• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ayn Rand is the L. Ron Hubbard of Politics

Agree of Disagree ...discuss?

  • Total voters
    52
Blackdog said:
Only if you are into blanket statements. :roll:
Click to expand...

Meh considering the bible is in and of itself erroneous not only HISTORICALLY but demonstratively through logic, it is in fact proper to asses that Christians are ignorant of history. You have two choices blackdog. Either the bible is the word of god and completely right as it claims, or its wrong and its just a book written by a few hebrews who didnt know jack **** about the world.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Meh considering the bible is in and of itself erroneous not only HISTORICALLY but demonstratively through logic, it is in fact proper to asses that Christians are ignorant of history.
Click to expand...

That would depend on who you talk to now wouldn't it? Considering it is not one book, but an assembly of many books from many different people I would say you are reaching. Again with more blanket statements.

Hatuey said:
You have two choices blackdog. Either the bible is the word of god and completely right as it claims, or its wrong and its just a book written by a few hebrews who didnt know jack **** about the world.
Click to expand...

The Bible is the word of God as interpreted by man. The Bible also points out, we are not robots. So no, your 2 choices are limited and based in speculation and your own biased opinion.

I am not certain why I even bother to respond to this silliness anymore.
 
Apparently the mods no longer seem to care about this thread going off topic, so I would like to add my two cents in response to Hatuey. From a strictly philological perspective, the Bible is fairly historically accurate, and if you're going to make a sweeping claim to the contrary you have to bring some extraordinary evidence to back up your extraordinary claim. Otherwise your argument is just hot air. So what historical inaccuracies in the Bible could you possibly be talking about?
 
Guy Incognito said:
So what historical inaccuracies in the Bible could you possibly be talking about?
Click to expand...

I'll take a shot. Prove the creation story or the flood story ever really happened.
 
Cephus said:
I'll take a shot. Prove the creation story or the flood story ever really happened.
Click to expand...

Creation stories are just that, stories. And the flood actually happened, so, you're wrong about that.

I'd rather hear from Hatuey anyway. You opinion is not particularly interesting.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Creation stories are just that, stories. And the flood actually happened, so, you're wrong about that.
Click to expand...

Then you should have no problem producing evidence that a worldwide flood actually happened. Go for it.

I'd rather hear from Hatuey anyway. You opinion is not particularly interesting.
Click to expand...

Yours isn't particularly sane.
 
Cephus said:
Then you should have no problem producing evidence that a worldwide flood actually happened. Go for it.



Yours isn't particularly sane.
Click to expand...

Meh, anyone who quotes sacred text as proof of any argument should really consider taking a college course. It just makes for bad argument. I'm a Muslim so why should I take your interpretation of any bible as truth? I'm a atheist, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth? I'm a christian, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth?

Audience people!

Edit: (This wasn't towards you Cephus!!!)
 
Guy Incognito said:
There is ample evidence for a great flood. Deucalion, Noah, Atlantis, etc. Flood myth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So that's a real bad example if you're trying to come up with Biblical historical inaccuracies.
Click to expand...

Wrong, just wrong... So within the past 2000 years we have had global flooding from a tidal wave (only thing that could cause such an event for a short period) when?

(I could be wrong, just wrong. If I am, please school me)
 
Jryan said:
Wrong, just wrong... So within the past 2000 years we have had global flooding from a tidal wave (only thing that could cause such an event for a short period) when?

(I could be wrong, just wrong. If I am, please school me)
Click to expand...

Sure, no problem. It was way more than 2000 years ago, for starters.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Sure, no problem. It was way more than 2000 years ago, for starters.
Click to expand...

zzzzzz Continue please? (I'm 110% sure that your own fellow christian colleagues disagree because the earth didn't exist "way before that" because jesus hadn't created it, but continue please)
 
Jryan said:
zzzzzz Continue please? (I'm 110% sure that your own fellow christian colleagues disagree because the earth didn't exist "way before that" because jesus hadn't created it, but continue please)
Click to expand...

Well, look, even a Biblical literalist isn't going to say it was 2000 years ago. I mean, look at the timeline, Noah is purported to have lived about 4000 years before Christ.

But as I said earlier, I am approaching this from a strictly philological perspective, not a religious one. Calling the Bible "historically inaccurate" is a sweeping and wholly small minded thing to say. Genesis is, of course, full of fantasy, but it is a creation epic not unlike Hesiod. It is literary, and very few of the Abrahamic religions take it literally.

The rest of the Bible is as historically accurate as any other comparable ancient text, more some than many. Who won what battle, who begat whom, and so on, are highly accurate. One of the major apparent inaccuracies is in Exodus, since there is no corroborating evidence that the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. But really, that is not a bad record for historicity in an ancient text. The Bible is more "historically accurate" than most comparable works (whatever that means... only a simpleton would think there was an easy definition of "historical accuracy"). Compare Suetonius, a Roman gossip-monger who is a key source of what we know about the Julio-Claudians.

The jury is still out on the historicity of Jesus but if you pay attention to the recent scholarship then you'd know that the weight of evidence is tilting in favor of the fact that there was a historical Jesus. It does seem to strain credulity that Jesus is an entirely fabricated character. I admit, I once leaned toward the hypothesis that Jesus was a myth, because the Christ cult is certainly part of the mystery cult tradition that includes Isis, Eleusis and Mithras. It seemed likely that Jesus was made up out of thin air, just like Mithras. But the most likely explanation is that Jesus was a real Jewish hero-teacher much like the character found in the New Testament who fused Jewish teaching with Greek philosophy to create the Abrahamic-Hellenic hybrid espoused in the Bible. There probably wasn't a census around the time of His birth, and a number of other facts were probably fudged to align with certain old testament prophecies. But the broad strokes are likely true, and that is a lot to expect from ancient texts. So just like there was probably a real Trojan War, there was a probably a real Jesus.

So, is the Bible "historically accurate?" If one is inclined to give short answers to these type of complex questions, then the short answer is "Yes."
 
Jryan said:
Meh, anyone who quotes sacred text as proof of any argument should really consider taking a college course. It just makes for bad argument. I'm a Muslim so why should I take your interpretation of any bible as truth? I'm a atheist, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth? I'm a christian, why should I take your interpretation of the bible as truth?
Click to expand...

Because interpretation and faith mean nothing in a rational debate, only evidence, logic and critical thinking do. That's where religion fails, they have no evidence, they apply no logic and they are unable to think critically about their beliefs. They do not follow the evidence to a conclusion, they start with a conclusion and only pay attention to evidence that supports their preconceived notions.
 
Cephus said:
I'll take a shot. Prove the creation story or the flood story ever really happened.
Click to expand...

The creation story is not literal. The flood story is a local thing as proven by science as a large flood did happen in the area, This is the same reason almost every major religion from Africa, the Middle East and the Americas have a flood epic. They were just large local floods on a massive scale. The geology supports this rather than a global flood. 2000 years ago the Middle East and Africa was the entire world. So world wide flood is accurate by their standards.

This is not rocket science, lol.

I know some Christians believe the literal translation, and I have to disagree with them as well.
 
Cephus said:
There is evidence for lots of smaller floods, yes. There is no evidence for a single world-wide flood. Try again.
Click to expand...

You have to see it from their perspective, not our modern view of the world.
 
Blackdog said:
The creation story is not literal. The flood story is a local thing as proven by science as a large flood did happen in the area, This is the same reason almost every major religion from Africa, the Middle East and the Americas have a flood epic. They were just large local floods on a massive scale. The geology supports this rather than a global flood. 2000 years ago the Middle East and Africa was the entire world. So world wide flood is accurate by their standards.

This is not rocket science, lol.

I know some Christians believe the literal translation, and I have to disagree with them as well.
Click to expand...

Precisely.
 
Jryan said:
zzzzzz Continue please? (I'm 110% sure that your own fellow christian colleagues disagree because the earth didn't exist "way before that" because jesus hadn't created it, but continue please)
Click to expand...

Shows how much you know, lol. He is absolutely correct. Old Earth Christians like myself do not believe in the young earth crap.
 
Blackdog said:
The creation story is not literal. The flood story is a local thing as proven by science as a large flood did happen in the area, This is the same reason almost every major religion from Africa, the Middle East and the Americas have a flood epic. They were just large local floods on a massive scale. The geology supports this rather than a global flood. 2000 years ago the Middle East and Africa was the entire world. So world wide flood is accurate by their standards.
Click to expand...

Actually, if you go take a look at some Joseph Campbell, he explains very well why these cultures have flood myths, it isn't because there was a single worldwide flood, it's because these cultures live on flood plains where flooding is common. Cultures that do not live on flood plains and did not have contact with cultures that did lack flood myths.

We return to the fact that these stores are myths. They never happened anywhere near the way they were described. As such, why should we believe these books, except where we can find evidence to corroborate their stories? And since we can't corroborate the existence of any gods, why shouldn't we toss that out as unsupported gibberish as well?

Faith doesn't make facts, sorry.
 
Blackdog said:
You have to see it from their perspective, not our modern view of the world.
Click to expand...

See, I do understand it from their perspective. They saw things they didn't understand and they attributed them to gods. Today, we know better. We realize that the things they claimed were the work of gods were really the work of nature.

There is no reason to think gods exist.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, look, even a Biblical literalist isn't going to say it was 2000 years ago. I mean, look at the timeline, Noah is purported to have lived about 4000 years before Christ.

But as I said earlier, I am approaching this from a strictly philological perspective, not a religious one. Calling the Bible "historically inaccurate" is a sweeping and wholly small minded thing to say. Genesis is, of course, full of fantasy, but it is a creation epic not unlike Hesiod. It is literary, and very few of the Abrahamic religions take it literally.

The rest of the Bible is as historically accurate as any other comparable ancient text, more some than many. Who won what battle, who begat whom, and so on, are highly accurate. One of the major apparent inaccuracies is in Exodus, since there is no corroborating evidence that the Hebrews ever lived in Egypt. But really, that is not a bad record for historicity in an ancient text. The Bible is more "historically accurate" than most comparable works (whatever that means... only a simpleton would think there was an easy definition of "historical accuracy"). Compare Suetonius, a Roman gossip-monger who is a key source of what we know about the Julio-Claudians.

The jury is still out on the historicity of Jesus but if you pay attention to the recent scholarship then you'd know that the weight of evidence is tilting in favor of the fact that there was a historical Jesus. It does seem to strain credulity that Jesus is an entirely fabricated character. I admit, I once leaned toward the hypothesis that Jesus was a myth, because the Christ cult is certainly part of the mystery cult tradition that includes Isis, Eleusis and Mithras. But the most likely explanation is that Jesus was a real Jewish hero-teacher much like the character found in the New Testament who fused Jewish teaching with Greek philosophy to create the Abrahamic-Hellenic hybrid espoused in the Bible. There probably wasn't a census around the time of His birth, and a number of other facts were probably fudged to align with certain old testament prophecies. But the broad strokes are likely true, and that is a lot to expect from ancient texts.

So, is the Bible "historically accurate?" If one is inclined to give short answers to these type of complex questions, then the short answer is "Yes."
Click to expand...

I agree that a lot of the wars portrayed are correct. I'm not questioning that in my statement. I"m more questioning anything used as a "God" context, to clarify.

I have to admit, you made a very good and valid point, in which I will address. Well you may of made two though so I'll go with the first I found while scrolling up. I will cast my doubts on it as a fact, which I think is a partial statistic.

I think that Jesus could of existed. Could he of been everything stated in the bible? Yes. Could he of been otherwise? Yes. I just don't see a definitive answer here. You can't "PROVE" anything of his existence because it seems to be so extensively covered up imho. (Since we can't talk with scientific reasoning here, just fyi, I'm talking in what I think, which is your religion). But, and I make a big BUT especially about the christian faith we believe in today, why, with the corruptness of the church since year 0, should we believe in it? I mean the church has had a MAJOR play or a MAJOR control or THE control in everything since Christianity as we know it started.
 
Cephus said:
See, I do understand it from their perspective. They saw things they didn't understand and they attributed them to gods. Today, we know better. We realize that the things they claimed were the work of gods were really the work of nature.

There is no reason to think gods exist.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I said. You asked for proof, and you got it.
 
Blackdog said:
Shows how much you know, lol. He is absolutely correct. Old Earth Christians like myself do not believe in the young earth crap.
Click to expand...

Wow, BD that's three times in a row I agree with you. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom