• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why do you NOT believe the Bible?

Kapalika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member

Well, uh... if I say that objects fall towards earth at 9.81 m/s^2 it doesn't matter if I'm the Pope, a schoolgirl or a physicist, if I said it just now, 100 years ago or in the future, it's true no matter what. And it was true before Newton discovered this fact.

So yes, really.

How could you argue otherwise?

Isn't that basically everyone who reads the Bible?

With that reasoning you also read interpret it the way you like. And because everyone has a different interpretation we know that our human perception is fallible and so even IF the Bible was inerrant we couldn't ever read it and claim that anything we believed was unquestionably from God.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
It would be foolish to engage you in the topic, since I am sure that everything that you have concluded about the Bible is a result of serious study that far exceeds mine. :rolleyes:
Serious study? Not at all, but as for my knowledge far exceeding yours, quite possibly. :shrug:

I know where you got those numbers from, and they are bogus.
Because your sources---what were they again?---are far superior because . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .?

But my faith isn't fractured, it even has an institutional continuity that stretches back to antiquity. It is called Catholicism, and it has seen the rise and fall of empires. Combined with the Eastern Orthodox the ancient faith of the Apostles has been maintained unbroken in all its essential teachings to this very day. That's not to say Church is perfect, nor is any member of it, but we have the promise of God himself that no matter how dire things may get, it will never completely fall. Matthew 16:18 And guess what? This faith still maintains the majority of all the world's Christians. So far, the promise made by Christ has held and it has been just over two-thousand years now. And the Chruch has seen worse than it is in now.

So where is this fracturing?
I'm sorry this has gone over your head, but here:

fracture
/ˈfræktʃə/
noun
1. the act of breaking or the state of being broken

3. a division, split, or breach
Please note the "division" and "split." So, to rephrase: The Christian religion is divided/split into thousands of denominations.

Well, this "fracturing" that you think is so ubiquitous, is largely among those who cling to the assertions of a sixteenth century schism. (Who happen to be predominate in the part of the word where the loudest atheists tend to come from) but regardless, they do not hold my faith.
So what? The when and why make no difference. The fact remains that today the Christian religion is fractured ("divided" or "split" if these terms are more palatable) into thousands of denominations.


.
 
Last edited:

Riders

Well-Known Member
The denominations didn't all come into being in the 1600s no. I think 7th day Adventists were in the early 1800s. Mormons 1700s.

The Pentecostals came around in the early 1900s, that's the Assembly Of God, Church of God, COGIC, 4 Square, United Pentecostals, APostolics,Nazareth ,Full Gospel.The Nondenominations interdenominationals didn't come around till the 1960s and 70s.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The denominations didn't all come into being in the 1600s no. I think 7th day Adventists were in the early 1800s. Mormons 1700s.
Mormonism was established in 1830. I don't know about the others you mentioned. The denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation were mostly founded in the 16th and 17th centuries. Restorationism (including Mormonism) started much later.
 

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Oddly enough even though I don't believe its God inspired infallible book, I do think theyre are some truths in the bible. I don't believe Jesus is God but I do think he knew a lot maybe had some interesting knowledge that most normal people did not of those times.

The weird thing though is that I do believe some apolcalyptic truths in Revelations that actually most Christians don't believe.I think some the earth is dying, the heating of the earth global warming and our states with start to die sometime but it will mean that Christians will have a very time surviving like the rest of us.

But most Christians think there wont be any suffering for Christians they believe in the rapture. Its a fantasy, Christians interpret things their own way but I don't agree with Christians interpretation of things.

They interpret everything as Christians being perfect and safe at the end, its fantasy.


I don't think the Bible's narrative is completely worthless either. I still retain a fondness for many sage sayings and quotes, as well as the inspiration it gives people through its stories. =0)

The foundation and base is another matter though, by which it's inception and compilation leads me to take it as a being a redacted piece of literiture made to fit into various views and beliefs through its quality for broad interpretation.

It's really no better or worse than Buddhist discourses and literature pertaining to the Buddha's origins and teachings with clear exceptions that can be made respectively givin the age by which those writings came about and by whom.
 

Riders

Well-Known Member
Mormonism was established in 1830. I don't know about the others you mentioned. The denominations that came out of the Protestant Reformation were mostly founded in the 16th and 17th centuries. Restorationism (including Mormonism) started much later.

Thankyou for clearing that up wow.
 

buddhist

Well-Known Member
I know where you got those numbers from, and they are bogus. Again, do you really believe that the Catholic Chruch alone is made up of over two-hundred "denominations"?

But my faith isn't fractured, it even has an institutional continuity that stretches back to antiquity. It is called Catholicism, and it has seen the rise and fall of empires. Combined with the Eastern Orthodox the ancient faith of the Apostles has been maintained unbroken in all its essential teachings to this very day. That's not to say Church is perfect, nor is any member of it, but we have the promise of God himself that no matter how dire things may get, it will never completely fall. Matthew 16:18 And guess what? This faith still maintains the majority of all the world's Christians. So far, the promise made by Christ has held and it has been just over two-thousand years now. And the Chruch has seen worse than it is in now.

So where is this fracturing?

Well, this "fracturing" that you think is so ubiquitous, is largely among those who cling to the assertions of a sixteenth century schism. (Who happen to be predominate in the part of the word where the loudest atheists tend to come from) but regardless, they do not hold my faith.
You do realize that other Christian denominations claim many of the exact same things you just did? For example, the Baptists would similarly say:

... do you really believe that the Baptist Church alone is made up of over two-hundred "denominations"?

But my faith isn't fractured, it even has an institutional continuity that stretches back to antiquity [e.g. John the Baptist]. It is called the Baptist faith, and it has seen the rise and fall of empires. ... the ancient faith of the Apostles has been maintained unbroken in all its essential teachings to this very day. ...

So where is this fracturing?

Well, this "fracturing" that you think is so ubiquitous, is largely among those who cling to the assertions of a fourth century schism [which produced the schismatic Catholic Church]. (Who happen to be predominate in the part of the word where the loudest atheists tend to come from) but regardless, they do not hold my faith.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Ever since I was a wee lovesong I felt that something just wasn't right with Christianity.

I certainly with this, but it's not the Bible's fault.....people simply don't live by much of it, nor do their so-called leaders.
 

Acim

Revelation all the time
I would love to have a conversation with some people about why they do NOT believe the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but am looking for the arguments against the Bible.

How it is organized is partially why I have doubts about the Bible, and then in combination with that, designating that (alone) as inspired Word of God, is where I take strong issue. Being Christian, I'd be fine with Gospel as 'inspired Word of God.' But adding in other books, along with Jewish scripture, plus subtracting a whole lot of other books, and it strikes me as man is essentially engaging in blasphemy to suggest this, and only this, represents God's communication with humanity. Especially if one considers the idea that Holy Spirit ought to be able to speak directly to/through you, rather than rely on a text (outside of you).
 
I would love to have a conversation with some people about why they do NOT believe the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but am looking for the arguments against the Bible.
Do you believe that the Quran is the inspired word of God? How about the vedas?

If either or both answers are 'no', then you have my answer as well.
 

lovesong

:D
Premium Member
I certainly with this, but it's not the Bible's fault.....people simply don't live by much of it, nor do their so-called leaders.
To be honest it's probably better that way. If people really lived by the bible we would have a society of slave owners, rapists, a plague of murder, incest, and laws based on morality so strict that many of us would be put to death. So to me, neither living by the bible or pretending too felt right to me. Whether I'm being told I'm going to hell or actually being sent there for getting it on with my boyfriend or working on the weekends, I still can't get passed that thought of "hmm, something isn't right here."
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I would love to have a conversation with some people about why they do NOT believe the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but am looking for the arguments against the Bible.

Water before the stars? Men from dust and women from ribs? Talking sepents? Taking a short break for our sins and make it look like the ultimate sacrifice? Etc.

C'mon. It should be obvious why we do not believe that.

Ciao

- viole
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
To be honest it's probably better that way. If people really lived by the bible we would have a society of slave owners, rapists, a plague of murder, incest, and laws based on morality so strict that many of us would be put to death. So to me, neither living by the bible or pretending too felt right to me. Whether I'm being told I'm going to hell or actually being sent there for getting it on with my boyfriend or working on the weekends, I still can't get passed that thought of "hmm, something isn't right here."
God's Law condemned most of these things; what was allowed, was only for the Israelites, in protecting them and helping them to survive as a nation living among morally deficient people. But those times have passed.

Now, there is no specific nation (Acts of the Apostles 10:35), and God tells Christians thruout all nations to act this way:

Colossians 3:13-14; Colossians 4:6; Ephesians 5:28-29; Ephesians 4:28-29; Ephesians 4:31-32; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Ephesians 6:1-4; Matthew 5:44; Philippians 2:2-4; Philippians 2:14.

Don't you enjoy being around others who exhibit these qualities? Of course. And you know, there's an interesting thing about it....God wants everyone to act this way, so he'll help you by giving youu his strength, his spirit. The "by-products", you could say, of having that spirit is found @ Galatians 5:22-23. These are qualities everyone needs.

And, just by reasoning on a few Scriptures, you'll see there is no suffering after death. Don't let people try to scare you with that.

Take care.
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I dont make arguments against any sacred scripture. I find that disrepectful. (Why its right/wrong etc)

What I can say is why I personally dont believe the Bible. The Bible and Quran, so far I know, are the only two books (Torah including) that have a sort of obedience, sacrifice (in general), war, death, etc. I do not agree with taking a life regardless who does it, what for, and whether theyd be safe in the afterlife. Reading the Bible makes me personally sick (upset stomach etc). It reminds me of watching politics on t.v., or whe I used to watch COPs.

When I started reading The Buddha's sutras, a wash ran over me that there is no violence in the sutras. The Buddha taught taking a life is the biggest "sins" one can commit. It gave me a perspective of dominant religions.

I dont care for the Bible because I dont care for what the church did to thousands of people and They were the ones who chose whats inspired and whats not. Who gave them that right? They certainly didnt have it when pagans were killing christians then they take rights by they killing pagans.

As for the inspired word of god, I never got that. Since god is life, everything that strengthens us spiritually, morally, etc is inspired by god. I dont see one book above others. Anything that makes life not balanced does not fit in how I see reality.

I honestly dont see how the bible helps people. I have honestly asked people on RF but Id like more answers from christians who dont really talk much on the forums. I know the opinions of the fantastic ten. What about everyone else?
In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that he has to slaughter his relatives on the field of battle and shows Arjuna his form when Arjuna isn't convinced.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
In the Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that he has to slaughter his relatives on the field of battle and shows Arjuna his form when Arjuna isn't convinced.

Not something I agree with. The Buddha sutras have demons doing things but they are analogies to mirror that they can be Buddhas just as The Buddha himself. The Bible is more political rather than based on oral stories and analogy. As for Hindu scripture, I no nothing about.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
Thanks for honest post, Carlita.

One thing I'd like to point out is this....


I dont care for the Bible because I dont care for what the church did to thousands of people

You really can't blame the Bible for what the church (people) did, and still do!

That's like a person purchasing do-it-yourself furniture but instead of following the instructions, he decides to put it together himself! Then the furniture gets all messed up. Its not the instruction's fault.

What are the 'instructions'?

Well, God tells Christians thruout all nations to act this way:

Colossians 3:13-14; Colossians 4:6; Ephesians 5:28-29; Ephesians 4:28-29; Ephesians 4:31-32; 1 Corinthians 13:4-8; Ephesians 6:1-4; Matthew 5:44; Philippians 2:2-4; Philippians 2:14.

Most just aren't "following the instructions".But remember, the instructions aren't wrong.
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I would love to have a conversation with some people about why they do NOT believe the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God but am looking for the arguments against the Bible.
Let me ask you a question: why do you "believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God?" Because you were taught to? Because it seems to speak irrefutable truths?

Do you really believe that the Genesis story (actually 2 of them) accurately describe how creation came to be? If it is accurate, why does creation present so very much compelling evidence that that is simply not the case?

Do you really believe that a loving deity would order the indiscriminate slaughter of a whole people, so that some other -- more favoured -- people could take their land and property -- and their virgin daughters for themselves, while killing all the male children? Does that seem "godlike" to you?

Do you really believe that no other scripture, from any of the other world religions, are not "the inspired Word of God," even though they make the same claim to that status as the Bible does? Why not? What do they say that dissuades you?

Do you really believe that a loving God would painfully kill David's child to punish David for sinning with Bathsheba? What did the kid do, that he should be punished for his father's sin.

Do you really believe that a loving God would kill all the first-born of Egypt to punish Pharaoh, but leave Pharaoh alive?

Do you really believe that god killed all the people on earth (including infants and children in womb) with the exception of 8 because they were all (including the infants and unborn) irredeemable sinners? How does a child of 1, or 6 months, or 5 weeks before delivery, deserve such a fate?

I could do this forever, but as you can see, I find it astonishing that anybody could actually READ the Bible -- all of it, as I have -- and conclude that it is the "inspired Word of God."
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Thanks. Good analogy!

That's like a person purchasing do-it-yourself furniture but instead of following the instructions, he decides to put it together himself! Then the furniture gets all messed up. Its not the instruction's fault.

It's like purchasing furniture and finding out the instructions that you thought were based the original person who designed it to market and the people who helped him is actually based on and compiled by the marketed company trying to sell it by putting their own instructions together and tell everyone these instructions are the words of the designer.

Then the reformers come in to try and pick a part the same instructions to keep the ones they think are best but regardless of which instructions and pages they keep or add, the content though well-written wasn't correct in order for them to put the furniture together in one piece. So, they go in an uproar against the furniture company.

Then a group of people (and another group of people) decide, "hey, let's look at what the designer written" but not realizing that the designer did not write anything but told people what to write. So, basically, everything each group and company (who knows more than the groups afterward) are getting is second hand knowledge to which they think is first hand.

What happens then, when things don't work out as plan, people split up into groups and either one, create their own instructions, two, add commentary to the instruction that didn't work, or three toss out part of the pages saying they know which is right.

The problem isn't the person. The company got the instructions from the designer. The groups got the instructions from the company. Then you have individual people who don't want to be part of any contract company nor the company corporation who wrote the instructions.

Yet, all of these cases, everyone is still going by the same instructions the company wrote unless each person can read the designer's language which wasn't English nor French nor German.

Then, you think?

Ah ha! I got it, I don't need the instructions from the company, I can find it out myself. So, without knowing the language of the designer, you study what you think is the right interpretation into your langauge not realizing that languages do not translate one hundred percent from one to another.

Then you have those who chuck the instructions and try to build the furniture herself. Which sounds like a good plan for people who don't follow the Book. Nothing wrong with that.

What I like about this idea is, one, if a screw is in the wrong spot, the person, say Jane, takes responsibility for it. She doesn't have to throw the instructions in the trash thinking it or the designer had something to do with her construction of it. Then she can have positive feelings of building the furniture on her own as things are more authentic when you do it on your own.

But after all this:

The only things that's needed for this whole analogy is the designer (god) and the company (The Church/Apostles).

Take the designer out, you'd have no furniture. Take the Apostles out, you'd have no New Testament or in other words, the designers' words would be only oral messages floating in the wind and ears of the Apostles without them writing a thing.

Then we get mad at The Church saying they add things to the instructions.

I think, wait, what! THEY are the ones that put the instructions together in the first place.

Then others say, no we should look to the designer first!

I think, wait, you can't do that with the instructions (has the designer's name, by the way. Though copyrighted by The Church) -that's put together by the Church.

If you want to get to know the designer, chuck the instructions and learn about the furniture itself. Learning about the furniture and putting together is the same as knowing the designer who built it.

That's what ritual is and how I practice. It's not easy but learning to build things on your own in life is well worth the effort than taking 2,000th person's word for it.

--

EDIT

By the way... "Most just aren't "following the instructions".But remember, the instructions aren't wrong."

The Church compose the scriptures (the Apostles and those who took after their lead) since some protestants say the body of Christ can't add their say to how god inspired them.

They may be right as in well-written. However, I always wondered why people use those instructions and at the same time say, "well, if we build the whole furniture, we would be the designer since the designer knows everything" and then others built but so much and study the instructions with faith rather than learning about the designer by action.

Step away from the instructions and get to know the designer personally.

Don't worry, the furniture can be built without the instructions. It just takes a bit more brain power and effort and *cough cough* faith.
 
Last edited:
Top