What would it take for you to believe in God?

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Wrong again...
-ism comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which means to put into action or practice.

-ism is defined as the state of, the condition of, the action of, the process of or the practice of...

As in... to practice a belief? Seriously, that you think this actually contradicts my claims is just silly.

Belief does not come into play at all... see the words:
communism, botulism, feminism, voyeurism, sexism, heroism, racism, eliteism...

-ism is in no way connected to the word belief, which by the way in greek is "pistevo".

It is obvious that you misunderstood me, and that I gave you too much credit.

One more time... from the top... No part of the word implies belief.

Atheism:
A- No
The - God
Ism - State or Condition of

The state or condition of godlessness.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Garth
I think you need to pay closer attention.

I was rebutting the claim that atheists are not those that disbelieve a god exists, but instead they are those that believe no gods exist. Obviously, the latter group must be a subset of the former. The point is that the larger group represents atheism proper.

And exactly where do you get the idea that one is larger than the other?

By definition, supersets must contain their subsets.

Really? Now that's that's clear, mind answer the question?

I already did. If you could think clearly you'd see that already.

Which one is larger of the two belief systems?

1.) Atheism proper is not a belief system.
2.) Atheism proper is the superset of which strong atheists are a subset.

And I'd like to seem to uncontroversial evidence on this.

Think about this a little harder and realize how utterly moronic this request is.

And by the way, you still haven't answered how there can be two different types of Atheist if there is only one definition of Atheism.

There aren't two definitions of atheism. There are only subsets of atheists that rubes like you confuse for the whole.

And even if one is larger, the other still exist and is therefore still a valid definition.

Keep trying.

No, really, it isn't. Definitions can be invalid, and in this case the definition of atheism as "the belief in no-god" is certainly invalid. It is invalid because it does not describe people that are not theists and yet do not believe in no-god.

{snip}

So 'the belief in no-God' in invalid.

As a definition of atheism, yes. As a definition of "strong atheism" -- a subset of atheism proper -- it is valid.

This is a definition from the link YOU provided and profess to believe in.

I do not define myself as a strong atheist, if that is what you mean.

The definition of atheism as a "belief" or "doctrine" reflects a view of atheism as a specific ideological stance, as opposed to the rejection or simple absence of a belief.

So what, even atheist don't know what they believe? Their own definition isn't valid?

You truly can't say "I'm wrong", can you?

I'm not wrong.

 

[meltdown75]

Good thing religion threads never turn into quote-fests.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

only the english translation of theism has added the "belief" attachment to the definition.

theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god.
the word Atheism is derived from the greek word atheos... meaning godless.
so the not from the prefix a- is applied to the noun god, not belief.

I believe there is no god

more accuratly represents atheism, as opposed to

I do not believe there is a god

Absolutely preposterous. It is the -ism which identifies the belief component to theism. Then the "a-" prefix negates it.

To put it in terms of your presentation, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theos" means "godless" or "without god."

Naturally, then, the "a-" prefix when attached to "-theism" signifies "without theism," or "without belief in god." That is most easily described by "I do not believe in god." A belief in no-god is an entirely distinct proposition.

Wrong again...
-ism comes from the greek suffix -ismos, which means to put into action or practice.

-ism is defined as the state of, the condition of, the action of, the process of or the practice of...

As in... to practice a belief? Seriously, that you think this actually contradicts my claims is just silly.

Belief does not come into play at all... see the words:
communism, botulism, feminism, voyeurism, sexism, heroism, racism, eliteism...

-ism is in no way connected to the word belief, which by the way in greek is "pistevo".

It is obvious that you misunderstood me, and that I gave you too much credit.

One more time... from the top... No part of the word implies belief.

Atheism:
A- No
The - God
Ism - State or Condition of

The state or condition of godlessness.

As one would be without a belief in God.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: meltdown75
Good thing religion threads never turn into quote-fests.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
First, as I've said before the ultimate point of the book is reason versus faith. When you say he evangelizes atheism, you become one of "the people who read his books and expand his statements far beyond his actual views". Although the quote doesn't fit in entirely - most of you people didn't really read his book (there is only one).

Second, what is this new "right" not to be offended and to not have one's views questioned?

Third, your snide little comment clearly implies you think atheists are just as bad if not worse than religious people. OK, then you won't mind playing a little game: for every instance of a large group of religious people proselytizing I find, you'll reply with something just as bad coming from a large group (feel free to normalize!) of atheists, without confusing secularism for atheism. You game? I mean if you think "Neither side is innocent" you shouldn't have any trouble. Or is this an unfair game because one side is much worse than the other?

His assumption is that reason and faith are inherently opposed to one another. I can't necessarily agree. I can reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, but (like all logic) that's a thin reed, assuming that yesterday predicts tomorrow. It takes faith to bet my stake on it.

Second, that's exactly the opposite of what I said. There is no such right to not be offended. Quite the contrary, a free democracy requires that you be offended as much as possible. That was my point.

Third, proselytizers don't bother me. I find them somewhat amusing in fact. But then that's probably because I don't have a weak mind. I'm not afraid to have my views challenged, nor to challenge someone else's views in turn. In fact, I enjoy it. What I don't enjoy is people who are delusional as to the source and authority of their beliefs, for example, those who think the Bible is infallible (yeah whatever) or those who think science is infallible (even worse) or (worst of all) those who think science supports their religious or anti-religious views (it doesn't).

No you reason the sun will rise tomorrow because of nature's laws, not just because it happened yesterday. Needless to say he makes a much better case for his point...

Second:

"They have the inherent right to speak those beliefs, whatever they may be, without you or anyone else getting your nuts all twisted up. "

So I don't have a right to call them retarded? Or I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

where did I say belief?

Theism - the condition or state of God.
There are only 3 choices...


a. Many Gods Exist - Polytheism
b. Exactly 1 God exists - Monotheism
c. Zero Gods exist - Atheism.


Choose 1, there are no other alternatives.

 

[jack bauer]

What would it take for you to believe in Naturalism?

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: totalcommand

The etymology is.

a + theos = atheos

"a" meaning negative, and theos meaning god. atheos means "no god"

More accurately: "without god"

then "atheos" + "ism" = atheism

so "belief in no god". NOT "no belief in God".

No, so "without god belief" or "no belief in God."

See my above post... ism has no possible meaning "belief"

Then why do you insist that atheism is a belief in something?

why do you insist that atheism is not a belief?

 

[Alone]

Atheism means you believe there is no God, not that you don't believe in one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Martin
Third, proselytizers do bother me when they try to bend society's laws in their favour. Maybe you'd enjoy a theocracy, but I know I sure as hell won't.

Proselytizers, evangelicals, and other religionists are far from the only ones guilty of that offense. It seems like almost everyone has an agenda to use society's laws in order to screw their neighbor. I don't single out certain groups while turning a blind eye to others when it comes to that offense. Neither should you. I wouldn't enjoy a communism anymore than I would a theocracy.

I think you're having trouble distinguishing between what's real and what isn't. Examples:
- nutcases promoting intelligent design: real
- nutcases banning gay marriage because it offends their religion: real
- armies of godless atheists seeking a communist revolution... not real.

Really?

And what about the drug prohibition? Its very basis is in the Protestant ethic ("How dare anyone do anything but work?"), yet I never hear of any atheists talking about repealing it (except for cannabis on rare occasions). It's done more damage than anything else to this nation, driven by fearmongering nutcases who would make this country into a lockdown prison if they thought that would stop people from abusing illegal drugs (prescription drugs OTOH are just fine), and yet you're more worried about distractions like intelligent design and gay marriage.
Who's the nutcases?

 

[Ilmater]

Yeah, it would take a lot. I'd say that if God could come down, say hi to me, then lift be into space where I would be able to breath even though there was no air. That would do it. Short of that, it's pretty much impossible. I'm a skeptic by nature, and no fictional story found on some old scrolls will get me to believe in God any more than a movie will get me to believe in Frankenstein.

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No. Please stop putting your foot in your mouth. You said JESUS meant Jew God. Now explain it.

Christianity is not a greek religion. Its revolves around a JEW who was the Son of God. After He left the earth, the Great Commission began to be fulfilled by people such as Luke, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. Paul preached to the Jews first, for whom as a Pharisee would be natural. They were hardened so he went to the gentiles, including Romans and Greeks, but not exclusively them.

The divinity of Jesus was documently in dozens of gospels written at most, a few decades after his birth. Four of which, believers know are divinely inspired.

Its sad how one can be so enthralled with gnosticism and obscure works and completely deny the sheer volume of manuscript supporting everything from His miracles to his resurrection though so many eye witness accounts. But this only goes to prove my point. no facts or evidence or miracles or anything seen withthe eyes of unbelievers can bring about faith. Faith to believe comes from God - and begins with repentance, brokeness and humility.

Christianity is a Greek religion. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. There are no known Gospels or Epistles that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Look at the Pauline Epistles written to the first churches: Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica are all Greek cities (in Greece, Macedonia, or Asia Minor). The congregations spoke Greek. They were Gnostics. And let's not even go into the Johannine works -- that's pure unadulterated gnosticism.
Sorry, man, this is your faith. You should learn more about it. It was until 325 that the Catholic church deified Jesus.
And I don't see why you should be so offended. If you have so much faith, then you shouldn't need the book.

Are you debating anything I've said, if not, you're just splitting hairs. That, and subtly abandoning your point which I questioned about the name Jesus.

Each of the four Gospels specifically testifies to Jesus's divinity. Each were written WELL before 325 and probably before 70 AD.

So tell me how Jesus was diefied in 325. Or, tell me just which point you disagree on.

Plus, if you think Christian faith is a blind faith independent of the Word, that would be a grave misconception.

Sigh...

No, they don't. Unless you choose to interpret them as such.

Council of Nicea.

The misconception is yours. "The Word" as presented in the Gospel of John is a blatant mistranslation into the English, especially when interpreted in the typical neo-fundamentalist manner. It NEVER mean the Gospels or the Bible (neither of which existed in John's lifetime anyway). The Greek word Logos means the "rational thought" (or "intelligence" if you prefer). The concept of Logos has a considerable history in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Gnostics. It is the power of the mind that expresses itself rationally and creatively. To interpret Logos as the Bible or Gospels themselves is simply ridiculous.

The Jews at John's time had the Septuagint, or at least, the Pentateuch. Call it what you want, but it was the scripture from God.

I use the word "Word" interchangeably to refer to the Bible, or God's Word. If you want to split hairs there, count me out. Anyone can copy and paste and pretend they know things they don't.

If you do not believe that all four of the gospels point to Jesus's divinity as widely held, the burden of proof is on you. Please cite your sources.

Comments? Sources? Retractions?

Does someone want to help Vic out?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No. Please stop putting your foot in your mouth. You said JESUS meant Jew God. Now explain it.

Christianity is not a greek religion. Its revolves around a JEW who was the Son of God. After He left the earth, the Great Commission began to be fulfilled by people such as Luke, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. Paul preached to the Jews first, for whom as a Pharisee would be natural. They were hardened so he went to the gentiles, including Romans and Greeks, but not exclusively them.

The divinity of Jesus was documently in dozens of gospels written at most, a few decades after his birth. Four of which, believers know are divinely inspired.

Its sad how one can be so enthralled with gnosticism and obscure works and completely deny the sheer volume of manuscript supporting everything from His miracles to his resurrection though so many eye witness accounts. But this only goes to prove my point. no facts or evidence or miracles or anything seen withthe eyes of unbelievers can bring about faith. Faith to believe comes from God - and begins with repentance, brokeness and humility.

Christianity is a Greek religion. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. There are no known Gospels or Epistles that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Look at the Pauline Epistles written to the first churches: Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica are all Greek cities (in Greece, Macedonia, or Asia Minor). The congregations spoke Greek. They were Gnostics. And let's not even go into the Johannine works -- that's pure unadulterated gnosticism.
Sorry, man, this is your faith. You should learn more about it. It was until 325 that the Catholic church deified Jesus.
And I don't see why you should be so offended. If you have so much faith, then you shouldn't need the book.

Are you debating anything I've said, if not, you're just splitting hairs. That, and subtly abandoning your point which I questioned about the name Jesus.

Each of the four Gospels specifically testifies to Jesus's divinity. Each were written WELL before 325 and probably before 70 AD.

So tell me how Jesus was diefied in 325. Or, tell me just which point you disagree on.

Plus, if you think Christian faith is a blind faith independent of the Word, that would be a grave misconception.

Sigh...

No, they don't. Unless you choose to interpret them as such.

Council of Nicea.

The misconception is yours. "The Word" as presented in the Gospel of John is a blatant mistranslation into the English, especially when interpreted in the typical neo-fundamentalist manner. It NEVER mean the Gospels or the Bible (neither of which existed in John's lifetime anyway). The Greek word Logos means the "rational thought" (or "intelligence" if you prefer). The concept of Logos has a considerable history in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Gnostics. It is the power of the mind that expresses itself rationally and creatively. To interpret Logos as the Bible or Gospels themselves is simply ridiculous.

The Jews at John's time had the Septuagint, or at least, the Pentateuch. Call it what you want, but it was the scripture from God.

I use the word "Word" interchangeably to refer to the Bible, or God's Word. If you want to split hairs there, count me out. Anyone can copy and paste and pretend they know things they don't.

If you do not believe that all four of the gospels point to Jesus's divinity as widely held, the burden of proof is on you. Please cite your sources.

Comments? Sources? Retractions?

Does someone want to help Vic out?

It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: busmaster11
No. Please stop putting your foot in your mouth. You said JESUS meant Jew God. Now explain it.

Christianity is not a greek religion. Its revolves around a JEW who was the Son of God. After He left the earth, the Great Commission began to be fulfilled by people such as Luke, Peter, Paul, Timothy, etc. Paul preached to the Jews first, for whom as a Pharisee would be natural. They were hardened so he went to the gentiles, including Romans and Greeks, but not exclusively them.

The divinity of Jesus was documently in dozens of gospels written at most, a few decades after his birth. Four of which, believers know are divinely inspired.

Its sad how one can be so enthralled with gnosticism and obscure works and completely deny the sheer volume of manuscript supporting everything from His miracles to his resurrection though so many eye witness accounts. But this only goes to prove my point. no facts or evidence or miracles or anything seen withthe eyes of unbelievers can bring about faith. Faith to believe comes from God - and begins with repentance, brokeness and humility.

Christianity is a Greek religion. The New Testament was originally written in Greek. There are no known Gospels or Epistles that were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic.
Look at the Pauline Epistles written to the first churches: Corinth, Galatia, Ephesus, Phillipi, Colossae, and Thessalonica are all Greek cities (in Greece, Macedonia, or Asia Minor). The congregations spoke Greek. They were Gnostics. And let's not even go into the Johannine works -- that's pure unadulterated gnosticism.
Sorry, man, this is your faith. You should learn more about it. It was until 325 that the Catholic church deified Jesus.
And I don't see why you should be so offended. If you have so much faith, then you shouldn't need the book.

Are you debating anything I've said, if not, you're just splitting hairs. That, and subtly abandoning your point which I questioned about the name Jesus.

Each of the four Gospels specifically testifies to Jesus's divinity. Each were written WELL before 325 and probably before 70 AD.

So tell me how Jesus was diefied in 325. Or, tell me just which point you disagree on.

Plus, if you think Christian faith is a blind faith independent of the Word, that would be a grave misconception.

Sigh...

No, they don't. Unless you choose to interpret them as such.

Council of Nicea.

The misconception is yours. "The Word" as presented in the Gospel of John is a blatant mistranslation into the English, especially when interpreted in the typical neo-fundamentalist manner. It NEVER mean the Gospels or the Bible (neither of which existed in John's lifetime anyway). The Greek word Logos means the "rational thought" (or "intelligence" if you prefer). The concept of Logos has a considerable history in Greek philosophy, particularly among the Gnostics. It is the power of the mind that expresses itself rationally and creatively. To interpret Logos as the Bible or Gospels themselves is simply ridiculous.

The Jews at John's time had the Septuagint, or at least, the Pentateuch. Call it what you want, but it was the scripture from God.

I use the word "Word" interchangeably to refer to the Bible, or God's Word. If you want to split hairs there, count me out. Anyone can copy and paste and pretend they know things they don't.

If you do not believe that all four of the gospels point to Jesus's divinity as widely held, the burden of proof is on you. Please cite your sources.

Comments? Sources? Retractions?

Does someone want to help Vic out?

It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

 

[SirChadwick]

I've already seen too much... it's not hard to believe in God.

It's called faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

 

[The Sauce]

To claim that even a single statement in the bible is "verifyably truthful" demonstrates utter and complete ignorance and denial of the fact the the entire bible is a fictional tool created expressly for the purposes of societal mind control and governance by a group of people who sought power and dominance of their moral beliefs.

Just like our forefathers who wrote the constitution are the founders of our contry, these people were the founders of modern religion...except their work is not subject to amendment and rational discussion, as is our constitution.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: Vic
It's a ridiculous form of circular logic to argue the validity of the Bible using the Bible. Because you're demanding that I do exactly that is why I have been ignoring you.

and yet it makes complete sense to argue about the validity of the bible with gnostic writings of the times which were excluded from the bible specifically because the author or contents are not verifiably truthful.
:roll:

And what verifies those writings which were accepted into the Bible against those which were not? (beyond the authority of the Catholic church which made those decisions at that time).

The Bible makes a great philosophical guide for how best to live one's life. It's the ultimate "self help" manual. It also provides one of the best insights we have into the minds of our ancestors. It is not, however, a history book, nor should it be "literally" interpreted as such. To do so is to miss the point of the original writers entirely.

edited to get rid of about 3 screens worth of nested quotes.

Not that you need or want my affirmation, but I agree with everything except the bolded point.

I can think of no better way to live one's life than by the Golden Rule, Love thy Neighbor as thyself, and other such precepts laid down by the Teacher. Granted, it is not unique in this among the ancient texts, but from the philosophical standpoint, it is still a wealth of rich and helpful information.

 

[sao123]

I personally hope that one of these expeditions to the mountains find Noah's Ark or the Ark of the covenant or any of several other historical artifacts just to shut all the nay sayers about the bible not being a reliable historical source.