Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!
why so much respect fr bible?
- Thread starter fusion4577
- Start date
also probbably becuase it was written long ago and devised by religous leaders
Norsefire said:
Well, see, that's the thing. Everything else is open to disrespect. As a practical measure, sure, you have a point. But there's no genuine reason that the Bible should not be subject to the same sort of criticism as everything else, respectful or otherwise.
Especially in consideration of the fact that some of the greatest disrespect shown the Bible is visited by its alleged believers.
It's old. It was one of the first books in wide circulation due to the printing press.
Why is there so much respect for the bible? it is another book and yet i have been in so many religous arguements where the other person thinks "the bible say's so" is an actual reson. it pisses me off!
Frankly, the bible gets more right than it should if it were just an ordinary book. It touches on the past and our origins, it's accurate in it's telling of it's current events. It contains much wisdom about the human condition, morality and explains why things are now they way they are. Profoundly it's prophecies have been fullfilled in clarity and detail. For a book written over 1500 years by 40 different men and remain completely harmonious is quite staggering. It stands at attention and speaks quite well for it's self and has passed through thousands of years to come to the point where it is today with startling little change despite all the attempts to alter it. I would say it's about a dozen to many coincidence to be normally possible and yet there it is, confirmable and intact.
Science had it's early conficts with religion. The Church was powerful and did not take well the upsurping of any other explanations, like the state of the Earth's shape and it's position in the universe. Religious inviduals were drenched in ignorance and few asked why. It spurred a siginificant few to rebel. But while the church was being to see at least some light some early scientist did see the logic behind the bible. Others scorned the unquestioned faith in the book and essential became two seperate parties.
The fist party intrinsicly accepted that changes in the earth have generally been effected suddenly by physial forces. They're called Catatrophist
The other group developed a doctrine that existing processes, actin at present are suficient to account for all geological changes call Uniformitarianist
The Uniformitarinans are essential todays Evolutionist
Catastrophist are today's Creationist.
The Early Uniformitarians include. James Hutton, Charles Lyell, and Charles Darwin.
The Castrophist included George McCready Price, Alfred M Rehwinkel, Henery M Morris. halley, Newton, Whiston, Cassini, Lehman, and Hugens.
The long and short of it all is that in the 18th century the catastrophist views held sway but by the 19th century uniformitarian views had come forward. While the catastrophist of the day were receptive but skeptical currently evolutionist are just the opposite, harsh and exclusive.
There were strong objections brought up by men like Pasteur, Mendel and Agassiz but eventually the two sides have established front lines and unfortunatly Creationist today are relying mostly upon there faith as motivation. Oppositely so Evolutionist rely are their disdain of anything theological to motivate there work.
no it doesnt
That too is a good reason.
Respect is a two way street. You don't burn a flag and claim that you respect that country. Clearly that is not an act of respect toward what that country sees as a symbol of their soveriegnty.
Similarly the Bible is a book which exemplifies the faith of many. It would do good in the name of diplomacy to excercise good relations even in the light of disagreements.
Note: neither side is especially good at that. Needless to say relations could be improved.
Respect is a two way street. You don't burn a flag and claim that you respect that country. Clearly that is not an act of respect toward what that country sees as a symbol of their soveriegnty.
Similarly the Bible is a book which exemplifies the faith of many. It would do good in the name of diplomacy to excercise good relations even in the light of disagreements.
Note: neither side is especially good at that. Needless to say relations could be improved.
No I don't. The Bible certainly has some literary and historical significance, but it also caused alot of bloodshed, fear, repression, and intellectual stagnation. I have no obligation to respect what other's consider sacred. When I'm in a hotel, the first thing I do is find the Bible and throw it out.
Oh I agree, the Bible has some really dark sides. The old testament should be an embarrassment to anyone that believes the bible is the word of god.
"Should be", If One doesn't understand national sovereignty and integrity then one may see the actions taken as an embarassment. Israel's actions against false worship in the light of human error would appear to be gross immorality. However as God's sovereignty and the shielding of the nation he endorse were of the up most importances, and actions taken by them were directed by God then it is matter of judgement action was taken.
Not every one can appreciate this.
The most current example of from which an outside observer will compare Israel's action is the national law of Iran to execute for homosexuality. And outside observer will see the same. In truth of perspective of Iran I'm sure they believe their actions are God endorsed aswell.
So I understand the perspective you have. It depends on who's God you worship from your pov, of which is an understanding you do not share. Thus there is a pivotable lack of a common frame of refrence.
You speak so readily of god's sovereignty and yet you can offer nothing beyond subjective evidence of its existence. As to prophecies being fulfilled, how about Nostradamus ? Lots of people believe he got all sort of things right.
not entirely true pen and teller burn an american flag in one of thier acts in celabration of what the flag stands for
This could only be valid if one believes the ancient jews were indeed God's chosen ones. It's only their claim that they are..absolutely not one shred of outside corruburation exists to support this notion.( 1st and 2nd century scribblings by roman or jewish poets,scribes or priests do not count)
Even with such a belief they were..it still does not excuse the horrific immoral actions of Yahweh which are rampant throughout the OT.
Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer that makes sense !
The more you tell lies about something the more those lies become the truth.
Talking about anything keeps it in the front of everyone and therefore it doesn't stop spreading. Whenever I hear a starting of something about the bible I tend to stop talking and just leave the area of conversation about the bible. I try very hard to abstain from getting involved with those who believe in religions but have succumbed to them many times. I'm finding it easier to avoid those conversations today but still do get involved just out of spite.
Talking about anything keeps it in the front of everyone and therefore it doesn't stop spreading. Whenever I hear a starting of something about the bible I tend to stop talking and just leave the area of conversation about the bible. I try very hard to abstain from getting involved with those who believe in religions but have succumbed to them many times. I'm finding it easier to avoid those conversations today but still do get involved just out of spite.