Does God exist? (16 Viewers)

[otay]

How do you know that? The people who collated the bible disagreed over what was scriptural and what wasn't, so obviously there is no clear distinction. The books were written by men, translated by men, and collected by men. I'd like to know where God comes into that process.

Don't be silly. The dudes who wrote the Bible were obviously smoking sumthing funny. In fact it is common belief that they were high on PCP and began seeing "God". This is where PCP got its street name "Angel dust". If someone can disprove any inaccuracy in what I've claimed, then I'll give up my faith.

 

[davin]

The day someone proves there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'll give up my faith. But until then the Bible is God's word and infallible.

doesn't genesis itself start off with two different origin stories though? like, right off the bat?

 

[littlewing69]

doesn't genesis itself start off with two different origin stories though? like, right off the bat?

Yes it does. But don't tell the Christians--they don't like actually reading their book...just quoting the good bits

 

[blue_chameleon]

You kids are funny

 

[inasero]

here are numerous contradictions and inaccuracies throughout the Bible. I don't want you to give up your faith by any means, but you should be aware that your holy text is not without its errors.

Example 1:

Genesis 1:14 tells us that the sun and moon were created...on the FOURTH DAY. This is clearly evidence that whoever wrote Genesis had no knowledge of how the solar system worked, or indeed what caused Night/Day.

Example 2:

Luke 11 says that all who seek God will find him.

"10For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."

but two chapters later in Luke 13, this is contradicted.

" 24Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able."

Example 3:

There are palpable differences between gospel accounts. They can't all be absolutely correct. Matthew 8 tells of an incident in which Jesus cures TWO demon-possessed men. Yet Luke 8 and Mark 5 tell the same story, in which only ONE man is cured. Obviously, one version must be right and the other wrong, or both are wrong. I don't think God screws such trivialities up.

Example 1
What if "Day" was defined in terms of time period as opposed to the light which demarcates the solar day from night?

Example 2
You have to realise that you can't just take Bible verses out of context and use them to "prove" they contradict each other. The first example from Luke 11 is in regards to prayer and how a righteous prayer will be answered. However, the second verse you quote talks about "entering" in the context of Jesus teching how to enter the Kingdon of Heaven.

Example 3
Yes you're right- I never noticed that before. However how it's explained is that there were in fact two demon-possessed men. However at the time only one of the possessed men talked to Jesus and so he's the one whom the two latter Synoptic gospels talks about.

Yes I can see how given that language is a human construct specific to social and cultural contexts, that there is potential for mis-interpretation. I don't deny that doesn't happen today and it probably explains why there are so many differences in opinions (just look at the Christian denominations). However, the lack of consensus never amounted to a total denial of Jesus Christ as lord and saviour, which is the central message of the Bible.

Any other discrepancies you find I'll be happy to look into them for you, also for my personal interest- I'd like to think I have a solid basis for what I believe in.

 

[littlewing69]

Example 1
What if "Day" was defined in terms of time period as opposed to the light which demarcates the solar day from night?

Bah buh...


Genesis 1:5 already defined a Day as the combination of the period of light and dark which the Earth experienced, even though the sun wasn't yet "invented". Ridiculous, no?

 

[bazookajoe]

Most Biblical followers regard the creation story as a myth, so that's a pretty weak argument.

 

[transcendent]

not all biblical followers regard it as myth

 

[littlewing69]

Most Biblical followers regard the creation story as a myth, so that's a pretty weak argument.

I'm not trying to refute Christianity, just a literal interpretation of the Bible, which I think is a dangerous position.


EDIT:

Almost all the Christians I know take Genesis as allegory, or theological narrative. My father, who's a studying Christian Theology wouldn't for a second dream of taking the creation account as some sort of "eyewitness account" of creation.

 

[inasero]

Most Biblical followers regard the creation story as a myth, so that's a pretty weak argument.

On the contrary, most "Biblical followers" (by which I assume you mean Christians) believe in the creation account- traditionally the debate has been over how long a Biblical "day" actually signifies, or if it's referring to a time period at all.

Bah buh...


Genesis 1:5 already defined a Day as the combination of the period of light and dark which the Earth experienced, even though the sun wasn't yet "invented". Ridiculous, no?

Your argument rests on the assumption that since light was already present, the Sun must necessarily have existed at that point. However whether you're Christian or Atheist, I'm sure you'll agree that everything that exists in the Universe today must at some point have come into existence (the subject of which is altogether another topic for debate).

Logically, light comes from the sun but Genesis 1:3 doesn't mention anything about the Sun. In fact, later on 1:16 we see the Sun and Moon created so we can confidently assume that verse 3 is talking about light in and of itself.

I'm not justifying verse 3 talking about light, by process of deduction because I should still try to understand where you're coming from. From a purely objective point of view, it's difficult to argue that the Genesis account is metaphoric- especially since it talks about things created as they are. Vegetation is vegetation, seas are seas and theres no reason to believe that "Light" could be a metahpor for another creation. Of course the Bible can't be taken literally in all circumstances (the reasons for which I've explained previously), but in this case I don't think the text leaves any room for doubt being written the way it was. That's why personally, I'm inclined to believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days.

So yes, it is a little confusing and we'll never know why God created light before the Sun. However if we logically accept that the Genesis account is talking about light being created independently of the Sun, then there's no argument whatsoever that the Bible (or Genesis at least) contradicts itself.

 

[littlewing69]

On the contrary, most "Biblical followers" (by which I assume you mean Christians) believe in the creation account- traditionally the debate has been over how long a Biblical "day" actually signifies, or if it's referring to a time period at all.

Only in the more fundamental branches of the religion. Check out any of the mainline denominations and you'll find a lot of the younger Christians are happy to combine their religion with a good dose of science and reason.

Your argument rests on the assumption that since light was already present, the Sun must necessarily have existed at that point. However whether you're Christian or Atheist, I'm sure you'll agree that everything that exists in the Universe today must at some point have come into existence (the subject of which is altogether another topic for debate).

Logically, light comes from the sun but Genesis 1:3 doesn't mention anything about the Sun. In fact, later on 1:16 we see the Sun and Moon created so we can confidently assume that verse 3 is talking about light in and of itself.

You're really bending over backwards to defend this one. Can't you see that whoever wrote this story didn't understand the solar system? "Separating darkness from light", "setting the lights in the firmament" etc.

I'm not justifying verse 3 talking about light, by process of deduction because I should still try to understand where you're coming from. From a purely objective point of view, it's difficult to argue that the Genesis account is metaphoric- especially since it talks about things created as they are.

I put it to you that the story is a theological narrative. The meaning which is meant to be transmitted is that God created the Universe and put man into it, and that he did this in an ordered and purposeful way. The rest of the story is essentially poetic filler--mythological details.

in this case I don't think the text leaves any room for doubt being written the way it was.

Read it in the Hebrew . It's poetic.

That's why personally, I'm inclined to believe that the Earth was created in seven literal days.

Six.

So yes, it is a little confusing and we'll never know why God created light before the Sun. However if we logically accept that the Genesis account is talking about light being created independently of the Sun, then there's no argument whatsoever that the Bible (or Genesis at least) contradicts itself.

Logically? If you looked at it logically, you wouldn't be trying so hard to explain it . If you want to believe that Hebrews of the first millenium BC knew how the Universe was created, that's you business, but it isn't rational...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The rest of the story is essentially poetic filler--mythological details.

I doubt it was intended as 'poetic filler' by whoever wrote it, I'm sure this was supposed to be at least a semi-literal account of how the universe came into being... It has only become 'poetic filler' to the wider population now because we're smart enough to know if it's not, whoever wrote it was just plain wrong.

Logically, light comes from the sun but Genesis 1:3 doesn't mention anything about the Sun. In fact, later on 1:16 we see the Sun and Moon created so we can confidently assume that verse 3 is talking about light in and of itself.

Fine explanation, however there's a little problem...

a Day as the combination of the period of light and dark

So he was bringing light into existance then removing it and calling it a day? It makes much more sense that it means the sun/daylight/night.

From a purely objective point of view, it's difficult to argue that the Genesis account is metaphoric- especially since it talks about things created as they are.

We get this in our own literature too, some things will be metaphors others will be logical facts. But I agree with you, I don't think very much of the bible at all is 'metaphorical' and I think it is only within recent times that mankind has started to popularily think it is

And how has the Genesis account been proved "inaccurate"?
The day someone convinces me that the Bible is a solely human construct to serve the needs of political/religious elite, then I'll give up my faith. The day someone proves there are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the Bible, I'll give up my faith. But until then the Bible is God's word and infallible.

This is interesting, do you apply the same burden of proof to the bible as say.... The koran?

However, the lack of consensus never amounted to a total denial of Jesus Christ as lord and saviour, which is the central message of the Bible.

The central message? I don't really know about that, I know that it's all that christians seem to say now as the bible comes under increasing attack. It's much easier to defend something like 'jesus was our lord and saviour' I suppose.

You kids are funny

Kids?

Oh, I get it. You got upset that there's people here who have quite a strong justification for disagreeing with you, but because you're so pigheaded in your religious beliefs instead of debating you've decided to just sit back, belittle them, and gloat to yourself about how superior you are.

 

[inasero]

Yes we're seeing society becoming increasingly secularized and no doubt this is reflected in the younger generation of today. However, just because we have an explanation for much of the scientific phenomena around us, in no way has that invalidated the Genesis account of creation. Again I see that as a wholly unnecessary and unhealthy dichotomy (science vs. religion), and I personally have great respect for both, being brought up in both traditions. Even where younger churchgoers are experiencing a shift in coming to terms with Creation, it's an individual matter and has not influenced the doctrine of the "mainline denomination" churches in the least.

In regards to the validity of Genesis- I've never suggested that the ancients of the past understood how God worked in Creation. In fact that would be a logical fallacy given that they wreen't even around at the time! However, the whole basis of the Bible's integrity is that it's not man's interpretation of what they think God is like, but rather the supernatural revelation of wisdom given to particular people at particular times.

Whether the Earth was made in six years or six millenia, whether the light was made before the sun...I think these things are trivial and pale in comparison to the role and responsibility of God in creation and the place of man in God's whole scheme. There is a logical progression of ideas and purpose in the Bible and this certainly applies no less to the Pentateuch.

 

[inasero]

So he was bringing light into existance then removing it and calling it a day? It makes much more sense that it means the sun/daylight/night.

He never removed light just in order to create it again in the form of the sun- what would be the point of that? The Bible only says that He separated light from the darkness.

 

[littlewing69]

I doubt it was intended as 'poetic filler' by whoever wrote it, I'm sure this was supposed to be at least a semi-literal account of how the universe came into being... It has only become 'poetic filler' to the wider population now because we're smart enough to know if it's not, whoever wrote it was just plain wrong.

I'm inclined to agree with you, and the liberalisation of Christianity certainly tends to construct increasingly more metaphorical interpretations of originally serious literature.

On the other hand, perhaps you're underestimating the intelligence of the Hebrews--a highly literate and educated bunch. Is it not beyond the bounds of reason that an ancient scholar wrote the Genesis creation account (either or both) as a poetic and mythological explanation of creation? Or perhaps it was popular mythological lore, and later on became more taken more literally as myths emerged about the origins of Genesis--that it was dictated to Moses from God on Sinai and so on.

This is a similar thing to what happened with the NT. I doubt Paul wrote letters to his mates believing that he was writing the Word of God. Later Christians merely ascribed these writings with a divine source.

This is interesting, do you apply the same burden of proof to the bible as say.... The koran?

This is what leads me to reject revealed religion. Most people will say their faith is reasonable, that they can explain it somewhat logically and that it is superior to others, yet they never consider religions they aren't immersed in with the same mindset.

The central message? I don't really know about that, I know that it's all that christians seem to say now as the bible comes under increasing attack. It's much easier to defend something like 'jesus was our lord and saviour' I suppose.

Pauline Christianity revolves around the Christ and his death/resurrection as the source of the religion and the means of salvation. So yes, it is the central story of Christianity.

 

[littlewing69]

In regards to the validity of Genesis- I've never suggested that the ancients of the past understood how God worked in Creation. In fact that would be a logical fallacy given that they wreen't even around at the time! However, the whole basis of the Bible's integrity is that it's not man's interpretation of what they think God is like, but rather the supernatural revelation of wisdom given to particular people at particular times.

But if it was indeed supernatural revelation, would it not be fair to expect that God would beam down the real facts of the matter? If Genesis is incompatible with fact, we have a few possible deductions:

a.) God stuffed up and told them the wrong story, and so God is fallible.
b.) God misled the Hebrews and is deceptive.
c.) The humans stuffed up and so the Bible is not the Word of God or infallible.
d.) God gave only a general theological inspiration, and the facts are not important.
e.) The creation story is mythology reflecting Hebrew belief

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I don't think you're following me, or maybe wingw's information which i'm going off isn't accurate. I'll try again.

You said,

- We can confidently assume that verse 3 is talking about light in and of itself.

(So basically, I think what you're saying is that verse 3 is just taking about light comming into existance.)

- Genesis 1:5 defined a Day as the combination of the period of light and dark which the Earth experienced

(We then have this, a day is defined as the combination of the period of light and dark which the earth experiences... so in other words, there is ALREADY periods of light and dark happening on the earth.)

- The sun/moon is then created.

So essentially, your explanation doesn't work because of the way a day is defined, unless you believe it is talking about God turning off light and then turning it back on (or something to that effect... which seems ridiculous).

However, just because we have an explanation for much of the scientific phenomena around us, in no way has that invalidated the Genesis account of creation.

Well it hasn't invalidated it, but it's begun to come up with a naturalistic explanation... which generally we prefer over supernatural ones.

Again I see that as a wholly unnecessary and unhealthy dichotomy (science vs. religion), and I personally have great respect for both, being brought up in both traditions.

Unfortunately if you choose to hold onto such concepts as the universe being created in 6 days, noahs ark etc you will come into conflict with the scientific method. Also, the scientific method ignores any supernatural explanation, so of course there is going to be conflict.

Whether the Earth was made in six years or six millenia, whether the light was made before the sun...I think these things are trivial and pale in comparison to the role and responsibility of God in creation and the place of man in God's whole scheme. There is a logical progression of ideas and purpose in the Bible and this certainly applies no less to the Pentateuch.

Yea but here's the thing, you're just comming up with that out of thin air. No where in the bible does it say or even suggest that those things are not important, you've just decided they are not.

On the other hand, perhaps you're underestimating the intelligence of the Hebrews--a highly literate and educated bunch. Is it not beyond the bounds of reason that an ancient scholar wrote the Genesis creation account (either or both) as a poetic and mythological explanation of creation? Or perhaps it was popular mythological lore, and later on became more taken more literally as myths emerged about the origins of Genesis--that it was dictated to Moses from God on Sinai and so on.

This is a similar thing to what happened with the NT. I doubt Paul wrote letters to his mates believing that he was writing the Word of God. Later Christians merely ascribed these writings with a divine source.

Well as for the story, I believe it was stolen from several other creation stories, along with other stories in the bible/torah/koran. Did the person whom wrote it believe it was metaphorical? I don't know. But I do think that the earliest of the followers took it literally.

Pauline Christianity revolves around the Christ and his death/resurrection as the source of the religion and the means of salvation. So yes, it is the central story of Christianity.

Yea I get that, but I think ummm when people say 'central message' they're really saying 'the only important thing'. Which I don't think is what the religion at least started out about.

This is what leads me to reject revealed religion. Most people will say their faith is reasonable, that they can explain it somewhat logically and that it is superior to others, yet they never consider religions they aren't immersed in with the same mindset.

It's not just that either... how's bout "How do you know the devil didn't write the bible?", the muslims/christians/jews all believe in the devil (another supernatural being) so to pose the question of 'why do you think the devil didn't write the bible?' is something along the lines of asking a complete comic book nerd who is faster superman or the flash?

 

[otay]

responsibility of God in creation and the place of man in God's whole scheme.

God's Scheme??? So what our existence is just a chess game and we are all God's pawns??? You acknowledge God has a scheme and you still chose to follow and worship him/her/it??????

The way I see things is if you really and truly believe in a God, you would believe in God whether you were raised in an Atheist or Religious family, whether you've read the Bible, Koran, Harry Potter whatever. And so far most of the arguments on this board refer back to the Bible or what not, and to me that does not prove in existence of a God. Nothing does. It's all about belief and faith right??? I personalyl don't have that belief, but I see no problem in others having this belief. I do see a problem in people taking the Bible so literally (since it is jsut a book, written by men, so why should it be any more flawless than any other piece of literature written?) to force their beliefs or so called "morals" on you.

Also how can you take the word of what is written in Genesis? I mean how do these people know how the earth was created. Sorry If I sound ignorant. Did God like tell the authors what happened, or is it just like a Dreamtime story or Greek Mythology. Do you think Apollo existed and was a God? I mean aren't there just as many architectural designs and temples and such depicting some of his stories?

 

[littlewing69]

Yea I get that, but I think ummm when people say 'central message' they're really saying 'the only important thing'.

Well, let's put it this way. Most Christians will accept the Nicene Creed as the litmus test for whether one is or isn't a "true" Christian.

It reads in modern English as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.




So in essence, mainstream Christianity revolves around general theological precepts (Trinity, Creator God, etc.) and the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no mention of OT concepts in any depth, no mention of exact meaning of creation narratives.

Which I don't think is what the religion at least started out about.

Christianity DID start out of the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the whole point of the religion. The idea is that Jesus was a sacrifice for all mankind's sins--so he had to die, and that his resurrection proved his deity and also represented a victory over death which entailed eternal life for all his followers. Without the resurrection story, the Jesus religion was just one of many hero/messiah cults which existed in Palestine at the time.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well, let's put it this way. Most Christians will accept the Nicene Creed as the litmus test for whether one is or isn't a "true" Christian.

It reads in modern English as follows:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.




So in essence, mainstream Christianity revolves around general theological precepts (Trinity, Creator God, etc.) and the deity, death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no mention of OT concepts in any depth, no mention of exact meaning of creation narratives.




Christianity DID start out of the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. It is the whole point of the religion. The idea is that Jesus was a sacrifice for all mankind's sins--so he had to die, and that his resurrection proved his deity and also represented a victory over death which entailed eternal life for all his followers. Without the resurrection story, the Jesus religion was just one of many hero/messiah cults which existed in Palestine at the time.

Didn't jesus say stuff? didn't jesus reveal some stuff about god/the world?