Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Smullyan-esque · 03-31-2007, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by figuer

I consider it to be a collection of fables/legends/myths mixed with mystical texts, poetry, some philosophical insights and some historical records (which in some cases might be accurate and in other inaccurate).

That's pretty much my opinion, as well.

Weltall · 03-31-2007, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidc

Sort of a latter-day Aesop's Fables, but without the charm and wit. And more bloodshed. Just my opinion, of course.

What a horrible first post. I am chagrined.

Not really, I thought it got your point across nicely. If you honestly think it's horrible, you'll find that once you've been here long enough nobody will remember it. It's not like your first post was 'Jesus is your Lord, burn in Hell, spingly fnord bop!' or something. Welcome to II. :wave:

Now then, since I know Visionary thinks that the Bible is wonderful fact, I'm going to ask why he thinks that. Visionary, what evidence outside your own mind leads you to believe anything the book says? Your alleged visions don't count, you admit to being diagnosed with a mental illness so your subjective experiences mean even less to us than they would otherwise.

Gooch's dad · 03-31-2007, 12:21 PM

Which bible? And since the write of Jude quotes from both the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, are those books also considered to be part of the canon? Why or why not?

V7, which version are you talking about? The Catholic bible or the Protestant bible? Are 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Tobit, and Baruch books that are part of this "bible" that you're asking about?

I think the Bible in any version is mostly just ancient myths. There is a moderate amount of Jewish history mixed in, though only in the bits after the time of Solomon. Everything before that is definitely mythology--especially the tales about the Exodus, which never happened.

I think the NT is largely hagiography, with a historical core of sayings of and about Jesus. The Revelation of St. John is nothing but the ravings of a madman.

purple_kathryn · 03-31-2007, 12:47 PM

Some of the places exist

Demigawd · 03-31-2007, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Well, my dad for example...he told me when I was eleven and brought home the news of evolution (we lived in communist Czechoslovakia), that it is possible that Adam and Eve were in fact Neaderthals.

Jiri

Eating from the Tree of Knowledge: So simple even a cave man can do it.

Visionary7 · 03-31-2007, 02:14 PM

As an Orthodox Christian, I treat the holy bible as a treasure chest and a book for guidance and instruction in the lettters of scripture. That the word of God is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

David B · 03-31-2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionary7

As an Orthodox Christian, I treat the holy bible as a treasure chest and a book for guidance and instruction in the lettters of scripture. That the word of God is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

Sadly, faith seems to put a bit of a dampener on critical faculties.

How does the alleged inerrancy of the bible fit in, do you think, with a 50,000 year old Varve sequence?

David B

wjs3 · 03-31-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionary7

As an Orthodox Christian, I treat the holy bible as a treasure chest and a book for guidance and instruction in the lettters of scripture. That the word of God is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

Oh, man. You should have done some reading around here before you said that.

I'm curious what your answers are to some of the other questions you were asked in this thread before this post--which version of the "word of God" are you talking about, for instance? And, does the fact that there are so many versions of the inerrant word of god ever bother you? If it's inerrant, shouldn'ty there be...oh, just one version? And, shouldn't it be internally consistent (I think someone offered you the "easter challenge" in another thread, for example).

WJS3

David Vestal · 03-31-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionary7

What do atheists believe about the Bible?

. . .

That it is of entirely human origin.

David Vestal · 03-31-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Visionary7

As an Orthodox Christian, I treat the holy bible as a treasure chest and a book for guidance and instruction in the lettters of scripture. That the word of God is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

Rabbits don't chew cud, and bats aren't birds. So much for inerrant.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-31-2007, 12:21 PM	#13
Gooch's dad Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Madison WI USA Posts: 3,508	Which bible? And since the write of Jude quotes from both the Book of Enoch and the Assumption of Moses, are those books also considered to be part of the canon? Why or why not? V7, which version are you talking about? The Catholic bible or the Protestant bible? Are 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Tobit, and Baruch books that are part of this "bible" that you're asking about? I think the Bible in any version is mostly just ancient myths. There is a moderate amount of Jewish history mixed in, though only in the bits after the time of Solomon. Everything before that is definitely mythology--especially the tales about the Exodus, which never happened. I think the NT is largely hagiography, with a historical core of sayings of and about Jesus. The Revelation of St. John is nothing but the ravings of a madman.

03-31-2007, 12:47 PM	#14
purple_kathryn Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Northern Ireland Posts: 3,382	Some of the places exist

03-31-2007, 02:14 PM	#16
Visionary7 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: -World Forum (Int'l)- Posts: 712	As an Orthodox Christian, I treat the holy bible as a treasure chest and a book for guidance and instruction in the lettters of scripture. That the word of God is divinely-inspired and inerrant.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.