Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
No.
Nope.
Yeah they do seem to worship it despite the fact that 90% have never read the thing from cover to cover either.
Far from anything great in my opinion. It's chalked full of superstition, abuse, misleading statements, oppression, hatred and discrimination and myths.
I don't think they do this anymore in some places within the US. I have testified on several different cases and never once was presented with a bible to swear an oath of truth on. But anyways, if this does still occur it is a little silly and superstitious.
Like Christians don't ever lie?
2) No religious type is ever going to surrmount the presupposition that material evidence is the only viable justification for belief. Religion, blessedly or sinisterly depending on the view is built on the presupposition that material evidence is not necessary and in many cases not beneficial to the ultimate goal of the religious practitioner.
To take this one step further - How do you feel about "kneeling before a cross or madonna figure", crossing oneself, and wearing a cross, st christopher, etc.
Scuse me interupting guys.
I understand exactly what your saying Mark, but, how would you feel about chucking a Bible into a fire or tearing one up to shreds. Even though I agree with you, I feel that it would be sacrilegious to willingly destroy a Bible.
No, because that's not the point of religion. Some religions do support that material evidence is a very reliable source, but in the end, if it is concluded that God exists, then it must be also concluded that material evidence is not necessarily the only reliable source of justification for anything.
He's confused, and I was trying to help him with that confusion.
Of course, just as we can distinguish between 1) a car and its driver and 2) its driver
No he's not. He's confused, and I was trying to help him with that confusion.
I can distinguish between 1) The material components of a Bible and the message conveyed by the material components of a Bible (aka the Bible) and 2) the message conveyed by the material components of a Bible.
Let's do this differently with some labeling:
A= The car and driver (B & C)
B= The car
C= The driver
We can distinguish between A and C. No problem.
Now, let's do this again for the Bible:
A= The Bible (B & C)
B= The material components
C= The message
Your ugly cat example was between A and C. Again, no problem.
Mark Noble (who I have been mildly aggressive towards--because he likes it) is trying to distinguish between B and C (which wouldn't be a problem if he wouldn't refer to B as the Bible (which is clearly A)).
God is the Author of ALL.
A bit of a contradiction when there are philosophies that do not include any god existing. ie. one such example is Buddhism.
Seems rather contradictory to be an author of something but then write yourself out?
How about a more rational explanation. There simply is no god. Mankind creates these religions, which is why there are so many, so many different philosophies and so many different interpretations.
Your use of single quotes hasn't gone unnoticed, and I thought you knew (just as I know) that to place a word in single quotes is to indicate to their readers that they're using the term in an unusual or alternative manner. I have no problem using the term 'Bible' (hence, the single quotes) to refer to just what it is Mark Noble is referring to. My issue is that the term "Bible" was used (by him) to refer to something that excluded the Word of God.
Besides, what difference does it make what he's referring to. My concern all along has been with what the term refers to, and yes, it happens to be the same thing you carelessly left on the floor that the cat shat on, and though the cat did not shat on the Bible's message, as a message isn't something that can be shat on, but the Bible nevertheless includes the message contained within it.
To talk of a Bible and exclude the message within is a contradiction since the Bible includes the message within. He's not talking about the Bible (which includes the message within). He even said as much. He is talking about what's left after excluding the message, yet what's left isn't the Bible (more like a shell of what once was), but he insists (as apparently do you) that what is left is still a Bible, but it's not, for the message is specifically being excluded.
It's a book, yes, but it's not just a book. Why would anyone think that a book is just a book? Because it's a book?
Hi Fast,
I just read this
And you think I'm confused?
I think everybody's confused, that's what makes us all Brilliant.
Mark...
I am merely relating to what God is deemed to be according to the bible. the contradictions within are voluminous, to say the least. Just because buddhism doesn't acknowledge a Deitic God, doesn't mean God didn't create it to be that way. God is the author of satanism, marxism, capitalism, every ism, whether the "ism" attributes to God or not........... - According to the bible - "All things are by, for and through Him" - Good and evil, night and day, etc.
I don't even believe in a deity. I am just discussing the Idolatry issue of said belief-system.
This is a point that I argue with all the time but it goes ignored.
I find it interesting and contradictory that a theist has the ability to just decide which gods do or do not exist. How is it that you can determine which gods do no exist and which ones do?
It is just a matter of picking and choosing as far as I can tell. All that matters is that you pick one and then that one will be correct. You don't need any evidence, you don't even need to reason it out with anyone. It is absolutely correct, because you chose it to be.
If the christian argument is that god is the author of all things, then it would stand to reason that evidence would be left within all things that that being the case, however; the evidence is to the contrary of that statement.
For example. We do not see five thousand interpretations of various forms of math. We don't have math teachers debating geometry. There might be some high levels of math that are debated but they also fall into the realm of un-proofs and that is why they are so debated.
Now if there was some validity to religion or specifically Christianity there should be a consensus to it's truth or proofs. However; there is not a single consensus with the system. You would think there would be at least one consensus but there is not even a single agreement at all. This to me is a red flag.
If there is a god, and that got is the author of all things, you would find it's signature on all things. Since there is no consistent authorship then it stands to reason that there is no single author, ie. god.