the_grip on 29/1/2004 at 21:54

---

Absolutely, but when it has been done more than once, shouldn't more thought be given to it? {edit}Let me clairify... if numerous Biblical historical accounts have been validated elsewhere, should not others without validation be considered? i'm not asking someone to take the whole Bible as truth simply because some of it has been validated, rather, i'm saying that its historacity (sp?) shouldn't be discredited or ignored.{/edit}

That aside, should a source not be investigated simply because corresponding evidence can't be produced?



Instead of nitpicking the details, let me ask have you ever felt anger with hatred mixed in (i.e. maybe not everytime, but once). That's what i should point to, not dissect each individual instance of anger.



Disregarding historical references because there are spiritual references elsewhere? In that case, most ancient texts would be discounted altogether.

Let me put it this way - the search for the city of Troy continued even though it had not been found. Homer's works have quite a bit of spiritual references to them. Contrast that with the situation with the Bible, and you'll see what i'm talking about.



Perhaps that is the source of the bias against using the Bible as historical text, but i tend to think that it stems from something else. i'm sure that historians are able to make this distinction elsewhere.



Good point. To answer the first part, i'd have to point to faith, which i know seems like a cicular argument, but i believe because i believe God has worked it in me. As to the second part, that's a tough one too. There is a mystery about it that, on the one hand, it is God's work alone, but, on the other hand, it's done with individual human response and activity. However, i would say that it starts with God, though man is an independant organism that does have his/her own thoughts and perspectives. Does that make sense? i'm starting to try to juggle too many different thoughts here :)

Stitch666 on 29/1/2004 at 21:59

---

Am I the only one who grew up in a church that taught that the bible was an abstract collection of parables and allegories as opposed to a tome that documented actual historic events? Even the head priest at our Catholic church openly admitted that we didn't all descend from two people prancing about a garden and there really wasn't a massive world flooding upon which some old guy dicked around in his ark.

Despite what Zaccheus's imaginary friend may have told him personally, the bible is such a sloppy and incomplete collection of mismatched documents that any attempt to argue its factual veracity in mixed public will get you rightly laughed at.

For the record, while I am an atheist (surprise surprise), I do have respect for those who believe in god. They can consider the bible a cornerstone of their religion and argue that it makes many good points, and I'd nod and say "Word up. It's no Vonnegut but I see where you're coming from."

But once you start receiving telepathic transmissions from your savior I instantly file you in with those who think there's superbeings living in the hollow center of our planet.

Carini on 29/1/2004 at 22:02

---

*cough*lockthread*cough*

screech on 29/1/2004 at 22:06

---

heh. Well, it all gets back to faith doesn't it. Let's just say I'd rather see people saying they were moved to faith, but I can't swallow that faith _is_ God's work. Faith is a human attribute. You see faith in other people and "that things will work out".

Salvation depends on how you feel about God, regardless of one's lifetime actions and feelings towards fellow man or family? For me it should be the other way around... put dorkily the world should lead you to God or whatever, not the other way around.

God doesn't need love or care. It's the rest of us that do.

Goggleboy on 29/1/2004 at 22:21

---

I grew up being taught that too. It was part of a bible study course in a private school. We were taught that the bible was a collection of stories, each meant to teach a lesson (read: moral of the story), not necessarily literal fact or an undisputable record of history. The teacher who headed up the course was also our official science teacher, and at one point there was a discussion about how some "other schools" take the creation story so literally that they teach their students the world is only 6000 years old. I can remember one incident when our regular teacher said that you can't be a scientist and believe in God. My friend and I refuted that we both believed in science and in God. In fact it came across to me as strange that the two subjects we were learning ought to be considered incompatible.

Meanwhile at home my parents taught me to respect others' beliefs, but to be wary of those who try to force their religious convictions on others. To paraphrase, "Believe what you want, but shove it up your own ass." :laff: So I can't say that I have much respect for those who use their religion either as a weapon or a justification for harming others. I have heard the argument "But those people aren't true Christians" many times before, and it always seems to come from those who have adopted the attitude that it's better to ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

I also have had firsthand experience in dealing with a bona fide psychopath whose schizophrenic mind leads her to believe that she is hearing the actual voice of God telling her it is okay to take righteous vengeance on her enemies (i.e. hurt/kill them). Given the special treatment she was given by her doctors and the police, while she really ought to have been monitored more carefully and held accountable for her actions respectively, it makes me wonder just how many people like that there are out there.