Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[DarthOkkata]

Funny how those who believe in it the least, are often those who know the Bible best, isn't it?

 

Well, not so much funny. Most people who believe in it, only believe because they don't realize what it really says. That's something of another issue, but a good place to open up for this.

 

I also feel I should mention, because there are other kinds of theist and spiritual beliefs on this site, when I say 'God', I mean 'Christian God'.

 

Most of us on this site know the Bible very well. In a lot of cases, better than most Christians do. At the very least, all of us have read it, at least once, in it's entirety.

 

Many of us spent years reflecting on it's passages, and all of us once believed it was true. We changed our minds, and we still remember what it said. It does not impress us. Nothing in it does, nor will convince us that God is real.

 

Using it to convert us or bring us back, does not work. We're not some ignorant native that's never seen the wonders of God's word. All of us are quite familiar with it here.

 

This is not, NeverSeentheBibleBefore.net. Please get that through your skulls.

 

You can't start with God's word, and then prove God exists later. It doesn't work that way with us. We've already been down that road before, and you never got around to the part about proving God existed. You just sort of met a dead end at the 'God's word' and 'you must obey it' parts.

 

What's the deal with this backwards thinking idiocy Christians? Why the Bible first, and belief in God second?

 

I need to believe in God before the Bible will mean anything to me. It's not proof enough on it's own. What's so hard about that to understand?

 

God's word means dick without belief in God to back it up with -first-.

 

Many Christians seem dead set on focusing their arguments on the semantics of the book that we often quite literally tell them to their face that we don't view as viable evidence to begin with.

 

As if we'd suddenly think that the two thousand year old Bronze Age book of Myths and Poetry was suddenly a valid source of truth because of some verse they pointed out.

 

This is an ex-christian- website. -All of us have read the Bible- -All of us have attended services- -All of us have already heard the 'word' before- It is not -new- to us.

 

Stop being so retarded about this. I realize that you don't understand that we don't believe, but the Bible -does not impress us-, or does any verse, or passage from it. We don't believe that it's true, hearing or reading it again won't change our mind. We don't believe in God to begin with, so the fact that -you- think it's God's word means squat to us.

 

To us, it is just another work of fiction.

 

Arguing the semantics of the meanings of lines of text in something you know we don't take seriously isn't going to prove your point.

 

I don't get that at all. Rather than dealing with the issues of the existence of God, which we need to take the book seriously in the first place, they decided to focus on the book.

 

Why? Idiots.

 

Without belief to begin with, what Joshua, Matthew, or whoever said in the bible is no more important than what Frodo or Harry Potter said in their books of fiction.

 

Maybe I understood the mentality once and forgot?

 

As far as I'm aware, you have to believe in God first for the Bible to mean anything. It's not evidence enough to prove that he's real.

 

Why do so many Christians always get that backwards?

 

First, convince us that God is real, then tell us about the Bible. It -does not work- the other way around.

 

In order for their book to mean jack shit to anyone, they have to already believe in the existence of a God.

 

The Bible does not prove that, it does not qualify as evidence of that, it means nothing without belief already in place.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

I'll say it again to be clear. The Bible does not mean anything unless you already believe.

 

Stop trying to use it to convince us that your God is real, or that your beliefs are correct.

 

It will not work.

 

You've got to prove that God is real first.

 

It does not work in reverse, especially on -ex-christians.

 

We already read that book. It does not impress us. We don't care if you have every line of it memorized and can recite it backwards.

 

Prove God -first-, or the Bible means nothing more than any other book of myths and poetry.

 

Reciting scripture won't change our minds. It doesn't matter how you phrase it.

 

Prove. God. First. Or. It. Doesn't. Mean. Shit.

 

Understand this, or you're just wasting our time, and yours here.

 

There is nothing in the Bible that proves God, or anything in it is real.

 

The Bible is not evidence. It is a book. So is Lord of the Rings, and that doesn't prove that the One Ring is real.

 

So it happens in real places, and contains real historical figures.

 

So does Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

If we don't already believe in God, it's just as relevant to reality as either of those two things are to us.

 

Get it through your skulls.

 

One more time.

 

Prove God first, then tell us about the Bible.

 

It does -not work- the other way around.

 

We do not care how much -you- believe. You've got to get -us- to believe, and the Bible cannot help you with that. You've got to prove God first, then worry about his book, and what it means for us.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bible is -not- extraordinary evidence.

[florduh]

The Book of Myths is the only "proof" available to them, or anyone else.

 

They don't believe the Bible, but rather what they've been told the Bible says. Otherwise, anyone could actually just read it and all would come to the same conclusions.

[Mriana]

Many also think the Bible is a history book, when it is not. There is nothing historical in it, yet they want to believe it is the inerrant word of God.

[Kathlene]

I cannot believe I was so duped into christianity because someone shoved a Bible in my face and told me I had to believe in it. Why? Where is the authority of it? Why should I believe it over any other religious book? I only got saved by emotional reasons. That's where xtianity takes the cake. No-one gets saved because of rational reasons. It's always the feeling of guilt, shame you are worthless..rah rah rah...

 

Now if a xtian tells me I need to believe the bible I want to know why. I will no longer just stupidly follow anything. I want to use my brain now with logic and intelligence. If there is a god who so called created us humans, then surely he would know if he created people that need scientific analysis and logic then he should of provided it!!!! It all smells of something human now when I look at it from the outside.

 

xtianity does nothing but make you mentally incapacitated. What about the fruits of that? It's supposed to be this wonderful life-changing thing, but all it does it make you judgemental, pious and act like an idiot.

[Dagan]

Good rant.

 

People:

 

1) Are told the bible is God's word and have this idea in their heads before they even read it.

 

2) Are indoctrinated with bits and pieces of biblical teachings over time, accepting them consciously or subconsciously.

 

3) Have some kind of experience or epiphany when they decide "Wow, it all fits together!" and conclude the bible must be god's word.

 

4) Therefore, everything else must be true, if it agrees with the bible (as explained by an official pastor, priest, or reverend of course!)

 

The bible takes on a life of its own as pointing the way to salvation and god etc. It becomes a holy book. But that breaks down when someone questions what the first Christians did without a holy book to guide their lives. After all, even the most obtuse of believers can see the books in the bible were written at different times and by different people. Maybe they just... made it up, someone might conclude.

 

And the path to deconversion, the road less travelled by, is finally visible.

[Abiyoyo]

I don't get that at all. Rather than dealing with the issues of the existence of God, which we need to take the book seriously in the first place, they decided to focus on the book.

 

Why? Idiots.

 

...............

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bible is -not- extraordinary evidence.

 

 

How does one prove that God exists? How do you prove that love exist? How do you prove that anger exists? To say that the Bible is ludicrous and that Christians are idiots really shows your intelligence level. Try thinking deeper than rhetoric.

[DarthOkkata]

Love and anger have tangible results and physical evidence to support them. Angry people act angry, people who are in love, act like they are in love. We can see when another person is angry by both their actions, and physical appearance.

 

So, poor examples.

 

You also missed the point.

 

If you don't already believe in God, the Bible isn't important, nor is anything in it. It's a completely useless book of myths and poetry, no different than any other book of it's type.

 

You don't have faith in the Vedas, or the Koran, or the Odyssey.

 

We feel the same way about the Bible. Using it, or it's contents to convince us otherwise is not effective.

 

You have to believe in God -before- the Bible has any important meaning to you. Otherwise, it's just another book, and a poorly written one at that.

 

It confuses me why more Christians don't understand this.

 

Why should we care what Timothy, or Daniel, or Moses, or John, or Jesus, or anyone else in the Bible says, wrote, or thought if we don't already believe in God?

 

The answer is, we don't care. Why should we?

 

Christians seem to have this conversion thing backwards. Belief first, then worry about what God says, or wants from us. Because if we don't believe in him already, we don't care what he says or wants from us.

 

No more than I care about what Allah said or wants from me, or Krishna says or wants from me.

 

To me, Jesus is no different from either of them.

 

Trying to convince me of the truth or importance of the Bible isn't going to work unless I already believe in God.

 

You've got to prove God first, or you're just wasting your time with verses from scripture.

 

If that's all the evidence you've got, you don't have any evidence at all. There's no reason to believe it.

[Abiyoyo]

Love and anger have tangible results and physical evidence to support them. Angry people act angry, people who are in love, act like they are in love. We can see when another person is angry by both their actions, and physical appearance.

 

That's where you are incorrect. God is just as tangible as love and anger. Some say that love doesn't exist. We have just as much physical evidence to support God than we do love and anger. You believe in God and anger because people 'show' it, yet you do not see God in any people, just crazy looneys.

[DarthOkkata]

Prove it.

 

Anger and Love are not truly intangibles. They have physical signs. They are emotions everyone feels, and that's how we recognize them in others. They are familiar and consistent. God isn't.

 

God is not consistent the way Anger and Love are. He's all over the map, as varied as human imagination is, and with good reason.

 

That's all he is.

 

You're trying to project and compare irrational belief in a completely irrelevant comparison to emotions which have consistent signs and effects that can be measured, studied, and recorded. We know that Anger and Love are real, because there is physical evidence to support them and consistent signs that they are there. They can be and are studied, extensively.

 

God has no physical evidence of any kind. I challenge you to provide such evidence.

 

Our existence, and the existence of the Universe are not physical evidence of God either. They can be and are explained by other means that are far more plasible.

 

There is no physical evidence for God that can only be explained as caused by the existence of God. If there was, you'd have more to argue your case with than just a book of myth and poetry. The debate would be over, and we'd all be Christian.

 

There is no such evidence. If you've got it, I'd love to see it, because you'd be up for a Nobel Prize for discovering it.

[Mriana]

Love and anger have tangible results and physical evidence to support them. Angry people act angry, people who are in love, act like they are in love. We can see when another person is angry by both their actions, and physical appearance.

 

That's where you are incorrect. God is just as tangible as love and anger. Some say that love doesn't exist. We have just as much physical evidence to support God than we do love and anger. You believe in God and anger because people 'show' it, yet you do not see God in any people, just crazy looneys.

 

Love and anger are part of the human condition. They are emotions which involve neuro-chemistry in the brain. Such emotions are not God. The Bible itself is meaningless when it comes to various human concepts about a deity. It does not hold a corner on what "God" is. Every religion holds a tribal (human) concept of a deity, but none of them are necessarily the same, not even within the Abrahamic beliefs. We have been to the moon and back and there is no deity out there. IF, and that is a VERY BIG IF, there is a god, it is within everything and everyone in the form of chemistry, an element found within everything in the universe. The difference is, this element/chemical is not a deity at all, just a common factor within everything in the universe and could eventually be found by science, because it is made up of atoms. What I am pointing to is very much like Carl Sagan said, but instead of the Laws of Physics, I'm pointing to chemistry.

 

Whether or not one comprehends what I am saying, the fact is, humans created God in their image, not the other way around, and none of the concepts are actually real except in the minds of human beings. To even equate love or anger with a deity outside the human, is to remove such natural emotions from the human being instead of having them claim them as theirs. I have heard people say Love is God, God is love, but the truth is love is not God and all deities are only human concepts. Emotions, however, are very real and innate to the human.

[Ouroboros]

How does one prove that God exists?

Depends on definition of God. First we have to find one definition of God we could agree on. For instance, how can you prove the existence of Aghzyxtrhghgh, unless you know what it is?

 

How do you prove that love exist?

By looking at the actions, results, effects, events etc, from what we expect from what love would do. Love itself is an abstract thing and doesn't exist as a material object. It only exists as a combination of the effects of real things.

 

So if we have a definition of God as doing miracles, then God can do miracles, and God would be easy to prove.

 

But since God isn't a vending machine, God doesn't do miracle, unless he wants to surprise one person here or one person there, then it's a lot more tricky to prove God.

 

And if God is defined as "something people believe in," then God is extremely broad and Zeus, Santa Claus, and magical ferrets would also be included.

 

The problem is that Christians have different views of God. There are some commonalities, but those aren't of the kind we can prove or test. And some attributes are testable, but then it comes back to the "don't test God" criteria which blocks any attempt to prove God.

 

How do you prove that anger exists?

Same way as love, by the results, actions, events... secondary evidence. Just like atoms, we can't poke, probe, and put them on display, but we can "see" them by secondary evidence.

 

Is the secondary evidence for God the love of the Christians, or the amount of followers, or their unity, or their dedication to convert everyone else because they think they're better? What is the secondary evidence we can use to prove God?

[hereticzero]

An American Indian, Lakota I believe, once said the truth does not take many words.

 

If there is a god, she does not require volumes of documents to prove her existence.

[Badger]

Many also think the Bible is a history book, when it is not. There is nothing historical in it, yet they want to believe it is the inerrant word of God.

Are you kidding? Your claim is nonsense.

 

There is much historical in the Bible.

[hereticzero]

Many also think the Bible is a history book, when it is not. There is nothing historical in it, yet they want to believe it is the inerrant word of God.

Are you kidding? Your claim is nonsense.

 

There is much historical in the Bible.

Yeah, historical fiction.

[Badger]

Yeah, historical fiction.

No one deny there is historical information in the Bible. Do you?

[Mriana]

Many also think the Bible is a history book, when it is not. There is nothing historical in it, yet they want to believe it is the inerrant word of God.

Are you kidding? Your claim is nonsense.

 

There is much historical in the Bible.

 

Your claim is deluded non-sense, but if you wish to believe it is historical, why allow me to burst your bubble.

[Mriana]

Yeah, historical fiction.

No one deny there is historical information in the Bible. Do you?

 

There is very little historical in the Bible, including JC. As I said, it is no more historical than John Jakes' North and South

[par4dcourse]

How does one prove that God exists?

Anyway at all will be fine. Anything.

So your gawd is powerful enough to create all that is, enormous enough to control the universe, and intelligent enough to answer a gazillion prayers daily, but neither he nor you can provide a shred of evidence for his existence. Sounds kinda puny to me. Or perhaps imaginary?

[DarthOkkata]

I deny that there is enough Historical information in the Bible to make it a valid historical reference.

 

The Bible is not a History book. It's a book of fiction set in a historical period with inaccurate characterizations of many of the historical figures and inaccurate representation of the historical events it portrays.

 

So no, the Bible does not qualify as 'Historical' any more than 2,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Oliver, Sherlock Holmes. Romeo and Juliette, or A Christmas Carol do.

[Badger]

There is very little historical in the Bible, including JC. As I said, it is no more historical than John Jakes' North and South

I don't know North and South, but I can find plenty of historical information from the Bible (including Jesus Christ).

[Vixentrox]

There is very little historical in the Bible, including JC. As I said, it is no more historical than John Jakes' North and South

I don't know North and South, but I can find plenty of historical information from the Bible (including Jesus Christ).

And a whole bunch of fiction. That's what historical fiction is.

[Dagan]

There is very little historical in the Bible, including JC. As I said, it is no more historical than John Jakes' North and South

I don't know North and South, but I can find plenty of historical information from the Bible (including Jesus Christ).

And a whole bunch of fiction. That's what historical fiction is.

 

Unfortunately there are no swashbuckling or steamy sex scenes in the bible historical fiction (at least no good sex scenes, there's plenty of rape, bestiality, incest and sodomy but those sorts of things aren't my bag, baby) so as historical fiction bible = FAIL

 

Seriously though, the bible? Historical? Yeah, there were places in the bible that really existed. Maybe some of the people, did too. But just because some of the details are correct doesn't mean they all are. A story with details does not mean it is true. It just means someone added them. It is up to us to look at all of them and decide which are true and which are fiction. Unfortunately for Christians who bother to investigate, a century of biblical scholarship has revealed that many of the details critical to Christianity are unverifiable, and possibly even false.

 

The bible is as historical as the Iliad. Troy really existed, there might have been a battle there, there might even have been warriors named Achilles and Hector. But the rest? Unknown. The story had a lasting effect on Greek culture, but was it really true? Unknown.

 

The Christianity story has had a lasting effect on our world, but was it really true? Unknown.

 

Don't you think that if Christianity was supposed to be God's final word on everything, he might have bothered to provide some proof from day one?

[Dagan]

Hrm, posted twice. Woops.

[Vixentrox]

Well, there are some interesting tales of sex in the babble.

 

From Ezekiel 23

 

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

[DarthOkkata]

I don't know North and South, but I can find plenty of historical information from the Bible (including Jesus Christ).

 

This is of course easy to say, yet you provide no proof that this is true.

 

What parts are historical? Be specific, and provide evidence that they are indeed historical beyond 'the Bible says it's true, so it is', because that's not evidence of historical accuracy, but is only circular reasoning.

 

I don't think you can. I'm calling you out on this one.

 

Prove it, because in order to claim 'Historical' you really do need to provide irrefutable evidence.

 

This is not the same as the 'proof of faith' arguments. It goes far beyond that in terms of evidence required for the claims you're making to be valid. History has standards of proof that must be met to qualify as History. If you can't meet them, you've got no right or reason to claim that the Bible is history.

 

History has nothing to do with beliefs or faith. There are standards of evidence required here beyond that of philosophy, it's Social Science and needs to be supported by evidence. It is subject to the standards of Science and the Scientific method.

 

History is not about what you believe, it's not a religion, and it's not a matter of faith.

 

If you're making claims of history, you literally have to be able to prove them. It's not Philosophy, it's not opinion, it's not belief. None of these things qualify as historical proof or evidence, it's not something you can make unfounded claims about.

 

In terms of History, what you believe is completely irrelevant, only what you can prove matters.

 

You need to be able to back this claim with Archeology, proven historical records, and other evidence.

 

History is not a matter of opinion. It's a branch of Science, and needs to be treated as such.

 

I personally feel you're talking out your ass on this one. You really do need to be able to prove otherwise on this one. This is nothing like arguing for or against 'God's' existence, be it Christian or Deist, or whatever. This isn't a case where you can cover your ass by claiming 'well, you can't prove it's not true'.

 

In order to even qualify as History, you -have- to be able to prove that it -is- true. It's a requirement of the term. We're talking about a Scientific field here. Your personal beliefs and faith are not enough to support the claim of History on their own. You need real proof and evidence to make that claim.

 

History is not a matter of opinion.

 

To claim the Bible as History, you absolutely have to be able to prove it.

 

The Bible may well be 'part' of history as an important cultural text, it does not qualify -as- history though. Not without evidence that proves it correct beyond doubt.

 

The Odyssey is also an important cultural text that qualifies as being part of History, but not actual history itself. It was a very important book. The same can be said of the Book of the Dead from Egypt.

 

They are not Historical accounts, and neither is the Bible. Unless you can prove otherwise, you've got no business making the claim that it is.

 

Start talking tossing about the word History, and you're dealing with Science, not faith. The same rules do not apply.

 

Historical fiction maybe, but actual history? Not a chance.

 

Still, if your claim is valid, you should be able to prove it.

 

So go ahead.

 

Prove it.