Why do you not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired?

[Anonymous]

The bible is true because for some reason the world seems hellbent on attacking it from all angles. Jesus said " this is the condemnation, light has come into the world but men turn from the light preferring the darkness of their evil deeds." The bible is a message of love and Jesus commands meekness. But the world hates it . Christianity is the only religion allowed to be publicly criticized and mocked . That tells me one thing...... It's the true religion. The world and God are at odds the world will promote false religion and humanism and attack the truth. Those who search will find it. Jesus said the road to salvation is narrow the path to destruction is wide and many will take it.

[Anonymous]

Judaism has also been attacked worldwide. Of course, any religion seeking the one true God will be persecuted by the entire world. Jews are Gods people and Jesus was a Jew . The Old Testament, the New Testament.. Gods story , personality and nature is attacked,mocked, obscured,lied about , persecuted , misdirected... But as Jesus said "the earth, stars ,time and existence will pass away but not one syllable of the Word will change."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bible is true because for some reason the world seems hellbent on attacking it from all angles. Jesus said " this is the condemnation, light has come into the world but men turn from the light preferring the darkness of their evil deeds." The bible is a message of love and Jesus commands meekness. But the world hates it . Christianity is the only religion allowed to be publicly criticized and mocked . That tells me one thing...... It's the true religion. The world and God are at odds the world will promote false religion and humanism and attack the truth. Those who search will find it. Jesus said the road to salvation is narrow the path to destruction is wide and many will take it.

I take issue with the Bible and Christianity because while there is much good in it, there is also, historically, much evil caused in the name of God and Jesus. Religious wars, the degradation of women, the justification of slavery, the amassing of ridiculous wealth by the priesthood, right up to the Vatican, the condemnation of life saving and quality of life enhancing birth control for the impoverished.... I could go on and on.

I believe the Catholic Church specifically is getting better, and I LOVE the new Pope. But the resentment of the Church and the Bible it uses to justify its supremacy is based in real world action and consequences, not some war with God.

While the New Testament is indeed a message of love, unfortunately it is still a part of the whole Bible and the Old Testament is a very confusing and contradictory mish mash of very ugly and nonsensical behaviors.

I'd respect religion more if it was New Testament only and purely based on Jesus's message - care for the sick and the poor, do not amass wealth - but unfortunately too many supposed "Christians" do not behave according to Christ's message.

[Anonymous]

^^ that's the point of the bible. How far short we fall, how bad we are and how many times each day we act the opposite of Christ. To compare ourselves to Christ and realize he is our lifeline to heaven.

If people were good Christ would not have been necessary. To be Christian is to be well aware that we are personally unworthy of heaven based on our thoughts , motivations and actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'd respect religion more if it was New Testament only and purely based on Jesus's message - care for the sick and the poor, do not amass wealth - but unfortunately too many supposed "Christians" do not behave according to Christ's message.

Or, as Ghandi put it, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

I am the OP from 9:40. An example of what I was talking about is the fact that there were *other* itinerant teachers traveling around the Roman Empire espousing their views of the world at around the same time, both before and after Jesus walked the earth. Thus, we can see that Jesus was following in a time honored tradition in this respect. Like Jesus, their adherents spread tales of their supernatural daring dos as a way of gaining new supporters. Sort of like how medieval jousters occasionally had someone to trumpet their achievements before the competition and call for Huzzahs. None of this would have been seen as suspect in that time period because it would have been understood in a particular context. None of these people are famous like Jesus is today however because no Roman emperors converted to their religion. This is just a tiny example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take a class on the historical/critical analysis of the NT and you will see why. You can easily see where the authors copied each other and copied ideas from other sources. You can also see where they inserted their own perspective. Using what we know about the period as a whole from contemporary sources, you can begin to piece together why they might have done that. Still, that doesn't mean it doesn't offer anything worthwhile. It just takes the supernatural element out of it.

I've taken such a class, and it was fascinating. I disagree it takes the supernatural out of it, though, but obviously that's a personal response. Instead, it's sort of like any event that involves witnesses, where some witnesses are going to remember different things, or are going to remember the same things differently. This happens every day with witnesses in courts. I take your point that some of the gospel authors did their own editing, but the larger consistencies among the accounts witness to an underlying truth, IMO.

the historical-critical method is absolutely non- supernatural. Historians do not study things which there is no evidence -- like the supernatural. They can report on what people say, but do not make historical determination of events for which there can be no historical evidence.

I am the OP from 9:40. An example of what I was talking about is the fact that there were *other* itinerant teachers traveling around the Roman Empire espousing their views of the world at around the same time, both before and after Jesus walked the earth. Thus, we can see that Jesus was following in a time honored tradition in this respect. Like Jesus, their adherents spread tales of their supernatural daring dos as a way of gaining new supporters. Sort of like how medieval jousters occasionally had someone to trumpet their achievements before the competition and call for Huzzahs. None of this would have been seen as suspect in that time period because it would have been understood in a particular context. None of these people are famous like Jesus is today however because no Roman emperors converted to their religion. This is just a tiny example.

^ I'm not denigrating the supposed miracles that Jesus performed. But what I think is more likely to have happened is that his supporters spread these stories as a way to gain attention for his teachings on how to live a just life in the End Times, which is what they believed was to occur shortly. Sort of like, "Hey my guy did this." "Oh yeah, well *my* guy (aka Jesus of Nazarth) did THIS." Understanding this context does not detract from the moral lessons he taught, which I do believe are important and meaningful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The bible is true because for some reason the world seems hellbent on attacking it from all angles. Jesus said " this is the condemnation, light has come into the world but men turn from the light preferring the darkness of their evil deeds." The bible is a message of love and Jesus commands meekness. But the world hates it . Christianity is the only religion allowed to be publicly criticized and mocked . That tells me one thing...... It's the true religion. The world and God are at odds the world will promote false religion and humanism and attack the truth. Those who search will find it. Jesus said the road to salvation is narrow the path to destruction is wide and many will take it.

Your leap from "it's the only religion allowed to be mocked" to "therefore it must be the true religion" is not only inaccurate but so logically flawed that every teacher you ever had (with the possible exception of your religion teachers) must've suddenly felt a disturbance in the Force.

So, as long as a religion claims a persecution complex and is sufficiently paranoid, it must be true? Does your logic extend into the various sects of Christianity, that if people mock Catholicism more than Episcopalians then Catholicism must be "more true"?

There are comedians who mock Christianity and more particularly, Christians who act in ways that merit mockery. Comedians mock Catholics for some things and Protestants for some things (Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" comes to mind, as does Mel Brooks' bit about the Inquisition in "History of the World, Part 1"). Many comedians mock Mormonism. There are comedians and cartoonists who mock Islam and Hinduism, especially in the countries where those religions are more prominent. There are lots of comedians who mock Scientology.

Go watch South Park if you think Christianity is the only religion being mocked.

But I'll bet it's the other way around. You think it's ok to mock the other religions because you believe Christianity is "True!" So, from your perspective, mocking your "True!" religion is truly mockery, while jokes about other religions are just funny because those other religions aren't "True!" like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I am the OP from 9:40. An example of what I was talking about is the fact that there were *other* itinerant teachers traveling around the Roman Empire espousing their views of the world at around the same time, both before and after Jesus walked the earth. Thus, we can see that Jesus was following in a time honored tradition in this respect. Like Jesus, their adherents spread tales of their supernatural daring dos as a way of gaining new supporters. Sort of like how medieval jousters occasionally had someone to trumpet their achievements before the competition and call for Huzzahs. None of this would have been seen as suspect in that time period because it would have been understood in a particular context. None of these people are famous like Jesus is today however because no Roman emperors converted to their religion. This is just a tiny example.

^ I'm not denigrating the supposed miracles that Jesus performed. But what I think is more likely to have happened is that his supporters spread these stories as a way to gain attention for his teachings on how to live a just life in the End Times, which is what they believed was to occur shortly. Sort of like, "Hey my guy did this." "Oh yeah, well *my* guy (aka Jesus of Nazarth) did THIS." Understanding this context does not detract from the moral lessons he taught, which I do believe are important and meaningful.

I agree there were a gazillion itinerant preachers at the time. John the Baptist was one of them, of course, and he gets a mention in the gospels. Although there's no record what many of them were saying 2000 years ago, at least some of them (e g., John the Baptist) were preaching a message along the lines of "prepare ye the way of the Lord." In other words, these itinerant preachers were preaching that it was the end of times and a great prophet or messiah -- Jesus-- was due to arrive shortly.... As some of us think actually happened (although no end of times, obviously).

I'm with you on not knowing what to make of the miracles. I don't necessarily rule them out: I don't think we have to conclude they were a sort of one-upsmanship, but I have no proof they occurred, either. But I too think the moral lessons are the main point of Jesus' teachings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I am the OP from 9:40. An example of what I was talking about is the fact that there were *other* itinerant teachers traveling around the Roman Empire espousing their views of the world at around the same time, both before and after Jesus walked the earth. Thus, we can see that Jesus was following in a time honored tradition in this respect. Like Jesus, their adherents spread tales of their supernatural daring dos as a way of gaining new supporters. Sort of like how medieval jousters occasionally had someone to trumpet their achievements before the competition and call for Huzzahs. None of this would have been seen as suspect in that time period because it would have been understood in a particular context. None of these people are famous like Jesus is today however because no Roman emperors converted to their religion. This is just a tiny example.

^ I'm not denigrating the supposed miracles that Jesus performed. But what I think is more likely to have happened is that his supporters spread these stories as a way to gain attention for his teachings on how to live a just life in the End Times, which is what they believed was to occur shortly. Sort of like, "Hey my guy did this." "Oh yeah, well *my* guy (aka Jesus of Nazarth) did THIS." Understanding this context does not detract from the moral lessons he taught, which I do believe are important and meaningful.

I agree there were a gazillion itinerant preachers at the time. John the Baptist was one of them, of course, and he gets a mention in the gospels. Although there's no record what many of them were saying 2000 years ago, at least some of them (e g., John the Baptist) were preaching a message along the lines of "prepare ye the way of the Lord." In other words, these itinerant preachers were preaching that it was the end of times and a great prophet or messiah -- Jesus-- was due to arrive shortly.... As some of us think actually happened (although no end of times, obviously).

I'm with you on not knowing what to make of the miracles. I don't necessarily rule them out: I don't think we have to conclude they were a sort of one-upsmanship, but I have no proof they occurred, either. But I too think the moral lessons are the main point of Jesus' teachings.

And a lot were preaching that they WERE the messiah. Jesus wasn't unique in this respect.

[Anonymous]

10:18 again, on the subject of ridiculing Christians. I'm fine with that. I think some of the haters are pretty sophomoric and are probably working out their own issues.

I also think it would be a good thing if Christians got out of government entirely (are you listening, Tea Party?) and practiced their faith privately, like Jesus intended. Then people like 8:46 might see more to admire, not that I care about converting anybody.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bible is true because for some reason the world seems hellbent on attacking it from all angles. Jesus said " this is the condemnation, light has come into the world but men turn from the light preferring the darkness of their evil deeds." The bible is a message of love and Jesus commands meekness. But the world hates it . Christianity is the only religion allowed to be publicly criticized and mocked . That tells me one thing...... It's the true religion. The world and God are at odds the world will promote false religion and humanism and attack the truth. Those who search will find it. Jesus said the road to salvation is narrow the path to destruction is wide and many will take it.

Your leap from "it's the only religion allowed to be mocked" to "therefore it must be the true religion" is not only inaccurate but so logically flawed that every teacher you ever had (with the possible exception of your religion teachers) must've suddenly felt a disturbance in the Force.

So, as long as a religion claims a persecution complex and is sufficiently paranoid, it must be true? Does your logic extend into the various sects of Christianity, that if people mock Catholicism more than Episcopalians then Catholicism must be "more true"?

There are comedians who mock Christianity and more particularly, Christians who act in ways that merit mockery. Comedians mock Catholics for some things and Protestants for some things (Monty Python's "Every Sperm is Sacred" comes to mind, as does Mel Brooks' bit about the Inquisition in "History of the World, Part 1"). Many comedians mock Mormonism. There are comedians and cartoonists who mock Islam and Hinduism, especially in the countries where those religions are more prominent. There are lots of comedians who mock Scientology.

Go watch South Park if you think Christianity is the only religion being mocked.

But I'll bet it's the other way around. You think it's ok to mock the other religions because you believe Christianity is "True!" So, from your perspective, mocking your "True!" religion is truly mockery, while jokes about other religions are just funny because those other religions aren't "True!" like yours.

+1