Christians- How do you know Jesus and the Bible are true?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Would you develop a religion out of your own head, if you would know you will be killed? Would you develop a religion that doesn't really benefit you in any material way? Why assume someone else would do so?

People with religious fervor often do impetuous things. What were Jim Jones, David Koresh, or Marshall Applewhite's motivations for starting new, independent religious movements? Does it matter? Not to me. You might ask me would I like to follow in their footsteps rather than asking if I would you develop a religion out of your own head if I knew you will be killed? Did any of those people know they would die because of their choices. Once again, maybe, maybe not. It doesn't matter to me. What matters is that human being do these kinds of things for whatever their reasons, and arguing that they don't because they might die or might not benefit materially is to disregard history and human nature. So, when martyrdom is offered as evidence of a religion one died for being correct, I reject the claim. It just means that they were fervent and zealous.

please show the "contradiction" and explain why you think so.

The contradiction? There are dozens. This is generally a dead-end discussion with a faith-based thinker looking at evidence through a faith-based confirmation bias. There is no burden of proof except to a critical thinker - somebody who is willing and able to be convinced by a compelling argument. That means that you can tell when something has been successfully demonstrated to be the case, which requires competence in the rules of interpreting evidence and a student's open-minded disposition. Learning is a cooperative process, and the faith-based thinker is not there to cooperate, nor is he prepared to in most case. What generally happens at this point is the skeptic cites a pair of contradicting scriptures and rather than reading them as an unbeliever would - open-mindedly - he goes to work explaining why what appears to say up actually says down if you look at it through spiritual eyes. I've done this many times already, and don't find much value in doing it again, but in good faith, I can offer a few examples of internal biblical contradiction.

Actually, I created a Bible quiz several years ago based in contradictions, meaning every question has two or more contradictory answers in the scriptures. Originally, I didn't tell people that. I just let them find one of the answers and give it, then show them the other. But I'm telling you in advance that I can provide contradictory answers to all of the following:

[1] Is mankind saved by works or faith?
[2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross?
[3] Is it possible for men to be righteous?
[4] Has man seen God?
[5] Are all words from God true?
[6] Does God grow weary or tired?
[7] How did Jesus answer the Sanhedrin when it asked if he was messiah?
[8] What was the precise wording on the cross (English translation acceptable)?
[9] Was Jesus taken by Satan to the temple or mountain first?
[10] What number of blind men received their sight on the road from Jericho?
[11] Is God content with his works?
[12] Is God perfect, or does he make mistakes that he regrets?​

And here are the answers. Feel free to dive into the apologetics to try to remove the contradictions in defense of your beliefs if you like, but I don't really care to address them all in what ends up being a game of whack-a-mole.

Spoiler: quiz answers

[1] Is mankind saved by works or faith?

Both.

In one part, the bible says that man is saved by faith, not works ("For by grace are ye saved through faith... not of works." - Ephesians 2:8-9) and in another, the exact opposite ("Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." - James 2:24)

[2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross?

There are contradictory answers.

Although all four gospels tell us what Jesus said on the cross as he was dying, only two actually say that the words they report were his final words, that is, that he died after speaking them and without speaking again. John (19:30) says that Jesus' final utterance was, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit." Luke (23:46) says it was, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last."

[3] Is it possible for men to be righteous?

Yes and no

According to Genesis 7:1, Job 2:3, and James 5:16, man can be righteous, whereas according to Romans 3:10, man cannot be righteous

[4] Has man seen God?

Yes and no.

Men have seen God: "So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." - Genesis 32:30). The bible also tells us that no man has seen God: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known." - John 1:18

[5] Are all words from God true?

Yes and no.

According to Proverbs 30:5, every word of god is true, while we are told that God deceives prophets (1 Kings 22:23) and the wicked (2 Thess. 2:11-12).

[6] Does God grow weary or tired?

Yes and no.

The bible tells us that God gets tired and rests ("on the seventh day he abstained from work and rested" - Exodus 31:17), and also that God is never tired and never rests ("The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He will not grow tired or weary" - Isaiah 40:28).

[7] How did Jesus answer the Sanhedrin when it asked if he was messiah?

That also depends.

According to Mark (14:62), when asked if he was the messiah, Jesus to the Sanhedrin "I am." According to Matthew (26:64), it was, "You have said so." And according to Luke (22:67), it was "If I tell you, you will not believe." So take your pick.

[8] What was the precise wording on the cross (English translation acceptable)?

According to Matthew (27:37), it was This is Jesus the King of the Jews. According to Mark (15:26), it said The King of the Jews. Luke (23:38) tells us it was This is the King of the Jews and according to John (19:19), it said, Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews

[9] Was Jesus taken by Satan to the temple or mountain first?

Both

Matthew (4:5-8) tells us that Satan took Jesus to the temple then the mountain, whereas it's the other way around in (Luke 4:5-9)

[10] What number of blind men received their sight on the road from Jericho?

That depends,

Two blind men were healed on the road according to Matthew (20:29-34), but it was just one according to Mark (10:46-47)

[11] Is God content with his works?

Yes and no

Genesis 1:31 tells us that, "God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good." Genesis 6:6 reports that, "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart."

[12] Is God perfect, or does he make mistakes that he regrets?

Both.

Once again we look to Genesis 6:6, and contrast that with Psalm 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: The Lord's word is flawless; he shields all who take refuge in him."

I don't just throw names in a hat and choose one. I consider what the religions have going for them, it is not a blind choice.

Blind in this context means without sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief, which is also my definition of belief by faith. All of our beliefs have either been vetted empirically and thus are demonstrably correct (not blind, but properly evidenced), or we have allowed ourselves to believe them with less (blindly, by faith). That's it. Every single thing that you or I would say is correct fits into one of those categories or the other. You can see why the belief sets of those who have learned critical thought and eschew faith-based thought will widely vary from those whose use other means, and also why the one group will tend to arrive at consensus because it is tethered to observation (evidence is what is evident), whereas the other just keeps bifurcating into nested hierarchies of families of families of faiths. Here's a piece of a graphic showing us how these nested hierarchies evolve (for a contrast to an empirically-based example, see the periodic chart of the elements, of which there is just one):

And here it is in joke form, from comedian Emo Phillips:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.​

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Faith is the belief in things not seen.

That's too broad a definition for me. It doesn't distinguish between justified belief and unjustified belief. I use the word to mean unjustified belief, although others use it to mean either, but using the same word to mean two distinct concepts leads to equivocation fallacies.

If you have to see Einstein or Newton, in person, to believe, that would mean you have no trust and no inference or deductions skills. You can only react by direct sensory stimulation like an animal or caveman.

And here you go equating the two. Belief that those two men once lived, made the advances credited to them, that their work was largely correct, and agreement in posterity which of their ideas were erroneous is justified by evidence. The kind of faith being discussed in this thread is religious faith, which as I noted is unjustified belief.

Things of value linger longest in time, and maintain their impact.

Who is Christianity of value to? Constantine is one. Of course he would value a faith that tells people to stand down and accept their plight without resistance, to love your enemy such as the slaver who steals your freedom and labor. Be meek. If he strikes you, just turn the other cheek and meekly accept a second blow without resistance. Meekness is blessed. Be longsuffering. Accept your present situation, for there will be pie in the sky after death if you do, a mansion of many rooms waiting for you - unless you resist your enemies.

Go back to the original priesthoods. What's their incentive for supporting and promoting organized religion? Instant social status, guaranteed room and board, and escape from outdoor manual labor. People just come and bring you money. Christianity is big business. It's why there's a church on every corner along with a gas station, a bank, and a fast-food restaurant. It's why we have televangelists with megachurches and private jets preaching affluence theology and requesting your love offering by challenging how sincere your faith really is. It's why Jesus has multi-million dollar ads scheduled for today's Superbowl. From The truth behind the 'He Gets Us' ads airing during the Super Bowl | CNN:

"He Gets Us,” a campaign to promote Jesus and Christianity, is running two ads during the game as part of a staggering $100 million media investment."

 

[stvdv]

I'm sure it will be different when you meat the real thing............ as we all must.............. even Sai Baba.
How about his false prophecies, aren't they a dead give away?

Not to me, I can't be fooled that easily, after having had 10 years of training under the best of Teachers.

Only those who focus on solely materialism (dualism) without ever having studied under a true Spiritual Master for at least 3 years, will be bothered by such things, as they are unable to see through it, and totally miss the clue, due to lack of introspection and experience

 

[Windwalker]

And if the words are partly or wholly human, then they are judged by their content, in contrast to divine revelation.

That is how I approach it.

I explained that I don't find value there, so if it's not the word of a deity, then it's just the often conflicting and erroneous opinions of people who knew little about my world.

Little about your world, in what way? I would say many of these ancient text understood quite a lot about the human condition and human nature, which is why they endure over the millenia. They continue to speak to people. I just got a new translation of the Tao Te Ching today, and it's insights are timeless. It fits any time in any context. Modern or not.

The same can be said with much of the teachings of the Bible, even if you have to tease it out the context. The writings of the Tao Te Ching were written to a ruler of people, yet we don't have to be kings or in authority to understand what they say to all of us.

Even if I thought some was divinely inspired, there's not test for differentiating those passages from the ones people decided to insert in there themselves.

As simple as it sounds, there is a test. What speaks to your heart? What resonates as timeless truth, vs. cultural artifacts? What is coming from the place of something that transcends the human ego, and what is coming from the human ego? This is not as a big of a mystery as it sounds. We do this all the time in relationships with others. What sounds like it's coming from a place of authenticity within them, and what is coming instead from their own ego projects?

But this is fuzzy and insecure ground for a lot of people, and so they prefer black and white literalism, and placing their trust in external authorities to tell them what is trustworthy or not, instead of developing and learning how to trust themselves and their own instincts and intuitions. What I just explained is central to this problem.

I'm not interested in that book if it isn't of divine origin. Why would I be? Once I stopped believing in that god, I stopped reading the book, as it lost relevance without the divine imprimatur.

I think this is making my point, isn't it? Unless it can be a voice of high certainty telling me what is true or not true, I don't feel it's something that I should trust, and hence it doesn't off the things I'm looking for. I think this is a issue of mindsets, and not so much an issue about the material in hand.

I didn't suggest technical manuals. Facts can come from reading, but meaning comes from experience, not reading. I learned right and wrong empirically - trial and error, with my conscience as my guide. Nothing else was needed.

As much as I say experience trumps faith, there is also value in guidance to find experience in the absence of it. We may desire to experience freedom from our woes, but may not know how. And so direction, suggestions, advice, and the wisdom of others helps us to find those things. And that, is what the value of these 'religious' texts can offer, from the Bible, to the Tao Te Ching, to the Upanishads, to the Bhagavad Gita, to any number of books that others who are sharing their own experience offers to those seeking the same.

I described several myths based in man deserving punishment for being a sinner. That is completely wrong-headed to me, and a destructive doctrine.

I completely agree. And I reject those teachers who see that as the message of Bible. I don't see through the same eyes they do. There are good teachers, and ****ty teachers. I reject the ****ty ones. How do I know the difference? See my answer above.

I have a very good idea where both the week and weekend come from. The most remarkable thing about the concept of the Sabbath to me is the idea that an omnipotent god took six days to create reality and then took a day of rest. Why depict one's superman deity this way? Why make that six-day work week with a one-day weekend a model for man, who is commanded to imitate it? Why put a timeline into a creation myth at all? Few or none of the others do so to my knowledge.

I tried to explain this for you as I presented it. It's a social law, that simply for the time placed them as the law of their god, which they all shared. We have a different fiction to elevate our laws for people to cleave to and follow and be held accountable to. That fiction is called the State. It's the same function, but just a different form.

You have to take a greater level perspective on these things rather than simply saying "no god exists in reality, so these things mean nothing". In reality, the State doesn't exist either. But we definite this as an external entity, in the exact same way tribal peoples define their gods. The State, is only real, because we agree together that it is. Borders beyond states and countries are not real in the physical world only, but they certainly have a reality when we are navigating the social reality of our existence! Things change when you cross this fictional line on a map.

Ponder that in terms of gods and deities, in ancient times. They are the mythic version of the modern fictions of nation states, and governments, and the like. This is why these materialist, physicalist only views of reality are an unreality about reality. We also live in social constructs that have direct, material physical realities upon us as well, to the point of even ending our lives if we don't follow these fictions. Wars are declared and fought over fictional lines drawn on maps.

This says to me that there was a transformation in human culture from a time when able-bodied people worked every day, as in the Hebrew's nomadic days, when social groups were smaller and religion was administered by one of them wherever they were, to a time when man had settled, populations became larger, and a centralized temple and an established priesthood needing to be supported by the community arose.

I believe that is in essence, apart from a few details the very argument I presented. This sabbath day law, placed in the story of creation to elevate its importance to the people, was a monumental advance in human civilization. That has been carried forwards into our work ethic in modern times, where labor unions built up this to make it a 5 day work week for the sake of society. Healthy people, healthy society.

I think you get too hung up on the language of it being attributed to God as its origin and the supporting myth as if it we should today understand that as complete nonsense because it isn't scientifically possible. That misses the point. It overlooks the obvious. It's just another myth of another time in human cultures, just like our secular myths of nation states, and state laws are for us today. But that does not mean these are an unreality in how we live our lives.

Follow that thought through in understand how the stories, or 'myths' of the Bible are in fact woven into the fabric of our culture today, just as our modern myths of nation states and flags are woven in to the fabric of lived reality for us today. They all have a tangible, actual reality in our everyday experience of life. The keyword there is experience. They are how we experience reality. They are part of our life experiences, like them or not.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I don't just throw names in a hat and choose one. I consider what the religions have going for them, it is not a blind choice.
There is only one Jesus.

So it is a Name worshipped?

What is it that a Christain has going for them that a follower of another Faith has not?

Not to me, I can't be fooled that easily, after having had 10 years of training under the best of Teachers.

What I have found is it is way too easy to fool ones own self, to justify the path we walk upon, even when it is not a wise choice. We justify it by pushing aside the niggling conscious doubts, that we may even know are given to allow us to further consider the path we have chosen.

No one knows that better then our own selves.

Regards Tony

 

[stvdv]

What I have found is it is way too easy to fool ones own self, to justify the path we walk upon, even when it is not a wise choice. We justify it by pushing aside the niggling conscious doubts, that we may even know are given to allow us to further consider the path we have chosen.

No one knows that better then our own selves.

Exactly, 10 years studying with a real Master does immensely improve the "connection with our own Selves", esp. as compared to someone just Googling (not you) and thinking he can advise me on this matter whether my Master is trustworthy or not (which was the context of my reply)

 

[stvdv]

What I have found is it is way too easy to fool ones own self, to justify the path we walk upon, even when it is not a wise choice

What example do you think of? When is something not wise, and still we justify going along?

You mean like taking drugs, cigarettes, cigars, coffee, non-veg, food/sex excessive indulgence while our goal is to grow Spiritually, as these all extra burden our system, hence not optimum.

People (usually) take much better care of their metal cars (not to put wrong fuel in it) than they take care of their much more sensitive bodies (fill it with whatever comes along sometimes), and still they are surprised to get sick, and some even blame God for making them sick

 

[Brian2]

Not to me, I can't be fooled that easily, after having had 10 years of training under the best of Teachers.

Only those who focus on solely materialism (dualism) without ever having studied under a true Spiritual Master for at least 3 years, will be bothered by such things, as they are unable to see through it, and totally miss the clue, due to lack of introspection and experience

What clue is that?

 

[Brian2]

So it is a Name worshipped?

What is it that a Christain has going for them that a follower of another Faith has not?

Jesus, the gospel, New Covenant, the Holy Spirit.

 

[Brian2]

Blind in this context means without sufficient supporting evidence to justify belief, which is also my definition of belief by faith. All of our beliefs have either been vetted empirically and thus are demonstrably correct (not blind, but properly evidenced), or we have allowed ourselves to believe them with less (blindly, by faith). That's it. Every single thing that you or I would say is correct fits into one of those categories or the other. You can see why the belief sets of those who have learned critical thought and eschew faith-based thought will widely vary from those whose use other means, and also why the one group will tend to arrive at consensus because it is tethered to observation (evidence is what is evident), whereas the other just keeps bifurcating into nested hierarchies of families of families of faiths. Here's a piece of a graphic showing us how these nested hierarchies evolve (for a contrast to an empirically-based example, see the periodic chart of the elements, of which there is just one):

View attachment 71616

And here it is in joke form, from comedian Emo Phillips:

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.​

I have sufficient supporting evidence for me to have faith.

 

[stvdv]

What clue is that?

e.g.: Masters sometimes test their students if they follow them blindly. IF they do then they might let them follow extreme things before their student's eyes open

Outsiders judge the Master w/o understanding why He did it

That is just 1 example, Masters are very creative. Their life is full of such actions

 

[1213]

....
The contradiction? There are dozens. This is generally a dead-end discussion with a faith-based thinker looking at evidence through a faith-based confirmation bias. There is no burden of proof except to a critical thinker - somebody who is willing and able to be convinced by a compelling argument. That means that you can tell when something has been successfully demonstrated to be the case, which requires competence in the rules of interpreting evidence and a student's open-minded disposition. Learning is a cooperative process, and the faith-based thinker is not there to cooperate, nor is he prepared to in most case. What generally happens at this point is the skeptic cites a pair of contradicting scriptures and rather than reading them as an unbeliever would - open-mindedly - he goes to work explaining why what appears to say up actually says down if you look at it through spiritual eyes. I've done this many times already, and don't find much value in doing it again, but in good faith, I can offer a few examples of internal biblical contradiction.

Actually, I created a Bible quiz several years ago based in contradictions, meaning every question has two or more contradictory answers in the scriptures. Originally, I didn't tell people that. I just let them find one of the answers and give it, then show them the other. But I'm telling you in advance that I can provide contradictory answers to all of the following:

[1] Is mankind saved by works or faith?
[2] What were Jesus' very last words on the cross?
[3] Is it possible for men to be righteous?
[4] Has man seen God?
[5] Are all words from God true?
[6] Does God grow weary or tired?
[7] How did Jesus answer the Sanhedrin when it asked if he was messiah?
[8] What was the precise wording on the cross (English translation acceptable)?
[9] Was Jesus taken by Satan to the temple or mountain first?
[10] What number of blind men received their sight on the road from Jericho?
[11] Is God content with his works?
[12] Is God perfect, or does he make mistakes that he regrets?​

...

Thank you, interesting list. I think those are silly claims. And by what I see, many atheists are like "believers" in these issues, very biased and not thinkers. I think those are a good evidence for that people just don't understand what they read. I don't think any of them show a real contradiction in the Bible, if we are literate and don't add own meanings to the story.

[1] If we are literal, we are saved by grace, as Eph. 2:8 says: "for by grace you have been saved". Those who are faithful to God, are saved by God's grace. And those who are faithful live accordingly. The faith comes visible in their works.
[2] Bible doesn't say literally that Jesus had last words. It tells only that after saying certain things, he died. But, last words recorded in the Bible were probably “It is finished.”. The reason why so is, John was closer to Jesus, unlike the others. Therefore the others probably only heard what Jesus shouted in loud voice, not what Jesus said in normal voice.
[3] It is possible to count some people righteous. "man cannot be righteous" is not the same as "There is no one righteous. No, not one".
[4] If you read the whole Gen. 32, you could see the "god" was a man (Gen. 32:24).
[5] 1 Kings 22:23 and 2 Thess. 2:11-12 doesn't say God lies.
[6] Exodus 31:17 doesn't say God got tired. Resting can mean that person is just not doing anything. It can be said even for an object, for example "put a hammer to rest", doesn't mean hammer got tired.
[7] It is possible he gave them all tree answers. By what the Bible tells, they asked it many times.
[8] Probably the longest is the most accurate. Others may have just part of the whole, which is not really a contradiction, just smaller part of the whole truth.
[9] According to the Bible, Jesus was tempted 40 days. And apparently the devil took him several times to the mountain, because it is said "again". That is why they both can be true at the same time, just small part of the whole 40 day event.
...Again, the devil took him to an exceedingly high mountain...
Matt. 4:5-8
[10] These seem to be two separate cases. Bible tells Jesus healed many blind and other people also.
[11] Is God content with his works? I think so, because, it was said to be very good. If God later grieved, it does no mean it was not good when He created.
[12] Regretting (being sorry) something doesn't necessary mean it was a mistake. For example a woman can be sorry about having baby at some point of pregnancy, but it does not necessary mean she thinks it was a mistake.

I could accept that Bible has contradictions, because I think it is written by men. But, I think it is interesting that atheist can't really show it to have real contradiction. All contradictions I have seen, depend on sloppy reading and biased thinking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I would say many of these ancient text understood quite a lot about the human condition and human nature

Probably. So do I. Everything I think I know about human nature comes from experience. Sometimes, a fable will capture some of that, and I'll recognize that the fabulist had experiences similar to mine. I don't go to books for these insights, which is where we began regarding the value of myths. I also find no value in the moral codes of others in deciding right and wrong for myself. I don't really care what anybody else believes - just what they can demonstrate. Some ideas from others are springboards for contemplation, and some will resonate as consistent with I already know, but in the end, the conclusions are mine, not received.

What speaks to your heart? What resonates as timeless truth, vs. cultural artifacts?

My answers to that do not come from books or the experiences of others.

Unless it can be a voice of high certainty telling me what is true or not true, I don't feel it's something that I should trust

Agreed. Nobody rises to that level for me, even benevolent, well-meaning people. Am I unusual in that regard? I wouldn't think so. People capable of making intellectual and moral judgments decide for themselves what is true, what is right, and what is good. When I read things that conflict with my judgments, if a compelling argument isn't included, I just note it as something that somebody else believes, which doesn't influence my beliefs. Here you are telling me about the gift of mythology and the value of ancient perspectives, yet my experience is the opposite. I got to where I am today without them. To convince me otherwise, I'd need to see a counterexample.

I did a fair amount of reading after finishing my medical residency in 1984. My medical education had been quite narrow, focusing on the physical and biological sciences. I had left Christianity several years earlier, and had been reworking my worldview to a godless one again. Reason and evidence, not faith. Conscience and reason, not received moral codes. I eventually encountered the Eightfold Path and The Affirmations of Humanism for the first time, and recognized my worldview in them both. I didn't learn from either. I learned from experience and contemplation. Seeing that others had come to the same or similar conclusions I had confirmed that I had been on the right track.

there is also value in guidance to find experience in the absence of it. We may desire to experience freedom from our woes, but may not know how. And so direction, suggestions, advice, and the wisdom of others helps us to find those things. And that, is what the value of these 'religious' texts can offer, from the Bible, to the Tao Te Ching, to the Upanishads, to the Bhagavad Gita, to any number of books that others who are sharing their own experience offers to those seeking the same.

I suppose, but that doesn't describe my life. As I said, none of those is the source of my worldview. I don't know what value this material has for others, but that would be irrelevant to my point that they were and remain of no value to me.

You have to take a greater level perspective on these things rather than simply saying "no god exists in reality, so these things mean nothing".

I didn't say that. I don't say that no god exists, nor that scripture means nothing if there is no god. I am an agnostic atheist, and what I say about scripture is that if it isn't of divine provenance, it's authors don't matter, its content is just somebody else's belief or opinion, and is subject to the principles of critical analysis - something the faithful don't do.

In reality, the State doesn't exist either.

I disagree. The term is an abstraction comprising a multitude of things that can be experienced. The January 6th insurrection happened against a state. There is no evidence that the insurrection in heaven leading to angels being cast out happened. Both are ideas, but only one refers to real events and objects.

This sabbath day law, placed in the story of creation to elevate its importance to the people, was a monumental advance in human civilization. That has been carried forwards into our work ethic in modern times, where labor unions built up this to make it a 5 day work week for the sake of society. Healthy people, healthy society.

What's your larger point? That we have religion to thank for that? That had people not begun believing in and praying to gods, we couldn't have come this far? Many including me blieve the opposite is the case.

I answered another post making similar claims a few days ago giving Christianity credit for the rise of science and the Enlightenment here. He answers me a few posts later, but I don't think he understood my argument. Just because something happens in a religious community doesn't mean that it resulted from the religious beliefs. I gave you my take on the motivation for the Sabbath. One doesn't need to have any religious belief at all to ask people to come to you with money once a week so he doesn't have to work, although the people you're exhorting usually do.

 

[viole]

Because Christians don't lie.

Many people believe in falsehoods. Probably I do, too. That does not necessarily means they lied. Lying requires a conscious knowledge that X is false, while saying it is true.

therefore, it does not include delusions, or just being wrong about something. Namely, the belief of something being false without knowing to be false.

for that reason, not being a liar does not answer the question: how do Christians know the Bible is right?

ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

Many people believe in falsehoods. Probably I do, too. That does not necessarily means they lied. Lying requires a conscious knowledge that X is false, while saying it is true.

therefore, it does not include delusions, or just being wrong about something. Namely, the belief of something being false without knowing to be false.

for that reason, not being a liar does not answer the question: how do Christians know the Bible is right?

ciao

- viole

People should know by now that it is all false.

 

[viole]

believed in Jesus as a young child and so initially believed solely because of faith in what I was taught. Later on I have looked into apologetics matter. I have heard some stories of how Jesus has worked in the modern world such as through miracles/ healing/ exorcism stories. Some of these stories came from people I knew . I have had a personal experience when I was prayed over to be filled with the Holy Spirit. I cannot comprehend how it could have been a natural phenomena. A supernatural explanation simply makes more sense to me. Through this, my faith in Christ has been bolstered.

That happens to all religions. I am fortunate enough to work with people of many cultures. And your subjective experiences are quite common. They affect my Muslim friends, and my Hindu friends. Whose faith in the respective deity is bolstered accordingly.

now, we know that Ganesh and Jesus cannot be both true, while personal experiences seem to bolster their belief.

what does it tells us, from a purely rational point of view, about the epistemological reliability of personal experiences?

ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

People should know by now that it is all false.

I think they should actually know by now that it is not even that. Only falsifiable claims deserve to belong in the category of being either true or false.

ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

I think they should actually know by now that it is not even that. Only falsifiable claims deserve to belong in the category of being either true or false.

ciao

- viole

And what of unfalsifiable claims?

 

[viole]

And what of unfalsifiable claims?

Well, that the Christian God exists, for instance. Can you falsify it?

ciao

- viole

 

[lukethethird]

Well, that the Christian God exists, for instance. Can you falsify it?

ciao

- viole

Unfalsifiable claims are just that.