Why do you NOT believe the Bible?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While I'm not interested in the first half of your polemic (you believe what you believe) I do take issue when people spout outright lies. There are no where near 30,000 denominations, otherwise you're going to have to commit to the notion that Catholicism alone comprises of about 200 of these "denominations" which is clearly absurd. You can't take any remotely distinct Christian group/rite/organisation and call it a "denomination" with anything remotely resembling honesty.

I agree with you about the 30,000 number specifically. Of course, some of those denominational divisions are more about organization than anything else, not necessarily doctrinal disagreement, but nonetheless, there IS a lot of doctrinal disagreement within Christianity. Even when we consider doctrinal divides, the number of Christian groups that disagree with each other on core issues is huge.

I grant that mainstream Christianity is hardly a monolithic entity, but it is not even close to the free-for-all that you imply. Looking beyond the obviously fringe sects, we find that there is nonetheless a coherent historical Christian orthodoxy which is more or less agreed upon by all the major historical denominations. The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are pretty established ground the majority of all Christians worldwide, just for starters.

The Nicene and Apostle's Creeds are both rejected by Christians denominations that account for many millions of Christians. The Trinity is rejected by tens of millions of Christians.

Another way of looking at it: can you name a single belief that's held by all Christian denominations?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

That is interesting, how would you respond to the argument that there were some things written in the bible about the future that there was no way that they could have known when that particular section was written?

Like what?

Also, what do you think about the fact that all of the theology and the message is consistent throughout the bible despite being written by 40 people over 2,000 years?

It's not consistent. Maybe, at best, there are at least two themes: love and hatred. Some authors focus on God's love. Others focus on God's wrath. Some authors promote inclusion while others promote exclusion.

The Nicene and Apostles' Creeds are pretty established ground the majority of all Christians worldwide, just for starters.

Why should they be, when Jesus didn't make them up? Aren't we supposed to be following HIM?

 

[metis]

The concept within Christianity that every word in the Bible is inerrant is largely a fairly recent belief, largely due to a reaction against "modernism" in the 19th century by what we often call "fundamentalism".

 

[Nietzsche]

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.

I have a basic understanding of ancient history, specifically the bits that cannot line up with the Old Testament. The New Testament isn't much better, but it doesn't try to engage in what amounts to fake history. The notion of Jewish slaves in Egypt, for instance, is...laughable. You'd think such a massive undertaking would leave us some evidence.

Spoiler,

It didn't.

 

[Nietzsche]

Another way of looking at it: can you name a single belief that's held by all Christian denominations?

...There was someone by the name of title of Christ? Going out on a limb, here.

 

[columbus]

Another way of looking at it: can you name a single belief that's held by all Christian denominations?

That's easy.
You pick a belief, for instance, "Jesus was born of a virgin". Then decide that anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a Christian.
Easy Peasy.
Tom

 

[YmirGF]

That's easy.
You pick a belief, for instance, "Jesus was born of a virgin". Then decide that anyone who doesn't believe that isn't a Christian.
Easy Peasy.
Tom

Actually, Tom, that is a very common translation error. The proper translation is "Jesus was born by a Virginian."

 

[Parchment]

That's easy.
You pick a belief, for instance, "Jesus was born of a virgin"

Matthew 1:18 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.
Joseph must truly have been a man of faith for if your wife to be of which you had no carnal knowledge of suddenly became pregnant claimed she was impregnated by some Holy Spirit I would be suspicious at the very least. I'd venture to say that most men who valued their spermological (I just made that term up, but somebody else probably did so before me years ago) contributions to the world would probably kick her to the curb pretty quickly instead of carting her around the desert with but a star to guide him.

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I'm curious - what are your expectations for this sort of conversation? What's your mission?

I suppose I ask because I'm not much for arguing, at least not for this particular topic. I wouldn't say I "disbelieve" in the Bible - I honor it as a collect of mythic narrative just as any other that human cultures have developed over time - but it is not a set of stories that is important to my life or that I incorporate into my religion. The reason for that is pretty straightforward - aesthetic preference. I'm not interested in the Bible for the same reasons I am not interested in romance novels - the genre doesn't appeal to me. Might I enjoy a romance novel or the Bible if I took the time to work with it? Maybe. But I know the genres I like, and I see little reason to deviate from it.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

My main problem: I was not there when its various books were originally written, and so I cannot personally verify anything within it, including any of it's alleged stories, alleged claims, or alleged "prophetic fulfillments".

This is an interesting way to oppose the Bible. Your religion status says, "early Buddhism", I assume you were there when Buddhism was founded and recorded, and can "personally verify" everything within it?

 

[columbus]

would probably kick her to the curb pretty quickly instead of carting her around the desert with but a star to guide him.

Have you even read it? Joseph wasn't guided by the star, that was the Magi.
But the fact remains, inventing that part of the story to make it more exciting to gullible people is far more plausible. It worked largely for two reasons. One, virgin birth was a well known concept in ancient lore. Two, people didn't realize where babies come from. They thought a male planted his seed in a vessel like he might plant a seed in a field for a crop.
Tom

 

[Parchment]

Joseph wasn't guided by the star, that was the Magi.

Which were the stars! Crowley played upon this idea to great effect, even the Mercurian kids still bustle up and jump on that old cart farting along down the road and some state they are trailblazers- HA! hahahahaha

 

[columbus]

Which were the stars! Crowley played upon this idea to great effect,

There are better sources of Biblical literacy
Tom

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...There was someone by the name of title of Christ? Going out on a limb, here.

In Christian terminology, docetism (from theGreek δοκεῖν/δόκησις dokeĩn (to seem)dókēsis (apparition, phantom),[1][2] according to Norbert Brox, is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

 

[Nietzsche]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

...

**** it, I give up.

Actually, no. Those are not Christians. I don't care what their argument is, that does not ****ing work.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

...

**** it, I give up.

Actually, no. Those are not Christians. I don't care what their argument is, that does not ****ing work.

If we're going to forbid people from using the label "Christian" on the grounds that their beliefs don't make sense, there will be a lot fewer Christians.

... and I'm not talking just about the Docetists.

 

[Parchment]

There are better sources of Biblical literacy
Tom

Like some Hebrews that edited and compiled some stories written by some people at some point in time?

 

[columbus]

Like some Hebrews that edited and compiled some stories written by some people at some point in time?

They're certainly better than Crowley, if he taught you that Joseph was following a star.
Tom

 

[buddhist]

This is an interesting way to oppose the Bible. Your religion status says, "early Buddhism", I assume you were there when Buddhism was founded and recorded, and can "personally verify" everything within it?

I wasn't there when Buddhism was founded and recorded.

With that said, "salvation" in early Buddhism does not depend on belief or blind faith on things which may or may not have happened 2500 years ago. It does not depend on belief or blind faith on the truth about who the Buddha was, or what he did, etc. (On the other hand, equivalent things matter greatly in Christianity and other faith-systems, because you must have blind faith in the right things, the right stories, the right Person, etc.)

Early Buddhism does depend on things which we can see in the here and now, e.g. the truth about suffering and its cessation.

So, it really doesn't matter if the Buddha was a prince born some 2500 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, or if he was a two headed monkey born 100,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the Buddha traveled around to preach the Laws and Truths he rediscovered, or if he didn't. It doesn't matter if the words attributed to the Buddha were spoken by one man, two women, or a hundred different people, and brought together as the "Dhamma". What matters are the Laws and Truths themselves (the Dhamma), Truths which we now attribute to someone to whom which we give the title Enlightened One ("Buddha"), Truths which I can and have verified for myself, in the present.

 

[djhwoodwerks]

So, it really doesn't matter if the Buddha was a prince born some 2500 years ago on the Indian subcontinent, or if he was a two headed monkey born 100,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if the Buddha traveled around to preach the Laws and Truths he rediscovered, or if he didn't. It doesn't matter if the words attributed to the Buddha were spoken by one man, two women, or a hundred different people, and brought together as the "Dhamma". What matters are the Laws and Truths themselves (the Dhamma), Truths which we now attribute to someone to whom which we give the title Enlightened One ("Buddha"), Truths which I can and have verified for myself, in the present.

It doesn't matter who wrote the laws and truths, it doesn't matter where they came from, it doesn't matter if buddha preached them, it only matters that they are?