why believe the bible?
 

so i've been wondering this for a while: why do people believe the bible? we take other religous myths as only being myths and fanciful stories, whether they were passed down in written or oral form. yet with the new and old testament, many people seem (to me at least) to rather blindly accept them at face value. it doesn't make much sense to me. there are ancient historians from rome who we know about and have been discredited as being very biased and not necessarily completely factual, so why do people take the old testament as face value? we don't know who wrote it after all.

i learned in my early medieval history class about how after rome became christian, and the church established in what would be the first modern official establishment (i know i'm not saying what i mean in a nice articulate manner, i can't find the right words. i think you know what i mean though), a council of church officials took all of the different versions and books of the new testament, went through them, edited them, threw out some books, used others, and created a codefied new testament. so i have a hard seeing the NT as being divenly inspired. (this was i think around 400 AD, not sure though, took that class some 6 years ago).

so could someone explain why this is? if you beleive, why?

i don't believe in what they say. to me, it was a book of stories that someone wrote from oral tales, then passed down, and people kept believing not because it was necessarily true, but because people kept telling the next generation that that was the way it is, the truth.

so i guess it seems to me that when you have faith in the bible, you're really having faith in the person who told you about it, who had faith in the person he was told about it by, and so on and so forth.

anyways, i realize this is a bit disjointed, maybe really two threads in one, but it's been a long tiring day. i'm not asking this to upset anyone or troll or anything, i'm genuinly curious as to what you all think.

thanks.

You raise a couple of different issues, so I'll try to address each of them directly.

First, you ask about the process used to compile what we know today as the Bible. Clearly, in ancient Israel and ancient Rome, as you noted, history was often transmitted orally. Over time, the history of the Jews, the life of Christ, and the missionary journeys of Paul and other apostles were recorded in written form. Beginning in the third century, the church fathers began to evaluate the many different accounts that had been floating around since the middle of the first century. In evaluating them, they had to apply a variety of criteria in determining which were true and belonged in the cannon and which were false. In short, after much debate and nearly two hundred years, the Council of Carthage in 400 AD finally set the cannon Scripture, essentially establishing the Bible that we have today.

Much of the material that was not included in the Bible is still available today, and it's clear why such material has not persisted through history. Apocryphal material does not reflect the same style or character as the material in the Bible.

The church councils didn't edit and twist material to comprise the Bible. Their task was simply to recognize the divine inspiration of certain books. Do these books reflect the character of God as displayed in other texts? Are these books historically and doctrinally consistent with the tradition of the church?

There are a lot of reasons that people believe in the Bible. The trend in recent years has been to prove the reliability of the Bible with arguments that stress the Bible's honesty, unity, preservation, historical and geographical accuracy, and its prophetic accuracy.

I think if you use these types of standards, you might prove the Bible to be more reliable than other holy books (i.e. the Qu'ran, the Book of Mormon, etc.), but I don't think it gives anyone a compelling reason to believe.

The reason that I believe in the Bible is because it has provided a meta-narrative for a community of faith for nearly two thousand years. It tells the story of God's involvement in human history. It describes the nature of humanity and the interjection of God into history in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible tells the story of Christ's life, his death, and his resurrection. Simply put, I believe the Bible because it claims to be the truth and for two thousand years, communities of faith all around the world have worshipped the God revealed in it.

I know that probably doesn't answer all the objections, but it's a start.

marcus

Why Not?

It's not what the WORDS says; it's what YOU get out of it.

Here's a great sense of the humanity of the bible!!

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13. "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:32.

More wonderful examples of the humanity of god and his bible at the link below. Obviously, I don't believe a word in the bible.

LINKY

It's something to believe in, before you get the answer.

I rate the bible alongside Ancient Greek myths. Both are equally believable.

I went out with a priest's daughter. She admitted that she thought many parts of the bible were complete bollocks.

Anyone who defends the bible in its entirety is an ignorant fool.

Anyone who believes in the essence of what it is trying to say has got it right.

Unfortunately many of those then don't believe it applies to them.
As they go to church each sunday they are somehow immune.

Its ok to cheat your customers because you believe in christ and so he'll forgive you.
Its ok to kill people from other religions because you are doing it for God or because that person was evil.

I have no truck with christianity. Its followers tend to be hypocrits.

That guy was really, really trying to disprove the Bible. He did a terrible job though :\. He took a bunch of verses way out of context, like saying that the Bible says Jesus wasn't God because Paul called him a man.

Paul was pretty deranged, in my opinion.
His books alone are reason enough to doubt the rest of the books. If anyone says they will curse any man OR angel that preaches the gospel differently from him, he's setting himself above God. It is a very un-Christian point of view.

To throw in a wrinkle... what Bible exactly are you referring to?
The King James Version, New Day Bible, Giddion Bible, Mormon Bible, Revised Standard Version, New American Standard etc. (you get the idea).
If you ever choose to read one, might I suggest the King James Version, it's the truest to original there is. Once you have read the bible or even a book (if you are not that eager) and have any questions as to the meaning, structure or origin, try talking to God, praying, fasting and entering into a Holy Relationship with Christ. He will answer all your questions in due time.

Hahaha, this is an entertaining thread. I think I'll join.

I believe every piece of shit that the Bible says. I used to be a blameless Christian -who didn't go to church- for awhile in high school, but after I graduated, me and ev0l became best friends. Yeah, and I didn't want to claim Christianity and join the bandwagon of super-hypocritical Christians out there. Personally, I think Christianity is a fun and fulfilling religion, but I didn't get that idea from looking at other Christians. Looking at other Christians, I'd think that Christianity was a washed up cult who's members didn't even know the first thing about the religion in the first place. I got my view of Christianity from walking with god (per say) myself.

sidenote
Christians -alot of them- give christanity a bad rep.
My advice: Don't look at christianity through christians. Experience it for yourself and then formulate your jack-shit opinions about it.
/sidenote

Another reason why I'm so pro-Christianity is probably because I attended a Christian high school, elementary school, and pre-k. Though I don't think my parents are Christians, they were set on getting me closer to god. This I am thankful for -even if that high school did give me a shitty education (but I turned out alright didn't I?).

I'm telling you that I believe the bible in it's entirety (as far as i can remember) because of personal experience (mostly). Any nay-sayers of the bible wont find me at their door proclaiming Holy Pimping Jesus is gunnuh send 'em to hell, but they can bet that there's no possible way they're going to convince me that the bible is a lie and that Christianity is false. That's not to say that I'm hard set on Christianity even if a valid point is presented in the other direction, but only that there's nothing on this shit pile we call a planet that is more believable than the bible, and god (IMO).

Furthermore, there’s actually proof of the bible. The creationist theory has been proven beyond debatability –to me. Personal convictions (and I don’t like that word) keep me in check as far as beliefs go, etcetera.

I'm still not claiming Christianity for myself, but if I were to jump back into religion and start actually 'obeying' the laws and shit, that religion would be Christianity (word count check for 'Christianity in this post: lots).

HAHAHAHAHA that site is pretty funny.

And another thing: some of the new translations of the bible are getting… questionably far from the original text. Well, anything in English has already been distorted enough, so the more we translate and translate for sake of understanding, the more we stray from the truth. It’s that … umm damnit… it’s that … that theory that everything, when messed with, goes towards disorder –I forget the name of the theory. What we should do –or maybe what would be optimal- is stop translating to help people understand it. People need to grow a brain and THINK. THINK MUTHERFUCKER! THINK! I don’t consider all these new translations of the bible as the actual bible. They’re basically just ‘views’ and stuff. Instead of saying “the new blah blah translation” it should say “This is the Bible…I reworded it though” or “This is the Bible IMO”.

"sidenote
Christians -alot of them- give christanity a bad rep.
My advice: Don't look at christianity through christians. Experience it for yourself and then formulate your jack-shit opinions about it.
/sidenote"

I 100% agree. Even more so, it's hypocritical of me to say that of other Christians when I'm a Christian posting on a site known for its porn. I struggle with sexual sin.

Forgot one of the most important parts of the history of the bible. When it was first transcribed for the common person, the church felt that it was too difficult for the common person to understand. Thus they created the first mass-market version of the bible, known as the vulgate (same root as the word vulgar, for the common person) upon which most subsequesnt translations are based. This is one of the reasons why some religious difference never fail to amuse me (such as the Jehova's Witnesses insisting that Jesus was killed on a stake and not on a cross).

How was this taken out of context?

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 20:13

What does this mean to you? Tell me that I'm wrong if you think I am, but that means that god hates gay men and wishes death upon them! If you believe in the bible and follow this faith you're saying you believe in everything the bible teaches.... So how many gay men have you killed lately? :eek:

This is exactly what drives me insane about religion. When there's a part of the bible someone doesn't want to believe in they just act as though it doesn't even exist. Well, it does exist and how can you claim to be a believer in faith if you don't believe in every word of the bible. I don't really care what else the bible may say because that sentence is enough to make me vomit. The ignorant thing about that sentence above is it is on many religious sites that hate gays. They love it and teach people and their kids to hate gays. Religion spreads more hate than anything else I've ever encountered in my life and I will never be a part of it.

:lol:

Unlike other religion's material the majority of the Bible is historical fact.

Prove it!

If you could teach me that whole water to wine thing, that'd be super. But seriously, great responses guys!

So because of a few stories that you deem not possible, the whole of the bible is not true???

That's absolutely correct. I think the entire bible is the most distributed piece of fiction ever produced.

fic·tion

• An imaginative creation or a pretense that does not represent actuality but has been invented.
• The act of inventing such a creation or pretense.
• A lie
• A literary work whose content is produced by the imagination and is not necessarily based on fact

CSflim, that's a great letter. I laughed my ass off.

you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? well, a few stories that are beyond being realistic kinda destroys the credibility of the rest, IMO.

You are insane, the majority of the old testament is historical FACT. From when the 12 tribes moved to Egypt, when the Egyptian's made them slaves, the Exodus, the 40 years in the desert, the war's with Jericho, all of the many kings of Israel, The Persian exile, King David, and most importantly the historical fact that Jesus did exist.

I'm referring to whatever book the person reading the question believes in. I'm non-religous and don't believe in any of them, so I'm curious as to why people who believe in whatever one they do do.

Did he?

Are you sure?

i've been doing a lot of research on the subject lately. he did exist. new questions arise, like how many of him existed, and if they were anything like the biblical jesus. in fact, i have found that there are three quite distinct jesuses to study- historical, biblical, and traditional.

the IMPORTANT thing is to follow the traditional Christ. the Church uses tradition to make the Christian new testament into something pure and concrete. you don't have to believe to have faith. the message is real.

i'm going to start a thread to discuss this idea further...

Roman's kept extensive records of executions, so yes that is just one way we know he existed.

Did either one of you click my links?

If he did exist.... I say again. Prove it. If he did exist then that should be a simple thing to do and there hasn't been a person who claims that he did live that can prove a thing.

"What does this mean to you? Tell me that I'm wrong if you think I am, but that means that god hates gay men and wishes death upon them! If you believe in the bible and follow this faith you're saying you believe in everything the bible teaches.... So how many gay men have you killed lately? "

Yes, I believe homosexualiy is wrong, and I believe that men are to be with women. Doesn't the bible, however, also say let ye without sin cast the first stone?

What does that have to do with anything?

All due respect to your links, most scholars, even the athiest ones, believe there was indeed an historical Jesus.

I don't. :D

Then why is it that NOBODY can prove to me that he did. Everyone ignores me asking for proof of existance. Surely, if he did exist then it wouldn't be a difficult thing to do for the followers of the faith, right?

So are the majority of Ancient Greek Legends. Do you believe in Cyclopses?

Similarly, I know plenty of Celtic Myths, as they are based in Irealnd, and there is lots of evidence to back up the fact that many of these wars and conflicts did in fact take place?

Do I believe that Cú Cullain single handedly defeated the entire army of Ulster when they attempted to invade, becasue he was in possession of a magic sword? No I most certainly do not!

As for the bible.
Do I believe in a man (possibly) named Jesus? Yes.

the story of the bible, from a historical perspective.

Mary at the age of approx twelve was sold by her father to joseph for marriage. This was how marrage was done at the time. Mary was a virgin, and so fetched a high price. Virgins were worth far more to prospective husbands than "used goods".
Mary and Joesph were engaged, and were to be married in a year.
Before the marriage arrived, Mary had become pregnant. This was obviously a great cause for concern. Such a thing was obviously looked upon very poorly. If joesph wished, he could have had mary put to death. However, he chose not to, and the marriage went ahead as planned.
How did she become pregnant?
Of course the christian answer is: It was a miracle!...yeah sure.
A more likely scenario was that she got pregnant, the old fashioned way. Good ole filthy dirty sex. But who was the father?
Perhaps it was just some unrelated man, with whom Mary caught caught up with.
Some claim that she was raped by a Roman soldier. There is evidence in the bible to suggest this, when opponents of Jesus proudly proclaim that at least THEY are not illigetimate. Don't have the exact quote on me, but it's there.
Of course it is possible that the illigetimacy of Jesus was just a rumour promoted by opponent of him.

So why was Joesph so lienient on Mary? Surely he should have been furious?
Well the christian answer is split.
One Gospel claims that Joesph was visited by an angel, who explained the whole deal to joseph about the virgin coneption and the Son of God etc etc.
Another Gospel claims that Joesph was simply a nice man.
Some claim that it was in fact Joeseph that was the father of Mary's child. This to me, makes the most sense, but its possible that the father was one of the other two (just some guy, or a rapist).
Those who say that mary was raped, claim that joeseph took pity on her. Also makes sense.

So far, so unremarkable.

So what about the birth of Jesus? Well, here's where historcal fact starts to contradict the bible. There was no huge cencus of the Roman empire taken at the time of Jesus. Don't try and claim that no evidence of it would be remaining!
So chances are, Jesus was born at home, in Nazareth, not in a stable in Bethlehem.

Jesus was apprently visited both by rich "wise men" and poor shephards. But the wise men are only mentioned in one gospel...the gospel which most panders to the desire of the upper class. The shepards only appear in one gospel...surprise surprise, the one written mostly for the lower class!

So Jesus grew up, and started preaching from the holy scripture. Plenty of people did such things. Nut cases going around preaching was nothing special in those days. It was common for these usurpers to be arrested and dealt with by the Roman forces.
Exactly what happened to Jesus. He was put to death by the Romans.

The End.

That is the story of Jesus from a historical point of view. It almost certainly did happen. The question is, why does it make you believe in God?

I think most of them believe because their parents and role models told them too.

umm, that is one of the more common arguments against his existence. sorry.

some of the better proofs of his existence are found in:

josephus (probably forged)
pontius pilate letter (probably forged)
no longer circulated jewish talmud documents (point to two very non-christ-like people with a few similarities of jesus, but apologists claim they were forgeries after the fact)
the gospel (quite conflicting and contain questional prophecies, but are largely synchronous considering the time & number of writers)

there are plenty of others. i mentioned before, they often paint a picture far different than the traditional jesus. but i think this mary discussion should be restricted to the traditional mary, since that is what the original poster was asking.

in that case i'll go with those who say mary accepted the holy spirit willingly. but i think she got down with joseph after she was married. interesting those who believe mary remained a virgin don't talk about the virgin joseph ;)

i hear that all the time, but i've actually never seen anything confirming it. do you know of any sources or articles?

My thought is that over 1.5 BILLION followers are the proof.
But if we go by similar logic, somone prove to me gravity exists, love exists, hell even the atomic table of elements is based on theory... not proven facts......
Every one has faith, when you sat down at your computer, did you check the legs first? Stop and ponder why it works? No, you have faith. I believe that Jesus did exist, but for me to prove that to you I would have to somehow show you my relationship with God.... which I'm not sure how that would work..... and even then I have a sneaking suspicion you would walk away saying "Well that didn't prove anything."
I say we give due time, if you die and end up rotting in hell.... use that as your proof. If you die and you just turn to dust, hey you make great fertiliser... either way it'll be proven to you.

Yeah for sure Mary didn't stay a virgin, virgin probably means pure of spirit since she too was wihtout sin.

Uh?

how is that possible? i thought everyone was born with original sin?

seems to me that means that 4.5 billion don't follow him. a lot of people can believe a foolish idea, but that doesn't make it any less foolish.

faith has nothing to do with authenticity. faith is believing without proof. i have proof that my desk and chair have legs, and i know why my computer works. what i don't know is whether or not jesus really did exist, and if so, was he the son of god. and then if that's true, is the bible even telling it how it really is.

Sorry dude, but there are a lot more people than that who don't believe in your religion. So there goes your proof.

Just because people used to believe in ancient greek mythology doesn't mean that was real.

sixate: yes, but approx. 96% of the world believes in some sort of higher being, and thats more than most facts.. so call it fact or call it fear or call it what you wish.

The most scientific people are the people who believe/know God to exist. Einstein never doubted his existence. Neither did Darwin. In fact he, somewhat, 'proved' his existence by proving that the chance of a blood clotting gene (only one of millions of neccessary genes for life) would evolve was some OUTRAGEOUS number, i mean something like one in all the 'seconds the universe has seen' or somethign like that. Darwin believed in a higher being, and evolution does NOT disprove God/the Bible

Belief is a very fragile thing.

We believed:

the earth flat
the moon unreachable
that electricity flowed + to -
that drilling holes in a patient's head would release the demons

belief isn't truth, it's just an idea awaiting to be disproven.

Thats rubbish! Darwin was a straight up atheist! This fact caused him great grief due to the fact that his wife, whom he dearly loved, was a devout christian, and was the source of much turmoil in their relationship.

Einstein DID NOT believe in God, though he reffered to him constantly in his writings. If you were to actually read these writing you would realise, from the context, that his refferences to "the Old One" were purely metaphorical and illustratative.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." - Einstein

Moreover, I think the X amount of people believe in Y is the most idiotic argument that anyone can use, and it is abused by people on BOTH sides of this argument.
Just drop it people, it is absolutely meaningless.

Like Marius1 pointed out, a number of centuries ago, everybody "knew" that the earth was flat, and that the sun orbited around the earth and that all celestial bodies were perfect spheres.
Doesn't make it fact!

As for your claim that evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, well I guess that's true, but it removes yet another reason as to why somone would need to believe in him.

Well, while I am well aware of all of the problems with the problems of saying that "Well, more people agree with me than with you, so I must be right", I do want to add that 1) more people on earth claim Christianity than claim any other one set of beliefs (or lack thereof) -- it might not be a majority, but it's a plurality -- and 2) Christianity is the world's fastest growing religion. (Both facts taken from Atlantic Monthly. If anyone really wants, I can look up the article and month.)

Very well said. It's pretty much exactly how I woulda responded.

well i don't believe in God, I have Faith that he exhists, what say you to that?

That's nothing but silly semantics.

That makes absolutely no sense at all. :confused:

...like those who belong to the flat earth society... still won't admit the obvious..... (joke/halfserious)
Just because you don't want to acknowledge the proof doesn't mean it's not proof.

I'm sorry....WHAT!?

Are you HONESTLY trying to use the argument that "lots of people believe it, so it must be true" as PROOF!?

I don't care HOW MANY people believe in any kind of rubbish...I for one prefer to MAKE UP MY OWN MIND.

I ask again. What proof!? Nobody has given me any proof at all. There is no proof. It's all hearsay, and that is hardly any proof at all. Actually, it's no proof. You couldn't convict someone of a crime by hearsay alone. There has to be cold hard evidence and nobody has that.

i tend to agree with you, but why do you have faith in the idea that being "drug free" somehow improves your life or people's perception of you?

i'm just saying it's easy to get caught up in society's pressures. THAT'S why people believe in the bible. it's all true, because people believe. and maybe some of it actually happened. :)

What has drugs got to do with anything?
Sixate has it in his Sig. It has got nothing to do with this debate.

As for society's pressures: Again, nothing to do with what is true or not.
"it's all true, because people believe" - Such meaningless "post-modern" attitudes to things don't hold much water with me, or anyone with the slightest clarity of thought.
Something is ture, or is not true, regardless of whether people like it or not.

Moreover, I think the X amount of people believe in Y is the most idiotic argument that anyone can use, and it is abused by people on BOTH sides of this argument.
[/QUOTE]
It seemed to work for Democracy, freedom, rights, currency........
If enough people believe in somehting it will exist and does exist.

That's totally irrelevant to the arguement prosequence.

People used reason to determine the result of the effect of instating a certain cause.

If the result of the effect was desirable, then whatever would cause that effect would be instated by the people through voting.

In a nutshell that's how democracy works, that's why we have rights and freedoms, as well currency.

To say people "believed" in democracy and it works because people believe in it is not correct. Democracy works because people use their reasoning to determine if what it does is desirable.

That's why you get political arguements because of different methods of reasoning, and in reality some people believe in manipulating the government and using peoples reasoning against them to their own benefit, which is how you can get scandals and fiascos.

So, to sum it up, yes it seemed to work. Seemed.

To say people "believed" in democracy and it works because people believe in it is not correct. Democracy works because people use their reasoning to determine if what it does is desirable.[/QUOTE]

I have to ask (because my head is spinning with new info)
Do you believe in Democracy?

What do you mean by that?

"All men approach me, so I recieve them. All paths... lead to me." Bhagavad Gita 4.11

Confucius said, "In the world there are many different roads but the destination is the same. there are a thousand deliberations but the result is one." I ching, appended remarks 2.5

Say, we believe in god, and what has been reveale dto us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ismael, Issac, Jacob, and the tribes, and in what was given to Moses, jesus, and the prophets from their lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to God do we submit. Qur'an 3.84

And I (Jesus) have other sheep, that are not of this flock; I must being them also and they will heed my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepard. John 10.16

Anyone would be an idiot to take their faith at face value, thats just stupid, and they aren't true followers. What I wrote is an assortment of thoughts from four major world religions that sum up my beliefs. It doesn't matter so much what you believe, aslong as you live good and love others your doing good.

All religions believe the same thing, whose to say that "God" didn't reveal himself to different people in different ways. All the quotes above clearly show that all religions recognize that they are related, and that there are no outsiders, just people who are walking a different path to the same destination.

This is absolutely idiotic logic.
But I guess I have come to accept nothing less in these type of arguments.

So I guess by YOUR magical logic, a few hundred years ago, the earth WAS INDEED actually flat, seeing as how so MANY people believed it was?

i think we've concluded that logic has dick to do with popular belief. that argument is easily usable for believers and not.

the thing is, urban legends are just as believable as anything else. lots of people turn on the news and believe verbatim what they hear. is the bible just another concept that's pushed like anything else? i think maybe...

That's demonstrably false. Christianity believes that there is one God, and that Jesus is God. No other religion, to the best of my knowledge, believes that. (note that Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, inter alia, are Christian heresies). Sure all religions say things like "Be nice to people," but we hardly need religion to tell us that.

True, but I say that because I am trying to illustrate a point to the majority of the people here who don't think there is a God. Like was stated earlier 96% of the world's populace believes in a God, and at one level or another they all acknowledge each other. Further more CSfilm Einstein most definetly believed in a God, he even went to the trouble of proving the existence of a soul.

Want to back that up?

EDIT: And don't try and give me some quote of Einstein's where he talks about God, such as "I do not believe that God plays dice". Like I said already, God was used in this way by Einstein as a METAPHOR. Get me a quote of einsteins, where he explicitly states he believes in God. I have already posted a a direct quote of him DENYING the rumours that he was a theist.

i was wondering where you found that 96% of people believe in god? i did a quick search and found nothing. also, whether einstein believed in god is sorta irrelevant for this discussion, it doesn't matter how smart he was (go jews!), really smart people can believe stupid things (not saying believing in god is stupid, just a general statement). and i haven't heard of him proving there's a soul. i don't see how that's really possible. but if there is a soul, then i know exactly where mine is gonna end up.

After a quick search I found two more quotes, backing up my what I said about einstein.

and...

Looks like I'm right. But then I already knew that, as *I* am not in the habit of pulling "facts" out of my ass.

On an "unrelated" note, I would love to see Einstein's paper on a scientific proof for the existence of a soul.

Not that ANY of this matters, as Well Known Person X believed Y, is just an idiotic an argument as X amount of people believe Y.

This is absolutely idiotic logic.
But I guess I have come to accept nothing less in these type of arguments.

So I guess by YOUR magical logic, a few hundred years ago, the earth WAS INDEED actually flat, seeing as how so MANY people believed it was?

Yes, yes it was. And it was wrong to kill, and women couldn't vote, space travel was impossible.....

I have to ask (because my head is spinning with new info)
Do you believe in Democracy? [/QUOTE]

Wow....looks like the theists are playing anti-logic word games. Imagine that! Never would have seen that coming! :rolleyes:

"Do you believe in Democracy?"...strictly speaking this sentance doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Taken litterally it could be taken as meaning:
"Do you believe that Democracy empirically exists?"- Then the answer would be yes. I can indeed see that democracy does indeed exist. Many countries use it as a means of government.
If this system were to be wiped off the face of the earth, then I wouldn't have to conclude that it didn't empirically exist.

"Do you believe that Democracy exists as a concept?" - Well, yes it exists, because it is defined. That is all that it takes! Regardless of whether it "actually" exists, I can conclude that as a cocept it does indeed exist. (In a similar way to infinity).

although I think the REAL question that was asked was:
"Do you believe that Democracy IS A GOOD IDEA....do you believe that democracy is a benificial system to our society. Is democracy favourable over other alternative systems?"

So by decomposing your question, we can see how silly your question was, by comparing democracy to God.
God may exist as an abstract concept, but unfortuanatly that has nothing to do with "actual" existence.

Further more, enough word games. You want word games, go play around in the "Ontological Argument" thread.
But I was under the impression that in this thread we were talking about why we do or do not believe in a God, a rather more important issue than playing pointless word games (as entertaining as they may be).

Ok, so a few hundred years ago the earth was flat. Fair enough. If YOU want to have a belief such as this, then far be it from me to argue with you. It's not my problem. :rolleyes:

It would be nice to see this posted more often.

I suppose you are reffering to how the atheists on this board brutally bully the poor little theists?

This is a philosophy board. At the very heart of philiosophy is debate. We are debating. Surely thats the point? Maybe I was misinformed. I guess this board would be oh-so-much more effective, if every thread was a string of "yeah, I agree".

I gave the above post, as a sort of resignation. I don't see any point in arguing with somone who claims that the earth was flat a few hundred years ago, until it magically changed shape into a sphere.

This is what I don't get:
If the Bible is a lie, then what is it's point?
OR
What is the purpose of lying to Christians? Who benefits from this?

P.s. if you took speech and debate or competed in tournaments, you would know if you called someone "silly" or called their argument or information "idiotic" you would LOSE points and creditibility. Lines like "Maybe I was misinformed" are quite negative as well, and aren't necessary.

I am not trying to piss anyone off by pointing out this information, but I think it is more important to take a socratic method when trying to answer questions, which I understand is not easy or even preferred by some people.

Maybe god magically turned it into a sphere. Uh.... Reality check! No fucking way. :D

good questions... too bad L. Ron Hubbard isn't stilll alive. He's teh most recent person I know of to create a religion, I'm sure he would have had quite the insight to what the creators of christianity were thinking.

I'm sorry, but I see little debate.

Debate implies logic and well stated arguements.

For the most part, I am seeing sweeping statements, little reason or logic, and taunts.

For one thing, none of you even state or acknowledge the basics from which you argue.

So please, no one claim the high ground of logic in this thread.

Eh? Religion and logic don't go together anyway. Never have, never will. You are talking fish on a bicycle there.

It isn't so much that the Bible is a lie per se... it is a series of stories, laws, customs, anecdotes, etc that have been collected over time.

Each of the stories in the Old Testament have been told and re-told, written and re-written by various figures throughout history. The New Testament is fist the Gospels - a series of stories about Jesus told for various reasons. Matthew (I believe) starts with a long list of who begat whom so as to show that Jesus is a direct decendant of David... this is extremely important if you are trying to convince Jews that Jesus is the messiah... Remember this was written (it is believed) about 20 to 30 years after the death of Christ.

This is followed by letters from Paul about how to be a Christian...

Essentially the laws of the OT and Paul's rules and judgements in the NT are all written for an audience that existed anywhere from 2000 to 8000 years ago (give or take a few thousand).

The OT starts with some colourful etiologies about where we came from and how we got here (Genesis) and some ur stories of the worship of Yahweh (Abe and his offspring). This is followed by Moses and the Exodous where a lot of laws are laid down. Including some the are quite heinous in today's context.

They were rules that allowed a nomadic people to survive (ie Onan's sin of wasted seed). They are also laws and rules from a very Patriarchal culture (ie women are property to be sold).

While there are some very good stories in the Bible that can provide guidance (the Good Samaratian in the NT is a great example) it must be noted that their is no reason to suppose that any of it is fact (while some of it might be close to historical fact - yes there was a Jerico but archeology has proven that it wasn't where the bible says it was and it most certainly didn't collapse after the blast of a horn).

The Bible like any good literature (and I'm using the term good loosely) is only as good as the reader who reads it. Take from it what you will. Read it with an eye to the fact that it was written long ago for a context specific purpose (the writers were not writing it for people in 2003).

Most importantly, the Bible was written by men (and possibly but highly unlikely in most cases women). Not by God.

Whether or not you believe in God doesn't mean that you have to take the Bible as unassailable. It is an historical work. Use it responsibly.

That is not true.

You are confusing the process of logical thought with the overall discussion of whether religion (particular Christianity) is viable way to discuss reality.

For example, Biblical theologens (including some atheists) have concluded that it is reasonable to conclude that the person of Jesus actually existed as opposed to being a midrashic creation of the early church.

This was done by a systematic study of the bible and other texts along with historical knowledge of ancient Palestine and the Roman empire.

All very logical.

The problem with this thread is that it is ranging all over, with people asking others to "prove God" and "prove the Bible" along with a sprinkling of absurd strawman arguements (the Flat Earth discussion) and other logical falicies (if a lot of people believe something, it must be true).

In otherwords, since the thread has too wide a scope, people are basically throwing everything, including the kitchen sink, into the discussion, making it meaningless.

To answer the original question, people use the bible as a guideline for their beliefs. Kind of a manual to help along the way.
As for why? People always are looking for a little guidance in everything they do.

All that *I* am doing is refuting various "facts" that have been bandied around, masquerading as evidence (or even proof!) for the existence of God, and pointing out the absurdities that arise when you extrapolate the pseudo-logic of certain people.

You want my axiomatic logical argument for why I don't believe in God?

1. There is no evidence for the existence of God.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in God.
3. Therefore I don't believe in God.

I have yet to see anyone come even CLOSE to refuting point 1.
And if anyone wishes to point out that my conclusion is that “I don’t believe in God”, rather than “God doesn’t exist”, I point them to yet another logical argument.

1. There is no evidence for the existence of an invisible purple llama living under my bed.
2. Therefore it would be ridiculous of me to believe in said llama.
3. Therefore I don't believe in the llama.

I have used my pet llama in many arguments about God, and I have yet to see someone highlight the fundamental difference between it and God.

As for a logical high ground, I think it should be fairly easy for anyone to see which side can lay claim that accolade in this particular thread, what with one side claiming that:
1. The earth used to be flat.
2. Lots of people believing in something is an irrefutable proof that it is true.
3. If lots of people believe something, then by virtue of this belief, it is true.
4. Believing in democracy is fundamentally no different than believing in an omnipotent creator.
5. Un-backed up claims that a certain well know scientist, proved scientifically the existence of a soul.
Etc. etc etc.

As I have about 4 minutes to answer this before I must leave, I'll be brief.

Your logical flaw is in point 1)There is no evidence for the existance of God.

The best you can say, is there is no scientific evidence. There IS experiential and annectdotal evidence, which can never be reproduced under controlled conditions, as can scientific evidence.

And with that, I am off to class.

Formal debates are exercises in lingustics, rhetoric and mannerisms.
I have to admit I got a bit overly sarcastic in my last couple of posts, but lets face it...the arguemnts were getting arsurd!.

If you tell me that black is white, then there is no logical way for me to argue that point. No matter what I say, you can still tell me..No, black is white.

****chuckle****
I enjoy using this board to bounce new thoughts and arguements both for and against stuff..... with everyones input I can come up with decent arguements when sitting around "chatting".

I know I use some pretty wild statements, trying not to fall back on the old "yeah then show me love. prove it!" and all the other worn out stuff....

I thank you all for your thoughts.

oooh evidence. Now we're talking. Please enlighten me.

BTW, the following are not edvidence.

1. I just know it. I can't explain it, i just do.
2. I have felt God's presence.
3. One time, I was really depressed, and I turned to God for guidence, and then I got better.
4. Joe Smith saw a "vision".
5. The bible predicted stuff.
6. There is historical evidence that Jesus and Mary and Joeseph probably existed.
7. you get the picture...

EDIT: The above list was not really aimed at you Lebell. I trust you to be able to come up with some intelligent arguments. It was more aimed at some other posters, who may be a little more liberal with what one may define as "evidence".

I think I have a rather unique viewpoint for a response:

1. I agree, me too. But:
2. Me too. I grew up in a cult, though it was falling apart and is pretty much crumbed now. Trust me, if you want to feel something, you feel it. I saw demon exorcising, gay conversions, speaking in tongues. These people BELIEVED this shit. But it was largely or fully bullshit.
3. This absolutely works. Reflection and prayer taps into something. An atheist can say it's part of yourself, I feel it's something more. But I promise you atheists and non-monotheists can have the same experience.
4. Me too. And in some Mormonist churches, having visions is practically a requirement. Especially in meditative or half-dreams, you can experience seriously wacky stuff, and it's going to be intense- and that means often religious. I knew a Christian guy who saw G-d as giant Buddah-like figure and Jesus as a ray of light.
5. It didn't predict jack. If you want, start a thread and I'll post my research from the last few months.
6. Jesus, kinda. Mary and Joseph, sorta. After a good bit of reading, I think that historically they weren't the people they are trationally. Just read the Gospel, backtrack and follow the "prophecies," and check a few translations. If you do, you'll change your tune a little. Again, we need another thread for this one.

I think the most important statement you made is the feeling- our "point of view" which somehow feels connected and eternal. I'm certainly not an atheist, but I think anyone who sits down and researches the events in the bible can't think they are historically accurate (without doing some seriously off-the-deep-end Apologist work).

Is that enough to return us to the question, "Why believe the Bible?" I think believing in the bible and the chuch can be seperate and from believing it as history. So I say you believe it for community, but people generally don't _really_ believe it. Because if you do, it can lead to being seperatist, bigoted, and/or exclusive. And as they said recently in South Park... exclusiveness sucks ass.

sorry, your post was lost on me.
I don't mean that in a smart alec type of way, I just didn't understand what you were getting at. Could you clarify please?

Threads on this subject are a bad idea. They always end up like this. You think we'd learn.

Just because we can't agree doesn't mean that the arguments are pointless.

sorry. the subject of thread is "why believe the bible," so i was trying to react to that. i'm just saying that i you don't have to believe it and you can be religious without it. i think that's how most people are.

i wasn't dissing anyone. i just think "belief in the bible" is belief in tradition, not necessarilly believing St. Paul's complete formula and the words of the OT or NT canons literally.

no, I gathered that, it was just what were you trying to say when you responed to my 7 points of "non-evidence"?

EDIT: Just to clarrify. I was prompting for people to post some evidence for the existence of God. I then made a brief list of types of things that do NOT count as evidence, as these are the types of things that I hear all the time being put forward as arguments.
As far as I can tell, you agree that these do not qualify as evidence.

CSfilm...it's pretty well pointless to have a discussion on the existance of God if you won't consider experiential evidence, which you so kindly describe as "I just know it. I can't explain it, i just do."

People talk the same way about love, freedom, justice... We're talking about an abstract concept, and a natural law...it's hardly the sort of thing that can be proven or disproven by rationalism. Now, if you'd like to live a 100% rational life, that's cool. I won't stop you.

But...and this is important, if you would stop for a moment, and consider experiential evidence, you may see that there are valid, if contestable reasons for having a faith in a God or God like being. This is THE difference between God and your llama. Nobody has experienced the power of the llama. Now you might note that someone experienceing a unindentifiable emotion or sensation hardly consititutes a rational proof. And you'd be right.

But, and this is another huge but, that sensation is still there. What does it mean? Logic can't tell you that answer...it can suggest that it is a normal/abnormal human emotion in response to a stimuli...but that doesn't explain why that's the baseline response, or what it means to have that response. That response does indicate something about the human condition, and what resonates with us.

Go find a video of the Tienamen square crackdown...the part with The Guy, and The Tank. Y'all know what i'm talking about. Watch that and record how you feel. Proud to be human, the same species as one so brave? Ashamed to be human, the same species as a person trying to crush freedom? What, pray tell, makes that scene so damn compelling? I posit that it is beleif that there is a natural law, that human beings desire freedom politically and socially. You can't rationally prove that. You can dance around the issue, talking about all the famous smart people who beleived in it, or the sheer numbers that believe in it, or some guy who predicted that it would occur. But you will have a damn hard time actually making a logical proof that there is such a faith in freedom as part of the human soul.

Now at this point, you may say you do not believe it is intrinstic, that humans may prefer freedom when they know it, but have no such idea burned upon their hearts, and that it is chance that it has arrisen, and there is no certainily of its victory as a way of life. Peraps you'd like to point me to brave new world or 1984. Thank you, those are fine suggestions...but what makes those books so compelling and tragic? That special something that freedom has... Rinse, wash and repeat, starting with step one of this "I can't believe it's not a logical proof!"

Finally, one may well come to the conclusion that: Freedom is a uniquely compelling idea, that has the ability to evoke conviction, and courage beyond what is reasonable.

There ya go...an example of the non-rational idea that has many of the same characteristics as faith in God. I hope it's been informative to read, as i've had a most splendid time thinking it up.

As a member of the Chinese Communist Party I feel that that guy is an idiot and DESERVES to be squashed. He has no right to demand freedom. The good of individual is secondary to the good of the collective.

There is no natural law. We don't all desire freedom politically and socially.

There is a social contract. We argree on societal rules and mores and are willing to give up freedom for the good of all.

This is not part of the human soul. There is no magical soul. It is a evolved set of rules and mores that have allowed humanity to survive and thrive.

Three brief points, some of them actually relevant to the topic at hand.

1. There *is* evidence for the existence of God. Consider the fine-tuning argument:
a. The various constants (Planck's Constant, the Gravitational
Constant, etc.) are incredibly sensitive to adjustment so
that, with very little change, the universe could not have
supported life.
b. Science cannot possibly explain why the various constants
have the values they do.
c. So we need God to explain it.

This is, btw, a very weak version of the argument -- Philosophy of Religion isn't my area. But it provides some evidence for the existence of God.

2. Onan's sin was not spilling his seed as such, it was failing to provide children for his dead brother, as required by Israelite law.

3. People have known the world was round for 1000s of years. It's easily observable by watching a ship sail beyond the horizon. Not, of course, to say everyone knew this, but the educated people did.

1. I agree that Onan's sin was not giving his dead brother an hier... however the reason that was important was to keep a dwindling population up... Therefore in spilling his seed instead of giving his (dead) brother an hier he was breaking the rules...

Ultimately he would be accused of failing to obey God but in truth he was just breaking religious law... (more or less the same thing if you believe the priest speak for God).

2. Let's let the world is flat argument die. It is a pointless argument in the context of this discussion.

3. There is no need to have God to explain the unexplainable. It is just something we haven't figured out yet. However, if it makes you feel better to have the unexplained explained by God... knock yourself out! I just don't need it.

As to CSflim's pet llama, there is an intrinsic difference, that being that God is not inherently self contradictory... examine again the adjectives you apply to your domesticated dromedary. But I'm just being picky.
As to God being used to explain away the inexplicable until we come up with the REAL explanation... you're presupposing your conclusion. You use the 'fact' that God isn't the reason for things to show that he isn't the reason for these things. You assume there is another explanation. I'll admit it's a little unfair to say this without specific cases to discuss, but then so's shrugging off God as a merely how people explain things away.
To the main topic...
Here's a look at the textual criticism of the Bible... I've seen it presented better, but this is what I've found so far while searching for this thread.
http://www.ici.edu/gql/reliable.html
Essentially, we know about Jesus with more certainty than we do about Julius Caesar.

Fully agree.

If you can't discuss anything but hard scientific evidence for the existance of God, I happily concede there is none.

I will also happily continue in my belief that there is a God. :D

oooo, I was going to leave this thread but this caught my eye.

The reason heirs were so necessary was because the ancient Hebrews had a very different notion of an 'afterlife', where a person (read MEN) only lived on through their male heirs.

Hence:

-if your BROTHER died without heirs, it was your responsibility to give them to him. Else you were guilty of damning your brother's 'soul' to eternal non-existance.

-if you were a homosexual MAN, you were guilty of condemning your OWN soul, because you would never have heirs.

By corollary, notice how NONE of these laws about heirs and homosexuality applied to WOMEN? This was because to the ancient Hebrews, women did not have 'souls' and were not fully persons.

You are correct Labell...I'd forgotten about the concept of Shoal as afterlife...

I still believe that the reason for many of the laws found in Exodous, Deut and Leviticus have much to do with the fact that the people they were made for were a nomadic people (who lived thousands of years ago).