Non-Circular reasons for believing in the Bible.

[help3434]

I often see people quote Bible verses about scripture when asked why they believe in the Bible. Of course arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular. Are there any non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible?

[Peter]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

Can, if you aren't dealing with an oral culture. Of course, the culture Jesus was dealing with wasn't strictly that, but the folks He spoke to the most WERE immersed in oral traditions. So it's not a great stretch to figure that an oral account would be accurate within the lifetime of the hearer. As well....well, let's put it this way. I have several family diaries recording the daily lives of three polygamous families. They are day to day accounts from the women in those families, written at the time. If I published them now, would future critics say that they couldn't possibly be accurate because they were 'written' (by me) a hundred and fifty years later?

The point is, that we first know about them considerably after the events, or 'written down' for public consumption, is no guarantee...or even real evidence...that their sources are not accurate, or even written down themselves. It's not proof that those sources WERE accurate, either...by the same token, and that's the problem everybody has to deal with.

An oral culture in that very few people knew how to read or write. I'm not sure that mitigates the problem. Let's say that the typical person then was twice as good at remembering a story compared to people today. That's still 40 years of chances to get the story wrong and sometimes strong motivation to get the story wrong or just flatly make it up. So on the whole I would still have to remain highly skeptical of even the first writings about Jesus let alone those that came later.

Peter, I'm a linguistics student, and have studied literature, with some emphasis on oral cultures. The thing is, the story keepers of those cultures aren't twice as good at remembering a story compared to people to day. They were many, many times better. They had to be. Yes, stories changed...but not nearly to the extent we would expect, given that WE are the product of centuries of written records.

Diana, would it be rude of me to ask for something other than your opinion on that? And I don't need to point out again that even if they were an order of magnitude better at remembering a story it still doesn't address the problem of motivation to massage the stories or make them up outright. We all know a good story becomes a great story with a little embellishment.

I would not expect you to be anything but a skeptic...but please don't be skeptical for the wrong reasons. MY problem with these stories isn't so much that they weren't written down immediately, but that those that DID had their writings modified by the scribes that came after them. As well, we have problems in what was selected to include in the final 'bible,' ..and who selected them.

Yep, I have the same concerns. Is that why you like Mormonism? Even I, a skeptic, have to admit that the Book of Mormon is virtually unadulterated from the time of it's drafting even if I have grave concerns as to its source. Is an unadulterated fantasy preferable over an adulterated one? I would reject them both but I wouldn't begrudge anyone a fantasy if it made their lives easier. I only draw the line where their fantasy interferes with my life. Today I fear for my life and the life of my children because of warring religious fantasies. Nothing personal but Mormonism is one.

[Ooberman]

Today I fear for my life and the life of my children because of warring religious fantasies. Nothing personal but Mormonism is one.

And on any other site, you might have Di and others agreeing, but here they feel religion needs to be defended except the most egregiously extreme versions.

However, catch them on another day and they will say that religion (the man-made institution) is a serious problem (then they'll follow up with "we have to get back to just worshiping God!" - of course, that's the source of the problem!)

[dianaiad]

Yep, I have the same concerns. Is that why you like Mormonism?

One of the reasons. We acknowledge the problems with scripture and the changes that have happened.

Even I, a skeptic, have to admit that the Book of Mormon is virtually unadulterated from the time of it's drafting even if I have grave concerns as to its source. Is an unadulterated fantasy preferable over an adulterated one? I would reject them both but I wouldn't begrudge anyone a fantasy if it made their lives easier. I only draw the line where their fantasy interferes with my life. Today I fear for my life and the life of my children because of warring religious fantasies. Nothing personal but Mormonism is one.

Dunno why. Mormonism is about the only religion I know of that has respect and tolerance for other beliefs not just spouted, but embedded in our doctrine and 'creed,' as listed in the "13 Articles of Faith."

This one, number 11: We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

This includes the option of not worshiping anything. Oh, we'll come talk to you and attempt to convince you, but there will never be any attempt to legislate or force you to join up. Even our ideas of what the 'millenium' will be like (you know, that time when Christ rules personally upon the earth again, that most Christian religions have some idea of?) include the idea that not everybody there is going to be LDS.

Come to think of it, we might just be the only Christian group I know of that considers THAT idea.

[dianaiad]

Today I fear for my life and the life of my children because of warring religious fantasies. Nothing personal but Mormonism is one.

And on any other site, you might have Di and others agreeing, but here they feel religion needs to be defended except the most egregiously extreme versions.

However, catch them on another day and they will say that religion (the man-made institution) is a serious problem (then they'll follow up with "we have to get back to just worshiping God!" - of course, that's the source of the problem!)

Ooberman. REALLY? What in the name of all that's wonderful would you ever say that about ME for? There is no time or place where I would say that religion is a problem and we have to get back to worshiping God (without, evidently, a religion involved).

Me.
Returned LDS Missionary.
TBM.

(snort)

I'll be handing out pamphlets on the day they pull life support.

[Ooberman]

You just admitted your sacred text was a point of debate (concerning the changes), which means there is a "problem" with the man-made part of your religion.
So, it seems to follow that the resolution would include some assertion to look past it and seek god directly in absence of clear direction.

[dianaiad]

You just admitted your sacred text was a point of debate (concerning the changes), which means there is a "problem" with the man-made part of your religion.
So, it seems to follow that the resolution would include some assertion to look past it and seek god directly in absence of clear direction.

Not 'look past it.' Not 'ignore it.' But do confirm the truths found by going to God personally to confirm and/or understand it.

[Ooberman]

You just admitted your sacred text was a point of debate (concerning the changes), which means there is a "problem" with the man-made part of your religion.
So, it seems to follow that the resolution would include some assertion to look past it and seek god directly in absence of clear direction.

Not 'look past it.' Not 'ignore it.' But do confirm the truths found by going to God personally to confirm and/or understand it.

You have to look past it if you are going to find a resolution. Unless, of course, you expect the conflict (concerning changes in the text) to extend indefinitely.

At some point, you either have to say "yes, there is a conflict and we can't say anything more about it" or look past it and say "this is what Yahweh meant."("I know what God thinks").

BTW, when you say "go to your god directly" do you mean die?

You realize that it's too late, then, right?


Oh,... not according to the faith you have in Joseph Smith, and your parents ability to bear you as a Mormon baby...

[dianaiad]

You just admitted your sacred text was a point of debate (concerning the changes), which means there is a "problem" with the man-made part of your religion.
So, it seems to follow that the resolution would include some assertion to look past it and seek god directly in absence of clear direction.

Not 'look past it.' Not 'ignore it.' But do confirm the truths found by going to God personally to confirm and/or understand it.

You have to look past it if you are going to find a resolution. Unless, of course, you expect the conflict (concerning changes in the text) to extend indefinitely.

At some point, you either have to say "yes, there is a conflict and we can't say anything more about it" or look past it and say "this is what Yahweh meant."("I know what God thinks").

BTW, when you say "go to your god directly" do you mean die?

No, actually, I mean 'prayer.'

[Donray]

laws of logic
epistemic relativism
laws of noncontradiction

These are typical of the things that are heard in academic circles. I give them little importance. When advancing a belief I will happily make a few attempts to help the reader to understand but only a few. A time comes when debating becomes a burden instead of a pleasure.

When we are young we perceive the world through a relatively narrow window. As we grow older and wisdoms accrue that aperture grows wider. We now are able to perceive much broader vistas in understanding. This is what I mean when I make reference to your age. It is apparent that you do not yet have sufficient experience.

If the above has not occurred to you it would explain why you ask: "I don't see what my age has to do with....."

BTW below your avatar appears: "Under Probation". Was this your idea or have you drawn the attention of the moderators? Perhaps others have thought you a bit too demanding?

Justin108 at this point I am taking charge of this exchange. You will be added to my "ignore list" for a while until you decide to be a little less pesky. You may PM me with your response if you care to.

I don't understand how an old curmudgeon can get away with all the personal insults. Of course I have found that religious people can only use insults to defend there beliefs. They cannot logically do anything else but throw out insults when they have no other logical reply.


Sounds like you need to believe because you are afraid for dying and need to believe there is something beyond death. People like you need to believe because they had nothing in life so they need to say they will have a nice time with 29 virgins after death.

You do know that Christians cannot define what haven is like. The only thing they say is for eternity you worship god.

Sorry, when you die you have nothing after.

[Allahakbar]

I don't but my interpretation suits my correlation with Occam's Razor

Oh hell no. Your interpretation is needlessly complex, appealing to deep metaphorical nonsense. Occam's Razor would say Moses was simply wrong about Genesis. Much simpler.



Also you missed a question I asked regarding your claim to all religions holding the truth... but I'll ask again;

Judaism says there is one god. Hinduism says there are many. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Believe as you will...

You keep missing my question. I'll try again.

Judaism says there is one god. Hinduism says there are many. Who is right? Who is wrong?

Both are correct. It is only here on earth that people quibble over such irrelevancies. I refuse to think or speak in divisive terms because I try to live the inclusiveness that all religions attempt to teach.

You will not like my answer but it's about time you stop arguing and begin to develop the ability to accept that yours is not the only mind in the universe.

Peace to you younger brother...

Both are correct. It is only here on earth that people quibble over such irrelevancies

Can you tell us where else people might quibble or otherwise?