|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 24, 2006 21:54:43 GMT -5
^_^
This is gonna be fun.
I'm a relatively conservative Christian. I believe that Genesis is most likely a metaphor (one of my more liberal slants in my theology), that the exodus is a historical account, that the records about the conquest of Canaan are accurate, that Jesus really did perform miracles, die, and rise from the grave, that the early church really did spread as recorded in the gospels, etc.
^_^
|
|
|
Post by lemon on Oct 24, 2006 22:57:13 GMT -5
I'm atheist. I don't believe in anything the Bible says myself, but I try to accept others who do. I believe in forming morals from experience, and I support science as the way to find the truth.
|
|
|
Post by samfan911 on Oct 24, 2006 23:04:00 GMT -5
I don't read the bible. I'm Muslim ^^ I don't think Jesus is the son of God, I think he's a prophet
|
|
Avatarbeefcake
Avatar Korra
"There are Hidden Air Temples"
Posts: 1,004
|
Post by Avatarbeefcake on Oct 24, 2006 23:04:47 GMT -5
I am also conservative Christian and I think your opening up a big can of worms. I hope people take this discussion seriously and not just a stage to bash Christianity. I believe that most of the Bible is accurate historical information and part is moral ethics taught in stories and part is a bit fiction. Not saying that the bible is fiction but this is a book that in the last 1900 years has been re-worded, re-worked and gone through by the Vatican time and time again. The Majority of the Bible is historical fact from great floods to earthquakes and wars. Does anyone else notice that when it is brought up that the Jewish leaders killed Jesus the Jewish get all defensive. I don't blame Jewish people today for something that happened 2006 years ago. That would be like black people today blaming white people today for slavery. Anyways the Bible is a moral well rounded way to live your life. But there is always people that use the Bible for their own hateful agenda against others. That is not the majority but one crackpot shows up throwing a bible around and the media goes crazy.
|
|
|
Post by Earth King Sunny on Oct 25, 2006 9:13:52 GMT -5
I hate it when people turn the bible into a weapon to promote hate and personal grudges. Like the superchristians who hate homisexuals just because of a few lines in the bible, or hate the jews because the didnt "embrace" Jesus. The thing to remember about the bible is that it has been translated and retranslated over a long time and many people have thier own interperatation of it.
|
|
Wilderness Writer
Wolf Sokka
Zutarian Propaganda Writer
~Weaver of Words~
Posts: 2,802
|
Post by Wilderness Writer on Oct 25, 2006 15:47:59 GMT -5
I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate. I have heard the argument that the Bible can't be accurate, due to the passage of time, but that would could only be true if the original Biblical scrolls were destroyed. In that case, the Bible would have been re-written off the last re-writing, and lots of things could get lost in translation over time, much like the game "Whisper down the alley" where at the beginning, you say "Love your neighbor" and by the time it's the end of the game it's "Love to eat your neighbor's daisies."
But that's not the case. When the Bible is translated into a version for the current generation, it is taken directly from the original texts. I prefer the New American Standard Bible, due to its very literal translation of the Bible.
In believing in the literal translation of the Bible, I do believe in the presence of sin. If the Bible says its sin, then it's sin, no matter how much I would like to justify it or say that the rules don't apply to me today, and no matter how politically incorrect it is for me to hold that stand.
That said, it is very very very important to note that the Bible is a book of love. It is *not* a book of hate. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors. One verse proclaims "God is love." as simply as that. It is because God loves us and wants the best for us that he wrote that book. He tells us to love others, and a Christian who at one moment confesses love for God, and then in the next breath says he or she hates someone, should seriously examine their Christianity, as hate for others should not exist in a Christian's heart.
What you have to realize is that, with everything including the Bible, there is a balance. People are apt to think of the Bible in one way or another: either as a condemning book that endorses their hate, or as a book of nothing but love, endorsing a permissive God who really doesn't care what you do as long as you're happy.
The truth is, the Bible is a book that condemns sin, and loves people. Christians are not perfect, they are only forgiven, and it is that forgiveness that Bible speaks about. It is God's love letter to humanity.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Oct 25, 2006 16:09:33 GMT -5
There are too many internal contradictions and mistakes in the Bible for it to be treated as a definite historical source. Ref: www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/arguments/index.htmlI do believe some of the Bible is true, but only the basic provable facts, not any of the mysticism or dogma.
|
|
|
Post by writer on Oct 25, 2006 16:23:16 GMT -5
I believe that the Bible is 100% accurate. I have heard the argument that the Bible can't be accurate, due to the passage of time, but that would could only be true if the original Biblical scrolls were destroyed. In that case, the Bible would have been re-written off the last re-writing, and lots of things could get lost in translation over time, much like the game "Whisper down the alley" where at the beginning, you say "Love your neighbor" and by the time it's the end of the game it's "Love to eat your neighbor's daisies." But that's not the case. When the Bible is translated into a version for the current generation, it is taken directly from the original texts. I prefer the New American Standard Bible, due to its very literal translation of the Bible. In believing in the literal translation of the Bible, I do believe in the presence of sin. If the Bible says its sin, then it's sin, no matter how much I would like to justify it or say that the rules don't apply to me today, and no matter how politically incorrect it is for me to hold that stand. That said, it is very very very important to note that the Bible is a book of love. It is *not* a book of hate. Jesus tells us to love our neighbors. One verse proclaims "God is love." as simply as that. It is because God loves us and wants the best for us that he wrote that book. He tells us to love others, and a Christian who at one moment confesses love for God, and then in the next breath says he or she hates someone, should seriously examine their Christianity, as hate for others should not exist in a Christian's heart. What you have to realize is that, with everything including the Bible, there is a balance. People are apt to think of the Bible in one way or another: either as a condemning book that endorses their hate, or as a book of nothing but love, endorsing a permissive God who really doesn't care what you do as long as you're happy. The truth is, the Bible is a book that condemns sin, and loves people. Christians are not perfect, they are only forgiven, and it is that forgiveness that Bible speaks about. It is God's love letter to humanity. Do not be of the World but love it. I think most of the dominations, are forgetting that. I love how most of the Christain dominations are preaching about love and tolerance, but they have Christian schools, and won't let there kids socialize with the secular kids. They preach about kindess, but the scream about pseudo-science teachings and Darwinism. It's sad. I've seen the trailers for Jesus Camp, and I roll my eyes. You're just feeding the hate the lies and anger that we Christians have the stigma of carrying. I'm sick of it. I want to practice Christianty without the extremist right-wing agenda that we have fostered since Purtian days. I want to say I'm a follower of Jesus the Christ, and his teachings. In call myself Christian and follower of Christ. Because growing up I needed a "daddy" mine wasn't around. So I ran to Him. Now I human and I have done stupid philoprogenitiveness, but at least I'm forgiven. So the sins of the past present and furture are nil. But I don't think the Church will agree with me. I'm still damned in the Theocrats eyes
|
|
gambitia
Fiery Ozai
millions have trembled before my pink armor!
Posts: 5,894
|
Post by gambitia on Oct 25, 2006 17:03:27 GMT -5
I'm agnostic, and never got around to reading the Bible past Adam and Eve. I blame the version I had though; as a little kid I had a fun little illustrated children's version of the Bible. All of the illustrations were of people killing each other, or about to kill each other, or of really icky-looking sick people...and that has put me in the mindset that the Bible is a scary place.
So, I guess I can't really talk about my opinions of the Bible (except that the illustrations were scary).
I do wish that people were more open about other ideas though. Part of the reason I've never been able to be religious is that there are so many religions, and all practicers of those religions are sure that their gods really existed and that their practices were holy--how can anyone be sure that their religion is "the right one"? Is there even a right religion? I don't have that ability to believe one-hundred percent in something that is unprovable.
Incas sacrificed human life to their gods--they truly believed that they were doing something holy. The sacrifices were (mostly) willing, and it was considered a great honor to be sacrificed. Western religions consider that barbarism. The Incas would probably think that Westerners weren't worshipping their gods properly. So how do we know which--if either--side is right? Both believe in their gods equally.
That's what really bugs me about people who use religion to argue whether something is right or wrong. I remember in 10th grade we had a debate over intelligent design -vs- evolution as the precursor to our evolution curriculum. The people for intelligent design kept reiterating one thing: "The Bible states that God created the earth in 6 days. The Bible is correct. End of story.". Me and some of my friends pointed out that the Bible is just a book to anyone who doesn't believe in Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, so why is the Bible's account of creation more valid than the hundreds (thousands?) of other creation stories? Their only answer was "It's the Bible!"
RE: The validity of the Bible:
I'm a very skeptical person when it comes to supernatural things. So all of the superhuman/impossible things mentioned throughout the Bible are very iffy with me. The whole dying-then-rising-from-the-grave-thing makes me go "Hmm...no." I find the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross very interesting, although I doubt the matter can be resolved either way--it's just interesting to consider.
Christianity has absorbed aspects of different religions as it swept over the globe--Easter eggs have nothing to do Christ's resurrection--although I don't know if that impacts the Bible or not because I haven't read it.
|
|
|
Post by Paraiba Ocean on Oct 25, 2006 17:43:55 GMT -5
The sad assumption in Christianity is that you either have to read the Bible, or you're condemmed to Hell. To be honest, I haven't been to church in such a long time. Maybe since...April or something. However, does that condemn me to Hell? In my views, absolutely not. From what my parents tell me, as long as I know what I believe and follow that, then I am a Christian. For the validity of the Bible: The Bible has been written in two different perspectives. Some of the chapters were written by scribes who received testimonies from people. Others wrote it in first person, describing what happened to them. It was all written in Arabic. Now, we Americans like our books in English, so naturally, we had translations. Of course, not all translations are 110.45% accurate, so there will be different transcripts. However, if you're Muslim, like our friend Sam, all version of the Qu'ran will be the exact same thing in Arabic. When it comes to science and the Big Bang theory, I know what I believe based on my times at Sunday School and church on the days I used to go. However, I do not advertise it to high heaven in class, because I know there's a time for logical reasoning and science, and religion. My first period is not the place. Next, my grandmother had the nerve to tell me at a Thanksgiving dinner to advertise and try to convert people to my religion. I cannot do that. I do not have that talent, nor do I want to beat something into a person who has been raised differently. Will I go on mission trips to Honduras or Haiti? Absolutely. Will I go to a Muslim community and tell them they are wrong and I'm right in religion? Absolutely not. I have no proof and I'm not going to make them uncomfortable by getting into a religious debate. Now, coming from a Catholic-turned-Baptist, I can tell you the religious practices are extremely different, and they believe essentially the same thing. Can you imagine what it's like to go from believing one thing to another? As for the Easter eggs, Gamb, I have no idea what that has to do with resurrection. None. But my Para-senses tell me it has something to do with soccer moms hiding chocolate candy eggs around the house...
|
|
|
Post by writer on Oct 25, 2006 17:53:23 GMT -5
I think Easter Eggs is a Euro tradition.
|
|
Zink
Ty Lee
"Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." 1 John 4:8
Posts: 4,279
|
Post by Zink on Oct 25, 2006 18:02:45 GMT -5
As far as I know, Easter eggs have something to do with life coming from something that appears to be a rock... like the stone that was rolled away from the tomb... or some weird thing like that.
WildernessWriter, I believe that will be under a colorbar of mine in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by thedudeishere on Oct 25, 2006 18:23:14 GMT -5
There are too many internal contradictions and mistakes in the Bible for it to be treated as a definite historical source. Ref: www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/CoEvan/arguments/index.htmlI do believe some of the Bible is true, but only the basic provable facts, not any of the mysticism or dogma. Wow. You've been reading stuff from the Internet Infidels? I'm actually impressed, Grandi. (though I think that tons of what is on Internet Infidels is wrong or fallacious, I do think that they are generally better than many atheist websites out there) If you want what I think are good Christian representations of the arguments, I would suggest reading tektonics.org or christian-thinktank.com. Those are both generally excellent websites on addressing many skeptical problems with the Bible.
|
|
Gandalan
Casual Zuko
Wavemaster
Posts: 979
|
Post by Gandalan on Oct 25, 2006 19:58:08 GMT -5
I haven't read the whole thing yet. But from what I've read, it seems to be believeable to me. ;D
|
|
|
Post by fullmetalavatar on Oct 25, 2006 20:05:20 GMT -5
It was all written in Arabic. Now, we Americans like our books in English, so naturally, we had translations. Of course, not all translations are 110.45% accurate, so there will be different transcripts. The Old Testament is in Hebrew, the New Testament in Greek, Jesus preached in Aramaic. Only the Koran is in Arabic. That said... I agree with you, Paraibaocean, about the inaccuracy of translations -- ancient texts in general are iffy things, if you can get past the variations between copies due to plain old scribal error (sometimes mutilation)(which isn't so much of a problem with the Old Testament texts), but with the Greek, as far as I know, and the Latin, which the was the worst (but got cleaned up around the time of the Reformation), there's also the issue of rendering the same meaning and nuance of the ancient words into a completely different language and culture, a lot gets lost and a little gets added. Good translations are 80-90% accurate, depending on the quality of the text you start with, which is why I think if you want to study the Bible and get literal, you have to study Hebrew and Greek. There's also the matter of varying interpretations. Every translation of every ancient text I've read is colored by the beliefs/ theories of the scholar who translated them. The writers of the Bible may have been divinely inspired, but there's no guarantee the translators were. I personally prefer translations in the "spirit of the law" rather than the word...the former tends to be more accurate -- haha, at least if you agree with the translators theories -- the later tends to be in translationese. In any case, I abide by the notion the the Truth doesn't have to be literal, hence the teaching efficacy of parables.
|
|