Is the Bible 100% truth?

[heretic888]

As far as the Herod's, there was more than one.

Sure, but it was Herod the Great (74 BCE - 4 BCE) that is referred to in the Gospel of Matthew, which specifically addresses the point I was making before.

Don't hate man, its good to have people like you to test my faith against. But trying to make it out as a complicated war between conservatives and liberals is not going to do anything for me. More than anything its just chasing mice in your own head. You still haven't convinced me of anything.

Three things:

1) I don't "hate" anything that has been brought up here. At most, I find it mildly annoying.

2) I never made this out as "a complicated war between conservatives and liberals". In my opinion, this about the inertia of tradition. Appeals to tradition are something both conservatives and liberals are guilty of.

3) I'm not trying to "convince" you of anything. I generally assume that most people won't change their minds on topics such as these, regardless of what evidence or logic is presented. I am simply making a case for my own position.

Sorry but you'd actually have to do a little better than that. Long, boring narratives about conservative leaders or Knitpicking little dates and historical names will do little. Thats the sort of thing that can easily be refuted,probably with a little research. Its never failed yet.

Once again, please familiarize yourself with the Burden of Proof.

And, yes, when we're talking about the historical accuracy of a literal reading of the Bible, then when names and dates are flat-out wrong then there are problems.

The "I'm a really intelligent psychology major who is logically infallible" approach will do nothing to convince the educated, just makes you look ego-driven.

I already addressed this in my previous post. This is a straw man argument on your part.

You don't like some of the teachings in the bible.

Actually, I don't have any more of a problem with the Bible than I do with any other work of Bronze Age religious literature.

My issue is with irrational non-sequiters and intellectual dishonesty being passed off for actual discourse.

No offense but your arguments are incredibly long-winded by the way. Is this a tactic to cause people to eventually find you tiresome and let you have the last word?

Ah, yes.

Once again, we see the tried-and-true attempt to use personal attacks to discredit the arguments of one's opponent. First I was close-minded, then I had deep-seated emotional issues, and now I'm using my intellect to fillibuster my opponent. I'm sure in another page or so I'll be accused of being a murderer or child molester at some point. Or, even worse, a lobbyist for the cheese industry.

Honestly, it never ceases to amaze me how often apologetics resort to these sorts of strategies in discussions such as this. They can't help but make it an issue of personal attacks. I remember the first Historical Jesus discussion I had on these forums I was actually asked why I "hate God". Heh, go figure.

What would Jesus do? Poison the well, I guess.

Laterz.

 

[Beowulf]

Hmm book reviews from amazon and google searches on people attempting to dismiss the sources.

Pat yourself on the back Heretic. You have not reviewed any of the evidence yourself. Your overwhelming evidence against consists of google searches on various arguments. There's always arguments, but you have not done anything. Congratulations.

Did you just pass your first scantron multiple choice on logical fallacies in English 205 for freshman? You are certainly giddy about sharing the wealth you learned. Since I did it last year I'm not as excited as you.

At least I did some reading.

 

[heretic888]

Hmm book reviews from amazon and google searches on people attempting to dismiss the sources.

Pat yourself on the back Heretic. You have not reviewed any of the evidence yourself. Your overwhelming evidence against consists of google searches on various arguments. There's always arguments, but you have not done anything. Congratulations.

What evidence? No evidence has been presented, only a list of books.

A bibliography does not constitute a logical argument. I can invoke my own bibliography if I so chose, but as I pointed out before, it doesn't prove anything other than I've read a few books. It's the same in your case, as well.

Unless you can engage in the methodologies and arguments provided by the aforementioned sources, then your "proof" is little more than claiming x must be true because y sources said so. In other words, an appeal to authority.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'm still waiting for the evidence, but I doubt I'll see any anytime soon. But, hey, feel free to toss around a few more names. I'm sure Bob has the bandwidth to spare.

Anyway, weren't you leaving the thread??

Laterz.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Actually, I don't have any more of a problem with the Bible than I do with any other work of Bronze Age religious literature.

lol...you slay me, heretic!

No, seriously: you guys to try to tone it down a little. I'm catching the first whiffs of the snipe in the middle distance. This thread is good place for discussion of the validity, accuracy and implications of the Holy Bible. Let's keep it to that, shall we, and not devolve into personal commentary?

Thank you,

OnlyAnEgg
MT Senior Moderator

 

[heretic888]

lol...you slay me, heretic!

I aim's ta please.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Heretic888, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are coming across, to me at least, as a person with a vendetta against Christianity largely as a result of you experiences in the church as a young person. I can understand putting your views out, but, come on, this, IMO, is overdoing it. By focusing so much time and energy into "debunking" Christianity you are giving it continued power over you life. Just my unofficial, private member opinion.

 

[heretic888]

Heretic888, forgive me if I'm wrong, but you are coming across, to me at least, as a person with a vendetta against Christianity largely as a result of you experiences in the church as a young person. I can understand putting your views out, but, come on, this, IMO, is overdoing it. By focusing so much time and energy into "debunking" Christianity you are giving it continued power over you life. Just my unofficial, private member opinion.

I can understand how one could get the impression from reading a handful of my posts. However, as I said previously, psychoanalyzing on an online forum is an exercise in folly. We simply don't have enough information to deduce any psychological "facts" about one another.

That being said, the notion that I have a personal vendetta against Christianity is fairly absurd, given that I openly draw upon the work of various Christian mystics (such as Meister Eckhart or St. John of the Cross) in my own belief system. I have been accused of being an atheist here more than once, and it's a flat wrong assumption.

I'm a scientist and a philosopher at heart. I have to go where the evidence is. To do otherwise is, in my estimation, intellectually dishonest.

Laterz.

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I have to chime in here. I have agreed and disagreed with heretic on a few occasions and, though we are certainly from different camps, I have not witnessed any vendetta from the man regarding Christianity or any other religion, for that matter.

The angle from which he views things is not the same as mine; therefor, we will see things differently. An apple is still an apple viewed from the outside or at the molecular level.

my 2 cents.

 

[Carol]

Heretic, where I differ from you is not so much in overall theological point of view but perhaps from the point of view of how we see others.

Personally I respect Christianity and the Holy Bible a lot. I also respect Christians, and their path.

There are some points of view to Christianity that I don't like. The hardcore fundamentalism and the stand against gay marriage are two elements. But, I can't bring myself to charge against the faith because...this is something that is precious to someone.

And I say this knowing full well that there are some uber-fundamentalists that would probably want me dead simply because I call God by another name

Personally, I am not bothered by someone believing that the world wa created in less time than it took for me to do my taxes. I am more bothered by the large-scale infliction of such beliefs. Personally I focus on the infliction as my point of departure, not the faith...but that's just my thougts. :asian:

 

[celtic_crippler]

I find it strange how much "religious" content there is on this Martial Art forum.

The bible is a book written by men. So is the Koran, the Tora (spelling?), and every other theological book or text that ever existed. It's a known fact that the Catholic Church tampered with the bibles contents as well as King James. Books were left out....things were lost in the many, many translations. Man is flawed.

So what is the point really? What really matters?

All books teach the same basic ethics and ideas when you break them down to their base. Put simply...ACT RIGHT! Don't kill needlessly. Don't steal! Don't cheat! Treat your fellow human beings the way you want to be treated (BTW, this ideal was written down by Confucious way before the Golden Rule ever saw paper.)

These are ideas! Ideas are wonderful things...but when you assign a "religion" to an idea....it gets nasty. People pervert it and the next thing you know you have a Jihad. People blow themselves up....or hang and burn women that don't agree with them. FACT: The Christian Reformation was the bloodiest century ever seen by man prior to WWII. Let me put that in perspective for you. We had a Nuclear bomb that was used in WWII, along with other convential weapons like bullets and bombs. During the Christian Reformation we pretty much used things like rope to hang, fire to burn, and swords to chop. ....oh yeah..and horses to "draw and quarter." They had to work a lot harder to kill people in those days.

Religion has caused more suffering and death than any combination of things ever since man stood upright and stopped beating on rocks. Why not share an idea instead, keep an open mind, and spare a life or two?

My 0.02

 

[Beowulf]

Good bye heretic.

Sorry I didn't feel like writing a research paper for you on this forum.

I guess that's a logical fallacy for in your book.

I'm sure we'll meet again.

I'm going to miss you.

 

[Beowulf]

 

[heretic888]

Heretic, where I differ from you is not so much in overall theological point of view but perhaps from the point of view of how we see others.

Personally I respect Christianity and the Holy Bible a lot. I also respect Christians, and their path.

I personally don't have anything against Christians or their Bible.

I find fundamentalism (secular or religious) and sociocentrism to be mildly annoying and frustrating, but that's about it. However, this isn't a "Christian" thing, as these qualities correspond with deep features in the psychological development of all human beings (i.e., Kohlberg and Fowler).

Personally, I think true "Christians" are more akin to the theosis, kenosis, and apophatic mysticism of St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, or Father Thomas Merton. The evangelicals just don't interest me that much.

However, history is history. No amount of "faith", "tolerance", "wish-fulfillment", or anything else is going to change that. I have great respect for Biblical mysticism (as represented best by St. John of the Cross) but have exceedingly little confidence in Biblical history.

There are some points of view to Christianity that I don't like. The hardcore fundamentalism and the stand against gay marriage are two elements. But, I can't bring myself to charge against the faith because...this is something that is precious to someone.

Again, I don't have anything against the faith per se. Please see my comments above.

But, at the same time, I really don't have a problem with criticizing something that is "precious" to someone. That, in my opinion, is tantamount to ego-coddling or what Chogyam Trungpa called "idiot compassion".

Personally, I am not bothered by someone believing that the world wa created in less time than it took for me to do my taxes. I am more bothered by the large-scale infliction of such beliefs. Personally I focus on the infliction as my point of departure, not the faith...but that's just my thougts. :asian:

Can't disagree there.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

I find it strange how much "religious" content there is on this Martial Art forum.

Um, well, the name of this forum is "Philosophy and Spirituality in the Arts". . .

The bible is a book written by men. So is the Koran, the Tora (spelling?), and every other theological book or text that ever existed. It's a known fact that the Catholic Church tampered with the bibles contents as well as King James. Books were left out....things were lost in the many, many translations. Man is flawed.

Can't disagree with you there.

So what is the point really? What really matters?

The points I have been trying to make for nine pages now are:

1) The Bible is unreliable as a documentation of historical accuracy.

2) The history of the Bible and the spirituality of the Bible are two different things.

All books teach the same basic ethics and ideas when you break them down to their base. Put simply...ACT RIGHT! Don't kill needlessly. Don't steal! Don't cheat! Treat your fellow human beings the way you want to be treated (BTW, this ideal was written down by Confucious way before the Golden Rule ever saw paper.)

Trying to find some kind of "basic ethics and ideas" in such a fashion is, in my opinion, an exercise in folly. For every one ethical precept you find in common with other cultures, you will find three more that are unique to that particular faith tradition. The "Golden Rule" is perhaps universal, but "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God" is not.

If you want to find commonality among the world's religions, it is through the practice of contemplation and mysticism. I would suggest Huston Smith's The Forgotten Truth as an elucidation on this matter.

Religion has caused more suffering and death than any combination of things ever since man stood upright and stopped beating on rocks. Why not share an idea instead, keep an open mind, and spare a life or two?

As I pointed out above, this has less to do with "religion" and more to do with the deep features of sociocentrism and fundamentalism (both secular and religious). One need not look any further than the Communist states of Cuba, Russia, and China to see just how brutal and viscious these same progroms can be in "secular" hands.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

Good bye heretic.

Sorry I didn't feel like writing a research paper for you on this forum.

I guess that's a logical fallacy for in your book.

No, it's not.

I can perfectly understand the concept of not having the time or energy for the rigors of logical debate. I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is when somebody threatens to have "overwhelming evidence" for their position but either a) don't provide it or b) give you a bibliography instead. That, and I get a little miffed about personal attacks and ad hominems.

But, hey, to each his (or her) own.

I'm sure we'll meet again.

I'm going to miss you.

Have a good one.

Laterz.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Trying to find some kind of "basic ethics and ideas" in such a fashion is, in my opinion, an exercise in folly. For every one ethical precept you find in common with other cultures, you will find three more that are unique to that particular faith tradition. The "Golden Rule" is perhaps universal, but "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me, for I am a jealous God" is not.

Of course different religions developed aspects that are unique unto themselves over the centuries, but my point was that underneath it all the same basic concepts are there: rules that govern behavior towards each other that is conducive to the survival of the entire Human Race and successful maintainence of a society. If we were to kill each other with reckless abandon, or act in ways that propmted the killing of others then we wouldn't last very long! LOL.

BTW, here's something to think about: Since when was a "GOD" subject to human emotion? Is it not the height of human arrogance to assign our own short comings to a supreme being??? We think too much of ourselves. IMHO

 

[MartialIntent]

The points I have been trying to make for nine pages now are:

1) The Bible is unreliable as a documentation of historical accuracy.

2) The history of the Bible and the spirituality of the Bible are two different things.

heretic888, you are plainly a very well-read and erudite member here. You have a faith in generally accepted historical inaccuracy of the bible - I won't attempt to argue against that at all. You've put a lot of interesting stuff down, I'm wondering why? Can I ask if you'd countenance the possiblity of your proofs altering the beliefs of those who take the bible as their de facto standard document? I mean, does the possibility exist for overwhelming proof to overcome overwhelming faith [or vice versa]?

Respects!

 

[heretic888]

Of course different religions developed aspects that are unique unto themselves over the centuries, but my point was that underneath it all the same basic concepts are there: rules that govern behavior towards each other that is conducive to the survival of the entire Human Race and successful maintainence of a society. If we were to kill each other with reckless abandon, or act in ways that propmted the killing of others then we wouldn't last very long! LOL.

Sure, but there is nothing particularly "religious" about any of that.

BTW, here's something to think about: Since when was a "GOD" subject to human emotion? Is it not the height of human arrogance to assign our own short comings to a supreme being??? We think too much of ourselves. IMHO

Don't ask me. I didn't write it.

Personally, my own beliefs about the Divine are very much in agreement with the principles of apophatic theology:

In Negative theology, it is not necessary to know the essence of God:
- Neither existence nor nonexistence applies to God, i.e., God is beyond existing or not existing. (One should not say that God exists in the usual sense of the term; nor should we say that God is nonexistent.)
- There is no multiplicity in God's being. (One should not claim that god is one, or three, or any type of being. All that can be said is, whatever God is, is not multiple independent beings)
- God is not ignorant. (One should not say that God is wise since that word implies we know what wise means, whereas we only know what wise means to a human.)
- Likewise, God is not evil. (To say that He is good limits Him to what good means to humans.)
- God is not a creation (but beyond this we do not know how God comes to be)
- God is not conceptually definable in terms of space and location.
- God is not conceptually confinable to assumptions based on time.

Laterz.

 

[heretic888]

You've put a lot of interesting stuff down, I'm wondering why? Can I ask if you'd countenance the possiblity of your proofs altering the beliefs of those who take the bible as their de facto standard document? I mean, does the possibility exist for overwhelming proof to overcome overwhelming faith [or vice versa]?

In general, I assume that my arguments will not change the minds of most people. As a good rule-of-thumb, a given individual is not capable of altering their own worldview by more than 10% (if even that) at any given point in time. Therefore, if you were brought up to see the Bible as the infallible "Word of God" and that is part of your ingrained worldview, then most of my arguments and proofs of inerrancy will not only fail to convince, but they will come across as personally threatening and "arrogant".

It is conceivable that a person "on the fence" might find my arguments to be persuasive, but I cannot make that assumption. For the most part, I doubt many people will be swayed no matter how much logic and evidence is brought to them. That is the power of psychological inertia.

That being said, I am of the philosophy that the truth is worth exploring for its own sake. It needs no other pragmatic or practical application. If you believe it is worthwhile to investigate the truth, then that is all that is needed. That is why I do what I do.

I post my arguments on forums such as this as a means of "pressure-testing" them and of clarifying my own position on the subject. I doubt anyone here would substantially change my mind, either, but they may be able to help me improve my arguments.

Laterz.

 

[Brother John]

Wow... This thread has really grown. Mostly due to your tenacity Heretic. Seems this is a very well thought out issue for you (wether I believe your point of view or not, I've got to say....you can write a LOT about it).

So really it boils down, according to what you've said, (totally paraphrased by me) to:

1. The Historicity of the Bible is suspect at best.

2. The Historicity of the Bible and the "Spiritual Validity" of the faiths that are based on these books (The Bible being a compilation of books) are not one and the same. (in other words, point number one doesn't impact the spiritual truths of the Bible itself)

3. Christians (just like Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindi, Atheist, Agnostic, Dianeticists, Neo-Pagans....etc.) are still Human and flawed and have a long way to go to fully live up to their own spiritual traditions and paradigms.

does that sum it up?
If these are your points.....

I can live with that. :ultracool

If things were PERFECT, then there'd be no need for "faith", or hard work.
I believe that we are here to exercise and grow in both in our climb toward the light.
We still have our work cut out for us in our ascension then.

See you on the path......


Your Brother :asian:
John