|
|
#21 |
|
FFR Player
|
I'm biased here because I see the Bible as a work of fiction as well as Dan Brown's novel. So if both are fictional I have nothing to question and have no opinion.
__________________
"If you want to sex me you have to be good at math!" - Group X "I recoil with dismay and horror at this lamentable plague of functions which do not have derivatives." - Charles Hermite |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,345
|
^you are wayyy awesome =]
ok just found the quote i was looking for twas on my facebook 'Faith is a continuum, and we each fall on that line where we may. By attempting to rigidly classify ethereal concepts like faith, we end up debating semantics to the point where we entirely miss the obvious--that is, that we are all trying to decipher life's big mysteries, and we're each following our own paths of enlightenment. -Dan Brown
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
Well now, thats... intresting. So the bible is false?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 15
|
The bible has been translated and passed down over hundreds of years. It is very likely that some of it has been misconstrued through time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
I think it is far more accurate to say that the veracity of the bible is subject to question. I don't believe you can -prove- that it is historically true on grounds that many of the claims put forward of, among other things, miraculous occurences are by their very nature unreproducable, and just unprovable, but I also don't think you can -prove- that it is -all- historically false if just because a decent number of the events depicted do in fact correspond to events for which there is a dearth of evidence to support. If you were to put forward the stance that the Old testament was True but not Factual, and that the New testament was Factual, but with some exaggeration of Jesus' abilities, you'd have what I would consider a fairly well-thought out and defensable stance for why you should be able to use the bible as a primary source to explain your faith and beliefs. Edit: And because I'm sure someone is going to post about my use of "True but not Factual" I'll just pre-emptively explain: True: Reflects reality insofar as what it describes accurately reflects the way reality works (ie. A story about someone tormenting a dog that then attacks the tormenter can be "true" even if it never happened as described, because if you -did- torment the dog, it is true that the dog -would- almost certainly attack you) Factual: Reflects reality insofar as what it describes is a faithful reproduction of actual events that actually happened in reality. Last edited by devonin; 04-20-2007 at 04:08 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
Quote:
http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-siblings.html muaha, I told you I would find it, he had four brothers, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas (different Judas...) and some sisters who aren't named. They are mentioned in quite a few bible verses all listed on that helpful website Last edited by sherbtail; 04-20-2007 at 06:43 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
Yeh but it was inspired by God, meaning it's perfect, basically God wrote it through those people, everything he wants is in there. So yeh, Jesus probably lived a pretty normal life between those years, carpenting and teaching and the like
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
There's a difference between "God inspired Noah to build the ark" and "God took control of Noah and used him to build the ark" |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
It doesn't necessarily, but to be Christian means that it does, well my denomination anyway.
We believe the whole bible, is the perfect word of God, not written by him, but everything he wants is in there, how can anyone base a faith upon a book which may not be true or complete |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
I mean...the bible actually may not be true or complete...there's no actual direct confirmable proof that it is...but you are going to continue believeing it is anyway, simply because it would call other beliefs into question if it weren't...that's a dangerous place to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 117
|
Yeh it is, I'm not denying that, sorry, trying to explain my faith isn't very easy and I'm probably not doing it very well.
I don't think you could have faith if the bible wasn't true, but I don't receive faith from the bible, I receive that from praying, communicating with God and the like. However that doesn't mean I don't think you should question whether the bible is true or not, and if it is found that it isn't true then yeh, I would be forced to abandon my faith. I'm constantly questioning my faith, too much in fact, I think. Sorry, it's a really hard thing to explain, especially late at night, but we have also gone way off topic |
|
|
|
|
|
#35 | |
|
(The Fat's Sabobah)
|
Quote:
However, what the Bible says about the natural world is inaccurate. Seriously, the people who wrote the Bible knew nothing about the natural world. These people believed the Earth to be flat, the center of the universe around which all things revolved, and probably hadn't traveled outside of a 20 mile radius from where they were born. The "New World" was unknown to them and the heavens and the Earth were separated. Are you seriously going to let some guy who didn't even know of the existence of bacteria or viruses dictate to you the truths of the natural world? Seriously, if you brought a laptop to the time of Jesus you would either be 1) Considered a God 2) stoned to death for witchcraft. That's the kind of mentality these people had. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 | ||
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
I have another thing to say, Which supports my oppinions but could very well upset many people. On the subject of Jesus and the bible as a whole. I fully believe it is fictional. However i have also given much thought to the idea there could have very well been a guy name jesus in those time who just had alot of smarts and munipulation skills. Its basically the same concept of hitler.. He knew how to munipulate. He convienced so many people he was right, with no proof once so ever. Just his own reasonings. Week people easily buy into things like this. Most people are followers. Say this guy was incredibly smart, and munipulative. He could have made it all up.. Convienced enough people it was all true.. and then boom.. He bible. Like i previously stated they have no proof or even reason to believe any of the books in the bible were even written by first hand witnesses (according to the show) Which means there is no written documentations known that were written by anyone we can prove accutally witnessed any of the events in the bible. It could be alot of munipulation and exagerations.
__________________
![]() Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 551
|
It was said earlier and I back it up. The bible may be true but being passed down generation after generation, some things are changed or misunderstood. Jesus could have had a wife and such, I believe it is very possible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
The part that is problematic is this: So did hundreds of other people at the time. Being a travelling teacher and theologion was a perfectly valid way to spend your time those days (For a nice comedic take on that, see the preaching scene of Monty Python's Life of Brian, where a stretch of road has a half dozen misc preachers) so just because Jesus was one, doesn't mean he was any more of less genuine than the others. As for the bible being written afterwards...that one is a tricky criticism. After Jesus' death, his apostles really did think that the second coming would be like..."Any day now" so they had more important things to do than bother recording events when they thought rapture would be within their lifetimes. It was only much later in their lives, when it became more clear to them that maybe they'd gotten the timeline a little wrong, that they realised it would be a good idea to record all of that for future followers. So I mean yes...it was generally accepted to have been largely written years after the fact, but they had a better reason than "Lets invent a holy book" |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|