The Best Guide

[URAVIP2ME]

I have studied and I understand it pretty much. The multitude of authors doesn't give it a cohesive whole.

Sure, Jesus' NEW commandment found at John 13:34-35; John 15:12; 1 John 3:16 gives it a cohesive whole.
Thus, fulfilling the 'Law of Christ' as found at Galatians 6:2; Ephesians 5:2
The Law, Christ's Law, is defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6,13

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Well, apart from the conflict that often occurs between religious believers, I suppose my other main gripe is as to them not changing as much as they might as we progress as a species, especially when so many simply rely on the written word.

Rather, I find it is more like the many simply do Not rely on the written Word.
Nominal Christians just say they do but their actions/conduct is as Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23.

 

[icehorse]

Horrific advice such as Jesus' New Commandment to love others as he loved others (us) - John 13:34-35
I realize that is Not what you are referring to.
Yes, a person's morals, ethics and values too have evolved or de-volved as the case may be.
Yes, count the cost - Luke 14:26-27 - calculate the cost - Luke 14:28-33.
Nominal Christians do Not do that.

I think most people, religious and atheist alike have good, modern morals and ethics... most people.

I think they have these morals and ethics IN SPITE OF their scripture.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Rather, I find it is more like the many simply do Not rely on the written Word.
Nominal Christians just say they do but their actions/conduct is as Jesus said at Matthew 7:21-23.

So you prefer us to be living as per a few thousand years ago?

 

[Mock Turtle]

That doesn't appear to be evident.
If that were so, people would be getting better, not worst. More love would be shown. Not less.
However, more and more people are agreeing they are seeing people behave towards others in a worst way, and there is less love shown.

Children have less respect for parents, and those in authority, and adults have a serious problem with showing respect for children - abusing them physically, verbally, and sexually.

Why, husbands and wives are showing less respect for each other.
So clearly, social bonding isn't producing respect.
It seems the expression "Familiarity breeds contempt", is true in this case.


The Golden rule is misunderstood, and misapplied by many people.
"Do to others what you would like others to do to you" is what it is.

Well you presumably aren't believing in the Pinker thesis as to us becoming less violent over time, and I suspect you are wrong also as to the respect aspect, given the more advanced countries - many in Europe, the USA, many similar - are the ones where they are less discriminatory towards any with LGBTQ+ designations, for example. And where there is less likelihood for spanking children too (apart from the USA and UK). I would see this as proper respect.

And you did ask where respect came from rather than how it is expressed within societies.

The Golden Rule is much the same however it is expressed - like the tit-for-tat rule - treat them as friends and with respect until they show themselves as being otherwise. The Golden Rule just doesn't go further as to dealing with miscreants.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Conflicts exist between everyone. Obviously there is a reason for that, although to most, the reason is not obvious.
What do you suppose is the reason for conflicts among scientists, and why are those not given the same attention, as the conflicts in religion.
Should a system that depends on empirical knowledge, not be one expected to be practically conflict free.

If one relies on principles to guide them, change is out of the question. Why? A principle is a fundamental truth. It doesn't change. It's an immovable foundation upon which everything else is built - laws, regulations, statutes, judgments...

This is the reason the instructions in the Bible are timeless, and why those who live by these are wise.
I'm sure if all the world were living by the Bible's guidance, the world's problems would be reversed.

Greed would end, solving problems like poverty and diseases. Honesty would be the only policy, ending economic loss, and distrust.
Jealousy would end, and infidelity would not exist.
Crime... including child exploitation and rape would not exist...

The only things rhat would not end, would be old age, sickness, and death, but maybe people would live longer, and for sure, be healthier - less heart problems, if any.

Oh, and hurricanes and earthquakes would still be around, but with everyone taking care of the environment, they would behave less violently.

So, clearly, the benefits of sticking to Bible standards are tremendous.
It would eliminate some of the junk science is used for.
Did you see North Korea's weapons? Well, that's not half the US', but consider the trillions of dollars being spent to accumulate junk on the earth... rather than feed and care for people's needs.
Not to mention, the chemicals from these, which contribute to the earth ecological health issues.

We cannot blame the written word for people who go contrary to it, though claiming to use it. Just as we cannot blame science for what people choose to use it for.

Fortunately science and religions are very different. No one with any knowledge of science would paint this discipline as being without egos or certain interests interfering, but the best explanations tend to rise to the top - especially if they are the most useful - but this can hardly be said about many religious beliefs. For religions we tend to get a divergence rather than a convergence as to truth - if one looks at the tree of beliefs - or weeds all too often (mention of Taliban again).

And sorry, but it is the written word that is the problem, with so many believers taking the literal approach whilst so many more try to interpret these so as to fit the circumstances - and which is why we still have so many religions still discriminating as to sex, gender, and sexual orientations.

Your optimism as to us living better if we all followed the Bible is touching but hardly likely in practice, especially when those who don't believe in any religion probably have the same general morality as those with some religious belief, given that morality is not that difficult to work out if we live in dense social groups.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I'm sure if all the world were living by the Bible's guidance, the world's problems would be reversed.

Greed would end, solving problems like poverty and diseases. Honesty would be the only policy, ending economic loss, and distrust.
Jealousy would end, and infidelity would not exist.
Crime... including child exploitation and rape would not exist...

I feel I have to answer this too - given that this is just so delusional and lacking the required knowledge as to why people behave as they do. It is just ludicrous to expect any group of people to behave en masse according to some set of rules. We can try to educate and enforce the rules we do set but it is a fact of life that we are all born different, and into varied circumstances, along with having very different childhoods. To try to flatten this out would almost be like turning us all into clones or robots. And you must know that about 25% of us have a mental health issue during our lives, or are born with some impairment, so as to contribute to behaviour. If God was so beneficent why not give us all a level playing field?

And you might have noticed - there are many competing religious beliefs not just the one.

 

[viole]

Really? How so?
All I need is evidence, confirming the reliability of the guide. I do not need to use "extra-guide arguments".

Yes, that is exactly what I need. Evidence.

But, of course, you cannot use the guide for that. Because you cannot use the guide to provide evidence that the guide is true. For that would be circular reasoning, wouldn't it?
I could do the same to prove that Pinocchio is true. Or the subject of any book is factually true.

So, what have you got?

Ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

That doesn't appear to be evident.
If that were so, people would be getting better, not worst. More love would be shown. Not less.
However, more and more people are agreeing they are seeing people behave towards others in a worst way, and there is less love shown.

Children have less respect for parents, and those in authority, and adults have a serious problem with showing respect for children - abusing them physically, verbally, and sexually.

Why, husbands and wives are showing less respect for each other.
So clearly, social bonding isn't producing respect.
It seems the expression "Familiarity breeds contempt", is true in this case.


The Golden rule is misunderstood, and misapplied by many people.
"Do to others what you would like others to do to you" is what it is.

People are getting better and have been for a long time now.
Try living in the Middle Ages and see how much better people behave towards each other now.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What is the best guide?
Some say your heart. Others say your opinions, thoughts...
Some say, definitely not a book.

The latter is shocking to me, because we use books everyday, which are written by people over centuries. Some of these books are science textbooks, cookbooks, health and medical books, self-help book. You name it, books are very much a part of our lives, and they have helped millions.

Yet, some believe that when it comes to life, we don't need a book. We only need our opinions and ideas. Trial and error.

What though if a person dies because he chose to trust in and follow his own ideas and opinions?
That person never gets to see the outcome.
Yikes.
That's does not seem very practical to me.

It's more reasonable to have a guide.
I mean, isn't that why we are happy for good parents and teachers for the children.
If I went hiking, in foreign land, I sure would be happy to have a guide. Man... I'm telling you.

When I get a manual with my brand new Dipmonade, Whew. I'm so relieved.
Don't go looking for Dipmonade. I made that up.

The point is, humans are happy for a more experienced person - perhaps a scientist, a doctor, mechanic, ... to guide them, or direct them. Or at least some kind of map, instruction manual, ... to show them the way.

Yet, when it comes to our lives... we want to direct our own steps.

Spoiler

Yeah, I hear you Mister Urkel.

LOL
I have heard in recent times many people saying, the animals seem more intelligent than humans.
I've come to understand why.

I well know, O Jehovah, that man’s way does not belong to him. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.
Jeremiah 10:23

There is a way that seems right to a man, But in the end it leads to death.
Proverbs 14:12
​

I think the problem most people have though, is with the Bible, being of any practical value, or being useful as a guide.
What's your experience, or thoughts on the above?
Do you find it more practical to follow your own hear, feelings, thoughts, ideas, opinions... rather than a book?
Do you think the Bible can serve as a guide in our life, in any way?

For me the best guidance comes from God through His Manifestations like Christ, Krishna, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah, Buddha, Moses and Zoroaster. The Holy Books of these Faiths I find offer me the best counsel to model my life upon.

So I regularly reflect on the Bible, Quran, Bhagavad-Gita, Dhammapada, Hidden Words etc. And let’s not forget the all important science which gives us knowledge of our world

Before the Bible God sent other Prophets and Messengers to humanity to make Himself known to man. All of Them teach to live a holy and virtuous life and be of good character.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think most people, religious and atheist alike have good, modern morals and ethics... most people.
I think they have these morals and ethics IN SPITE OF their scripture.

I can agree in the sense that unless damaged we all come equipped with an inborn conscience.
A compass guide of right and wrong, but the conscience can be ignored or changed.
A hardened conscience can become so calloused and unfeeling like flesh seared with a hot branding iron.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

People are getting better and have been for a long time now.
Try living in the Middle Ages and see how much better people behave towards each other now.

True, who would want to live in the dark ages, however, in these 'last days' people have a selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 which is out of harmony with the definition of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you prefer us to be living as per a few thousand years ago?

It must have been existing to live in Israel 2,000 years ago as I would think Jesus' followers would say.
I prefer living at the coming time of Jesus' coming one-thousand year governmental reign over Earth.
After Jesus, as Prince of Peace, rids the Earth of the wicked - Isaiah 11:3-4; Revelation 19:14-15 - then Earth and its people will be happy and healthy as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
At this time No one will say, " I am sick......." - Isaiah 33:24
Jesus will bring ' healing ' to Earth's nations - Revelation 22:2
'Healing' to the point that even 'enemy death ' will be No more on Earth according to 1 Corinthians 15:24-26; Isaiah 25:8

 

[URAVIP2ME]

......And you did ask where respect came from rather than how it is expressed within societies.
The Golden Rule is much the same however it is expressed - like the tit-for-tat rule - treat them as friends and with respect until they show themselves as being otherwise. The Golden Rule just doesn't go further as to dealing with miscreants.

'Love others as you love yourself' in that you don't disrespect oneself - Leviticus 19:18
Jesus gave a New Commandment found at John 13:34-35
We are to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has
Instead of loving neighbor as oneself we are Now to love neighbor MORE than self. More than the Golden Rule.

 

[nPeace]

I believe I have answered your questions very directly. That I have taken the time to understand what you're saying and responding accordingly.

With that said, can you summarize the points I've made to you? Because it seems like you're ignoring my claims altogether?

You basically said, you have solidly based arguments, and you are not really interested in apologetics, which is all the one believing the Bible to be true has.
In other words, you have the truth. We have apologetics.... in summary.
How close did I get?

So once again (for maybe the third or fourth time?), I have never said that you cannot use your conscious brain to defend the bible. I have heard religious people defend their scripture countless times. I know you can do that. You can talk about historical context or this or that. Been there, heard that.

But my claims are different, and I do not believe you have even attempted to answer them.

I am surprised you are not seeing what you are saying... Or are you?
I explained... It is of no benefit to either of us, if you "have heard it all", for me to inform you of anything... or attempt to.

Well there are several errors in this paragraph.

The first is that people have found hundreds - if not thousands - of inconsistencies and/or moral issues in the bible. I never claimed to have given you the entire list, just a few examples. So your math is not honest.

The other thing is, I find communication can be very difficult when listening with understanding is suffering.
These are my words...
I've also mentioned before why we know those apologetics against the Bible are only excuses.
When someone can only pick out 0.0000000000000001% out of anything, to try to make a case for their arguments against something, and when you look at what they have, there are things for which they don't have full details for - for example, the why of something, you can be sure the person has nothing against the 99.9999999999999999% they cannot find any fault with.

BOLD TEXT - The so called "hundreds - if not thousands - of inconsistencies", are really proven not to be, bt rather claimed to be, and can be easily explained with other details, which are either overlooked, or ignored... in order to get to "hundreds - if not thousands - of inconsistencies"...
The "if not" in your statement bares that out. They are just looking for anything to call an inconsistency... and anything showing the argument false, is called apolohetics.

Second, your claim is that the book is perfect. That it singlehandedly is better than all the thousands of other books combined. This is your claim.

Did I claim the Bible to be perfect? Can you quote me on that?
I think for the Bible to be perfect,it would have to written by perfect men. I know of no perfect man.
The only perfect man to walk this earth, died on Calvary, in 33 C.E.

However, if you are paraphrasing anything I said, to mean 'perfect' as a guide to the best life, I would say that is what I agree with.

For your claim to be true, your book needs to be infallible. Or pretty darned close to infallible. So all a critic like me has to do is find a few faults, to successfully attack your claims of biblical perfection. YOU are the one who is making GRAND CLAIMS in this discussion, the burden of proof is on you

I think you mean your claim.
I do not claim anything or anyone on this earth, infallible.
I'm wiser than that.

 

[icehorse]

You basically said, you have solidly based arguments, and you are not really interested in apologetics, which is all the one believing the Bible to be true has.
In other words, you have the truth. We have apologetics.... in summary.
How close did I get?

Not very close

I'm bringing a new perspective to how scripture impacts human beings. I'm drawing an important distinction between a human's conscious mind, and their unconscious brain.

All of the apologist arguments I've ever heard, implicitly restrict themselves to the domain of the conscious mind, and they ignore the unconscious brain.

I am surprised you are not seeing what you are saying... Or are you?
I explained... It is of no benefit to either of us, if you "have heard it all", for me to inform you of anything... or attempt to.

As of this post, you have never addressed the topic of the conscious mind as opposed to the unconscious brain. So, as long as your responses are limited to the realm of the conscious mind, you're correct, there is probably little benefit to either of us to continue. But I urge you to at least spend a few minutes to try to understand the mind / brain idea I've offered you.

BOLD TEXT - The so called "hundreds - if not thousands - of inconsistencies", are really proven not to be, bt rather claimed to be, and can be easily explained with other details, which are either overlooked, or ignored... in order to get to "hundreds - if not thousands - of inconsistencies"...
The "if not" in your statement bares that out. They are just looking for anything to call an inconsistency... and anything showing the argument false, is called apolohetics.

As believe I said earlier, I acknowledge the entire field of theology. If the context is a theological one, then I agree with you that theologians have explained all of the inconsistencies. But those explanations are ALSO implicitly ONLY in the context of the conscious mind, and they do not consider how their scripture impacts the subconscious brain.

Did I claim the Bible to be perfect? Can you quote me on that?
I think for the Bible to be perfect,it would have to written by perfect men. I know of no perfect man.
The only perfect man to walk this earth, died on Calvary, in 33 C.E.

However, if you are paraphrasing anything I said, to mean 'perfect' as a guide to the best life, I would say that is what I agree with.

I think this point is splitting hairs. What I believe you said was that your one book is better than all the thousands of other books. So for all practical purposes, I don't think I'm being disingenuous to summarize your claim as I did. Do you really think I was far off from your intention?

 

[SkepticThinker]

True, who would want to live in the dark ages, however, in these 'last days' people have a selfish distorted form of love as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13 which is out of harmony with the definition of Christ-like love as defined at 1 Corinthians 13:4-6

The only "selfish distorted form of love" I can see is the "love" described in the Bible about the God of the Bible. I have no idea how anyone has convinced themselves that said God is a loving one.

 

[nPeace]

Well you presumably aren't believing in the Pinker thesis as to us becoming less violent over time, and I suspect you are wrong also as to the respect aspect, given the more advanced countries - many in Europe, the USA, many similar - are the ones where they are less discriminatory towards any with LGBTQ+ designations, for example. And where there is less likelihood for spanking children too (apart from the USA and UK). I would see this as proper respect.

It's not hard to find the facts on these matters.
The Roles of Respect for Parental Authority and Parenting Practices in Parent–Child Conflict Among African American, Latino, and European American Families
African American and Latina girls showed significantly more respect for parental authority than did European American girls.

We also should ask, where these "African Americans" came from.
African Americans are largely the descendants of enslaved people who were brought from their African homelands by force to work in the New World.

Why that is worth noting, is the same reason, we ask where atheists got their morality, they like to brag about.
People take what they have with them.
People took their religion, and the values associated with that, wherever they went... or were forced to go.
This is easily understood, and not unreasonable to accept.
African Americans have made basic and lasting contributions to American history and culture.

Is there a reason you singled out LGBTQ+?

I think most people agree that as time progresses, what is bad, gets worst.
Hence, it is only obvious that child abuse increases... and that includes the use of 'corporal punishment'.

So, I think we need to consider that in everything, there are extremes... fro one extreme to another.
There should be a balance in everything... even, eating, and drinking.
This is what I consider respect.... for self, others, the environment... etc.

And you did ask where respect came from rather than how it is expressed within societies.

Yes, but if I asked you where apples came from, and you told me the supermarket, I have to explain that Supermarkets did not always exist, and so, apples do not come from Supermarkets.
Likewise, social bonding isn't producing respect. Hence, respect does not come from social bonding.

Respect is taught and learned.
It obviously originates from somewhere. I can appreciate if you really don't know, but suspecting, or taking a stab at the answer, isn't what determines the answer.

The Golden Rule is much the same however it is expressed - like the tit-for-tat rule - treat them as friends and with respect until they show themselves as being otherwise. The Golden Rule just doesn't go further as to dealing with miscreants.

The "Golden Rule" cannot in any way be compared to the tit-for-tat "rule".
The tit-for-tat "rule" says, "You kill my dog. I kill your cat."
The "Golden Rule" says, love your enemy, and do only good to them, even when they do bad to you, because, what you want for yourself - only good, is what you should want for them."

The problem with persons misapplying that rule, is that their selfishness, usually becomes the rule. "What I want, for you, is whatever I want for you, so I must do unto you, what I want for myself... which is what I want for you."
So, if what I want for you, is for you to die, this is what I want for myself.
Twisted, uh.

 

[nPeace]

Fortunately science and religions are very different. No one with any knowledge of science would paint this discipline as being without egos or certain interests interfering, but the best explanations tend to rise to the top - especially if they are the most useful - but this can hardly be said about many religious beliefs. For religions we tend to get a divergence rather than a convergence as to truth - if one looks at the tree of beliefs - or weeds all too often (mention of Taliban again).

Yes, many... many religions fall into that category. I certainly would not argue against that fact.
Which is why they are religions that do not represent truth, nor the true God.
Religion that is not a force for good, can in no way be good, or true.

And sorry, but it is the written word that is the problem, with so many believers taking the literal approach whilst so many more try to interpret these so as to fit the circumstances - and which is why we still have so many religions still discriminating as to sex, gender, and sexual orientations.

No. Sorry. The written word is not the problem. Seriously!!!?
Do you say this about the rules of the police force?
Study finds police officers arrested 1,100 times per year, or 3 per day, nationwide

Do you say this about the policies of the hospitals?
Despite the strict prohibition against all forms of sexual relations between physicians and their patients, some physicians cross this bright line and abuse their patients sexually. The true extent of sexual abuse of patients by physicians in the U.S. health care system is unknown. An analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank reports of adverse disciplinary actions taken by state medical boards, peer-review sanctions by institutions, and malpractice payments shows that a very small number of physicians have faced “reportable” consequences for this unethical behavior. However, physician self-reported data suggest that the problem occurs at a higher rate.

Right... because there are persons going contrary to the law, the law is the problem.
What. The ones who break the law must not understand it. So they go contrary to it?
Let's be fair. Let's e consistent.
If you hated the hospitals' law, or the police's, you probably would say the same thing about those laws.

Your optimism as to us living better if we all followed the Bible is touching but hardly likely in practice, especially when those who don't believe in any religion probably have the same general morality as those with some religious belief, given that morality is not that difficult to work out if we live in dense social groups.

Optimism? These are facts B. Even officials, and practitioners, who deal with people of religion that is good, recognize, and acknowledge this.
You can test them out for yourself. Everyone can.

The ones who "have the same general morality", are merely ignoring the fact that they got those "values" from someone who got those values from this ancient book - the Bible.
Getting them to admit that, would be like pulling teeth, but we all just have to ask questions, and it comes out.

Aside from that, our God-given conscience - the one every human is born with, is trained from youth. So what we see - whether through television, or people... what we hear - whether from peers, or radio... etc. instills in us, certain values... and yes... these come from somewhere.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No. Sorry. The written word is not the problem. Seriously!!!?
Do you say this about the rules of the police force?
Study finds police officers arrested 1,100 times per year, or 3 per day, nationwide

Do you say this about the policies of the hospitals?
Despite the strict prohibition against all forms of sexual relations between physicians and their patients, some physicians cross this bright line and abuse their patients sexually. The true extent of sexual abuse of patients by physicians in the U.S. health care system is unknown. An analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank reports of adverse disciplinary actions taken by state medical boards, peer-review sanctions by institutions, and malpractice payments shows that a very small number of physicians have faced “reportable” consequences for this unethical behavior. However, physician self-reported data suggest that the problem occurs at a higher rate.

What have these to do with the written words of religion? These latter are supposedly taken as being the words of God but have no impartial evidence as to being such. But many simply believe this. All that you have quoted are irrelevant - being an aspect of governance - and where laws are brought into being by voted assemblies.

The ones who "have the same general morality", are merely ignoring the fact that they got those "values" from someone who got those values from this ancient book - the Bible.
Getting them to admit that, would be like pulling teeth, but we all just have to ask questions, and it comes out.

Aside from that, our God-given conscience - the one every human is born with, is trained from youth. So what we see - whether through television, or people... what we hear - whether from peers, or radio... etc. instills in us, certain values... and yes... these come from somewhere.

Nah, the people who wrote the Bible essentially got these laws from their predecessors - but getting a religious person to understand this is probably a step too far - because they seem to ignore what went on before religion was on the scene.