According to the bible... "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Wouldn't stand to reason then that you shouldn't preach things from the bible unless you have the education and the full understanding of it's meaning? By doing so do you fall into the category of "the ends justify the means?" Would Jesus approve of such things?
People claim all the time that by doing A-Z "you are going to hell." If you are one of those people, do you actually know why, where, how, or who said that would be the case? On a flip side, where do these actions fall into line with this magical floaty heaven place?
Point being, aren't people more so preaching hypocrisy (a context and subtext usually associated with religion) from the get go by doing it "blindly?" And doesn't this completely ruin the sources integrity considering the topic at hand?
According to the bible... "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Wouldn't stand to reason then that you shouldn't preach things from the bible unless you have the education and the full understanding of it's meaning? By doing so do you fall into the category of "the ends justify the means?" Would Jesus approve of such things?
People claim all the time that by doing A-Z "you are going to hell." If you are one of those people, do you actually know why, where, how, or who said that would be the case? On a flip side, where do these actions fall into line with this magical floaty heaven place?
Point being, aren't people more so preaching hypocrisy (a context and subtext usually associated with religion) from the get go by doing it "blindly?" And doesn't this completely ruin the sources integrity considering the topic at hand?
By this argument, preaching anything in the bible could be construed as bearing false witness - since the bible isn't a reliable historical document. Just because it says someone said something is no reason to think that the person in question actually did say it or even existed. It's not much more different than basing the go-directly-to-hell statements on what you heard from a neighbor who claims to get it from a third source that you've never met, never can meet and has no proof of even existing.
Unless of course, you're just annoyed by people who say, "the bible says..." without actually reading the bible. But that I think is a minor point, unless their statements are wrong. I can't keep up with all of scientific theory (though I admit, it's perfectly possible to get through the bible compared to scientific advancement) but I still make statements about what science has shown because I've heard third parties who have earned my trust report this. Of course, if they start proving repeatedly false - I'd find new sources.
As much as I like the idea behind this discussion, I think it actively places all of religious preaching as 'bearing false witness'. Which, while funny and probably true, is also not really going to get anywhere with the people whose behavior we'd like changed.
According to the bible... "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour."
Wouldn't stand to reason then that you shouldn't preach things from the bible unless you have the education and the full understanding of it's meaning?
Well, they actually don't mean the same thing. Bearing false witness is just that, being a witness that bears false testimony, that is to say perjury.
"Full understanding of its meaning" is a problematic statement, as what manner of man can really claim to have full understanding. However, I agree that one is obligated to commit oneself to an education in theology before preaching, as the Bible is an exceptionally complex document.
Lots of people believe in/passionately argue about things that they don't really understand and/or are just repeating because they heard it from someone else that they believe in. Haven't you ever seen people debate about politics? The amount of complete nonsense that they just run off at the mouth about is staggering.
Religion isn't really much different. People repeat what they hear in religion because it was told to them by someone that they believe in.
No one has a full understanding of the Bible. If someone claims to, you should avoid discussing it with them. Doing so would only serve to create strife and strengthen their delusions.
Then that argues that the bible's positions are inherently unknowable and even if it were god's own truth we couldn't base our lives, decisions, actions or anything at all on the study of it.
To bear false witness is like highroller said it is basically perjury, or to make untrue accusations against someone else. it means that you should be extremely careful who you listen to when it comes to biblical teaching. that is why i cringe when i see those prosperity gospel preachers. they have conned a great many people into their teachings.
since the bible isn't a reliable historical document.
This is not correct. the bible is very accurate when it comes to historical documentation.
they have found many digs and other cities because of the information in the bible and they were exactly where they said it was.
Then that argues that the bible's positions are inherently unknowable and even if it were god's own truth we couldn't base our lives, decisions, actions or anything at all on the study of it.
Not really because it can take a life time of study and people would still find something new in the bible that they didn't see before. you don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
To bear false witness is like highroller said it is basically perjury, or to make untrue accusations against someone else. it means that you should be extremely careful who you listen to when it comes to biblical teaching. that is why i cringe when i see those prosperity gospel preachers. they have conned a great many people into their teachings.
We have something in common. We both cringe when we hear preachers conning people into following their unsubstantiated, demonstrably false teachings. I just don't grant certain preachers a special exception. I apply the same rational criteria universally.
The bible is very accurate when it comes to historical documentation.
I think the fact that it claimed the earth was between 6,000-10,000 years old, discounts evolution and said that there was a massive flood that drowned the world are a few minor points that throw into question its historical validity.
They have found many digs and other cities because of the information in the bible and they were exactly where they said it was.
Wow. So a tribe of ancient desert nomads who went all over recorded some actual locations that happened to exist in the real world? No kidding!
Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that the bible relies mostly on third party testimony and has huge, demonstrable impossibilities recorded as fact. Take any similar source and use it to base a conclusion on in peer reviewed papers (with no justification for your conclusion other than, "the bible said so") and let's see how much the actual historical community agrees with your assessment of the bible's validity as a reliable historical document.
Not really because it can take a life time of study and people would still find something new in the bible that they didn't see before. you don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
While you're spending your lifetime studying it (which is a little odd in itself, because lifetimes these days are much longer than they were when the bible was written - so arguing it takes a full modern lifetime to understand it is a little self-defeating for its supposed purpose) - you actually have a life to live in the mean time that you can't trust the bible to base judgment on yet.
Also, the claim that it can take a lifetime to understand the bible is utterly arbitrary. How would you test this please? What metric do you use to separate those who understand god's word from those who don't? If you don't have a way to independently confirm their understanding, you can't say conclusively that people ever gain understanding - or that there's anything to understand.
That would be the typical false dicotomy often shared by both fundamentalists and atheists. That the Bible is either 100% false or 100% true.
And that's a fundamental misrepresentation of what I said. I said that if it is impossible to know whether your interpretation of the bible is correct then it's unreasonable to make judgments based on it. Additionally, to claim that some parts of the bible are truly gods word and some are mankinds gibberings - you need a way to evaluate them. Obviously, science has done a great job of disproving most of the claims made in the bible - but some (like what god thinks should be done to homosexuals) can't be evaluated with scientific means. So how do you evaluate which parts are truly god's word and which are false? If you can't do this in a way that can be independently confirmed - you have a baseless platform, since you can't know which parts, if any, are true.
Perhaps I somehow wasn't clear what I was talking about - but your response to my passage was a gross misrepresentation of my position.
We have something in common. We both cringe when we hear preachers conning people into following their unsubstantiated, demonstrably false teachings. I just don't grant certain preachers a special exception. I apply the same rational criteria universally.
I have read reports that scientist distort their information in order to preserve their funding and other things. so does that mean we should treat all scientists like that or say there are some bad apples in the bunch?
I think the fact that it claimed the earth was between 6,000-10,000 years old, discounts evolution and said that there was a massive flood that drowned the world are a few minor points that throw into question its historical validity.
There are evidences of a world wide flood. as for the age of the earth that is still under debate even among theologians. just as the big bang theory has issues in filling in the gap so does the bible.
It is called the creation Gap.
Wow. So a tribe of ancient desert nomads who went all over recorded some actual locations that happened to exist in the real world? No kidding!
Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that the bible relies mostly on third party testimony and has huge, demonstrable impossibilities recorded as fact. Take any similar source and use it to base a conclusion on in peer reviewed papers (with no justification for your conclusion other than, "the bible said so") and let's see how much the actual historical community agrees with your assessment of the bible's validity as a reliable historical document.
Not just locations but events and other things that have been proven to be historically accurate.
actually most of the people that wrote the bible were there first hand if not they had someone righ there with them. The men that put the bible together were meticulous to ensure that everything was valid before it was included.
That is why so many books were rejected.
actually the bible has been challenged more time than i can count or read about unfortuantly those people only ended up proving the bible correct instead of wrong. Plenty of people have peer reviewed the bible. it is one of the most debated books in history.
While you're spending your lifetime studying it (which is a little odd in itself, because lifetimes these days are much longer than they were when the bible was written - so arguing it takes a full modern lifetime to understand it is a little self-defeating for its supposed purpose) - you actually have a life to live in the mean time that you can't trust the bible to base judgment on yet.
People take a life time studying science yet they understand only a little bit of everything out there so we shouldn't trust science then?
Also, the claim that it can take a lifetime to understand the bible is utterly arbitrary. How would you test this please? What metric do you use to separate those who understand god's word from those who don't? If you don't have a way to independently confirm their understanding, you can't say conclusively that people ever gain understanding - or that there's anything to understand.
The bible has been around for thousands of years. yet people to this day are still studying and finding new things in it.
also the same can be said of science. yet that is something that you put your faith in completely, and science has been around way longer than the bible.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
I have read reports that scientist distort their information in order to preserve their funding and other things. so does that mean we should treat all scientists like that or say there are some bad apples in the bunch?
Irrelevant. Maybe we should scrutinize everyone's claims based on the same criteria - like using the same rational investigations to investigate one scientist's claims and make sure they're not distorted as we do another. You're granting special preference to some preachers over others for nothing more than personal preference. You have to apply the same criteria universallyl.
There are evidences of a world wide flood. as for the age of the earth that is still under debate even among theologians. just as the big bang theory has issues in filling in the gap so does the bible.
It is called the creation Gap.
1) There is no evidence for a flood as described in the bible. None. Yes, floods exist, but none that came close to drowning the world as it claims.
2) The age of the earth might be under debate by theologians, but I'm leaning towards what the scientist say. Either way, that it utterly irrelevant. the earth is tens of millions of years old. Not thousands.
Not just locations but events and other things that have been proven to be historically accurate.
actually most of the people that wrote the bible were there first hand if not they had someone righ there with them. The men that put the bible together were meticulous to ensure that everything was valid before it was included.
That is why so many books were rejected.
actually the bible has been challenged more time than i can count or read about unfortuantly those people only ended up proving the bible correct instead of wrong. Plenty of people have peer reviewed the bible. it is one of the most debated books in history.
This is just blatantly false. Please substantiate these claims before making them. Hell, the flood and the age of the earth alone are obviously proven wrong.
People take a life time studying science yet they understand only a little bit of everything out there so we shouldn't trust science then?
Irrelevant. This was asking how you can be sure of an interpretation of the bible. Science is demonstrable, testable and workable - it's been proven to work and the things people rely on (like electricity and cars) have been proven to function. They are constantly under scrutiny that is independently testable and verifiable. Nothing has anything to do with your claims. Your analogy is false and intrinsically untrue.
The bible has been around for thousands of years. yet people to this day are still studying and finding new things in it.
also the same can be said of science. yet that is something that you put your faith in completely, and science has been around way longer than the bible.
What are you even saying here? The bible is old, yep, we get that. Are you seriously saying that scientific claims aren't testable? The quote this is responding to is me asking you how you'd independently test the bible after all. That's what defines science.
Irrelevant. Maybe we should scrutinize everyone's claims based on the same criteria - like using the same rational investigations to investigate one scientist's claims and make sure they're not distorted as we do another. You're granting special preference to some preachers over others for nothing more than personal preference. You have to apply the same criteria universallyl.
it isn't irrelevant it is a fact. a report came out that said 20% of scientist have lied, or fudged, or changed their findings for one reason or another. you can't simply dismiss it.
I am not granting special preference to any preacher. i have peer reviewed plenty of preachers both by attending their church and listening to them. i find most lacking.
in the case of a preacher the bible is the universal criteria. find someone not preaching what is in it and well you should be worried about that person.
There is no evidence for a flood as described in the bible. None. Yes, floods exist, but none that came close to drowning the world as it claims.
Actually there is but no source i would give you would matter so i won't bother.
This is just blatantly false. Please substantiate these claims before making them. Hell, the flood and the age of the earth alone are obviously proven wrong.
again no it isn't. there is a difference between historical accuracy and scientific accuracy. please do not confuse the two of them like you are doing.
There is penty of evidence in the real world that places and events mentioned in the bible actually occured and were real. we have physical evidence of cities listed in the bible and have found those sites exactly where they were suppose to be.
that is more evidence than you have offered so far.
Irrelevant. This was asking how you can be sure of an interpretation of the bible. Science is demonstrable, testable and workable - it's been proven to work and the things people rely on (like electricity and cars) have been proven to function. They are constantly under scrutiny that is independently testable and verifiable. Nothing has anything to do with your claims. Your analogy is false and intrinsically untrue.
Not irrelevant. you cannot simply dismiss that we have been studying science longer than we have been studying the bible yet we still don't know quite a bit about it. that is evident in the fact that they are constantly discovering new things.
according to you that means we should not trust science. yes science ever changing much like the interpritation of the bible is constantly changing. scientist are constantly changing their theories just as theologians change their interpritation of the bible as they reveal new information.
so no my analogy is not false at all.
What are you even saying here? The bible is old, yep, we get that. Are you seriously saying that scientific claims aren't testable? The quote this is responding to is me asking you how you'd independently test the bible after all. That's what defines science.
you fractured my paragraph ( i assume on purpose to try and distort what i was saying and trying to make a arguement).
where did i say they weren't testable please quote me or you can try going back and reading the whole paragraph as a whole.
you didn't ask me anything you made a statement not a question. i simply responded with a statement in kind.
the bible is constantly tested by new information on digs and other things of religious significance. much like science the interpritation of the bible changes and grows as new information is found.
even now there are 70 new books that have been found that are being verified as we speak. this is about as big as the finding of the dead sea scrolls in terms of theology.
so far the symbols talk of a messiah they also reference the crucification and resurection. again they are still being verified and examed for authenticity.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Read your own bible for a start. You seem to believe in it so much.
Wow dude, whats wrong with you? I'm presented with something I haven't heard before, so I ask more questions about it without dismissing it out of hand as something that could challenge my beliefs.
I know, clearly I did something wrong here -- but for the life of me I can't figure out what...
Ancient Egypt was pretty much ruled by the dual seaons of drought and flood; during the floods of the Nile the fields were flooded, so the communers were pretty much all availiable for construction (which is the kind of slave work most people associate with the Exodus episode) and other tasks. Hence, slavery was not necessary at large in those fields; it was present, but slaves were less needed.
As for sources, I have many. Here's one:
John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus", in The Land I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, ed. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (JSOT 343, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 255-76
Ancient Egypt was pretty much ruled by the dual seaons of drought and flood; during the floods of the Nile the fields were flooded, so the communers were pretty much all availiable for construction (which is the kind of slave work most people associate with the Exodus episode) and other tasks. Hence, slavery was not necessary at large in those fields; it was present, but slaves were less needed.
As for sources, I have many. Here's one:
John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus", in The Land I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, ed. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (JSOT 343, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 255-76
interesting. Thanks.
Also, thanks for not being a tool about me asking for more information (thats a genuine thanks, not a sarcastic thanks).
Wow dude, whats wrong with you? I'm presented with something I haven't heard before, so I ask more questions about it without dismissing it out of hand as something that could challenge my beliefs.
I know, clearly I did something wrong here -- but for the life of me I can't figure out what...
Simple. The bible actively sanctions slavery. If you believe in the bible, you should take it as a reliable source. Reading it also helps.
Now, I think you took my tone harsher than it was intended. I meant that post to be jokingly lighthearted - though expressing a truth. I apologize if it didn't come off that way.
it isn't irrelevant it is a fact. a report came out that said 20% of scientist have lied, or fudged, or changed their findings for one reason or another. you can't simply dismiss it.
I'm not dismissing it, because I don't have blind faith in scientists the way you have blind faith in preachers or the bible. The entire point of the scientific method is to scrutinize all proposed research, its methodology and ideas - whether they're from highly respected scientists or undergrads. Do you simply not understand how science works?
I'm dismissing you bringing it up because it has no relevance, at all, to the point at hand. The very fact you're claiming that I'm dismissing scientific errors - when the whole point of science is to admit fallibility and closely scrutinize ideas - is ridiculous. Science is ABOUT scrutinizing ideas, while the bible claims is a trick of the devil when you do it with religion.
I'll simplify it. The fact that scientists can lie proves that scientists shouldn't be taken to always be stating pure fact - just because they're scientists. This is a massive 'duh'. And it's why we evaluate and critique the actual findings - and demand appropriate methodological recording of the data so we can scrutinize the actual data. No critical-thinking person believes that everything scientists say is automatically true.
So yes, your analogy is false. And a pretty appealing misrepresentation of basic definitions.
I am not granting special preference to any preacher. i have peer reviewed plenty of preachers both by attending their church and listening to them. i find most lacking.
On what criteria? Personal preference? Feeling right in your heart? That's not reliable criteria to determine truth.
in the case of a preacher the bible is the universal criteria. find someone not preaching what is in it and well you should be worried about that person.
No, it's not. Every holy text in every religion claims itself to be true. You're granting special preference to the bible's claims of it being true based on no logical reasoning. This is the definition of a special preference, also called special exception.
Actually there is but no source i would give you would matter so i won't bother.
Ah, the good old "I know there's evidence, but you and your scientific mind that craves evidence wouldn't accept any evidence." If you have any evidence of the flood as described in the bible, produce it. You'd be the first. Until then, I'm going to assume you don't - and don't want to admit it. That's fine, just stop pretending to be a logical, reasonable person.
again no it isn't. there is a difference between historical accuracy and scientific accuracy. please do not confuse the two of them like you are doing.
There is penty of evidence in the real world that places and events mentioned in the bible actually occured and were real. we have physical evidence of cities listed in the bible and have found those sites exactly where they were suppose to be.
that is more evidence than you have offered so far.
And how does this have to do with the flood? Do you find it surprising that a book written by desert nomads records some places those desert nomads went to? A travel journal is now evidence of god? I keep a journal. I must now be the fourth leg of divinity!
Produce your evidence or please stop mouthing off.
As for you challenging me to produce evidence, what for? Evolution? The world being more than ten thousand years old? You have to tell me what you want evidence for before I can produce it. And even if I had no evidence for any of these things (instead of, you know, terabytes of it) - it wouldn't make your wild claims any more reasonable.
Produce EVIDENCE for your claims of the bible being scientifically accurate and always being proven true. It's obvious that it's not to anyone with a mind
Not irrelevant. you cannot simply dismiss that we have been studying science longer than we have been studying the bible yet we still don't know quite a bit about it. that is evident in the fact that they are constantly discovering new things.
Yes, irrelevant. The length of time something is studied for has nothing to do with anything. What matters is how valid the claims are and how substantiated they are with evidence. The Greek Pantheon is older than Christianity. Does that make it better?
according to you that means we should not trust science. yes science ever changing much like the interpritation of the bible is constantly changing. scientist are constantly changing their theories just as theologians change their interpritation of the bible as they reveal new information.
You're either unable to comprehend simple English or are just deliberately trying to undermine what's being said. We don't trust science because scientists tell us to, we constantly scrutinize its claims and weigh it against the established evidence. Stop comparing the two, you look like an idiot when you do.
Yes. Yes it is. For all the reasons mentioned above as well as the fact that this was all based on the fact that no one can be sure they're interpreting the bible correctly and will NEVER be able to be sure. Science we can test assumptions and analyze them objectively. With the bible we can't.
Your analogy is false, flawed and generally ridiculous. You should quit with it before you fall even more behind.
where did i say they weren't testable please quote me or you can try going back and reading the whole paragraph as a whole.
I was offering a suggestion as to how this analogy could possibly be seen correct in your mind. Notice the whole preface of, "what areyou even saying here?" That's because you're making no sense and falsely comparing untestable religious claims to scientific claims which can be objectively evaluated. Stop doing this. You're being challenged to explain how you'd independently test religious interpretations as accurate. Trying to claim that science is similar, when the entire thing is BASED on testing claims objectively, is insanity.
you didn't ask me anything you made a statement not a question. i simply responded with a statement in kind.
the bible is constantly tested by new information on digs and other things of religious significance. much like science the interpritation of the bible changes and grows as new information is found.
Seriously, you have to get away from the, "Desert nomads wrote about where they traveled or places they heard about and hey, some of the places they said they went are real! Thus, god exists!" It's stupid and beneath you. You can do the same thing for any people, religious or not. No one is denying that these desert nomads went places. We're saying there isn't any evidence to support that the 'miracles' the bible claims happened ever occurred. Prove that the flood happened please, or that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. If you want to worship a guy with a travel journal - start sending your donations to me. Not only do I go to interesting places, but the donations I require are only 1% of your gross income and I'll promise that you get to live in a heavenly paradise after your death without any responsibilities while you're here on earth. Plus, you can actually talk to me - your god. That's a pretty good offer isn't it?
Claiming some parts of a book are true doesn't mean that all the book is true. Deal with it.
even now there are 70 new books that have been found that are being verified as we speak. this is about as big as the finding of the dead sea scrolls in terms of theology.
Yay! More bull☺☺☺☺. God sure does a crappy job of keeping his holy book in the hands of his followers doesn't he? The publicly-funded libraries do a better job keeping track of their books.
so far the symbols talk of a messiah they also reference the crucification and resurection. again they are still being verified and examed for authenticity.
Nobody cares. We have no evidence that any of those things happened in the first place. Plus, for every 'true' prophecy - there's huge amount of ones that haven't taken place across multiple cultures. The more books you find that 'predict' it - the more likely someone came across them and made up the story.
Mystery, you have to learn to live in reality. Trust me, the water's fine.
We do? When / how did we make that determination? (I haven't heard this before)
Here are things I've come to learn via programs and research released.
According to outside historical evidence, the concept of "slavery" during the suggested time of the Hebrew enslavement didn't exist. According to many scholars, the original Hebrew tribes were mercenaries who lived on the boarder of Egypt and what is now Israel and Jordan. During a change in the Pharaoh, they were moved into Egypt out of fear that they would take payment from Egypts Enemies rather than defend the boarder. They were demoted to laborers which was considered a great injustice to them. If you read Exodus very closely, you will find that many of the events surrounding the movement are extremely militarily designed and executed. Something extremely farfetched for a few thousand malnourished half beaten slaves.
Interesting, any links or anything where I can find out more?
Slavery is the best word they could relate it to. slavery in the bible was more like servitude.
most of the time it was self enforced. IE if you owe money to someone and you couldn't pay it then you became a slave/servant for that person till the debt was paid off.
as such a person you were paid, fed, and sheltered. You could not be indebted more than 7 years. this applied to people captured in battle as well. at the end of 7 years you were free to go or could continue on as a bondsman.
during that time you were treated as part of the family. The punishments for beating and wounding a slave were harsh. even worse if you killed him. more so if he had done no wrong.
It was a totally different concept than of what we think of slavery today.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
D.L. Moody's education totaled seven grades in a one-room school house. Most of his life he struggled to spell properly, use correct punctuation, and speak with proper grammar. The first account of him teaching records him skipping the words that he couldn't read in the parable of the prodigal son. Throughout his adult life he read the Bible diligently, but he read little theology or church history. And so with the equivalent of a grade school education, he preached to millions and founded schools. D.L. Moody was preaching without education.
There are others like him, he is just the most notable. And countless famous preachers give credit to unknown, notably uneducated mentors who led them to the Lord and/or discipled them in the Lord.
The ignorance of the op and the head nod it has received from other nonbelievers on this forum does shed some light into their true nature though. For that, I thank you.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I care less about us making mistakes that lead to degenerate environments than I am when we don’t push ourselves and make something that’s boring to play. - MaRo
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Wouldn't stand to reason then that you shouldn't preach things from the bible unless you have the education and the full understanding of it's meaning? By doing so do you fall into the category of "the ends justify the means?" Would Jesus approve of such things?
People claim all the time that by doing A-Z "you are going to hell." If you are one of those people, do you actually know why, where, how, or who said that would be the case? On a flip side, where do these actions fall into line with this magical floaty heaven place?
Point being, aren't people more so preaching hypocrisy (a context and subtext usually associated with religion) from the get go by doing it "blindly?" And doesn't this completely ruin the sources integrity considering the topic at hand?
By this argument, preaching anything in the bible could be construed as bearing false witness - since the bible isn't a reliable historical document. Just because it says someone said something is no reason to think that the person in question actually did say it or even existed. It's not much more different than basing the go-directly-to-hell statements on what you heard from a neighbor who claims to get it from a third source that you've never met, never can meet and has no proof of even existing.
Unless of course, you're just annoyed by people who say, "the bible says..." without actually reading the bible. But that I think is a minor point, unless their statements are wrong. I can't keep up with all of scientific theory (though I admit, it's perfectly possible to get through the bible compared to scientific advancement) but I still make statements about what science has shown because I've heard third parties who have earned my trust report this. Of course, if they start proving repeatedly false - I'd find new sources.
As much as I like the idea behind this discussion, I think it actively places all of religious preaching as 'bearing false witness'. Which, while funny and probably true, is also not really going to get anywhere with the people whose behavior we'd like changed.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Well, they actually don't mean the same thing. Bearing false witness is just that, being a witness that bears false testimony, that is to say perjury.
"Full understanding of its meaning" is a problematic statement, as what manner of man can really claim to have full understanding. However, I agree that one is obligated to commit oneself to an education in theology before preaching, as the Bible is an exceptionally complex document.
Religion isn't really much different. People repeat what they hear in religion because it was told to them by someone that they believe in.
Then that argues that the bible's positions are inherently unknowable and even if it were god's own truth we couldn't base our lives, decisions, actions or anything at all on the study of it.
Sounds win/win.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
This is not correct. the bible is very accurate when it comes to historical documentation.
they have found many digs and other cities because of the information in the bible and they were exactly where they said it was.
Not really because it can take a life time of study and people would still find something new in the bible that they didn't see before. you don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of it.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
We have something in common. We both cringe when we hear preachers conning people into following their unsubstantiated, demonstrably false teachings. I just don't grant certain preachers a special exception. I apply the same rational criteria universally.
I think the fact that it claimed the earth was between 6,000-10,000 years old, discounts evolution and said that there was a massive flood that drowned the world are a few minor points that throw into question its historical validity.
Wow. So a tribe of ancient desert nomads who went all over recorded some actual locations that happened to exist in the real world? No kidding!
Besides, that has nothing to do with the fact that the bible relies mostly on third party testimony and has huge, demonstrable impossibilities recorded as fact. Take any similar source and use it to base a conclusion on in peer reviewed papers (with no justification for your conclusion other than, "the bible said so") and let's see how much the actual historical community agrees with your assessment of the bible's validity as a reliable historical document.
While you're spending your lifetime studying it (which is a little odd in itself, because lifetimes these days are much longer than they were when the bible was written - so arguing it takes a full modern lifetime to understand it is a little self-defeating for its supposed purpose) - you actually have a life to live in the mean time that you can't trust the bible to base judgment on yet.
Also, the claim that it can take a lifetime to understand the bible is utterly arbitrary. How would you test this please? What metric do you use to separate those who understand god's word from those who don't? If you don't have a way to independently confirm their understanding, you can't say conclusively that people ever gain understanding - or that there's anything to understand.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I'm glad someone else sees the irony in this.
And that's a fundamental misrepresentation of what I said. I said that if it is impossible to know whether your interpretation of the bible is correct then it's unreasonable to make judgments based on it. Additionally, to claim that some parts of the bible are truly gods word and some are mankinds gibberings - you need a way to evaluate them. Obviously, science has done a great job of disproving most of the claims made in the bible - but some (like what god thinks should be done to homosexuals) can't be evaluated with scientific means. So how do you evaluate which parts are truly god's word and which are false? If you can't do this in a way that can be independently confirmed - you have a baseless platform, since you can't know which parts, if any, are true.
Perhaps I somehow wasn't clear what I was talking about - but your response to my passage was a gross misrepresentation of my position.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
I have read reports that scientist distort their information in order to preserve their funding and other things. so does that mean we should treat all scientists like that or say there are some bad apples in the bunch?
There are evidences of a world wide flood. as for the age of the earth that is still under debate even among theologians. just as the big bang theory has issues in filling in the gap so does the bible.
It is called the creation Gap.
Not just locations but events and other things that have been proven to be historically accurate.
actually most of the people that wrote the bible were there first hand if not they had someone righ there with them. The men that put the bible together were meticulous to ensure that everything was valid before it was included.
That is why so many books were rejected.
actually the bible has been challenged more time than i can count or read about unfortuantly those people only ended up proving the bible correct instead of wrong. Plenty of people have peer reviewed the bible. it is one of the most debated books in history.
People take a life time studying science yet they understand only a little bit of everything out there so we shouldn't trust science then?
The bible has been around for thousands of years. yet people to this day are still studying and finding new things in it.
also the same can be said of science. yet that is something that you put your faith in completely, and science has been around way longer than the bible.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Irrelevant. Maybe we should scrutinize everyone's claims based on the same criteria - like using the same rational investigations to investigate one scientist's claims and make sure they're not distorted as we do another. You're granting special preference to some preachers over others for nothing more than personal preference. You have to apply the same criteria universallyl.
1) There is no evidence for a flood as described in the bible. None. Yes, floods exist, but none that came close to drowning the world as it claims.
2) The age of the earth might be under debate by theologians, but I'm leaning towards what the scientist say. Either way, that it utterly irrelevant. the earth is tens of millions of years old. Not thousands.
This is just blatantly false. Please substantiate these claims before making them. Hell, the flood and the age of the earth alone are obviously proven wrong.
Irrelevant. This was asking how you can be sure of an interpretation of the bible. Science is demonstrable, testable and workable - it's been proven to work and the things people rely on (like electricity and cars) have been proven to function. They are constantly under scrutiny that is independently testable and verifiable. Nothing has anything to do with your claims. Your analogy is false and intrinsically untrue.
What are you even saying here? The bible is old, yep, we get that. Are you seriously saying that scientific claims aren't testable? The quote this is responding to is me asking you how you'd independently test the bible after all. That's what defines science.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
it isn't irrelevant it is a fact. a report came out that said 20% of scientist have lied, or fudged, or changed their findings for one reason or another. you can't simply dismiss it.
I am not granting special preference to any preacher. i have peer reviewed plenty of preachers both by attending their church and listening to them. i find most lacking.
in the case of a preacher the bible is the universal criteria. find someone not preaching what is in it and well you should be worried about that person.
Actually there is but no source i would give you would matter so i won't bother.
again no it isn't. there is a difference between historical accuracy and scientific accuracy. please do not confuse the two of them like you are doing.
There is penty of evidence in the real world that places and events mentioned in the bible actually occured and were real. we have physical evidence of cities listed in the bible and have found those sites exactly where they were suppose to be.
that is more evidence than you have offered so far.
Not irrelevant. you cannot simply dismiss that we have been studying science longer than we have been studying the bible yet we still don't know quite a bit about it. that is evident in the fact that they are constantly discovering new things.
according to you that means we should not trust science. yes science ever changing much like the interpritation of the bible is constantly changing. scientist are constantly changing their theories just as theologians change their interpritation of the bible as they reveal new information.
so no my analogy is not false at all.
you fractured my paragraph ( i assume on purpose to try and distort what i was saying and trying to make a arguement).
where did i say they weren't testable please quote me or you can try going back and reading the whole paragraph as a whole.
you didn't ask me anything you made a statement not a question. i simply responded with a statement in kind.
the bible is constantly tested by new information on digs and other things of religious significance. much like science the interpritation of the bible changes and grows as new information is found.
even now there are 70 new books that have been found that are being verified as we speak. this is about as big as the finding of the dead sea scrolls in terms of theology.
so far the symbols talk of a messiah they also reference the crucification and resurection. again they are still being verified and examed for authenticity.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
We do? When / how did we make that determination? (I haven't heard this before)
2- We have records of hebrews not only not being slaves, but keeping slaves themselves. Irony much?
right. But I don't. Thats why I'm asking.:mad: As far as them not needing it, how does that speak to them not having it?
Interesting, any links or anything where I can find out more?
Read your own bible for a start. You seem to believe in it so much.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Wow dude, whats wrong with you? I'm presented with something I haven't heard before, so I ask more questions about it without dismissing it out of hand as something that could challenge my beliefs.
I know, clearly I did something wrong here -- but for the life of me I can't figure out what...
As for sources, I have many. Here's one:
John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus", in The Land I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honour of J. Maxwell Miller, ed. J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham (JSOT 343, Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp. 255-76
interesting. Thanks.
Also, thanks for not being a tool about me asking for more information (thats a genuine thanks, not a sarcastic thanks).
Simple. The bible actively sanctions slavery. If you believe in the bible, you should take it as a reliable source. Reading it also helps.
Now, I think you took my tone harsher than it was intended. I meant that post to be jokingly lighthearted - though expressing a truth. I apologize if it didn't come off that way.
I'm not dismissing it, because I don't have blind faith in scientists the way you have blind faith in preachers or the bible. The entire point of the scientific method is to scrutinize all proposed research, its methodology and ideas - whether they're from highly respected scientists or undergrads. Do you simply not understand how science works?
I'm dismissing you bringing it up because it has no relevance, at all, to the point at hand. The very fact you're claiming that I'm dismissing scientific errors - when the whole point of science is to admit fallibility and closely scrutinize ideas - is ridiculous. Science is ABOUT scrutinizing ideas, while the bible claims is a trick of the devil when you do it with religion.
I'll simplify it. The fact that scientists can lie proves that scientists shouldn't be taken to always be stating pure fact - just because they're scientists. This is a massive 'duh'. And it's why we evaluate and critique the actual findings - and demand appropriate methodological recording of the data so we can scrutinize the actual data. No critical-thinking person believes that everything scientists say is automatically true.
So yes, your analogy is false. And a pretty appealing misrepresentation of basic definitions.
On what criteria? Personal preference? Feeling right in your heart? That's not reliable criteria to determine truth.
No, it's not. Every holy text in every religion claims itself to be true. You're granting special preference to the bible's claims of it being true based on no logical reasoning. This is the definition of a special preference, also called special exception.
Ah, the good old "I know there's evidence, but you and your scientific mind that craves evidence wouldn't accept any evidence." If you have any evidence of the flood as described in the bible, produce it. You'd be the first. Until then, I'm going to assume you don't - and don't want to admit it. That's fine, just stop pretending to be a logical, reasonable person.
And how does this have to do with the flood? Do you find it surprising that a book written by desert nomads records some places those desert nomads went to? A travel journal is now evidence of god? I keep a journal. I must now be the fourth leg of divinity!
Produce your evidence or please stop mouthing off.
As for you challenging me to produce evidence, what for? Evolution? The world being more than ten thousand years old? You have to tell me what you want evidence for before I can produce it. And even if I had no evidence for any of these things (instead of, you know, terabytes of it) - it wouldn't make your wild claims any more reasonable.
Produce EVIDENCE for your claims of the bible being scientifically accurate and always being proven true. It's obvious that it's not to anyone with a mind
Yes, irrelevant. The length of time something is studied for has nothing to do with anything. What matters is how valid the claims are and how substantiated they are with evidence. The Greek Pantheon is older than Christianity. Does that make it better?
You're either unable to comprehend simple English or are just deliberately trying to undermine what's being said. We don't trust science because scientists tell us to, we constantly scrutinize its claims and weigh it against the established evidence. Stop comparing the two, you look like an idiot when you do.
Yes. Yes it is. For all the reasons mentioned above as well as the fact that this was all based on the fact that no one can be sure they're interpreting the bible correctly and will NEVER be able to be sure. Science we can test assumptions and analyze them objectively. With the bible we can't.
Your analogy is false, flawed and generally ridiculous. You should quit with it before you fall even more behind.
No, misrepresenting arguments is what you do. I cut to the important points.
I was offering a suggestion as to how this analogy could possibly be seen correct in your mind. Notice the whole preface of, "what areyou even saying here?" That's because you're making no sense and falsely comparing untestable religious claims to scientific claims which can be objectively evaluated. Stop doing this. You're being challenged to explain how you'd independently test religious interpretations as accurate. Trying to claim that science is similar, when the entire thing is BASED on testing claims objectively, is insanity.
Seriously, you have to get away from the, "Desert nomads wrote about where they traveled or places they heard about and hey, some of the places they said they went are real! Thus, god exists!" It's stupid and beneath you. You can do the same thing for any people, religious or not. No one is denying that these desert nomads went places. We're saying there isn't any evidence to support that the 'miracles' the bible claims happened ever occurred. Prove that the flood happened please, or that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. If you want to worship a guy with a travel journal - start sending your donations to me. Not only do I go to interesting places, but the donations I require are only 1% of your gross income and I'll promise that you get to live in a heavenly paradise after your death without any responsibilities while you're here on earth. Plus, you can actually talk to me - your god. That's a pretty good offer isn't it?
Claiming some parts of a book are true doesn't mean that all the book is true. Deal with it.
Yay! More bull☺☺☺☺. God sure does a crappy job of keeping his holy book in the hands of his followers doesn't he? The publicly-funded libraries do a better job keeping track of their books.
Nobody cares. We have no evidence that any of those things happened in the first place. Plus, for every 'true' prophecy - there's huge amount of ones that haven't taken place across multiple cultures. The more books you find that 'predict' it - the more likely someone came across them and made up the story.
Mystery, you have to learn to live in reality. Trust me, the water's fine.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Here are things I've come to learn via programs and research released.
According to outside historical evidence, the concept of "slavery" during the suggested time of the Hebrew enslavement didn't exist. According to many scholars, the original Hebrew tribes were mercenaries who lived on the boarder of Egypt and what is now Israel and Jordan. During a change in the Pharaoh, they were moved into Egypt out of fear that they would take payment from Egypts Enemies rather than defend the boarder. They were demoted to laborers which was considered a great injustice to them. If you read Exodus very closely, you will find that many of the events surrounding the movement are extremely militarily designed and executed. Something extremely farfetched for a few thousand malnourished half beaten slaves.
Slavery is the best word they could relate it to. slavery in the bible was more like servitude.
most of the time it was self enforced. IE if you owe money to someone and you couldn't pay it then you became a slave/servant for that person till the debt was paid off.
as such a person you were paid, fed, and sheltered. You could not be indebted more than 7 years. this applied to people captured in battle as well. at the end of 7 years you were free to go or could continue on as a bondsman.
during that time you were treated as part of the family. The punishments for beating and wounding a slave were harsh. even worse if you killed him. more so if he had done no wrong.
It was a totally different concept than of what we think of slavery today.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
There are others like him, he is just the most notable. And countless famous preachers give credit to unknown, notably uneducated mentors who led them to the Lord and/or discipled them in the Lord.
The ignorance of the op and the head nod it has received from other nonbelievers on this forum does shed some light into their true nature though. For that, I thank you.