Question to Atheists

[OREZ]

Let's try again..

This is what I wrote...

The bible was written AFTER these so called prophecies regarding Jesus, the messiah's birth, etc, etc, etc. ( more than 700 years later )

Christians claim that Jesus is the messiah that was written about in the prophecies.....which were written 700 years before his birth...that his birth, life and death were all part of the prophecies.

The bible was written after Jesus...well after. Therefore....while making up the stories about Jesus and his life....include events that were prophesised 700 years ago...and you have 'proof' that god was involved in the writing of both.

Again...I never said the prophecies were written after Jesus or the bible....I said they were written 700 years before.

Two simple questions:

Have you ever studied the Bible?

What is the basis of whatever it is you think the Bible is all about; is it from reading the Bible or reading what other people have written about it?

[Geckonidae]

Two simple questions:

Have you ever studied the Bible?

What is the basis of whatever it is you think the Bible is all about; is it from reading the Bible or reading what other people have written about it?

Let's backup a bit and ask an even more important question. Before any of us heathens spend time studying the bible, tell us why we should even consider the bible to be a trustworthy source of information? As an outsider, I see a book has been translated and interpreted in different ways by different groups of people through the ages. I see a book that is full of contradictions, historical inaccuracies and magic. Some people say that the stories about Noah's Ark or the Exodus actually happened exactly the way the bible describes...other people say they are just allegories. So either you believe that these completely implausible and events actually happened despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, or you admit that the book is full of fictional stories and should not be taken literally.

Why should anyone accept that the bible is in any way trustworthy and accurate?

[JLives]

Because the bible says so.

[Geckonidae]

Because the bible says so.

:)

[OREZ]

Let's backup a bit and ask an even more important question. Before any of us heathens spend time studying the bible, tell us why we should even consider the bible to be a trustworthy source of information?

Well, I suppose a person would have to first know something about it to make that call but if a person's mind is already made up before doing so it would be a really pointless exercise.

As an outsider, I see a book has been translated and interpreted in different ways by different groups of people through the ages. I see a book that is full of contradictions, historical inaccuracies and magic. Some people say that the stories about Noah's Ark or the Exodus actually happened exactly the way the bible describes...other people say they are just allegories. So either you believe that these completely implausible and events actually happened despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, or you admit that the book is full of fictional stories and should not be taken literally.

And that's up to one's own individual interpretation. It's a pretty complicated book so without reading it, attempting to interpret it is pretty useless I'd say.

Why should anyone accept that the bible is in any way trustworthy and accurate?

Why should a person disparage or make assumptions about something a person has never studied and in which he or she has no interest further investigating? Why not just say, "I'm not interested?"

[Hmmm]

Let's backup a bit and ask an even more important question. Before any of us heathens spend time studying the bible, tell us why we should even consider the bible to be a trustworthy source of information? As an outsider, I see a book has been translated and interpreted in different ways by different groups of people through the ages. I see a book that is full of contradictions, historical inaccuracies and magic.

Why should anyone accept that the bible is in any way trustworthy and accurate?

You have done a good job on repeating the same criticism of all the rest who ALSO have not read it for themselves. The fact is, if you actually compare Bible translations (not including hollyweirds versions) you'll find them ALL remarkably similar. This of course does not include paraphrase Bibles.

People like you say the same things over and over and it actually is not true at all. There are controversial books that some claim should be in the Bible and some say they shouldn't, but the Bible says pretty much the same thing regardless of the translations. You do have to consider the language and the age of the translation as well, as words have changed over time. That does not mean they say contradictory things, it means the words used to mean something different.

If you want to know what the Bible says, compare modern english ones so you'll understand all the expressions and wording.

Before everyone races to google to find what critics say is wrong just know that there are very good answers to every criticism and its always based on a bias and or repeating of what others said, not on actual fact.

[Rosieodonell]

Read the bible and every thursday night i had to go to Catechism and do bible study. Reading the book, I had a deeper understanding of the book and if I ever had questions the priest was right there to answer them. Questions that fell outside the book were never answered and i was told to not worry about this or that and just believe.

That was the moment I became an atheist even though i had no idea there was a word for it. Stopped going to church and the rest of my family followed after. This was before internet access was available to me and I found all the arguments for religion a joke. I wasn't angry at my parents for taking me to church and i do see a lot of traditions I still use to raise my child, but after more research i found out the traditions I did keep in my heart turned out to be stolen from various other religions.

So i live my life by this rule, "treat others as you would want to be treated." I respect that people can believe anything they like but i don't have to respect what they believe. The nice thing is the world is shifting towards a more secular view and hopefully in my life time i will see a time where people stop believing in fairy tails and look for evidence and answer through science and common sense.

[Geckonidae]

Hmmm and OREZ...you are both completely missing the point here.

Let's try this instead: Do you consider your bible to be historically accurate, and do you consider stories such as Noah's Ark and the Exodus to be factual?

[OREZ]

Hmmm and OREZ...you are both completely missing the point here.

Let's try this instead: Do you consider your bible to be historically accurate, and do you consider stories such as Noah's Ark and the Exodus to be factual?

There's really nothing to your point that one could miss. I can see from your responses that you have never studied the Bible, have no desire to do so and so your attempt at criticism of it is about as relevant as your questions - which is all fine by me.

It's kind of like this; I'm just not going to spend time and effort talking about jazz to someone who has never had an ear for it, is not interested in listening to it, and is determined to not like it.

[janalta]

Why is it exactly that 'believers' automatically assume ( incorrectly ) that if you're not a Christian then you've never read the bible, never studied religion and all of your information must be from Google and Hollywood ???

Because, of course, if we had read it, and were intelligent enough to understand it...we would believe.

Your assumptions are wrong...but I do know one heck of a lot of Christians who, outside of church, have never opened the book in their lives.

[Geckonidae]

There's really nothing to your point that one could miss. I can see from your responses that you have never studied the Bible, have no desire to do so and so your attempt at criticism of it is about as relevant as your questions - which is all fine by me.

It's kind of like this; I'm just not going to spend time and effort talking about jazz to someone who has never had an ear for it, is not interested in listening to it, and is determined to not like it.

You just don't want to address the point, so you're dodging the question. I understand, in your eyes I'm just a hell-bound heathen who couldn't possibly understand the bible because I haven't read it with "Jesus in my heart".

The point I'm trying to make is that for someone who is not already a Christian of some kind, there is nothing to suggest that the bible is anything but a work of fiction. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that everything in the bible is fictional; I'm not saying that nothing would change my opinion; I'm simply saying that I have no reason to think that it is a trustworthy source of information. So if you and Hmmm have studied the bible so thoroughly, and you are such experts, then perhaps you can enlighten me. Why do you, why should I, and why should anyone consider the bible to be a trustworthy source of information? Or when you say you've studied the bible, does that just mean that you've read the bible many times and thought deeply about what it all means?

I bring up the stories of the Ark and Exodus specifically because I really know very little of what your bible actually contains. These happen to be two stories that I'm sure everyone is familiar with, and they seem totally implausible to me. The logistics of just don't work out unless you wave your hands and say God did it, magic, end of story.

So I'll ask again, and maybe someone less stubborn will answer. Are these two stories factual accounts, or are they allegories?

[OREZ]

Why is it exactly that 'believers' automatically assume ( incorrectly ) that if you're not a Christian then you've never read the bible, never studied religion and all of your information must be from Google and Hollywood ???

I can't speak for all believers but I don't automatically assume anything. For me, the discussions with people who have a genuine interest in and have done some study and pondering of scripture are completely different from people who haven't, whether they are believers or non-believers. It's easy to spot the difference even though I'm no scholar or expert myself.

Because, of course, if we had read it, and were intelligent enough to understand it...we would believe.

Not necessarily. A child can believe and yet I happen to know a guy with two university degrees (one of them in Physics) who is a very firm believer in addition to plenty of other intelligent and educated people I've met over the years, but far be it from me to be so elitist as to suggest that it is all about intelligence, that would be untrue.

Your assumptions are wrong...but I do know one heck of a lot of Christians who, outside of church, have never opened the book in their lives.

Me too. I'm not a fan of church myself, I don't go.

[Hmmm]

Hmmm and OREZ...you are both completely missing the point here.

Let's try this instead: Do you consider your bible to be historically accurate, and do you consider stories such as Noah's Ark and the Exodus to be factual?

Thats nice that you jump into the conversation and start demanding an answer to a question that nobody was talking about. I won't be answering you. Why not start a thread and ask it there? I have no issues with that and I might just answer you.

PS I did look back a few pages to see if you were involved and didn't see you, so if you were there than accept my apologies please.

[OREZ]

You just don't want to address the point, so you're dodging the question. I understand, in your eyes I'm just a hell-bound heathen who couldn't possibly understand the bible because I haven't read it with "Jesus in my heart".

Wrong. I don't believe that you're "hell-bound" at all and I do believe that you could understand it... but you'd have to read it first.

The point I'm trying to make is that for someone who is not already a Christian of some kind, there is nothing to suggest that the bible is anything but a work of fiction. I'm not saying that I firmly believe that everything in the bible is fictional; I'm not saying that nothing would change my opinion; I'm simply saying that I have no reason to think that it is a trustworthy source of information. So if you and Hmmm have studied the bible so thoroughly, and you are such experts, then perhaps you can enlighten me. Why do you, why should I, and why should anyone consider the bible to be a trustworthy source of information?

I don't know about Hmmm but I'm not an expert and I've not studied it as thoroughly as I hope to. I don't think that I can enlighten you. As to why I should read it, I don't know, I just do - and it resonates with me. For you? Evidently, not so much.

Or when you say you've studied the bible, does that just mean that you've read the bible many times and thought deeply about what it all means?

Yeah, I've read it and thought about it a fair amount for quite a number of years and I have always had an interest and curiosity in ancient history and civilizations but I don't have a framed piece of paper that says I know something. Does that qualify as "study" in your books? It does in mine.

I bring up the stories of the Ark and Exodus specifically because I really know very little of what your bible actually contains. These happen to be two stories that I'm sure everyone is familiar with, and they seem totally implausible to me. The logistics of just don't work out unless you wave your hands and say God did it, magic, end of story.

So I'll ask again, and maybe someone less stubborn will answer. Are these two stories factual accounts, or are they allegories?

I can be pretty damned stubborn alright but I can't tell you the answer to that. That's for you to think about... if you're interested... or not. I don't really think that it's the most important thing, actually. I wouldn't get hung up on it.

[Geckonidae]

Thats nice that you jump into the conversation and start demanding an answer to a question that nobody was talking about. I won't be answering you. Why not start a thread and ask it there? I have no issues with that and I might just answer you.

PS I did look back a few pages to see if you were involved and didn't see you, so if you were there than accept my apologies please.

That's hilarious! This is an online discussion board...people jump into conversations...that's how it's done. If you have a problem with that, perhaps you should take a look at the topic of the original post. "Question to Atheists" Are you an atheist? Were you invited to join the discussion, or did you just jump in?

I suspect you won't answer the question because you don't have an answer that doesn't involve circular logic. Do you see the bible as a trustworthy source of information because it's part of your faith, or did you come to your faith because you were first convinced that the bible was a trustworthy source of information?

How about another question that is more in line with what you and Janalta were going back and forth about...and this is an earnest question from someone with very little biblical knowledge. You claim that the bible had prophecies that came true, and you would point to Jesus as the Messiah being one of those prophecies, correct? And you say that the prophecy predates the birth of Jesus because it was actually written in Torah scrolls or something. So we have this Messiah prophecy that predates Jesus. Please correct me if I'm wrong up to this point. So here's where I'm confused. If this prophecy was written by the Jews...and Jesus was one of the Jews...was this prophecy fulfilled according to the Jewish religion? Or is it just the Christians claiming that this Jewish prophecy was fulfilled?