spamandham

Ok then, if you are interested in determining truth, you have to start by questioning your preconceptions. Why do you believe the Bible is more than just a collection of ancient texts? Why do you give it more weight than the Indian Vedas, or the Egyptian pyramid texts, or the consolidated works of Bertrand Russell?

Why do you believe a god had anything at all to do with the Bible?

gracebkr

The Bible is a collection of ancient texts. I consider it a history text as I have stated already.

I give it more weight than any other because to me, it is the most sensible. I believe we are not just a spontaneous combustion. I believe we were created. To me this is more logical. I also think that other texts pertaining to other religions are in the Bible and referred to as the Anti Christ in the Bible. Please don't ask me to point out where, I have only looked for this connection a couple of times, but it is a bitch finding it online.

I believe Jesus is God and what Jesus said someone wrote down for me to read. Clearly this means that the Bible cannot be taken literally, plus you have to account for translation errors and problems with languages. So getting to the truth of Christ is my goal.

OldYgg

Thanks for the educational information spamandham. Interesting that my father-in-law would mention the apocrypha, as his is episcopalian a protestant variant.

Old Ygg

OldYgg

That isn't a bad goal, gracebkr, to know the mind of god. Often fairly atheist physicists consider that their work is all about knowing the mind of god. As atheists, they don't consider it god in the same way as religionists, but in using that word they want to express their veneration of the universe which seems to hold infinite variety.

I would question any religious path that relies on exclusion to make its followers special. We are all part of the universe. We will always be a part of the universe. We have always been a part of the universe.

If I were seeking the mind of god, and I believed in god, I would be seeking the commonalities in human existence. Since humanity exists then clearly that is the will of god just as it is the will of god that humans have intelligence. Anyone promoting exclusion or working against the use of the human mind would be working against god. Knowing about the mind of god must start with knowing the physicality of our universe as this is something that we can determine, not knowing about the soul which we can determine nothing.

Old Ygg

OldYgg

I do not want to cease to exist; however, I won't believe in god simply for the chance that there will be existence after death. I consider this to be the life I have to live and when I die, my mentality will cease to exist, but everything else that composes my body will continue to exist as parts of this universe.

This is the reason why there is no need for a soul. We start out as components of the universe - 100%. We are continually exchanging atoms and molecules with the universe throughout our lives. When we die, 100% of our physicality returns to the universe. There is simply no need for a soul and no need for a hereafter.

Old Ygg

OldYgg

The bible is a historical text but it is not a history text. We have a lot of knowledge in science at present and one of those things is a good definition (however incomplete) of the value of Pi. The value of Pi had actually been calculated for a few digits in the times in which the bible was written.

However, the bible states that Pi is valued at 3. This is clearly incorrect.

So, you give more weight to a book that can't get what is considered elementary school mathematics correct or even reasonably right, even given the historical context of the book?

As I indicated earlier, if Jesus lived and he had all this knowledge and all these capabilities, leaving behind the contents of the New Testament isn't a very good legacy.

Did he once say that slavery should be forbidden?

Did he once say that war is horrible and shouldn't be engaged in unless there is absolutely no choice?

Did he even half self control when confronted with adversity in the Temple?

No, he didn't. Anyone without the self-control to see things that they believe are wrong and not go berserk, isn't worthy of my admiration, much less anything else.

Old Ygg

Queen of Swords

Don't confuse my debating style with an emotional reaction towards yourself. I'd respond this way towards anyone who made the same kind of vaguely offensive, non sequitur replies in a discussion I was having with them.

No, you don't, Counselor Troi, not unless you're the same kind of person I am, and you went through the exact experience.

Your armchair psychologist act needs improving.

NeverByte

So how exactly do you determine which parts are historically accurate, and which parts are not to be taken literally? Do you not look to archaelogical evidence? Secular records from the time? And if secular records contradict what's in the bible, which do you believe?

Avatar

Talk about arrogance...
God killed himself to save us from his own wrath over an arbitrary rule that he put in place with a wildly out-of-porportion curse as punishment. Yeah, that makes sense...

Does your god suffer from Disasociative disorder? Why the song and dance when, if God is omnipotent, he could have accomplished the same thing much more easily pretty much any way he might have wanted?

LogDog

Thumper?

Are you serious? Let me be your source then. I say your god does not exist. And this is the truth of "Truth."

So the validity of the source doesn't matter as long as it reinforces your delusion? Come on gracebkr. Start thinking for yourself.