How could a sensible person believe in the bible?

[Dirty Penguin]

How could a sensible person believe in the bible?
Far be it for me to tell anyone why, how and when to believe or not to believe. But once one adopts a belief (wherever they may find this belief) one still has to put this belief through the rigors of comparative knowledge, understanding and reasoning before concluding it as a Truth or Untruth. Faith will not do this for you.

Does this also fall in line with those who strap themselves with bombs and run into cafes, those who poison themselves while waiting on the comet, or any others who put themselves or others in harms way in the name of their god....?

just a question, not really a comment.......I wasn't sure if your statement all apllied...to these groups as well

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That has the appearance of a statement made from ignorance of what other religions actually teach.

I would be interested in seeing you back it up with some actual evidence showing how other religions have no logic to them. But that would probably be a different thread, should you choose to take me up on my inquiry.



There is nothing logical about miracle stories, though they may be instructive in other ways.



Science rests on axioms, that is true. But its conclusions are falsifiable in the strictest sense, which presents quite a chasm between science and metaphysics.

And no, clearly people do not have to believe a higher being started everything about you. There are a number of atheists who function rather well without such an assumption.



a. Which creation story? There are 2 different ones in the Bible alone.

b. Scientific theories are based on interpretations of observable evidence. Biblical stories of creation are not.

c. Scientific theoies can be (and are) overturned when new evidence is brought to light. The same cannot be said of Biblical stories, at least not until someone invents time travel.



Science is interested in "how" not "why."

That you have confused the purpose of science ("how") with the purpose of religion ("why") is, very sorry, your problem for you to tackle.

There is no call to make it anyone else's problem.

Well said.....

 

[logician]

The problem is, religion has really messed up the why.

 

[Eraser Salad]

Well, when you've had personal experience of God...

Yeah, there we go.

A belief based on a gut feeling isn't rational.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, there we go.

A belief based on a gut feeling isn't rational.

It's not a "gut feeling," but thanks for being so dismissive. It's nice to know that you're not actually interested in trying to understand where I'm coming from, now I can treat you accordingly.

 

[Eraser Salad]

I feel like I understand perfectly. I might have felt differently if your response weren't so predictable. And, you know, saying I'm not actually interested in trying is pretty funny when your only explanation is "it's my feeling and you can't understand."

I should mention I felt a pretty similar rush to your theophany at the conscious realization that I didn't really believe in a higher power, and that's part of why I don't see your feelings as being as divinely inspired.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When the rapture occurs, it will be interesting to see scientists explain what just happened.

When things in the bible start happening in the exact order that is foretold that they will, many scientists will have a hard time back peddling.

In other words, what will scientists have to say when the bible CAN be proven to be true?

 

[Wandered Off]

In other words, what will scientists have to say when the bible CAN be proven to be true?

"Oops..."

Science deals with evidence. Until there is any evidence, scientists will likely continue to ignore prophesies, especially those that are vague enough to have been fulfilled in many different ways based on interpretation.

If/when evidence is presented, you will see an attempt to look for natural explanations first, as science cannot address the supernatural. Some people misinterpret this as anti-religious, but it's more due to the fact that the supernatural can't be stuffed into a test tube.

 

[Storm]

I feel like I understand perfectly. I might have felt differently if your response weren't so predictable. And, you know, saying I'm not actually interested in trying is pretty funny when your only explanation is "it's my feeling and you can't understand."

Really? I don't recall you ever asking for anything more detailed. If you had, I would have provided you with a link to my story. We've discussed the frustrations inherent in such conversations but that's all.

As for those frustrations, consider the allegory of the cave. You can't understand, but that doesn't reduce the world outside to a 'gut feeling.'

I should mention I felt a pretty similar rush to your theophany at the conscious realization that I didn't really believe in a higher power, and that's part of why I don't see your feelings as being as divinely inspired.

I sincerely doubt that, and if you had the faintest idea what I was talking about, you wouldn't make such an inane comparison. The story of my theophany is not a pleasant one.

Again, you dismiss what you have not made the slightest attempt to understand. Do you even have the vaguest idea what I believe God to be? What the emotions that you erroneously dismiss as the foundation of my belief are? Or do you simply want to elevate yourself with the asinine assumption that those who believe in God - the vast majority of the species - are your intellectual inferiors?

 

[Overwrite]

When the rapture occurs, it will be interesting to see scientists explain what just happened.

When things in the bible start happening in the exact order that is foretold that they will, many scientists will have a hard time back peddling.

In other words, what will scientists have to say when the bible CAN be proven to be true?

I put it to you that when they find the original first page of the Bible which says "Written for my darling Wife, all characters depicted are fictional and bear no resemblance to any persons living or dead" will you have a hard time "back peddling"?

What will the Bible following religions say when the Bible can be proven NOT to be true?

If you think what I have said is nonsense, that's your opinion but it's no different to my opinion of what you have written.

 

[rojse]

Many parts of the Bible have been disproven already. Then then believers just say that it just a story to illustrate morals, or it is meant as an analogy, or can even just dispute the reams of evidence.

It just goes to show that you cannot win a religious argument.

 

[sojourner]

What's wrong with an allegory or a metaphor? Does it not contain just as much truth as a technical manual?

Much of the Bible is allegory, metaphor and poetry. So what? I don't see how that subtracts any of the truth to which these literary forms speak.

 

[Smoke]

When the rapture occurs, it will be interesting to see scientists explain what just happened.

When things in the bible start happening in the exact order that is foretold that they will, many scientists will have a hard time back peddling.

In other words, what will scientists have to say when the bible CAN be proven to be true?

Considering that the Rapture is a Dispensationalist fantasy that isn't taught in the Bible, in the extremely unlikely event that it actually happened, whatever was to be proved thereby, it wouldn't be the Bible.

But I've heard that kind of thing hundreds of times: "Just wait till the Rapture! Then you'll see! Then you'll wish you'd listened to us!" The fantasy of future vindication seems to be nearly as satisfying as actual vindication.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What's wrong with an allegory or a metaphor? Does it not contain just as much truth as a technical manual?

But whoes truth are we talking about? The allegory or metaphor is interperted then the interpertation is regarded as truth to the person(s) wanting to believe.

We can take the same story and interpert it differently but does that make either of them truth?

We have seen many kill or be killed in the name of their god because of what was interperted.

I'm just throwing stuff out there. I believe there is some "truth" when reading passages of the bible, quran and other books. There are some things in them that actually do make sense......and then there's the rest......:areyoucra

 

[sojourner]

But whoes truth are we talking about? The allegory or metaphor is interperted then the interpertation is regarded as truth to the person(s) wanting to believe.

We can take the same story and interpert it differently but does that make either of them truth?

We have seen many kill or be killed in the name of their god because of what was interperted.

I'm just throwing stuff out there. I believe there is some "truth" when reading passages of the bible, quran and other books. There are some things in them that actually do make sense......and then there's the rest......:areyoucra

I agree. But the stories point us toward truth. The stories are not, in and of themselves, the truth. The interpretation of that truth is left to us. It's a great teaching tool. Only when we mistake our interpretation of truth for truth, itself, do we get ourselves into trouble.

 

[Overwrite]

The interpretation of that truth is left to us. It's a great teaching tool. Only when we mistake our interpretation of truth for truth, itself, do we get ourselves into trouble.

I'm sorry, but that's a cop out. The Bible is so bloody ambiguous. Anyone can read it, interpret it how they see fit and then act upon it free in the knowledge that "The interpretation of that truth is left to us".

 

[sojourner]

I'm sorry, but that's a cop out. The Bible is so bloody ambiguous. Anyone can read it, interpret it how they see fit and then act upon it free in the knowledge that "The interpretation of that truth is left to us".

How is it a cop-out? The nature of Biblical reading just is interpretational. We have to remember that the Bible was written by the Church for the Church. It's the Church that interprets and formulates doctrine based upon that interpretation. Doctrine has always been intended for shaping belief within a community paradigm.

 

[Overwrite]

How about thinking for yourselves? It doesn't make you a wicked sinful person.

To quote learned gentleman:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. "

 

[Dirty Penguin]

How is it a cop-out? The nature of Biblical reading just is interpretational. We have to remember that the Bible was written by the Church for the Church. It's the Church that interprets and formulates doctrine based upon that interpretation. Doctrine has always been intended for shaping belief within a community paradigm.

"written by" or the scriptures were collected and assembled by the church?

I can still read the bible and not be indoctrinated under the thinkig of the church that assmbled the scriptures for their people.

I won't go as far and say that your last comment was a cop-out. Some of it is not as I see it but to each his own.

I agree with both of you to a certain degree but I've never really met anyone who believes everything that the bible says.

 

[Overwrite]

........but I've never really met anyone who believes everything that the bible says.

Is that so suprising though when you consider how ambiguous and contradictory it is? It defies all logic and common sense and I think that many Bible readers struggle with that conflict.