Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Why do people believe the bible?


bigjim36

Recommended Posts

Just now, docyabut2 said:

it was still there in Jesus`s time,as he walked the galilee  

The Great Pyramid existed before and after also. So what? Does Jesus mention this dolmen? What significance does it have?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Sad ? Liar ... your limping gave you away .... :lol:

*burp*

Had myself a grand feast of a lunch ... too bad for you

~

You are a fully paid up member of the "team" now, so far as I'm concerned, a "made man", when you start accusing people of lying, there is no going back ! Looking forward to giving you another bollocking next time !

And I am still in awe of this response by Mr Walker, to sherapy who was  saying your posts were "incoherent and absurd"

 

"The problem is that, in being incoherent and absurd,  he communicates nothing but incoherence and absurdity. "

Sad, but true.

Edited by Habitat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

What significance does it have?

 

Maybe just to make you think.

Therefore you is?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

You are in error, Will. 

Not in a philosophical sense.

All truth has the same source. ie its own inherent truth, other wise it would be false.

The real question is, What is inherently true, and in contrast,  what is inherently false?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You are a fully paid up member of the "team" now, so far as I'm concerned, a "made man", when you start accusing people of lying, there is no going back ! Looking forward to giving you another bollocking next time !

YOu lie, you get called out for it, them's the breaks. the team that you refers to is all of your own making, you place yourself front and center because you wanted to, don't blame what's in front of you when you go against the grain of rationality

No amount of inexplicable anecdotal tapping from the nether regions, physical or supernatural will pull you out unless you tap yourself out, uppercut from or headbutt on the walls of reality, notwithstanding

Next time anytime, time after time.

~

7 minutes ago, Habitat said:

And I am still in awe of this response by Mr Walker, to sherapy who was  saying your posts were "incoherent and absurd"

 

"The problem is that, in being incoherent and absurd,  he communicates nothing but incoherence and absurdity. "

Sad, but true.

You have the shallow end of his understanding and you should stop sniffing his urinal, the ammonia is melting what little credibility you have left. He doesn't understand because he canno, you chose to accept being incapable to

That is that truer sad but true

~

Edited by third_eye
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Maybe just to make you think.

Therefore you is?

 

 

It makes me think @docyabut2 is posting unrelated links and falsely attributing them with other nonsensical things. All while giving no clear explanation as to how the two are linked.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

The Great Pyramid existed before and after also. So what? Does Jesus mention this dolmen? What significance does it have?

no mention of the Pyramids in the bible , but the pharaoh of Egypt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

YOu lie, you get called out for it

As I say,  another grub to join a team of grubs, idly accusing me of lying. Guess on, grub.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

People who take the entire bible, word for word, as literal truth do so because they are mentally challenged. Those who take it as allegory and can derive a good set of morals and/or a guide to better living are alright in my book.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTRW_PMERAF4alYTRuNPWt

That is rubbish or at least a vast overstatement and stereo type 

MAny highly intelligent and educated people believe in the bible via faith. The y have good reasons to do so, even though i don't agree with their belief or their reasoning. .

Bu ti would not deny them their right to believe nor call them mentally challenged 

I would agree that an advanced education in a secular school, with  a mix of subjects like history, science, geography,  etc. makes a person less likely to be a creationist christian, but many highly educated people still are. 

There are also some genuine problems with only presenting evolution to young people and refusing to discuss creationism, when creationism is growing rapidly among young western students 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/oct/05/schools.uk1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-why-is-creationism-on-the-rise-and-does-it-have-a-place-in-education-927035.html

Edited by Mr Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

As I say,  another grub to join a team of grubs, idly accusing me of lying. Guess on, grub.

NO guesswork involved, you yourself supplied the evidence with such glee, ahhh such bliss, your ignominious ignorance must be

~

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, third_eye said:

NO guesswork involved, you yourself supplied the evidence with such glee, ahhh such bliss, your ignominious ignorance must be

~

I'm not seeing the "evidence", is it coming later ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

I'm not seeing the "evidence", is it coming later ?

You not seeing is evidence enough, deniability does not work like that, self realization is a fickle sight.

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, third_eye said:

You not seeing is evidence enough, deniability does not work like that, self realization is a fickle sight.

~

You are slipping into incoherence again, I want the proof of my alleged lying, surely not too much to expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

That is rubbish or at least a vast overstatement and stereo type 

MAny highly intelligent and educated people believe in the bible via faith. The y have good reasons to do so, even though i don't agree with their belief or their reasoning. .

Bu ti would not deny them their right to believe nor call them mentally challenged 

I would agree that an advanced education in a secular school, with  a mix of subjects like history, science, geography,  etc. makes a person less likely to be a creationist christian, but many highly educated people still are. 

I never claimed mentally challenged people couldn't be educated or intelligent. In my opinion, if someone believes every detail of the bible is true they are mentally challenged in that aspect. Not in every aspect of their life. That's the caveat. There is no good reason for faith. It is not a reliable path to truth.

Specifically believing in a world wide flood, a virgin birth, food multiplication, necromancy and resurrection. among many other ridiculous claims the bible contains.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

You are slipping into incoherence again, I want the proof of my alleged lying, surely not too much to expect.

Well I have what I want, you got what you wanted, you want more ?

You have to admit that being 'sad' is not true, but then you'd rather lie than to admit to that, so you are caught in the quagmire of your making, good luck

~

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, third_eye said:

Well I have what I want, you got what you wanted, you want more ?

You have to admit that being 'sad' is not true, but then you'd rather lie than to admit to that, so you are caught in the quagmire of your making, good luck

~

Mr Mumbo Jumbo, talking in riddles is a sure sign of a dodgy argument, I want to hear what these grievous lies I told are, I am all ears !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, third_eye said:

Meh ... untruth, unverifiable claims, observable intention for deceit and with all intentions and purposes to perpetuate deceptions ... it is all categorized as lies, you just dress it all up however you like, until you can provide evidence that proves otherwise, that remains as the entirety of your foundation for your specifics as facts

I see it clearly as lies, no further elucidations required, if you claim to not understand that, then it further proves your propensity for lying, either about your proficiency in understanding the language being applied or the principles as to what applies as veracity

~

lol so what you don't believe you call a lie, and what you have no evidences for you also call a lie. 

Ok prove to me you are Malaysian, otherwise i will be forced to  believe that you are lieing about that. and thus are lieing about everything you post .

Why should i believe a word you post . (not that you post much about yourself at all )

Oh i know. You are actually sherapy posting under a different name and style, and writing incoherent  English so we don't guess the truth.  :) 

Come on; prove you are not, otherwise you must be.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Habitat said:

Mr Mumbo Jumbo, talking in riddles is a sure sign of a dodgy argument, I want to hear what these grievous lies I told are, I am all ears !

You again failed to grasp the coherent nature of your displayed obstinacy ...

Quote

 

~

Ear" comes from the ancient word “ahs," which meant “husk of corn." In English, sometimes the ear also is referred to as a “cob" or a “pole." The ear is the spiked part of the corn plant that contains kernels. The kernels are the delicious yellow tidbits we love to nibble on in the summertime.

 

~
Your reliance on ears here speaks volumes ....
 
~
Just now, Mr Walker said:

lol so what you don't believe you call a lie, and what you have no evidences for you also call a lie. 

Ok prove to me you are Malaysian, otherwise i will be forced to  believe that you are lieing about that. and thus are lieing about everything you post .

Why should i believe a word you post . (not that you post much about yourself at all )

Oh i know. You are actually sherapy posting under a different name and style, and writing incoherent  English so we don't guess the truth.  :) 

Come on; prove you are not, otherwise you must be.  

 

 

Meh ... You really should seek professional help for your incessant obsession with @Sherapy

You might want to check your grasp of the English language there ... ' teacher '

~

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

You again failed to grasp the coherent nature of your displayed obstinacy …

Just a clear, unambiguous description of the lies told, will suffice ! Keep the "incoherent absurdity" on hold !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Habitat said:

Just a clear, unambiguous description of the lies told, will suffice ! Keep the "incoherent absurdity" on hold !

The fact that you continue with such doggedness exemplifies the nature of your lie, if it was 'incoherent' or is 'absurd' as you so claimed that it is to you, why are you pursuing continually if it was such an ambiguity to you?

Unambiguous enough for you ?

~

Clarity only emerges if the mind is still, your disturbed state of mind disallows such lucidity 

~

I have a New Year to celebrate, too bad for you ... its the year of the pig .. oink oink :lol:

Cheers guv'nor ... thanks for the chortles

~

Edited by third_eye
stoopid keyboard
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, third_eye said:

The fact that you continue with such doggedness exemplifies the nature of your lie, if it was 'incoherent' or is 'absurd' as you so claimed that it is to you, why are you pursuing continually if it was such an ambiguity to you?

Unambiguous enough for you ?

~

Clarity only emerges if the mind is still, your disturbed state of mind disallows such lucidity 

~

I have a New Year to celebrate, to bad for you ... its the year of the pig .. oink oink :lol:

Cheers guv'nor ... thanks for the chortles

~

You have been called to account for your accusation, and have failed to deliver. Duck, dodge, weave, dance, you got the moves ! Anything but the straight talk ! And these are the types of people always crying for the "proof" !  Stand and deliver !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Papal infallibility" is limited to formal statements defining already long-existing doctrines bearing on faith and morals. Why so limited? Because throughout history, Popes have said many embarrassing things, so this mechanism ensures that very little of what any Pope has said or ever will say will be viewed as binding on his successors. However, it also provides for doctrinal definition without having to call a church council.

The provision has been invoked far too rarely for anybody to know what would happen if a council overruled a Pope's formally valid exercise of Papal infallibility, or if a council simply withdrew the grant of authority.

By the way, as provocative as the name of the thing is, it's actually a fairly common legislative device. Councils are the ultimate temporal authorities in the Church, but are rarely in session. So, Vatican I appointed the Pope to exercise some of its own authority until another Council would be convened. They ought to have called the thing interim oversight, but they didn't. Big whoop,

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

try reading canon 331

Good news, I was able to read it. So, the part about the Pope being God?, being able to rewrite the Bible?, ... oh, there it is, right next to his ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P16.HTM

Stunning, the Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church. And they come right out and say it. Well researched!

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I dnt consider pauls leters church records Th eits referred to the church's records The erliest records f councils etc show a growing anti semitism 

Business correspondence isn't a record? OK. So now we're up to the Fourth Century or so?

Then there's one small-c catholic church, of which Rome is a member but not the dominant member (It's a prestigious see, don't get me wrong, but its bishop cannot tell another major city's bishop what to do and expect to be obeyed).Jewish Christianity is at best rare and may be extinct. This one catholic church is growingly hostile against both Juadism and Paganism, plus several varieties of Christianity.

Looking at that picture, I'd conjecture that they were aggressively opposed to every religion but their own.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

ps i agree with most of your reasoning  BUT no it wasn't a new religion, it was the evolution of the Jewish religion.

You mean like the way that the Jewish religion was an evolution of the antecedent Canaanite religions? The way Protestantism is an evolution of Roman Catholicism (you do realize that Luther was more Catholic than the Pope?). At what point, in your view, does a new religion come to be regarded as a distinct religion? It would seem to me the things that you complain about as "non-Biblical" are precisiely the kind of things that would distinguish one religion from another (holy days, dietary customs, body modifications or not, ...).

Anyway, whether or not you view Paul's letters as business records, they announce a new religion which hadn't existed before him. Paul definitely hoped that the new Gentile religion and the not much older related Jewish sect would integrate, but that wasn't what happened.

3 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

  In changing this to forcibly create a new religion which they could control,  the early  church  HAD to rewrite and  change the words of the bible 

You keep saying this, and you have yet to give a single example. And no, they don't HAVE to rewrite anything. They just read Paul who pronounces that the Law doesn't bind the Gentiles. Oh, OK. We can meet on Sunday, then? Sure can. Just as Muslims can gather on Fridays, even though they accept that Jewish Scriptures were revealed by Allah.

Now, nothing prevents an even newer religion, like Seventh Day Adventism, for example, from preferring to revive selected practices of a different religion, Judaism. (Most people would agree that Seventh Day Adventism is not a branch of Judaism.) No doubt, like so many religions, apologists for the new-new religion will say that other religions are doing some things wrong, and they will even offer arguments why they themselves are doing those things right. Great. Whatever floats your boat.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Habitat said:

I have a New Year to celebrate, to bad for you ... its the year of the pig .. oink oink :lol:

Had enough of slandering people for one day, have you ? Another low-slung specimen on the "team" goes to water !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

*snip*

There are also some genuine problems with only presenting evolution to young people and refusing to discuss creationism, when creationism is growing rapidly among young western students 

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/oct/05/schools.uk1

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/the-big-question-why-is-creationism-on-the-rise-and-does-it-have-a-place-in-education-927035.html

From your second link :

"Should creationism be taught in science lessons?

Yes...

* If science education ignores creationism, those who believe in it will ignore science

* It may strengthen the case for evolution to explain why creationism is not scientific

* A belief held by large numbers of people should not be dismissed out of hand

No...

* Presenting creationism alongside evolution gives it a false scientific credibility

* No one says evolution should feature in RE classes: why should this be any different?

* Science education should be decided by facts, not pressure from special interests"

Creationism is bunk. It should not be taught as a scientific/pseudo scientific  option on the origins of the universe. It can be discussed and dismissed. Quite in the same way Spontaneous Generation is treated. It's outdated and has no basis in the scientific world anymore.

As for the last "yes" answer, that's a strawman. Nobody is dismissing it out of hand. Creationism falls apart on it's own and has not been shown to be accurate in any way. That is why science is taught as opposed to religious bunk. Because many people believe something, does not equate to the standards of what a public school should have in it's curriculum. Teach the facts as we know and can prove. You want to teach kids alternative ideas, do it at home or a private school. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The topic was locked
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.