Why Should Anyone Care What the Bible Says?

[POI]

For eons, theists will quote Scripture, with the presupposition that it is authoritative in some kind of way. I contend that the Bible is no better or worse than any other collection of writings. Meaning, it may appear to have some 'good' things to say, some 'bad' things to say, some 'strange' things to say, some 'wrong' things to say, some untenable things to say, some contradictory things to say, etc etc etc....

Any of us can produce passages and quotes from anyone, or any publication. To many, the Bible is just another one of those tools for use, where applicable.

For Debate:

Why should one more-so care what the Bible says? Is it because....

1. It is the inspired word of God? If so, how do you know?

2. Another reason(s)? If so, what, and why does this make anyone care what the Bible says?

[TRANSPONDER]

Let's test this shall we?
What is the likely hood that all the competing god concepts are true?

Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted as true. All gods are true. All makes and models are automobiles, just because one isn't right for everyone doesn't mean they aren't all automobiles. All believers believe the one they've chosen is right for them. And you're going to argue? Is your beliefs the correct one? Who is your God? Faith is simply trust. Have you no faith? If disbelief is then default so is ignorance. Belief doesn't need to be justified, it can be true or false, the same for disbelief. Therefor it is foolish to ask anyone to justify their own belief or disbelief. The evidence for Santa isn't considered by the adult or child either when the adult perpetuates the concept and the child accepts it. The same applies when the adult stops perpetuating and the child stops believing.

Terrible, terrible I enjoyed it, though. The idea that all the gods are true, Including Xoxchimilko? Wow. is refreshing. So which religion doesn't matter, so long as you have one? What if the religion has no god? What about scientology and Thetans? They get damned unless their wall to wall lawyers can prove Thetans qualify as a deities "We do tax avoidance, sirs, we aren't theologians").

As for the musings on Faith, trust and belief, we have got well past such foggy ramblings. We get to where we ask, validate these statements of yours or they are no more than unsupported claims that will persuade no -one that doesn't already believe it.

[Data]

You (generic) will not take the medicine unless you are first convinced that you are sick.

Like a vaccine?

A Christian must believe that they are a sinner that deserves hell (this is the sickness part) or some such belief generally tied to some sin committed by an Adam and Eve. Once this is accepted, faith in a Christ (the medicine) can be consumed. The 'reason' is that they are sick and 'faith' is the medicine to cure the sickness.

An unbeliever doesn't have the 'sickness' and therefore of course will not employ faith to cure it.

I don't think that's a very good analogy, but that's beside the point, for the sake of argument a believer has the same ailment as the unbeliever but the unbeliever doesn't want the medicine.

Faith should be avoided at all costs in life as faith is not a valid mechanism to arriving at a truth, quite the opposite in fact as it is required in order to believe that a falsehood is true. So I argue that humans should act off of evidence, not faith.

Faith is not a valid mechanism for arriving at truth and would be misapplied in such a case, truth is a fact or belief accepted as true, faith is simply trust and is dependent upon evidence, study and experience.

I have evidence that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow. Therefore, I employ zero faith to believe that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow.

You believe, trust that, have faith that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow due to evidence, study and experience.

I can't supply any evidence for Santa, but my kids both believed in such a being because they had faith in my wives claim that Santa brought presents. What wasn't available was evidence for Santa, so faith was employed.

Faith, in the case of Santa, was due to deception, the evidence for Santa is broad and well documented. It's a legend possibly loosely based in some way on an actual person and imitated in shopping malls that used to exist across the world and street corners. He became a sort of mascot for American corporations like Coca-cola. "Coca-Cola's advertising has significantly affected American culture, and it is frequently credited with inventing the modern image of Santa Claus as an old man in a red-and-white suit."

[TRANSPONDER]

Faith as is used in these discussions, is used to denote a belief without good evidence, no real evidence or in despite of evidence. Belief or trust is rather reserved for a conclusion arrived at through study of the evidence. Of course it's true that the rational trust in evidence -based conclusions is not fixed. Fresh evidence can change the opinion.

Let me give you an example of an apologetic of mine that I never saw anywhere else. Matthew has a passage (found nowhere else) 21. 15 where the Temple priests take issue with the chants of praise for Jesus, and Jesus responds with the passage about Babes and Sucklings. Now, I argued that Jesus could not have said this as it is a misquote of a Psalm, based on the Septuagint. A poster convinced me that the OT was wrong and the Septuagint right because the Qumran scrolls agreed with the Septuagint. I later reversed my view when I found that bit is missing from the Dead sea scroll and there was no reason to suppose that the Septuagint and Jesus' usage was correct. But just the other day I found that the Isaiah scroll is not only different from the OT, but may agree with the Septuagint. So I rethink with new evidence. I don't take a faithbased view and dismiss any evidence I don't like. Which is what faithbased apologetics do all the time.

I do think that Faith (without decent evidence) can follow from trust in Biblical evidence. E.g the resurrection happened because people saw it. I think that is arguable, bu it is faith based on evidence which rather too many (even Bible critics) take as somewhat reliable. But Pauling claims about salvation and bodies rising to meet the Messiah in mid air are Faithbased, as well (to get nearer home) as the assertion that all gods ar real. There is no decent evidence for any of that.

There is the aspect of the misuse of evidence to support the Faith, rather than assessing evidence to see where it leads, but that is another rabbit - hole, bridge to cross or unopened can of bait. .

[Data]

The idea that all the gods are true, Including Xoxchimilko?

By definition, yes. Truth is a fact or belief accepted as true, how could any god not be true? People believe in gods accepted as false?

So which religion doesn't matter, so long as you have one?

I wouldn't personally recommend having a religion, no religion matters to me, I'm irreligious.

What if the religion has no god?

Lot's of them don't.

What about scientology and Thetans? They get damned unless their wall to wall lawyers can prove Thetans qualify as a deities "We do tax avoidance, sirs, we aren't theologians").

I couldn't care less. None of my concern.

As for the musings on Faith, trust and belief, we have got well past such foggy ramblings. We get to where we ask, validate these statements of yours or they are no more than unsupported claims that will persuade no -one that doesn't already believe it.

And you think they are obligated to persuade you or is it your obligation to persuade them. Takes two to tango.

[TRANSPONDER]

The idea that all the gods are true, Including Xoxchimilko?

By definition, yes. Truth is a fact or belief accepted as true, how could any god not be true? People believe in gods accepted as false?

So which religion doesn't matter, so long as you have one?

I wouldn't personally recommend having a religion, no religion matters to me, I'm irreligious.

What if the religion has no god?

Lot's of them don't.

What about scientology and Thetans? They get damned unless their wall to wall lawyers can prove Thetans qualify as a deities "We do tax avoidance, sirs, we aren't theologians").

I couldn't care less. None of my concern.

As for the musings on Faith, trust and belief, we have got well past such foggy ramblings. We get to where we ask, validate these statements of yours or they are no more than unsupported claims that will persuade no -one that doesn't already believe it.

And you think they are obligated to persuade you or is it your obligation to persuade them. Takes two to tango.

Dude (or Dudess for all I know) this is not good work. Any or every god could be not true. Some people believe in a god or gods but not others. Why should we believe in any of them? If you argument was an attempt to be crafty it was a poor one. Ok, you don't do religion. Belief then, perhaps academically, or expecting some benefit? Even being saved? I doubt that believing in all of them is going to please any of them.

Again you dismiss a problem. But we are in the dark about your beliefs about what the gods do, or how relevant they are, bearing in mind your erudite but irrelevant piece on the Bible, which suggests that Christianity is your thing. Your mistake about the purpose of discussion is more poor work. You may Tango or not, but just because you might ignore my posts, or arguments, doesn't mean I have to ignore yours. When I see poor apologetics I have to tear them down and if you ignore it, others won't.

You are welcome here, in case I omitted a welcome, and I shall watch with interest in seeing how you deal with the way debate works, not how you would like it to.

[Data]

Faith as is used in these discussions, is used to denote a belief without good evidence, no real evidence or in despite of evidence.

Fascinating. The people here with faith have concluded that their beliefs are without good evidence, no real evidence or in despite of evidence? You, uh . . . you have evidence of this of course.

Let me give you an example of an apologetic of mine that I never saw anywhere else. Matthew has a passage (found nowhere else) 21. 15 where the Temple priests take issue with the chants of praise for Jesus, and Jesus responds with the passage about Babes and Sucklings. Now, I argued that Jesus could not have said this as it is a misquote of a Psalm, based on the Septuagint. A poster convinced me that the OT was wrong and the Septuagint right because the Qumran scrolls agreed with the Septuagint. I later reversed my view when I found that bit is missing from the Dead sea scroll and there was no reason to suppose that the Septuagint and Jesus' usage was correct. But just the other day I found that the Isaiah scroll is not only different from the OT, but may agree with the Septuagint. So I rethink with new evidence. I don't take a faithbased view and dismiss any evidence I don't like. Which is what faithbased apologetics do all the time.

I do that all the time, it's a simple matter of adjusting one's faith. There's nothing wrong with that. I was taught in school that Pluto was a planet, they later changed that to a dwarf planet. Because I have diverticulitis my doctor told me whatever I do, don't eat seeds. The next time I saw him, a few months later, he said be sure and eat lots of seeds. They used to think the seeds would become embedded in holes in the lining of the colon, causing problems. Now they think that the seeds actually act as a cleaning device, scooping debris from the holes. They used to think dinosaurs were great big roaring lizards, now, apparently, they think they were great big squawking chickens. Who can say? Faith doesn't mean being right or wrong, it means trusting.

I do think that Faith (without decent evidence) can follow from trust in Biblical evidence. E.g the resurrection happened because people saw it. I think that is arguable, bu it is faith based on evidence which rather too many (even Bible critics) take as somewhat reliable. But Pauling claims about salvation and bodies rising to meet the Messiah in mid air are Faithbased, as well (to get nearer home) as the assertion that all gods ar real. There is no decent evidence for any of that.

Flesh and blood can't inhabit heaven. So, in spirit they meet. I wouldn't propose that all gods are real, Amaterasu, for example, and the Shinto gods, were fabricated in order to instruct Japanese youth. They were never thought to be "real" but they are real gods. A god doesn't have to be real or literally exist.

There is the aspect of the misuse of evidence to support the Faith, rather than assessing evidence to see where it leads, but that is another rabbit - hole, bridge to cross or unopened can of bait. .

The deliberate misuse of evidence? By the faithful or faithless? Or both?

[Data]

Any or every god could be not true. Some people believe in a god or gods but not others. Why should we believe in any of them?

I'll say it again, if truth is defined, as I demonstrated it was, as a fact or belief that is accepted as true than how could all gods not be true? People believe in the gods they think are true, that means they are accepted as such. Some people think you have a strong argument and some don't. That doesn't make you false. Your argument and any argument against it are true in that they are a belief accepted as such. So, either the use of "true" has been misapplied or we need to redefine true. It has been my experience that when someone says something is true they mean to establish themselves as an arbiter of truth. Usually without actually knowing what that is, except for that they don't agree with it. If religious oppression and suppression throughout human history has been carried out in that pretense then I don't see the alternative having restrained themselves from doing the same.

If you argument was an attempt to be crafty it was a poor one.

Uh - I don't believe that's true.

Ok, you don't do religion. Belief then, perhaps academically, or expecting some benefit? Even being saved?

Salvation isn't a rewards program like science isn't a belief system. Is that not clever?

I doubt that believing in all of them is going to please any of them.

But they aren't any more sentient than disbelief.

Again you dismiss a problem.

What problem?

But we are in the dark about your beliefs about what the gods do, or how relevant they are, bearing in mind your erudite but irrelevant piece on the Bible, which suggests that Christianity is your thing.

I'm not a Christian. I have never and will never be a part of any religion or political party. The only requirement for a god is to be worshipped/venerated.

Your mistake about the purpose of discussion is more poor work. You may Tango or not, but just because you might ignore my posts, or arguments, doesn't mean I have to ignore yours.

Perhaps you misunderstood my metaphor. I enjoy the tango but not so much the two-step. Meaning I enjoy discussion and debate of the theological but if it's too sophisticated it becomes tedious and on the other end of the scale if it's to ideological it becomes pointless. Above all be in importance is fairness.

When I see poor apologetics I have to tear them down and if you ignore it, others won't.

I strongly encourage you to tear my "apologetics" apart, if you can. That's why I'm here. If you can't do that I get bored and leave.

You are welcome here, in case I omitted a welcome, and I shall watch with interest in seeing how you deal with the way debate works, not how you would like it to.

That is funny. Thanks for the welcome.

[Clownboat]

Truth is a fact or belief that is accepted as true. All gods are true. All makes and models are automobiles, just because one isn't right for everyone doesn't mean they aren't all automobiles. All believers believe the one they've chosen is right for them.

Woops! You'll need to try again as automobiles are not claimed to be the one and only true automobile. That is reserved for god concepts alone and is why your analogy failes.
If Chevy were to say that they are the only automobile and that therefore there is not a Ford, then you would have a point.

Let's illustrate my point more directly, shall we?
Data, what is the likelihood that Allah is real and is the one true God?

Faith is simply trust.

Faith is not trust. That's just a weak attempt at trying to level the playing field when nobody is even arguing that trust is a path to truth in the first place. Faith is required in order to believe religious claims though. Faith is not required in order to believe your dentist that you should brush your teeth. The evidence for brushing our teeth is out there and that is the reason to trust your dentist, no evidence for any god concept exists. Therefore faith is inserted as the mechanism in place of trust.

Have you no faith?

Nope. Faith should be abhorred by all humans.

If disbelief is then default so is ignorance.

Sure. Being ignorant can be fine and allows for learning. Pretending to have answers via faith stops the need to investigate things further. See why one is superior over the other?

Belief doesn't need to be justified, it can be true or false, the same for disbelief. Therefor it is foolish to ask anyone to justify their own belief or disbelief.

If your neighbor accused you of being a pedophile, would you really find it foolish to ask them to justify their claim?
What if they believed your shed is on part of their property and want you to move it. Would you really find it to be foolish to ask them to justify their claim?
Of course not, therefore your claim is false that is is foolish to ask anyone to justify their beliefs.

The evidence for Santa isn't considered by the adult or child either when the adult perpetuates the concept and the child accepts it.

That's my point. There is no evidence for a Santa. Therefore, the child will need to employ faith in order to hold a Santa belief.
Now if Santa was real, us parents could provide the evidence for him and likely would gain the child's trust that Santa is in fact real.
Now swap Santa for Allah and see how the point still stands.

The same applies when the adult stops perpetuating and the child stops believing.

Not sure what point you are trying to make. Sorry.

Faith is simply trust.

This is your demonstrated error. I trust that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow morning. I'm trusting the evidence. I can even show you as to why such a thing will appear to happen if you needed it.
I do not have faith that the sun will appear to rise tomorrow morning. Now, if we did not have all of human history as evidence that the sun appears to rise every morning, THEN I would need to apply faith in order to accept such a claim. This is the realm of the god concepts and the religious and what separates faith from being trust.

Faith is not trust and I can't be the only one that knows how the Bible describes faith, can I?
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence for things not seen.

You can hope a god concept is true and then apply faith, as faith is the substantial thing that is needed in order to have the hope.
Logically, you cannot hope that a god concept is true and then trust that your hope is true. Faith, that thing that is not trust is required.

[POI]

a) No. I'm afraid it's all or nothing. b) You have repeatedly told me that you want me to tell you and so I will. In the Bible study forum, you and I. c) Are you willing to commit to all of it instead of just some small part? d) I've repeatedly said you are not. Am I wrong? Is this curiosity of yours genuine. I don't think it is. I would be reluctant to begin such a task in public. e) It's not a show for you to proudly prance around like a skeptical lion looking for a slap on the back in what is, more or less, IMO, a trap for believers. A modern day virtual coliseum.

You up for it?

a) Then I'm afraid no one will take you up on this request. You would never finish. Further, how many things need to be disproven, to your satisfaction, before you start to doubt it?

b) You can tell me here. All you need to do is support what the Bible claims

c) Again, I do not need to. All you need to do is support the claims from the Bible, with evidence-based practices.

d) I'm genuine. Please support your Biblical claims with evidence-based practices. We do not need to move this discussion to another arena. The apologetics arena is perfect for such claims.

e) I'm starting to sense that you do not feel you have much to really offer? Too bad Oh, and BTW, whether you want to believe it or not, I spent years in another Christian forum, in the apologetics section, against mostly Christians. But they ultimately shut it down. If you feel your case is strong, it does not matter who you are up against.

[Data]

Woops! You'll need to try again as automobiles are not claimed to be the one and only true automobile. That is reserved for god concepts alone and is why your analogy failes.
If Chevy were to say that they are the only automobile and that therefore there is not a Ford, then you would have a point.

Of course that's patently false. Rolls Royce is the only automobile. I don't think you get my point. It's subjective.

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 (KJV) For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Let's illustrate my point more directly, shall we?
Data, what is the likelihood that Allah is real and is the one true God?

100% likelihood. To Muslims. To me and you, 0%.

Faith is simply trust.

Faith is not trust.

Oxford dictionary - Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

That's just a weak attempt at trying to level the playing field when nobody is even arguing that trust is a path to truth in the first place. Faith is required in order to believe religious claims though. Faith is not required in order to believe your dentist that you should brush your teeth. The evidence for brushing our teeth is out there and that is the reason to trust your dentist, no evidence for any god concept exists. Therefore faith is inserted as the mechanism in place of trust.

I think, as is almost always the case with skepticism, it's just ideology. The skeptic associates words like god, sin, faith with nonsense and words like truth, evidence, science with the rational in an ideological possession that is similar to that of dogmatic disputes among the religious. You won't accept the Oxford definitions I gave on truth or faith, correct?

Sure. Being ignorant can be fine and allows for learning.

How can you believe or not believe in something you are ignorant of?

Pretending to have answers via faith stops the need to investigate things further. See why one is superior over the other?

Yes, that's what I was talking about with skepticism above. Skeptics do that all the time. Refuse accepted definitions because they don't serve their purpose, pretend to have answers about faith without having a clue what they are talking about, things like that. But I don't really think it has anything to do with any real investigation, just the latter part you mentioned. They just think their answers are superior because how couldn't it be. They are always right, always true, they dig evidence, man, that's for sure.