DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Bible fact or fiction.

Critics of the bible use negative evidence to try and discredit  it.
With this negative evidence as the basis of their hypothesis.
It's ironic to me that, because they discredit the bible as an accurate  account of history, they don't use it as a reference, so it comes as no surprise to me, that their data would be negative or contrary to the word of the bible. I don't have a problem with someone who does not beleive in God or the bible. I do however have a problem with teaching our children in school, that there is no God, with nothing more than negitive evidence to support their liberal beliefs as fact.

If however we incorporate the bible in our search for the truth, then we can objectively peruse the questions. After all it's the very thing being discredited by it's critics.

If we use the bible as a historical reference, weather believer or nonbeliever and look at all the facts. The facts overwhelming support the bible as being historically accurate (if) we have all of the variables. correct, such as proper translation and proper dating of said event.

The bible in it's  present day form is being taken  literally.
I don't beleive that  was it's original intent as a whole.
When a four year old ask their parent where do babies come from. As a parent you are going to give your  child an ansrew that corresponds to his or her abilty to comprehind at their age. "Babies come from storks"or something to that effect.

I cunclude, that since the children of Israel where basically children of God, when given The Books of Laws from Moses, they where taught in a way that they could comprehend. Could they comprehend a billion years time? Probably not.

Another popular statement by critics of the bible, is that it is just a story, with no historical truth (a myth). I think that some stories weren't meant to be taken in a literal since. I think that some of the bibles stories arey likely allegorical.  The moral of the story if you please, is what I think is meant to be taken.

As noted above, I beleive that there is today overwhelming evidence of the bibles historical accuracy.

We'll  debate some of those later.

First here are a few videos I would like to share with you all.

Disclaimer: some are quite long.

Red Sea crossing found?

And

Ron Wyatt

Is Ron Wyatt a Lair?

Mt.Sinai (Horeb) found?

And

Mt. Horeb/Sinai

Stones of Israel

Star of Bethlehem

Jeremiah 5:22
...who have eyes but do not see,
who have ears but do not hear:

Futher reading: 2 Timothy 3:1-4

What I find interesting about world religions is that many roughly share the same mythology. Much of Jesus can be found in Egyptian mythology, either the flood was based off of gilgamesh or vice-versa, many of Jesus' teachings center around central tennets of Buddhism, and similar occurrences.

There's a lot to dig into the the OT, and many question how to take most of it? Literal, parable, or a mix of both?

What I find interesting about the tale of Gilgamesh is that they are two separate accounts of the same story. Some say that Moses copied the story from the ancient peoples, but that doesn't discount its authenticity.

I too find many similarities between different religion's and I don't think it is by chance.

Purification of ones self I think is a universal thyme.

I don't think it's necessary to "verify" the bible.

The problem people have with defending or discrediting the bible is, they treat the bible as one book like a novel. The bible is not one book, but a collection of books. I think some of the books in the bible are literal history and some are stories intended for teaching. Remember, it was put together hundreds of years after the books were written.

This is a good series of sermons on whether we can believe the Bible or not.

I obviously don't believe in the bible, BUT even as an Atheist I do believe in some of the moral lessons, fellowship and charity taught throughout the bible.

So no, I don't think a literal interpretation is a good thing, but there are a lot of good things to be gleaned from the bible and other religious text.

Not going to get into a debate about this or that. But, my personal belief of the the bible is that its stories were written in a time when most of the world could not read and before there was science, which ultimately answered and proved many of our questions. It was written to illustrate stories and ideas about morals and larger critical thinking questions that man, at that time, had no way to answer.

The new testament also aided in scaring the general population to not "sin" and to teach certain values and morals to a society in order to help control from descending into anarchy.




+1

Not sure I understand ... Care to elaborate.

I personally think that scince helps support the bible.
Technology has helped to excelerate biblical discoveries over the past 1/4 century.

Thanx

The problem is simple and two-fold:
1. Nobody KNOWS whether there is a God
2. Which God(s) would you teach them about?

The only reasonable answers are to either teach none of the religions and allow the children to be taught by their family whichever belief system their family subscribes to, OR teach ALL of the religions and allow the children to be taught by their family whichever belief system their family subscribes.

It is NOT, however, the place of our public educational system to teach and promote any one specific religion. Ever. Under any circumstance.

What I find interesting are the coincidences that come up in religion. For example, one of the first civilizations we know of in the world were the Sumerians that lived in the area of the Tigress and Euphrates river valley. Just about every religious story tells of those that were cast out of heaven, or sent to watch us by god. To the Sumerians, they were known as the Anunnaki. The word Anunnaki means, 'those from which the heavens came'. The Hopi have legends of the Ant People, who came from the sky and took them underground to save them from a catastrophe. The Hopi words for ant and friend are Anu and Naki. Anu was also a name for the Celtic mother goddess. The Egyptian city of Heliopolis was also known as Anu.

I believe there is something more to these stories than we know.

I don't disagree with that. I dont however agree with them teaching that there is "NO" God.
To me it's no different then what you said.

Do you have an example of a public school in the U.S. teaching that there is no God?

^ this

Since there are an estimated 4,200 religions I don't even think it's reasonable to expect children to be taught about all of them. Moreover, when people talk about taking god out of public schools, there is usually only one god being discussed, the abrahamic one.

Most geography curriculums contain a section on religion, so I'd be curious myself to know what public schools have official stances on the "right" religion...

This for one

I also meant in college. My daughter had professors who taught their views of no God @ kent state.

Are you telling me there are 420 hundred organized religions? That might be the weirdest coincidence of this all. Hm......

Teaching Calligraphy as an art form and is not teaching religion or teaching children their is no god. A college prof does not usually teach their views. They will lecture students on opinions and values from time to time though. But this is far from a public school system and they don't abide by the same set of rules on teaching of the worlds diverse religions.

I really don't want to be an ass on this, but do you have an example of a public school in the U.S. teaching children there is no god? I ask because you said you have issues with it. And I don't think that's happening at all. I also think I could probably find a few examples of public schools openly teaching and preaching Christianity with Hindu, Jewish, Muslims, and a few other ethnic students of other regions where in class.

In my young adult years I was a non-believer. I don't say atheist. That is something different. But I was a non-believer. However, there were times in my life that things would happen, I'd be troubled and I would go to the Bible for answers, not knowing where else to turn. I would read and learn nothing. The words said nothing to me. I gained no knowledge about anything. I may as well have been attempting to read a foreign language, understanding the few words I did, but not being able to put it together into comprehensive, complete thoughts.

At one point I found myself in a rehab facility. I'd hit my bottom, feeling lower than I'd ever felt in my life. The first night there I prayed to God in earnest. Something I'd never done before. I fell asleep sobbing. When I awoke I was changed. The world was a brighter place. I began to wonder just what had happened for me to have such a better outlook.

During the day I prayed often. Usually challenging God to remove the anxiety I felt at that moment. The anxiety went away in moments. Coincidence? Probably. So the next time I felt fearful and anxious I prayed again. The fear melted away just as quickly as before. Time after time this happened and it made me question my unbelief. After several days of these incidents I was convinced there is a God listening to me and answering my prayers.

I still did't believe in this "Jesus thing". What I discovered and what worked so well for me was something I was not willing to sabotage by putting anything or anyone between me and God.

When I got home I became curious about the Bible, that book that I could never understand. I picked it up and started reading the book of Mark, which was suggested to me by some well-meaning soul. I was shocked! It read like a book. It was no longer a jumble of words having no significance. I could easily understand and relate to what I read. It was the first time in my life I could read the Bible.

Eventually the Word brought me to Christ. That's when the Bible really opened up to me. As time went on I noticed myself changing. I was having different thoughts and attitudes about certain things without having given any effort to changing my thinking through any logic of my own. I was simply becoming a different person.

I'm not good at "church speak". Neither am I good at reciting chapter and verse. But if I can find certain passages by remembering what book it was in and, believe it or not, by where it landed on the page, somewhere in the upper, right-hand corner, for instance. I don't put effort into remembering chapter and verse as that then becomes the goal more so than understanding it. I'm not good a reciting word-for-word but am plenty good at paraphrasing very close to the original. So that's how I roll.

I wrote all this to support your statement that if not born of the spirit we don't understand nor believe the Bible.

lol someone gonna tell Fox News that it's the same God?

I know there are teachers here on this board, maybe one of them will enlighten us. But I think the official stance in public schools is no praying or preaching of any religion in public schools.

I don't know what the "official" stance of our public school is, but praying is just fine. Silent, individual prayers, or public prayer, like at graduation.

Also, not just our school, but many around here - the sports teams pray before a game. Heck, we did 30+ years ago.

And in the last few years you'll see the teams (us, and them) gather at center court, or centerfield, and pray. Students from both schools.

As someone else asked, or mentioned - my daughter did a segment (for lack of a better term) on geography, which included religion/s of certain areas. Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism - all of the "major" religions. She had to learn about the religion, who was the "god", about beliefs, etc.

I had no problem in the world with that - in fact, it created some decent conversation between us.

Myself, I don't know of any public schools that teach "there is no God".

Shoot, the college I attended was an extremely liberal Mennonite college. (check out "mennonite" - some think it resembles Amish). One of the required courses was called something like "World Religions", and same thing as my daughter - it covered all the major religions, and the class didn't cover other religions in a derogatory way, at all.

Arch, I dated a mennonite girl just after HS in NE Ohio She was leaving the faith and we'd talk about it a lot. Yeah much different than the Amish faith witch was also a large part of our small community.

She was leaving the faith, or leaving the Men. church? Regardless, doesn't matter. I grew up in the men. church. I liked a lot of it, but there was enough of it I didn't like that I don't consider myself Men. anymore. In fact, the church we no attend and are members of is non denominational.

And Amish - there are a lot of different sects. With a lot of different thoughts. No zippers allowed for some, buttons only. No electricity allowed for some, some have it. No phones allowed in your home for some because that connected you to the outside world (but in college, in the heart of Amish country, you could see payphones in the front yards of many of those places)

Anyway, I digress. Sorry.

That was the link that came up when I googled something along the lines of "public schools teach there is no god" also

I didn't post it earlier because tying "no god but allah" is a bit of a stretch to public schools claiming there is no god. It just seems to me that when we discuss "no god" it's the very specific abrahamic (usually evangelical interpretation of which) god. Do you think it's feasible to expect public schools to teach all 4,200 spiritual and religious dogmas/sects? Or are you arguing that we should teach the practices of just one specific religion in state sponsored education, even if that runs counter to the US Constitution?

Can you link me Kent States "No God" views? I googled "kent state no god" but actually found something that appears to run counter to your claim:
https://www.kent.edu/csi/student-organizations/navigators

It's a student organization to be sure, but if Kent State was to aggressively run a no god campaign, wouldn't they shut down these divisive student groups?

She was leaving the Mennonite church. Great gal. I think she became a doctor. Way out of my league.

I actually think school SHOULD offer a class called "Religious Education", which teaches about the world's main religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism). Perhaps also even some of the other main, but lesser known religions such as Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism etc.

The class shouldn't, however, be biased towards one or the other. Totally neutral towards specific religion and/or believers/non-believers. I strongly believe in this as it is important to understand the world and the world's cultures and what better way to do that than to look at religion.

Maybe if American high schools had a class like this we would have more tolerance towards other religions and cultures.

Agreed, 100%. (although, our schools ARE asked to teach too much the way it is)



So, why is it Americans need to be more tolerant than other countries? If you ask me, Americans are pretty darn tolerant as it is.

Because other countries DO teach "Religious Education" in their schools while American schools do not.

And I posted about what our school did/does.

So, honestly, women have equal rights, blacks, hispanics (legals that is), asians, europeans.........all have equal rights here. Gays can marry. The biggest news right now is about transgenders and which bathrooms they can/should use.

I'd say we're up towards the top in tolerance. And don't go citing individual situations, because I can do that for just about any country around.

And please don't say muslim countries are "tolerant", and please don't say African countries don't have slaves, to this day.

Compare the U.S., overall, to other countries. We're pretty darn tolerant and accepting.

I also have a seriously hard time with political candidates who go on and on about their religion. Firstly, if we truly are to honor "separation of church and state" this should not be allowed. Secondly, it openly allows for any interpretation of said religion, which could be extreme and harmful to others. Thirdly, it excludes anybody of a differing religion or non-believers. I find it potentially very, very dangerous and completely anti-American. Isn't this why we have the 1st amendment?

At their most extreme you have ideologies like the Taliban and Sharia Law ruling the people. To say or think Christianity could never go that extreme there are countless examples where people have interpreted the bible in an extreme way and inflicted harm on others.

This is why I could never vote for somebody like Cruz. There are many, many, many other reasons why I couldn't but, as soon as he goes on about religion and god...I am gone.

Walk down an average street....main street USA and ask the average person about the world's religions. I might be wrong but, I am willing to bet most folks you stop couldn't list the main religions and if they could they probably couldn't tell you the overall belief or fundamental difference of the religions.

Could they in Europe? I am willing to bet that more people can than in the USA. Would it still be disappointing how many couldn't? Of course. But, as they do teach about the world's religions they will at least have some basic understanding about the varying belief systems.

Education and tolerance go hand in hand.

Sure. Walk down the street in South America, Africa, India, China, Russia. And yes, I would guess most european countries as well. Ask that same question.



But, according to you, it's the U.S. that needs to be more tolerant? It's the u.s. that needs to further burden it's schools with teaching religion? It's not bad enough that our schools have to teach, other than reading, writing, math, and science - we have to teach birth control, child care, how to balance a checkbook, how to use inclusive language.......etc.

I think the u.s., overall, does a darn fine job of being tolerant (again, you can find examples against, I know), of being acceptive of, and receptive of, new things. Are we perfect? No. Show me a country that is, I'll move there, and so will you.

But, why is it always "the u.s. needs to be more tolerant" when we're about the most tolerant country in the world?

'er...didn't you "100% agree" with me above that religious education should be taught in a non-biased way to educate high school students about the world's religions?

The fact that you have turned it into an argument against tolerance says to me that we do need more tolerance in the US.

Wrong.

I have no problem with teaching about all religions. I believe I stated that? Oh, yes, I did state that, thanks for playing along.

But what do you cut out of the current curriculum?

And further more, the point is, the u.s. is tolerant. Tolerant of other religions, tolerant of liberals, conservatives, and possibly one of the most (not THE most) tolerant of gays.

Yet, the news is all about how intolerant we are because the vast majority don't want men going into womens restrooms.

The news doesn't report that there are unisex restrooms/family restrooms in many places already. No, what we hear is all about not giving rights to transgenders.

Let me spell it out for you: They have the right to use the restroom. There are no rights being violated the way it is. None.

How about absolutely nothing?
It's called an Elective Course - it would likely count as a Social Sciences credit.

An "elective" course wouldn't appear to appease some on here. It must be mandatory, according to some on here, so that the u.s. would become more tolerant.

Again, we don't have enough time in the day for teachers to do everything that parents should be doing. (not talking religiousness here).

I still posit the u.s. is one of the most "tolerant" countries in the world, whether talking religion, sexual gender, rights, what have you. Perfect? No.