Joan of Bark

A question for believers ...

What is the point of the Bible? If you can simply pray to God and get all the answers directly from the source, then why do you need a book? By using the Bible, you have all the problems of translation and interpretation to deal with. In prayer, the answer will be clear and perfect.

The only passage that seems to be necessary in the Bible is this one:

"If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer."
(Matt. 21:22 NIV)

Couldn't God figure out how to get you this one statement without destroying several forests in the process? I thought God cared about the environment?

spin

The most superfluous book ever?

George W Bush's Political Theory?
Dan Quayle's Guide to Culture?
Tony Blair's Growing a Backbone?
Henry Kissinger's Compassionate Administration?
Margaret Thatcher's Union Management?
Jeffrey Dahmer's White Trash Cookery Book?

Sadly I'm not a believer, but certainly the bible is not the most superfluous books ever. The bible's ill-repute comes from the millennia of abuse the book has suffered. For what it is, the bible is an anthology which gives some perspective on two ancient cultures. It contains a lot of historical interest. It shows us how people coped with the world before science, how they reacted to the world, how they regulated themselves in their society. Would you write off the Rigveda or the Kalevala? The worst problem about the bible is its usual advocates. This is a case of shoot the messengers not the message. They usually don't know much of the message at all.


spin

Chili

Yes, but God is 'people rancher' long before he is a 'forest ranger' and wrote the mythology down so his message would be like the kernel of sand placed in an oyster shell that the reader must first cultivate as outsider to later encounter and even wear as insider.

WishboneDawn

The bible isn't God. The bible was written (literally) by men and is a resource that spans many genres, two faiths and represents the influence of many ancient peoples. It's not superfluous. Spin made that point better then I.

This questions is probably lost on me because I'm generally not a prayer-as-magical-wishes kind of Christian anyway. I think though, that even if I were, there would still be reasons beyond just getting the 'answers' that would compell me to read the book.

God runs a printing company?

WishboneDawn

He's a rancher AND a printer? I really need a new intake manifold gasket...Maybe he's a mechanic too.

Johnny Skeptic

Whatever the case is, it is reasonable to say that a God who wanted to communicate with humans would never use copies of copies of questionable ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with them when he could easily show up in person and do a much better job of communicating with them. Or, he would exclusively use spiritual/emotional evidence to communicate with humans. A partial use of tangible, firsthand evidence does not make any sense. If 500 eyewitnesses if very good evidence, then 5,000 eyewitnesses is surely much better evidence.

It is quite important to note that false religions by necessity must start in only one place. A true religion could, and would start simultaneously in many parts of the world at one time, either by the exclusive use of spiritual/emotional evidence for everyone in the world, or by the use of, for instance, 1,000 only begotten Sons of God performing miracles in many parts of the world. A partial, limited use of tangible, firsthand evidence does not make any sense. No rational God would act like that because he would know that it would be counterproductive, and that it would invite dissent just like the dissent that I am using here. In my opinion, liberal Christians have much better arguments than fundamentalist Christians do.

Headache

Where can I find and read the premises you used in order to decide what in the bible to believe in and what not?

It is very difficult to discuss with someone when you don't have the premises used in the discussion.

WishboneDawn

The search function for the forum. Seriously, that question has derailed so many threads...

I was just addressing the OP. I wonder if there will be some answers for more Conservative Christians on this, I'm a bit curious about this one.

ughaibu

The creation story concerns events from before there were any human witnesses, in fact the only witness was god. So, if the Bible is to be considered reliable, there must have existed an efficient method of communicating with god. Anybody daft enough to write out the Bible instead of simply recording the method of communicating with god would be an unutterable fool. With such a method there would be no judicial mistakes, ultimately no crime. Therefore the authors were one of the following:
1) unutterable fools
2) criminally reckless
3) novelists

spin

Retrojecting modern views into a time 2000 years before modern science will allow you to make this shallow trichotomy. You need to compare the bible with what others thought at a similar time to get a standard to judge from. Otherwise the judgment has no value.


spin