Why believe The Bible?

[Dunemeister]

I think people are looking for acceptance and also understanding of the unknown, they were brought into a society where everyone reads that particular holy book and therefor it must be acceptable information, though they might take it all with a grain of salt and rationalize it, skipping over inconsistencies and contradictions, but it also provides a community and familiarity, where a set of doctrines and traditions are followed (more or less) by everyone. I don't think for the majority of the worlds population that their preference in religion is based on comparison of any sorts with other religions or secularism, and becoming secularist is probably a much harder process for people in a more religious oriented family, where as switching religions is probably easier, and usually it seems that people switch based on the philosophies of another religion not how more believable one is over the other.

This is one of the most paternalistic and condescending paragraphs I've ever read.

 

[doppelganger]

This is one of the most paternalistic and condescending paragraphs I've ever read.

What do you consider "paternalistic" about it?

 

[lamplighter]

This is one of the most paternalistic and condescending paragraphs I've ever read.

What's so condescending about it?

 

[Autodidact]

I haven't made a comparison of any depth. Nevertheless, I'm convinced of the authority of the Christian canon for reasons that fall in the categories I described earlier. I won't bother to rehearse them because someone who is not already inclined to believe them probably won't. It's also fair comment that I became convinced of the authority of the Christian canon during the process of my conversion to Christianity. Since my conversion, I have had plenty of good reason and many opportunities (which I have taken) to re-examine my commitment.

Well that begs the question, then, doesn't it? I mean, you're advocating that believers do their homework, but you yourself haven't done even the most basic homework. You claim that there is historical support for the Bible as a first century document (although little of it dates from that period)--can you tell us what that is? You claim that prophecies have been fulfilled, but have no clue whether the Q'uran or the Book of Mormon has more, less, or the same number of allegedly fulfilled prophecies.

I'll make a wild guess that what actually happened is NOT that you did a scholarly study of the Bible and its historical support and objectively fulfilled prophecies, but rather that you had an emotionally satisfying experience in which you felt a beneficial connection to Jesus/God, and then went back and patched together some historical or prophetical support for your new belief. Am I right?

 

[Paintanker]

What is relevant is the state of your understanding. So, for example, you assertwhen you obviously lack the most minimal knowledge required to make your opinion at all credible. Perhaps you should learn before presuming to instruct ...

I was raised Roman Catholic, thus my jewish skills are a bit rusty.

Although I am not a theologist, nor do I try to be, my view points are valid and my questions hold merit. All I say is that a man should not believe something without reason, and it doesn't take a Ph.D to figure that out.

 

[Paintanker]

Well that begs the question, then, doesn't it? I mean, you're advocating that believers do their homework, but you yourself haven't done even the most basic homework. You claim that there is historical support for the Bible as a first century document (although little of it dates from that period)--can you tell us what that is? You claim that prophecies have been fulfilled, but have no clue whether the Q'uran or the Book of Mormon has more, less, or the same number of allegedly fulfilled prophecies.

I'll make a wild guess that what actually happened is NOT that you did a scholarly study of the Bible and its historical support and objectively fulfilled prophecies, but rather that you had an emotionally satisfying experience in which you felt a beneficial connection to Jesus/God, and then went back and patched together some historical or prophetical support for your new belief. Am I right?

Hey, let's not make this personal. Most people haven't committed themselves to indepth study of the Bible, but such study isn't necessary as long as one understands the basic principles of the Bible, and what the Bible is.

Each man may have his own oppinions, we have no right to tell him they're wrong, but what we do have is the right to question them.

 

[Autodidact]

Hey, let's not make this personal. Most people haven't committed themselves to indepth study of the Bible, but such study isn't necessary as long as one understands the basic principles of the Bible, and what the Bible is.

Well if they're going to believe it, and base their life on it, shouldn't they have a good reason to do so? btw, what are the "principles of the Bible?"

Each man may have his own oppinions, we have no right to tell him they're wrong, but what we do have is the right to question them.

Sure I do. If I think someone's wrong, I go like this: "You're wrong." That's well within my rights. It's not even discourteous. Now if I said, "You're dumb," that would be discourteous.

 

[Arlanbb]

I will have to vote for what DOPPELGANGER in post # 20 has to say. He couldn't be more true.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, we can aggree there. The bible is accurate historically in some parts, that is as fact as it can get. But just to clarify my original point, the Bible's word is not law, and much of what is in it is not known for certain to be true, especially those accounts which don't talk about the same time period as the time in which they were written (i.e. genisis, future prophecies, etc.)

Which parts are historically accurate?

 

[Autodidact]

And which ones talk about the time period in which they were written? Not the gospels, that's pretty well established.

 

[Paintanker]

Well if they're going to believe it, and base their life on it, shouldn't they have a good reason to do so? btw, what are the "principles of the Bible?".

For your first question: fine, start another thread. Mine talks about the Bible

What are the principles of the Bible? Fundamentally, there are only 2 in any religion: 1) worship the diety(-ies) of the religion; 2) Be a good person

Sure I do. If I think someone's wrong, I go like this: "You're wrong." That's well within my rights.

If you think someone's wrong, that doesn't mean that he is wrong. Sure it's in your rights to say whatever you want, but I wasn't talking about human rights, I was talking about the rights you have as a valid oppinion, and if you are going to come in here and tell people that they are WRONG without having died and seen that there is no God yourself, then your oppinion has lost my support for one.

And many claim religious folk to be the close minded ones.

 

[Paintanker]

Which parts are historically accurate?

There are many parts of the Bible which are historically accurate. A lot of people may say "well you weren't there, how do you know?" So I'll give you one so obvious and broad that i doubt you'll refute it. Are you ready for this shock? It's really exciting!!!

Romans occupied Jeruselem and various other areas told of in the new testimate.

... I know, where do I keep all my knowledge, right?

The point is, even if you debate the little things, the Bible does show itself to atleast have some stuff right, especially things that were common to everyone (since it was meant to be read during the period in which it was written) like government, daily life, and customs.

 

[Autodidact]

For your first question: fine, start another thread. Mine talks about the Bible

So is mine. My questions is the same as the OP: why believe the Bible, in particular, as opposed to any other holy book.

What are the principles of the Bible? Fundamentally, there are only 2 in any religion: 1) worship the diety(-ies) of the religion; 2) Be a good person

O.K., then would the Bible be evidence that that deity exists and should be worshipped?

If you think someone's wrong, that doesn't mean that he is wrong.

Of course. I could be wrong. If so, I would hope you would point that out.

Sure it's in your rights to say whatever you want, but I wasn't talking about human rights, I was talking about the rights you have as a valid oppinion, and if you are going to come in here and tell people that they are WRONG without having died and seen that there is no God yourself, then your oppinion has lost my support for one.

Isn't that what discussion is for? To air out conflicting opinions? That's what we go through the process of discussion for. Is it your view that the only way to find out whether there is a God is to die? No hope at all for figuring that out while we're alive then?

And many claim religious folk to be the close minded ones.

Disagreeing with someone is not at all the same as being close-minded. If you think I'm wrong, please show me how. If I think you're wrong, I will try to show you how, and why. In that process, we may have some hope of figuring out the answer. All opinions are NOT equally valid or correct.

 

[Autodidact]

There are many parts of the Bible which are historically accurate. A lot of people may say "well you weren't there, how do you know?" So I'll give you one so obvious and broad that i doubt you'll refute it. Are you ready for this shock? It's really exciting!!!

Romans occupied Jeruselem and various other areas told of in the new testimate.

... I know, where do I keep all my knowledge, right?

The point is, even if you debate the little things, the Bible does show itself to atleast have some stuff right, especially things that were common to everyone (since it was meant to be read during the period in which it was written) like government, daily life, and customs.

Yes, it's true that Romans occupied Jerusalem, but that's not a very important or controversial Biblical claim, is it? Or, as some say, Sherman conquered Atlanta, but that doesn't make Scarlett O'Hara real. I doubt that anyone would dispute that. How about something that the Bible claims that is the basis of Christianity, and which other believers do not necessarily accept, such as that Jesus is God?

 

[DallasApple]

I believe Jesus...personally..

And he is "in " the Bible..

The rest of it??...

Is very (quite a bit of it)... is not so Jesus like...

Love

Dallas

 

[Autodidact]

But Jesus didn't write any of the Bible, did he Dallas?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are many parts of the Bible which are historically accurate. A lot of people may say "well you weren't there, how do you know?" So I'll give you one so obvious and broad that i doubt you'll refute it. Are you ready for this shock? It's really exciting!!!

Romans occupied Jeruselem and various other areas told of in the new testimate.

... I know, where do I keep all my knowledge, right?

The point is, even if you debate the little things, the Bible does show itself to atleast have some stuff right, especially things that were common to everyone (since it was meant to be read during the period in which it was written) like government, daily life, and customs.

To a point, though. Sure, nobody would question that Judea was a Roman territory, but what about the more salient points in terms of theology? For example:

- the Jewish exodus from Egypt
- the various battles of the Old Testament
- the existence of Nazareth in the first century BC
- Herod's slaughter of the infant boys of Judea
- a census ordered by Caesar Augustus requiring all Jews to return to their ancestral hometowns to be counted

I'm not even talking about the key questions like "did Jesus exist?" or "did God really give Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai?" Just looking at the peripheral (but necessary) events in the Bible, which ones do you consider to be historically accurate?

 

[Paintanker]

Autodidact, that's not what you were saying before. You were just coming out and saying people were wrong, not that their oppinion was valid but you believed they were wrong. Yes, this is a place to throw oppinions against those of others, and if that's what you are doing fine.

 

[Paintanker]

Yes, it's true that Romans occupied Jerusalem, but that's not a very important or controversial Biblical claim, is it? Or, as some say, Sherman conquered Atlanta, but that doesn't make Scarlett O'Hara real. I doubt that anyone would dispute that. How about something that the Bible claims that is the basis of Christianity, and which other believers do not necessarily accept, such as that Jesus is God?

Those are the things that I don't think the Bible factually represents. I was merely before agreeing that the entire Bible is not nonsense, many things in it, historical things, are valid. Things that deal with the religious aspect of it that cannot be proven but require faith, those are the things I question.

 

[Paintanker]

To a point, though. Sure, nobody would question that Judea was a Roman territory, but what about the more salient points in terms of theology? For example:

- the Jewish exodus from Egypt
- the various battles of the Old Testament
- the existence of Nazareth in the first century BC
- Herod's slaughter of the infant boys of Judea
- a census ordered by Caesar Augustus requiring all Jews to return to their ancestral hometowns to be counted

I'm not even talking about the key questions like "did Jesus exist?" or "did God really give Moses the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai?" Just looking at the peripheral (but necessary) events in the Bible, which ones do you consider to be historically accurate?

I don't know, however if one were to find other texts, UNRELATED to the Bible, that narrated the same events, I would take that to mean that something along those lines happened, or atleast that many people percieved those things to happen.