Have difficulty believing the Bible.

JustDave said:
It does happen both ways. I can't find statistics like percentages of either group that had converted. But when I googled that, there were many more anecdotal accounts of this or that atheist or theist that had converted. Anecdotes don't really tell us much, but they do tell us that people change. Over the years in talking with other atheists, I get the impression that a lot were former theists. I'd take a stab and say 30 to 50%, but I don't know that my sampling is representative of the whole, and of course many theists say they were atheists at one time. But none of this answers the critical question, "Is there a god?" And that is most important, because religions depend on it. While for atheists and agnostics, knowing that would totally change most atheists' orientation toward belief. It's an important question, at least to me when I was younger.
Click to expand...
I would still need a god version that I could respect. While "proof positive" would be interesting, it would not alter my behavior. I forced myself to read bible(s), including Old and New Testaments. I believe a person born of a woman, later named Christ, probably existed and that he was an okay guy with some positive messages. Beyond that, I can't buy into most of it and am deeply disturbed by much of it and at organized religions as well. All that being confessed (haha - ex-catholic humor), I am probably just a run-of-the-mill agnostic. I don't say there is no such thing as god(s), I just say that I don't know and it hasn't been proved to my satisfaction one way or the other. I do know that the god of this thread isn't on my favorites list.
 

Knight said:
Relating to the bible that man wrote how do you explain the story about Adam & Eve, then later Noah if not borne of imagination? For me I would classify those as being mystical ideas.

I agree. Ideas about how mankind began IMO was no different then, than when Jules Verne wrote 20,000 leagues under the sea. At that time it was fantasy & a way to describe the unknown. Now traveling under the sea is common.
Click to expand...
On past threads, I've challenged members to question me about interpreting Genesis scripture differently than church dogmas but to this point none have done so.

It isn't that the basic scriptures for those events was not real or parts of that scripture had a level of truth but rather, Levite priest sects misinterpreted scripture, God probably rarely corrects mistakes men have made in creating scripture, and as the early Christian church rose in the first 3 centuries AD, much more dogma crept in that has since been designated inspired dogma.

The Flood scripture as interpreted by churches in particular, is a significant excuse many former believers lazily use to leave religion. It may surprise many that this person does not see that scripture as fully mythical. Before the modern science, information, telecom era, it was easy to defend by churches, but now the notion water covered the whole planet is nonsense. Regardless, for every link one might find critical of the dogma versions, there are probably several dozen links by young earth creationists and inerrancy advocates desperately trying to rationalize it. A favorite tactic is to state some science evidence supporting a worldwide flood to make it seem controversial at a science level just like is done with climate change as they know most of their intended audience hasn't the education and knowledge to be critical of whatever statements.

There is scholarly work that proposes Flood scriptures come from what Moses passed on to be a non-supernatural large local flood where they saved mostly domesticated animals into what during the Babylonia exile centuries later, the priestly sect incorporated parts of the Mesopotamian story and modified it to be world wide. Of course that makes their god read more powerful. The two Hebrew writings have in fact been separated by scholars. The same sect is hypothesized to have added the now seeming nonsense beginning creation sections of Genesis because Mesopotamian science was more advanced. The actual Moses text begins at Chapter 2 verse 4. Read these brief links:

https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-mesopotamian-origin-of-the-biblical-flood-story

https://gavinortlund.com/2015/01/03/why-a-local-flood/

https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/articles/flood357903
snippet:

The worldwide flood described in Genesis 6-9 is not historical, but rather a combination of at least two flood stories, both of which descended from earlier Mesopotamian flood narratives. Note that this does not mean all of the claims made in the Bible are false (or true for that matter); I am dealing here only with the biblical stories of the flood. (Also understand that the "slippery slope" claim of "all of the Bible is true or none of it is true" is simply an unnecessary rhetorical device designed to keep readers from doing precisely what scholars do every day: analyze each claim in the Bible on a case-by-case basis. It is not necessary to accept an "all or none" stance towards the Bible.)

In other words, if you value possible salvation and eternal life, have kept the Ten Commandments, believe Jesus was sent by God, don't discard your faith because of man's self created dogma.
 
Last edited:
morgan said:
Shame some people can't discuss the topic of religion without getting hot under the collar.
Click to expand...

Fair numbers of people cannot even casually discuss trivial subjects without becoming emotional if someone disagrees with them as though that threatens their ego. Often that reflects a background where most others in their life often family and friends had that same emotional behavior. A common reason otherwise intelligent, educated, young persons may fail in corporate professional level work cultures where calm professional teamwork and productive groups discussions are important.
 

David777 said:
In other words, don't discard your faith because of man's self created dogma.
Click to expand...
Over the years it has been repeatedly demonstrated that man-made institutions become corrupt, with religious organizations being right there in the lead. But, as I(and others) have said: don't throw the baby out with the bath water. An archaic term, one that this group understands(younger generations probably not). Jesus is still Jesus, and His teachings are still valid, despite the ever present greed of some so-called Christian groups.
 
Em in Ohio said:
I would still need a god version that I could respect. While "proof positive" would be interesting, it would not alter my behavior. I forced myself to read bible(s), including Old and New Testaments. I believe a person born of a woman, later named Christ, probably existed and that he was an okay guy with some positive messages. Beyond that, I can't buy into most of it and am deeply disturbed by much of it and at organized religions as well. All that being confessed (haha - ex-catholic humor), I am probably just a run-of-the-mill agnostic. I don't say there is no such thing as god(s), I just say that I don't know and it hasn't been proved to my satisfaction one way or the other. I do know that the god of this thread isn't on my favorites list.
Click to expand...
When I was trying to fashion my own gentler kinder god, I was looking for a more believable god. I hoped this would give me the faith to be a better Christian. But there was no more evidence for my personal god than there was for the Bible God, either the New Testament God or the Old.

The existence of a guy named Jesus, is pretty well accepted by most Bible Scholars, although they do have a dog in that race. But it's likely a guy named Jesus existed if the name was as popular back then as it is now, but the Bible Jesus walked on water, and I'm pretty sure that guy didn't exist. Whether there was a preacher sort is also debatable, because there are no secular records of such a major personality and leader of people that mirror any of the comings and goings of Bible Jesus. Maybe one existed, but other than popular opinion, I don't see any real evidence that would lock that idea down for me. The New Testament describes such a person, but the new testament reads much like Homer's Illiad, filled with the same magical mythological sounding stories, and it's the only written material about a guy named Jesus who is the center of Christian dogma.
 
The founding fathers believed that God was like a clockmaker. In essence wind up the world and let it go with no interference. If I am remembering correctly they were called Theists. I was raised Lutheran but after taking a minor in religion at a Lutheran college and spending years thinking about it I have concluded that it’s just not possible for god to exist.

Life is random and horrible people do unspeakable things. Religion is comforting with it’s rituals but I believe it’s a way to control people and is certainly a money maker.
 
JustDave said:
When I was trying to fashion my own gentler kinder god, I was looking for a more believable god. I hoped this would give me the faith to be a better Christian. But there was no more evidence for my personal god than there was for the Bible God, either the New Testament God or the Old.

The existence of a guy named Jesus, is pretty well accepted by most Bible Scholars, although they do have a dog in that race. But it's likely a guy named Jesus existed if the name was as popular back then as it is now, but the Bible Jesus walked on water, and I'm pretty sure that guy didn't exist. Whether there was a preacher sort is also debatable, because there are no secular records of such a major personality and leader of people that mirror any of the comings and goings of Bible Jesus. Maybe one existed, but other than popular opinion, I don't see any real evidence that would lock that idea down for me. The New Testament describes such a person, but the new testament reads much like Homer's Illiad, filled with the same magical mythological sounding stories, and it's the only written material about a guy named Jesus who is the center of Christian dogma.
Click to expand...
A favorite Jesus denial view spread by some atheists for audiences of simpletons just like is now the fashion in politics. You need to do more homework to reasonably understand why Bible scholars think so, even those that have become atheists. To expect absolute evidence is flawed, a lazy way of rejection. Luke's Book of Act chronicles is best. There are NT writings and also external Christian sources that cross reference each other making single source manipulations too unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
 
Em in Ohio said:
Inferring that others are lazy simpletons is quite rude.
Click to expand...
Well, yes it is, but where people are heavily invested in beliefs of the unknown, they sometimes resort to the ad hominem fallacy as they feel it strengthens their case. I believe 777 wants to make a defense of the Jesus controversy (whether Jesus did exist in person or as an exaggeration of an actual itinerant preacher). The issue is irrelevant to me. At one time I believed a Jesus proxy must have existed, because as a former Christian, well... he had to exist, because then I could cut the religion some slack on the miracle nonsense. So I never gave much thought to an opposing view. I doubt that most Christians do.

The controversy 777 refers to is not that well known, and is mostly a debate between Bible scholars, and the link to Wikipedia goes into both sides of the issue quite deeply. But atheists paying close attention to Christianity know about the controversy, many near the depth of the Wiki article, and often more than many believers. I think there were two other links provided too, but they must have been removed before I had a chance to read them.

Teaching the controversy requires a lot of spinning of intellectual wheels to conclude with finality that a controversy exists. But it's not that helpful. That was one of the strategies used by Young Earth Creationists to try do get their beliefs into the public school system, but the courts concluded that controversy was a religious issue and not a significant enough to be taught in school. That could change with the new Supreme Court too.
 
If one web searches with "jesus never existed" one will receive plenty of link hits. Read some of their arguments and what jumps out are they are obvious attempts to affect the understanding of those they know have little interest in bothering to research the subject any deeper and will instead parrot that view to others. The same manipulative game is rampant in Internet social media, some news sites over politics, and radio talk shows. A balanced argument would at least address some points they argue against however the way that game is played today, such are often purposely crafted for maximum effect conveniently leaving out anything that might weaken their positions. Worse, some will invent statements they know are lies because they realize their audience again won't bother to research whatever while will more likely pass on the same untruths. That is why I linked to much more acceptable Wikipedia article that tells a much different story.

Every day our medias are full of stories and articles playing that game that itself has become news. My comment about "simpletons" stands and was obviously not addressed to members herein but rather the term "politics" in the same sentence. A simpleton is a person easily deceived and our society has always had significant numbers. It is just now in this Internet era that they have become a target.
 
Last edited:
David777 said:
Fair numbers of people cannot even casually discuss trivial subjects without becoming emotional if someone disagrees with them as though that threatens their ego. Often that reflects a background where most others in their life often family and friends had that same emotional behavior. A common reason otherwise intelligent, educated, young persons may fail in corporate professional level work cultures where calm professional teamwork and productive groups discussions are important.
Click to expand...
It depends on what a person considers trivial. A subject one person might simply shrug at could be very personal to another.

When it comes to Bible and related topics, I'm willing to hear everybody's viewpoints, if they're radically different from mine I take it as "agree to disagree," but when the other speaker or poster starts hurling insulting remarks, that's when I get mad. Usually, though, I walk away from the "conversation."

Regarding your viewpoint in general, though (discussions), on most topics I'm like 'water running off a duck'- not taking things personally, etc. On some topics, though, it's like an old country singer said 'thems are fighting words.'

On a side note, are you familiar with The Big Five personality test? Unlike most online tests that are just for fun, this was professionally-created. Curious, I took the test a few years ago. Was somewhat surprised at the results showing my predominant characteristic was I rarely get rattled over much of anything.. but more surprised to see the score on this characteristic was almost off the charts. My late father was the same way, and so is one of my kids.
 
I've always had trouble with Jesus and I'm a Catholic so that's a biggie. But So much of it doesn't make sense. I don't know if he really existed because he left no writings behind though he would have been literate. I don't understand why he had to be executed in such a horrific way to pay for OUR mistakes, we are told. I would have been much more impressed if he had stepped down off the cross and everyone would have seen and many believed and people would have changed, perhaps on the spot, and I always have the ghastly feeling that is what was supposed to happen but didn't because he said, according to scripture as he was dying, "My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?"
I'm in a crisis of faith anyway in my personal life due to the way everything changes daily since the pandemic and the high cost of everything is seriously beginning to hurt. Everyday someone says to me they don't like the way the world is anymore and the way it is becoming and no longer wish to live in it. I have no comfort to offer because I feel the same. :cry:
I was always a charitable person but now I have nothing left over to be charitable with.
If anyone has watched the movie "The Last Temptation of Christ" I think it explains the Jesus story the best of any book/film I have ever experienced. The solution is right in the title. Cleverly done.
 
The reason Jesus ONLY appeared to believers after his execution is the same reason God never appeared to rulers, priest sects, and others God would have viewed generally as evil doers. Repeatedly in gospels, Jesus refused to perform so-called miracles in front of religious and political authorities and that same plan carried through his execution. The same is true today for those that complain that if god is real, then why doesn't he just do something out in the open everyone would forever not be able to deny like flying across the sky with legions of angels trumpeting his laws.

If that happened even evil doers would know for certain he exists. That would cause many seeing value in possible eternal life, though not all, to change their ways depending on what that might mean for their future. Without the threat of an eternity in Hell, if people otherwise just ceased to exist when dying that I suspect is generally the case, many sinners would continue their ways just accepting a finite eternal end. Obviously god if he exists, has understandably chosen to not help those that by their own free choice that have chosen to disregard him even at minimal Ten Commandment levels. It isn't fair for the individual since one's personal circumstances may strongly influence how moral they become. So rather it is against our whole human civilization that we must help each other.

As to why Jesus was sacrificed for our sins, there are plenty of explanations one will receive if web searched for. The following link short read sums up most of why. Even if one has read such explanations, it may still be difficult for one to accept such reasonings. My own hypothesis is Mary was impregnated while under anesthesia by advanced entities by DNA sourced from the same enhanced from ordinary human genetic line as Adam and Eve. That also means I don't believe Adam was the first human being that in this science era reads like nonsense but rather they were genetically enhanced from normal humans of that age in an experiment that eventually failed due to inherent earth creature aggressive tendencies that proved impossible to remove.

If so Jesus would be the ultimate sacrifice for the rest of us. Otherwise god might just ignore we earth monkeys and let us be. However if our probably rare in the universe planet Earth and its amazing DNA organic life has been a billions year old project of UIE's as I suggest, then such a race would feel somewhat responsible for all its life including we humans. That they might have foreseen a future era where we destroy that whole creation with weapons lends argument to them trying to influence us at least at some minimal levels even though they may have preferred to allow nature to run its course naturally.

https://www.faithward.org/why-did-jesus-have-to-die-for-us/

John 3:17, “God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.” By sacrificing himself for us on the cross, he took the punishment for all of our sins at once. This made him the ultimate sacrifice —once and for all satisfying the demands God’s justice required. That is why we call Jesus “Lamb of God.”
 
The statement that "he (Jesus) took the punishment for all our sins at once", suggests that the 'slate was wiped clean' for all 'sins' committed up to that time. This begs two questions. 1. What happened to those who had been punished previously?, and 2. What about everyone who has 'sinned' since? This was 2000 years ago after all.
 
Capt Lightning said:
The statement that "he (Jesus) took the punishment for all our sins at once", suggests that the 'slate was wiped clean' for all 'sins' committed up to that time. This begs two questions. 1. What happened to those who had been punished previously?, and 2. What about everyone who has 'sinned' since? This was 2000 years ago after all.
Click to expand...
If you are Catholic, you pop into a confessional for five minutes, apologize for killing your children, and you are good to go (to heaven) after a dozen assigned "Hail Mary's" and an "Our Father" or two.

Ridiculous.
 
Mr. Ed said:
I’ve heard one of the main objections regarding homosexuality is same-sex relationship do not procreate the species. If this is true, the same law should apply planned parenthood, birth control and contraception.

Why is God so angry in the Old Testament. God ruled as a dictator, opposing God meant suffering and death sometimes in great numbers. God caused all kinds hardships to Job and his family on wager with the devil. However, to be fair, God limited the things the devil could do to Job.

The Old Testament is about God‘s sovereign authority and demand for respect. The Old Testament is based on male dominance and Patriarchal Rule. The Old Testament reflected the life and fears of the people living during that time.

Living BC must have been hard compared to life today.

Introduction of the New Testament changed God’s demeanor to lovey-dovey giving direct access to God through Jesus Christ. God becomes love, a far cry from Old Testament God. Why?
Click to expand...
Because His son, Jesus, offered himself to save us. God realized that no one could ever follow the 10 commandments. Break one and you have broken them all. So, instead, Grace was implemented because He loves His children, God is always faithful to us, we can never be faithful to Him. He loves us anyway. That is true love, when you can love someone even though they don't deserve it. ❤️
 
G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.
If sinners repent, He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does As He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.
If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) , they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.
 
Em in Ohio said:
I would still need a god version that I could respect.
Click to expand...
Answer only if you want to - when you are driving (if you drive) do you stop at red lights, even if you hate the mayor of the town your in ?
Or, if it becomes possible to steal a hundred dollar bill someone dropped and did not realize, would you steal it or alert them , let them know and make sure they retain it ?
I'm thinking of this "on the fly" , not having an agenda - just seeking to understand more what kind of Creator you think you would respect, and wondering if you respect human laws or mayors or proper behaviour when a choice to break the law seemingly without penalty is given you ?
 
Just Jeff said:
G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.
If sinners repent, He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does as He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.

If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) , they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.
Click to expand...
G_d is also a righteous, perfect, holy, always right Judge of all.

Stated as fact?

If sinners repent, He May Forgive them, but He has not always, and is not required to - He Does As He Pleases, including showing Mercy to whom He Chooses to show Mercy.

Since no one has returned from dying how is this known?

If a sinner does not repent (turn to the Creator , look to Him trusting and stop sinning) , they pay the penalty same as everyone historically who did not repent.

Same question. Since no one has returned from dying how is this known?
 
Jesus "returned from dying", and He Says So. His Word is Proof - there is none greater than His Name, He has no one 'higher' as if to swear by.

No religion on earth has "an empty grave", so to speak. Jesus' grave was empty when He was raised up from the grave by the Father in heaven, exactly as written, in perfect harmony with all of Scripture.
 
Just Jeff said:
Answer only if you want to - when you are driving (if you drive) do you stop at red lights, even if you hate the mayor of the town your in ?
Or, if it becomes possible to steal a hundred dollar bill someone dropped and did not realize, would you steal it or alert them , let them know and make sure they retain it ?
I'm thinking of this "on the fly" , not having an agenda - just seeking to understand more what kind of Creator you think you would respect, and wondering if you respect human laws or mayors or proper behaviour when a choice to break the law seemingly without penalty is given you ?
Click to expand...
I'm compulsively honest and blatantly honest. I've stood in long lines for long times to return items sent to me by mistake or taken out of a store by mistake, including a 40 cent balloon. I got one traffic ticket in 56 years of driving for speeding 10 miles over the speed limit when I finally got tired of the car in front of me going 15-25 in a 35 mile per hour zone on my way to a job at a church.

I do not see the relevance.

So now to the only part of this post that I understand: the all-powerful god/creator under discussion who doesn't bother intervening in the killing of innocent children is a real jerk (among many other things) in my opinion and not deserving of respect.
 
Just Jeff said:
Jesus "returned from dying", and He Says So. His Word is Proof - there is none greater than His Name, He has no one 'higher' as if to swear by.

No religion on earth has "an empty grave", so to speak. Jesus' grave was empty when He was raised up from the grave by the Father in heaven, exactly as written, in perfect harmony with all of Scripture.
Click to expand...
And you know that how?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top