|
| Cooperator - 5/18/2022 14:18
tkoppel - 5/15/2022 14:38
Cooperator - 5/15/2022 14:17
tkoppel - 5/13/2022 17:47
Cooperator - 5/13/2022 06:50
There's a bit of integrity missing from this equation. You can't cherry-pick some parts of the bible and reject others. If part of it is BS, then maybe all of it is. That's the bar for most things in life. People were very tribal in those days, and they didn't regard people outside their own tribe with much respect. We all know the attitudes towards slavery and human rights has changed a lot since then. Some of us smell a rat, and don't regard the bible with any sort of special reverence. Not much anyone can do about that.
So, I take it you're not interested in discovering the context of that bunch of passages? Guess that means your only purpose is to mock those that do. Got ya, kinda figured that's the type of person you were, just hoped there was a fragment of curiosity between your ears.
I said it earlier, since you poked into this business it's your responsibility to defend your position. Any fool can take pot shots, then blow it off. How about some real, well thought out objections to those passages. So, how about it?
Nope. That's not how skepticism works. You doubt everything, long enough to see how the evidence squares up.
What you're doing is something quite different. Doubt everything that doesn't fit the conclusions you want to believe in.
Yes, that's true, except in this case YOU won't explore the evidence and YOU won't engage in informed discussion.
Again, you take snippets of passages, without considering the context within which they were written. Basically, you're using a half assed approach at criticism without adequately explaining why they should be criticised.
It's OK though, as your willful ignorance allows you to hold your own confirmation bias on the matter. That's fine, it's just not truthful.
All I ask is that you defend your position regarding those passages. That should be easy, right? If you can't do even that, I can only presume you pulled those passages in order to insult people in this thread. If you're going to insult people, at least have the courtesy to make well informed insults, not some crap from an ignorant internet search.
Actually, I take skepticism quite seriously. It involves giving every claim a fair hearing, even if you don't like it or it doesn't support your own conclusions.
Secondly, a good skeptic questions everything, at least until we've had a chance to weigh all associated evidence.
Not something you see in the bible.
I agree, it is wise to view everything with a degree of skepticism until sufficient evidence presents itself that would cause a change of mind. The difficult part of this is determining where to reasonably set the threshold for a claim to be true.
Let’s say there is a baseball game that happened yesterday that I didn’t see. I want to find out who won. I ask my friend that did see the game and he tells me who won. Now if he has no motive to lie, most people would believe there friend in good faith. Now let’s say my friend and I had a bet on the game and he tells me his team won. I would be a little more skeptical and look for another source to verify his claim. So now I go and check the news paper and it backs up his story. Now I have a stronger case to support the fact that team A won and that would be reasonable for most people. Now let’s say I am a little more skeptical, my friend said it was team A that won and so did the news paper, but I am still not convinced. So now I try to find someone who was actually at the game. I find that person and they also confirm team A won. Now I have three sources of evidence that team A won. It would seem like an air tight case that the team won. Now let’s say I was in flat out denial because I was bitter about losing my bet. Now I make the declarative statement “I will never believe team A won until I interview everyone who was at the stadium, in the stands, talk to all the player and the Umpires and if I find one person in this group of 40,000 who contradicts that fact that team A won, I will still not believe” If a person comes out with a statement like that we would call them totally unreasonable.
Now where does the bar get set reasonably for the Bible? That is a hard question. I came from a place of skepticism myself. I was always concerned when I was growing up, because if I asked why I should trust the Bible? No one had a good answer for me. When I was in my early 20’s I was sitting on the fence and thought now is the time to get on with it or get over it. I read books and looked at the reasons why the Bible was so revered. I arrived at a few conclusions.
-The texts of the Bible have be accurately preserved over time. Archeological discoveries have found earlier and earlier manuscripts and the texts have remained unchanged.
-The people who were written about in the Bible were actual historical figures. Archeology has found evidence for the physical existence for everyone from King David to Pontus Pilot who ordered the execution of Jesus Christ. The book of Luke alone contains over 50 references to historical people places and events that have been confirmed by archeology.
-The central event of the Bible, the life of Jesus Christ was prophesied of before he was ever born. Thanks to the Dead Sea scrolls we have copies of the book of Isiah from 100 years before Jesus was born. The book of Isiah contained many prophecies about Jesus. This discredits the old argument that the books were changed after the life of Jesus to include these prophecies. Also several prophecies about Jesus where things he would have had no control over. It was prophecied he would be born in Bethlehem, travel to Egypt then live in Nazareth. As an infant he could not have consciously changed his actions to line up with the prophecies about him.
-Other texts verify what the Bible says about Jesus. There are several ancient texts that reference Jesus outside the Bible. The most substantial are the Roman historian Tacitus and the Jewish Historian Josephus. Between the their two accounts you can get most of the high points of the life of Jesus. They were both antagonistic towards the early Christian movement.
-The people close to Jesus all were willing to die for what they claimed to believe. If these men all had the opportunity to see behind the curtain and they knew this was made up, would they all have been willing to suffer and die for these claims.
The few points I just listed just begin to scratch the surface. At the very least a responsible skeptic should not flippantly dismiss this ancient book without some measure of thought and consideration. It is there in it’s raw form, with unsettling passages as you have pointed out, but it and it’s incredible scope and impact need to be dealt with.
All the best, Lee | |
|
What’s your favorite Bible verses?
