Why don't Christians read their bibles?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-10-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 06:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  We aren't born with sin. It is a product of society. Children are innocent until they become greedy. This can be a natural Thing for some, but is learned by most at an amazingly young age.

Our Calvinist buddy disagrees with your interpretation.
Most Christians disapprove of my theology. That's slowly changing though. Many of them have little real knowledge of the bible and consider it a history book. Don't know about your friend. I relate to Calvinism though. Maybe we would see more eye to eye upon discussion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 07:00 PM (This post was last modified: 01-10-2015 07:05 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 06:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 01:30 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is it technically a false dilemma? Well, yes.


I'll still be waiting over here for evidence to substantiate the supposed existence of sin.


It's cool. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage
We aren't born with sin. It is a product of society. Children are innocent until they become greedy. This can be a natural Thing for some, but is learned by most at an amazingly young age.


You know what? Assertions are not evidence, dumbass...

You can assert the existence of 'sin' all you like, but it's no more compelling than someone asserting the existence of karma or magic. You still have a complete lack of objective, verifiable, evidence.


(01-10-2015 06:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Our Calvinist buddy disagrees with your interpretation.
Most Christians disapprove of my theology. That's slowly changing though. Many of them have little real knowledge of the bible and consider it a history book. Don't know about your friend. I relate to Calvinism though. Maybe we would see more eye to eye upon discussion.


Oh, but you're a Bible expert I take it?

Want to elaborate on the polytheistic pagan origins of your god, Yahweh Sabbaoth, the Lord of Hosts, and the Canaanite god of war with jurisdiction over the lands of Judea? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
01-10-2015, 07:10 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 07:00 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  We aren't born with sin. It is a product of society. Children are innocent until they become greedy. This can be a natural Thing for some, but is learned by most at an amazingly young age.


You know what? Assertions are not evidence, dumbass...


(01-10-2015 06:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Most Christians disapprove of my theology. That's slowly changing though. Many of them have little real knowledge of the bible and consider it a history book. Don't know about your friend. I relate to Calvinism though. Maybe we would see more eye to eye upon discussion.


Oh, but you're a Bible expert I take it?

Want to elaborate on the polytheistic pagan origins of your god, Yahweh Sabbaoth, the Lord of Hosts, and the Canaanite god of war with jurisdiction over the lands of Judea? Drinking Beverage
The origins of the Creator are not polytheistic. God is often revered to in different ways the Creator, the judge, and the God of the dead. The last has little to do with the Creator. All things are from the one creator and as such are monotheistic. Just because history repeats itself doesn't mean there are different gods for different eras. Their all the same and all the lower level gods or angels or spirits are of the Creator and subsidiary to it. Why the shitty attitude?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
I want to jump into this badly but I am reminded by Hitchens not to "play with the toys"

(22-08-2015 07:30 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  It is by will alone I set my brows in motion it is by the conditioner of avocado that the brows acquire volume the skin acquires spots the spots become a warning. It is by will alone I set my brows in motion.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 07:55 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 07:10 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 07:00 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You know what? Assertions are not evidence, dumbass...




Oh, but you're a Bible expert I take it?

Want to elaborate on the polytheistic pagan origins of your god, Yahweh Sabbaoth, the Lord of Hosts, and the Canaanite god of war with jurisdiction over the lands of Judea? Drinking Beverage
The origins of the Creator are not polytheistic. God is often revered to in different ways the Creator, the judge, and the God of the dead. The last has little to do with the Creator. All things are from the one creator and as such are monotheistic. Just because history repeats itself doesn't mean there are different gods for different eras. Their all the same and all the lower level gods or angels or spirits are of the Creator and subsidiary to it. Why the shitty attitude?


Right, so you don't know jack shit about the current state of the evidence, and the mainline consensus among cultural archaeologists and biblical studies. Not that I actually expected you to, but it's good to know just how little you actually 'know'.




(01-10-2015 07:10 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Why the shitty attitude?


I'm allergic to pretentious oblivious idiocy. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
01-10-2015, 07:59 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 06:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:34 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Our Calvinist buddy disagrees with your interpretation.
Most Christians disapprove of my theology. That's slowly changing though. Many of them have little real knowledge of the bible and consider it a history book. Don't know about your friend. I relate to Calvinism though. Maybe we would see more eye to eye upon discussion.

See? This. This right here. I call it the Problem of Plurality but it probably has a more formal name I don't know. Leave out every shred other shred of evidence, every other logical argument, everything contradiction, everything else that might be grounds for figuring out whether this is true or not. This right here is clinching proof that religion is bogus. Because look at the epistemology.

One person reads the Bible and comes up with interpretation A. Another reads it (and yes, KC has read it) and comes up with interpretation B. Two people are getting two different things FROM THE SAME BOOK.

Obviously one interpretation, the other, or both most be wrong. Your odds are at 50% or less. How do you improve that?

Well... let's see. You read it again. Okay, maybe you missed something and maybe he missed something. But let's say on multiple rereadings you still don't agree. What then?

Prayer, perhaps. You both pray about it. Let's say you both report that you have felt guidance from God on the subject. (I don't THINK KC's theology allows this, but I'm not sure, and I'll let him discuss it himself. Just don't want to represent him one way or the other on that point.) Let's say you both still disagree. Either we have a God that's talking out both sides of his mouth (Janus?) or at least one of you reports he's getting guidance when he isn't, or is getting guidance but is deliberately misreporting it. Possibly both of you are misreporting it. Possibly both of you are genuinely, sincerely mistaking your own internal thoughts and feelings and impulses and pride for revelation from God, and really truly believing with full confidence that this IS God's guidance. Yet you both still disagree.

This HAPPENS in Christianity. People read the Bible differently. People sense they've gotten different guidance from God -- contradictory guidance, guidance that leads genuine believers into conflict with each other, each wielding what they perceive to be God's commands to prevent the other from succeeding. And they do this in numbers far too great to believe that every last one of them, or everyone EXCEPT one tiny sect here or one scholar there have it wrong on purpose. Their numbers are too great to believe even that every last one of them except the largest denomination in the world (Catholics) have it wrong on purpose. Argue that humans are innately evil if you want, but they're also innately disorganized and undisciplined, and NO vast conspiracy that large dedicated to concealing the truth can hope to succeed. If three can keep a secret if two are dead, imagine how difficult it is for 6 billion to keep a secret when they're all alive and most don't speak the same language.

So, epistemology. At least one interpretation is wrong. How do we determine which interpretation is right? How do we determine if EITHER interpretation is right? Because maybe the right interpretation doesn't belong to either of these two people, but a third person a thousand miles away they've never met. Or maybe no one's got the right interpretation now and no one's going to figure it out for another 50 years. So what good method do we have of finding out what the right interpretation is?

Reading the Bible? Prayer? BALONEY! It keeps being done and it keeps leading people astray by the bushel! You might think it hasn't led YOU astray... but can you deny that it has led far greater numbers astray then it has set aright? Blame their human fallibility if you want... but are you immune to that fallibility yourself? A compass that points two different people in two different directions isn't just difficult to read and mysterious in its revelations. It's BROKEN. It's simple odds. Let's say that at least 90% of the people who attempt to find guidance by reading the Bible and prayer don't get it right. What are YOUR odds of succeeding? 10% at best. Possibly lower. Possibly 0%.

Is it just confidence? Is that an indicator of truth? Can you state with greater confidence that you have the truth of God, than the confidence possessed by, say, the KKK that they had the truth of God when they placed burning crosses on the lawns of their victims? Is their surety proof that they have the truth? If not, why is yours?

And then there are deeper questions. Read the Bible? WHY? For the poetry, maybe, for the same mythological tourism that leads me to read Greek and Norse and Egyptian and Japanese mythology, sure, but to find the truth? WHY? What would lead us to think this is true in the first place? Consider the confirmed scribal additions -- the woman caught in adultery, for example, or the Agony at Gethsemane -- or the modifications made to the Pentateuch by later Jewish priests, whose distinct linguistic dialect makes it as obvious that they were people from a later time editing an earlier document as if modern English-speakers had gone back to Shakespeare's works and added sentences that prominently featured the words "bro" and "roflmao". Which version is valid? The original? The modification? A different modification we're not considering yet? A modification that hasn't happened yet? None of the above? What about all the questionable editorial decisions made when the Bible was compiled in the third to fourth centuries? The exclusion of priests from outside the Roman Empire? The decisions to leave out certain Gospels, even a different version of Revelations (one that reads like Dante's Inferno, with the author asking Christ how he could be loving and have a place like Hell and Christ answering that he plans to save everyone from it). What about the possibility that the last believers in the true interpretation was killed by an angry mob in AD 592, and their versions of the Bible that included the true Gospels and didn't have those editorial mistakes were burned, and now all that's left is vague historical references to the heresies of the past?

Look at all that and ask, what methodology of weighing one account as true and another account as false did those editors have THAT WE DON'T? If they found some great divining rod of truth, why did they not record it? It appears that they had no method save the ones available to us today -- arguing, reading scripture of already questionable veracity, praying, and following their gut. All of which is a compass that points more directions than one.

And then there are the OTHER possibilities. If Jesus could bring a message that drastically modified the original Jewish faith (or, rather the stage that the Jewish faith was going through at that moment, since it too was evolving), why couldn't Mohamed? If Mohamed couldn't, why could Jesus? I'm sure you can come up with theological reasons for that, but can you come up with reasons that AREN'T BASED ON THE VERY BOOK THAT IS BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION? No! And what about the others? The book of Mormon? David Koresh's preachings? Why would we accept one change to the original Jewish tradition but not others? On what grounds -- on what BASIS -- do we label this one true and the others false?

And then... why the original Jewish beliefs, either? Why not, say, the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao te Ching or Dyanetics? Why not some religion that isn't going to be invented for another 1000 years? I mean, if you can believe in principle that your God waited from one family that everyone was descended from until Abraham to single someone out to receive a blessing and a revelation, and then kept that mostly to one people in one corner of the world... I mean, even if that's wrong, you're allowing the PRINCIPLE. The idea that it's possible to live in a world where God has not yet revealed himself, his ways, or his message to everyone. So why would we think he has? Why would he not be waiting for another thousand years or so?

If you have no basis -- other than the creeds and doctrines and books and prayers of the very religion being questioned -- of distinguishing between these possibilities and identifying this one as true and that one as false, then at the very most ALL save one are false, and possibly even that last one is false. If your method of picking between them is to rely mostly on the equivalent of a spin of a roulette wheel -- picking one at random, or letting the accident of birth that placed you in a religious family or a religious society pick for you -- then your odds of getting it right are abysmal.

A compass, pointing one way for one person and another for another. An unreliable detector is a broken detector.

That is the problem of plurality. The evidence of your faith is contrasted against the evidence of contradictory faiths. Your holy book exists in a world with other holy books. Your prayers exist in a world where other people pray... and the results of those prayers do not agree. The tools that guide you one way, guide dozens of people dozens of different ways. Most of them are wrong, and your odds of just happening to have it right suck talking donkey balls.

Why don't more Christians read the Bible? Because it wouldn't add one shred of evidence to their reasons for believing, and it might give them the creeping idea that what they presently believe is wrong, and we can't have anyone questioning faith.

... that or it's a dense book with confusing language and they'd rather watch TV.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
01-10-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 06:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 01:30 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Is it technically a false dilemma? Well, yes.


I'll still be waiting over here for evidence to substantiate the supposed existence of sin.


It's cool. I'll wait. Drinking Beverage
We aren't born with sin. It is a product of society. Children are innocent until they become greedy. This can be a natural Thing for some, but is learned by most at an amazingly young age.

You call it sin, we call it evolutionary instincts for survival.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
01-10-2015, 09:36 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 08:06 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:33 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  We aren't born with sin. It is a product of society. Children are innocent until they become greedy. This can be a natural Thing for some, but is learned by most at an amazingly young age.

You call it sin, we call it evolutionary instincts for survival.
Not needed though. And has already lead to the slowing of evolution and will lead to extinction.

If only some could be taught, the benefits of all would be wholly fortune altering in the grand scheme of things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(30-09-2015 08:58 PM)Rkane819 Wrote:  Why don't most Christians read this thing?
how many exactly is "the most of Christians"? please provide the number.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-10-2015, 09:55 PM
RE: Why don't Christians read their bibles?
(01-10-2015 07:59 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(01-10-2015 06:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Most Christians disapprove of my theology. That's slowly changing though. Many of them have little real knowledge of the bible and consider it a history book. Don't know about your friend. I relate to Calvinism though. Maybe we would see more eye to eye upon discussion.

See? This. This right here. I call it the Problem of Plurality but it probably has a more formal name I don't know. Leave out every shred other shred of evidence, every other logical argument, everything contradiction, everything else that might be grounds for figuring out whether this is true or not. This right here is clinching proof that religion is bogus. Because look at the epistemology.

One person reads the Bible and comes up with interpretation A. Another reads it (and yes, KC has read it) and comes up with interpretation B. Two people are getting two different things FROM THE SAME BOOK.

Obviously one interpretation, the other, or both most be wrong. Your odds are at 50% or less. How do you improve that?

Well... let's see. You read it again. Okay, maybe you missed something and maybe he missed something. But let's say on multiple rereadings you still don't agree. What then?

Prayer, perhaps. You both pray about it. Let's say you both report that you have felt guidance from God on the subject. (I don't THINK KC's theology allows this, but I'm not sure, and I'll let him discuss it himself. Just don't want to represent him one way or the other on that point.) Let's say you both still disagree. Either we have a God that's talking out both sides of his mouth (Janus?) or at least one of you reports he's getting guidance when he isn't, or is getting guidance but is deliberately misreporting it. Possibly both of you are misreporting it. Possibly both of you are genuinely, sincerely mistaking your own internal thoughts and feelings and impulses and pride for revelation from God, and really truly believing with full confidence that this IS God's guidance. Yet you both still disagree.

This HAPPENS in Christianity. People read the Bible differently. People sense they've gotten different guidance from God -- contradictory guidance, guidance that leads genuine believers into conflict with each other, each wielding what they perceive to be God's commands to prevent the other from succeeding. And they do this in numbers far too great to believe that every last one of them, or everyone EXCEPT one tiny sect here or one scholar there have it wrong on purpose. Their numbers are too great to believe even that every last one of them except the largest denomination in the world (Catholics) have it wrong on purpose. Argue that humans are innately evil if you want, but they're also innately disorganized and undisciplined, and NO vast conspiracy that large dedicated to concealing the truth can hope to succeed. If three can keep a secret if two are dead, imagine how difficult it is for 6 billion to keep a secret when they're all alive and most don't speak the same language.

So, epistemology. At least one interpretation is wrong. How do we determine which interpretation is right? How do we determine if EITHER interpretation is right? Because maybe the right interpretation doesn't belong to either of these two people, but a third person a thousand miles away they've never met. Or maybe no one's got the right interpretation now and no one's going to figure it out for another 50 years. So what good method do we have of finding out what the right interpretation is?

Reading the Bible? Prayer? BALONEY! It keeps being done and it keeps leading people astray by the bushel! You might think it hasn't led YOU astray... but can you deny that it has led far greater numbers astray then it has set aright? Blame their human fallibility if you want... but are you immune to that fallibility yourself? A compass that points two different people in two different directions isn't just difficult to read and mysterious in its revelations. It's BROKEN. It's simple odds. Let's say that at least 90% of the people who attempt to find guidance by reading the Bible and prayer don't get it right. What are YOUR odds of succeeding? 10% at best. Possibly lower. Possibly 0%.

Is it just confidence? Is that an indicator of truth? Can you state with greater confidence that you have the truth of God, than the confidence possessed by, say, the KKK that they had the truth of God when they placed burning crosses on the lawns of their victims? Is their surety proof that they have the truth? If not, why is yours?

And then there are deeper questions. Read the Bible? WHY? For the poetry, maybe, for the same mythological tourism that leads me to read Greek and Norse and Egyptian and Japanese mythology, sure, but to find the truth? WHY? What would lead us to think this is true in the first place? Consider the confirmed scribal additions -- the woman caught in adultery, for example, or the Agony at Gethsemane -- or the modifications made to the Pentateuch by later Jewish priests, whose distinct linguistic dialect makes it as obvious that they were people from a later time editing an earlier document as if modern English-speakers had gone back to Shakespeare's works and added sentences that prominently featured the words "bro" and "roflmao". Which version is valid? The original? The modification? A different modification we're not considering yet? A modification that hasn't happened yet? None of the above? What about all the questionable editorial decisions made when the Bible was compiled in the third to fourth centuries? The exclusion of priests from outside the Roman Empire? The decisions to leave out certain Gospels, even a different version of Revelations (one that reads like Dante's Inferno, with the author asking Christ how he could be loving and have a place like Hell and Christ answering that he plans to save everyone from it). What about the possibility that the last believers in the true interpretation was killed by an angry mob in AD 592, and their versions of the Bible that included the true Gospels and didn't have those editorial mistakes were burned, and now all that's left is vague historical references to the heresies of the past?

Look at all that and ask, what methodology of weighing one account as true and another account as false did those editors have THAT WE DON'T? If they found some great divining rod of truth, why did they not record it? It appears that they had no method save the ones available to us today -- arguing, reading scripture of already questionable veracity, praying, and following their gut. All of which is a compass that points more directions than one.

And then there are the OTHER possibilities. If Jesus could bring a message that drastically modified the original Jewish faith (or, rather the stage that the Jewish faith was going through at that moment, since it too was evolving), why couldn't Mohamed? If Mohamed couldn't, why could Jesus? I'm sure you can come up with theological reasons for that, but can you come up with reasons that AREN'T BASED ON THE VERY BOOK THAT IS BEING CALLED INTO QUESTION? No! And what about the others? The book of Mormon? David Koresh's preachings? Why would we accept one change to the original Jewish tradition but not others? On what grounds -- on what BASIS -- do we label this one true and the others false?

And then... why the original Jewish beliefs, either? Why not, say, the Bhagavad Gita or the Tao te Ching or Dyanetics? Why not some religion that isn't going to be invented for another 1000 years? I mean, if you can believe in principle that your God waited from one family that everyone was descended from until Abraham to single someone out to receive a blessing and a revelation, and then kept that mostly to one people in one corner of the world... I mean, even if that's wrong, you're allowing the PRINCIPLE. The idea that it's possible to live in a world where God has not yet revealed himself, his ways, or his message to everyone. So why would we think he has? Why would he not be waiting for another thousand years or so?

If you have no basis -- other than the creeds and doctrines and books and prayers of the very religion being questioned -- of distinguishing between these possibilities and identifying this one as true and that one as false, then at the very most ALL save one are false, and possibly even that last one is false. If your method of picking between them is to rely mostly on the equivalent of a spin of a roulette wheel -- picking one at random, or letting the accident of birth that placed you in a religious family or a religious society pick for you -- then your odds of getting it right are abysmal.

A compass, pointing one way for one person and another for another. An unreliable detector is a broken detector.

That is the problem of plurality. The evidence of your faith is contrasted against the evidence of contradictory faiths. Your holy book exists in a world with other holy books. Your prayers exist in a world where other people pray... and the results of those prayers do not agree. The tools that guide you one way, guide dozens of people dozens of different ways. Most of them are wrong, and your odds of just happening to have it right suck talking donkey balls.

Why don't more Christians read the Bible? Because it wouldn't add one shred of evidence to their reasons for believing, and it might give them the creeping idea that what they presently believe is wrong, and we can't have anyone questioning faith.

... that or it's a dense book with confusing language and they'd rather watch TV.
That's quite wordy, and assuming of you. How do you know if your friend and I wouldn't conclude easily that we are talkin the same language? You go off on some wild assed tangent without even knowing if it would ever go that way. Kinda ridiculous and counter productive, unless your end product is more confusion( which anyone's could be). Anyway, way to prove that conversation can lead to more Ass backwards Bs. I mean, who is the guy? Let him or her be known. We can discuss and see before someone else determines THE outcome. Howboutit?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: