rrobs
Well-Known Member
Probably because he never considered the possibility. Just saying things without anything to back them up.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Contradictions in the Bible
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Ah, so Olver Sacks', "The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat" is where we find truth. Never thought of that before. All the same, personally, I'll will stick with the scriptures.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Have you read the OP?
I'm sure you know that I was referring to the fact that there have been many, many claims to some kind of direct "revelation" as being the reason that people have believed in one religion or another. The problem, of course, is that first, our minds aren't all that reliable when it comes to the sort of "revelation" that's meant, and second, this has led to a bunch of differing religions.
That second point is truly important: if different religions are the result of direct revelation, and direct revelation is necessarily from God, then either their are multiple gods fostering different religions, one God playing foolies, or no god at all, but some very imaginative humans.
I think it is also really important to make another very salient point, here, which is that if -- as is surely true -- the same scriptures can lead to such a wide variety of differing beliefs (there are something like 38,000 Christian sects, a bunch of Jewish sects ). In the same way, there are multiple sects within Islam resulting from differing interpretations of the Qur'an. And all of these have been quarrelling with each for pretty much ever, including, sadly, a huge amount of bloodshed. Even the most cursory reading of history will back me up, and careful reading on this topic will just depress you.
I call it careless of the deity who is supposed to have set forth "His Word" for all to understand, to have done such a poor job of it.
I call it careless of the deity who is supposed to have set forth "His Word" for all to understand, to have done such a poor job of it.
It is perhaps worth knowing that, to the best of my knowledge, there have been no unresolvable contradictions found in the Wizard of Oz.
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Audie
Veteran Member
Maybe avoid snark? You are not very good at it.
Audie
Veteran Member
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
This is delusional.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
If God meant for His revelation to mean different things to different people, then what you say is relevant. However there is an alternative:
God said what He meant and meant what He said, that there is one thing God said to all people.
It is not God's fault that people, for an infinite variety of reasons, misconstrue the message. At best, of the many thousands of different religions, one, and only one, agrees with the scriptures.
I can read your thoughts now, and no, I'm claiming to be that one. You can relax.
In fact, given the uniqueness of every individual who has ever lived, there is at best one of them who is the bastion of Biblical truth. But I'd place my bet on the fact that such a person does not exist at all. Having said all of that, I can say with complete confidence that 99% of the scriptures are plain enough (NIV is 8th grade reading level) for anybody to get enough out them to make a positive difference in their life. It's just a matter of reading them without the preconceived idea it is a fairy tale. If that's what people look for, it'll be easy enough to see. However, it is equally true, if not more so, that if someone approaches their study with an open mind, they will find a very real guide in life that never fails.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, apparently, you got the point, so I'm at least that good at snark. What more can I ask for? Thanks for the validation, Audie. Ah, shucks, I'm getting snarky again, aren't I? OMG, was I just snarky about being snarly? There is no end to my snarkiness...YIKES!
OK, no more goofing around (I hope you took it as such). I'll get serious. How about this; we stick to the topic and avoid writing style criticism? You write how your write, and I'll write like I write. If something you say goes over my head, I'll simply ask for clarification while avoiding disparaging remarks about your literary prowess. Hopefully, you agree to reciprocate.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Where do I find the credibility scale you employ in sizing up other people? Or are we just talking about an opinion?
InChrist
Free4ever
You could try reading His word.
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
It contradicts your view of God. Not as found in the Scriptures because I just gave you Scripture.
Good-Ole-Rebel
Good-Ole-Rebel
*banned*
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I agree with you. About half of "science" has been at some time or another proven false. Who knows what we think is scientific "truth" today will not subsequently be shown to be false. Using history as a guide, one could conclude about half of it. And we think we understand the nature of things! The foolishness of God is truly infinitely higher than the wisdom of man.
It follows that using science to interpret the Bible would give a 50/50 chance of getting it right. I don't think that is what God intended. He wants us to know. The scriptures can be understood by reading them. They explain a lot more about true science than any of man's science explains about itself.
You like to offer "alternatives," it seems. Still, it is possible to make important things understood by pretty much everybody. We do this all the time, when people are taught how to multiply 2 numbers together, or to add a new contact on their cell phone, or how to hook up their TV, or how to file their taxes. Yes, a few people screw up all of those things, but you can't tell me you look around and see a world where nobody can agree on any of these things. And believe me, if that were the case, all of the Technical Writers responsible for that documentation would have been summarily and justifiably fired.
And while it might be possible to convince me of your point that "one, and only one" religion agrees with the scriptures, I'm willing to bet you could not begin to make the case for which one it is. Or could even tell me how you would go about making the attempt.
I can read your thoughts now, and no, I'm claiming to be that one. You can relax.
And there I would agree whole-heartedly.
The problem that you cannot see -- I have no idea why, but I know it's true -- is that the scriptures, no matter what grade-level you might write them at, can't do what you say if taken in their totality. That's because that's not even what they're about. The patently fictional history of the Jews, has nothing to do with helping people understand how to cope with life's challenges! And in fact, that fiction is a huge part of what makes the Bible -- taken as a whole -- such a piece of contradictory nonsense. You cannot, no matter how hard you try, get a God that can be described as "Love" by reading any of it! There's more hate, more murder, more regret, more unfairness, more reneging on promises and what-not than you can shake a stick at.
So you could toss out the whole OT (leave that to the Jews, I suppose, except that then what are you going to use to "prove" the supposed prophecies that make Jesus the Messiah?), and just start with the NT. But even there, it is so obvious that the many writers (not who they claim to be, except for 7 and possibly 8 Paul letters), with radically different viewpoints, sow little but confusion. Faith or works? Works or faith? Both? Neither? I can find all of those.
And it would have been very wise for the early church just to have quietly buried Revelation. But they didn't, and so there it is.