The Bible

[Camazotz]

Greetings, this thread is a debate about the Bible. Before we start, I ask you to please respect other religions and to not flame other members. If you cannot obey these rules, you are not welcome in this thread.

The Bible is the most well-known book and has sold more copies than any other book. There has been much controversy, especially over the past few years, whether or not the Bible is fiction or has history behind it.

I ask VT what they think of the Bible. Do you think the Bible has stories and morals that are true and good? Or do you think that it has false information in it?

Interesting topics: Noah's Ark, Jesus' resurrection, Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, the Garden of Eden, miracles, rules & laws, etc.

[Sage]

I, for one, do not take the Bible as symbolically/metaphorically or literally true. There are a lot of stories in there that I believe teach terrible morals and are of no value even in a metaphoric sense. I don't dismiss the entire thing, however- Though I can't think of any particular verses or stories off the top of my head, there are some good teachings to be taken from the Bible.

[ThatCanadianGuy]

I, for one, do not take the Bible as symbolically/metaphorically or literally true. There are a lot of stories in there that I believe teach terrible morals and are of no value even in a metaphoric sense. I don't dismiss the entire thing, however- Though I can't think of any particular verses or stories off the top of my head, there are some good teachings to be taken from the Bible.

I pretty much agree with this, however I don't find hardly any redeeming qualities in this morally reprehensible book. The only "good parts" of the bible such as the "golden rule" are NOT unique to the bible (in fact, religious and secular cultures all over the world have come up with similar ideas). The bible doesn't offer anything "special" or original that couldn't have been found without it. If you contrast that with the overwhelming level of hateful things in the book, I see no reason to use it for more than an insight into the minds of men in a misogynistic, barbaric, 2000 year old culture.

[Triceratops]

I take the bible both literally and symbolically.

I have grew up with the bible, and the teachings and morals have always influenced my upbringing. Being a Christian myself, I do not believe the bible holds false information.

For me, the Bible has always come in handy when in need of guidance, help or reassurance. I could quote quite a few Psalms verses in particular that have been a lot of help to me.

[INFERNO]

I believe that the bible teaches some good morals and some bad ones. As far as it goes for believing it, I'm not a believer in it. The rules and laws I think reflect the time the bible was written. The other things, such as the Garden of Eden I take metaphorically as it has a fairly good meaning behind it to me. However, I do believe that it is far out-dated and that is why so much of it conflicts with our time as before, it would have been taken literally but now it is taken more metaphorically. Ideally, I'd vote for it being taken symbolically and not being true but I'm leaning more towards not being true.

[Atonement]

I take the Bible symbolically but never literally. I believe in the teachings and the morals but I do not believe in the literal meanings of many things. Many things in the Bible used to be health and family concerns that are no longer relevant to life, so I do not see a reason to follow them.

[Ripplemagne]

It depends what you're reading. Certain verses have a metaphorical nature and others cannot be taken metaphorically. One has to study writer's intent, context and archaic language to understand.

I'm a devout Christian and have spent a great deal of time understanding the context of the Bible. Naturally, I don't know everything about it, but usually, even the smallest line has tons of data to research before one understands its meaning. There have been times where I was confused by something that seemed rather extreme, but after thorough analysis and research, I understood it.

There are some things that didn't make sense to me when I was younger (like gender roles), but now, that I'm older and wiser, I understand the wisdom of it. Naturally, like any piece of writing, you have to read it both ways and figure out what the author is trying to get across. Nothing is 100% literal and it's evidently not 100% figurative.

So, I voted 3.

[Rutherford The Brave]

Personally, I have never really had that much contact or time to look over the bible. To be honst though, the book isn't ment to be true, its really an explenation of how the religion came to be. Nothing in that book really is up for question rather than the gospels I mean seriously? 10 days to create a complex system like the earth.... No.... I don't think the bible is true

[ThUnDeR]

i havent realy read the bible all the way through but i have read bits some make sence but some dont

[tyler27846]

i havent realy read the bible all the way through but i have read bits some make sence but some dont

i would have 2 agree with you buddy

[lamboman43]

No I don't believe in it. I've skimmed a few pages of the bibles from motels/ hotels :P and they make absolutely 0 sense to me.

[Death]

I do not believe that the Bible is true. I have seen and heard about some pretty shocking stuff in there which I know teaches awful morals (altough there are good ones too later on) and some very far-fetched stories which say things are true that cannot prove like someone lighting wet wood with a prayer which has not ever worked for me. Besides, the bible is difficult to truly understand.

[ebony15]

others dont believe in the bible cuz theyve never read it.. and some dont know about it..

[punkjake]

I think of the bible as something to tell of God in a story type so i take it more as a smybol

[Death]

others dont believe in the bible cuz theyve never read it.. and some dont know about it..

I doubt that this is going to be the case in most circumstances we know. You don't truly need to read the whole bible in order to know some of the stories and morals in it and to understand what it teaches about God which is what makes people not believe in it.

[Ripplemagne]

I doubt that this is going to be the case in most circumstances we know. You don't truly need to read the whole bible in order to know some of the stories and morals in it and to understand what it teaches about God which is what makes people not believe in it.

I believe what he's trying to say is that they haven't spent the time researching what they read to understand it.

I find it kind of funny that with all of the ignorant and possibly offensive things said in this thread about Christianity, no one has responded to a single bit of it. But only when it's a theist saying something ignorant do you decide to get nit picky and respond to them. Hahaha.

[drpepper21]

others dont believe in the bible cuz theyve never read it.. and some dont know about it..

ive read the bible, and i dont believe in it. i dont think a certain set of rules should govern our lives and tell us right from wrong. we should know right from wrong.

[Death]

I find it kind of funny that with all of the ignorant and possibly offensive things said in this thread about Christianity, no one has responded to a single bit of it. But only when it's a theist saying something ignorant do you decide to get nit picky and respond to them. Hahaha.

That's because some of the thiests (including you) spew out a load of baseless nonsence which has no real reasoning behind it wheras us athiests (at least, more in my experience on VT) have more sophisticated arguments that are more tolerant (most of the time although I hate narrow-minded people). If thiests have nothing with which to refute an athiest argument, that's their problem, not ours. And yes, I have responded to athiest arguments before.

[Ripplemagne]

That's because some of the thiests (including you) spew out a load of baseless nonsence which has no real reasoning behind it wheras us athiests (at least, more in my experience on VT) have more sophisticated arguments that are more tolerant (most of the time although I hate narrow-minded people). If thiests have nothing with which to refute an athiest argument, that's their problem, not ours. And yes, I have responded to athiest arguments before.

Oh really? Would you mind citing one of these arguments that are supposedly "baseless nonsence" (sic)? As it stands, I haven't even begun debating anything yet, but I'm interested in seeing where you deduce this.

wheras us athiests (at least, more in my experience on VT) have more sophisticated arguments that are more tolerant (most of the time although I hate narrow-minded people).

You mean like:

I pretty much agree with this, however I don't find hardly any redeeming qualities in this morally reprehensible book. The only "good parts" of the bible such as the "golden rule" are NOT unique to the bible (in fact, religious and secular cultures all over the world have come up with similar ideas). The bible doesn't offer anything "special" or original that couldn't have been found without it. If you contrast that with the overwhelming level of hateful things in the book, I see no reason to use it for more than an insight into the minds of men in a misogynistic, barbaric, 2000 year old culture.

There are a lot of stories in there that I believe teach terrible morals and are of no value even in a metaphoric sense.

These don't particularly bother me, but if you want to discuss tolerance, lets look at the whole picture. So, would you mind pointing out the ignorant Christian comments in this thread besides the one you quoted?

If thiests have nothing with which to refute an athiest argument, that's their problem, not ours. And yes, I have responded to athiest arguments before.

You're missing the point of my post. I very well could have taken these posts and brandished my sword to them, but out of respect for conflicting opinions (and the fact that I know it would be a waste of time), I didn't. Neither me, nor Vindication, nor Marcella got indignant about the coarse comments made about Christianity here.

I understand your need to prove yourself by attacking whatever you deem a threat to you -- no matter how frail the comment may have been -- but so far, this thread consisted of people posting their opinions and leaving it at that.

[INFERNO]

That's because some of the thiests (including you) spew out a load of baseless nonsence which has no real reasoning behind it wheras us athiests (at least, more in my experience on VT) have more sophisticated arguments that are more tolerant (most of the time although I hate narrow-minded people). If thiests have nothing with which to refute an athiest argument, that's their problem, not ours. And yes, I have responded to athiest arguments before.

You'd be kidding yourself if you grouped yourself in the group of being more tolerant towards theism. Many atheists do turn to science but this is going yet again to the idea of faith being all that is needed as proof for one to believe in a certain belief. But you'll find that in both atheism and theism, there are groups in each that are intolerant and that are tolerant.

The issue of theists vs. atheists is usually it boils down to a faith vs. science argument. The two are by no means mutually-exclusive but if you're going to debate using them, then the debate is pointless.

[sebbie]

From what I have come across, the Bible is a mix of both literal and metaphorical. An interesting site for people to read is:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/literal2.htm

This can explain what I am trying to say better than I can word :)

[INFERNO]

From what I have come across, the Bible is a mix of both literal and metaphorical. An interesting site for people to read is:

http://www.wcg.org/lit/bible/literal2.htm

This can explain what I am trying to say better than I can word :)

Or you could just say it's a famous piece of literature and all literature can be interpreted in different ways. It makes no sense to may if someone is to say that a part of the bible must be literal or metaphorical. It may be that way for one person but to another person, their interpretation may be the same, similar, a bit different or completely left field.

[Death]

You'd be kidding yourself if you grouped yourself in the group of being more tolerant towards theism. Many atheists do turn to science but this is going yet again to the idea of faith being all that is needed as proof for one to believe in a certain belief. But you'll find that in both atheism and theism, there are groups in each that are intolerant and that are tolerant.

The issue of theists vs. atheists is usually it boils down to a faith vs. science argument. The two are by no means mutually-exclusive but if you're going to debate using them, then the debate is pointless.

How would you feel about me saying that what you said is simply a belief in itself and cannot be proved? Because this is clear to me and because of this, it is true to me. Another thing, how come it's always you that interfers? One moment you are refuting religious beliefs and the next, you are refuting athiest beliefs. Do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Oh really? Would you mind citing one of these arguments that are supposedly "baseless nonsence" (sic)? As it stands, I haven't even begun debating anything yet, but I'm interested in seeing where you deduce this.

I could quote something but I don't wish to insult the person that I quote.

These don't particularly bother me, but if you want to discuss tolerance, lets look at the whole picture. So, would you mind pointing out the ignorant Christian comments in this thread besides the one you quoted?

What I said was no more intolerant than what you're saying now.

You're missing the point of my post. I very well could have taken these posts and brandished my sword to them, but out of respect for conflicting opinions (and the fact that I know it would be a waste of time), I didn't. Neither me, nor Vindication, nor Marcella got indignant about the coarse comments made about Christianity here.

There wern't even that many made to my knowledge and what was said is pretty simple and obvious stuff.

I understand your need to prove yourself by attacking whatever you deem a threat to you -- no matter how frail the comment may have been -- but so far, this thread consisted of people posting their opinions and leaving it at that.

I wouldn't say this since it can make you look rather hypocritical.

[Ripplemagne]

How would you feel about me saying that what you said is simply a belief in itself and cannot be proved? Because this is clear to me and because of this, it is true to me. Another thing, how come it's always you that interfers? One moment you are refuting religious beliefs and the next, you are refuting athiest beliefs. Do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

No. He just refutes ignorance, regardless of the source. An admirable trait, which is the basis of my qualm with your initial post.

I could quote something but I don't wish to insult the person that I quote.

Quote where I've made such a statement. I don't get insulted, so fear not.

What I said was no more intolerant than what you're saying now.

I wasn't referring to anything you said.

There wern't even that many made to my knowledge and what was said is pretty simple and obvious stuff.

I quoted them.

I wouldn't say this since it can make you look rather hypocritical.

Wrong. Challenging a challenge is not the same as making a random challenge.

[Bobby]

Let's stay on the actual debate, please.

[Bluearmy]

Well I believe in an omnipotent being that created everything and is all powerful, so that should tell you right off the bat how I feel about the Bible.
But I come across some major problems. You see, this is the type of thing that has confused me.

I don't know which parts of the Bible are symbolic or literal to a 100% sureness. Sure, some things are obvious but some parts I really just don't know what to stamp it as. Sometimes I wonder if I am just approaching it all wrong...

Should we be taking the whole thing literally? The whole thing symbolically? Or some and some? And if so, which parts are literal and symbolic?!

GAUUH! It really gets my nerves in a jumble.

[INFERNO]

The only person you can get an accurate answer out of is yourself. The bible is open to interpretation. You can interpret some of it one way, and some another way, there's no rule on how you must interpret it. That's the thing with literature, there's no technically right or wrong, your interpretation is your opinion. Chances are, you'll make your opinion and think it's correct. You can ask everyone you want but at the end of the day, it's you who is interpreting it. Also, your interpretation can change, you can interpret it one way and later decide to flop around to another.

How would you feel about me saying that what you said is simply a belief in itself and cannot be proved? Because this is clear to me and because of this, it is true to me. Another thing, how come it's always you that interfers? One moment you are refuting religious beliefs and the next, you are refuting athiest beliefs. Do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

I would say that it is not a belief with no proof. It is a belief with some evidence for (i.e. previous quotes by you).

I argue against whatever said I choose even if the side is a side that I have the same or similar beliefs with. I argue against people who to me, I disagree with even if we share the same beliefs. You and I are atheists, that much I agree on. However, your view on it I may disagree with and that I will debate about. So I don't argue just for the pure sport of it, I argue because it's intellectually-stimulating to debate with someone who has a different view on a certain subject.

I don't have to refute religious beliefs due to my view on the religion. There is nothing carved in stone where an atheist should argue against a religion and not against another atheist. In fact, doing just that (arguing both sides) I find to be the best because you can get a better sense of both sides.

It's me that infers because it's me stating my opinion. You can infer if you want, in fact, you do a lot, just like everyone else on these forums. So why you seem so surprised by this is beyond me.

[MykeSoBe]

I believe in the Bible, and it's like my guideline, like a literary friend to me. But of course I'm the only kid in the family who even pays attention to the Bible (I'm the only one who willingly attends Mass every weekend). But, as a supplement, that doesn't mean that I'm a blindfolded Catholic, who isn't questioning the reality of things. I think some religious values may be a bit too harsh or ludicrous sometimes, especially when it comes to sexual ordeals. I would say that if you really want to investigate Jesus or the early Bible days, then consult the Torah. Jesus was at first Jewish, after all. Plus, that "INRI" inscription you see on the top of crucifixes transcribes to the Latin "Iesus Nazarenus Rex Iudæorum", which means "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jewish". And I now acknowledge and respect the thoughts of agnostics and atheists; they have their evidence, and us Christians have ours.

[SlappyTwinkle]

i personally think the bible is a great piece of literature.

[The Batman]

I think the bible is a great book of moral guidelines in some instances.

[Bougainvillea]

My mother would try and force me to read the Bible. I kind of grew afraid. I read a few pages and could not bring myself to believe it. So no, I don't think those stories to be true. Maybe metaphorically. But literally, no. Parting the read sea isn't really believable to me.

[junkie]

Greetings, this thread is a debate about the Bible. Before we start, I ask you to please respect other religions and to not flame other members. If you cannot obey these rules, you are not welcome in this thread.

The Bible is the most well-known book and has sold more copies than any other book. There has been much controversy, especially over the past few years, whether or not the Bible is fiction or has history behind it.

I ask VT what they think of the Bible. Do you think the Bible has stories and morals that are true and good? Or do you think that it has false information in it?

Interesting topics: Noah's Ark, Jesus' resurrection, Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt, the Garden of Eden, miracles, rules & laws, etc.

i believe in the original bible which z written in Hebrew(u can find it in the Vatican private libraries and in Jerusalem) coz im a muslim and we belive in the true bible both literally and symbolically.

[JunkBondTrader]

I was raised a christian but not a lot of attention was ever paid to the bible in my household. One of the things that drew me away from religion was when I noticed that the old and new testaments were pretty much mutually exclusive. I'm not a christian but I take certain christian philosophy into account when contemplating my actions. I believe there is a lot to be learned in what Jesus taught but next to nothing in the old testament.

So I guess I'd call myself an atheist who loves Jesus regardless of whether or not he was the messiah.

[MykeSoBe]

i believe in the original bible which z written in Hebrew(u can find it in the Vatican private libraries and in Jerusalem) coz im a muslim and we belive in the true bible both literally and symbolically.

Hmm, that barely makes any sense. Don't Muslims believe in the Qur'ân (قرعان), that's written in Classical Arabic? I just need some clarification on that.

[junkie]

Hmm, that barely makes any sense. Don't Muslims believe in the Qur'ân (قرعان), that's written in Classical Arabic? I just need some clarification on that.


Muslims>>>>>>>The Holy Quran - القرآن الكريم which its written in Arabic.

Christians>>>>>>>the bible

Jews>>>>>>thorah

we believe that god sent the bible to Christians and the thorah to Jews
but those 2 books were sent to a certain people in a certain time.
The Quran was sent to the whole world.

[Bougainvillea]

Q'uran is it's spelled, right?

[MykeSoBe]

Q'uran is it's spelled, right?

Well it doesn't matter its anglicized spelling. According to Arabic, the word "qur'ân" would be transliterated as "قرعن" (I can read most languages written with the Arabic script, but strangely not Arabic itself)

[MykeSoBe]

Muslims>>>>>>>The Holy Quran - القرآن الكريم which its written in Arabic.

Christians>>>>>>>the bible

Jews>>>>>>thorah

we believe that god sent the bible to Christians and the thorah to Jews
but those 2 books were sent to a certain people in a certain time.
The Quran was sent to the whole world.

Oh so that Arabic bit would be transliterated as "al-qur'ān alkurbim", right? The only thing I hate about Arabic is that they don't mark the short vowels, which are represented by three diacritics known as the fatha (short a), fathatan (short i), and the damma (short u). Yeah sorry to turn this into a debate about the Arabic language.

[YourFriend]

I don't believe in Bible at all. Not a single part of it.

[dstnyisurs]

By reading the Bible there are some lovely stories and lessons to be learned. It is a good book in context, but taking it literally is silly. Those rules were put in place thousands of years ago, and the present day Christian needs to realize that. Sure, follow the rules of God and take the lessons learned, but don't stone someone to death because of so and so.