martin, what you fail to realize is there are many books in the Bible which are strict histories. I named them in a post further up, so I won't do so here. Certain books contain a mix between history and parabolic stories, and others are works of poetry (Psalms), and drama (Job). If you want to argue that the parables used in Genesis to convey creation are no more important than Babylonian creation myths then that is fair, but to compare the whole of the Bible to contemporary ancient myths shows your lack of understanding of the make-up of the Bible. The reason the Bible is more valuable than the Koran as a historical text is because the Bible contains the histories of the Hebrew people. The Koran is a book of prophecy and a treatise on a belief system. The Koran can most closely be compared to the Gospels which are only 4 of the Bible's 72 books.
thats because you are american, not because the bible is any better than some other holy book, would you agree or do you think the bible is the best holy book and you have chosen it on merit? but many holy books oppose the bible, everything cant be true. either jesus was the savoir or he wasnt. right, so this brings us back to the spaghetti monster. you dunno that the guy who made that up wasnt inspired by his noodly god. i cant see why a sane person would use "you cant disprove it" as a reason to give something any respect. particularly when they assertion they are making is not falsifiable. you could use your rational mind to figure out how plausible it is that a magic sky-god contacted him. do you see psychic crackpots on tv and think "man, i guess he might be really talking to that poor saps dead wife...i cannot prove he isnt". even though you cant prove he isnt, you can be a sane human and realize he isnt. again, what we most need to understandmost is that just because there are two possible truth values to an assertion, that doesnt mean that they are equally possible. if you assert that god exists, it doesnt automatically mean that it is just as likely that he does as he doesnt. you are the one making a positive assertion, not the non-believer.
sure, that makes sense. but again, i am gonna assume this isnt why you (or the rest of the millions of cathlics) care about the bible. we are talking about two different questions: 1. the bible as a historic document. it is arguable how much relevance it has, this is a question for historians and people who care about history from that time period, which i am gonna guess is less than 1% of the population. almost nobody has the bible on their shelf next to their ancient writings and histories collections. and if they did, it would be just one of many. 2. the bible as a divinely inspired guidebook to the life. this is what gives the bibe virtually all its notoriety. red it attempting to give the bible credibility, but he is continuing to speak to the bible as a historical document, which has little to do with its significance to almost everyone who cares about it. i should add reason 1.5 as a reason for the bible to be worth reading, and that is it's value as really good pervasive folklore. and that is interesting from a sociological or anthropological perspective, in much the same way your high school mythology course is, but again, that is not why most poeple care about the bible. i do love legends, but only for what they say about the people who made them up and believe them, not for the actual story itself. i love the story of the choking doberman, but i would hate it if people started churches dedicated to it.
I went to a Catholic high School which is why I am farmiliar with the Bible. I haven't read it or any other Holy Books since. Some publications say Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the Kennedy assasination. Others say it was a conspiracy in which many people were involved. They can't both be right.
I don't see how you relate 1, 1.5 and 2. The popularity of the Bible based on faith has nothing to do with its relevance as an historical document. Maybe because orthodox Christianity does not hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible your arguements don't apply.
well i hope you have the good sense to not believe the parts about magic. you have been pretty vague about that. i think kennedy was killed by an invisible alien, doing a hit for a gangster on his home planet vorgon 7. you cant prove he wasnt, so let's add my theory to the others and it assume it is just as likely as the rest. like you said "You can guess either way, but without any type of proof, you really can't dismiss anything."
correct. this is the point i am making for red. when i dismiss the bible as flimflammery, he contends that it is a wonderful historical document. the bible's status as a historical document is not what i am discussing. i am really not that interested in that sort of history, and few people are.
martin there are entire degree fields that relate to a completely secular view of the Bible. This is a silly contention.
right, and what % of the general population are these fellas? how many relative to the people who use the bible as a holy guidebook? what you guys are saying is like this: martin: the bible is rubbish you guys: nah, it is ok, it makes a great doorstop or paperweight. martin: yeah thats wonderful you guys: you wouldnt be sarcastic if you really really needed a doorstop. me: i concede the bible is very useful if you need a paperweight, or perhaps if you were alone on an island and needed paper to help start a fire. you guys: see, we told you the bible is very important!
