Is the bible still relevant today?
- Thread starter bhavv
- Start date
- Status
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Ok, let's suppose for a second that we conclude the Bible is not relevant today then what changes? Some people will still believe in the message(s) it gives, someone else stating that it is irrelevant doesn't mean that it will make any difference to their lives.
For what it's worth if someone gets something useful out of the Bible, the Koran or any other holy book then good on them. My opinions on the relevance of it (and indeed the opinions of pretty much everyone else) don't and shouldn't affect that.
For what it's worth if someone gets something useful out of the Bible, the Koran or any other holy book then good on them. My opinions on the relevance of it (and indeed the opinions of pretty much everyone else) don't and shouldn't affect that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 9,326
- Location
- extremes.spacious.indelible
People can believe in what they want when they want, if the bible gives them purposes for their life and makes them happy, then I say go for it!
I'm sick of everyone being all "Errr religion, I know what i'm talking about, I think i'm Richard Dawkins," on here and in real life.
Sure, I think it is total rubbish and could never believe it, but if it gives people purpose, let them believe
I'm sick of everyone being all "Errr religion, I know what i'm talking about, I think i'm Richard Dawkins," on here and in real life.
Sure, I think it is total rubbish and could never believe it, but if it gives people purpose, let them believe
Richard Dawkins -
'Unfortunately what sophisticated theologians believe isnt really relevant in what the majority of Christians do believe'.
And he also believes that the Bible is just as mythological as any other religion such as Ancient Greek religion.
'Unfortunately what sophisticated theologians believe isnt really relevant in what the majority of Christians do believe'.
And he also believes that the Bible is just as mythological as any other religion such as Ancient Greek religion.
Last edited:
I agree. I think this is a troll thread.
There are threads in SC for religion.
If you are discussing the programme then why not have a thread in the TV forum?
The entire show is on the Iplayer here. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0114q4t
I want people to watch the documentary, so I posted it. Whether or not people want to discuss what it contains is up to them.
I still have a lot more of it to watch yet, theres 4 parts in total.
No not really, I wanted people to watch and discuss the program, and I dont want this thread in SC because I am not bothered about people having to seriously debate the topic.
Last edited:
I don't think you necessarily have to believe in it all to still be able to state that part of those books are still relevant today. There certainly are plenty of relevant lessons from the bible about human behavior in general.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 May 2003
- Posts
- 11,217
If jesus came back today, it would all be over. Forget any tests as this earth would cease to exsist, and its straight onto Judgement for everyone, including the dead
It wouldn't prove anything whatever the other half of his DNA turned out to be, though obviously it wouldn't look great if it were Joseph's.
It'd presumably not match any human.
I'd have preferred to discuss this in SC. As it is this thread is more appropriately homed in the YouTube thread or the TV forum. At any rate:
I'm not sure why that's such a great question. If we presume that Jesus is the son of God (which the thought experiment requires) then it's hardly difficult to imagine that the creator of all things is able to manipulate a poxy bit of human DNA.
Even so, should we accept that Jesus is the son of God and that he was to return, who's to say it wouldn't be through reincarnation (i.e. to two natural biological parents) rather than from ascending from the sky on a cloud? Given that it's highly unlikely that heaven is a physical place 'above' the earth in the literal sense, then reincarnation would be a more 'likely' route than appearing out of thin air (but who knows?).
As for the OP, of course it's still relevant. So long as people use it, take use from it, and apply it to their lives it's as meaningful as ever - to them even if not to you. Or should I say to Richard Dawkins since it's his stance we're discussing here.
I'm not sure why that's such a great question. If we presume that Jesus is the son of God (which the thought experiment requires) then it's hardly difficult to imagine that the creator of all things is able to manipulate a poxy bit of human DNA.
Even so, should we accept that Jesus is the son of God and that he was to return, who's to say it wouldn't be through reincarnation (i.e. to two natural biological parents) rather than from ascending from the sky on a cloud? Given that it's highly unlikely that heaven is a physical place 'above' the earth in the literal sense, then reincarnation would be a more 'likely' route than appearing out of thin air (but who knows?).
As for the OP, of course it's still relevant. So long as people use it, take use from it, and apply it to their lives it's as meaningful as ever - to them even if not to you. Or should I say to Richard Dawkins since it's his stance we're discussing here.
I'm not sure why that's such a great question. If we presume that Jesus is the son of God (which the thought experiment requires) then it's hardly difficult to imagine that the creator of all things is able to manipulate a poxy bit of human DNA.
Then that means that God was a human. If the parental DNA was not that of God, then God was not Jesus's father.
Does it? Please finish your post and explain what you mean by that, and how you arrived at your conclusion. It makes for a much more interesting (and persuasive) argument.
And just what do you think God's DNA would look like anyway?
Jesus was wholly God and wholly man, so it's not unreasonable that he'd have had wholly human DNA.
In any case, as said, if Jesus were to come back I don't think a DNA test is going to be on the agenda...
Jesus: 'sup, dudes, it's the apocalypse. I'm here to judge the living and the dead.
Jeremy Kyle: WHY WON'T YOU TAKE A DNA TEST?!?!
Jesus: STFU. Death? Sort this one out.
Does it? Please finish your post and explain what you mean by that, and how you arrived at your conclusion. It makes for a much more interesting (and persuasive) argument.
If considering that the Biblical belief of 'Jesus is the son of God' is meant to be literal, then God would have to be the Biological father of Jesus. If Jesus's parental DNA is that attributable to a human male, which it would have to be for Jesus to be a valid member of the human species, then this leads to either one of two conclusions, EITHER that:
A) God was a human male and Jesus's father, or ...
B) God was not the father of Jesus.
I actually firmly believe in B by the way, and that the real Jesus was a normal person, NOT born to a virgin mother, and that biblical teachings of God as his father were not literal, but metaphorical.
I didnt state that Jesus would have his parental DNA from God. Its absolutely not possible for a valid human to have either parental or maternal DNA from anything other than a human, so if Jesus was a human, he cannot have been the son of God, UNLESS we assume that God was also a human.
Also, if Jesus was to come back today, you cant tell any better than I what would happen, and if there would be any kind of an apocalypse, nor if he would agree or disagree to have a DNA sample taken.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Don't post then - simples.
really, then he's a bit misguided. There are loads of historical facts in the bible. Many of which we wouldn't of known about without it. Just because they are miracles of god or explained in a non science way. Does not mean they didn't happen. For this reason alone the bible is still relevant.
- Status