By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Questions about the Bible
hi western friends here,
Today I was watching TV, it says a piece of history there happened which described in Bible, then I have very curiosity to the Bible
In China, and in Chinese translation, the name of your Bible was translated as "The Holy Scripture".And in our expression, your Bible describing the history of your God. It's like a kind ancient fairy tale in western world but not a true story.
So, now I have 4 questions for you:
1.What is Bible?
2.Who wrote the Bible? (the author of Bible)
3.What did Bible describe and is it true happened?
4.Is Bible a most influenced book in western world and why?
Can you tell me?
Thanks in advance. xiexie!
Don't you hate it when your long thought-out post disappears???
For each of those answers, you need to be aware that you will get 2 types of answer - the answer from the (strong believer) Christian's perspective; and the answer from the not-so-strong or realists Christians or at least agnostic's or atheist's perspective. There are many Christians who are 'realists' about the Bible, but still believe. One simple example of this is Genesis - some Christians take Genesis to be literally true, others do not. (There are some members of this board who will take offence at what I'm writing here - even though it is a) true, and b) quite rational.
So....
1 - As Delphine says. I'll also add, to those who are Christians, it describes a way to ensure you get to heaven to sit in (their) god's grace after you die.
2 - For many 'true believer' Christians, it was written by their God through 'his' agents on Earth, and thus is totally 100% true (see Q3 below). For Non-Christians or Realist Christians, it was written by human beings - some made mistakes, some put in their own interpretations. (hence why there are so many different versions of the Bible available now - a different version means different phrases. Simple example, in the King James version, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you". The word 'witch' should be more accurately translated from the original as 'poisoner', and usually pertains to someone who spreads gossip or slanders people. Having the 'witch' meant tens of thousands of people have been killed and tortured. You should note that the Bible does refer to witches, and even some of the greatest leaders in the Bible consulted witches for their advice and magic - ie, not killed or tortured!)
3 - Some fundamentalist Christians will try to convince you that the Bible is 100% literally true, including Genesis. This means that they believe the Earth (and the rest of the universe) and all life is only 6000 years old, science is so flawed that radio-carbon dating doesn't work, women were made out of Adam's rib etc etc.
Less fundamentalist Christians will say parts of the Bible are metaphors, while others are literally true.
Some other Christians, and some non-Christians will tell you that some parts may not be true, and other parts are definitely not true (ie, some parts *may* be true).
And, lastly, some non-Christians will tell you that no parts of the Bible are true at all.
There are MANY books that have been written discussing this topic. Even the evidence of historical events have been challenged where presented, for example, the account of the exodus from Egypt. That's to say, some will tell you that there is evidence of this, and others will say there is not.
4 - Probably, yes. However, you do need to realise that this is because millions (billions??) of people have been killed and tortured to make it so.
It should also be remembered that there were other books that came before the Bible that has a great many similarities, and that the Bible obviously draws upon - the Code of Hammurabi, for example. You will also find that most of the stories (all?) are similar to other stories in other books -ie, the story of Jesus Christ is found, in one form or another, in other religious texts.
And, lastly, you should be aware that even the current plethora of Bibles available now - while all being different in some areas (eg, phrasing, as I mentioned above about witches), that during the course of history, the contents of the Bible have changed. The current contents were actually agreed upon through various congresses and councils. These decided what was to be included in the Bible, and what was not to be included. There are a number of other 'books' and gospels that are available that were not included, for example, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. These accounts differ somewhat from the other 4 Gospels that were included - and in quite significant ways! Also, the Book of Enoch was another that was left out. Do a search for "Council of Nicea", for example, as well as "history of the Bible", and "history of Christianity".
During the history of Christianity, many interpretations and assertions have been made - and discarded. At one period of time, reincarnation was asserted as being a part of Christian teaching. So too was the idea that God was the sun.
My only suggestion to you regarding this as possibly taking it on as a faith... a) read.. A LOT! And read lots of different things. B) don't just accept it because it sounds nice! What is YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in life? Does it relate?
Welcome Leo!
1. Not an easy question to answers because it's a lot of things. It's a book with moral guidelines, prophecies, parables, hymns, letters, laws,
2. God, but through his followers. Moses, Apostle Paul for example.
3. Controversial
4. I would say it has to be the most influential as most people in the western world are Christians, and it influenced many empires and era from the Romans to the founding of America. It's in hotels, Obama's office, etc.
the bible is an irrelevant 1-2000 year old fantastic bunch of BS.
should get Louis C K or Jerry Seinfeld or Jim Carey to write a new one. or maybe Donald Trump's son, to keep it relevant.
same goes for that Koran thing......
new books and biennial updates required
dahlia llama has admitted to being the last reincarnation, there will be no more
.
I assume you are talking about the New Testament. Which one?? There are dozens of versions which were compiled from many authors and depending upon the political necessities of the time.
Treat the Bible as something akin to the story of PanGu. A nice story with little association with the truth but a nice story nevertheless, unless you read the Old Testament which is filled with horror stories of retribution.
Don't you hate it when your long thought-out post disappears???
For each of those answers, you need to be aware that you will get 2 types of answer - the answer from the (strong believer) Christian's perspective; and the answer from the not-so-strong or realists Christians or at least agnostic's or atheist's perspective. There are many Christians who are 'realists' about the Bible, but still believe. One simple example of this is Genesis - some Christians take Genesis to be literally true, others do not. (There are some members of this board who will take offence at what I'm writing here - even though it is a) true, and b) quite rational.
So....
1 - As Delphine says. I'll also add, to those who are Christians, it describes a way to ensure you get to heaven to sit in (their) god's grace after you die.
2 - For many 'true believer' Christians, it was written by their God through 'his' agents on Earth, and thus is totally 100% true (see Q3 below). For Non-Christians or Realist Christians, it was written by human beings - some made mistakes, some put in their own interpretations. (hence why there are so many different versions of the Bible available now - a different version means different phrases. Simple example, in the King James version, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live amongst you". The word 'witch' should be more accurately translated from the original as 'poisoner', and usually pertains to someone who spreads gossip or slanders people. Having the 'witch' meant tens of thousands of people have been killed and tortured. You should note that the Bible does refer to witches, and even some of the greatest leaders in the Bible consulted witches for their advice and magic - ie, not killed or tortured!)
3 - Some fundamentalist Christians will try to convince you that the Bible is 100% literally true, including Genesis. This means that they believe the Earth (and the rest of the universe) and all life is only 6000 years old, science is so flawed that radio-carbon dating doesn't work, women were made out of Adam's rib etc etc.
Less fundamentalist Christians will say parts of the Bible are metaphors, while others are literally true.
Some other Christians, and some non-Christians will tell you that some parts may not be true, and other parts are definitely not true (ie, some parts *may* be true).
And, lastly, some non-Christians will tell you that no parts of the Bible are true at all.
There are MANY books that have been written discussing this topic. Even the evidence of historical events have been challenged where presented, for example, the account of the exodus from Egypt. That's to say, some will tell you that there is evidence of this, and others will say there is not.
4 - Probably, yes. However, you do need to realise that this is because millions (billions??) of people have been killed and tortured to make it so.
It should also be remembered that there were other books that came before the Bible that has a great many similarities, and that the Bible obviously draws upon - the Code of Hammurabi, for example. You will also find that most of the stories (all?) are similar to other stories in other books -ie, the story of Jesus Christ is found, in one form or another, in other religious texts.
And, lastly, you should be aware that even the current plethora of Bibles available now - while all being different in some areas (eg, phrasing, as I mentioned above about witches), that during the course of history, the contents of the Bible have changed. The current contents were actually agreed upon through various congresses and councils. These decided what was to be included in the Bible, and what was not to be included. There are a number of other 'books' and gospels that are available that were not included, for example, the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary Magdalene. These accounts differ somewhat from the other 4 Gospels that were included - and in quite significant ways! Also, the Book of Enoch was another that was left out. Do a search for "Council of Nicea", for example, as well as "history of the Bible", and "history of Christianity".
During the history of Christianity, many interpretations and assertions have been made - and discarded. At one period of time, reincarnation was asserted as being a part of Christian teaching. So too was the idea that God was the sun.
My only suggestion to you regarding this as possibly taking it on as a faith... a) read.. A LOT! And read lots of different things. B) don't just accept it because it sounds nice! What is YOUR PERSONAL EXPERIENCE in life? Does it relate?
It's the most dangerous book in the world. That's what it is.
Recently, I watched a BBC documentary about the search for the oldest gospels. It was very interesting.
They discovered very early versions of the Famous Four gospels: Matthew Mark Luke and John containing significant differences to the versions found in the "Good Book" nowadays.
iWolf:
I only came across the two episodes. Maybe the series was shut down for being too controversial in spite of the host being a priest. Bloody heretics.
Shining_brow:
Possibly - did it seem like it wasn't finished? Be unlikely though - I'd think such a series would be fully produced/made, and then they'd try to sell it to someone.
iWolf:
At least another episode or two wouldn't have gone astray to answer some questions that were raised but they found what they were after in the end.
Shining_brow:
Watched them. Yes, I agree. They really only had 1 or 2 main points :( I mean, 35,000 edits - and they only mention 1!! WTF?
Not even mentioning the other books that were presented/available at the Council of Nicea et al was also disappointing. And no mention of the Dead Sea Scrolls either :(
1. The Bible is a compilation of 44 individual books written down by men over centuries of time.
2. It took more than 1,600 years to write the Bible. Its writers lived at different times. Some were well-educated and others were not. For example, one was a doctor. Others were farmers, fishermen, shepherds, prophets, judges, and kings. Even though there were different writers, all parts of the Bible agree. It doesn’t say one thing in one chapter and the opposite in another. This is because the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself.
3. The Bible is many things to many people, but it's purpose is to provide guidance for mankind. It is the only book that gives logical, meaningful answers to questions we have been asking since the beginning of time: Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose and where are we going？ It describes man's deviation from our original purpose and how our Creator has been and will return this world, and mankind back on course. It does this through historical lessons, spiritual guidelines, and laws designed to teach us what God requires.
4. It is the most influential book in history, having been translated into more than 2600 languages and having been read by more people than any other book.
iWolf:
I read somewhere (on the interwebs....ahem) that the Bible was the world's most stolen book and the most shoplifted book. Go figure.
Hotwater:
The Bible has been translated fully into 531 languages though parts of it translated into 2883 languages.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations
Hotwater:
As to the Bible being consistent in what it says.....even the genealogy of Jesus differs between Matthew & Luke.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus
xinyuren:
@Hotwater - The Bible is totally consistent in what it says. Your understanding of it is lacking. The two genealogies you cited used different methods to accomplish the same purpose. The genealogies were likely copied directly from the public records in the temple, therefore the Jews and scribes of the time could find no fault with what was written (and believe me, they were looking for any faults against Jesus and his followers). The purpose of the genealogies were to prove Jesus' rightful claim as the Messiah by his lineage. Matthew approaches this by tracing Jesus' adopted father's genealogy. Luke, by Jesus' natural mother Mary. They both lead back to David (though by different sons) as was prophecied. In the future, you should do more research before making premature assumptions. As Shining discovered, the internets don't always tell you the whole story.
Shining_brow:
OI! Don't try and tell me what I did or didn't do!
I gave up 'arguing' with you because you're rude, obnoxious, belligerent, insulting and incredibly patronising... as well as ignorant! You are also incredibly ego-centric.. the opinion you have of yourself is clearly much greater than your actual 'logic' or 'rationality'.
xinyuren:
@Shining - I may have been all those things (and purposely so), but that is besides the very obvious fact that you could find no evidence to substantiate your claim that the Bible had logical contradictions. You tried and tried. You implored your friends on the internet. But you finally had to give up. I would think that my "obnoxious" behaviour would cause you to work harder to shut me up, but, alas, you finally realize that you lacked a vital ingredient: substance. The same ingredient you lack here. You are eager to formulate theories and develop debates, but in the end it is necessary to produce some pudding. At least you were smart enough to realize that on this topic, your stance is impossible to defend. Regardless of how you feel about me personally, my logic is flawless.
Shining_brow:
The greatest minds in Biblical Theology have spent the better part of their entire life's work studying the Bible - they acknowledge the Bible has contradictions... but you, Xinyuren, have solved them ALL.. Why are you in China? You should have written a book and told all those professors that you fixed it all for them.
3 different versions of Jesus last words on the cross... Don't worry - Xin has the answer!
Who first saw Jesus after his burial? Don't worry - Xin can tell you!
The earliest records of Biblical writings don't have things the current Bible does? It's ok - just ask Xin!
Yes, there certainly is one flawlessly logical probability at work here.
I don't debate against the wilfully ignorant.
TBH - if you had've left your ego at home and completely re-phrased some of your responses on that other thread, I may have continued with you (frustrated with your unwillingness to see ANY other perspective). But, no - you let it get in the way... I argue with minds - not egos.
xinyuren:
The greatest minds found contradictions (or so you say), Yet you can't find a single one of them. How strange. You don't debate with egos but somehow you managed to slip those three zingers in. How odd. Well obviously you are still borrowing questions from your friends on the internets and as usual I will show you how they prove nothing. But first, I have a question for you. Why don't you give me contradictions that you personal have found. Don't you have your own beliefs about it? Why use these tired old "contradictions" from the internet if you studied the Bible yourself? I wait for your reply. In the meantime... 1. Three different eyewitnesses hearing different things surprises you? have you ever been in a large crowd and heard EVERYTHING everyone else heard??? Do your greatest minds in theology even think about the situation before they write on the internets? There was a mob. No doubt it was noisy. Some people heard some things, other people heard other things. Nobody heard everything. That's one of the reasons there are three accounts in the Bible. None of the writers contradicted each other. They just recorded what they heard. This is really elementary. 2. The first person to discover Jesus was resurrected was a woman. Mary, I think. That it was recorded in one book as a man was simply a result of the prevailing attitudes of the day. A woman's word was scarcely trusted, much less reported on. Things weren't considered official until a man saw it. That's Jews for you. This fact about ancient Jewish life is easy to research. 3. says you (or your internet friends). The onus is on you to provide proof of this. I have the dead sea scrolls. What do you have?
xinyuren:
By the way, the answers I am giving aren't just popping into my head. I learned them! I'm not the only person with this knowledge. But honestly, it's just common sense and objectivity along with some logical research. And the "contraditions" you are submitting are the same ones I read or had when I was researching the Bible. I doubt you can find anything I haven't already seen. I was taught the Bible and I was diligent because i wanted to learn if it was true. Can you say the same? I don't think so.
coineineagh:
I love it when Christians claim their logic is flawless. Logic needs to be evaluated by others, there is no "my word is good because I say so"
A quick addition to my answer above - when you get answers from other people, ask them to clarify which side of the fence they sit on (ie - are they Christian? Do they believe in 'the Bible", 'God', 'Jesus").
Statements regarding the truth/accuracy of their answers depend entirely on this!
(I will probably be flamed for writing this... at least, I know I will be by some Christians on here).
xinyuren:
1 + 1 = 2. This is so regardless if a person is a mathmatician, uneducated, or even if he doesn't believe in math. A statement can be evaluated on it's own merit, regardless of the personal views of the person giving the statement. Thus, the facts about the Bible should be able to stand up to any logical test, whomever may be submitting them.
Shining_brow:
That should be true.
Will you at least acknowledge that some of what you wrote above some will disagree with? Therefore, it would be necessary to ask the obvious question "why is there disagreement?" The answer is "because of personal motivation/perspecitve".
xinyuren:
My statement above are logical, truthful answers to the OP's question. They can either be proven or disproven. They have nothing to do with "personal motivation“. I can disagree that 1+1=2, but it has nothing to do with truth.
Janosik:
Yes, I pretty much agree with what Shining wrote and xinyuren reply and comments could be seen as a proof of that.
I will leave aside the idea that 2-3000 years ago uneducated fishermen or farmers could write at all (what already indicates it was not them but either somebody who pretended to be them or listen to them and then wrote about it with higher or lower accuracy).
I also do not want to get involve in the never ending arguments if the Bible contradicts itself and where - as per my experience it depends pretty much on the point of view, as Shining wrote, and therefore usually lead to never ending conversation.
I will just try to raise a simple question - actually two questions:
1) Is the God almighty? As per my understanding Christians believe he is.
2) If he is almighty can he create a stone which he cannot lift?
P.S.
Meant more as mocking than trying to offend Christians. They will also one day learn the truth ...
Shining_brow:
You make two claims above that are debatable - whether you like that fact or not. Thus, the 'truth' value is in doubt.
1 - you state that "the ultimate author of the Bible is God himself". While perhaps in theory this may be proveable, in practice it is not - without said god coming down and stating this in person (to virtually every human being and other sentient lifeform on the planet).
Stating that God is the author of the book - in the same book - is a circular argument.
2 - You make the claim that "it is the only book that gives logical, meaningful answers to questions we have been asking since the beginning of time"
A - obviously not everyone on planet Earth has found that to be true of your book.
B - obviously, there are people who would claim that their (different) book has the same qualities - answers, meaning. logic.
So, for your statements to be true, one needs to see who is the author the statements to determine truth-value. For YOU those statements are true.I would also suggest that for the majority of the other approximately 2.2 billion other Christians alive today (although, some of those may be too young to even be able to read...). However, there are over 7 billion people in the world (now), so I'd suggest that 4.8 billion people *may not agree with at least a couple of your statements.
(* and I'm being generous with you here, because there are many who would never have even heard of this book, to have a chance to determine the truth-value of your statements. Certainly, one would assume that Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, animists, Scientologists and a whole stack of other religious people would not agree with your comments for #2 above)
xinyuren:
@shining - personal opinion doesn't change underlying truth one iota. In the case of the claimed authorship of the Bible, while it is not possible to prove this with hard evidence, it is too important a question to dismiss. Either the claim is true or it isn't. There are important implications in the answer. So obviously a logical method to ascertain the truth is necessary. It begins with the acceptance that a benevolent Creator's existence is logical, which leads to the necessity of a book like the Bible (Have you ever heard of a loving father who didn't try to communicate with his children?). It ends with the inspection of the Bible (would not one expect a book from God to be the most influential, longest lasting and most read book in the history of literature? Read my post below). After objectively studying the Bible on its own merits, the evidence points to its authorship being someone of extraterrestial origin, mankind's Creator. As for your second point, I'm going to ask you (once again) submit your evidence of another book that explains everything so logically and accurately. It's easy to talk the talk, much less so to actually demonstrate.
Shining_brow:
"It begins with the acceptance that a benevolent Creator's existence is logical"
Atheists disagree.
You also just through out your "don't have any pre-conceived ideas" comment below.
As for you other point... somehow, naming various other religions instead of their actual books (which I did b below) isn't sufficient for you....
Scientology has a saying - what's true for you is true for you.
xinyuren:
Disagreements are irrevelent. Truth is truth, whether or not someone agrees with it. Either we were created or we weren't. This is an age old issue with people on both sides. But there is an ultimate truth. When I ascertained it, it was with an open, objective mind, not with any preconceptions. In my mind, it is not merely "my truth". It is the most reasonable answer. You have presented no evidence. nothing. Mentioning a religion is not evidence. The fact is, you don't know anything, so there is no evidence for you to present.
Hotwater:
@ Xinyuren, over a billion Muslims will state that their holy book, the Koran, gives the message that you claim for for the bible to them. They will also claim, which I agree with, that their holy book has not change since it was written down by their prophet 1400 years ago. Whereas from my understanding the hand of man has made numerous interpretations/changes to the Bible over two millennium, the last major ones being the King James Version.
xinyuren:
@Hotwater- Last time I checked, I wasn't debating with a billion Muslims. Are you here to represent them? If so, perhaps you can tell us where in their holy book there is an explaination and answers for the age old questions man has pondered: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where are we going? Why is the world so bad? ..... Please submit those reasonable, logical answers here for us to compare with the Bible. Oh, you don't have that? Then I don't see the relevence of your comment. I'm glad you qualified the latter part of your comment with "from my understanding...". Your understanding is limited about changes in the Bible as well as the King James Version. I suggest you get more understanding.
Hotwater:
I'm not going to stand up for Muslims here but you claimed your holy book is the only one that gives the answers to life, the universe & everything (my words, not yours) whereas Muslims claim the same for their holy book even going as far in their book to state that your prophets are also prophets of Islam. Both your religions come from the same Abrahamic beginnings then split at the point where you believe Jesus was the Son of God and they believe he was another great prophet.
(Ps, sorry, I'd posted my response above in the wrong section, it should have been in the comments to a previous answer)
Shining_brow:
Sheesh Hots... how ignorant are you???
How could you possibly suggest that people of other religions could possibly find answers to their meaning of life questions in their holy books? You must be a right nutter! (or they are!... or both!)
I'm starting to think that you don't feel the awesome wisdom and enlightenment that Xinyuren has obviously received and attained
I'm hoping Xin starts his own church soon, so I can go and praise him, listen to his teachings, and maybe.. just maybe... one day I'll become as spiritual and wise as he is!
xinyuren:
@Hotwater - First of all, let me clear up a lot of misunderstandings you have: 1.) You misquoted me. Those were not my words. Please get it right. The Bible is the only book that gives LOGICAL, MEANINGFUL answers to mankind's most pressing questions. There is a world of difference between giving an answer and giving a logical answer that makes sense. 2.) You (and many others) seem to want to link the Bible with religion. Never on this forum have I spoken on behalf of any religion. On the contrary, I hold most religions in derision. There is no "my" religion. I defend the Bible for its internal logic and harmony, and for the principles it teaches. Religion, on the whole, has proven false to those principles. 3.) Your statement still doesn't hold any water unless you can show me another book that gives satisfying, logical answers to the above questions. I refuse to participate in pointless theoretical argument. If you have information that refutes my claim, come out with it! Stop shooting with blanks! You and Shining are full of "what ifs", but you don't have the knowledge to win this argument. Knowledge comes to those who really want to know the truth.
Janosik:
@Xinyuren
Just out of curiosity, are you coming from the county where Darwin laws are not allowed to be taught at schools?
I rarely hear that Bible would provide LOGICAL answer, as call it.
Even many priests and Christians 'philosophers' in Europe are saying that Bible needs additional comments(!) because it's a bit 'unorganized' and 'seemingly' contradicting writing.
On the other hand I fully understand your standpoint.
During the last century we had some people who were deeply believing that communism is the only rightful teaching - they were clearly wrong but they never realized that.
It looks to be that some human beings are inclined to a bit extreme standpoints which then block them to comprehend the counterpart argumentation.
These people are usually referred as fanatics ...
xinyuren:
@Shining - Your challenges against the Bible reveal something about you. You didn't read the Bible objectively. I find it amazing that most of your so-called evidence has no bearing on the Bible's message. Some of it is quite inconsequential. What somebody heard here, what somebody saw there.. Is this what you are concerned with? When I submitted the challenge to find a contradiction, I was not referring to such trite things (although it applies to these things too). I was talking about the real deep substantial things in the Bible! The Bible answers the deep questions that the greatest minds in the world still ponder over. It handles those matters with insight and logic. Yet you have failed to challenge me on this. You're not really concerned about the truthfulness of the Bible, you just want to prove me wrong. This is like a defense lawyer trying to get his client off the hook on a technicality. If you spent your time searching the deep things of the scriptures instead of skimming from the internet for a zinger, you would see that your efforts are futile. A wise man once said in the Bible (he was one of the opposers of Jesus), 'be careful what you do against this man (Jesus). If he is an imposter, time will reveal it and he will fade away. But if he is really who he say he is, you may find yourselves actually fighting against God.' I don't mean to say you are fighting against God by debating me. What I am saying is your approach is all wrong. You are a skeptic and you approach to this is thru skepticism. It's not working. The objective way to get to the bottom of things is the opposite, empathetic approach. Skeptics usually will never look past the surface. They only want the answer they want to hear. This has been the reason why you fail. You never stopped to think, "Is there another reason for this apparent error/contradiction? Is there another way to look at it?" If you did, you would have seen the very obvious things I pointed out to you. The internet is for finding the answers you want to find. Unfortunately, they are not always the logical or correct answers.
xinyuren:
@Janosik - Most religious scholars are forced to view scripture through the lens of their religion's dogma. It is no wonder they find the Bible contradictory and messy! For example, if I had to understand the Bible earnestly as a Catholic, my brain would be twisted in knots. It is not without purpose that the Bible was forbidden reading by the church laity for centuries, and the mass was taught in latin. The clergy knew very well they were twisting the scriptures in order to wield power. The Bible is not disorganized, nor is it illogical. If God can create this universe with such logic that we can rely on its laws to guide our clocks, calendars and science, certainly he can explain and reveal himself in a logical fashion. This he does in a very logical way, thru a book. The only ones who are confused are the ones who don't take it seriously.
xinyuren:
BTW, my standpoint is not extreme. I simply claim that the Bible has no contradictions (as one would expect from a book authored by God). And noone yet has brought any evidence to disprove this (and they have tried and tried and tried and...) So If I am so extreme, why is everyone having such a hard time? What's the problem? Are you saying it's extreme to believe that God is the author of the Bible? If my views are so much in error, why are they so hard to knock down? If many different men wrote without divine inspiration over centuries of time, there should be a ton of errors and contradictions. There should be a ton of scientific errors, medical errors and astronomy errors as technology developed! Come on and shut my lying mouth! Jia you!
Shining_brow:
Nice try... absolutely no cigar! (not even a match to light it with!)
There are Christians on this board, and Muslims,and those of other beliefs. I have not (and have no intention to - unless they really want to push their way) to argue their beliefs with them. I'm quite open about letting people believe what they want (when it doesn't impact on other people's lives).
So, no - I wasn't trying to attack the Bible.
The god in the Bible kills people, and demands that his followers be willing to kill people they love... that is NOT a deity I would follow! END OF STORY! (then, add in a few other evil acts that said God accepts... no thank you!!!) The simple contradiction of "God has infinite love and mercy", and "God kills innocent children because they were born in the wrong city when wiping out all the inhabitants" is NOT something I would be happy with! (not to mention the other philosophical contradictions... )
Besides that bit of logic and rationality, I have my own experiences which run contrary to Biblical beliefs. I have experiences of past/previous lives. I also have other experiences which run counter to monotheism in general.
So, no - I wasn't arguing against "The Bible" - I tried to argue against YOU - who made categorical statements about the infallibility and complete, 100% lack of contradictions in the book. I was proven correct (in my beliefs) that either you'd be a fanatic and ignore what you wanted to ignore, or make up interpretations to suit yourself (but not the other people on this forum). You did so! And, in doing so, also mocked those people for their 'ignorance' because they don't accept your attempts at your interpretations.
AT FACE VALUE (as you wanted people to read your book) there are CLEAR and OBVIOUS contradictions... and it requires a certain type of explanation and interpretation to 'fix' them... (and a willingness to believe that they aren't contradictions).
Your challenge was to find ANY contradictions... not big ones, not meaningful, not significant.. ANY! You lost... you didn't (don't) have the integrity to admit it! Hence... not worth arguing with!
AND.. the fact you are completely self-absorbed in your belief, to the extent that you are unwilling to even acknowledge that OTHER PEOPLE may not find the same meaning in that book as you... or they find similar/ the same meaning in OTHER books, in OTHER religions tells me how ignorant you really are. You may know YOUR book... but you know sod all about other people, other experiences, and other books.
(speaking of which... the ONLY way you can know about his is if you have ALSO read, completely, and with an 'open mind' ALL of the other religious texts in the rest of the world....).
xinyuren:
hehe, it seems i hit a nerve there. If you were trying to attack me, you did a pretty poor job. I've been having fun with this. And if you think you were successful in finding contradictions, you must live in another universe. At best, you showed a contrary way of looking at the text. But noone in a normal, objective conversation would choose to accept the contradictory understanding of someone's words if they could be viewed in another light. Unless they wanted to. Which is my very point. When given two different views of a situation, you chose to believe the contradictory view, which shows your true motives. Your mind isn't open. You seem to be having a bad day, so I will go light on you. I may be ignorant, but I have answers. You have beliefs of other lives, but no answers. If you had a better answer to the questions of life, surely you would have submitted them by now. And by your characterization of God, it's clear you don't understand much about the Bible. And you call me ignorant. I know a great deal about most religions, but little about animists. I just know they, if you are a good representative, can't answer the important questions in life. Good luck with your search.
Janosik:
No, I have no trouble with your believe. I still think you are kind of "blind" in your belief (we call it fanatic) but as per your separate msgs you do not look to impose you belief on others.
Such believers are absolutely OK with me. Of course I totally disagree with your interpretation of Bible but that's already different story ...
Shining_brow:
Still running with the egocentric "I know better than you" BS, huh??
Still incapable of seeing your book through the eyes of someone else, huh??
And, FTR - no, I do have answers... lots of them. I, however, am not so arrogant (oddly enough) to push them onto people who I know will try to mock them. They are answers which most people won't like.
AND I have just enough humility to acknowledge that I can be wrong (unlike you!) This is a virtue, btw....
I need no books. I need no-one to tell me what's right or what's wrong. I need no-one to tell me that what I believe is correct or not. AND it has the added benefit of being far more rational and logical than any other belief system I've come across, and answers questions they've never even considered (hence, my thread on souls).
As for your book... any RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE person will openly acknowledge that there are (at least apparent) contradictions. It's obvious - so obvious, that as I said, the best Biblical scholars in history have acknowledged this. They at least have that thing that you don't - humility - to say 'yep, ok, I understand that there are contradictions, however I choose to believe/interpret them this way. But I won't mock you for seeing the contradiction". (that last bit - obviously - is a vice that you have!)
Your god murdered 2.8 million people. For some reason, you're ok with that. I am not. Your god made commandments that tells men that they can just take women slaves and rape them - as long as they do some stupid ritual called 'marriage' along the way, which then makes it ok to rape them. Your god seems to be ok with incest - but is not ok with homosexuals. (if if the rules changed - WTF? Why does an omniscient deity need to make changes?? - it's still the same god!)
So - you have a problem with Scientology, hey??? I presume you know nothing about it - except what you've heard on the media... (which, rather coincidentally, seems to be your knowledge of other beliefs as well)
A NUMBER of people (on this forum alone - and I suspect throughout your life in general) have indicated to you that you are blind. You fail to accept that other people can have different beliefs and different interpretations to you and yours. I have no problem with true believers - I have a problem with egocentrics (actually, most people do!)
xinyuren:
"Still running with the egocentric "I know better than you" BS, huh??"
...and you are still debating with the ego, huh? I have an interesting question: I know better than you is a statement that is either true or false. If it were true, would I still be egocentric?:p
"I need no books. I need no-one to tell me what's right or what's wrong. I need no-one to tell me that what I believe is correct or not. AND it has the added benefit of being far more rational and logical than any other belief system I've come across, and answers questions they've never even considered (hence, my thread on souls)."
Wait?!?! Didn't you just say something about me being egocen.... oh, forget it.
"As for your book... any RATIONAL and OBJECTIVE person will openly acknowledge that there are (at least apparent) contradictions. It's obvious - so obvious,"
Oh yeah, so obvious that I could quickly think of alternate, feasible ways of viewing the scripture without it being contradictory. Yeah, so obvious. "Beyond the shadow of doubt obvious" your contradictions were.
"the best Biblical scholars in history have acknowledged this..."
Please stop saying this...LOL...you sound like a Donald Trump campaign speech ("There are some really smart guys working on this...blahblahblah"). Really? You mean there is an annual Bible scholar Olympics? How do you qualify a "best Bible scholar in history?" and how far back did you go in history to find these scholars because my scholars say there are no real contradictions in the Bible. Should we have a Bible scholar showdown? Meet at the OK Corral? You are making it really easy for me to have fun with this. Seriously, you don't need bible scholar to decide if a statement is contradictory. My family took a vacation last month. We drove down to Fujian to see the sea. When we got to the sea, my wife got sick. We couldn't go home until she recovered because I don't have a driver's license, thus can't drive. Did you catch the contradiction in my little story? I bet you didn't because you weren't trying to find fault with it. But, if you were challenged to look for something "contradictory", you could find it, even thought it is a correct statement by modern English standards. In the story, I said We drove down. This, strictly speaking implies multiple drivers. But, in the later part of the story, i say only my wife was driving. Was I lying? Was I contradictory? From one point of view, yes, I was contradicting myself. But looking at the story from a "normal" point of view, the way we speak English in normal conversation, it is not contradictory. It is quite normal. So we have two ways of looking at this story. You would have chosen to believe the contradictory view because you want to find something wrong. Someone looking at it in a objective way, would have found nothing wrong with the story. I don't need no All Star Bible Scholar to tell me this. You do. BTW, do you actually know the definition of "apparent"?
"Your god murdered 2.8 million people. For some reason, you're ok with that. I am not....." Ok, now these are some serious accusations that you pulled out of your @ss. I need a little time to compose a response because you need some serious straightening out. wait for my next reply.
xinyuren:
Ok, joking aside, this is a serious issue. And before you mentally block what I'm going to say, I am not going to deny that God killed people. Women, children, and orphans, yes. And plenty of livestock. They happened. But by your reaction to this, I can see you have the improper viewpoint of these events. And not just you, but many other people who read about these events without proper context and understanding.
First and foremost, let's be clear. God is the creator and we are his creation, not the other way around. He has a right to do whatever he wants with his creation. If I want to use my salad bowl (though, i bought it, not created it. same difference) as a urinal, I have a right to do so. The fact that we are sentient changes nothing. All rights still go to him. So murder is the wrong word to use for God's killing in the Scriptures. This may bother you, but those are the facts. On the other hand, if He wants to have that shining righteous- justice-love sticker on His forehead that He sometimes wears, there needs to be some darn good justifying for all of that killing in the Bible, right? So let's get going.
IF (notice i didn't make any absolutes. Am I improving?) there is a Creator, It must be benevolent. This is a logical statement. Let me show you how I got there. IF we were created along with the earth and rest of the universe, it is very obvious that we (humans) are the reason for all the diversity and beauty. We are the only beings with 5 senses that can enjoy the diverse colors, landscapes, food, sounds, etc..and with a brain complex enough to dream, create, and enjoy this earth to the fullest. He gave us true love (that is proof enough alone in my eyes) and a self-maintaining biosystem on a perfect planet. It is very clear that we are for the earth and the earth is for us. Look how beautiful it is! (minus the stuff we screwed up) If the Creator were malevolent or even just didn't care either way, he wouldn't have gone through so much trouble for us. It is beyond what is necessary for us to exist. So if we were created, we are very much cared about. Somebody loves us.
That being said, if we read something that appears to contradict the idea of a loving God, one of two things must be true: 1.) Something has changed about God or 2.) We are lacking some information that will allow us to logically understand what happened. This deductive reasoning can be applied to anything in life, I'm just applying here to the Bible. Let me tell you, Mr. Shining. You have a big hole in your understanding. You have partial, out of context, knowledge. This may be intentional. Maybe you don't want to know any more. God is a murderer and that's all you need to know. If that be the case, I won't impede you. Continue on. There is no pity for the willfully ignorant. But, if you wish to fill that blank space with some knowledge, I will be more than happy to tell you what you're missing. So it's your call: Shall I stop here or continue?
Shining_brow:
I was going to leave this entire thing alone - but your last post was at least of the type I can appreciate! And am willing to debate with! (depending on how you respond...! )
As to your first post - Q1 - "if it were true, would I still be egocentric?"
Yes.
You are working in suppositions, assumptions, presumptions, and your own logic - and insulting people because they see things differently. Also, you make claims about what other people actually believe! Not just that you're right - but also that they are obviously foolish and deluded (my words, obviously). For YOU, your book gives you answers. For OTHERS, it doesn't. Mocking people for not seeing it the same way is egocentric! IN this case, truth is irrelevant!
I don't need a book. I have personal experiences. Similar to experiences others I have spoken to. AND I haven't been mocking people's beliefs (only intense "I am right, you are wrong" attitudes!) Is it egocentric to believe I am right when 2 billion others say otherwise. Probably. But is my reason for being that way any more fallacious than those who follow a book? No. I have (at least) some respect for people who have had personal experiences, and therefore believe. Those who just read a book and think "Oh, that'[s a nice story - I think I'll believe that" is just silly (IMHO! Especially when they start telling others how they think they should live, breathe, and behave...)
I would suggest the best of the Biblical scholars are university professors at the best universities.... a fair call - no? And, even before then, there are many who have been considered 'wise' in the ways of the Bible., and have written treatises on various subjects. They at least acknowledge apparent contradictions (and, when answering them, haven't resorted to mockery or insult!)
As to your 2nd post... you are still making presumptions - your 'IF's are pretty big IF's!
Do we have any rights? This is a pretty big argument, and analogies can be made - but may be seen as being inadequate. Parents and children, AI/robots. Certainly, in today's society, children have rights that are inalienable - even to their parents. In the not too distant future, we're likely to have AI that may be considered 'people' - at least in law (maybe!) Do they have rights? Are these 2 examples on the same scale as creator and created?
And then... IF we were given free will, and then didn't do what god wanted us to do with it, it's pretty childish to then just kill them for it. Especially when 'the word of god' is supposed to be so important - then to kill people for not having heard or followed that word.... Yeah, I'd call that murder! (back to the above point though).
If your god created us, then you are suggesting that he did NOT also give us absolute free will (which implies without punishment) nor any form of rights (meaning, we ought to be free to kill other people as we wish as well..).
As to your IF's..
A) - Atheists will categorically deny the first of those. For you to posit such a position, then you'd need to show some decent evidence regarding that (and trust me, I've read some pretty fundamentalist thinking in the atheist camp!) Granted, if they're right, then obviously your god didn't kill over 2 million humans... Ooops! (although, there is nothing stopping another alternative possibility...).
2nd IF - "we are the reason for it all"... how did you get to that assumption? We are currently the only creatures on this planet (that we know of) that has those 5 senses (odd that we don't have other senses, or that other animals have better in those 5 senses). Even if your god did create this universe, AND it was benevolent (ie, there was a particular purpose for having lifeforms), that does NOT lead to the conclusion that it's for us!
(and... there are more arguments to be made, but this is already getting long in the tooth)
Obviously, I and many others do not accept your IFs, nor the conclusions you derive from them. We do so on rational and logical grounds. (these are separate from the actual writings of the Bible - either within the pages themselves, or from science, history etc as corroboration.
You are entitled to believe as you wish. But NOT to insult people because they don't accept such things! NOT to mock people for having different beliefs or perceptions, or having different conclusions!
xinyuren:
I have to say, There is not much I can understand from your last post. Were you on medication? You seem to be saying that my IF's require proof?
That's very odd. If's are not exclamatory but rather a supposition. By definition it expresses uncertainty or doubt! Why would I need to prove an if? I find your whole reply confusing and without focus. I have no idea what you're trying to say. But at least I gather that your answer to my question is that you want me to continue. So I will continue....
Let's focus on a little girl in the land of Canaan. Canaan is one of those places where God instructed the Israelites to kill women, children and orphans that you are so opposed to (did i mention lots of cattle too?). This little girl isn't real. There is no such girl mentioned in the Bible. But for the purpose of my illustration, she will represent the "innocent" women, children and orphans. She will be your bleeding heart. This little girl is pre-adolescent. She was raised among a tribe that worships "pagan" gods and practiced the customs that are associated with such worship. maybe she will reach the age of 50 years old before she dies. Maybe.
Now let me interrupted the Canaanite girl's story to discuss the first man, Adam. He was created perfect in every way. He was given a satisfying job, a pretty human companion and a bright future. If he remained obedient, he would have had endless life. This is the life that our Creator had in mind for us. An everlasting life full of happiness. But Adam used his free will to rebel against his Creator, thus forfeiting his spiritual connection with God. He would no longer have access to the spirit that gives him life. He became imperfect (perfect means you meet the manufacturer's specifications) and began to die. Because he and Eve were the only human pair alive at the time of the rebellion, this imperfection and death sentence would affect all the offspring on Earth. In effect, Adam is responsible for that poor Canaanite girl's plight. He is responsible for why we all suffer and die.
As a consequence of the rebellion, God decided to not interfere with the activities of rebellious mankind. They wanted independence from him, and they would discover first hand the consequences of their independence (as we are today). But it would be unfair to withdraw from all of his creation. After all, it's not their fault they were born under Adam, thus born imperfect. It's not their fault that they fail to meet God's specifications. Realizing that He would need to keep an example of His righteous rule as a witness, God chose Abraham's family line to be a torchbearer of his way of thinking, ruling, living, etc.... In other words, the Jews, in their own imperfect way, would be a model nation to the world. In the same way that we have model homes, prototypes of new cars, and movie previews, the Jewish nation was God's way of bringing in those who didn't want to join in Satan's rebellion and teaching them his righteous standards. The rebels had left those standards. God was keeping them alive in the Israelites. He was keeping a door open. Now, what has this to do with those dead women, children and orphans? Be patient, Mr. Shining, be patient.
So hopefully, I have setup the scenario in a way you can picture. On one side are the rebels (led unknowingly by Satan), those who chose independent rule. By the time our Canaanite girl is born, they had long left behind and forgotten God's standards and requirements. In fact, their religious practices were depraved and disgusting (do you own homework on that). On the other side is God's model nation, the Israelites. They have taken a pledge and adopted God's standards. This sets the stage for a clash of ideology.
Remember when I told you God had decided to have a non-interference policy in regards to human affairs? Well, that was true unless human affairs started interfering with His affairs. And this is what happened a few times in Bible history. One such case was when the Israelites tried to take possession of land that was promised to them by God. This is where our Canaanite girl enters the story. Her people, the Canaanites, stubbornly occupied this land. They knew about the promise but continued to occupy it with their disgusting Bal worship as well as their many other gods. There was not going to be any compromise here. Canaan's false worship would corrupt the true worship of the Jews. It would contaminate God's purpose for reuniting mankind under his rule, which was the ultimate purpose. If the Canaanites wouldn't leave, the Israelites would need to take the land by force. So war was necessary. And lots of bloodshed. This leads to the question:
Q: Since God is leading this war, couldn't he have spared the lives of the innocents. Why did he condemn everyone to death? It was not without warning that this bloodshed occurred. The Canaanite had plenty of opportunity to join the Jews or vacate the land. They knew very well of the Jews and their God by reputation and prophecy and they were warned ahead of time. The obstinate leaders decided to fight, although some Canaanite cities were spared (for various reasons), most of them perished. What about our little Canaanite girl? What kind of life would she have had as a refugee, without parents or guidance? If she were allowed to live, how would her life be like, banished from the only home she has ever known? She could very well have become a human sacrifice to one of the pagan gods that were so prevalent in that time. This is what happened to orphans back then. Apparently there were no adoption agencies. Also, keep in mind that death is not a permanent condition in God's eyes. Anyone who is truly innocent, will be resurrected. In the future, they will have an opportunity to prove that they deserve everlasting life. Death is not a barrier for the Almighty God. It is just a nap. But be careful of who you judge as "innocent". We are just humans. What do we know of innocence? In reality, no one is innocent. We are all born imperfect. Life is a gift, not a right.
Who knows how many people died as a result of clashes with God. It doesn't matter. If he is our Creator, only he can read the heart and only he can decide who deserves to die. Which brings us to the point about human rights and free will. You seem to be a little confused about this point. Really confused. You say humans will one day face this issue with our creation? I laugh heartily at that sentiment. Humans can barely keep themselves alive, let alone create life. That's just crazy. Funny, but crazy. Human rights are the rights that the creator bestows, end of story. Our puny ideas about human rights are irrelevant. Nobody on earth created humans so our standards are meaningless. We have been given free will. We are free to make our own choices, but we are not immune to the consequences. The Canaanites learned this lesson. They were free to practice any gross form of worship of their choosing, but when their activities clashed with God's purpose, they met their end.
So God is not bloodthirsty. But he created this Earth and he has a purpose for it. He is not going to allow some rebellious creatures to ruin the prospects for the ones who are faithful to him. Rebellious humans are vermin. Look at the world today. We are like cockroaches (did u see The Matrix?). A world independent from God is a world I barely want to live in. And, yeah, Scientology is weird.
Shining_brow:
A - yes, but even as I re-read my stuff, it still make sense.
B - no, you are under no obligation to 'prove' any of the 'IF's... only to accept that the 'IF's you present are not accepted by many people.
For example, IF I were to believe in the existence of your god (ie, the way that you perceive that being to be) AND I also believed in the book that you think is perfect, then yes, I probably would think the same way.
However, I don't! Nor do many others. They see things differently. As much as, in your heart, you might (or might not - I don't know) feel antagonism towards the rest of the unbelievers, they are still allowed to exist in relative peace with their ideas, and to be able to see contradictions (which you have reasoned to yourself to not be contradictions).
I won't go into the rest of that debate, other than to say I disagree. That's one way to look at it. There are others.
Scientology...I brought that up as an example of something (like animism) that you probably don't know much about, yet feel you can pass judgement on. In many ways, it's no different to any other belief system (and yet, in one way, incredibly different!)
*funny thing is I am actually a Christian who believes.
As an outsider...(i'm chinese)...i feel those religious stuff are used by a certain group of people (the authorities) to control people's mind.
They use people's fear (of death and go to the hell) and made up something beautiful like the souls will go to heaven...so that people will follow their guides and not to cause trouble, love each other, be nice people and behave.
As for me, those ideas are just stupid.
Hell makes me angry. If they have a never extinguished fire there, why don't they use it to power the machines. Stupid devils.
Janosik:
When it would be so easy so there would not be nowadays any religion ...
I am not angry at anyone believing into anything.
I get a bit uncomfortable when these people are trying to use 'force' to persuade me into their believes.
By the way atheism is also just a believe.
One advantage I could find though, atheists are not frightening anyone with eternal suffering if the people do not believe into it.
I only know the answer to #2.
GOD wrote the Bible, from start to finish....by his own divine, everlasting, omnipotent hand.
Anyone who tells you any different is a damn liar, and will immediately go to Hell without passing Go, and definitely not collecting $200.
1. It's a book.
2. Lots of people. For the Old Testament it was a bunch of bigoted, semi-literate, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, genocidal shepherds. The New Testament is anyone's guess. Most of it was made up at the Council of Nicaea when Constantine the Great decided to go with Christianity as the state religion. Other people inserted things that suited them along the way.
3. The Bible describes how there is a magic man that lives in the sky and watches us all because he is a voyeur. He watches us have sex and if we do it with the wrong person or in the wrong way then he gets very angry. It describes some other stuff as well. He loves us but if we don't do what he says then he will punish us for eternity. He's like a giant spoiled toddler with huge insecurity issues. The Old Testament is very loosely based on historical events, very loosely. The New Testament is pure nonsense.
4. Yes, The Bible has influenced Western thought a great deal. It could be argued whether it is for the better or for the worse.
4.
The above comment is one of the most useful, if perhaps unintentionally so, answers so far. Do you own homework. In order to understand the Bible, one must read it objectively for themselves. Objectivity is the key. What does that mean?
If someone I don't know approaches me, giving me their name and life story, most people will accept what they say unless there is an internal or external inconsistence in what they are saying. In other words, objective listeners usually don't question people's motives or actions unless there are inconsistencies that cause them to doubt (or if the message is so important, fact finding beyond reasonable doubt is necessary). Taking a thing (initially) at face value is a cornerstone of objective thinking. If I read Stephen King's latest novel, I wouldn't question his authorship unless the prose was inconsistent with his usual style.
When one does have cause to question the authenticy of a thing, one needs to empty oneself of all preconceived notions and ideas. These ideas are an enemy of objectivity. Again, taking things at face value and relying on logic is usually the best way to approach it. For example, the authorship of the Bible is a subject of great controversy. How do you factfind something l ike this??? By asking yourself logical questions (after reading the text, of course): Does the Bible answer truthfully questions you would expect the Creator to know? Does the Bible delve into the most important issues that exist? This is your own personal journey.
Of course, I will tell you that the most important issue in existence is touched upon right at the beginning of the book and it is enhanced upon in great detail throughout. The author sets the tone for the whole Bible by asking: Does a Creator have the obligation of providing its sentient creation with complete autonomy? Believe it or not, this issue is at the center of all human affairs today. The raising of this issue is both elementary and inevitable. Human literature and media has approached this topic thru science fiction. Should creatures be allowed to decide their own morality? Should they decide for themselves if they want to live under the Creator's authority? This is the heart of the Bible. Look for the connecting threads to this issue in every book in it and take note of how the Creator responds to a challenge to his universal authority.
Whether or not this is an earnest question, I wish you happy (objective) reading.
Shining_brow:
What the...????
I get what you're trying to say, but logically this would mean that people who have never heard of Stephen King ought to be taking his books at face value - and thus, actual real world events! The same with EVERY novel! And, any book at all!!! Any TV show. Any play, any work of art or entertainment.
Before you go off on a tangent and rant at me again, yes - I do suggest the OP, if s/he is really all that interested, to read the book.. But, I'd also suggest to read or watch the various critiques of it, and look at the history of it.
The same with any other religious text (remember, it IS a religious text!!! and thus, has an agenda).
The Baghavad Gita, the Unpanishads, the Quoran, hell, even Snorri Sturlisson, Plato, Homer, Aristotle ought to be read as well. And then... check out the critique (where available)
xinyuren:
Stephen King's books are horror fiction. They never pretend to be any different. It probably states so in the inner jacket and the section in the book store. I think you need to review the definition of "face value". The OP asks questions that deserve an answer through his personal reading. Thus, I advised him (as another poster did) to do his own homework.
Janosik:
Sure, if one selects to blindly trust some provided axioms then the logic comes.
But what about when somebody selects different axioms and the final story also has its logic?
I was always surprised how can some people be so self centered. Even though there would be some god (what is highly questionable anyway) why could anybody believe he/she is so important that the god, who would then also create the whole universe in its variety, would even care?
But we all can see in the history of any civilization and all religions that the religions were used to dominate the common folk in favor of the ruling party - usually aiming to become the ruling party!
I would think you need to assess your sources. Be critical to the source. A TV show that is saying the bible is a piece of historical documentation is most certainly the work of someone who is going to benefit from more people finding eternal joy by reading the bible.
As China generally doesn't allow open discussion, you are more likely to be subject to propaganda. Believe nothing.
1.What is (the) Bible? It is a human-authored collection of fables, parables, and laws meant to protect the believers of a certain religious persuasion (any holy book has common sense rules {don't eat pork, don't eat raw shellfish} that was designed to protect the tribe.
2.Who wrote the Bible? (the author of Bible). Many, many people not only authored the bible, but edited and re-wrote parts to keep it current. If you're looking for the copyright holder, I think Jesus' brother Bob or Eric has it.
3.What did Bible describe and is it true happened? Someone else mentioned what's written as subject to interpretation: "gospel" or "parable". When you were a kid, you could write knowingly and convincingly about your invisible friend. You could write death threats to those who bullied you. You could write stories that contained practical advice, warnings, and promises of eternal life. Should someone find your writings a thousand years from now, you too can be a prophet.
4.Is Bible a most influenced book in western world and why? An influential book? Certainly. Some people need faith, and there's nothing wrong with that. Afraid of the dark and your teddy bear gives you solace and comfort? Faith in your teddy takes away your fear of the dark. Horrible life? Religious faith gives you hope - at least hope of a better eternity after your suffering here on earth.
Your leaders want you to kill their enemies (whom you've never seen nor know anything about)? Religious faith ensures that you'll slaughter these enemies because it's in "God's" name.
You humans 'need' to believe in 'something'. You need explanations for what you cannot readily explain, faith, hope, a belief that life after death exists, the wicked will be punished, (and you should note that these beliefs exist in almost any belief system)...Cub will not die a virgin (or a martyr...or a virgin martyr).
The bible, as any holy book for any religion, is the foci of order for societies that relied on printed words to provide cohesiveness amongst like-minded tribes.
As such, you can not use the bible or other religious tomes as the root of religious belief (faith has more power) but as the foundation upon which the house of "god", or cards, is built.
If humanity was wiped out tomorrow, there would be no gods, that's because we humans made them up.
Agree with Shining and Sinobear above.
But nobody has mentioned abuse of the Bible, and in particular, the new Testament.
The old Testament. I reckon a book of fairy tales. As Sino says, a collection of stories to keep tribes in check and keep the priests in jobs.
Do I believe in Jesus? Did he exist. Yup I think he did. I believe he did. Was he the son of God.. probably not. The big clue for me is after his ressurection when nobody recognized him.
To me, Judas is also the hero of the Gospels. The most trusted friend had to do the worst thing. The Judas Gospel has been published. Or fragments have.
So, I dismiss the old testament. But to me, that makes me 2 faced. Because after all, Jesus said he was not here to change the old laws. I wont bother with quoting specific verses, but trust me, I know the Bible.
To get to my point. When people use the Bible, they tend to be right wing conservatives. I watch the Presidential debates, and I I hear is Bible...Jesus...Bible...Bomb them... Ban them... God is on our side.
I call bullshit on that. Because if you actually read the Gospels with an open mind, on your own, you come to realize that Jesus was a total and complete socialist. He was more left wing than me. And that is saying something 
.
When I hear right wingers, using the Bible to justify their politics, it really boils my urine.
Ted Cruz says a "good president should start every day on his knees"
Marco Rubio says " God talked to him and told him he wanted to be President"
Ben Carson said " An angel helped him pass an exam"
Donald Trump says " I have a bible"
All religious nutters. Apart from Trump. He is a good showman.
People lap it up. They love it. They believe in fairies and sky Gods and use it to justify their life. The well off say they are blessed. The poor say they are the chosen ones. Both sides think that believing in Jesus will make them rich.
Excuse the rant.
Do I believe Jesus existed? Yes I do. Do I think he spoke wise words? Yes of course. He was a socialist.
And I challange anyone to give me a Jesus quote where he would side with the Conservatives.
The lesson endeth
xinyuren:
If you really knew the Bible, you would know that Jesus was anti-politcal. The only government he promoted was his Father's. He had no politics. As for the governments of his time, he was neutral. You are kind of talking out of both sides of your mouth. You admit to believing Jesus and he was wise, but don't accept his words, which support the Bible in its entirety (or maybe I am missing your sarcasm). He certainly didn't think they were fables. One thing I agree with you on: Abuse of the Bible has been rampant by both left wingers and right.
xinyuren:
I am American. In American politics, religion and the Bible are always big topics. All sides want to get the religious vote and all sides think that God is on their sides. The Bible is abused by politicians, philosophers, and churchgoers alike. America is even viewed as a "Christian" nation by many.
ScotsAlan:
Xin. Remember when Pope Francis went to the USA. He preached to the poor, for the poor. In Mexico last week, he went to the Rio Grande and prayed for the people who had died trying to cross it.
Heads exploded at Faux news. The bastion of Christian TV.
ScotsAlan:
Indeed. It was funny.
I watch The Young Turks on Youtube. They cover these stories.
So quick question... would Jesus bomb anyone ?
xinyuren:
Yeah, that's kinda my point about America being a Christian country. If this is so, who's sending out those troops around the globe to protect America's sovereignty?
Janosik:
Yes, I agree with you that the Jesus would in the current world become a socialist.
He used very similar practices which the socialists are using currently:
1. Jesus condemns entire cities to dreadful deaths and to the eternal torment of hell because they didn't care for his preaching
2. Saying "Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up."
3. Families will be torn apart because of Jesus (this is one of the few "prophecies" in the Bible that has actually come true). "Brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death."
And I could go on and on.
Yes, I agree - very socialistic approach!
So shall I understand your reply that we shall beware of Christians and socialists?
The former ones, luckily, have almost no power in majority of EU states.
The later ones are the real threat - I agree.
Hey, Leo_N....since you threw a cat amongst the pigeons, why don't you wade in with some questions or insights from this predictibly lively discussion.
Bible/religion etc threads always score big hits. Or was that the point?
Englteachted:
He's already copied his answer and is laughing at his friends who spent the entire winter break actually doing the assignment themselves.
Bible.is interesting book to read if you like European and Middle East history.
But quite "unreadable" so to say ...
Many poeple in the world say it's the God's will.
Much less believes so ...
Except of some bigots point of view I still find it quite interesting part of European history and for everybody interested in European history worthy of reading.
No danger you start believing it though ...
Contradictions are way too many 
To Leo_N: I know this: keep seeking and keep knocking. God Almighty is taping on your shoulder and wants to know YOU! Get a Bible (Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth) in your language and start reading.
And to all those negative comments; Be careful who you Mock!
nzteacher80:
Yes. Be careful who you mock. God loves you but he is a vengeful lover who just can't handle rejection. He is the great bunny-boiler in the sky. Jealous and quick to anger he will smite those that don't love him. He is the great bearded toddler screaming for attention.
He gave us free will: "Love me or die and suffer for all eternity burning in a lake of fire!" Gee God, thanks for all the wonderful options.
ChinaStJohn:
Free will....yes. But sarcasm will get you no were....Only one option here! And you have made the choice....But God still loves you and so do I.
Janosik:
I would question the 'free will' part.
If you hear just one part of the story and the other side is declined from the right to present their part so it has nothing to do with the free will.
It's simply one side provided information which in such a case, at least in our world, is rarely correct.
I was always wondering how would be the story presented by the Devil.
But that may not be too important - Christians do a lot not to be trusted already based on their 'Good News' so not a big deal
Shining_brow:
Wouldn't 'Basic Instructions for Beings Living on Earth' be a more appropriate acronym?
Janosik:
I find amusing searching for Bible acronyms using English ...
In Taiwan there was publicized the article with the headline:
"Xi Jin Ping asks: Why so many Chinese students in America become Christians?"
I actually cannot believe there would be any adult person who could willingly convert to Christianity.
Christians like to say their religion is religion of love.
Well, in that case I believe no reasonable person wants to be loved in the 'Christian way' ...
Nzteacher80 in his comment above is totally correct.
Of course some Christian sects (like catholics) are more violent than some others but they are all bound by the new testament which basically encourages (orders!) Christians to:
1. Like God over your own family
2. Promises you Hell in case you did read/hear the gospel but still select not to believe it
etc. etc.
I was always wondering what would be the story if written by Satan.
Clearly God and Devil are enemies and Bible is just the part of the story told by one side.
May be hell is not that bad place after all.
In my youth we were taught that West Germany is really bad - surprise surprise in early 90ties we all learned it's actually much better place than our previous 'heaven' used to be ...
So may be ending up in Hell after all is better choice than ending up in heaven.
Saying all of this I have full respect for lawabiding Christians (civil law, not canonic ...). They just did not realize yet the 'real' truth ...
Shining_brow:
Going through the Bible, there were only 10 people killed directly by the Devil, and even those 10 were directly ordered by God.
God, on the other hand, had killed around 2.8 million. These are just the deaths... so does not include the rapes, incests, tortures, etc were directly advocated through 'his' laws.
Janosik:
I am more shocked by certain people bigotry ... They are proving unprovable and apparently not even being aware of it. There is not existing a single logical argument that any religion is correct - therefore it's called faith. They however try to bring the proofes... Are they really so mentally challenged or simply do not understand their own religion?
Janosik:
Uf, just finished reading and tried to post a reply.
But without any offense - I am not sure your question actually makes sense ...
You mixed up together a lot of stuff, neglected/put aside certain connected questions and clearly wrote your question in kind of 'guiding way'.
Shocking part were the first replies from the Christian perspective - I have no problem with people believing that Pink Teddy Bear is the highest God but I still find shocking the obstinacy with which many of these guys are approaching their believe ...
Shining_brow:
Fair enough on my questions... it's not like I had sat down and prepared everything like an essay before I wrote it. So, yeah, things might be mixed up or left out.
Feel free to add your thoughts in that respect (if it will make much difference... that thread seems to have run its course, unless you're going to inject some life into it).
Totally agree about what you call 'obstinancy'... which I call 'arrogance, egocentrism, ignorance"...
I have been on a different forum tonight. A hometown forum if you like. And I always leave there feeling dismay at the human attitude
Quick question. Three threads... soul thread... bible thread..... refugee thread... are they connected?
Anybody who thinks that religion has killed more people than anything else, really needs to review history. The Black Death, the Spanish Flu, and TB have killed more people than anything else. If you want violence, the Mongols and Timurlane likely killed another massive amount of humanity. Some accounts say half the population of Persia was killed in a few years.
-The majority of Native Americans who were killed by settlers did so on civic bounties. The Franciscans and Jesuits often worked ON BEHALF of Indians. See Las Casas for example. The pope forbid the enslavement of natives.
-The two world wars, and the various purges of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, and Pol Pot killed far more people than any religious dispute.
-There are philosophical reasons to oppose organized religion. The "it makes people kill each other" is usually not valid in the case of Christianity. The most violent Christian massacres were likely the Albegensian Crusade, and the 30 years War.
Shining_brow:
Thank you - good point!
However... it doesn't rule out the violence that religious conflicts have caused.
And, sometimes, the difference between acting on religion, and acting on other reasons sometimes gets blurred.
And, the biggest killer of them all is death.
Janosik:
I do not think that 'religious' violence is the main problem with any organized religion.
Every civilization is developing and what was considered a normal standard some time ago may not be acceptable nowadays.
My problem with 'evangelistic' religions is exactly their evangelization.
Evangelization, especially in respect to Christianity which says that as long as you heard the 'Good News' and rejected to believe it so you are doomed forever, basically means big intolerance and disrespect to other human beings.
I simply have a problem with people who are telling me that I shall love and obey 'God' more than my family and if he/she/it orders me against my family so I have to follow.
I have a problem with people whose teaching clearly says that in case I do not believe it so I will suffer forever.
I am convinced that such people do not belong to the 21st century and luckily, at least in Europe, Christianity is slowly becoming less and less important sect.
xinyuren:
While religion has not been the cause of most deaths in the world, it has been at least an indirect contributor to most of the bloodshed. WWI and every war since then has had more bloodshed than anything that happened before it. These were wars fought by so-called Christian nations. Each country had chaplains that blessed the troops and assured them that God was on their side. Only a minority of religious groups refused to join in the bloodshed. The soldiers were so predominately Christian that if their religious leaders had stood up for Biblle principles, there wouldn't have been a war. This makes religion just as guilty as the politicians and soldiers in the bloodshed. And it continues to this day.
Janosik:
I am convinced that religion will discredit itself.
At least so far I can see they working on it quite well.
But a lot of people will still follow it as they simply find their life unbearable and love the hope the religion is falsely presenting them.
ambivalentmace:
The Taiping Rebellion or Taiping Civil War (simplified Chinese: 太平天国运动; traditional Chinese: 太平天國運動; pinyin: Taìpíng Tīanguó Yùndòng, literally "Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Movement") was a massive rebellion or civil war in China that lasted from 1850 to 1864, which was fought between the established Manchu-led Qing dynasty and the Christian millenarian movement of the Heavenly Kingdom of Peace some historians think this was worse than world war ii, WWI and every war since then has had more bloodshed than anything that happened before it. not quite accurate.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.
-Steven Weinberg
Janosik:
To certain extent I agree with that.
But it has some 'buts'.
Some people simply need religion. The life may be too hard for some of us and religion indeed helps by providing 'simple guide' to persons life.
Therefore many sects are quite successful during their hunt for new members.
I have no trouble with the religion - as long as the people act within the scope of civil law so they may believe into anything they like.
I start to have a problem with them however when they try to enforce their point of view on me!
Unfortunately all evangelization religions are like that because one of their main tasks is to spread their believe among 'non believing savages' ...
