Do you accept the Bible? If not, explain why.

[angellous_evangellous]

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

I just thought that it was a good book.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Saying that the Word of God has historical "errors" and "fallacies" . .

You don't even need to give examples. I already know from past experience

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth here.

So you don't think that the Bible has fallacies, but you know of them from past experiences?

 

[Biblestudent_007]

The Vedas teach me the truth.

That's because its the religious text of your choice.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

So you don't think that the Bible has fallacies, but you know of them from past experiences?

Yes, from previous experience with atheists/agnostics/skeptics and non-believers who say similar things.

It says you're a Christian but you don't accept the Bible? . .That's odd

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

I agree.
However it was obvious from the get-go that Biblestudent sees the Bible as objectively true.
If I want to know about human nature, I look towards philosophy, literature, art, etc...
The Bible is a good source of knowledge about how the world and God were viewed in certain regions of the Mediterranean 2000+ years ago.

 

[doppelganger]

Because it teaches us the truth.

Who is "us" in that? Do you speak for anyone but yourself?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Yes, from previous experience with atheists and non-believers who say similar things.

It says you're a Christian but you don't accept the Bible? . .That's odd

It's odd that you didn't answer the question.

At least I had the decency to do so in response to you.

(and it's odd that you're a Christian who accepts the bible, thinks that it's the "Word of God" written, and yet admit that there are fallacies when you deny it at the same time... it sounds like you're more than a little bit confused)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who is "us" in that? Do you speak for anyone but yourself?

He's using the royal "wee."

 

[doppelganger]

He's using the royal "wee."

I thought it was the regal "poo."

 

[tumbleweed41]

What is nonsense?
The fact that the Bible, as canonized by the Holy Church, contains historical and scientific fallacies?
It does.

Saying that the Word of God has "errors" and "fallacies" . .

You don't even need to give examples. I already know from past experience

You asked a question. I gave an honest answer.

Do you view the Bible as an inerrant and absolutely literal book?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I agree.
However it was obvious from the get-go that Biblestudent sees the Bible as objectively true.
If I want to know about human nature, I look towards philosophy, literature, art, etc...
The Bible is a good source of knowledge about how the world and God were viewed in certain regions of the Mediterranean 2000+ years ago.

haha well I'm not BibleStudent.

And I'm afraid the knowledge of the relative objectivity of science would do him more harm than good right now.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure I follow you, Biblestudent.

You seem to admit that believing in the Bible is a matter of choice, since there are other religious scriptures at odds with it and no clear a priori reason to recognize any as more proper than any other.

Yet you also use a weird circular reasoning that the Bible should be accepted because it tells the truth, althought you also recognize that it doesn't really.

I don't see much sense in that, actually.

Besides, no scripture should ever be simply "accepted" anyway. Scriptures are basically useless as a source of "truth". Religious truth comes from inspiration, not scripture.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

It's odd that you didn't answer the question.

At least I had the decency to do so in response to you.

(and it's odd that you're a Christian who accepts the bible, thinks that it's the "Word of God" written, and yet admit that there are fallacies when you deny it at the same time... it sounds like you're more than a little bit confused)

I did answer your question.

I assume these "fallacies" are cherry picked by atheists/agnostics/and skeptics? . .

 

[doppelganger]

Simple principle:

If you don't think it's appropriate for others to dictate to you what you should think is "true," you make a ridicule-worthy fool of yourself by engaging in exactly that sort of behavior.

Can I get an "Amen"?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I did answer your question.

I assume these "fallacies" are cherry picked by atheists/agnostics/and skeptics? . .

Well, there are amateurs, students, and scholars who notice the fallacies.

To be honest, they aren't that difficult to find if one has a meager education and some level of curiousity.

 

[doppelganger]

Invariably, people with a pathological need for others to agree with them are projecting repressed doubt. They psychologically need to believe, and these subconscious needs are acting to try to constrain the action of conscious and rational thought. The result is behavior that is inherently self-contradictory.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

Invariably, people with a pathological need for others to agree with them are projecting repressed doubt. They psychologically need to believe, and these subconscious needs are acting to try to constrain the action of conscious and rational thought. The result is behavior that is inherently self-contradictory.

Sounds like the wisdom of this world.

Someone who is a believer relies on what is called faith.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Someone who is a believer relies on what is called faith.

Indeed.
I myself have faith.
However, faith is not based on objective reality.
Therefor it should hardly be surprising when someone else does not share your same faith.

 

[doppelganger]

Sounds like the wisdom of this world.

Classic defense mechanism.

You're in a very easily deconstructed pattern.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Biblestudent...

Do you view the Bible as an inerrant and absolutely literal book?