# The Bible (Split from "The Bible on your iPod"



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

[Edit]  _Stay on topic, please.  That was extremely offensive._  -Ricky


----------



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

Excuse me, Ricky? So you deem it offensive so it gets censored? If someone doesn't like what they read, aren't they grown up enough to not let it effect them or change their mind in some way? Wow. Shame on you, you close-minded twit.


----------



## fryke (Aug 9, 2004)

Was your post on the topic of 'bible on iPod' and was it 'okay' according to the site rules?


----------



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

I used no "foul" language at all. Apparently this forum is getting much like the FCC and the Bush administration in that if you have an idea that someone disagrees with they feel it's ok to just yank it. And another thing...being a moderator for an internet forum?? get over yourself... (not aimed at you, fryke). I've been on here since 2001 and I have every right to say whatever I want as long as I don't use those dirty words that hurt people's feelings for some reason. Whatever, I don't even care.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 9, 2004)

RyanLang said:
			
		

> Shame on you, you close-minded twit.


This is exactly the crap I was trying to avoid.


----------



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

You're trying to avoid it, yet you do what you can to be succeptable to it (i.e. censorship).


----------



## Ricky (Aug 9, 2004)

Alright, Ryan.

Let's post what you said and see what happens.



			
				RyanLang said:
			
		

> The Bible is hysterical. I love poking fun at weak minded people who have to rely on a ficticious/man-made character that is supposed to save them and relieve them of their fears. Oh...and "God" made dinosaurs to test your faith. ROFL!


----------



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

That may be considered bad taste, but it's not indecent. If this is a cute little weak minded forum, fine I'll back off. I wasn't aware at the time I posted or during the last 3 years I've been coming here. Sorry lil Ricky.


----------



## Jason (Aug 9, 2004)

Ryan, you can have that opinion all you want. But the way you stated it, WILL offend some, and is flame bait.

I don't really believe in god myself, but I am sure as hell not going to make fun of others for having that belief. Its about respect, IMHO you disrespected all who follow a religion or who are spiritual even.

to that, a *thumbs down*


----------



## RyanLang (Aug 9, 2004)

I'm glad. But deep down, I don't want to make fun of people for following religion, I'm really just frustrated and I wish I could save them from their ignorance. Oh well. I don't care. This debate is over as far as I am involved.


----------



## fryke (Aug 9, 2004)

... and for those who think it's not over: The Café's the place for such discussions. This thread is here because of its reference to the iPod, not the Bible.

So let's just all calm down a little and be happy that Mac OS X 10.3.5 is out for everyone to enjoy.


----------



## Jason (Aug 10, 2004)

it is?

hmph


----------



## ScottW (Aug 10, 2004)

RyanLang said:
			
		

> But deep down, I don't want to make fun of people for following religion, I'm really just frustrated and I wish I could save them from their ignorance.



Those be debate words. Wanna start.  

"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

Don't even take the stance that the Bible is fiction. Even non-believers agree of the historical accuracy of it. In the end, it comes down to faith.

Between this day forward and the day you die... if you have not accepted Christ as your savior by that time... don't tell God, "Man, I never heard about Jesus." Cause you just heard about it here.


----------



## Ricky (Aug 10, 2004)

I went ahead and split the religious discussion into the Café where it belongs.

Let's keep it civil in here, please.


----------



## BoneFill (Aug 10, 2004)

ScottW said:
			
		

> Between this day forward and the day you die... if you have not accepted Christ as your savior by that time... don't tell God, "Man, I never heard about Jesus." Cause you just heard about it here.





			
				 RyanLang said:
			
		

> The Bible is hysterical. I love poking fun at weak minded people who have to rely on a ficticious/man-made character that is supposed to save them and relieve them of their fears. Oh...and "God" made dinosaurs to test your faith. ROFL!



Más leña al fuego (more wood to the fire) what I don't like about censorship   is that it only can be applied one way lets see if I can make myself clear  

Can you see that both statements above can be offensive for people who does not believe in Jesus but for sure believe in God ???

One way Ryan is telling that all believers are "weak minded people" what between lines and in a very polite way is useless people and by the other way we have Scott telling that "Christ is the only way to save yourself", what between lines and in a very polite way is "all other religions are trash".

So, how can you tell which statement has to be deleted/edited ???

I personally don't have any trouble with both statements, they have the right to believe or not on whatever they want and they are free to say it the way they want. In the end the important thing is not what you believe in but what you do and how you do it if there is a God he will save you, if there is no God there will be no need of been saved but the people that remains will remember what you do


----------



## Jason (Aug 10, 2004)

its the way its worded

which is better?

"god is teh anus! and suxxorz!!11!!"

"i have no quantifiable evidence that god exists, and thusly do not believe in it."

extremes, yes, but you get the point. there is a difference between debate material, and flame bait IMHO


----------



## Ricky (Aug 10, 2004)

BoneFill said:
			
		

> Más leña al fuego (more wood to the fire) what I don't like about censorship   is that it only can be applied one way lets see if I can make myself clear


Just so you know, the reason I censored it was because it was originally posted in a thread where it would have been grossly off-topic and started a serious flame discussion which was also about off topic.  And the reason that Scott's post wasn't censored was because it was posted after I had decided to split the thread.

Thusly why I said "keep it civil" when I split it to here as posts are no less offensive in either view.


----------



## BoneFill (Aug 10, 2004)

Jason said:
			
		

> its the way its worded
> 
> which is better?
> 
> ...



I know the way matters Jason but even in your example both statements are faraway from each other and are not the same thing, you see, in one you are just sayin' that you don't have any evidence and then you don't believe on the other example you are ensuring that God exists you "believe" and "he" is nothing but "the anus" ... see?


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 10, 2004)

This is a debate that can barely be contained and kept civil under the very best of circumstances.

And really, in many ways, it can hardly take the form of a true debate.  What one camp presents as evidence the other discards as spurious.

A hypothetical debate:
--------------------------
"Christianity is the one true religion. Jesus is the only way to heaven."

How do you know that?

"The Bible says so."

How do you know the Bible is true?

"A lot of what The Bible says is historical fact, verified by other sources."

Well yes, but the same is true of, for instance, the film "Titanic".  That doesn't mean that Rose or Jack ever really existed.

"Lots of people have believed in the Bible.  Wise, respected, important people."

True, but also, lots of wise, respected people have _disbelieved_ it.

"I believe it."

Obviously.  I, however, don't.

"I _know_ it's true."

Your saying that means nothing without further proof.  I can just as easily, and I suspect with equal conviction, say that I _know_ it's false.

"Christianity is centuries old; vast human efforts have been devoted to praising Jesus through song, art, architecture and word."

The same could be said of the ancient Egyptians' religion.  Does that make it true too?

"You'll see.  When we're both dead, _then_ we'll see who's right."

There, at least, we agree.


----------



## Krevinek (Aug 10, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> This is a debate that can barely be contained and kept civil under the very best of circumstances.
> 
> And really, in many ways, it can hardly take the form of a true debate.  What one camp presents as evidence the other discards as spurious.
> 
> ...



Yes, this is a situation where all sides should honestly agree to disagree. One of my friends who is a fairly devout Christian (which sect, I never bothered to ask) who doesn't even agree with a lot of "Christian" attitudes towards other religions. He believes that it is his duty to introduce Jesus as the savior to anyone who doesn't already believe that. If they reject Jesus, then he believes that he no longer has a duty to push the subject, and that the person has made his/her choice based on free will given by God. He also believes that God doesn't punish those who were never informed of Jesus as the savior, only those who are informed and reject Jesus.

Sensible approach to the faith, if you ask me, as this is a good example (IMO) of actually following the teachings of Jesus and compassion/understanding that he set out to introduce to the Jewish people, which wound up spawning the Christian faith. My views on all this? Well, let's just say my faith is a gestalt that is (once again, IMO) greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## adambyte (Aug 11, 2004)

If one religion were enough to meet the needs of the world, then we wouldn't have the others. It's definitely not a one-size-fits-all thing, like a crappy free t-shirt. Religion is just as personal and customizable as your room, your car, or your Mac. 

I'm all for anything that makes one a better person.

God's too big for one religion.


----------



## Cat (Aug 11, 2004)

The bible is a story, never mind fact or fiction. Regardless of factual accuracy it elicits a response: love, hate, desire, loathing, etc. People seem to need stories, humans are the only animals who have developed storytelling, of all kinds: songs, movies, books, religions, myths, fairy tales, again never mind accuracy. We do not consciously need to believe that Little Red Ridinghood exists to fear for her when the wolf approaches her and we do not consciously need to believe Jesus exists to fear for him when he meets Satan in the desert. We  simply _assume_ for the time being with a willing suspension of disbelieve that such entities perform certain actions within the framework of the story. The truth of the story has however to be assessed from outside, not from within the story itself, otherwise you just have circular reasoning: "God exists" Why? "The bible says so and the bible is truth" Why? "God says so". A good christian thinker would avoid such a pitiful display of poor logic. Hence if you want to prove the existence of Jesus or the truth of the bible you will have to resort to something that is not already contained in your story. That is difficult, and maybe impossible, because we interpret the entire world always as an ongoing story, so maybe we cannot step outside every story: "give me a fixed point outside of the world and I can lift it with a lever", but perhaps there is no such point. 

Science is nothing more that trying to understand as much of the world as possible while using as little assumptions as possible. That way, science steps out of the stories and is capable of proving or disproving them. In order to prove something about your religion, your story, you need to be able to step out of it, to see it from the outside. This does not mean you need to abandon your faith, but to become as a child again, before you had the faith and try to remember how things were when you first approached your story from the outside. Tell me how you came to your story, not what your story tells. If you want to convert someone, or try to honestly understand someone who does not believe what your believe, you should step out of your story and try to assume his point of view, temporarily abandoning your assumptions. 

From a sociological point of view, christianity is a religion like so many others: nobody believes in Zeus or Iuppiter. The Reform of the Church from which Protestant sects originated, rejected (among other things) the role of Saints. Who knows what the next reform will bring and what we will believe in a hundred or a thousand years. Isn't it mightily arrogant that we all think we have got it right, just because we live here and now? The Greeks and Romans also thought they were right in their time. Can you not envision a time when humanity will think of us what we think of Egypt and Babylon? How imperfect our understanding and our faith are?

The bible tells a nice story, a useful story, an impressive story. So do many other books. Does it matter whether it is literally true or not? Why? "Do not kill" seems sensible to me independently of any religion. "Stop, oh Sun, and thou, Moon, do not advance!" sounds like a literary metaphor which does not conform to our current scientific framework, but corresponded to the framework at the time of writing. Should we therefore reject what we know now? Or rather relativise both of them as imperfect visions of reality at different stages?

Do we really need to hate and kill in the name of stories?


----------



## adambyte (Aug 11, 2004)

*applauds*


----------



## Jason (Aug 11, 2004)

BoneFill said:
			
		

> I know the way matters Jason but even in your example both statements are faraway from each other and are not the same thing, you see, in one you are just sayin' that you don't have any evidence and then you don't believe on the other example you are ensuring that God exists you "believe" and "he" is nothing but "the anus" ... see?



like i said, it was an extreme example and thats all... it was just an example of language, not actual statements. the way he worded his first statement was offensive to me, and i dont even believe in god.

IMHO not believing in god, and believing in god, are the same thing, a belief, no one actually knows for a fact if "he" exists or not, so people have different faiths, and i respect that. 

*shrugs*

i dont see how its as big of a deal as some make it out to be. im either going to hell, or im doing nothing when im dead. i accept that, life moves on, might as well enjoy it while i have it


----------



## Ricky (Aug 11, 2004)

And I do believe that there is a God, but I am not one to try and force that belief on other people.  To each his own.


----------



## brianh (Aug 11, 2004)

The question seems to boil down to faith. No one can measure one's faith or lack of it. We have all been given the ability (gift) of faith. Christianity is also a "gift". Some would say that religion is for the "simple-minded". Christianity is "simple" for a reason. Anyone, (even children), were and are encouraged to "come to Me, all who believe". Children understand "gifts" better than adults. They know that a gift is free. All you have to do is accept the gift. It is us adults who try  to make it difficult or next to impossible to accept by looking for "strings" attached to the gift. 

Christianity is real simple...a gift to the world. If you don't want a free gift that's fine. If you accept the gift thats fine too. But when it all comes down in the end  you will be asked, "Did you accept the gift I gave you... my Son?"


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 12, 2004)

Your post has the overall form of an egalitarian 'the choice is yours' declaration, but you offer as a certainty your opinion that (a) There is a God (b) Christianity is 'His' creation, and not mankind's and (c) 'He' wants us to accept it, and will be upset if we didn't.  Is that really tolerance?

Consider the idea that when you die, you might have only a fleeting moment to see that mortal life was not, in fact, a mere 'dress rehearsal' for an eternity in heaven or hell -- rather, it was the entirety of your existence.  In that split second you might have time to ask yourself: "Since my faith turns out to have no bearing on what happens to me when I die; did it enrich my _life_?"   Beyond, of course, the comforting expectation of heaven, which in this hypothetical scenario, turns out to be false.

Here's another angle to consider:  

Another 'gift' we are given is reason.  If you believe in God, you cannot help but think of the universe as 'His' handiwork.  Viewed this way, science (i.e. a direct inquiry of the universe) cannot help but be a more direct source to divine knowledge than any ancient tome.   Science has shown us things about the nature of life, the earth, and the universe that are at odds with the Bible (or at least, many mainstream interpretations of it.)   Who are you going to believe, Matthew, Mark, Luke et. al., or The Big Guy Himself?

So granted the free 'gift' of reason and the further 'gift' of a universe to study, consider once again:



> ...when it all comes down in the end you will be asked, "Did you accept the gift I gave you... my Son?"


----------



## Viro (Aug 13, 2004)

That's a very good and polite post, and it does bring your points across. However, I have to politely disagree with them 



			
				brianleahy said:
			
		

> Your post has the overall form of an egalitarian 'the choice is yours' declaration, but you offer as a certainty your opinion that (a) There is a God (b) Christianity is 'His' creation, and not mankind's and (c) 'He' wants us to accept it, and will be upset if we didn't. * Is that really tolerance?*



That's assuming you're only dealing with an opinion where truth is inconsequential. For example, if my wife wanted the house to be painted lilac, while I wanted it to be white, it would be tolerant to agree with her and let the house then lilac (ugh!). Truth in this instance is inconsequential and its just a matter of opinion. 

However, if I were dealing with a friend who insisted that he was Superman and that he could fly off the top of a building, should I tolerate his opinion and allow him to jump of the tallest building he can find? He needs to know the truth, that if he jumps of a building the law of gravity will catch up with him.

All religions claim to be the truth, be it the Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Mormon, etc. Given that almost all religions contradict each other, this leaves only two possible scenarios. Either all religions are wrong, or one is correct. Members of either group will seek to tell people of their believes. In the former, you'll tell people that you're wasting your time with religion, while in the latter you'll be actively telling people about your religion.



> Consider the idea that when you die, you might have only a fleeting moment to see that mortal life was not, in fact, a mere 'dress rehearsal' for an eternity in heaven or hell -- rather, it was the entirety of your existence.  In that split second you might have time to ask yourself: "Since my faith turns out to have no bearing on what happens to me when I die; did it enrich my _life_?"   Beyond, of course, the comforting expectation of heaven, which in this hypothetical scenario, turns out to be false.



That's possible. But then there's the angle where once you die, you face this all powerful God and are asked to account for the deeds in your life. What then?



> Here's another angle to consider:
> 
> Another 'gift' we are given is reason.  If you believe in God, you cannot help but think of the universe as 'His' handiwork.  Viewed this way, science (i.e. a direct inquiry of the universe) cannot help but be a more direct source to divine knowledge than any ancient tome.   Science has shown us things about the nature of life, the earth, and the universe that are at odds with the Bible (or at least, many mainstream interpretations of it.)..



Science is an excellent tool in understanding how the universe works.  Science can work out the contituent parts of the human body. It can tell us the average human body has enough water to fill a 10-gallon barrel, fat for 7 bars of soap, carbon for 7000 pencils, phosphorus for 2200 match headsd and iron for a medium-sized nail. Statistics can tell us that the average human being (if such a person exists) spends 3.5 years eating, 2.5 years on the phone, sheds 19 kgs of dead skin and grows 2 yards of nasal hair.

Those are interesting facts, but science can't explain the deeper questions that people ask at some point in their lives. "Who am I?" or "Why am I here?"

This is where the Bible fits in. If God were the creator, and if the Bible is contains his word, it would make a sensible starting point to look for the answers to those questions.

Blanket statements like "Science is contradictory to the Bible", "Science disproves the Bible", "We don't need the Bible since its an ancient tome and science has replaced it" does not prove anything. Instead, when most people bring up such objections, they just haven't read the Bible (This is NOT directed at brianleahy in anyway, its just an observation I've made over time).



> Who are you going to believe, Matthew, Mark, Luke et. al., or The Big Guy Himself?



That's a very loaded question . You're assuming that Matthew, Mark, Luke and gang are in contradiction.


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 13, 2004)

> science can't explain the deeper questions that people ask at some point in their lives. "Who am I?" or "Why am I here?"



This is certainly true, or at least, it can't provide the sorts of answers people are looking for.   (For instance, when asking "Why am I here?", few are satisfied with the answers "Because you haven't died yet" or "Because one of the net results of all past events is that you are here.") 

Clearly, a strict Biblical literalist (which you are not) will far more often find himself in conflict with science than someone who turns to the Bible primarly for these kinds of deeper questions.


----------



## Cat (Aug 14, 2004)

> this leaves only two possible scenarios. Either all religions are wrong, or one is correct.


I disagree, they could all be true at the same time. We just fail to see how. There are very small differences between the three great monotheistic religions where the one true god is concerned, they mainly differ with respect to the concrete guidelines mankind should follow. 

Moreover, the first faith one must have is faith in oneself. If you doubt yourself, how can you trust another? Be it science or religion, how can you trust the words of another? You must first find truth in yourself before you can find it in others. Both church fathers and philosophers have stressed this.

Both science and religion are an imperfect perception of reality. What we believe to know now can still be perfected, both in science and religion. Think of all the schisms and scientific revolutions. How can you have ABSOLUTE faith in what you think you know or believe here and now?


----------



## baggss (Aug 14, 2004)

brianleahy said:
			
		

> Viewed this way, science (i.e. a direct inquiry of the universe) cannot help but be a more direct source to divine knowledge than any ancient tome.   Science has shown us things about the nature of life, the earth, and the universe that are at odds with the Bible (or at least, many mainstream interpretations of it.)



Please elaborate on this statement.  Much of what I have read from diverse scientific sources seems to lead me to believe that many of those scientist who are studying the Universe, the human body etc tend to have their faith strengthened as they get more into the details.  As the saying goes, god is in the details...


----------



## brianleahy (Aug 14, 2004)

> Please elaborate on this statement.  Much of what I have read from diverse scientific sources .. (snip) ...tend to have their faith strengthened as they get more into the details.



First, it is very important to distinguish between belief in God and belief in Jesus or the Bible.  One does not require the other, in any way.

As for scientific study strengthening a belief in God, naturally I can't speak for all scientists but, there are some scientific discoveries that are startling enough to steer one that way.   

For example: there are certain universal values in physics (for instance: the strength of the forces that hold atomic nuclei together) which seem to be tuned with suspicious precision to create a universe like the one we see today.  If the strong and weak nuclear forces were even fractionally larger or smaller, the universe might have instantly collapsed, or become just a diffuse cloud of radiation, without any planets or stars, let alone animals or plants.  Some have suggested that this seemingly careful tuning suggests divine intervention.  

Another example: the Earth itself.  As planets go, our world is pretty exceptional.  We have a great deal of liquid water.  Our distance from the sun is far enough to avoid boiling it all away, near enough to prevent it all freezing.  We have a thick ionosphere and a very strong magnetic field, which together serve to keep the radiation from the sun and from space at a tolerable level.   And the list goes on and on.  It can begin to sound like our world is a custom-designed incubator for our fragile bodies.

And then, there is quantum physics.  At the scale of the very small, there are certain reactions that, _literally_, cannot be predicted.  This is not to say that we just can't predict them _yet,_ but rather we have proven, experimentally and mathematically, that it is actually _not possible_, under _any_ circumstances, to predict them with any accuracy.  Some people, on hearing this, will nod and smile; at last, science has found a dark corner of the universe that reason can never illuminate.  Here, if nowhere else, divine intervention may exist.

The universe is vast, complex, and awesome.   Our human perspective disposes us to infer a mighty, ingenious designer who made it all.   Personally, I don't entirely rule it out.

But this is entirely different from saying that science endorses the Bible.  Not long ago, we had a stirring debate on a thread here (which I have no desire to repeat in any detail) about evolution vs. creation.   It was a rousing and stimulating discussion, and if you are interested, it can be read here:

http://www.macosx.com/forums/showthread.php?t=43209

I maintained there (and still believe) that there is no scientific evidence to support the biblical account of creationism -- at least, none which would have any hope of withstanding the sort of peer-review critique that Evolution has weathered.   The creationist stance was ably championed by MDLarson, and I encourage you to read and enjoy.

Science dictates that for an idea to be accepted as true, it must survive every challenge, and it must be separately and independently discoverable, without referring to earlier results.  For instance: if today we attempted a set of experiments to measure the speed of light, assuming our experiments were well-designed, we would get the same result (186,000 miles per second) whether or not we previously had looked up the generally accepted value.  In other words, the result is repeatable in an independent investigation.

However, if we set aside _all_ prior religious teachings and writings, and set about investigating the question of "What does God want of us?", whatever you might find, the universe would _not_ offer up an account of the life of Jesus.  No psalms would be found etched upon the electrons, no hymns would be heard in the cosmic background radiation, and no face of Jesus would be seen among the stars (at least, not without the aid of LSD).

So in a nutshell: there are some things about science which might, subtly, suggest a _creator_.  But this does NOT amount to an endorsement of a specific religion.


----------



## baggss (Aug 14, 2004)

Very nice response.  Thank you very much......


----------



## adambyte (Aug 15, 2004)

I like how this thread has remained not only interesting, but civil. Great discussion of theory, BrianLeahy. 

btw, another thing in science that some theorize suggests a creator: the use of the number e in nature. (I believe the number e is 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ....) This pattern is used in plant petal distribution, as well as the inner curvy thing of seashells, how the line gets closer to itself, and the rings get smaller.


----------



## chevy (Aug 15, 2004)

adambyte said:
			
		

> I like how this thread has remained not only interesting, but civil. Great discussion of theory, BrianLeahy.
> 
> btw, another thing in science that some theorize suggests a creator: the use of the number e in nature. (I believe the number e is 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + ....) This pattern is used in plant petal distribution, as well as the inner curvy thing of seashells, how the line gets closer to itself, and the rings get smaller.



What does this have to do with a creator ? Isn't it just an emerging behavior ?

<BTW e (Euler's number) is not 1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + ... as this suite does not converge to any finite value, it is 
e= 1 + 1/2 + 1/6 + 1/24 + ... or 
e= 1/(1!) + 1/(2!) + 1/(3!) + 1/(4!) + ... or
e= lim(n->inf, (1+1/n)^n) >


----------



## adambyte (Aug 15, 2004)

I was simply saying how some people believe that the creation of something so mathematically perfect implies a divine creator. Take it as you list.

Thank you for correcting my math.


----------



## chevy (Aug 16, 2004)

Math is perfect "per se" as it is the art to model behavior with simple models. Even if the behavior of the simple model may be complex.


----------

