I should find a good quote in Harry Potter and post it here. Because essentially that's what Prosper is doing with the Bible. Newsflash, you can't prove someone wrong by using excerpts from The Bible. You could use any piece of writing and have the same core effect that you are producing by quoting The Bible.
I honestly hope to God you're absolutely joking or using sarcasm. Dow specifically said "Nowhere in the BIBLE does it talk directly about HIM." Then prosper referenced the BIBLE. NEWSFLASH! It works. Next time, save us some time, and read over what you post before you post it.
I think you are misunderstanding him. He means that since you (or other people on this thread) are saying that parts of the bible are not meant to be taken literally - like the story of Noah's Ark. God cold also be a metaphor. The bible talks about Noah and the flood as being as real as anybody else, but I believe we have all seen the piles of evidence showing that it was impossible. Instead, you assume that Noah's Ark is just a story, meant to impart certain moral truths upon the reader. Why can't god also be a metaphor - for universal truth, power, and justice; a symbol of the judgement of man that we will all face someday.
Where is your proof that Jesus performed these miracles? Plus, the bible was written way after Jesus, so saying he performed all of the miracles the Bible states is like saying that you will be born, years after it happened...
1: What I'm saying is that god doesn't actually 'exist' - he is just a representation of those things, an idea, not something that actually exists in our world. For example, you would say that in animal farm the animals are a metaphor for people. The animals don't exist, but they portray real-life events that did happen. 2: Judgement by other people. If you repent for your sins, you will be seen as a better person by those around you. If you sin and do not repent, you will be remembered as a bad person. 3: Whether somebody is wasting their life or not is an arbitrary idea. The idea that it is possible to 'waste your life' is false to begin with. There's no meaning to being alive - we're here because of a few basic universal forces. While there is no direct point to life, I would say it is most important to be happy. Even if somebody does great things and helps the world, if they don't enjoy doing it, then they are the ones that I would say are wasting their lives. The only important thing in life is being happy. From how you have described it, those people appear to be laid-back and comfortable enough to introduce humor into their lives, which can never be a bad thing. Also, on an related note, the people claiming their religion was 'Jedi' were in either New Zealand or Australia (I can't remember which), not America.
the old testament was written before Jesus and that was what the Jews had as a Bible. the old testament had the prophecies that the messiah will perform and most of the new testament tells of Jesus's performing these prophecies.
You cant use the bible to prove anything. The bible is biased, and how can you differ between the figurative language and literal language? The bible has been established in this thread to be a pretty unreliable source of proof. Saying that it proves Jesus performed those miracles is wrong.
Saying that everything the Bible says is proof is not a good source of evidence, however the way you state it in your first sentence is terribly flawed logic that I felt the need to address before this argument continues. First of all, all opinions are biased. It should be known and recognized this way. To say the Bible is not proof of anything is to say because something is a religious book it proves nothing. In the same way you shun the Bible I could just the same way shun Darwin's book "the origin of life" and it would show more validity. The Bible was written by more than 1 person (something like 40, I think) and all of those men claimed to be witnesses of Jesus/God's miraculous works. Now because one man, Darwin, witnessed finches on an island, and it is scientific its considered true? That's a terrible understanding of principles. Now if one man with scientific evidence can strap it in a book and call it truth, whereas the Bible doesn't use any science, you're terribly wrong. Let me show you some examples of science in the Bible: Job 26:7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. While other sources declared the earth sat on the back of an elephant or turtle, or was held up by Atlas, the Bible alone states what we now know to be true – “He hangs the earth on nothing.” Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Creation is made of particles, indiscernible to our eyes. Not until the 19th century was it discovered that all visible matter consists of invisible elements. Jonah 2:5-6 The engulfing waters threatened me, [a] the deep surrounded me; seaweed was wrapped around my head. To the roots of the mountains I sank down; the earth beneath barred me in forever. But you brought my life up from the pit, O LORD my God. There are mountains on the bottom of the ocean floor. Only in the last century have we discovered that there are towering mountains and deep trenches in the depths of the sea. Luke 17:34-36 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left. Scripture assumes a revolving (spherical) earth). Jesus said that at His return some would be asleep at night while others would be working at day time activities in the field. This is a clear indication of a revolving earth, with day and night occurring simultaneously. Oh, and I can gladly provide more if you're still not convinced.
1: No, it is considered true because of the mountains of evidence that support it. 2: There's a difference. Assuming that the statements were all straightforward and clear (even though they were not, I will tackle that later), it's not because any kind of scientific methodology was used to come to those conclusions. The statements were simply guesses- maybe meant to be taken literally, but probably figuratively. There is no reasoning for why there are mountains in the oceans or particles forming everything- it just says that there is and it is assumed to be true. A scientific methodology, on the other hand, would ask for a way to prove that these things exist- evidence. Second, the biblical quotes are so vague that they could be interpreted to mean hundreds of different things. Your interpretations of those quotes remind me of people believing in Nostradamus' prophesies. He made so many prophesies, and they were all so vague, that it would have been more shocking if they didn't come true, given how many different situations they could have fit.
1) You're misunderstanding my point entirely. To disregard my point you must have a flawed understanding of the word science or its partner 'scientific'. sci⋅ence [sahy-uhns] –noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. 4. systematized knowledge in general. 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. 6. a particular branch of knowledge. 7. skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency. I went further to prove my point with my evidence. 2) Regardless. I see not how these verses can be interpreted into much other than what is already stated. "he suspends the earth over nothing" Yeah, pretty simple.
I'm going to make an odd rebuke. You can read the rest of it here. This article uses lots of biblical quotes to show that the bible supported a flat earth. The passage that you quotes is rebuked below:
The point wasn't really to prove anything - just to say that the Bible has proof of science, and plus, the earth does hang over nothing, not a giant turtle. Plus, the last verse I quoted disproves the flat earth theory in the Bible that has been suggested.
The point of saying "God is figurative" is to say that all God is, is a symbol used to represent a teacher we should all follow. It's not saying that God is false and when we go to Heaven, it's just people there.
That's what I was trying to show. I wasn't trying to disprove your evidence- the link I provided was just to show that all of the passages do in fact have many ways they can be interpreted, so they are really not scientific at all, given they are just lucky guesses.
His faith is irrelevant in this case. The important part is that he took the bible and drew completely different conclusions, showing that it is very open to interpretation.
What I posted was a matter of personal preference, for your discernment. The whole reason I said it was because someone who is a Christian gets a clearer perspective unlike someone who denies the Bible's validity altogether.
You're missing the important part of my sentence there - the fact that I said a Christian will get a more clear interpretation of a subject in the Bible. Its quite simple logic, really. All its saying is that its easier for someone who doesn't question the Bible to understand it.
Easier, but not necessarily better. I think of this like school. If my teacher teaches my class about a subject I don't understand, I ask questions until I get it. If I just nodded my head up and down all day I wouldn't understand much. Edit: I never implied you stated easier was better. Sorry if it was mistaken that way.
Sure, however I didn't even state that it was better. Plus, the problem I seem to have with a lot of non - Christian people is that even when you tell them they may understand but they shun it as "illogical" or whatnot. Quite frankly a Christian will easily understand the Bible and be able to teach but for someone who doesn't believe in the Bible period they may never understand it, due to ignorance, or even more commonly just a common misunderstanding.