Good reason

[nobspeople]

In a different thread (listed below), when discussing, in part, if the bible is true, TRANSPONDER said " It is a well known argument that asserting what is in the Bible is true because it is in the Bible is a fallacy. A Lawyer would know that a witness statement is not going to be accepted as true just because he or she has said it. Nor of course rejected without good reason."

The above bolded section caused me to think (not claiming this is TRANSPNDER's assertion): is there good reason to think the bible isn't true?

For discussion: Is there good reason (define what is 'good reason' to you) to think the bible is or is not true*?

*TRUE here being used as 'legitimate, real word of God which was written by men, inspired by God' - this would assume everything written in it is true and agreed upon by God - in other words, nothing written is personal opinion of the writer.



Reference viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38540&start=10

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #98]

For this reason I have chosen to no longer pursue my line of reasoning and refrain from answering any more of your theological questions.

See post 96 ... I stated there that I won't ask (you) any more questions on this subject, so no need to beat a dead horse. I think the titles of the various forum sections are very clear as to their subject areas, but to expect 0% overlap under any circumstances is a bit unrealistic given that opinionated humans are participating here and not preprogrammed robots. But I suspect this wasn't your real reason for latching onto JKs comment in this particular case.

[JoeyKnothead]

...

I remind folks there's a whole nother section of this site devoted to things theological.

Duly noted joey, thank you.
...

Ya know what, I think folks fuss on you a bunch, as I do, but you're really just another one of us - you, nor we, ain't special. We try to tell it best we can - we don't mean to hate, don't mean to lie. In the final analysis, you present your understanding of the truth as you understand it. Wrong or right. I couldn't ask me not nothing more'n that.

But that whole Christianity thing, now that's a fuss

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #98]

For this reason I have chosen to no longer pursue my line of reasoning and refrain from answering any more of your theological questions.

See post 96 ... I stated there that I won't ask (you) any more questions on this subject, so no need to beat a dead horse. I think the titles of the various forum sections are very clear as to their subject areas, but to expect 0% overlap under any circumstances is a bit unrealistic given that opinionated humans are participating here and not preprogrammed robots. But I suspect this wasn't your real reason for latching onto JKs comment in this particular case.

Thank you for accepting my decision with such grace. We all slip up sometimes and joey was kind enough to comment on a potential rule infractions I risked making . I am thankful to you both for your indulgence.

To learn more please go to other posts related to ...

MIRACLES , KILLING and ... THE FLOOD OF NOAH'S DAY

[We_Are_VENOM]

Agreed. Which is why, personally, I don't make such statements as fact. Some, however, outright say otherwise. Do I think most of it is stupidly terrible and wrong? Yes. Are there some points that should be followed? Sure. Are there some parts of it that are true or point to real occurrences? Probably. Is it enough for me, a former christian of decades, to say 'it's true, real and makes total sense'? Only when pigs fly. And then still, no.

We all choose our own destiny, don't we?

Agreed. Which is why believing the bible is up to the individual. It's not a history or science document.

I disagree, as I am under the persuasion that it is a history.

It's a book written by men

As all books are...

(some of whom claim they were inspired by God)

So they believed..

about things in a time we, today, don't know enough about sociologically or politically to claim 'yes, everything happened exactly as described'.

Yeah, but you can say that about anything as it relates to antiquity, can't you?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And there's plenty of extraordinary claims in the bible.

Plenty of extraordinary claims in science text books, too.

As with any belief, it's up to the individual to decide based on what every 'evidence' (or lack of) they deem appropriate for their chosen agenda.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #104]

Plenty of extraordinary claims in science text books, too.

With the huge difference that the science claims have a framework within which they can be tested and verified (observation, measurement, requirements for reproducibility, everyone being free to participate and throw darts, etc.). If a hypothesis survives all of that it can graduate to a theory, but if that is shot down somehow later then it gets discarded for a better explanation. The hurdle to obtain "theory" status in science is very high, so it isn't common for formal theories to be demoted. However, there is no rule against that ... and if new evidence says it is wrong, then it is replaced.

Contrast that to religion, where extraordinary claims are taken as givens and not challenged because they are believed to be divinely inspired or dictated and therefore cannot be wrong. This is a very big difference from the science approach.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is what it comes down to in the end. The validity of science as opposed to Faith -claims of various kinds, and, here, the claims of Christianity which - as I have said - come down to the reliability of the Gospels and specifically the Resurrection -claim.

We see all manner of arguments to try to validate that, from 'If you don't believe the Bible, you can't believe any other book' together with the similar 'you can't prove Washington (sometimes Lincoln) existed' to the utterly circular argument of using the Christian claim that the disciples all beleived the resurrection to prove that the disciples witnessed the resurrection. Both of which depend on crediting the claim to start with, which is what they are trying to prove.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #104]

We all choose our own destiny, don't we?

Do we?!?!

as I am under the persuasion that it is a history.

Sure there are some things that can be verified and shown to be true. But when it comes to miracles and supernatural happenings? It's more of a fictional piece than historical. At what point do we say 'X% = historical"?

Yeah, but you can say that about anything as it relates to antiquity, can't you?

Not sure about the 'anything' part, but mostly, sure. But, if the bible is god inspired, I would expect no inconsistencies, for starters.

Plenty of extraordinary claims in science text books, too.

Though science tends to answer questions based on factual evidence and (should be) open to change. The bible offers no such thing.

[TRANSPONDER]

So where are we? Good reason to believe in any god, never mind Biblegod? I don't think so, in fact no good reason to beleive in any god and some good reasons not to believe in Biblegod. The apologetics all look to me to have been knocked down. The cherry -picking of some nice stuff while ignoring the nasty. Trying to fiddle the failed prophecy of Tyre. Just a couple I saw just now.

In all my experience, not just on his thread, theist apologetics (never mind Bible apologetics) have lost ground rather than gained. I have seen the evolution - denial pushed back from the initial flood of lies about Whale bones and Lucy, and the Big Three have come under pressure, too. And they only made a case for some sorta - god, and not the god of the Bible. Remarkably it was the OT that was the polemical battleground rather than the New - which was really all that mattered (as the New Covenant invalidated everything in the OT anyway, unless Jesus specifically endorsed it (1). I have an idea ..in fact evidence coming up in debate...that Christians actually work from I call 'the Ghost Bible' - which is one that says what they want it to say, rather than what it actually does say. Non - believers don't bother with it and maybe dismiss it as 'miracle claims'.

But it's a puzzle. Deconverts must know it, surely. Don't they know about the contradictions? I don't know - have the theists made them think that contradictions don't prove anything? I'm here to prove that they do.

(1) I always found it especially rewarding to show that Jesus argued against Sabbath -keeping.

[We_Are_VENOM]

.

Sure. A multitude of reasons to believe it's not true:

Really? Lets see whatcha got

- Many books written by many people with differing perspectives not consistent with each other.

Such as?

- God did not provide an already translated bible for all languages.

"The Bible isn't true because God did not provide an already translated Bible for all languages".

Text book example of a non sequitur.

Cmon. What else ya got?

- The bible contains blatant lies. eg: God's existance is obvious to all, Seek and ye shall find, All things will be made known when needed, etc etc.

More like God's existence should be obvious to all. But I guess this doesn't apply to those who don't want God to exist.

-the bible contains broken promises eg we will do greater works than Jesus, all things will be known when needed.

Hmm. Depends on what is meant by "greater". Greater in quantity, or quality?

-the bible contains contradictions. (Of course most Christians try to claim there are none, but we know that's not true.)

Such as?

-We cannot get a proper English translation of the bible. Should be easy for a God to provide us with one shouldn’t it?

If we had a "proper" English translation of the Bible, I doubt that would get you any closer to belief....the only thing it would get you is one less reason as to why the Bible isn't true.

-the bible contains a lot of inaccurate science. eg bats = birds, order of creation.

Animal classification is just how we "classify" animals. So, the ancient ones classified animals different than us, so what?

The Bible states that the universe had a beginning...which it did. Looks like good science to me.

-the bible contains unfulfilled prophecies. eg Jesus is returning. And he was meant to return in the lifetime of some of those who saw him die

Says who?

-the bible contains absurd stories that cannot possibly be true. (eg babies wrestling in their mother’s womb, men being swallowed by giant fish and surviving)

Who says a man can't be swallowed by a giant fish and survive?

-the bible illustrates a God with horrible morals which I just can't possibly believe would exist.

Oh, so God doesn't meet your moral standards? How are you able to determine that your moral standards are the right way to go?

-the bible is full of atrocities committed by this God

I repeat: Oh, so God doesn't meet your moral standards? How are you able to determine that your moral standards are the right way to go?

-the bible can be used to defend any crazy belief you want. thus we have all sorts of denominations and cults.

“There are many different interpretations provided as to what the Bible really means…therefore, the Bible isn’t true”.

Non sequitur.

-the bible contains much out of touch and sometimes bad advice. eg turn the other cheek, bless your enemies.

Subjective.

-the bible contains mythological creatures

Such as?

-The bible God endorses slavery (yes the bad type, not the watered down one many Christians try to promote. Even so it's still owning another human being, which is immoral in anyone's books

The bible does not endorse the kidnapping and forcing of slavery.

-The bible God sees women as possessions of men

Where?

-the bible seems way too much like the word of ignorant man than the word of God

Subjective.

-God’s ignorance of mankind. You would think our creator would understand us better.

Subjective.

-God’s ignorance of the universe. You would think the creator would know how is own creations work!

I need specifics.

-the bible needs a branch of defence known as "apologetics" to justify it and cover up the above list of things.

Evolution has its defenders as well.

-The disciples faith was very weak considering they were rubbing shoulders with the so-called son of God.

“The disciples had weak faith, therefore, the Bible isn’t true”. Non sequitur.

-The gospels are hearsay, not eye witness accounts.

Depending on who you ask. Because if you ask me, the Gospels were written by either disciples of Jesus, or friends of disciples of Jesus.

-the gospels were adapted to reach target audiences.

Doesn’t every book have a “targeted audience”?

-Paul was blatantly mistaken about so many things, but yet Christians still use a lot of his teachings. eg, he said he had preached the gospel to every living creature under the sun.

Huh? Where?

-Just-so stories. Particularly in the book of Genesis we see what are obviously “just so” stories, not literal history. Yet Christians often take these stories as true! (And so did the so-called son of God!)

Subjective.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #104]

Plenty of extraordinary claims in science text books, too.

With the huge difference that the science claims have a framework within which they can be tested and verified (observation, measurement, requirements for reproducibility, everyone being free to participate and throw darts, etc.). If a hypothesis survives all of that it can graduate to a theory, but if that is shot down somehow later then it gets discarded for a better explanation. The hurdle to obtain "theory" status in science is very high, so it isn't common for formal theories to be demoted. However, there is no rule against that ... and if new evidence says it is wrong, then it is replaced.

Contrast that to religion, where extraordinary claims are taken as givens and not challenged because they are believed to be divinely inspired or dictated and therefore cannot be wrong. This is a very big difference from the science approach.

Science isn't the end-all-be-all of knowledge, doc. And where science stops, theology begins..

Actually, theology is there from the get go...but you know what I mean