Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[anonymous person]

In my question I claimed that there were errors in the Bible. Instead of presenting the above immediately, you sat on this argument and asked me to show there are indeed errors in the Bible. You then fell back on this argument here, suggesting to me that you didn't want to lead with this argument, suggesting you know it is not very good.

I know that the common defense is to say that these passages about ages and etc are of little consequence, but your God clearly found them to be of so much importance that he listed them twice.

The admission that there are errors in the Bible does nothing to advance your assumption that"...this copyist mistake, if that is what it actually is, in (no) way affect(s) any of the central tenets or doctrines I hold." It is true that this passage in particular "...does not even affect my comprehension of the passage in which the error is found," but in the other passage I provided I show that it is entirely unclear which Zedekiah was actually the king.

Furthermore, if you admit that God allows corruption in his Bible, then how do you know the Romans did not alter or completely rewrite Paul's epistles that were written from prison? You in fact have no way of knowing whether or not this happened. Those epistles certainly are "essential doctrine," and if the early church was under as much heavy persecution as Christians tend to believe, then it would seem to follow that the Romans would not just allow the leader of Christianity to direct, organize, and rebuke churches all over the map. Or, if we can agree that stories of persecution of the early church are overblown, then you loosen your grip on the "Why die for a lie?" argument, which means that you essentially have nothing but decades-old, noneyewitness testimony to attest to the resurrection.

Elvis is known to have died on the toilet, but "evidence" that he is still alive is comparable to that of the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.

At the outset of my comparative research of the world's worldviews, philosophies, and religions, I approached each text, each book, each piece of literature, each teaching, and anything that I made use of in my effort to discover truth by giving it the benefit of the doubt. I took the innocent until proven guilty approach. I approached nothing assuming that it was false or untrue, or fake, or fraudulent, or mythological. I approached everything with the desire to be objective, honest, and open and let the evidence guide me along the way.

The Old and New Testaments are not something you pick up, read in a couple days time, and walk away with a complete understanding. Scholars, from all walks of life, from all philosophies of life have interacted with them and many have made the study of them their life's work. I have studied the bible for over a decade in depth and there are still many things I do not understand in it. Things that are hard to comprehend, difficulties I have no satisfactory answer for. But I love studying the bible and so I learn more and more everyday than I thought I could ever know.

Chiefly, I love the author of the Bible. I love God.

How do I know Paul's letters were not completely rewritten?

I do not ask questions like that. When I approach Paul's letters, I approach them as being Paul's letters. If while I am studying them I find something that might indicate otherwise, I follow it out and research it. I compare differing views. I gather all the data I can and critique it.

I don't approach them looking for something that would show they are not his letters. I am not hunting or looking for reasons not to believe they are his.

The Bible offers over 800,000 words of text. Plenty of material for those that are looking for reasons to disregard it as something other than the Word of God.

There is very little I know for sure or for certain. I don't know for certain that Paul's letters weren't actually written by some secret mysterious scribe that has remained unknown for these many centuries. Until I have some reason to actually think this was the case, I am going to view the epistles as Paul's.

Heck, I don't know for certain that I am not a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the matrix. I do not know for certain that I was conceived by the union of my mother and father and not as the result of some artificial insemination. But until I have some good reasons to actually think that the above are true, I am not going to be worried over the fact that all of the above are logically possible.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

At the outset of my comparative research of the world's worldviews, philosophies, and religions, I approached each text, each book, each piece of literature, each teaching, and anything that I made use of in my effort to discover truth by giving it the benefit of the doubt. I took the innocent until proven guilty approach. I approached nothing assuming that it was false or untrue, or fake, or fraudulent, or mythological. I approached everything with the desire to be objective, honest, and open and let the evidence guide me along the way.

Still waiting, anonymous person.

I'm still curious to know your thoughts on this, @anonymous person. Given that, according to you, truth is integral to philosophy generally, would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth?

Given that I have stated that I am indeed open to being convinced when it comes to certain matters, then an attempt on his part would not be futile if indeed he were attempting to convince me of something which falls within the category of views which I hold tentatively.

Is the historicity of Jesus one such example?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

At the outset of my comparative research of the world's worldviews, philosophies, and religions, I approached each text, each book, each piece of literature, each teaching, and anything that I made use of in my effort to discover truth by giving it the benefit of the doubt. I took the innocent until proven guilty approach. I approached nothing assuming that it was false or untrue, or fake, or fraudulent, or mythological. I approached everything with the desire to be objective, honest, and open and let the evidence guide me along the way.

The Old and New Testaments are not something you pick up, read in a couple days time, and walk away with a complete understanding. Scholars, from all walks of life, from all philosophies of life have interacted with them and many have made the study of them their life's work. I have studied the bible for over a decade in depth and there are still many things I do not understand in it. Things that are hard to comprehend, difficulties I have no satisfactory answer for. But I love studying the bible and so I learn more and more everyday than I thought I could ever know.

Chiefly, I love the author of the Bible. I love God.

How do I know Paul's letters were not completely rewritten?

I do not ask questions like that. When I approach Paul's letters, I approach them as being Paul's letters. If while I am studying them I find something that might indicate otherwise, I follow it out and research it. I compare differing views. I gather all the data I can and critique it.

Is Paul's authorship of those letters something that you would reconsider if new findings were to cast doubt on it? Are you open to be convinced on this matter? You can appreciate how this ties together with my question about intellectual honesty (1), which you have yet to address. You claim to have approached Paul's letters, and the Bible generally, "with the desire to be objective, honest, and open." While laudable, what does this mean in practice? Are you open to questioning whether the Bible is the work of a deity? Are you open to questioning the claims contained therein? In what way is your approach to this text "objective, honest, and open," given that you assume you cannot be wrong about its authorship or any of the claims made within it?

 

[bhsmte]

Still waiting, anonymous person.

Your question is simple, but dangerous.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

At the outset of my comparative research of the world's worldviews, philosophies, and religions, I approached each text, each book, each piece of literature, each teaching, and anything that I made use of in my effort to discover truth by giving it the benefit of the doubt. I took the innocent until proven guilty approach. I approached nothing assuming that it was false or untrue, or fake, or fraudulent, or mythological. I approached everything with the desire to be objective, honest, and open and let the evidence guide me along the way.

The Old and New Testaments are not something you pick up, read in a couple days time, and walk away with a complete understanding. Scholars, from all walks of life, from all philosophies of life have interacted with them and many have made the study of them their life's work. I have studied the bible for over a decade in depth and there are still many things I do not understand in it. Things that are hard to comprehend, difficulties I have no satisfactory answer for. But I love studying the bible and so I learn more and more everyday than I thought I could ever know.

Chiefly, I love the author of the Bible. I love God.

How do I know Paul's letters were not completely rewritten?

I do not ask questions like that. When I approach Paul's letters, I approach them as being Paul's letters. If while I am studying them I find something that might indicate otherwise, I follow it out and research it. I compare differing views. I gather all the data I can and critique it.

I don't approach them looking for something that would show they are not his letters. I am not hunting or looking for reasons not to believe they are his.

The Bible offers over 800,000 words of text. Plenty of material for those that are looking for reasons to disregard it as something other than the Word of God.

There is very little I know for sure or for certain. I don't know for certain that Paul's letters weren't actually written by some secret mysterious scribe that has remained unknown for these many centuries. Until I have some reason to actually think this was the case, I am going to view the epistles as Paul's.

Heck, I don't know for certain that I am not a brain in a vat, or a body lying in the matrix. I do not know for certain that I was conceived by the union of my mother and father and not as the result of some artificial insemination. But until I have some good reasons to actually think that the above are true, I am not going to be worried over the fact that all of the above are logically possible.

It is baffling to see you say that you've spent years studying religion under the methodology of "Assume it's true until it's proven false."

And then to top it off, Ana the Ist points out that "it sounds kinda dumb to think god came to earth, did carpentry most of his life, then a little before his death started spreading the message he came to spread. If your plumber told you he was god...or the guy who built the deck in your backyard...what would you say?" And you replied to this with, "I would ask the plumber and carpenter why I should think they were God. Seems simple enough to me. In addition, just because something sounds dumb to you does not mean it never happened."

Well, it seems kind of dumb to believe that a known con man is telling the truth when he says he found golden tablets that were written upon by God, and that he then translated them into English from a language that he didn't even know. But hey, "just because it sounds dumb doesn't mean it never happened" and "we should generally just believe something until it's proven false."

Also, I think it's quite a devastating blow I've delivered to the case of Jesus' resurrection. This is demonstrated by the fact that you offer no rebuttal to my comparison of the resurrected Jesus versus a living Elvis. So your "Believe in it until it's proven false" has reached its endgame.

 

[oi_antz]

You have got to be kidding me?

Clearly, you have selectively read my posts.

I think I am not to be blamed for this, seeing that not a single question I have asked, you have not evaded. If I had been only putting forth my views and ignoring your questions, then sure it would be clearly my fault. But that has not been the pattern of my activity this time.

Not in the way that you have constructed those questions.

Are you willing to explain this so that it can be helpful? Would you care to change the wording of my questions so I can see how I might improve?

Your point being, what?

I do not like a statement that says the bible does not comport with reality. Such a statement is totally presumptuous, not able to be objectively proven, and able to be demonstrated false with numerous examples.

 

[oi_antz]

Well, it seems kind of dumb to believe that a known con man is telling the truth when he says he found golden tablets that were written upon by God, and that he then translated them into English from a language that he didn't even know. But hey, "just because it sounds dumb doesn't mean it never happened" and "we should generally just believe something until it's proven false."

If there is truth in this idea, it should be visible when the words of these two people are compared. Are you able to produce at least one statement each from these two people (Joseph Smith and Jesus Christ) that you believe demonstrate that they are making equally dumb claims about the commission they claim to have received from God?

 

[anonymous person]

It is baffling to see you say that you've spent years studying religion under the methodology of "Assume it's true until it's proven false."

Your conclusion that my methodology was one of "Assume it's true until it's proven false", does not follow necessarily from anything I stated.

The innocent until proven guilty reference has as its referrent, the authors as persons, not their written work as propositions subject to verification of falsification.

Nor does my refusal to approach my data assuming it is false, necessitate my assuming it is true. To argue this would be to force upon me a false dichotomy. You dismiss a third option and one which I actually use quite often, and that is simply reserving judgment.

In addition, my giving the data the "benefit of the doubt" does not necessitate me assuming the data true until proven false. My usage of the phrase was intended to convey the idea not that I assume my data is true until proven false, but rather, that I refuse to approach my available data with any biased presuppositions against it.

And then to top it off, Ana the Ist points out that "it sounds kinda dumb to think god came to earth, did carpentry most of his life, then a little before his death started spreading the message he came to spread. If your plumber told you he was god...or the guy who built the deck in your backyard...what would you say?" And you replied to this with, "I would ask the plumber and carpenter why I should think they were God. Seems simple enough to me. In addition, just because something sounds dumb to you does not mean it never happened."

Well, it seems kind of dumb to believe that a known con man is telling the truth when he says he found golden tablets that were written upon by God, and that he then translated them into English from a language that he didn't even know. But hey, "just because it sounds dumb doesn't mean it never happened" and "we should generally just believe something until it's proven false."

I have never claimed we should generally just believe something until it's proven false. What I said could be interpreted that way, but for the aforementioned reasons, such an interpretation is inaccurate.

Secondly, I have studied the writings of Joseph Smith who I gather you are alluding to. After researching the pertinent data at my disposal objectively and honestly, I am confident in saying the account you referenced is not true in that he did not receive gold tablets from God.

Also, I think it's quite a devastating blow I've delivered to the case of Jesus' resurrection. This is demonstrated by the fact that you offer no rebuttal to my comparison of the resurrected Jesus versus a living Elvis. So your "Believe in it until it's proven false" has reached its endgame.

Your comparison of Jesus and Elvis was sophomoric. That is why I did not respond to it.

 

[bhsmte]

I think I am not to be blamed for this, seeing that not a single question I have asked, you have not evaded. If I had been only putting forth my views and ignoring your questions, then sure it would be clearly my fault. But that has not been the pattern of my activity this time.

Are you willing to explain this so that it can be helpful? Would you care to change the wording of my questions so I can see how I might improve?

I do not like a statement that says the bible does not comport with reality. Such a statement is totally presumptuous, not able to be objectively proven, and able to be demonstrated false with numerous examples.

There seems to be a trend in my communications with you on this board, that has gone a similar way as this one.

I can look back at my posts, and see that I answered your questions and I answered them multiple times. The posts are there for all to see.

 

[oi_antz]

There seems to be a trend in my communications with you on this board, that has gone a similar way as this one.

I can look back at my posts, and see that I answered your questions and I answered them multiple times. The posts are there for all to see.

Those people you mention will also be able to see that you are providing answers for your own satisfaction rather than mine. That is prbably why I am not able to find them as answers to the questions I am asking.

Here is one that you haven't even attempted to answer though:

I am now wondering why you began this discourse. Is there a reason for that?

 

[bhsmte]

Those people you mention will also be able to see that you are providing answers for your own satisfaction rather than mine. That is prbably why I am not able to find them as answers to the questions I am asking.

Here is one that you haven't even attempted to answer though:

Simple, the thread went to a discussion in regards to the historical credibility of the gospels.

And, if you can't find the answers to your questions in my posts, nothing else I can do about it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your conclusion that my methodology was one of "Assume it's true until it's proven false", does not follow necessarily from anything I stated.

The innocent until proven guilty reference has as its referrent, the authors as persons, not their written work as propositions subject to verification of falsification.

If you want to examine the authors, how about examining the fact that the Old Testament was written by racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists who made claims about morality, and then a certain person from that very culture is said to have provided a means of forgiveness for transgressing against those claims of morality?

Nor does my refusal to approach my data assuming it is false, necessitate my assuming it is true. To argue this would be to force upon me a false dichotomy. You dismiss a third option and one which I actually use quite often, and that is simply reserving judgment.

So how long are you going to reserve judgement on the litany of absurdities and atrocities listed in the Bible?

In addition, my giving the data the "benefit of the doubt" does not necessitate me assuming the data true until proven false. My usage of the phrase was intended to convey the idea not that I assume my data is true until proven false, but rather, that I refuse to approach my available data with any biased presuppositions against it.

Well then you misused "benefit of the doubt" because that's what it means. So now you are saying you read these texts with no assumptions one way or another? Do you at least bring with you your own notions of morality so you know that things like, oh, I don't know, rape and slavery are wrong?

I have never claimed we should generally just believe something until it's proven false. What I said could be interpreted that way, but for the aforementioned reasons, such an interpretation is inaccurate.

Agreed, you initially said that but you have clarified yourself now.

Secondly, I have studied the writings of Joseph Smith who I gather you are alluding to. After researching the pertinent data at my disposal objectively and honestly, I am confident in saying the account you referenced is not true in that he did not receive gold tablets from God.

But he says he did...

Your comparison of Jesus and Elvis was sophomoric. That is why I did not respond to it.

A person is said to be alive, with supporting eyewitness accounts, despite being known to be dead.

Am I referring to Jesus or Elvis by the above?

 

[HitchSlap]

I do not like a statement that says the bible does not comport with reality. Such a statement is totally presumptuous, not able to be objectively proven, and able to be demonstrated false with numerous examples.

No global flood, earth is not 10K years old, Exodus story is myth, it's a bad idea to 'take no thought for the 'morrow,' there is no "chosen people," etc.

You would be less upset if you simply aligned your beliefs with reality.

 

[anonymous person]

If you want to examine the authors, how about examining the fact that the Old Testament was written by racist, sexist, genocidal, slave-driving rapists who made claims about morality, and then a certain person from that very culture is said to have provided a means of forgiveness for transgressing against those claims of morality?

I highlighted a word in the above. I would love to see the evidence you have to support your claim.

So how long are you going to reserve judgement on the litany of absurdities and atrocities listed in the Bible?

There are indeed many absurdities and atrocities in the bible. The Bible is full of accounts of men doing absurd and evil things.

Well then you misused "benefit of the doubt" because that's what it means. So now you are saying you read these texts with no assumptions one way or another? Do you at least bring with you your own notions of morality so you know that things like, oh, I don't know, rape and slavery are wrong?

I said that I do not approach texts religious or otherwise assuming they are false. I withhold judgment until I have evidence and good reasons to think they are false or inaccurate/unreliable.

But he says he did...

And?

A person is said to be alive, with supporting eyewitness accounts, despite being known to be dead.

Am I referring to Jesus or Elvis by the above?

If I had to choose between the two, I would say what you have said refers to Elvis. Elvis' body is lying in its grave in Graceland. I have good evidence that Jesus' body was not in its grave and good evidence it was never found. These, among others, are pieces of evidence I use to come to the conclusion that Jesus is not dead, but is alive.

 

[anonymous person]

No global flood,

Please present the evidence you have for this assertion.

earth is not 10K years old,

No Old Testament author claimed it was. Please present the evidence you have for your assertion that they did.

Exodus story is myth,

Please present the evidence you have for this assertion.

it's a bad idea to 'take no thought for the 'morrow,'

I agree.

However, you have removed the statement from its context. Supply the context and we can engage it.

there is no "chosen people," etc.

Evidence for this assertion please?

You would be less upset if you simply aligned your beliefs with reality.

This assumes his beliefs are not aligned with reality. You will need to proved evidence for this.

 

[HitchSlap]

Please present the evidence you have for this assertion.

My evidence is ... wait for it... lack of evidence. Other than religious reasons, there's no evidence to suggest the entire earth was at one time completely covered in water.

No Old Testament author claimed it was.

Of course they didn't. They didn't have the benefits of modern science to know the earth is billions of years old.

Please present the evidence you have for your assertion that they did.

The claim of a "young earth" rests solely on the shoulders of cdesign propoentsists.

Please present the evidence you have for this assertion.

H. sapiens are an evolved primate, and like all other species on earth, there is nothing that makes one ethnicity intrinsically "chosen" over another. (Ancient texts withstanding.)

I agree.

However, you have removed the statement from its context. Supply the context and we can engage it.

Nope.

This assumes his beliefs are not aligned with reality. You will need to proved evidence for this.

I don't need to provide evidence for my opinion. It's either correct or not - decide for yourself.

 

[Davian]

Are you willing to explain this so that it can be helpful? Would you care to change the wording of my questions so I can see how I might improve?

No, as it would seem that we have diametrically opposed methodologies for examining evidence. I come to a conclusion following the examination of evidence.

 

[anonymous person]

No, as it would seem that we have diametrically opposed methodologies for examining evidence. I come to a conclusion following the examination of evidence.

As if to say that he does not come to his conclusions in the same fashion as you do but should.

You have any evidence that would demonstrate that his methodology is one wherein he does not follow the evidence where it leads?

 

[HitchSlap]

As if to say that he does not come to his conclusions in the same fashion as you do but should.

You have any evidence that would demonstrate that his methodology is one wherein he does not follow the evidence where it leads?

He believes in "God," should do it, 'eh?

 

[anonymous person]

He believes in "God," should do it, 'eh?

I don't see why his belief in God is evidence that he does not follow the evidence where it leads.

Maybe you could tell me?