OT: What's your religeon?

[Raging Deadstar]

Klvino [ORB] said:
Narf, you are very right. The Bibles of today are not the bibles that the first church laid down. Countless tranlations and retranslation mistakes add up over time, then to top it off the bible is drawn for various documents and oral traditions and older religions that further compound things.

Yeah, The Odd Translation mistake really adds up, as does Blatant editing and censoring of various biblical scriptures by various Churches to support their dogma. (Most evidently the Holy Roman Church of the Middle Ages). But as my friend says.

"I Don't believe in the stories in the bible, I believe in the morals and teachings in the stories. Thats what is Important."

As for Being Immoral, that's just ignorance. Some Atheists are, Some Devout worshippers of Religon are, and Vice Versa. I don't believe just because you have faith in a particular system (or lack of one) means that you are more or less "moral" than others, There are many instances throughout history of people deciding not to "practice what they preach."

At the end of the day, It's tolerance, acceptance, forgiveness and understanding that's needed in this world. And Most religions preach this, maybe we should start listening.

[Azselendor]

As a guy I worked for once said, "it's a case of Do as I say, not as I do."

RD,
I think you misunderstood me or I wasn't clear enough because that's pretty much what I was saying. My point was that when someone or an organization lacks the ability to logically identify something they don't understand, they try to define it in terms they understand. This often ends in a negative description of the individual.

IE, some christians don't understand how anyone can not believe in god, so they must be against him and thus evil and immoral as satan is against god and immoral and evil.

While that example of a flawed arguement, typically that is the reasoning behind false claims athiests are immoral from what I've found. That's not to say there may have other reasons.

[deccan]

Electrum said:
It was interesting that the majority of the issues were not w/ Biblical accuracy & historicity, rather with the views of those who claim to speak for it, just as I had mentioned.

This is too blanket a statement I think. Does this mean that any criticism of Biblical accuracy and historicity is always invalid because of bias and that the Bible cannot be critiqued in this way at all? If not, then which types of criticism are valid and which are not?

Let me, for example, point out that the line "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so" is chronologically incorrect. Plants whose "seeds are in themselves" are flowering plants, whose seeds are located in enclosed ovaries. These appeared in the Jurassic, after the appearance of many types of land animals. Trees yielding fruit came even later, being a further evolution of flowering plants, and after all, from an evolutionary point of view, considering that fruits exist only to attract animals who had help the plant's reproduction, it would make no sense to have fruit trees exist when there are no land animals to eat them.

How can this statement that the Bible is factually incorrect on at least this one matter be brushed aside simply on the grounds that this is not an issue of Biblical accuracy and historicity but "merely reflects the view of those who claim to speak for it"?

Electrum said:
It is interesting that the standard such higher critics use with the Bible is: If there is no corroborating evidence, it must be a lie.

The requirement of multiple, corroborating sources of information is a standard test in the study of history. It is not a requirement uniquely imposed on the study of the Bible.

In any case, the analogy you provide is inadequate: a singular incident of limited scope with only a single eye-witness. Considering the scope and magnitude of the events claimed by the Bible, it would be appropriate to use a larger analogy, say, an ancient text found in a recently discovered ancient city that claims that alien visitors visted that city in vast starships.

Electrum said:
Nothing unscientific there. If fact, science agrees that these stages occurred in this general order.

Only if you ignore that the fact that the Bible makes some statements that are curiously specific, and others that are curiously vague. The specific mention of "whale" appearing seemingly together with other sea life is clearly wrong for example, as is the case of the specific types of plants mentioned above. The specific mention of "fowl" is another example. Narf does have a point that perhaps the people at the time had no better term to describe the meaning conveyed at the time, but to judge that would require linguistic skills that I do not possess.

And also only if you ignore the fact that the Bible makes references to things that we have no clear idea what it corresponds to. What is the "firmament"? What is meant by waters above and below the "firmament"? What does the earth bringing forth mean specifically? After all, land animals evolved from sea animals. What does "every living creature that moveth" mean? Does it specifically exclude land animals? Etc.

Electrum said:
the principal Babylonian myth says that the god Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, killed the goddess Tiamat...

...

The very nature on the Genesis account and these stories is so different, is it really reasonable to think the Genesis account was copied from them, as some critics claim?

See this copy of the Babylonian creation myth for example: The Enuma Elish

Is it really so different? The Biblical Version is monotheistic, and God himself is more impersonal while in the Babylonian Version, the deities are more human, in fact, exaggerated forms of humanity. But the content has broad similarities. To orient yourself, consider that in the Biblical Version, creation is organized into six days, while in the Babylonian Version, creation is organized into six generations of deities:

Tiamat and Apsu -> Lahmu and Lahamu -> Anshar and Kishar -> Anu -> Ea -> Marduk.

Electrum said:
While much of the world was believing the world was flat, supported on the backs of elephants, the Bible clearly states the world was a sphere (Isa 40:22) suspended on nothing (Job 26 : 7).

This is controversial. I don't believe the various statements made in the Bible were specific enough to judge what the writers of the Bible actually believed. You can google for references to a round Earth, but I can google for references to a flat Earth as well. The fact is that the statements are just so vague.

Certainly there were early figures in the Christian church who quoted scripture to argue that the Earth was flat, no doubt just as passionately as you quote scripture to argue that the Bible has always stated that the Earth is round.

Electrum said:
While the rest of the world’s medical practices were employing dangerous techniques involving dung & urine, the Mosaic Law instituted hygienic practices including not touching dead bodies and quarantines.

I believe that the practices were religious rituals, not practices justified by medical hygiene.

In any case, justifications of this sort are as spurious as attempts by say Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners who say that since some of TCM's remedies are empirically found by modern scientists to be sound, the TCM theories of chi, Yin-Yang, Theory of Five Elements etc. must therefore be true.

Electrum said:
Biblical critics & revisionist historians will continue to give their opinions. Yet the Bible time and time again has stood up against such claims, many times aided by science & archeology.

Correct, and this goes way back. What you omit is that most of the pertinent and respected criticisms were by Christians theists.

[Renegade 13]

Just when I thought this thread had died a timely death....