Why believe The Bible?

[boristhescot]

Autodidact, before you can put more words in my mouth let me restate my argument as clearly as I am able. I think many Atheists call themselves Atheists so they can appear intellectual. I think many Bhuddists call themselves Bhuddist so they can appear enlightened. I think many Paganists call themselves Paganists so they can appear rebellious. I think many Christians call themselves Christians so they can appear morally superior. Does it make them more distrustful than their neighbor? I don't think so.
But giving yourself a title does not make you a good person. Calling yourself a Bhuddist does not make you more enlightened. Calling yourself an Atheist does not make you more intellectual. And saying a ten second prayer to Jesus does not make you a moral person. I have a problem with those that think it does.
So yes there are a lot of people who claim to be Christian that aren't (in my opinion) what constitutes being a Christian. Many of have little knowledge of their scripture or Christ's teachings. All they know is they said a prayer and now they're going to heaven no matter what. Are they bad people? No, not at all.
I have met several people who claim Atheism who would be better described as Agnostic. Were they being dishonest? No they just didn't understand what the title implied.
So in answer to your question, "So a lot of people-who-call-themselves-Christian are either liars or self-deluded, right?" I would say they are either ill informed as to what the name implies or self-deluded.
And to, "So as soon as someone tells me they're Christian, I should be suspicious of them, right?" Only if you are suspicious of everybody else who identifies with a particular belief.
But again I say that there are so many good, honest people that are just trying to get by whether they claim religion or not. There really is no need to be critical of a particular set of beliefs. I love reading other religious texts because they add to what I understand. If you want to know what a Christian should be, don't ask a Christian, read the Bible. If you want to know what a Muslim should be, don't ask a Muslim, read the Quran.
Regardless you should trust a person based on what he is, not what he claims to be. They may be deluded or just poorly taught, but I really don't think they are trying to deceive.
I hope my argument was clear enough for you.

 

[Kcnorwood]

LORD JESUS CHRIST says so, it is him you should believe not me.

He's never said anything only man there is not one word in the bible that has been proved that God said anything. Same for Jesus man said those things not God. So your putting your trust in man telling you this.

 

[Autodidact]

boris: Yes, I understand what you are saying. It's not a statement about Christians, but about everyone, or most people.

However, one can be both atheist and agnostic; it's even possible to be theist and agnostic. Agnostic is really a statement about what can be known, while (a)theism is a statement about belief. I repeat that I have never met an atheist who believes that there is a God. So I don't think your statement does much apply to atheists.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

It is not the bible which is the word of God , it is "the good news" which is. The bible speaks of the word as you or I would say," the word is out about such and such..." The bible states in the Acts, chapter 14:5,7,44,46,and 49, that they preached the word of God. The bible (with OT & NT) was not yet developed until the later half of the 4th century. Then, only the heirarchy could gain access to the bible and less that thirty were made. In the 16th century, only church leaders could have access to the bible such as bishops, preists, etc... Then came the King James bible. Which, most people don't realise this, but, still many, many people had no access to the scriptures. It wasn't until the 18th century that almost everyone had a bible. Still we then(and now) have (too) many different translations of the bible. Which, in my studies, has caused many problems over the years.
If you please, take an area of the bible, hand-write it down on a sheet of paper, and continue copying this until the 3rd or 4th one. Look at the last one and compare it to the first. Now, translate the last into a different language. And then into another. Afterthis is complete, you will have a twisted version of that part of your bible. And it never comes out well. You do not have to do this to realise that the bible is easily misinterpreted, not even by people,but by a system!

 

[Kcnorwood]

It is not the bible which is the word of God , it is "the good news" which is. The bible speaks of the word as you or I would say," the word is out about such and such..." The bible states in the Acts, chapter 14:5,7,44,46,and 49, that they preached the word of God. The bible (with OT & NT) was not yet developed until the later half of the 4th century. Then, only the heirarchy could gain access to the bible and less that thirty were made. In the 16th century, only church leaders could have access to the bible such as bishops, preists, etc... Then came the King James bible. Which, most people don't realise this, but, still many, many people had no access to the scriptures. It wasn't until the 18th century that almost everyone had a bible. Still we then(and now) have (too) many different translations of the bible. Which, in my studies, has caused many problems over the years.
If you please, take an area of the bible, hand-write it down on a sheet of paper, and continue copying this until the 3rd or 4th one. Look at the last one and compare it to the first. Now, translate the last into a different language. And then into another. Afterthis is complete, you will have a twisted version of that part of your bible. And it never comes out well. You do not have to do this to realise that the bible is easily misinterpreted, not even by people,but by a system!

Regardless of which version of the bible you read it's all written by man.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

Regardless of which version of the bible you read it's all written by man.

Kcnorwood: I agree with you and I think we don't need the bible.
We just need to concentrate on supressing the views of these evangelical parasites.

 

[Wandered Off]

We just need to concentrate on supressing the views of these evangelical parasites.

I think confronting views openly is always better than suppression. Better to expose absurdity than to give others a persecution complex in which many revel.

 

[Magic Man]

For the same reason people believe Obama is going to bring "Change." They want to believe it.

And because he's going to bring change. It might not turn out to be the best change, but it's not going to be the same old thing. He might turn out to be as bad as Bush, but at least in a different way.

Is there really any other reason for believing anything?

Yes. Evidence.

 

[ayani]

Pain ~

faith in the Bible as the Word of God went in a few stages for me.

i came to Christian faith from another religion. it took a long while, but the doors opened in such a way that i was able to really ask quesions, and recieve answers. upon doing so i believed, deeply and immediately, that Jesus of Nazaeth is the Son of God in a real, meaningful, and spiritually significant way, and began to live a new life as a follower of Jesus.

i believe that the Gospel narratives contain accurate descriptions of what He did and said. He stated clearly that the miracles He worked were not magic tricks or by His own power, but by the power and Spirit of God working through Him. i believe Him. extra-Biblical sources also report that a Jewish rabbi named Jesus / Yeshua from Judea who had remarkable powers of healing was crucified by Roman authorities, and reported to be raised from the dead by His followers.

now, Jesus quotes Genesis (Matthew 19:5) at a crucial passage that comes right after and relates directly to the creation story. that fact kind of opened my eyes. as a person who believes that Jesus is from God and of God, and is essentially who God wants us to know and follow, it is reasonable to believe that what Jesus says about God is true. when doing so, Jesus refers to Genesis, to Abraham, to Moses, to the prophets. He refers frequently to the entire Torah and to those Biblical books beyond the first five.

if there wasn't something inherently wrong or broken in us spiritually, Jesus would not need to come. we could understand God on our own, know Him, walk with Him, and have a real and meaningful relationship with the God who made us on our own. but we can't.

at best, without Christ, the best i could do was to assume a kind of pantheistic philosophy. yet i still blurted out "thank God!" when something great happened, indicative of a belief in a willful, merciful God who knew something of our predicaments and was responding with grace in a personal way to remedy the situation.

the Bible chronicals God's interactions with humanity throughout history. not all of humanity, but specifically the people whom he chose to know Him and walk with Him, and to share His name and person with the world- the Hebrews. the Bible points to the coming Messiah, through whom all peoples could know of God personally, and details the life, teachings, doings, death, and resurrection of that Messiah. included are letters written by apostles of Jesus, inspired by the Spirit of God, on how those having faith in the Messiah should believe, live, and interact with one another.

the Bible is remarkable on a number of levels- historicity, prophecy, bredth of scope, and consistency of message over several thousands of years via several authors. the Bible is not a metaphysical elaboration on God's general attributes or qualities. it's not solely a collection of hymns / devotionals. it's about God's willful and purposeful hand in history, and archeology confirms what the Bible reports. these places and people really existed.

Jesus' historicity and record were my own starting points for examining the relaibility of the rest of the Bible.

 

[Kcnorwood]

Pain ~

Faith in the Bible as the Word of God went in a few stages for me.

As a Druid I understand faith but to call the bible the word of God when there is nothing to back it is what I don't understand. As I've said before putting your faith in a book where your immortal soul is at stake is something I'll never get nor understand.

 

[ayani]

As a Druid I understand faith but to call the bible the word of God when there is nothing to back it is what I don't understand. As I've said before putting your faith in a book where your immortal soul is at stake is something I'll never get nor understand.

hey Wood ~

actually, there's a lot to back it up.

like i said, faith in the Bible began for me with faith that Jesus of Nazareth was from God and of God. that the miracles He did came from God's own power, in Him, and working through Him.

it didn't begin with faith in a text or in a collection of chapters. it began with faith in a Living Man, and the Biblical tesimonies concerning Him. based upon that, i began to examine Christ's recored words, and looked back into the OT to see what, exacly, he was referencing and talking about.

do i believe Jesus is from God and speaks the truth about His Father? yes. so do i believe the other things Jesus says concerning His Father's role in human history, and the prophecies He inspired men with, which point to the Messiah? yes.

so for me, i worked backwards, starting with faith in Christ as God's unique Son.

it's not faith in a book that takes center sage, Wood. many, many people have been compelled to believe in and follow Christ withut having ever read / studied a Bible. the Bible contains God's Word, yet Christ Himself is the Living Word. does that mean a Christian does not need the Bible? absolutely not- i feel that a Christian should read God's word faithfully and daily. what i'm saying is that it's not te book i first believed in, nor did the book save me- it's the Man.

 

[Kcnorwood]

hey Wood ~
it's not faith in a book that takes center sage, Wood. many, many people have been compelled to believe in and follow Christ withut having ever read / studied a Bible. the Bible contains God's Word, yet Christ Himself is the Living Word. does that mean a Christian does not need the Bible? absolutely not- i feel that a Christian should read God's word faithfully and daily. what i'm saying is that it's not te book i first believed in, nor did the book save me- it's the Man.

That I get the book I don't. thanks.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

No one reads out-dated science books, and other books with multiple inconsitencies!
So, why treat the bible differently?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No one reads out-dated science books, and other books with multiple inconsitencies!
So, why treat the bible differently?

Because mythology is ageless.

 

[Kcnorwood]

No one reads out-dated science books, and other books with multiple inconsitencies!
So, why treat the bible differently?

The bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man. It's said that God inspired man to write it..... so says man. There is no way to prove that it was inspired by God.. just man & his say so.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

The bible is supposed to be the word of God written by man. It's said that God inspired man to write it..... so says man. There is no way to prove that it was inspired by God.. just man & his say so.

It's not the bible that is the word of God. It is "The Good News", that the bible displays many times. The Good News is God's word out to people(Jesus is the savior), not the bible.
This is seen in the Acts for instance. The ancient Greek manuscripts state "word of God", and the writer could not have possibly owned an OT/NT bible.(The bible that people have today was supposedly completed in the latter half of the 4th century)

Acts ch.14 and other places in the NT show this to be true.

 

[lunamoth]

It's not the bible that is the word of God. It is "The Good News", that the bible displays many times. The good News is God's word out to people, not the bible.
This is seen in the Acts for instance. The ancient Greek manuscripts state word of God, and the writer could not have possibly had an OT/NT bible.

Acts ch.14 and other places in the NT.

What is the good news?

And, not to take the thread off-topic too much, what is an objectivist? Is this Ayn Rand?

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

What is the good news?

And, not to take the thread off-topic too much, what is an objectivist? Is this Ayn Rand?

Yes. If you have played BIOSHOCK before than my beliefs are congruent to that of Andrew Ryan's. The "Good News" that the bible is speaking of is the ideology that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins and that he is, the "savior". I have studied much of the bible and I find it funny that not many people will see this.


I do not use the bible. I study it to debate and talk with people about it.

 

[ThuggishSplicer]

YouTube - Bioshock - Best of Andrew Ryan

 

[lunamoth]

Yes. If you have played BIOSHOCK before than my beliefs are congruent to that of Andrew Ryan's. The "Good News" that the bible is speaking of is the ideology that Jesus died on the cross to save us from our sins and that he is, the "savior". I have studied much of the bible and I find it funny that not many people will see this.


I do not use the bible. I study it to debate and talk with people about it.

How would you know about that good news if it were not recorded in the Bible? Seems like a catch-22. You know the good news from the Bible, but you don't need the Bible to know the good news?