A Minimalist Bible

I think it can work as long as God isn't also all-powerful. If God is all-powerful, then this simply isn't true.
However, if God isn't all-powerful, then this is quite possible and remains logical and reasonable (assuming that God exists... anyway).It is very reasonable that:-God exists
-God is just and loving and consistent
-God created life
-God reaches to humanity
-Evolution is necessary
-The suffering shown in our world is necessary in order to experience joy...as long as God isn't powerful enough to do "whatever He pleases."If suffering is required in order to experience joy... then this is a restriction that God cannot overcome. (God isn't powerful enough to setup a system where humans can experience joy without suffering.)
If God cannot overcome this restriction... what other restrictions exist that God cannot overcome?Maybe God can't answer all our prayers.
Maybe God can't answer some prayers at all.This would explain the Bible very well. If God's power wasn't absolute, then it's quite possible that He did whatever He could and the inconsistencies/issues with the Bible are simply things that were out of God's control.But, all-in-all, yes. The assumptions you're presenting seem very logical and reasonable within each other as long as God isn't "all-powerful."

I don't have a logical or reason-based issue with that.And all the stuff you posted about seems valid as a possibility as well.The only issue is, as soon as God isn't all-powerful, it begs the question... what are God's limits?The big one being... does He even still exist or did God die?
Then there starts to be all sort of questions and we end up knowing nothing about God.Is the Bible entirely from God? Or only what God was able to get through to us?
Can God keep the promises made in the Bible? Are those promises even from God?If God is restricted... what is restricting God?
Another god-like being? If so, how can we ever attribute anything to God... it may be from something else.
Just a "the-way-things-are" kind of deal? If so, how can we know what's really from God, and what's a restriction that only made it "half-way" to us?We can ponder and create scenarios like the one you provided... but there's nothing to say it's true vs a bunch of other scenarios that could result in the world we live in today:
-God died billions of years ago and we're on our own now
-God was able to create us, but is now held captive by some other being/situation that is even more powerful
-God is constantly trying to communicate/reach us but whatever the restrictions that do exist... nothing gets through in the way we think it doesSo it comes down to "yes, it's possible in the sense that it's all internally consistent."
But there's nothing to distinguish any one possible scenario (regardless of it's popularity) from any other possible scenario that also lines up with the way things are in the world today.Maybe we do get a sense of "this really feels right" when we get a correct message from God.
Maybe we don't.I don't see anything worth risking even a year of my life for... let alone my possibly-eternal soul and those of my family/friends.
Such things are rather important, and need more support then being "internally consistent" and "it would be nice if this were true."

Very true. By the same token... even if the NT writers got whatever-information-was-available-to-them completely right, that does not mean God is currently watching over us and trying to reach us.If God has limitations, it's possible those limitations prevented Him in the past, and/or are preventing Him now.Everything you mentioned is completely internally consistent.
There's just no reason to actually consider it as true.I don't mean that there's no desire or curiosity about it being true.
I'm talking about a valid reason for considering it to be "the way things are" rather than just another imaginative idea.We can stand around all day and think of imaginative ideas that don't contradict anything in this world.
Like God being dead or unable to reach us because a bigger-God is constraining Him.
Each of those ideas works exactly as well with the way we see the world today as the explanation you provide.
What is difficult is to think of an imaginative idea that actually explains something in this world.What is the difference?A non-contradiction is un-falsifiable (there's no way to show that it's wrong).
An actual explanation reveals something testable about the world that shows us we really are correct when employing that explanation.One allows for possible progress. The other is sterile. My point:If we can't distinguish an idea from fantasy or reality, what good is the idea when dealing with anything important?

This is true. And if they're wrong, we can have a great deal more confidence that they don't accurately reflect the views of Jesus.
The problem is that we have no way of showing if they were right or wrong. There's no way to tell. Could be.
Could be not.Again, the thought is sterile because we have no way to know. Absolutely true. Right. We can make progress in our understanding of morality and how it works with humans in society.
We cannot, however, make any progress about God being the source or not of our morality... that idea is sterile because there is no way to know one way or the other. I agree that this is the message of the NT.
However, if God has restrictions on Him... we don't know if God was able to put the NT together, or if He was restricted and it's just some talk from humans.
The idea that we should get along as humans in a society and learn, as humans, how to treat each other well is a great area of study, and we can make progress.
The idea that God wants us to follow the NT or that the plans come from God is sterile. We have no way to know one way or the other.We can imagine that it's from God... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine that it's from the greater-than-God being that is holding God captive and it's actually a trick... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine a million different possible non-contradictory scenarios... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track.
We can imagine that it's not from God... and make consistent plans from there. But we'll never know whether or not we're on the right track. Maybe.Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that God was actually real.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that God was being held captive and another being is tricking us.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show that humans are able to get along with one another.
Or maybe if everything was clear and there was no ambiguity it would show a million different possible non-contradictory scenarios that could all equally be valid.Or maybe not.The point is that non-contradictory "what if" scenarios don't mean anything in a practical world.
They're interesting to think about... but they simply don't teach us anything. They're sterile because we can't learn anything from them because we can't know whether or not they're valid for building anything on them. Could very well be true.
And I absolutely think you're being honest about your personal experience.But it's also possible that it's false.
And it's also possible that many other people have many other personal experiences telling them otherwise.How do we know what to build our foundation on?
How do we know if what we "feel to be true" really is true?If the foundation is a house of cards... then I'm just not okay with applying the ideas towards anything significant.Everything you've mentioned is quite possibly true. But there's no way to verify it, and there's plenty of other explanations that fit equally well or better.A minimalist Bible makes it easier to swallow because it's assuming less and less un-falsifiable ideas.
But the fatal flaw is that the Bible itself (as with any religious ideas of today) is un-falsifiable no matter what parts you keep.
Even a minimal number of un-falsifiable ideas is still some un-falsifiable ideas.
The only way the progress isn't sterile is if there are no un-falsifiable ideas at all. This point is non-negotiable. It took humanity thousands of years to figure it out, but once they did progress became unstoppable.If we can verify everything we base our ideas on... then we can test those ideas, learn whether or not they are valid, and make progress.
If we let in even a single, simple un-falsifiable idea... we'll never know if any of our concepts are true or not because they can all be supported by the un-falsifiable concept.

An excellent message.
But we don't know it was "His" message, do we? We don't know it was from Jesus/God.
If there are limitations on God... then yes, it may be from God. But also maybe not. Perhaps it was just a message created by some men at that time. An excellent reason to follow the message.Not a reason at all to follow Jesus.
Maybe it's Jesus' message.
Maybe it's not.
We don't know. This doesn't make any sense at all. Your conclusion doesn't follow in any way from your premise."If the message of Jesus has proven to be reliable.."...then all it gives credence to is the idea that the message is reliable.
It doesn't tell us anything at all about the source of the message.You claim the source is from Jesus.
You claim the source is from God.
You also claim that God isn't all-powerful.
You haven't shown any idea that points positively in the direction that God provided this message.Sure, it could be from God, as you say.
Sure, it could be from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive, as you neglect.
Sure, it could be from humans without any intervention from God at all, as you neglect.
Sure, it could be from some other animal we have yet to understand, as you neglect.Nothing you say directs us to the claim you make and away from the other claims.
This is why there is absolutely no credence at all "to the idea that God would honour and validate this message."It's just a claim, the same as all the other claims that don't contradict anything about the world the way it is today.
There's no way to test it, and no way to know if it's true or not.
This confirms that there's absolutely zero credence to the claim you're trying to push forward. This is very true.
Lots of people believe many things. You do claim that it is much more than simply blind faith.
What you've failed to do is show how it is more than simply blind faith in any way.As long as we can't show the distinction between "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans" for the claims you make, then yes, it simply is blind faith to pick one of those options as "the one." What else could it be? I've never said that this idea was sterile. In fact, I've stated a few times now that this is a fantastic concept and we should continue to build upon it.
What I keep saying is sterile is your claim that this idea comes from God.
Maybe it does.
Maybe it doesn't.
There's nothing to distinguish this message as "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans."
Therefore, the idea that it is "from God" is sterile.The concept itself is widely known.
It's well known and well studied and progress is being made on the human ability to find joy in our kindness to others. Perhaps, but faith and uncertainty isn't required for this concept.
We can show (and it has been shown) through studies of human culture that the message of love, kindness, justice and humility improves our lifestyles. Again, I've never said this is sterile.What is sterile is the idea that this message comes from God.
Perhaps you are called to have faith that this message comes from God. Because it very well may not. Of course we should be moving toward the world view of finding joy in our kindness to others... we have studied this phenomenon and we can show that it is useful and beneficial to us.
We should not, however, move towards the world view that this idea "comes from God" because progress in that way is sterile because we don't know if it's "from God" vs. "from the more-powerful-being that is holding God captive" vs. "from humans." Exactly. We can have plenty of confidence in the message itself because we can show it to be true throughout human history and society in our present time.There's just no reason to indicate that it's from Jesus or God. Humans have been trying to show that to be true for thousands of years. No progress yet. Sterile.

And you'd be wrong. Human nature doesn't "always" do much of anything. You use a lot of absolutes when you speak, it causes you to be wrong a lot.
Many people control things they don't understand.
There are plenty of operators that don't understand the equipment they operate.You seem to control your computer enough to post on the internet. Would you say you understand your computer? What about understanding the entire internet? No, it's not.
It may be for some.
But it's not for many others.If you want to understand why someone doesn't believe in God, why don't you just ask them?

Why would you think I wish for you to discard the belief?This was your question at the beginning of the thread:

quote:

---

Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.

---

I'm just telling you what can reasonably be determined using basic logic and reason vs. what's a belief or faith.The message we're discussing is very impressive. It can be tested using basic logic and reason to reasonably determine that it is valid and should be used and built upon.Ascribing this message to Jesus cannot be tested using basic logic or reason... it's a belief, it's faith.Whether or not that's a good thing for your life is for you to determine through your own priorities. I don't think I was clear.
I'm not saying that the secular viewpoint cares why or why not you want to follow the good message.
I'm saying that the worldview that this good message "comes from God" isn't based on logic and reason, it's a belief or faith.Your idea of the "minimalist Bible" will be faith-and-belief as long as it includes things that cannot be tested with basic logic and reason.
You may have removed some of the other faith-and-belief parts... but as long as some of those remain (like the assumptions you want at the beginning of this thread)... then it can only be tested with basic logic and reason internally.As soon as you try to apply it externally on the rest of the world... you'll run into the issue that not everyone will be willing to accept your faith-and-belief assumptions.

Yes, I agree that the message is the way the world should go.
But it's not reasonable to ascribe this message to Jesus just because the message is a good one.Brushing my teeth everyday is also a good message, and a way the world should go.
Do you ascribe that to Jesus as well?If you're being reasonable... then you must.
If you don't... then you need to find some other point of indication in order to ascribe this message to Jesus and have it be "reasonable." As aspect of reason is consistency.
I agree that this resonation in your personal experiences leads you to your belief in Jesus.
But there are many other people who'e resonation in their personal experiences leads them away from belief in Jesus.This point isn't consistent either.
Therefore, it's not a "reasonable" point to believe in Jesus.If you want logical and reasonable points to support a belief in Jesus... then you need to find consistency in those points.Something like praying to Jesus and always getting the prayer answered would be a logical and reasonable reason to belief in the existence of Jesus. It wouldn't be proof at all (it's possible that the greater-than-God being is answering these prayers as a trick...) but it would at least be reasonable.All logical and reasonable points are consistent. If they cannot be applied consistently, then it's not a reasonable or logical idea. Again, this isn't consistent.
It seems to me that if there was a pre-existing intelligence responsible for life then it seems reasonable to conclude that this intelligence would be objectively active in what they are responsible for. But we don't see this.So who is reasonable? Me? Or you?
The answer, of course, is that neither of us are being reasonable. Because the idea isn't consistent.

No, it's not.
It is, however, logically reasonable for someone to not believe in Jesus unless they are given some sort of verifiable indication that Jesus actually exists."Reasonable" doesn't mean "anything that can make sense in any minimalized context, no matter how restricted it is."
"Reasonable" means "consistent, logical analysis" as you defined at the beginning of this thread:

quote:

---

Does understanding of the Bible this way, based on the theistic assumptions that I outlined, reasonably fit with what we conclude through basic logic and reason.

---

You're talking about "basic logic and reason" here. That means consistent application of the logic in all contexts. Not just the one you choose to restrict yourself to.Yes, the phrase makes sense in colloquial terms... but then it doesn't answer the question you intended to ask. If you find this acceptable and would like to stop investigating how reasonable your ideas are at this point, just let me know... it will be easier that way.I can say "it's reasonable for me to drive my car if it's too far to walk."
But what if I'm 8 years old? Is this still "reasonable?"You can have the protected version of "reasonable" if you'd like... if you want to restrict your sense of context into a small area.
However, if you really want to answer the question as you stated it originally... then we need to investigate all aspects of the context. Not just the ones where you can make it sound good. Yes, we know that you are.
The question is whether or not it's reasonable to do so.
(That's logically reasonable... not just colloquially "reasonable"... I just don't feel like writing "logically..." all the time). Not at all.In the same sense that my powerful, unstoppable, reliable abilities at programming doesn't give any credibility to anything else I say. The other things I say need to be supported on their own. The fact that I said them even needs to be supported. If we're trying to be reasonable, anyway.We don't reasonably know if the message is from God, let alone that it was sent to Jesus, and again whether or not Jesus gave it to us.
it is not reasonable to believe any of this on the basis that "the message is a good one."You can believe these because your own personal experience compels you to... but it's just not logically reasonable. The point was simply to show you how logic and reason works. I don't know any of this for sure either.
But we're not talking about what's absolutely true.
We're talking about what's reasonable for us to conclude.And it's reasonable to come to conclusions based on the things we can verify around us.
It is unreasonable to come to conclusions that cannot be verified.This doesn't mean we have to be logically reasonable all the time, or whether or not it's even a good thing.But if you're going to ask the question about whether or not this idea is logically reasonable... I'll help you investigate the answer, if you'd like. This doesn't make sense.
I think the issue is that you seem to think everyone "needs an answer for everything."
It's perfectly easy to be objective and consistent all the time... you just have to be okay with not getting an answer for everything.The choice is yours:Do you want "an answer for everything" -and not be confident in any of your answers because the methodology is suspect?
(Basing worldview on faith and belief)ORDo you want "an answer for only some things" -but be very confident in all of the answers you're able to obtain?
(Basing worldview on scientific, logical methodology)Of course, it should also be pointed out that people are very flexible, and quite capable of using two (or more) different worldviews for two (or more) different situations. We're pretty awesome that way.