I need a show of hands: who believes the Bible and to what extent? (page 16)

myelaine

dear PSacramento...

you thought right. the koran is said to be transmitted to mohammed through an angel (allegedly) gabriel...as Heaven's post #3331 stated prior to Terry continuing on:

"Please correct me if I am wrong on this but it is my understanding that the history of the Qur'an starts off with it coming from the angel Gabrielle speaking to the prophet Muhhamad, making him recite it orally to remember it as Muhhamad could not read or write. Later, he orally related the Qur'an to some followers who wrote it down on leaves and bark and paper if available. After Muhhamad's death, Abu Bakr compiled these teachings into the Qur'an. As time went by, differing copies of the Qur'an appeared. This was a huge problem since the Islamic belief is that the word of God could not be corrupted (sound familiar?), and the 3rd caliph after Muhammad's death, Uthman, ordered that all copies of the Qur'an be gathered. They studied each text, and what was deemed as original was compiled to make the Qur'an of today. All of the manuscripts and parchments, bark, and leaves were then destroyed to prevent further corruption. Unfortunately we have no way of performing a textual study to verify the accurateness of today's Qur'an with the original."...

...perhaps Terry couldn't maintain his premise in post #100096 while acknowledging that point.

love michelle

rocketman

My current take on the Bible can be pretty much summed up by the story of the Good Samaritan...

It's an enduring illustration/story that makes an interesting and worthwhile point. I've seldom seen/heard arguments over whether there actually was a good Samaritan. The actuality of the characters doesn't seem to be the main point anyway - it's the story, based on what at least could have been an actual occurance (set in a historical backdrop), that resonates.

Jesus spoke in illustrations; as the Bible implies, he seldom spoke without them. Then why can't the OT also be very illustrative? Why can't the Genesis account of Adam and Eve and the Flood be illustrative rather than fully based on historical occurance? Maybe the OT God YHWH is "speaking" in illustrations, telling us meaningful stories without expecting that we believe such things actually occured. Or perhaps they are loosely based on some actual events - the Flood for example could be based on a significant flood that may have occured in the Mesopotamia area and became the stuff of legend.

designs

PSac-

I am not in the camp that views someone who believes in a supreme being as unintelligent or lacks critical thinking, many scientists through the ages have believed in a creator or supreme being ala Isaac Newton- you don't get much brighter.

What I am addressing is the cultural influence ie Newton wanted a Jewish/Unitarian concept advanced in his theological writings. In our Western culture God and certainly Jesus take on highly individualized interpretations (my example of asking 10 people on this forum about Jesus and getting 10 different personas).

I am certainly open to there being a supreme being or god, but after digesting concepts like T-Duality and String Theory the anthropomorphisms about such a being have all faded into the past.

PSacramento

PSac-

I am not in the camp that views someone who believes in a supreme being as unintelligent or lacks critical thinking, many scientists through the ages have believed in a creator or supreme being ala Isaac Newton- you don't get much brighter.

As you know, that is not what it seems according to how some atheist express themselves.

What I am addressing is the cultural influence ie Newton wanted a Jewish/Unitarian concept advanced in his theological writings. In our Western culture God and certainly Jesus take on highly individualized interpretations (my example of asking 10 people on this forum about Jesus and getting 10 different personas).

Yes, Jesus takes on a highly individualized expression,that is what "personal revelation" leads to, but if you were to ask those 10 people hwo their saviour was and if he was the son of God, that he died for them and that he was ressurected, they would all say yes ( at least I think they would).

I am certainly open to there being a supreme being or god, but after digesting concepts like T-Duality and String Theory the anthropomorphisms about such a being have all faded into the past.

And yet those are just theories with, perhaps, less evidence for existsing than God.

BUT even if they weren't I submit that it wouldn't make any difference to the existence of God.

We may yet come to an understandging that all that is nature is by design of God or that God IS the universe in all its glory or that cosmic singularities, multiple dimensions and such are just anyother "facet" of God.

Or maybe not.

Either way, what we come to believe or prove or not, is typically irrelevant to whether there is a God because IF there is a God, he is truly so above our ability to FULLY understand him that we are simply at the bottom of Mt.Everst, with no pick axe and no equipment and wondering, " What is up there?".

Lion Cask

ala Isaac Newton- you don't get much brighter.

You are quite right, designs, Newton was the genius of his age and much of what he contributed to scientific understanding endures to this day, in particular calculus. I've done considerable reading on the man, however, and I would not be one to hold him up as a shining example of a deist. He was also a superstitious spiritualist and practitioner of a form of alchemy that can only be described as silly. I am particularly reminded of the short chapter on Newton in Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time" in which the great scientist is described as a horrible, vindictive and sadistic man. All that said, it should be no surprise that a 17th century man of renowned would describe himself as a believer in God whether he was or not, because to claim otherwise in that day and age would cause a storm of criticism and resentment from the social establishment and Newton valued social status and power above practically all things.

Lion Cask

And yet those are just theories with, perhaps, less evidence for existsing than God.

Interesting turn of phrase, PSacramento. It implies there is evidence for the existence of God. Can you share?

PSacramento

Interesting turn of phrase, PSacramento. It implies there is evidence for the existence of God. Can you share?

Evidence for God ( the creator) or God or Christian God?

;)

Just kidding.

Philosophically speaking or science wise?

I can suggest a few books...

designs

Lion- I use to dabble in Alchemy, then I went into Rehab and now I'm much better

Lion Cask

I can suggest a few books...

Having read the recommended texts from a number of people who have felt the need to help my bankrupt spirituality without any lights going on, I would prefer the Coles Notes version, PSacramento.

PSacramento

Having read the recommended texts from a number of people who have felt the need to help my bankrupt spirituality without any lights going on, I would prefer the Coles Notes version, PSacramento.

Well, since I don't believe that your spirituality is bankrupt I am not sure if we would be recommending the same books, LOL !

Have you read the Language of God by Francis Collins or What's so great about Christianity by D'souza?

Both list some scientific evidence for the belief in God.

I need a show of hands: who believes the Bible and to what extent?

Share this