if god exists, hes kinda *not very nice*

[G.W.K]

Some evidently dislike christianity.

Like you Simon?

G.W.K

[morningstar]

Like you Simon?

G.W.K

So it would seem. Is something this blatant really necessary in any of these threads? Time to talk to nils methinks.

[opus10no2]

Blatant?

Songs praising religion are plentiful, Bloodbath simply offers an alternative view, which I can empathise with more than most typical 'songs of praise'.

[morningstar]

Blatant?

Songs praising religion are plentiful, Bloodbath simply offers an alternative view, which I can empathise with more than most typical 'songs of praise'.

While that may be the case we aren't posting songs of praise. This topic is getting ridiculous anyway.

[opus10no2]

You ruined it.

Or should I blame god? 

[lostinidlewonder]

Those other books about Judas for example are just as unreliable as the current books in the Bible. Theres not really a reason why to deny 1 unreliable book and accept another unreliable one.

Well I am not about to fully explain WHY and HOW the Bible is more relevant than the unreliable Apocrypha. If this seriously interests someone the information is there. I am not really inspired to write 3 to 4 pages of writing trying to introduce the subject. This is not a matter of belief or faith or anything else you all try to encourage.
   Although I am very sure that most of you have no idea how to do this and yet are so confident that when I say, "The bible is more reliable than the Apocrypha." that I am wrong or being selective.

I wish it was my own ideas that I had come to this conclusion. In fact when I first heard about the Apocrypha I thought, wow finally we get to see books that where banned. As I studied them however, although they do reflect similar ideas of the Bible, they often reflect offshoot perspectives. I really don't want to debate this because this is clear and theologically accepted. Anyone who denies this is in the minority and or hasn't even thought about how to measure historical worth of ancient texts. It is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of research.

How you compare evidence for Caesar with evidence for Jesus doesnt make sense either.

It doesn't make sense at all that SOME people believe in Caesar (for example) but on the other hand do not believe in Jesus. Some even push it so far as to say Jesus is make believe! Thankfully you do not deny Christ lived.

...nobody with at least some brains denies that Jesus or Caesar did exist, or where they traveled/conquered to. Jesus though claimed he was the son of god (those people go into mental hospitals these days) and his followers claimed he did miracles. And THAT is the the part we're doubting.

And of course it is fine to doubt. But some people push this doubt so far as to say it is as fantastic as believing in Santa Clause. The only miracle that you have to believe in is the Resurrection, the rest are unimportant by comparison. Otherwise the rest that builds the bible is not about miracles it is about a way you live your life now. That is the greatest part of the Bible.

Why would you assume that?  And you would be quite wrong, of course.  The apocrypha are books that were accepted at the Council of Nicaea as part of the canon, but later (much later) rejected by some denominations.  Jesus read and quoted some of those that you reject, by the way.  (Jesus had only the OT, in the form of the Septuagint.) 

No, we're talking about various gospels that did not become part of the canon but were widely used by various early Christian congregations in the first century.  More reliable copies of these and the synoptic gospels have turned up and are available.  I recommend a book called The Complete Gospels which includes 20, the 4 we normally read but with far better preserved text, and 16 additional ones that the early Christians used. 

I've made this suggestion several times;  I suspect you will never dare to open that or similar books.  If you do I have lots more suggested texts. 

Again it is a marginalized perspective that the Apocrypha are a reliable source that is on par with the Bible. This is not to say that the Apocrypha is at odds with the Bible on all Christian points.


https://www.bibletopics.com/biblestudy/23.htm
There are many valid reasons why the Apocrypha cannot bear acceptance as "Holy Scripture."

1. These books were never included in the Hebrew canon of the Old Testament. Josephus (A reliable ancient historian who was orthodox Jew and NOT a Christian apologist), it will be recalled, expressly limited the Hebrew canon to twenty-two books, which are the exact equivalent of the thirty-nine books of our Old Testament. Josephus knew of other Jewish writings down to his time, but he did not regard them as having equal authority with the canonical works. 1 So the Apocrypha were never received by the Jews as God-given Scripture. This takes on its full significance when it is remembered that the Old Testament is a Jewish collection of Jewish history and law - and there is no evidence that these books were ever accepted by any Jewish community, either in or outside of the land of Palestine.

2. These books, as far as the evidence goes, were never accepted as canonical by Jesus and His apostles. In the previous chapter it was learned that the Old Testament which Jesus knew is our Old Testament today. Jesus' Old Testament was the Hebrew Old Testament, and the Hebrew Old Testament has never numbered these apocryphal writings. The apostles in their preaching mention many Old Testament events, but they never refer to any incidents or characters of the Apocrypha. The New Testament writers quote from practically all of the Old Testament books, but nowhere quote from the Apocrypha as "Scripture." The canon of the Old Testament accepted by Jesus and His apostles should be sufficient for the Christian today.

3. These books were not accepted as Scripture by such Jewish writers of the first century as Philo and Josephus; the Jewish council at Jamnia (c. 90 A.D.); and by such eminent Christian writers as Origen and Jerome. About 400 A.D. the great Christian scholar Jerome, whose translation of the Latin Vulgate remains the basis of the official Roman Catholic Bible, strongly maintained that these books were "apocryphal" and were not to be included in the canon of Scripture.

4. These books do not evidence intrinsic qualities of inspiration. Great portions of these books are obviously legendary and fictitious. Often they contain historical, chronological and geographical errors. In Judith, for example, Holofernes is described as being the general of "Nebuchadnezzar who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Ninevah" (1:1). Actually Holofernes was a Persian general, and, of course, Nebuchadnezzar was king of the Babylonians in Babylon. Some of these books contradict themselves and contradict the canonical Scriptures. It is said in Baruch that God hears the prayers of the dead (3:4).

5. These books have been shrouded with continual uncertainty. Since they were not regarded as authoritative by the Jews, they had to gain their recognition elsewhere. This recognition came from some segments of the Greek-speaking church, with the result that eventually these books became incorporated into the Greek and Latin Bibles. But there is no evidence that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament) ever had a fixed or closed canon of books. No two early Greek manuscripts agree as to which books are to be included in the Septuagint, and not all of those included in the Septuagint are accepted even by the Roman Catholic Church. The Septuagint itself is a witness against one book of the Apocrypha (II Esdras) since it is found in no manuscript of the Septuagint.

6. These books cannot be maintained on a compromise basis. The Church of England gives to the Apocrypha a semi-canonical status: they may be read in public worship "for example of life and instruction of manners" but not in order "to establish any doctrine." This position assumes that the Apocrypha at times may add to or conflict with the established teachings of the canonical Scriptures. If this is true, then the Apocrypha should not be read in public worship, for what is read regularly in public worship tends to be authoritative for the congregation. To allow the Apocrypha to be read in public worship is a strange way to show their inferior rank.

7. Objections to these books cannot be overruled by dictatorial authority. On April 8, 1546, in the Fourth Session of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic Church pronounced the Old Testament Apocrypha (except I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) as authoritative and canonical Scripture. This was done even though in different periods of its own history officials of the Roman Church had been out-spoken against the Apocrypha as Scripture. But this action was not unnatural for a religious body whose whole structure is framed according to traditions and whose faith is derived equally as much from the "fathers" and "popes" as from the Scriptures. It appears that the Apocrypha would never have posed a serious problem were it not for the usurped power of Rome over Scripture. Yet Rome with all of its "infallibility" cannot make the fallible Apocrypha infallible.

[morningstar]

You ruined it.

Or should I blame god? 

...

[morningstar]

...

[morningstar]

You ruined it.

Or should I blame god? 

...
I wouldn't advise that particular decision.

[timothy42b]

liw,
You persist in conflating "the Apocrypha" with the noncanonical books.  They are not the same.  I see value in both, for different reasons. 

What do you do with Enoch?  Jesus quoted from it.  It is not within the modern canon.  It is available today.  You have clearly incorporated some of it into your personal theology, likely by way of Dante. 

Much of the article you quoted is from an apologist working too hard to justify his position and not being completely honest. 

The real difficulty here with the noncanonical books is not that they are historically less reliable.  Some are of course, some aren't.  The problem is that whether accurate or not, they differ on matters of doctrine.  You have leapt to the assumption that this means they are wrong.  I would suggest that rejecting a book because it differs from another could go either direction!  There were honest differences of opinion within the early Christian community, within the people closest to the actual events.  What prevailed is what won the power struggle, not necessarily what was correct;  the others are available for our study today as never before, if you dare.

As far as I can tell, the Church of England retains books that date from the time period and were in use by early Christian congregations.  They offer insight into how disciples lived, thought, and worshipped, but differ in some theological details.  You of course reject them utterly and would prefer them burnt, but biblical scholars (believing Christians, not atheists) see enough value to include them.    Your claim this is illogical is specious. 

[lostinidlewonder]

liw,
You persist in conflating "the Apocrypha" with the noncanonical books.  They are not the same.  I see value in both, for different reasons. 

I would like to see why you have come to this conclusion and how the Apocrypha are on par with the Bible.

What do you do with Enoch?  Jesus quoted from it. 

It is not within the modern canon.  It is available today

Most historians will agree that Enoch does not really contain the actual words of the ancient biblical figure Enoch (Noah's grandfather), he lived a few thousand years earlier than the first appearance of his book. The ancient scrolls found where dated around 2nd century BC. This does not necessarily make it irrelevant but it is suffering some reliability issues of which you do not find with any books in the Bible.

One clear error we can read in Enoch is this. 1 Enoch 10.12, talks about the "judgment of all men " which should happen “seventy generations” from Enoch, during which time the angels who sinned were to be kept in bonds “until the day of the consummation, the great judgment in which the age shall be consummated” (16.1-2). It should be noted that according to Luke (who claims to have “traced the course of all things accurately from the first” in Luke 1.1-4), there are exactly seventy generations from the generation of Enoch to the generation of Jesus Christ (Luke 3.23-37). In other words, it would not have been presumptuous for Jude to claim that 1 Enoch addressed the concerns of the Christians to whom he wrote. The generation of Jesus Christ had not yet passed away.

1 Enoch adds considerable weight to the many passages in the New Testament which clearly indicate that the consummation of the age together with Christ’s second coming took place in A.D. 70 (in the destruction of Jerusalem). This being the case, it should not surprise us to learn that 1 Enoch was banned by Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine and was subsequently lost to Western Christendom for over a thousand years. In short, it was suppressed. Why? Because it could not be made to fit their idea that Christ’s coming had not yet been fulfilled. 1 Enoch’s “seventy generations” was too problematic. It could not be made to stretch beyond the First Century. Copies of 1 Enoch soon disappeared, and were it not for the fact that a number of copies have since been discovered and translated, we would have no knowledge of 1 Enoch outside of the references made to it in the Book of Jubilees, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, and in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (many of whom regarded 1 Enoch as Scripture: i.e. Barnabas, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, and Tertullian).

Jesus probably did refer to it and study it himself. It was a very popular book at that time. We can study it and we can realize although it does echo many parts of the bible we must be able to read through its errors.

Your claim this is illogical is specious. 

I have made claims, whether they are illogical or specious you have yet to prove but it can remain your opinion, which is always free for you to have .

[mephisto]

As an agnostic, the thing I don't get is why people follow religions.
I can understand a belief in a kind of design, and I can understand the belief in infinite randomness.

...but I seriously question the intelligence of those who follow the primary organised religions, they are a cultural phenomena, from a bygone age, before the era of science.

I'm not saying organised religions havesome merit in teaching morals etc., but it is on such shaky ground.
Do those kids really believe it's wrong to hurt someone because they'll go to hell?

They won't go to hell, and they may even face no negative consequences, but they should feel it is wrong because of basic human empathy and compassion, not religious dogma.

This I beleive is a great post!

[gyzzzmo]

liw,
You persist in conflating "the Apocrypha" with the noncanonical books.  They are not the same.  I see value in both, for different reasons. 

What do you do with Enoch?  Jesus quoted from it.  It is not within the modern canon.  It is available today.  You have clearly incorporated some of it into your personal theology, likely by way of Dante. 

Much of the article you quoted is from an apologist working too hard to justify his position and not being completely honest. 

The real difficulty here with the noncanonical books is not that they are historically less reliable.  Some are of course, some aren't.  The problem is that whether accurate or not, they differ on matters of doctrine.  You have leapt to the assumption that this means they are wrong.  I would suggest that rejecting a book because it differs from another could go either direction!  There were honest differences of opinion within the early Christian community, within the people closest to the actual events.  What prevailed is what won the power struggle, not necessarily what was correct;  the others are available for our study today as never before, if you dare.

As far as I can tell, the Church of England retains books that date from the time period and were in use by early Christian congregations.  They offer insight into how disciples lived, thought, and worshipped, but differ in some theological details.  You of course reject them utterly and would prefer them burnt, but biblical scholars (believing Christians, not atheists) see enough value to include them.    Your claim this is illogical is specious. 

The old and new testament are very differently from each other too, i suppose liiw should reject one of those then too...

[timothy42b]

The old and new testament are very differently from each other too, i suppose liiw should reject one of those then too...

I don't know if liw would in particular, but Christians in general have not really resolved how to look at the two texts.  As we've discussed before, Marcion in the 3rd or 4th century decided the OT and NT gods were simply not the same entity.  He would have rejected the OT completely, I would think.  But Jesus was expert in the OT, was able to teach and debate it.  His goal was not apparently to create Christians, but to produce better Jews.  Jesus was very clear about one thing:  not a single punctuation mark in the OT law would ever pass away.  Faced with that regrettably clear statement, the modern reaction of one group of Christians is to say it might not have passed away, but it was fulfilled, so we can ignore it.  Except for those parts we need to support some personal political position.  Example:  in Leviticus, ignore the part about not shaving beards and not wearing clothing of mixed fibers, but consider homosexuality an abomination and prohibit gay marriage. 

[timothy42b]

One clear error we can read in Enoch is this. 1 Enoch 10.12, talks about the "judgment of all men " which should happen “seventy generations” from Enoch,

liw,
There are probably no books in the Bible that don't contain some type of similar contradiction.  Apologists in general have no trouble coming up with some explanation why what seems to be impossible really is okay. 

I bring up Enoch as an example of a book that was definitely in what we would call the accepted OT canon at the time of Jesus.  He read it, quoted it, never indicated any type of distrust of it.  400 years later the church leaders rejected it.  ( a decision I agree with, by the way) 

When we talk about reliability of scriptures, your position on inspiration requires that God dictated the text to the original writers as direct supernatural intervention.  But then God had to do a second supernatural intervention at the time of the Council of Nicaea when the church was debating which books to keep and which to throw out.  Neither supernatural intervention can stand on its own. 

[lostinidlewonder]

The old and new testament are very differently from each other too, i suppose liiw should reject one of those then too...

liw,
There are probably no books in the Bible that don't contain some type of similar contradiction....

There is a difference between being in contrast with one another, and just being completely wrong. The Bible is yet to be wrong on any of its main doctrines. None of the small contradictions that can be found in the Bible cause mass confusion to readers. However in other books outside of the Bible, some powerful claims never occur thus the reliably of the book starts to fail. I gave one example of Enoch's biggest claim which failed.

When we talk about reliability of scriptures, your position on inspiration requires that God dictated the text to the original writers as direct supernatural intervention.  But then God had to do a second supernatural intervention at the time of the Council of Nicaea when the church was debating which books to keep and which to throw out.  Neither supernatural intervention can stand on its own. 

I don't see the idea of this paragraph. When I am talking about the reliability of scripture it has very little to do with a faith or a belief in a God. There is an approach to the study of the reliability of ancient texts, albeit unimportant to most Christians, but certainly an interesting avenue to explore for some. For me, it solidifies my trust in the Bible, even though it has extremely small weight by comparison what is spiritually important, my relationship with God.

[timothy42b]

liw,
I find it harder to understand your position than pianistimos.

Yes, Enoch has an apparent contradiction, the 70 generation thing.  But that's not a substantive one.  There are worse apparent contradictions in books that have remained in the canon, in books that are in the current NT.  That alone was no reason to reject it. 

Particularly since all the evidence shows Jesus Himself trusted it. 

But liw does not.  Why is that?  Because your research into textual criticism leads you to believe you are right and Jesus wrong?

No, of course not.  You reject it because it isn't in the edition of the Bible you last bought. 

But think a little deeper.  Why did the Council of Nicaea reject it?  I think it is quite apparent.  Enoch was perfectly believable in the first century.  But by the 4th it was pretty obviously superstitious nonsense.  The council didn't dare keep it for fear of ridicule.  They were skilled at walking a fine line. 

So, liw, what do you do when the NT says Jesus trusted Enoch, and the Council of Nicaea rejected it?  And you reject it?  there is only one possibility, you consider the NT unreliable as well. 

[lostinidlewonder]

liw,
I find it harder to understand your position than pianistimos.

Probably because when I talk about understanding concepts in a book that talk about Christianity there is not a right or wrong answer but rather a tendency to lean a particular way.

Yes, Enoch has an apparent contradiction, the 70 generation thing.  But that's not a substantive one. 

The 2nd coming is a huge thing. No where in the Bible will you find guesses at the day or even the year that it will occur. No one knows, his coming with be like a thief in the night.

There are worse apparent contradictions in books that have remained in the canon, in books that are in the current NT.

Such as? There are yet to be any that cause confusion over any doctrines of the Bible.

Why is that?  Because your research into textual criticism leads you to believe you are right and Jesus wrong?

Right and wrong over what? Over Enoch? This is such a small detail it almost can be put into irrelevance. Christs teachings are not all based on Enoch, Christ taught a new way, did away with a lot of old traditions in worshiping God. It is your assumption that I think Enoch is 100% useless and unreliable. It is an unreliable book compared to the Bible however. The fact that your stance is that Apocrypha are on par with the Bible is madness in my mind, and you are yet to clarify why this is your stance.

No, of course not.  You reject it because it isn't in the edition of the Bible you last bought. 

Never bought a Bible in my life, all the ones I have where given to me and free. So you must be following the wrong person and taking notes on what they buy .

So, liw, what do you do when the NT says Jesus trusted Enoch, and the Council of Nicaea rejected it?  And you reject it?  there is only one possibility, you consider the NT unreliable as well. 

Again this comes up, an argument I have already explained away.

[timothy42b]

The 2nd coming is a huge thing. No where in the Bible will you find guesses at the day or even the year that it will occur.

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  Jesus will return before the current generation passes away, that's what it says.  And clearly that's what the early Christians believed. 

It is your assumption that I think Enoch is 100% useless and unreliable. It is an unreliable book compared to the Bible however.

The 70 generations in Enoch are irrelevant to reliability.  They are simply an example of midrash, as any serious Bible student knows.  There are other aspects that might make you doubt it, but not that one.  Uh, you do understand midrash, right? 

The fact that your stance is that Apocrypha are on par with the Bible is madness in my mind, and you are yet to clarify why this is your stance.

You persist in being obtuse about the difference between Apocrypha and noncanonical books.  The Apocrypha are books accepted by the Council of Nicaea and remain accepted by Catholic and Anglican denominations, but were later rejected by Protestants.  Of whom you are an example.  Can you explain why you've rejected these, some of which were clearly read and taught by Jesus?  Thought not. 

Again this comes up, an argument I have already explained away.

  You have explained why Jesus trusted Enoch, but you don't?  Sorry, I missed it.  I'll go back and read through the thread, but I really don't think you addressed that very directly. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Bzzzt.  Wrong answer.  Jesus will return before the current generation passes away, that's what it says.  And clearly that's what the early Christians believed. 

BZZZZZZZZT you are fantasy reading someones quote again. If you think I am wrong with MY quote you quoted you are yet to prove that. I didn't know we where in a game show
 

The 70 generations in Enoch are irrelevant to reliability.  They are simply an example of midrash, as any serious Bible student knows.  There are other aspects that might make you doubt it, but not that one.  Uh, you do understand midrash, right? 

You persist in being obtuse about the difference between Apocrypha and noncanonical books.  The Apocrypha are books accepted by the Council of Nicaea and remain accepted by Catholic and Anglican denominations, but were later rejected by Protestants.  Of whom you are an example.  Can you explain why you've rejected these, some of which were clearly read and taught by Jesus?  Thought not. 
  You have explained why Jesus trusted Enoch, but you don't?  Sorry, I missed it.  I'll go back and read through the thread, but I really don't think you addressed that very directly. 

I'm sorry Tim but you are not very good to debate with in this thread. You are just saying what I say is wrong with no evidence and happily wave it aside calling it irrelevant, with nothing to support yourself. You keep cycling through the same statements over and over again. Since you have nothing new to contribute I also have nothing new   Midrash lol. You have some reason for everything but fail to try and apply it, your general use of terms without application isn't very useful.

I have even asked you questions which you evade while you are completely interested in trying to show everyone that I am wrong, albeit unsuccessfully. I enjoy how you say things like, "Like any serious Bible student knows etc etc etc." as if you know what all bible students should be like. Amusing. It is even more amusing how your writing takes a passive aggressive approach trying to assume that I am not serious about what I say about Christianity.

[michel dvorsky]

Jesus comes almost everyday. 

Don't believe me? Ask his wife.

[timothy42b]

I have even asked you questions which you evade while you are completely interested in trying to show everyone that I am wrong, albeit unsuccessfully. I enjoy how you say things like, "Like any serious Bible student knows etc etc etc." as if you know what all bible students should be like. Amusing. It is even more amusing how your writing takes a passive aggressive approach trying to assume that I am not serious about what I say about Christianity.

I do not think you are not serious.  I believe you are very serious.  Also very misinformed, and lacking in critical thinking skills.    I believe these conditions are taught and encouraged by your local church, but not by Christianity as a whole. 

You probably think you have answered my questions, but my perception is you've evaded or misunderstood them.

The main question you've ducked is how you can reject a book which Jesus quoted.  You have said that that book is unimportant to Jesus's teachings and doctrines.  I agree.  But that's not really an answer.  Jesus quoted it for a reason, and his action in doing so lends automatic credibility to it.  You reject it, and when questioned say it's unimportant, and besides there's a problem with 70 generations.  It is unimportant per se, but the question of credibility is not unimportant.  This is a book that was accepted at the time as authoritative, and hundreds of years later was dropped. 

There are a number of possible responses to this problem.  Most Christians simply don't know that book exists, or that most of what they believe about Lucifer and pride, angels rebelling, being cast out of heaven, becoming an enemy of God, etc., came from that book.  I suspect you didn't either, but you do now.  It isn't obvious how much Jesus quoted from earlier texts, because at the time neither OT nor NT contained chapter and verse numbers.  (Trivia, do you know when they were added?  Anybody?  I would like to suggest any serious Bible student should know that, but I think I'll get an argument from you.)  But he did, and it must have been for a reason.  One possible reason is the practice of midrash, which we know applies to the OT.  If it applies to the NT, as Bishop Spong suggests, then a lot of difficulties with the texts evaporate. 

The question of Enoch is merely an example of a much larger problem.  How do we tell which books are reliable and which are not?  Many Christians have an image of a single coherent book written in English, not a collection of writings hotly debated.  Anything in the modern Bible is holy, inspired, and perfect;  anything outside it is merely a product of man and may or may not contain any truth.  Of course, Protestant and Catholic don't agree on which books to put in, but that's a side issue.   

The real issue is when the decision was made 400 years after the events to choose books, was it right?  If so why? 

That one shouldn't be so hard to answer, right? 

[ahinton]

Jesus comes almost everyday. 

Don't believe me? Ask his wife.

Yawnnn - zzzz...

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

I do not think you are not serious.  I believe you are very serious.  Also very misinformed, and lacking in critical thinking skills.    I believe these conditions are taught and encouraged by your local church, but not by Christianity as a whole. 

Well if your stance is that I am misinformed and you are very informed then our debate has ended with you the king of the hill. Well done. You know my local church? Wow you must be omnipresent. Debates like, "The Apocrypha is as reliable as the Bible." only ever come up on internet boards because it is very far fetched, and the internet is not always a place for intelligent discussion.

[timothy42b]

our debate has ended with you the king of the hill. Well done.

Thanks.  You are indeed graceful in defeat.  However I feel compelled to point out pianistimo would not have given up so easily. 

Debates like, "The Apocrypha is as reliable as the Bible." only ever come up on internet boards because it is very far fetched,

Debates like this, and other formulations such as "the Bible is as unreliable as the Apocrypha" should not occur only or even primarily on the internet.  They should happen in your church at Bible study, and they should be carried to conclusion.  I suspect however that this would be far too threatening. 

[morningstar]

Debates like this, and other formulations such as "the Bible is as unreliable as the Apocrypha" should not occur only or even primarily on the internet.  They should happen in your church at Bible study, and they should be carried to conclusion.  I suspect however that this would be far too threatening. 

No doubt. At least on the internet we are protected by distance. Close proximity can be threatening when debating faith issues.

[gyzzzmo]

Well it was good to see a decent religious discussion again, lostinidlewonder has a far more rational approach towards the bible than pianistimo. I dont think its easy to defend something you need to believe in (thus hard to defend with facts), but he did it really well... braveau to liiw

Timothy started well and probably has pretty good knowledge about history of the bible, pity though his attacks on the bible got more and more personal towards liiw and that way kinda ruined the discussion.

Maybe if we want to continue it we could debate about the topic of this thread itself; How can we know that if theres a god, is he really that loving and should people really be praising him, since all the mess and misery on earth doesnt seem to bother him at all?

Gyzzzmo

[timothy42b]

Timothy started well and probably has pretty good knowledge about history of the bible, pity though his attacks on the bible got more and more personal towards liiw and that way kinda ruined the discussion.

Gyzzzmo

Indeed, I had good intentions but it unraveled as the thread proceeded.  At this point I'm not sure how it can be avoided.  Normally these discussions don't go very long, as the conservative/fundamentalist proponents tend to disappear relatively quickly, long before thesis-antithesis could produce synthesis. 

It is too bad I was perceived as attacking the bible, that was not my intent.  I expected that response from liiw and pianistimo, because they are taught that questioning is attack (and many times that study is dangerous;  many Bible colleges have abandoned textual criticism).  I actually think that knowing more about the history of the bible could lead to a better understanding rather than a rejection. 

[thalbergmad]

It is too bad I was perceived as attacking the bible, that was not my intent. 

I did not think you were, in fact, i thought you were rather restrained in very trying circumstances.

For hundreds of years "questioning" meant persecution/imprisonment and sometimes even death. Today, we can without fear (in some countries) debate, question and sometimes refute that which has been chiseled into our History and claimed as indesputable fact.

Thal 

[gyzzzmo]

Indeed, I had good intentions but it unraveled as the thread proceeded.  At this point I'm not sure how it can be avoided.  Normally these discussions don't go very long, as the conservative/fundamentalist proponents tend to disappear relatively quickly, long before thesis-antithesis could produce synthesis. 

It is too bad I was perceived as attacking the bible, that was not my intent.  I expected that response from liiw and pianistimo, because they are taught that questioning is attack (and many times that study is dangerous;  many Bible colleges have abandoned textual criticism).  I actually think that knowing more about the history of the bible could lead to a better understanding rather than a rejection. 

Maybe 'attacking the bible' sounds a bit harsh, but questioning the reliability of the bible is for many people an attack on their believes and i'm quite impressed how lostinidlewonder could handle it so long , especially if you compare how it went with pianistimo. People just gave up discussing with her because her arguments were just plain crazy and theres no way of replying properly to those.

In your last reply you were saying that Christians are taught that questioning is an attack. I dont think though that that is always correct. Pianistimo's behaviour proofs you right but you must admit that Lostinidlewonder doesnt reply like it is an attack.
And ofcourse we shouldnt forget that everybody thinks that their beliefs are the right ones. In case of religion, those people find their beliefs even more important because those beliefs are very important for them since it gives them a goal in life and are (trying to) adapt their life to that belief. So its not really true that churches learn people that questioning is attacking, instead its questioning their way of life wich cant be much fun for them.

Gyzzzmo

[timothy42b]

So its not really true that churches learn people that questioning is attacking, instead its questioning their way of life wich cant be much fun for them.

Gyzzzmo

Not all churches.  Particularly the liberal end and some of the mainstream ones don't.  Some (like Jesuits) even welcome a hearty debate. 

The fundamentalist end mostly does, with a tendency for paranoia.  And since they are mostly disconnected from the long history of the church, the "the body of saints," and formalized creeds, they don't have access to the responses of the mainstream churches.

I read Jensen's Survey recently, a standard text used in Bible colleges.  (I don't have it handy so I'll paraphrase.)  The author states plainly he teaches the Bible is perfect because it's inspired.  How do we know?  It says so.  How can we trust it?  Because it's inspired.  A little circular, perhaps?  But his next sentence is the critical one.  "Any other approach will inevitably lead to loss of faith."  Wow!  What a scary assessment, and by one of the leading textbook authors. 

I take the opposite side.  Knowledge does NOT have to lead to loss of faith.  My church agrees.  However, based on interactions here, I'm probably wrong. 

[gyzzzmo]

Not all churches.  Particularly the liberal end and some of the mainstream ones don't.  Some (like Jesuits) even welcome a hearty debate. 

The fundamentalist end mostly does, with a tendency for paranoia.  And since they are mostly disconnected from the long history of the church, the "the body of saints," and formalized creeds, they don't have access to the responses of the mainstream churches.

I read Jensen's Survey recently, a standard text used in Bible colleges.  (I don't have it handy so I'll paraphrase.)  The author states plainly he teaches the Bible is perfect because it's inspired.  How do we know?  It says so.  How can we trust it?  Because it's inspired.  A little circular, perhaps?  But his next sentence is the critical one.  "Any other approach will inevitably lead to loss of faith."  Wow!  What a scary assessment, and by one of the leading textbook authors. 

I take the opposite side.  Knowledge does NOT have to lead to loss of faith.  My church agrees.  However, based on interactions here, I'm probably wrong. 

Oh well eventually it doesnt matter. People can proof the bible wrong or not and questioning everything, but eventually its all about 'faith and believe', words that are already implying that it has nothing to do with right/wrong or proof. Thats why really discussing things with a religious person never works cause faith cant be discussed since REALLY discussing faith leads to unfaith.

[morningstar]

The church I go to (presbyterian) welcomes debates, I think they see it as a form of learning. Which it is I guess. Never was a fan of debating though.

[lostinidlewonder]

Thanks.  You are indeed graceful in defeat.  However I feel compelled to point out pianistimo would not have given up so easily. 

Again in your selective reading mode. You have even extended it to my submission to you. ^_^ funny... remember to add "Well if your stance is that I am misinformed and you are very informed then " to my submission.

[timothy42b]

Again in your selective reading mode. You have even extended it to my submission to you. ^_^ funny... remember to add "Well if your stance is that I am misinformed and you are very informed then " to my submission.

Does this mean that your submission was less than sincere?

I am shocked and stunned.  I took you at face value and believed you.  Now I don't know what to say.  I'll have to think about it.  If believing you is selective reading then yes I'm guilty. 

[morningstar]

Does this mean that your submission was less than sincere?

I am shocked and stunned.  I took you at face value and believed you.  Now I don't know what to say.  I'll have to think about it.  If believing you is selective reading then yes I'm guilty. 

You're shocked and stunned? From reading a post on an internet forum? OK...

[tompilk]

mmm... i've read all this and none of it answers the initial post... the big "suffering" question. If suffering is punishment, it's a pretty nasty god... and how exactly do you explain something like tectonic plate movements? it's kind of cliche, but still...
surely it'd be best for us all to go straight to heaven (which, of course, there is no evidence of it existing).

[gyzzzmo]

Surely it'd be best for us all to go straight to heaven (which, of course, there is no evidence of it existing).

The wish of so many people to go to heaven is more an indication that it probably does not excist

[tompilk]

The wish of so many people to go to heaven is more an indication that it probably does not excist

well, I would say that the fact we invented it indicates a low probability, although I'm pretty sure the desire doesn't alter the probability whether it exists or not...
I mean, if I said there was a giant chocolate bar in the sky that took innocent people's lives at random, you'd think I was mad. Just because religion has a book, has been elaborated upon and is steeped "tradition" doesn't amount to any kind of argument. And the fact that it's been created so that science cannot disprove it is ridiculous - although the onus is still on the believer to prove that god exists.

[gyzzzmo]

well, I would say that the fact we invented it indicates a low probability, although I'm pretty sure the desire doesn't alter the probability whether it exists or not...
I mean, if I said there was a giant chocolate bar in the sky that took innocent people's lives at random, you'd think I was mad. Just because religion has a book, has been elaborated upon and is steeped "tradition" doesn't amount to any kind of argument. And the fact that it's been created so that science cannot disprove it is ridiculous - although the onus is still on the believer to prove that god exists.

Wouldnt the creation of a timemachine great? Finally some clarity about what really happened
But debating whether Christianity is true or not is pretty pointless ofcourse, but the title of this thread is quite interesting though. Because IF there is a good that is loving, why doesnt he just show his ass here on earth to get rid of all those religious wars and misery?
He has a vacation? or a new playstation?

[tompilk]

that's the view of a deist... methinks.
It just annoys me that some people are wasting their own precious time on earth... it's such a waste of human effort. Admittedly churches, cathedrals etc. are some of the most impressive human achievements... and the music religion has inspired is phenominal. If only logic and reason captured as many people's imaginations...

[mrba1979]

The problem with the lead in this topic is one does not preclude the other.  If God is not nice it does not mean he does not exist.  Really there are two separate issues at hand which would have been a better subject header of this forum if opus had been serious.  Does God exist, and how are we to cope with pain and suffering in either case?  The truth is these are very common questions which are important to every individual.  Summarizing from the comic strip Calvin & Hobbes.  Calvin sitting at his desk blurts out to Ms. Wormwood, "What is the point in learning all this since sooner or later we all going to be extinct."  Later in the principals office Calvin is thinking, "No one likes to look at the big picture."

Starting with the second question how do we cope with pain and suffering can only begin to be understood if we truly understand that death is eminent.  It will happen and it is blind to age, color, gender, atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, and or whomever.  It will happen whether by at the hands of another, natural disaster, sickness, and or old age.  It is real.  Suffering then is not because God is nice or not nice, or he exists or does not exists, but our individual perceptions of our own lives leading to death.  Some who suffer accept it and use these experiences for personal growth.  Some who suffer drown in agony and despair.  Some suffer by personal affliction.  Some suffer from the oppression of others.  In all cases though it is mankind which causes suffering not God.  To eliminate suffering death would need to be ceased, and therefore life would cease as well.

So then the question remains does God exists?  I think we all know this is unanswerable universally.  Here is a question I would like to ask for those interested.  If God did or does not exist what would or what does this mean for you?

 

 

[gyzzzmo]

So then the question remains does God exists?  I think we all know this is unanswerable universally.  Here is a question I would like to ask for those interested.  If God did or does not exist what would or what does this mean for you?

If there's no God, that wouldnt matter for me. I have no problem that i probably turn into plantfood after i die. Also i try to live a good live with or without God.
If there IS a God, things wouldnt change either. Why would he care if we would worship him or not?

[tompilk]

I see your points mrba, but I think that a "not nice" god is a good indicator that he doesn't exist, especially if he's supposed to be omnipotent. Of course, we can't prove it at all - that's the problem with faith. The idea of having faith in something as irrational as religion is quite scary. If 90% of the population told you that we'd found extra-terrestral life, you'd be inclined to agree. It doesn't mean it's true... it's a bad attitude to have. And to believe that god commands us to be perfect, him knowing full-well that we are subject to human impulses and desires, is atrocious. How can you say it's a loving god? The argument is that we lost our perfection with Adam and Eve, but I don't need to tell people that it's a ridiculous fairy tale. And without the creation argument, religion has little to offer (although I realise it doesn't matter whether it offers anything to be true or not).
If god created us in his own image, he surely has the ability to be tempted - so how is he all-powerful?
To actively believe in something like god, I'd have to experience it first hand. And even then, I'd think I was mad.
I'd be good to hear a theist's answer to these...

[timothy42b]

I see your points mrba, but I think that a "not nice" god is a good indicator that he doesn't exist, especially if he's supposed to be omnipotent.

I'm not sure I agree with your logic.

If God can only exist in the form that we insist on, a "nice" or loving one, then I think it follows that we invented Him.

If on the other hand He truly exists, then his character is going to be up to him not us.  We're stuck with whatever it is.  And we're highly unlikely to have enough information to be sure what it is anyway, though we can make guesses within broad parameters. 

This thread started out by observing the OT God was indeed not very nice.  Many deny this, but then most people don't actually read their Bibles;  those who do would have to agree.  I don't think this is any contradiction at all to the probability of him existing.  (By the way, seems pretty sexist to be saying either Him or Her, don't you think?) 

And then somebody noted a contradiction, that the NT God DID seem a lot nicer.  And then we degenerated into problems with translations, selection of the canon, books that were rejected, the Apocrypha, etc. 

One difficulty is that SOME believers think the bible was dictated by God word for word in English, KJV of course, and therefore we DO have enough information to know His (and it is a HE) character precisely.  They have to either ignore or resolve the difference in character between OT and NT Gods.  For other believers and for nonbelievers this is less of an issue, as they allow for the variations you get when humans write books.  And of course the whole topic is highly American-Christian-centric;  the rest of the world has a different slant. 

[tompilk]

Ok. I see what you're saying.
I have trouble understanding why you'd believe in god, if the bible was so dependent upon interpretation? I mean, religion is just a book and tradition... it seems completely illogical to me. What is there to believe in god for? No concrete evidence (although some pretty cool miracles), no need (Occam's razor) and no desire. Perhaps it's the last of these that is why so many people believe? It seems the ultimate indulgence to me... never mind lust, anger or greed.
I find it quite funny that I've never really considered the possibility of an imperfect, "not nice" god... i'm struggling trying to think why this could not be so! Although lots of christians would disagree with it...

[pianistimo]

Dare I answer a religious question?  Without assuming that others will think that I have my mind 'made up' ahead of time?  Well, here it goes:  I don't think there are dual G-d heads.  There is G-d the Father and The Word (who later manifested Himself as Jesus Christ).  Jesus Christ said He came to do His Father's work and listened to His word and spoke His Word as a sign of obedience.   

Several of the answers above I feel are VERY astute.  For one, the answer of mrba1979 who states that it isn't us who decides G-ds character.  And, Christians believe that His character is such that He shines very brightly.  It is said that one cannot walk in darkness if they follow Him.  Satan, on the other hand, claims the darkness.  It is his territory, so to speak.

So...if you denounce the character of G-d - should you uphold the character of Satan who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning?  He is the cause, through spiritual warfare, of many attitudes and ways of life that claim death to be the 'final solution.'  There is no place in the bible that G-d says he has death in store for us ultimately.  He wants us to be assured that Jesus Christ took our place in death so that we can live.  How is this 'not very nice.'

The not very nice part is that people don't want to assume responsibility for something G-d calls 'sin.'  Unfortunately, everyone sins.  Now, according to some of you - the fact that G-d allowed Satan into the world means that He also can be tempted and wanted to tempt us.  But, if G-d is above Satan (having created the angels) how can this be so.  Especially, if Satan will be bound for a thousand years.  Who can bind such a powerful archangel as Lucifer (btw, Lucent, the company is named after this esteemed angel).

Deuteronomy 2:7 'for the Lord your G-d has blessed you in all the work of your hand.'  G-d blessed those who obeyed His word.  Solomon said that the greatest blessing of life was to enjoy the fruit of your hands (your work) and your family.  G-d grants us many blessings but we don't like to take the good with the bad.  Solomon said that bad comes to everyone at some point or other - even if they have striven to be good.  And, yet - he still came to the same conclusion:  'fear G-d and keep his commandments.'  If Solomon was the wisest person who ever walked the earth - and His father David had told him about G-d's nature - then praising G-d whether in good situations or bad proves to Satan that we don't worship G-d because He blesses or curses, but because we find in His name Saving Power for the eternal future.

Job could have cursed G-d and died - as his wife wanted him to.  But, he refused.  This really made Satan angry.  Job ended up being much wealthier in the end - but he never asked for this wealth.  G-d gave it to him unconditionally and yet as a reward.  There are verses that say that righteous will never lack bread.  Even if you don't end up being better off for worshipping G-d, He will never leave you or forsake you.  And, He provides comfort because He is the freest of all free beings and can give you the highest form of freedom.  LOVE unconditional.

[mrba1979]

I see your points mrba, but I think that a "not nice" god is a good indicator that he doesn't exist, especially if he's supposed to be omnipotent.

My point is that a perception of niceness vs mean is a human perception or description, and therefore is not remarkable  on God's existence.  I am trying to set apart two issue made with this forum subject, and trying to stay on the subject.

The first issue in summary and my opinion is mankind is the cause of suffering not God real and or unreal.

The second what does it mean not to believe in God since we are always discussing what it means to believe in God.  Same subject different perspective.

[pianistimo]

We are always discussing what it means to believe in G-d?  Hmmm.  And, I thought it was the other way around.  Well, no matter.

As i see it - the 'heavens are telling.'  No matter what you believe - the heavens tell on you.

Curious thing.  I happen to know two very bright people - one of whom is agnostic and the other athiest.  The agnostic studies the heavens.  The athiest told me once that he was fearful to look up at the heavens. 

From outer space looking in - i hear the earth is like a jewel.  The only planet with all this water and perfect conditions for life.  It must be a big bang that made it.  And, our sun is shining for the right warmth and conditions.  When a lunar eclipse happens - it exactly is the right distance from the earth and sun to be eclipsed.  Tell me this isn't intelligent design.

I've heard that if the earth had no atmosphere then the moon would be completely black during a lunar eclipse.  Visa-versa - if the distance of the earth, moon, and sun wasn't so precise - oppositely, a solar eclipse could not happen either.  The solar eclipse is perhaps the most precise thing I can think of in the heavens.  The placement of the bodies in the heavens.

People say our universe as a whole is expanding and they have the 'proof' - although nobody I know has reached the edges of the known universe.  However, the tides keep happening as though nothing spectacular has happened in our particular 'neck of the woods.'  Why aren't the tides GREATLy affected by this supposed expansion.  After all, we have to keep up with the rest of the neighborhood universe.

*ps to answer Thal about the flood and the Grand Canyon.  Why isn't there a delta at the opening of Canyon where it enters the Gulf of Mexico?  Where did all the dirt go if it was made by the Colorado River?

OK.  On the highly unlikely proposition that there isn't any G-d - right now we can celebrate because we have effectively nixed Him anyways.  I mean, regarding the UN bill of rights - we are not exactly all thought of as being equal.  Those in power decide the rights of the other peons.  It's all carefully worded , but unless the rights are listed - do you have them?  G-d assumes a lot for us.  He assumes we are smart enough to know that we're all equal, but still told us so at the beginning.  That we are in HIS image.  That makes us pretty much equal.  No games with G-d.

[tompilk]

I don't see how suffering is man-caused. Tectonic plates is the traditional argument - I would say that it's sick and twisted (VERY unChristianly) to say that 100000's of people's deaths are due to sin...
The alternative interpretation is if you mean that suffering is just a result of human consciousness, then I'd argue that this is what makes us able to believe and worship a god. A circular argument, no?
I would agree that we cannot judge god's personality, but we are supposed to be in his image.
Pianistmo: I really appreciate your long post, but I'm sorry I cannot see how you can philosophically argue by using the contents of the bible to support god... also, examples of beneficence on the part of god do not constitute a beneficent god either. I also have trouble understanding why god created satan. I think someone said that we're created imperfect and commanded to be perfect. How is this from the work of a loving god?
Your argument about the fact that everything is so perfect to support human life - if it wasn't, we wouldn't be here to observe it, so it has to be possible. This is the case even if you consider the argument without the presence of a god. The solar eclipse - if it didn't happen, we wouldn't observe it. It's silly to say that it's down to design. If the eclipse wasn't as scientifically impressive as it is, it could be something else, e.g. no cancer (there are infinite examples of things that may/may not be possible, irrespective of the existence of a god). It's perfectly possible that an elephant appears in my bedroom right this minute - this doesn't support the existence of god. Even if EVERYTHING was perfect, it doesn't provide even a shred of evidence that there's a creator...
Just a final little question, what's your argument for the parasitic worms that live off humans? He can't have created them before humans, and if he created them after, surely it's a maleficent act... thanks.