Why do people believe that the New Testament is authoritative?
They've been told it is and have accepted that uncritically. They believe that a deity exists that channeled its revelation to man. Skeptics don't believe that because there is no reason to believe it and plenty of reasons not to.
what does "inspired by God" mean?
They're weasel words: "words or statements that are
intentionally ambiguous or misleading." "Inspired by" means changed from the original. It's what you say when you can no longer assert that the scriptures aren't in part or whole the words of men but want to keep the presence of a deity in the words. The problem is that if any of it isn't from a god, then none of it might be.
And even if some of the words are the words of a god, there is no test for discerning which should be viewed as such, and which can be ignored.
The Flintstones were inspired by The Honeymooners. If you're familiar with both shows, you know what aspects of the Flintstones mirror The Honeymooners, but if you only knew one, you couldn't guess what the other was like, which is the problem with using that phrase without a clear depiction of what the original, pre-inspired form was.
Suppose I told you that the Flintstones is set in prehistoric times and is about two blue collar worker who were friends and neighbors and who were married to giggly wives one of which was very cynical and the other not, and that eventually both had pets and children. How much of that comes from the Honeymooners and how much was created by Hanna-Barbera? Suppose I told you to disregard that latter part and only pay attention to the aspects that were faithful to the original. You can't. You have no reliable test to distinguish which is which if you don't have the original, unadulterated version.
The same is true with scripture. You can't tell which parts if any come from the deity.
I just saw this the other night on Jeopardy! (a rerun). These answers will illustrate what "inspired by" means:
I also believe that it contains many artificial stories intended to serve a purpose.
So do I. Several of the myths exist to reconcile the world as man finds it with the belief that it was created by an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent god. The ancients had to deal with the dilemmas such beliefs created, such as why do we not live in paradise or have immortality, or why are there so many mutually unintelligible languages in the world, or why would God drown most of the earth.
The solution was always to blame man and say he deserved these things. I believe that that is the purpose of those myths - to make God good despite so much apparent malice by making man bad and punishing him in a way that believers consider just, kind, and loving, but skeptics understand differently.
You fail to make a valid argument as to why it isn't authoritative
None is needed. The believer who claims that it should be authoritative in all lives has to make a compelling argument to those who don't agree why it is, which can then be evaluated for soundness. He has no such argument.
Man is Not headed to Peace but to the coming great tribulation of Rev. 7:14
This is one of the consequences of accepting dogma uncritically. Much of it is dark and pessimistic. It robs the believer of the joy of life. And it gives the believer reason to ignore efforts at peace or protecting the environment, for example.
Speaking of which, I got a visit from a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses not too long ago. I don't always answer the door for them, but when Ido, I am cheerful and respectful.
They were respectful as well but had a very dismal view of the state of the world and seemed to assume that anybody paying attention would as well, unaware that their opinions weren't based in experience, but rather in religious indoctrination. They seem stumped when I told them that although there are still too many people living needlessly difficult lives, there are also many living full lives - more than ever before in history. I pointed out that their lives were good living in the same tropical paradise as me and my other neighbors, where the weather is excellent, the foliage never ending, and we are safe, free, and are not suffering from privation or poverty.
They politely thanked me and left. I was stunned. It was if they had never heard that before and were disoriented upon hearing it. How sad that that had been done to them. My world was beautiful and friendly whereas theirs was horrible and going downhill quickly, yet it was the same world but experienced through different worldviews.
Jesus understood and accepted Scripture, Not through 'blind faith' (credulity) but Jesus used logical reasoning on the OT explaining and expounding Scripture for us
Uh, no. Show me some reasoning from Jesus. Show me his argument for a god or an afterlife existing. You can't - just claims at best.
So no to scripture being logical.
No to it being a reliable or authoritative source.
No to the US Constitution being based in scripture
No to science being an offshoot of Christianity because many Renaissance scientists were Christian.
And no to humanism being derived from Christian scripture.
These are all examples of Christianity trying to claim credit for itself for the blessings of non-Christian thought. Logic belongs to critical thinking and empiricism, not religious dogma.
carm.org
I may not be a Christian, but I still find the sort of remarks "we are the one true faith even though there are only 300 of us and we've only been around for 40 years" to be highly amusing.