The Bible: Is it Right?

[shinji172]

OK, before i begin, im going to lay down some ground rules:

1) The purpose of this thread is to discuss the christian bible. What i am hoping for is a debait over the consistencies (or inconsistencies) of the text. Im also looking for peoples views on whether or not the bible is correct. [B]It is not a talk on the existance of God, beliefs in other religions e.t.c.[/B]

2) Whenever you make a point, please make a basic reference to the text. For example, if you want to look into the creation story (Adam and Eve) then you should (at the very least) mention the book it is from (in this case, Genesis). Keep in mind that more accurate references (such as chapter and verse number) are better.

Heres a basic example of what i want to see.
I personally dont believe the bible is correct due to inconcistencies that occasionaly pop up. For example, in the book of Matthew, we are told that Joseph's father is named Jacob (chapter 1, verse 16). However, in the book of Luke, we are told that Joseph's father was named Eli (or Heli).

Notice that, when refering to the text, a book name is given. Also note that, when certain details (chapter, verse number) are unknown, the book name is still mentioned.

Well, thats the rules covered. I hope to see a good debait emerge from this. Enjoy :animesmil .

[Charles]

Sorry. The bible is all about interpretation. It's impossible to have a debate as to whether it is "right" or not. It's not as if you're studying a biography on the Vietnam war.

[shinji172]

I know that certain aspects are about interpretation. What i was hoping for people to look into was disagreements within the text itself. In the example I provided, the inconcistancy was that it couldnt agree on a name. However, there are other examples of (possible) inconcistancies, such as the sudden shift in Gods personality. For example, he tends to be vengeful in the old testament. A good example of this is Genesis chapter 6, verse 7, which says:

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that i have made them"

Compared to the loving God of the new testament (who sacrifices his son for the sake of mankind) doesnt this seem a little strange?

Also, i should note that when i asked "Is the Bible right?" I should have asked "Is the bible consistant?". I apologise for that misunderstanding. To clarify, does the text agree with itself? Hopefully that should get rid of misunderstanding. However, if this is still unclear (to anyone) pm me.

[Sara]

[QUOTE=shinji172]However, there are other examples of (possible) inconcistancies, such as the sudden shift in Gods personality. For example, he tends to be vengeful in the old testament.

Compared to the loving God of the new testament (who sacrifices his son for the sake of mankind) doesnt this seem a little strange?[/QUOTE][color=#b0000b][size=1]...I do believe that is the entire point of the book.[/size][/color]

[Albert Flasher]

[FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]Many times in the bible, it is said that god is everywhere, and many times it says that prophets 'went out of the presence of the LORD.' That sounds fairly difficult.

In 1 Tim 1:4 we are told to 'avoid foolish questions and genealogies,' but the bible has more boring genealogies than you can shake a stick at.

Even the story of Genisis itself is convuluted and contradictory in it's entirty, but I'll leave this up to the [URL=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html]boys at SAB to explain.[/URL]

I don't have the chapters on me anywhere, but god says that he drowns the world because 'man's heart is evil from birth,' and than, later, in one of his interesting monolaugs, he decides NOT to drown the world because.... 'man's heart is evil from birth.' Interesting!

The bible in general is both poorly translated and heavily edited... who knows what's going on with it. [/COLOR][/FONT]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='shinji172']Also, i should note that when i asked "Is the Bible right?" I should have asked "Is the bible consistant?". I apologise for that misunderstanding. To clarify, does the text agree with itself? Hopefully that should get rid of misunderstanding.[/quote]Well, I think this is a less problematic question than "is the bible right?" but I'm still a little unclear. Particularly, I'm not sure what you mean by asking if it "agrees" all the way through. Certainly the entire thing is deeply concerned with the relationship between God (albeit a god who apparently has several names...) and the Israelites (or, in the NT, those chosen to be saved), so in that sense the entire thing has a common topic for what is to be discussed and debated. On the other hand, if you're asking if all factual data in the bible matches, if all the writers of the bible agree on what happened during a specific event, or if themes in the various books are always consistent, obviously not. You yourself disproved the first with the Jacob/Eli thing, you can discount the second after comparing, say, the accounts of the invasion of Israel in Joshua and Judges, and the third can be pretty well dispensed with by comparing, say, James to some of the Paul letters (Romans, Philippians, etc.). So, I think there's agreement in the bible in certain senses while not in others.

[quote name='Charles']The bible is all about interpretation.[/quote]Correct; any reading of the bible has to be an interpretation of it. However, it's important to recognize when one says this that certain interpretations have more weight to them than others, in light of a good couple of centuries' worth of theology, historical research, lingustic analysis, translation attempts, etc.. Even without all of this, though, interpretation is never something completely arbitrary.

[KatanaViolet]

Oh shinji, you know I have to comment in this thread ^_^

I don't really know very much about the bible, nor the texts contained in it.
So my opinions are a little bit of a shot in the dark sort of deal, and I may come off as somewhat ignorant.

To me, it's wayyy too tedious to read. But either which way, there is no doubt in my mind that over the past couple thousand years, some things may have been interpreted. I mean, the bible was written by men, and back then I'm sure the human race didn't know as much as it does now. So yeah, there could be some errors (and I'm not just talkin your average typo). Somethings that do kind of bug me:
- One of the ten commandments is that "Thy shalt not worship any other God than the one true God Lord" or something to that effect. So, does that mean if I worship, say, Allah. Or Buddha. Does this mean that because I chose a different deity to worship that I'm not granted a pass to eternal bliss? What if I worship no god at all? How is that blasphemous?
- Where do black people come into play in the bible?
- How the hell (no pun intended) is Jesus supposed to be resurrected? I'm sorry, but people CANNOT come back from the dead. It's a bummer, but it's true.

Again, I'm sure if I actually read the bible and critiqued it, I'd have more to say; but I'm not Christian, and I'm not a theologist, so I don't know much.
The basic principles that it teaches, however; are things that any human being of any religious background (or lack of) can live by: Don't Kill, Don't Cheat, Don't Lie, etc.
Everything else in between... yawn.

[Guest orochisnake]

all i have to say is that it is very surprising that you people can say that the Bible contradicts itself yet know so much about it.the Bible is not an interpretation,it's there for the christians to read from and learn what God intends them to,it is also a collection of words inspired by God himself and passed to the papers by apsotles for people to get closer to God.
yes,the Bible is right,yes,God is everywhere,all-powerful,and all-knowing.but He
still loves everybody,which is why He sent His son to save not just the isrealites but the entire world.
please don't take me for being too religious or something....there's plenty of things in the Bible i will never understand. :animesigh

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=orochisnake]all i have to say is that it is very surprising that you people can say that the Bible contradicts itself yet know so much about it.the Bible is not an interpretation,it's there for the christians to read from and learn what God intends them to,it is also a collection of words inspired by God himself and passed to the papers by apsotles for people to get closer to God.
yes,the Bible is right,yes,God is everywhere,all-powerful,and all-knowing.but He
still loves everybody,which is why He sent His son to save not just the isrealites but the entire world.
please don't take me for being too religious or something....there's plenty of things in the Bible i will never understand. :animesigh[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=Sienna]Ah-ha, you bring up another point... it says God is everywhere, and than says that evil is the absence of god, which would mean that there is no evil, but god often says man is evil at its heart, which means that either A, god's lying, or, B, god doesn't exist anywhere. However, since god is perfect, and lying is considered bad, that would mean that the only correct option would be B. Hurray for conveluted logic! (Shizzle, I used 'convuluted' twice in one thread, and spelt it wrong both times. BAM.)[/COLOR]

[Zen]

[color=darkgreen][size=1]

It's proven that the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine, had the Holy Bible assembled from various different relegious texts which circulated around the known world at the time. There were literally hundreds of texts and scrolls written with Christian intent. So, yes, the Bible was written by men, and assembled by man. The Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Mary, The Gnostic Texts, The Enfancy of Christ, and many more texts all were considered, and denied entry into the book now known as "The Holy Bible".

Aswell, I don't think anybody should look into the Bible as a 'literal translation' of what we should do in our lives. If that were so, then men wouldn't shave, women wouldn't cut their hair, and most of the worlds major city's are worse than what was Sodom and Gamora. I think it's more of a spiritual guideline than anything. Also, why is this thread pointing towards the Christian Bible alone? Why not the Kohran? Or the Kabbalah? Or the Buhddist Texts? [/color][/size]

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=The Boss][color=darkgreen][size=1]

It's proven that the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine, had the Holy Bible assembled from various different relegious texts which circulated around the known world at the time. There were literally hundreds of texts and scrolls written with Christian intent. So, yes, the Bible was written by men, and assembled by man. The Book of Enoch, The Gospel of Mary, The Gnostic Texts, The Enfancy of Christ, and many more texts all were considered, and denied entry into the book now known as "The Holy Bible".

Aswell, I don't think anybody should look into the Bible as a 'literal translation' of what we should do in our lives. If that were so, then men wouldn't shave, women wouldn't cut their hair, and most of the worlds major city's are worse than what was Sodom and Gamora. I think it's more of a spiritual guideline than anything. Also, why is this thread pointing towards the Christian Bible alone? Why not the Kohran? Or the Kabbalah? Or the Buhddist Texts? [/color][/size][/QUOTE][COLOR=Sienna]

And, while we're at it, why not tear into the Book of Mormon. Afterall, we do need a good laugh once in a while, don't we? Oooooooooooohhhh, John Smith, you little hat-reading rascal :D[/COLOR]

[Fasteriskhead]

[quote name='orochisnake]there's plenty of things in the Bible i will never understand. :animesigh[/QUOTE][QUOTE=KatanaViolet']Again, I'm sure if I actually read the bible and critiqued it, I'd have more to say; but I'm not Christian, and I'm not a theologist, so I don't know much.[/quote]All the more reason to study.

Let me explain how I feel about this, putting it in the context of the interpretation question. Christians typically called "fundamentalists" often get accused of taking the bible "literally." This is untrue. Ask any of them if Jesus being the "lion of the tribe of Judah" means that he was actually running around Jerusalem chasing gazelles (which would be the literal reading), and they'll probably tell you you're nuts. They don't read literally at all - they read "what the bible says." That phrase basically means that they read it without attempting any interpretation at all. This amounts to picking out small passages which are then understood in the way which seems most immediately obvious... as if the only the understanding most grounded in "common sense" could be the correct one, and as if two millenia didn't sit between the bible and the people reading it.

No pats on the back for all you "non-fundamentalists" out there, either, this isn't something that's just happening in the red states. [I]Everyone[/I] seems to believe that the best and the "purest" way to read anything (bible included) is to read slack-jawed and with the mind totally empty. The idea seems to be that if you aren't actually [I]thinking[/I] while reading, you won't bring any "prejudices" in to ruin the perfect, undirtied information the book is going to give to you. This is complete crap: reading without interpreting only means you're interpreting badly and interpreting irresponsibly. Saying "everything's an interpretation" and plopping down, convinced that anything else is futile, is only a slight improvement. Want to find the perfect way to read something? Well, good luck: you're not going to get one without struggling for a long, long time against the distance separating you and what you're reading, which very few seem interested in doing. But reading while thinking you don't have to (or shouldn't) actively interpret is like thinking you won't get in an accident if you drive with a blindfold on.

The bible is especially bad about this, because at best it tends to just get glanced over, read either as a list of rules or as some kind of novel translated from greek and hebrew. More often, though, people just use it to construct little collections of phrases they happen to like. As the saying goes, "There is nothing so entertaining as the discussion of a book nobody has read."


EDIT: Boss, although the match isn't quite right, I already more or less hit your Constantine point in a response to a previous thread, which you can read [URL=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=52741&page=3]here[/URL] (it's about halfway down). To sum up: no, Constantine didn't assemble [i]the[/i] bible, there were countless collections of biblical texts floating around at the time and there are still a number of different bibles in use today. Constantine [I]did[/I] get the early church leaders together, lock them in a room, and get them to come up with the Nicene creed, though, which effectively unified the church; it's true that the early fathers did a very efficient job of squelching "heresies" and alternative Christian texts, but this was something going on long after Constantine had already kicked it. And yes, It should be remembered, as you point out, that [i]people[/i] wrote the books of the bible and [i]people[/i] assembled them together (through a very long process of negotiation) into our present collections. How this gets forgotten, I'm not sure.

[Zen]

[QUOTE=The Boss][color=darkgreen][size=1]

It's proven that the first Christian Emperor of Rome, Constantine, had the Holy Bible assembled from various different relegious texts which circulated around the known world at the time. [/color][/size][/QUOTE]
[color=darkgreen][size=1]

I said that he [B]had[/B] the Holy Bible assembled. I didn't say he did it, I said that he was the one who decided it needed to happen. I'm fully aware it was early church leaders who decided what books would be included. I meant my comment in the sense that it was man who decided which texts would be deemed good enough for the actual Bible.

But yes, I agree with what your saying. I'm not going to end my faith due to this, however, seeing as how the actual scholars/scribes who wrote it were Holy men and apostles. I'm not a fundalmentalist or even a strict christian. I just have my relegious beliefs and they come from the general Christian faith. I, myself, consider several of the books left out of the Bible very interesting and I wouldn't deny the truth or teachings in them simply because of the personal 'tastes' of certain majority relegious leaders from centuries ago. I think people should look past the actual Bible into the other writings if they want a deeper understanding of things... but then again, I havn't even read the whole thing yet.[/color][/size]

[Kitchen Sink]

[QUOTE=shinji172]However, there are other examples of (possible) inconcistancies, such as the sudden shift in Gods personality. For example, he tends to be vengeful in the old testament. A good example of this is Genesis chapter 6, verse 7, which says:

"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that i have made them"

Compared to the loving God of the new testament (who sacrifices his son for the sake of mankind) doesnt this seem a little strange?[/quote]

This is not entirely true. The OT is not all hell fire and brimstone, although many parts of it are due to what God was accomplishing in that time, which was the establishment of Judaic society and from within that a pure bloodline that would eventually bring forth the messiah, Jesus Christ.

Did you know that Jesus based his ministry off the OT? He got many of his philosophies from the scrolls of his predecessors, he didn't just pull the "love thy neighbour" out of nowhere, he just reminded the ignorant religious leaders of it and it's importance. In fact, the nutshell of Jesus' ministry can be found in Isaiah 58, and OT book.

[quote] does the text agree with itself? QUOTE]

If you do enough reading, you can see that God's personality hasn't shifted, and he's not some celestial schizo, God's plans have always been to restore humanity to oneness with him, and he desires to know, love and have a relationship with everyone. The only difference is that in the OT, peoiple had to come to God through animal sacrifices for their sins, while Christians have been saved by the blood of Jesus and this covenant is everlasting, rather than temporary.

The text agrees with itself, and considering that the book was not actually a book until well after Jesus time, that it was a series of scrolls written by 64 different authors over thousands of years and who had little knowledge of eacht other and certainly could not have conspired together to keep things consistent, the consistencies in the Bible are even more intriguing.

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=Lost Lightbulb]This is not entirely true. The OT is not all hell fire and brimstone, although many parts of it are due to what God was accomplishing in that time, which was the establishment of Judaic society and from within that a pure bloodline that would eventually bring forth the messiah, Jesus Christ.

Did you know that Jesus based his ministry off the OT? He got many of his philosophies from the scrolls of his predecessors, he didn't just pull the "love thy neighbour" out of nowhere, he just reminded the ignorant religious leaders of it and it's importance. In fact, the nutshell of Jesus' ministry can be found in Isaiah 58, and OT book.

[quote] does the text agree with itself? [/QUOTE]

If you do enough reading, you can see that God's personality hasn't shifted, and he's not some celestial schizo, God's plans have always been to restore humanity to oneness with him, and he desires to know, love and have a relationship with everyone. The only difference is that in the OT, peoiple had to come to God through animal sacrifices for their sins, while Christians have been saved by the blood of Jesus and this covenant is everlasting, rather than temporary.

The text agrees with itself, and considering that the book was not actually a book until well after Jesus time, that it was a series of scrolls written by 64 different authors over thousands of years and who had little knowledge of eacht other and certainly could not have conspired together to keep things consistent, the consistencies in the Bible are even more intriguing.[/QUOTE]
[COLOR=Sienna]
So what you're saying is that god showed his love for the people.. by drowning every human being on earth (except Noah), destroying entire cities with fire and the like because he was displeased, turning people into salt for the heinous crime of 'looking over your shoulder,' killing hundreds because they used incense, slaughtering people because he was (again) displeased with, as the bible puts it, his own sword, killing 42,000 for mispronouncing 'shibboleth,' and... hell, just go [URL=http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html]here[/URL], and than tell me god was a loving god in the OT.[/COLOR]

[PiroMunkie]

[quote name='KatanaViolet']- One of the ten commandments is that "Thy shalt not worship any other God than the one true God Lord" or something to that effect. So, does that mean if I worship, say, Allah. Or Buddha. Does this mean that because I chose a different deity to worship that I'm not granted a pass to eternal bliss? What if I worship no god at all? How is that blasphemous?[/quote]
[size=1]Question 1: Yes. However, Christianity is based on the belief the Jesus Christ is our Savior. Given, God the Father and Jesus the Son are one in the same, you are granted into Heaven based on the fact that you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. That's the very surface of it, anyway.

Question 2 & 3: Worshipping no god is just the same as worshipping a different one. God isn't Allah. He isn't Buddah. He isn't Zeus. This is pretty simple to comprehend. Try putting yourself in His shoes on that matter. Let's saay ... you were cloned. And you had to convince other people that you were the real one. If other people believed the different clones of you were the real you, or even believed that none of you were real, there's a definite degree of "blasphemy" there, so to speak.[/size]

[quote]- Where do black people come into play in the bible?[/quote][size=1]Where do Asian people come into play? What about Mexicans? Jamaicans? Spaniards!? The Irish!? The events of the Bible take place in a pretty centralized area. You can't expect the rest of the world to even be so much as aware of what was going on.[/size]

[quote]- How the hell (no pun intended) is Jesus supposed to be resurrected? I'm sorry, but people CANNOT come back from the dead. It's a bummer, but it's true.[/quote][size=1]First, keep in mind that Jesus was the mortal incarnation of God. And even if he wasn't, it was Jesus who ressurected him. It was the Father. If God wanted someone to live again, I'm [i]pretty[/i] sure he could rig that up without a hitch. It kind of goes with the territory. The purpose for Jesus' life was to be the ultimate sacrifice. He died for the sins of all humanity, both then, now, and forever. So by accepting Jesus as the Savior, when you are called to judgement, you are cleansed of your sins and allowed to enter Heaven.

This is where that whole idea of [i]faith[/i] comes in to play.[/size]

[quote name='Ziggy Stardust']Ah-ha, you bring up another point... it says God is everywhere, and than says that evil is the absence of god, which would mean that there is no evil, but god often says man is evil at its heart, which means that either A, god's lying, or, B, god doesn't exist anywhere.[/quote]
[size=1]Keep in mind people are given free will. If a person does not believe in God then God does not exist in them, and therefor are marked with "evil." Given, they may not be walking around worshipping Satan, so "evil" may seem like a pretty heavy term. His "presence" is a gift that is always before you, whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.[/size]

[Sara]

[quote name='Ziggy Stardust][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Sienna]Many times in the bible, it is said that god is everywhere,[/COLOR'][/FONT][/quote][color=#b0000b][size=1]In a thread like this, I think it's very important--and even [b][i]the point of the thread[/i][/b]--to cite references. Can you find one of those instances for me? I can't think of any verses that specifically say that.

I think there are many that definitely state or imply God's [i]ability[/i] to be anywhere/everywhere, but I think that was important (or became important) because the Israelites were nomads and did not have one place in which to meet God.[/color][/size]

[Zen]

[color=darkgreen][size=1]

[B]New Subject:[/B] The Gospel of Judas.

A new text scroll has been uncovered telling how Judas Iscariot, the famed traitor of Jesus Christ, was actually a good guy. It tells how Judas was asked by Christ to turn him in to the Romans (or something to that effect). And I actually think this is more plausible than Jesus being tricked. I mean, he knew it was his fate to die for the sins of man, so why wouldn't he be expecting it to happen? I think if Jesus wanted to, being such a miracle worker and all, he could have prevented such a betrayal. What do you guys think about that?[/color][/size]

[Sara]

[QUOTE=The Boss][color=darkgreen][size=1]

[B]New Subject:[/B] The Gospel of Judas.

A new text scroll has been uncovered telling how Judas Iscariot, the famed traitor of Jesus Christ, was actually a good guy. It tells how Judas was asked by Christ to turn him in to the Romans (or something to that effect). And I actually think this is more plausible than Jesus being tricked. I mean, he knew it was his fate to die for the sins of man, so why wouldn't he be expecting it to happen? I think if Jesus wanted to, being such a miracle worker and all, he could have prevented such a betrayal. What do you guys think about that?[/color][/size][/QUOTE][color=#b0000b][size=1]Relevant passages:

[b]Matthew 26:20-25[/b]

When evening came, Jesus was reclining at the table with the Twelve. And while they were eating, he said, "I tell you the truth, one of you will betray me."

They were very sad and began to say to him one after the other, "Surely not I, Lord?"

Jesus replied, "The one who has dipped his hand into the bowl with me will betray me. The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born."

Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, "Surely not I, Rabbi?"

Jesus answered, "Yes, it is you."

[b]John 13:21-27[/b]

After he had said this, Jesus was troubled in spirit and testified, "I tell you the truth, one of you is going to betray me."

His disciples stared at one another, at a loss to know which of them he meant. One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, "Ask him which one he means."

Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, "Lord, who is it?"

Jesus answered, "It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish." Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, son of Simon. As soon as Judas took the bread, Satan entered into him.

"What you are about to do, do quickly," Jesus told him.[/size][/color]

[Zen]

[color=darkgreen][size=1]

Thank you for showing me these. I had never heard of them or come across them, I've just heard of Judas all my life as the great betrayer. Thank you again.

But again, that is an example of a text being left out of the Bible, even though it catalogues quite an important event.
[/color][/size]

[KatanaViolet]

[QUOTE=PiroMunkie][size=1]Question 1: Yes. However, Christianity is based on the belief the Jesus Christ is our Savior. Given, God the Father and Jesus the Son are one in the same, you are granted into Heaven based on the fact that you accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. That's the very surface of it, anyway.

Question 2 & 3: Worshipping no god is just the same as worshipping a different one. God isn't Allah. He isn't Buddah. He isn't Zeus. This is pretty simple to comprehend. Try putting yourself in His shoes on that matter. Let's saay ... you were cloned. And you had to convince other people that you were the real one. If other people believed the different clones of you were the real you, or even believed that none of you were real, there's a definite degree of "blasphemy" there, so to speak.[/size]

[size=1]Where do Asian people come into play? What about Mexicans? Jamaicans? Spaniards!? The Irish!? The events of the Bible take place in a pretty centralized area. You can't expect the rest of the world to even be so much as aware of what was going on.[/size]

[size=1]First, keep in mind that Jesus was the mortal incarnation of God. And even if he wasn't, it was Jesus who ressurected him. It was the Father. If God wanted someone to live again, I'm [i]pretty[/i] sure he could rig that up without a hitch. It kind of goes with the territory. The purpose for Jesus' life was to be the ultimate sacrifice. He died for the sins of all humanity, both then, now, and forever. So by accepting Jesus as the Savior, when you are called to judgement, you are cleansed of your sins and allowed to enter Heaven.

This is where that whole idea of [i]faith[/i] comes in to play.[/size]


[size=1]Keep in mind people are given free will. If a person does not believe in God then God does not exist in them, and therefor are marked with "evil." Given, they may not be walking around worshipping Satan, so "evil" may seem like a pretty heavy term. His "presence" is a gift that is always before you, whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.[/size][/QUOTE]

I have faith, but that doesn't mean I have to be religious in the least. I have faith in myself, I have faith in my family, I have faith in all my loved ones. I have faith in the good in people. I am not evil because I'm skeptical about the existence of God and the Bible. Like you said, I have the power to choose whether or not I acknowledge ANY God. Which I don't. Except for Buddha. But Buddha (despite what some people will say) was never a God. He was just a person who discovered this way to feel at peace, and basically said "This worked for me, try it out." I find Buddha's teachings to be more of a philosphy than a religion. From what I've read there's no fairy tale-esque stories behind anything there.

I think the Bible is very flawed, and it's more like an epic fantasy novel than a non-fictional doctorine. Can't say I'm right, can't say I'm wrong.

[Albert Flasher]

[QUOTE=PiroMunkie]
[size=1]Keep in mind people are given free will. If a person does not believe in God then God does not exist in them, and therefor are marked with "evil." Given, they may not be walking around worshipping Satan, so "evil" may seem like a pretty heavy term. His "presence" is a gift that is always before you, whether or not you choose to accept it is up to you.[/size][/QUOTE][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=Sienna]
So... what, because I find the idea of god (in the Christian sense) laughable I drive 6-inch nails through baby skulls every night? I'm sure my habit has nothing to do with my non-Christianity, thank you very much. The way you make it sound, people who don't 'have' god lack this special 'gift' that makes them 'happy'. Anyone remember that interview Tom Cruise Mapother IV (Full name as of now...) gave on Ophera where he described the joy he recieved from being a Scientologist? Does that make him any less of a loony? I don't think so.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[Sara]

[QUOTE=Ziggy Stardust][FONT=Times New Roman]
[COLOR=Sienna]
So... what, because I find the idea of god (in the Christian sense) laughable I drive 6-inch nails through baby skulls every night? I'm sure my habit has nothing to do with my non-Christianity, thank you very much. The way you make it sound, people who don't 'have' god lack this special 'gift' that makes them 'happy'.[/COLOR][/FONT][/QUOTE][color=#b0000b][size=1][i]Evil[/i] was your term, not Piro's. I believe he placed it in quotes for that reason.

Also, again, it would be really nice if you would add Biblical references to back up your earlier statements, as that is the point of this thread.[/color][/size]

[Raiyuu]

[font=Trebuchet MS][quote name='Sara][/font][color=#b0000b][size=1]...it would be really nice if you would add Biblical references to back up your earlier statements, as that is the point of this thread.[/size][/color'][font=Trebuchet MS][/quote] Seconded. As shinji made abundantly clear in his opening post, this is [b]not [/b]a discussion of your personal faith or a place to rail against Christianity. I'm looking at [b]Ziggy [/b]and [b]KatanaViolet [/b]here - sorry to point fingers.

The point of the thread is to discuss 'technical difficulties' such as apparent contradictions or inconsistencies in the Bible, so let's stay on topic and not let it degenerate the same way as every other O. Lounge religion thread, mmkay?
[/font]