Why I think a lot of the Bible is False

[Storm]

Yes it does


Kindness is about giving. We speak of giving charity or providing for the poor. The opposite of kindness is strict justice, justice not tempered by kindness, this is restrictive. We speak of taking away freedom or limiting rights.

When one has, it’s easy to give. It is very easy for one who has more money then he knows what to do with to give charity. Evil people take (steal, murder, . . . ). As the physical world is a reflection of the spiritual world then how can G-d who has everything be anything other than benevolent? If he has everything what is there for him to take he can only give.

When G-d act in the manner of kindness we speak of receiving a blessing. When He acts in the manner of justice we speak in terms of Him removing His presents or of being in exile. But His justice is always tempered by kindness He may limit His presents, reduce that which he gives, but not completely remove it.

The first line of the Torah says, "In the beginning of G-d’s creating". Creating as an ongoing action, He continually creates the world. This is an ongoing act of kindness.

Intellectually this is all find and good but when it becomes personal (G-d forbid) it becomes a matter of faith. A belief that G-d knows what He is doing.

None of that supports your assertion that benevolence follows from omnipotence.

 

[Autodidact]

Unlike Atheists who gave us euthanasia, eugenics, racial purity and their share of genocide. There is no shortage of bad people in all walks of life.

Atheists are responsible for euthanasia? What on earth could you possibly be talking about? Atheism is related to racial purity in some way? What? btw, did you know that telling lies about other groups of people is immoral? Does it bother you to do it?

I'm not talking about bad people, but bad ideas. The idea that it's o.k. to kill people because you know that death is really not that bad is a very bad, very dangerous idea.

btw, what makes you think that you know what is going to happen after we die any more than I do? Have you died? Have you talked to someone who died? Arrogant much? Because of your crackpot ideas about death, based on absolutely nothing but your primitive myth-system, you can justify risking someone else's life? How about this: since you feel so sure about what happens after death, just practice your sick ideas on yourself, and not on other people, O.K.? I'll risk my own eternal soul, and not bother yours. You risk your own life on earth, and not mess with any else's. Deal?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

None of that supports your assertion that benevolence follows from omnipotence.

Excellent point. I suspect that Maimonides would view "benevolence" as little more than an anthropopathism.

 

[Hawkins]

The Bible teaches us to believe in one god, the one mentioned in the Bible. This is one of the Ten Commandments. The Bible also teaches us that God is perfect and is a loving God. If this were true, how come he would damn someone who does not believe in him. You don't have to be a Christian to be a good person and good people should not be damned. To me such a god is far from loving and perfect.
The Bible also tells us that: But Cain answered the Lord, "My punishment is too great to bear! Since You are banishing me today from the soil, and I must hide myself from Your presence and become a restless wanderer on the earth, whoever finds me will kill me."
15Then the Lord replied to him, "In that case, whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over." And He placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him. Then Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
If the Adam and Eve were the first to humans and Cain and Able were their children. This would mean that once Able was dead that the total population would be 3 people, Adam, Eve, and Cain. If that were true then who did Cain have to worry about killing him.
There are many other reasons why I feel most of the Bible is BS, but I just don't have time to write it all. The message of the Bible is good; be a good person, but just about everything else just seems rediculous.

Good people
There's time frame and environment for good people to be good. Will good people be persistantly good? and under extreme environment?

I speculate that some "good people" may show their ugly faces under extreme circumstances where those "good people"'s certain "profits" are offended. They are good as long as there's no conflict of interests.

Moreover, when "good people" are put to a "bad environment", such as a prison full of jerks, "good people" may turn themselves to "bad people" willingly to fit for the environment by following the philosophy that the fittest survive.

I speculate that only religious people may be persistently good people even when put to the extreme environment. Just as the Bible says, no one is righteous. While only God can judge hearts and souls.

That being said, make sure you truly understand what the OT says. IMHO, no one fully understands what the OT says, especially when human figures are involved, such as Adam and Eve, such as Noah. So you may draw a conclusion too soon. I know almost with certainty that the stories of Adam/Eve and Noah are not only historical events, but also prophecies about humans.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good people
I speculate that only religious people may be persistently good people even when put to the extreme environment.

Not true. People are people, religious or not. You should know that.

That being said, make sure you truly understand what the OT says. IMHO, no one fully understands what the OT says, especially when human figures are involved, such as Adam and Eve, such as Noah. So you may draw a conclusion too soon. I know almost with certainty that the stories of Adam/Eve and Noah are not only historical events, but also prophecies about humans.

First you tell us to "truly" understand the OT, then you say that no one "truly" understands it. Then you claim to know with certainty that the stories are historical, but there's a difference between believing and knowing. There's no indication that the story of Adam and Eve is historical in any way save as an allegory for human history. There was a flood long ago, far longer than 6,000 years ago, but it didn't cover up the entire planet; only the coasts experienced flash floods. Plenty of people survived.

 

[Autodidact]

I speculate that only religious people may be persistently good people even when put to the extreme environment. Just as the Bible says, no one is righteous. While only God can judge hearts and souls.

Let me guess--you're religious, right? And you speculate that religious people are better than non-religious people? What a coincidence.

 

[Hawkins]

Not true. People are people, religious or not. You should know that.

I am talking about good people from my speculation. I am talking about the meaning of the Bible verse "no one is righteous". Do you realize that alot (if not most Christians) agree with what the verse says? Or are you living in dreams to deny that?

First you tell us to "truly" understand the OT, then you say that no one "truly" understands it. Then you claim to know with certainty that the stories are historical, but there's a difference between believing and knowing. There's no indication that the story of Adam and Eve is historical in any way save as an allegory for human history. There was a flood long ago, far longer than 6,000 years ago, but it didn't cover up the entire planet; only the coasts experienced flash floods. Plenty of people survived.

You are making personal accusations that I didn't make logical statements. I have to say, I regret that you have to resort to this low, or you have a problem understanding what others are talking about.

I speculate that atheists 1) can't live with the truth 2) can't understand from a positive perspective what others are meant to say. Instead they always attempt to resort a discussion to semantic games. Sorry that if you are not an atheist.

Instead of repeating what I meant to say, I leave it here for those who understand to read or re-read what I have said in this thread. BTW, I know almost with certainty what the Adam story means doesn't mean that I truly understand OT.

So be frank, from your understanding if one with certainty that he understand chapter 1 of genesis simultaneously means that he truly understand OT? You semantic freaks.

 

[Hawkins]

Let me guess--you're religious, right? And you speculate that religious people are better than non-religious people? What a coincidence.

Another semantic attack. It's that all you non-religious people can come up with?

All I mean to say is, from speculation (sorry to tell you the truth that a speculation is a personal observation), only religious people can possibly be persistent good people. It's a generalization made based on personal speculation.

Generalization = there's always exceptions to a generalization.

I never tried to be racists and never meant to make racists statements like what you accussed me of.

Satisfied? You semantic freaks.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am talking about good people from my speculation. I am talking the meaning of the Bible verse "no one is righteous". Do you realize that alot (if not most Christians) agree with what the verse says? Or are you living in dreams to deny that?



You are making personal accusations that I didn't make logical statements. I have to say, I regret you have resort to this low, or you have a problem understanding what others are talking about.

I speculate that atheists 1) can't live with the truth 2) can't understand from a positive perspective what others are meant to say. Instead they always attempt to resort a discussion to semantic games. Sorry that if you are not an atheists.

Instead of repeating what I meant to say, I leave it here for those who understand to read or re-read what I have said in this thread.

Why do you have to resort to petty insults? They don't make your views any more true for someone else.

Why can't you accept that what's true for you is not, repeat, IS NOT, true for someone else? Atheists can't accept truth... I've heard atheists say the EXACT same thing about Christians. Same words.

This is a forum about debating, not saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so get over it."

 

[Hawkins]

Why do you have to resort to petty insults? They don't make your views any more true for someone else.

Why can't you accept that what's true for you is not, repeat, IS NOT, true for someone else? Atheists can't accept truth... I've heard atheists say the EXACT same thing about Christians. Same words.

This is a forum about debating, not saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so get over it."

Right, I just want to debate what the OP is about, not something like this;

So be frank, from your understanding if one with certainty that he understand chapter 1 of genesis simultaneously means that he truly understand OT? You semantic freaks.

It's not insult, it's a reaction to the false accusations and semantic plays. Ok? And live with fact that you can't stick yourselves to normal debates but to resort to meaningless semantic games.

 

[darkendless]

Unlike Atheists who gave us euthanasia, eugenics, racial purity and their share of genocide. There is no shortage of bad people in all walks of life.

Care to prove this statement? please do not use Adolf Hitler as an example, i've heard the whole Hitler was an atheist a million times over and no evidence has convinced me of that being true. You cant coin genocide to people who don't believe in God simply to wipe your hands free.

Hawkins:
You don't have to have any religious affiliation to be a great loving person and no, religion does make someone kinder than another or more persistant with their kindness. Strangely enough the kindest person i know is a devout scientologist. Its a common assumption that people who bask in the never ending love of God are simply more loving than everyone who doesn't, a dangerous assumption at that. Your personal assumption may be one thing, but you have to get out there and meet new people, sticking around the same flock of sheep won't help you broaden your horizons.

 

[Riverwolf]

Right, I just want to debate what the OP is about, not something like this;

So be frank, from your understanding if one with certainty that he understand chapter 1 of genesis simultaneously means that he truly understand OT? You semantic freaks.

It's not insult, it's a reaction to the false accusations and semantic plays. Ok? And live with fact that you can't stick yourselves to normal debates but to resort to meaningless semantic games.

Okay, you're just being rude. No one's being semantic. You stated something to be as a fact, that is, that chapters TWO AND THREE of Genesis are historical events, but you have no evidence to back it up. Genesis was written long ago, well after the story of Adam and Eve supposedly took place. According to some, it was written by multiple people. To others, it was written entirely by Moses. Either way, it was written long after Adam and Eve.

And as I said, the story could be used as an allegory to human history.

Adam and Eve are in the garden, naked without shame(my favorite aspect of it), perfectly innocent, spoiled beyond measure, and completely free of any notion of good and bad. This could represent humans before they developed into a society, when we lived in the wilds.

A snake tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, she eats it, as does Adam, and they then gain knowledge of good and evil. They clothe themselves, and are expelled from the garden to live a life of hardship and work. My last history teacher related this to the development of agriculture, which he said was the first thing that allowed for a civilization. (yeah, controlling fire is easy; anyone can do it. ^_^) Speaking of controlling fire, the snake tempting Eve to eat the tree, thus becoming like God, is similar in concept to the Greek story of Prometheus, who stole the Fire from the gods to give to the humans, who up to that point had been living as other animals. But once they got fire, they did become as the gods. And so, Zeus created Pandora and her box, she opens it, and humanity now has to deal with, you guessed it, hardship.

...Now I'm losing track of why I'm typing all this in the first place.

The point is, we've insulted you accidentally, and for that I apologize, but your passions won't change what we think.

Besides, if you think we're bad, go check out the group over at Yahoo! Answers. Talk about a troll-cave. :cover:

And since you seem to think we're playing games, why don't you tell us what a real debate is? I think you'll discover that the whole point of a debate is to defend your views by giving reasons behind them. Sometimes, in fact, often, those reasons are flawed. So the other party attempts to correct them, but often their reasoning is flawed, so the other party corrects them... you get the picture. That's how debates work. It's civil, polite(ideally), and it can get heated. But that's how it works. You don't come to a debate forum and expect everyone to automatically agree, do you? And by the way, NONE of us have any disrespect for other religions. (if they do, they're booted off real quickly)

 

[Hawkins]

Okay, you're just being rude. No one's being semantic. You stated something to be as a fact, that is, that chapters TWO AND THREE of Genesis are historical events, but you have no evidence to back it up.

That's exactly what semantic means. There's no one on earth ever got the proof whatsoever to backup that this is a historical event. Yet it is a concensus in Christianity that it is a historical event. We use this concensus often through out the various kinds of discussion when Christianity is concern, unless there is a topic specially querying it's truth. We Christians also have the common concensus that Adam and Eve are true figures. So is Noah and the flood.

So either you are discussing Christianity while knowing none about it, or you are playing semantic games by pretending that you don't realize these concensus.

You are being stupid either way.

Now here's what the OP says,

"If the Adam and Eve were the first to humans and Cain and Able were their children. This would mean that once Able was dead that the total population would be 3 people, Adam, Eve, and Cain."

If your stupidity didn't ask for historical proof for the above statement while you queried mine, I have to assume that you are playing semantic games.

The topic of discussion is based on the validity of concensus that Adam, Eve, and Cain are historical figures. You will turn the discussion into a semantic game by asking for historical proofs that they are actually historical figures. You may open another topic to query the concensus thou.

C'mon, be nice and smart and learn something from that.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If the Adam and Eve were the first to humans and Cain and Able were their children. This would mean that once Able was dead that the total population would be 3 people, Adam, Eve, and Cain.

A mind like a steel trap ...

 

[Scott1]

Yet it is a concensus in Christianity that it is a historical event.

Not even CLOSE to being the truth.

 

[Autodidact]

I am talking about good people from my speculation. I am talking about the meaning of the Bible verse "no one is righteous". Do you realize that alot (if not most Christians) agree with what the verse says? Or are you living in dreams to deny that?



You are making personal accusations that I didn't make logical statements. I have to say, I regret that you have to resort to this low, or you have a problem understanding what others are talking about.

I speculate that atheists 1) can't live with the truth 2) can't understand from a positive perspective what others are meant to say. Instead they always attempt to resort a discussion to semantic games. Sorry that if you are not an atheist.

Instead of repeating what I meant to say, I leave it here for those who understand to read or re-read what I have said in this thread. BTW, I know almost with certainty what the Adam story means doesn't mean that I truly understand OT.

So be frank, from your understanding if one with certainty that he understand chapter 1 of genesis simultaneously means that he truly understand OT? You semantic freaks.

And why would we be interested in your speculations?

 

[Autodidact]

Another semantic attack. It's that all you non-religious people can come up with?

No, it's not a semantic attack, it's questioning your bias. What I'm asserting is that like most people, you strive to make the world look how you want it to look, and to maintain your good opinion of yourself. Therefore the reason that you believe that religious people are better than non-religious people has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with your own bias.

All I mean to say is, from speculation (sorry to tell you the truth that a speculation is a personal observation), only religious people can possibly be persistent good people. It's a generalization made based on personal speculation.

Why would your speculations be of interest to us? Do you have some special expertise in the matter? Have you researched it?

Generalization = there's always exceptions to a generalization.

And there are false generalizations, like yours.

I never tried to be racists and never meant to make racists statements like what you accussed me of.

I accused you of racism? Support or retract, please.

Satisfied? You semantic freaks.

Apparently you can't defend your weak arguments without calling other people names? Let me guess, are you by chance Christian?

 

[Autodidact]

Right, I just want to debate what the OP is about, not something like this;

So be frank, from your understanding if one with certainty that he understand chapter 1 of genesis simultaneously means that he truly understand OT? You semantic freaks.

It's not insult, it's a reaction to the false accusations and semantic plays. Ok? And live with fact that you can't stick yourselves to normal debates but to resort to meaningless semantic games.

So debate already. *hint* announcing your beliefs is not debating. Debate involves facts and logic. Got any?

 

[Riverwolf]

And Hawkins, did you read my entire post? I don't know if you did or not, but I get the feeling you didn't, or just skimmed through it.

Now, I understand you admit that you don't know everything. We've established that. None of us do.

Now, I disagree with your views. Is that I disagree semantic? Or is the reason I disagree semantic?

And I'm not being stupid, because I know there's no historical proof that Adam and Eve were historical. That's my point. Therefore, you can't know for certainty that they were historical. In fact, most of the evidence points to them not being historical, but as bedtime story characters. Science has pretty much proven that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Heck, civilization is older than that. Therefore, if Adam and Eve were real characters, then they'd have to have lived 40,000 years ago, when modern Homo Sapiens first evolved.

As for the flood, I believe I stated many times that it was a historical event, but not on the scale that the Torah says. There was a flood, but it didn't cover the entire planet, and it probably took place about 10,000 years ago. While there is very little physical evidence for this, there is evidence in the way that nearly every culture has a story about a flood that happened a very long time ago. As for what physical evidence there is, while I don't know the details, the last really bad ice age winter ended very quickly, which would have resulted naturally with flash floods. There's also evidence that the Black Sea flooded, which is not far away from the main setting of the Bible, which is modern Israel. The Bible also speaks of the ancient land of Eden, which is now flooded by the modern Persian Gulf. How is it known? The Bible speaks of the four rivers that flow away from Eden, two of which are still around, and the other two now dried up but still very much there. (there was a program on Discovery Channel about this)

If you didn't want to debate with other religions who are not likely to fully understand yours any more than you fully understand theirs, don't post in General Debates, but in Same Faith Debates.


You tell us to debate with you, but every time we do, you accuse us of playing semantic games because we disagree with you. You then say we shouldn't debate Christianity unless we fully understand it, but do you fully understand other faiths besides your own? I can say that you can't fully understand mine, because I made it up. Does that mean it shouldn't be debated? Of course not! The way I see it, the fact that I made it up is all the more reason to debate it, so that not only can others learn about it, but I can correct it as well.

That's what a debate is: a learning process. Non-Christians often don't fully understand Christianity, and that might be a reason they're not Christians. Therefore, we debate and discuss so that they can learn more about it. I've learned a lot from debating religion, things I would probably not have known any other way.

 

[Sententia]

A mind like a steel trap ...

See this is sarcasm I can see... You are implying that their mind is not like a steel trap... That its exactly opposite of that. That your throwing a veiled insult at them.

Sometimes your sarcasm IS actually obvious. Props man.

But really... Is this an attempt at humor or do you just enjoy insulting people? How does it contribute to the thread?

Maybe if you make other people look bad that will make you look better? Or do you not need to look better because you are already so good?

I know its just sarcasm...