Does the Bible want you to take it non-literally?

[Pegs]

To be fair to Rez and maryjane, you haven't actually said what your experience was. Unless you have and I missed it, in which case please accept my apology.

[Jack]

And I construed that as you do not believe in God, then what you experienced was indeed not God.

Just to be clear, at the time I thought it was god as did all those around me. I only know it wasn't now because I've come to see that there aren't any gods. Since theists have failed to convince me that their god(s) exist, does it not logically follow that I can conclude that no one can experience that which does not exist? That's not to say the experiences aren't genuine, just that they're mis-attributed.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Pegs To be fair to Rez and maryjane, you haven't actually said what your experience was. Unless you have and I missed it, in which case, please accept my apology.

I didn't think it necessary to state what my experience was in order to make my point. Other people of faith who have experienced God have a sense of what I describe, but I have no way of knowing if each experience is unique or if any of us share common experiences.

For myself I can't remember a time I disbelieved in God with certainty, but after I chucked my childish sense of religion, I spent more than a decade looking for Him in all the world's great religions and more than a few obscure ones. About the same time I entered into serious study of the Bible and the history, geology, archeology, history, and anthropology related to it as well as studied the writings of the great theologians of the first through fourth centuries many of of whom sharply contradicted each other. That study and the subsequent development of Christian history and Christian thought has gone on for more than three decades and continues to the present.

My doubts were strong and at times I actively tried to be a nonbeliever; at other times I tried to embrace religions other than Christianity. I finally gave up trying to dictate God how He should make Himself known to me and submitted to whatever He chose to do. And then a day came when I was aware of a presence that evolved into a certainty of the reality of God, an overwhelming sense of being loved, pushing my mind to new understandings and motivating me to look at things differently than before.

That's about the best I can do to describe the experience and, again it may not be anything like what the next person experienced. But it was and is quite real.

[jazz fork Gun]

Quote by: Foxfyre Oh I see. Those who are speaking against religious experience or mischaracterizing it are the ones interested in swaying the minds of others? But those who speak for religious experience are not? Perhaps you could explain the rationale for that? Is that what you are saying here?

That's not at all what I was saying, and I'm pretty sure that if you actually read what I wrote and what [from you] I quoted, you'd know that.

Well, so you know, I quoted this.

Quote by: Foxfyre My experience is hard evidence for me. Not for anybody else.

Not the most prime example of the conversation, but you've made many, many statements similar to that that basically say that you believe it and don't really care to change the minds of people around you. *That* is why I asked why. Atheists like Rez clearly want you to understand that there is no God, and most Deists clearly want you to understand that there is.

Quote by: Maryjane You say you are no stranger to debate therefore a persecution complex is unnecessary. Atheist see all belief in gods as nonsense, you knew that when you came here. If you don't want your beliefs questioned or are frustrated that they aren't being accepted by non believers (or people of other faiths) then perhaps religious debate is unhealthy for you?

Perhaps Maryjane describes my point of view better than I was able to.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: jazz fork Gun That's not at all what I was saying, and I'm pretty sure that if you actually read what I wrote and what [from you] I quoted, you'd know that. Well, so you know, I quoted this. Not the most prime example of the conversation, but you've made many, many statements similar to that that basically say that you believe it and don't really care to change the minds of people around you. *That* is why I asked why. Atheists like Rez clearly want you to understand that there is no God, and most Deists clearly want you to understand that there is. Perhaps Maryjane describes my point of view better than I was able to.

If Rez wanted me to clearly understand why there is no God, Rez should have made an argument for that case rather than direct overt or implied ad hominems at me and/or other people of faith.

So why does Rez care whether I believe in God or not? Or more pertinent to the point, why would Rez presume to think it important to attempt to destroy my faith in God? Why do you?

I can argue and have argued why I believe in God without casting any aspersions of any kind on you or any other nonbeliever.

Can you or Rez or any of the other nonbelievers state a case for why there is no God without casting aspersions on religion or religious groups or people of faith?

[Jack]

Or more pertinent to the point, why would Rez presume to think it important to attempt to destroy my faith in God? Why do you?

Personally, I'd like to see the world move into the 21st century without the burden of trying to accommodate 1st century thinking. Society has evolved far beyond the conditions of the 1st century, yet the majority of Americans are still trying to decide our future based on concepts appropriate for a 2000 year old nomadic band of Middle Easterners.

I'd like to see modern humans divorce themselves from all ancient myths and superstitions, not just religion. Why do people still insist on "trusting luck", crossing their fingers, knocking on wood, wearing lucky charms? True, we're only just starting to understand how nature works, but we already know enough to start leaving our nonsensical beliefs behind.

I have no intention of "destroying" your faith. I'm not even sure how skepticism and doubt could do that if your faith were strong. What I would like to do is present counter-proposals to all the things theists insist can only be explained by the gods so that they have another point of view to consider. Perhaps they'll finally see that believing in gods is no longer necessary and is even unhealthy in many situations and begin to look around them with a new perspective.

Can you or Rez or any of the other nonbelievers state a case for why there is no God without casting aspersions on religion or religious groups or people of faith?

Usually not, since the gods are only kept around by the belief of their followers. It's the believers who create the gods. We can only address their belief.

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Isherwood Personally, I'd like to see the world move into the 21st century without the burden of trying to accommodate 1st century thinking.

That's exactly what I'm trying to do: redefine values. I'm tired of the so-called politically correct, unfounded, necktie definition of ''good behaving'' picked out of 2000 years old traditions from judeo-christian and platonician culture. Times are changing, times did change. Church and state are now two different worlds, or are claiming so .
What's piss me off more than those who agree with ol' rotten values is the ones who don't but follow them anyway. Let's move people!!!

[Baarst]

Quote by: HelioPrime Lacking any way to tell what the true first works then yes. You apply them as you can best judge. I think most intelligent people car read the bible and pick out what parts might be questionable additions by men to use for reasons of power or gain.

None of the bible should be questionable.

[jazz fork Gun]

Quote by: Foxfyre So why does Rez care whether I believe in God or not? Or more pertinent to the point, why would Rez presume to think it important to attempt to destroy my faith in God? Why do you? I can argue and have argued why I believe in God without casting any aspersions of any kind on you or any other nonbeliever. Can you or Rez or any of the other nonbelievers state a case for why there is no God without casting aspersions on religion or religious groups or people of faith?

Oh! I love how the fact that I think your arguments are not very convincing leads you to think I'm not a Christian. As I said earlier, I never actually stated my religion in a full-out manifesto, but I do believe in God. My point of view is different from the "Christian" p.o.v. but it's also different from the atheists'. I'm not trying to destroy your faith.

Quote by: Baarst None of the bible should be questionable.

Really? So you agree with the "if your child is bad STONE HIM TO DEATH" mentality?

[rez]

Quote by: Isherwood Personally, I'd like to see the world move into the 21st century without the burden of trying to accommodate 1st century thinking. Society has evolved far beyond the conditions of the 1st century, yet the majority of Americans are still trying to decide our future based on concepts appropriate for a 2000 year old nomadic band of Middle Easterners. I'd like to see modern humans divorce themselves from all ancient myths and superstitions, not just religion. Why do people still insist on "trusting luck", crossing their fingers, knocking on wood, wearing lucky charms? True, we're only just starting to understand how nature works, but we already know enough to start leaving our nonsensical beliefs behind. I have no intention of "destroying" your faith. I'm not even sure how skepticism and doubt could do that if your faith were strong. What I would like to do is present counter-proposals to all the things theists insist can only be explained by the gods so that they have another point of view to consider. Perhaps they'll finally see that believing in gods is no longer necessary and is even unhealthy in many situations and begin to look around them with a new perspective. Usually not, since the gods are only kept around by the belief of their followers. It's the believers who create the gods. We can only address their belief.

Well said isherwood.

[Baarst]

Quote by: jazz fork Gun Really? So you agree with the "if your child is bad STONE HIM TO DEATH" mentality?

No. What I meant by "none of the bible should be questionable" is that it's supposed to be the book of God, the creator of everything, so everything in the bible should be fact but this is not true, the bible is filled with questionable text.

[Winter wind]

No. What I meant by "none of the bible should be questionable" is that it's supposed to be the book of God, the creator of everything, so everything in the bible should be fact but this is not true, the bible is filled with questionable text.

God so the bible is unquestionable, but the contents is?

I'm a little lost (im not too bright).

[jazz fork Gun]

don't lie, winter, you are s ;]

totally irrelevant, and i'm sorry:
happy new year! =D

[Ken Carman]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer What is the basis for changing the direct word of God or Jesus? Is it from the Bible or is it from the fact that most Christians today can't defend things like the stoning of children or a 6,000 year old earth?

Hmm... so many things wrong here.

"Does the bible want..."

I know this is too literal, but the bible wants nothing. It's paper, vinyl, cardboard...

The basis for changing? Well, if you accept that the bible is the "direct word of God," this might be a question to ask those who believe so, and they would say, "None." Personally, I believe it is the word of man and, maybe, in there somewhere, those who wrote it may have gotten some of what God really intended somewhat right... or not. I build this on a foundation out of logic... first and foremost: humanity screws up pretty much at least a littleeverything, misinterprets much, and is always in for altering things out of madness, or to suit quests for power over others. So... no, doesn't make much sense to me.

But, from the way the question was phrased, I'm probably the wrong person to be commenting. Perhaps I'd best leave this to literalists and those who believe the bible is "the word of God."

[Jack]

I'm probably the wrong person to be commenting. Perhaps I'd best leave this to literalists and those who believe the bible is "the word of God."

Nine pages in you worry about this? Too late.

[Foxfyre]

Rez, Isherwood, or others who are working so diligently to explain away the reality of God, whether or not they will admit that is what they are doing, the one reality they will not accept, at least so far, is the reality of the experience of God. I think their 'heartfelt (or whatever) desire for people to deny what those people have experienced first hand and know to be quite real, is the ultimate in denial and rationalization.

The more objective on the thread will note that there are few rational arguments, if any, made for the non-existence of God. There are, however, many overt or implied aspersions on believers and 'how much better off they would be" if they adopted the non-beliefs professed by the non-believers. Rez claims to believe in God, but questions anybody else's 'experience of God'. At least Isherwood can intelligently rationalize skepticism or non-belief in God if he has not experienced God in any way he can recognize. It makes no sense to me that one professing to be a believer would work so hard to challenge the belief of other believers.

But then this has not always been a rational discussion from the beginning.

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre Rez, Isherwood, or others who are working so diligently to explain away the reality of God

Actually you are the one explaining away the reality of God.

If you are unable to deliver the goods, then don't say you have them.

Either put up or shutup.

the one reality they will not accept, at least so far, is the reality of the experience of God.

The reality is, people claim they have the goods, but never actually deliever them. Why expect anybody to believe your story if you yourself don't always believe other people's stories.

I think their 'heartfelt (or whatever) desire for people to deny what those people have experienced first hand and know to be quite real, is the ultimate in denial and rationalization.

Who knows what these people experienced and who cares. As long as they keep it to themselves nobody would give a shit. Keep your delusions to yourself.

The more objective on the thread will note that there are few rational arguments, if any, made for the non-existence of God.

The non-existence of god is apparent everyday.

There are, however, many overt or implied aspersions on believers and 'how much better off they would be" if they adopted the non-beliefs professed by the non-believers.

Your philosophies and out look on life wouldnt be so outdated and primitive.

Rez claims to believe in God, but questions anybody else's 'experience of God'.

WRONG. I have clearly typed out my exact position. I can't help your reading comprehension, my only advice to you is pick up one of those practice SAT Books and start reading through the english section.

By the way foxfyre, the above claim is YOUR position.

At least Isherwood can intelligently rationalize skepticism or non-belief in God if he has not experienced God in any way he can recognize.

Sure that is part of being skeptical, there are many other parts too.

It makes no sense to me that one professing to be a believer would work so hard to challenge the belief of other believers.

My argument totally flew over the top of your head. What ashame.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez Actually you are the one explaining away the reality of God. If you are unable to deliver the goods, then don't say you have them. Either put up or shutup.

Nope. I have at no time suggested that God is provable to anybody through any means other than personal experience. You, however, presume to have sufficient knowledge to deny my experience when you have no experience of your own or any other means by which you presume that. It is far more rational to claim what one has experienced personally than it is to presume to be able to claim what another has experienced, don't you think?

The reality is, people claim they have the goods, but never actually deliever them. Why expect anybody to believe your story if you yourself don't always believe other people's stories.

I haven't presumed to tell you what you do or do not believe nor have I challenged anybody else's stories. I have and will challenge your ability to tell me what I have or have not experienced.

Who knows what these people experienced and who cares. As long as they keep it to themselves nobody would give a shit. Keep your delusions to yourself. The non-existence of god is apparent everyday.

Not more than a few posting before you claimed that you believe in God and he you say the non-existence of god is apparent everyday. So who is being the irrational one here? If you want me to keep quiet, I suggest you stop posting your remarks directed to me, and if you don't like what I say, please feel quite free to not read my posts.

Your philosophies and out look on life wouldnt be so outdated and primitive.

You just can't resist the ad hominem approach supported by nothing more than what appears to be your desperate desire to tell others they have not experienced what they claim to have experienced. Why do you do that?

WRONG. I have clearly typed out my exact position. I can't help your reading comprehension, my only advice to you is pick up one of those practice SAT Books and start reading through the english section. By the way foxfyre, the above claim is YOUR position.

You say you believe in God. You say that the non-existence of god is apparent every day. Mercy, that certainly does sum up a position all right, but it sums up one that is very difficult to say explains or supports your postiion. You keep demanding that I prove I have experienced God when I have said over and over that one must experience God personally; that no one can prove the existence of God to another. Could that perhaps suggests a serious reading deficiency or comprehension problem? Probably it just represents the general ill temper and an underlying unpleasantness that is often demonstrated by fanatical non-believers toward believers. I just chalk it up to a kind of desperation and perhaps fear among some non-believers--they fear they may be wrong.

Sure that is part of being skeptical, there are many other parts too. My argument totally flew over the top of your head. What ashame

Well when you can explain how you can believe in God but that the non-existance of god is apparent every day, I will agree that you have an argument. Until then, so far I have only seen you being argumentative with your remarks beocming more and more disconnected and irrational. If I were you, I would work on that.

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre Nope. I have at no time suggested that God is provable to anybody through any means other than personal experience.

You, however, presume to have sufficient knowledge to deny my experience when you have no experience of your own or any other means by which you presume that.

This is the knowledge I have.

Some people experience god some people experience demons, some people experience ghosts, some people experience tooth fairies and some people experience nothing.

The people who experience god reject the people who experience demons, the people who experience ghosts reject the god experience...and on and on and on.

Sometimes, the people who experience god reject other people's experiences of god because it does not line up with their own personal experience. Hence, your hypocrisy....

Quote by: Foxfyre I don't believe that God tells people to murder their children as a mentally ill prerson might claim.

"You" don't believe. The only thing I could give two flying shits about is what God believes and wants. Not you or the preacher or the pope...but god itself.

so when you have a certain experience that does not line up with someone elses experience, I am left at a crossroads... who the hell do I believe?

And since there is no objective proof of god, I am going to have to rely on you and your beliefs of what god wants and doesn't want. And guess what Foxfyre, I am not that gullible!

I haven't presumed to tell you what you do or do not believe nor have I challenged anybody else's stories. I have and will challenge your ability to tell me what I have or have not experienced.

Thats right foxfyre, and that is an argument that defends my stance on this thread topic. Does the Bible want you to take it non-literally?

Does foxfyre want you to take the bible non-litterally, does the random douche bag on the street corner want you to take the bible non-literally...

The real question is "Does god want you to take the Bible non-literally" and the real answer is "I don't know" because the only way people know god is through...

Quote by: foxfyre personal experience

So now that I have all that knowledge under my belt I come to realize that every decision made on this planet depends on ones own personal desires that have nothing to do with god or any other imagined crap humans have invented.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez This is the knowledge I have. Some people experience god some people experience demons, some people experience ghosts, some people experience tooth fairies and some people experience nothing. The people who experience god reject the people who experience demons, the people who experience ghosts reject the god experience...and on and on and on. Sometimes, the people who experience god reject other people's experiences of god because it does not line up with their own personal experience. Hence, your hypocrisy.... "You" don't believe. The only thing I could give two flying shits about is what God believes and wants. Not you or the preacher or the pope...but god itself. so when you have a certain experience that does not line up with someone elses experience, I am left at a crossroads... who the hell do I believe? And since there is no objective proof of god, I am going to have to rely on you and your beliefs of what god wants and doesn't want. And guess what Foxfyre, I am not that gullible! Thats right foxfyre, and that is an argument that defends my stance on this thread topic. Does the Bible want you to take it non-literally? Does foxfyre want you to take the bible non-litterally, does the random douche bag on the street corner want you to take the bible non-literally... The real question is "Does god want you to take the Bible non-literally" and the real answer is "I don't know" because the only way people know god is through... So now that I have all that knowledge under my belt I come to realize that every decision made on this planet depends on ones own personal desires that have nothing to do with god or any other imagined crap humans have invented.

Unlike you, I can't speak to anybody else's experience of God other than what they describe to me. I can only speak from my experience of God. I don't believe God orders evil because there is no evil in the God I have experienced. I don't expect you to understand that and, after your more irrational and convoluted arguments, all of which you ignore when they are pointed out, I don't expect you to ever agree to that.

I do know however, that if you want to know what God is saying to you, you need to experience God. And I believe you can experience God if you choose to experience God, on his terms, not yours.

And whether or not I have experienced God, I do believe that I have the intelligent and sufficient ability for rational thought so that I would not presume to demand that another person prove that which he or she has experienced. I would not presume to make that the sole foundation for any argument I might have on the subject. I also would not presume to pretend that I know what another person has or has not experienced.