Of course I agree that an atheist /non Christian stance on the Bible should be incredulity. It is only through reasoning that you would consider belief and it's only through belief that it will finally make sense.

The Bible isn't the direct word of God. It's accepted by some as inspired by God, but then what does that mean? What it is is a strong record on the the subject presenting a very accurate picture which we can use to discern God's nature. Trying to read more into it than that is intentional dissmissiveness for the sake of it, and anti truth, IMO.

Therefore looking at the Bible as a non Christian isn't valid. Sure you can play games and think you have inconsistencies, but you miss the very obvious central point in doing so (stated above).

(April 24, 2009 at 2:41 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Therefore looking at the Bible as a non Christian isn't valid. Sure you can play games and think you have inconsistencies, but you miss the very obvious central point in doing so (stated above).

That makes no sense. If it is invalid for a non-christian to look at the bible, we might as well cease all investigations into it. If your god is actually real, and big, and powerful, then you should have not one problem with anyone looking into the bible, because your god will still be real.

It is definitely valid for an atheist to look at the bible and to say it's not makes it seem like your hiding something.

As for the 'very obvious central point', that is simply not what the majority of christians believe. You are in a minority group of 'christians' Frodo, and a number of your beliefs are not mainstream christianity.

However, if you will assert that I miss the very obvious central point, which is (I'm guessing) that the bible is a strong record on the subject of god. As for it being accurate, no one knows for certain, because no one has seen god. And if it is only a record, and not inspired, then that would mean that we should evaluate everything it says for it's worth to us in this world. What decides what we take from the bible as fact and what we take as fiction?

I don't think the bible has consistencies, I am open to the idea. If there is evidence that I can find then I will think the bible has consistencies.

I'm not playing games Frodo, and everyone else knows it. Stop dodging questions.

(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: That makes no sense. If it is invalid for a non-christian to look at the bible, we might as well cease all investigations into it. If your god is actually real, and big, and powerful, then you should have not one problem with anyone looking into the bible, because your god will still be real.

You're twisting my words. I didn't say you shouldn't look into it, just that it in no way can make complete sense. Yes you should stop the pointless investigation. The bible itself says it, yet non Christians repeat the experiment infinitely hoping against hope that they're right and the Bible is wrong, but so far...

(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: However, if you will assert that I miss the very obvious central point, which is (I'm guessing) that the bible is a strong record on the subject of god. As for it being accurate, no one knows for certain, because no one has seen god. And if it is only a record, and not inspired, then that would mean that we should evaluate everything it says for it's worth to us in this world. What decides what we take from the bible as fact and what we take as fiction?

We can't know for certain, but what we can know is that it's extremely heavily substantiated. Of course you need to say it isn't logical, but that denies the truth of the matter.

(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I don't think the bible has consistencies, I am open to the idea. If there is evidence that I can find then I will think the bible has consistencies.

The bible is written in a style of opposites. Judaism is full of this. To cry foul at that seems pure ignorance. Taking on the concept, it is entirely consistent. Denying the concept it isn't consistent - well colour me surprised.

(April 24, 2009 at 3:13 am)athoughtfulman Wrote: I'm not playing games Frodo, and everyone else knows it. Stop dodging questions.

Empty insults again. What question am I supposedly dodging now? I thought we were talking about your post conclusion justifications?

LOL Thoughtful ... it's only a matter of time before he puts you on his ignore list or starts saying that you're, what was it now, "childish", asking "inane" questions and that he's "established there can be no factual proof" or some such.

Keep it up man

Kyu

It's interesting to see the turn this thread has taken.If I were to get into all the inconsistencies of the bible we would be here all day.Remember I am stating my position from experience,unlike many of the so called arm chair atheist on this web forum.I was a Pentecostal evangelist and yes at one time I thought I had the power of God literally coursing through me when I ministered to the sick and prayed for those who wished to experience the power of the holy spirit.I have been studying this issue for the past 14 years independently.In order to understand this you need to look into several fields of study namely:psychology,psychiatry,metaphysics etc.

I have passed out under the so called power of God which I have determined is nothing more than an emotional overeaction to the stimulus of religious fervor.I have spoken in tongues (glossolalia) and beleived I exercised at one time or another the gifts of the Spirit as outlined in the bible in

1Corinthians 12:7-11
7But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

8For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit;

9To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

10To another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues:

11But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

Regarding bible contradictions and inconsistencies here is a good list:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/j...tions.html

Like I said if you want to refute me do your homework first then state your position.As far as putting people in an ignore list I dont do those things.Everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs but before you state them make sure you have a strong defense.I sometimes forget that not everyone here has had the same experiences and have studied the same materials as myself and assume that everyone automatically knows what I am talking about.To those that I have offended I apologize.There are many reasons I dont consider the bible the "inspired word of God".Traditionally in fundamental circles to say that the word of god is inspired by God means that it is God breathed in other words God chose some men as he did with the prophets and put his thougts and ideas into those men.Of course during the transmission of those thoughts there is also the human error factor which in any such study cannot be ignored.
2 Timothy 3:16:

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That is the direct qoute from the KJV of scripture regarding the inspiration of the bible.This is a reference to what I have just stated.From another website trying to describe what it means that the scriptures are inspired by God the following are not my words:

When people speak of the Bible being inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word inspiration simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God, and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

Oh but Chatty,

You weren't a real Christian because Frodo says so

Kyu

Sorry Kyu; Chatty, along with thoughtful I'd accept would have been actual Christians at some point, whereas you haven't offered any evidence of the same. You seem to think only Catholics are 'real Christians' but you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what that might involve. This is my current opinion given the information I've seen. It could be wrong.

I disagree with your conclusion chatpilot. You cannot claim any solid position of the Christian Church on the matter. You can conclude what you like; that doesn't make me wrong. I accept and respect your position.

I've never put anyone on ignore in my life before I came here. Kyu's trademark 'hounding' brought it on.

Inspiration is an incredibly loose description upon which to place such a tight definition. Trust me I've also spent more years than you state considering the whole subject, not that I think ideas are any more valid as a result. I've also studied the subject in depth from both sides of the fence. Twice.

Consistency is of course not doubted by the C. Church. Can I ask if you believed inconsistencies existed in th Bible whilst you were still a believer?

Actually Frodo when I decided to read the bible in its entirety is when I actually began to question my beliefs and of course "Gods" justification for committing or leading the hebrews to committ such atrocities in his name.In the end I began to conclude that the biblical god was a cruel dictator and a monster.As I continued to read the scriptures I began to go from believer to objective reader by putting aside my beliefs and trying to understand them from a more naturalistic perspective.Upon doing so I came to the conclusion that many of the stories as told in the bible were highly improbable and their occurrence as unlikely.It intrigued me so much that it lead me to read the bible 4 times in its entirety,each time looking for new things and discrepancies I might have missed on the previous occassions.I read it once in Spanish and three times in English and the more I read the more I strayed from my beliefs.

Have you ever asked youself why there are so many christian sects?The simple reason is that none of them can come to agreement upon the teachings of the bible.They are all reading the same book and getting very different views and interpretations from it.When reading the scriptures from an objective point of view it is impossible not to see that not only are those stories not god given or inspired but that the imprint of man is everywhere present in them.

One example is the flood story as told in Genesis chapter 6 onward.But in chapter 7 verses 19 and 20 there is an interesting discrepancy that I would like to point out from the KJV:

19.And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.

20.Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.

According to this verse the waters were 15 cubits high and that was enough to cover the whole earth even the mountains.Does anyone here know what 15 cubits equals in feet?
15 biblical cubits= 22.5 feet and in my view that is hardly enough water to cover a two story building much less the entire Earth.When reading the bible from a reasonable and objective position many of its so called facts and details just simply dont add up.

When it comes to defining christianity I would define a christian to be a follower of Christ,how he chooses to follow Christ is irrelevant and just clouds the issue and makes classification difficult.As long as his guide is the bible particularly the New Testament he is a christian in my view.

Finally to answer your question Frodo I must honestly say that when I was a christian I did not dare even question the scriptures on any matters.I was a hard core fundamental evangelist and I believed wholeheartedly every single word that was found in the scriptures.But when the scriptures on some occassions did not match certain circumstances I had experienced I began to ask question with genuine fear and trembling in my heart.It took me years to completely wean myself from my chritian beliefs and the fear that came with apostasy.

(April 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry Kyu; Chatty, along with thoughtful I'd accept would have been actual Christians at some point, whereas you haven't offered any evidence of the same. You seem to think only Catholics are 'real Christians' but you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what that might involve. This is my current opinion given the information I've seen. It could be wrong.

You are ... at no point at all in this forum have I said that.

Kyu

(April 25, 2009 at 11:01 am)chatpilot Wrote: Have you ever asked youself why there are so many christian sects?The simple reason is that none of them can come to agreement upon the teachings of the bible.They are all reading the same book and getting very different views and interpretations from it.When reading the scriptures from an objective point of view it is impossible not to see that not only are those stories not god given or inspired but that the imprint of man is everywhere present in them.

All Christian Churches agree upon the Nicene Creed. The Catholic church too. They all agree on the bible. Christians interpret the Bible differently, and this is only right and proper. None interpret so widely as to stray too far from what is accepted by the wider church. The imprint of man must be inseparable given that man made it.

To me the flood story is a myth. You may find merit in scrutinising it for factual evidence. I consider that folly. You'd need to find a literalist to debate it.

(April 25, 2009 at 11:01 am)chatpilot Wrote: When it comes to defining christianity I would define a christian to be a follower of Christ,how he chooses to follow Christ is irrelevant and just clouds the issue and makes classification difficult.As long as his guide is the bible particularly the New Testament he is a christian in my view.

That definition would include as Christians more than the wider Christian church would, so it isn't accurate enough.

(April 25, 2009 at 11:01 am)chatpilot Wrote: Finally to answer your question Frodo I must honestly say that when I was a christian I did not dare even question the scriptures on any matters.I was a hard core fundamental evangelist and I believed wholeheartedly every single word that was found in the scriptures.But when the scriptures on some occassions did not match certain circumstances I had experienced I began to ask question with genuine fear and trembling in my heart.It took me years to completely wean myself from my chritian beliefs and the fear that came with apostasy.

That sounds very wrong, and I'd say your opinion was in error. It is core to belief that you question and are more than free to question. If this is your experience then it sounds like you were being abused or oppressed. That certainly isn't Christianity. Is that what you think Christ was about?

(April 25, 2009 at 11:15 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote:

(April 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Sorry Kyu; Chatty, along with thoughtful I'd accept would have been actual Christians at some point, whereas you haven't offered any evidence of the same. You seem to think only Catholics are 'real Christians' but you demonstrate a lack of understanding of what that might involve. This is my current opinion given the information I've seen. It could be wrong.

You are ... at no point at all in this forum have I said that.

You called other Christian churches (ie non Catholic Churches) cults I believe.

So are you saying that you were fully a Christian in a way that would be acceptable to the wider Christian church then? Even though you equate as Christian some anti Christ and anti Christian acts. I'd find that very hard to believe given your opinions on the subject.

If you understood Christianity like say thoughtful does, than I could believe it. You display the incredulity of someone who has never considered the subject from the other side. No problem with that per se. Only if you profess knowledge you don't actually have.

Not that I don't believe you were exposed strongly to the Catholic faith, and to a lesser extent Church of England teachings. Of course you lived that. What I'm talking about is real Christianity as experienced by people primarily professing a belief in Christ and not professing membership of a church like that matters diddly squat to anyone's belief.

Neither am I criticising those you knew and their beliefs or moral fibre.