I won't pretend to understand how the scholars picked what made it into the Bible and what didn't, but I do know that the vast majority of the Bible has been verified, at least on an historical basis, by other writings and historical accounts. Christianity has been studied extensively over the past two millenia, and there is a huge body of proof of the authenticity of the Bible. Try going into Google and typing "Christian Evidences" and see what it kicks out. Did you know that there is more documented proof of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ than there is of the voyages of Christopher Columbus? Problem is the schools teach about Columbus and his voyages but will not teach about Jesus based on the legal fiction of separation of church and state...
2006-09-05 06:48:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by sarge927 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
I strongly object to Duckphup's assertions. I, for one, am what he refers to as a 'religious' person, firmly convinced that the creation account revealed in Genesis, is true, while at the same time I accept that I don't have all of the answers yet. I am constantly looking for new bits of information, using the scientific method of reasoning to tease new bits of information from my world, and my God, who listens to and answers my questions, understanding that my brain is finite and limited in understanding. I am always questioning my own belief system, and constantly have doubts, that I also express to my God, who also understands and answers for me. The problem is not that I am close-minded to other possibilities, as he suggests. The idea is that I have not closed my mind to the possibility that God does exist, that the writers of those ancient texts just might have had some insight into things I don't as yet understand, as Duckphup certainly has. So, while he has not opened his mind to that possibility and, therefore, never hears from God, I have accepted the truth that God does exist, and therefore I hear from Him on a regular basis. And I applaud you, Sarge, for taking a stand on this issue. So, that upsets Duckphup's paradigm, doesn't it? And, if Duckphup wasn't so satisfied and impressed by his own intellect, and would open his mind to the possibility that God does exist, maybe he wouldn't be so duckphuped in the first place!
2006-09-05 15:15:35
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mike Z 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Its the way they were raised. Very few people are well educated in the way religion has evolved over the years. Taking from one religion and adding it to another then teaching it to you when you are young and its the only point of view you recieve and bingo you have a believe system.
2006-09-05 13:46:41
·
answer #3
·
answered by region50 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I love how the misunderstood version of the big bang validates the bible. They just assume you believe one theory or the other and it amuses me endlessly.
Most of the stories and traditions can be found in ancient religions. There is no God and all prophets are false.
2006-09-05 13:47:20
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
One modern theory (Robert Trivers) holds that we are hard-wired, via evolution, for self-deception (self-delusion), which serves to assure community cohesion. That fits in quite nicely with what I have observed with respect to religion, and the nature of 'belief'. It seems to me that 'rational' people have risen above that genetic predisposition... or, perhaps, we did not get the 'self-delusion' gene. (That may be what Brenda's World refers to as the 'god' gene.)
A rational person might say "I believe in the Big Bang." A religious person might say "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis." But these statements are not even remotely similar, with respect to what is meant by the word 'believe'.
For the rational person, the statement of 'belief' in the Big Bang means that they understand that the concept provides a scientifically and mathematically consistent explanation, congruent with the evidence, which accounts for the evolution of the universe from a fraction of a second after the initiating event, up until the present. When the 'inflationary model' came to the fore, rational people said "Well, good... that clears up a few questions and makes things even more coherent." NOBODY threw up their arms and wailed "Oh, no... oh, no... ain't so... ain't so... the Big Bang is the inerrant truth... not this ridiculous, atheistic 'inflationary' model."
See... when we say "I believe in the Big Bang", we don't really mean the same thing as the religious person means when he says "I believe in creation, as described in Genesis," or "I believe in God." Our 'belief' in the Big Bang (or anything else) isn't really a 'belief'... it is more properly a 'paradigm'... a useful way of looking at something, or thinking about something. If additional information is uncovered that adds to the conceptual model, that is a good thing... not a disaster. If part of the conceptual model is discovered to be incorrect, and must be tossed in the trash and replaced with something completely different... that is also a good thing... not the end of the world as we know it. And often, no matter how highly confident we may be of the accuracy or completeness of a particular paradigm, we may have reason to apply a DIFFERENT paradigm to the same thing, in an effort to tease out new insights; for example, we might want to contemplate the potential implications of a change to a theory from the perspective of the Tao Te Ching, the Gaia hypothesis, or ecological homeostasis. We KNOW that all theories are approximations... and that is OK. We KNOW that we don't have all the answers... and that is OK, too. There is nothing wrong with saying "We don't know... yet; but we're working on it."
But these modes of thinking, perceiving, contemplating and understanding are utterly alien to the 'religious' mind. For the religious mind, a 'belief' is not a paradigm... not a useful way of thinking about something... it is an internalized conviction that one knows the absolute 'truth' pertaining to some aspect of existence and/or fundamental reality. 'Beliefs' are one of the key interpretive component filters of the religious person's 'self-description'... a part of what DEFINES them as a person... the very thing that creates their world-view... an underpinning of their 'subjective reality'. Any challenge to one of these internalized 'beliefs' is perceived and interpreted as a vital threat... an attack upon the 'self-description'... and an assault upon their subjective reality.
And here is the key difference: When there is a change in one of the paradigms dealing with a scientific concept, or a new insight into the workings of the universe, to the 'rational' person it merely constitutes an interesting new piece of knowledge and understanding... a new insight, to be appropriately incorporated into one's world-view However, if that same new insight, or piece of information (a feature of the universe, for example) seems to threaten a tenet of Christianity, everybody goes to battle stations, goes into 'damage control' mode, for fear that the whole edifice will come crashing down... and ultimately, it will.
So, when a fundie disparages evolution, for example, it really has nothing to do with a genuine, intellectual dispute regarding scientific details... they are generally scientifically illiterate, anyway. Any 'scientific' arguments that they present are inevitably not even understood... they are just lifted from the pre-packaged lies, misrepresentations and pseudo-science that are found on dozens of 'Liars for Jesus' (LFJ) web sites, and parroted. They are in a battle. They are trying to sink science before science sinks them. They are desperate... and science is (mostly, and unfortunately) oblivious to the fact that they are even in a fight, and that somebody is trying to sink them. They are just blithely bopping along, doing what science does... trying to figure out how nature works.
No... none of this has anything to do with a mere disagreement pertaining to evidence and understanding. It has to do with minds that deal with fundamental issues in an entirely different way. It has to do with a flexible, open-minded (willing to honestly consider alternative possibilities), intellectually honest (willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions) curiosity about the universe, contending with a rigid, unyielding world-view that depends from a conviction that certain delusional faith-based (willful ignorance and magical, wishful thinking) 'beliefs' represent the absolute 'truth' of reality.
We might as well be talking to an alien species, from a distant planet.
When the religious enter a venue like this one, they are (generally) NOT seeking answers, or new information... these might cause them to QUESTION their beliefs, or might put their beliefs at risk. No... they are closed-minded, seeking only VALIDATION of their beliefs... and hence, of their self-description.
*****************
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion." ~ Robert M. Pirsig
2006-09-05 13:47:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am guessing you are referring to Christianity for which the evidence seems to point that the other religions stole it from them based on archeological evidence.
2006-09-05 13:44:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Help 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The ignorance and arrogance of man knows no bounds or limits
2006-09-05 13:46:35
·
answer #7
·
answered by Ironball 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think you answered your own question.It is because they have engineered and re-engineered what they want to believe.Most people rely on tradition.
2006-09-05 13:43:51
·
answer #8
·
answered by jackiedj8952 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
People do crazy things all the time and try to rationalize their actions.
2006-09-05 13:44:28
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I'll help you, if you can tell me how a big bang from nothing created everything in this universe. Huge accident? Do you have a soul, and if so, did an accidental big bang from nothing give it to you?
2006-09-05 13:43:21
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋