The Bible Says So....

[Sntrose]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

[McCulloch]

Something I must ask, why did you quote the Bible back to me if you don't even believe it?????

I believe that there are some great truths recorded in the Bible. It would not have lasted as long as it did without some truth. I quote two such passages in my online signature. The first,
Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
First Epistle to the Church of the Thessalonians
is one of the pithiest description of the foundational idea behind science that has ever been written. The second,
The truth will make you free.
Gospel of John,
I enjoy because of its irony. I believe in seeking truth. In seeking the truth of matters, I have been set free from religious dogma.

Of course I cannot say that I have spoken to God directly, as in face-to-face, for I have spoken to him through prayer, because God is in heaven and sadly I can't go there until I die!

Then how is it that you can say that God has said anything?

Read 2 Timothy 3v16 and there you will find a 'claim' about the Scriptures being God-inspired, note the word All.

Please read 2 Timothy chapter 3 in context.

You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Note that the sacred writings that Paul is referring to were taught to Timothy when he was a child. When Timothy was a child, none of the New Testament was even written. How could Paul be referring to scriptures that had not even been written yet? At best, the scriptures referred to here are what the Christians call the Old Testament and the Jews call Tanakh.
Now, if you insist on legalistically applying the word All, then how is it that you decide which scriptures to include and which ones not to include? You include the writings of Paul, Peter, James, Luke, John, an anonymous letter to the Hebrews but exclude the Gospel of Thomas, the Book of Enoch (referred to in Jude and 2 Peter), Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Ebionites, Gospel of the Twelve, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistles of Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ, The Doctrine and Covenants of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, The Pearl of Great Price, The Guru Granth Sahib, the Urantia Book, the Wiccan Rede, the Qurn, Rig Veda, Rasa'il al-hikmah (Epistles of Wisdom) and Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy. These are all in a sense Scripture. The New Testament does not contain a divinely inspired table of contents. What to include and what not to include has been argued by church leaders for centuries. Why, if God wanted to communicate with us, would He leave out such a simple but important list?

[Strider324]

[Replying to post 187 by McCulloch]

Something I must ask, why did you quote the Bible back to me if you don't even believe it?????

Of course I cannot say that I have spoken to God directly, as in face-to-face, for I have spoken to him through prayer, because God is in heaven and sadly I can't go there until I die!

Read 2 Timothy 3v16 and there you will find a 'claim' about the Scriptures being God-inspired, note the word All.

So...you are 'sad' that you are alive, and would clearly rather be dead so you can go to heaven - what a horribly depressing worldview.


But don't be sad, God may take you at any moment. He takes thousands of babies and children with cancer every day! Apparently, he needs kids to play with....

[Danmark]

Here's an exchange on the 'hermaphrodites' subtopic that demonstrate men wrote the Bible not God:

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the Deut. 23:1assembly of the LORD."

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

What do you mean by "dim view"? That is not a moral sin, it is a disqualifier. Unattractive women are not permitted to be Miss America. Does that mean that they are bad women?

Are you seriously comparing God to the people who run beauty pageants?
Actually, now that I think of it, it is an apt comparison.
Both God and beauty pageants prize superficial physical beauty over spiritual qualities, hence God's long list of physical deformities and injuries that disqualify someone for a spiritual task.

One would think that if God made us in his image, and that means our spiritual nature or our 'souls' are the most important part of us, the rest being a mere temple to house the immortal 'soul,' that God would see beyond our Earthly shell to our spiritual essence.

Why, it's almost enough to make a guy think the Bible was written by men, not God.

[bluethread]

Here's an exchange on the 'hermaphrodites' subtopic that demonstrate men wrote the Bible not God:

The Bible takes a dim view of 'God's mistakes' and blames the victim:

No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the Deut. 23:1assembly of the LORD."

16 And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 17 Speak to Aaron, saying, None of your offspring throughout their generations who has a blemish may approach to offer the bread of his God. 18 For no one who has a blemish shall draw near, a man blind or lame, or one who has a mutilated face or a limb too long, 19 or a man who has an injured foot or an injured hand, 20 or a hunchback or a dwarf or a man with a defect in his sight or an itching disease or scabs or crushed testicles.

_ Leviticus 21

What do you mean by "dim view"? That is not a moral sin, it is a disqualifier. Unattractive women are not permitted to be Miss America. Does that mean that they are bad women?

Are you seriously comparing God to the people who run beauty pageants?
Actually, now that I think of it, it is an apt comparison.
Both God and beauty pageants prize superficial physical beauty over spiritual qualities, hence God's long list of physical deformities and injuries that disqualify someone for a spiritual task.

One would think that if God made us in his image, and that means our spiritual nature or our 'souls' are the most important part of us, the rest being a mere temple to house the immortal 'soul,' that God would see beyond our Earthly shell to our spiritual essence.

Why, it's almost enough to make a guy think the Bible was written by men, not God.

No, it demonstrates that someone can insert assumptions not in evidence and conclude what whatever they like. Are you seriously requiring a poster to present an analogy that is absolutely perfect in every sense? That said, let's look at the significant parts of the analogy. A beauty pageant is designed to showcase, symbolically, what it means to be a woman. One may argue that it does not do that, but that does not mean that is not it's purpose. In the same way the Temple and it's practices are designed to showcase, symbolically, what it means to be one of Adonai's people. The physical requirements of a Priest serving in the Temple, symbolize the spiritual requirements of Adonai's people. So, the requirement is designed to fit that symbolism, not to indicate any character flaw on the part of the Priest. It is not a moral sin to not meet the requirements of Priest, any more than not winning a beauty pageant is a moral sin against womanhood.

[Danmark]

Are you seriously comparing God to the people who run beauty pageants?
Actually, now that I think of it, it is an apt comparison.
Both God and beauty pageants prize superficial physical beauty over spiritual qualities, hence God's long list of physical deformities and injuries that disqualify someone for a spiritual task.

One would think that if God made us in his image, and that means our spiritual nature or our 'souls' are the most important part of us, the rest being a mere temple to house the immortal 'soul,' that God would see beyond our Earthly shell to our spiritual essence.

Why, it's almost enough to make a guy think the Bible was written by men, not God.

No, it demonstrates that someone can insert assumptions not in evidence and conclude what whatever they like. Are you seriously requiring a poster to present an analogy that is absolutely perfect in every sense? That said, let's look at the significant parts of the analogy. A beauty pageant is designed to showcase, symbolically, what it means to be a woman. One may argue that it does not do that, but that does not mean that is not it's purpose. In the same way the Temple and it's practices are designed to showcase, symbolically, what it means to be one of Adonai's people. The physical requirements of a Priest serving in the Temple, symbolize the spiritual requirements of Adonai's people. So, the requirement is designed to fit that symbolism, not to indicate any character flaw on the part of the Priest. It is not a moral sin to not meet the requirements of Priest, any more than not winning a beauty pageant is a moral sin against womanhood.

I've simply agreed with your analogy. I think it apt. The passage in Leviticus clearly shows that God does not mean what he has claimed. God prizes the appearance over the spiritual, or, the more likely conclusion that this 'god' is really a group of men, with the worldly concerns of men, including the desire to promote their scam by having the best looking salesmen.

One would think the requirements for the Priesthood would be spiritual not superficial, IF there were a God involved who truly puts the spiritual values first.
What you are suggesting is that this God knows that his subjects, despite what he has taught them, still get swayed by a pretty face, rather than the content of their character. This is just another in a long line of passages that clearly demonstrate the fallible and Earthly source of 'scripture.'

[Goat]

[Replying to Goat]

THe Bible is God-breathed basically because God says so. It is impossible to explain to anyone the validity of the Bible without using the Bible itself. Faith is just believing. It is very simple, God said it so I believe it and when you challenge me and question me about my belief in the God-inspired Scriptures and a Creator God, you are challenging God himself. Because all I am telling you is what God says. You can only do one of two things, take it or sadly leave it.

Where does God say so? The author of the pseudo graphical work 2 timothy says so, but can you show he speaks the truth? Am I challenging God?? Or am I challenging you? Or am I challenge the New Testament?

I challenge that challenging your belief I am challenging God himself. Please prove that statement

[daughterofthefaith]

[Replying to post 190 by Danmark]

Women are the weaker vessel but Christ didn't deny them all rights! I can't agree than the Bible is unreasonable and immoral perhaps you should read it with a less synical attitude.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 190 by Danmark]

Women are the weaker vessel but Christ didn't deny them all rights! I can't agree than [sic]the Bible is unreasonable and immoral perhaps you should read it with a less synical [sic] attitude.

Baloney. Women are certainly not 'the weaker vessel.' This is more false rubbish jammed into the Bible by the MEN who wrote it.

I'm very proud to tell you how much I enjoy the fact that my very accomplished daughters every day prove how wrong you and the Bible are about this 'weaker vessel' nonsense [along with billions of other strong and wonderful women].

[bluethread]

One would think the requirements for the Priesthood would be spiritual not superficial, IF there were a God involved who truly puts the spiritual values first.
What you are suggesting is that this God knows that his subjects, despite what he has taught them, still get swayed by a pretty face, rather than the content of their character. This is just another in a long line of passages that clearly demonstrate the fallible and Earthly source of 'scripture.'

No, they speak to the empirical nature of man. Things we can taste, touch, smell feel and see, work as better reminders than platonic arguments. In fact, scientific humanists often criticize the Scriptures for not being empirical enough. That said, not all of the laws were ritualistic, many were character based. The prophets repeatedly faulted the priests for placing the symbol over that which it symbolized. So, I don't think it was Adonai that got these things mixed up.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 190 by Danmark]

Women are the weaker vessel but Christ didn't deny them all rights! I can't agree than the Bible is unreasonable and immoral perhaps you should read it with a less synical attitude.

I find it so sad that you think of yourself as a 'weaker vessel' The women in my life are very strong women.. and more than capable than most men.