The Bible is literally true.

[St. Gabe 0]

Ouch, Glossinger sounds Jewish, so does Micah

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Not that I think it's his real name, but Micah is just a Biblical name. I have a Christian friend who shares that name.

[Guest croweater]

Math theorems can be proven through application.

Indeed they can, which is partially my point. But I shall get to that a bit later.

 

the bible was translated over time by monks and priests. Now, although much church politics was played throughout the ages the hundreds of monks and priests that did the translating and the transcribing . These were not people particularily high up in the ranks of the church. Add to this that the people translating have dedicated their life to God and what's right as well as studying the ancient scripts and you have to think that the errors made would be minimal. Remeber also that their actions were dictated by what was in the bible, not the other way around. They lived by the bible and drew guidance from it. What would be their reasons for rewriting what they had believed in and dedicated their lives too?

 

Now, about the maths proofs. Yes they can be proven, however, say for example sigma was used in an entirely different context back then than it is now. If sigma didn't mean standard deviation (as it is commonly used today) and instead meant average would that mean that every single proofs that we've ever done involving sigma be wrong? No, it deffinately does not, because although we've changed the use of the symbol from what it was originally the proofs continue to be correct as we have just reassigned a symbol.

Mistranslation of a single phrase (or a symbol) doesn't overide the whole text (or proof). It may only slightly change the context or even have no effect at all.

 

Edit: Also keep in mind that the monks and preists translating and transcribing the bible are considered to also be under the inspiration of God. Any changes in the text could theoretically been on purpose. On the other hand God may have inspired perfect translation. To disprove the legitimacy of the translations you would have to disprove God's input into them.

[Guest SP-1]

I don't think many people understand either that it was the job of a scribe to copy the text as exactly as possible. Especially Jewish scribes because they were preserving the highest of texts in their society. It just doesn't make sense to make a claim that biblical texts were intentionally screwed with over time. Not if you know anything about the culture and the people of the time.

[Jingus 0]

One major problem though: there's no such thing as a perfect translation. Nuances and subtle meanings are lost all the time in translating jobs. Hell, the real title of the Diary of Anne Frank is a word that has no exact English translation (it works out to something similar to "The Secret Annex", but not exactly). Different languages have completely different idiomatic sayings, slang, metaphors, and so on that rarely survive the trip to another tongue intact.

 

Now, apply that to the Bible, where everything has been translated from the original Middle Eastern languages to Greek to Latin to English, and it's easy to see how little errors might've come up.

 

Another point that I've always wanted to bring up to the local Biblethumpers (and there ain't no Biblethumper like a southern Biblethumper) but am usually too chicken to do so: if the Bible is "perfect literal historical truth" like I've heard it claimed to be so many times... then why are there so many different versions and editions of the book?

[The Mandarin 0]

Another point that I've always wanted to bring up to the local Biblethumpers (and there ain't no Biblethumper like a southern Biblethumper) but am usually too chicken to do so: if the Bible is "perfect literal historical truth" like I've heard it claimed to be so many times... then why are there so many different versions and editions of the book?

Well, we've got to spice it up once in a while. Nobody wants to read the same story for a few thousand years.

 

The 2-book Platinum Special Edition w/ Alternate Ending is released in a few weeks.

[Guest SP-1]

One major problem though: there's no such thing as a perfect translation.  Nuances and subtle meanings are lost all the time in translating jobs.  Hell, the real title of the Diary of Anne Frank is a word that has no exact English translation (it works out to something similar to "The Secret Annex", but not exactly).  Different languages have completely different idiomatic sayings, slang, metaphors, and so on that rarely survive the trip to another tongue intact. 

 

Now, apply that to the Bible, where everything has been translated from the original Middle Eastern languages to Greek to Latin to English, and it's easy to see how little errors might've come up. 

 

Another point that I've always wanted to bring up to the local Biblethumpers (and there ain't no Biblethumper like a southern Biblethumper) but am usually too chicken to do so: if the Bible is "perfect literal historical truth" like I've heard it claimed to be so many times... then why are there so many different versions and editions of the book?

FLAW: Modern English translations do not work from latin but directly from the greek and hebrew manuscripts.

 

The King James may have been translated from the Latin. But it's fallen in most circles to the NASB, which is the most accurate English translation available.

 

Also: I didn't say it was translated perfectly over time. I said it was copied as perfectly as possible. Investigate Jewish scribes a little and you'll see that any "changes" were so minor that they have no impact. Bible translation also works from several original manuscripts of the same passages.

 

Context matters. In everything.

 

Now, to address your last paragraph. The "Versions" you speak of are attempts at English translations geared toward the modern, common English speaker. There are no differences in what the text says, unless you're reading a Johova's Witness bible or possibly an LDS Bible. The JH Bible blatantly changes and re-words the text to fit their teachings. The JH and LDS, however, are not actually Christian organizations. Their very definitions of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit aren't the same. Without that base, they aren't Christian, but fall into the category of other religions or cults.

Edited September 18, 2004 by SP-1

[Slayer 0]

It just doesn't make sense to make a claim that biblical texts were intentionally screwed with over time. 

"And Jesus said 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone purple monkey dishwasher'..."

[Nighthawk 0]

Well if I had said that then I'd agree with you. As it happens, that's not what I said at all. The point I scoffed at was your assertion that dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth based on an extremely obscure line in the Book of Job, and to explain away the fact that dinosaur fossils and human fossils are found at the same geological strata, which they're not, you claimed that when they are scientists simply declare them to be from different eras. Which is patently absurd. At no point in time did I ever use the existance of dinosaurs as proof for evolution, I have no idea where you've got that from.

 

Overall, the biggest problem I have with the vast amount of The Bible, is that every time something totally inexplicable and fantastic happens, a wizard did it, and that's supposed to be explanation enough. I have no problem with The Bible being used as a reference for morals and such, well apart from the bits where slavery, denigration of women and murder are declared righteous. But The Bible is not a history book.

I didn't say that I believed dinosaurs and humans shared the earth based on the book of Job. I said dinosaurs and humans shared the earth because it says that all of the animals were created on the fourth and fifth days (and, once again, dinosaurs are animals) and man on the sixth. The Job answer was the equivalent of my saying Hondas are in the Bible because it says the apostles were in one accord. However, could the Job passages conceivably refer to dinosaurs? Yes. Does it matter? No.

 

I made a special point of saying that I knew of no instance where dinosaur and human fossils were found in the same geological strata. I think I may see where your objection comes from if you thought I said that. However, geological strata are layered throughout the world in what could be called random order. You won't find the column. I said that geological strata are dated by the fossils in them, which they are. I assume you are aware of how much time, resources and money would be wasted radiometrically testing each layer excavated if there's fossils in it. Biological ages are well established to scientists, finding a fossil is like finding a calendar. So you are superpatently absurd.

 

Dinosaurs no (and if I did, I take it back), but I did say you used carbon dating as proof of evolution, which even if you didn't, which I can concede, you brought it up as having some relevance to paleontologic fossils, which it doesn't.

 

I have to be going soon, but I'll address some of the other things said eventually.

[Nighthawk 0]

Literal interpretation is bullshit.

 

As that link handily proves. 330, count 'em, three hundred and thirty factual contradictions within the Bible are listed there. The different books can't even agree with each other on simple shit like how many sons Abraham had, or how Judas died, or how long the great flood lasted. These are PROVEN FACTUAL ERRORS IN THE BIBLE. Look them up in your own copy, if you don't believe me. Anyone who claims that the Bible is a literal and infallible telling of history is full of shit.

Ok, SP made some points here. Now, I could go through and respond to each one of those idividually, but I really don't think you want me to. I don't particularly want to either. For one thing, though, seriously studying the Bible requires studying it in the original language, which is an entirely different discussion when you deal with petty shit like this.

The point is, and this is important to the discussion at large, the Bible claims to be infallible, which it is. The original documents were, and they no longer exist. Of course there are errors and contradictions in the Bible, the only version that was divinely protected letter for letter was the original, and in fact I could point out even more contradictions that what was listed there. There are no contradictions relating to the message, however. What you need to know to be saved remains, which, considering how many years and translations and copies it's been run through is miraculous in itself. God is protecting what's important. If you think you have any contradictions relating to doctrine, tell me and I'll address them directly. Even speaking historically, show me any contradictions that make any difference and I'll address them. I'm not saying they don't exist, just that I need to address them individually. Numbers and petty shit like that? It makes no difference.

 

Apologies, but these kind of superficial arguments just betray a hostility. These tactics would never fly in typical arguments, and granted, fundamentalists bring much of it on themselves. Many, even most, are ignorant, believe every word because God said so and make no effort to support this objectively. My point is that it doesn't have to be that way.

[Guest SP-1]

I'd still disagree with you somewhat, IDRM. The texts were preserved pretty well and there's no reason to believe what we have is different from the originals.

[Nighthawk 0]

How do you explain Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh?

 

For one, the similarities are fairly superficial, but more importantly, truth is not established by date. The Enuma Elish is actually disimilar enough that I feel comfortable severing a relationship on that basis alone. Gilgamesh, assuming it predates the writing of the Pentateuch,is explained easily enough when you realize that a literal interpretation of the Bible involves a flood actually occuring. The question of who wrote it down first becomes less important if you see them as both essentially true. This would have more significance if the Bible were being interpreted as a collection of myths and fiction.

 

Catholic paganisms: the transubstantiation was pagan.

Can you elaborate or point me to some links?

 

Ok, first let me establish that it's not Biblical. The last supper itself was an obvious symbolism, such language being a typical Hebraism, which the disciples clearly understood as such because his literal body, still unbroken, was sitting right in front of them. The disciples were, to put it bluntly, not the sharpest knives in the drawer, until they were filled with the Spirit at Pentacost, and actually probably would not have been able to grasp a transubstantiation in this setting for this reason, which brings us the second passage commonly used to justify transubstantiation, John 6.

Jesus speaks here symbolically of bread from Heaven which gives life. The disciples, in verse 34, stupidly respond with "Lord, give us this bread always." Since they failed to grasp his metaphor, Jesus must explicitly tell them "I am the bread of life." A reading of the whole chapter demonstrates the confusion of the disciples and others, and their inability to interpret Jesus' words, in fact, that's largely the point of the chapter, from verse 22 on anyway. By reading a literal transfiguration of body and blood here, the Catholic church places themselves in the same position as the Jews here.

A corporal presence was an idea held to one degree or another by some in the early church, but it was not openly advocated until 831 and eventually canonized at the Fourth Lateran Council as necesary for salvation. A study of the doctrine of salvation demonstrates this as false, but that's another discussion.

Durant has called transubstantiation one of the oldest ceremonies of primitive religion in The Story of Civilization: The Age of Faith.

One of the most telling instances of pagan transubstantiation occured in Mexico and Central America, as it was one of their most important rituals, that is, cakes consecrated and eaten as the flesh of gods, and the native people there had never even heard of Christ until well into the 16th century. You'll find references to transubstantiation in many other cultures of the near east long before it was adopted by Catholocism, the earliest of which, as I said before, was probably Egyptian. At the very least, Unas was known as an eater of the gods in the mid to late 2300s BC, although he was a supposed slayer and eater of the gods. Still, eating the flesh of a god to commune with or absorb his power can be seen more than 2000 years before Christ. This by the way was the inspiration for Nile's "Unas Slayer of the Gods" an extremely badass song.

 

Throw in saints here as well ... Most of these people are ASKING Mary to pray for them, not PRAYING to her or worshipping her.

 

For one, Christ is our mediator, thus Mary and the saints could even be said to be usurping Christ. Asking a saint to pray for you is unbiblical. The concept of saints is unbiblical as used by the Catholic church. Besides, this is an issue of semantics. The Israelites worshipped YHWH as a golden calf, Catholics ask Mary to pray for them, but God said "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them" Note that it says nor, not and.

 

I thought the calendar year at the time was shorter.

 

Some have said. If you want to try to support that Biblically, feel free.

 

 

...because Jesus believed in the ark literally.

You sure?

 

Yes. He was a rabbi, it comes with the territory. He mentioned Noah specifically in Matthew 24:37.

 

Theistic evolution is also foolishness, and I'll explain why if anyone so desires.

Please do.

 

For simple fact that a non literal interpretation of the Bible undermines the authority of the entire Bible, rendering Christianity an exercise in futility. You can play around with some doctrines and the truth is still there, in fact you can even be a Christian and not believe in Genesis, you're just not thinking very much. Again, Jesus believed it. You cannot squeeze evolution into the Genesis account and get away that way because evolution is a system built on death where the Bible clearly indicates no death before the fall of man.

[Nighthawk 0]

I'd still disagree with you somewhat, IDRM. The texts were preserved pretty well and there's no reason to believe what we have is different from the originals.

Essentially no, but even our oldest manuscripts contain some contradictions. What they are exactly, however, is what's significant. Mistranslations and misinterpretaions obviously play a major role, but for example there are many discrepancies between the accounts in Kings and Chronicles, almost all dealing with numbers. The nature of Hebrew leaves this to be expected, but really, what soul hangs in the balance regarding how many chariots went into battle on such and such a day? These are the level of errors you'll find, if even that, and an understanding of the Hebrew language renders this essentially a non-issue.

[Nighthawk 0]

Aside from everything else, just as a matter of curiousity, why exactly should anybody look at The Bible as anything more than an elaborate work of fiction?? Just because it was written a very long time ago doesn't make it credible.

There are five answers to this. In ascending order of importance, they are experience, history, miracles, prophecy and Christ. We could discuss this further... but then that is what we're doing.

[Nighthawk 0]

"Out of context" hardly matters with obvious, blatant contradictions like some of these.

 

*stuff*

 

These are not just verses taken out of contexts. These are mistakes in the written word of the Bible, plain and simple.

I won't go into too much detail on some of this, to allow SP some room, since he did say he would get to it, but just for kicks:

 

The issue of Abraham's sons is so obvious I'm almost ashamed for you. Where you get 'only' in Galatians is a mystery, but the two sons mentioned are the two relevant to the issue... what a concept. You may be interested to know that the word son is not in the original language in either Genesis 22:2 or Hebrews 11:17, and in any case, Isaac is his only promised son, fullfillment of God's covenant and object of Abraham's love. You clearly have no understanding of Judeism, either, if you think they were uninformed about this.

 

All of your Gospel discrepancies are again the very reason we have four Gospels.

 

Cain's wife was his sister. That's day one stuff right there.

 

Skipping a few...

 

Jesus was of the line of David through Joseph because Joseph was legally his father. Being of the line of David shows that Jesus has legal right to the kingship of Israel, which is passed through legal descendancy.

 

I don't feel like looking stuff up this late, so give some verses. Or SP can answer you. But yeah... this is fifth grade stuff, man.

[Nighthawk 0]

I still never understood, where the people of "nod" or "nan" or whever, came from when I thought Adam & Eve were the only two, along with their sons, and there is no mention at all of god creating another human population on the side.

Again, Cain married his sister.

[Nighthawk 0]

I have no real need for a perfect, omnipotent being, why must there be one?

Hm... perhaps because the existance of a perfect omnipotent being is not based on your need for one?

 

The Bible doesn't promote slavery and denigration of women, by the way. Show me where you think it does and I'll show you otherwise.

[Nighthawk 0]

This is not a shot at anyone here, as I feel this discussion has been carried out exceptionally considering religion is the topic, but there is not any concrete evidence available or that has ever been collected (outside of the Bible) that suggests Jesus Christ even existed. However, this is a topic in which I'm sure all of us could write for days about, and I've had a long, hard week teaching, so I won't go into it now.

 

UYI

(outside of the Bible) being the key part of this statement.

 

There, I think I'm caught up for now.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Out of curiousity IDRM do you actually believe the Bible to be Truth, and if you do do you try and live it out?

[Use Your Illusion 0]

This is not a shot at anyone here, as I feel this discussion has been carried out exceptionally considering religion is the topic, but there is not any concrete evidence available or that has ever been collected (outside of the Bible) that suggests Jesus Christ even existed. However, this is a topic in which I'm sure all of us could write for days about, and I've had a long, hard week teaching, so I won't go into it now.

 

UYI

(outside of the Bible) being the key part of this statement.

 

There, I think I'm caught up for now.

You're using the Bible as your only form of evidence?

 

Alright.

[Guest SP-1]

IDRM, I'd check out the book, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. The "extracurricular" evidence for Jesus is interesting. And, ultimately, important. Apolagetics (no, that doesn't mean saying you're sorry as it's from a greek word that roughly comes across with defending what you beleive in) is very important.

 

Why should anyone run from the evidence for Christ when it is out there?

 

EDIT: Before anyone brings up whatever that book was that supposedly challenges Strobel, as I recall it was mostly rhetoric and didn't offer any counter evidence.

Edited September 20, 2004 by SP-1

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

http://www.geocities.com/packham33/strobel.htm

 

A friend sent me this site after I let him borrow the book. I don't buy a lot of his criticisms, but the site makes interesting arguments.

[Guest SP-1]

Interesting, YPOV. I'll have to look through that. However, I noticed off the bat that for someone who claims to have thoroughly read the book, the writer of that article seems to overlook the fact that Strobel wasn't setting out to prove Christ. He wasn't a believe when he began his investigation.

[Use Your Illusion 0]

IDRM, I'd check out the book, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel. The "extracurricular" evidence for Jesus is interesting. And, ultimately, important. Apolagetics (no, that doesn't mean saying you're sorry as it's from a greek word that roughly comes across with defending what you beleive in) is very important.

 

Why should anyone run from the evidence for Christ when it is out there?

 

EDIT: Before anyone brings up whatever that book was that supposedly challenges Strobel, as I recall it was mostly rhetoric and didn't offer any counter evidence.

How old is that book, Spidey? I'd be very interesting in reading that, espicially if it offers evidence/proof etc. of Christ's existance.

 

UYI

[Guest SP-1]

IDRM, I'd check out the book, "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel.  The "extracurricular" evidence for Jesus is interesting.  And, ultimately, important.  Apolagetics (no, that doesn't mean saying you're sorry as it's from a greek word that roughly comes across with defending what you beleive in) is very important.

 

Why should anyone run from the evidence for Christ when it is out there?

 

EDIT:  Before anyone brings up whatever that book was that supposedly challenges Strobel, as I recall it was mostly rhetoric and didn't offer any counter evidence.

How old is that book, Spidey? I'd be very interesting in reading that, espicially if it offers evidence/proof etc. of Christ's existance.

 

UYI

Not old at all, really. If I run across it I'll shoot you a PM with the publish date. Or just post it here.

Edited September 20, 2004 by SP-1

[TheBigSwigg 0]

Nephilim are commonly interpreted as angels,but it is by no means explicitly stated. It could just as easily have been the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. I would disagree with placing such a strict interpretation on an ambiguous passage such as this.

 

You're arguing for literal interpretation, and you say you shouldn't put a direct interpretation on an "ambiguous" passage? I'm sorry, but without faith the whole Bible could be seen as "ambiguous". Also, I added that the part about the origin of the Nephilim is true if you believe the book of Enoch.

 

Picking out a Messianic prophecy falsely so called that has been mistakenly attributed to Jesus doesn't accomplish much, as their were literally thousands of them, layer upon layer which he did fulfill, and none which he didn't.

 

Though I don't necessarily argue this, I would love to see you list them all. I know many Christians who make this claim without knowing any prophecies other than the ones listed in the gospels.

 

If you'd like, tell me why you think there were three authors of Isaiah. I know why you do, and it's wrong, but I think it's an important object lesson.

 

There are three different themes to the book, the events which occur stretch beyond the lifetime of one man, The language used varies, and so forth. Give me your reasons why I'm wrong and I'll tell you what I think.

 

Monotheism is prevalent throughout the Bible. Any other assertion is mere semantics, and it is said of pagan idolatry in 1 Corinthians "they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of the demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord, and the table of demons"

 

If you'll read my post, you'll see that I speak of polytheism existing BEFORE ISAIAH. This isn't to say that there were other gods, but that YHWH didn't assert Himself before then. You quote me Corinthians, which is hundreds of years after YHWH established Himself as the "one, true God."

 

And finally, let's not forget that all four gospels tell completely, and I do mean COMPLETELY different stories about Christ's resurrection.

 

The gospels where each written by different men. If we both saw a wrestling match at the same building, even if we sat next to each other, we'd write about it differently.

 

In conclusion, the Bible is a work of men. Men wrote it, men put the separate works together, men copied and translated it a hundred times until hardly anyone knows what the original scriptures actually said.

 

Actually, thanks to the dead Sea Scrolls, we have a better idea as some of the scrolls date back to around 300 B.C.

 

What specifically makes the Torah wrong and The Bible right??

 

The Torah, or at least most of it, is the first five books of the Bible. Christians believe that Christ fulfilled the Torah.

 

I mean parts of the Bible were lifted from Enuma Elish and Gilgamesh

 

I myself would argue that they influenced each other, but that's just how I look at it. I actually believe that Moses' time in Egypt influenced his religious views, as well as Abraham, who lived in Babylon before he made his covenant with God. I think it's near impossible for someone who was raised one way to completely ignore that. But that's just me.

 

Also keep in mind that the monks and preists translating and transcribing the bible are considered to also be under the inspiration of God. Any changes in the text could theoretically been on purpose. On the other hand God may have inspired perfect translation

 

I wouldn't agree, but I wouldn't disagree. If you look at some of the Byzantine texts, there are places where Christ is given several names (i.e. Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ) whereas in other texts he is just called Jesus. (this isn't a direct example, but it gives you the idea.) Petty bullshit, I know, but just an example)

 

The Israelites worshipped YHWH as a golden calf

 

When and where? Most times I remember they worshipped the golden calf INSTEAD of YHWH.

 

Yes. He was a rabbi, it comes with the territory

 

He was a carpenter who was called rabbi.

 

Jesus believed it

 

Using this argument, though, you validate many Apocryphal books which the Jews at the time used to learn from, including the book of Enoch.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

IDRM, this is very long, but if you have time, I'd like to know how you'd respond to this:

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm

 

 

Re: evolution, how did we get to where we are now? How set against it are you? My college bio book is spewing some b.s. but it's hard to dismiss much of it.

 

I'm still impressed with this thread.

[Jingus 0]

All right, buckle up and grab a snickers, cuz if you read this whole post you're definitely not going anywhere for a while.

 

FLAW: Modern English translations do not work from latin but directly from the greek and hebrew manuscripts.

The King James may have been translated from the Latin. But it's fallen in most circles to the NASB, which is the most accurate English translation available.

 

That conflicts with my experiences in one weird little way. Over time, I've found that literal interpretationalists tend to be from the more conservative sects, let's say Southern Baptists just to name an example. However, a lot of the right-wing sects prefer the King James above all others, claiming that it is the most perfect translation, and sometimes going so far as to say it's the only one ordained by God. Why do they say that when it's been through an extra generation of linguistic metamorphosis? Just because it's the Bible that their daddies used?

 

Also: I didn't say it was translated perfectly over time. I said it was copied as perfectly as possible. Investigate Jewish scribes a little and you'll see that any "changes" were so minor that they have no impact. Bible translation also works from several original manuscripts of the same passages.

 

But one would assume that, to be Literal Infallible Truth, any Bible must be written with no changes from the original, divinely inspired documents. And, as I've said before, it's more or less impossible to fully and literally translate any language into another while retaining all the subtle meanings and implications that are written between the lines. How can you reconcile this logical impossibilty with the idea of literal truth?

 

The JH and LDS, however, are not actually Christian organizations. Their very definitions of God, Christ, and Holy Spirit aren't the same. Without that base, they aren't Christian, but fall into the category of other religions or cults.

 

They claim the name of Christianity. They have some really weird ideas, but hey, so does Catholicism. What gives any man the right to decide that another is not a Christian?

 

I said dinosaurs and humans shared the earth because it says that all of the animals were created on the fourth and fifth days (and, once again, dinosaurs are animals) and man on the sixth.

 

Except for this passage, Genesis 2:18-19: "And the Lord God said it is not good that man should be alone; I will make a help-meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them."

 

Also, I don't know if it's come up in the discussion yet, but has anyone discussed the carbon-14 dating method yet? That's always an interesting one for religious debates.

 

For one thing, though, seriously studying the Bible requires studying it in the original language, which is an entirely different discussion when you deal with petty shit like this.

 

I doubt I'm gonna learn Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic any time soon. Latin was hard enough, and despite spending three years on it I'm still borderline illiterate. That's one problem with a lot of these religious debates: 99.99% of the people arguing have never actually read any of the original texts, and the ones who have tend to be clergymen of some sort who already have an opinion and a bias towards their particular branch of the church.

 

The point is, and this is important to the discussion at large, the Bible claims to be infallible, which it is.

 

And that right there is one of my main problems with Christianity, if not all religions. "The Bible is true. We know this to be true, because the Bible says so, and the Bible is infallibe. We know that the Bible is infallible, because the Bible says so." It's circular logic, the kind that is impossible to prove wrong, and thus almost certainly categorically untrue.

 

Yes, I know about the Christian concepts of faith, and believing in the unbelievable. But that's my very problem: it's UN-BELIEVE-ABLE. As in, incapable of being believed. I'm a logical, almost mathematical person at heart. This logic tells me that it's highly unlikely that any God (as he's presented in the Bible) exists, or ever has existed.

 

Where, then, does one come by faith in the Bible? I have no idea. Some people tell me they simply read it, and were inspired with the knowledge that it was True; suffice to say that this never happened to me when I read it. Others claim that God has spoken to them; great, but he's never spoken to me. Still others (the most annoying ones) say that, in order to know God, I must seek him out myself, spending my whole life if necessary in the pursuit and contemplation of holy things. My response to them: why the fuck should I?

 

My general thought about any omniscient, omnipotent being is that, if they've got a message for me, it's a helluva lot easier for an all-powerful God to write the message across the sky in mile-long letters above my house than it is for me to spend a lot of time and effort to peer through a long-ass book and try to divine the meanings myself.

 

And another thing:

 

What you need to know to be saved remains

 

That's my biggest problem with Christianity as a hole. That one concept: Salvation.

 

I am told by Christians that I am dirty and impure. Some claim that this is because of my actions: that I have stained myself by doing things in this life which God doesn't approve of. Others claim that I was BORN into sin, because some bitch ate a piece of fruit she wasn't supposed to. (And let's not even get into predestination, because the whole concept royally pisses me off and generally makes me want to choke anyone espousing it.)

 

The concept of Sin angers me. The concept of Evil disagrees with me. The concept of Satan sounds fishy at best to me. And the concept of Hell enrages me so greatly that I literally have to make myself stop and think of something else, or else I'll start smashing things. (And I don't smash shit for no reason. EVER. These matters affect me that deeply.)

 

The reason for this: according to the Bible, GOD MADE EVERYTHING.

 

God made sin. God made evil. God made hell. God made the devil. Even if he didn't directly construct them himself, he allowed them to exist. Don't deny this: is God not all-knowing and all-powerful? If He wished to simply erase bad things from the universe with a snap of his mighty fingers, could he not do it? If God hates sin, as the Bible states, THEN WHY DOES HE LET SIN EXIST?

 

Or, to put it another way: let's say that, one day, a man named Joe is born. Joe grows up to be a wicked man. He becomes a thief, a rapist, and a murderer. He finally dies, and since he never repented for his sins, is sent to hell. My conundrum is thus: God allowed Joe to exist. He allowed Joe to sin. He never stopped Joe from committing any of these actions. And since God is omnipotent, he knew since the beginning of time that Joe was going to hell!!!

 

One can say that Joe made his own choices in life. One could say that he, like all men, had free will, and excercised it right into damnation. In my view, however, this is as false as false can be. By my own train of logic, God sent Joe to hell, burning in darkness forever, without so much as a how-do-you-do.

 

And finally, what about all those people that Joe stole from, raped, or killed? I've known way too many victims of "Joes" in my life, far too many of my own friends, family, and loved ones who've been harmed, scarred for life, or killed outright by the coldness and indifference of this universe. I don't understand any omnipotent being who, given the choice to create any kind of existence He wanted, somehow came up with this violent wasteland known as Life, where joy and compassion is a treasured rarity and cruelness and death eventually come to all people. I can't imagine any sort of fair, just, merciful, loving Creator who would bury his own creations in dogshit like this one apparently has. I don't understand Him, and I don't really want to.

 

If this shithole is what God wants, then fuck God.

[Jingus 0]

...shit, that was long and emotional. I actually had more valid debate points to make, I'll do those after I take a break.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Hey, some stuff I think I know!

 

They claim the name of Christianity. They have some really weird ideas, but hey, so does Catholicism. What gives any man the right to decide that another is not a Christian?

 

As far as the Mormons go (that is what LDS refers to, no? Latter-Day Saints? If not, I'm about to look real stupid), they do not believe in God being the Omnipotent being who made the whole universe.

 

See, they believe that any human who is pure enough of heart or something can ascend to Godhood. This, they claim, is what happened in the case of God. So really, to them, God is an alien being, and NOT the All-Powerful one who created everything. Thus, this is not the same God that other Christians believe in.

 

Further, they believe that God actually took on mortal form and got Mary pregnant the old-fashioned way. Thus, they don't believe in the Virgin Mary or the Immaculate conception, two EXTREMELY IMPORTANT Christian beliefs.

 

So they don't believe in the same God, and as a direct result, they don't believe in the same Jesus. Thus, they're not really Christians.

 

If God hates sin, as the Bible states, THEN WHY DOES HE LET SIN EXIST?

 

The traditional reason, I believe, is because God has decided to give mortals choice. He lets them be evil, because if he forced them to be good, then they would have no choice in life. And yes, I'm aware that the whole "all-knowing" bit kinda contradicts this, but hey, I think that's the reason they give.

 

Another way to look at it that I found interesting: Sin and evil do not exist.

 

Well, OK, they do, but not in the same sense that other things exist. They exist in the sense that cold and dark exist.

 

What do I mean by that? Well, darkness isn't really a thing - it's just the absence of something else: light. The same applies to coldness. Coldness is simply the lack of heat. We can measure heat, we know that it's what happens when molocules move around faster (or something like that - it's been a while since science class).

 

Where am I going with this? Simple - sin and evil are just what happens when God is not present. And yeah, I know he's omnipotent and all that jazz, but hey, like I said, *I* thought it was a neat theory.