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....

[otseng]

This is typical of people of your ilk.

Moderator Comment

Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Artie]

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.

"Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... ality.html

So you are actually saying that people should stop believing in reason and evidence and just start believing whatever they are told? So when the Bible says the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves that is what you believe regardless reason and evidence?

[Stan]

"Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... ality.html
So you are actually saying that people should stop believing in reason and evidence and just start believing whatever they are told? So when the Bible says the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves that is what you believe regardless reason and evidence?

Princeton's definition is a secular one and NOT fully demonstrative of a real Christian faith.

I am actually saying what I did and I'm sure I did NOT equivocate. To a Christian, FAITH becomes evidence.

[Stan]

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.

No, I take offense to the condescending way you made you post, not logic. Logic is NOT the end-all and be-all of human understanding. It has it's place but NOT to the exclusion of those that value it less than faith. I know what I sad Danmark. I DON'T equivocate.

BTW, EQUIVOCATE = Use ambiguous language so as to conceal the truth or avoid committing oneself Dictionary.com
Addressing a premise based on unproven stats is NOT inapposite. It is very pertinent. I gave you a couple of links that showed different stats than Wiki.

Of course it does depend on each individual. Some are so bound by logic they can't see around it. Other's don't have that problem. I was addressing your condescension more so than how logic does or does not limit us.
BTW, 'your ilk' is NOT a personal attack.

[Artie]

"Rationality is belief based on reason or evidence. Faith is belief in inspiration, revelation, or authority. The word faith generally refers to a belief that is held with lack of, in spite of or against reason and evidence."
http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... ality.htmlSo you are actually saying that people should stop believing in reason and evidence and just start believing whatever they are told? So when the Bible says the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves that is what you believe regardless reason and evidence?

Princeton's definition is a secular one and NOT fully demonstrative of a real Christian faith.

I am actually saying what I did and I'm sure I did NOT equivocate. To a Christian, FAITH becomes evidence.

I think you mean to say that to a Christian faith is the evidence. Because you choose to believe it it is true. If you choose to have faith in the Bible and believe that the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves because the authority of the Bible says so that is your business. Rational people believe reason and all the evidence we have that the Earth is round. That is the simple difference between a person of faith and a rationalist.

[Stan]

I think you mean to say that to a Christian faith is the evidence. Because you choose to believe it it is true. If you choose to have faith in the Bible and believe that the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves because the authority of the Bible says so that is your business. Rational people believe reason and all the evidence we have that the Earth is round. That is the simple difference between a person of faith and a rationalist.

The Bible tells us that faith IS the evidence. That is a positional statement. In fact it produces or becomes more and more evidence the more we use it.

You've tried to use this analogy twice now and I ignored it the first time. It is non sequitur so there is no response to it. What you are saying here is rationalization, which is NOT the same as rational.
Faith and rationalism my or may not work together, depending on the ethic or situation. If you really believe being rational is better than having faith then I suggest you accept Pascal's Wager.

[Danmark]

I think you mean to say that to a Christian faith is the evidence. Because you choose to believe it it is true. If you choose to have faith in the Bible and believe that the Earth is flat with a cupola on top called the firmament along which the sun moves because the authority of the Bible says so that is your business. Rational people believe reason and all the evidence we have that the Earth is round. That is the simple difference between a person of faith and a rationalist.

The Bible tells us that faith IS the evidence. That is a positional statement. In fact it produces or becomes more and more evidence the more we use it.

You've tried to use this analogy twice now and I ignored it the first time. It is non sequitur so there is no response to it. What you are saying here is rationalization, which is NOT the same as rational.
Faith and rationalism my or may not work together, depending on the ethic or situation. If you really believe being rational is better than having faith then I suggest you accept Pascal's Wager.

Getting back to the FP, it asks for justification for the infallibility of the Bible. There is none. But let us for a moment suppose that the Bible itself IS infallible. We are left with an operational definition of infallibility; i.e., how reliable are the predictions that Christians make, based on their pronouncements re: the end times?

As I wrote in 'Is Secularism a threat to Christianity?':

Nearly every year for over 2000 years Christians have been predicting the 'last days,' starting with the very first Christians. They have been wrong for 2000 years, but that leaves them undeterred. After all, they do not need truth, logic, rationality, experience, science, history, or objectivity.

They have their 'book.' It is a book they have no ability to interpret or use to predict, but they remain unaffected by failure and their past record of 100% error. The only odd thing in this history of error, is that they still speak as if they have even the slightest claim on authority.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_da ... tic_events &
http://www.bible.ca/pre-date-setters.htm among others.

[Stan]

Getting back to the FP, it asks for justification for the infallibility of the Bible. There is none. But let us for a moment suppose that the Bible itself IS infallible. We are left with an operational definition of infallibility; i.e., how reliable are the predictions that Christians make, based on their pronouncements re: the end times?
As I wrote in 'Is Secularism a threat to Christianity?':
Nearly every year for over 2000 years Christians have been predicting the 'last days,' starting with the very first Christians. They have been wrong for 2000 years, but that leaves them undeterred. After all, they do not need truth, logic, rationality, experience, science, history, or objectivity.
They have their 'book.' It is a book they have no ability to interpret or use to predict, but they remain unaffected by failure and their past record of 100% error. The only odd thing in this history of error, is that they still speak as if they have even the slightest claim on authority.

I responded why Danmark. If you don't or won't accept that justification, it is your issue. He asked 'Christians', not atheists or non-theists.

No Christian will ever say WE are infallible. If he does then watch out! He is NOT to be trusted. People have been trying to figure out when Jesus will be coming back ever since He said He would. Jesus Himself said in Matthew 24:36, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."
I would have to say very UNRELIABLE.

As to your previous post in the other thread that you quoted, it is in error, because it is based on erroneous and inaccurate information.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 48 by Stan]

I am well aware of Matthew 24:36. It is one more verse in a Christian Bible that appears to contradict other verses. For example, Paul:

...we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. (1 Thessalonians 4:15–17)

The point is not so much that the Bible is hopelessly fallible as a source of prediction, but that as Christians interpret it it is hopelessly unreliable. Thus your 'standing on the word of the Lord' is as one who builds his house upon the sand.

[Artie]

The Bible tells us that faith IS the evidence. That is a positional statement.

So the Bible tells us that faith IS the evidence and faith IS the evidence because the Bible tells us? What kind of statement is that?

You've tried to use this analogy twice now and I ignored it the first time.

I noticed you ignored it. What else can you do? First you say and I quote "The Bible tells us that faith IS the evidence." Then if you have faith in what the Bible says which you obviously do since you quote it you also must believe the Earth is flat and ignore reason and all the evidence to the contrary. If you believe the Earth is round you can't have faith because you don't believe in the authority of the Bible but reason and scientific evidence. Which is it?