Non-Circular reasons for believing in the Bible.

[help3434]

I often see people quote Bible verses about scripture when asked why they believe in the Bible. Of course arguing that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true is circular. Are there any non-circular reasons for believing in the Bible?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 156 by Peter]

"From dust you came and dust you shall return" True point?

More like to dirt.. depends on how moist. This was true for all time , long time before there was civilization or formalized religion.

Do you have a point?

Indeed. Theodore A Jones does seem to be belaboring something. If he has a point, it would be nice if he made it.

[Ooberman]

[Replying to post 156 by Peter]

"From dust you came and dust you shall return" True point?

More like to dirt.. depends on how moist. This was true for all time , long time before there was civilization or formalized religion.

Do you have a point?

Indeed. Theodore A Jones does seem to be belaboring something. If he has a point, it would be nice if he made it.

Come on! It's obvious! We all know it. He plans to take us down a specific theological opinion which we all disagree with, and people at Theologica disagreed with. He's obviously "touched".

Are we all afraid of his opinion? That he might be right?

I say let's follow his reasoning. From his posts on Theologica, he exhibits a high ability to write rather cogent statements, specifically about Biblical Doctrine.

I think we have an opportunity to experience what others may have experienced in ancient Jerusalem.

I think we'd be rude and hyper-skeptical that a prophet couldn't come to us in this day and age, even a reluctant one. Perhaps Theodore doesn't even know he's a messenger of God?

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the hyper-religious mind at work and ask ourselves if John, Paul or Joseph Smith come to mind.

[dianaiad]

I think we'd be rude and hyper-skeptical that a prophet couldn't come to us in this day and age, even a reluctant one.

I have no problem at all believing that a prophet could come to us in this day and age. I even know a name to give you: Thomas S. Monson. I wasn't aware that Pres. Monson used "Theodore A Jones" as a pen name.

Perhaps Theodore doesn't even know he's a messenger of God?

Has he claimed to be one anywhere?

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the hyper-religious mind at work and ask ourselves if John, Paul or Joseph Smith come to mind.

Y'know, I've read the stuff written by John, Paul and Joseph Smith. Theodore is going to have to give me more information one way or the other.

But I'm willing to read....if he will just, y'know, WRITE.

[Ooberman]

I think we'd be rude and hyper-skeptical that a prophet couldn't come to us in this day and age, even a reluctant one.

I have no problem at all believing that a prophet could come to us in this day and age. I even know a name to give you: Thomas S. Monson. I wasn't aware that Pres. Monson used "Theodore A Jones" as a pen name.

Perhaps Theodore doesn't even know he's a messenger of God?

Has he claimed to be one anywhere?

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the hyper-religious mind at work and ask ourselves if John, Paul or Joseph Smith come to mind.

Y'know, I've read the stuff written by John, Paul and Joseph Smith. Theodore is going to have to give me more information one way or the other.

But I'm willing to read....if he will just, y'know, WRITE.

So you DO require things of God? Is that your criteria: "a prophet must be prolific with the pen!"

[dianaiad]

I think we'd be rude and hyper-skeptical that a prophet couldn't come to us in this day and age, even a reluctant one.

I have no problem at all believing that a prophet could come to us in this day and age. I even know a name to give you: Thomas S. Monson. I wasn't aware that Pres. Monson used "Theodore A Jones" as a pen name.

Perhaps Theodore doesn't even know he's a messenger of God?

Has he claimed to be one anywhere?

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the hyper-religious mind at work and ask ourselves if John, Paul or Joseph Smith come to mind.

Y'know, I've read the stuff written by John, Paul and Joseph Smith. Theodore is going to have to give me more information one way or the other.

But I'm willing to read....if he will just, y'know, WRITE.

So you DO require things of God? Is that your criteria: "a prophet must be prolific with the pen!"

Well, either he has to be, or someone HEARING him does. How else would we know what he had to say?

[Ooberman]

I think we'd be rude and hyper-skeptical that a prophet couldn't come to us in this day and age, even a reluctant one.

I have no problem at all believing that a prophet could come to us in this day and age. I even know a name to give you: Thomas S. Monson. I wasn't aware that Pres. Monson used "Theodore A Jones" as a pen name.

Perhaps Theodore doesn't even know he's a messenger of God?

Has he claimed to be one anywhere?

I think we owe it to ourselves to see the hyper-religious mind at work and ask ourselves if John, Paul or Joseph Smith come to mind.

Y'know, I've read the stuff written by John, Paul and Joseph Smith. Theodore is going to have to give me more information one way or the other.

But I'm willing to read....if he will just, y'know, WRITE.

So you DO require things of God? Is that your criteria: "a prophet must be prolific with the pen!"

Well, either he has to be, or someone HEARING him does. How else would we know what he had to say?

Read what he has read, even if it hasn't come to you on a silver platter. Imagine if John the Baptist was ignored, or Moses? Everyone saying, "I'll wait until I personally hear the Prophet and judge for myself."

Well, Jesus didn't go to everyone and never wrote a thing.

Yet, you are skeptical of a lesser figure?

[dianaiad]

Well, either he has to be, or someone HEARING him does. How else would we know what he had to say?

Read what he has read, even if it hasn't come to you on a silver platter. Imagine if John the Baptist was ignored, or Moses? Everyone saying, "I'll wait until I personally hear the Prophet and judge for myself."

Well, Jesus didn't go to everyone and never wrote a thing.

Yet, you are skeptical of a lesser figure?

er...did you think through what you just wrote before you wrote it? It is true; Jesus never wrote a thing...if you don't count a little doodling while He was talking about the adultress about to be stoned.

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

That's one thing.

The other thing is....reading what they read? Honestly? How are we supposed to know 'what they read' if they don't tell us? There has to be some method by which they let us know what they read, who they are, what they think....

The point is, John the Baptist was NOT ignored, was he? That's how we know what he had to say.

Perhaps you simply missed this sentence, in my reply?

"Well, either he has to be, or someone HEARING him does. How else would we know what he had to say?"

It has been said, by the way, that the philosopher Aristotle never wrote anything down, either...but he is one of the most famous philosophers in history...because Plato was paying attention.

If he had not been, we wouldn't know a whole lot about Aristotle.

The POINT is, before we can judge whether or not someone is a prophet, we really do need to know what he has to say. Whether this prophet writes it down personally, or someone ELSE writes those words down, if we don't have 'em, one can be a prophet all one wants, but we won't be able to judge..or learn from...the prophecies and teachings.

As well, the definition of prophet is to TELL PEOPLE about what God wants. Not all prophets are sooth sayers and predictors of the future. Some simply tell us what God wants us to know now. Notice; there are two operative aspects of the job 'Prophet,' if one claims to be "a prophet of God." First, this prophet has to be communicating with God in a personal way that most of the rest of us simply are not, and second, this prophet has to COMMUNICATE that information to the rest of us. It's part of the job description....like 'author' means that you actually write something other people read. If nobody reads it...if the written words do not exist, than 'author' is not an accurate description.

If a prophet doesn't let us know what the prophecies/teachings are, then "prophet' is not an accurate description.

[Peter]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

[Ooberman]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

Yes, it appears we can all write down our memory of what Theodore A. Jones said in 40 years... a firm foundation for a religion!

To make a general point (and avoid the pointless arguments by Di), I think Theodore A. Jones exhibits the same hyper-religiosity of all (or most) religious zealots including Paul, J. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, David Koresh, Jesus (IHEE*), the Apostles, and most sincere and zealous members of any religion.

Hyper-religiosity is usually scoffed at in the present, but revered after a few generations when it takes on a patina of legitimacy.

I think we owe it to ourselves to see, up front and personal, how the hyper-religious mind works.

My hypothesis is that Theodore A. Jones is the same kind of person as any other religious extremist/fundi/zealot.

And, I don't think for a second he speaks for God or that a God exists.



*(IHEE) = If He Even Existed. Like PBUH (Peace Be Unto Him) as by the Muslims, but the atheist version!

[dianaiad]

but He WAS listened to, directly, by quite a number of people, who wrote down what He had to say.

Wasn't it like 40 years later before anything was written down? That seems like a big problem if you want to believe the written record is accurate. 40 years of storytelling will have a major negative effect on accuracy.

Can, if you aren't dealing with an oral culture. Of course, the culture Jesus was dealing with wasn't strictly that, but the folks He spoke to the most WERE immersed in oral traditions. So it's not a great stretch to figure that an oral account would be accurate within the lifetime of the hearer. As well....well, let's put it this way. I have several family diaries recording the daily lives of three polygamous families. They are day to day accounts from the women in those families, written at the time. If I published them now, would future critics say that they couldn't possibly be accurate because they were 'written' (by me) a hundred and fifty years later?

The point is, that we first know about them considerably after the events, or 'written down' for public consumption, is no guarantee...or even real evidence...that their sources are not accurate, or even written down themselves. It's not proof that those sources WERE accurate, either...by the same token, and that's the problem everybody has to deal with.