Why the bible?

[Syd the Human]

Of course I don't care what you believe.

I do care what I believe. I am telling you how and why did I make MY choice. I don't really care what you do.

That is what he wanted to know, what you believe. That is the whole point of the OP, it's just that your answers don't make sense so we're asking follow up questions.

 

[bhsmte]

It answers my questions.
And I like the answers.

What else do you want? Science prove? You will never have it.

And the reason why there are so many sects of Christianity. They all have different answers to questions no one really knows the answer to.

People grasp onto the one that suits them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There are many people who made a choice on one of the scriptures and then changed to another. It is not uncommon. You may like one at the beginning but discovered the other one is better at later time.

But that is the way one makes the first choice.

Otherwise, one will not choose and remained to be an atheist. If it is OK with you, then the OP is meaningless.

You are not answering my question.

I'm asking what rational reason you for choosing one over the other.

"I like it better" seems to be your reason. Is this your final answer?

If it is, your answer will join the others I have received here. You can find them on the pile marked "irrational".

So far, the pile marked "rational" has no entries.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do care what I believe.

I guess that's the difference between us.
I don't actually care what I believe.

What I care about is being justified in believing the things that I believe.
I care about believing as many true things as possible and as little false things as possible.

You only care about "believing". Which indeed seems consistent with "because I like it".

Consistent, but not rational.
You don't care about your beliefs being true. You only care about holding them. Because you "like" them.

I am telling you how and why did I make MY choice.

Here is another way that we are different. I don't "choose" my beliefs.
Belief is not a choice for me. It's a compulsion. A compulsion based on a combination of rational reasoning, evidence and trust. I believe whatever convinces me through those ingredients.

I guess this is why I would want to know what rational reason you people have for believing the bible but not the quran.

But it seems you don't have any.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Many.

One I have given: The Quran does say anything about the origin of the world. That is a very important question.

You haven't read the quran, have you?

Having said that, let's assume that the quran doesn't speak about the origins of the world... (which is not true, but let's assume).

It seem to me that this would be a plus for the quran. It's better to say nothing at all about a subject rather then to say something which is demonstrably false, like the bible does.

Also, I don't see how not mentioning something about that subject would hit the credibility of the quran? Can you explain that?

For example, the bible doesn't say anything about the origins of photons nore of their nature. So, does the bible's credibility take a hit from that as well?

Or are we employing a double standard here?

EDIT: It sounds as if you have a certain criteria in your head that a religious text must comply to in order to be valid or believable. Your continued reference to "questions" seems to suggest this.

It seems like you have a certain list of questions that must be addressed and ONLY if those questions are addressed, will you consider the validity of the book in question.
And during that exercise, you will decide to believe it or not based on wheter or not you "like" the answers. Not by some standard to determine some sort of level of accuracy of the answers... but rather purely your emotional response to the answers.

Am I correct about this?
If yes, please provde me with this list of questions and explain why THOSE questions and not some other questions. Where did the list come from? How did you determine this list to be good criteria for making an assessment of the validity of a religious book? And how do you evaluate the answers?

 

[Senator Cheese]

I'm on the fly right now.. @DogmaHunter - I haven't forgot our private message convo, just haven't gotten around to answering yet.

As for your question here: I did not grow up learning a lot about the Bible at all. In fact, I've really read more philosophical texts and even parts of the Book of Mormon (yes, I was a bored child) before turning to the Bible.
I do not believe that the old testament is inerrant, however!

To quickly summarize (as I said I don't have much time):

- The Bible (specifically the NT) is a summary of the experiences of various different people, which gives it more credibility than, for example, the Quoran
- Jesus teachings are very intuitive and his notion of "having written himself into our hearts" is something I believe we notice today when we experience our (guilty) conscience
- Contemporary witnesses from the time of the manifestation of the Quoran said that Mohammad frequently visited and was taught by Jewish and Christian scholars, then spread his message (adding in a personal twist for personal gain in terms of securing his authority as a military leader) to the Arabs. Jesus, on the other hand, had no personal gain - he even died for it!


I see the Bible as guidance and do not believe it is necessary to have read the book in order to receive salvation. This wouldn't make much sense to me, because a lot of individuals don't even have any contact to Christianity at all and thus would have no chance at being saved. If you have faith in the LORD and act with a good conscience, then you will automatically fulfil both laws (loving God and loving your neighbor), I would assume.
The Bible is also not "complete", as it contains very little notions in regards to the reason for our existence among other things. As such, I would not be 100% sure that there are no other prophets besides Jesus that have played their role. Alas, I would not condemn other religions or beliefs, so long as the fruits of their belief are peace and love for one another and for the LORD.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm on the fly right now.. @DogmaHunter - I haven't forgot our private message convo, just haven't gotten around to answering yet.

As for your question here: I did not grow up learning a lot about the Bible at all. In fact, I've really read more philosophical texts and even parts of the Book of Mormon (yes, I was a bored child) before turning to the Bible.
I do not believe that the old testament is inerrant, however!

Ugh, the Book of Mormon, the blatant racism in that text is just awful.

 

[Syd the Human]

I'm on the fly right now.. @DogmaHunter - I haven't forgot our private message convo, just haven't gotten around to answering yet.

As for your question here: I did not grow up learning a lot about the Bible at all. In fact, I've really read more philosophical texts and even parts of the Book of Mormon (yes, I was a bored child) before turning to the Bible.
I do not believe that the old testament is inerrant, however!

To quickly summarize (as I said I don't have much time):

- The Bible (specifically the NT) is a summary of the experiences of various different people, which gives it more credibility than, for example, the Quoran

Whe does a Holy Text have to have more than one author? I mean I understand with science, but why religion? Does the number of people who follow it matter? If there were only thirty Christians total during the time of Jesus, would you stop being a Christian? If the Qur'an is Allah inspired, why does it matter that there is only one person?


- Jesus teachings are very intuitive and his notion of "having written himself into our hearts" is something I believe we notice today when we experience our (guilty) conscience

That actually supports the fact that morality is something that all people, regardless of religion, have through observing others and through instruction from others.


- Contemporary witnesses from the time of the manifestation of the Quoran said that Mohammad frequently visited and was taught by Jewish and Christian scholars, then spread his message (adding in a personal twist for personal gain in terms of securing his authority as a military leader) to the Arabs. Jesus, on the other hand, had no personal gain - he even died for it!

Why does that even matter? Didn't the Christian god help people when they went to kill others? If anything it would show that Allah is correct and the Christian god is not. Jesus died a gruesome death while Mohammad gained personal gain and military power. I mean, wouldn't a god reward those that did him good service?


I see the Bible as guidance and do not believe it is necessary to have read the book in order to receive salvation. This wouldn't make much sense to me, because a lot of individuals don't even have any contact to Christianity at all and thus would have no chance at being saved. If you have faith in the LORD and act with a good conscience, then you will automatically fulfil both laws (loving God and loving your neighbor), I would assume.

As you said, there are people who have not had any contact with Christianity, so how would they have faith in the Christian god? They would follow the religion that they were raised with, which in the Christian religion would be a false god sending them to hell.

The Bible is also not "complete", as it contains very little notions in regards to the reason for our existence among other things. As such, I would not be 100% sure that there are no other prophets besides Jesus that have played their role. Alas, I would not condemn other religions or beliefs, so long as the fruits of their belief are peace and love for one another and for the LORD.

Again, they would not be worshiping the Christian god.

 

[Strathos]

That's why I ask
If you say that "you know", then you must know in some way. I'm asking how you know. Refusing to answer that will only make me assume that you do NOT know and that you were just bluffing.

I was making a tangential observation. If you want to know how I know the Bible is full of profound truths, discovering them has sincerely helped my life, inspired me, and given me hope.

Yes, I'm sure the Koran could do the same for a Muslim, but that wasn't my point.

Your looking through bible-believing goggles again. Who proved that the events in both books actually happened? Perhaps the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which clearly is a precursor story to the whole Noah thingy) is the actual accurate recording, and the Noah version in Abrahamic religion a distortion past down through the ages.

I personally believe most of the ancient flood myths of the world are based on records/memories of a very large and devastating, but local, flood.

It doesn't say anything about "over time". It doesn't say at all when the corruption actually occured.

Muslims have said that to me. There is a part in the Hadith when Muhammed visits some Jews, I think, and they show him their scripture, and he declares that it's good.

Having said that, we actually DO have evidence that biblical texts have been edited through the ages. Don't pretend that we don't have any examples of verses being present in certain copies while those verses not being present in previous copies.

Also, what you read today are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations. Through all that copying and translating, mistakes and change of meaning are bound to happen.

True, but not to the extent or in the way the Koran claims.

The oldest extant sources of the new testament date to late 2nd century.

Wrong. The Epistles of Paul and Galatians date to 49-51 AD. And a lot of Old Testament sources are contemporary with the events they describe. (Obviously not Genesis, Exodus, etc. but the later ones)

I wasn't talking about Nicea. More like Hippo, Carthage, etc.

And your point? We have manuscripts from before that.

You do realise that back in those days, life expectancy wasn't some 80 years like today, right? There is no way that these things were written by the same generation. Virtually all of them were only written down 70+ years later. In those times, that's most likely 2 generations later. And that's just the new testament. The OT, we're indeed talking centuries and millenia.

Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. The earliest extant New Testament sources date to 49-50 AD. That's like if you wrote something now about something that happened in 1994.

But I don't see how it matters when it was written down or how or by whom.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit. My question is about the credibility of the claims in both books.

Many people don't know this, but the Koran is actually almost completely based on the Bible and Torah. So when it talks about things that are also in those books, and says those books got them wrong, it makes perfect sense to compare them to show that claim is false.

 

[Syd the Human]

I was making a tangential observation. If you want to know how I know the Bible is full of profound truths, discovering them has sincerely helped my life, inspired me, and given me hope.

Yes, I'm sure the Koran could do the same for a Muslim, but that wasn't my point.



I personally believe most of the ancient flood myths of the world are based on records/memories of a very large and devastating, but local, flood.



Muslims have said that to me. There is a part in the Hadith when Muhammed visits some Jews, I think, and they show him their scripture, and he declares that it's good.



True, but not to the extent or in the way the Koran claims.



Wrong. The Epistles of Paul and Galatians date to 49-51 AD. And a lot of Old Testament sources are contemporary with the events they describe. (Obviously not Genesis, Exodus, etc. but the later ones)



And your point? We have manuscripts from before that.



Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. The earliest extant New Testament sources date to 49-50 AD. That's like if you wrote something now about something that happened in 1994.



Many people don't know this, but the Koran is actually almost completely based on the Bible and Torah. So when it talks about things that are also in those books, and says those books got them wrong, it makes perfect sense to compare them to show that claim is false.

Actually I am aware that the Qur'an is based off the Bible and Torah (how much I don't know), I'm pretty sure it says that the Jews and Christians got things wrong. So, what you said does not at all prove that what they say is false, it just means that each is claiming that they are in the right and the other is in the wrong (like pretty much every religion)

 

[Strathos]

Yet they say the pre-Koran scriptures changed since they were written in certain ways, but the earliest sources (many close to the initial time of authorship) disagree. And then there is the Hadith story I brought up.

 

[juvenissun]

You haven't read the quran, have you?

Having said that, let's assume that the quran doesn't speak about the origins of the world... (which is not true, but let's assume).

It seem to me that this would be a plus for the quran. It's better to say nothing at all about a subject rather then to say something which is demonstrably false, like the bible does.

Also, I don't see how not mentioning something about that subject would hit the credibility of the quran? Can you explain that?

For example, the bible doesn't say anything about the origins of photons nore of their nature. So, does the bible's credibility take a hit from that as well?

Yes, the Bible DOES. It is said in the Genesis 1: 1-5. And it is VERY accurate.

 

[juvenissun]

And the reason why there are so many sects of Christianity. They all have different answers to questions no one really knows the answer to.

People grasp onto the one that suits them.

It does not matter. Each person HAS the answer that satisfies him/her. That is the MOST important.

 

[selfinflikted]

It does not matter. Each person HAS the answer that satisfies him/her. That is the MOST important.

So, does satisfaction now = truth? They can't all be right when they all differ, if even slightly.

 

[juvenissun]

You are not answering my question.

I'm asking what rational reason you for choosing one over the other.

"I like it better" seems to be your reason. Is this your final answer?

If it is, your answer will join the others I have received here. You can find them on the pile marked "irrational".

So far, the pile marked "rational" has no entries.

You are not listening. This is my last time to say this to you:

Because the Bible gives answers to all of my questions.
The second criterion is: I like the answers.

 

[Syd the Human]

Yes, the Bible DOES. It is said in the Genesis 1: 1-5. And it is VERY accurate.

He is talking about photons specifically, not just nature. Nowhere in the Bible does it discuss photons.

 

[juvenissun]

It seems like you have a certain list of questions that must be addressed and ONLY if those questions are addressed, will you consider the validity of the book in question.
And during that exercise, you will decide to believe it or not based on wheter or not you "like" the answers. Not by some standard to determine some sort of level of accuracy of the answers... but rather purely your emotional response to the answers.

Am I correct about this?
If yes, please provde me with this list of questions and explain why THOSE questions and not some other questions. Where did the list come from? How did you determine this list to be good criteria for making an assessment of the validity of a religious book? And how do you evaluate the answers?

Every human being has his life-time questions. Normally, these questions do not have definite answer to satisfy every one. If none of the answer HITS you hard, then you have to choose or not to choose.

I repeated one of them: the origin of the world?
Some others:
What is the meaning of life?
Why do we live on the earth?
Why is there good and bad?
Is there life outside the earth?
What is life?
Where do we go after death? (of course, we have to assume we still exists)

etc. etc.
In fact, there are probably a few dozens of these critical ones. The Quran answered some of these questions. But I don't like the answers (with reasons).

Not only Quran. How about Buddha or Dao or Hindu? What does Buddhism say about these questions? If you want to COMPARE religions, then there will be no end to it.

 

[juvenissun]

He is talking about photons specifically, not just nature. Nowhere in the Bible does it discuss photons.

"Light". (Please read Genesis 1:1-5. It only take a few seconds.)

 

[PsychoSarah]

"Light". (Please read Genesis 1:1-5. It only take a few seconds.)

Which apparently gets to exist before the light source.

 

[juvenissun]

So, does satisfaction now = truth? They can't all be right when they all differ, if even slightly.

If you like an answer, it is a temporary truth to you (until you modify it).