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 -
bigjim36

Why do people believe the bible?

1,738 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

docyabut2
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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.

~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
13 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

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. 

Except, of course, life actually did arise from lifeless matter without a creator or creative impulse, spontaneously, according to scientific theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
9 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

Except, of course, life actually did arise from lifeless matter without a creator or creative impulse, spontaneously, according to scientific theory. 

Yes, but that's not the Spontaneous Generation I was referring to :

"Spontaneous generation refers to an obsolete body of thought on the ordinary formation of living organisms without descent from similar organisms. The theory of spontaneous generation held that living creatures could arise from nonliving matter and that such processes were commonplace and regular. For instance, it was hypothesized that certain forms such as fleas could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh.[1]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
41 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

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. 

Not sure if you got my point.

  I am an evolutionist who doesn't think creationism should  be taught in schools  as a factual subject like science or history 

In Australia it is banned in govt schools

The point of these articles was that, despite a secular education, more young people are becoming creationist, and a school can't ignore their beliefs.

Thus, schools  need to teach the science of evolution, while not causing young people  to turn against science, because of their beliefs.

A school or a govt simply doesn't have the right to try and impose a belief or indeed a disbelief on its citizens.  

A school that simply says,  "Your beliefs are rubbish"  will disengage young  people and never have a chance to win them over.  

A democratic govt, for better or worse, cannot teach that  a belief or faith is  bunk or rubbish, where many of its citizens hold a belief that it is not  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

It didn't?

There's evidence that a great flood happened in the Mediterranean. 

 

 

Where's is the evidences of the global flood? Local flooding happens all the time everywhere, no biggie. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
2 hours ago, Habitat said:

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

Still better than a team of liars. 

That's the one your in with Walker will and your newest member 

If you lie you will be called out on it. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

lol it works the other way. Nothing a pope says can truly be held heretical because of papal infallibility,

try reading canon 331

Of course church politics enters  into this and some popes have been pressured into resignation, which is allowable.  However the r is nobody on earth  who has the authority to determine that a pope is "incapacitated" and must be removed  Almost no popes have been removed during office and those who were were removed by a secular power such as an emperor.  Three claimed to be pope but did not have the universal support of the church.  

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125351915

The second case was Angelo Correr, known as Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415 under pressure from the Council of Constance, a conference of bishops gathered to settle problems in church practices. At this particular meeting the bishops faced The Western Schism. Papal elections were often contested during the Middle Ages, but they were usually settled in a short time. During this schism, complications worsened and resulted in three men claiming a place as pope.

Once the council met it decided that the only solution to the schism — which had lasted 40 years at this point — was to wipe the slate clean and begin all over again with a new pope. Although the council persuaded Gregory to resign, the other two claimants refused and were formally deposed. The council elected a new pope, Martin V, who was universally accepted.

https://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/16/a-canonical-primer-on-popes-and-heresy/

To be sure, all admit that in talking about popes falling into heresy we are talking a very remote scenario. Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome I (1949) n. 340, “This sort of case, given the divine protection of the Church, is considered quite improbable.” Beste, Introductio (1961) 242, “In history no example of this can be found.” And the great Felix Cappello, Summa Iuris I (1949) n. 309, thought that the possibility of a pope falling into public heresy should be “entirely dismissed given the special love of God for the Church of Christ [lest] the Church fall into the greatest danger.”

 

Indeed i am not sure tha t ANY pope has ever been charged with heresy and forced to resign, and i doubt that, in practice, they really could be 

Shows how little you know about this topic Mister Walker. But anyways carry on in your world of ignorance, I'm done discussion's with you because your ignorance of the topic is staggering. Not only can you not provide one bit of primary source from Canon Law to support your claims, you don't understand the meaning of Canon Law. Do you read Latin?

The Pope isn't infallible. The infallible teachings of the Pope must be based on, or at least not contradict, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. That's a Canon law too. Nor can he be God. 331 states he is the Vicar of Christ and has authority over the Church. Nothing more, not over God not over any extra ordinary. What do you think the term ordinary means in that law Mr Walker?

Off the top of my head here regarding Pope's resigning or ceaasing being Pope due to their heretical actions.

Marcellinus, Benedict XI ( he was Pope three times, he was elected, ejected, returned, abdicated, deposed, elected again, ejected again and eventually excommunicated.), Silverus, Celestine V, Gregory XII, Read up on the Synod of Sutri, Benedict V, John XVIII and probably more. There was to three Pope's who were ejected at the Synod of Sutri. Then one was elected, the Holy Roman Emperor had a massive say in who could be Pope and often if they didn't like that Pope, the Pope was ejected or forced to resign. But hey you knew all that didn't ye!

So if the Pope is forced to resign, you don't think someone has the power to make him resign? The College and Council, and in some cases the Holy Roman Emperor has had that power. You really are ignorant about this. Good Googling MrWalker, good Googling.

But anyways, when and what part of the Bible did any Pope literally re-write? Still haven't provided anything to support your claims. Nor have provided anything to support your claim that the Pope has absolute power but ordinary and extra ordinary.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
6 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

"it was amazing that t i got more money from poor people than rich." is NOT comparing what i got, to what others collected.  I wouldn't have clue what they collected.  It was confidential

i was saying that i was amazed, as  a mid twenties person from a quite poor family background,  to discover that poorer people were more generous than richer people

You can say what you 'meant' all you like, your history of ostentatiousness is always going to follow you around, unfortunately for you. 

I don't believe anything you say about your person or personal life anymore, and I'm not the only one. So stick to the opinions and stop with the anecdotes. Or not I couldn't care less, the only ability you have is to off-topic every thread by adding extraordinary claims or unsupported anecdotal nonsense. You know that these claims elicit a certain response and you revel in these responses. Then cry foul when someone questions your delusions of grandeur.

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.