Because the bible tells you so?

[Won2blv]

Hey! Thanks for responding, nica. I have no interest in ridiculing yours or anyone's responses. I just appreciate the honesty. I'll probably respond in chunks. That's a little easier for me on my shitty little phone screen.

---

I also think a lot about how the god of the bible is constantly reminding his followers that he is invisible and doesn't want anything made of wood or stone worshiped in place of him. I find that interesting since most gods have some kind of image that was worshiped too. It seems like the human inclination is to worship things that we can see.

This, to me, seems like the flavor of that particular month. The idea of the abstract was a gradual invention and ability of the human mind. Consider how the earliest religions started with worshiping tangible things like animals or the son/moon. This evolved to more fantastic ideas of half-human/half-animals, which evolved to become completely abstract ideas of what a god is.

And I can't seem to ignore that, even though an idol-less god was the original plan, man couldn't help but build statues of Jesus or to commission paintings of God himself. Christianity is filled to the brim with imagery, even though, as you've said, god reminds us that he is invisible. Man, uhhhh uh uhhhh finds a way.

---

2. I don't really understand the point of the question. If the judeo christian god exists then whatever mode got us here doesn't matter. If humans evolved the skill of writing or if god gifted man with the ability it doesn't make a difference to me.

Yeah, sorry about that. My questions were hastily formed, and I have a bad habit of assuming people know what I'm talking about, while leaving out large chunks of information that I assume are implied.

What I mean is, if the bible is the way to salvation, knowing god, and not being sent to hell for whatever reason, and if writing is a human invention, then regardless of how old you think the earth and humanity are, humanity would have existed for generations before the bible came around. What of those people?

Except I'm not interested in the question or the answers to "What of those people?", because that answer will have been pulled out of the ass of whoever is answering. There's nothing written about that, AFAIK. I'm more interested in the question- Doesn't the notion that generations upon generations of humans are spending an eternity in hell according to a book, just because books weren't invented yet (and the widespread reach that goes along with them) throw the whole idea of god into question?

And speaking of humanity: What happened a to Ardipithecines, Australopithecines, and the rest of our close Homo genus cousins? That's for another time, maybe.

---

3. For me there is not someone that I could say would write inspired scriptures today. Mostly based off Hebrews 1:1,2 where it says that god use to speak by means of prophets but now through his son Jesus

Ah, ok. Thank you.

First of all, thanks for the Jurassic Park reference. I'm revving up for the new one  

So as far as it being the flavor of the month, that is a perfectly reasonable point. However for me, it is the fact that it is for hundreds of years from different writers it always stayed the same. Even the point robovalue made about god walking around in Genesis could be understood as just the Hebrew literary genre. The bible is full of metaphors that shouldn't be read literally. And the when you do look at christians in particular using items for worship, even the fact that many pray to angels more than they pray to god, is only proof that they're false christianity.

Thanks for the clarification on your second question... The bible is not what leads to salvation. Its having a relationship with god and loving him. Which includes worshipping him and following his commandments. Adam and Eve wouldn't have had a bible, neither would Noah, and so on. And as  One of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have never believed in a fiery hell. The bible doesn't teach it

---

...it wasn't "the best possible system" then, any more than it is now..by any means you'll be demonstrate -other- than your preference.  The idea that the "others" of the world were relative barabarians, was, is, and has -always been- nothing more than propaganda.  I don;t think that you could have actually done an -ounce- of research here and still made this claim.  

This is what I am saying rhythm... where did I make that claim? But I don't know shit about fallacies right? And that is your best argument, is that I don't know shit? How about before I do an ounce of research, you do an ounce of reading and understanding of what someone is saying, then I'll take you serious on these boards

[The Grand Nudger]

It would be difficult to call anything "false christianity".  We'd need a True Christian™ as a standard by which to make such a declaration.  Eh?  You think catholics aren't christian....but I assure you, they are.  You don't have to take my word for it, ask a catholic (there's a thread).

[The Grand Nudger]

1. I have read the bible several times, I found several things striking to me why it may be inspired. Some of these reasons will get ridiculed, but here we go... I do appreciate that the bible has many good principles on living your life. Some of them are archaic but we don't need a mosaic law anymore. That was not a perfect system but rather a system that the best possible system for the world of that time. Even when I read Leviticus 19, I really love the commandments in that chapter because it begins with saying that these are things that make you holy, or clean. Its less about rules and regulations and more about how you should treat people. 

b/i-mine
Right there.......post#23..in the black and white.  Did you think my quote button was broken, or do you not remember the things that you say from one page to the next? If you meant something else, something other than what you said...then fine..carry on.....but don't piss and moan to me about your inability to effectively and accurately communicate what you mean, eh? I'll let you in on a secret....I'm not a mind reader. I rely on what you post.

-and no, by reference to your interactions thusfar you don't seem to know shit about fallacies, but that's okay.....I'm not arguing that you don't know shit in this regard (either the issue of logic and fallacy, or the issue of what is or was the best possible system at any given time - your choice), I'm stating it bluntly as fact.

[vorlon13]

IIRC, True Christians are definable and defined by strict, unrelenting, enduring, and total Literalism and Inerrancy in regards to the King James 1611 Bible.

Clearly, the evil, sin soaked, child buggering Catholics don't measure up to that.

[Won2blv]

1. I have read the bible several times, I found several things striking to me why it may be inspired. Some of these reasons will get ridiculed, but here we go... I do appreciate that the bible has many good principles on living your life. Some of them are archaic but we don't need a mosaic law anymore. That was not a perfect system but rather a system that the best possible system for the world of that time. Even when I read Leviticus 19, I really love the commandments in that chapter because it begins with saying that these are things that make you holy, or clean. Its less about rules and regulations and more about how you should treat people. 

b/i-mine
Right there.......post#23..in the black and white.  Did you think my quote button was broken, or do you not remember the things that you say from one page to the next? If you meant something else, something other than what you said...then fine..carry on.....but don't piss and moan to me about your inability to effectively and accurately communicate what you mean, eh? I'll let you in on a secret....I'm not a mind reader. I rely on what you post.

-and no, by reference to your interactions thusfar you don't seem to know shit about fallacies, but that's okay.....I'm not arguing that you don't know shit in this regard (either the issue of logic and fallacy, or the issue of what is or was the best possible system at any given time - your choice), I'm stating it bluntly as fact.

So where exactly did I make the claim that the surrounding world was barbarians? You don't understand what I am trying to say because you have a preconceived notion of what I believe. You never actually respond with reasonable answers, rather you use name calling and generalizations to mask your ignorance

---

1. I have read the bible several times, I found several things striking to me why it may be inspired. Some of these reasons will get ridiculed, but here we go... I do appreciate that the bible has many good principles on living your life. Some of them are archaic but we don't need a mosaic law anymore. That was not a perfect system but rather a system that the best possible system for the world of that time. Even when I read Leviticus 19, I really love the commandments in that chapter because it begins with saying that these are things that make you holy, or clean. Its less about rules and regulations and more about how you should treat people. 

b/i-mine
Right there.......post#23..in the black and white.  Did you think my quote button was broken, or do you not remember the things that you say from one page to the next? If you meant something else, something other than what you said...then fine..carry on.....but don't piss and moan to me about your inability to effectively and accurately communicate what you mean, eh? I'll let you in on a secret....I'm not a mind reader. I rely on what you post.

-and no, by reference to your interactions thusfar you don't seem to know shit about fallacies, but that's okay.....I'm not arguing that you don't know shit in this regard (either the issue of logic and fallacy, or the issue of what is or was the best possible system at any given time - your choice), I'm stating it bluntly as fact.

Also you puts "others" in quotes as I even mentioned anyone else in the world. And you finished your point by mention "my claim" after you totally misrepresented what I said

[The Grand Nudger]

Relative, barbarians.  It is implicit in the claim that the system in the bible was the best possible system for the world at that time.  There were other people in the world, following apparently lesser systems......barbarian is probably an aggressive word to use...but it's accurate. Do you disagree with my word choice, in using "barbarian" or are we discussing whether or not that statement you made was true? I don't have any notion of what you believe other than what you write on the page, numbskull.  I know better - christianity is harder to nail to the wall than jello.  For all I know you were part of one of the JW splinter sects and not "JW Proper".

You tell me that you believe that the system in the bible was the best possible for the world at that time..and I take you for your word, I accept that you believe that.  I'm not required to accept that your belief is factual.  No amount of calling me ignorant will speak to the point I raised with you.  No amount of claiming my responses are unreasonable will actually make them so - or even speak to that response itself...and no amount of dissatisfaction with my word choice will demonstrate that the point those words were used in service of is in error....

You don't know what my preconceived notions are, and you -couldn't possibly know- what they were....... even if I had them. No more, in fact, than I could know yours.  So just stop.

I have bolded and italicized what I quoted from you, the statement to which I responded. Do you or do you not believe that the system in the bible was the best possible system for the world at that time? If theres some misunderstanding -there- then you can disregard my comments. If not, you're stuck with them.

(you seem to think, btw, that my complete lack of patience is some effect that you have on me, or that's brought about by some idea of you that I have.....that's not the case at all. In the years I've been here, I've heard those same claims over and over. It aint you, if that helps. I'm actually quite fond of you....)

[Exian]

First of all, thanks for the Jurassic Park reference. I'm revving up for the new one

Glad you caught it! And more to the point, man found a way to simultaneously warn against graven images, and have them for their religion (gotta be able to compete, I guess). But I think when your head is swimming in the nuance of how these things come about, you can't see that you are acting against the same things you are teaching, like you can when you're on the outside. From the outside, most religions look the same.

Which makes me think, if writing never came about, and all Judaism and Christianity had to work with we're symbols and images, they wouldn't be so against it. But because they had an alternative method to spread ideas without the use of images, they were safe to ridicule the method. Complete speculation on my part.

So as far as it being the flavor of the month, that is a perfectly reasonable point. However for me, it is the fact that it is for hundreds of years from different writers it always stayed the same. Even the point robovalue made about god walking around in Genesis could be understood as just the Hebrew literary genre. The bible is full of metaphors that shouldn't be read literally. And the when you do look at christians in particular using items for worship, even the fact that many pray to angels more than they pray to god, is only proof that they're false christianity.

I assume you mean "false" as in "doesn't follow what the bible says", and not based on some extra-biblical ideal. To which I say- Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I'm not an authority on what makes someone a true believer.

But on to your point about the bible not changing, even though the authors were 100s of years apart, I would say that that is an intrinsic quality belonging to the written word. Definitely wouldn't be possible with the spoken word, or at least there would be no way to compare spoken words separated by time (duh, lol). In other words, I don't view that as a divine quality of the bible, but something made possible by writing things down. Even so, I'm sure there were many minor errors, and probably some major errors, as well as some intentioned changes.

Also, technically the bible changed with every new author. Actually, it probably wasn't "the bible" until much later. But again, this is a technicality, and not much towards our topic of discussion.

Thanks for the clarification on your second question... The bible is not what leads to salvation. Its having a relationship with god and loving him. Which includes worshipping him and following his commandments. Adam and Eve wouldn't have had a bible, neither would Noah, and so on. And as  One of Jehovah's Witnesses, I have never believed in a fiery hell. The bible doesn't teach it

But it is the only way to even be aware of the concept of the Jewish and Christian god. Which greatly increases your chances of heaven, I assume.

Adam and Eve, and Noah supposedly had direct contact with god. They wouldn't need the bible. What about the entire genus of Homo, some of which existed upwards of 2.5 million years ago? I would be so much more convinced of a god if humans without the capacity to invent writing and abstract thinking had a concept of the Jewish god. Seems highly suspect that the complexification of the story mirrors the complexification of ourselves and our culture. I would have no way to prove it, but I can speculate that humans were incapable of worshipping an abstract concept of a god as early as 10,000 years ago, when most religions were based on tangible images found in nature.

Thank you for your take, nica.

[Pyrrho]

Did the Greeks believe that statues were their actual deities or did they use them the same way that Christians use paintings and carvings of Jesus and other religious figures?  ...

The ancient Greeks did not believe that their statues were actual deities.  The statues were merely representations of the gods.  The statues might have been blessed by priests or something that made them sacred, much in the way that various bits of junk are regarded as sacred by Catholics.  They would have been outraged if someone went in and pissed on one of the statues, just the same as a Christian would be outraged if someone went into a church and pissed on a cross.

That they would bow down in front of statues is the same as Christians bowing down in church in front of a cross.

[The Grand Nudger]

The greeks even stopped believing that their gods were actually real, at some point.  The notion that gods are trumped up ancestor tales or metaphors for life, in western culture...originates with them.

[Won2blv]

4. If the bible has been unchanged for thousands of years then it does make a difference to me. The only text that we can really compare are the dead sea scrolls and the masoretic texts that are hundreds of years apart with very minor differences. To me, that would seem less likely for humans to resist the urge to change the text in their favor over the years.

I'm not sure what you're saying in this last part.

---

5. I think this question is almost circular. If religion was invented then I don't think that any one single factor could have stopped it.

I agree. This was a horrible question. Especially since I already know religion in some form existed before writing. I barely remember what I was getting at. Maybe something to do with books giving ideas a vehicle with which to spread and persist.

---

Not a single thing I am saying is proof of god or the divinity of the scriptures. They're all just things, among others, that I ponder

And I thank you for that! I don't care so much for stuffy rigid conversation forms. This was all I was looking for.

4. I am just saying that I think humans would constantly adjust the holy scripture to their liking. I don't believe the bible teaches the trinity or hellfire so why didn't the catholics change the scriptures in the hundreds of years that it was only available to the absolute highest clergy class

5. I think that sometimes when we are discussing beliefs with others we tend to forget that our conclusions cant alway be used as premises. Maybe just an idea  I appreciate your coming at this with a less than combative approach