I think everything in the bible could be interpreted different ways by different people. There is something in the bible and I forget where but it definitely is describing some type of dinasour. Also the descriptions of some things such as raising the dead are done quite commonly now days. People die and are brought back it is not unreasonable that someone such as Jesus was able to do this in the past. The casting out of demons could be curing someone of some type of seizure illness. There are lots of things in the bible that are being scientifically proven today such as the great flood. There is evidence they are finding that points to one in the past. Ancient biblical places are being excavted everyday and are just as the Bible decribes them. Even the catholic church has now admitted and embraced that there may be life elsewhere. At the time the Bible was written a lot of what we think is common would have been mysteries and miracles in those days as seen by ancient man. So I think a lot of the bible is true and maybe some exagerated. But all in all I find that science is proving alot is true.

Originally Posted by Avaxis Spin

It is true that I believe in the Bible. Old and New Testament. I do see where you derive God as being jealous because he himself says He is a jealous God. I think to say God is narcissistic would be implying that a person can understand the motive and intent of God. But if your going on the aspect of "if the bible is true" then you cannot do that because the Bible says we can not understand the nature of God. Once again my post was misinterpreted. I'm not trying to make everyone right. I merely wish for people to think outside of their box in the same way that atheists would hope that a christian would think outside of the box on what they believe.

If you are to engage in the topic of "God creating miracles daily" then I would say it's not true. In fact, if miracles were to be performed daily, then that would make them no longer miracles. By miracle you would be referring to something that happens that defies natural law. If we were to say that God was at the forefront and creating miracles daily, at that point we take away free choice. The "miracles" would intercept any idea that you had on your own, taking away free will and the outcome of our decisions. If there is anything that anyone can see is prevalent in the bible, no matter what reason you read it, mans free will is never messed with. all the way down to genesis and the garden of Eden. if what you say is true.. i doubt eve would have ever been able to eat the forbidden fruit. this is all based upon your saying "if the bible is true" because you cannot have one without the other. we can't poke at areas of a book that we disagree on without analyzing everything in that book. it becomes a manipulated argument at that point and is more of an agenda than anything else.

as for my statement about the earth being flat... i was using that as a metaphor... not literally.. but thanks for clarifying mans ignorance

And this is where I tell you to take your own advice. You said before...

...maybe if we all stopped nit picking over tiny words and actually analyzed the real subjects at hand, people would have more to actually say and less to argue about

.

Oh right...So you see, you didn't answer or respond to ANY of my points. You just circumvented them completely and went on a slightly off-topic rant. So, the problem at hand: You have yet to explain to me the logic of your first post (which goes completely against the Bible you believe in) which supposedly fixes all that is wrong with the world and silences all opposition to Christianity.

And as for my statement about your statement about the Earth being flat: I was merely showing the irony in your metaphor, and making a subtle point about how hypocritical Christians tend to be. (Notice: The word 'tend' was used. That means I'm not referring to all, or even most, Christians. I'm merely making an observation that does not necessarily include the players in this little game...)

Shtona - I'm sorry, I thought I did respond to your points about miracles and such... wasn't that what the topic at hand was? If your speaking about the fact that God is a jealous God, then yes he does himself state this. He states that he doesn't want to share his chosen people with any false diety. I don't see this as a bad thing. After all, I wouldn't want to share my wife with the pimp down the street. I don't think that makes me narcissitic. Please clarify if I'm still missing your points.

As far as my first post, would you mind being more specific in what I may have said to "fix all that is wrong with the world and silences all opposition to Christianity."? And also what I may have said that is contradictory to the Bible. I'm afraid I don't see exactly what your referring to.

and not trying to beat a dead horse.. i wasn't stating you were clarifying ignorance in yourself.. i guess i should be more specific in my statements. I meant the ignorance of the people who thought the world was flat. that was not meant as an attack on you in the least and appologize if it came off that way.

You asked why we couldn't see God as an engineer? That's what goes against the Bible. You believe in the Bible, which clearly states that that is not how it happened, therefore you made a statement that goes against the Bible. You stated a belief more synonymous with Deism, which is that God created the Earth but does nothing on a personal level with it.

And to further the debate: Keep what I said above in mind. You claim that we (meaning Atheists) can't disprove the existence of God just like you can't prove it. You are using logic in an illogical debate. So playing by your rules, I'm going to point at page after page, after book after book, after scientific study after scientific study that leads me to believe that God does not exist. Where is yours that he does? That is the basis of logical argument, and since I can supply countless pages of proof against your one question (why are we here, then?) then I win. And if you still don't think that's enough, then answer me this: Where did God come from? If God created this, then where did God come from? You see, science develops at an exponential pace. We used to believe that the world was flat, now look what we know...

(I apologize if my subtle way of arguing is confusing, I've had that problem before. I'll try to explain my points a little better. Hopefully this one isn't too bad...)

Ah. I see. Well, to the first point, I don't see how referring to God as an engineer would go against the Bibles teachings. The book says that he created the heavens and earth and all the animals and man. it doesn't go into detail the methods he used to do so. that would make for a much larger book. i also niver said that God does nothing on a personal level with the earth. Obviously he does because that is the whole point of Jesus. In saying that God is an engineer, I simply mean that he designed things with the intent to work the way that they work. From genetics to adaptation. There is a basic construct in the design though. Many people think that if we imply that God created everything then that means that it all just pops out of nowhere. But obviously there is a science to the mechanics of nature and organisms. I say that this is what was intended. What you've described as God either having nothing to do with earth or performing miracles in our lives at all times is a very black and white statement. In a nut shell. I see it as God designed everything. Cares about it. And takes care of it. But doesn't intercede at every moment, defying the very laws that he created, in order to make it perfect.

This kinda moves into the second part of your post which is also a bit of a touch on intellegent design. There is a book that I can use that leads me to believe in the existance in God for every one you can use to lead you to believe that there's not. The problem with this is it stems on a very big word. Belief. Saying your lead to believe indicates that it is a personal decision that you have come to using your ideals, beliefs and opinions. This can not be based on fact though because there is still no proof. There are things that you feel are indicitive of proof, but once again it is based upon one's own personal mindset. I feel that the more I learn about science and nature and the world around us, the more I believe in God. To me this makes more sense than the odds that it was all chance.

As far as your question to where did God come from, I can't answer that. I have nothing to back up any statement I could make other than He says he is the alpha and omega, the beginning and the end. I don't think that me not knowing the answer to this is a defeat though. Can you tell me where space came from? Where did the beginning of the beginning start? Your question for me and mine for you are one in the same.

I apologize for forgetting about this thread and not replying sooner, so I'm sorry if my replies are no longer relevant.

Originally Posted by Avaxis Spin

I felt the need to stick God in it for the very same reason you feel the need to take him out. My goal is not to convert anyone. People get so twisted up in their own way of thinking that they become closed to anyone who may express a different opinion than their own.

I haven't taken him out. He was never a factor to start with.

You've become defensive over me asking you to think outside of your anti-god box.

Anti-god? I'm a polytheist. I'm farther from being anti-god than you are.

It is impossible for me to prove the existance of God just as it is impossible for you to disprove it.

1) That's not an excuse. You bring something into the discussion, it's up to you to prove that something exists. Leave him out of science if you don't want his existence being questioned. 2) That has nothing to do with anything. I believe in numerous gods. You don't see me trying to make people change theories they've already proven to include my gods.

You can't point to science and say "there's your answer" but what set the answers into place? how did plants come to use photosynthesis? what is the universe expanding into? what drives animals to evolve? what decided that your body would have mitochondria? the very beginnings of all things cannot be proven by science any more than i can prove that God created them.

Everything you've said already has an answer, though :| That's the thing; I'm looking at nature and going, "Okay, this is how I see it happening, therefore, that's how it happens", and you look at it and go, "This is how I see it happening, but I want to be able to include a deity in all this." You're not content to stop adding unnecessary bits.

Again, understand that I'm not saying you can't believe in a god, or that you shouldn't, just that this whole God of the Gaps thing is incredibly outdated at this point.

i'm sorry if you misinterpreted my post as a way of "trying to make people who believe in evolution seem like they belong to a religion". i don't push my religion on anyone. at no point did i say "you should be christian because bla bla bla". i think people should believe what they want to believe. but the last time i checked, this was a discussion forum so i'm mearly discussing.

You misunderstand what I was saying. I was taking issue with the term "Darwinism", and how it's generally used by creationists who assume that everyone who "believes in" (see: acknowledges) evolution and all that are irreligious atheists, and attempt to discredit their position by saying, "HA! You follow the religion of evolution/Darwin/science/etc., therefore you're no better than us!" It's not like it's a threatening tactic in any way, but it's annoying, and I don't generally let people get away with it.

another problem with people is that they are easily offended over the tiniest things. it's almost like you WANT to be mad. you WANT to get offended. the reason why people get "bitey" over things is because they find something in a word that they don't like. so they get mad about it... as you did. i'm not going to appologize for my use of words. maybe if we all stopped nit picking over tiny words and actually analyzed the real subjects at hand, people would have more to actually say and less to argue about

I'm not offended. And you need to look up social Darwinism before you get all high-and-mighty. I'd be pretty pissed too if I thought someone was comparing me to people who believe the poor and ignorant should be allowed to die out.

Originally Posted by fuyumi_saito

I think it would be funny if everything people thought was fact, turned out to not be true. Like how people thought Pluto was a planet, in fact some people still think Pluto is a planet, and some refuse to believe otherwise even though science has proved it's not. There are many types of close mindedness, and people you have to remember, you choose to believe in God, or not to believe in God. It's not like your sexuality. You choose it.

I think this topic is just going to make people angry and frustrated. In the beginning I thought it was just a big bomb waiting to explode. I think theres a lot of stereotypes and misunderstandings, so maybe people should just agree that "I don't believe what you believe but I'm not gonna judge you for what you believe"...I mean isn't that the open-minded nice thing to do? I guess everyone has the right to express their opinion but when you stop listening to what others are saying I think its time to just stop to discussion completely because then people aren't doing the nice thing. ^^

I don't know. I was just told, and have told others, don't look at other christians, look at God and what God is doing, not others. People have choices and sometimes they choose to do the wrong things. It doesn't mean you should hate them or think they are inferior or unintelligent because of those things.

Pluto is a planet, damnit :)! Now, I'm not arguing the point, I'm just saying that in a funny type way. On a serious note, it's not that they've actually proved it wasn't a planet, it's more that they have refined the definition of what a planet is and Pluto doesn't fit that definition anymore. There are still scientists out there that don't agree though.

This type of topic is ALWAYS going to cause anger and frustration. That doesn't mean it should be taboo and not discussed. It just means that when the tempers begin to flair, we will have to hope that we can calm ourselves back to an acceptable level. I believe that even when people refuse to agree that discussion is still a good thing. For me, this is a topic I normally don't like discussing with anyone whom I don't know personally, and sometimes, not even then.

Originally Posted by midnitemyst

I think everything in the bible could be interpreted different ways by different people. There is something in the bible and I forget where but it definitely is describing some type of dinasour. Also the descriptions of some things such as raising the dead are done quite commonly now days. People die and are brought back it is not unreasonable that someone such as Jesus was able to do this in the past. The casting out of demons could be curing someone of some type of seizure illness. There are lots of things in the bible that are being scientifically proven today such as the great flood. There is evidence they are finding that points to one in the past. Ancient biblical places are being excavted everyday and are just as the Bible decribes them. Even the catholic church has now admitted and embraced that there may be life elsewhere. At the time the Bible was written a lot of what we think is common would have been mysteries and miracles in those days as seen by ancient man. So I think a lot of the bible is true and maybe some exagerated. But all in all I find that science is proving alot is true.

I don't think that just because things in the bible are being proven to be scientifically correct (such as the great flood and cities being found) proves that the bible is the word of god or anything like that. There are other religions that have similar stories to those in the bible. I think all that says is that an event happened, and people around the world at those times found a way to explain it. Yes, they're finding evidence of a great flood. That doesn't mean that the God of the bible made that flood happen.

On the one hand, I think the bible is a good novel. It has everything you could ever dream of in a book-homicide, genocide, incest, adultery, war, domestic violence-well, you name it, it has it. On the other hand, it was a book written by men FOR men. Whatever small truths there may have been, have probably been twisted far beyond their original being and intent.

Philomel - I couln't call myself a true believer in God if I didn't believe that God was involved in the creation of everything. After all, that is the very first book of the Bible. Wether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, this is the very beginning of the doctrines. I'm not sure what type of polytheist you are or what gods you belive in so I can only ask how things began in that. I do know that in a number of polytheist beliefs, like greek or egyptian, everything began with a single diety creating land and air over time, although the greek is a bit more complex, but the overall result is the same. They begin with a diety (or two) that has no origin, they just were there and created. In this I would see them as being a contributing factor.

To be honest I was being lazy and didn't want to crack out the books on God and creation and science. I was hoping to continue the discussion without having to thumb through the pages and pages again, I guess this was a mistake. But even through all the pages of information and discussions, it becomes a belief because of swaying evidence that I believe in God, just in the same way that books written to disprove God lead people to a belief that there is no God. The problem though is it's a belief. It's not hard fact. It's like presenting a case to a jury. You can show a plethora of evidence that would prove that a man is guilty or innocent to a jury, and the jury will make a decision based on those pieces of evidence. The fact remains though that guilty men are found not guilty and innocent men found guilty. The jury makes a decision based on a combination of their own thoughts and assumptions and also the wording of the lawyer who convinces them why their argument is correct. The only one who knows the complete truth though is the one's involved. So thats why I say I can't prove Gods existance to someone because I can't physically grab Him and say "look! here he is!" I can only believe so because of the numerous experiences i've had and what i've read about fact that makes me believe He is real.

As far as what science has proven. It is true that science does an amazing job on proving the how of different things. We can easily find how evolution occurs. How photosynthesis takes place. But not how it started. Science can only say how things work, but it can't prove why they do what they do. Science says they just do what they do because thats what they evolved to do. But it all started somewhere. According to science it was all chance. Thats all that they can say on the beginning because scientifically they can't say why. So they leave it all to a dramatic incident that beat all odds to happen just perfectly and create the world we know today.

Originally Posted by Avaxis Spin

Philomel - I couln't call myself a true believer in God if I didn't believe that God was involved in the creation of everything. After all, that is the very first book of the Bible. Wether Christian, Jewish or Islamic, this is the very beginning of the doctrines.

Genesis was written by the Jews as allegory, not to be taken literally. That's why they changed certain parts of it, such as Cain boning his sister, without worrying about "sullying the Word of God". The point of the story, the most important part, remained the same -- obey God without question or face the consequences. And considering most Christians have a really screwed-up interpretation of Genesis, even at face value, I don't really need to be lectured by you on what the book says.

I'm not sure what type of polytheist you are or what gods you belive in so I can only ask how things began in that. I do know that in a number of polytheist beliefs, like greek or egyptian, everything began with a single diety creating land and air over time, although the greek is a bit more complex, but the overall result is the same. They begin with a diety (or two) that has no origin, they just were there and created. In this I would see them as being a contributing factor.

And? They didn't ask people to change their theories ("consider", in your words) to include their gods. I haven't met a modern-day Hellenic or Khemetic (I believe that's what they're called, anyone who knows differently is free to correct me) who expects people to do so, either. I don't, either, but then my religion doesn't have an "official" creation story, and the one most (including myself) tend to favor fits in very well with what scientists say happened anyway. However, for a multitude of reasons, you and I aren't really comparable in that regard. Suffice to say, if I were in your position, I would accept that I don't know how everything works, that I don't know the true nature of God, and I wouldn't try to stick a literal creation story into science.

To be honest I was being lazy and didn't want to crack out the books on God and creation and science. I was hoping to continue the discussion without having to thumb through the pages and pages again, I guess this was a mistake. But even through all the pages of information and discussions, it becomes a belief because of swaying evidence that I believe in God, just in the same way that books written to disprove God lead people to a belief that there is no God. The problem though is it's a belief. It's not hard fact. It's like presenting a case to a jury. You can show a plethora of evidence that would prove that a man is guilty or innocent to a jury, and the jury will make a decision based on those pieces of evidence. The fact remains though that guilty men are found not guilty and innocent men found guilty. The jury makes a decision based on a combination of their own thoughts and assumptions and also the wording of the lawyer who convinces them why their argument is correct. The only one who knows the complete truth though is the one's involved. So thats why I say I can't prove Gods existance to someone because I can't physically grab Him and say "look! here he is!" I can only believe so because of the numerous experiences i've had and what i've read about fact that makes me believe He is real.

And I'm not asking you to. I'm simply saying that because you have no physical, objective (yes, nothing's objective, yadayadayada) evidence, and no proof, you can't just expect people to consider it in their worldview, especially when they have already found all these other answers in entirely mundane places. You're asking them to add an unecessary detail, and you need to understand that that's a pretty big request.

As far as what science has proven. It is true that science does an amazing job on proving the how of different things. We can easily find how evolution occurs. How photosynthesis takes place. But not how it started. Science can only say how things work, but it can't prove why they do what they do. Science says they just do what they do because thats what they evolved to do. But it all started somewhere. According to science it was all chance. Thats all that they can say on the beginning because scientifically they can't say why. So they leave it all to a dramatic incident that beat all odds to happen just perfectly and create the world we know today.

First off, it isn't science's job to answer why, particularly since there may not even be a "why". "How" is all it addresses, because it is objective, whereas "why" is subjective.
Second, they aren't just leaving it like you're describing. It's not that they've given up, it's that we know this can happen. We know that anything with any possibility of happening will, given enough chances, eventually happen. We see it all the time. There's no reason to look for an answer that in all likelihood may not be there when there doesn't need to be an answer at all. It's completely pointless.

@Avaxis Spin: I mentioned this earlier and I'll reiterate it now: You're debating an illogical debate. You see, the only argument you have against all of the information I or Philomel throw at you is 'belief.' A very weak argument, to say the least. This is the ending point for all debates surrounding this issue. Even some of the greatest scientific thinkers and religious minds come to this point. Despite the scientific proof that is thrown onto the table, 'belief' somehow trumps it all. It's a very selfish thing...

And so now I am going to sum up the rest of this debate in a few short sentences:

Shtona/Philomel: "Logical proof, logical proof, logical proof..."
Avaxis Spin: "Belief, belief, belief..."
Shtona/Philomel: "Logical proof, logical proof, logical proof..."
Avaxis Spin: "Belief, belief, belief..."

And so on, and so forth...

To Both - I guess your right, there is no point in continuing this conversation. According to the both of you I'm merely an idiotic and blind sighted christian fool who knows nothing more than what I "selfishly" want to believe. Despite the fact that I've said that it was science itself and my experiences that made me choose to be a christian, even after being both atheistic and agnostic. Apparently I'm on some kind of "high-horse" who is doing nothing more than trying to convert everyone to seeing things my way and not wanting to have a logical discussion at all.

No matter how you try to spin things around to tell me I'm an idiot, and whether you want to believe it or not, logical proof (as you keep referring to it) is simply a wordy way of saying believe. Your thinking "what the hell blah blah blah he doesn't know what he's talking about blah blah blah" but I'll explain.

Logical proof - proof of a logical proposition deducible from basic postulates. A postulate being a proposition that is accepted as true in order to provide a basis for logical reasoning. A proposition being a statement that affirms or denies something and is either true or false. Logical being based on known statements or events or conditions.

Now don't call me a hypocrite about focusing on words because you made this word to be SO important and I'm trying to explain what I say. So with logical proof your saying that based on known statements or conditions, you have factual evidence that helps to establish that there is no God... factual being existing in act or fact. In other words, you say you have the definitive evidence that there is no God. Now the reason why there is a debate in the first place, and the reason why this will ALWAYS be something that people disagree on, is because there is NO DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE that can disprove NOR prove the existence of God. So therefore, you either have something that NO ONE ELSE IN THE WORLD AND THOROUGHOUT HISTORY has ever seen or heard or you B-E-L-I-E-V-E through scientific hypothesis's and summations that there can be no God.

So don't think that your thinking more intelligent than me because I use the word belief and you use the term "logical proof". Belief being any cognitive content held as true where cognition is the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning. Note the word reasoning. You may have confused my use of the word belief with faith, which is ANOTHER thing I never touched on.

You both accuse me of trying to change peoples views and trying to add God in where I think he should be. You've accused me of not answering questions and skirting around issues with rants. I ask you both to re-read your previous posts and you tell me what you have done. From my first post all I have done was give a potential idea to circumstances that I would ask others to consider a possibility. I don't think that that is asking too much, after all that's what a debate is. I've never implied that we merely "place" God where he's not necessary but say that if God is real then he would have been there all along. It just seems to me that the reason why one can't have a logical conversation about these things is because people get ILLOGICALLY emotional and defensive whenever the word GOD is placed in anything.

Philomel you've stated many things that would be obvious. Obviously the ancient polytheists wouldn't need to try and get people to change their theories to include their gods because they didn't need too. that's what happened to them. that was how things came about. so was someone going to argue with pharaoh about the origins of the earth? no. if they did they would be killed. but then again, and as I've stated MANY MANY times, i never wanted anyone to change their minds, merely think outside of their box. however, when you said "I haven't taken him out. He was never a factor to start with. " you were expressing your opinion and belief. you weren't there when it all started, no one was, therefore you can't know. if it was the big bang theory (and this is what i meant with my original post in the first place) who's to say that God didn't create the big bang that set everything in motion in the first place. it is merely thinking outside the box of chance for half a second. that's all i wanted anyone to do. i have considered other's theories of creation with an open ear and an open mind, whats wrong in with asking others to do the same? have i tried to convert you? have i told you you were flat out wrong? no. in fact i have yet to even ask about what you believe and why.

shtona - i posted something to you about 3 or 4 posts back. I don't see where anything that you just said has any relevance to anything i said in that post. i don't have much more to say about what you just posted because it seemed less like a debate and more a emotional retort and i gave my response to you at the beginning.

basically the end all to the debate ends up being the unwillingness to accept anything different than your own thoughts and ideas, and hearing only what you want to hear. at some point it simply becomes an argument and i have no interest in that.

Um. Who has called you an idiot, exactly? :|

People believe whatever they want (read: are taught) and then if there is a book or person out there that can at least partially support their views, they adopt it as holy. It doesn't matter if it conflicts with their views at points, because since other people use the same book/person it empowers them by having hordes of people to help enforce their views. Its a by product of egoism. This is why all Zen books are really only read by people who aren't Zen Buddhists, because the Zen Buddhists don't believe in anything holy.

Originally Posted by Shtona

I am a Christian-turned-Atheist and I've often wondered how people can look at the obvious fallacies in the book right in front of them, that is practically shoved down their throat every week, and not question them? It's amazing to me how blind 'blind faith' is! Take Luke and Matthew for example: they are the only two books that even mention the birth of Christ (a very important subject for Christians) and they don't coincide. How do you read these books and first off: not notice it; and second: believe it?!

*Calming down...*

Sorry, touchy subject for me...

So the stage is set: How do Christians ignore the fallacies in their beliefs?

Given the vast historical, theological, philosophical conflicts surrounding the interpretation of the bible this is old news. I doubt any one could give you the answer that you want without making a huge sweeping generalization about all Christians which would be fallacy. I think it's unfair to ask Christians to justify their beliefs using empiricism purely to humor an atheist audience. Belief doesn't require logic or empiricism to exist and that's your answer.

Originally Posted by una

Given the vast historical, theological, philosophical conflicts surrounding the interpretation of the bible this is old news. I doubt any one could give you the answer that you want without making a huge sweeping generalization about all Christians which would be fallacy. I think it's unfair to ask Christians to justify their beliefs using empiricism purely to humor an atheist audience. Belief doesn't require logic or empiricism to exist and that's your answer.

I agree this is old news. I agree that I won't get any answers (I wasn't expecting to. In all honesty, I kind of enjoy watching Christians squirm around questions like these). And, I agree that belief doesn't 'require logic or empiricism' to exist. However, what you're implying is that there is no debate, and there, you are very wrong. I am not asking for Christians to defend their broad and illogical beliefs, I'm asking for Christians to defend specific things in the Bible that don't coincide (such as the one I mentioned concerning the birth of Jesus).

Originally Posted by Shtona

I agree this is old news. I agree that I won't get any answers (I wasn't expecting to. In all honesty, I kind of enjoy watching Christians squirm around questions like these). And, I agree that belief doesn't 'require logic or empiricism' to exist. However, what you're implying is that there is no debate, and there, you are very wrong. I am not asking for Christians to defend their broad and illogical beliefs, I'm asking for Christians to defend specific things in the Bible that don't coincide (such as the one I mentioned concerning the birth of Jesus).

That's working under the fallacy that all Christians study biblical theology. Anyone can study theology so it's not necessarily a question limited solely for Christians.
The bible at face value has inconsistencies but you need to delve deeper into history and origins of a particular text in order to obtain a deeper understanding especially in the gospels. For example why is there no accounts of demon possession in John? Why is Jesus frightened on the cross in Mark? Why do the gospels place emphasis on different words?
Each gospel was written with a different theological emphasis. So for example there are no demon possession in John because it was written for a hellenistic audience. There was no mass killings in Luke's Nativity because he was not appealing to a Jewish audience. Matthew was blatantly trying to draw a comparison between Jesus' birth and Moses' birth with the massacre of the innocents in order to appeal to Jewish audience.
It's a myth to believe that the gospels were entirely designed to be a factual account of Jesus' life or that churches ignore these inconsistencies to fuel their illogically beliefs.
If this was the case hagiography wouldn't exist.

Originally Posted by una

That's working under the fallacy that all Christians study biblical theology. Anyone can study theology so it's not necessarily a question limited solely for Christians.
The bible at face value has inconsistencies but you need to delve deeper into history and origins of a particular text in order to obtain a deeper understanding especially in the gospels. For example why is there no accounts of demon possession in John? Why is Jesus frightened on the cross in Mark? Why do the gospels place emphasis on different words?
Each gospel was written with a different theological emphasis. So for example there are no demon possession in John because it was written for a hellenistic audience. There was no mass killings in Luke's Nativity because he was not appealing to a Jewish audience. Matthew was blatantly trying to draw a comparison between Jesus' birth and Moses' birth with the massacre of the innocents in order to appeal to Jewish audience.
It's a myth to believe that the gospels were entirely designed to be a factual account of Jesus' life or that churches ignore these inconsistencies to fuel their illogically beliefs.
If this was the case hagiography wouldn't exist.

So that is the stance you take? Interesting...Our arguments are so similar, but the outcomes are so different.

Yes, anyone can study theology, but Christian Theology is specific to Christians and that is the branch of theology this thread concerns. Also, they seem to be the ones that are defending they're holy texts, so that just may be another reason for this thread.

Yet again, I agree with you. The gospel's are not a factual account of Jesus' life, but shouldn't everything preceding his life at the very least line up according to factual information that can be gathered from outside of scripture? The fallacy I'm talking about in my introductory post was one concerning the dating of Jesus' birth. There is a disagreement in the texts of Luke and Matthew that places the year of Jesus' birth before 4B.C.E. or after 6C.E. (In case you, or anyone else, is wondering C.E. stands for Common Era. I hope I don't have to explain what B.C.E. stands for.)

Originally Posted by StripedSocks`

Not all Christians believe everything that's in the Bible. Some of them just pick and choose what to believe, but don't want to turn away from religion all together. Besides, why does it matter if it's /true/ or not, it's a belief. Beliefs don't have to be based off of fact or anything, it's just what a person or group of people think.

And those who only believe part are misguided and have been sadly fooled.

In answer to the question it says in the bible you must believe with child like faith. You must believe no matter what the misguided masses tell you just as a child would.

Originally Posted by 2ktaco

And those who only believe part are misguided and have been sadly fooled.

In answer to the question it says in the bible you must believe with child like faith. You must believe no matter what the misguided masses tell you just as a child would.

How can that be a good thing? I've always wondered...

Originally Posted by Shtona

So that is the stance you take? Interesting...Our arguments are so similar, but the outcomes are so different.

Yes, anyone can study theology, but Christian Theology is specific to Christians and that is the branch of theology this thread concerns. Also, they seem to be the ones that are defending they're holy texts, so that just may be another reason for this thread.

Yet again, I agree with you. The gospel's are not a factual account of Jesus' life, but shouldn't everything preceding his life at the very least line up according to factual information that can be gathered from outside of scripture? The fallacy I'm talking about in my introductory post was one concerning the dating of Jesus' birth. There is a disagreement in the texts of Luke and Matthew that places the year of Jesus' birth before 4B.C.E. or after 6C.E. (In case you, or anyone else, is wondering C.E. stands for Common Era. I hope I don't have to explain what B.C.E. stands for.)

The dates would be a blunder by the author. Luke and Matthew both imply conception occurred before Herod's death so it would seem Luke made a mistake by adding in the consensus. Matthew and Luke were written some time after Jesus' death so it's believed that the authors were not witnesses to Jesus' ministry. What probably happened was that Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source to create their gospels and didn't compare accounts to make it historically factual. But a book on religious teachings is going to emphasize on the teachings of Christ rather than his birthday if you get my drift.

It's an interesting topic to discuss. I understand your frustration, I was sent to a church school and I hated it. But from studying the bible later in life for a theology and philosophy a-level I came to appreciate the text rather than the religion that surrounds it- if that makes sense. I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in organized religion but I still use some of ethics that are promoted in the bible in my daily life. Like charity, humility, being nice and forgiving ect.
I find it sad when people do use the bible to justify prejudices because the gospels preach against it.

Originally Posted by una

The dates would be a blunder by the author. Luke and Matthew both imply conception occurred before Herod's death so it would seem Luke made a mistake by adding in the consensus. Matthew and Luke were written some time after Jesus' death so it's believed that the authors were not witnesses to Jesus' ministry. What probably happened was that Matthew and Luke used Mark and another source to create their gospels and didn't compare accounts to make it historically factual. But a book on religious teachings is going to emphasize on the teachings of Christ rather than his birthday if you get my drift.

It's an interesting topic to discuss. I understand your frustration, I was sent to a church school and I hated it. But from studying the bible later in life for a theology and philosophy a-level I came to appreciate the text rather than the religion that surrounds it- if that makes sense. I'm not a Christian because I don't believe in organized religion but I still use some of ethics that are promoted in the bible in my daily life. Like charity, humility, being nice and forgiving ect.
I find it sad when people do use the bible to justify prejudices because the gospels preach against it.

Okay, good, you said what I thought you'd say. So if the authors of the Bible could make such a simple mistake as the dating of Jesus's birth, why couldn't they have made a mistake elsewhere in their gospels? I understand you don't read the Bible this way, and that you're not a Christian, but others are, and others do read the book this way, and these are questions that no one has been able to answer for me.

Originally Posted by Shtona

Okay, good, you said what I thought you'd say. So if the authors of the Bible could make such a simple mistake as the dating of Jesus's birth, why couldn't they have made a mistake elsewhere in their gospels? I understand you don't read the Bible this way, and that you're not a Christian, but others are, and others do read the book this way, and these are questions that no one has been able to answer for me.

I don't like the term mistake. It's way too simplistic for the matter at hand. The dating corresponds providing you ignore the reference to the census of Quirinius in Luke. However some scholars argue that the authors purposely constructed the nativity to paint this pretty romantic montage of Jesus birth, therefore should be consider as pious fiction. But then again Matthew and Luke do share some similarities in there first verses which could point to the argument of use of a common source i.e the hypothesized 'q document'. Whether it was fact, fiction or a bit of both is debatable. Christians and non-Christian's debate it. This isn't a 'mistake' that Christian theologians ignore.
Christian scholars do exist, they're not like unicorns. If you specifically wanted an Christian opinion on the inaccuracies of the bible than I would recommend reading books written by Christian scholars.

....Listen and please listen well.

As a child, i was raised Christian. And then a series of horrible things happened... And for years I asked and prayed to God why i suffered. I prayed to make it stop.

I am no longer religious, and will never be again. But you have to understand something. People need something to hope for. People need to know that they are safe and loved. Religion gives alot of people the comfort they desire. They believe the things written in the bible because it gives them faith that one day, Everything will be okay. And you know what, No one has the right to take that away, Or even question it. Same as no one has the right to question what you believe. We all live differently. The end.

I would disagree with that. We question what racists believe all the time. We question what conspiracy theorists believe all the time. I see no reason to put religious belief on a pedestal and treat them as sacred.

Besides, if I were a Christian, I'd be offended that you're treating me like a child who "needs" my beliefs to survive and will just fall to pieces at the slightest questioning. I mean, there are Christians who intentionally get into arguments about their faith with those who believe differently in order to strengthen their beliefs.

Without religion who do we ask for help at night or when we're in a bad situation and what gives us enough hope to make it through another day?
People believe in the bible because we need SOMETHING to believe in and inconsistencies in the bible can be blamed on the translators
Personally i also need something to have faith in and the idea that there's someone up there who watches and cares for us is the only explanation for some things