Bible a waste of space?

[FerventGodSeeker]

That wasn't an opinion but if you don't think I'm right than go talk to some atheists about it.

And mine wasn't an opinion either...if you don't think I'm right then go talk to some Christians about it.

They are atheists because they beleive people who beleive in god are self-delusional.

They are Christians because they believe people who don't believe in God are self-delusional, ignorant, etc.

Atheism is based on the opposition of theistic beleif. There's really no contradicting that as far as I know but I would be interested if you can.

You'd be interested to see if I can contradict Atheism? Sure: God exists. There's no disproving that as far as I know but I would be interested if you can.

If you actually read my other replies you would already know what I think of the bible. However I'll do a short recap:

The bible was probably created by a group of people with the intent of keeping order to mankind.
The bible was written in a way that makes it actually marketable to the human race in order to achieve their goal.

And if I understand correctly you say it has failed in that goal, right? How so?

 

[may]

The only persuasion in beleiving what the bible says is that God will hurt me after I die. quote] if religious leaders have taught you this then they are not teaching the bible , because this is not what true bible teaching is.

 

[Anti-World]

I've been taught the Catholic teachings my entire life, I know what their teaching is. I also know of a variety of other christian teachings and their interpretations of the bible. Trust me when I say that I know a quite a bit about the bible.

If you think I'm simplistic than you shouldn't have a problem understanding everything I've written. (I hope that's the case)

Another short recap since people seem to refuse to read any of my replies but the ones that suit them:

The bible is a complete and total waste of space concerning morals because nearly any beleif can be backed up by the bible do to interpretation. It is not a waste of space if someone simply wants to read something concerning morals just for the fun of it and to know the viewpoints of other people (Even if they can't be specifically pinpointed.) If you think the bible is poetry, good for you.

People have been arguing with me on and off about when I said, "That's not my opinion its a fact." (Or something along those lines.) I guess that's something people find offensive. When I was talking about that I was referring to my signature. It's not an opinion based on my definition: Beleif is calling a statement true without sufficient evidence. Other definitions could prove that statement false. That's the irritating thing about language.

Jesus had a Huge impact on the Earth and that is something to consider in itself. I value him immensly because of that.

I really really really want to know what other people think of the bible and I'm really getting annoyed that people are leaving replies here just to start some completely off topic debate. Please! I want to know what people think of the bible!

Is it a waste of space and why.

 

[may]

I've been taught the Catholic teachings my entire life, I know what their teaching is. I also know of a variety of other christian teachings and their interpretations of the bible. Trust me when I say that I know a quite a bit about the bible.

If you think I'm simplistic than you shouldn't have a problem understanding everything I've written. (I hope that's the case)

Another short recap since people seem to refuse to read any of my replies but the ones that suit them:

The bible is a complete and total waste of space concerning morals because nearly any beleif can be backed up by the bible do to interpretation. It is not a waste of space if someone simply wants to read something concerning morals just for the fun of it and to know the viewpoints of other people (Even if they can't be specifically pinpointed.) If you think the bible is poetry, good for you.

People have been arguing with me on and off about when I said, "That's not my opinion its a fact." (Or something along those lines.) I guess that's something people find offensive. When I was talking about that I was referring to my signature. It's not an opinion based on my definition: Beleif is calling a statement true without sufficient evidence. Other definitions could prove that statement false. That's the irritating thing about language.

Jesus had a Huge impact on the Earth and that is something to consider in itself. I value him immensly because of that.

I really really really want to know what other people think of the bible and I'm really getting annoyed that people are leaving replies here just to start some completely off topic debate. Please! I want to know what people think of the bible!

Is it a waste of space and why.

well from my point of view the bible most certainly is not a waste of space, because it is a book full of prophecies that have come true in the past ,are undergoing fullfillment right now, and also have yet to be fullfilled in the future ,and make no mistake about it , bible prophecies ALWAYS come true.
Jehovah’s Witnesses know that the Bible is a book of reliable prophecy. And they fully agree with the apostle Peter’s exhortation: "We have the prophetic word made more sure; and you are doing well in paying attention to it as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and a daystar rises, in your hearts." (2 Peter 1:19) my sincere hope is that you will be heartened by the splendid prospects that Bible prophecy holds out for the future!

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I've been taught the Catholic teachings my entire life, I know what their teaching is. I also know of a variety of other christian teachings and their interpretations of the bible. Trust me when I say that I know a quite a bit about the bible.

Congratulations.

If you think I'm simplistic than you shouldn't have a problem understanding everything I've written. (I hope that's the case)

Another short recap since people seem to refuse to read any of my replies but the ones that suit them:

The bible is a complete and total waste of space concerning morals because nearly any beleif can be backed up by the bible do to interpretation.

So how does that make the Bible itself a waste? Obviously the authors of the respective books did not intend contradictory interpretations of the writings to arise, so shouldn't that prompt us to find the CORRECT interpretation, rather then just throw the entire baby out with the bathwater simply because people disagree on it?

It is not a waste of space if someone simply wants to read something concerning morals just for the fun of it and to know the viewpoints of other people (Even if they can't be specifically pinpointed.) If you think the bible is poetry, good for you.

Most people only want to know God's will in order to consider it, not to follow it.

Typical human nature, really.

People have been arguing with me on and off about when I said, "That's not my opinion its a fact." (Or something along those lines.) I guess that's something people find offensive. When I was talking about that I was referring to my signature. It's not an opinion based on my definition: Beleif is calling a statement true without sufficient evidence. Other definitions could prove that statement false. That's the irritating thing about language.

And the more irritating part is that you continue to assert that definition without ever backing it up. That's not what belief means, so it's rather odd that you continue to insist that it is.

Jesus had a Huge impact on the Earth and that is something to consider in itself. I value him immensly because of that.

So then why wouldn't you value the writings of His closest followers who knew Him intimately more than any others and loved Him?

I really really really want to know what other people think of the bible and I'm really getting annoyed that people are leaving replies here just to start some completely off topic debate. Please! I want to know what people think of the bible!

I believe it is infallible Scripture from God written down for us to learn from and follow.

 

[Anti-World]

Beleif:

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Now rationalize basing your entire life on belief.

Belief can be a beautifle thing but you have to understand that it's completely irrational and not a strong foundation. I think almost any people that are interpreting the bible are doing it through gut instinct (The way they were raised.) and what may be a relationship with a God (I simply can't assume that). So there really isn't any difference between translating the bible as we like to see it or just "winging it" and coming up with our own belief structure.

Every single one of the factions of christian religion can never prove themselves definitively correct.

Even the christian faiths that beleive they have some relationship with God do not agree on what God is teaching them! How do you account for that? That they're misguided? Couldn't they say the same thing about you? And I see this all the time. You bicker and quarrel about a passage in the bible without presenting any identifiable proves.

Why do you try to convert people to 'God' when none of you can agree on what 'God' actually wants?!

Do you see the problem I have with the bible? It doesn't solve anything.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Beleif:

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.

Many opinions and convictions can be supported by great amounts of evidences and can be shown to be true, or at least true beyond reasonable doubt

2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief

"rigorous proof" is the key here...certain elements of Christianity deal with things that are spiritual and beyond immediate physical detection. However, other elements do deal in the material world (science, history, archeology, etc) and can be shown to be true through a variety of evidences.

3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.

Sometimes confidence and trust is misplaced, sometimes it is correctly placed. Confidence and trust in themselves do not have to be irrational, and can be based on known facts and evidence.

Now rationalize basing your entire life on belief.

Large parts of every person's life, whatever religious system they choose or do not choose to participate in, are based on foundational beliefs about themselves and their world. If you think that Atheism is immune to this, you have another thing coming: http://web.archive.org/web/20030604161657/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ146.HTM

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604145551/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ451.HTM

Belief can be a beautifle thing but you have to understand that it's completely irrational and not a strong foundation.

In this we simply have to disagree. Faith can be built on a strong foundation of evidence, as in the case of Christianity.

I think almost any people that are interpreting the bible are doing it through gut instinct (The way they were raised.) and what may be a relationship with a God (I simply can't assume that). So there really isn't any difference between translating the bible as we like to see it or just "winging it" and coming up with our own belief structure.

Then unfortunately, like too many Atheists that I come in contact with, you haven't the slightest idea about even the most basic premises of Biblical exegesis. If you really think that the best method for interpreting Biblical passages is just to "go with your gut feeling" then I can't help but tell you that you are sadly mistaken and to prehaps consult some books on the basics of #1, literary analysis (particuarly historical), and #2, specifically Biblical exegesis. There are vast resources on the subjects, I recommend an investment into even just a few of them.

Every single one of the factions of christian religion can never prove themselves definitively correct.

You're right. In my opinion, only one can.

Even the christian faiths that beleive they have some relationship with God do not agree on what God is teaching them! How do you account for that?

Sin and imperfect human nature: both very basic Christian teachings.

That they're misguided? Couldn't they say the same thing about you? And I see this all the time. You bicker and quarrel about a passage in the bible without presenting any identifiable proves.

Then you haven't seen many decent Biblical debates. Of course, some people will never believe even when the evidence is right in front of them and the truth is plain to see, so the fact that dissention is unfortunately perpetual does not in itself disprove the claims of the Bible or Christianity as a whole.

Why do you try to convert people to 'God' when none of you can agree on what 'God' actually wants?!

A surprisingly large number of us do agree, and we've been preaching the message for 2,000 years now. I just wish more people would listen.

Do you see the problem I have with the bible? It doesn't solve anything

Untrue. It solves many things, when properly understood. When you are in the boat that you currently find yourself in, without the foggiest notion of how to understand the parts of the Bible you read, then I can definitely understand where you're coming from. However, your perspective is incomplete. When you begin to learn where the Bible came from, the historical context in which the various portions of it were written, the languages that the texts were originally written in, etc, then the pieces start to surprisingly come together. Until that time that you decide to do a bit more research, it's my bet that you're going to continue to find the Bible and Christians' faith in it perplexing. I pray that God will guide you on your journey for truth.

 

[Anti-World]

"You're right. In my opinion, only one can.

some people will never believe even when the evidence is right in front of them and the truth is plain to see

It solves many things, when properly understood."

Again, again, and again, I see this. Why is it that these things which are so apparent are only apparent to select groups of people? You want everyone to see the bible in exactly the same way as *you* see it.

Do you pray publicly in church?

1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

Also, how many times do you repeat the same prayer?

7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Do you dress up for church?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

I'm going to enjoy watching you christians take apart these verses to make them suit you while ignoring Jesus' obvious statements. It will be easy for you to look up because those verses are all in chapter six in the book of Matthew.

I'm not Atheist by the way and I completely agree that they too ignorantly base much of their morals on "beleif". I refuse to place myself under any faction in religion because they tend to blind themselves with their own teachings and bias'.

What most christians ask me to do is put on a blindfold and listen to someone else read a bible to me. It's there! I'm literate! There is no secret method to breaking the bible code to read it correctly.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

"You're right. In my opinion, only one can.

some people will never believe even when the evidence is right in front of them and the truth is plain to see

It solves many things, when properly understood."

Again, again, and again, I see this. Why is it that these things which are so apparent are only apparent to select groups of people?

Because there is such a thing as blindness.

You want everyone to see the bible in exactly the same way as *you* see it.

No, I'd like everyone to see the Bible in exactly the same way that the Church has always seen it for 2,000 years.

Do you pray publicly in church?

1Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.

#1, "alms" are not prayer.

#2, you seem to have missed the phrase "to be seen of them [men]." We are not to give alms to be seen by men...that doesn't say never pray publicly, so I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. (see, for example, Luke 21 where Jesus praises a poor woman for giving what she could publicly)

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

#1, I do pray privately.

#2, where does this verse say to never pray publicly? Or do I need to remind you of when Jesus praises the example of a penitent man who prayed publicly in the temple? (Luke 18:9-14)

Also, how many times do you repeat the same prayer?

7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

Again, you seem to miss very obvious parts of these verses. The word "vain" is used for a reason. There is nothing wrong with repetition of prayer or worshipful sayings when done wholeheartedly. Jesus gives warning against vain repetitions, as the verse plainly says, not repetitions altogether. (see Revelation 4 where the four living creatures repeat the same phrase day and night before God's throne)

Do you dress up for church?

28And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:
29And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

The Greek word translated "take thought" in the KJV is merimneo, which means to worry or be anxious about, and the verse is translated that way in most versions I've seen. Unfortunately the King James is written in Old English and it can be hard to comprehend some of the turns of phrase used in it in modern times. Jesus says here not to worry or be anxious about what we wear...that doesn't mean never dress up or to be dirty and sloppy looking.

I'm going to enjoy watching you christians take apart these verses to make them suit you while ignoring Jesus' obvious statements.

Ah, I see...so basically any attempt that myself or any other Christian makes, no matter how plainly we read the text, to explain the above verses to you, we automatically must be "making them suit us." That's a convenient cop out.

It will be easy for you to look up because those verses are all in chapter six in the book of Matthew.

And that should probably tell you something. There are hundreds of chapters in the Bible. Basing your entire view of prayer and proper church attire on one chapter is probably taking things a bit out of context, doncha think? Maybe you should, I dunno, look at some other chapters in the Bible to form a more holistic view?

I'm not Atheist by the way and I completely agree that they too ignorantly base much of their morals on "beleif". I refuse to place myself under any faction in religion because they tend to blind themselves with their own teachings and bias'.

Oh, so what would you consider yourself? Theist? Agnostic? You seemed to have been defending non-theism, so I'm interested as to what your actual views are.

What most christians ask me to do is put on a blindfold and listen to someone else read a bible to me. It's there! I'm literate! There is no secret method to breaking the bible code to read it correctly

If you're literate, please use your literacy skills and actually read what the words say. So far you've taken a few verses in a single chapter of the Bible, ripped them out of context of the rest of Scripture, and ignored very plain parts of the verses.
I am in no way asking you to put on a blindfold. I'm asking you to take one off. Hopefully that is beginning to happen.

 

[may]

".

What most christians ask me to do is put on a blindfold and listen to someone else read a bible to me.quote] Jesus said to do the following thing ,
This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ John 17;3 the bible is the place to take in knowledge about JEHOVAH God and his son Jesus christ, and it leads to everlasting life ,

 

[Anti-World]

If you aren't anxious about what you wear then you wouldn't have a problem going to church in briefs. *shrugs*

You are right about praying in public because its impossible to avoid when in a church. But like the passage you cited (Luke 18:9-14) one guy prays to himself and the other prays far away.

I'm guessing you're Catholic. The church has had changes in the way they viewed the bible including not accepting money for forgiveness like they used to. Also, 1900 years would be a better estimate for the new testement. You probably knew that but it is important.

"You seemed to have been defending non-theism"

I'm anti-theistic anti-nihilist anti-atheist anti-mormon anti-islamic anti-capitalist etc etc etc. I'm anti-world.

"Again, you seem to miss very obvious parts of these verses. The word "vain" is used for a reason."

I'll keep that in mind but it looks, to me, like Jesus is saying "God heard you the first time and he's not going to respond just because you repeat yourself alot." I could be wrong, that's interpretation for you (Bible = useless).

"No, I'd like everyone to see the Bible in exactly the same way that the Church has always seen it for 2,000 years."

Mm hm. I know.

That reminds me. I'm amused at how much the Catholic church has supported divorce. I hope I don't have to bring up the amount of verses in the bible that go against divorce. Granted, they do give the exception in the case of adultery but the woman is never suppose to marry again. (Kind of sexist but that's what it says.)

"Basing your entire view of prayer and proper church attire on one chapter is probably taking things a bit out of context, doncha think?"

No.

"Because there is such a thing as blindness."

How do we know who's blind and who's not? Can we get tested for it? Can we give a urine sample? I don't understand how one interpretation is considered better than another in each of those christian factions. If I hear voices in my head does that make me right about the bible? No, it makes me delusional. My entire point about bringing up those bible verses is that any of us can interpret them how we like to see it and no one can really prove me wrong. You think you can, but you can't. For instance, I could say Jesus came into my bedroom in the middle of the night and told me that he didn't actually mean any of the stuff that was written in the bible he was just bored so he came to Earth. Or for anything in the bible I could say, "Well, he didn't really mean that." Who's to say I'm wrong? No one is around that actually knows. Bible interpreters just guess and check, hoping they're right when they die.

 

[Defij]

My entire point about bringing up those bible verses is that any of us can interpret them how we like to see it and no one can really prove me wrong.

Well I know I haven't really been involved in this debate from the get go, but I would just like to chime in on this statement, and forgive me if it's already been stated.

That said, people can indeed be "proved" (not really the correct term, but you used it) wrong when it comes to Biblical interpretation. Proper hermeneutics and proper Biblical exegesis can be used to scholarly determine the correct interpretation of any verse in the Bible. Basically, finding out what the original intent of a verse was is not very difficult at all, and usually not up for debate, among any legit scholars that is. However, when it comes to "application", that's a whole different beast. I think that is the common problem that people run into when they talk about "who's to say what the Bible means, etc etc." It's easy to see exactly what the original authors/editors of the Bible wanted to say, but when it comes to applying to our lives today, well that's where the confusion comes in. Okay, enough with that dead horse.

 

[sojourner]

Beleif:

1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
1) Now rationalize basing your entire life on belief.

Belief can be a beautifle thing but you have to understand that it's completely irrational and not a strong foundation. I think almost any people that are interpreting the bible are doing it through gut instinct (The way they were raised.) and what may be a relationship with a God (I simply can't assume that). So there really isn't any difference between translating the bible as we like to see it or just "winging it" and coming up with our own belief structure.

2) Every single one of the factions of christian religion can never prove themselves definitively correct.

3) Even the christian faiths that beleive they have some relationship with God do not agree on what God is teaching them! How do you account for that? That they're misguided? Couldn't they say the same thing about you? And I see this all the time. You bicker and quarrel about a passage in the bible without presenting any identifiable proves.

4) Why do you try to convert people to 'God' when none of you can agree on what 'God' actually wants?!

5) Do you see the problem I have with the bible? It doesn't solve anything.

1) We don't rationalize our being on belief...we rationalize our being on faith. Faith and belief are two separate animals.

2) Our goal is not to "prove ourselves correct." Our goal is to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

3) My sisters and I all have a relationship with our parents, yet sometimes our perspectives with regard to family dynamics sometimes clash. That's just human nature. The Church is a human organism.

4) All of us agree that what God desires is a relationship with us.

5) The Bible was never meant to "solve anything." That's like trying to use the collected poems of Maya Anjelou to give you information about how to repair your busted Ford Pinto. The Bible has more than one purpose, none of which is to "solve anything."

Sorry, A_E!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

We don't rationalize our being on belief...we rationalize our being on faith. Faith and belief are two separate animals.

Our goal is not to "prove ourselves correct." Our goal is to seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving our neighbor as ourselves.

My sisters and I all have a relationship with our parents, yet sometimes our perspectives with regard to family dynamics sometimes clash. That's just human nature. The Church is a human organism.

All of us agree that what God desires is a relationship with us.

The Bible was never meant to "solve anything." That's like trying to use the collected poems of Maya Anjelou to give you information about how to repair your busted Ford Pinto. The Bible has more than one purpose, none of which is to "solve anything."

Colorblind here.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

If you aren't anxious about what you wear then you wouldn't have a problem going to church in briefs. *shrugs*

Nor would I have a problem going to church in nice clothes...which I don't.

You are right about praying in public because its impossible to avoid when in a church. But like the passage you cited (Luke 18:9-14) one guy prays to himself and the other prays far away.

Which happens all the time in modern churches. However, that doesn't deny the validity of prayer in groups or as a Church body. I have no idea where you're getting that idea, it's been a practice since the inception of the Church.

I'm guessing you're Catholic. The church has had changes in the way they viewed the bible including not accepting money for forgiveness like they used to.

Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that the abuses to penance were never a part of official Church teaching.

Also, 1900 years would be a better estimate for the new testement. You probably knew that but it is important.

Sorry, don't know what you're referring to here.

I'm anti-theistic anti-nihilist anti-atheist anti-mormon anti-islamic anti-capitalist etc etc etc. I'm anti-world.

That's wonderful...yet you failed to answer my question? Would you consider yourself a theist? an atheist? an agnostic? pretending like you have no view on the subject just isn't gonna fly, sorry.

I'll keep that in mind but it looks, to me, like Jesus is saying "God heard you the first time and he's not going to respond just because you repeat yourself alot." I could be wrong,

Actually in that case you're not too far off. God doesn't respond to prayer simply because you use a lot of words. God looks at the heart. And again, that doesn't invalidate any and all repetition.

that's interpretation for you (Bible = useless).

So because there are various interpretations of Scripture, therefore Scripture is useless? I have no idea how you're getting there logically. Once again, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water rather than searching for the most accurate interpretation.

That reminds me. I'm amused at how much the Catholic church has supported divorce. I hope I don't have to bring up the amount of verses in the bible that go against divorce. Granted, they do give the exception in the case of adultery but the woman is never suppose to marry again. (Kind of sexist but that's what it says.)

The Church is now and has alwas been opposed to divorce. Divorce is not possible through Catholic churches.
I'm amused at how many false bits of information are floating out there about the Catholic Church that people actually buy.

"Basing your entire view of prayer and proper church attire on one chapter is probably taking things a bit out of context, doncha think?"

No.

Really? Well with an explanation that sound how can I argue?

How do we know who's blind and who's not? Can we get tested for it? Can we give a urine sample? I don't understand how one interpretation is considered better than another in each of those christian factions.

And again, that's because you are ignorant of even the most basic methods of Biblical exegesis. Again, invest in a few resources to help you along, and things may become more clear.

If I hear voices in my head does that make me right about the bible? No, it makes me delusional. My entire point about bringing up those bible verses is that any of us can interpret them how we like to see it and no one can really prove me wrong. You think you can, but you can't.

I'll leave it to the outside readers of the thread to determine for themselves whether I successfully disproved your point or not. I think that the close examination of the verses that I offered makes mincemeat of your rather shallow reading.

For instance, I could say Jesus came into my bedroom in the middle of the night and told me that he didn't actually mean any of the stuff that was written in the bible he was just bored so he came to Earth. Or for anything in the bible I could say, "Well, he didn't really mean that." Who's to say I'm wrong? No one is around that actually knows. Bible interpreters just guess and check, hoping they're right when they die.

But the question is, why would Jesus tell you something that is entirely contrary to what He has revealed to the Church for the past 2,000 years? You may nay-say till your heart's content, but there has to be actual ryhme and reason behind your dissention. Since you seem to have convinced yourself that rhyme and reason with Scripture is not possible, then I can see your dilemma.

 

[Anti-World]

In response to Defij:

That’s just not true. If it is than why do people so consistently quarrel about what the bible is teaching us? I agree that the problem also lies largely with applying it to our lives but not everyone agrees on what any specific part of the bible was meant to say. It has changed over the years in interpretation, translation, and by the simple faults of human language. There is also the problem with the fact that the bible was written many years after Jesus died. Many people lose “faith” in the bible and what it states simply because of that.

In response to FerventGodSeeker:

“Nor would I have a problem going to church in nice clothes...which I don't.”

That’s not the point. The point is that most people go out of their way to dress up for church. They are anxious and afraid about what they look like in front of either God or the people around them. I’ll tell you this right now: God doesn’t care what you look like and church is not intended for the worship of your fellow man. You can choose to accept that or not, I don’t really care.

“Which happens all the time in modern churches. However, that doesn't deny the validity of prayer in groups or as a Church body. I have no idea where you're getting that idea, it's been a practice since the inception of the Church.”

Praying in groups, like repeating the lords prayer, is wrong because it takes away the personal prayer between one person and God (If he exists) and instead makes it more like something to do so that the hour in church goes by faster. Now your speaking to everyone in the congregation, not just God. Don’t forget, your god is a jealous god. Also, Jesus says specifically that repetition is not necessary.

“Without going into too much detail, suffice it to say that the abuses to penance were never a part of official Church teaching.”

Who is doing the lords will the one that says he wont do it and does it or the one that says he will do it and doesn’t? You are specifically stating that the Church says one thing and does another.

“Sorry, don't know what you're referring to here.”

You said it was the churches interpretation for nearly the last 2000 years or something along those lines. I was merely correcting you because the new testament was not written until around 100 ad. Many years after Jesus’ death. I’m sure you new that though.

“pretending like you have no view on the subject just isn't gonna fly, sorry.”

I’m already something in your eyes. I think you’ll find you judge people for who they are long before they state it themselves.

“So because there are various interpretations of Scripture, therefore Scripture is useless? I have no idea how you're getting there logically. Once again, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water rather than searching for the most accurate interpretation.”

Let me put it to you logically then. From this problem can you find out what x is? X = X. Imagine that there was a book that proposed that the solution to that problem is the answer to all the world problems. Obviously, you should see the uselessness of that problem because whatever the variable is on one side it’s the same on the other. No matter what number X equals, you are supposedly correct. You would probably laugh at a book like that. Welcome to the bible.
“The Church is now and has alwas been opposed to divorce. Divorce is not possible through Catholic churches. I'm amused at how many false bits of information are floating out there about the Catholic Church that people actually buy.”

Opposed but supporting it. That’s like policemen selling cocaine.

“And again, that's because you are ignorant of even the most basic methods of Biblical exegesis. Again, invest in a few resources to help you along, and things may become more clear.”

Perhaps. I cannot deny that a practiced mind can more easily solve puzzles, that would be foolish of me. I know I’ve spent hours trying to solve a rubics cube and gave up. Yet, with the right knowledge, some people can do them in about 5 minutes. All I can do is offer my own logic and reasoning and hopefully provide a point-of-view that people don’t see every day in order to progressively take apart this human dilemma of morals.

“I'll leave it to the outside readers of the thread to determine for themselves whether I successfully disproved your point or not. I think that the close examination of the verses that I offered makes mincemeat of your rather shallow reading.”

Let’s jump on the bandwagon then, shall we? Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m right, that was never the point. My point is simply that the bible cannot be agreed upon and, therefore, can’t be right. One cannot serve both God and Mammon. The bible provides us with unsolvable questions without the answer key.

 

[Anti-World]

My thoughts so far:

After reading these responses I think it’s easy to see and accept a few basic facts:

- What the bible means and the way it is interpreted varies widely.
- Belief or “faith” (I’m not sure what the difference is) is a foundation of many morals across a wide range (I would suspect uniformally) of religions.
I hypothesis that belief and faith are both merely words used to describe the way people act due to the environment in which people are raised. They make up laws and traditions in order to protect a way of life they are either used to or one that they want. Religion, likewise, is used to preserve old customs or new ones. Religion seems to be a persons ego boost and not based on fact, but rather opinion and “belief”. It’s profoundly amusing.

The bible is a source of much “belief” and “faith” mostly because it lacks purpose (God wanted it? Yet never speaks and shows little evidence of his existence). The bible doesn’t give a reason for why it was written but rather provides a way of life people want to be a part of and it’s unimportant whether it’s based on fact because fact is secondary to happiness.

The reasons for people to be moral based on the bible are as follows:

1.) God will send us to hell if we don’t. (Redundant because it’s after we are dead and can never know if this is true or not before its too late.)

2.) We love and/or fear God because we have a personal relationship with him. (Interesting because I’ve never loved anything that doesn’t exist. Perhaps people really do have some sort of relationship with an unknown creature? That’s a stretch but not over-ruled. It’s more likely that we love the idea. After all, I have been afraid of things that don’t exist. The boogey man, etc.)

I have to ask myself if it’s important whether or not it makes logical sense. Does the good outweigh the possible lie? Is anarchy more profitable than slavery? It seems like a struggle between two “evils”. I love the bible because of Jesus but I hate it because man. Jesus was a great philosopher at the least and a God at the most. But how does one not inflict their own bias upon the bible? These questions are so unanswerable to me.

If I say the bible is indeed a waste of space then I promote anarchy of all morals.

If I say the bible is not a waste of space then I promote the slavery of the mind and the pursuit of the unanswerable variable X =X.