Audie wrote:
Of course it is not a science book. Its not a history book either, nor a math text nor yet a psychology book.
Youd sorta think, if you were me, tho, that if a god was behind it he'd get things right. Why the deliberate and seemingly gratuitous introduction of nonsense?
Audie,
Let's see if you're truly open minded, and are willing to put your money where your mouth is.
Why don't you create a thread outlining some of the "nonsense" you see in the bible?
I dont think you get to define for me what being open minded is.
do you need more than a st one for snakebite and the "flood", already mentioned?
I have no idea what you are referring to about the stone and snake bite.
And, the global flood beliefs are primarily YEC. So, you can toss that one away.
Let's see how open you are. Start a thread with a specific verse or passage from the bible that you believe is nonsense. Do you really want to learn, or are you just here to attack Christianity, God, and the bible?
The ball is in your court, Audie.
Put up or shut up.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.
Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.
Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.
So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.
The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?
Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.
See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.
Only to the closed minded atheists. Those who aren't willing to see if there's a reason why we believe the bible is reliable.
Good, good, ignore it, and make up more things about people you dont know.
And I see you are back to name calling, but this time being underhanded about it. Why dont you put your real thoughts out there in bold font, as would be the courageous thing.
Audie,
I've already heard why you don't like hearing, "because the bible says so". You think it's a circular argument. Have you given any thought to the possibility that people believe the bible to be reliable for a reason? Or, are you just going to continue showing you really don't understand the bible, by not accepting my challenge about starting a thread with your interpretation of biblical nonsense?
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
The only circular argument about the bible is when people say the bible is the word of God because the bible says it is the word of God.
In short:
Circular argument:
Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
To say that we believe X because the bible says so is not a circular argument and is at best, an argument from authority.
I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.
Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.
Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.
So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.
The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?
Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.
See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.
Really?
Because, for a Christian, the bible is trustworthy and has "authority".
So it would be like saying, "we believe that Einstein said this and believed that because the Encyclopedia says so".
See what I mean?
See, what you are talking about is just what I see as "Blind Faith". When it is demonstrated to be other than authoritataive, well, out comes a quote about trusting mans wisdom, all men are lairs, etc.
Since you mention Einstein, here is a quote...Albert Einstein — 'Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Others put it other ways, but science is for sure not about trusting authorities.
Not all atheists think like scientists of course.
If you are good with saying in essence that you believe it because you believe it, that is fine.
And its fine if you dont want to take my suggestion that its the wrong way to approach an atheist.
I agree with many things that you've said and many certainly help to reassure those of us Christians who believe in the truth of Scripture.
Something I learnt long ago and caused me much disappointment was my own attempts to justify Scripture and use it as an apologetic.
I fell flat on my face many times debating to truth of Scripture with non-Christians -- not because I couldn't rebuff what they said, but rather because it didn't make a difference to them. BUT, I did learn much so I gained personally.
Certainly defend parts when challenged, but there is a blindness that needs to first be cured before Scripture even has an allure.
That blindness is something that can only be cured in Christ. Then everything else starts falling into place and becoming evident although not all things.
So really, the one thing I'd say to a non-Christian who asks.
Is that I respect Scripture as truth because Christ did.
Simple as that. It directs attention to what is most important -- Christ Himself.
And really, my reason simply boils down my faith in Christ and not necessarily rational arguments.
The Bible is deep down the basis of our faith however. We believe things because the Bible says them. I can't say that I'd had an experience of Christ before I became a Christian but (this was at the age of 12 or so) I believed the Bible was true because I'd been taken to church when I was younger and then I believed what a children's gospel correspondence course said because it was based on the Bible. What I didn't have at the time was the evidence for the Bible actually being true - something I've become more interested in in recent years. If people think a lot of the Bible is fiction, why would they believe what it says about Jesus and about salvation?
Regarding the martyrs, the difference with the earliest Christian martyrs was that they had actually been there when Jesus was around, died and rose from the dead, so they not only died for their beliefs, they knew whether they were true or false.
See the part in bold? A tip from the land of the atheists: That is just about the worst thing you could think of to say to one of us.
Really?
Because, for a Christian, the bible is trustworthy and has "authority".
So it would be like saying, "we believe that Einstein said this and believed that because the Encyclopedia says so".
See what I mean?
See, what you are talking about is just what I see as "Blind Faith". When it is demonstrated to be other than authoritataive, well, out comes a quote about trusting mans wisdom, all men are lairs, etc.
Since you mention Einstein, here is a quote...Albert Einstein — 'Blind belief in authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
Others put it other ways, but science is for sure not about trusting authorities.
Not all atheists think like scientists of course.
If you are good with saying in essence that you believe it because you believe it, that is fine.
And its fine if you dont want to take my suggestion that its the wrong way to approach an atheist.
You simply did not understand what I wrote.
Believing in something that you trust to have authority in that subject is NOT blind faith.
Never has been never will be.
Blind faith can be practiced by anyone including atheists. Blind faith occurs when someone puts their faith into something without any evidence.
I trust the bible to be theologically correct an I do that based on my research and studies into the bible, hence I have faith ( trust) in the bible in terms of theology.
Much like you may have "faith" in a book of physics written by a collection of physicists with PhD's .
You would trust their authoritative knowledge of the subject they were writing about.
I understood "We believe things because the Bible says them" just fine.
You think it is authoritative. I dont trust "authorities". The more they demand it and the less they can be checked up on, the less I trust.
I dont get the idea of splitting the book up so that some obviously incorrect or merely approximate things can be ignored while the theology is all 100%
Audie wrote:I understood "We believe things because the Bible says them" just fine.
You think it is authoritative. I dont trust "authorities". The more they demand it and the less they can be checked up on, the less I trust.
I dont get the idea of splitting the book up so that some obviously incorrect or merely approximate things can be ignored while the theology is all 100%
It isn't about trust authorities, it is about trusting authorities that have been shown to be correct.
You can distrust authorities all you want BUT you DO trust them, do you not believe in the Law of conservation of energy?
Yes you do, why?
Because you trust the person/people that came up with it.
If you don't trust the bible, that is fine, that is your perogative, just like some don't trust scientists.
Just don't go insinuating that people that do trust it, do so out of blind faith because that is not always the case.
Audie wrote:I understood "We believe things because the Bible says them" just fine.
You think it is authoritative. I dont trust "authorities". The more they demand it and the less they can be checked up on, the less I trust.
I dont get the idea of splitting the book up so that some obviously incorrect or merely approximate things can be ignored while the theology is all 100%
It isn't about trust authorities, it is about trusting authorities that have been shown to be correct.
You can distrust authorities all you want BUT you DO trust them, do you not believe in the Law of conservation of energy?
Yes you do, why?
Because you trust the person/people that came up with it.
If you don't trust the bible, that is fine, that is your perogative, just like some don't trust scientists.
Just don't go insinuating that people that do trust it, do so out of blind faith because that is not always the case.
Main idea:
The original un nuanced statement was"
"we believe things because the bible says them"
I gave the honest advice that such a statement is a sure loser around atheists. It is; but if nobody cares that it is, or sees why thats ok.
Im well aware that many people have put in a lifetime of study, and co me to their own conclusions for their own reasons. At some point(s) tho, I think you'd agree, its just faith, no evidence? The bible does praise the virtues of such faith.
I dont "trust" scientists as such, far from it. They are often enough wrong, and often enough have some agenda.
I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.
I dont do insinuation, as I think it is shasbby and dishonourable. suggest or hint (something bad or reprehensible) in an indirect and unpleasant way. Good advice you have, for all: dont insinuate.
Audie wrote:
Im well aware that many people have put in a lifetime of study, and co me to their own conclusions for their own reasons. At some point(s) tho, I think you'd agree, its just faith, no evidence? The bible does praise the virtues of such faith.
How can you make that statement again, after we have told you that we and others DO have evidence that shows us the bible is reliable?
I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.
Again Audie,
You keep making this claim without any evidence to back it up. Put up or shut up! Start a thread and show us where the bible has been shown to be wrong.
This is really getting tiring Audie. Stop with the bald assertions.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
Audie wrote:At some point(s) tho, I think you'd agree, its just faith, no evidence? The bible does praise the virtues of such faith.
Not as much faith that's required for atheism (as the saying goes, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist). The only difference between the two faiths is that theistic faith is grounded in reason (intelligible) whereas atheistic faith is grounded in violations of the law of non-contradiction (something from nothing) and/or inexplicable brute-force laws (unintelligible).
Audie wrote:I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.
Care to back up this assertion?
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Audie wrote:
Im well aware that many people have put in a lifetime of study, and co me to their own conclusions for their own reasons. At some point(s) tho, I think you'd agree, its just faith, no evidence? The bible does praise the virtues of such faith.
How can you make that statement again, after we have told you that we and others DO have evidence that shows us the bible is reliable?
I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.
Again Audie,
You keep making this claim without any evidence to back it up. Put up or shut up! Start a thread and show us where the bible has been shown to be wrong.
This is really getting tiring Audie. Stop with the bald assertions.
There is plenty of evidence to show that some of it is reliable. Plenty of evidence that some is not.
If the "flood" account isnt enough for that, nothing will be.
Audie wrote:At some point(s) tho, I think you'd agree, its just faith, no evidence? The bible does praise the virtues of such faith.
Atheism or science dont make a virtue of belief no matter what.
Not as much faith that's required for atheism (as the saying goes, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist)
.
is that more of a cliche, or platitude, would you say? Or jsut one of those truisms like "its never too late".
(is it not too late to get rich in the Klondike goldrush, or homestead in Kansas? )
The only difference between the two faiths is that theistic faith is grounded in reason (intelligible) whereas atheistic faith is grounded in violations of the law of non-contradiction (something from nothing) and/or inexplicable brute-force laws (unintelligible).
So you say, it does take quite a concoction of words to brew that up.
Audie wrote:I dont trust the bible in toto, as much of it has been shown to be wrong.
Care to back up this assertion?
Like I said to your companion in arms, if the flood wont do it, then nothing will.
Audie wrote:
There is plenty of evidence to show that some of it is reliable. Plenty of evidence that some is not.
If the "flood" account isnt enough for that, nothing will be.
More assertions without proof backing it up.
John 5:24 24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.
“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.”
-Edward R Murrow
St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony
I gave the honest advice that such a statement is a sure loser around atheists. It is; but if nobody cares that it is, or sees why thats ok.
What was meant is this:
We believe the theological views that are stated in the bible because they are in the bible and the bible can be viewed as a trustworthy source for theological understanding.
I gave the honest advice that such a statement is a sure loser around atheists. It is; but if nobody cares that it is, or sees why thats ok.
What was meant is this:
We believe the theological views that are stated in the bible because they are in the bible and the bible can be viewed as a trustworthy source for theological understanding.
Do you disagree with such a comment?
No, I dont see any reason why I should. The OP was swiningin' a mighty big loop, but i see your statement nere as entirely reasonable.
