A simple---but serious---question

[Athetotheist]

There are numerous god-men who died and rose from death in stories predating the time of Jesus. Considering the notable differences between the gospel accounts, and particularly the differences between the accounts of Jesus's supposed resurrection, here's a question for gospel apologists to think seriously about:

There are four resurrection accounts about Jesus in the Christian gospels. If the exact same accounts, with the exact same differences, were written about Osiris, Tammuz, Attis or any such god-man other than Jesus, would Christian apologists find all of those accounts believable?

And if they wouldn't find all of them believable, would they find any of them believable?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to 1213 in post #30]

One reason why I believe in the Bible and think it is influenced by God is that atheist don't comprehend it, they see it inconsistent and contradictory, all though it is not so.

You take this as a given, but not everyone does.

But, what do you think is the greatest wisdom of Tao Te Ching?

I would say that the Tao Te Ching's greatest wisdom is probably its emphasis on humility.

"The Tao is infinite and eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born,
so it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself,
so it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind,
and so is ahead,
detached from all things,
thus one with them.
Having let go of self,
The Master is perfectly fulfilled."
--Tao Te Ching 7

[Miles]

...
There's enough spiritual wisdom in, say, the Tao Te Ching without having to accept inconsistent accounts of extraordinary events as historical.

One reason why I believe in the Bible and think it is influenced by God is that atheist don't comprehend it, they see it inconsistent and contradictory,

What a very curious reason for believing something, anything: because someone else doesn't!


.

[benchwarmer]

One reason why I believe in the Bible and think it is influenced by God is that atheist don't comprehend it, they see it inconsistent and contradictory, all though it is not so.

This is really odd. You do realize that many of the atheists on this site you are debating with are former Christians right? In many of our cases, we were quite involved in our faith. Some of us even used some of these bad arguments in the past when we didn't know any better. In fact, some of us deconverted while trying to become even better Christians. That is certainly my story and I know I'm not alone.

Deciding to go beyond the protective bubble of Christian apologetics and church run 'Bible studies' can be quite the eye opening experience. Learning about other world religions, and truly shining a light on your own can lead down a path one never expected. It's quite telling that many Christians haven't even read their entire Bible, yet can be on a site like this trying to convince everyone they 'know the truth'. Be clear I'm not accusing you of this, but I have run into it on this site.

The real problem is that many Christians approach the Bible from the starting assumption it's 'true'. When you remove that obviously bad constraint and truly look, it can quickly fall apart.

Would you approach ANY other holy text with the starting condition that it's true? Clearly not or you would convert to a new religion every time you read a new holy book.

[Tcg]

One reason why I believe in the Bible and think it is influenced by God is that atheist don't comprehend it, they see it inconsistent and contradictory, all though it is not so.

This argument falls apart on two counts. Firstly, some theists also recognize the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible so that trait is not exclusive to atheists. Secondly, many atheists know the Bible very well and comprehend it accurately.


Tcg

[TRANSPONDER]

One reason why I believe in the Bible and think it is influenced by God is that atheist don't comprehend it, they see it inconsistent and contradictory, all though it is not so.

This is really odd. You do realize that many of the atheists on this site you are debating with are former Christians right? In many of our cases, we were quite involved in our faith. Some of us even used some of these bad arguments in the past when we didn't know any better. In fact, some of us deconverted while trying to become even better Christians. That is certainly my story and I know I'm not alone.

Deciding to go beyond the protective bubble of Christian apologetics and church run 'Bible studies' can be quite the eye opening experience. Learning about other world religions, and truly shining a light on your own can lead down a path one never expected. It's quite telling that many Christians haven't even read their entire Bible, yet can be on a site like this trying to convince everyone they 'know the truth'. Be clear I'm not accusing you of this, but I have run into it on this site.

The real problem is that many Christians approach the Bible from the starting assumption it's 'true'. When you remove that obviously bad constraint and truly look, it can quickly fall apart.

Would you approach ANY other holy text with the starting condition that it's true? Clearly not or you would convert to a new religion every time you read a new holy book.

It is even more odd and contradictory that one theist (and some others I've seen) can try to dismiss (as distinct from 'explain') these inconsistencies, contradictions and plain wrong facts by claiming that 'critics' (incl. atheists) don't 'understand it'. ii usually turns out that what they mean is that doubters don't have the faith to dismiss the contradictions and wrong facts.

I was looking at the thread on 'biggest problem' (Problem of evil) and I noted a lot of evasion and shifting the blame by making false statements, really. The problem of evil being about what God did to the world because of Adam's disobedience, the evil (injustice) being visited on the children. Apart from that, the discussion was about all of Gods' creation (which didn't sin) being taken down (in the flood and ever after) and natural disasters that are often nothing to do with man's actions.

But this was all sidelined in an effort to pin all the blame onto Adam (since Eve, being a woman, isn't to blame for anything) for disobeying God (if one takes the Eden scenario as a real event and not metaphorical). And quite apart from the whole thing being impossible unless God had wanted Adam to sin otherwise he'd live forever, it neatly evaded the whole actual problem.

Evasion, sidestepping and shifting the subject is the stock in trade of the Bible -apologist. Not to mention the 'Ghost Bible' which is a mental version of the book which says what they want it to say rather than what it actually Does say. Which is why they talk of 'don't understand' because one has to 'Interpret' (1) what it says into what they would prefer, and of course good old 'They wrote differently', which is simply to say that nothing the Bible can be trusted then, unless.... ...Some are given the hidden knowledge to understand and interpret it correctly.

(1) One apologist quipped 'The Holy Ghost Bible', but he was saying more than he knew as that is just what it is - Divine inspiration telling the Believer what it means as distinct from what it actually says, in which case the misrepresentations, quotemining and ignoring what it actually says is not Faith -based dishonesty but "Understanding".

[1213]

...many atheists know the Bible very well and comprehend it accurately.

Sorry, impossible to believe that, if they think it has errors or contradictions.

[1213]

...You do realize that many of the atheists on this site you are debating with are former Christians right? ...

If even Christians don't comprehend it, it is even stronger evidence for Bible God. After all, shouldn't those who promote it, understand what they have? That people have so much difficulties with it, is for me strong evidence it is by God's influence. If it would be just from humans, it would not be so difficult.

Would you approach ANY other holy text with the starting condition that it's true? Clearly not or you would convert to a new religion every time you read a new holy book.

I assume always that people don't write something contradictory or erroneous. If I would read any book, I would assume the writer wants to be understood without errors. That does not mean the message is then also true. This is only about is the message consistent, logical and without errors. Obviously, it may be that there is errors, but I don't assume errors and if I would see something that looks like an error, I would think, maybe it is just me that have misunderstood and then i would try to understand is there some way that it is not really an error. After that, if there is no way to see the matter without error, then I could think, perhaps it is really erroneous.

However, does this really make any difference? If I would prove you that there is no error in the Bible, would it make any difference? I don't believe it would.

[1213]

...I would say that the Tao Te Ching's greatest wisdom is probably its emphasis on humility.

"The Tao is infinite and eternal.
Why is it eternal?
It was never born,
so it can never die.
Why is it infinite?
It has no desires for itself,
so it is present for all beings.

The Master stays behind,
and so is ahead,
detached from all things,
thus one with them.
Having let go of self,
The Master is perfectly fulfilled."
--Tao Te Ching 7

Thank you. Now I would like to know, why do you think that is wise?

[Tcg]

...many atheists know the Bible very well and comprehend it accurately.

Sorry, impossible to believe that, if they think it has errors or contradictions.

That's one of the reasons some comprehend it accurately. As I've stated previously, atheists aren't the only ones who don't ignore the fact that the Bible has errors and contradictions.


Tcg

[benchwarmer]

If even Christians don't comprehend it, it is even stronger evidence for Bible God.

How exactly? You are saying that adherents to a given religion can't understand their holy book, so it must be true? Come on, you can't honestly expect that is a good argument?

That's like saying a complex book on alchemy is incomprehensible, therefore it must be true.

After all, shouldn't those who promote it, understand what they have?

Yes. Now you are just contradicting yourself.

I thought the fact they can't understand it means it's true. Which is it?

That people have so much difficulties with it, is for me strong evidence it is by God's influence. If it would be just from humans, it would not be so difficult.

It's not difficult when you realize it's from humans because we understand that humans invent religions and write texts claiming them to be holy. Happens over and over. Somehow you think your particular faith texts are true because they are hard to understand. I'm guessing you don't apply the same logic to all the other holy texts?

I assume always that people don't write something contradictory or erroneous.

Well there's your problem.

They may not intend to create errors or contradictions, but when they happen it's a clear sign something is wrong. Either the author is made aware of the mistake and fixes it, people reading it later realize the problem and proceed accordingly or for some strange reason some people pretend there really isn't a problem and claim it's all true.

If I would read any book, I would assume the writer wants to be understood without errors.

Of course. Unfortunately the Bible is not a single author document, regardless of how some apologists attempt to treat it.

That does not mean the message is then also true. This is only about is the message consistent, logical and without errors. Obviously, it may be that there is errors, but I don't assume errors and if I would see something that looks like an error, I would think, maybe it is just me that have misunderstood and then i would try to understand is there some way that it is not really an error. After that, if there is no way to see the matter without error, then I could think, perhaps it is really erroneous.

Of course. We should always check to see if we are in error or the text is in error. Some cases are clear cut errors and/or contradictions regardless of what some apologists attempt to do. The length and complexity of some of the tap dancing required to mangle the gospels into one coherent story is quite the feat to witness. It fails miserably, but it's fun to watch. This kind of thing happens when people approach something by first assuming it's true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. They then interpret, reinterpret, and basically ignore all common logic. Often the simplest answer is the right one. Multiple authors wanted to spread their version of a theology. They didn't intend to be coherent, they intended to correct and/or clear up previous versions of the story. This explanation better fits the data than complex contortions of interpretation that render the text comical.

However, does this really make any difference? If I would prove you that there is no error in the Bible, would it make any difference? I don't believe it would.

If you could actually prove it, yes, it would make a difference. I have no blind faith that the Bible is contradictory and full of errors unlike some apologists who have blind faith that it is free of any errors or contradictions.

We've been over this again and again on this site. Clear contradictions and errors exist unless one wants to throw out dictionaries, historical usage of language, logic, history, etc. When one approaches a text with blind faith, anything can be glossed over. It's not a convincing apologetic, yet it is attempted over and over.