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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatum), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Many people were claiming to be the son of God at the time.

Yes, but none were crucified for it because so many people believed him.

We have new ways of crucifying people nowadays. We don't nail them to crosses anymore, but we still punish them if they deviate from expected behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can something so misogynistic and divisive be divinely inspired? It was truly a male inspired book. A book written by for men for men to control others.

+1

+2 x 100000000

The Bible was written in a time period where pretty much the majority of the civilizations around the world were misogynistic. It was written with this culture in mind. When it says "Slaves obey your masters", it doesn't state that the writer condoned it, but rather addresses the culture of the times. Most people who read the Bible don't understand the culture of the times; they take it word for word, and not the spirit of the word. That's where the problem comes in.

I am a female BTW and consider myself somewhat a feminist. If you read the Bible from this perspective (keeping in mind the culture of times), you will find that Jesus was actually pretty progressive when it came to women's rights -- saving the prostitute, showing himself to women first after he was resurrected, telling his disciples that the woman who was listening to him rather than preparing the food was actually doing what was right, etc. Even in the OT, you will find some strong women characters.

Either the Bible is a product of God and should be immune to the absurdities of the "culture of the times" or it is a flawed, human document. No true God, a God of love, would inspire his author to write "slaves obey your masters" or all the misogynistic nonsense of the OT. Therefore I conclude that it is NOT a divinely inspired product of God.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can something so misogynistic and divisive be divinely inspired? It was truly a male inspired book. A book written by for men for men to control others.

+1

+2 x 100000000

The Bible was written in a time period where pretty much the majority of the civilizations around the world were misogynistic. It was written with this culture in mind. When it says "Slaves obey your masters", it doesn't state that the writer condoned it, but rather addresses the culture of the times. Most people who read the Bible don't understand the culture of the times; they take it word for word, and not the spirit of the word. That's where the problem comes in.

I am a female BTW and consider myself somewhat a feminist. If you read the Bible from this perspective (keeping in mind the culture of times), you will find that Jesus was actually pretty progressive when it came to women's rights -- saving the prostitute, showing himself to women first after he was resurrected, telling his disciples that the woman who was listening to him rather than preparing the food was actually doing what was right, etc. Even in the OT, you will find some strong women characters.

Either the Bible is a product of God and should be immune to the absurdities of the "culture of the times" or it is a flawed, human document. No true God, a God of love, would inspire his author to write "slaves obey your masters" or all the misogynistic nonsense of the OT. Therefore I conclude that it is NOT a divinely inspired product of God.

+1000

It's a book with some life lessons that can be gleaned from it, like many other books both literary and of other religions. Nothing extra special about this one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The wisdom and anecdotes offered therein are truly above and beyond

This has to be a troll. Please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The wisdom and anecdotes offered therein are truly above and beyond

So is Star Wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can something so misogynistic and divisive be divinely inspired? It was truly a male inspired book. A book written by for men for men to control others.

+1

+2 x 100000000

The Bible was written in a time period where pretty much the majority of the civilizations around the world were misogynistic. It was written with this culture in mind. When it says "Slaves obey your masters", it doesn't state that the writer condoned it, but rather addresses the culture of the times. Most people who read the Bible don't understand the culture of the times; they take it word for word, and not the spirit of the word. That's where the problem comes in.

I am a female BTW and consider myself somewhat a feminist. If you read the Bible from this perspective (keeping in mind the culture of times), you will find that Jesus was actually pretty progressive when it came to women's rights -- saving the prostitute, showing himself to women first after he was resurrected, telling his disciples that the woman who was listening to him rather than preparing the food was actually doing what was right, etc. Even in the OT, you will find some strong women characters.

Either the Bible is a product of God and should be immune to the absurdities of the "culture of the times" or it is a flawed, human document. No true God, a God of love, would inspire his author to write "slaves obey your masters" or all the misogynistic nonsense of the OT. Therefore I conclude that it is NOT a divinely inspired product of God.

You missed the point. As stated, you have to take the statements in its context and not separate them. When the author was stating for slaves to obey masters it was in reference to putting God's laws above human laws, but that one must still obey human laws. God teaches us to be obedient to him, but that obedience can also come in the form of obeying human laws. Why did God allow such a horrible thing as slavery? Well, I guess that would lead to a wider question of why God created Satan if He knew Satan was going to fall and create havoc. I don't think any human being has the answer to that question. But I can say that God sees our frailty and failings. He has allowed us to create human laws that may not be what He wants, but He gives us free will.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You missed the point. As stated, you have to take the statements in its context and not separate them. When the author was stating for slaves to obey masters it was in reference to putting God's laws above human laws, but that one must still obey human laws. God teaches us to be obedient to him, but that obedience can also come in the form of obeying human laws. Why did God allow such a horrible thing as slavery? Well, I guess that would lead to a wider question of why God created Satan if He knew Satan was going to fall and create havoc. I don't think any human being has the answer to that question. But I can say that God sees our frailty and failings. He has allowed us to create human laws that may not be what He wants, but He gives us free will.

As I said elsewhere, if you believe God is perfect, you credit Him for all that is good and find ways to exonerate Him of responsibility for all that is bad. His perfection is a tautology.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatum), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Many people were claiming to be the son of God at the time.

Yes, but none were crucified for it because so many people believed him.

Lots of people got crucified, some for very odd reasons.

This is one of the (many) things that perplexes me about Christianity. Crucifixion was a pretty common punishment. What's the big deal?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatum), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Many people were claiming to be the son of God at the time.

Yes, but none were crucified for it because so many people believed him.

Lots of people got crucified, some for very odd reasons.

This is one of the (many) things that perplexes me about Christianity. Crucifixion was a pretty common punishment. What's the big deal?

Also, not too many people "believed in him" when he was crucified. That didn't happen until later, thanks to Paul's efforts, and then again centuries later, Thanks to Constantine's efforts -- making Christianity the official religion of the Roman empire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatum), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Many people were claiming to be the son of God at the time.

Yes, but none were crucified for it because so many people believed him.

Lots of people got crucified, some for very odd reasons.

This is one of the (many) things that perplexes me about Christianity. Crucifixion was a pretty common punishment. What's the big deal?

+1. And the reason his followers claimed he was the long-awaited messiah is the apparent miraculous deeds along with the prophecies of his last few days. Well, it was not prophetic to think that his arrival in Jerusalem on Passover of all weeks and with scads of country bumpkins proclaiming him the messiah would have incensed the Pharisees and the Roman authorities, fearing riots, would have done what they did. Jesus obviously knew his apostles and human nature enough to prophesy the betrayals in the light of the situation in Jerusalem. It makes for a compelling narrative but no more inspired than other compelling stories of brilliant men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can something so misogynistic and divisive be divinely inspired? It was truly a male inspired book. A book written by for men for men to control others.

+1

+2 x 100000000

The Bible was written in a time period where pretty much the majority of the civilizations around the world were misogynistic. It was written with this culture in mind. When it says "Slaves obey your masters", it doesn't state that the writer condoned it, but rather addresses the culture of the times. Most people who read the Bible don't understand the culture of the times; they take it word for word, and not the spirit of the word. That's where the problem comes in.

I am a female BTW and consider myself somewhat a feminist. If you read the Bible from this perspective (keeping in mind the culture of times), you will find that Jesus was actually pretty progressive when it came to women's rights -- saving the prostitute, showing himself to women first after he was resurrected, telling his disciples that the woman who was listening to him rather than preparing the food was actually doing what was right, etc. Even in the OT, you will find some strong women characters.

Either the Bible is a product of God and should be immune to the absurdities of the "culture of the times" or it is a flawed, human document. No true God, a God of love, would inspire his author to write "slaves obey your masters" or all the misogynistic nonsense of the OT. Therefore I conclude that it is NOT a divinely inspired product of God.

You missed the point. As stated, you have to take the statements in its context and not separate them. When the author was stating for slaves to obey masters it was in reference to putting God's laws above human laws, but that one must still obey human laws. God teaches us to be obedient to him, but that obedience can also come in the form of obeying human laws. Why did God allow such a horrible thing as slavery? Well, I guess that would lead to a wider question of why God created Satan if He knew Satan was going to fall and create havoc. I don't think any human being has the answer to that question. But I can say that God sees our frailty and failings. He has allowed us to create human laws that may not be what He wants, but He gives us free will.

I see Satan as a scapegoat for human evil.
God can allow us to make our own laws but still offer more specific, just, loving guidance in the theological manual he leaves us with for several millennia. Since God could see all possible outcomes perhaps he might have mentioned, "slavery is wrong, please try not to enslave your brethren....." No?

[Anonymous]

Why would one of the pillars of life as created by God be that animals kill and eat other animals. That's totally yuck!

[Anonymous]

The question is phrased backwards.

Given that there is a much simpler explanation that does not require appeal to a supernatural influence, why, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, would anyone accept the claim that the Bible was anything but the product of a bunch of men adapting oral history and existing mythology to suit their own purposes?

There is some objective evidence that some things in the Bible are reasonable descriptions of historical events, but that doesn't make the whole thing historically accurate.

There is significant evidence that mythological aspects of the Bible are adapted from previously existing mythologies.

There is also significant evidence that, unless you're reading it in the original, the text has been materially revised as part of the translation and re-writing process over the centuries.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus, why would anyone assume that a supernatural entity was involved in the production of a document that could so clearly have been produced by ordinary humans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The question is phrased backwards.

Given that there is a much simpler explanation that does not require appeal to a supernatural influence, why, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, would anyone accept the claim that the Bible was anything but the product of a bunch of men adapting oral history and existing mythology to suit their own purposes?

There is some objective evidence that some things in the Bible are reasonable descriptions of historical events, but that doesn't make the whole thing historically accurate.

There is significant evidence that mythological aspects of the Bible are adapted from previously existing mythologies.

There is also significant evidence that, unless you're reading it in the original, the text has been materially revised as part of the translation and re-writing process over the centuries.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Thus, why would anyone assume that a supernatural entity was involved in the production of a document that could so clearly have been produced by ordinary humans?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was sort of the subject of the sermon today at my church...Can the Bible be Trusted? The sermon is obviously too long to post here, and honestly can't remember all of it. But basically, it was stating that the writings that comprised the Bible, or at least the NT, was historically accurate from a purely historically point of view, and as CS Lewis stated (not verbatum), Jesus was either a raving lunatic to claim he was the Son of God, or he really was the Son of God.

Or he was a legend

I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, or in the divine itself, but there are sufficient extra-biblical references (including Roman historical references) to conclude that there was a man named Jesus, he was a Nazarene, he was one of many self-proclaimed Messianic prophets of the time, he had followers, and he was crucified.