Question about the Bible

[Indigo]

An observation: If we had the same ideals that we do today as back then, the bible wouldn't have passed as a legitimate source without references. It bothers me that people can so blindly follow something like the bible without knowing the source material at all. One source does not make a well rounded subject at all. Yes, I agree there's an element of faith, and I have absolutely zero problem with the idea being behind God, but I do take an extreme issue with the whole "religion" thing. The bible should be used as a guideline, there's a lot of good info in there that people can apply today, but it shouldn't be a sole source, as some people I know do with it.

 

[superman22x]

Just out of curiosity, what you're saying is basically that you believe in the Christian god, but not the bible? Because what you're describing sounds pretty much exactly like deism, but you described yourself as Catholic.

I do believe in the Bible as the Word of God, and as a guidline like og said. Not as cold hard facts. I do believe Jesus died for us, but I don't believe that Noah really floated a boat with one of every animal. I think these are all parables(stories meant to teach a lesson). But I don't push that belief on others. If someone wants to believe it in a different way(cold hard facts) that's fine. Whatever floats your boat, ya know.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

An observation: If we had the same ideals that we do today as back then, the bible wouldn't have passed as a legitimate source without references. It bothers me that people can so blindly follow something like the bible without knowing the source material at all. One source does not make a well rounded subject at all. Yes, I agree there's an element of faith, and I have absolutely zero problem with the idea being behind God, but I do take an extreme issue with the whole "religion" thing. The bible should be used as a guideline, there's a lot of good info in there that people can apply today, but it shouldn't be a sole source, as some people I know do with it.

I find it very similar to the Galen effect.

in 400BC, there was a Physician called Hippocrates (ancient Greek) who wrote many books (incorrect books, I might add) on anatomy. In about 150 AD a chap called Galen, a Greek living in ancient Rome, wrote his own books based entirely off of Hippocrates's books. Now, because he was respected and so on, his ideas went on to stunt medical progress for 2 millenniums. All because he was so well respected and got the backing of other physicians, no one challenged his ideas until the 1500s when Vesalius did an illegal dissection on an executed criminal.

anyway; 2000 year old ideas still being used in the 1500s because respected people blindly backed it. sound familiar?

 

[superman22x]

I find it very similar to the Galen effect.

in 400BC, there was a Physician called Hippocrates (ancient Greek) who wrote many books (incorrect books, I might add) on anatomy. In about 150 AD a chap called Galen, a Greek living in ancient Rome, wrote his own books based entirely off of Hippocrates's books. Now, because he was respected and so on, his ideas went on to stunt medical progress for 2 millenniums. All because he was so well respected and got the backing of other physicians, no one challenged his ideas until the 1500s when Vesalius did an illegal dissection on an executed criminal.

anyway; 2000 year old ideas still being used in the 1500s because respected people blindly backed it. sound familiar?

Nope. Because that's science. This is the Bible. IMO, the Bible is a guideline. Just like 5000 years ago it should have been the right thing to do to love your neighbor, it still is. That won't change and no one needs to "prove" that you need to love your neighbor.

 

[foothead]

Nope. Because that's science. This is the Bible.

In its day, religion was the closest thing people had to science. It answered questions about how the universe worked. Then, modern science started coming along, yet the church was unchanged and saw science as a threat to its existence. So they tried to block it however they could, and succeeded until fairly recently when the evidence became overwhelming.

Darkseeker's analogy fits perfectly. I think the reason you aren't seeing it is because you're interpreting the bible mostly as a metaphor, except for the good parts.

IMO, the Bible is a guideline. Just like 5000 years ago it should have been the right thing to do to love your neighbor, it still is. That won't change and no one needs to "prove" that you need to love your neighbor.

The first sentence doesn't match the rest of this statement. Loving your neighbor isn't just considered a good thing because the bible says so. If that's how it worked, then why isn't slavery a good thing? The bible supports that too. How about rape? Again, supported by the bible. The reason loving one another is good, while rape and slavery are bad is because humans have empathy. We can recognize what other people feel and to some extent, share the feeling with them. This is what our whole moral code is built on.




If I take anything too far, please let me know. I don't have any problem with you or anyone else having religion, I just tend to have an extreme dislike for any organization that actively works to ruin my life for no reason whatsoever.

 

[superman22x]

I see it as, Jesus was an example for us. The stories in the Bible that might say gay marriage is not ok, or slavery is ok as long as it's a person from a neighboring country, blah blah blah, those were all relevent to their times. The whole book is written by people. They were inspired by God, but they were people, and were heavily influenced by the world around them. The only things according to the Bible, that God specifically wrote down for us himself would be the 10 commandments. Everything else was inspired by the surrounding world of the time.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

Look around, we see trees, animals, clouds, and so on. Primitive man, with no concept of where any of this comes from tries to explain the existence of these things by formulating a kind of deity who has the power to create these things. Primitive man did not know that rain is formed through a cycle of evaporation and condensation, so he assumes the deity he formulated earlier is responsible, and if the rain falls from the sky, the deity must live in the sky, therefore the sky must be heaven because this deity is there. As you say the rest is just formulated by those that held it in high regard at the time. Of course now we know the plants and animals are the result of billions of years of genetic mutation, environmental adaption and natural selection. and so on. My main problem with organised religion on the whole, is that they use unfalsifiable hypothesis to reinforce their beliefs and defend religion, but it comes across more as brain washing than faith.

example:

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed; Religion is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved" - Tim Minchin

 

[iPwn]

We don't "know" that plants and animals are the result of genetic mutation. There's no hard evidence to support either of our belief systems. Our faiths are similar in almost every way. You base your faith on a book (Darwin's Black Box), or group of Books (scientific publications), written by men. You believe something that cannot be proved and you argue your point of view even though you posses no recorded, indisputable evidence that evolution took place. I base my faith on a group of books, written by men. I believe something that cannot be proved and I too argue my point of view while possessing no indisputable evidence that God exists.

One of two things happened on this earth...
A. Everything in existence today is the direct result of evolution
B. Everything in existence today is the direct result of creation

Both of us can find fault with the other's belief system.
I say I believe in the God of the Bible, you point out the glaring contradictions in the very source of my faith.
You say you believe in evolution, I make a case for irreducible complexity.

A religious man and a man who believes in evolution arguing is just about as productive as a dog arguing with a human over the color of the sky. Each sees something different. Each can provide examples, analogies, and theories on why the other is wrong... but at the end of the day, it's all a matter of perception.

Edit: To clarify my statement about you basing your beliefs on books written by men, and specifically mentioning scientific publications; I realize that scientific publications are not written out of sheer ideology. Things are tested and when something can be repeated, it becomes fact. However, there's never been a test that proves man evolved from a single celled organism umpteen billion years ago.

 

[~Darkseeker~]

Okay, I respect your beliefs, I do have a few questions for you, though; not every day you get a chance to ask them.

First and foremost, if God created the world in 6 days, and on the seventh he rested; and shortly after this humans inhabited the earth, where do the pre-historic organisms that we know once inhabited the earth before man fit in? I mean, huge fossils, skeletons and ice fossils prove pretty irrefutably that they did exist, but the bible makes no mention of them?

The staple focal point of many a young boy's childhood.

another question i'd like to ask, is about how shoddy humans are. Things like the tailbone for a tail only a negligible amount of humans are born with, an appendix we can function usually better without, how we're not really top of the food chain, and so on.

and finally, we know fairly irrefutably that 'magic' as an act is not strictly 'real'. I mean, no one really believes in Santa, and no one really believes that magicians are magical. People can't float and neither can objects, because of gravity and so on. So how can one assume that the entire universe is the result of a big beardy magic man (or woman? 0_0)

~drk

 

[superman22x]

So how can one assume that the entire universe is the result of a big beardy magic man (or woman? 0_0)

~drk

Actually, people only call God a "he" because there is no singular pronoun in English that is gender free like there is in Latin. So when some people say, only men can be priests, because God is a man... that's a product of mistranslation. Although Jesus was a man, I still believe women should be allowed to be priests in the Catholic faith...

Foothead, don't worry about offending me btw. I've got my beliefs and that's that, I'm not offended if someone thinks different. I like to look at everyones views though.