Why believe The Bible?

[Autodidact]

Forgive me for assuming that this was not really a question about any particular geographic location, but truly a question of intellectually free choice. I was never concerned about this or that society, but with the underlying question of whether or nor birth automatically confers religious affiliation in my case.

I didn't ask that. I asked a simple yes or no question: had you been born in Saudi Arabia, would you be Muslim. You answered, "No." After being faced with the consequences of that answer, you would now like to change your answer to, "Probably yes." Let's examine the consequences of that answer.

It might go better if, instead of trying to anticipate the consequences, and answer accordingly, you just answered honestly. I think that has a better chance of helping us get at the truth, don't you?

Your point was obviously never specific to Saudi Arabia, but was was cited as an excessive example in the first place, given the present state of religious freedoms there. You couldn't possibly consider statistics on religious membership in such a state to indicate trends with much meaning for a person living in Canadian or American society- your original usage of this example seemed to employ hyperbole in the first place.

It was an example. In fact, that would probably be a good illustration of actual hyperbole, using an extreme example, rather than your answer, which was simple lying. Canada is a different example, which we're trying to look at now. Each of them has its own implications, but until you determine the facts, you have no chance of contemplating their implications.

Now would you answer my questions about Canada and other similar countries? It's rather annoying having to specifically ask for you to answer each question, and IMO rather rude of you to make me do so. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Ofcourse you reject LORD JESUS CHRIST otherwise you would repent for your sins and live obediantly to all that he has commanded.

That's silly. Do you reject LORD KRISHNA? How about LORD SPAGHETTI MONSTER? I don't believe there is a LORD JESUS CHRIST. See the difference?

Now that is silly, a plumber coming to your home has nothing to do with the truth of GOD.

It does if he's not trustworthy.

you should check their refferences before you have any work done in you house to make sure they are reputable just like when a Christian tells about the bible you should check with the scripture to make sure what they are saying is reputable.

Wouldn't it be easier just to make sure never to employ any plumbers-who-call-themselves-Christian?

I don't see how I am not anwsering you.

Really? I'll try to make it clear. See below.

you keep asking how do you know that I am a Christian.

No, I don't.

And I can only tell you do not take my word for it, my word is meaningless all that matters is the truth that GOD has given in scripture notthing added nothing taken away.

I see. I'll bear that in mind. Does that go for everyone-who-calls-themselves-Christian then? It's kind of pointless to talk to you if your word is meaningless. Mine certainly isn't. You can rely on anything I say, and ask for references if you ever have reason to doubt any fact that I cite. If I'm wrong, I will retract.

No, I didn't ask that, not once. Please try to follow along. YOU say that most people who say they're Christian really aren't. (1) Is that correct? (2) So most people-who-say-they're-Christian are either lying or delusional right? (3) So it would be wise of me not to trust anything that any P.W.S.T.C. says, right?

(4) Including you, right?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Let's take a secular society, such as Canada, the U.S. or Western Europe. There are people of various religious faiths in all of these places. For people who grow up in these countries, what do you think the pattern is?

My question to you is about the methodology involved in gathering these statistics. Do they consider to what extent, for the individual, the conditions that I set out above are fulfilled? Not every person experiences secular society in the same way or experiences it as secular to the same extent. If Mormons tend to stay Mormons, what is the nature and level of dominance of a distinguishably Mormon sub-culture? What extent of Mormons inhabit this culture? For the people who persist in the religious identity of their birth, does abandoning this faith damage their sense of agency? What are the statistics for the persistence of a Christian identity among different denominations, say for example, the most liberal of Protestant churches and communities, where one might argue the greatest headway of secular ideals has been made?

Do these statistics examine the relationship of religious membership to other memberships, both familial and cultural?

These are some basic and pre-liminary considerations neccessary for interpretive application of raw data.

You originally set this in a global context, which we can see for obvious reasons is insufficient. You have now shifted it to a solely Western context- but there are also varieties of secularism and experiences within that, both sub-culturally and individually.

 

[Autodidact]

My question to you is about the methodology involved in gathering these statistics.

What statistics? I asked you a question. What do you think? Do you think that a person growing up in a secular country is MORE or LESS likely to follow the religion of their family of birth?

Do they consider to what extent, for the individual, the conditions that I set out above are fulfilled? Not every person experiences secular society in the same way or experiences it as secular to the same extent. If Mormons tend to stay Mormons, what is the nature and level of dominance of a distinguishably Mormon sub-culture? What extent of Mormons inhabit this culture? For the people who persist in the religious identity of their birth, does abandoning this faith damage their sense of agency? What are the statistics for the persistence of a Christian identity amng the most liberal of Protestant churches and communities, where one might argue the greatest headway of secular ideals has been made?

Who is "they?" Before we get all fancy, let's get some really basic facts established, O.K.? I mean, it took about 5 pages to establish the simple fact that, had you been born in Saudi Arabia, you would be Muslim today. Now can we move along to fact #2?

Do these statistics examine the relationship of religious membership to other memberships, both familial and cultural?

What statistics are you talking about? Did I cite any statistics?

These are some basic and pre-liminary considerations neccessary for interpretive application of raw data.

Can we get some raw data, before we try to interpret it?

You originally set this in a global context, which we can see for obvious reasons is insufficient. You have now shifted it to a solely Western context- but there are also varieties of secularism and experiences within that, both sub-culturally and individually.

It all helps illuminate things. You objected to a global perspective, so now we're trying for a Western one. I am shifting in response to your request, Jordan. Yes, I'm sure there are many variations. Now, as I was saying (possibly for the 4th time) do you think someone born in a secular, Western country, is MORE or LESS likely to adhere to the religion of their birth?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Isn't this whole discussion based on general trends, based on statistics that you claim to have knowledge of?

do you think someone born in a secular, Western country, is MORE or LESS likely to adhere to the religion of their birth?

What do you mean by adhere? Is nominal adherence sufficient? Is Church attendence adaquate? Is it mere profession of belief?

It is probably true that most people born into a religion will identify with it in adulthood were they to be asked for a survey. This is not neccessarily sufficient for our purposes as to how significant my home-life is for my present religious affiliation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The first condition is that I navigate through an onstenibly secular personal culture. I want to avoid making too broad a statement about Canadian culture than I have to, hence the word "personal" is there to indicate that in my location in Canadian society the following has been my experience. Though I think there are probably good reasons to extend what I am saying to Canadian culture at large. In my situation there was not a very strong Christian sub-culture, and certainly not Catholic, like I believe there may be in the United States which allows many Christians to ciphon themselves off with their fellow Christian Americans. In Canada we tend not to have the kind of ACLU v. the city hall Christmas tree scenarios. The abortion debate is quite over and our Prime Minister wouldn't talk about God in a national address. I just want to bring attention to the fact that my Canadian experience might be different than yours in America.

Secondly, even though I attended a Catholic highschool, it was quite diverse. I would say the majority of students were non-believers, at least certainly of my friends, and there were many Muslims (also among my friends) and members of other faiths. World religions was a mandatory course. The attitude towards religion was so apathetic in general that we had to sign a contract stating that we would take the class seriously.

A point of clarification: could the fact that many of your classmates at your Catholic high school were non-believers have anything to do with the fact that Catholic schools are government-funded and subsidized on an equal footing with the normal public school system in most parts of Canada, and therefore there was no significant tuition or other barrier that might stop an irreligious student from attending a Catholic school?

Ostensibly secular indeed.

I have been at a secular university for nearly four years now. The study of religion and culture is not, by any means, theology and questions of God are bracketed. Nearly all of my close friends, for many years, are agnostic and some atheist. In many ways I still feel as though I practice the faith on my own.

I went to a secular university, the University of Waterloo. On this "secular" campus, along with the normal faculties of Arts, Science, Engineering and the like, we had schools and colleges affiliated with:

- the Roman Catholic Church
- the Mennonite Church
- the Anglican Church of Canada
- the United Church of Canada

Each of these offered religious instruction, a residence, and a community of generally like-minded people that a student could choose to be immersed in while studying either within the religious college itself or on the larger campus in a non-religious program. At least in Ontario (there area I'm most familiar with), similar religious experiences are offered at most universities, though the denominations that each one caters to do vary a bit from school to school.

I'd say that if you found yourself isolated in your faith, it was probably a result of your own choices and not a necessary feature of Canadian society or our education system.

 

[Autodidact]

Isn't this whole discussion based on general trends, based on statistics that you claim to have knowledge of?

? I asked you a question--what do you think the statistics would say? If necessary as if we disagree, I can research and find out.

What do you mean by adhere? Is nominal adherence sufficient? Is Church attendence adaquate? Is it mere profession of belief?

Whatever you mean. In the same sense as you are Catholic, that is.

It is probably true that most people born into a religion will identify with it in adulthood were they to be asked for a survey. This is not neccessarily sufficient for our purposes as to how significant my home-life is for my present religious affiliation.

Well, you're only an example too. O.K., it looks like we don't need to do any research, as we are in agreement. I think what we've established so far is:

A person is more likely to subscribe to a religion if they grow up in a country where that religion predominates.
A person is more likely to subscribe to a religion if they are raised in a family where that religion is taught.
The more someone's environment is dominated by a given religious belief, the more a person raised in that environment is likely to subscribe to that religion.

Would you agree with all of that?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

A person is more likely to subscribe to a religion if they grow up in a country where that religion predominates.
A person is more likely to subscribe to a religion if they are raised in a family where that religion is taught.
The more someone's environment is dominated by a given religious belief, the more a person raised in that environment is likely to subscribe to that religion.

This I never disagreed with. I would say the above is also true for a whole host of other issues beyond religion. I only disagreed with assessing the religion of my upbringing as an essential reason for my current religious practice. It may be an essential reason why many other people surface in national statistics as one religion or another. I was never arguing against the trends as you laid them out, only arguing against their certain application to myself.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

A point of clarification: could the fact that many of your classmates at your Catholic high school were non-believers have anything to do with the fact that Catholic schools are government-funded and subsidized on an equal footing with the normal public school system in most parts of Canada, and therefore there was no significant tuition or other barrier that might stop an irreligious student from attending a Catholic school?

That's probably a great deal of it. I would say for this reason, many Catholic high schools are really only nominally Catholic. It was my religion teacher, for example, who introduced me to the historical critical method and told me that Jesus never understood himself as God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's probably a great deal of it. I would say for this reason, many Catholic high schools are really only nominally Catholic.

Right... so the dilution of the Catholic-ness of your education comes from a lack of societal (or at least governmental) secularism, not an excess of it.

It was my religion teacher, for example, who introduced me to the historical critical method and told me that Jesus never understood himself as God.

Though the fact that you were having a discussion of Jesus' opinions in a religion class in the first place tells me that it wasn't exactly a secular experience.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I went to a secular university, the University of Waterloo. On this "secular" campus, along with the normal faculties of Arts, Science, Engineering and the like, we had schools and colleges affiliated with:

- the Roman Catholic Church
- the Mennonite Church
- the Anglican Church of Canada
- the United Church of Canada

Each of these offered religious instruction, a residence, and a community of generally like-minded people that a student could choose to be immersed in while studying either within the religious college itself or on the larger campus in a non-religious program. At least in Ontario (there area I'm most familiar with), similar religious experiences are offered at most universities, though the denominations that each one caters to do vary a bit from school to school.

I'd say that if you found yourself isolated in your faith, it was probably a result of your own choices and not a necessary feature of Canadian society or our education system.

Hey! I'm at your "highschool down the street", Wilfrid Laurier. We don't have any such residences, though we do have a Lutheran seminary, but I know what you're talking about - St. Jerome's and Conrad Grebel.

You're perfectly right regarding my choices, which is I why pre-cautioned my statements above about trying not to speak too generally about Canadian culture. Though I do believe Canadian secularism has a different flavor than America. Because I returned to Catholicism relatively late in my university career I have never made use of any these options that you detailed. As I stated before my program is the study of religion, not of God, so the approach is quite different than what one would find at the seminary or Conrad Grebel.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Secularism isn't defined by the absence of religion- its defined by the state's relationship to religion (that is, one of general neutrality, allowing a multiplicity of options to flourish). France, for example, indirectly funds private religious schools.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey! I'm at your "highschool down the street", Wilfrid Laurier.

Cool. Some of my friends went to Laurier. I also lived across the street from WLU for a term - on Albert one house south of the Sigma Chi frat house, if you're curious.

We don't have any such residences, though we do have a Lutheran seminary, but I know what you're talking about - St. Jerome's and Conrad Grebel.

Yup. The other ones I referred to were Renison and St. Paul's.

You're perfectly right regarding my choices, which is I why pre-cautioned my statements above about trying not to speak too generally about Canadian culture. Though I do believe Canadian secularism has a different flavor than America. Because I returned to Catholicism relatively late in my university career I have never made use of any these options that you detailed. As I stated before my program is the study of religion, not of God, so the approach is quite different than what one would find at the seminary or Conrad Grebel.

Okay, but there was probably a fair bit of random luck that led you to this situation, right? I mean, if you had chosen Waterloo, U of T, or any number of other area schools, there would be a Catholic college on campus.

Also, Laurier does have a Catholic Students Association, doesn't it?

What I mean is, in Canada, you can make choices to generally avoid religion if you want to, but it's not like any religion is really kept from you or hidden away.

Secularism isn't defined by the absence of religion- its defined by the state's relationship to religion (that is, one of general neutrality, allowing a multiplicity of options to flourish). France, for example, indirectly funds private religious schools.

And in Canada, the government directly funds schools associated with only one* religion. Many town council meetings start with the Lord's Prayer. We may not have "faith-based initiatives" like the US, but IMO, we're rather far from a fully secular society.

*IIRC, Quebec no longer funds Protestant separate schools, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Luminous]

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

Is there really any other reason for believing anything?

Yeah Obama is not going to bring change, Sarah was.

 

[drs]

That's silly. Do you reject LORD KRISHNA? How about LORD SPAGHETTI MONSTER? I don't believe there is a LORD JESUS CHRIST. See the difference?


Just because you don't believe that does not change the truth.
not believing in LORD JESUS CHRIST means you are condemned already.
read this scripture.

John 3

16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. 17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. 21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”



It does if he's not trustworthy.

Wouldn't it be easier just to make sure never to employ any plumbers-who-call-themselves-Christian?

if you go by that standing you should not ley anyone at all in your house.



Really? I'll try to make it clear. See below.


No, I don't.

I see. I'll bear that in mind. Does that go for everyone-who-calls-themselves-Christian then? It's kind of pointless to talk to you if your word is meaningless. Mine certainly isn't. You can rely on anything I say, and ask for references if you ever have reason to doubt any fact that I cite. If I'm wrong, I will retract.


again you don't understand, your word is meaningless too because you are not GOD and your opinion of right and wrong, truth and untruth is useless.

So instead of me speaking of myself I bring you the word of GOD which holds all truth.

No, I didn't ask that, not once. Please try to follow along. YOU say that most people who say they're Christian really aren't. (1) Is that correct? (2) So most people-who-say-they're-Christian are either lying or delusional right? (3) So it would be wise of me not to trust anything that any P.W.S.T.C. says, right?

(4) Including you, right?

again I tell you the only refference I gave to those that are not truly Christian is this scripture which says many.
I Never Knew You


21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’




If you were of GOD you would here his voice .



John 10

The Shepherd Knows His Sheep



22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. 23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. 24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.”
25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.[b] 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

 

[Autodidact]

This I never disagreed with. I would say the above is also true for a whole host of other issues beyond religion. I only disagreed with assessing the religion of my upbringing as an essential reason for my current religious practice. It may be an essential reason why many other people surface in national statistics as one religion or another. I was never arguing against the trends as you laid them out, only arguing against their certain application to myself.

O.K., now, as I've asked you about three times now, all those Mormons, Muslims and so forth, who were raised in their religion and still belong to it--do you think they objectively chose their beliefs after examining all the options, and made the most logical conclusion, or do you think that their upbringing was a major factor in determining their religious beliefs?

 

[Autodidact]

drs: You are rudely ignoring my questions. I didn't ask what scriptural test, or whatever. I'm accepting what you're saying. Most people who say they're Christian really aren't. I don't need to know how to tell the real ones from the fake--we'll get to that later. I'm asking you to now move on and draw some conclusions from that. If most people who say they are Christians really aren't, then doesn't it follow that I should be extremely suspicious of most people who call themselves Christian? *is tired of asking the same question over and over without getting an answer*

 

[drs]

suspicious in what way?

 

[Autodidact]

Suspicious that they don't tell the truth, obviously.

 

[drs]

Suspicious that they don't tell the truth, obviously.

I don't want there to any mistake are you talking about the truth in the bible or just telling lies ?