Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?

I have seen a few Christians claim that many of what appears to be historical documents in the bible, actually did not occur at all. If the bible is book that is littered with stories that are pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate, why would you trust anything else that it had to say? If you say some of it is true, is it only because it already agrees with you have decided for yourself to be true?

I declared the topic title question to be off-topic here.As I see it, this question should be approached as a philosophical and/or theological discussion. I want to isolate it from scientific evidence considerations - It is NOT going into the science "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" forum.I think the topic title, "Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being?", actually sets the "what if" premise that some of the information in the Bible is factually wrong - It is in conflict with worldly evidence. Then the question is, then what is the Bible's philosophical and/or theological value?OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.Of course, Jar's first message is going to be: Let's see if this prophesy comes true. Adminnemooseusps: And dammit, everyone be nice or I'm going to have to kill someone. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : ps.

Thread copied here from the Why would God write a book of lies and why would you worship such a being? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Well....yes. I feel that I and only I can ultimately decide what I choose to believe in. For starters, when was it ever established that the books known as the Bible had to be true...without error...divinely inspired?I believe that God exists, and I also believe that God wants a communion(some form of communication) with humanity on this planet. Beyond that, I question most of organized religious dogma and tradition. I have a mind, after all...and why shouldn't I dare to use it?

Hello foreveryoung, nice to meet you. Most probably, this is the case. There are probably some things that can be demonstrated to be true, i.e. Jerusalem exists. But for the more "miraculous" stuff, I'd say it comes down to personal preference. One wants to believe there is a god, and that he can do certain things (mostly because they were taught this belief as a child), the bible describes some of the things one imagines this god could do, and so, one believes those parts of the bible. Things can be learned from stories, even if they aren't true. Some of the lessons of Jesus are quite good, in my opinnion. Whether he existed or not is irrelevant to the fact that those stories convey a certain meaning. It's that meaning that can be of value, and the ultimate purpose of the stories, I'd say.

I always consider this question a rather strange thing for a Christian to ask. I could understand the question if asked from a Jewish perspective, but I don't find it a logical question from a born again Christian. I would expect that one Christian would completely understand how another Christian came to accept Christ. And very little of that experience has anything to do with Adam, Noah, Moses, David, or Sampson's escapades.The stories in the Bible are conveyed as legitimate because the people writing the stories believed them to be true. However the further back into history the stories are set, the more disconnected are the events from the authors.And how many of those events are essentially to Christianity anyway?

Here are some questions for you.1) Who said that God wrote the Bible ? The Bible doesn't make such a claim itself. The most you can find is a vague assertion that some unspecified scriptures are "God-breathed" - in a letter generally accepted as a pseudonymous work from the 2nd Century AD.2) Jesus told stories that were pure fiction to make a point. How do you know that there aren't other stories like that in the Bible ? (Job and Jonah come to mind as obvious candidates).3) Exodus lacks even basic historical details that would let us set a date on the events (such as the names of the Pharaohs). Things we could expect to see in even an ordinary human account if it were written as a real history or even close to the time of events. Why is that, if it is not that Exodus is a legendary account written long after the events ?4) Papias, an early Christian (writing no later than the 2nd Century) is quoted (by Eusebius, a Christian of the 3rd-4th Centuries) as saying that Mark wrote down events in the wrong order. If early Christians did not take the Gospels as inerrant, why should you ?5) Inerrantists often claim that the Bible has to be interpreted on the assumption of inerrancy, and are known to come to readings on this basis that cannot be reasonably derived from a plain reading of the text. Doesn't this raise the same sort of problem ? If you can't understand the Bible without heavy interpretation assuming a doctrine which isn't even clearly taught in the Bible how can you know that your interpretations are correct ? Isn't that putting doctrine before the Bible ? Isn't it meant to be the other way around ? {Careful - I'm trying to keep this from being a "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" type topic - Adminnemooseus}{Upon further study, I think this message is ALMOST all off-topic - AdminnemooseusEdited by Adminnemooseus, : Comment in red.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make previous a larger print, and add off-topic banner and comment.

quote:

---

I have seen a few Christians claim that many of what appears to be historical documents in the bible, actually did not occur at all. If the bible is book that is littered with stories that are pure fiction but that are conveyed in such a way to appear as legitimate, why would you trust anything else that it had to say?

---

Storytelling through the ages wasn't just a means of entertainment. From what I can tell it was also a way of passing on information and wisdom.The story may not be a true event, but the lesson is real. The parables that Jesus told weren't real events. They were designed to teach a lesson.If one understands whether a writing is fiction or historical, then one trusts the information as is appropriate for the style of writing.One doesn't look for a moral in an historical document and one doesn't usually look for historical facts in a fairy tale although fair tales can give us a view of the culture of the time.

quote:

---

f you say some of it is true, is it only because it already agrees with you have decided for yourself to be true?

---

Hopefully what we understand to be factual can be verified by sources outside the writing.Ultimately we have to understand the writing techniques used by the writers to understand what the writers were telling their audience.

Well, don't we have to apply the same sort of process to anything purporting to be a historical source? If I want to know about the world in classical times, for example, I would be a fool to ignore Herodotus, but I would equally be a fool to believe everything he says --- and that was written all by one man.The Bible is a compilation: it's more like if someone bound together everything the ancient Greeks said that had a bearing on history, from the Anabasis of Xenophon, which recounts events at which he was personally present, to the Theogony of Hesiod, which gives an account of the origin of the gods and which the poet attributes to divine inspiration. What would you make of such a volume? Would you take an all-or-nothing approach to it, and declare that either every word of it was true or that none of it could be given any credence?

Back when I was in college, I had a professor that was a Hebrew scholar. He was my ethics professor, actually. You could say he was the mentor who changed my mind about homosexuals.Anyway, in one of our many discussions, he told me that after years of studying the old testament, he had become convinced that a lot of it was man's inability to understand god adequately. Now, remember that he was a true believer in god.He pointed out to me that there were sections in the old testament where god outright commanded the israelites to slaughter entire civilizations. But then after those sections, god began to stop commanding outright and started negotiating as well as sending prophets. I used to be able to track down all the examples. This was back when I was still studying the bible very intensely.The point is my ethics professor believed that whatever god commanded the isralites to do it sure as hell wasn't to kill every man, woman, and child of entire cities like Jericho. After a while, god realized that the barbarians kept misunderstanding his commands, and so he started talking to them and sending prophets to make the communications earlier instead of sending them commands that kept getting misinterpreted.This might be worth pursuing? After all, if you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, you will have to accept that killing every man, woman, and child of a city to rob it of gold, silver, and brass is morally right. And don't even think you can weasel your way out of this. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

I think this is a good question.As far as I'm aware Christians know their god via the Bible and that his character traits and behaviour patterns are rather explicitly layed out for all to see.A litteral reading (to my admittedly un-scholarly approach) seems to indicate Yaweh is a jealous god who's love for his people is conditionalIf these conditions are not met you go to Hell with all the dogs and wizards.Now, when I was growing up all I ever heard was about how loving Yaweh is. That only real bastards went to Hell and it was just and right that these villains were condemed.So my take is this: the Bible was and is a very, very strict set of rules for achieving the conditions Yaweh demands to keep you outr of Hell. Back in the day, these strictures were fine, but nower days killing members of the gay community or rape victims is frowned upon.Consequently the inconvenient 'follow Yaweh's rules or go to Hell' became 'be generally nice and you will get to Heaven'.I suspect most Christians don't know about Leviticus 20:13 and the like and edit out the gruesome bits where Yaweh demands babies be killed and genocide to the point where they are not following the 'official' Yaweh but their own culturally derived moral relativism and simply calling it 'Christianity'.So techinically they are worshipping their version of Yaweh, rather than the Yaweh described in the Bible. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Why would God, by definition,realize something only "after a while"? Does not God know all things including all human thoughts?Of course, if we toss the Bible as a reference to how God is and how He behaves, we are then grasping at philosophical straws. I will admit that the God I believe in is a construction within my mind. I also believe, however, that the actual GOD (whom I believe exists and would exist even if I didn't believe) accepts and works around human limitations concerning His reality.Again, I believe that the GOD who is seeks communion with the minds and hearts of humanity.

Well God did not write the Bible and there really isn't such a thing as "The Bible" in the first place.Fiction and Lie are not synonymous. Fiction is often a great way to convey a truth.Honesty compels me to accept reality, even when that reality refutes something I really wished were true.Stories such as the Biblical Flood myths or the Exodus or the Garden of Eden or the Conquest of Canaan or Jonah, or the Tower of Babel are not written in such a way to appear as legitimate; for example, Genesis 2&3 are clearly written as a "Just So" story meant to explain why childbirth seems more painful for humans, why we fear snakes, why humans wear clothes, why we farm instead of just being hunter gatherers.

quote:

---

This might be worth pursuing? After all, if you believe in the literal interpretation of the bible, you will have to accept that killing every man, woman, and child of a city to rob it of gold, silver, and brass is morally right. And don't even think you can weasel your way out of this.

---

There's nothing to weasel out of since it isn't the point of the topic.This thread isn't about morality and it isn't about the literal reading of the Bible. It is about how those who worship God as a Christian can do so given that they don't believe that the Bible stories are all historically true.Stick to what is presented in the OP and not what you know of the author's beliefs.Christians use various methods of Bible interpretation, but this thread is not about literalism. Note to Participants: Please stick to the spirit of the topic, which is on the religious side in Faith and Belief.Please direct any comments concerning this Administrative msg to the General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures (aka 'The Whine List') thread.Thank you
AdminPD

I sure hope you feel that way. I hope all adults feel that way.
Who else should be deciding what an individual believes in other than that particular individual?Just believing in something because others say you should is the basis for cults and brainwashing. Even if those "others" seem to have a level of authority about them. Especially if those "others" claim to have an absolute authority straight from God Himself.If you can't be honest with yourself, you won't have the ability to be honest with God, or anyone else.