Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?

[excreationist]

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​

Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.

A serious reply - I'm not aware of any people who believe those stories are historical - while at the same time having their faith tested by the evidence against that....

 

[Elixir]

“Can any book test faith as much as the Bible?”​

Any of the Harry Potter series would definitely qualify. And LOTR, don’t forget LOTR.

A serious reply - I'm not aware of any people who believe those stories are historical - while at the same time having their faith tested by the evidence against that....

Sure. But those universes can be just as immersive as Bible stories, due to cohesive, internally (somewhat) consistent writing and the readers’ willingness to set aside common sense and logic in order to facilitate such immersion. They do it because it feels good.
In those regards I see little difference in the “faith” requirement.

 

[excreationist]

Sure. But those universes can be just as immersive as Bible stories, due to cohesive, internally (somewhat) consistent writing and the readers’ willingness to set aside common sense and logic in order to facilitate such immersion. They do it because it feels good.

In those regards I see little difference in the “faith” requirement.

Problems with cohesion and consistency in the Bible (when compared to Harry Potter and LOTR) is a key reason why it can test faith...
e.g.

SAB Contradictions

Then there's the whole thing about God being 100% loving while sending most people to hell forever, etc, etc. The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....

 

[Elixir]

The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....

… only because their dark and dirty secrets are less germane to book sales.
And let’s face it - we don’t know what Dumbledore’s backstory will look like in 2000 years.

 

[excreationist]

The good guys in Harry Potter and LOTR aren't so problematic....

… only because their dark and dirty secrets are less germane to book sales.
And let’s face it - we don’t know what Dumbledore’s backstory will look like in 2000 years.

Though the Bible is the best selling book of all time.... even though the main good guy, God, does lots of things like command genocide (Deut 20) and drown most people in the world, etc.

 

[Elixir]

I thought Jesus was the good guy.

 

[excreationist]

I thought Jesus was the good guy.

Remember according to Christians Jesus IS God.....

 

[Elixir]

I thought Jesus was the good guy.

Remember according to Christians Jesus IS God.....

Then how’s come nobody ever talks about JESUS drowning everyone, JESUS damning people to eternal torture, JESUS ripping babies from the womb?
WTF is JESUS now? A PR hack for God?

 

[excreationist]

Then how’s come nobody ever talks about JESUS drowning everyone, JESUS damning people to eternal torture, JESUS ripping babies from the womb?

WTF is JESUS now? A PR hack for God?

The Old Testament doesn't explicitly say that God the Father is doing those things either.

BTW John 5:22 says "Also, the Father does not judge anyone. He has given the Son the task of judging."

Nicene Creed // Faith at Marquette // Marquette University

says "...eternally begotten of the Father..."

i.e. Christians believe that Jesus was around eternally even before the creation of the universe...

Verses in the Old Testament that support the idea that there were multiple parts to God include:

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make human beings so that they are like us"

Genesis 3:22 The Lord God said, “Just like one of us, the man can now tell the difference between good and evil."

John 8:58 “What I’m about to tell you is true,” Jesus answered. “Before Abraham was born, I am!”

There Jesus is saying he is the same person as the God in Moses' stories (Exodus 3:14)

 

[Learner]

There have been globally, stories of Giants too. Nephilim didn't die out completely in the flood it seems, according to the existence of the Anakim as described in Numbers 13.

The Ark Encounter museum also portrays those giants as part of real history:

Creationist Ken Ham Thinks Dinosaurs Had Gladiator-Style Fights With Giants

Wha???

www.huffpost.com

This is another example of what the Bible says taking precedent over what science says.....

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation, considering when we learn and discover more information; updating and changing/altering ideas; adding to the accumulation of knowledge. The bible isn't anti-science. Creation is not a true opposing position to science.

The question is are there any bones of these giants from a reputable source?

Reputable source i.e. those being in possession of these bones among other 'out of place artifacts'? Unfortunately, reputable, no. Funny enough, I've seen comments jokingly say on a video about giants. One fellow comments " if you find such bones - hide them before the 'smithsonians' get there..." lol.

Entertaining the thought, let's say. I can imagine that such bones existing - IF ever they were to be displayed in public view - this would cause such a MAJOR conflict with the conventional history, which has been taught in academia through the centuries, which no doubt, will have some effect on some reputations. Can you imagine, this would require such a gargantuan "overhaul." ALL those libraries in all the universities in the world - all those books, portraying the conventional history of man, now gets moved to the section for 'children stories'? Such a task.

 

[bilby]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation

That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

 

[Elixir]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says

Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.

 

[Elixir]

The Old Testament doesn't explicitly say that God the Father is doing those things either.

BTW John 5:22 says "Also, the Father does not judge anyone. He has given the Son the task of judging."

You didn't answer the question:
"Then how’s come nobody ever talks about JESUS drowning everyone, JESUS damning people to eternal torture, JESUS ripping babies from the womb?"

the Bible is the best selling book of all time....

Maybe. But I bet LOTR sold more copies in its first 68 years than the bible did in its first 680 years!
In 2000 years at this rate, it'll knock that shabby tome right off its perch!

 

[Learner]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation

That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...

 

[skepticalbip]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation

That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...

No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration.. If testing does not show them to be wrong then they still continue to be tested and maybe later will be shown to be wrong. e.g. relativity is still being tested where Newtonian mechanics that had not failed testing for a few hundred years eventually did fail in the extremes which made way for relativity.

 

[Learner]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says

Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.

But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.

Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, there's something there at leastst to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reasoned" to be equally comparable without anything of a similar tangible degree, but rather your "purple unicorn" comparable as thin air, seems rather over confident.

 

[Learner]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation

That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...

No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration..

Well, what I'm alluding to for example: reality, as our friend highlights. There are several potential models or ideas as candidates, still being considered.

 

[Jarhyn]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says

Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.

But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.

Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?

So, people have always wanted to build big shit.

Mostly it's because they had small penises, I expect.

Baalbek was built in the Hellenistic period by a well understood culture that utterly lacked 'giants'.

Your fanciful attributions to giants is a testament to your lack of any perspective or reality on history.

 

[skepticalbip]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says; more of a individual interpretation

That’s the EXACT opposite of what science is.

Reality doesn’t care what you think.

Science, the methodology, is neutral to a variety of scientific opinions - just like your opinion of what you think reality is...

No. Science is a methodology where opinions (hypothesis) are tested. If testing shows them to be wrong or unsupported then they are dropped from further consideration..

Well, what I'm alluding to for example: reality, as our friend highlights. There are several potential models or ideas as candidates, still being considered.

I think maybe you are confusing philosophy for science.

 

[Learner]

Well I think it depends on what one thinks the science says

Science is a methodology. It doesn't "say" anything. What you "think science says" has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.

Now now, I didn't say science says or confirms what I believe in. I'm was saying, that our understanding of our universe, changes from time to time.

But -
The hypothesis that dinosaurs and giants had gladiator-style fights lacks any evidentiary support. It can be dismissed with the same confidence as the hypothesis that there is a purple unicorn living in my garage.

Not really the same is it now? I mean...to state the obvious, the differences between the two. The ancient buildings of collossal size, e.g,. Baalbek, and those structures in Russia actually EXIST. There pics of large skulls floating about but of course depends on the source. Controversial this may be, BUt, there's something there at last to debate about. Whereas your 'purple unicorn' which you confidently "reason " to be comparable without any thing similar is rather over confident?

So, people have always wanted to build big shit.

Erm... yeah sure, and I suppose you know what limits there are, for humans of our scale, to be able to build structures of such colossal weight? At least compare the Romans buildings on top - that was of a certain size compared - which was merely due to their limitation to build a certain size of structure. Use your loaf and yer eyes.

Mostly it's because they had small penises, I expect.

Baalbek was built in the Hellenistic period by a well understood culture that utterly lacked 'giants'.

Your fanciful attributions to giants is a testament to your lack of any perspective or reality on history.

I have a lack of perspective? Hmm says the fellow, somewhat lacking in the spatial reasoning perspective.