The Bible encourages questioning

dan1123

Registered Senior Member
In several instances in the Bible, people question believers and even God Himself. Contrary to popular belief (and contrary to some people who teach Sunday school) the Bible praises people not only answer questions but search out the answers.

* in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Daniel+1%3A19-21&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english">Daniel 1:19-21</a>, the three Jews who are later blessed by God answer all of a pagan king's questions.

* in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=2CHRON+9:1-2&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off">2 Chronicles 9:1-2</a>, A queen seeks out knowledge from king Solomon and asks him hard questions. Later in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Matthew+12%3A42&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english">Matthew 12:42</a>, Jesus praises her efforts.

* and in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Genesis+18%3A23-33&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english">Genesis 18:23-33</a>, God not only allows Abraham to question Him, but God takes Abraham's reproaches seriously.

* also in <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+17:11&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=off">Acts 17:11</a>, the Bible praised the Bereans for testing the Apostle Paul to make sure he wasn't spouting rubbish.

So yes. The Bible encourages questioning--both by unbelievers against the Bible, and believers to test the Bible against itself.
 
Just a few of the 172 references to "knowledge" in the Bible:

Prov 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Prov 10:14 Wise men lay up knowledge:...

Prov 12:1 Whoso loveth instruction loveth knowledge: but he that hateth reproof is brutish.

Prov 14:18 The simple inherit folly: but the prudent are crowned with knowledge.

Prov 18:15 The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.

Prov 19:2 Also, that the soul be without knowledge, it is not good;

Hosea 4:6 My people are <i>destroyed for lack of knowledge</i>: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...
(Wow! that's harsh!)

1 Cor 1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

Phil 1:9 And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment;

The Bible places a high value on both wisdom and knowledge. This is especialy obvious in the book of Proverbs. Another awsome passage to read is the last couple chapters of Job. God himself points out all kinds of scientific knowledge that had been unknown to Job.

Also, somewhere in the Bible, it mentions things like the water cycle (I think that's at the beginning of Ecclesiastes) and the fact that the earth "hangs" upon "nothing"!!! These are radical departures from the then known science, but are now known to be true. There are other examples like this as well.

~Caleb
 
The Bible says to love with heart, soul, strength, and mind. Mind is just as imporatnt is anything else. God even commands us not to be brainwashed Christians. Nice Posts!

><>Lindsey<><
 
The question on the boards is not weather the bible allows questions but rather does it allow the questioning of itself. It does not allow you to ask weather god is not real or weather the bible is a fake. Those are against Christianity. That is where the criticism comes in. You must have faith and you must not look at the bible while questioning it as gods word or not.
 
FA_Q2

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
  
(For the weapons of our warfare [are] not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)
  
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
  
And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.
* 2 Corinthians 10.3-6

I believe, FA_Q2 that you have it correctly: the Christian posters are dodging the issue that the utmost question--the existence of God and therefore the credibility of the Bible itself--should not be brought into question. Every piece of knowledge that the prudent getteth is to be brought captive to the obedience of Christ ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
the Christian posters are dodging the issue that the utmost question--the existence of God and therefore the credibility of the Bible itself
The validity of the Bible in what respect? Because it reports miracles that you don't believe would happen it cannot be credible? If something gets uncanny truths correct centuries before they are discovered by science, then wouldn't supernatural knowledge be needed? If something is accurate and trustworthy as a historical document with every verifiable fact, does that mean nothing?

And God's existance isn't normally what is in question, so it is not normally the response. The fact that there are so many accurate, fine-tunings in the universe, and the fact that thinking beings exist and have some weird desire to worship some form of supernatural being and wonder about an afterlife <i>does</i> point strongly to a supernatural being tweaking the universe and mankind for both man's and God's benefit. The opposing view of blind chance somehow creating these things is far more questionable in the light of these facts. God is simply a more elegant solution.
 
Claims, demands, and perspective

Dan--
The validity of the Bible in what respect? Because it reports miracles that you don't believe would happen it cannot be credible?
Is the Bible merely an account of miracles? Is there nothing more to it? More to the point:

* If I claim to have performed a miracle, and say nothing more, then it is up to you to believe with little or no consequence to your benefit.

* What, however, if I claim to perform a miracle, and demand that you pay me homage in the form of prayers, and change your mode of living to suit my preferences and my benefit?

If I claim the miracle and demand a tribute, should I not be able to demonstrate my claim? If I then promise a reward, or threaten punishment based on your reaction to my claim and demand, ought not that claim be supported by evidence that justifies the demand?
If something gets uncanny truths correct centuries before they are discovered by science, then wouldn't supernatural knowledge be needed?
Which uncanny claims? That one can cure illness by driving out demons? To the other, I have before at Sciforums made the assertion that religion is like pre-science. (Not prescience.) That is, religion is a method for describing how people perceive reality that does not catalog observations according to the scientific method. Religion, therefore, is subject to a certain degree of tinkering, but we can leave that for another time, if you like. (I am presently unable the transition from superstition to politics; that is, from lightning being a god to the political power of religious sentiment as seen in pharoahs or early Popes; at some point, exploitation of the fear that inspires religious superstitions becomes intentional. But traditional rites extracted by modern Wiccans from the shadows of history do resemble primitive psychological manipulation, and certainly we don't find ancient herbalism "uncanny", despite the fact that shamans and witches were using aspirin long before it was "discovered". So on the one hand, I'm wondering, What uncanny claims? while the other half wonders if maybe you aren't referring to the efficacy of an organized canon compared to loosely assembled traditions.
If something is accurate and trustworthy as a historical document with every verifiable fact, does that mean nothing?
The vagaries of history are certainly interesting challenges to work around. If we look at a document like the colonial American Declaration of Independence, we might call it valid as a document, but nowhere in there do we glean an absolute truth. A census record from long ago will tell us how many people were counted; we cannot imagine that census records were any more accurate than they are today, and nobody ever asserts it. If we look, for instance, at the Bible, we can either accept its veracity or not. On the pro side are the scrolls and information collected through the archaeological record. On the con side is the human factor, and I'm not even referring to the King James Version; rather, I point to the various bishops and whatnot involved in the selection of the Hebrew Scriptures combined with the four recognized gospels and the various epistles. Certainly the reason for setting the canon this way made sense to these people, but for the same subjective reasons that the Bible may make sense to you but not to me. It is a subjective assessment, and here is where the veracity of the Bible collapses; much of what the Christians strove to erase as heretical was only heretical because it challenged the authoritarian structure of the young church. Protestants, for instance, have done little to change the Bible that they inherited from Catholocism; by and large, they've merely removed a few books from it. What has not been done is the complete reassembly of all of the texts we have, reassessment of their merits, and reconstruction of a new canon. Thus, to match the current Bible to its ancient forerunners accomplishes little, except to declare that it's a pretty good translation. In the end, though, it says nothing about whether the stories actually reflect the true history they describe, and that comparison is left to faith. Well, that and the sword, the rack, the glowing pins ... it was a tough, military and political fight that made so much of the world accept the Bible--that in itself is an interesting historical facet.
And God's existance isn't normally what is in question, so it is not normally the response.
Why would a Christian question God's existence if they already believe in faith that He does? To view the theism and superstition of the world in general, an acknowledgement that there are unanswered questions does not equal God. And, as we see from the world itself, God does not necessarily equal the God of the Bible. God's existence is severely in question; the Christians, however, ignore the issues because their faith tells them it's not a relevant question, and thus it is never addressed except to reinforce the faith notion that God exists as described in the Bible.
The fact that there are so many accurate, fine-tunings in the universe, and the fact that thinking beings exist and have some weird desire to worship some form of supernatural being and wonder about an afterlife does point strongly to a supernatural being tweaking the universe and mankind for both man's and God's benefit. The opposing view of blind chance somehow creating these things is far more questionable in the light of these facts.
Pure-D faith. I could easily say that the intricacy of the Universe is wholly possible given the infinite potential, the balance of matter and energy, ad nauseam. I have claimed before, and still hold that Life as we know it is a statistical necessity of the Universe.
God is simply a more elegant solution.
And here we see the need for God in the modern day: aesthetics.

God is simply a more comforting solution.

The simple difference is that the idea of God is more personable than a cold, mechanical Universe.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Which uncanny claims? That one can cure illness by driving out demons?
People in Biblical times could identify illness. The most obvious one is lepracy. When someone yelled at Jesus to not kill "us" and that they knew who he was, it was said he was under the influence of a demon. A reasonable claim for anyone at the time. What I was really talking about are the Biblical assertions of a beginning of the universe, and the order of how the universe came to be which meshes with modern science, but science opposed it on those grounds until recent times.
* What, however, if I claim to perform a miracle, and demand that you pay me homage in the form of prayers, and change your mode of living to suit my preferences and my benefit?
If you reject the Bible because you don't want to be under the authority of God described in the Bible, then just admit to that and stop making claims that your objection to the Bible is that it is unscientific or unjust.
I could easily say that the intricacy of the Universe is wholly possible given the infinite potential
How is potential infinite if time and space are not infinite, or is it that you simply <i>have faith</i> that there are universes outside of our own to which we have <i>no evidence</i> if they exist? Or do you have some other reason to believe that this "infinite potentia" exists?
 
Dodge-ball?

What I was really talking about are the Biblical assertions of a beginning of the universe, and the order of how the universe came to be which meshes with modern science, but science opposed it on those grounds until recent times.
There are other texts which describe the beginning of the Universe in various, similar vagaries. This is fairly common among ancient religions.
If you reject the Bible because you don't want to be under the authority of God described in the Bible, then just admit to that and stop making claims that your objection to the Bible is that it is unscientific or unjust.
Nice dodge. You didn't answer the issue: What, however, if I claim to perform a miracle, and demand that you pay me homage in the form of prayers, and change your mode of living to suit my preferences and my benefit?
How is potential infinite if time and space are not infinite, or is it that you simply have faith that there are universes outside of our own to which we have no evidence if they exist? Or do you have some other reason to believe that this "infinite potentia" exists?
We can't see the end of the Universe; I have faith that we will. The Universe appears to be expanding, and the latest estimations show that it will continue to do so. I'm not good with algorithms and such, so it would do me no good to try to write an equation for you, but it has to do with what's in the Universe at any selected moment, the volume of the Universe, the ratio of matter to energy, and all of this is dependent on the moment before it and also the moment after it. When you have evidence that the Universe will stop expanding, let me know; the infinite potential of the Universe will change radically. Until then, the potential of the future is as infinite as infinity itself.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
What, however, if I claim to perform a miracle, and demand that you pay me homage in the form of prayers, and change your mode of living to suit my preferences and my benefit?
So what? That is beside the point. Truthfulness is separate from any claims made upon an event afterwards. If you deny something because of its implication, you are being dishonest.
When you have evidence that the Universe will stop expanding, let me know
Ok I'll just look in the Lawrence Berkeley Labs website--will you admit God exists <a href="http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/boomerang-flat.html">now?</a>
 
I see nothing about expansion, Dan

On the other hand, there's http://www.nature.com/nsu/010208/010208-2.html , which notes: The Universe may be expanding, but it is also 'flat' -- meaning that parallel light beams never converge.

It's why science is so fun to observe and learn from: there's a lot going on, and we have yet to find all the answers. So we can agree that the Universe is flat? Excellent. Now, like I said, When you have evidence that the Universe will stop expanding, let me know.

Seriously. I read your article. I even have a printed copy to read twice on the way home. I even ran word searches on "expand" and "expansion". Since I'm apparently as illiterate as my Internet Explorer, please fill me in.

Oh, and hang the preaching. It doesn't suit you.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
we can agree that the Universe is flat? Excellent. Now, like I said, When you have evidence that the Universe will stop expanding, let me know.
Um, the definition of a flat universe is that there is a maximum point to the expansion. <a href="http://www.laidback.org/~daveg/academic/expandinguniverse/index2.html">This website</a> puts it this way:

"The third Freidmann model is one where the density of the universe is at the critical value. In this case the universe expands from the big bang, but is slowed down so much that the expansion rate tends to zero as we approach the infinite future, this is called a flat universe."

So the universe will stop expanding--or at least there is a maximum size at which it will stay indefinitely.
 
I see a suggestion of possibility

Dan--
The third Freidmann model is one where the density of the universe is at the critical value.
What is important here is the word third. The first of Friedmann's models is a Universe that "ends" in a Big Crunch; technically, I have no real objection to this, since Hindu-derivative philosophies have ventured that the Universe goes through life-cycles. Won't a bouncy-bounce Universe but a hinderance in its finite value? Of course, God exists out of time, right? :rolleyes: The second Friedmann model describes a Universe that expands forever, and variations on this are the ones I, personally, have come to regard over time. The third Friedmann model you've cited, so we need not repeat it. From the page you've cited: So up to the time of writing (May 1999) the search still continues for the fate of this universe.

In the 21 months since then, we see the emergence of the Feb., 2001 article I posted in response, in which Flat, which is defined as a Universe in which parallel light beams never converge. The idea of a flat, expanding Universe may not have occurred to Friedmann? Or else he couldn't figure a viable equation to describe the phenomenon? Apparently, we cannot agree on the definition of a flat Universe. However, I'll even throw in the definition from Essentials of the Dynamic Universe, a college textbook, by Theodore P Snow , 4th ed., 1993:
Flat universe: A possible state of the universe in which the momentum of expansion is exactly balanced by self-gravitation, so that the expansion will slow to a stop in an infinite time, but will not reverse itself and become a contraction. This state is predicted to exist by inflationary universe models.
We could, I suppose, argue about the definition of infinite time.

But nonetheless you're providing me with a possibility, and not evidence, of the cessation of Universal expansion. And if you think the cessation of Universal expansion is enough to get me to believe in God. well, you've bought into the Christian tendency to expect the worst in people, since there is, according to some theories, the possibility of a big crunch, another bang, another crunch ... ad infinitum.

Perhaps you should rethink attempting to convince me to believe in God by pointing to the mysteries that are larger than present human capability. Or, perhaps you should learn the difference between a theory and evidence. Or, perhaps, you might wish to consider that Friedmann's third model--of the flat Universe--might simply be inadequate to describe what is taking place.

But it's not like I'm not impressed: you gave it a good try.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Maybe you should try to make some sense tiassa

You throw in your textbook quote which agrees with what I am saying, and you throw in an article that is just theoretical, that proposes some new force that is pushing the universe apart. Either way, a universe cycle will never happen. The best evidence says that the universe is not gaining any matter or energy, will not expand to an infinite size, and will most certainly not collapse and start again. So without infinities, you have to rely on faith in something to bring us into existance.
 
Oooh, I'm sorry Dan, did I confuse you?

There have, over the years, been any number of scientific explanations proposed for the origin of the Universe. I'm sorry you didn't understand this at the outset; perhaps we could have avoided that nasty either/or situation, whereby you cited one of three possibilities, called it factual, and asked me if I believed in God.

Ahhh, the sacrifice of the intellect. Why do you attempt to whittle it down to as few possibilities as possible? Certainly, that's the point of science; but why do you do it only according to your faith du jour?

--Tiassa :cool:
 
You're getting more mean-spirited all the time tiassa

Maybe because you're afraid I'm right?

There have, over the years, been any number of scientific explanations proposed for the origin of the Universe. I'm sorry you didn't understand this at the outset; perhaps we could have avoided that nasty either/or situation, whereby you cited one of three possibilities,
I did understand and I cited evidence that proved that the third one of the three was correct, from a report posted at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories website. Either way, you have yet to prove that your position lies on anything less than an act of faith at least as great as mine. No infinites mean no chance could have brought us here.
 
What is your problem, Dan?

No infinites mean no chance could have brought us here.
Whatever you say, Dan.

Here's a question: What is infinity minus one? It must necessarily be a finite number, right? Because it's not infinity?

--Tiassa :cool:
 
Here's a question: What is infinity minus one? It must necessarily be a finite number, right? Because it's not infinity?
Infinity is a conceptual construct, not any real number. Any finite number would have to have infinity added to it to become infinity, so any finite number is then infinitely less than infinity. If "anything is possible" with infinity, then very little is possible with even very large finite numbers. Eventually the probabilities get so staggering that you have to assume that someone rigged the system.
 
There are more things in heaven and earth ....

... or something like that.
If "anything is possible" with infinity, then very little is possible with even very large finite numbers.
Compared with infinity, yes, what our finite brains can imagine is quite miniscule. It's why the notion of God--especially as described in the Bible--becomes laughable. It is what motivates religion according to superstitious fear. Gods arise to describe what is bigger than our ability to describe; all descriptions of God are necessarily shallow and inaccurate. What people do with those gods is another thing entirely, and subject to all of the perils and foibles of human beings.
Eventually the probabilities get so staggering that you have to assume that someone rigged the system.
Did I see the word assume? I believe I did. I believe you have described the problem exactly: assumption.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
all descriptions of God are necessarily shallow and inaccurate.
So then you have to posit that a true god would accept all religions and/or be "bigger" than religion, so we can do whatever we please and some god will just pat us on the head and say everything we did is okay--or maybe this god would make sure that all the "really bad" people get punished, but not too badly or long. Or maybe if no god exists at all, then what does it matter what happens after we die because <i>we're dead</i>. And we can't really believe that there really is a god or more gods because if there was, we would see some giant person in the sky running around and telling people to be good, right? A god couldn't possibly let us make up our own minds about him/her/it, because then god would lose the power or authority of people worshipping him/her/it--and we just <i>know</i> that any god would need us to worship him/her/it to give him/her/it any power.

The problem is, that if God wants to reveal Himself in a way that still keeps with the ability to choose Him or not, your posit goes right out the window, because He would necessarily have to reveal Himself to the earliest people, and re-reveal Himself as each time past was forgotten--hence the structure of the Bible. Wouldn't it be stupid to create a people who desired to worsip, and make them unable to know anything about who they were worshipping? And the Bible doesn't put forth a god that needs us for <i>anything</i>. God represented in the Bible does not need us at all. So why would some god who had no need for us, want to throw people into hell as an eternal punishment? People run to hell because they don't want to be under any authority--especially an all-encompassing authority like God is described as in the Bible. Finally, if God exists, wouldn't He not enjoy people worshipping cats or trees or the sun and placing these objects as equal to Him? Wouldn't that be the same as not wanting Him as an authority and running to hell?
 
Back
Top