The Bible Says So....

[Sntrose]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

[4gold]

True. If you have faith and therefore belief in revelation, inspiration or authority and don't base your beliefs on reason and evidence nothing stops you from believing in whatever you want no matter how irrational.

As I said before, I believe God exists and in the resurrection through reason, not faith. The beliefs that stem from that reason, I accept based on faith.

[ttruscott]

Of course the Bible says so...but every Christian of any sect gets to either make up what they think what each verse says or they get to follow the voice of their personal holy spirit, which may or may not be the true Holy Spirit of GOD, to interpret what the verse means...

That is the meaning of Live by faith, not by sight / proof.

Good luck with that,

Peace, Ted

[Stan]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

Usually, it is accompanied by a quote from Scripture, and then something along the lines of, "it's clearly in the Bible. So that's why it's a sin. The Bible says so."

What it is about this book that I'm not getting? What kind of book is there that could possibly be so infallible that you would never question it's contents? Nothing can be wrong? Not even a translation error? As long as it's in the Bible, you can relax...it must be right! It's in the Bible. So we don't have to think any more?

I sincerely do not intend this to be insulting. I mean it as a question. Read this in a happy voice...not a sarcastic one. That is the tone I intend...and would prefer the answers to be in....

As a believer we accept the Word of God as just that, God's Word. It may be written by men, but it is inspired by God.
As such it is our sole arbitrator.
Paul wrote in 2 Tim 3:16-17;
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Just as we have faith in Jesus for our salvation, we have faith in God that His Word is protected and maintained. There are no original manuscripts for the Bible. ALL we have are Greek manuscripts from the first and second centuries AD, but by faith we believe God has maintained His Word and today the modern English translations are very accurate in conveying those manuscripts. One of the biggest archaeological finds ever were the Dead Sea scrolls. I suggest you read up on them to get a better perspective on how they contributed, very positively, to the accuracy of the manuscripts and translations we did have up to that time. They confirmed just about all we know and have translated about the Bible that we have today.

[Danmark]

This is directed to my Christian friends here, coming from an atheist. I have been reading through some of the posts here, and I keep running across the same thing. It's got me very confused. Why is it that when asked a moral question, the answer is "because it is in the Bible." ? The line of logic seems to stop there.

As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever. The answer to their explanation is nothing more than tradition. We can easily see the truth of this by reviewing the % of various religions in various nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

What one finds, no matter what source is consulted, is that whether the religion is Islam, Buddhist, or Christian, the percentages in many countries approach 100%.

If logic an truth were more powerful than tradition, we would not have one country that is 99% Christian and another that is 99% Muslim.

This single fact demonstrates with a clarity beyond argument that religious belief does not depend upon logic, truth, or reason. Religious belief is almost entirely dependent upon each person's and each culture's tradition. Where we see diversity and even abandonment of these religious traditions is in countries where their is greater cultural diversity and education.

[Stan]

As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever. The answer to their explanation is nothing more than tradition. We can easily see the truth of this by reviewing the % of various religions in various nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

What one finds, no matter what source is consulted, is that whether the religion is Islam, Buddhist, or Christian, the percentages in many countries approach 100%.

If logic an truth were more powerful than tradition, we would not have one country that is 99% Christian and another that is 99% Muslim.

This single fact demonstrates with a clarity beyond argument that religious belief does not depend upon logic, truth, or reason. Religious belief is almost entirely dependent upon each person's and each culture's tradition. Where we see diversity and even abandonment of these religious traditions is in countries where their is greater cultural diversity and education.

Did you logically deduce this?

BTW, your percentages are way off.

As you didn't really demonstrate a fact, then logically your statement is incorrect.

[Danmark]

As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever. The answer to their explanation is nothing more than tradition. We can easily see the truth of this by reviewing the % of various religions in various nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

What one finds, no matter what source is consulted, is that whether the religion is Islam, Buddhist, or Christian, the percentages in many countries approach 100%.

If logic an truth were more powerful than tradition, we would not have one country that is 99% Christian and another that is 99% Muslim.

This single fact demonstrates with a clarity beyond argument that religious belief does not depend upon logic, truth, or reason. Religious belief is almost entirely dependent upon each person's and each culture's tradition. Where we see diversity and even abandonment of these religious traditions is in countries where their is greater cultural diversity and education.

Did you logically deduce this?

BTW, your percentages are way off.

As you didn't really demonstrate a fact, then logically your statement is incorrect.

I can't help you if you don't read. The site I referenced shows, for example, that both Samoa and Romania are 99% Christian and a total of at least 20 countries that are over 93% to 100% Christian. Six countries are 99% to 100% Muslim, and 18 countries that are between 93% and 100% Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

You are entitled to your own untested and intellectually flabby opinions, but not to your own facts.

[Stan]

I can't help you if you don't read. The site I referenced shows, for example, that both Samoa and Romania are 99% Christian and a total of at least 20 countries that are over 93% to 100% Christian. Six countries are 99% to 100% Muslim, and 18 countries that are between 93% and 100% Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

You are entitled to your own untested and intellectually flabby opinions, but not to your own facts.

I read, I just don't accept EVERYTHING I read at face value. It is the same kind of faith that you denigrate, that allows you to accept Wiki as 100% factual.
FYI, 100% of Vatican citizens are NOT Christian just the same as 100% of any church is NOT actually Christian. Being Roman Catholic does NOT mean you are a Christian any more than being an Israeli means you are Judaic. Canada is NOT 60-70% Christian. USA is NOT 80-90% Christian. The U.S. includes Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses in their figures, who are NOT Christians.
If a Muslim country takes a census and asks it citizens what religion they are, how many will answer Christian?
You speak of logic yet use none in your understanding of these polls.

I'm entitled to FACTS which you have NOT presented. This is typical of people of your ilk.

[Danmark]

I can't help you if you don't read. The site I referenced shows, for example, that both Samoa and Romania are 99% Christian and a total of at least 20 countries that are over 93% to 100% Christian. Six countries are 99% to 100% Muslim, and 18 countries that are between 93% and 100% Muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... opulations

You are entitled to your own untested and intellectually flabby opinions, but not to your own facts.

I read, I just don't accept EVERYTHING I read at face value. It is the same kind of faith that you denigrate, that allows you to accept Wiki as 100% factual.
FYI, 100% of Vatican citizens are NOT Christian just the same as 100% of any church is NOT actually Christian. Being Roman Catholic does NOT mean you are a Christian any more than being an Israeli means you are Judaic. Canada is NOT 60-70% Christian. USA is NOT 80-90% Christian. The U.S. includes Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses in their figures, who are NOT Christians.
If a Muslim country takes a census and asks it citizens what religion they are, how many will answer Christian?
You speak of logic yet use none in your understanding of these polls.

I'm entitled to FACTS which you have NOT presented. This is typical of people of your ilk.

You've completely missed the point and now are compounding the error.

The point is that it is not truth and logic that, in general make one a Muslim or a Christian. It is tradition. The statistics demonstrate that very powerfully. If there are are approximately 20 countries that are over 90% Muslim and 20 others that are over 90% Christian, than obviously there is something going on besides free will, choice, logic and objective evaluation.

If you don't like the statistics, the facts, prove them wrong. You have not. You've essentially just said you don't like them. Then you bring in things that are completely irrelevant, such as quibbling with the religious statistics re: the USA, Canada, and the Vatican.

Wikipedia does not say the U.S. is "80-90% Christian" as you claim it does. Wikipedia states that, 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001.[2] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... ted_States.

If you want to quibble with those numbers, read the footnotes and do your own research or find a different site. Your opinion regarding what you think the 'true' numbers are is irrelevant.

Also, your opinion about who is and is not a Christian is irrelevant to the argument.

The essence of the argument is that many countries are predominantly composed of people claiming allegiance to one religion vs. another. Do you disagree with that?

Do you have an explanation for that difference that suggests most of these folk came to widely differing conclusions about faith based on an objective search for truth?
Or are you willing to concede the point that, in general, people make their religious choices based on their traditions and culture?

By the way, personalizing the argument with statements like "... typical of people of your ilk," does not advance the argument.

[Stan]

You've completely missed the point and now are compounding the error.

The point is that it is not truth and logic that, in general make one a Muslim or a Christian. It is tradition. The statistics demonstrate that very powerfully. If there are are approximately 20 countries that are over 90% Muslim and 20 others that are over 90% Christian, than obviously there is something going on besides free will, choice, logic and objective evaluation.

If you don't like the statistics, the facts, prove them wrong. You have not. You've essentially just said you don't like them. Then you bring in things that are completely irrelevant, such as quibbling with the religious statistics re: the USA, Canada, and the Vatican.

Wikipedia does not say the U.S. is "80-90% Christian" as you claim it does. Wikipedia states that, 73% of polled Americans identifying themselves as Christian in 2012.[1] This is down from 86% in 1990, and slightly lower than 78.6% in 2001.[2] About 62% of those polled claim to be members of a church congregation.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christiani ... ted_States.

If you want to quibble with those numbers, read the footnotes and do your own research or find a different site. Your opinion regarding what you think the 'true' numbers are is irrelevant.

Also, your opinion about who is and is not a Christian is irrelevant to the argument.

The essence of the argument is that many countries are predominantly composed of people claiming allegiance to one religion vs. another. Do you disagree with that?

Do you have an explanation for that difference that suggests most of these folk came to widely differing conclusions about faith based on an objective search for truth?
Or are you willing to concede the point that, in general, people make their religious choices based on their traditions and culture?

By the way, personalizing the argument with statements like "... typical of people of your ilk," does not advance the argument.

NO, I totally get the point but now you want to equivocate. The point is you think Christians believing the Bible is not logical yet you believe Wiki on the same basis.

It IS truth that makes one recognize who Jesus is, NOT logic. Logic keeps people from recognizing real truth. Faith requires that we step out from behind logic and BELIEVE what we are being told. Faith pretty much works the same way where ever it is utilized.

No, I said Wiki is not 100% reliable or accurate. Here are MY facts: http://www.bible.ca/global-religion-sta ... opedia.htm
Maybe you would prefer the CIA stats? https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2122.html

Wiki's color map does and what does it say about Romania and other countries that are 99 or 100%? The point IS they are NOT accurate.

If my opinion is irrelevant than so is yours friend and also very condescending IMO. However if you are going to insist on making these unproven assertions then I will counter and let other decide what is and isn't relevant.

The essence of most countries is a secular one, despite what they claim. Even Syria that CLAIMS to be Muslim, kills it's own people and bans the hijab in public places.

My opinion as a Christian of over 42 years is very relevant as I have seen MANY professing Christian who are NOT. When the fact of the matter IS finally proven, that will be a time you personally will woefully regret.

There is a big difference between ANY adherent who is professing, crypto or actual. Just as much as those who say they don't lie, cheat or steal, but DO!

There is little doubt that many align their religious beliefs with their cultural upbringing. There is also little doubt that blind allegiance is NOT belief nor commitment.

I would suggest that if you really believe statements like mine do NOT advance an argument then maybe you should not have made your opening statement that said; "As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever."

Your bias and condescension is VERY evident, despite how you may try to couch it.

[Danmark]

NO, I totally get the point but now you want to equivocate. The point is you think Christians believing the Bible is not logical yet you believe Wiki on the same basis.

It IS truth that makes one recognize who Jesus is, NOT logic. Logic keeps people from recognizing real truth.
....
I would suggest that if you really believe statements like mine do NOT advance an argument then maybe you should not have made your opening statement that said; "As you can see by the 'explanations' from your 'Christian friends,' logic is of no use whatsoever."....

Um... You complain about the statement that 'logic is of no use,' yet you said exactly the same thing, that 'truth' NOT logic 'makes one recognize who Jesus is;' that 'logic keeps people from recognizing the truth.'

Here are your own words again:
'It IS truth that makes one recognize who Jesus is, NOT logic. Logic keeps people from recognizing real truth.'
_ Stan
I agree with you, and that has been the point of my argument from the beginning, that people choose their religion for reasons that are not logical.

BTW, you accuse me of equivocation. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word. "Equivocation" is the use of the same word to denote different meanings. It is an example of a logical fallacy.

Even if your terminology were correct, your statement is still inapposite. Your hostility to facts presented in Wikipedia stems from not likely the facts, yet you have not answered the challenge to show how they are incorrect. It is not the 'logic' of Wikipedia that is at issue, but whether the article is factually correct.

At any rate, I'm glad you now agree that logic not only does not help one 'see Jesus,' but that logic is actually a barrier to what you call 'truth.'

This position of yours helps explain why people in different cultures and traditions see such opposite versions of what they claim is 'the truth;' i.e., that they don't use logic. You've made the point rather well.