Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

Besides: I question your knowledge about the book. If you do not even know the parable of the two sons who are being asked to work in the vineyard, which is one of the central parables in it, your knowledge of the book is rudimentary at best.

Well, since nobody else is going to provide the information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Workers_in_the_Vineyard

The authenticity of the Holy Bible has been attacked at regular intervals by athiests and theologians alike but none have explained away the mathematical seal beneath its surface.

The Bible is a great book. I'm reading it for the second time now. I'm not a Christian, but as a work of literature/legend/history/philosophy/whatever it's fascinating.

I think everyone in Western society should read it, as it has undoubtedly had more impact on our culture than any other single text. And as the Residents once said "Ignorance of your culture is not considered cool."


Edited by thellama73 - July 18 2010 at 11:01

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: [QUOTE=Textbook] And no I don't like you, because a person who says the Bible is horsesh*t, is showing the same respect and tolerance as the Nazis who burned books because they didn't agree. Iván

I think that Textbook is being deliberately provocative here and your objection is duly noted. However, what is acceptable when referring to a book that suggests homosexuals should be dragged out of their homes and stoned outside the town walls, for example?
If that's the word of God, then that's a god I am not prepared to respect...

Tony R wrote: I think that Textbook is being deliberately provocative here and your objection is duly noted. However, what is acceptable when referring to a book that suggests homosexuals should be dragged out of their homes and stoned outside the town walls, for example? If that's the word of God, then that's a god I am not prepared to respect...

Slartibartfast wrote: thellama73 wrote: The Bible is a great book. I'm reading it for the second time now. I'm not a Christian, but as a work of literature/legend/history/philosophy/whatever it's fascinating. I think everyone in Western society should read it, as it has undoubtedly had more impact on our culture than any other single text. And as the Residents once said "Ignorance of your culture is not considered cool." Which version are you reading and have you listened to or seen The Resident's Wormwood?

The first time I read it, I read the New American Standard Bible, now I am trying my hand at a Catholic version, the Revised Standard Version, 2nd Catholic Edition. No, I am not familiar with Wormwood, sadly.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Tony R wrote: So why not ditch the OT, then? And why would God send himself (Jesus) to edit his own faulty manuscript when he's omniscient and therefore knew that he'd have to stop telling people to kill gays one day?   In first place, God didn't send Jesus; Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are  three persons and one God, so God came himself (At least acording to our beliefs).   Now God doesn't make errors, so if the law is flawed is because men through centuries lost the idea of what God said and made a bad interpretation.   So God HIMSELF came here to say..."Hey this is the law you must follow", even when THE LAW OF MOSES (read carefully), says a different thing.   Iván   .

(read carefully)
compare:
And why would God send himself (Jesus)

with:
God didn't send Jesus; Father, Jesus and Holy Spirit are  three persons and one God, so God came himself

I was a Roman Catholic for the first 13 years of my life....

Mr ProgFreak wrote: BaldFriede wrote: Besides: I question your knowledge about the book. Incidentally: I never claimed to be particularly knowledgeable about the bible - I'll happily leave that to others. I'm primarily interested whether it contains major contradictions on central elements of the Christian faith, and my opinion is that for example Bart Ehrman shows this in his book "Jesus, Interrupted". Please take into account who Ehrman is and what he believes before making unfounded assumptions about his bias. The parable that you mentioned appears only in Matthew, and I don't see any profound implications on the Christian faith.

It does not matter at all which authority you cite on it, Mike; as long as you have not read it yourself your knowledge is second hand knowledge only; you are just trying to wriggle. You should really try first hand knowledge; it is a much more entertaining read than you think, and there are even passages in it which you would expect in an erotic novel but not in the bible (Song of Solomon).

Granted, there are some tedious passages, especially the minor prophets like Hosea or Joel, but the entertaining passages more than make up for it. And you will be a lot more surprised about the deep truths inside the bible, regardless of contradictions. And, most important of all, it will give you a much better understanding of Christian faith than reading Ehrman or anyone else.

You know that I am not of Christian faith, but there are nevertheless profound truths in the bible, as there are in the holy books of any religion.

My advice is: Read the bible like a fantasy novel. That means: Take the premises of the book for granted during the read (you know very well there are no elves or fairies either when reading a fantasy novel, but while reading it you take their existence for granted). Afterwards you can still say: What a load of rubbish!

BJ: No, put thy trust in a book written by people who "heard voices". Far more sensible.