Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity

Faith.

Yep, that's not reasonable to you, I know. If the person wants a logical, evidence-based explanation, there is none (at least not that I'm aware of). If the person wants to how it really is done, I just told him.

I never said religion is a way to reasonably believe in God. Things like 9/11 use religion as an excuse for accomplishing selfish ends. Yes, there are different religions in this world. Radically opposite ones too, some of them. But there is a sure way to distinguish religion from faith. Faith isn't defined by adherents. But, religion very much is fashioned to suit adherents. Surely, science is the best way to discover facts.But faith isn't a pursuit of "discovering facts' based on "finding proof'. Its placing strong trust in something based on the knowledge that the object, though not tangible, is true. A reasonable belief in God is based on faith because of the definition of God. If He was observable, then sure, use science to detect Him. But when He's not.....is science any useful? Faith and religion are different, radically. And the above instances you mention relate to religion, not faith.

Hey Rahvin, I understand that perhaps Christianity boils down to a "random guess", in your opinion. I think such a viewpoint can result from either extreme ignorance or extreme unbelief. In your case, Rahvin, I don't doubt at all that it is not ignorance. You seem like an extremely knowledgeable, intellectual person. So, maybe you have all the evidence in front of you.....but, there is doubt as to whether or not it is reliable.........(I could easily be wrong, correct me if I am)There are expert archaeologists, many unbelievers I might add, who acknowledge the historicity of the Bible. Here are quotes from just a few of 'em:"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen." - Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology (quote obtained from: Archaeologist Speaks Out)"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable." - Dr. Jack Cottrell, The Authority of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), pp. 48-49."In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible." - Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research [1]"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries." - Dr. Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, (New York: Farrar, Strous and Cudahy, 1959), 136."Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong." - Dr. Joseph P. Free, Archaeology and Bible History. Scripture Press, Wheaton, IL, 1969, pg. 1"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself." - Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confirmed the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." - Dr. William F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religions of Israel. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1956, p. 176."On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized." - Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University, What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 1"The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural." - Professor Millar Burrows (Professor of Archaeology at Yale University), What Mean These Stones?, Meridian Books, New York, NY, 1956, p. 176."It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest — that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge." - Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum, The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1940), page 279."I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment." - Sir William Ramsey (eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study in the field), (1915), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1975 reprint), page 89.Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." - Sir William Ramsey (archaeologist), The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, 1915, pages 81, 222 My sourceFaith in Jehovah is derived solely from a complete trust in the authority, historicity, and authenticity of the Bible. And when there are ways to reasonably confirm this, and people have been doing it all the time, it seems strange to label Christianity a "random guess". If the Bible didn't exist, and there was absolutely zilch physical evidence supporting anything Christian, and I woke up one day....decided to invent a religion because I was bored, then yes, your "random guess" argument is perfect, Rahvin. But this is not the case with the Bible, is it? Compared to other historical documents, it stands out because of its proven authenticity.Have you heard of the eye-witness testimony argument for the authenticity of the NT? The time-gap and number of manuscripts arguments? When was the last time people came up with such arguments for the IPU? Read about the historicity of the Bible here and hereThere is evidence out there. Evidence that events recorded in the Bible reflect history. There was a man named Jesus. And He was everything He said He was.But we're out of the realm of the testability, reproducibility and all...that's good for science, not for faith. So, I don't know that testability is what might convince you to accept the evidence.....---But faith comes into play in all of this, due to the fact that today, 3-23-2010, I can't physically see or touch Jesus.... I can't go to John or Peter and ask them questions.... So I take the historical document that reveals God to me, believe it to be true based on the evidence, and exercise faith in order to apply it to my personal life. As a believer who's been through struggles pertaining faith, I honestly admit that it would be a lot easier if Jesus was living physically today and I could go talk to Him face to face. But God ordained that often faith replace sight.Elsewhere I have said that a belief in the genesis account of creation is based on faith more than evidence. I still believe this. And that's becasue that particular piece of history is way too old for us to reasonable confirm it. But we can, and have, confirmed relatively newer history form the Bible. Edited by Dr. Sing, : added last paragrpahs...

edit: Well, I changed my mind about putting such stuff up on the internet. :SEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Well, were you expecting something like...I believe in God because I observed ______ physical evidence for His existence and formulated a scientific hypothesis and conducted a controlled experiment in my independent research lab, published a paper (which was warmly received and agreed with by my peers) and now I present my hypothesis to you so that you can also indenpendently verify God's existence.If you haven't come to grips with the fact, yes, faith is irrational. Irrational in that it is not entirely a product of reason. My Salvation and faith were installed in me by a supernatural being, are preserved by a supernatural being, and are controlled by a supernatural being. I believe in God not because I scrutinized, analyzed, evaluated, and finally accepted the Bible. My faith preceeded all this. In Christianity, faith precceds reason (not vice versa) and reason prolongs, preserves, and grows faith. If you want to call faith irrational in this sense, thats okay with me. But if someone says faith is a completely random idea that originated in a idle man's brain and is not supported by reason at all there fore it is irrational and need be discarded, is false. I can't think of any off the top of my head. I can think of believers who do, but not unbelievers. I have read quotes from unbelievers who accept the Bible's historicity as whole, but I haven't , to the best of my memory, come across a unbeliever who specifically affirms the Universal Flood. If I do, (or if you do), I'll let you know. So, you're essentially asking that every single physical evidence for parts of the Bible you do not acknowledge as history to be proven, or else you will continue to disbelieve?What if, say, right after the Flood, Noah and Co decided to dismantle the Ark for need of wood to build structures? What if some other culture did the same? What is we never find any physical evidence for the Flood? You're looking for perfect evidence of every single thing mentioned in the Bible. Nothing can satisfy your expectation. Hypothetically speaking, say every single Biblical claim was to be affirmed in your day, IMO, you still would reject the Word.What I have seen most often is that atheists/agnostics' questioning the Bible's veracity is a product of disagreeing with its content, as in its pure religious/moral content and not historical data EVEN though, they talk mostly about "not having evidence to affirms its historical content therefore... " Even if a miracle were to happen today and right now, before our eyes to show us clearly that Christ is God, I am sure many will not believe. Are you suggesting that there is no objective way to discredit a claimant of Christianity based on the what the Bible says?Well, the Bible goes so far as to describe false prophets and false miracle workers, let alone dishonest believers. What do you think was the point behind "fruit of the Spirit"? No, you have to stop lying to yourself in order to believe God exists. Edited by Dr. Sing, : grammar and spelling

Welcome to EvC, jallen.Determined is the wrong word. Recognized is the accurate word. The Canon is not a result of men's pick and choosing favorable Books, rather men (plain men, not divinely inspired as in the writers of the Bible were) simply held every book up to a "measuring scale", called the Regula Fidei in order to asses their "inspiration". The Regula itself is derived from one of Paul's verses in the NT. No person on that committee had any personal choice or influence with regards to assessing a book's inspiration. To bear marks of divine inspiration, a book had to also bear these characteristics"1. Conformity to the Regula Fidei
Regula Fidei: rule of faith. There was a standard of teaching a body of dogma, that is the measuring scale for all newly discovered books, and the present canon agrees with the regula fidei2. Apostolicity
Every book of the NT has to come through the Apostle, or someone closely associated with an apostle. This is the most common criterium3. Intrinsic superiority of the canonical books compared to other books4. Wide and continuous acceptance by people of the book's day and age as divinely inspired.We see that our present Canon conforms to these stipulations. And books not included, do not conform. As for the OT, it is generally believed to have been formulated by Jesus' time. Since the Protestant Church vests ultimate authority in the Scripture, unlike the Catholic Church, it is extremely important that the present Canon reflect truth. There is no room for personal/evil influence or bias. Edited by Dr. Sing, : grammar

Anything quite like what atheists will agree with? No, we never will. We never even want to. Just because an atheist thinks my faith is irrational, there is no need for me to rationalize my faith in desperate attempts to man-please. If some people do not understand faith/believe it is irrational, its their problem, not faiths.Well, a hindu could say what I just said... "If some people do not understand Sati (or Suttee) or believe it is irrational, its their problem, not Sati's"......aaaaaand we have a obvious problem here.I think this is by far the biggest hurdle a theist has to face. Knowing what exactly to say in order to convince someone that his/her faith is the true one. I think I have faced enough "subjectivity in religion" questions that I have at least a little bit understood what faith looks like to a skeptic. No one really agrees on a universal standard moral code... each religion likes to have it its way. (Why, even each person likes to have it their way) In this sense, is faith subjective? Irrational? Yes. The picture I gather is plagued in and out by subjectivity..... So, as I see it, there is one way to make your way through: Allow the possibility for the existence of the supernatural. Don't totally dismiss the possibility of God's existence. Scrutinize each religion. Weigh the rationality.I still maintain what I earlier said to you Dr A, there is sure way to distinguish the true faith from a myriad of pseudos. Well, give me some time. Just because I don't remember them doesn't mean I'm lying. I'll get back to you. Why, displayed the amount of intelligence your writings contain, I have no doubt that you a smart human....and have two legs. Well, I came to be a theist because I allow for supernatural existence. I think that it is not only plausible, but also entirely verifiable (just not in a scientific sense.) Does everything have to pass the scientific method's scrutiny before one believes it to be true? What a ridiculous claim.Here, we are dealing with supernaturalism. What, on the planet, is the point in making it subject to the scientific method? There are other, and more relevant, ways to scrutinize this. But atheists somehow object...I don't get it.

Hey Jallen,Hope EvC is treating you well. Well, glad I could be of some help. Part of the reason why I have this answer is because I myself struggled with the same exact question. It is healthy to subject what you believe to stringent and minute examination. So, I commend you on taking the time to do it. Cheers. I believe our current Bible is not without human errors, yes. Note, human errors, like you said---not errors in content as in such and such is not true. But should we worry over translation errors? I think, No. That's because we have so many copies from multiple, variant sources, which are made subject to textual criticism. Textual criticism presents us with the final translation that is closest to the original manuscripts. Though nothing that we can come up with will be equivalent to the originals, this is the best we can do.Even I often get the feeling that we're missing out on some things... that their should be more that we can know and should know. I mean, why would God leave so many fill in the blanks in our lives? This said, that is just a feeling, I do not agree with my own feeling. And the reason is somewhat like this...If God labels the Bible as "His Word", and is extremely keen and strict that it needs to be revered, believed, and followed, then He must have overridden all possible obstacles in order to present us with His "infallible Word". There is nothing more important than the Bible in God's sight. It stands to reason that, He would take utmost care in its regard and present us with ALL that we need. If today, 66 books is what we have, then that is what we need. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

So, the atheists agree that the scientific method is practically useless when it comes to understanding and verifying things in super-naturalism. Okay.Let's start with this:1. Both atheists and theists will agree that morality is surely a major part in human life. The ability to discern good from evil right and wrong takes precedence for more people than not. (there are more theists than atheists. I do not mean to say that atheists live immoral lives, no. Just, that isn't their main focus in life, as it appears. There are other things, like self, accuracy, science, etc that occupy a much bigger part of their lives.)2. Obviously, in our world, we do not have a universal moral code that everyone follows. Even if there are laws on paper, and more or less similar among countries, people are imperfect, to say the least, in following them.3. Yet, we all strive to be moral.4. We all know, for sure, that man cannot ever reach the moral standard he has set for himself.5. In light of this, there are two possible ways out of this problem. 1) Forget morality and live your life
2) Submit to an absolute, ultimate moral code6. The absolute, universal moral code is the moral Code of God. There is no personal preference or bias in following this code.7. Since man already knows that he is imperfect, and cannot perfectly follow God's moral code (he couldn't even his own!), there has got to be propitiation.8. That is exactly what the Christian God offers. Propitiation.Now, if people would rather choose to throw morality and its ramifications down the drain for personal reasons, what I wrote above is perfect nonsense--farce. But for the other group who are on the lookout for moral lives, there seems to be only one way--a supernatural way.The argument will be continued...

You raise some very relevant points, sir pharmacist, that help fuel the discussion. I'm gonna give you a 5 rating on this post. So, the atheists get to grade the world's papers? Umm, what is basis for defining moral superiority or lack of it? Flying into buildings and not flying into buildings is not an acceptable criterion. Anything else? I say this because there is no objective way to define moral based on human standards. So you simply cannot say atheists are "more moral" than religious fanatics based on....well, your standard of morality. I cannot, based on my standard of morality. Obama cannot, based on his standard of morality. Mother Teresa cannot, based on her standard of morality.Do we allow players to referee their own games? Valid question, no?I hope you get the drift of what I'm saying. I,as a theist, could for example call atheists immoral based on why they agree with abortion. On the face of it, what you said is quite eloquent, and appealing.But if you want to rule out all immorality BECAUSE atheists do not focus all that much on morality, from their lives, I have to disagree. Alright Doc, good time for me to ask this question:Do you believe that everything written in the Bible is, also, advocated by God? Universal, humanist moral standard sounds good to me.But there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly.Solution: ---Space for Apothecus to give answer---Absolute Standard sounds better to meBut there is problem: No one follows the code perfectly.Solution: God Himself lives it for you. And offers it to you, free. Doc, dogma isn't a good thing sometimes. I sighed when I read this.-----------------On the whole, at some point in such a discussion, atheists and theists are gonna throw filth at each other saying "no, YOU are immoral because you do this, and WE are moral because we don't do that, and do this!" --So?....Anyone other than me see the need for a absolute standard here? And may your mutations guide you into all positive complexity and fitness there is to achieve. If the atheists do not agree that the scientific method is useless, then then is debate is useless. You just destroyed the common platform for our debate. Do you want to have a discussion or not, DA?

quote:

---

For example, if you claimed supernatural powers to raise the dead, then we could in principle take you to a morgue and see if you could do what you claimed. That would be using the scientific method, and the test would be effective --- either you really could or you really couldn't, and we'd be able to tell one way or another.

---

And? Would you believe me after your scientific testing? I know of no better way to understand and test observable, natural phenomena than the scientific method.Question is, is super-naturalism natural? physical? I mean, you can never take God to a cemetery and say "okay, yeah, raise my 80 year old grandma and I'll believe you're God."Are we convinced yet? Well, I came across a dead end. So...I went back to the starting point and took a different road.BUT, if option 1 is valid for you, then yeah, this is somewhat "far-fetched" there has got to be propitiation = We expect/hope for propitiationI used it in a more emotional, than rational sense.So now that we have a source that is willing to offer us the propitiation that "we'd like there to be", what do we do about it?
Either believe it, or don't. Wow, what dogma!So why are you even talking to me, if seeing God physically is what you want? I cannot show you God. Simply No.Um, yeah, that's the best I can tell you,I don't base faith on physical evidence..even if there was 100% reliable evidence for the Flood. I might say "oh look, we have physical evidence to further confirm the veracity of the Biblical account that we already believe in based on faith" but not "hey, Joe, umm...they finally discovered the Ark, so now that we have a leg to stand on in the scientific community, lets believe this Bible, shall we?..and if they contend with us, its okay bud, we have physical evidence!" Umm, well now, if you would define morality as "getting along with each other", then sir, more power to you. /sI mean....where's your beef? You think you're washed in the blood of Jesus if you can allow yourself to massacre 50 people.Before you give me an example of how the Israelites killed nations on God's command in the OT, let me tell you that that topic is exclusively theological. If someone doesn't appreciate the OT God, then He might as well not discuss that at all. I'm not for a non-theologcial, logical discussion on that one, if you know what I mean. I am 100% happy to talk about it. But I'm asking to play in my arena, not yours. True. I'm not advocating the OT Mosaic Law!I'm advocating the fulfilled Law. Substitutionary atonement. No denying that. We do commit terrible sins. Being Christian =/= being perfect. Being Christian = Being forgivenSo, Christians are forgiven of the sins they commit SO LONG AS said sins are unintentional. But if a Christian guy kills his aunt because he hates her, guess what,Rev 22: 14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.Absolute moral code. For both theists and "atheists" alike.There is NOTHING like, if you're a Christian you can get away with anything...even if Christians themselves believe that or say that. We can't override the code!!!Ob the other side, what does being Christian mean? It means you are ahead in the morality game than your atheist counterparts.

Wait a second. Just a second.Like Apothecus said, if atheists' main focus is NOT morality and theists' is, then who is ahead of the morality game Stile? I'm not asking you who is good or bad, successful or unsuccessful at it.I'm raising my hands; I'm not going to judge who is moral. That is the whole point of having a absolute moral code.If you are mathematician and I am a doctor, then is it fair to assess who is ahead of the game when it comes to medicine?If both you and I were physicians and I said that I'm ahead of the game, irrespective of what you think, then I am falsely judging..and you can by all means doubt my credibility. Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.Edited by Dr. Sing, : clarificationEdited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

What?! I don't even have a self-derived moral standard of my own. The one I claim to follow is God's. Whats your point?

So you're reading everything, thinking only about what you want to and posting to get my nerves up.-- Yeah! So...Would you rather throw away morality then? No need of morals at all? Edited by Dr. Sing, : No reason given.

Mark this down, Dr Adequate. What then is your idea of a absolute moral standard? I am VERY eager to hear your answer.