• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

BECAUSE THE BIBLE SAYS SO!! Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debate?

Does the Bible have a legitimate place in modern debates when it has something to say


  • Total voters
    361
Status
Not open for further replies.

FlyingFlygon

Ocarina of Calm
I'm sure this has been said many times, many ways, but the Bible is outdated. In the same way that we no longer bleed people to cure them of disease, the Bible is something from a different time and age; it represents the morals and values of its time, not what we as a world believe in today. I respect what it has done for us in the past and how it has shaped our history, but the bible speaks little of the issues our world faces today. For example, let's think about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It would be so easy to simply go to war with all Muslims for the incident, but the only ones that ever meant us true harm are the ones that attacked us. The rest largely just want to be left alone. The Bible would have us attack all of them on religious grounds.
 

Profesco

gone gently
I'm sure this has been said many times, many ways, but the Bible is outdated. In the same way that we no longer bleed people to cure them of disease, the Bible is something from a different time and age; it represents the morals and values of its time, not what we as a world believe in today. I respect what it has done for us in the past and how it has shaped our history, but the bible speaks little of the issues our world faces today. For example, let's think about the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It would be so easy to simply go to war with all Muslims for the incident, but the only ones that ever meant us true harm are the ones that attacked us. The rest largely just want to be left alone. The Bible would have us attack all of them on religious grounds.

Gee... far be it for me to do a sort of about-face here, but something in this post makes me want to offer a corrective defense of the Bible.

I've been arguing that the Bible doesn't count as an authority on issues we face today all along, but I do have to make a point that it certainly does speak on a lot of issues that we face today. The Bible is a pretty firm classic of literature, an accomplishment of mankind, and it has definite lasting power. The Bible discusses perennial human concerns like love, loyalty, compassion, conflict, mystery, and - gulp! - even truth and morality. These topics will always be issues humanity thinks upon, and the Bible still has some good things to say in regards to the likes of them for precisely that reason. Romeo and Juliet, The Iliad and the Odyssey, Plato's Republic.... Plenty of ancient texts cover perennial humanistic topics such that new generations can still read them and gain useful, relevant insight into those topics from a contemporary perspective.

Again, that isn't to say the Bible is right about all or any of these issues, or that, for anything it may be right about, it's right because it's the Bible. For instance, the Bible encourages what we call the Golden Rule - do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. It's an excellent ethical imperative that will aid humanity into its final days, and the Bible covers it, but it's not right or useful because it's in the Bible. Many religions converge on this moral rule in some form without Abrahamic religion, and it can even be argued out by secular reason.

I hope I'm expressing my point clearly, because it's a fine line I'm treading here. ^_^;

Edit: mattj, there's no rush to reply. Just so long as a reply is actually in the works, no one here will worry.
 

CSolarstorm

New spicy version
Yeah no rush mattj - when you do come up with the rebuttal I'll update the guide on the homosexuality thread. I hope you haven't minded me using your argument in it.
 
Oh no I don't mind. The 2011-2012 Pokemon VGC Regional Championships are this Sunday and I've been pouring hours and hours into practice. After Sunday I won't have another VGC event until June.
 

Profesco

gone gently
Excerpts from the Homsexuality Debate:

The Biblical argument against homosexual acts is based on neither fallacy or stereotype. Its based on love,

The Islamic concept of killing your daughter because she has been raped is also a concept based on love.

Just for comparison.


The more you talk about your god and the Bible, the more they start to sound to me like Big Brother and Ingsoc. So not only does Leviticis 20:13 not preach hatred towards gays for ordering them to be killed, it's practicing love? ****ing really? Killing is Love! War is Peace! Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Does this sort of doublethink actually sound good to you?

And that whole "help people live a better way" thing... doesn't killing people for not living the theoretical "best" way seem a little counter-productive to helping them live a better way (specifically the "live" part)?

The Ingsoc part made me laugh - no thanks to the serious nature of the problem here, but more due to the simple absurdity. Likewise for the "we'll help you to live better by killing you" argument. Both of those could sorely use some explanation. In fact, I wish FightingPikachu or ShinySandshrew would enter this discussion, because if anyone could provide some feasible attempt at rationalizing those propositions in a way non-believers could begin to understand, it's them.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Calling something love doesn't mean it can't be a fallacy.. logic does not care for the word love.
 
The Ingsoc part made me laugh - no thanks to the serious nature of the problem here, but more due to the simple absurdity. Likewise for the "we'll help you to live better by killing you" argument. Both of those could sorely use some explanation. In fact, I wish FightingPikachu or ShinySandshrew would enter this discussion, because if anyone could provide some feasible attempt at rationalizing those propositions in a way non-believers could begin to understand, it's them.
Thank you for your kind words! I shouldn't have been gone from the Forums for so long, and I wish I could find the time to respond to everything that people have said to me, but I really feel like I need to respond to an earlier discussion.

Regarding the issue of the verses in the Bible prohibiting "lying with a man," I'd like to point out that the word for "lie" in that context really does indicate sexual actions. That said, yes, homosexuality is expressly prohibited in the Old Testament; those who believe it is prohibited don't have to rest on implication.

Neither do New Testament believers have to rest on implication of words. It is expressly stated that homosexual actions are prohibited to Jesus' followers.

Additionally, as I've stated before, under the Mosaic Law, punishment for homosexuality (death) was a judicial punishment. As I stated in the homosexuality debate, the church is given no authority for a capital punishment, since such judicial matters are left to the state. It is not a matter of whether Jesus removed a death penalty. He never gave it to the church to begin with.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
I find it funny how we're talking about homosexuality in this topic, and we're talking about the Bible in the homosexuality topic even though the Bible does not have a legitimate place in modern debates.
 

Antiyonder

Overlord
I can't really say yes, no or undecided as I can't be sure, but I wanted to give a couple cents on the matter.

But honestly, it seems more like it should depend on the person using the Bible. Is the person debating (whether religious or no) an independent thinker who actually tries to understand the bible?

Or is he/she a blind follower who thinks we should do what it says without trying to understand or question the Bible?

If the former, I think some allowances should be granted. If the latter, then no.


But I can't fully say that I'm right, so this is going to be my only post here.
 
I find it funny how we're talking about homosexuality in this topic, and we're talking about the Bible in the homosexuality topic even though the Bible does not have a legitimate place in modern debates.

I think its funny that you still post here.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
OMG how butthurt can you get mattj? Going away because you told him to is the very last thing marioguy is likely to do in his lifetime. If you don't think he has anything important to say then don't respond.

Whether intentional or not, this thread is long largely because you find yourself 'distracted' by telling other people they are trolling or filling your posts with large-fonted sarcastic remarks. You conveniently forget to respond to any tough questions that are asked of you. It's been pointed out several times in this thread by different users. If you are deliberately ignoring difficult arguments against you then your conduct can be described in many colourful ways which I don't think I need to elaborate on.

You should participate in the debate rather than clogging it up with the inane comments you simultaneously hate on marioguy for posting. Hypocritical and pointless.

Now:

The Bible claims many things.

1. What evidence exists to suggest it is right about all of them?

2. If there are parts of the Bible which are wrong, how can we decide rationally which parts of the Bible are still correct?

I expect you to answer both questions separately before you can claim to have won this debate.
 

Game Maker

Memento Mori
You know what I find funny? The fact that someone's trying to push the ideals in the bible to someone else, yet won't accept their ideals in return.

If I don't have to believe that the bible is right on anything, then I won't. If you're trying to forcefeed something towards others, it only makes you a bad person for taking away their freedom to believe in anything they want.
 

Blackjack the Titan

It’s been a while
I'm sure I sound annoying when saying this but if you don't use the Bible for your everyday reasoning and living, you shouldn't abruptly bring it into a debate. It's a very hypocritical thing for one to do.
 
Umm...chuboy? Your statement in the quote of yourself mistakenly assumes that the Bible is one source, and that claims written by authors centuries apart somehow impact each other by being gathered into one multi-volume collection. This, of course, is inaccurate.
 

Sadib

Time Lord Victorious
Umm...chuboy? Your statement in the quote of yourself mistakenly assumes that the Bible is one source, and that claims written by authors centuries apart somehow impact each other by being gathered into one multi-volume collection. This, of course, is inaccurate.

The Bible is made up of multiple books. If one of the books says something that is obviously false, that endangers the validity of the rest of the Bible. Why was that section there? If someone randomly added fiction to the Bible, how do we know that the rest isn't also fiction?

The Bible is only as credible as its least credible book.
 

chuboy

<- It was THIS big!
Umm...chuboy? Your statement in the quote of yourself mistakenly assumes that the Bible is one source, and that claims written by authors centuries apart somehow impact each other by being gathered into one multi-volume collection. This, of course, is inaccurate.

I don't see your point. I know the Bible wasn't written by just one person. What I'm trying to make clear is that EITHER the entire Bible is to be taken literally OR you have to come up with an objective way of interpreting it.

Profesco has already shown how mattj contradicted himself by claiming in one case that the Bible didn't have to be taken literally and that it did in another. So far, mattj refused to answer by providing excuses like "unlike you I have a life" and "VGC Tournament". I suppose he forgot that we can simply click the "previous page" link, reread the posts and see that he has yet to respond.

We already know there are contradictions in the Bible, even within books. We cannot rationally take its every word literally. So, if the Bible is to be a book that we are to 'live by', it should be interpreted consistently. If your neighbour is gay how should you act? Should you love thy neighbour or should you hate him for his sins? Suppose a man has a female friend with whom he lies in a purely platonic way - can he then lie next to a man in this way?

If the meaning of the Bible (or any source) boils down to a subjective interpretation it is useless as a source in debating.
 
Last edited:
you're seriously asking me to support every single claim made in the entire Bible in this thread

?

ahahahahhahahahhahahhahaha

no

Bring a question and I'd be happy to give you the answer that you could simply have googled yourself because its so obvious.

The tournament is today. I'll answer this evening or tomorrow "OGOB HE DIDN'T ANSWER I MUST HAVE STUMPDED HIM TROLLOLOLOLOL" seriously stop.
 

Hejiru

Rev up those fryers
The Bible is made up of multiple books. If one of the books says something that is obviously false, that endangers the validity of the rest of the Bible. Why was that section there? If someone randomly added fiction to the Bible, how do we know that the rest isn't also fiction?

The Bible is only as credible as its least credible book.

Not necessarily. The different books were written by different people over vast differences of time. Doesn't mean that whoever compiled the books couldn't have taken true ones and false ones. If I make a book containing Einstein's theory of relativity and a conspiracy theory published by the Flat Earth Society, that doesn't invalidate Einstein's theory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top