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.
When a person chooses, for what ever the reason, to dispense with reality the unavoidable consequence is a vacuum created in their mind where reason once dwelt. The mind, by its nature, seeks to fill this vacuum with anything which becomes available. This is a powerful tool used by people who believe there is some value in controlling other people. A common term for this is �brainwashing.�
By getting people to abandon reason they are then in a position to �program� them as they see fit. I won�t go into the various �reasons� why people use this technique as I don�t believe this kind of behavior modification is ever justified.
I encourage people to protect themselves from this by safeguarding their minds from adopting irrational beliefs. This is done by applying reason to that which you choose to believe. Unfortunately when we are taught to abandon reason at an early age it becomes much more difficult to reverse the process. This is why I view religious indoctrination as a scourge upon humanity.
There is another source for this affliction, society. When people tell you that you owe your allegiance to something other than your reason, be it God, country, or group, remember, we have the right, necessitated by our very nature, to choose to whom we make our obligations.
Reason does not cause war. It is not rational to believe we have something to gain by forcing people to act against their will in opposition to their own self-interest. Rational people choose to interact with people who value their lives here on Earth. We know we have nothing to gain from those who don't.
By getting people to abandon reason they are then in a position to �program� them as they see fit. I won�t go into the various �reasons� why people use this technique as I don�t believe this kind of behavior modification is ever justified.
I encourage people to protect themselves from this by safeguarding their minds from adopting irrational beliefs. This is done by applying reason to that which you choose to believe. Unfortunately when we are taught to abandon reason at an early age it becomes much more difficult to reverse the process. This is why I view religious indoctrination as a scourge upon humanity.
There is another source for this affliction, society. When people tell you that you owe your allegiance to something other than your reason, be it God, country, or group, remember, we have the right, necessitated by our very nature, to choose to whom we make our obligations.
Reason does not cause war. It is not rational to believe we have something to gain by forcing people to act against their will in opposition to their own self-interest. Rational people choose to interact with people who value their lives here on Earth. We know we have nothing to gain from those who don't.
to try to answer your actual question joules - here is a discussion of who actually wrote the Bible.
Was I being hostile? I hope my perceived hostility didn't offend you. I apologise etc etc...
Actually I would cite that as an example of one-upmanship.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're not about to start any wars. I think it's a truism to say that religion has been the cause of countless wars throughout history, or if you prefer, people have used their faith as an excuse to start wars. And of course, it's not just historical, it's happening all over the world right now, opposing sets of people not giving any ground, both utterly convinced of their own "rightness" and the other's "wrongness", and ready to slaughter themselves, their enemies, and any innocents caught in the crossfire - just so that they can demonstrate their devotion to their gods.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am suffering from a mental illness. Perhaps all my beliefs are really errors and I'm actually not clever enough to see through them. Perhaps I really don't have privileged access to the deepest and most fundamental truths of the universe. This is at least possible.
I can admit that about myself - can those people, in terms of their faith, do the same? It doesn't appear so. It's that unshakeable certainty that I find a little sinister.
One unshakeable certainty I do have is that, if I don't stop writing now I will be late for work.
Actually I would cite that as an example of one-upmanship.
Anyway, I'm glad to hear you're not about to start any wars. I think it's a truism to say that religion has been the cause of countless wars throughout history, or if you prefer, people have used their faith as an excuse to start wars. And of course, it's not just historical, it's happening all over the world right now, opposing sets of people not giving any ground, both utterly convinced of their own "rightness" and the other's "wrongness", and ready to slaughter themselves, their enemies, and any innocents caught in the crossfire - just so that they can demonstrate their devotion to their gods.
Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am suffering from a mental illness. Perhaps all my beliefs are really errors and I'm actually not clever enough to see through them. Perhaps I really don't have privileged access to the deepest and most fundamental truths of the universe. This is at least possible.
I can admit that about myself - can those people, in terms of their faith, do the same? It doesn't appear so. It's that unshakeable certainty that I find a little sinister.
One unshakeable certainty I do have is that, if I don't stop writing now I will be late for work.
people who wonder why people are religious, and what Darwinian purpose religion serves, may be interested in this - seems it may be genetic.
In which case, sneering at people for being religious may be as unacceptable as sneering at them for being black or Jewish.
I'm a little reluctant to start quoting bible verses but it is relevent to the original question, so bear with me for a moment.
The bible says of itself that, "... no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the holy spirit." and that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God."
So although there were many writers over many hundreds of years, Moses, Solomon, Ezekial, Matthew, John, Paul, etc, etc, the claim is that there was one guiding hand behind each that made use of their individual abilities. Now that's quite some claim for the bible to make, and I think it sets out a challenge to those who are interested to see just how true that claim is. Is there a consistency within scripture that spans the different writings? How accurate have it's prophecies been? Does archeology confirm any of it's claims? are just some of the questions we should ask ourselves.
Of course, if it were all absolutely black and white then the biggest factor of it all would be missing, faith, which is the most important element in any relationship. But it is a faith that is built on logic and reasoning, not simply a blind unthinking belief.
Hi loudickson71, I am wondering what you found nice about my "<cuts, pastes, saves>"? Was it the presentation or the content? I will try to answer your question later but right now, I need to reveal a contradiction.
I do not object to others using �my words� to convey truth, (I have done likewise), as long as their meaning is properly represented.
Faith is not a product of �logic and reasoning�.
Reasoning, (thinking), is the application of logic, (the method), to evidence, (based on perceptual data), to establish, (confirm), the validity, (proof) of our knowledge, (facts). They must be used systematically and without error to succeed. Faith is belief without proof. 'Hmmmmmmmuch easier!'
A contradiction is a statement which disproves itself; Example: �You should believe in �God� and �His word� because he created the tree of knowledge in the midst of the Garden of Eden knowing full well our desire to know good from evil, and included a snake in the garden as well, just in case.�
I maintain that the only rational basis for any kind of relationship, (be it with human or beast), is for mutual benefit.
jno
Not sure if your post was directed at me. I'm probably just being paranoid because your post came directly after mine. Anyway, just want to say that I don't think criticizing is the same as sneering, just as pointing out the fallacy of an argument isn't showing hostility.
mib
Of course it's important to always try to be rational and seek knowledge, especially when trying to decide how to act (where your actions can have serious consequences). But I think you stress it too much. Fleas on a dog's back might use their rationality to deduce that they live on a hairy planet called Fido which revolves around a two-legged sun called "master" (or whatever) - the point is, logic can only take you so far. For me that "so far", although useful, is not very far at all. That's why I always stress that we are largely ignorant creatures. I suppose there's no way to prove it (just as there's no way for you to prove otherwise) but that's the way I feel... Also, the mutual benefit thing - there are countless examples of people sacrificing themselves for others. I'd like to know where your mutual benefit theory fits into this. That's why, for me, I'm not so interested in how much a person knows - how clever they are - I'm more interested in the quality of a person's heart. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do judge people, and I judge them by this. There are good people and bad people in this world, humble people and prideful people, spiteful people and compassionate people, etc etc, and people's skills at rational argument don't seem to impact much on the quality of their hearts.
Not sure if your post was directed at me. I'm probably just being paranoid because your post came directly after mine. Anyway, just want to say that I don't think criticizing is the same as sneering, just as pointing out the fallacy of an argument isn't showing hostility.
mib
Of course it's important to always try to be rational and seek knowledge, especially when trying to decide how to act (where your actions can have serious consequences). But I think you stress it too much. Fleas on a dog's back might use their rationality to deduce that they live on a hairy planet called Fido which revolves around a two-legged sun called "master" (or whatever) - the point is, logic can only take you so far. For me that "so far", although useful, is not very far at all. That's why I always stress that we are largely ignorant creatures. I suppose there's no way to prove it (just as there's no way for you to prove otherwise) but that's the way I feel... Also, the mutual benefit thing - there are countless examples of people sacrificing themselves for others. I'd like to know where your mutual benefit theory fits into this. That's why, for me, I'm not so interested in how much a person knows - how clever they are - I'm more interested in the quality of a person's heart. Maybe I shouldn't, but I do judge people, and I judge them by this. There are good people and bad people in this world, humble people and prideful people, spiteful people and compassionate people, etc etc, and people's skills at rational argument don't seem to impact much on the quality of their hearts.
christians
It's possible isn't it, that Jesus was really the son of the devil, placed here to cause countless deaths and wars and general mayhem. It might be all a conspiracy on the part of Satan, and you've all been had. Probably you will react in horror to such a suggestion, but we don't know the truth. (Think about it - you have faith, you believe, but you don't KNOW). There are a million possibilities. Maybe he was just a great doctor, maybe he was the son of God, maybe Allah is the true god, maybe Buddha was right, maybe there is no god, maybe spatial and temporal dimensions are just concepts our brains impose on the world and there is no physical world at all. Maybe there are no objective truths, only moral truths found by looking inwards, maybe science really has discovered most of the truths out there... The point is, no one knows - not you, not me, not George Bush.... We are limited creatures with limited sensory apparatus, apperatuses, apparati...
It's nice to take a stance, to hold an opinion and defend it. It makes us feel like we are on solid ground. It's reassuring, comforting, to think "I know the truth, I'm right, you're wrong", but ultimately it's a conceit, because you're not that clever, I'm not that clever, Bin Laden and George Bush are not that clever. We are just big fleas on a big rock, trying to use what we've got to peer into something very deep and not necessarily amenable to the rules of logic...
It's possible isn't it, that Jesus was really the son of the devil, placed here to cause countless deaths and wars and general mayhem. It might be all a conspiracy on the part of Satan, and you've all been had. Probably you will react in horror to such a suggestion, but we don't know the truth. (Think about it - you have faith, you believe, but you don't KNOW). There are a million possibilities. Maybe he was just a great doctor, maybe he was the son of God, maybe Allah is the true god, maybe Buddha was right, maybe there is no god, maybe spatial and temporal dimensions are just concepts our brains impose on the world and there is no physical world at all. Maybe there are no objective truths, only moral truths found by looking inwards, maybe science really has discovered most of the truths out there... The point is, no one knows - not you, not me, not George Bush.... We are limited creatures with limited sensory apparatus, apperatuses, apparati...
It's nice to take a stance, to hold an opinion and defend it. It makes us feel like we are on solid ground. It's reassuring, comforting, to think "I know the truth, I'm right, you're wrong", but ultimately it's a conceit, because you're not that clever, I'm not that clever, Bin Laden and George Bush are not that clever. We are just big fleas on a big rock, trying to use what we've got to peer into something very deep and not necessarily amenable to the rules of logic...
hi mib, the cuts pastes saves bit was me actually saving your argument in case the thread gets wiped. Read the threads from start to finish, how often do you come across someone tackling the actual core, ie the subject doing the believing? Totally crucial, largely overlooked.
blinky, it's the classic case of 'argument from limited research' (expounding a position without fully researching the options). Those who differ from you don't do so on a whim, but because they have found themselves lacking and have informed themselves on that basis. Mainstream religious conviction, is very often held by those who consider their own sum of knowledge of facts and systems to be sufficient.
You have two options (this sounds harsh, but is true). You can resign yourself to ignorance (easy option) and claim that your conclusions are on an equal par with those who have pulled out the finger and sweated over science and philosophy to put themselves in a position to make at least a half-informed stab at the truth. Which would you rather be in? If you don't want to inform yourself, then fine. But don't make the mistake of thinking that the truth comes naturally and without effort to humans. That takes blood, sweat and tears. Either the truth, or comfort, is your goal. It can't be both. If you just want comfort, don't delude yourself into thinking you will ever reach the truth. You will fall on something easier, like Christianity, or Islam, because your goal was never the truth, but something to fill the void.
For those on the other track, seeking truth in itself, nothing looks more absurd than the sham of modern mainstream religion passing itself off as an acceptable Philosophy of Life. Completely contradicts what Philosophy of Science tells us we can know better than any other guess.
It's time to wake up and get with the Program. If you're content to waste your entire life on a fairy tale, that's fine. Good luck to you.
blinky - no, my post wasn't aimed at you at all; just coincidence that yours was the previous post. It was just a link to a story I thought was particularly interesting and appropriate. Most AB threads dealing with religion do seem to bring out some sneering on the part (chiefly) of non-believers; I just wondered whether the possibility that belief was genetically determined meant that such scorn was untenable.
Actually, a lot of the posts in this thread have been polite and informative and I'm enjoying following them - though I haven't changed my own views, and I'll bet nobody else has either.
I agree with Clanad and Mfewell. The Bible is the inspired word of God, channelled by the Holy Spirit, via prophets and wise men through the ages. You don't think God is going to make the world and then just leave us all to it, do you?
Then he sent Jesus Christ, our Lord, to bridge the gap between the animals (material) and angels (spiritual). How else do you explain all these near-death experiences, that all sound so similar?
How could the early christians have put up with so much persecution unless they believed what they preached, and at least some had seen our Lord and Saviour die, be buried, rise again and ascend into heaven? Would you die for a lie? Of course not. And so much of what the four gospel writers and Letter wirters concur on central facts.
We are also seeing the book of Revelation's prophesies come true before our very eyes. You just have to have faith. The facts are there for you.
What else are you going to believe? That the universe popped out of nowhere, dust amalgamated, some comets hit earth, as did carbon and some other stuff, came together accidentally in chains, replicated, formed into cells, became complex, moved to land, and grew into the people you see around you today??? Spinning around on a little rock in the middle of nowhere? For the whole process to end one day as if it had never happened? Is that what you choose? Madness and chaos, total lack of meaning? Good luck to you. Give me my Jesus and his Blessed Mother any day. You'll all meet Moses in the Great Big Answerbank in the sky one day, then we'll see who's right? Gonna be hot where you're going. That's what'll happen for not figuring it out. But the free choice was yours.
You're reading all that's written on this page right now. You don't think that's just a bunch of neurons firing off in your skull, do you? You KNOW you're more than that. You can FEEL it.
loudickson71, Thanks, I was beginning to consider changing my name to imbn2cweus.
The road of truth is often a lonely road, although this is not proof that the road you�re on is the right one. In a way this is good because it encourages you to be certain it is the right one. As for the persecution of the saints, they have nothing on those whose convictions have paved the road to greater knowledge and better understanding.
If the calamities portrayed in the book of Revelation�s are taking place it is those who are bending over backwards to see that they do by subverting our focus from the job at hand who deserve all of the credit. You will not succeed because people who value their life will not pander to your pretext.
One other thing: If you find your life has no meaning this is a clue that you need to check the definitions of the words you use to give your life meaning.
Loud
There is knowledge and there is knowledge. The kind of knowledge that a scientist can gain by twenty years of specialising in a narrow field can be very useful to humanity as a whole, but it's not much use on an individual level. There is another kind of knowledge that some very ignorant people display. I'm not just talking about self-knowledge, although that's part of it.
There is knowledge and there is knowledge. The kind of knowledge that a scientist can gain by twenty years of specialising in a narrow field can be very useful to humanity as a whole, but it's not much use on an individual level. There is another kind of knowledge that some very ignorant people display. I'm not just talking about self-knowledge, although that's part of it.
jno
I read the article - it was interesting and if true, your conclusion would be right, but I think, even if there is a genetic disposition towards being religious, I doubt if it makes up more than a fraction of people's reasons for believing. I mean, there are so many examples of children who have grown up to reject their parents' religion, I would say that free will, human nature, emotional problems and experiences, local culture - all these things make up a much greater part of the reasons why people embrace and reject religion (in my opinion).
I read the article - it was interesting and if true, your conclusion would be right, but I think, even if there is a genetic disposition towards being religious, I doubt if it makes up more than a fraction of people's reasons for believing. I mean, there are so many examples of children who have grown up to reject their parents' religion, I would say that free will, human nature, emotional problems and experiences, local culture - all these things make up a much greater part of the reasons why people embrace and reject religion (in my opinion).
I don't have time to read all the posts. I do however want to add in my little bit about the creation/ evolution thing although it has probably been covered elsewhere. Evolution is not only a theory but a largely discredited theory. Darwin has been exposed as not credible. where is this paleontological (spelling not my forte) evidence for the half ape like half human man? there is none. there are no intermediate fossils or any sort of evidence other than mere conjecture for the fact that humans ascended from apes. there is reams of evidence for the Flood and I could go on for ages but I haven't got my notes.
also for example Tacitus. his original "Histories and Annals" was thought to be written in 98 - 108 AD. the oldest surviving copy is from 850 AD ish - i.e. there are 750 years between the oriignal the the oldest copy. what's more there are only 2 copies around today.
If you talk about the New Testament however, it was wrtiten between 40AD and 100AD. the oldest surviving copy is from AD 350 - merely 310 years. and there are 14,000 ancient copies around today. if you accept Tacitus is reliable surely you must accept the New Testament? not accepting the truth that is in it necessarily- only God will persuade you of that if he wants to, but surely that shows that as far as anything that old is reliably accurate then the New Testament is.
other than that - keep going you Christians.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Strands#265 Did You Hear That?
Quizzes & Puzzles43 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles64 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles78 mins ago
