AMAZING FAITH

[Viva_Daddy]

AMAZING FAITH

It’s amazing to me how I could ever have believed the Bible to be history, let alone the “infallible Word of God”. Of course as a very young child, I’m not culpable; but surely by the time I entered College I should have known better. Let’s just take a few things off the top of my head.

There are two different creation stories; two different versions of Noah and the Ark, two different accounts of who killed Goliath, two different accounts of how King Saul died, and two different accounts of the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah (although they obviously copied from one another).

The Gospels give two different genealogies for Jesus, two different and irreconcilable accounts of the circumstances of his birth, differing accounts of the day and time of Jesus’ crucifixion, 4 different accounts of what Jesus said from the cross, etc. etc. And of course, there are numerous historical inaccuracies throughout the bible.

No matter how many times I heard and read the Bible, none of this was noticed by me or apparently any one else in the congregations I attended. That’s amazing to me.

While the bible may be true mythologically, it is not historically true.

Obviously, blind faith is truly blind. It covers your eyes like blinders so you don’t see the obvious.
[Just like we don’t see the obvious 1st person seeing.]

[trotsky]

1. I too always found it interesting...

how so many basic discrepancies and outright contradictions didn't even enter into the thoughts of many believers. They always bugged me. Especially since, even if one doesn't take the whole book literally, how could such a confusing set of writings be what an omnipotent god (who wants us to know about it!) rely on to convey its message?

[pinto]

2. There are a number of differing recounts of the Battle of the Alamo, San Antonio TX, 1836.

Less than 200 years ago. I don't find it surprising that there are numerous recounts of events that occurred 2000 years ago.

[cbayer]

10. Only literalists or those that insist that others have to be literalists don't get that.

[Mariana]

41. I'm not sure that's a good analogy.

I don't think anyone has ever claimed that God inspired the authors of any of the differering accounts of the Battle of the Alamo, San Antonio, Texas, 1836.

[hrmjustin]

3. I am a believer and noticed the inconsistencies as a kid.

The bible was not written by the same person and of courze there will be inconsistencies.

As for the creation story I believe it is allegory.

[pinto]

4. I read creation stories as allegory, too. From whatever faith.

[Brettongarcia]

43. But allegory means half true

[JDDavis]

5. The Bible and truth, and science

What science can verifiably show is wrong about the Bible is called an allegory, what science can't disprove about the Bible is called "truth".

[hrmjustin]

6. Not necessarily untrue or true.

For me it is a bit more complicated.

[pinto]

7. Maybe we ought to move beyond the Bible vs. Science framework.

Perhaps a value based approach? What are the values of religious allegory, scientific hypotheses, trial and error, religious debate in personal experience and societal terms. And what value do both attribute to that concept of "truth", which has evolved in both realms.

[trotsky]

9. As long as there are people who believe their religious text is also a science book...

it's not possible to simply "move beyond the Bible vs. Science framework."

[JDDavis]

12. I did not state "the Bible vs. Science" you did

I stated 3 nouns, all connected by the word "and" between them.

Beyond that, your own mind went to work and found something in opposition, one or more from the others.

Now, how did your mind do that?

[hrmjustin]

13. I see we are getting snarky again.

[pinto]

14. "The Bible and truth, and science"

I read it that way. If I misread it, won't be the first time.

[cbayer]

16. Well, let's be honest. What does your little phrase mean to convey?

Frankly, I think it's very good if people recognize that certain parts of the bible don't hold up well when confronted with scientific evidence. I am glad to see people recognize that there are parts that are clearly allegorical.

OTOH, there is much historical information in the bible that can not be scientifically refuted. Some people may claim that as true or true to a certain extent. Others may see it as more allegory or an exaggerated retelling or something that came to be after many years of "telephone". So what?

[cbayer]

11. That's cute. Where did you pick that up?

[rug]

8. Columbus discovered America.

The Pilgrims ate turkey on Thanksgiving.

It's a free country.

We have representative democracy.

Capitalism causes innovation.

You may want to sit down. It's a very long list.

[edhopper]

15. So the Bible has true

historical events because other events that aren't accepted by historians and are only school grade platitudes are wrong?

Have you seen anyone condemned to death because they disagree that Capitalism spurs innovation?

Or is this just an" Ohh look at the shiny thing over there" because someone attacked faith?

[rug]

17. Did that list startle you?

This chestnut is trotted out periodically. There are two accounts in Genesis! Aha! As if there were any witnesses.

The Bible seems to be a fetish with some people. It's bad history! It's bad science! See, it's all bullshit!

Please.

And yes, I can give you a long list of martyrs to capitalism. Off the top of my head, Joe Hill is prominent.

There's a lot more bullshit floating around, historically and scientifically, in the last three hundred years than there is in the last three thousand.

Or is this different because it's . . . . religion!

[edhopper]

18. So we just ignore

The billions who think the bible is history?

And the line about more bullshit now than in the past is truly absurd.

More scientific bullshit now than a thousand years ago? Two thousand? Really?

[rug]

19. I'll chalk up your first remark to hyperbole.

And yes, I meant what I said. The growth of literacy in the last three hundred years has produced more writing than in the previous three thousand.

As a matter of raw numbers, there's exponentially more bullshit circulating than there was three thousand years ago. That doesn't take away a single ounce from what has also been discovered in that time frame.

[edhopper]

22. Boy

is that tortured.

It really is a non argument. More shiny stuff.


Hundreds of millions then.

[cbayer]

20. Faith is by definition blind. It is a belief without evidence.

That doesn't necessarily mean that it causes people to disregard fact. Once evidence enters into the picture, you really aren't talking about faith anymore.

I think most people recognize that there are inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible. Anyone who has read the 4 gospels and doesn't know that the stories are different wasn't reading very carefully or critically.

I don't think you can make the definitive statement that the bible is not historically true. Some parts may be, others may not and most of the stories are probably in the grey area.

So what?

[trotsky]

21. See this is one of the main reasons it's so hard to take you seriously.

Sometimes, you love to equivocate on the word faith. You want to make religious faith the same as faith that the sun will rise, or that a chair will support one when one sits. Because that suits your agenda of wanting everyone to have faith in something and therefore atheists should stop criticizing religion because they have faith too.

But here you are (when it's convenient for your separate agenda of religion being special) doing the exact opposite, decreeing that faith is strictly "belief without evidence."

Faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, then, isn't faith as you mean it. It's a conclusion borne out by a pattern of it happening a trillion times before. I.e., EVIDENCE. And as you've just (now) said , "Once evidence enters into the picture, you really aren't talking about faith anymore."

Could you please at least try to make your arguments consistent?

[edhopper]

23. "Once evidence enters into the picture, you really aren't talking about faith anymore."

What are we talking about then?

[cbayer]

24. What is who talking about?

Once there is evidence and one bases their belief or non-belief on that evidence, it is by definition no longer faith based.

Faith is for beliefs for which there is no evidence to either support or reject.

What is confusing about that?

[edhopper]

25. What about when there is evidence

counter to those beliefs. With no evidence in support. And the person says, "I don't care, I still believe"?

[cbayer]

27. That person is making the decision to dismiss evidence.

That makes it something other than faith. Denial? Distortion? This may be the case where delusion might actually be the right word.

This is important because you can't challenge faith because there is nothing to challenge it with.

But when you have evidence, you certainly can challenge a belief as no longer faith based.

[edhopper]

29. So the people who believe in the nativity?

Or the Exodus?

Or Saint caused miracles?

[cbayer]

30. It all depends on whether you have actual evidence that these things

did not occur.

I would make the argument that there is a great deal of debate about the things you bring up and that until there is agreed upon evidence, then you can't challenge the faith of those that hold those beliefs.

I suspect you will make the argument that there is clear and conclusive evidence, but there are a great number of people much more qualified that would challenge your "evidence", so the jury is still out.

OTOH, young earth creationists are in a completely different category. There is a massive amount of generally agreed upon evidence that they are wrong. Their belief is no longer faith based, imo.

Perhaps we should call it faith that has jumped the shark!

[edhopper]

32. Still think there's debate about

Moses and the Exodus huh?

Still think there is evidence of the nativity story, not Jesus being born, but the star, the census, the slaughter of the innocents, the three wise men?

So at what part of the bible would you agree that people are believing against the evidence?

Methuselah? Jonah? Noah? Jericho? Walking on water?

At what point should the evidence override faith.

[cbayer]

33. I do think there is debate, but I don't think it makes much difference because

there aren't a whole lot of literal interpretations out there that have much impact., are there?

Do you really want to debate silly things like the star and the census and the three wise men? Really?

Faith becomes important when there is an issue of importance like global warming and creationism. These are beliefs that have an impact on the world.

Who really gives a hoot about Methuselah, jonah, noah, jericho, walking on water? What difference does it make?

Evidence should override faith when there are consequences. Otherwise it's just a game of checkers that you seem to need to win. Is it really so important that you be right about this?

[edhopper]

34. I am just trying to understand your statement

about believing things contrary to the evidence.

You said that is no longer faith.

I was giving examples of things millions believe. What would you call that, if not faith?

Delineating the importance of the belief is a fools game.

Their are consequences, big and small, good and bad to all beliefs, and they don't always line up with your priorities.

[cbayer]

35. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.

I am saying that if someone believes something despite evidence to the contrary, it is something other than faith.

Trying to knock down every little particle of someone's belief system is the fools game, with game being the operative word.

There are sometimes consequences and sometimes not. Choose your battles, otherwise it just looks like you are invested in proving that you are right and someone else is wrong.

You accomplish nothing but a shallow personal win if your "prove" that there wasn't a star of Bethlehem. Bully on you.

If you have beliefs about believers and maintain them despite evidence to the contrary, are you really any better than they are?

[edhopper]

36. Thank you for the psychoanalysis

I hope you don't mind it if L ignore it and find my interests where I may.

I also think you underestimate the importance to millions about the historical accuracy of the Bible.

If not faith, what is the belief in all those things for which there is contrary evidence?

You brought this up and then decided not to respond to examples I gave.

I don't care how important you think they are the are still pertenant to your statement.

[cbayer]

37. You may want to look up psychoanalysis, because my response to

you bears absolutely no resemblance to that.

You are even driven to win this semantic debate about the definition of faith.

Ok, you win. It's all faith.

Now go tilt at some windmills. I'm going to challenge the stuff that is important when it comes to believers and their beliefs.

[edhopper]

38. Thanks

Carry on.

[LostOne4Ever]

26. Thing that gets me is not so much the historical or scientific inaccuracies

[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal] But rather the morality of a book that is supposed to be inspired by the word of god.

• First man and woman held responsible for wrong doing when they were incapable of knowing right from wrong.



• Mass flood genocide.



• Man tricks a pharaoh into thinking said man's wife is his sister and that she is unmarried, then pharaoh gets in trouble for trying to court her.



• Man tricks his father into giving him his brothers inheritance...nothing but praise and accolades for the fraud.



• Man tries to give up his daughters to a gang to rape in exchange for complete strangers. Treats him as moral and righteous.



• Whole cities burnt to a crisp not sparing anyone but said man from above and his two daughters. Wife turned to salt for looking back at her home.



• Daughters get the above father drunk and commit incest. No problem.



• Citizens of Egypt made to pay horrible price after price because the actions of their pharaoh....who was being controlled by supreme deity so that said deity could show off how "awesome" he thinks he is.



• Priest agrees to makes golden idol for mob. Mob murdered in mass for transaction, priest is held blameless.



• Whole acts of genocide, rape, and sexual slavery done in mass.



• Children killed by bears for trivial reason.



• Innocent people killed by super strong man because some other people guessed a riddle.



• Creation of hell...

The list goes on and on.


The Lord of the Rings has better morality than that and its more interesting to boot.[/font]

[cbayer]

28. Personally reject it then.

If all you can see is the negative things and don't see the good, then it's not for you.

Personally, I couldn't get through the first chapter of Lord of the Rings, but that's just me.

[LostOne4Ever]

39. The first hundred or so pages are indeed horribly boring (nt)

[Mariana]

42. Those things are only a problem

if you believe god has to be good. There's really no reason to believe that - as you pointed out, the Bible certainly doesn't support that idea. If god exists, it's just as likely to be evil, or some mix of good and evil. Then those stories make a lot more sense.

[tradewinds]

31. "..true mythologically....."

That is among the craziest things I've ever heard!!!!

[AtheistCrusader]

40. I can't even decipher it.

Like, what does that MEAN?