Why Should Anyone Care What the Bible Says?

[POI]

For eons, theists will quote Scripture, with the presupposition that it is authoritative in some kind of way. I contend that the Bible is no better or worse than any other collection of writings. Meaning, it may appear to have some 'good' things to say, some 'bad' things to say, some 'strange' things to say, some 'wrong' things to say, some untenable things to say, some contradictory things to say, etc etc etc....

Any of us can produce passages and quotes from anyone, or any publication. To many, the Bible is just another one of those tools for use, where applicable.

For Debate:

Why should one more-so care what the Bible says? Is it because....

1. It is the inspired word of God? If so, how do you know?

2. Another reason(s)? If so, what, and why does this make anyone care what the Bible says?

[POI]

Why should one more-so care what the Bible says? Is it because....

I don't know how I missed this thread for so long. But probably cause I've been wrapped up in debating this very issue. If you want to see my arguments, please go to How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Can you direct me to the post number(s) which answer(s) this topic? It's a rather large thread link you've sent.

[Data]

You want confirmation bias.

I explained this in post 131. When <a claim> is put forth, it may take more for some to believe <the claim> than others. If two folks receive the same 'evidence' for <the claim>, one may then believe the claim, while the other may continue to not believe the claim, for whatever reason(s).  However, regardless of one's a prior belief(s) and/or perceptions, minds change all the time, including mine.

You have explained it. And I agree 100%. But that is irrelevant to <my claim> that you want confirmation bias.

I want the evidence(s) which convinced you that the Christian God exists. Maybe it will convince me too?

No. You don't want the evidence. No. It wont convince you.

I recommend you stop poisoning the well and instead give me the evidence(s) you have, which convinced you the Christian God exists.

I already have. You rejected it. Said it was "fake."

Wouldn't this also be the exact same methodology used to prove Lord Xenu of Scientology?

Exactly.

As I stated prior, I've changed my mind about many things in life. And likely will continue to do so for many claims.

I assume that's true.

Why do you believe it?

Why do you not?

[POI]

No. You don't want the evidence. No. It wont convince you.

How do you know what I want?

And since you seem to think you know what I do and don't want, maybe you can also tell me why won't it convince me?

You rejected it. Said it was "fake."

Can you please direct me to this?

Wouldn't this also be the exact same methodology used to prove Lord Xenu of Scientology?

Exactly.

Then should we just flip a coin between the two, provided we do not also include all other religions?

As I stated prior, I've changed my mind about many things in life. And likely will continue to do so for many claims.

I assume that's true.

If you assume that's true, then your statement above in blue makes no sense.

Why do you believe it?

Why do you not?

I asked you first.

[Data]

How do you know what I want?

From your words, actions and affiliation.

And since you seem to think you know what I do and don't want, maybe you can also tell me why won't it convince me?

Because you reject it. If you wanted to be convinced that, as we discussed earlier I believe, isn't a choice, correct? You don't choose what you believe you only choose what evidence you are willing to actively pursue. You're not doing that. You're debating against it. You will reject what is proposed. Primarily, without getting very detailed, because of ideological fixation. As long as it is an ideological issue it is extremely unlikely that you will change your mind. You could. I'm not saying you couldn't, but it is extremely unlikely. You don't need me or anyone else to convince you. You only need yourself and a good study Bible. Free online.

You rejected it. Said it was "fake."

Can you please direct me to this?

For all we know, everything you adhere to by faith, in regard to the <supernatural>, are "spurious" texts/claims which were not present in earlier copies.

By spurious you mean fake. Oxford dictionary definition. You can't establish the authenticity of the originals so the point is moot. Just say it could be fake.

You have two choices. You think the Bible is true or you think it isn't.

Then should we just flip a coin between the two, provided we do not also include all other religions?

You could if you like.

If you assume that's true, then your statement above in blue makes no sense.

Why not? Are they mutually exclusive?

I asked you first.

I've already told you. There is only one source. The Bible.

[POI]

How do you know what I want?

From your words, actions and affiliation.

What words, what actions, and what affiliation?

If you wanted to be convinced that, as we discussed earlier I believe, isn't a choice, correct? You don't choose what you believe you only choose what evidence you are willing to actively pursue.

You're not doing that. You're debating against it. You will reject what is proposed. Primarily, without getting very detailed, because of ideological fixation. As long as it is an ideological issue it is extremely unlikely that you will change your mind. You could. I'm not saying you couldn't, but it is extremely unlikely.

And as I've stated, more than once, I have changed my mind about many things in life. If you feel you have a strong case for belief, you will present it.

You don't need me or anyone else to convince you. You only need yourself and a good study Bible. Free online.

I've read the Bible. What about the Bible convinces you that Jehovah is real?

You have two choices. You think the Bible is true or you think it isn't.

Not quite. It's not binary. A true dichotomy is (A), or not (A). In the case for the Bible's claims, or any uber extra-ordinary claims for that matter, we have more than two possibilities.

A) belief
B) agnosticism
C) disbelief

When an uber extra-ordinary claim is placed before you, you can opt for one of the (3) choices. Which option is the most rational starting point for any uber extra-ordinary claim placed before you? Is it ever (A)? As the years have rolled by, I'm currently somewhere in between (B) and (C).

Then should we just flip a coin between the two, provided we do not also include all other religions?

You could if you like.

Your response demonstrates that such methodology does not lead to a 'truth', unless by accident. Hence, you prior explanation is irrelevant.

If you assume that's true, then your statement above in blue makes no sense.

Why not? Are they mutually exclusive?

My mind can be changed about anything, given enough evidence. What'za got? So far, we stopped at "coin flips".

I've already told you. There is only one source. The Bible.

What exactly about the Bible demonstrates Jehovah?

[Data]

What words, what actions, and what affiliation?

All of them.

And as I've stated, more than once, I have changed my mind about many things in life. If you feel you have a strong case for belief, you will present it.

No. I won't. Why would I. First of all, the Bible isn't authoritative in this forum, correct? So why do you ask me to change your mind by telling you what changed my mind in a forum such as this? Because you don't want me to. Whatever I tell you about the Bible, you will reject. You already have rejected. You're not going to change your mind, you want to reject. You're like a shark circling in the water.

I've read the Bible.

And you rejected it, correct?

What about the Bible convinces you that Jehovah is real?

All of it.

Not quite. It's not binary. A true dichotomy is (A), or not (A). In the case for the Bible's claims, or any uber extra-ordinary claims for that matter, we have more than two possibilities.

A) belief
B) agnosticism
C) disbelief

Okay, what do you do with A, B and C? A accept it, B, shouldn't have bothered with it in the first place, and C reject it.

When an uber extra-ordinary claim is placed before you, you can opt for one of the (3) choices. Which option is the most rational starting point for any uber extra-ordinary claim placed before you? Is it ever (A)? As the years have rolled by, I'm currently somewhere in between (B) and (C).

Good for you. Keep trying.

Your response demonstrates that such methodology does not lead to a 'truth', unless by accident. Hence, you prior explanation is irrelevant.

Okay. See? Not so difficult, is it?

My mind can be changed about anything, given enough evidence. What'za got? So far, we stopped at "coin flips".

I thought that was enough?

What exactly about the Bible demonstrates Jehovah?

It's a secret. i can't tell you.

[otseng]

Why should one more-so care what the Bible says? Is it because....

I don't know how I missed this thread for so long. But probably cause I've been wrapped up in debating this very issue. If you want to see my arguments, please go to How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

Can you direct me to the post number(s) which answer(s) this topic? It's a rather large thread link you've sent.

There is no simple answer to this, but it's a cumulative argument. I think I'll have to write a book one day to summarize my argument.

[POI]

No. I won't. Why would I. First of all, the Bible isn't authoritative in this forum, correct? So why do you ask me to change your mind by telling you what changed my mind in a forum such as this? Because you don't want me to. Whatever I tell you about the Bible, you will reject. You already have rejected. You're not going to change your mind, you want to reject. You're like a shark circling in the water.

Let's try a differing approach. The Bible is the claim, just like a biology book is the claim. I'm asking you to support the claim. You believe of the Bible is ultimately inspired by God. Why do you think so? Again, quoting scriptural verses would be no different than me quoting from the biology book. What evidence(s) support the claim(s) from these books?

Feel free to pick, what you feel, is the strongest topic to start with.... Simply saying "all of it" gets us nowhere.

[POI]

No. I won't. Why would I. First of all, the Bible isn't authoritative in this forum, correct? So why do you ask me to change your mind by telling you what changed my mind in a forum such as this? Because you don't want me to. Whatever I tell you about the Bible, you will reject. You already have rejected. You're not going to change your mind, you want to reject. You're like a shark circling in the water.

Let's try a differing approach. The Bible is the claim, just like a biology book is the claim. I'm asking you to support the claim. You believe the Bible is ultimately inspired by God. Why do you think so? Again, quoting scriptural verses would be no different than me quoting from the biology book. What evidence(s) support the claim(s) from these books?

Feel free to pick, what you feel, is the strongest topic to start with.... Simply saying "all of it" gets us nowhere.

[Data]

No. I won't. Why would I. First of all, the Bible isn't authoritative in this forum, correct? So why do you ask me to change your mind by telling you what changed my mind in a forum such as this? Because you don't want me to. Whatever I tell you about the Bible, you will reject. You already have rejected. You're not going to change your mind, you want to reject. You're like a shark circling in the water.

Let's try a differing approach. The Bible is the claim, just like a biology book is the claim. I'm asking you to support the claim. You believe of the Bible is ultimately inspired by God. Why do you think so? Again, quoting scriptural verses would be no different than me quoting from the biology book. What evidence(s) support the claim(s) from these books?

Feel free to pick, what you feel, is the strongest topic to start with.... Simply saying "all of it" gets us nowhere.

I was actually going to make this point myself by simply asking you why you believed any text book you read in high school, collage or university. We're told certain things from very young that we just believe. Santa Claus, for example. We believe, then one day, we're told not to believe and we stop. We never ask why, or what those things are really about. I wasn't raised that way because my family never pretended there was a Santa Claus or any of that nonsense growing up, but it was odd being so young and all of the children earnestly believed in Santa Claus. I started my Bible study to seriously see what it said expecting it to be as nonsensical as the Christianity I loathed all around me in the Bible belt. And it wasn't. It made sense. It made more sense than the evolution I was taught in school and never bought into long before I became a believer in the Bible. More sense than the political nonsense my dad had tried to indoctrinate me with when I was young. It made more sense than the world around me which at the time seemed very religious and fake. Like nearly everything I was ever told was, to a greater or lesser extent, and in one way or another, a lie. A lie you had to buy into much like all the kids believing Santa Claus when I was very young.

I can remember being six or seven years old and out of the blue one Easter my atheist dad decided that me and my sister had never celebrated Easter or had been to an Easter egg hunt so he vehemently insisted we go. I can remember like it was yesterday standing there, both of us, looking up at him with all of these spoiled overly excited brats running around tearing up the new grass in the park, and he was very angry because we just stood there looking at him, holding our empty baskets, with an expression that said "You want us to run around looking for boiled eggs?!" That's sort of how I looked at life and still do.

When I say "all of it" I mean the harmonious meaning from beginning to end. I mean knowing the difference between the spurious and the authentic. The difference between religiosity and real. the difference between literal, figurative, metaphorical, and allegorical. The difference between the pagan influences that were adopted later by apostate Christianity that make up the bulk of modern day traditional nonsense most believers and skeptics wrongly think is the Bible. The immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, hell from Milton and Dante, Christmas from Saturnalia and Dickens, Easter from Astarte (Ishtar) and the rapture from Darby. The truth that the meek shall inherit the earth instead of all good believers go to heaven, that the wages of sin are death instead of burning forever in hell, that Jesus died on a Hebrew torture stake instead of the cross, that flesh and blood can't inhabit the spiritual heavens instead of the rapture, that Jesus was the son of God, the first born only begotten of creation instead of the God with whom he was, that the Easter bunny, cross, and rabbit weren't somehow mysteriously involved in Jesus resurrection but that they were representations of spring fertility rituals practiced long before Jesus, in Abraham's time on the alluvial plains of Ur.

So, I don't read the Bible like a collection of Brothers Grimm fairy tales, I don't cherry pick or memorize scripture, in fact I purposely try not to, when someone says something that doesn't fit in the Bible, I know something's wrong. It all fits perfectly which is a remarkable feat for a collection of books that spans thousands of years of history, that was written over hundreds of years by over 40 writers. Show me a biology text book that can do that.

If you wanted me to show you what convinced me I would start with a brief verse by verse explanation for you to either accept or reject. Either outcome would be a good one to me so long as I gave you an accurate account of the Bible without the religious nonsense. The objective wouldn't be to convince you, it would be simply to inform you according to accurate knowledge so you can make your own informed decision. Each individual makes of the material what they will. What may have convinced me may not convince someone else. That's why I can't just tell you something about the Bible that "convinced" me. It was a long process. After six months of intense, and I mean intense, personal study I felt like I knew everything. That no one else knew what I had learned and that my unique spiritual quest for accurate knowledge was complete. I was very much wrong. Over the next three decades I learned more debating with atheists and their perspective - which comes directly form the aforementioned nonsensical Christian apostate teachings - than I ever had in personal study. Of course, part of the reason for that is it encouraged me to study much more. To research and investigate.

This unreasonable request of yours isn't the first one I've had to deal with. It's happened over and over again. I let it play out this time to see where it would go if I allowed it free reign. Circles. I don't understand why they ask me a very personal question and then refuse whatever answer I give. The only thing I can come up with is they want to justify their ideology, which is every bit as fake, IMO, as the modern Christian one. It's two sides of the ideological coin in a world that doesn't really make much sense.

There was no emotional trauma or rock bottom. There was no talking Jesus hologram, there was no moldy spot on the sidewalk or abstract image of Jesus looking back at me from a piece of toast and there was no payment plan to a phony and very wealthy televangelist. No meaningless death I needed to understand, no misery and no tragic lifestyle to escape. Just a very skeptical me and two translations of the Bible. Not one little part of the Bible. The entire Bible.