Is the Bible Just B.S.?

by shamus 125 Replies latest watchtower bible

itsallgoodnow

farkel wrote:
People of faith should not make the mistake of trying to rationalize it or even trying to explain it with any sort of argument that involves logic. When they do, they get trashed by thinking people every single time.
plmkrzy

farkel wrote:
People of faith should not make the mistake of trying to rationalize it or even trying to explain it with any sort of argument that involves logic. When they do, they get trashed by thinking people every single time.
Moreover, if a God did that, it is totally unfair to his children to make them go through these hoops to find out about the mind of God and then come up with the wrong answer
ok I'll jump in...once.bold is mine.
imho...We come up with the wrong answers because were not supposed to be jumping through hoops trying to figure out whats on "Gods" mind. Were supposed to learn how to be "men/women" without someone holding our hand every step of the way.
As for the bibles, they are, what they are. I agree with LT, even though he will no doubt correct me on something
There are many passages in the bible clueing us in on that.
For example: don?t look LT
1 Corinthians 4

Apostles of Christ

1 So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God. 2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful. 3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.
6 Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another. 7 For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? 14 I am not writing this to shame you, but to warn you, as my dear children. 15 Even though you have ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. 16 Therefore I urge you to imitate me. 17 For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church. 18 Some of you have become arrogant, as if I were not coming to you. 19 But I will come to you very soon, if the Lord is willing, and then I will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. 20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?
1 Corinthians 3

On Divisions in the Church

1 Brothers, I could not address you as spiritual but as worldly--mere infants in Christ.
4 For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe--as the Lord has assigned to each his task.
10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. (Hello! Imo?This is saying clearly?Not everything in the Bible is inspired by the same source and some of the ?inspired people? may not have gotten their inspiration from where they thought.) 4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.
11 For no one can lay any foundation (book) other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
16 Don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? 17 If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred, and you are that temple.
18 Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness" [1] ; 20 and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile." [2] 21 So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas [3] or the world or life or death or the present or the future--all are yours, 23 and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.
if I?ve read one scripture I?ve read a hundred that say loud and clear, be careful what you believe in even if it IS written in the bible. The bible is full of warnings!
20 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power. 21 What do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a whip, or in love and with a gentle spirit?

Or in other words, what do you want to believe? Or ?What?s in YOUR heart??
my 5 cents.
I'm going to go to sleep now.
run dont walk

YES
LittleToe

Plm:
Though I'm not in favour of a Pauline biased belief system, I cannot disagree with what you wrote
I tend to favour Rom.14:14, myself, in that regard.
If, indeed, life has been put in your heart (though the heart is treacherous) I believe that a spirit-led life is best (having had the necessary law - of love - written on your heart).
Abaddon

Ross, it still boils down to the fact you are a lovely bloke, but the "leadings of the spirit" that give you the certainty you have are the same internalised justifications of the harmful fundamentalist. They feel equally lead, equally right, and feel their 'holy book', whatever it might be, is as unarguably inspired as you feel yours is.
Of course, if all "people of belief" were as you, then this wouldn't be a problem. But unfortunately, because belief is so unrelaible a guide, some people of belief are harmful.
This of course leads us to the question of "why would a loving god allow such uncertainty", which is unanswerable without presupposition, which in itself leads us to the question "why would a loving god require beliefs that need presuppostiton to make sense", which is, again, unanswerable without presupposition.
Shakespeare said nice things, Ghandi said nice things, Matrin Luther King said nice things, Kahlil Gibran said nice things, and indeed, Jesus said nice things. Doesn't mean the Bible's anything more than another book.
LittleToe

Gyles:
I refer you to my reply to Farkel, above, regarding the "book" itself.
As for a "spirit-led" life, I've had the pleasure of meeting many people doing that, with a common loving attitude, and a spark in their eye.
I've also seen plenty of legalists, who put a book before "love", who ardently declaring themselves "Christian".
I don't suppose it'd be too onerous to ask you who you think is proving true to Jesus tenets?
Abaddon

Hi again Ross,
I guess the problem is that the sub-set of belief you have retained means that your defence is very sound and sane. You have incorporated the weaknesses of a belief based paradigm into your schema in such a way that it is virtually unassailable, although this is a far call from it being demonstrably right.
It ignores the fact that others' approach to the Bible is neither sound nor sane and is frequently used to claim actions or beliefs based on textual opinions are some how better than others, when there is no foundation for granting the Bible any special status on the grounds of its text.
Other works of man have gems in and are not considered justifications for horrors, nor are the horrors these works of man sometimes contain considered of no import on account that there are gems alongside of them.
To me, if I may be hyperbolic for the moment, saying that the Bible isn't BS becasuse it contains gems alongside the dodgy bits, is like saying Nazi Germany wasn't BS as the trains ran on time, even if lots of them had cattle cars full of people going to death camps on them.
It's unthinkable that any entity worth spit would allow their gems to be associated with some of the supposed history in the Bible or would allow people to use the Bible to justify horrors.
As such, I feel I might as meaningfully claim a 'spritual' dimension to being a follower of Shakespeare's words as you can claim there is any spiritual dimention to following Jesus' words.
LittleToe

Gyles:
Valid points, as ever
You have incorporated the weaknesses of a belief based paradigm into your schema in such a way that it is virtually unassailable, although this is a far call from it being demonstrably right.
You correctly identify that I cannot demonstrate it to be correct - beyond living it and letting others come to their own conclusions.
I liked Einstien's approach of simplifying things down to common denominators, without simplifying things so far that they become useless.
For this reason (for one example) I can happily look at other's beliefs (regardless of biblical basis) and accept core tenets.
Love appears to be the key, submitting the ego to the ineffable, and extending it to all creation.
This appears to be a foundation upon which to build, yet so often an edifice appears that seems to solidify into dogma.
It's a shame (IMHO) that folks create their own dichotomy between this and their statements that we are on a path of lifelong learning.
I see beauty in a blade of grass, so I'm bound to find gems in works such as the Bible and Shakespeare.
In the case of the Bible I see a variety of autihors trying to make sense of their "spiritual" experiences. I wonder at their interpretations, sometimes, but at least it gives an insight (albeit often biased) into what they were experiencing.
Just because someone uses a work as an excuse for acting in an evil way surely doesn't demean the work per se.
For example, surely no-one would find it acceptable for "The Passion" to be used as an excuse for anti-semitism, or anti-romanism?
Though some have levelled accusations that it has that potential, I personally find them absurd (which also doesn't make me right in that assertion, but it's my opinion, nonetheless).
Further, could you really say they were remaining true to the universal tenets of "love"?
I neither ignore the evil events in the world, nor the opinions of folk that might to all intents and purposes seem insane or illogical, though I do learn something from them.
IMHO it's as important to find what to avoid as to learn what to draw close to.
Is it truly "unthinkable that any entity worth spit would allow their gems to be associated with some of the supposed history in the Bible or would allow people to use the Bible to justify horrors"?
That presupposed that "God" is made in our image, or able to be boxed in by our personal logic as to what "He" has to react to...
I've seen you relate your opinion, on a number of occasions, that if "God" were truly "God" then "He" must surely act this, that and the other way. That's even more absurd than stating that "I" must act a certain way in given circumstances. Why, if you were to start doing that then I would act contrary, just to keep you guessing. Such is "my" nature ("keep 'em guessing" class ), so why should "God" be any more in your image than in mine?
Shakespearean Mystical quote: "...what light from yonder window breaks..."
(Edited to add link to dictionary definition, for FMZ )
FMZ

My apologies for interrupting... but does "ineffable" mean you can't "eff" it? *sigh*
FMZ
Abaddon

Ross, you said ineffable!
This automatically means you lose, as ineffable actually means "Well, I know it's not provable/doesn't really make sense, but I'm going to believe it anyway".
Semantic foolery aside...
I liked Einstien's approach of simplifying things down to common denominators, without simplifying things so far that they become useless.
What if the thing IS useless, but you are taking a well-defended philisophical positon that allows you to insist it is useful? You're entering the debate with an assumption of usefulness, and I don't think you would disagree that people can lead a full, happy, constructive and 'good' life even if they've never heard of the Bible.
I'm sure that the processing of willow bark has included various chants or incantations in various cultures, or was meant to happen in certain phases of the moon. All those beliefs were completey bloody useless, as it's the salicylic acid that is important. It's possible there was a school of Quetzlacotl worshipers who held the step-pyramid wasn't essential to keep the sun rising, it was the heart still beating when it was ripped from sacrifice's body that was what made the sun rise.
Holders of any of the above beliefs would also likely insist on ineffability to maintain them when the facts ran out.
Just because someone uses a work as an excuse for acting in an evil way surely doesn't demean the work per se.
If the work is widely claimed to be god's word, it does, and the inaction on the part of such a putative entity to defend its work from such claims is well, 'king well ineffable.
Is it truly "unthinkable that any entity worth spit would allow their gems to be associated with some of the supposed history in the Bible or would allow people to use the Bible to justify horrors"?
That presupposed that "God" is made in our image, or able to be boxed in by our personal logic as to what "He" has to react to...
So, we are made in his image except when it doesn't suit your argument? I've always thought that meant we could understand how god felt as our thought processes and emotions were an image of his own? What does it mean then?
I've seen you relate your opinion, on a number of occasions, that if "God" were truly "God" then "He" must surely act this, that and the other way. That's even more absurd than stating that "I" must act a certain way in given circumstances.
I disagree.
If someone was distorting what you had said and doing bad things yet insisting that Ross said it was okay to do them, you'd likely take action. If your inaction had the knock on consequence of makng people think there was no Ross, then you being angry with someone who didn't believe you existed would be silly. Likewise, if you had been able to stop people doing bad things in the name of Ross, yet had stood by for ineffable reasons, people reckoning either Ross doesn't exists or he's a nasty piece of work would be reasonable.
As it is below, so it is above... or are we, although made in his image, so removed from god that this is not true and different rules apply? Or is that bit of the Bible one of the bits you don't think is a gem? Or is it ineffable?
Why, if you were to start doing that then I would act contrary, just to keep you guessing. Such is "my" nature ("keep 'em guessing" class ), so why should "God" be any more in your image than in mine?
Yup, but you're not god, you're Ross, and the second it looked like people were going to suffer you'd rethink your actions. Why is god different?
You're a parent... you know perfectly well kids respond better to reason than you being ineffable. Why are adults any different and why doesn't god know this?
Isn't 'god' at the end of the day you seeing the world as you'd like to see it, rather than anything impinging upon the external shared reality?
Don't get all ineffable on me now, and remember, you can believe what you like and are a good chap but whether you can put a meaningful seperation between your beliefs and those of someone with a bone through their nose who believes in Og is an entirely different question.

Is the Bible Just B.S.?

Share this