Scenes from the Bible...

[Zarathustra]

What do you think about people quoting from the Bible and expecting it to be taken at face (infallible) value? They says that God must be real, and quote Genesis. Is this fair? Could I do a reversal? Could I quote Nietzsche: "God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him..."? Can I quote Nine Inch Nails: "God is dead. No one cares. If there is a Hell, I'll see you there..."? If so, I just successfully proved that God is dead. And, His death proves that he is not immortal and can, therefore, not BE God.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the subject?

[Bonnie]

I do not think that it is a very cogent argument to quote the bible. This would be a fallacy -- an appeal to an unqualified authority. Nobody has ever proved truth to biblical text, or any of it's claims as to how the world is. Perhaps if the Bible was proven, then it would be able to hold more weight in an argument.

Second, I wonder how Christians expect to convince an Atheist or other nonbeliever of their argument when quoting from the Bible, if said nonbeliever doesn't believe in the Bible in the first place.

Third, why is the Christian Bible above any other theological text? There has been just as much proof for the Christian Bible as for, say, Hindu or Greek scriptures. So if a Christian can quote from his/her bible and expect it to hold weight as an argument, why can't a Hindu quote from the Vedas and expect it to hold as much weight in the argument? However, to the Christian, it wouldn't.

However, a Christian might quote from the Bible because the Bible is commonly thought of as a Supreme Document of Truth among Christians -- and all believe it's contents to be at the very least partially true. They think they are quoting truth, so therefore they think that this makes their argument valid and sound.

[ST88]

What do you think about people quoting from the Bible and expecting it to be taken at face (infallible) value? They says that God must be real, and quote Genesis. Is this fair? Could I do a reversal? Could I quote Nietzsche: "God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him..."? Can I quote Nine Inch Nails: "God is dead. No one cares. If there is a Hell, I'll see you there..."? If so, I just successfully proved that God is dead. And, His death proves that he is not immortal and can, therefore, not BE God.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the subject?

The difference is that non-theists don't claim that their texts absolutely reflect absolute truth. Nietzsche was a philosopher, but he wasn't a prophet. Likewise Trent Reznor.

Of course, the Christian claim that the inspired word of God was written for all to see is only valid for the behavior of Christians. But many of them believe that we are all Christians, we just don't know it yet. The main way to affect the actions and the ultimate salvation of the world is to inject Christianity into government. It's not fair and not logical to quote scripture in order to justify the actions of government, yet this happens. Many otherwise intelligent people believe that the U.S. was set up as a Christian state for Christians and therefore the Bible is a perfectly legitimate authority to appeal to.

But even though it's not fair, it's the most insidious kind of circular reasoning -- what in any other field might be called navel-gazing -- that produces feedback loops that tend to swallow up other modes of thinking. It's like sleepwalking on the edge of a cliff -- confident that every step is secure, not knowing that the abyss is only inches away. The only thing keeping them safe is the Scriptural dream.

[bernee51]

What do you think about people quoting from the Bible and expecting it to be taken at face (infallible) value? They says that God must be real, and quote Genesis. Is this fair? Could I do a reversal? Could I quote Nietzsche: "God is dead, God remains dead, and we have killed him..."? Can I quote Nine Inch Nails: "God is dead. No one cares. If there is a Hell, I'll see you there..."? If so, I just successfully proved that God is dead. And, His death proves that he is not immortal and can, therefore, not BE God.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the subject?

The christian religion provides meaning and support to the people who believe in its god and his proclamations. These proclamations are, they believe, found only in the bible. To admit, or even entertain the notion, that their particular book of myth is just that would undermine their entire belief system. This in turn would undermine their entire raison d'etre.

Many who are now atheist have come through that myth-mire and seen the whole story for what it is - a collection of myth and metaphor which, taken as such, can provide some guidance in life. The problem is that many get lost in the myth and do not grow beyond.

As to whether it is fair or not..I really do not care. I will continue to express my understanding of their myth. I will continue to call them on the obvious fallacies on which they have built their house of cards. I really care not one whit if they listen.

Why do I do it? The first thing that comes to mind - it is an interesting diversion. It helps me hone my debating skills. Over the years I have been in conversation on these matters it has firmed up many of my beliefs as to the nature of our existence on this planet. It has moved me further in the direction in which I believe lies the key to a rewarding and satisfying life - the only one I will ever have.

bernie

[Dilettante]

This is funny, because (my background is post II Vatican Council Catholic) I had never heard anyone claim that the Bible was literally true in its entirety until I came into contact with Protestants. The Catholic church is not Bible-based. It is based on the New Testament (yes, that's part of the Bible, but not all of it) and on the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas. The unlikeliest Catholic dogma actually says that it is possible to prove that God is real solely through reason and without the Bible. Of course I don't see how that would ever be possible, but it still a curious dogma!
I think it is fine to cite the Bible as a guide to spirituality (like other sacred texts), but to try and cite it as a scientific or factual authority is absurd. That's not what sacred books are for.

[Zarathustra]

Thank you all for your input.

I agree that my examples weren't exactly the same, but what if I were to claim that Reznor is, subconsciously, in tune with Jesus Himself and that everything Reznor writes reflects Jesus' words. This is obviously not the truth, but what's to stop me from making the claim? Is the Bible only different because it's backed by 2000 years worth or reputation? Could I write my own Holy Book and claim it to be Absolutly True?

Although, generally I do give some way to Bible passages in the Christian subforum.

[ST88]

I agree that my examples weren't exactly the same, but what if I were to claim that Reznor is, subconsciously, in tune with Jesus Himself and that everything Reznor writes reflects Jesus' words. This is obviously not the truth, but what's to stop me from making the claim? Is the Bible only different because it's backed by 2000 years worth or reputation? Could I write my own Holy Book and claim it to be Absolutly True?

You are free to claim this, but unless you hook up with others who claim this also, you will be labelled a kook, probably also by Reznor himself. It's best to wait until after he dies, like the followers of L. Ron Hubbard did. Or other historical figures I could mention.

In my opinion, the many years of history is a factor, as is the multiple-authors nature of the Bible.

[McCulloch]

I know that most of us have run across most of these in various ways but this is a nicely arranged list of many of the Christian arguments. Using their Bible as a proof-text while debating Christianity itself would fall under begging the question petitio principii