But that's just the thing. The cynic in me just wants to take one look at the creation myth, miracles, and psychedelic imagery in the Bible and dismiss it as... well, poetic myth. There's more to the Bible than just those things, but saying it's more complicated to investigate the dubious claims found therein than it would be to investigate the same claims if they'd come from somewhere else just seems to be a convenient way to shrug off valid criticism as "surface-level" or "simplistic." The romantic in me wants to believe there's whole new dimensions of the Bible I need to explore before giving a final verdict on its truth-value, so maybe I'll see reasons to believe that forthcoming in this thread.
Being cynical isn't exactly a scientific frame of mind; it's an emotive one, if anything. So, make sure to differentiate your psychological tendencies (which we can all have, obviously) from those states of mind that are more appropriate to being rationally skeptical. Cynicism does not equal a healthy Skepticism.
As for the various genres of religious thought and literature we find in the Bible, we might do well to remind ourselves as we casually leaf through its dusty pages that it is indeed an ancient, foreign book, removed from us in place, time, and mindset....and it should feel this way to us despite the fact that we may be reading an English approximation of those texts. We should likewise feel the same way as we peruse any old religious writings from other religions. As we do this, any recognition of "cosmic value" in the Bible won't come by way of attempting to find some 'romanticism' in the essence of the writings; no, any resonance of revelation will come not because the texts are 'true,' but but because God is real. Besides, if you're an Existential, Critical Realist when studying the Bible, you'll get to be just that: Critical. And this means that for you to understand the Bible, you'll have to study MORE THAN just the Bible.
I guess my point is to ask why we should grant mystique to the writings of ancient Jews in particular? Mystique has its place, but surely not in evaluating concrete truth-claims?
Concrete 'truth-claims'? How? Where? What kind? Why? By Whom? ...To what extent?
In starting with the Bible existentially, you don't have to grant it ANYTHING, other than what you see before you on initial impact. The integrity of dealing with the Bible, however, will be seen in the ways that you actually try to answer the contextual questions I just listed above, something that I'm not sure many people, whether they be believing or non-believing, seem like they want to do. But they sure want to 'say' something about it all, nevertheless.
You don't think so? If not, isn't it completely arbitrary to dedicate so much time and attention to one specific holy book that doesn't stand out as likely to be true?
You're question is valid, but I'm afraid that it misses a key point: that a person could grow in their understanding about world religions and come to a point where they feel one religious avenue is surely worth more than the other avenues and is THEREBY more worthy of one's time in this short life. The way you make it sound, this all just comes about by emotional happenstance straight from the get go.
I cringe at atheist Bible readings, they're always so condescending and self-congratulatory. Why read it at all if you're not going to give it a chance? I've read through the Bible before, and it's clear there are major cultural barriers between the authors and me. There is comfort and wisdom to be found throughout, but nothing that jumps out as something that must have been inspired by the creator of the universe. But this is where we need to be very careful, because if we're told "it's in there, you just have to keep looking" then eventually, whether it's really in there or not, we're going to find "it."
If this is the case, why are there portions of the Bible that I still don't understand or am able to make clear heads-or-tails of?
Sometimes, I think that it isn't so much that skeptics and atheists are really looking for some magical "it" in the Bible, but rather, they're looking for an effect, a supreme effect, that the magical "it" has been told them that "it" should offer up ... yeah, I don't think most of us will find that "effect," especially if that is all we're looking for.
This is what I meant when I said the investment of all that time and energy might create a bias. If I'm approaching the Bible with the intent to find something mind-blowing, it's very easy to pick anything and convince myself I'm blown away by it so I don't have to consider that I may have been on a "fool's errand".
Well, then, don't allow yourself to be biased. I don't.
I've asked many Christians what sets their religion apart from the others and they all say something different: some say it's that we're saved by grace, others say it's the moral wisdom of "love thy neighbor," and others still say it's the god making the ultimate sacrifice for his children. Are they just telling themselves that, too?
Why would God have to do the same thing for every one in bringing them to belief and faith?
I feel horribly cynical saying this, but in response to Pascal I'd say his argument is identical to that of the Emperor's treacherous tailors who sent him out with no clothes. It attempts to quiet criticism by suggesting that there's something wrong with the critic rather than the subject being examined. I don't know if that's ever appropriate.
Sure, but you'll be saying this while soaked in cynicism and without having actually engaged Pascal in a fuller understanding of his overall, existentialistic position.
I do agree that coming to "know" Christ must be more than a simple reading and acceptance of some literature. But what else can we get?
Then if you want to get beyond 'simple' reading and 'simple' acceptance, we'll have to consider what else this process might entail?
I would love to, but if I'm required to shed all skepticism, cynicism, and critical thinking in doing so I don't think it's possible for me. I cannot reach a psychological state of belief if I can't see how it fares against criticism.
As I said, you don't have to shed being skeptical or being critical; the name of the game is to allow yourself to think more deeply on the issues, but at the same time you do need to bring to a heel your emotive inclinations toward cynicism. This last point isn't something, for instance, I think PineCreek and his friends actually do to the fullest of their abilities.
Glad we agree, however a couple of questions arise. Did these transcendentals exist before human beings existed? If no, how did they come into being? I am fishing for how we justify for what would seem to be eternal transcendentals. Why would they seem eternal, because of the nature of them? By nature I mean the unchanging nature of these transcendentals whereas human beings change from the time of conception until death.
