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]

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.

I remain skeptical to any claim until verified to my own satisfaction. If any claim does not already aside with my understanding of reality, I would ask the teacher questions, investigate the claim myself, or other. The more 'extra-ordinary' the claim, the more I likely need, as evidence, to substantiate the claim.

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.

Not for me. I discovered 'Santa Claus' wasn't real, on my own.

We never ask why, or what those things are really about.

I did. It was the tradition in which their parents bestowed upon them, so they just did the same to me. Much like religion often times, I guess.

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.

When I finally decided to read the Bible for myself, several years back, it did the exact opposite for me. And when I started to ask too many questions, I was met with hostility and resistance. In part because some questions were posed to my own family. Hence, one of the reasons I post here instead -- (but I still sometimes receive hostility and/or resistance here too anyways). Or even worse, crickets/silence.

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.

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.

I have to ask. Do you adopt the "young earth" or the "old earth view"? Is Genesis to be taken as literal factual events, or not? This may save us a lot of time?

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.

Sure, it can all fit when you know what the other texts say before you write your own.

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.

I've debated hermeneutic scholars. Some claim the earth is old, some claim it is young, some claim the flood was local, some claim it was global. Can you at least solve these simple discrepancies? Every Christian apologist I encounter thinks they have the correct interpretation. And yet, diverge as soon as Genesis

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.

Nah, you can start with a topic. Such as, "the Bible is prophetic" for instance. See how easy that is? Sure, it's a large topic, but I just introduced a topic. And it's a topic in which many theists rally around, in order to "justify" the claims from the Bible.

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.

Great. So all you need to do is support the claims from the Bible. Easy peasy....

[POI]

I don't expect to have to instruct him in something he has no real interest or respect for.

We already went over this. I never thought it possible that my ex would cheat on me. I also never thought Trump could win in 2016. However, I doubt you would care about my push-back, on either topic, if you felt you had solid evidence to counter my alternative conclusions. I just do not think you have any, and you know it. So you instead poison the well, to get out of it. As I stated prior, I've spent years in the trenches, on another Christian site. It was ultimately shut down. Hence, why I am here. I'd rather debate in a Christian biased platform, quite frankly. I can stir up the hornet's nest, and am then forced to justify my position, as I have all sorts of responses coming from numerous angles, (all Christian). Many responses in which I may have never thought of on my own, which is awesome. Here, maybe not as much from Christians.

I do not enjoy merely relishing in an echo chamber of atheists. I appreciate their input and still learn, yes. However, I more-so seek to engage theists. But, there is not a lot of them here. So I take what I can get. Give me your best. I guess I'll need to instead embrace the quality and not the quantity of Christian responses. Give me quality.

I'm watching POI. He got my attention from the start.

I'm truly flattered.

[Clownboat]

Of course that's patently false. Rolls Royce is the only automobile. I don't think you get my point. It's subjective.

My God is the one true real God and there are no other Gods is the claim made by religious people. This claim excludes all the other available Gods as being real.
You said: "All makes and models are automobiles". This is inclusive and allows for other automobiles to exist, unlike god claims that you are pretending are the same kind of claim. This is why your analogy fails.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (KJV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Thank you for demonstrating my point that your preferred holy book claims that there is one God to the exclusion of others. Unlike automobile claims.

Let's illustrate my point more directly, shall we?
Data, what is the likelihood that Allah is real and is the one true God?

100% likelihood. To Muslims. To me and you, 0%.

Bam! God concepts are believed in at the exclusion of there being real other god concepts. I happen own a Dodge, Jeep and a Chevy though. You can't believe in the Christian God and the Muslim God at the same time.

Your claim: "Faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe that likely things are true."
As you admit, there is a 0% chance for you that Allah is the one true god concept, because you believe in a god concept that excludes all others. Therefore, faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in the false idea that Allah is true (or for the Muslim that Jehovah is true). Faith has nothing to do with whether believing in Allah is likely true or not as you claimed. Faith as I have claimed is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in a claim that is false though. Yes, I admit (you can't) that it is possible that all the Muslims have chosen the correct god concept via faith. For you, all Muslims believe in a false god because of faith.

Oxford dictionary - Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

We are talking about religious faith and you know it.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You knew this already though as I supplied this to you. Which is why you had to quote mine it out of your reply. Sneaky sneaky...
Matthew 7:20 You will know them by their fruits.

I think, as is almost always the case with skepticism, it's just ideology.

Again, demonstrably wrong.
i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Being skeptical would be to doubt a system of ideas and ideals.

The skeptic associates words like god, sin, faith with nonsense and words like truth, evidence, science with the rational in an ideological possession that is similar to that of dogmatic disputes among the religious.

Nope, being skeptical is to doubt the truth of a claim, nothing to do with word association.

You won't accept the Oxford definitions I gave on truth or faith, correct?

No silly, as we are talking about religious faith. You know, the substance of things hoped for.
Or if you like dictionaries:
Faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Sure. Being ignorant can be fine and allows for learning.

How can you believe or not believe in something you are ignorant of?

You can't and I never claimed you could. Being ignorant allows for the possibility of learning, once faith is employed, you get to pretend you have the answer which would stop future investigation.
Example: "How did the universe come to be?"
You can take the easy route and place faith in a god concept and you will be supplied with answers... Or, you would have to admit your ignorance and investigate. Ignorance allows for learning, accepting claims because of faith stops learning.

Yes, that's what I was talking about with skepticism above. Skeptics do that all the time. Refuse accepted definitions because they don't serve their purpose, pretend to have answers about faith without having a clue what they are talking about, things like that.

You should be embarrassed IMO. Being skeptical refers to doubt. Being skeptical has nothing to do with accepting definitions to serve a purpose. Something you have done when you ignore how the Bible describes faith.

But I don't really think it has anything to do with any real investigation, just the latter part you mentioned. They just think their answers are superior because how couldn't it be. They are always right, always true, they dig evidence, man, that's for sure.

When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - Socrates

[Data]

My God is the one true real God and there are no other Gods is the claim made by religious people.

Okay. Arguably. "Skeptics" in Western culture have a very limited perspective, and in any case you haven't consulted all religions so it's a hyperbolic conclusion, but for the sake of "argument" let's say you're right. Why wouldn't they? The word god means venerated from a root word that means simply mighty. It's subjective. I use the analogy of Kings. Charles is a king. He's not my King but he is a king.

This claim excludes all the other available Gods as being real.

So does atheism.

You said: "All makes and models are automobiles". This is inclusive and allows for other automobiles to exist, unlike god claims that you are pretending are the same kind of claim. This is why your analogy fails.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (KJV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Thank you for demonstrating my point that your preferred holy book claims that there is one God to the exclusion of others. Unlike automobile claims.

No problem. Jehovah is the almighty God of the writers of the Bible. The supreme God above, before all others. He made Moses God to Aaron and Pharaoh. He called the judges of Israel gods. Jesus was prophetically a mighty god, but not God almighty. Anything can be a god. It only requires veneration. Paul said, to them being the early Christians.

Let's illustrate my point more directly, shall we?
Data, what is the likelihood that Allah is real and is the one true God?

100% likelihood. To Muslims. To me and you, 0%.

Bam! God concepts are believed in at the exclusion of there being real other god concepts. I happen own a Dodge, Jeep and a Chevy though. You can't believe in the Christian God and the Muslim God at the same time.

All Muslims believe in the Muslim God and the Jewish and Christian God. The Muslim God is Allah, which in Arabic, means the God. Religions are syncretistic. I believe in Jehovah. I also believe in other gods. A god is simply anything or anyone venerated.

Your claim: "Faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe that likely things are true."
As you admit, there is a 0% chance for you that Allah is the one true god concept, because you believe in a god concept that excludes all others. Therefore, faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in the false idea that Allah is true (or for the Muslim that Jehovah is true). Faith has nothing to do with whether believing in Allah is likely true or not as you claimed. Faith as I have claimed is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in a claim that is false though. Yes, I admit (you can't) that it is possible that all the Muslims have chosen the correct god concept via faith. For you, all Muslims believe in a false god because of faith.

What you appear to be attempting, really clumsily with your limited knowledge, is to say faith presented by the faithful as infallible and taking the contradictory position that it is what? Fallible? Foolish? Superstition? etc. It's irrelevant. If you prefer your Dodge or Jeep that means you have more faith in one over the other. Faith is simply trust. Which one you prefer, which one is reliable to you is up to you and your experience. No one's experience is the same. Get rid of your ideology and you can see. You seem to be saying their God, whoever's god, is untrue? You can't.

Oxford dictionary - Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

We are talking about religious faith and you know it.

Faith is faith. Trust. Doesn't matter if it is religious or other.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You knew this already though as I supplied this to you. Which is why you had to quote mine it out of your reply. Sneaky sneaky...
Matthew 7:20 You will know them by their fruits.

Buddha . . .

Faith is things unseen hoped for. Trust. Simple. It isn't saying there isn't evidence. Now define evidence if I haven't already. I usually do so everyone can ignore it.

I think, as is almost always the case with skepticism, it's just ideology.

Again, demonstrably wrong.
i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Being skeptical would be to doubt a system of ideas and ideals.

While not doubting others. Ideology is the science of ideas. It's just ideas. Ideology is when you present your idea in a narcissitic or dogmatic fashion. You are the same as the religious. They say "Blank is true and it has to be" while you say "Blank isn't true and it can't be." Different side of the same coin. It's convenient that neither one of you know what you're talking about. It's ideology. Like scientism.

The skeptic associates words like god, sin, faith with nonsense and words like truth, evidence, science with the rational in an ideological possession that is similar to that of dogmatic disputes among the religious.

Nope, being skeptical is to doubt the truth of a claim, nothing to do with word association.

Maybe to you. To me it's not taking for granted the claim, especially in ignorance. I've studied the Bible for 30 years, first as an unbeliever and then as a believer and I have always been skeptical. Always will be. Because, if for no other reason, I can be and often have been wrong. You seem to imply that being skeptical means you have to have proof of everything, which is silly, proof doesn't mean much of anything, and you seem to imply that being skeptical means being unbelieving.

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #194]

William wrote: ↑

Nope.

William did not write...take care with the quoting tool.

[TRANSPONDER]

My God is the one true real God and there are no other Gods is the claim made by religious people.

Okay. Arguably. "Skeptics" in Western culture have a very limited perspective, and in any case you haven't consulted all religions so it's a hyperbolic conclusion, but for the sake of "argument" let's say you're right. Why wouldn't they? The word god means venerated from a root word that means simply mighty. It's subjective. I use the analogy of Kings. Charles is a king. He's not my King but he is a king.

This claim excludes all the other available Gods as being real.

So does atheism.

You said: "All makes and models are automobiles". This is inclusive and allows for other automobiles to exist, unlike god claims that you are pretending are the same kind of claim. This is why your analogy fails.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (KJV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Thank you for demonstrating my point that your preferred holy book claims that there is one God to the exclusion of others. Unlike automobile claims.

No problem. Jehovah is the almighty God of the writers of the Bible. The supreme God above, before all others. He made Moses God to Aaron and Pharaoh. He called the judges of Israel gods. Jesus was prophetically a mighty god, but not God almighty. Anything can be a god. It only requires veneration. Paul said, to them being the early Christians.

Let's illustrate my point more directly, shall we?
Data, what is the likelihood that Allah is real and is the one true God?

100% likelihood. To Muslims. To me and you, 0%.

Bam! God concepts are believed in at the exclusion of there being real other god concepts. I happen own a Dodge, Jeep and a Chevy though. You can't believe in the Christian God and the Muslim God at the same time.

All Muslims believe in the Muslim God and the Jewish and Christian God. The Muslim God is Allah, which in Arabic, means the God. Religions are syncretistic. I believe in Jehovah. I also believe in other gods. A god is simply anything or anyone venerated.

Your claim: "Faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe that likely things are true."
As you admit, there is a 0% chance for you that Allah is the one true god concept, because you believe in a god concept that excludes all others. Therefore, faith is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in the false idea that Allah is true (or for the Muslim that Jehovah is true). Faith has nothing to do with whether believing in Allah is likely true or not as you claimed. Faith as I have claimed is the necessary mechanism in order to believe in a claim that is false though. Yes, I admit (you can't) that it is possible that all the Muslims have chosen the correct god concept via faith. For you, all Muslims believe in a false god because of faith.

What you appear to be attempting, really clumsily with your limited knowledge, is to say faith presented by the faithful as infallible and taking the contradictory position that it is what? Fallible? Foolish? Superstition? etc. It's irrelevant. If you prefer your Dodge or Jeep that means you have more faith in one over the other. Faith is simply trust. Which one you prefer, which one is reliable to you is up to you and your experience. No one's experience is the same. Get rid of your ideology and you can see. You seem to be saying their God, whoever's god, is untrue? You can't.

Oxford dictionary - Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

We are talking about religious faith and you know it.

Faith is faith. Trust. Doesn't matter if it is religious or other.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
You knew this already though as I supplied this to you. Which is why you had to quote mine it out of your reply. Sneaky sneaky...
Matthew 7:20 You will know them by their fruits.

Buddha . . .

Faith is things unseen hoped for. Trust. Simple. It isn't saying there isn't evidence. Now define evidence if I haven't already. I usually do so everyone can ignore it.

I think, as is almost always the case with skepticism, it's just ideology.

Again, demonstrably wrong.
i·de·ol·o·gy
noun
1.
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.

Being skeptical would be to doubt a system of ideas and ideals.

While not doubting others. Ideology is the science of ideas. It's just ideas. Ideology is when you present your idea in a narcissitic or dogmatic fashion. You are the same as the religious. They say "Blank is true and it has to be" while you say "Blank isn't true and it can't be." Different side of the same coin. It's convenient that neither one of you know what you're talking about. It's ideology. Like scientism.

The skeptic associates words like god, sin, faith with nonsense and words like truth, evidence, science with the rational in an ideological possession that is similar to that of dogmatic disputes among the religious.

Nope, being skeptical is to doubt the truth of a claim, nothing to do with word association.

Maybe to you. To me it's not taking for granted the claim, especially in ignorance. I've studied the Bible for 30 years, first as an unbeliever and then as a believer and I have always been skeptical. Always will be. Because, if for no other reason, I can be and often have been wrong. You seem to imply that being skeptical means you have to have proof of everything, which is silly, proof doesn't mean much of anything, and you seem to imply that being skeptical means being unbelieving.

Anything you say seems to be wrong, for sure. Where not actually incoherent. First off, 'limited perspective'. Suppose atheists are as ignorant as you suppose, the burden of proof is on you to make your case, not just say atheists are wrong because claims are being made about unknowns. Your claims (or mentions) are invalid until validated. The burden of disproof is not on us.

The semantic dickering about the various meanings of 'god' is totally irrelevant. "His god is in his stomach,and he sacrifices burnt offerings to it every day" (P.G Wodehouse).That is nothing to do with the gods of various religions, which is the only definition relevant to the discussion. The claim that a god is valid just because someone 'venerates' it is either irrelevant or deliberately misleading. The claims you recited for the Biblical god need to be validated, not just stated. I should think you are smart enough to know this and are not just confused but trying to wind us up. I have seen the ploy many times before.

While I hesitate to pinch - hit for William, your dickering about the idea of 'faith' is a threadbare old ploy of equivocation. Preference (for example in automobiles, if not just what happens to be popular where one lives) is nothing to do with one being more valid than the other, and for sure William is saying nothing about claims of gods being infallible. Same thing with the meaning of ideology.

The difference between religious faith, trust or belief and the others is not the definition but the evidence to support that Faith, trust or belief.

These arguments are so tatty that I can hardly believe you mean them as serious apologetics. I have seen 'wind up an atheist for Jesus' before. That is what it looks like. Have you really no more worthwhile arguments?

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #194]

William wrote: ↑

Nope.

William did not write...take care with the quoting tool.

I thought you wrote that stuff. There does seem to be some confusion here. Perhaps maybe work on your writing style and originality?

I'm just pulling your leg, man. Sorry about that. My mistake. I've fixed it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Data in post #194]

William wrote: ↑

Nope.

William did not write...take care with the quoting tool.

I thought you wrote that stuff. There does seem to be some confusion here. Perhaps maybe work on your writing style and originality?

I'm just pulling your leg, man. Sorry about that. My mistake. I've fixed it.

Maybe you should work more on validating your claims as distinct from semantic fiddling and equivocation which is either your confusion or attempts to confuse than twit William about what he wrote or didn't.

[Data]

[Replying to Data in post #194]

William wrote: ↑

Nope.

William did not write...take care with the quoting tool.

I thought you wrote that stuff. There does seem to be some confusion here. Perhaps maybe work on your writing style and originality?

I'm just pulling your leg, man. Sorry about that. My mistake. I've fixed it.

Maybe you should work more on validating your claims as distinct from semantic fiddling and equivocation which is either your confusion or attempts to confuse than twit William about what he wrote or didn't.

Maybe. And maybe you ought to develop your willingness to accept defeat, in being obviously wrong, painfully ignorant of that which you speak.

[William]

[Replying to Data in post #194]

William wrote: ↑

Nope.

William did not write...take care with the quoting tool.

I thought you wrote that stuff. There does seem to be some confusion here. Perhaps maybe work on your writing style and originality?

I'm just pulling your leg, man. Sorry about that. My mistake. I've fixed it.

If memory serves me well - I have never contributed a post to this particular thread.