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

[Vanilluxe]

In the bible, it states that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Are we all supposed to believe that? That dinosaurs and cavemen and stuff never existed?

The bible should not be used in debates today, because there's absolutely no validity to it whatsoever.

 

[chuboy]

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.

Are you incapable of reading?

All I asked you to do is explain to us dullards how we can objectively interpret the Bible, since we can't take it literally.

Or are you claiming that the Bible is so magical that you can interpret it any way that you want and it will be right so long as it supports your argument?

 

[The Red Thunder]

The problem I've found with Christians or any of the other hardcore "Bible" religions is that they are taught from an early age that their religion is infallible and they believe it thoroghly. You can't argue with somebody who utterly believes that their faith is infallible because they're already predisposed to any opposition being automatically wrong. Things like logic and fact are wasted on such a person. It doesn't matter to them what science has mathemtaically proven time and again, they choose to disregard it in lieu of their faith. They do so because they're, again, taught from an early age that if they DID use their own logical thought, that they've committed an evil sin and will suffer for it, if it didn't agree with what the bible says.

The hypocrisy in all that is that they claim that "pride" is a sin. Their own religion exploits a loophole in all this by claiming that it's not them saying it, but that it's the word of God, himself. A person who believes that they are exempt from the very rules they set for others, by claiming it's not their set of rules, has no place in modern debate.

In the bible, it states that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Are we all supposed to believe that? That dinosaurs and cavemen and stuff never existed?

The bible should not be used in debates today, because there's absolutely no validity to it whatsoever.

I wouldn't say it has "no validity", but it certainly doesn't have the "absolute" validity that a lot of religious followers like to give it. There are various tenants in the book that I agree with, such as treating your fellow man and woman with kindness, and forgiving those who have shown willingness to atone for their transgressions against their fellow brethren and sistren. A lot of the stories, fanciful as they may be, do hint at a relevant message such as persistence and the value of hard work. However, these if it is those tenants that you are trying to preach, then there are far more modern examples that you can use. Martin Luther King Jr. is a GREAT example of a man who believed in non-violence and turning the other cheek. Why not preach his teachings instead of reaching into the Christian Vault and pulling out some ancient story?

I do think that it needs a severe rewrite for today's society and a complete omission of "facts" that have been scientifically proven wrong. Facts like "the earth was created 6,000 years ago", as we know it's been around a lot longer than that. I mean, hell, the Chinese civilization has been around for nearly that long itself.

 

[CSolarstorm]

you're seriously asking me to support every single claim made in the entire Bible in this thread

No, he's asking you why you demand literal proof for many biblical arguments but in the one you put forth, you assumed implicit intention when the Bible didn't actually say anything specific about it. Or if it did, you haven't put it yet.

 

[Ghost_MissingNo]

The Bible has been translated so many times now that a lot of the verses don't even say what they originally said anyway. In my honest opinion, people should just learn to develop opinions of their own instead of letting a book do the talking for them. The Bible to me is no different than a fantasy book. If you believe a heaven and hell exists, why not believe there's a paraworld where dragons rule the skies?

I know I may get flamed for this, but keep in mind IT IS ONLY MY OPINION! If my opinion really urks you so much that you have to lash out at me for it in order to defend your religion, I have to question your faith. If you really honestly believe in your religion, surely what other people say shouldn't matter anyway because their opinions wouldn't be able to tilt your faith, right?

 

[Sadib]

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.

How would we know which parts are true and which ones are false? We'd have to believe that the Einstein's of relativity is just as valid as the conspiracy theory, because there would be no way to differentiate between them.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

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.

The above argument, especially the last sentence, is completely incorrect. It assumes that the people who collected the books could not have made a mistake. Since so many atheists use the argument that "how do you know there wasn't some conspiracy to keep certain books out?" then that should be obviously invalid. I have repeatedly used the example that the Bible says plenty about Jesus that is reliable. Even if one rejects supernatural claims, one can't allege that if a literal view of Genesis is impossible, then obviously Jesus didn't really teach anything about love, help anyone, or die by crucifixion. It just doesn't work that way.

If the meaning of the Bible (or any source) boils down to a subjective interpretation it is useless as a source in debating.

I completely agree.

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.

First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?

It is a false dilemma fallacy to claim that everything in the Bible must be literal or it must be unreliable. I believe that recognizing figures of speech and non-literal usage is important. I'd like to point out that there are even some non-theistic evolutionary scientists who don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally. Whether I agree with this is another matter.

Objective methods of interpreting the Bible exist. And even if one were to say "I don't think Genesis is reliable at all" there are still compelling reasons for seeing the gospels as literal records of a very unusual person and His teachings, actions, death, and even resurrection.

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?

You ignored the post, on the same page as yours, where I pointed out that the word "lie" in that sort of context actually indicates sexual actions.

There's a difference between interpreting literally and interpreting overly literally. Quite a number of alleged contradictions result from that. This includes your reference to hating gays--prohibiting certain actions is not the same as hating anyone.

The Bible has been translated so many times now that a lot of the verses don't even say what they originally said anyway. In my honest opinion, people should just learn to develop opinions of their own instead of letting a book do the talking for them. The Bible to me is no different than a fantasy book. If you believe a heaven and hell exists, why not believe there's a paraworld where dragons rule the skies?

I know I may get flamed for this, but keep in mind IT IS ONLY MY OPINION! If my opinion really urks you so much that you have to lash out at me for it in order to defend your religion, I have to question your faith. If you really honestly believe in your religion, surely what other people say shouldn't matter anyway because their opinions wouldn't be able to tilt your faith, right?

Yet your opinion also contains unsubstantiated rumors. Most modern translations are not translated out of secondary translations, no matter how often skeptics repeat this claim.

 

[Hejiru]

In the bible, it states that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. Are we all supposed to believe that? That dinosaurs and cavemen and stuff never existed?

The bible should not be used in debates today, because there's absolutely no validity to it whatsoever.

It never said that. People made stupid assumptions and started spouting that.

 

[chuboy]

First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?

I do not take issue with the fact the mattj made a mistake, in fact I expect it from him. I do take issue with the hypocritical nature of his argument.

It is a false dilemma fallacy to claim that everything in the Bible must be literal or it must be unreliable. I believe that recognizing figures of speech and non-literal usage is important. I'd like to point out that there are even some non-theistic evolutionary scientists who don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally. Whether I agree with this is another matter.

I don't believe it is a false dilemma fallacy. You yourself said a source that cannot be interpreted literally is useless in a debate. That's obvious; if someone can just backup their opinion with another opinion then they have not proven anything.

Those last two sentences show how from the very first book, there is disagreement about what is supposed to be a figure of speech or metaphor and what claims to be fact.

Objective methods of interpreting the Bible exist. And even if one were to say "I don't think Genesis is reliable at all" there are still compelling reasons for seeing the gospels as literal records of a very unusual person and His teachings, actions, death, and even resurrection.


You ignored the post, on the same page as yours, where I pointed out that the word "lie" in that sort of context actually indicates sexual actions.

There's a difference between interpreting literally and interpreting overly literally. Quite a number of alleged contradictions result from that. This includes your reference to hating gays--prohibiting certain actions is not the same as hating anyone.

I'm sorry if I didn't make my point clear - but what I was trying to point out that the English version of the Bible is already an interpretation of the original scripture. Someone who is not versed in Hebrew can do no better than see a contradiction

I personally can't think of a way to decide fairly what parts are to be taken literally and which aren't; having to decide in the first place indicates the unreliability of the Bible as a source.

It's also the reason why the Bible is only a suitable source in debates whose topics are essentially 'what is your interpretation of the Bible'.

 

[Vanilluxe]

It never said that. People made stupid assumptions and started spouting that.

The bible says that god created Earth in a few days time. Then he created the first two humans, Adam and Eve. The bible spans from that point, up until about 4,000 years later, when Jesus Christ was killed.

Now, you add on the 2000 or so years since Christ was killed. It adds up to a little more than 6,000 years. Sure, it's not mentioned in the bible as being exactly 6,000 years, but any idiot who can do math can figure that one out.

It should not have a place in today's debates, because it's basically saying that fossils and cavemen are fake. Clearly, it's a book written by some sad old man and the world knew nothing about fossils at the time.

 

[chuboy]

For the lols, you should go and have a read of conservapedia.com, which attempts to recreate wikipedia from an American fundamentalist Christian non-liberal biased viewpoint.

It speaks for itself.

 

[Sadib]

The above argument, especially the last sentence, is completely incorrect. It assumes that the people who collected the books could not have made a mistake. Since so many atheists use the argument that "how do you know there wasn't some conspiracy to keep certain books out?" then that should be obviously invalid. I have repeatedly used the example that the Bible says plenty about Jesus that is reliable. Even if one rejects supernatural claims, one can't allege that if a literal view of Genesis is impossible, then obviously Jesus didn't really teach anything about love, help anyone, or die by crucifixion. It just doesn't work that way.

First of all, I think mattj probably did contradict himself regarding the issue of the homosexuality and the death penalty today. This doesn't make mattj an unreliable person. That kinda forms an analogy for what I'm saying. If mattj can make one mistake, or if I can make one mistake, or if you can make one mistake, would you seriously argue that anyone discount everything we say?

It is a false dilemma fallacy to claim that everything in the Bible must be literal or it must be unreliable. I believe that recognizing figures of speech and non-literal usage is important. I'd like to point out that there are even some non-theistic evolutionary scientists who don't think the early chapters of Genesis should be taken literally. Whether I agree with this is another matter.

Objective methods of interpreting the Bible exist. And even if one were to say "I don't think Genesis is reliable at all" there are still compelling reasons for seeing the gospels as literal records of a very unusual person and His teachings, actions, death, and even resurrection.

Did you seriously compare mattj to the Bible? You didn't understand my post. I didn't say that the people who compiled the Bible books couldn't have made a mistake. I said that each part of the Bible should be taken as literal and true as any other part of the Bible. We can't just say, "Oh that part may be false, but this part is obviously true." If the Bible is actually the word of God, then all of it should be true. If it isn't all true, why believe in it it all?

Let's use the Fact Sphere from Portal 2 as an example. This little guy is full of facts, some of which may not actually be that accurate. Now what if I wanted to use one of the Fact Sphere's facts in a serious debate? You'd probably would be skeptical, because of some of the dubious claims that it says. You'll probably want another source to back up the claim. That's how people feel about the Bible. We don't know what parts of it is true or not, so it would be better if you didn't use it in a debate at all.

 

[chuboy]

It's important to note that we know there are parts of the Bible that are true, but it's not the fact that they are in the Bible that makes us sure. That has implications on the appropriateness of using the Bible as a source to a statement.

 

[Hejiru]

The bible says that god created Earth in a few days time. Then he created the first two humans, Adam and Eve. The bible spans from that point, up until about 4,000 years later, when Jesus Christ was killed.

Now, you add on the 2000 or so years since Christ was killed. It adds up to a little more than 6,000 years. Sure, it's not mentioned in the bible as being exactly 6,000 years, but any idiot who can do math can figure that one out.

It should not have a place in today's debates, because it's basically saying that fossils and cavemen are fake. Clearly, it's a book written by some sad old man and the world knew nothing about fossils at the time.

Show me where it says 4000 years passed between Adam and Eve and Jesus.
People tried to figure that out by counting up the genealogy, assuming that the genealogy was written in the same manner that modern American genealogy is written. "Father" usually meant ancestor, not literal father.

And in any case, I think it's pretty clear the whole seven days things is either figurative or a myth, since the whole history of evolution obviously didn't happen in seven 24-hour days.

 

[Ludwig]

Using the argument "because the bible says so" is referring to an argument written by someone else, which is definitely valid, but this is only assuming that the text in the bible is an argument based on reasoning, rather than a statement without anything supporting it. If the text in the bible also is referring to something else, we probably won't be able to find that source and there is no way to check if it's a valid source and what support that source had for its arguments.

 

[Ghost_MissingNo]

Yet your opinion also contains unsubstantiated rumors. Most modern translations are not translated out of secondary translations, no matter how often skeptics repeat this claim.

Call me stupid, but you're actually going to have to point out those unsubstantiated rumours for me cause I don't recall ever typing any out. I just said I believe people should make their own opinions, whether or not those opinions are based on facts doesn't really matter, they're opinions. I just find it a bit annoying when people just say 'well, it's said in the Bible' when they're trying to make a point.

As for the translations part, that's just what I heard. Nothing is cold hard facts in this world, even theories we accept as fact today may be myth in the future. How am I supposed to know if something is actually 100% factual when I don't really have any knowledge on the subject other then what I've read?

 

[Qmaz246]

I don't say no because it could be segregating religions, but i think that we have enough scientific proof to disbelief everything in the bible.

 

[CSolarstorm]

From the fiasco in the Morals thread:

So just to clarify, you support stoning children to death?

You're a better debater than to make ignorant remarks like this. Make what you want of the Christian religion (which you're doing badly and stepping out of context of Christianity, and just saying 'screw it, I don't believe an ounce of this anyway so let's try and explain why he shouldn't believe that religion' which is moving the goalposts) but it's not productive at all to tell someone they don't believe what they tried exhaustively to explain they do believe. Mattj does not support stoning people - what is so hard to understand about this and why is it an issue?

Nah, being trolled by an adult is even sadder.

It's not child abuse because he wasn't injured, he and his father both grew closer to God, and he and his children for generations were blessed. Was Isaac physically injured? Thank you.It wasn't. Can you provide evidence that this child was somehow damaged by this act? I can't. Assumptions without evidence is baseless speculation.

Well, I know if I thought I was about to be killed by my father I would probably suffer the psychological effects of a near-death experience. It seems to me as if it would have terrorized the child. Generally initiating the act of killing someone, whether you go through with it or not, still scares the living daylights out of the person, and terror of death is a valid form of abuse. Yes, he would go to Heaven, yes, there was a consequent blessing after the fact, after what Issac experienced. But humans throughout the Bible still show a strong preference toward life and a trepidation of death and the transition from another, suggesting the mere fact they know they're going to Heaven doesn't rely take away from the fact that they are freaked out about dying, especially by the hand of a parent who loves them.

 

[mattj]

Interesting question. In order for this to be "quote-unquote-child-abuse" can anyone prove there was a minor involved?

 

[Antiyonder]

Going to speak up a bit more after all.

You're a better debater than to make ignorant remarks like this. Make what you want of the Christian religion (which you're doing badly and stepping out of context of Christianity, and just saying 'screw it, I don't believe an ounce of this anyway so let's try and explain why he shouldn't believe that religion' which is moving the goalposts) but it's not productive at all to tell someone they don't believe what they tried exhaustively to explain they do believe. Mattj does not support stoning people - what is so hard to understand about this and why is it an issue?

I don't think his issue is with Mattj reading the bible and having a religion, but that he believes him to be a blind follower (will take the bible at face value and follow every verse without question). I'm merely guessing though as I don't know mattj enough to make that judgement.

As a Christian myself, I don't believe that following God or the Bible should be a substitute for independant thought. And I have seen some posters here who seem to lack the capability to form their own stances on the grounds that "God told me it's wrong, therefore I hate".