Ciaran Hancock Business Quiz 2024
Quizzes & Puzzles8 mins ago
The truth about the Bible
88 Answers
exactly who wrote the bible, and how did it ever become so popular and when was it written?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joules99. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Clannad why are you skipping around the assembly of the bible's books into the anthology that it is today?
I mean whatever your take on the specific details at some point some person or group of people decided that some books should be part of it and some should not.
How for example did the book of Revelations get into the bible? Who took that decision?
Is it because a human compilation process weakens people's faith in the bible as literal truth?
clanad
Quite obviously, i could use DNA to trace my ancestors.
The idea that evolution is faith based is wishful thinking on your part. Does a detective have to witness a crime in order to solve it or can she collect evidence from experts in the field? Evolution is a series of clues that add up to a scientific theory which is falsifiable at any time. Christianity is at best a peculiar take on ancient history. From what we know about history we can be certain that the accounts in the bible are at best idealised and prejudicial accounts from people with good motives and at worst blatant propaganda used for power and control. Even reading about our Prime Minister Tony Blair one can be given completely polarised views on his morals, motives and achievements and he is still with us, not 2000 years removed. So making claims that so and so wrote this and translated that gives us no information without us first establishing the character and motivations of these people and putting the information into some context based on accounts given of other faith systems from different cultures.
jim
Jimmer,
The evidence you say that proves evolution is still circumstantial even today. You say "evolution is a series of clues that add up to a scientific theory?" Actually evolution is a name given to a theory. Most un-believing scientists will tell you, even today, that evolution is still a theory devised from the interpretations of facts that exist and an interpretation that is based on the presupposition that there is no god or creator or designer.
A detective does not judge the crime, a jury does that - it takes the clues that the detective finds and makes a verdict. Verdicts in most cases must be unanimous. Each jurer decides whether the evidence for a crime outweighs any the defense find against it. Well I am the jurer when it comes to me deciding whether the facts of life and the earth prove evolution or not ....and in my case I find too my contradicting intepretations for evolution than i do against it.
Jimmer, I'm afraid you do sound rather like a text book, a text book that most people have today in schools. Text books that for the most part contain so called facts that scientist today have now completely refuted as evidence for evolution such as Java man, or Lucy (all now completely refuted by scientists).
[CONTINUED]...
....[Continued from previous post]
I believe in the Bible as the facts given have stood the test of time and are not disputed as often as the various theories of evolution that pop up from time-to-time. I believe in the Bible because it has been taken as Gods divine word by many for countless centuries that I fear to ignore its message lest I not have eternal life with my Maker
'I fear to ignore its message lest I not have eternal life with my Maker'
yawn - surprise surprise. I'll just add you to the countless literally hundreds of others who reveal their real motivation and hence their inability to judge the facts objectively. Your logic is childlike. At least Clanad has put the time in to justify his mistaken beliefs with (cough presuppositional cough) analysis of the original source material.
Don't you feel special having identified the actions of Yeshua Clanad? Indeed . . .
yawn - surprise surprise. I'll just add you to the countless literally hundreds of others who reveal their real motivation and hence their inability to judge the facts objectively. Your logic is childlike. At least Clanad has put the time in to justify his mistaken beliefs with (cough presuppositional cough) analysis of the original source material.
Don't you feel special having identified the actions of Yeshua Clanad? Indeed . . .
Somewhere in other countries or on other planets similar arguments are raging about the provenance and authority of the Qur'an, the Tao-te-ching, the Guru Granth Sahib, the Tipitaka, the Shruti, the Tomes of Quoglopz...
It's not about truth, it's about human nature - people like to be right, it gives them increased self esteem, they argue and if they come out on top, they have a warm fuzzy glow inside for the rest of the day. It's that warm fuzzy glow you are really fighting for, christians and anti-christians alike.
It's not about truth, it's about human nature - people like to be right, it gives them increased self esteem, they argue and if they come out on top, they have a warm fuzzy glow inside for the rest of the day. It's that warm fuzzy glow you are really fighting for, christians and anti-christians alike.
maybe, I suppose, but I have a warm fuzzy feeling all the time and not just when I'm right (which isn't often anyway).
All I know is is that I have been in both camps. I have had a time when I didn't follow God and his teachings and now a time when I do. I have tried both ways and this way is infinitely better, not necessarily IMO, but the facts, my life, my experiences prove it to be so.
The people who do not believe have only ever tried it their way and have never experienced anything else. Therefore, you are hypothesizing, and I am speaking from experience.
maybe you need to be right in order to feel warm and satisfied; I don't need to be right to feel like that. I feel like that all the time. It;s called being whole and fullfilled.
All I know is is that I have been in both camps. I have had a time when I didn't follow God and his teachings and now a time when I do. I have tried both ways and this way is infinitely better, not necessarily IMO, but the facts, my life, my experiences prove it to be so.
The people who do not believe have only ever tried it their way and have never experienced anything else. Therefore, you are hypothesizing, and I am speaking from experience.
maybe you need to be right in order to feel warm and satisfied; I don't need to be right to feel like that. I feel like that all the time. It;s called being whole and fullfilled.
Actually like most children I was indoctrinated into the Christian religion. The freedom of actually thinking for myself, of not having an infantile view of life, is so enriching I can only feel sorry for those too scared to make the leap.
have tried both ways and this way is infinitely better, not necessarily IMO, but the facts, my life, my experiences prove it to be so.
Actually El, it sounds like you've tried being "indoctrinated in the Religion" and not tried having a personal relationship with God. The two are actually different. I don't consider myself religious, I consider my self a follower of J.C.
Ironically, if you had have tried it both ways, your answer would not have been thus.
Im sorry that you feel sorry for me. You actually don't need to because life for me is fab!
simon
Yes, as I said, Evolution is a scientific theory. However, it doesn't "presuppose that there is no god or creator. The catholic church accept evolution as a fact and that institution represents a thousand million christians (around half of christians).
I'm not sure what your point is about Lucy and Java man or how you think they fit in to disproving evolution. I would be very interested in hearing your ideas. Especially I would be grateful if you could enlighten me on who these "many scientists" are who refute evolution.
My main beef was that this question was originally posted in the science section and yes it didn't have a shred of scientific content. At least now it has been moved to the arts.
From your post I take it that you are either a young earth or day age creationist? An explanation of your views on these matters would help.
jim
I do not consider myself religious. Religion on it's own to me is empty. I think Simon_t wrote something about religion earlier on in this thread (or maybe it was another) about we can do anything religiously.
I am not bound by a religiousness to my faith. I attend a church, but my faith is what I make it, not what I am told to make it.
This probably doesn't make sense either. I hope you don't think Im invovled in some kind of cult, becuase im really not. I just don't go for all that high church ritual/saying things in unison kind of thing (some people do and that's fine for them) but I am not one of those. I follow the teachings of jesus and have a personal relationship with god that is just between him and me, no 3rd parties present.
:-)
For rational people, (people who recognize that reality is the realm in which we come to be, live, and find real joy), the point of discussing conflicting view points is not to win the debate but to find truth. Rational people recognize that when we learn something new, (whether we were right or wrong is irrelevant), everybody wins.
mimififi
You offer yourself as an example - someone who has experience of both ways and is therefore in a position to judge. When El D offers exactly the same thing, suddenly it's not good enough - he's wrong and you're right....
Mib
I agree - it should be about finding truths, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It feels how I described it - people trying to get one over their opponent. At the risk of repeating what I said in the God thread, it seems to me that people are too ready to take positions and adopt a stance of certainty about things, to do battle with others who hold a different view, not to gain knowledge but to reinforce their own positions to themselves, to reassure themselves (by being in the right). Where do they get that certainty? They just suck it in from the society they happen to grow up in, the books which they read (books = words of other people), and they get it because to have it makes them feel comfortable and confident. Here in cyberspace it doesn't do much harm, but it's exactly the same certainty and confidence (arrogance?) that causes rifts and fights and wars out in the real world.
You offer yourself as an example - someone who has experience of both ways and is therefore in a position to judge. When El D offers exactly the same thing, suddenly it's not good enough - he's wrong and you're right....
Mib
I agree - it should be about finding truths, but it doesn't feel that way to me. It feels how I described it - people trying to get one over their opponent. At the risk of repeating what I said in the God thread, it seems to me that people are too ready to take positions and adopt a stance of certainty about things, to do battle with others who hold a different view, not to gain knowledge but to reinforce their own positions to themselves, to reassure themselves (by being in the right). Where do they get that certainty? They just suck it in from the society they happen to grow up in, the books which they read (books = words of other people), and they get it because to have it makes them feel comfortable and confident. Here in cyberspace it doesn't do much harm, but it's exactly the same certainty and confidence (arrogance?) that causes rifts and fights and wars out in the real world.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank23 mins ago
Asma Al-Assad Cannot Return To The Uk
News25 mins ago
Jokes32 mins ago
Will Stonehenge Become Reform's...
News47 mins ago
1.000 Migrants Since Christmas Day
News48 mins ago
