never needed in the 10'000s of years of humans... EXCEPT if you assume that the whole timeline of humanity is wrong and only the bible's timeline is true AND that the bible/god's word was there during human's history from the beginning. In other words: You have to disbelieve science. The scientific 10'000 years of humanity are non-existent and only the bible's timeline is true = The earth is approx 7300 years old  Even stinkz sits in this trap. At least in this point real Christians have to blend out science. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgReligion and Mysteries, from worship to werewolvesReligious & Philosophical TopicsThe bible has no importance... unless you reject science |
|
|||
 Couldn't I also say, though, that Islam has no importance, unless you refute Christianity? posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 No one ever asserted that the Bible has existed forever. Even the Bible itself tells us that it hasn't; the first books were written by Moses, and Moses did not come into being (according to the Bible) until a long time after the beginning. According to the Bible, Genesis (the story of Creation) was written by Moses long after the fact (supposedly God was telling him what to write). So, you are right - the Bible is not essensial to be a good person. The Bible was actually created later to help people remember what is "right" as the years go by and human morals deteriorate (the reason God originally wiped out most of humanity with the Great Flood was because of how evil they had become). Also, why does everyone search for flaws in the Bible, and just brush the whole thing off if they've found a single one? The Bible was written by imperfect people so I'm sure many parts are coloured by their opinions. Also, translation is not always accurate, and some expressions that many Christians take literally may possibly have been common figures of speech at the time of writing. So why is it such a horror if you find something that slightly contradicts itself, etc.? In my opinion, even if you don't believe the literal story of the Bible, it shouldn't just be disregarded. Taken symbolically, it is still a wise book. You needn't agree completely. Just be open-minded, is all. A lot of times people make crude jokes, etc., involving Jesus because he's the symbol of Christianity. However, why doesn't anyone take the time to read his teachings? You may not believe he was divine or that he performed miracles, but he was wise. He was peaceful, gentle, and loving. Does anyone make fun of Mohatma K. Gandhi? Not really.. Everybody lets their opinions about Christians colour their impression of Christianity. Christians don't always follow the true Christianity! They let their own judgements creep in. Christianity is actually extremely peaceful and accepting. If Jesus were here, he would embrace a gay guy as quickly as he embraced the prostitute. Okay. I'm rambling. ::whacks self:: posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nianza: Also, why does everyone search for flaws in the Bible, and just brush the whole thing off if they've found a single one? The Bible was written by imperfect people so I'm sure many parts are coloured by their opinions. Also, translation is not always accurate, and some expressions that many Christians take literally may possibly have been common figures of speech at the time of writing.
So why is it such a horror if you find something that slightly contradicts itself, etc.? In my opinion, even if you don't believe the literal story of the Bible, it shouldn't just be disregarded. Taken symbolically, it is still a wise book. You needn't agree completely. Just be open-minded, is all. I completely agree with this. As I said elsewhere... IMO → Is science a religion?#27064 Tiefling: In practice, you run into religious scientists, and scientific priests. You find the scientists who accept what they are taught whole-heartedly, and cannot fathom the possiblity that there are flaws in it, or that they don't know the whole story. Likewise, you find religious people who recognize the flaws in their belief system, and strive to improve the religion over time.
But the problem is that religion is inherently resistant to change. Religion is supposed to be static. Society (both religious and non-religious people) feels that any flaws in religion mean that the entire religion is failed or inaccurate. Those religious people who recognize flaws in religion and attempt to build a stronger belief system become spiritualists/philosophers. posted by Tiefling |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nianza: Also, why does everyone search for flaws in the Bible, and just brush the whole thing off if they've found a single one? Depends on what is found. How old is the Old Testament? If it is only 2100+ years old then this is a MAJOR flaw. Nianza: You may not believe he was divine or that he performed miracles, but he was wise. He was peaceful, gentle, and loving. But you don't know his teachings and whether he wasn't a mere terrorist. The bible has been written by murderers and criminals. That's another major flaw. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're missing my point. I wasn't trying to argue about whether the Bible is true or not. I was only trying to get you to examine what it says about Jesus' teachings (even if they weren't the true teachings) and see if they're really all that awful. Love and peace? Is that so bad? All I'm saying is you're too obsessed about disproving it, when we've already heard all this stuff before. I know that there are others on this board who take the Bible as pure, literal fact, but, just speaking for myself personally, I don't. I take it as a compilation of opinions from wise people. You can argue whether they're wise or not, but because I agree with many of the things they say, especially Jesus, so I'm inclined to label them "wise". posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nianza: Love and peace? Is that so bad? It can't be love and peace because Christianity has been very brutal in its history. The same applies to the Old Testament and to the New New Testament (Koran). posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Didn't I already mention how many Christians distort its message? And didn't I already mention that I didn't agree with that? posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nianza: Didn't I already mention how many Christians distort its message? And didn't I already mention that I didn't agree with that? Well, then if this book is so unclear that millions of Christians distorts its message then it's even less important. What good is a book for if noone understands it? And that noone understands it is proven by the fact that there are so many Christian sects. You cannot go around and claim: Well if Christians do X and Y then they don't understand. After all they had 2000 years time and were billions. If it doesn't work out, it doesn't work out. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
So things that people don't agree on are unimportant? There are so many things people disagree on. I don't see why it makes those things less important. The word "important" might not be the proper word for what you're arguing. If anything, controversies make things more important. Perhaps a better word would be "less reliable". There, I would agree with you. How can we place full reliance on something that is so controversial? It is always better to think for yourself. Placing full reliance on the Bible has certainly caused a lot of irreversible damage. However, I don't think that controversial things should simply be ignored just because they're controversial. A better thing to do is just keep in mind that "this is controversial" while you examine it and be cautious in how much you invest/rely on it. posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Nianza: The word "important" might not be the proper word for what you're arguing. If anything, controversies make things more important. Yes, true. If you mix some lies amongst truths then you can make something important. Maybe that's why the bible survived for so long. And Nostradamus. But I actually meant "positively significant" = "making a positive contribution overall and being reliable". posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I'm happy with the "being reliable". I can definitely see how the Bible's reliability could be questioned. I'm not sure what I think about the "making a positive contribution overall" though, because you have some interesting points about how much slaughter has been caused by biblical distortions. However, I've seen people do great acts of kindness because of how they believe in the Bible. Anyways, I think we've come to a good point in this discussion.  posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 I have seen many good actions done by people motivated by religion, but I have also seen a great deal of ignorance, discrimination and intolerance too. It seems to me that these people would have been quite capable of doing good works without their religion, however their views would not seem so likely to be so intolerant and bigoted if they DIDN'T believe in the religion. Religion does more harm than good. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Perhaps you're right. Maybe it would be better if there were no such thing as organized religion, where groups of people come together and force new members (their children) to believe the same thing. Maybe it would be better for religion to be more of a private, personal experience than that. However, that's very hard to accomplish because naturally people desire their children to believe in the "right" thing. posted by Nianza |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Nianza: The Bible was written by imperfect people so I'm sure many parts are coloured by their opinions. i can see your reasoning behind this, i've also thought this as well, but if you look at it like Nianza: Genesis (the story of Creation) was written by Moses long after the fact (supposedly God was telling him what to write). who would have audacity or the gall to put their own spin on what they wrote if a/the God was actually telling them what to write? "well God said this, but i think I'll sneak in my own opinion about gays" IF an actual God was telling you what to write, who among us or those in the past, would write anything but what was told to them? 
posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
1, 2 Next
Goto page
1, 2 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 24 May 2012, 06:00 php B.B. |