|
Christians use the bible because it is their "a priori" so to speak. It is the foundation of their culture. It is a perspective. Reading the bible from a Jewish perspective, vs a christian perspective, vs a muslim all reveal different viewpoints. While I agree that it is futile to argue the bible as fact, it is equally futile to argue the bible as false. Someone posted "the text to aethiesm is empiricism." But is not our sight flawed (mirage) or hearing impaired (tennonitus) our flesh weak? (paralysis).
On top of that, do we not all have "faith" in our very language? To use the bible as a backdrop for proving this is no 'absurd' than to use our very own language to prove anything. There is no definite way to define anything. Why try? A tree is only a tree arbitrarily. Might it not be a reet, or a eter? And the only way to define a language is with....language! (ie: dictionary) And even then it is still weak, how do you define something like the word "love" in mere language?
Yes it is silly to portray the bible as empiricle, but is it not equally silly to claim the bible is faithless using language? We all have faith, whether we like it or not.
|