Bible is word of God ...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

It's not that "I" choose to believe one way or the other.

It's that Either the bible (in it's entirety) is gods word and applies as a whole or it isn't.

 

If it isn't then god is falable (blasphemer!) as he didn't forsee that changes would have to be made down the line...Hardly fits the christian image of god I think.

[Pyrotex]

It's not that "I" choose to believe one way or the other.

It's that Either the bible (in it's entirety) is gods word and applies as a whole or it isn't. If it isn't then god is falable (blasphemer!) as he didn't forsee that changes would have to be made down the line...Hardly fits the christian image of god I think.

Fair enough. :cup: And the answers are: :eek2:

 

1. The bible in its entirety is NOT God's word.

 

2. God is fallable.

 

:phones:

 

PS: D/D, it just occurred to me that I might be guilty of baiting you in this post. On the other hand, I'm feeling a little baited myself. I recognize that others think (believe, "know") that the Bible is the word of God. I used to believe this myself when I was in my early 20's and before I read ALL the Bible.

 

But one of the underlying assumptions of Hypography is this is strictly a matter of personal belief. You cannot prove it--you cannot disprove it. Except to yourself. Therefore, in Hypography, we have a rule that you cannot demand that others believe it, or accept your belief as more meaningful than their disbelief.

 

Go in peace, if you wish. I don't mean to belittle you. But you still can't preach here.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

PS: D/D, it just occurred to me that I might be guilty of baiting you in this post. On the other hand, I'm feeling a little baited myself. I recognize that others think (believe, "know") that the Bible is the word of God.

 

Baited by whom?

 

Incidently ask almost ANYpastor, reverend or priest of the christian if the bible is gods word they will very likely tell you it is in it's entirety. I lost count of how many times it's been called god's word in sermon at the various churches I've been to.

 

I've not tried to bait anyone nor have been able to figure out where you have baited me.

I've simply asked a question that has never been answered to my satisfaction (by the church anyway). My own answer is that no matter the denomination those that choose to follow the bible also choose which parts are relevent and therefore the whole mess has no bearing or relevence in my life. I believe there is a god (not necessarily the bible god) that created the universe and everything in it...I do not believe in the whole god is interested in what I (or anyone else does) or has influence on factors in my dailly life beyond the initial setting the universe into motion. Though I do believe that most of the commandments are a pretty good guide to a relatively good simple life.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Go in peace, if you wish. I don't mean to belittle you. But you still can't preach here.

What?????

 

I have neither tried to preach nor tried to "demand that others believe it, or accept your belief as more meaningful than their disbelief.".

 

I have simply asked a question related to the very title and theme of this thread and tried to express my point of view (which when discussing religious matters of any form is all you can do)

...nothing more.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

O.k. I'm seriously miffed and I probably shoudn't post this but here goes..

 

Does any of it matter?

 

Religion will always argue that there is a god

science will always attempt to dismiss this as opinion BUT very likely will never succeed in proving it's opinion to the contrary that god doesn't exist.

 

Until such time as it's actually possible to prove there is no god science's stand on the whole matter is no more valid or invalid than religion's.

 

In short the scientific viewpoint that god doesn't exist is opinion and theory, not fact as it hasn't been proven.

 

 

I sincerely apologise to those that the above may offend but fact is fact

and opinion... opinion...That which can be proven irrefutably is fact, that which can't opinion.

 

If you believe in god... good I'm glad for you...you don't good...I'm also glad for you. As long as you believe in something and it gives you that which you need for piece of mind...this is all that matters.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Having taken the time to reflect on this thread as a whole.

I submit the following.

 

First: Regardless of the content of my posts I am a fool and had no right to post it here.

 

Second: I appologise to the members and staff of Hypography for my posts here except for #192. (with the exception of those offended by it's content.)

[Pyrotex]

Gosh D/D,

I sincerely was trying to AVOID getting you miffed. If my post backfired and got you upset, I am sincerely sorry.

Pyro

[Boerseun]

Until such time as it's actually possible to prove there is no god science's stand on the whole matter is no more valid or invalid than religion's.

 

In short the scientific viewpoint that god doesn't exist is opinion and theory, not fact as it hasn't been proven.

Not really.

 

Religion (the Christian flavour, at least), holds that God created the world around 6,000 years ago, by an omnipotent deity.

 

Science knows for a fact that:

 

a) Energy equals mass.

B) Nothing can travel faster than light.

 

Hence, if God is omnipotent, we should be able to detect an object of practically infinite mass somewhere in a radius of 6,000 light years from Earth. This applies mostly to Jews, though - the Christian version of God should be closer - an infinitely-massed object of some sort in a radius of 2,000-odd light years from Earth. The Muslim version of the Abrahamic God should be even closer. If it's up to my insurance company, there should be a black hole very close to Earth, seeing as less than a year ago they ascribed lightning killing my hi-fi to 'an Act of God'.

 

NASA might be slightly underfunded, but I'm sure if such a massive object existed anywhere close to Earth, we would have known about it by now.

 

So, this leaves us with:

 

a1) The Bible is clearly not the Word of God, because

b1) God demonstrably does not exist, because

c1) Standard Theory demands infinite mass for omnipotence.

 

or

 

a2) The Bible is the Word of God, but

b2) God is not omnipotent, therefore not of infinite mass, which means that

c2) The Bible is incorrect in saying so, therefore God's a liar.

 

So, it boils down to Standard Theory is right and God doesn't exist, or God exist but is a liar and not omnipotent, the latest in a long list of weak and failed deities in human history.

 

Your choice.

 

(But we all know my insurance company committed fraud, for if what they said holds true, then the entire Earth would have been sucked up into a black hole of practically infinite mass the moment lightning struck my hi-fi)

 

Actually, Science has a lot to say about religion. Scientists have just been too nice and decent and bowing to the Politically Correct crowd to do so.

 

No more.

 

Religion is bunk. All we need are some scientists with balls to simply apply Standard Theory and say so.

 

I will take the first step.

 

So, the Bible clearly isn't the word of God, because a figment of your imagination cannot author (or even co-author) a book.

 

Right. That's settled, then. Now, off to more serious matters.

[Mike C]

I understand you, because you don't wanna believe,,,,,,, I want ......

 

The bible OT, is a 'TOTAL LIE'

 

The NT has some good advice but the massage I get from the NT can be summed up as FREE SPEECH is dangerous to promote since Christ was crucified by the urgings of the 'establishment Jews'.

 

Our US Constitution (CN) is an endorsement of free speech and outlaws 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'.

So I endorse Christs Gospel as a religion because of our US CN and the fact that Christ was representing the sick, the poor and the general population, more or less.

 

I DO NOT endorse the dominent papal version of Christianity because of its promotion of the crucifix and suffering that I consider as a false portrayal of why Christ was crucified as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity.

 

But Nature is our greatest teacher. So I prefer that to any human fabrication of religion because the religions CITE Nature as their primary souces of teachings.

 

The OT is in complete opposition to the teachings of Nature.

 

Mike C

[HydrogenBond]

The OT was based on law. This was necessary since ancient humans had only been gathered in civilization for a few thousand years. It took humans roughly a couple of million years to draw pictures inside caves. To speed up that slow boat process of natural evolution, religion came into being. If one found a remote tribe in the Amazon, that had evolved in isolation, that is about the pace, humans would have evolved naturally. One only has to proportion this to the first million years.

 

The laws of religion were needed to regulate behavior so the wild and lazy impulses would not cause culture to stagnate at the slower natural pace. Religion, via God, was sort of like the GPS of the ancient world, helping people control their behavior even when there was nobody watching.

 

Let me give an example. Say the speed limit is 65MPH. Many people will obey that, but many will also break the law, if possible. The only time those who break the law think twice, is if there are police monitoring speed. The criminal will look for an opportunity, when law can not be enforced. The GPS of religion was sort of the computer chip on one's mental car, that made one think twice, since one had the feeling of being monitored by satellite. One did not need a large police force to get people to do the right thing.

 

Due to the number of gods, in ancient times, if one wished to get away with something, one would chose the god that permitted that activity. The OT and monotheism, got rid of that loophole by making only one God. But eventually humans got smart enough to make other loopholes. The law came into being to create a means for cultural wide enforcement. If one got rid of the GPS, there was still the social police to enforce the law.

 

The biggest problem with law is that it is based on fear. Good behavior based on fear is not the same as good behavior based on free choice. For many people, they do what is right out of fear of getting caught. If you took away the law, than this type of person would show their true colors. They can pretend to be good, but only as part of a social game. But there are other people, who even if the law was removed would still do good.

 

An analogy is a boss having two employees who do right. On the surface, they seem the same, since you can't read their minds. But one employee does this because he is loyal, the other for other reasons. If we change the rules of the game, such as pretending the boss was demoted, then both will show their true colors. When God became man, this was sort of a staged demotion to see how humans would react. The Messiah was suppose to be powerful and possess the wealth of nations. This boss will cause almost anyone to put on the mask. But Jesus came as weak, humble and poor, which was a demotion in terms of the position of the boss. Jesus was not a good Messiah for the ego, but was there for the inner man.

 

Jesus as the sacrifice for sin, did away with law for righteousness. There were many who were in good positions in life because of the law. If you change the rules they could lose they cushy jobs. At the same time, most people were still wild and the collective fear was them getting wilder. Those who had evolved to where the intent of the law was in their hearts would be the same whether there was the still law or whether it was taken away. What history shows, is the law was perpetuated for the majority. But that smaller subset differentiated itself and help improve the law.

[CraigD]

Religion is bunk. All we need are some scientists with balls to simply apply Standard Theory and say so.

An interesting and refreshing conclusion – but, along with preceding “existence of God” posts preceeding it, off topic, I think.

 

I’ve started a new thread, 13483, to approach the existence of God question scientifically.

[Pyrotex]

The OT was based on law. This was necessary since ancient humans had only been gathered in civilization for a few thousand years. It took humans roughly a couple of million years to draw pictures inside caves. To speed up that slow boat process of natural evolution, religion came into being. ....

The OT was based on "law" that had already evolved into being. It was just putting onto "paper" an oral tradition that had been around for many generations.

 

The origin of law and religion can be easily explained as a process similar to biological evolution--a process sometimes called "social evolution" or "cultural evolution". Tribes that imposed limits on behavior survived and succeeded better (on average) than tribes that permitted, say, murder, theft, rape, etal.

 

Some of these constraints would have been "thought out" by a smart village witch doctor. Others may have been randomly selected by the process of accidental association. {There's a drought. Oog eats a snake and gets sick. The next day, the rains come. The tribe avoids eating snakes every mid-summer to make the rains come, and fortuitously, there are very few droughts after that. Eventually, they have a "law" forbidding the eating of snakes.}

 

What you eventually get is a body of "law" like the OT that contains many logical constraints and a number of acc/*** contraints "frozen" in with the rest.

 

The next great leap in social evolution occurs when some smart guy realizes that the value of a law lays not in obedience to some deity, but in the advantages that obedience lends to the tribe, the village, the individual. Epiphany! Law separates from religion and becomes secular.

[palmtreepathos]

In no way can one show that the OT "is still God's applicable law" today in the sense that you have a clear, concise, unambiguous communication from The Lord God Almighty, signed in His hand and stamped with His celestial wax seal.

 

Doesn't it seem that there is confusion between "the LAW" and Old Testament in this thread? "The Law" is the 600+ rules prohibitions requirements, etc. binding on the Jewish nation from the time of Moses until the time of Jesus death. He fulfilled and did away with that "written decree" (Col 2:14)

That there were other written scriptures from his Father that are binding as "God's Word", Jesus quoted the view held by the Jews at Luke 24:44...*He now said to them: "that all the things written in the law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms about me must be fulfilled.” There is a difference between the laws that were obligated upon the Jewish nation (and converts)and the multitude of events, geneologies ,praises and prophecies that were recorded and then retained as "Holy Scripture" and called the Old Testament. Even when the Jews failed to adhere to the covenant (the Law of Moses) that did not mean that those writings were w/o worth, many healthful principles could wisely be applied such as laws of hygiene, quarantines and not touching dead bodies without a cleansing period.

But the Christian writings clearly show that "The Law" is not able to condemn those who accept the Christ, it having been nailed to the stake along with him (Ro 3:20; 10:4). The early Christians still studied and used the Hebrew Scripture in their lives and practices. As the Christ said "Sanctify them by means of the truth; your word is truth. " John 17:17

So, by lumping "the decrees of the Law of Moses" in with all the other Hebrew scriptures and saying that Christians were not to even to bother with those scriptures, some so called "Christian" leaders made their life a little simpler. Yet they pull out the "tithing" verses to fill their coffers. How convenient!

[palmtreepathos]

Religion (the Christian flavour, at least), holds that God created the world around 6,000 years ago, by an omnipotent deity.

 

This is a seemingly small point yet seems the basis of posted statements.

 

The Christians I know hold that the Genesis 1:1 statement "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" as an open ended unknowable time period that is NOT out of sorts with science. Some religions teach the 24 hour view for each creative day (the universe being constructed in one of those) as a requirement of faith, I don't find that to be true in the Christian group known as Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

Also the Biblical creative days (where the earth was remodeled for human inhabitation) are a complete study in themselves as Paul's writings say that the believers of his time period could enter into "the rest day" of the creator by taking advantage of the sacrifice of Christ to become unified with God. This quote is from the book "Insight on the scriptures" Vol I...

In the Scriptural record the account of each of the six creative days concludes with the statement: “And there came to be evening and there came to be morning” a first, second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth day. (Ge 1:5, 8, 13, 19, 23, 31) The seventh day, however, does not have this ending, indicating that this period, during which God has been resting from his creative works toward the earth, continued on. At Hebrews 4:1-10 the apostle Paul indicated that God’s rest day was still continuing in his generation, and that was more than 4,000 years after that seventh-day rest period began. This makes it evident that each creative day, or work period, was at least thousands of years in length. As A Religious Encyclopaedia (Vol. I, p. 613) observes: “The days of creation were creative days, stages in the process, but not days of twenty-four hours each.”—Edited by P. Schaff, 1894.

 

If the one 'day is of rest' in in the neigborhood now of 6000 years in length then logically the other creative days were as long. So not all Religion nor Christians hold The Creator to the 6000 year (total) time frame nor the 24 hour creative day.... The Bible allows for a much broader explanation...

 

"For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when

it is past, And as a watch during the night." Psalm 90:4

[Brian Dwight]

There surely is God, I've been touched twice in 57 years. I'd like to see the end to them who kill in his name. Brian

[Mike C]

There surely is God, I've been touched twice in 57 years. I'd like to see the end to them who kill in his name. Brian

 

Which one do you balieve in?

 

Nature teaches the 'multiple' GOD system.

 

The CREATOR gods (females), the weapons god (lion promoted by the bible as 'one god'), the Muscle GODS (the apes-the ones I believe in), the dollar family of gods (the dogs, the Dons-Hollywood godfathers, the capitalists, the dogma of the papal church), the doctors, the PhD's-academic doctors

and there are the spirits that I can say are REAL, both good and bad.

 

Take your pick .

 

Mike C

[Brian Dwight]

There's one God, plenty other gods. When I was fourteen my brother wanted me to go with him to steal gasoline. Our family wasn't church going family. I don't remember ever going to church as a family. We said grace before we ate and as other kids had heard of God. Anyway I prayed God if there is a God make my stomach hurt. I was lifted off my bed by my stomach. I prayed if I shouldn't go make my stomach hurt, again I was lifted off my bed.I went to jail for 7 months when I was 30. Studing the Bible the teachers were teaching me that the father, son and holy ghost made God I didn't believe it. I prayed God to help me with this. The brightest light hit my Bible where it wears a stain to this day. Opening to Isaiah 42. I was on my bunk and in the light, there was Angles singing praise to God. This is true as true can be. Brian