It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Why is it so important that the Bible be true?

page: 11
<< 8  9  10   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 07:20 AM

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Hmm, can't really argue with that one. I've even heard of Hindu sects that worship Shiva saying the Big Bang was the result of his dance of destruction and creation, known as the Tandava (I think I spelled it right). But in all fairness, it's not much different from theoretical physicists who start preaching about things they have no evidence for, like white holes and a series of Big Bangs and Big Contractions. (I actually like hearing some of their ideas, though I also take them with a grain of salt.)

Well the biggest difference between the theoretical physicists is that they make assumptions, then set out to look for evidence to see if the assumption is true or not. If it isn't, they make a new assumption with the evidence they found. Then they go and look for more evidence to see if that assumption is true or not. It's a process that repeats itself many many times. And the scientists ARE wrong at times, but by refining their ideas, they can minimize the wrongness and get better and better predictions.

Personally, I don't consider myself bound by the stuff outside of the Qur'an (except the things from my personal interactions with the "supernatural"). Though many Muslims follow the Sunna (the supposed teachings of the Prophet Muhammad) because the Qur'an has a verse which tells us to follow the Prophet's teachings. I'd have no problem with that if I actually believed the Sunna and Hadith were authentic. But my own studies have cast doubt on that, as many things attributed to him actually came from other sources. Plus, he and his first 9 "successors" (known as Caliphs) directly forbade the religious teaching of anything other than the Qur'an, which kind of proves my point.

Though it's funny you brought up eating pig. I'll list what the Qur'an actually says about us eating pig, then I want you to compare that to what you've heard (Surah 2, lines 172 and 173, Pickthall translation).

172. O ye who believe! Eat of the good things wherewith We have provided you, and render thanks to Allah if it is (indeed) He Whom ye worship.

173. He hath forbidden you only carrion, and blood, and swineflesh, and that which hath been immolated to (the name of) any other than Allah. But he who is driven by necessity, neither craving nor transgressing, it is no sin for him. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Yes, those are the only things actually forbidden for us to eat besides humanflesh (as in, we aren't even supposed to dissect dead bodies). And if you notice, we can still eat those if we're driven by necessity, as long as we don't also crave it. However, some Islamic denominations and schools of thought feel that those restrictions are too easy. So some adopted the Leviticus kosher rules to add more "discipline". This is just another reason I encourage people to judge Islam by the Qur'an instead of the cultural interpretations.

I mean that's a cool distinction, but in this day and age, rare will you be in a position where you will have to eat pork by necessity. Usually you eat because you are hungry, and even if you are near starving because you are unemployed and without money, when you do scrounge up enough to buy a meal, there are choices where you still wouldn't have to eat pork. Maybe in the 3rd world where America has blown all other sources of food up, but then again it's still not available unless you are willing to slaughter your own pig.

Anyways, I'm rambling. My point is that here we have another passage in the Qur'an that has been made near irrelevant by the modern times. With the advent of choice, a Muslim would NEVER have to worry about eating pork out of necessity again, as a result you have a de facto ban on eating it still.

Good point. I can't answer that for other people. Luckily for me, my parents encouraged me to study the world and figure out what works for me. Both of them were converts from Christianity, even though they both had Muslims in their families too. So I studied everything I could, from Hinduism and different forms of Chritianity to the mythical "Cult of Immortals". I still respect a lot of Hindu concepts (and have my suspicions on why), but only the Qur'an made sense to me. But even then, I kept questioning things until my personal experiences caught up with me lol.

Well you are one of the few. Most people just stop after researching the first one they encounter. Which is usually the dominant one of the society they live in. So kudos to that.

Perhaps you're just different? Not saying that's a bad thing though. I truly believe we all have our own paths to walk, so to each his/her own. But remember, not all cultures or regions have that concept of "God", yet most still have concepts of life after death (including reincarnation).

You could always chalk up to humans' innate fear of the unknown, and death really IS the ultimate unknown. It's not like we've talked to a great deal of people who've died to tell us what it's like. So it's easy to invent narratives on what happens after it and since there isn't any thing to refute said narrative, it is easy to believe. Because they too have those fears and we all want to satisfy them.

Of course, social conditioning can play a part in this. But it can also play a part in atheism and the disbelief of religious concepts. Think about it for a second, I'm a Muslim and a self described progressive. Do you really think people from the Left wing haven't mocked my religion or tried to get me to discard religion as a whole? I'm only bringing that up to make the point that social conditioning can and does happen on all sides of this debate. People can be conditioned to think either "side" is correct or stupid, which is why I'd rather focus on personal experiences instead. Because I chose my beliefs in spite of what anyone told me, and I'm sure many other believers have done the same.

Keep in mind that atheism is a rather new concept on the belief stage. Yes, the idea of not being religious was a thing, but it was a private thing and usually only applied to direct teachings of the society's dominant religion. But atheism as an idea of a disbelief in ALL supernatural deities is new. The reason for this is because, traditionally, disbelief in the dominant religion of the society resulted in massive persecution, and no disbeliever is going to find shelter in any society.

But when left to pursue alternative ideas without persecution, this new concept, atheism (and also agnosticism), comes about. Is it any wonder that there is a correlation between having more education and atheism? The reason being is that it is the safe bet. Hold back your belief until adequate and properly defined proof can be provided. It is logically the best answer to give. So when you talk about atheists and peer pressure, it's all they have, but I see your point too. It's not like we haven't had atheist states that haven't persecuted anyone.

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 10:03 AM
a reply to: mOjOm

You do know in School we are taught a lot of theories as truth?

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:26 PM
Krazy, I was not sure if it was you or another but I replied about Paul teaching that Christ died for our sins. But it seems that John also taught this indirectly via one of the four and twenty elders and the four beast in Revelation 5 when they sang a new song seeing the lamb is Jesus Christ

Rev 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;
Redemption by blodd has its roots in the OT sacrificial system. this is the scriptures to which Paul refers in 1 Cor 15, not that the bible has direct verses to prophecy of Christ dying for our sins but that a perfect sinless sacrifice must be made for redemption and forgiveness of sins.

Not saying the Bible has to be true because of this truth, but this is the primary truth for many who believe today.

edit on 12-4-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 12:33 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The problem with that is that Jesus didn't actually teach it...

This was an ancient tradition that the blood of a lamb would resolve sins... which wasn't ever true in the first place

One can not take their sins, place them on another and have them resolved by that creature's death

Never has worked... Never will...

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 08:05 PM

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
You do know in School we are taught a lot of theories as truth?

That's because scientific theories are often true. Even when there are small problems within that need some adjustments, the overall theory is still true. Only on very rare occasions are scientific theories ever completely wrong.

The reason why is because they are backed by evidence that support the theory itself. So the more evidence in support of it lessens the chance that there is a problem with the theory. A well supported theory, in order to be completely wrong, would mean a whole lot of false positives or misunderstood results. But I'm sure you're fully aware of all that already so I don't know why I'm reminding you.

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:14 PM
a reply to: mOjOm

Theories do not automatically equal truth unless they have proof. If they do they are not longer theories but factual truth.

A theory passed as truth but has no proofs is not factual but fictional.

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:32 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

I didn't say Theories are automatic truth. You are saying that. You're also suggesting that Theories are automatically false too it seems.

What I said is that "Scientific Theories" are often times True overall but may be missing some parts or some evidence as of yet which would determine once and for all that it is a fact. I'm not saying all theories are true but nor are they all false either. That is why it's still a theory.

One example recently was the Theory of Gravity Waves. Only now do we have evidence to support that they are real. Until now it was just a theory by Einstein however. Not because it was false but because we were not able to prove his theory until now. That is one example of what I'm saying. Sometimes a Scientific theory is true and with some support as to why it is true but not enough to say for sure yet.

Evidence and proof aren't the same thing BTW.
edit on 12-4-2016 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:36 PM
a reply to: Akragon

Now I remember it was you Akragon.

No God said it would appease him. So that ISRAEL could approach him in their temple.

Maybe Christ did not but his main disciple Peter did

1Pe 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

And his number two, John, did as well

the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

In the OT Israel was instructed so they could receive forgiveness, Attonement and make redeption for themselves utilizing God's provision for themvia the sacrificial system God established. This is just one of the sets of instructions concerning sin

Le 4:22 ¶ When a ruler hath sinned, and done somewhat through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD his God concerning things which should not be done, and is guilty;
23 Or if his sin, wherein he hath sinned, come to his knowledge; he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a male without blemish:
24 And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat, and kill it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD: it is a sin offering.
25 And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out his blood at the bottom of the altar of burnt offering.
26 And he shall burn all his fat upon the altar, as the fat of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall make an atonement for him as concerning his sin, and it shall be forgiven him.

According to the NT that sacrificial system has been put to an end by the death of Christ. So when we see Israel making sacrifices at the hand of the nations during the future kingdom as found in Zac 14 it is not for forgiveness or atonement or redemption. It is purely for worship and they come and live in tents in Jerusalem (feast of Tabernacles) and make sacrifices of animals according to the Law of Moses

Zec 14:16 ¶ And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left of all the nations which came against Jerusalem shall even go up from year to year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, and to keep the feast of tabernacles.
17 And it shall be, that whoso will not come up of all the families of the earth unto Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD of hosts, even upon them shall be no rain.
18 And if the family of Egypt go not up, and come not, that have no rain; there shall be the plague, wherewith the LORD will smite the heathen that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
19 This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.
20 In that day shall there be upon the bells of the horses, HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD; and the pots in the LORD'S house shall be like the bowls before the altar.
21 Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah shall be holiness unto the LORD of hosts: and all they that sacrifice shall come and take of them, and seethe therein: and in that day there shall be no more the Canaanite in the house of the LORD of hosts.

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:44 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Yes i know the passages... thing is once again... Jesus didn't teach such things...

In fact... the silly idea wasn't put to rest by the death of Jesus...

HE ended it by saying "i don't want sacrifice... i want mercy"

peter was a Jew... He simply went back to his old beliefs... Paul was a pharisee... so he never changed his beliefs at all...(at least not on his ancient sacrifices) Just changed Jesus into said nonsense blood sacrifice

Sure... the so called OT god said the blood of a lamb would give a person forgiveness...

The question i've asked time and again is.... WHY??

There isn't a reason for it other then the solid fact that this was A BLOOD THIRSTY ENTITY... period!

Again... One can not place their sins on another being (especially an innocent one)... spill their blood, and all is forgiven... Its nothing more then a barbaric ancient ritual that made no sense

Not then... Not now... Not EVER

edit on 12-4-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 12 2016 @ 11:51 PM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

A theory passed as truth but has no proofs is not factual but fictional.

Not necessarily, just because there isn't evidence to prove whether or not something is true yet, that does not mean it is automatically fictional.

That's like saying, because The Ancient Greeks didn't have the science to understand the natural physics behind lightning, that automatically means it's false and it's actually Zeus and not the law of physics that's causing lightning.

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 10:02 AM
a reply to: Akragon
sure Jesus taught it he said his blood was shed many, for a ransom and for the remission of sins.

Matt 20:28 Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mr 10:45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
Mr 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.

Now I showed you a scripture in the OT that showed God said for ISRAEL to make sacrifice for their sin to be forgiven. There are a lot more. and all sacrifice are connected to Jesus shedding of his blood for man, and Paul's teaching and Peters and John's and the statement of the elder in Revelation that he gave his life to redeem man. It is clear as a bell in scripture.

edit on 13-4-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 13 2016 @ 10:05 AM
a reply to: arpgme

No it is like saying, "Because the only evidence for Jesus Christ resurrection is in the Bible, it is not true."

That Statement is a theory without proof. You believe it not true because there is no historical evidence for it outside the Bible.

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:59 AM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

For some reason people feel the need to believe that the bible is true because they think if it isn't then there isn't a God.

Plus the bible "teaches you how to go to heaven with Jesus." And how to "avoid hell."

They can't absorb the moral lessons from the mythology so they take it literally because they don't understand what they are really reading. And it just enslaves the mind like with the "my god is real and your god is fake" attitude even towards believers in the same god of a different tradition.

If you fear God, you do not understand God because God doesn't get angry or jealous because when you are God there is no need for that.

What will be will be. Be good for the sake of good, not for the benefits of heaven.

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:00 AM
a reply to: ChesterJohn

The bible is a long statement without proof too so what is the point of making that argument in defense of the unprovable?

posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:13 AM
a reply to: Padawan CapstonePendulum

Because Padawan, it makes them feel better!

So you think the Bible is 'a long statement without proof'

Like I said to your previous incarnation, 'Even the Joker from Batman would think your looney!' (and his batSh!t crazy!)

Coomba98... Sorry

Summers Eve.
Your Female Friendly Companion.

new topics

top topics

<< 8  9  10   >>

log in