Bible is gender biased?

[Lovelybird]

so basically we cannot prove to each other

 

since we cannot prove either case, the left is our willingness to choose which to believe

[Lovelybird]

How can you be so sure that he does exist?

 

Most people in this world aren't Christians. Tribes in Africa, Muslims, Buddists, Most Asians... these people don't believe in God. Infact before westerners brough God to their attention they hadn't even heard of him.

 

I'd think that if God did exist then all people would had atleast heard of him from the get go so to say.

 

And most importantley there would be real proof of his existance. Sure I can't prove that he doesn't exist.

 

BUT using that logic. If I said theres a 1000 feet wide Doritos Cool Ranch chip somewere in the Universe... How can you prove that it doesn't exist? huh?

I had same question as you, such as how about those who didn't hear about God. One day, a nice Christian told me there is a passage talk about the case in Bible. it is about conscience. God will judge people who didn't hear about goseple according to their deeds and conscience.

[Lovelybird]

Christianity came from one place, Israel right... then it spread to Europe and so on.

 

At the same time Islam originated from Christianity and spread to the Middle East.

 

At the same time people in South America had their beliefs.

 

At the same time people in Asia had their beliefs.

 

At the same time people in Africa had their beliefs.

 

So WHY would Christianity be the "right" religion?

 

My point is, what makes Christianity so special out of the dozens(or hundreds) of religions and beliefs so special?

 

Christianity got so big, because Europeans forced it upon people in the rest of the world. What if roles were reveresed. What if Africa had been stronger than europe and forced their beliefs on "us". Then you wouldn't be sitting here and discussing about "God" thats for sure.

No matter what other people impose something on you, you still have your personal ways to experience and test. You don't have to accept what others forced you to believe, but if something come from your own experience and internal conviction, nobody can take that away, nor can they force anything on you.

 

I guess the only way is that you have to test them and study them and learn.

 

 

Right now, although I believe in God and His existence, i am testing the principles that churches teach, and common teaching of so many Chrisitans, because I saw harm when people misinterpret Bible, and misuse Bible, which is unavoidable because human's understandings and knowledge are always limited.

Edited March 18, 2011 by Lovelybird

[Trojan John]

No matter what other people impose something on you, you still have your personal ways to experience and test. You don't have to accept what others forced you to believe, but if something come from your own experience and internal conviction, nobody can take that away, nor can they force anything on you.

 

I guess the only way is that you have to test them and study them and learn.

 

 

Right now, although I believe in God and His existence, i am testing the principles that churches teach, and common teaching of so many Chrisitans, because I saw harm when people misinterpret Bible, and misuse Bible, which is unavoidable because human's understandings and knowledge are always limited.

 

It is estimated that there are over 4000 religions and over 3000 gods or beings with godlike powers that people believe in.

 

Each follower has probably used a similar argument when confronted with questions of their beliefs, and it's amazing how easily you all can deflect these questions in light of the above information.

 

All of you cannot be right, however you can all be wrong.

[Ross PK]

do you think all human pain and suffering come from God? and human has no part in it?

 

I don't believe in god.

[Ross PK]

Ross, i think you have "who's responsible" mixed up.

 

God has nothing to do with any of that.

All actions you describe are engineered by humans either pretending they're doing God's work, or misguidedly believing they are.

 

That's what I mean, if there was a god, I don't know whether he would have anything to do with all of the evil stuff that is written in the bible, maybe he is nothing like what a lot of people describe.

 

I was just saying, 'if' he is like how he is described in the bible. You know, a dictator, homophobic, racist, psychopathic, sending people who don't belive in him to hell, ordering people to slaughter children and women, creating people with sexualities only to then try and make them feel ashamed of it... the list goes on.

[Ross PK]

How can you be so sure He doesn't exist?

 

How can you be so sure the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist? You might as well believe in that too.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Ross PK

[Lovelybird]

All of you cannot be right, however you can all be wrong.

same thing can be said to you

 

Ross PK, since flying spaghetti never prove itself to me in a personal way, based on the knowledge right now I have, NO, I don't believe it exists

[Ross PK]

Sorry if I've been coming across like some militant Atheist, I feel quite embarrassed now as I've not been acting much different from the way religous fanatics act.

 

It's just that religion, and some religious people really piss me off sometimes.

 

I don't hate all religous people or anything.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Ross PK

[Lovelybird]

Sorry if I've been coming across like some militant Atheist, I feel quite embarrassed now as I've not been acting much different from the way religous fanatics act.

 

It's just that religion, and some religious people really piss me off sometimes.

 

I don't hate all religous people or anything.

On some degree I understand how you feel. As a Christian, I was hurt by Christians, not a few, but at the same time, fortunately there are several good ones have good influence on me. On the other side, did I hurt others? absolutely, i am not proud of it, most times I didn't realize it until later. because none of us are perfect, the only sure thing for me is to seek more God and how he thinks of certain situation, if some very powerful Christian says or does some hurtful things, or try to manipulate, I will seek God's opinion. It is a process for me to differentiate God and seemly powerful Christians. When the time that powerful Christians do harmful things or say things pull you down, you feel alone and lonely, but it can help if you seek inside and hear God.

 

if people use religion to hurt people, the harm is deeper

 

also how a person grew up and their attachment styles have something to do with their views and attachment to God. but things can be changed

[Eve]

Every Christian knows that Proverb 31 woman, she sounds like a superwoman. Many Christian men are seeking a woman like that.

 

My question is: is there anything mentioned in Bible about a Virtue Husband? We need Proverb 32 man!

 

So, what do you think? What do you think a ideal husband and lover would be like?

 

Hi Lovelybird,

 

Interesting comment.

 

I have come to the conclusion that we can find ourselves in character and spirit within the pages of the Bible.

 

So, yes we have the outright depiction of the virtuous woman but then we have examples of what that means, kind of in action within the stories of those such as Ester and Mary. With regard to male virtuous characters, I can think of many characters but can't think of a particular passage which depicts this. I would have to look further... not like I worship the Bible though or anything.

 

Of course, this is just my take on things. I am not sure that many would be able to really align and distinguish who they are like, although sometimes it is not hard to see.

 

I came to this conclusion because really violence, methods of war and ill will have not stopped, as predicted. So too, visitations and miracles continue to be reported, as predicted.

 

My ideal partner in life is very much one who has decided that to do Gods Will is not a burden. Not many make it to this level. Within such a will is all things pertaining to life, explainable and not.

 

The superwoman thing is something to be careful of methinks because we are only human. Well, in my experience it is.

 

Take care,

Eve x

Edited March 19, 2011 by Eve

[Trojan John]

same thing can be said to you

 

Correct, but the point you so adroitly miss is that atheists don't go around claiming special knowledge they don't actually have, unlike the religious.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Trojan John

[Lovelybird]

Hi Eve,

 

thanks for sharing. Indeed the superwoman thing is irritate to me, it is constant perfectionistic expectation. I guess there is more truth than the perfectionistic expectations.

 

Correct, but the point you so adroitly miss is that atheists don't go around claiming special knowledge they don't actually have, unlike the religious.

No, you are wrong in this. Atheists go around claiming a special knowledge--that God doesn't exist. Many people say the burden is on the religious side, this is so misleading. There are two ways to approach this.

 

Scientific approach.

 

Atheists make hypothesis that God doesn't exist, according to your logic--God's existence has to be proved by scientific facts, but you cannot prove God doesn't exist with Scientific methods.

 

Personal experiences and internal conviction

 

when they say they don't believe God's existence, they may mean they don't have the internal conviction, or they deny the conviction whenever this may happen

 

As a believer, I said many times, I have internal conviction, and that experience belongs to me, and me only. I can share my experience with you, you have freedom to choose believe it or not. It is like I decribe my experiences in a wonderful, exciting, yet dangeous journey, I told you how I felt and what I learned, and what I experiened. After this sharing, because you never felt like that, never experience that, or it would come later for you, you simply tell me: your experience wasn't true at the first place . Does this sound scientific to you?

Edited March 21, 2011 by Lovelybird

[Trojan John]

No, you are wrong in this. Atheists go around claiming a special knowledge--that God doesn't exist. Many people say the burden is on the religious side, this is so misleading. There are two ways to approach this.

 

Scientific approach.

 

Atheists make hypothesis that God doesn't exist, according to your logic--God's existence has to be proved by scientific facts, but you cannot prove God doesn't exist with Scientific methods.

 

Personal experiences and internal conviction

 

when they say they don't believe God's existence, they may mean they don't have the internal conviction, or they deny the conviction whenever this may happen

 

As a believer, I said many times, I have internal conviction, and that experience belongs to me, and me only. I can share my experience with you, you have freedom to choose believe it or not. It is like I decribe my experiences in a wonderful, exciting, yet dangeous journey, I told you how I felt and what I learned, and what I experiened. After this sharing, because you never felt like that, never experience that, or it would come later for you, you simply tell me: your experience wasn't true at the first place . Does this sound scientific to you?

 

Sorry, but you're conflating the argument. ALL atheists do NOT go around claiming that god does not exist, where as ALL theists claim that god or gods do exist. Atheists (most, anyway) say, "I have not seen enough evidence for the existence of a god, therefore I don't have reason to believe in one." The burden of proof is on the claimant making the positive statement, whether you agree or not. I could say that there is a tiny, invisible purple dinosaur in my pocket right now. Is it up to you prove that there isn't one, or me to prove that there is one?

 

Correct, god cannot be proven or disproven by scientific method, but neither can any of the other supernatural things that spring from human imagination. Scientific method can only study natural phenomena as humans can only observe the natural universe.

 

It's not always about internal conviction. When people say that they don't believe it is because they often see no logical reason to believe. Your experiences and conviction are all YOU need for belief, but they don't work for anyone else. I've referred to this in another thread and won't repost verbatim, but to summarise: Your anecdote, while very emotionally appealing, is the weakest form of evidence for your (or any) claim.

 

Nobody can tell you that what you felt after an experience wasn't real to you. Your mindstate and emotions at the time play a part in how you perceived the occurrences. The problem is that repeating the events with different people would yield vastly different results.

[Lovelybird]

It's not always about internal conviction. When people say that they don't believe it is because they often see no logical reason to believe. Your experiences and conviction are all YOU need for belief, but they don't work for anyone else.

I said my experiences, not merely my emotions

 

Actually when I was convinced about God's existence, I was a hardcore materialist, didn't believe anything I could not see. what I have experienced, none of science or psychology can explain, except of Bible. psychologist Maslow mentioned some mystical experiences, and that's all, he didn't know what that is.

[Ross PK]

I said my experiences, not merely my emotions

 

Actually when I was convinced about God's existence, I was a hardcore materialist, didn't believe anything I could not see. what I have experienced, none of science or psychology can explain, except of Bible. psychologist Maslow mentioned some mystical experiences, and that's all, he didn't know what that is.

 

They were things that were happening within your brain, you're wired up differently from non believers. Have you ever heard of the god helmet?

[Lovelybird]

They were things that were happening within your brain, you're wired up differently from non believers. Have you ever heard of the god helmet?

Have you ever heard of blindfolder?

[Ross PK]

Have you ever heard of blindfolder?

 

Nope. I haven't.

[elaina]

The Bible contains a lot of history. History is objective... it accounts the good and the bad things that have happened. If a historic account only accounts the good and ignores the bad, then it is not truly an objective account.

 

About the Bible being gender-biased, if one takes into account the history, it merely shows how people were living at that time.

 

About the topic, I think that there are models of men in Biblical history that show traits of the ideal man. Interestingly, not all men have all the traits lol... but then again, that is the same as women. The proverbs 31 woman is not written about a specific woman, but is an ideology.

 

Concerning traits I personally desire the man for me has are the following:

 

1. being a man after God's own heart - seeking God and wanting to get to know Him (like David and like Enoch)

- listening to wisdom (David listened to Abigail, a very wise and quick-thinking/acting woman who he later married.)

2. obeying God even when he didn't understand or know for sure what was going to happen (like Abraham and like Noah)

3. resisting sexual temptation, hard worker, has integrity (like Joseph)

4. wise, thoughtful, peaceful, romantic, sexual (like Solomon)

5. physically strong (like Samson he he he) :)not that strong though lol

6. brave and courageous (like Joshua and David)

7. helps the poor, loving, kind, desires people's good and health and well-being, (like Jesus and his apostles... James, John, Peter)

 

The above are just from the top of my head.

 

Anyways, it really depends on how people interpret the Bible. If they have "negative colored lenses" and are just looking for bad things, they will find them. If they have "positive colored lenses" and are just looking for good things, they will find them. If people read the Bible with the objective of what good thing can I learn from this story about what to do, not do, then they can learn from it... it all depends on the attitude/heart.

[Trojan John]

The Bible contains a lot of history. History is objective... it accounts the good and the bad things that have happened. If a historic account only accounts the good and ignores the bad, then it is not truly an objective account.

 

The bible also contains a lot of fallacies and fantasy, and, one could argue, that the history contained therein is entirely subjective as events are told often from the viewpoint of one person.

 

There is zero historic evidence about a global flood, people being able to walk on water or be resurrected, towns being destroyed by meteors, giant arks, etc...

 

About the Bible being gender-biased, if one takes into account the history, it merely shows how people were living at that time.

 

Then the answer to the original question would be, "yes". If this document reflects how people were living at the time, and was written by people in those times, then it's fairly safe to conclude that the bible is, indeed, gender-biased.

 

 

Anyways, it really depends on how people interpret the Bible. If they have "negative colored lenses" and are just looking for bad things, they will find them. If they have "positive colored lenses" and are just looking for good things, they will find them. If people read the Bible with the objective of what good thing can I learn from this story about what to do, not do, then they can learn from it... it all depends on the attitude/heart.

 

How about looking at it from a purely objective viewpoint? The information in the bible is so very often contradictory or runs contrary to what we do in modern times that the bible is ultimately useless. Would you use a car repair manual from the 1950's for a car made in 2010? Would you reference a known racist and white supremacist writer when discussing African anthropology? You hopefully put your critical thinking cap on and say to yourself, "that's absurd."

 

So why would you think you could learn something from using bird's blood as a cleansing agent in your home, think yourself unclean if you touch a (also unclean) woman on her period, or sacrifice your children if a voice you believed to be your GOD told you to? I point these out because they are considered to be some of the "good" things to be learned from the bible. Again, put on your critical thinking cap.

[elaina]

The bible also contains a lot of fallacies and fantasy, and, one could argue, that the history contained therein is entirely subjective as events are told often from the viewpoint of one person.

 

I disagree that the Bible contains fantasy. The Old Testament is the writings of the ancient Jewish patriarchs and are from a rich history and tradition spanning centuries. Moses more than likely wrote down (he knew how to write) the stories that came from his ancestors, and he also wrote down what God told him to. Yes of course it is the viewpoint of the person writing... back in those days, there was no such thing as "politically correct". Moses was the leader at that time, and if you ask Jewish Orthodox people of today, they still have great respect for Moses, as well as the other Hebrew/Jewish prophets. I do not believe they did not exist, because as you can see, Jewish people still exist today, and even though there are many Jewish people who do not believe in God, there are Jewish people who do believe in G-d (they write this way out of respect), and they still guard their Scriptures.

 

About fallacies, of course there are inconsistencies and errors. The Torah, Tanakh, and the Bible are written by mere mortals. Mere mortals are not perfect. We are prone to error. That's just a part of life.

 

There is zero historic evidence about a global flood,

 

Water is a powerful force. Whether there will be "zero historic evidence" that Japan had a flood from the tsunami thousands of years from now, we don't know. However, the descendants of Noah accounted what happened. If you research, you will find other groups of people around the world recorded a big flood. This is "historic evidence" same as the writings of today could someday by historic evidence a thousand or more years from now. The earth changes, but the writings of the ancient peoples help "modern" people understand what happened in the past. Someday, we might be the "ancient peoples" and the modern people will be the people of a thousand years from now, if human life continues thriving.

 

Please see the following links:

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/blacksea/ax/frame.html

 

http://www.conservapedia.com/Great_Flood

 

http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/climate-weather/storms/great-flood.htm

 

- quote from this source:

 

"Stories of a gre*at ancient flood pervade the mythology of hundreds of cultures. We*sterners might be most familiar with the story of Noah told in the Old Testament book of Genesis, but a great flood is reported in folklore from cultures around the world, from the Middle East to the Americas, India, China and Southern Asia to name just a few."

 

...

 

"If these hun*dreds of flood myths from different locations and cultures around the world are any indication, something must have happened on Earth to spur these accounts. Could there have been a global flood? Scientists have a few theories to suggest that yes, perhaps, there was. Let's explore these theories and learn if such a flood happened and if it could ever happen again. "

 

 

people being able to walk on water or be resurrected,

 

The above is a different category, because it implies miraculous out of nature events. Floods are natural events, but the above could be because of different dimensions. There are scientists who are fascinated with the idea of different dimensions, and miracles could be "explained" by that... there are still so many things that people don't understand. Just because we don't understand (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen.

 

towns being destroyed by meteors

 

There are scientists who believe it is possible that meteors have destroyed or hit different places on earth. Please research it.

 

 

, giant arks, etc...

 

People are perfectly capable of building "giant arks" This is part of the great flood account, so please research the great flood account and how many ancient peoples around the world have a similar story. That's not coincidence.

 

 

How about looking at it from a purely objective viewpoint? The information in the bible is so very often contradictory or runs contrary to what we do in modern times that the bible is ultimately useless. Would you use a car repair manual from the 1950's for a car made in 2010? Would you reference a known racist and white supremacist writer when discussing African anthropology? You hopefully put your critical thinking cap on and say to yourself, "that's absurd."

 

Did you ever have to take history class at school? Do you believe studying history is absurd? I don't. I find history to be extremely interesting and to explain many things about why we are at the point we are now. History is a part of what makes the present.

 

So why would you think you could learn something from using bird's blood as a cleansing agent in your home, think yourself unclean if you touch a (also unclean) woman on her period, or sacrifice your children if a voice you believed to be your GOD told you to? I point these out because they are considered to be some of the "good" things to be learned from the bible.

 

Please give me a valid reference source where the above is "considered to be some of the 'good' things to be learned from the Bible." ? Thanks.

 

Again, put on your critical thinking cap.

 

I challenge you to read the Bible with an open mind and find positive lessons in it. Thanks.

[Trojan John]

I disagree that the Bible contains fantasy.

 

Parting the Red Sea, talking snakes, non-burning burning bushes, the Sun moving on command, transforming water into wine, feeding hundreds of people from a quantity of food that could barely fill the stomachs of three people, and as already stated -- raising the dead and walking on water. If this does not strike you as fantasy, then you may not be familiar with the working definition of the word. I am almost willing to give you the walking on water bit, but you would have to prove that it was a non-Newtonian fluid.

 

The Old Testament is the writings of the ancient Jewish patriarchs and are from a rich history and tradition spanning centuries. Moses more than likely wrote down (he knew how to write) the stories that came from his ancestors, and he also wrote down what God told him to. Yes of course it is the viewpoint of the person writing...

 

My original response was in negation to your claim that the bible contains objective history. The majority of the books in the bible are named after the individual writer. The stories therein often conflict with each other or are so outrageous and unverifiable as to be considered fantasy. This is very common with subjective accounts, and is the reason, for example, why police rarely believe hearsay evidence -- because it is most often inaccurate.

 

About fallacies, of course there are inconsistencies and errors. The Torah, Tanakh, and the Bible are written by mere mortals. Mere mortals are not perfect. We are prone to error. That's just a part of life.

 

I'm sorry, I was working under the assumption that the bible was the infallible word of your God. One would think that He would strive for accuracy in a book that influences the lives of millions...

 

Water is a powerful force. Whether there will be "zero historic evidence" that Japan had a flood from the tsunami thousands of years from now, we don't know. However, the descendants of Noah accounted what happened. If you research, you will find other groups of people around the world recorded a big flood. This is "historic evidence" same as the writings of today could someday by historic evidence a thousand or more years from now. The earth changes, but the writings of the ancient peoples help "modern" people understand what happened in the past. Someday, we might be the "ancient peoples" and the modern people will be the people of a thousand years from now, if human life continues thriving.

 

You reference conservapedia.com for objective evidence? I'd be more inclined to believe a quote from your next door neighbour, in all honesty. In any case, you miss the plot. A WORLDWIDE flood, not a LOCALISED flood is what is under discussion. You are correct, water is a powerful force -- so powerful that if the ENTIRE landmass of the earth were flooded, as you attest when referencing Ballard's quest, there would be evidence of catastrophic damage lasting to current date.

 

And as to your National Geographic link regarding Ballard and the supposed great flood, let's look to a much more recent article from... National Geographic :

 

A previous theory said the Black Sea rose up to 195 feet (60 meters), possibly burying villages and spawning the tale of Noah's flood and other inundation folklore.

But the new study—largely focused on relatively undisturbed underwater fossils—suggests a rise of no more than 30 feet (10 meters).

 

There are scientists who believe it is possible that meteors have destroyed or hit different places on earth. Please research it.

 

I'm sorry, I meant "fire and brimstone" being rained upon cities. I used the word meteors in a misguided attempt to give the story more credibility. I failed miserably.

 

People are perfectly capable of building "giant arks" This is part of the great flood account, so please research the great flood account and how many ancient peoples around the world have a similar story. That's not coincidence.

 

Still, no proof for there being a giant ark, much less one capable of carrying even one of each species of animal on the planet. The only coincidence is that peoples who tell similar stories have had interaction with each other, whether through military conquest or trade, in which these stories get passed around. Much like urban legends or influenza.

 

Did you ever have to take history class at school? Do you believe studying history is absurd? I don't. I find history to be extremely interesting and to explain many things about why we are at the point we are now. History is a part of what makes the present.

 

I have an undergraduate degree in history as a matter of fact, and I find it to be extremely interesting as well. So it would be hypocritical of me to take biblical claims as factual, when they contain obvious historical inaccuracy and outright fantasy in several instances.

 

Please give me a valid reference source where the above is "considered to be some of the 'good' things to be learned from the Bible." ? Thanks.

 

Ask and ye shall receive. According to this Christian website, God tested Abraham to prove that he placed God above everything including his own son. This is generally taken by most Christians to somehow be a positive illustration of "God's love" and has been argued on this site numerous times. The first two are a bit of cheek on my part, yet still two of the 613 biblical commandments.

 

I challenge you to read the Bible with an open mind and find positive lessons in it. Thanks.

 

I agree, there are some positive lessons in the bible. My argument is that there are equally negative lessons in it as well. I challenge you to read your bible objectively in its entirety without making special inferences or apologies for the contradictions and biases contained therein, following all its commandments to the letter. Cheers.

[elaina]

Parting the Red Sea, talking snakes, non-burning burning bushes, the Sun moving on command, transforming water into wine, feeding hundreds of people from a quantity of food that could barely fill the stomachs of three people, and as already stated -- raising the dead and walking on water. If this does not strike you as fantasy, then you may not be familiar with the working definition of the word. I am almost willing to give you the walking on water bit, but you would have to prove that it was a non-Newtonian fluid.

 

To me, fantasy is unicorns, pixie fairies, trolls, elves... you know... Lord of the Rings stuff, or fairy godmothers, magic wands... Cinderella stuff. I do like fantasy, but fantasy to me is not what is written in the Bible. What is written in the Bible is defined by me as being supernatural, miraculous, and of a different dimension. I am one of those kind of people who believe there are more dimensions than just what we see/experience in the dimensions that are so blatant to us. So, what you have just written about above is not defined as fantasy to me, but rather I define those events to be outside of the dimensions we understand, and into the realm of the supernatural.

 

 

My original response was in negation to your claim that the bible contains objective history.

 

I apologize. Normally when I talk about the Bible to those who do not believe in it being true, I am talking with Muslims. For Muslims, they believe that the parts in the Bible that talk about prophets sinning (like King David committing adultery with Bathsheba) are not true and show corruption. I completely disagree with this idea because the account is objective in that the account isn't hiding the things that the people did, whether good or bad. For this reason, I consider the historic accounts to be objective, in that the bad things that people did are not hidden and the people are not just seen as being perfect people who never did anything wrong. That's why I said objective, but yes I see your point.

 

The majority of the books in the bible are named after the individual writer. The stories therein often conflict with each other or are so outrageous and unverifiable as to be considered fantasy.

 

Again, I disagree. I have 3 sisters. If you ask each of us to give a detailed account of what happened in life, you are going to note the points below:

 

1. Inconsistencies... I might not remember something as well as my sisters did, and might be confused about the exact details and write something different than my sisters, and they might write different things too. Does this mean that the event didn't happen? No. It just means that some of us or one of us is forgetful and didn't pay too close of attention to detail than the others.

 

2. Disagreements... People see things differently and tell about events differently. I have some memories that I see differently than my sisters see them. Does that mean they are wrong and I am right? Maybe we both are wrong. Maybe they are right and I'm wrong. However, people by nature do not always agree with each other, even when accounting events where all parties involved were present.

 

3. Different interests/talents... one of my sisters is very sporty/athletic. She doesn't write a lot and really isn't all that interested in it. Her reply to you would not be as long as mine is... she actually has no desire to write strangers online. She'd rather be doing something physical, and that's fine. So, if you demanded her to write something, you can be 100% sure she's going to give you only the amount she can get away with and not a word more! She will also account more action stuff, like "I played basketball. We won... (and the score.) I though would not be able to tell you the score. Why? Cause I don't care about sport scores. So, that is how the Bible accounts are.

 

To make this shorter, the people who memorized/retold/wrote the accounts in the Bible are like my sisters and I. We forget things, we disagree on how we see things, and we have differences in what interests us and what we would write about and why. That's how humans are.

This is very common with subjective accounts, and is the reason, for example, why police rarely believe hearsay evidence -- because it is most often inaccurate.

 

However, witnesses are important, though it is interesting how sometimes witnesses do not agree on small details. The important things to look for with witnesses is consistency and the things that are similar in their individual accounts.

 

 

I'm sorry, I was working under the assumption that the bible was the infallible word of your God.

 

I am not a Christian who think that every single English word in the KJV is 100% from God. No. I am an interpreter and I completely understand that there are difficulties with translations.

One would think that He would strive for accuracy in a book that influences the lives of millions...

 

God doesn't think like people.

 

You reference conservapedia.com for objective evidence? I'd be more inclined to believe a quote from your next door neighbour, in all honesty.

 

Lol... ok, well you can most definitely research big flood accounts and find references you believe better, k?

In any case, you miss the plot. A WORLDWIDE flood, not a LOCALISED flood is what is under discussion

 

Check out the stories... research because most people groups around the world DO have a worldwide flood story.

 

You are correct, water is a powerful force -- so powerful that if the ENTIRE landmass of the earth were flooded, as you attest when referencing Ballard's quest, there would be evidence of catastrophic damage lasting to current date.

 

The earth has changed a lot, right? Do we have pictures of what the earth looked like a long time ago? I remember in geography class studies about how the land mass was all together... not different continents long time ago, and it's obviously not that way anymore. It is definitely possible things happened that are evidence of catastrophic damage lasting to current date, including a world wide flood and/or ice age and other events.

 

And as to your National Geographic link regarding Ballard and the supposed great flood, let's look to a much more recent article from... National Geographic :

 

A previous theory said the Black Sea rose up to 195 feet (60 meters), possibly burying villages and spawning the tale of Noah's flood and other inundation folklore.

 

But the new study—largely focused on relatively undisturbed underwater fossils—suggests a rise of no more than 30 feet (10 meters).

 

That's another possibility, but again, the only way to know for sure is if there was some way to travel back in time and record what happened.

 

 

I'm sorry, I meant "fire and brimstone" being rained upon cities. I used the word meteors in a misguided attempt to give the story more credibility. I failed miserably.

 

Lol. Fire and brimstone could possibly be meteors you know.

 

 

Still, no proof for there being a giant ark, much less one capable of carrying even one of each species of animal on the planet.

 

Well, if it is made of wood (I don't remember but in the Bible it does tell what the ark is made of and specifications) then it could have burned. Houses burn and so do arks... you can't see them thousands of years later cause they're ashes, so...

 

The only coincidence is that peoples who tell similar stories have had interaction with each other, whether through military conquest or trade, in which these stories get passed around. Much like urban legends or influenza.

 

People talk to each other about what happened, like how people talk about what happened in Japan.

 

 

 

I have an undergraduate degree in history as a matter of fact, and I find it to be extremely interesting as well. So it would be hypocritical of me to take biblical claims as factual, when they contain obvious historical inaccuracy and outright fantasy in several instances.

 

If you look at any historic account of most ancient peoples, they do talk about gods and interweave events they experience with their beliefs in those gods. Now, as a Christian, I do not believe there are gods, but I do not discount their beliefs which people who believe there is no Superior Being over humans do. Rather, I believe their "gods" are superior beings who could have been on the earth around that time and hence motivated their stories that most people today call "myths." We do not have 100% knowledge of what went on along time ago. There are a few scientists who even wonder if there is some Superior Being(s) who were involved in the earth's forming, and of course much of science fiction is fascinated with the idea of Superior Beings of some sort in some way coming to earth. Why? Because some people do have the acute awareness that human beings are not the "superior life form" in the galaxies, and I do think that the ancient peoples were much more acutely aware of this than some people today who believe humans are the only superpower in the universe. There are scientists who are striving urgently to find life outside of earth, because of this too, and because they want to see if there's a place people and other forms of life can go if earth someday becomes inhabitable.

 

 

 

Ask and ye shall receive. According to this Christian website, God tested Abraham to prove that he placed God above everything including his own son. This is generally taken by most Christians to somehow be a positive illustration of "God's love" and has been argued on this site numerous times. The first two are a bit of cheek on my part, yet still two of the 613 biblical commandments.

 

From what I understand, Abraham believed that God would raise Isaac from the dead, because he believed God is all powerful and he knew God's promise concerning Isaac to come to pass. So, yes, I do believe it's a test that God already knew the answer to. However, God stopped Abraham from killing Isaac and to many Jewish Orthodox people, this story is extremely important. However, Jewish Orthodox people do not believe in sacrificing their children. Rather, sacrificing children was a pagan practice to false gods (or possibly other beings superior to humans)

 

 

I agree, there are some positive lessons in the bible. My argument is that there are equally negative lessons in it as well.

 

I think it all depends on a person's attitude and what he/she wants from reading the Bible. I don't think a person who truly loves God and wants to live right is going to read an account and decide to go kill people or anything like that. Rather, they would learn to not kill but to do what Jesus says, to do unto others what you would have them to do you, and to love God and to love others, which Jesus says sums up all the law and the prophets.

 

I challenge you to read your bible objectively in its entirety without making special inferences or apologies for the contradictions and biases contained therein, following all its commandments to the letter. Cheers.

 

As a Christian, I do not make apologies for believing the accounts in the Bible. However, I have no problem explaining to people what I believe and why, because it is important to me. Also, I am very much interested in the cultures and the time periods of the people who the accounts were written about and to, so it is important to take the accounts into context with the people and the time periods of the people as well. That's a part of history.

[elaina]

About the Bible being gender biased, I do understand why some people think that. However, I believe it's important to see also that for Jewish Orthodox people, the woman (wife/mother) is extremely important in the family, and Sarah shows this, as well as other very strong Hebrew/Jewish woman who have tremendously impacted the man/men in their lives.

Edited April 3, 2011 by elaina

[OpenBook]

since flying spaghetti never prove itself to me in a personal way, based on the knowledge right now I have, NO, I don't believe it exists

 

I have a daughter, and now a granddaughter. Trust me - flying spaghetti exists.