Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
-
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!
Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.
- Thread starter Biblestudent_007
- Start date
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Why should I?
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
Accept it as what? An influential book in the history of western civilization? Yes... As a great work of literature? Yes... As the inerrant word of God Almighty? No...
In my opinion reading the Bible is like panning for gold, you have to sift through a lot of $#!^ to find anything of value.
In my opinion reading the Bible is like panning for gold, you have to sift through a lot of $#!^ to find anything of value.
No. Cash only. Don't you know that the Gideons are giving those things out for free?
Seriously, it depends what you mean by "accept". I certainly don't accept it as an authority. I do accept it as evidence of the beliefs of the people who wrote it, but I don't accept it as evidence that the supernatural events it described actually happened.
Going by what I think you probably mean by "accept"... there are parts of it that I think are okay, but I don't accept it in general. Here's why:
- some of its factual claims seem reasonable to me; others seem unreasonable.
- some of its teachings seem morally good to me; others seem immoral.
Without accepting the Bible as a whole, I can pick out the things that seem reasonable and morally good and accept them on their own merits. However, if I accept the Bible - the whole Bible - then would boil down to accepting the parts I view as unreasonable or immoral.
Basically, I see "accepting the Bible" as something with absolutely no upside and quite a bit of downside. The only reason I'd see to do it is if I thought it was written by someone whose wisdom was so far above my capabilities that I felt I could safely defer to his or her judgement even though it "felt" wrong to do so... but I've seen absolutely no reason to think that this is the case.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
You can only reach that conclusion once you've accepted the Bible. Why should someone who hasn't accepted the Bible accept the Bible?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
No, but I accept Moby Dick.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
How can you assert that when it is full of historical and scientific fallacies?
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Why don't you accept the Quran for the same reason?
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Nonsense.
The Bible came from the holy Church, which in turn teaches us ~(believers)~ truth.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
History and science can only address historical and scientific truths. The bible - as with other arts like literature, art, and music communicate another truth about ourselves that is only partially accessible through the scientific/historical methods. Literature, art, and music do not need to be factually true to communicate truth.
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
That would be a wholly subjective truth.
Acutally, I'd probably accept Moby Dick as an authority on its subject matter before I accepted the Bible as an authority on its. At least I know that Melville actually sailed on a whaler.
Last edited:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
What is nonsense?
The fact that the Bible, as canonized by the Holy Church, contains historical and scientific fallacies?
It does.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Primarily, because the Koran gives a different account of the biblical/historical Jesus.
The Vedas teach me the truth.
Reptillian
Hamburgler Extraordinaire
A great book to be sure. Who would think to look for philosophy in a fictional work about whaling?
"I. A Fast-Fish belongs to the party fast to it.
II. A Loose-Fish is fair game for anybody who can soonest catch it....
What are the Rights of Man and Liberties of the World but Loose-Fish? What all men's minds and opinions but Loose-Fish? What is the principle of religious belief in them but a Loose-Fish? What to the ostentatious smuggling verbalists are the thoughts of thinkers but Loose-Fish? What is the great globe itself but a Loose-Fish? And what are you, reader, but a Loose-Fish and a Fast-Fish, too?" - Moby Dick, Chapter 89
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ever hear of philosophy? It is "wholly subjective" but entirely governs our interpretation of science and history, rendering them helplessly subjective.
Proudly lifting up science and history above literature, art, and music on the basis of artificial objectivity is a monumental intellectual incongruency.
Biblestudent_007
Active Member
Saying that the Word of God has "errors" and "fallacies" . .
You don't even need to give examples. I already know from past experience
Last edited: