If you don't believe the Bible as all truth, how/why are you arguing scripture?

[Desert Snake]

Simple idea, really. If the Scripture is not all ''truth'', then how/why is anyone to accept the veracity of the verses you present, as ''what actually happened''? lol
How would you know what is fiction, what is fact?

 

[Nietzsche]

Simple idea, really. If the Scripture is not all ''truth'', then how/why is anyone to accept the veracity of the verses you present, as ''what actually happened''? lol
How would you know what is fiction, what is fact?

The same way one critiques any book. Inconsistencies, plot-holes, passages that read like preaching or talking-down to the reader..

Stuff like that.

 

[Sapiens]

If something maintains that it is the inerrant truth and you see something wrong with it you should dismiss it in its entirety.

 

[Nietzsche]

If something maintains that it is the inerrant truth and you see something wrong with it you should dismiss it in its entirety.

I dunno. I'm hardly a Christian Apologist, but there are things in the Bible worthy of being mentioned, and from a purely cultural view it is monumentally important. An error should indeed cause one to give it harder scrutiny, but not flat-out, knee-jerk rejection of it.

 

[Sapiens]

I dunno. I'm hardly a Christian Apologist, but there are things in the Bible worthy of being mentioned, and from a purely cultural view it is monumentally important. An error should indeed cause one to give it harder scrutiny, but not flat-out, knee-jerk rejection of it.

Keeping it as a cultural touchstone is fine, it's taking the plot seriously that I am talking about.

 

[Nietzsche]

Keeping it as a cultural touchstone is fine, it's taking the plot seriously that I am talking about.

Mayhaps. I don't have much room to really talk here given my own faith involves some pretty ridiculous stories(albeit ones I never saw a need to take literally). I'd agree that using it as a flawless how-to is a terrible idea, but if you read it as more as a collection of Aesop's Fables that happen to each contain some manner of plot-thread to tie them together...well you could certainly do worse.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hmm, so, religious Jews followed a fishermans theologic stories? Did He tell them that ''deity'' was themselves? Or perhaps He said that he was the *"son of G-d", and they believed Him...

*Oops, nevermind, turns out everyone was saying that they were the son of G-d, common saying, but it only made the priesthood angry.

I am not arguing that they began as stories. There is obviously some seed of truth contained within nigh-all texts relating to the Abrahamic faiths.

The Bible is a book pieced together(without even including the New Testament) over 3,000 years. All of which originated as separate tales that coalesced into what we'd recognize as 'The Bible'. Even if we count merely the New Testament, Biblical Canon wasn't hashed out until long after the death of the Nazarene. Plenty long enough for any retelling of events to gain or lose aspects, those aspects to become more & more grand, people and motivations lost or misremembered, locations confused. And then there's translation. Dear god, translation. That might be the largest single cause of errors within the Bible.

Humans are extremely fallible. And the people who witnessed the events obviously didn't write them down as they happened. That's something that simply did not happen during the era due to expense and well, general illiteracy. They could be 100% accurate(barring the obvious issues brought up by translation). But that is incredibly unlikely. Look at how modern-day events are extrapolated upon. Imagine what would happen in an era where you couldn't get multiple sources for an event, and those sources written down quite a time later.

 

[psychoslice]

Non of us really knows what happened if anything did happen that is, but I believe we are safe at believing it all didn't happen, for me its ridiculers.

 

[Desert Snake]

I am not arguing that they began as stories. There is obviously some seed of truth contained within nigh-all texts relating to the Abrahamic faiths.

The Bible is a book pieced together(without even including the New Testament) over 3,000 years. All of which originated as separate tales that coalesced into what we'd recognize as 'The Bible'. Even if we count merely the New Testament, Biblical Canon wasn't hashed out until long after the death of the Nazarene. Plenty long enough for any retelling of events to gain or lose aspects, those aspects to become more & more grand, people and motivations lost or misremembered, locations confused. And then there's translation. Dear god, translation. That might be the largest single cause of errors within the Bible.

Humans are extremely fallible. And the people who witnessed the events obviously didn't write them down as they happened. That's something that simply did not happen during the era due to expense and well, general illiteracy. They could be 100% accurate(barring the obvious issues brought up by translation). But that is incredibly unlikely. Look at how modern-day events are extrapolated upon. Imagine what would happen in an era where you couldn't get multiple sources for an event, and those sources written down quite a time later.

So how do you know what is ''accurate'' , and what isn't? How do you even know Jesus was a Nazarene? Perhaps he was from Nazareth, or Nazarene is indicative of beliefs, not where He was from, or it was fabricated to add to the story? Perhaps He wasn't a fisherman?

 

[Nietzsche]

So how do you know what is ''accurate'' , and what isn't? How do you even know Jesus was a Nazarene? Perhaps he was from Nazareth, or Nazarene is indicative of beliefs, not where He was from, or it was fabricated to add to the story? Perhaps He wasn't a fisherman?

At no point did I say I knew anything. I use the term "of Nazareth" and "Nazarene" because they remain respectful towards Jesus the man without also giving him something I simply don't believe(son of God or God incarnate and such) he ever as.

Regarding everything else, I endorse Occam's Razor. Which basically means that the explanation that requires the fewest number of unlikely events is therefore the most likely one to be true. Let's say you live near a place they keep horses. You hear hoof-beats. Which is more likely, that you are hearing a horse or a zebra? Both are possible, but one of them is far more likely due to the circumstances present. That's how I see the NT & Bible in general. All based on things that happened in one form or another, but also accepting that things like the dead rising from their graves, flat out breaking the fundamental law of the universe wherein matter cannot be created or destroyed(multiplying fish, making it rain bread, ect) and healing the sick with 'laying of hands' are simply not very likely.

I am not claiming this IS how it happened. I am claiming this is the most LIKELY way it happened.

 

[Bunyip]

Well this particular topic is called ' theology', it is as ancient as it is fascinating. Many of histories greatest minds have spent their lives exploring it.

 

[Desert Snake]

At no point did I say I knew anything. I use the term "of Nazareth" and "Nazarene" because they remain respectful towards Jesus the man without also giving him something I simply don't believe(son of God or God incarnate and such) he ever as.

Regarding everything else, I endorse Occam's Razor. Which basically means that the explanation that requires the fewest number of unlikely events is therefore the most likely one to be true. Let's say you live near a place they keep horses. You hear hoof-beats. Which is more likely, that you are hearing a horse or a zebra? Both are possible, but one of them is far more likely due to the circumstances present. That's how I see the NT & Bible in general. All based on things that happened in one form or another, but also accepting that things like the dead rising from their graves, flat out breaking the fundamental law of the universe wherein matter cannot be created or destroyed(multiplying fish, making it rain bread, ect) and healing the sick with 'laying of hands' are simply not very likely.

I am not claiming this IS how it happened. I am claiming this is the most LIKELY way it happened.

"Likely'', is not obvious, for the texts; and is highly subjective.

 

[metis]

Since all religious scriptures tend to be mostly subjective in nature, and since subjectivity varies from person to person and group to group, blindly accepting or rejecting scripture is not terribly logical. To me, the best approach is to read, try and understand, and then use whatever seems to be the most logical. It's an imprecise art, but such is life.

 

[Nakosis]

Simple idea, really. If the Scripture is not all ''truth'', then how/why is anyone to accept the veracity of the verses you present, as ''what actually happened''? lol
How would you know what is fiction, what is fact?

You don't. But even in considering it as a work of, well not fiction exactly. I don't believe the authors thought it was a work of fiction. Perhaps a work of subconscious creation. There is still some value in some of the ideas presented in the Bible.

Even Star Trek which we know is a work of fiction presented moral ideas and dilemmas.

 

[Nietzsche]

"Likely'', is not obvious, for the texts; and is highly subjective.

That's how you feel, then that's how you feel. But as far as I and most other non-Abrahamics are concerned, if the Jesus stories are indeed about a real individual then by default they are going to be about a mortal. We'll differ on the technicalities & the precise series of events, but that is about all. Your God is not mine after all, nor does anyone need a savior.

 

[Jainarayan]

I'm inclined to agree with both @Nietzsche and @Sapiens in accepting scriptures as reflections of the cultures that produced them, and as literary works, and sometimes as guides for living. But I think a great deal of cherry-picking is required for the latter.

 

[rusra02]

Simple idea, really. If the Scripture is not all ''truth'', then how/why is anyone to accept the veracity of the verses you present, as ''what actually happened''? lol
How would you know what is fiction, what is fact?

I agree. But of course, I view the Holy Scriptures as all truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

That's how you feel, then that's how you feel. But as far as I and most other non-Abrahamics are concerned, if the Jesus stories are indeed about a real individual then by default they are going to be about a mortal. We'll differ on the technicalities & the precise series of events, but that is about all. Your God is not mine after all, nor does anyone need a savior.

'If''. That does not inspire confidence in whatever narrative you might present.
What? Actually, never mind on that one, may as well keep this simple.
We will?
Do you mean the ''Christian god?'' What/who is that? Is that Jesus? Is Jesus different from the ''father''? "Saviour"?




Huh?

 

[Desert Snake]

That's how you feel, then that's how you feel. But as far as I and most other non-Abrahamics are concerned, if the Jesus stories are indeed about a real individual then by default they are going to be about a mortal. We'll differ on the technicalities & the precise series of events, but that is about all. Your God is not mine after all, nor does anyone need a savior.

It's cool that you are going to present a narrative based on that lol.../?/

 

[Desert Snake]

That's how you feel, then that's how you feel. But as far as I and most other non-Abrahamics are concerned, if the Jesus stories are indeed about a real individual then by default they are going to be about a mortal. We'll differ on the technicalities & the precise series of events, but that is about all. Your God is not mine after all, nor does anyone need a savior.

What is the relevance/meaning of this statement.