Why Trust The Bible?

[POI]

Many have rejected the Bible, due to the stories of Genesis alone 'proving' false. The ones, who still remain Christian, either reject science in favor of Genesis, or, instead dismiss the Genesis stories as merely being metaphorical/allegorical. Same goes for the Exodus account. And so on and so forth it goes, on through the entirety of the Torah and beyond. And when one gets to the New Testament, quite a bit of apologetics is required/necessary to explain away apparent 'problems/inconsistencies/discrepancies/other'.

For Debate:

As the title suggests, why place all your trust in this collection of books anyways?

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists don't even know how to ask questions correctly.

The true question to ask is, if God is true then do you have a better way for such a truth to convey among humans across history?

That's the question shall be asked for an answer to be researched.

The question has been framed before and the response by atheists and Bible critics alike is, "It is rather hard to think of a worse way of conveying '"such a Truth" among humans, than a tatty old book, full of fallacy, nonsense and illogic in a language that had to be translated several times and did not start to get around the globe until the time of colonisation, thanks a lot, God for using Conquest for making the truth known. It is one of the major reasons why i am totally convinced the bible is the work of men, not of a god.

That behavior is rather prophecied in Isaiah 6:9. It reflects the stupidity of human kind, mostly the atheists are educated to behave so, 'thanks' to our education system since childhood. Don't underestimate the education or anything forced upon us systematically since childhood.

Isaiah 6:9:
Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.

Humans don't know what they are doing, they don't even know how to ask a quesiton correclty!

You play it how you like. It seems that asking a question correctly, as well as spelling it correctly, and never mind education or wisdom, which is dismissed as foolishness in the Bible, is to be indoctrinated into religion from infancy so one cannot pose a question other than to point to the desired answer.

[Tcg]

It reflects the stupidity of human kind, mostly the atheists are educated to behave so, 'thanks' to our education system since childhood.

Atheists don't even know how to ask questions correctly.

Atheists basically are those trusting their human intelligence while their intelligence making mistakes which leading to their doom. It is your intelligence or the lack thereof which leads to the death, just as the Bible prophecied. The day you eat of it, the same day you shall surely die!

Moderator Warning



Please refrain from uncivil comments about either individuals or groups. Additionally, please cease from speculating on the destiny of others.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[theophile]

God. Once properly conceptualized, I can trust that God exists. But this doesn't mean that God literally did everything the bible says.

So, to "properly conceptualize" the God of the Bible, all the falsifiable stuff, which you personally deem falsified, must have been philosophical/allegorical. But continue to retain faith/belief in the unfalsifiable as being literal, like resurrection claims, because it makes us feel good?

Would refer to the above two posts for additional clarification. But no, I don't think a proper conceptualization of God requires making all the falsifiable stuff philosophical/allegorical. Rather, I think most of the falsifiable stuff (which is essentially storytelling) is just a vehicle for conveying the concept(s), which are the important part. As such, the falsifiable stuff should be used more as material for interpretation to make sure we have the right concept(s), than as a criterion for truth of those concepts.

Those concepts should stand or fall based on whether or not they conform to something in reality, not whether the falsifiable material used to convey them proves false.

A question you need to ask yourself is... What was the intent of these old stories? Meaning, how do you know these old stories were not meant to be literal? If you should find out that the authors thought they were conveying literal events, would that even matter?

I think the intent of the stories was to convey specific concepts, i.e., a purpose in life, a set of values, a worldview, etc., in a much more relatable and memorable form. I think it would be very strange if the writers thought they were conveying literal events. Take the book of Job for instance. Clearly it's a rewrite and elaboration of a much older text. Pretty sure the writer of Job knew they were making it all up on that basis alone. And like any good literature, they did so to make a point, i.e., to convey something conceptual that doesn't stand or fall on whether there was a man named Job or any of the things described actually happened to him.

So if they actually thought they were conveying literal events, sure, it would make me scratch my head and question their sanity. But that doesn't mean they didn't write an amazing book and convey valuable concepts.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to theophile in post #43]

Ok. Which is why I say that the points in the Bible are to be considered with hard questions as much as any book. It is not to be considered a guide forlife or an object of cultural reverece. I have mentioned LoR. I damn near adore the story.But I see the flaws, or problems, and in fact disapprove of some of the views and sentiments expressed.

The same with the Bible as with any other book, Holy Book of a religion or not.It has no especial value as a guide to life. In short, Christianity is not to be taken as a guide to life. It has no business getting into our homes, our education and our politics. That's why we atheists talk so much about something we don't believe

It reflects the stupidity of human kind, mostly the atheists are educated to behave so, 'thanks' to our education system since childhood.

Atheists don't even know how to ask questions correctly.

Atheists basically are those trusting their human intelligence while their intelligence making mistakes which leading to their doom. It is your intelligence or the lack thereof which leads to the death, just as the Bible prophecied. The day you eat of it, the same day you shall surely die!

Moderator Warning



Please refrain from uncivil comments about either individuals or groups. Additionally, please cease from speculating on the destiny of others.

Please review our Rules.



______________



Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Thank you. I'd just remark that I don't take this sortof thing personally, but as a general criticism of atheist,rationalist and skeptic thought. Just as I am critical of religious, faithbased and science -skeptic thought.

[Diogenes]

I think the intent of the stories was to convey specific concepts, i.e., a purpose in life, a set of values, a worldview, etc., in a much more relatable and memorable form. I think it would be very strange if the writers thought they were conveying literal events. Take the book of Job for instance. Clearly it's a rewrite and elaboration of a much older text. Pretty sure the writer of Job knew they were making it all up on that basis alone. And like any good literature, they did so to make a point, i.e., to convey something conceptual that doesn't stand or fall on whether there was a man named Job or any of the things described actually happened to him.

So if they actually thought they were conveying literal events, sure, it would make me scratch my head and question their sanity. But that doesn't mean they didn't write an amazing book and convey valuable concepts.

Exactly! Which is why it seems so odd to me that so many who call themselves "Christian" believe the opposite, that these stories should be taken as literal, historical events. This is not only preposterous, it represents very poor Biblical scholarship. Your example of Job is good. Job is obviously meant as a play, an allegory.

There is something sad about this tremendous and inflexible effort to advocate that every story in the Bible must be taken as literal, historical fact in that it undermines faith in those very values, standards, and beliefs the Bible is trying to portray. Taking the stories of Genesis literally probably does more damage to the Christian and Jewish faiths than an army of atheists could effect.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #45]


Exactly. I am rather staggered at the amount of money and effort that goes into peddling Genesis -literalism (which is really what it's about) when quite a number are quite happy to let it go as 'Metaphor'. I'm willing to let it go as metaphor, too, Notably Job, which always looked allegorical. But while the cafeteria Christians may rid themselves of trying to argue for science - denialist fairy tales - the sun standing still should give them the clue - they swap defending nonsense for a Bible, half of which they are denying. Allegorical chat about the human condition is ok, like LoR, Startrek "You have made technological advances, but how little man himself has changed!" and Peanuts "If the Great Pumpkin comes I'll put in a word for you."

"If?"

"I meant When!" ("I'm doomed, a slip like that ...") it's a nice allegory on the way Faith keeps a sharp scroot on any doubt. Any question.That could lock the nacre turnstile against you, judgement day. Perfect system for ensuring doubt and question is the Unforgivable sin.

Point is...yes there's a point.... the Bible is no better a guide to life than the Hobbit and perhaps a sight worse. So the Believer who tries to peddle a book they no longer believe in as something we -all should value, never mind themselves, they are on a loser, and the sooner they become atheist hating First cause Deists, the better.

[theophile]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #45]


Exactly. I am rather staggered at the amount of money and effort that goes into peddling Genesis -literalism (which is really what it's about) when quite a number are quite happy to let it go as 'Metaphor'. I'm willing to let it go as metaphor, too, Notably Job, which always looked allegorical. But while the cafeteria Christians may rid themselves of trying to argue for science - denialist fairy tales - the sun standing still should give them the clue - they swap defending nonsense for a Bible, half of which they are denying. Allegorical chat about the human condition is ok, like LoR, Startrek "You have made technological advances, but how little man himself has changed!" and Peanuts "If the Great Pumpkin comes I'll put in a word for you."

"If?"

"I meant When!" ("I'm doomed, a slip like that ...") it's a nice allegory on the way Faith keeps a sharp scroot on any doubt. Any question.That could lock the nacre turnstile against you, judgement day. Perfect system for ensuring doubt and question is the Unforgivable sin.

Point is...yes there's a point.... the Bible is no better a guide to life than the Hobbit and perhaps a sight worse. So the Believer who tries to peddle a book they no longer believe in as something we -all should value, never mind themselves, they are on a loser, and the sooner they become atheist hating First cause Deists, the better.

I don't know how this follows from what Diogenes said. Seems to miss the point, or maybe I did.

If I consider my own position, I am not "peddling something I no longer believe in". My position has been one of trust in the bible irrespective of its literal truth, because it achieves, IMO, a higher order truth. What I've been calling conceptual. (And which I've still heard no argument against apart from opinion that its concepts suck.)

I would go so far as to say that your position (and POIs) is almost the same as that of the "sad" Christians that Diogenes points out who make a "tremendous and inflexible effort to advocate that every story in the Bible be taken as literal, historical fact." You atheists do so in order to undermine the concepts that the Bible is trying to portray. Diogenes' sad Christians do the same thing, they just do so unwittingly.

All of us should just get past it already, and focus on what matters.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #45]


Exactly. I am rather staggered at the amount of money and effort that goes into peddling Genesis -literalism (which is really what it's about) when quite a number are quite happy to let it go as 'Metaphor'. I'm willing to let it go as metaphor, too, Notably Job, which always looked allegorical. But while the cafeteria Christians may rid themselves of trying to argue for science - denialist fairy tales - the sun standing still should give them the clue - they swap defending nonsense for a Bible, half of which they are denying. Allegorical chat about the human condition is ok, like LoR, Startrek "You have made technological advances, but how little man himself has changed!" and Peanuts "If the Great Pumpkin comes I'll put in a word for you."

"If?"

"I meant When!" ("I'm doomed, a slip like that ...") it's a nice allegory on the way Faith keeps a sharp scroot on any doubt. Any question.That could lock the nacre turnstile against you, judgement day. Perfect system for ensuring doubt and question is the Unforgivable sin.

Point is...yes there's a point.... the Bible is no better a guide to life than the Hobbit and perhaps a sight worse. So the Believer who tries to peddle a book they no longer believe in as something we -all should value, never mind themselves, they are on a loser, and the sooner they become atheist hating First cause Deists, the better.

I don't know how this follows from what Diogenes said. Seems to miss the point, or maybe I did.

If I consider my own position, I am not "peddling something I no longer believe in". My position has been one of trust in the bible irrespective of its literal truth, because it achieves, IMO, a higher order truth. What I've been calling conceptual. (And which I've still heard no argument against apart from opinion that its concepts suck.)

I would go so far as to say that your position (and POIs) is almost the same as that of the "sad" Christians that Diogenes points out who make a "tremendous and inflexible effort to advocate that every story in the Bible be taken as literal, historical fact." You atheists do so in order to undermine the concepts that the Bible is trying to portray. Diogenes' sad Christians do the same thing, they just do so unwittingly.

All of us should just get past it already, and focus on what matters.

What matters is, so far as I see it, that if the Bible is not to be trusted in temporal things and mundane things, why should we trust it in moral, supernatural and cosmic -transcendental claims?

[Diogenes]

I don't know how this follows from what Diogenes said. Seems to miss the point, or maybe I did.

If I consider my own position, I am not "peddling something I no longer believe in". My position has been one of trust in the bible irrespective of its literal truth, because it achieves, IMO, a higher order truth. What I've been calling conceptual. (And which I've still heard no argument against apart from opinion that its concepts suck.)

I would go so far as to say that your position (and POIs) is almost the same as that of the "sad" Christians that Diogenes points out who make a "tremendous and inflexible effort to advocate that every story in the Bible be taken as literal, historical fact." You atheists do so in order to undermine the concepts that the Bible is trying to portray. Diogenes' sad Christians do the same thing, they just do so unwittingly.

Yes, and this brings up a point that may explain why some Christians are reluctant to let go of their literal interpretation. If believers admit to themselves these stories are not literally true they may feel they have taken the first step on the slippery slope to unbelief. Hence they doggedly hold on to what others see as absurdities.

Along with realizing, for example, the story of the Tower of Babel is a mythical representation of the distribution of language; that it is a story fashioned by men, not gods, this can strike at the very belief in God, or at least the god of the Bible.
But what remains are valuable principles of ethics and morality that have developed over centuries of human thought.

This may be where an old and favorite phrase of evangelicals emerges,
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #49]

Thing is, what the Jesus apologists mean by that is when throwing out the bathwater, don't throw the baby Jesus away with it'. I say, we skeptics scooped out the bathwater, apologetic by apologetic and we are not left with a detectable or demonstrable (Christian) baby Jesus in the bath at all. Though there may be a Jewish messianic one. It is this process of emptying out the bathwater that makes the believers try to keep as much in the bath as possible so that they can still claim a baby could be under the surface, and of course there are those who declare there is one there but it takes Faith to see it.

How much water has to go before they will admit there ain't no baby? Well, they can say there is a hidden baby, or it was there but it is ..let me get the analogy right...disguised as the water and only the believer can tell the difference, or they argue about how much bathwater is left. I haven't seen any argue that bits of the baby were removed with the bathwater as that comes a bit too near the actual process. But at least they are not like Galileo's claimed skeptics about Jupiter's moons, refusing to accept that any water is being removed at all.

In which respect I recall your remark about the Babel story. I did debate that and the weight of science - what is in the text -books - (and there's misuse of hyphens, if I ever saw it ) was dismissed - denial of the explanation for the spread of languages, denial of the archaeology of ziggurat - building, denial of when Egyptian was first spoken in Egypt, denial of ziggurats, pyramids and Mayan temples being architecturally and culturally unrelated. In fact, denial of all the process of removal of the bathwater of the Babel story, so the baby of Genesis - literalism (since there are Christians who can shrug off Genesis as "Metaphorical" but Baby Genesis becomes a cult icon in itself) can still be claimed to be there.