A question for believers - why the Bible?

Hi,Well he trots out the 'design argument', which isn't really an argument at all, irrefutable proof that there is a God.Irrefutable if you are ten years old of course Brian.

I read some of the Peter Kreeft material and it is truly abysmal. The guy just regurgitates all the arguments that have been trashed a thousand times and he is probably aware that these arguments will appear amazing to a large audience. He will be making a tidy little profit out of many gullible people.I honestly cannot believe that he is teaching at a college, his grasp of philosophy is painful.Look at this piece of crap: If you believe in God only as a bet, that is certainly not a deep, mature, or adequate faith. But it is something, it is a start, it is enough to dam the tide of atheism. What a idiot.He splutters on about Pascal's Wager, acknowlegdes that it has been trashed by most philosophers, but he still goes on about how wonderful it is.Then he thinks that believing in God as a sort of insurance policy is a good place to start!Then his comment about atheism is insulting to a great many people.How did this guy ever get a job in education? It must have something to do with his employers being a Christian College.But, on topic now, I think most people that follow the Bible do so because they have been suffocated with its contents as they grew up, and they find it difficult to let go of what has been crammed down their throat.I also think that there is a different category here. There are those who are so gullible that they get sucked in by the people who make the Bible into a gimmick.I blame the Internet, lack of education, and laziness.Most of us could probably list believers' arguments for why they believe in the Bible, prophecy, historically accurate, or internal harmony, but all these gimmicks disappear with the slightest bit of objective research.The Internet has helped to spread a great many arguments that make the Bible look as if it simply has to be the Word of God, nothing else makes sense. But, it is the same old arguments that have been trashed again and again.I also have to question the level of education of many Christians who find things like Peter Kreeft's website a font of amazing proofs for God. Why do they soak up so much of this crap when they are free thinking adults?This brings me to the last point, laziness.I think that many of the Christians who link to crappy websites like Kreeft's are simply too lazy to go to a library and look at materials for themselves. They are too lazy to sign up for some further education courses that would help them understand subjects a lot better.Of course, it is entirely up to the individual what they believe and why they believe it, but they should be aware that just because an argument looks good to them it does not follow that it is a good argument.Brian.

Hi Phat, You have been divinely inspired to do what? Which could be simply a psychological phenomenon. I mean, people from every faith will tell you the same thing, their experience is so real that it MUST be true. You believing that you have had a religious experience does not make that experience a reflection of reality.Did you go to a doctor and tell him about your experience? Quite easily. The same way that born again Christians trash other peoples’ experiences of their God.Do you think that Hindus can speak to Brahma? What internal harmony?What little harmony there is can easily be explained by the fact that the Bible has been edited by various different ‘schools’ and many conflicts have been removed. But, there are still many contradictions and historical inaccuracies in the text. Fortunately, in the UK, there only appears to be a tiny minority who are of this gimmicky Bible inerrancy nonsense. But, I would tell believers to think for themselves and to avoid websites that use juvenile arguments like Kreeft, and Giesler who only reinforce what most atheists believe, that the born again Xian will grasp at any straw to support their faith. It is idiotic, and the Bible even insists that faith is superior to hard facts. That’s one way.But, I would prefer education, actually teach them why the Bible was produced, how it was produced and outline some of the difficulties.Education is the key, not reading these silly websites about moon dust and NASA computers finding Joshua’s long day. This would depend on the individual, as to some people it would not matter how many errors you showed them in the Bible they would still be unable to acknowledge it. You will find that there are many more people who make a fortune out of gullible Xians than make money out of ‘disproving’ the Bible. The scholars who people think are out to disprove the Bible are normally scholars who write for journals and write academic books, they really do not make that muck money. If you want to make money then write a pro-bible book and watch the money roll in.Check out how many copies that Josh MacDowell has sold of ETDV I and II, his work is utter trash yet he has made a fortune to of people who thinkhe knows what he is talking about.But scholars who *appear* to be disproving the Bible are actually trying to discover how and why the Bible was composed. They do not set out to disprove anything, they set out to try and discover the truth. It is all to do with the approach. Like I said before, many people are brainwashed into thinking that the Bible is something that it isn’t, they find it hard to let go. Others are lazy and find it comfortable to sit back and blindly accept these tales.Others, who have a personal religious experience, need to justify their experience by showing other people that the source of their God’s history and deeds is perfect, thus keeping their ‘experience’ real.How someone can look at the books of, say Genesis and Exodus, and think that everything happened exactly as written is beyond me, I would need to put it down to some psychological phenomenon.If the Bible provides us with this wonderful access to God’s ideas, then why don’t we all see it? Original sin is a concept thought up to explain why God is so hopeless. The Israelite intelligentsia had to explain why a perfect being can create such a mess of a world, it obviously cannot be His fault so they need an excuse for God. Sin is a cracking excuse, add a couple of lumps of free will and God is off the hook, He is not as useless as it appears, it is all OUR fault that God had to scrap his first attempt and start again. Yes, but not all Xians think this way Phat, many believe that the objective guys are purely attacking the Bible, but we aren’t. Many atheists study the Bible because they believe that it is an amazing collection of ancient literature, or it contains some accurate history that contributes to our understanding of the past. But these can be demonstrated to others, your personal experience is not something that anyone else can share with you, you cannot say ‘here Brian try this. What do you think?’ That’s exactly how the Church planned it. Think about it, how can a good and perfect God be responsible for all the evil in the world, all the bad things had to be someone else’s fault, inventing the idea of sin and hell was a masterstroke, it certainly controlled the masses of ignorant peasants for hundreds of years. However, the modern day world has many explanations for things that were considered miraculous thousands of years ago, and a great deal of the biblical events have been shown to be untrue. The bible is a great collection of literature (well the OT is, I find the NT probably the most boring collection of texts on the planet), but what bugs me is these halfwits who make the Bible into a gimmick, all it does is to make them and others look stupid. What does it matter of there wasn’t a worldwide flood or that Joseph was a complete work of fiction? You don’t have to take it out of the equation, you just need to realise that everything in it is not 100% literal and it wasn’t written to be. You have to realise that if Methuselah did not live until he was 969 years old then it doesn’t affect the Book at all, but we have all sorts of clowns coming up with crazy ideas to try and ‘prove’ things like this. You can accept the core teachings of Christ and reject some things on a literal level. You can accept that Jesus died for your sins and his sacrifice gives you the opportunity to have eternal life with him in heaven, you can accept all this without performing mental contortions to try and prove something that cannot be proven. All these arguments for the existence of God are all doomed before they begin, and as far as I am concerned, every time someone links to sites such as Kreeft’s it just confirms my suspicions. That’s fine and well, but how do you demonstrate to others that your conscience is guiding you to the truth? But this argument doesn’t hold any water either. Many Xians argue that if there was no God then everyone would be running around murdering, raping, stealing and all manner of other atrocities. If this is the case then how do you explain the fact that many atheists are very moral people? I personally would never intentionally break the law or hurt a fellow human being, but I know many xians who are extremely cruel to other people, mainly in a verbal context of course. What is wrong with that though? What if, ultimately, theology is simply another branch of philosophy, wouldn’t you rather know the truth? There is no problem with believing the Bible, but you have to realise that every single syllable in it has to be taken on faith. What I am getting at are these silly arguments that crop up all the time, do you seriously think that people like myself are going to think there is a God because someone found giant finger or that Jesus must be God because we know he wasn’t a liar? It is ludicrous.Christianity is a faith, you have to believe in it on faith. You are never going to ‘prove’ that Christianity is true. But then you expect us to believe that your internal wisdom is accurate when it suggests to us the complete opposite to what we can demonstrate? We can show where the Bible has been edited, we can show the ragged edges where the texts do not quite fit, and we can show where the historical inaccuracies are, but your internal wisdom is yours alone. Ultimately I believe that a personal religious experience is just that, personal. Why people try to justify it with arguments about the odds of one person ‘fulfilling’ 300 plus prophecies is nonsense. If you have experienced God, then good luck to you, but you really cannot complain when others have not had the same experience and come to different conclusions.The three reasons I gave were not meant to apply to every Xian, only to the ones who point to gimmicks in the Bible to try and argue that it HAS to be the word of God.If they love the Bible so much then maybe they should study it a bit more at a decent level and stop regurgitating crap they find on the Net. There are a lot of people making a lot of money out of arguments that have been shown to be childish so many times that it does get frustrating.Brian.

I really do marvel at how people see things that just aren't there.Brian.

It wouldn’t be difficult to be more of a humanist than a believer since I am an atheist. Although there was a time when I thought the Bible was true and that Jesus was my Lord and saviour, but that’s in the past now. I do appreciate this reply, which is what a true Christian (IMO) should conclude after they realise that the person they are speaking to is aware of the Good News and the consequences for ignoring it. I am glad that you didn’t trot out the boring old fire and brimstone reply that is so worn out by many ‘Christians’ here.But, I agree, that ultimately what I believe really should not have a great affect on any one else’s life. One of my jobs is tutoring an introduction to the Old Testament and the vast majority of students on the course are trainee ministers, but I can guarantee that none of them know I am an atheist, it just doesn’t come into it. So, it works both ways, what I believe does not affect your life and what you believe does not affect my life, we are both entitled to believe what we want. What we are not entitled to do is to force our beliefs on to any one else, that is wrong.What I do not like people doing is to abuse the Old Testament and I believe that this is what may Christian websites do, they simply do not understand the OT in context and make all sorts of silly claims. If they are so keen on the Bible then surely they should study it? Again, this is loading the dice before we play. ‘If’ this and ‘If’ that is a pointless process.I actually think that I am a more moral person than the majority of Christians that I have met.To think that God is more honest or truthful than any person is also a loaded dice. Why should God be a moral being, why should God be the ultimate example of morality? I surely do not consider Yahweh to be a decent, loving, caring being, he is portrayed as a barbaric, bloodthirsty savage, certainly not a being that I would worship.But, of course, we all can make excuses for god, if god thinks that so and so should suffer and die then that’s great because god is just and that person must have deserved it!People can justify all sorts of Old testament atrocities, whereas most decent people would be repulsed that a being would order the cold blooded murder of countless women and children. Yep, and if Christianity is true the I will accept the consequences for rejecting Jesus. These people are IMO not actually Christians, they are too stupid and don’t understand what Christianity is. Anyone who HAS to use a gimmick such as prophecy, harmony of extant texts, and ‘inerrancy’ to try and convince a non-believer really should take a good look at themselves and try and find out exactly why they are calling themselves Christians. But, did Jesus actually try to prove Christianity? Was he even trying to establish a new faith?I think that Christianity is more an idea of Paul’s than anyone elses. Yes, and IF Siddartha Gautama did attain enlightenment and IF the Buddha nature in any of us grows and we attain enlightenment, then Siddartha’s truth is alive today.Your criteria for the existence of Jesus today can be applied to any religious figure. This may well be evidence, but the verdict could be completely wrong. Either that or I need to get out more. Brian.

Hi Tal, hope you are well, Oh I get the idea, but I still do not see any hint of Jesus in the Old Testament.Maybe you could pick a prophecy or two and demonstrate for me that it has to be an OT prophecy fulfilled by Jesus?Cheers and take care.Brian.

Hi Mike, Of course I realise this, but this doesn't mean that Jesus fulfilled anything.You do know what circular reasoning is?Cheers.Brian.

Hi HD, The Jewish people are still awaiting the messiah. Sorry?The Jews were expecting the messiah to be born of a virgin? I was under the impression that the messiah would not have a special birth at all.I hope you aren't making the mistake of confusing Isaiah 7:14 as a messianic prophecy. Bethlehem the city?Not according to Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
'Thousands of Judah' certainly cannot relate to the city of Bethlehem as there has never been thousands of settlements in Judah. This verse is talking about a clan and not a place.Maybe I am mistaken and you have another verse that mentions the messiah being born in Bethlehem? Jesus wasn't born of the line of David, so that sorta ejects him from the messiah stakes. Yes, it is pretty easy to claim that someone fulfiled this and that when you are sitting with the Tanakh on you knee and essentially making things up. Where is this in the Tanakh HD? No, there is an allusion to the suffering servant in Isaiah, but this looks more as if Isaiah is talking about the remnant of Israel and not an idividual. The details of the suffering servant contain several items that nullify the possibility of Jesus being that person, if it is an individual that is. For example, the suffering servant will have a long life and father children, Jesus did not have any of these two. I honestly think that you have this the wrong way round. I think that the links between the old and new testaments are incredibly weak, but that some people see a powerful connection that just isn't there.Brian.

Not at all, I love the OT and it has been mutilated many times by the Church. I am pretty convinced that jesus was a real person, he definately wasn't the messiah tough. Roughly translated this means that you cannot refute the points I made.This is to be expected of course, no point in having an open mind is there HD?Brian.

Hi mike, But, the people who wrote the Gospels, whoever they were, obviously familiar with the Tanakh. It wasn't the prophets that collaborated, it was the authors of the New Testament. They knew the prophecies and just made up stories to try and make Jesus fit them, there is nothing impressive here at all.As for circular reasoning, how do you know that the messiah was to be born in bethlehem, the bible says so, how do you know Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the Bible says so. It is nonsense. (Note, I do not believe that the OT says that the messiah will be born in Bethlehem but you get the idea I hope) The patriarchal geneaology is pointless as Joseph was not Jesus' father, there is no direct bloodline through the father here.Also, Mary's genealogy is irrelevant as bloodline always goes through the father. Anyway, Mary's genealogy isnt in the Bible at all. Finally, IF Mary is linked to Nathan then this is also negated through the fact that the bloodline was to go through David's son Solomon.Jesus could not be the messiah, no big deal really, but an entertaining read.Brian.

Hi, Why is it pointless, is it because I am not gullible enough to blindly accept your unsupported claims? But unable to rationally defend it to anyone other than yourself.Excellent.CheersBrian.