The holy bible...........or not so?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Klope3
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:15 pm
@mark noble,
I perceive the Bible as holy only because it is (that is, it conveys) the message of God. I would have problems with throwing a Bible into a fire only because I, in my human mind, associate the material book with the immaterial message. I'm sure I would be able to talk myself into throwing a Bible into a fire (though I would first be questioning whether this would be at all necessary). I don't in any way worship the book. If you want to get more specific, I don't even worship the Bible's message--I worship God, who gave the message in the first place.

While we're on it, I also don't subscribe to most of the tradition-based stuff that Catholics (I assume you're referring to them) practice. I don't cross myself or kneel before Mary or any of that. (Though I must admit I haven't seriously investigated the deeper established nature of Catholic traditions.) For a while I've even had a problem with the Pope's role in the Catholic world.

(BTW--there are some really interesting proofs of the New Testament's reliability out there. The Bible's trustworthy-ness need not be taken for granted. But that's a discussion for a different time.)
 
Ahab
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:27 pm
@fast,
fast;171784 wrote:
No.


So one can distinguish between the Bible and the message it conveys.

That is precisely what Mr. Noble is doing here.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 06:14 pm
@Krumple,
Krumple;170924 wrote:
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?


This is a no win situation. Oh hey most of them haven't read it, but if they read it and still believed they'd be stupid. This is an opinion based from a set of presuppositions that are in cultural vogue. 1) That informed consent is natural/normal/necessary and 2) One must confirm to a materialist view of belief justification.

1) Humanity, even the "smart ones" rarely think through that which they believe, if you don't believe it read some cognitive science etc... People rarely take the time to research what they believe, nor for the most part is it a big deal that they don't. Also along this vein chemicals, emotions, genetic predisositions to various forms of non-psychotic manias tend to cloud "rational" judgement. It seems not to make a large demographic difference when it comes to violent offenders etc... per capita that have a normative belief structure.
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.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 07:04 pm
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;171842 wrote:

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.


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.
 
prothero
 
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:59 pm
@mark noble,
One can of course refer to the Bible as "sacred" or "inspired" without meaning the physical book is to be worshiped as an "idol". The meaning clearly would be that the message contained within the story is "sacred". In fact referring to the bible as sacred or inspired does not imply one thinks it is dicated by god or infalliable (accurate history or good science) only that there is something of wisdom and of value contained within about the human condition and mens notions of god. The Bible is one of the foundational documents of western civilization. It contains timeless stories about the human condition and human existential conflicts. It is the source for much of western literature art and music. It is indeed a sacred document in many senses of the word.
 
ABYA
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:07 am
@mark noble,
Mark wrote
Quote:

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.


These things provide nothing more than psychological support, but they can be of great benfit to those who believe in them, they can seem to have a magical power but the magic really lies in the psychological power the object provides for the person. To say that there is any upper Spititual force in these objects is a lie.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 08:40 am
@ABYA,
ABYA;171780 wrote:
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.


Hi Abya,

I value (not revere) my various bibles as I value all my books - But, if I were on a mountain, freezing cold, I would have no problem using one for fire lighting. I would then, if I survived the episode, buy another bible to replace the one I had burned. Also, I can have the bible contents on my mobile phone, or the internet. This doesn't make my phone or the net Holy.
Thank you for understanding the thread principle Abya, I am grateful someone does.
Have a fantastic day, Abya.

Mark...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 09:21 am
@Klope3,
Klope3;171857 wrote:
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.


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.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 09:34 am
@Ahab,
[QUOTE=Ahab;171799]So one can distinguish between the Bible and the message it conveys.[/QUOTE]Of course, just as we can distinguish between 1) a car and its driver and 2) its driver

[QUOTE]That is precisely what Mr. Noble is doing here.[/QUOTE]
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)).
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:06 am
@fast,
fast;172100 wrote:

He's confused, and I was trying to help him with that confusion.


No, he's not.
He made clear in the OP that he was using 'Bible' to refer to only the physical book. Just as I used it in my example.

The cat shat on the physical object we call the Bible and Mr. Noble is referring to the physical object we call the Bible.
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:29 am
@fast,
fast;172100 wrote:
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)).


Hi Fast,

I don't like aggressive posts at all. I don't dislike them either. I don't care...
When the early gospels were first conveyed (many more than the bible (book) is comprised of), it was by word of mouth, even after the 3rd cent, when Constantine decided the thereafter content, to the main, it was conveyed by word of mouth - from father to son, from generation to generation, and so on. Just because it has been converted into ink and paper format, doesn't make it suddenly sacred. The book, that is.

This thread's origins are thus - My friend Mark Gamson (on this forum) travelled the uk, europe and Africa, preaching, giving sermons and teaching christianity to many. In one uk church he stood at the pulpit and moved the in-place bible, so as to read from his own. After the speech he was approached by one of the church elders there, who sternly made the statement "You moved the holy book!" Mark told the elder "It's just a book". We discussed this, analysed it, and concluded that - Well, the thread speaks for itself.

I am not confused, fast, nor annoyed, nor am I shocked by the alternate opinions herein. They are all expected...

God made all religions, all scriptures, all books. NO one of them is sacred, they are equal. so, either all things are sacred or no things are sacred (your choice)?

God is the Author of ALL.

Thank you, I enjoyed your thoughts.

Mark...
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:39 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;172117 wrote:


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.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:46 am
@Ahab,
[QUOTE=Ahab;172108]

No, he's not.
He made clear in the OP that he was using 'Bible' to refer to only the physical book. Just as I used it in my example.

The cat shat on the physical object we call the Bible and Mr. Noble is referring to the physical object we call the Bible.[/QUOTE]

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.

---------- Post added 06-02-2010 at 12:51 PM ----------

[QUOTE=mark noble;172117] This thread's origins are thus - My friend Mark Gamson (on this forum) travelled the uk, europe and Africa, preaching, giving sermons and teaching christianity to many. In one uk church he stood at the pulpit and moved the in-place bible, so as to read from his own. After the speech he was approached by one of the church elders there, who sternly made the statement "You moved the holy book!" Mark told the elder "It's just a book". We discussed this, analysed it, and concluded that - Well, the thread speaks for itself.[/QUOTE]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?
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 10:58 am
@Krumple,
Krumple;172122 wrote:
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.


Hi Krumple,

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.

Thank you, Krumple, and have a splendid everything, always.

Mark...
 
Ahab
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:02 am
@fast,
fast;172127 wrote:


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.


To clarify: the single quotes should have been regular quotes. I was just too lazy to press the shift button.

One can certainly use "Bible" to refer to the physical book that bears the title "Holy Bible" on its cover. Mr. Noble appears to be doing that in this thread. I did it in my example of the cat sh*tting on the book. Others in this thread have made reference to throwing the Bible in a fire or treating it with respect.

I really don't know why you are making such a fuss about this. You seem to be throwing up clouds of confusion where there were none to begin with.:perplexed:
 
mark noble
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:03 am
@fast,
fast;172127 wrote:

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...
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:33 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;172138 wrote:
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...


A man that has murdered his wife is a man, but he is not just a man. He's also a murderer. A book that contains the Word of God is a book, and you would have me think that it's just a book?
 
Krumple
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:34 am
@mark noble,
mark noble;172133 wrote:
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.


I knew what you meant, all I was doing was closing the escape route that you left wide open with your statement. But if that is still not good enough let me explain the same position but from another angle.

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.

So we don't want to leave the escape route open otherwise the discussion will try to slip out the back door and create a counter argument without any basis.

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.
 
fast
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 11:35 am
@mark noble,
[QUOTE=mark noble;172138]I think everybody's confused, that's what makes us all Brilliant.[/QUOTE]I'm not in the best of moods right now to respond to this, but who knows, maybe Reconstructo will thank you for it nevertheless.
 
Klope3
 
Reply Wed 2 Jun, 2010 05:07 pm
@fast,
Krumple;172093 wrote:
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.


The belief that a God exists is reinforced by the evidence. (I will concede that religion may be a tendency built into humans--but that doesn't necessarily dictate that all religions are false.) Meanwhile, we can't conclude that there is more than one omnipotent, omniscient being; I don't see any reason to conclude this. And, there would need to be some distinction between them--meaning that one would be different from the other, meaning that this one would lack something the other possessed, thus making it not omnipotent/omniscient.

Also, I think you may have misunderstood my statement if you think what I said before is something you argue all the time.

Krumple;172152 wrote:
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.


First, most religions have some element of the truth that Christians profess. Many, if not most, religions deal with some sort of higher being--which God is. I'd say that's a mark that God left. Now, why are there so many different religions? I would put forth that it's because God has 1) given humans free will to believe what they choose, and 2) given those who believe in him a field in which to live for him (going on Christian missions, for example.) But we are once more, we are debating God's reasoning behind doing things. This doesn't satisfy anything (except philosophical/theological curiosity), since most of God's reasoning we will probably never know.

Second, your analogy works only up to a certain point. I believe that math is fact and that God is just as much of a fact. But there is another factor present in the case of belief in God that is absent in the case of belief in math. If you disbelieve that the Pythagorean theorem is true, and I prove conclusively to you that it is true, that's not going to have any bearing on what you do with your desires, your urges, and your choices throughout your life.

However, if I prove to you (let's save the question of whether or not I can prove this for another thread) beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists and that he created everything that exists in the universe, that will potentially have some bearing on the way you live your life. In atheism, there is (technically) no moral accountability. However, if it's proven reasonably to you that God created people and then you observe that most if not all people possess some sort of moral code within, it's not unreasonable to conclude that God placed that code there deliberately. The implication, then, would be that a person would have an obligation to obey the code. A pre-established unwillingness to do so may conflict with an acceptance of the evidence for Christianity provided.

Krumple;172152 wrote:
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.


I've sort of already responded to this. I disagree with your premise and your conclusion. I'd say God's mark can be found on most, if not all, world religions--and even if this wasn't so, it wouldn't be a very good reason to disbelieve the existence of God.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/12/2021 at 01:09:06