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?

[Dantalion]

Tell me why you don't think Ooberman talks with God?

He says he doesn't. I tend to take people's word for such things.

After all you do so why not others? After all the Pope has said that Atheists also go to haven.

I do. Others do. Ooberman says he doesn't. (shrug)

Why shouldn't I believe him?

BTW, I had no idea that the Pope thinks that atheists go to Haven. Interesting. Perhaps that's why the 'troubles' are ubiquitous there.

Actually what the pope said was that atheists can do good (an amazing step forward by the Catholic church). Atheists can go to heaven.... but only if they are saved by Jesus. I. E., for an atheist to go to heaven he needs to become catholic.

Nothing to profound about that. The only interesting part was the pope flat out conceding that atheists aren't all hedonistic baby eaters. But even that is suspicious because I'm sure the only "reason" atheists can do good is because of the influence of Christians, Jesus, holy spirit, blah, blah blah.

freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2013/06/02/vatican-but-seriously-atheists-still-get-tortured-forever/

Huge step forward please.
What, did God suddenly change his mind ?
How ludicrous.
All these 'innovative progressive Catholics' achieve is convince more people about the obvious fact it's all man-made.
It makes the things they DON'T change stand out as ridiculous even more.

[Danmark]

About 45 years ago or so I was sitting in the BYU cafeteria, looking at my 'mission call' letter (I was going to be a missionary in England) and a young man I had seen in a couple of my classes asked if he could sit down.

I shrugged and said fine, and we talked a little bit about school, and missions, and such. I could see that he was working up to something...but I wasn't prepared for that 'something." He said..."I have received a revelation. You should not go on this mission. You should marry me, instead. You will help me through school and we will have children."

Now, he wasn't a gargoyle or anything, seemed nice enough (except for that rather strange kick in his gallop). There was a problem, however, and I told him what it was. "That's nice...but God forgot to tell ME."

Excellent example! And therein lies the problem with 'revelation' and 'revelators.'

[dianaiad]

About 45 years ago or so I was sitting in the BYU cafeteria, looking at my 'mission call' letter (I was going to be a missionary in England) and a young man I had seen in a couple of my classes asked if he could sit down.

I shrugged and said fine, and we talked a little bit about school, and missions, and such. I could see that he was working up to something...but I wasn't prepared for that 'something." He said..."I have received a revelation. You should not go on this mission. You should marry me, instead. You will help me through school and we will have children."

Now, he wasn't a gargoyle or anything, seemed nice enough (except for that rather strange kick in his gallop). There was a problem, however, and I told him what it was. "That's nice...but God forgot to tell ME."

Excellent example! And therein lies the problem with 'revelation' and 'revelators.'

Indeed.

(grin)

But I don't think you got my point, m'friend.

The POINT is, when someone claims revelation...or when a book claims to be revelation...then you, the individual, have not only the right, but the obligation, to get confirmation from the One Who is supposed to have been doing the revealing.

Get your own revelation.

[Danmark]

About 45 years ago or so I was sitting in the BYU cafeteria, looking at my 'mission call' letter (I was going to be a missionary in England) and a young man I had seen in a couple of my classes asked if he could sit down.

I shrugged and said fine, and we talked a little bit about school, and missions, and such. I could see that he was working up to something...but I wasn't prepared for that 'something." He said..."I have received a revelation. You should not go on this mission. You should marry me, instead. You will help me through school and we will have children."

Now, he wasn't a gargoyle or anything, seemed nice enough (except for that rather strange kick in his gallop). There was a problem, however, and I told him what it was. "That's nice...but God forgot to tell ME."

Excellent example! And therein lies the problem with 'revelation' and 'revelators.'

Indeed.

(grin)

But I don't think you got my point, m'friend.

The POINT is, when someone claims revelation...or when a book claims to be revelation...then you, the individual, have not only the right, but the obligation, to get confirmation from the One Who is supposed to have been doing the revealing.

Get your own revelation.

I have 'indeed' done that. And it has been revealed to me that Jesus was not divine.

Your point, 'm'friend' may be that claims of revelation need confirmation. But the 'confirmation' comes from the same source, one's own unconscious. I'm well aware of the oft' quoted Mormon "good feeling" or "burning" in the "bosom" that somehow confirms the 'holy ghost' has confirmed the revelation or testimony.

I think you will agree that many, whether of one religion or another, whether secular or otherwise, can get 'a feeling' that seems to confirm some belief. Your dopey friend may have been sincere, how are you or I to judge?.

I have little doubt that our Islamic friend steps is sincere. I'm sure he has a 'burning in his bosom' that confirms the "truth" of Islam. So what? The only thing we can really rely on is what science confirms. Science does not do that absolutely, but it is more reliable than 'a feeling.'

But I am with you in your 'May god keep you... far away from me' sentiment about steps.

[dianaiad]

Get your own revelation.

I have 'indeed' done that. And it has been revealed to me that Jesus was not divine.[/quote]

OK....

Your point, 'm'friend' may be that claims of revelation need confirmation. But the 'confirmation' comes from the same source, one's own unconscious.

You think so.

I don't. At least, not all the time.

I'm well aware of the oft' quoted Mormon "good feeling" or "burning" in the "bosom" that somehow confirms the 'holy ghost' has confirmed the revelation or testimony.

I think you will agree that many, whether of one religion or another, whether secular or otherwise, can get 'a feeling' that seems to confirm some belief. Your dopey friend may have been sincere, how are you or I to judge?.

He may well have been. Doesn't matter; God still forgot to tell ME, and that's rather the point.

I have little doubt that our Islamic friend steps is sincere. I'm sure he has a 'burning in his bosom' that confirms the "truth" of Islam.

Why do I doubt that?

So what? The only thing we can really rely on is what science confirms. Science does not do that absolutely, but it is more reliable than 'a feeling.'

I think it's probably quite reliable. The problem is....

OK, I think...and this is my own opinion, mind you...

Every religion or belief system has truth in it. The truth doesn't change because it has different surroundings, after all. If 'do as you would be done by' is true in Christianity, it's also true in Islam, or atheism, or Budhism, or Jainism, or Mithraism or any other ism. It's a true concept. If you pray about it, you'll get confirmation that it is true. The PROBLEMS happen when the investigator takes that one truth and hangs all the other stuff on it, like bags on a hat rack.

So, was my whacky young suitor sincere? Possibly. However, I don't think he was hearing what he was actually being told.

I'm not going to assume that Steps has, or has not, done any praying about his own beliefs, in the manner of 'Hey, Allah...Is all this stuff TRUE?" I have my own opinion about the probabilities, but I'll let him figure out, and tell us, if he so chooses.

But I am with you in your 'May god keep you... far away from me' sentiment about steps.

[Danmark]

Get your own revelation.

I have 'indeed' done that. And it has been revealed to me that Jesus was not divine.

OK....

Your point, 'm'friend' may be that claims of revelation need confirmation. But the 'confirmation' comes from the same source, one's own unconscious.

You think so.

I don't. At least, not all the time.

I'm well aware of the oft' quoted Mormon "good feeling" or "burning" in the "bosom" that somehow confirms the 'holy ghost' has confirmed the revelation or testimony.

I think you will agree that many, whether of one religion or another, whether secular or otherwise, can get 'a feeling' that seems to confirm some belief. Your dopey friend may have been sincere, how are you or I to judge?.

He may well have been. Doesn't matter; God still forgot to tell ME, and that's rather the point.

I have little doubt that our Islamic friend steps is sincere. I'm sure he has a 'burning in his bosom' that confirms the "truth" of Islam.

Why do I doubt that?

So what? The only thing we can really rely on is what science confirms. Science does not do that absolutely, but it is more reliable than 'a feeling.'

I think it's probably quite reliable. The problem is....

OK, I think...and this is my own opinion, mind you...

Every religion or belief system has truth in it. The truth doesn't change because it has different surroundings, after all. If 'do as you would be done by' is true in Christianity, it's also true in Islam, or atheism, or Budhism, or Jainism, or Mithraism or any other ism. It's a true concept. If you pray about it, you'll get confirmation that it is true. The PROBLEMS happen when the investigator takes that one truth and hangs all the other stuff on it, like bags on a hat rack.

So, was my whacky young suitor sincere? Possibly. However, I don't think he was hearing what he was actually being told.

I'm not going to assume that Steps has, or has not, done any praying about his own beliefs, in the manner of 'Hey, Allah...Is all this stuff TRUE?" I have my own opinion about the probabilities, but I'll let him figure out, and tell us, if he so chooses.
[/quote]
You're far too reasonable to be religious.

[olavisjo]

.

Get your own revelation.

I have 'indeed' done that. And it has been revealed to me that Jesus was not divine.

OK....

Should be...

Get your own revelation.

I have 'indeed' done that. And it has been revealed to me that Jesus was not divine.

OK....

As if Danmark forgot what he had said.

[Ooberman]

I don't think we need much more to see how absurd "revelations" are. The fact they are a dime a dozen and contradict each other regularly obviously shows there is no standard in assessing revelations, and there is no way to test which is more true.

It's all fun and games when it's two relatively sane people in a cafe, but what about the revelation of the 9-11 assholes, or Andrea Yates, or Moses when people's lives are on the line?

Is it really so easy to say "get your own revelation"?

I find that chilling. It's not only saying you can have your subjective morals, but you are welcome to believe they come from an unimpeachable source and are a command to act on them.


Had it been another time, Di's suitor would simply have had to have raped Di and then taken her to the elders to marry her. (per the OT).

All based on his revelation.


This screams out to me that belief in God is a psychological issue, not an actual revelation from God.

[dianaiad]

I don't think we need much more to see how absurd "revelations" are. The fact they are a dime a dozen and contradict each other regularly obviously shows there is no standard in assessing revelations, and there is no way to test which is more true.

It's all fun and games when it's two relatively sane people in a cafe, but what about the revelation of the 9-11 assholes, or Andrea Yates, or Moses when people's lives are on the line?

Is it really so easy to say "get your own revelation"?

Obviously it was easy to say. Easy to type, too.

I freely admit that it's not easy to do. It is, however, necessary, if one is going to have a 'non-circular' reason for believing in something that claims to come from God.

I find that chilling. It's not only saying you can have your subjective morals, but you are welcome to believe they come from an unimpeachable source and are a command to act on them.

Woah. There is a reason they call the sippery slope argument a fallacy.

[Ooberman]

You are purposely avoiding the implications of your position. Why?

Where does one stop with a revelation? When it tells you to kill?

Its not a slippery slope fallacy, di.

Its your cognitive dissonance that stops you from extending your beleif to others.

For some reason, you think your revelations are superior because they are lukewarm milquetoast.