jump to last post 1-12 of 12 discussions (222 posts)

The Bible is a "theological fact."

  1. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    First, for my brothers and sisters in Christ, I believe grace through faith is the only way of salvation.  I do not believe God or the Bible are short of the real meaning of fact or factual.  We are addressing the unbelieving mind here, Proverb 26:4-5.

    Now, as to the subject, sometime back I posted a rebuttal to "scientific fact" being equated with "true" fact.  Some folks may still be dealing with it, but their own postings proved my point, so I moved on.

    But then it comes to mind, in a purely temporal thought process and using the oppositions arguments presented supporting a commonality between fact and "scientific fact," could we not use the same criteria for "proving" the veracity of the Bible?  Why not! 

    Based on the many supporting issues of secular history, unproven challenges and claims, lack of evidence against and the many tried and true experiences (experiences being the believer's "spiritual lab tests"), it is apparent that the Bible is, by temporal definition, a "theological fact." 

    And given this fact, the contents of the Bible are equally factual.  And, by the criteria set in defining "scientific fact," one may safely assume that 'The Bible is a "theological fact."  And therefore, with the help of temporal man, we have the proof of the existence of God.  A "fact" by their definition and one they have been ignoring.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And the Quran?  The Book of Mormon?  The Torah?  Are they "theological facts" as well?

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        The koran is a take off of the Bible begun around around 600 AD.  The Book of Mormon is an addition to the Bible.  The Torah is a portion of the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.  Of this group, the Torah only would be a "theological fact."

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I see.  Only your scripture is theologically factual; all others are lies.

          But the Torah does not agree with biblical scripture.  While the bible is a takeoff of the Tanakh, it was changed into something more palatable to those in power rather than being taken verbatim.  This must make the Tanakh (and Torah) a lie then?

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is not my scripture.  It is the Word of God.  If the writings of man do not agree with the Bible then they are incorrect.

            A common reference point is needed.  The Bible is not a take off.  The Bible is a compilation of the Old and New Testaments.  The Old Testament (OT) is the Tanakh.  It is the foundation of the New Testament (NT).  The NT does not change, subtract from nor add to the OT.  It expands the OT while fulfilling the prophecies of the OT.  If you will, they complete each other.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              First, it is not the word of any god.  The many people pretend a god wrote it (perhaps through people) doesn't make it so, and there is no other evidence that the god even exists, let alone wrote that lying tome.

              A common reference??  Between what - the Book of Mormon and the Quran?  You lost me there.

              Yes, the OT came from the Tanakh.  Not verbatim, and with many changes, but it did.  As the two are not the same, does not the Tanakh lie or the bible? 

              If the NT did not change the rules of the OT, I assume you do not eat shellfish and stone neighbors wearing different cloths?  No, the NT changed the perception of the god in the book from an evil, spoiled, tantrum prone but strong child to something worthy of worship.  Whether the god changed or just the morals of man (requiring the perception of god to change as well) is questionable.

              1. mishpat profile image61
                mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                A common definition for "Bible" would have been a better way to put it.  Maybe I could have been more clear on that.  Anyway, when I say Bible, it includes OT and NT, it means all the books of both Testaments.  The other two things are not considered as being part of the Bible, only spurious partial copies or additions.

                As far as the Law is concerned, its not that simple.  The issue, as defined by unbelievers today, seems to be as you put it, ie. don't eat or don't do etc.  And what was the punishment?  Sometimes death, sometimes repayment.

                The Law, if you will, is impossible to follow, always was and, if you want to try it today, it will continue to be impossible to follow.  But then, following the Law had nothing to do with eternity, per se.  It had to do with a peaceful existence, on earth.  A person's eternity has always been depended on faith in God.

                The Hebrew was the example, not the test case.  Whatever was needed, it was provided for them.  And, note several times, as a people they said something like "whatever you say God, we'll do it without question."  Never happened. 

                One confuses themselves trying to separate the OT from the NT.  So back to the OP. 

                The Bible has never been proven to be wrong, only disliked and disparaged.  Therefore, outside of faith, and using the same criteria as "scientific fact," the Bible is a "theological fact."  The evidence of God is in the Bible.

                1. wilderness profile image98
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  "The Bible has never been proven to be wrong"??!!

                  Of course it has; we need only look to the tale of creation to find it isn't true unless we change the meaning of the words to something other than what they plainly say. 

                  But that isn't the core of what I meant.  You find the bible to be theological fact; Muslims find the Quran to be so and Mormons no doubt believe their sacred writings are factual.  Yet they both disagree with your bible; what makes [your scripture "fact" and others lies?  What makes the tale of the god Jesus "theological fact" when the Jews will hotly contest it?  Just because you believe it or is there something else?

                  It would seem that "theological fact" is better known as "belief".  There is no necessary correlation with reality, but rather belief is what makes that "theological fact".  The writings in the Quran are "theological fact" as are those in the Book of Mormon and every other religious belief.  Yours cannot be shown to be any more "factual" than any other; they all carry their own "theological facts" even as they disagree with each other.

                  1. mishpat profile image61
                    mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You have a right to your opinion, but do you have a question?

    2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      OK. Reproduce any facts contained in the Bible. I'm a Christian, so I'm exceptionally open to such reproduction.

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Don't understand the question!

    3. BuddiNsense profile image60
      BuddiNsenseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Have your ever considered the possibility that the bible is an inverted fact?
      Bible is the creation of the fallen one.

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Jesus answered this in Matthew 12:25-28.

        1. BuddiNsense profile image60
          BuddiNsenseposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Jesus is from the fallen one. Do you think that the fallen one is a fool who cannot even make a good drama? Why else did the demons shout out Mark 5:7, by shouting such they were actually acting against their own interests?

    4. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Well this is a unique and interesting discussion.  I am not sure where to jump in.  My first and only quick question is perhaps on the last two sentences there.  I wonder what you mean exactly there?  Thanks.

      1. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        In a previous discussion regarding "scientific fact" it was stated that "scientific fact" is not a 100% fact but the best man can do, presently, in certain "scientific" studies.  My contest was "If its not 100%, then it is not fact" but supposition, theory, postulate etc.  It was an interesting discussion but seems to have changed nothing, at least from my point of view.

        Here I am stating that if the criteria for "scientific fact" is allowed to be less that fact, then theology (from a secular position, faith aside) should be able to use the same criteria and develop "theological fact" which could be used in study with the same veracity.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Is it that a science fact is allowed to be 99% and accepted as true and therefore a theological fact should be 1% and accepted as true? 

          The difference is that there are mounds of evidence behind scientific facts, but zero evidence behind the (supernatural) theological fact yet you are trying to equate the two in veracity.  Or am I still missing your point?

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Interesting you use the word "mounds."  There are many "mounds" (the homonym) of facts in theology.  They are called "tels" and are archaeological discoveries that, along with the structures you noted previously, have become theological facts.

            1. wilderness profile image98
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              And which tel supports creation in 7 days?  The opening of the sea?  The resurrection of Christ?  Any supernatural event?

              Or do the tels just support the history end of the bible?  Those theological facts that are also scientific facts, testable and observable by people today?  Is that what you mean by "theological fact"; something that is also factual in the natural world, the world of science and observation?

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          Sure, why not?  I just haven't heard anyone really talk about it like that.  I kind of operate that way, if I am understanding you correctly.

          In general, if there is a god, there will be theological fact.  That seems just an obvious and factual statement.   Of course, we get into WHICH is correct, which some have brought up and it has been touched on.  The details matter, the facts matter, the cause and effect does too.  With reasoning, logic, facts, and understanding how history comes to us in the first place, the bible DOES score amazingly well, even by secular standards to those without an agenda, without held beliefs clouding the whole ability to see it.  Many are being taken advantage of, because there are authors,

          Even when very loud objectors DO vocalize their reasons for disagreeing, you can see where things break down, strongly held beliefs are reasserted and insisted upon, and usually some very big talk included about how they would know better, etc. 

          Anyway, it can be helpful to respect it for what it is.  Some people could just choose to reject it, or disagree with it, etc.  Or just want nothing to do with it.  That isn't what we see though very often, strangely.  We see like a campaign against it, using some old favored (though flawed) means of trying so hard to prove it wrong, fight it, demean those that disagree, etc.  We see things within the book in question, that shed light on and reveal what is going on there too.  Another evidence/prediction, to me.

    5. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      In following your logic on this...

      You can only state that the bible is christian theological fact...Not theological fact...As theological covers any and all study of god or gods...

      But I would say...that since christians can't seem to agree on the meanings contained within the bible, I would say the bible can't even be called christian theological fact...

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        That's absolutely accurate. Christians, in fact, cannot even agree on what a Christian is... let alone what the Bible says...

        They can quote verses... which aren't all the same because of the HUGE number of versions of the Bible... They can say what they... or their clergy.... believes the Bible says, but no one agrees. There is no "Christian" figurehead. There is no one single church. There is no consensus on really anything.

        So yeah, finding a fact should be fun.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
          DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          When it comes to a christian universal belief...There is only one way to have this...remove all free thought and education. Just as when the religion first took on a major hold...

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            How long did that last really? Was there ever a time where there were no arguments, no differences in interpretation? I mean the council(s) of Nicaea... if everyone even then agreed, what was the point?

            Christians have never agreed. Hell, even the Apostles didn't agree. The faith has never been cohesive... I'm not sure it was ever intended to be (speaking as a believer). My completely personal opinion was that Christianity was always supposed to be personal and individual.

            1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
              DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              LOL...true....and with that said....there can be no facts...just personal experiences...

        2. Sed-me profile image84
          Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Do you mean "they" or do you mean "we"?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            In this case, they.

            If someone says they are a Christian to me, it's usually good enough. If someone says a Bible verse means this or that to them, it's usually good enough.

            I may argue about "them" applying their standards to "we" but I don't particularly care about what "they" believe personally.

            1. Sed-me profile image84
              Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              When the bible speaks of Jews and Gentiles being grafted into the vine... adopted into the family of God, do you feel a kinship with those who have placed their faith in Him? Do you believe in Heaven? Do you believe that those who have given their hearts to God will be spending eternity as a family?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Actually, I do feel a kinship... however that feeling in no way means I have to agree with my kin or defend what they do, especially if my conscience is telling me it's wrong. I don't have to LIKE them, I just have to LOVE them.

                I guess in a vague way I believe in heaven, although it's not something I particularly aspire to or think about. And if I have to spend an eternity with my "kin" I will look at it exactly like I look at dinners with my earthly family... If it's the price I have to pay for following Jesus, I guess I'll accept it and try to make the best of it.

                1. Sed-me profile image84
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Just picking your brain... So... what do you mean you will look the same? Like... you will be a brunette in Heaven... or??? What price will you have to pay?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    I mean I will regard eternity with my spiritual "kin" exactly as I regard my life with my biological kin. It's not particularly pleasant, its certainly not fun, but I love them and I have to put up with the pain of dealing with them to continue loving them.

                    The price for following Christ, in this case, would be having to spend eternity with people who often irk me, drain my patience, and give me a headache.

    6. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
      Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      The new testament isn't a factual account of a god, it's an exaggerate account of a man and his thoughts... perhaps. It may just be a fiction from beginning to end.

      But let's assume it isn't. As written it is easy to see that it is a bad attempt to find a messiah. Time and time again we are told Jesus and others do things specifically to fulfill prophesy.
      If you go around doing things with the specific intent of fulfilling prophesy are you really fulfilling it? I don't think so.

      It's like the man walking in the woods who saw a tree with an arrow in the center of a bulls eye. as he went a little farther he saw another and another.

      Then he saw an archer and said: "You're amazing. I counted ten bulls eyes. How do you do it?"

      The archer said"It's easy. I shoot an arrow and then draw a circle around it.

      That's what purposely fulfilling prophesy is. Anyone can do it.

      Besides which, Jesus did not fulfill the prophesy's. The Jews know this. He did not come to lead them to greatness and vanquish their enemies. Just the opposite.

      The messiah was to come from the of David through Solomon. Jesus did not have a human father according to the myth so as hard as Matthew tried he couldn't legitimately link Jesus to David.

      Mother's line is irrelevant under Jewish tradition, by the way, so that's a nonstarter.

      Adoption is also out. A priest who adopted outside the priest class could not pass on the class to the child. Neither can the line of kings from the house of David be given to an adopted child. There simply is no way to link Jesus to the house of David.So he did not fulfill that prophesy, and that's the one the messiah is based on. The Jews couldn't accept such an obvious ruse.

      Sorry, but nothing in prophesy said the messiah was to be more than a man. Nothing about him being the intermediary between man and god. In fact, to a Jew believing and worshiping such an intermediary is blasphemy and according to the NT, that was pointed out to Jesus.

      Personally, I think that if he existed he was probably a bit of a lunatic; certainly delusional..

  2. DoubleScorpion profile image86
    DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago

    WOW!!!
    I am not even going to bother to point out the problems with this topic..
    People never cease to amaze me that is for sure.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Holy Crap a DS sighting!!!  *tacklehugs*

      1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
        DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Girl.
        I've been extremely busy of late.

  3. 0
    SirDentposted 2 years ago

    Same old same old.  The OP expected a logical discussion.  First answer was to add other writings in as evidence that the Bible is false.  I am not schooled in debating tactics and logical fallacies but even I know that it was some type of fallacy.

    Please, give mishpat the discussion he/she wants.  It is to the point of name calling and not even off the first page yet.

    Edited to spell mishpat's name correctly.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Read again.  Mishpat did not bother to define "theological fact", just seems to assume that it can only apply to Christianity.  That post did not point out that the Bible was false but that Christianity is not the only religion in the world and that all religions, not just the one, have as much right to their own "theological facts" as any other.

      1. 0
        SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        read it again. 

        Also

        What I have seen in this thread is that those who replied did not want to give any thought at all to the OP so the fallacies started.   Highlighted certain parts that I consider needing to be addressed.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          OK - read again.  Found no attacks outside of conducting reality checks on opinions served up as factual.  And in spite of trying to address just what a theological fact is, nothing was or is forthcoming from the OP except that he views his scripture as factual but no other.  That, and the beliefs of Christians are proof of a god as they are factual - an enormous logical fallacy if there ever was one.

    2. mishpat profile image61
      mishpatposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Sir Dent, I looked at your profile.  I have some questions.  Can we do a sidebar by email?

      1. 0
        SirDentposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I don't mind at all.  Go to my profile and click send email. 

        It is good to see actual discussion going on now.

  4. Paul Wingert profile image79
    Paul Wingertposted 2 years ago

    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/12036490.jpg

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image86
      DoubleScorpionposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      DOH!!!

  5. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Thanks to several of you for your recent comments.  Rather than address them directly in a redundant manner, let me just say that I find the Bible is correct and a very useful text and has been helpful in bringing secular history up to date on many occasions.

    1. JMcFarland profile image94
      JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      But you also claimed that the Bible is evidence for god,  which is a contradiction in terms. The Bible is the claim about the Jewish/Christian God,  and something cannot be both the claim and the evidence for that claim simultaneously.

      Are there true facts in the Bible?   Of course.   But there are also true facts in fictional works as well.   No one goes on to say that because spiderman is based in New York City and that's a real place that everything else in the spider man comics is necessarily true as well.   Look at historical fiction.   There are stories about real places and real events and often real people,  but there are also fabricated elements.   No one reads war and peace or a tale of two cities and thinks it's a history book that should be taken factually.

      You can believe that the Bible is correct all you want.   You're entitled to that belief,  and I know of no one who would stop you.   Your belief,  however,  is not necessarily factual,  especially in the sense that anyone else should believe it. "Theological facts" if you want to posit such a term would have to apply equally to all religions or Holy texts or all you'd be doing is a massive and transparent case of special pleading,  and fallacious reasoning is not going to get anyone anywhere in terms of convincing anyone else.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
        MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I've never understood the desire of Christians to convince anyone else anyway. I honestly have no idea why that's a thing. Bending and twisting and completely contrived arguments to convince people of "theological facts" makes no sense to me. If anything, it seems patently dishonest and quite frankly desperate. (In general, not speaking in specifics)

        Those who are secure in their beliefs (any beliefs) don't particularly care if everyone else feels the same way. They don't do philosophical backflips to prove it to the world.  It just seems like they are trying to seek approval of the rest of the world that they are right. Those with strong faiths really don't require anyone else's validation.

        1. JMcFarland profile image94
          JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you.   Having to invent new definitions for understood terms or to appeal to philosophical gymnastics in order to try and prove something due to a lack of any actual evidence is simply tap dancing around the fact that most believers I've met are not believers because of some apologetic argument or overwhelming evidence,  but rather because of emotion,  culture or geography.

          What's interesting to me is finding out what,  if anything,  convinced a believer that their beliefs are true and correct.   It's never - and I do mean never - because of evidence,  or an "argument" they heard.   Yet that is what they turn to in an attempt to convince someone else who is more skeptical.   Perhaps its because they recognize on a subconscious level that it's all they have when faced with someone who is not simply going to accept it "just because".

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
            MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's actually a pretty interesting point, and I agree... although I don't really see these attempts as a way to prove Gods/Jesus' existence to others but more as a way to convince others that THEY, personally, are correct.

            There's a difference.

            I have atheist friends... people whose opinion I care about... in as much as I care about anyone's opinion anyway... and I've never felt any real reason to convince them that my "I found Jesus, Hallelujah" story was a perfectly good reason to be Christian. I do, however, occasionally get offended by the "Christians are stupid" kind of comments that occasionally happen. In that case, it is obviously not my belief in Christ that I am insecure about, but the public perception of my intelligence.

            Then I realize that I am brilliant and certainly more intelligent than the person making such comments and I laugh and laugh at my momentary defensiveness.  Which brings me back to my point, those who are secure don't feel the need to prove themselves wink

            1. JMcFarland profile image94
              JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              I think it's a bit of both, actually.  I'm sure there's an element of "respect me, my beliefs (and therefore I) am correct, and here's why" side to it - but there's also the side where I'm approached in conversation repeatedly both online and in person by others who find out I'm an atheist who immediately launch into "well evolution is stupid"  "you have to have faith in science in order to believe it and not believe in Jesus" "but there's all these fulfilled prophecy, let me prove it" "but the bible is true, because it mentions this historical place" "have you heard of the ontological, cosmological, etc argument?".  It happens constantly to me - and I'm hardly the only one.

              It is never my intention to tell anyone that they are stupid for whatever beliefs they may have.  I'm met brilliant believers (as you well know, since I've met you).  But I've also met a lot of genuinely good people who believe things for simply bad reasons, mistaken facts or even downright lies.  Those are some of the reasons I engage in these conversations.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                IMHO, the evolution vs. creationism thing is so mind-boggling inane as to rank as an actual stupid debate... which is an odd belief for someone who believes that all debate is inherently useful. It's a give unto Caesar thing for me. The whole idea that evolutionary theory in some way endangers Christianity is really confusing coming from my viewpoint. I see no reason to teach creationism in school... I really don't see a reason to teach creationism at all... but again my POV. I just don't understand the defensiveness.... really.

                So if Christians have started that argument, and I'm sure they have, I... once again... apologize for Christianity.

                I'm not sure there is a bad reason to believe something. I have lots of beliefs that I treasure that I have no idea why I believe. Now, when my beliefs start affecting others, then I better damn well have a good reason why I'm doing what I'm doing. Since I don't really have the kind of game that leads to my beliefs affecting others, though, I'm good.

                It's kind of a believe what is best for me, behave in the way that is best for everybody kind of thing... again I digress.

                But, there is one fact... my beliefs aren't fact. Religion can never be a fact, because you can't prove anything about it... that's kind of the point of faith. If you have to make justifications for your faith, you don't have it.

                Now, is the Bible historically accurate? Nope... well sort of... but no. It certainly isn't the only source for secular history of the time. It's a nice footnote though, I guess. There are certain passages in the Bible that mention historical events, but that doesn't prove that anything else said was accurate.

                1. JMcFarland profile image94
                  JMcFarlandposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Once again we agree.  The bible is a great source to look into a culture that set itself apart as monotheistic in a world that was mostly polytheistic.  It was a great look into ancient life.  But it was never intended to be a history or science book, nor does it claim to be.  Saying that the Bible is scientifically factual or 100% accurate in every way is to fly in the face of reality in many ways.  People do not live in the bellies of fish for days.  Snakes don't talk - nor do they have vocal cords to be able to speak.  Donkeys don't talk.  Again, it's like saying that spiderman is true because it's set in a real city that exists.

                  I see your point about good/bad reasons to believe in something.  What I was intending to get at was if you, as an individual, are trying to convince someone else that they should believe what YOU believe, and you get to the point of threatening them with eternal damnation and/or torture if they DON'T - then you should be able to justify why your beliefs are accurate, and you'd better have a good reason for believing what you do.  When it comes down to "I believe it because I was told it was true" or "I believe it because of this outright, blatant lie I heard some youtube apologist say that isn't even remotely factual and I didn't bother to do any research whatsoever on my own" or "I just believe what people I think are smarter than me tell me to believe" those simply are not good reasons - not in the sense that someone else should follow suit because of it. 

                  I think that creationism can be taught - but only if we agree that creationism is the ONLY thing that we'll have time to teach in public schools since we have to go through thousands of cultures and religions and philosophies in order to make sure that we cover them all and not give one preferential treatment because it happens to be more dominant in our particular culture.  Well, maybe not.  That seems a bit silly, doesn't it?  :-)

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Granted, and you know my feelings about indoctrination of any kind. I get your point about the youtube thing and I agree.

                2. Sed-me profile image84
                  Sed-meposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  If you feel you are an ambassador of sorts, it would, in my mind at least, be best for you to apologize for something a specific Christian said... if you feel it wasn't Christ-like. However, I don't think you should ever apologize for Christianity, or you might find yourself apologizing for Christ. I can't imagine that would be a place you would want to find yourself in.

                  If you do not believe the bible is accurate, on what do you base your faith?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Probably not, Christ and Christianity don't seem to have a whole lot in common to me most of the time. At lease, I've never felt the need to apologize for anything that Christianity did that seemed even vaguely Christ-like.

                    I base my faith on the Bible and my feelings Beth, same as you. I don't have to believe it's accurate to believe it's true. I dang sure don't have to believe it's factual, because it's not. I don't "know" I'm right, and I never will. I have faith though, and that's enough for me.

                3. Slarty O'Brian profile image88
                  Slarty O'Brianposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You are the kind of theist I admire. Like My good friend Mo you are reasonable and yes; logical about your beliefs. Wish all religious people were like you two.

                  You understand that faith means not wanting proof, and that once proof is supplied, faith is no more.

                  Of course that's why I can't believe. For me, faith is not what I want. I know that most people value beliefs, and that is very human. But for me there are only two states: fact and speculation. Fact does not require belief. They are facts or they are not. Belief is irrelevant.

                  Speculation is not worth believing or having faith in as far as I am concerned, and I'm not just talking about religious subjects. I'm talking about all speculative ideas including those in the sciences.

                  Faith is an interesting thing. It gives the feeling of certainty when it can't actually give certainty in a factual sense.

                  To me, that's the root of so many human problems. We all want to know and be certain right now, when most of the time there is no way to be certain at the moment. To me there is nothing wrong with waiting to see rather than insisting that we have certainty right away even when we can't.

                  Thus I form opinions based on the facts I have without investing faith even as week as simple belief in those opinions, so that if and when new information comes up, I can modify my models accordingly without being hampered by a belief which I have to try to defend in the face of new evidence.

                  That said, in debate one is expected to defend and explain their arguments, exploring them and refining them until they stand on a foundation of logic or fall apart and need to be tossed.

                  One fact of existence is that all interactions change all parties involved,even if that change seems slight, it is accumulative. Hence debate plants seeds and good debate forces people to think.
                  The internet and these forums are great places for debate with no holds barred, but people need thick skins in religious vs atheist debates.

                  If you refuse to be insultable (probably not a word) and take it as a place to hone your thinking skills, it can be invaluable to any quest for answers. I just wish I had more time again.

      2. mishpat profile image61
        mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        Spiderman, a fictional work of Stan Lee (Leiber) is quite entertaining.  I didn't care for the latest humanizing of the character.  It similar to mans attempts to humanize God in order to circumvent man's short comings.

        "Theological fact" is posed as a response to "scientific fact".  Scientific fact is a replacement term for "actual fact" as is accepted by those that would "humanize" or downgrade what facts really are.

        The Bible, in relation to theological fact, becomes a text book such as that used in a science.  (Note the OP makes it clear we are on a secular level.)  A textbook may have a "statement" followed by the "answer or formula" clarifying the statement.  So it is with the Bible.  And, as with science, all questions may not have a direct, provable answer to the statement, but neither are they proven to be in error.  Personally, I have found no errors in the Bible and it has remained unchanged in its message for eons.  However, science changes its postulates quite regularly, many times with the help of the Bible.

        As to other religions (religions is such a misused word), all of them are spin offs of the faith and belief of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (OT) with the exception of Christianity (NT).  Christianity is the extension and completion of the OT, making one of the two.

        What men do in the name of Christianity is an entirely different issue, but using this argument is a well used way of self emancipation from God.  And by the way, calling oneself a Christian but not believing in the Bible in totality is, well, disingenuous.

        1. Dudley Doright profile image61
          Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          I'm not so sure about that, one can call oneself a Christian and understand that the gospels were written well after that fact and may contain some exaggerations. For example, the gospels descriptions of Caiaphas does not match up with Caiaphas's own writings and or the Jewish documents. His tomb was found with what may very well be the nails used to nail Jesus to the cross which would be an indication of his respect for Jesus. At the time that the gospels were written Christians were attempting to distance themselves from the Jewish faith so they may have embellished the trials as a way of rewriting history to suite your own needs. It's kind of a common thing us humans do, but it doesn't mean Jesus wasn't who we think he was.

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            Sorry, I can't agree with any of this.  The Bible is the foundation of Judeo-Christian belief.  Therefore, without the Bible and belief and faith in all of its contents, Christianity is just a word or label.  It does not define the person beliefs only the person. 

            Labeling ones self as Christian and saying one does not believe the Bible, is (using a phrase from atheism) "purposeful public ignorance."  However, unlike the atheist pogrom associated with the phrase, one should all be allow to express themselves in proper venues without fear of being "extinguished."

            1. Dudley Doright profile image61
              Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              I don't believe I said I didn't believe what's said in the bible didn't happen? I just understand that's some of it may have been stretched. One can't honestly believe the universe started and we were put in it in six days anymore.

              1. mishpat profile image61
                mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                One can.  And more.

                One is not allowed to pick and chose that which they want to believe about the Book.  Though misconceptions of what is written on some pages is rampant, God says what He means to say.  It may not be explainable or understandable to the finite mind (such as mine), but, too be direct, it's all or nothing.  God is either God or He is not.  I chose "is."

                1. Dudley Doright profile image61
                  Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  You are welcome to chose "is" if you like, but that doesn't negate the evidence. It's not all or nothing for most people, some of us can understand that God's word came through people and people are flawed.

                  1. mishpat profile image61
                    mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    It would seem that many use this same argument to skirt that which they don't want to do or believe.  We, including me, may not always do as we are instructed, but the instructions are always infallible and always quite clear.  We are all just "big kids" hoping to get away with something.

        2. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          "As to other religions (religions is such a misused word), all of them are spin offs of the faith and belief of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (OT) with the exception of Christianity (NT)."

          Is this a theological truth, made up from imagination without the necessity of truth?  Because Hinduism, buddhism and wicca are not spin offs of the Abrahamic religion.  Neither were the older religions of Europe or the Americas.  Not those from the far east.  Only Christianity and Islam, as far as I know are, and Christianity is a spin off of Judaism, not the other way around.

          Or have you defined "religion" as only those beliefs that accept your god, all others relegated to the trash can as "obvious" frauds?

          1. mishpat profile image61
            mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            The direct, personal relationship between God and man began in the Middle East, as did man.  Though it has had it's share of bumps, mainly in the Garden, it has always been the same relationship.  This relationship is the basis of the Judeo-Christian faith.  The Bible is the foundation of this faith which is completed in Jesus Christ. That which does not recognize the God of Creation and Jesus Christ as the savior, is not Christianity.  The spin offs are evident.

            Suffice to say, the other corrupt "religions" you mentioned are nothing more that man's humanist efforts to eliminate God and any form accountability.

            1. Dudley Doright profile image61
              Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              Ever heard the term out of Africa? There are fossil and genetic evidence that humans have been in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years before biblical times. Of course the writers of the bible could not have known that, if they had they would have attempted to include that in their stories.

              1. 0
                SirDentposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                How old was Adam before he ate the forbidden fruit?

                1. Dudley Doright profile image61
                  Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  Well, the bible tells us he was 130 years old when he became a father and live until he was 930. Is there a purpose to your question?

              2. mishpat profile image61
                mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Thanks, but this was covered several pages back when defining "modern man."

                1. Dudley Doright profile image61
                  Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  Wow, I missed that I guess. So you think God made modern man a few thousand years ago in six days, but there were people before modern man. I'm not sure how or way you would attempt to keep track of all that.

                  1. mishpat profile image61
                    mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    I don't have a hard opinion on this.  But it is an area open for discussion.

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      What you say at the end there..... If the Bible is the written revelation inspired by a real God, God himself, then what you say there would be just the case.  All in a way that no one could make true, it just would be.  Kind of cool! I think Jesus got it right, and those that follow him are following a good thing.

  6. BuddiNsense profile image60
    BuddiNsenseposted 2 years ago

    Is this thread all about asserting a lie as "theological fact"?

  7. BarBoga profile image59
    BarBogaposted 24 months ago

    Nice that you put it. I have a hubpage about the Jewish wisdom of the Kabbala at a glance (so basically I hope I am not very much biased). I believe that god exists. However, did you know that the bible written as a metaphor to describe the spiritual journey of the Hebrew people? It’s very complicated to discuss, but I don’t think we have a choice, what so ever. Maybe I’ll write a hub on this one. You just gave me an idea.

  8. BuddiNsense profile image60
    BuddiNsenseposted 24 months ago

    The biblical theological fact.
    Yahweh is the son of the high God(El) [psalm, deutronomy]
    Satan is the sidekick of Yahweh [job...]
    Jesus is the son of Yahweh or El, not specified.

    1. jnifferg profile image61
      jniffergposted 24 months ago

      Proving the Bible through science is not a new concept.  Just Google "science and the Bible" and you will see plenty of sites with information.  Go to Amazon with the same search, and you will find many books on the subject.

      One can believe in Science and Religion at the same time - people do it all the time, and there are some top scientists who have faith in God.

      The simple difference is this: 

      The Scientific Method requires that you start with a hypothesis -- not a fact -- and then you conduct experiments, tests and studies to test the hypothesis. Science is constantly conducting experiments, and continuing study to learn more.  Often the hypothesis are proven wrong, or a new experiment tweaks what was learned about the last one.  This is why "science is always changing the facts."  It's part of the learning process. When something has been tested frequently enough, and all variables accounted for to make sure that the test was valid, then the hypothesis becomes a theory -- the term used to indicate an accepted explanation for the phenomenon (as in, the theory of evolution).

      Religion, on the other hand, requires a leap of faith, and acceptance of that which cannot be proven. The Bible does not prove that God exists.  You would have to first prove that God wrote the Bible, which in itself creates a conundrum.

      The Bible is a collection of writings that were selected by men. And in this case, I refer to both human and gender. One might be able to say that the men who selected the writings were "inspired by God."  Some question why the book of Mary -- the mother of Jesus -- was not included (yes, there is a Book of Mary. It is just not in the Bible). So, one might also suggest that those who selected the books may have had an agenda of their own -- good intentions or not.

      The Bible is, at the very least, an historical book. One only has to turn on the History Channel to see explorations in search of Noah's Ark, Scientific evidence of the Great Flood, historical accounts of the life of Jesus and of what else was going on in the world (e.g., Rome) at the same time.

      Me?  I believe in God, and am less enamored with organized religion -- although I am Catholic by choice (as opposed to birth).  I believe that God was the first and most amazing scientist. After all, he has created a world that is self-sustaining and continuously growing.  He doesn't HAVE to "babysit" and be involved in every individual action that goes on. He designed it to produce, sustain, and grow. The job of our scientists is to discover what he created, and to learn how it all works. Look how long it has taken us to learn the little that we have! 

      My hope is that those who fear that science contradicts their religion will learn to embrace the science that could help them learn more about and even increase their appreciation for the God that -- as Pope Francis has reminded us -- is not a magician with a magic wand (that would be too easy and in my mind, insulting), but the greatest scientist ever!

      1. Sed-me profile image84
        Sed-meposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        Good stuff. smile

    2. mishpat profile image61
      mishpatposted 24 months ago

      I keep seeing this "God created the universe in 6 days" thing.  I must have missed that part of the Bible.

      1. Sed-me profile image84
        Sed-meposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        On the 7th day He rested.

        1. mishpat profile image61
          mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          From what?

          1. 0
            SirDentposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            God rested from creation on the 7th day.

          2. Sed-me profile image84
            Sed-meposted 24 months ago in reply to this

            1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made. Gen 2:2

            1. mishpat profile image61
              mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

              We are in agreement here that He rested.  The question is "When did He start?"  Genesis 1:3 addresses the Creation of Earth and man and stuff.  The open question is had He done anything prior to Genesis 1:3.  It appears the Genesis 2:2 means He is not making anything else, no more dirt or water or gold or people.  But we have to remember He created angels.  What else did He create?  When did that start?

              So what's my point?  God created.  The Earth project was a 6 day affair and it goes against a lot of science and agricultural things.  Remember "God is light."

              There is no indication that He worked from dawn to dusk each "day."  On the contrary, He spoke and it was.  After that "split second" maybe He just sat back at looked at it all, like men do when the pour a block of cement.

              Then there is time.  We could say (and I believe) time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit.  But what was the measure of a day prior to the fall?  24 hours may or may not be correct.  We assume the "evening and the morning" mean what we see today. 

              Things changed monumentally at the fall.  What did flies and mosquitoes do during the time of innocence?  Did roses have thorns?

              I'm going to ask Him about these and other things directly some day.

              1. Sed-me profile image84
                Sed-meposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Yep, yep... true enough.

              2. Dudley Doright profile image61
                Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                Where do you get this stuff? Again, for you to believe that you would have to throw everything we know about space and time away and start again, back in the middle ages, where if you said something that contrasted what some interpreted from the bible they could kill you, so most people didn't study or learn anything for hundreds of years. Time started just after the universe began, we know that for several reasons but one of them is that the light we see from distant galaxies has been travelling for billions of years. We don't see any more that 14 billion light years away because there wasn't time before that and it takes time for the light to get to us.

                Please Christians and Atheists understand very few Christians think like this.

                1. mishpat profile image61
                  mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  I guess I am supposed to be insulted.   However, I just want to thank you for making your position clear.  Tolerance of and apologizing to the atheist is not for me.  It would seem its time to move on.

                  1. Dudley Doright profile image61
                    Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    Why would you need to apologies to the Atheists? If you've got nothing left then perhaps it is time for you to move on.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  Dudley, to be fair, I haven't seen a hard answer (and I may have missed it) on how much time passed before the fall of Adam and Eve.  Mishpat seems to remain open to whatever it actually was, according to my reading of things.  I think you may have misread him?  Because the way I read it, we don't have to throw away everything we have learned from space and time and light travel, etc.  Far from it.  You assumed I think maybe, that his comments were a strictly a literal 6, 24 hour day interpretation, from the beginning of the universe, not from the moment man began to die after breaking the one rule in the garden.  Its not overly clear, but I see it there.  I could be wrong on this take of Mishpats views, and he can correct if so.

                  I know many Christians that highly esteem the whole of scripture, hold it inerrant, and believe in a several billion year old earth, for example.

                  1. Dudley Doright profile image61
                    Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    He stated time started when Adam ate from the forbidden tree. The bible is very specific in regards to how hold Adam was when he died. And science is full of information regarding how many years the universe is old.

                    1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
                      oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                      Well.... right, but even if the bible states how old Adam was when he died, is only in relation then to some view of when he was born, or from the view of eating the fruit,that date.  Mishpat's view, as I have seen it, says he doesn't know how long time was before the eating of the fruit.  Its open then.....  the idea.

                      Mishpat, can you weigh in on this point, before I defend what I may be misunderstanding of your view?  lol, sorry and thank you.

                      And now something is becoming a little bit more clear, I will see......

              3. wilderness profile image98
                wildernessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                "We could say (and I believe) time as we count it began when man began to die, when they ate the fruit."

                We could indeed say that.  We can say anything we want to.  We can believe anything we can convince ourselves of, and we can even call that belief a "theological fact".

                Unfortunately, it doesn't mean much when there is no connection with reality.    "Theological facts" like this just don't cut it when we make conclusions and statements without supporting evidence.  It may keep us happy, it may reinforce our faith, it may extend our belief, but it doesn't produce verifiable truth.

                1. mishpat profile image61
                  mishpatposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                  So we got off track a bit from the OP and moved into spiritual things, and you caught us. That is the hardest thing to do here is to keep the subject line.  Still, it just feels good to discuss some things with folks about God and faith at times.

                  1. wilderness profile image98
                    wildernessposted 24 months ago in reply to this

                    It is hard isn't it?  Somehow we always seem to get off track, very definitely including me.  I will forgive you (just this once, you understand!) if you will do the same when (soon, I'm sure) you catch me. smile

      2. jnifferg profile image61
        jniffergposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        Well, you'd have to open the Bible and start with the very first page, which opens with "In the beginning God..."  That's where the 6 days are described.

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image89
      oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago

      Some general thoughts to be considered or ignored, lol.

      As a Christian, I am thankful that Jesus didn't force anyone to commit to any kind of particular interpretations and then inerrancy of the written by man, revealed word of God, in Genesis in particular. 

      I see forced interpretations and then humans demanding each other see it certain ways and agree 100% or I also see the opposite.  Jesus, while he did allude to some of the tougher to believe sections of the OT, never really spoke on the 6 days thing.  In particular, Jesus didn't say, "believe in a 6 days of creation, to enter the kingdom of God" or any such thing.  We as humans, bring that on ourselves, and strongly apply what those verses must mean, instead of trying to understand more. 

      I know of very well meaning people that say this ought to be part of becoming a member of a church, the literal (as they MEAN literal) interpretation of the WHOLE bible.  I don't think God errs......  I think we as humans can though. 

      Jesus ought to the be focus for so many reasons, but this is just one of many.  Its not a life and death thing, not even eternal life or death thing.  We know its not going to be easy on the narrow path.  Why inject so many "oughts" onto the absolutes?  I don't get that.  I do trust God and Jesus. smile

      1. Dudley Doright profile image61
        Dudley Dorightposted 24 months ago in reply to this

        I like it. Great perspective.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image89
          oceansnsunsetsposted 24 months ago in reply to this

          Thank you!

    4. cdteja7 profile image60
      cdteja7posted 24 months ago

      Dear brother @SirDent here's your question...Can God create everything in 6 days?  I will state that everything could have been done in one day, 24 hour  period, if He chose to do it that way.  If the God you believe in is unable to do the same, maybe your god is not who you think he is.
      Dear brother as per your question God created everything in 6 days this does not mean 24 hours a day,if you are thinking this concept in a normal way we cannot understand this concept.here's my  way please listen..here it is 6 days,as per my opinion this is not the day that earth revolves round itself or revolves round the sun to make one day  that  is 24 hours a day and 365 days to revolve round the sun because earth was not created in the first three days.so this something else,if we think much deeper,we can understand that, for earth one day is 24 hours(this is the time for earth to rotate itself),but here if we understand the concept,earth is revolving around itself and its revolving round the sun and moon is is revolving round  the sun and everything in sky(milky way ) is revolving,if it is 24 hours for earth to revolve around itself then how much time a single milky way would take to revolve round itself to make one milky way day,so if we think in the universe how many milky ways are there and all rotating round and for universe to rotate around itself how much time it would take some millions and billions of years a human brain cannot calculate,so here in the genesis chapter 1:God created universe in 6 days does not mean a single earth day ,but its one "UNIVERSAL DAY" and it may be some millions and billions of years,a  human brain can not estimate as humans are still in the way of reaching all the nine planets.hope you understand the concept,by the way  BIBLE is not a religious book, if you think the concepts in its a "GREAT BOOK OF WISDOM" not a book of general knowledge,hope you understand the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

     
    working