Is the Bible God?

[Trent Wray]

This is something I don't understand, and I'm hoping those who adhere to the bible can help me understand it. I truly want to understand it.

I would assume, that a person's thought process in believing the bible as valid would include "because it tells me about God and lets me know God."

I don't understand how a person can be content with that ... given the number of interpretations, and misinterpretations, and claims, etc and so forth. In my eyes, anyone who claims the bible as authoritative is automatically going to go the route of the True Scotsman. How can you not? You will no doubt think you have a "key" that keeps you from thinking you are the TS, won't you?

And for those that let the bible define god for them, how is this not placing the bible itself above god, or at least on equal terms with god .... thus making the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Bible a quad-thing instead of a trinity?

Am I missing something? Because everytime I bring up the idea of "why don't you just ask god," instead of going to the bible, or "show me god," instead of showing me the bible, I get a run around or an avoidance.

I could understand this, if one were in fact content to believe in the bible and have no desire to go beyond it or it's claims. But this is often not the claim of the person adhering to the bible. This is where I see a disconnect that they do not see. I can easily say that, "well, they are not seeing the truth and thinking circular logic and other fallacies aren't existent in their case," but I'm still waiting on a legitimate answer from one believer. Just one. Why is the bible acceptable in place of God. I thought that was the complete opposite of the point in "trying to understand god" in the first place?

Can someone who is a believer and isn't afraid of being trapped and are actually willing to examine this issue and so on and so forth please explain this to me?

-----

I understand this thread could end up at the bottom of the pile of the irrelevant bin quickly.

[David Henson]

This is something I don't understand, and I'm hoping those who adhere to the bible can help me understand it. I truly want to understand it.

You understand that there is nothing that I can say to help you understand? I honestly don't believe you want to understand. Why would you? I believe that your only real problem is that you can't understand why someone can believe something that, not only disagrees with your own belief, but that you can't understand yourself.

I would assume, that a person's thought process in believing the bible as valid would include "because it tells me about God and lets me know God."

To me that makes no sense at all. I could invent whatever God I needed to invent or buy into anyone else's that is supposed. If there is a will there is a way.

I don't understand how a person can be content with that ... given the number of interpretations, and misinterpretations, and claims, etc and so forth. In my eyes, anyone who claims the bible as authoritative is automatically going to go the route of the True Scotsman. How can you not? You will no doubt think you have a "key" that keeps you from thinking you are the TS, won't you?

I have to say. I don't like the expression the True Scottsman. Anything can be dismissed as a true scottsman. Anything you want.

And for those that let the bible define god for them, how is this not placing the bible itself above god, or at least on equal terms with god .... thus making the Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and Bible a quad-thing instead of a trinity?

The Bible doesn't teach the trinity, Plato and Greek philosophy influenced apostate Christianity. To say that the Bible is above or equal to God is like saying that this post is above or equal to me, or that the theory of evolution or gravity is above or equal to science when a hundred years from now those theories could be replaced by newer science.

Am I missing something? Because everytime I bring up the idea of "why don't you just ask god," instead of going to the bible, or "show me god," instead of showing me the bible, I get a run around or an avoidance.

When I was a skeptic who had an unread Bible that I had been given by my mother who had been given it years before by the JWs I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it because I hated Christianity. I lived out in the woods where the JWs never came. When I began to see how the Bible was exactly what it says it was, that night, for the first time, I prayed to Jehovah to send the JWs to me if they had the truth. The next morning I prayed again and while I was praying they came to the door. A scheduled Bible study of theirs in the nearby town had dodged them and they figured since they never work the territory and they are there they would knock on some doors. Mine was the first.

You and I can rationalize that away.

God gave his word for just about anyone who wants it. But don't forget that it also mentions a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous. So the countless people who never had the opportunity will then have it.

I could understand this, if one were in fact content to believe in the bible and have no desire to go beyond it or it's claims. But this is often not the claim of the person adhering to the bible. This is where I see a disconnect that they do not see. I can easily say that, "well, they are not seeing the truth and thinking circular logic and other fallacies aren't existent in their case," but I'm still waiting on a legitimate answer from one believer. Just one. Why is the bible acceptable in place of God. I thought that was the complete opposite of the point in "trying to understand god" in the first place?

John 17:3. Everything you need to know about Jehovah God is in the Bible. You can't make the assumptions you are making, which really amount to nothing more than mocking that which you don't understand and expect to really understand.

Can someone who is a believer and isn't afraid of being trapped and are actually willing to examine this issue and so on and so forth please explain this to me?

It isn't that I fear being trapped it is that your trying to trap me isn't going to answer your questions. You are not trying to understand how I think or why I think what I do regarding God, you are trying to understand how I could possibly believe something you don't think is worth the effort to try and understand.

[Trent Wray]

You understand that there is nothing that I can say to help you understand? I honestly don't believe you want to understand. Why would you? I believe that your only real problem is that you can't understand why someone can believe something that, not only disagrees with your own belief, but that you can't understand yourself.

To me that makes no sense at all. I could invent whatever God I needed to invent or buy into anyone else's that is supposed. If there is a will there is a way.

I have to say. I don't like the expression the True Scottsman. Anything can be dismissed as a true scottsman. Anything you want.

The Bible doesn't teach the trinity, Plato and Greek philosophy influenced apostate Christianity. To say that the Bible is above or equal to God is like saying that this post is above or equal to me, or that the theory of evolution or gravity is above or equal to science when a hundred years from now those theories could be replaced by newer science.

When I was a skeptic who had an unread Bible that I had been given by my mother who had been given it years before by the JWs I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it because I hated Christianity. I lived out in the woods where the JWs never came. When I began to see how the Bible was exactly what it says it was, that night, for the first time, I prayed to Jehovah to send the JWs to me if they had the truth. The next morning I prayed again and while I was praying they came to the door. A scheduled Bible study of theirs in the nearby town had dodged them and they figured since they never work the territory and they are there they would knock on some doors. Mine was the first.

You and I can rationalize that away.

God gave his word for just about anyone who wants it. But don't forget that it also mentions a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous. So the countless people who never had the opportunity will then have it.

John 17:3. Everything you need to know about Jehovah God is in the Bible. You can't make the assumptions you are making, which really amount to nothing more than mocking that which you don't understand and expect to really understand.

It isn't that I fear being trapped it is that your trying to trap me isn't going to answer your questions. You are not trying to understand how I think or why I think what I do regarding God, you are trying to understand how I could possibly believe something you don't think is worth the effort to try and understand.You are making A LOT of assumptions about me. This is something I tried not to do with you initially, because I am wanting to understand. I think you are coming close to actually answering my question (sort of) with this statement / anecdote:

When I was a skeptic who had an unread Bible that I had been given by my mother who had been given it years before by the JWs I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it because I hated Christianity. I lived out in the woods where the JWs never came. When I began to see how the Bible was exactly what it says it was, that night, for the first time, I prayed to Jehovah to send the JWs to me if they had the truth. The next morning I prayed again and while I was praying they came to the door. A scheduled Bible study of theirs in the nearby town had dodged them and they figured since they never work the territory and they are there they would knock on some doors. Mine was the first.

You and I can rationalize that away. Okay. Try to drop your preconceived notions and defense posture for a moment.

This is an anecdote, that I am assuming you believe shows a communication between you and god. Yes? We can look at it a couple of ways:

1) It's all coincidence and confirmation bias, etc etc. There is no way to prove or test the anecdote for it's validity that it was a "prayer and then prayer answer".
2) It was a communication between you and god in a mysterious and personal way.

Now, you already know that it can be rationalized away or explained simply. And yet ... I'm guessing it still has meaning and significance for you or you wouldn't have brought it up.

Now, I'm going to assume into the significance of the event for you further (and correct me where I'm wrong). I'm assuming that it was more or less a revelatory experience in your eyes. It was God pointing towards you, and the bible, and the JH as a starting place of sorts. And from there, you began to explore the bible further, and you began to see truths, this or that, etc and so forth.

The point is, that you had a revelatory experience you feel was aimed at you from God. Yes? Before that .... you yourself admitted that you had an unread bible, you hated Xtianity, etc etc.

Here is the "disconnect" I think I see, based on a kind of formula that worked for you:

1) Unbelief
2) Revelation from God
3) Belief

Do you see it yet? Let me explain it.

I ask you to "show me God." I tell you specifically I don't care about the bible or this or that, I want to know God. I want to communicate with god, for myself. I don't want to be told what to believe from anyone other than god. I am at your point 1)

You tell me that I have no interest in point 3), which is belief. You tell me the entire rant you did above. You blame me and accuse me of mocking and not desiring to understand, etc etc ... when I'm telling you specifically what I want in order to believe. I want point 2). But you are either blaming me for not being like you at point 3) ...... or trying to push point 3) onto me by showing me how scripture is sound or what the real interpretations are, etc etc.

Please tell me you see the disconnect.

You went from 1 to 2 to 3.
I'm at 1, telling you I want 2.
You push 3, or blame me for not understanding 3.
YOU DO NOT GIVE ME 2.

In fact, not only do you not give me 2) ...... but you say this: "you and I can rationalize it away."

The very thing that "turned you" ... the very thing I am telling you I want ... you immediately leave behind in the dust and say it can be "rationalized away".

To me, you are rationalizing away your personal revelation with God, in exchange for something you would have never even offered to give me without it.

What I don't understand, is why you wouldn't want me to have a revelation from God also. Especially when I'm asking for a way to get evidence! Why you wouldn't want me to have that direct communication like you think you did. What if I have an even bigger experience?

It's why I conclude, that if I'm asking for God and you are giving me bibles, or translations, or put-downs and your judgements on me .... then you are giving me what you think is god: yourself and your bible and your thoughts about everything. Otherwise, you would get out of the way, and tell me how to have the revelation that you think you did. Then I can try it on my own. If your god honors it, then great. If not ... what else is there to push? More biblical facts and interpretations? That didn't work for you. So why would you do it for me? Do you want me to know god ... or the bible?

Please tell me you understand what I'm saying, and the disconnect I'm seeing.

[devnull]

trent: there's a simpler explanation from your perspective - like so many other theists, he is in fact lying, because it makes him feel special and he thinks it supports his story.

[Trent Wray]

trent: there's a simpler explanation from your perspective - like so many other theists, he is in fact lying, because it makes him feel special and he thinks it supports his story. People are always honest and never lie :)

[bruto]

Trentwray, I think you've bumped into one of the obstacles that has prevented so many of us from pursuing the faith of our culture and our upbringing. The problem is inherent in the question, because faith is not about making sense. If everything could be explained rationally, we would not even have a word for faith, or an understanding of what it means. Faith is a logical holiday. Whether the problem is deferred (it will make sense someday) or ignored (it makes a different kind of sense that's beyond us) or denied (I think it makes sense but you can't see it because you lack faith), the problem remains, and if you continue to demand that things actually make sense in the present, with some vestige of logical or rational consistency, I think it will remain intractable.

There may well be a good argument that faith itself, or the act of having faith, is wise, and even a rational decision. Ignoring the contradictory details and accepting Jesus may be the most reasonable thing anyone ever did (though I think not). But even if the decision to have faith is rational, the faith itself is not. That's what makes it faith.

The question is an interesting one, but I think it will turn out to be unanswerable at its core. If there's an answer that will satisfy you, I'll be surprised. I've never seen it. It certainly hasn't shown up here yet, has it?

[Trent Wray]

Trentwray, I think you've bumped into one of the obstacles that has prevented so many of us from pursuing the faith of our culture and our upbringing. The problem is inherent in the question, because faith is not about making sense. If everything could be explained rationally, we would not even have a word for faith, or an understanding of what it means. Faith is a logical holiday. Whether the problem is deferred (it will make sense someday) or ignored (it makes a different kind of sense that's beyond us) or denied (I think it makes sense but you can't see it because you lack faith), the problem remains, and if you continue to demand that things actually make sense in the present, with some vestige of logical or rational consistency, I think it will remain intractable.

There may well be a good argument that faith itself, or the act of having faith, is wise, and even a rational decision. Ignoring the contradictory details and accepting Jesus may be the most reasonable thing anyone ever did (though I think not). But even if the decision to have faith is rational, the faith itself is not. That's what makes it faith.

The question is an interesting one, but I think it will turn out to be unanswerable at its core. If there's an answer that will satisfy you, I'll be surprised. I've never seen it. It certainly hasn't shown up here yet, has it? And I think you hit the nail on the head ... that faith is based on the idea that something cannot be explained rationally or make sense. If it did, it would be categorized differently apart from faith.

And I think it takes a certain amount of courage, imo, to have faith. It involves risk, trust, a level of believing in something that is unknown or unsure, etc and so forth.

And at the same time, I believe it takes courage to want facts, because it involves attempting to see something the way it really is and understand it from reality. At times, faith says, "trust me," and a critically thinking mind say, "why should I? Prove yourself." It takes courage, imo, to attempt to go where "one shouldn't go," and god is a perfect example. "You cannot know god, or prove god," .... well why not? Let's find out why. It will yield the truth, won't it?

I think the main problem comes when faith/fact get confused. The search for truth almost involves a level of both faith and fact. But when something is found and labeled as fact, it no longer requires faith to believe in that thing. It involves logic, critical recognition of evidence, etc. But the believer confuses faith with fact ... they assume an experience of their faith is fact. It's not :). Not unless someone else can validate and verify it, and possibly repeat it. Until then, it's like a personal fact ... hence, a revelation. It's not a corporate thing. It is a "fact" that relates only to the individual. But they expect it to relate to others.

And so when one finds the bible as being worthy of their trust and faith as evidence of "god" .... they cannot understand why others won't accept the "fact" that they think they understand. And so the disconnect begins ... not just between faith and fact, but between the individual and everyone else ....

And this is where my own personal disconnect comes into play ... because I personally would not be content with merely a book or a story from another person about "proof of god." And for those who are, I don't understand how they are content with that. Why not look further into faith, instead of fact. Do you not appreciate "faith"? If you don't, then why criticize others' for not having it? Is it because you criticize yourself for not wanting faith and you just don't realize that you are no different than the unbeliever, essentially?

And maybe there is no answer at it's core that will satisfy me :(. Idk. Perhaps the more one tries to explore the "why" behind the difference in faith and fact, you start to explore the difference between reason and madness :)

[Fnord]

Is the Bible God?
.
No.

The Bible is a collection of largely apocryphal stories that are held in superstitious awe by many, and that form the basis for one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated upon humanity.

Next question, please?

[Trent Wray]

.
No.

The Bible is a collection of largely apocryphal stories that are held in superstitious awe by many, and that form the basis for one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated upon humanity.

Next question, please? But as I see it ... apart from the obvious scam:) .... when that superstitious awe and belief in the bible actually defines and/or limits "god" should god exist, isn't that bible then trumping god and "judging" him .... thus becoming god over god (for those who use it as their god-litmus test")? Yes?

And so the person who clings to their bible to identify everything for themself, is actually clinging to their own understanding + bible and so they aren't really exercising faith in "god" or the idea of the being, rather they are exercising faith in themselves and the holly bibble. Is there something I am missing in this conclusion?

[Belz...]

You understand that there is nothing that I can say to help you understand? I honestly don't believe you want to understand. Why would you? I believe that your only real problem is that you can't understand why someone can believe something that, not only disagrees with your own belief, but that you can't understand yourself.

I can't understand why someone can believe in things there is absolutely no evidence for.

God gave his word for just about anyone who wants it.

Which god ?

John 17:3. Everything you need to know about Jehovah God is in the Bible.

Yes, and his cruelty knows no bounds. It's a good thing he doesn't exist. Otherwise I might have to deny him still.

[Fnord]

... when that superstitious awe and belief in the bible actually defines and/or limits "god" should god exist, isn't that bible then trumping god and "judging" him .... thus becoming god over god (for those who use it as their god-litmus test")?

The Bible is just a book. It is the faith of the people who read that book that inspires those people to make their assertions about God. Thus, it is the judgement of the people that "trumps" God and causes them to judge Him.

If people had the same faith in Greco-Roman mythology, there would be at least as many different sects concerning Jupiter/Zeus -- in my opinion, anyway.
And so the person who clings to their bible to identify everything for themself, is actually clinging to their own understanding + bible and so they aren't really exercising faith in "god" or the idea of the being, rather they are exercising faith in themselves and the holly bibble. Is there something I am missing in this conclusion?
Your conclusion is sound... or at least, I agree with it. This is why I prefer the term "Religionist" over "Fundamentalist". Hard-core Christians seem mostly concerned with getting their religion rather than themselves "right", and they don't all agree on which fundamentals are important, or even what those fundamentals are!

[Trent Wray]

The Bible is just a book. It is the faith of the people who read that book that inspires those people to make their assertions about God. Thus, it is the judgement of the people that "trumps" God and causes them to judge Him. Hmm ... much more to the point and root of where the faith of the person actually lies --- their own judgment.

Your conclusion is sound... or at least, I agree with it. This is why I prefer the term "Religionist" over "Fundamentalist". Hard-core Christians seem mostly concerned with getting their religion rather than themselves "right", and they don't all agree on which fundamentals are important, or even what those fundamentals are! Good insight.

Fnord, Pointing Out the Obvious to the Oblivious Since 1957.

:)

[Fnord]

Hmm ... much more to the point and root of where the faith of the person actually lies --- their own judgment.

Keep in mind that their judgment is mostly faith-based. Practically every decision or judgment they make is somehow predicated on their faith, which to them is sufficient proof for just about every assertion they may make.

(And what does faith prove? Anyone? Anyone?)

Which is probably why I find religionists to be the most critical, judgmental and all-around prejudiced and discriminatory people I've ever met.

[Trent Wray]

(And what does faith prove? Anyone? Anyone?)
Well, the correct true faith will produce fundamental goodness :)

[Fnord]

Well, the correct true faith will produce fundamental goodness :)
.
Which faith is correct?
Which faith is true?
What is goodness?

Evidence, please?

And I asked what faith proves, not what it produces. We already know what faith will inspire the faith-full to produce -- human sacrifice, crusades, pogroms, et cetera...

[Gaetan]

What comes from Moses is from devil and just the teaching from Jesus Christ comes from God, the rest from mankind.

Gaétan

[Trent Wray]

.
Which faith is correct?
Which faith is true?
What is goodness?

Evidence, please?

And I asked what faith proves, not what it produces. We already know what faith will inspire the faith-full to produce -- human sacrifice, crusades, pogroms, et cetera... I was kidding (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166134) :)

What comes from Moses is from devil and just the teaching from Jesus Christ comes from God, the rest from mankind.

Gaétan How do you know?

[David Henson]

What comes from Moses is from devil and just the teaching from Jesus Christ comes from God, the rest from mankind.

Gaétan

Jesus himself would disagree, for he said: "If you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me." - John 5:46

[Fnord]

What comes from Moses is from devil and just the teaching from Jesus Christ comes from God, the rest from mankind.


Were Moses, the devil and Jesus real? Is God real?

Evidence, please?

[David Henson]

Were Moses, the devil and Jesus real? Is God real?

Evidence, please?

You will have to be more specific than that if you want evidence. Moses and Jesus are common names. Devil is a word that means adversary and god is a word that means mighty.

[paximperium]

You will have to be more specific than that if you want evidence. Moses and Jesus are common names. Devil is a word that means adversary and god is a word that means mighty.
Basically no.

[Fnord]

You will have to be more specific than that if you want evidence. Moses and Jesus are common names. Devil is a word that means adversary and god is a word that means mighty.

The Biblical characters known as "Moses" "Jesus" and "Satan". Were they real, and as literally depicted in the Bible?

Evidence, please?

[AvalonXQ]

Am I missing something? Because everytime I bring up the idea of "why don't you just ask god," instead of going to the bible, or "show me god," instead of showing me the bible, I get a run around or an avoidance.

Again, I think this is an important point -- I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and that God does not lie. In a sense, you could say that these things limit God, but if so, they only limit God by God's choice, as any words of God do by virtue of the fact that God doesn't lie.
As a limited human being trying to understand any concept (whether God or something else), I'm going to be limited to the evidence I have and how well I can understand it. But the question is whether or not that understanding is considered authoritative or adaptive.
God's words are authoritative. My understanding of them is adaptive.
That's how I know where my faith lies.

[Mirrorglass]

You will have to be more specific than that if you want evidence. Moses and Jesus are common names. Devil is a word that means adversary and god is a word that means mighty.

David, do you really believe that when people ask "is god real" (or Moses, or Jesus, or devil) that they mean "has there ever been anything called god"?

It should be obvious from the context that the question refers to the biblical characters bearing those names, not any random ol' Jesus. There's no atheist who claims there has never been a man named Jesus, but many who believe that the specific Jesus who appears in the bible was fictional.

[Fnord]

I've given up on trying to know God through the Bible. This after concluding that the Bible was written by humans, each with his own agendae and prejudices, and not by God or angels. Same for every other "Holy" document in every other religion.

[David Henson]

The Biblical characters known as "Moses" "Jesus" and "Satan". Were they real, and as literally depicted in the Bible?

Evidence, please?

You probably haven't seen my demonstration of evidence being potentially flawed in Soul thread with the guy in the alley with the knife, so lets play this out a little bit.

Since it is obvious that you won't accept the Bible as historical evidence of Moses and Jesus, let alone Satan the Devil and Jehovah God how am I supposed to give you evidence of Moses and Jesus?

I could give you some secular historical references which we both know are spurious and so how can historical references be trusted? If they are accepted by certain people? And yet if you compare the reliability of the Bible to well known and trusted secular histories such as Caesar's Gallic War, Histories of Thecydides, Herodotus, and the Roman history of Livy, they don't even compare. Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."

So tell me, honestly, what do you mean when you say you want evidence of Jesus?

[I Ratant]

But as I see it ... apart from the obvious scam:) .... when that superstitious awe and belief in the bible actually defines and/or limits "god" should god exist, isn't that bible then trumping god and "judging" him .... thus becoming god over god (for those who use it as their god-litmus test")? Yes?

And so the person who clings to their bible to identify everything for themself, is actually clinging to their own understanding + bible and so they aren't really exercising faith in "god" or the idea of the being, rather they are exercising faith in themselves and the holly bibble. Is there something I am missing in this conclusion?
.
Rationally observing the bible should lead to the conclusion that it's babble.
That's true for any revealed religion.
With so many of them (all) being wrong, who could pick the one, if any, that would true?
Those that seek and find answers in holy writ always easily reject other holy writs as wrong, which proves nothing as to the fact in the one that is acceptable.
The more self-deluded will then justify any means at all for pressing their peculiar faith on the unsaved, including outright lying, as we see here, unconscionable misrepresentations of fact, because "the end justifies the means".
That they know they're doing it wrong is easily absorbed and dismissed because of the greater goal, that of having everyone accept their belief, which of course then makes that belief "true". Or else!

[paximperium]

You probably haven't seen my demonstration of evidence being potentially flawed in Soul thread with the guy in the alley with the knife, so lets play this out a little bit.

Since it is obvious that you won't accept the Bible as historical evidence of Moses and Jesus, let alone Satan the Devil and Jehovah God how am I supposed to give you evidence of Moses and Jesus?

I could give you some secular historical references which we both know are spurious and so how can historical references be trusted? If they are accepted by certain people? And yet if you compare the reliability of the Bible to well known and trusted secular histories such as Caesar's Gallic War, Histories of Thecydides, Herodotus, and the Roman history of Livy, they don't even compare. Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."

So tell me, honestly, what do you mean when you say you want evidence of Jesus?
Like I said. That's a no from David; just the same old apologies for the his lack of evidence. Reminds me of the DOC thread.

[I Ratant]

Again, I think this is an important point -- I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and that God does not lie. In a sense, you could say that these things limit God, but if so, they only limit God by God's choice, as any words of God do by virtue of the fact that God doesn't lie.
As a limited human being trying to understand any concept (whether God or something else), I'm going to be limited to the evidence I have and how well I can understand it. But the question is whether or not that understanding is considered authoritative or adaptive.
God's words are authoritative. My understanding of them is adaptive.
That's how I know where my faith lies.
.
But there is no original document with the word of god to look at, with his imprimatur!
Every single piece of text has come from and through innumerable human egos, with their individual and group agendas, which will alter any text to suit.
The authorativeness of the bible is there because those that push it as the word want you to submit to them; the book is used as a carrot and club to get that submission.
All the aberrant personalities that have formed the religions of the world have that as a goal. They rule, you obey.

[Fnord]

... Since it is obvious that you won't accept the Bible as historical evidence of Moses and Jesus, let alone Satan the Devil and Jehovah God how am I supposed to give you evidence of Moses and Jesus?
I seek proof outside the circular reasoning of "We know God exists because the Bible says so / We know the Bible is valid because God says so (in the Bible)".
I could give you some secular historical references which we both know are spurious and so how can historical references be trusted?
They can't.
If they are accepted by certain people?
Never confuse faith with proof.
And yet if you compare the reliability of the Bible to well known and trusted secular histories such as Caesar's Gallic War, Histories of Thecydides, Herodotus, and the Roman history of Livy, they don't even compare.
Wrong. They were all written by people, each with his or her own agenda and prejudices. This is especially true when the Bible is viewed as it is - an anthology of apocryphal stories.
Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."
Irrelevant. This is an appeal to authority -- a fallacy. Just because Newton was a brilliant mathematician does not lend credence to any theological statement he may (or may not) have made.
So tell me, honestly, what do you mean when you say you want evidence of Jesus?
I want evidence that Jesus - the Christ or Messiah of the Bible - is or was real, and as literally depicted in the Bible. As a side-effect, this would also prove the validity of the Bible ... at least, to me it would.

[David Henson]

.
But there is no original document with the word of god to look at, with his imprimatur!
Every single piece of text has come from and through innumerable human egos, with their individual and group agendas, which will alter any text to suit.
The authorativeness of the bible is there because those that push it as the word want you to submit to them; the book is used as a carrot and club to get that submission.
All the aberrant personalities that have formed the religions of the world have that as a goal. They rule, you obey.

Over and over again the atheist demands evidence but every time I asked them for evidence of anything I don't get it. It is as if they are talking to themselves.

Now you give me evidence to support that your claim that any altering of text has taken place. You must surely have evidence. Why else would you say it? Don't give me a link to wikipedia, either, it isn't infallible and I want to see your evidence.

[paximperium]

Over and over again the atheist demands evidence but every time I asked them for evidence of anything I don't get it. It is as if they are talking to themselves.

How cute. The person who can't provide any evidence demands evidence.

[AvalonXQ]

.
But there is no original document with the word of god to look at, with his imprimatur!
Every single piece of text has come from and through innumerable human egos, with their individual and group agendas, which will alter any text to suit.

Yes, this is definitely a claim that I want some evidence to back up.

[AvalonXQ]

How cute. The person who can't provide any evidence demands evidence.

This is an example of "tu quoque", correct?

[David Henson]

I want evidence that Jesus - the Christ or Messiah of the Bible - is or was real, and as literally depicted in the Bible. As a side-effect, this would also prove the validity of the Bible ... at least, to me it would.

Nonsense. What evidence is there that the evidence will be fairly evaluated.

What would constitute evidence on the existance of Christ Jesus?

[paximperium]

This is an example of "tu quoque", correct? Not really.

More towards the point of lack of a common decency and hypocrisy.

[paximperium]

Nonsense. What evidence is there that the evidence will be fairly evaluated.

What would constitute evidence on the existance of Christ Jesus?
Having one single eyewitness account would be a nice start.
Corroborating accounts would be a nice as well.
Independent accounts would be nice bonus.

Jesus popping into existence in the middle of Times Square and flying around would be another.

[AvalonXQ]

Not really.

More towards the point of lack of a common decency and hypocrisy.

Wait, you're not defending the lack of evidence provided to him by claiming that he, too, fails to provide evidence? Are you sure that's not what you're doing? It really looks like that's what you're doing.

[paximperium]

Wait, you're not defending the lack of evidence provided to him by claiming that he, too, fails to provide evidence? Are you sure that's not what you're doing? It really looks like that's what you're doing.
What am I defending?
I'm criticizing someone's hypocritical behavior.

Asking someone for evidence to support a claim is perfectly valid. However coming from someone without the decency to actually do the same makes them rude and pretty hypocritical. Nothing more.

[I Ratant]

Yes, this is definitely a claim that I want some evidence to back up.
.
You will have to do the foot work, the truth is out there. :)
Any genuine biblical scholar will admit there are no original documents for any of it... Torah, OT, NT.. it's all be "redacted" over the centuries.
The Council of Nicea did a pick-and-chose of the many gospels circulating at the time.
Since then, there's be additions and eliminations, all of which say human, not divine, editing.
Historians will point out the non-existence of most of the events in the OT, for another.
Scientists will point out the impossibility of most of the miracles/interventions in the OT and NT.
Surely, were there a divine hand guiding the passing down through the ages of the word, the word wouldn't be so rampantly bogus, nor would it be so obviously a device of culture... any of the nine and ninety tribal lays, all of which are true... for the tribe that espouses them, but no other.
The splinterings of religion as they expand and evolve, were there that divine guidance, shouldn't have occurred. After all, it makes sense there's one truth, in the strictest interpretation of the concept, yet we are inflicted with thousands of variations of it.

[I Ratant]

Over and over again the atheist demands evidence but every time I asked them for evidence of anything I don't get it. It is as if they are talking to themselves.

Now you give me evidence to support that your claim that any altering of text has taken place. You must surely have evidence. Why else would you say it? Don't give me a link to wikipedia, either, it isn't infallible and I want to see your evidence.
.
What pax says about your hypocrisy
And you're only a truebleever troll, at best.

[David Henson]

Having one single eyewitness account would be a nice start.
Corroborating accounts would be a nice as well.
Independent accounts would be nice bonus.

Jesus popping into existence in the middle of Times Square and flying around would be another.

You would accept an eyewitness, corroborating and independent accounts of a man who has been dead for about 2,000 years, and historical references can't be trusted. You would like him to pop into the middle of Times Square and fly around.

This is your idea of valid trustworthy evidence for a rational free thinking skeptic . . . how long would it take you to score the -

[paximperium]

Yes, this is definitely a claim that I want some evidence to back up.
What is the ending of Mark?

[paximperium]

You would accept an eyewitness, corroborating and independent accounts of a man who has been dead for about 2,000 years, and historical references can't be trusted. You would like him to pop into the middle of Times Square and fly around. It would be a nice start as opposed to the complete lack of any you have right now.

This is your idea of valid trustworthy evidence for a rational free thinking skeptic . . . how long would it take you to score the -
So that's a continued no.
No need for any more excuses. Thanks for being so honest.

[AvalonXQ]

.
What pax says about your hypocrisy
And you're only a truebleever troll, at best.

Hmmmm. Interesting response.
At this point, it doesn't seem likely that anything valuable will come from this interaction.
I might recommend ending the conversation and preserving what little is left of either of your civility.

[paximperium]

Hmmmm. Interesting response.
At this point, it doesn't seem likely that anything valuable will come from this interaction.
I might recommend ending the conversation and preserving what little is left of either of your civility.
What is the ending of Mark?

[Fnord]

Nonsense. What evidence is there that the evidence will be fairly evaluated.
Evasion. Didn't Charles Manson use that as part of his defense?
What would constitute evidence on the existance of Christ Jesus?
Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. If He did it before, He can do it again.

There is also this matter of a missing body part. If He were to regenerate it, I would believe that He was indeed the Son of God.

Fair enough? If a man claims to be THE Jesus, and does these things, then I will know that He is who He says He is.

[I Ratant]

Hmmmm. Interesting response.
At this point, it doesn't seem likely that anything valuable will come from this interaction.
I might recommend ending the conversation and preserving what little is left of either of your civility.
.
"How the Bible Was Written"
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/
.
And bristling at inconvenient responses is said to indicate a zinger has penetrated the armor of the personality. :)

[Minarvia]

Having one single eyewitness account would be a nice start.
Corroborating accounts would be a nice as well.
Independent accounts would be nice bonus.

Jesus popping into existence in the middle of Times Square and flying around would be another.

Roman records actually showing there was a Jesus of Nazareth (or wherever) crucified.

But yes, your one and two are very good.

[Minarvia]

Over and over again the atheist demands evidence but every time I asked them for evidence of anything I don't get it. It is as if they are talking to themselves.


I don't follow. First of all, an atheist is a person who simply lacks a belief in a god or gods. Simple as that.

Why are they obligated to prove anything to you? What are you asking them to prove? And when you say, "talking to themselves" does that mean you are on ignore lists, or what? I really don't understand what you are driving at here.

[Minarvia]

You would accept an eyewitness, corroborating and independent accounts of a man who has been dead for about 2,000 years, and historical references can't be trusted. You would like him to pop into the middle of Times Square and fly around.


Perhaps it would be accepted. It would at least be a start. And even if multiple well-known and/or prolific writers proved a Jesus you think is the biblical one did exist, it still would not prove anything supernatural about him.

So, flying around Times Square without trickery would be a very good start, yes.

I will attempt to learn how to respond to multiple posts instead of one at a time.

[bruto]

Actually I don't see a huge problem in accepting as a reasonable probability that there was a historical Jesus who went around preaching, gathered up some disciples, and was executed. It was a time of great religious ferment, and I've heard that there were a fair number of self-appointed prophets and messiahs on the loose. The story fits reasonably well. What's much harder to accept is the accuracy of the account after the fact, since all existing accounts are unquestionably written by persons who worshiped and deified Jesus and had a huge stake in inducing others to do the same, a bias rarely equaled in historical accounts. We cannot know whether Jesus did much that was extraordinary, or whether a group of followers found it expedient to deify him after the fact. Does it matter really whether the religious object we now call Jesus Christ was one person or another, or what his name really was, if we have no evidence that the tales told of him are true?

I think it would be very interesting and beneficial if we found some independent corroboration of anything to do with Jesus' existence and life, but with or without it, the mere likelihood that he existed provides no further basis for religious faith.

The Bible cannot vouch for its own accuracy.

[Fnord]

... The Bible cannot vouch for its own accuracy.

Correction: The Bible does not vouch for its own accuracy. At least, not in its entirety.

As for the Bible being "God Breathed"...

]2 Timothy 3:16-17: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, [literally, "God-breathed"] and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." This is the main biblical passage which refers to the Bible as being inspired by God. "All" would seem to imply that the inspiration applies to every word and phrase. It is important to realize that the only Scripture available at the time that 1 and 2 Timothy were written was the Old Testament. Thus, the author of 2 Timothy would have been referring only to the Hebrew Scriptures. Most likely, it was a reference to the Septuagint, a Greek translation which included the Apocrypha. However, many Bible literalists believe that this passage refers to all 66 books of the Bible even though the New Testament did not exist when 2 Timothy was written.

Thus, it can be seen that the writer of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not referring to any of the "New Testament" writings; so even if what he wrote regarding the "Old Testament" is true, it does not vouch for the veracity of any of the Gospels (the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), which simply did not exist when 2 Timothy was written.

(Link to webpage for the quoted article: Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/inerran3.htm))

[Trent Wray]

Again, I think this is an important point -- I believe the Bible is the Word of God, and that God does not lie. In a sense, you could say that these things limit God, but if so, they only limit God by God's choice, as any words of God do by virtue of the fact that God doesn't lie.
As a limited human being trying to understand any concept (whether God or something else), I'm going to be limited to the evidence I have and how well I can understand it. But the question is whether or not that understanding is considered authoritative or adaptive.
God's words are authoritative. My understanding of them is adaptive.
That's how I know where my faith lies. Thanx Avalon.

So if I understand you, you believe the Bible is the Word of God and that God doesn't lie. THAT is the foundation for why you accept that Bible as truth. It stems from that. So, you're faith isn't in the Bible FIRST .... rather it comes from your belief that 1) God doesn't lie. 2) the Bible is god's word.

So when I'm telling you that you are limiting god by your understanding of the bible, that isn't exactly correct .... because the foundation of your faith lies in the idea of those two things first.

So now you know what I'm going to ask next, because I want to see the root. The reason is, anytime someone thinks something is 100% true, I want to know WHY. Believing things like a chair is real is easy. God is another story.

So why do you believe that God doesn't lie, and that the bible is God's word? Did you have a personal revelation? Or do you literally have "blind faith"? Is it a feeling? A hope that you are correct? If those things came before the bible, what caused them?

For me, faith is like a never ending tunnel. If I have faith in something, I will follow it and question it both. That gives me results .... which leads to more following and more questioning. That is the way I am. At whatever point that I say, "enough", I know that I am leaving some stone unturned, or some corner unexplored. Until I make it to the end of a tunnel (those that begin by faith), I am not content to stop. If I stop, I'll always wonder, "what if I had only gone to the end? What if I'm wrong at this point?"

At some point you became convinced that what you believe is 100% correct and you won't waver from it. Why? Is that the opposite of faith? Or is that the end result of faith? And how do you know either way?

You probably haven't seen my demonstration of evidence being potentially flawed in Soul thread with the guy in the alley with the knife, so lets play this out a little bit.

Since it is obvious that you won't accept the Bible as historical evidence of Moses and Jesus, let alone Satan the Devil and Jehovah God how am I supposed to give you evidence of Moses and Jesus?

I could give you some secular historical references which we both know are spurious and so how can historical references be trusted? If they are accepted by certain people? And yet if you compare the reliability of the Bible to well known and trusted secular histories such as Caesar's Gallic War, Histories of Thecydides, Herodotus, and the Roman history of Livy, they don't even compare. Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatever."

So tell me, honestly, what do you mean when you say you want evidence of Jesus?
Nonsense. What evidence is there that the evidence will be fairly evaluated.

What would constitute evidence on the existance of Christ Jesus? I think I see the problem here. You don't believe that Jesus is alive do you? Or God for that matter, right? If they were, that would constitute evidence. And if you claim you're not a JW, I still don't understand why you are content to not explore the idea that Jesus might be alive, as your bible states, or that God exists still, as your bible states. Yes?

If you seriously do not want to explore the foundation of your evidence (i.e. God), then I'll assume you're just being the best adherent to the Truth TM as you can, and you're not really interested in an intellectual or religious exploration of god, even though you posted these threads not in the history section, but the philosophy and religion section.

[kedo1981]

Nope; people worship their own ego.

[Trent Wray]

Nope; people worship their own ego. Hey, leggo my ego !

[Gaetan]

I was kidding (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=166134) :)

How do you know?

My experience as a medium and my faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus taught the opposite of Moses and the opposite of God is the devil.

Moses and his father

Animal sacrifices: Lv 1 Lv 3 Lv 4 Lv 5 Lv 7 Lv 8 Lv 9 Lv12 Lv 14 Lv 15 Lv 16 Lv 17 Lv 19 Lv 22 Lv 23 Dt 27

Discriminations :Lv 21.9 Lv 18.22 Lv 21.16-24 Lv 22 Lv 25 Nb 30 Dt 17 Dt 20 Dt 24

Food restriction and other tax: Lv 11 Lv 23 Dt 14 Dt 16

Eye for an eye law: Lv 24 Dt 19

War: Lv 26 Nb 31 Nb 32 Dt 2 Dt 9 Dt 20 Dt 31

Stoning: Lv 20 Lv 24 Dt 21 Dt 22

Amputations : Dt 19 Dt 25

Jesus and his Father

Animal sacrifices :Mt 21.12-14 Mc 11.15-18 Jn 2.13-16 Jn 6.51-60. The Christ didn't sacrifice animal and there is no passage where he ate animal food.

Discriminations : Mt. 19.1 –9 Mc 2.13-17 Lc 5.30-32 Lc 7.1-10 Lc 7.36-50 Lc 15.1-2 Lc 16.14-15 Lc 19.1-10 Jn 4.1-9

Food restrictions and other tax: Mt 9.14-16 Mt 12.1-14 Mt 15.11-20 Mc 2.18-20 Mc 2.24-28 Mc 3.1-7 Mc 7.14-23 Lc 5.33-35 Lc 6.1-5 Lc.6.6-11 Lc 14.1-6

The eye for an eye law: Mt 5.38-42 Lc 6.29-30 Mt 18.21-22

War: Lc 5.44-45 Mt 5.9 Mt 26.52 Lc.3.14 Lc 6.27-35.

Stoning: Jn 8.1-7.

Amputations : There is no passage where the Christ encourage amputation

Gaétan

[Fnord]

My experience as a medium and my faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus taught the opposite of Moses and the opposite of God is the devil.
Are you claiming that Jesus or Moses was the devil?
Amputations : There is no passage where the Christ encourage amputation
"Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh" (Philippians 3:2). Paul is referring to Judaizers, who taught that people must be circumcised in order to be saved. Circumcision is amputation. Amputation is mutilation - an evil act committed on or by "dogs". This explains why the prayers of amputees for the restoration of their lost limbs are ignored. God hates amputees.

[AvalonXQ]

At some point you became convinced that what you believe is 100% correct and you won't waver from it.

That's incorrect. I am not infallible, and so all my beliefs are subject to self-scrutiny, including my religious beliefs.

[Mirrorglass]

Didn't Jesus give some contradictory statements himself? Does that mean.. *gasp* 8O

[Fnord]

That's incorrect. I am not infallible, and so all my beliefs are subject to self-scrutiny, including my religious beliefs.
.
Ahh ... I see the problem. You are the only one allowed to scrutinize your beliefs. Therefore, nothing other than your own ego-driven determination can change those beliefs.

[AvalonXQ]

.
Ahh ... I see the problem. You are the only one allowed to scrutinize your beliefs.

No. But only my scrutiny can possibly change them.
I think all self-scrutiny takes a large helping hand from the thoughts and ideas of others, which is part of why I try to learn what other people believe. In the end, though, they're my beliefs, and I'm the only one that can decide to change them.

[Fnord]

No. But only my scrutiny can possibly change them.
Equivocation. Same results. Your mind is closed. End of thread.

[AvalonXQ]

Equivocation. Same results.

Necessity. How can any self-willed person change their beliefs by any mechanism other than their own evaluation?
Or to put it another way: who, other than Fnord, decides what Fnord will believe?

[Dr. Keith]

My experience as a medium and my faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus taught the opposite of Moses and the opposite of God is the devil.

Moses and his father

<snip>

Jesus and his Father

<snip>

Amputations : There is no passage where the Christ encourage amputation

Gaétan

I'm wondering if you could lay out the gist of what I so rudely snipped above. In other words, can you tell me what this post is about without quoting biblical text?

I am asking because I think you are pointing out that the teachings of Christ were in direct conflict with much of the OT. If that is so, I would very much like to see a discussion of that.

It always amazes me when Christians promote ideas that seem at odds with the few direct quotes we actually have from Christ and are bolstered only from the worst parts of the OT.

The idea of a "Christian War" seems oxymoronic. How does one get from "turn the other cheek" to "Christ has chosen us to fight"?

This is a complete derail from the original post. My apologies. The OP is equally interesting, but I've been wondering for a long time how people who don't follow Christ's teachings are getting away with calling themselves Christians.

Maybe I see this as a first step in recognizing that the Bible lacks cohesion.

[I Ratant]

Necessity. How can any self-willed person change their beliefs by any mechanism other than their own evaluation?
Or to put it another way: who, other than Fnord, decides what Fnord will believe?
.
Most of us rely on lots of information from others in shaping what we find acceptable as fact.
We can't be experts in everything.
When the preponderance of information leads to the reasonable conclusion that X does not exist, then it is perverse to continue considering that X exists, just because there's some ray of comfort in the belief.
There is -nothing- that can support the belief that the bible (or any revealed religious text) has a divine source, especially when comparing them to what we know about human cupidity and desire for self delusion.
The modern religions give us great examples of how each is the product of disturbed or devious minded individuals.
It is not irrational to inspect the older religions and see their sources are equally suspect, as being merely human, with the usual agenda of control, and not some gift from bigskydaddy.

[Dr. Keith]

a Jesus you think is the biblical one

That is kind of funny. Is there a biblical Jesus or multiple biblical Jesuses? If one, what were his last words? Seems simple enough, there were tons of witnesses. Surely we can all agree on that, right?

I will attempt to learn how to respond to multiple posts instead of one at a time.

Not worth the effort. Multiple posts are sometimes easier to follow. It breaks out the different threads of the discussion.

[Trent Wray]

My experience as a medium and my faith in Jesus Christ. Can you explain this more? What is it that you experienced as a medium ... did you meet Jesus? If not, then why Jesus? And how do you know it was all "real"?

That's incorrect. I am not infallible, and so all my beliefs are subject to self-scrutiny, including my religious beliefs.

No. But only my scrutiny can possibly change them.
I think all self-scrutiny takes a large helping hand from the thoughts and ideas of others, which is part of why I try to learn what other people believe. In the end, though, they're my beliefs, and I'm the only one that can decide to change them.
Necessity. How can any self-willed person change their beliefs by any mechanism other than their own evaluation?
Or to put it another way: who, other than Fnord, decides what Fnord will believe?In many ways, I understand the idea that "only I can decide for I." etc etc.

But I was thinking about the nature of faith last night. Doesn't faith almost require the suspension of one's trust in one's own judgement ... and essentially trusting someone or something else when there really is no reason to?

I see it like this: forced faith is slavery. If someone forces me to trust them against my will ... I am not placing my faith in them, because I am not willingly "handing over my will" more or less. If someone pushes me over a cliff against my will, it's not because I placed faith in them.

Faith is when I give my will over. Until then, you're right .... it's always me choosing to believe or me deciding what is best or right or me scrutinizing. But if you say, "jump off that cliff," and I do it willingly ... then I've handed my will over to you. I'm placing myself under your control and influence. If I question it ... or analyze it ... it's not "full faith" because I'm doubting and having to convince myself first. But if I just "jump" and trust you no matter what happens ... that is faith.

Because I view faith this way, I still don't understand how someone isn't either making themselves God, the bible god, an experience god, their own judgment god, etc and whatever. To me, faith would be you asking me, "how do you know that your belief in God is correct?" and me saying, "I don't know that it is, I hope it is," and you saying, "well why do you believe in God then?" and I say, "just because. I have no evidence or reason to."

Now hope is different. Hope is the umbrella term describing what I'm expecting to be the end result or reward of handing over my will and having faith. But it can't be proven either. It's based on irrationality just like faith.

So when people use stuff as evidence to back their faith or hope or beliefs, I still see this as pointing to a god other than what they are claiming. Your point earlier about trusting the bible as a result of you trusting god, etc ... is getting closer to the "root of faith" I'm trying to nail down. If evidence comes after the faith ... then that is hope realized :). But if before having faith you need evidence, it's not faith. It might be taking a risk, but it's a calculated one :) And when calculations come into play, it's fair to bring in scrutiny and the scientific method to it's fullest extent.

So all that having been said ... are you placing your faith in God and his not lying on some grounds? You say that your mind changes based on your self scrutiny ... so you are the filter. Are you then your own God? Is it a completely circular belief system, counting on it's interior to hold together ... .or is it counting on the exterior to shape it? You know what I mean?

What are your thoughts? What am I still not seeing that you are?

[MattusMaximus]

This question of "evidence for God" is a pretty tall order, methinks. Let's start with something simple... how about evidence for leprechauns? After that, we can work our way up to unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and then maybe God :)

[Trent Wray]

This question of "evidence for God" is a pretty tall order, methinks. Let's start with something simple... how about evidence for leprechauns? After that, we can work our way up to unicorns, the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and then maybe God :)
Everyone knows that Kim Jong Il kidnapped Santa, ,the tooth fairy is only legal in a few states and countries, unicorns are too busy letting hot celebrities sit on top of them, and the leprechauns haven't finished fermenting yet.

[MattusMaximus]

Here's the difference between God and the Bible...

I have a Bible across the room from me on my bookshelf. No where on that bookshelf is God.

'Nuff said.

[Trent Wray]

Here's the difference between God and the Bible...

I have a Bible across the room from me on my bookshelf. No where on that bookshelf is God.

'Nuff said. Nice.

And to add to that one more thought: relying on stuff from the past to prove god's existence does nothing but claim he existed in the past and not today. In that case, at best, he's dead and irrelevant.

[Bill Thompson]

The literal biblical God is clearly just a fantasy.
I do not know anyone who seriously believes in the biblical God.
And that includes the most religious people I know.

Do you know someone who believes in the literal biblical God?

That is pretty sad. The bibile is just mans attempt to reach God. Like the Michelangelo painting of man's creation. Man is reaching to God. God is reaching to man. But the cannot touch.

[Trent Wray]

The literal biblical God is clearly just a fantasy.
I do not know anyone who seriously believes in the biblical God.
And that includes the most religious people I know.

Do you know someone who believes in the literal biblical God?

That is pretty sad. The bibile is just mans attempt to reach God. Like the Michelangelo painting of man's creation. Man is reaching to God. God is reaching to man. But the cannot touch. Touch me once, shame on you. Touch me twice, I demand payment. Touch me three times, I'll write scripture? :)

[I Ratant]

Nice.

And to add to that one more thought: relying on stuff from the past to prove god's existence does nothing but claim he existed in the past and not today. In that case, at best, he's dead and irrelevant.
.
One need go no further than the tv or the newspaper to note the absence of any god, with the non-stop violence perpetrated by bleevers every day, for whoever they term to be god.

[Trent Wray]

.
One need go no further than the tv or the newspaper to note the absence of any god, with the non-stop violence perpetrated by bleevers every day, for whoever they term to be god.
At times, I wonder if your avatar just might be God :). It's spooky :)

Although I will admit that Dave Hensons avatar of Mr. Incredible anxiously pounding away on his typewriter yesterday was disturbing for some reason.:eek: LOL

http://forums.randi.org/customavatars/avatar39145_1.gif

[Lucian]

Hang on, let me check whether it can walk on water.


Nope. It didn't turn the water into wine either. Granted, these tests are not exhaustive, but so far, I'm saying, "no."

[Trent Wray]

Hang on, let me check whether it can walk on water.


Nope. It didn't turn the water into wine either. Granted, these tests are not exhaustive, but so far, I'm saying, "no." Did it part the water?

[Trent Wray]

And to be fair, I suppose for the believer there is a distinction between God and an idol. Idols are false, while God is the "real idol". So I wonder if a believer would agree that the bible can become an idol in and of itself for a believer ...

[Lucian]

Did it part the water?

No, it did nothing in anyway useful or significant to the water whatsoever, just made it kind of full of a pulpy mess.

[Trent Wray]

No, it did nothing in anyway useful or significant to the water whatsoever, just made it kind of full of a pulpy mess. Hmm ... yes but there has to be some symbolism there.

Hmm ... pulpy ... fictional book ... pulpy fiction ....

I'm not seeing anything. :)

[Minarvia]

Hmmm...is the bible god??? Hmmm...it just lays there and does nothing.

I'd say, probably yes!

[bruto]

And to be fair, I suppose for the believer there is a distinction between God and an idol. Idols are false, while God is the "real idol". So I wonder if a believer would agree that the bible can become an idol in and of itself for a believer ...I think a reasonably articulate christian could probably argue his way out of that semantic trap, since for them it's the content of the text that is important, but I think it would be harder for a Muslim.

[Trent Wray]

Hmmm...is the bible god??? Hmmm...it just lays there and does nothing.

I'd say, probably yes! Well said :)

I think a reasonably articulate christian could probably argue his way out of that semantic trap, since for them it's the content of the text that is important, Hmm ... the context of the text. It would make sense that the context of the text was more important ... and yet so much time is spent on understanding which translations are the best, and the closest correct meanings behind every word, and so on and so forth. It becomes so finely dissected that the context is taken out of context ... but this gets ignored as well perhaps.

but I think it would be harder for a Muslim. Good point.

[Dog Town]

Is the Bible God?


Yes, and they both belong in Fiction!