Why you believe what you believe I

[Lief Erikson]

Okay. Bye .

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Besides, I heard that Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark. And then there's all the books that were discarded by the early church fathers.

Just a quick comment on this, and on the Bible in general.

I think you need to think about the motives of the writers. Luke, the author of the gospel of Luke, actually stated his motive :

Luke 1:1-4
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

The motive was to write things down that the writers thought were important. If Matthew and Luke copied sections of Mark, it's probably because they thought Mark covered a subject well. As Luke stated, he wanted to write things down so Theophilus would know what was true. There's no deep conspiracy going on - if there were, I think the gospels would correlate better than they do (now I'm not aware of any contradictions, but different writers leave out different parts of stories, which is different).

And one of the REALLY unique things about the Bible is that many of the accounts were written in the lifetime of eyewitnesses, whereas in books like the Koran, the biography of Muhammad was not written until a century later. This is VERY unique and important, IMO. And as Strobel's book points out, we have copies of the Bible starting from within a couple of generations from the writing of the originals, whereas in the case of other ancient texts, it's between 5 and 8 centuries.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Those are very compelling arguments for why the Bible is (short version) true. But just to point out - it doesn't undermine the validity of the holy scriptures or books of other religions.

But it DOES give us tools to compare these types of books, and when they ARE compared, the Bible is clearly at the top of the class in terms of ancient literature and various validity tests. So these things DO undermine the validity of writings of other religions.

As Lief and I pointed out, one needs to look at these writings in terms of ancient literature, and apply standard tests to them. And the Bible is just in a class by itself in this regard. Hobbit once said that he could write a book and say he was God and it would be on par with the Bible. Well, I hope he tries it and then submits it to the same type of literary tests that the Bible is subjected to, then he'll see it's doesn't stand up at all.

[Elfhelm]

All I've been protesting about is the validity test. I mean, this validity is not, IMO, a valid concern. If it were, the Baha'i would have the lion's share of validity since Baha'ullah's beautiful poetry was written about 150 years ago.

[Lief Erikson]

To those of us that live our lives according to the Bible, believing it to the infallible Word of God, validity is a very very valid concern .

Also I will quickly add, the people described in the Bible believed it to be the infallible Word of God too. Jesus believed it was and said so. The Apostle Paul believed so. It was the common belief back then, which is why many significant and useful books, such as perhaps the Book of Enoch, did not qualify as part of the Bible.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

To those of us that live our lives according to the Bible, believing it to the infallible Word of God, validity is a very very valid concern.

Why? Is the wisdom any less wise when the fictive elements are acknowledged? The Hindu don't need to validate their myths. They don't doubt their Bhagavad Gita. The Sutras are good instructions without being validated.

IMO, this whole validation thing is the very cause of so many people turning away from wisdom these days. They know the world isn't flat, so they throw out the baby with the bathwater.

And I'll add before I run...

I think people should live their lives according to the wisdom they find in scriptures regardless of the historical accuracy.

[Lief Erikson]

There's a lot that would be lost if one took away the infallibility of the scripture, and it WAS infallible. Of course, if your view is correct and the scripture is fallible, then we'd lose nothing by acknowledging the existence of fictitious elements.

Can't you see that claiming the Bible to be partly fictitious if it isn't would severely weaken the book? It would mean we could choose to disbelieve something in it that we dislike. The Bible no longer would serve as a perfect guide to truth. It would serve as an imperfect guide, as are the many other religious texts out there. As it says in the scripture, "if a blind man leads a blind man, will they not both fall into a pit?" I might be putting my trust in a part of the Bible that's fictitious. I might be following the blind man. If I follow the Bible's teaching and am correct that the Bible is infallible, I am following a man with sight rather then a blind man, or a partially blind man, perhaps.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

I think people should live their lives according to the wisdom they find in scriptures regardless of the historical accuracy.

Oh, I agree. Partial inaccuracy does not mean complete inaccuracy. One still can gain a lot from a source that is partially inaccurate. We learn a lot from science today, even though many parts of it are very likely inaccurate, and the rest is incomplete.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i'd have to argue that one could say just that... some religions have very similar "moral" ideals as christianity (at least to the non-scholar, and most people are not scholars) but these religions don't espose the "christian" god, or even the concept of "sin"... in fact, judeism doesn't even view "sin" in the same way

Yes, many religions have similar moral ideas, and this makes sense according to the Biblical worldview - it's because God has placed His basic morality in our hearts.

the fact is, it is not "obvious" that christainity is correct...

I agree - personally, I think it is the most likely worldview, given what I see around me and in me.

it is not even "obvious" how exactly christianity is supposed to be observed... or a whole lot more people would be following it... and following the same "flavor" of christianity

Yet I think you're looking at it in terms of following rules, which is not the heart of Christianity. People come to Christianity from ALL different directions, and therefore will look a bit different, and understand things a bit differently. I really think that Narnia quote puts it well - again, how Aslan says if you just put the feet right, the rest of it will come. Christianity puts your feet right - the rest will come

which either says that the christian god has not done a very good job spreading his word accurately, or the word in fact is just one of many human interpretations of a possible reality

Or perhaps it says that this is something that people need to really wrestle with in a serious way. I've found that I've learned more when I've had to really think things thru, as opposed to just having it handed to me on a platter. Do you see what I'm saying?

and lets not forget the peoples throughout history who, due to geography were never exposed to christianity (i.e. native americans)... what did the christian god do for them?

This is the question of hell again - to answer it briefly, Biblical doctrine states that EVERYONE has 2 witnesses of God - the glories of the universe and the existence of morality in their hearts - and that people have NO excuse if they choose to deny God. Also that IF someone seeks God, then they WILL find Him. Also that God is entirely just and fair and loving, and desires that everyone will come to know Him. I think it is perfectly reasonable, given these premises that are in the Bible, that Native Americans, or cannibals in the depths of the jungle, have enough information for salvation. I don't think one necessarily has to be holding a Bible in your hand to be saved - but one DOES need to know Biblical truth. See, Abraham was "saved" - he was made righteous by faith - and yet he didn't even know who Jesus was. But this is a dicey area, and there's not a lot said about it.

btw, speaking of "possible realities", you never addressed my post #588

Oh yes I did, sir! I guess you just didn't see it. I even remember quoting sections of this post!

i would think that a truely benevolent creator would keep trying... if every person is born with the capability to be "moral", it is only logical to assume that a god with endless time and resource could come up with a method to help a person eventually realize the benefit of this "morality" for themselves... why ever throw in the towel?

I think a truly benevolent creator WOULD keep trying - until His omniscience told Him that it was IMPOSSIBLE for it to ever happen. People can realize things, and yet refuse to act on the realization. It's not just a question of realizing. It's also a question of choosing to submit to a perfect and loving God. And again, this is not a conceit on the part of God! If God created us, then it is impossible for us to ever be on par with Him. Yet God has given us the highest possible relationship, and even speaks of the relationship He desires with us in terms of the closest relationship we know on earth - husband and wife.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I was wondering how you, Rian, and anyone who cares to comment, feels about Biblical predictions (correctly discovered or otherwise).

I think it's pretty amazing!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

There's also problems with the time-frame of the slavery of the jews in Egypt. In the time of the Ramesses, big-scale pyramids were no longer being built. The last big pyramid projects were in the twelfth dynasty under an altogether different pharaoh. And they were nothing on the 3-4th dynasty projects under Chephren, et. al. Undoubtedly, Ramesses the second instigated several large scale building projects, but the fact of the matter is that he no longer had the resources that the earlier pharaohs had. Now, the problem is this: if the latter pharaohs did not under-take building projects to the scale of their predecessors, then the story in the bible must have taken place in an earlier time period, right? ... However, the egyptian expansionist policy did not really begin to take form UNTIL the eighteenth dynasty! This means, that during the time-periods where there WERE huge building projects being undertaken (generally attributed to the Old Kingdom 3-4th dynasties, and Middle Kingdom 12th), Egypt was Geographically and Socially isolated from the rest of the Middle East. And therein lies the problem.

I don't understand what the problem is - where does it say the Jews were making pyramids? One always needs bricks, tho.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

But before any others quote me, let me repeat that I'm not a Christian. I'm just another person who loves to read all the great teachers.

But wouldn't you have second thoughts about taking good teachings from a guy that claimed to be God Himself, like Jesus did? I mean, that's either a statement from a severly delusional guy, or a guy that IS actually God Himself. And if you think it's the latter, then I think you need to consider all the other things He said, too

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief

If I know that Jesus' teachings are accurate (from research), I'd be very stupid to ignore them. If I didn't know they were accurate, I'd be very stupid to just follow them blindly without knowing a thing about whether they're accurate.

Excellent point!
And I'm done with page 31!

[Nurvingiel]

If someone who is slightly delusional says love thy neighbour as thyself, would you still not think this was wise? IIRC Judaism says that Jesus is very holy, and to Muslims Jesus is an important prophet, though neither religions says he's the Son of God.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

How much can one know about God that is learned only from heeding these two sources? Many have seen the mountains, the forests, the sky, the sun, and they have definitely believed that spiritual reality can be seen through them- but they have concluded that there are many gods. Others have looked at conscience as a witness and concluded, "whatever feels all right to your conscience is all right, and whatever doesn't is not all right. Everything is based on conscience." These kinds of fallicies occur when people listen to the two witnesses and observe spiritual truth in them.

I suppose people form heresies right from the clearly expressed words of the Bible also, simply because of malignant human nature. Can you offer me any examples though of non-Christians who have been led to wonderful correct conclusions about God because of looking at nature?

Yes, I can give you some examples - get out your "case for faith" book and look at the "objection 5" chapter where Zacharias was talking about Muslims coming to Christianity via dreams or visions. Also, I have a lot of connections to missionaries (my parents-in-law are in Turkey as we speak), and hear accounts of missionaries going into places where the physical Bible has never been seen, and sharing the Gospel, and after hearing, the people say, "Oh, he's talking about so-and-so, the Creator, and his Son who took the penalty for our wrongdoings!"

And again, my main argument comes from the Bible itself - the book of Romans, chpt. 1, and the claim all over the Bible that God is just, and also the fact that God Himself declared Abraham as made righteous by FAITH, and Abraham didn't know who Jesus was. And even tho Abraham didn't know who Jesus was and that He was born in Bethlehem, for example, yet Abraham WAS saved BY what Jesus was to do in the future. IOW, those who were saved by faith BEFORE Jesus was born were saved "on credit", as it were - God knew Jesus would be good for the debt

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

If someone who is slightly delusional says love thy neighbour as thyself, would you still not think this was wise? IIRC Judaism says that Jesus is very holy, and to Muslims Jesus is an important prophet, though neither religions says he's the Son of God.

I think the prevailing opinion from Judaism was that Jesus was possessed by the devil (which is how He supposedly did His miraculous works, which they didn't deny occurred) or He was delusional.

Truth is truth, no matter where it comes from. If a delusional man says love your neighbor as yourself, then this is truth, because it matches up with what God says. However, if a delusional man said "if you jump off this 10-story building, you'll bounce back up and be just fine", then I doubt if you'd take his advice. The point is that there are certain claims that Jesus makes where it is very important indeed to make an evaluation whether or not He's delusional.

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But wouldn't you have second thoughts about taking good teachings from a guy that claimed to be God Himself, like Jesus did? I mean, that's either a statement from a severly delusional guy, or a guy that IS actually God Himself. And if you think it's the latter, then I think you need to consider all the other things He said, too

Wellllllllllll now you're talking about John and that's another story. I really have to claim some cop out here because I don't wish to butt heads. Besides, you're in the hotseat, not me!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

however

the point is that you can (as in, have the ability) to see the professor's brain... which is why we say it exists

such is not the case for "god" and "heaven"

try substituting "soul" for "brain"

the point is not whether you have seen something, but whether it is possible to see something

This reminds me of some stuff I recently read about some multiple star systems. In the constellation Bootes (I love astronomy! It's why I was a physics major) several of the stars are multiples. When reading about them, you'll come across things like "alpha-Bootes is actually a triple-star. The primary is a red giant, and the secondary star also a red giant. Altho astronomers cannot see the third star in this group, it is evident that it exists because of the slight variation in the orbits of the other two."

Heaven is the same way. IMO, the evidence points to it existing, altho we cannot at this time physically see it.

And I"m out of gas! I'm at the bottom of page 33. I need a break - it's nice talking with all of you guys, tho!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Wellllllllllll now you're talking about John and that's another story. I really have to claim some cop out here because I don't wish to butt heads. Besides, you're in the hotseat, not me!

Ah, but the hotseater may pose questions back to his/her questioner And the divinity of Jesus is in ALL the gospels, altho most clearly in John.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Yes, I can give you some examples - get out your "case for faith" book and look at the "objection 5" chapter where Zacharias was talking about Muslims coming to Christianity via dreams or visions. Also, I have a lot of connections to missionaries (my parents-in-law are in Turkey as we speak), and hear accounts of missionaries going into places where the physical Bible has never been seen, and sharing the Gospel, and after hearing, the people say, "Oh, he's talking about so-and-so, the Creator, and his Son who took the penalty for our wrongdoings!"

Yes, I know about those things. But that's not really nature, is it? Wasn't Paul in Romans talking about the physical nature, such as trees, mountains, sky and such?

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

And again, my main argument comes from the Bible itself - the book of Romans, chpt. 1, and the claim all over the Bible that God is just, and also the fact that God Himself declared Abraham as made righteous by FAITH, and Abraham didn't know who Jesus was. And even tho Abraham didn't know who Jesus was and that He was born in Bethlehem, for example, yet Abraham WAS saved BY what Jesus was to do in the future. IOW, those who were saved by faith BEFORE Jesus was born were saved "on credit", as it were - God knew Jesus would be good for the debt

Yes, I liked your point on this . Like the other, though, it doesn't really answer the nature question.