No
No
Yes
Yes
Sometimes, but not always
Yes, by lots of people
Yes
Fiction
Yes, or perhaps ‘selectively edited’ would be a better phrase
No
No
There is no evidence for that, so my position until that changes is no.
Yes. I don’t really know why @RedOverTheWater is struggling.
Not drawing an equivalence to be fair.
Certainly not meaning to.
Prove it.
Thats all you now have to do.
Prove your theory.
He doesn’t have to. The burden of proof on the religious to prove it is divine.
I’ve got a unicorn in my gold safe under my garden, prove I haven’t. It’s invisible BTW.
The burden of proof is on those that espouse not those that deny.
I don’t have to prove that there’s no being in the sky, just as i don’t have to prove that unicorns exist. It’s up to the person who proposes the thing to prove its existence.
Cruelty.
Let it go free.
30 years studying the good book should tell you right from wrong
Oh I know that.
It was tongue in cheek, and you know that as well.
I don’t necessarily think it’s so straight forward.
Firstly there are multiple authors all with their own timeframe, experience and agenda.
Think of somebody trying to assemble a history of football. Although everything happened and everything is true, depending on who is compiling it you will have a different end result. For the old testament there is the prr-sky era, for the new testament there is the post-sky era. All the records that have been made and broken are real, but depending on which bits you include, you can come out with different answers. A City fan will see the last 10 years very differently to a United fan. The oligarch clubs won’t mention how and where their money came from. Two people writing about Klopp and FSG may well come up with two entirely different versions of the truth even if they are both Liverpool fans. Even on this forum we have people arguing that ‘the word of Klopp’ is one thing or another. He’s either deeply unhappy at getting no money, or he’s satisfied with the structure and it’s limits.
The report of the last game is either we got lucky or we had a great defensive display that used the offsde trap to perfection.
If you accept that Jesus was a real person and his teachings were the word of God, and those teachings were recorded accurately, then certainly parts of the Bible are the word of God.
Obviously in the intervening thousands of years, parts left out, incorrect translations etc, then the Bible as it exists today is not 100% accurate exactly as intended word of God. But if you choose to follow that religion, then that is it’s holy book, and you have to choose to follow at least some of it otherwise there is no point.
But ultimately for the religious it is down to how much of that they want to believe and follow and how they interpret it.
Klopptimist and Mascot answered the question, in an expected way given known starting point I.e. God doesn’t exist and Bible is an abhorrent rag. I will give my own answers to the way Quicksand broke it down.
One thing I never saw you touch on is who do you think the Bible is for?
I’m genuinely interested to hear your perspective on that one.
Sorry I’m crap at multi quotes
So you should not covet your neighbors things but it’s okay to go around sacking cities and making it yours. I’m a little lost.
I’m not sure where Jesus said to go around and sack cities and make them yours? I’m open to learning about that!
At face value this sounds like the sort of unfair criticism I mentioned in my answer above… in an effort to make the Bible seem savage or absurd or whatever, people want to apply a covenant from another time, and for another people… to today.
I’ve unanswered that and I never said it’s an abhorrent rag.
You mistake the rationale for the questions, its not really about defence of your position.
You have done that.
Regarding interpretation, I guess it could have been an interpretation of a growing moral code.
In a society that was seeing murder, bigamy etc as reprehensible? And that rules are easier to keep if consequences are implied ie Heaven and Hell.
To be honest I am more non believer than labelling myself as atheist.
I really dont see the Bible as a reference tool in my life.
My comments here are really observations of how you are being asked to supply prooof or explanation whereas others simply don’t have to.
The standard answer being akin to @Mascot saying the burden of proof is with your side of the argument.
There is a laziness to that in my view, I mean can anyone here disprove my belief that there is intelligent life on other planets?
Or that there is a tribe in Central America that is watching us and compiling information on us…
No, nobody can unequivocally state that they dont exist, but if I state it they do I will be asked for proof.
Abhorrent rag was the phrase Klopptimist used when he was talking about the Bible and women and the workplace.
Just want to say this is a brilliant analogy, for the matter being discussed, especially on a football forum.
It’s interesting in the same way as the Mahabharata, Talmud or Koran, as a historical document which contains some good stories and insights into the thinking of people at that time and place.
That doesn’t mean that it’s the word of a supernatural being .
I’m talking the Ten Commandments and the subsequent march into Canaan. Basically, your answer is to say, at worst that it’s for another people for another time and is thus irrelevant or you’re cherry picking at best.
That’s essentially what I said above in the long (messed up with no multi quotes) post. For those who don’t believe in God it is not the Word of God. It is nonsensical to say that is, as they don’t see any divinity. They might find some parts interesting or whatever, or they might completely ignore it as it has no place in their life, at all. If I don’t believe in God, why would I give a stuff about his supposed book?