How is this compelling?

[DarkProphet]

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

 

[matilda1991]

Are you a bible basher?

 

[DarkProphet]

Are you a bible basher?

Define "bible basher".


In anycase, all I'm doing here is pointing something out and asking a question.

 

[Chaplain David]

You seem to have a dislike for, even animosity toward Christianity and the Holy Bible. Your signature from Albert Einstein, an agnostic or atheist depending on how you view his quotes, states directly what you cannot or you would be reported:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this." - Albert Einstein

I believe that your threads and many posts are not of genuine inquiry but a means to denigrate and attack Christianity, Scripture our God and beliefs. Your OP in this thread taken separately, sounds innocent enough. But taken with previous threads on the same subject show that you are no Christ lover. You repeat the same themes, arguments, comments and questions.

In this thread, 30 Apr 09 your OP is titled, How is this Compelling. It seems innocuous when taken separately but when compared and contrasted with previous threads provides the theme I have outlined.

There are many more antiChristian posts in your CF closet and I do not understand why you are allowed to continue to post in such an antiChristian manner on this Christian forum.

Today's thread, How is this compelling, 30 Apr 09

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

The good Book, 3 Mar 09 http://www.christianforums.com/t7348802/

I'll be the first to admit that I never read through the whole Bible. I did try to read through it but it was just so boring and full of plot holes that I just could not get through it. I did manage to read the book that I was named after but it was arduous. Why is the "Good Book" so poorly written? Or is that just a symbolic title?

The good news, 24 Feb 09 http://www.christianforums.com/t7346224/

A friend of mine tried to break down the Christian message and I want to see if it's accurate. Here is his version of what the Christian message is to non-believers...You are a sinner, and because of that you are going to hell. God, in his love for you, sent Jesus to forgive your sins, all you have to do is believe in him in both heart and mind. Aside from the MASSIVE plot holes and contradictions the Jesus story inherently has, is this an accurate version of the Christian message?

Validating Christianity, 12 Feb 09, http://www.christianforums.com/t7341349/

So the whole of Christianity hinges on 2000 year old event written about only in an ancient book from a far off culture with a very different language that was later edited by committee. Is there anything that validates the claim of this book? Or do you believe anything you read in it on faith? If it's faith why this book and not some other?

 

[ebia]

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

Or rather, a group of people who had some understanding of God lived and worked with a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, saw him crucified, gave up hope, and then saw something they knew to be as impossible as we do happen - that he resurrected from the dead. When they rebuilt they lives and thinking around that and formed communities those communities recorded their story and the ways that connected with the previous stories of Israel.

Why treat it as anything other than fantasy - because they would not have written what they did if they were not utterly convinced that the impossible had happened on Easter morning. Something extraordinary had to have happened to cause these communities to exist and write what they did.

Using terms like superstitious attempts to prejudge the case. They knew that dead people stay dead. They knew that resurrection was something that could only happen at the end of time when it would happen to all, or all of God's, people. The idea that ancient people would swollow anything is arrogant modernist bul..it.

 

[Chesterton]

You know DP, not long ago I gave you credit for being something slightly better than a troll.

 

[salida]

This is what it boils to - you come back here time and time again trying to be clever but your only fooling yourself. Its to your own ruin not us. I Cor 14:38 - If any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant. If you want to think man is god (humanist), that is your business. He didn't create the universe so he will never be that - even though the humanist like to pretend man is god.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

It is not, but then that is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.

The fact that someone who claims to not believe feels need to attack the validity of the Bible and justify why they do not find it valid on the other hand is at least one point in favor of there being something there.

How many posts have such people made attacking the veracity of the X-Files? Or the X-Men?

 

[DarkProphet]

Or rather, a group of people who had some understanding of God lived and worked with a guy called Jesus of Nazareth, saw him crucified, gave up hope, and then saw something they knew to be as impossible as we do happen - that he resurrected from the dead. When they rebuilt they lives and thinking around that and formed communities those communities recorded their story and the ways that connected with the previous stories of Israel.

The history was written a generation later so not much is known about the earliest communities.

Why treat it as anything other than fantasy - because they would not have written what they did if they were not utterly convinced that the impossible had happened on Easter morning. Something extraordinary had to have happened to cause these communities to exist and write what they did.

Not necessarily, people have created myths around real people and events but that does not mean that the myths were believed to be literal.

Using terms like superstitious attempts to prejudge the case. They knew that dead people stay dead. They knew that resurrection was something that could only happen at the end of time when it would happen to all, or all of God's, people. The idea that ancient people would swollow anything is arrogant modernist bul..it.

Think about it this way, there are people TODAY that read their horoscope and believe it to be accurate and there are people TODAY that have lucky charms. We are just as superstitious as ever the main difference is that our superstitions get superseded by information gleamed through study and communication. Ancient people did not have the internet or even books as we know them today (including the OT) so it would not be expected that they would approach something like the resurrection the same way we would.

In anycase, I take it you find it a compelling argument because of the early communities?

PS: Kudos for answering a question others were threatened by.

 

[DarkProphet]

It is not,

I would agree

but then that is not an argument for the validity of the Bible.

I've seen it used as such, even on this board. The Bible itself has a version of this argument on at least one point.

The fact that someone who claims to not believe feels need to attack the validity of the Bible and justify why they do not find it valid on the other hand is at least one point in favor of there being something there.

That's not how it works. Otherwise I could claim that the president was a reptile alien and then claim validity when people point out holes in my argument.

How many posts have such people made attacking the veracity of the X-Files? Or the X-Men?

Are you sure you want to be comparing the Bible to works of fiction?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The point is if one believes the Bible is a fairy tale for superstitiuos people, then just like the X-files or the X-Men, why feel the need to attack the veracity of a fairy tale?

Am unfamiliar with the approach or the verse being suggested, which I assume means a believer or the Bible itself presents the Bible as being valid because a bunch of ancient superstitious people believed it. Again, I do not see that as a valid argument for the veracity of the Bible.
Saying a lot of people for a long time have held the Bible as being true is not saying the same thing, but it does make a valid point supporting its' veracity. It is not conclusive but certainly supportive.

 

[aiki]

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

As someone has already pointed out, this argument is not compelling.

What is compelling, however, is that skilled scientists, philosophers, historians, mathematicians, and writers (among many others) over many centuries now have found the Bible convincing and powerful. Funny that. I mean, how has a book that has its beginnings in such "primitive" environments as you describe managed to be so admired, and studied, and shared by people who are so educated, and knowledgeable, and thoughtful? Now that's a question worth pondering, I think.

Peace to you.

 

[DarkProphet]

The point is if one believes the Bible is a fairy tale for superstitiuos people, then just like the X-files or the X-Men, why feel the need to attack the veracity of a fairy tale?

Because YOU believe the tale, and that is a dangerous proposition for everyone.

 

[DarkProphet]

As someone has already pointed out, this argument is not compelling.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees that.

What is compelling, however, is that skilled scientists, philosophers, historians, mathematicians, and writers (among many others) over many centuries now have found the Bible convincing and powerful. Funny that. I mean, how has a book that has its beginnings in such "primitive" environments as you describe managed to be so admired, and studied, and shared by people who are so educated, and knowledgeable, and thoughtful? Now that's a question worth pondering, I think.

Statistically speaking that is not true, nowadays at least. A census of members of Mensa found that a good majority were not Christian, same thing with doctors, at least in America. People at the university level are notoriety non-Christian. It seems that the more you know the less Christian you are.

 

[aiki]

Statistically speaking that is not true, nowadays at least. A census of members of Mensa found that a good majority were not Christian, same thing with doctors, at least in America. People at the university level are notoriety non-Christian. It seems that the more you know the less Christian you are.

None of what precedes your last concluding statement actually supports it.

Statistics have been shown again and again to be easily manipulated and made to show whatever is desired. As Benjamin D'Israeli, former Prime Minister of Britain, once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

What may be statistically true today does not negate the fact that many brilliant men of the past did believe the Bible to be true. And don't confuse having access to a greater body of information with being smart. People may know more today than they did a century or so ago, but this in no way means they are better able to think and assess facts critically - often the reverse.

It is interesting that you focus on those in Mensa who aren't Christian as if they somehow dissolve the fact that smart people, people who are members of Mensa, are Christian. What do you say about these folk? How is it that they are both highly intelligent and believers in Christ? According to you, their intelligence should have led them away from faith in God.

People at the university level are notoriously non-Christian? So? If, as you say, the more you know the less Christian you are, I should not be a Christian and neither should my wife. We are both university-level in our education and we both believe in Christ as Saviour. I suppose we are exceptions to the rule? But what about the many others we know who are both university graduates and Christians? How many intelligent Christians does there have to be before they are more than merely exceptions to your rule?

The fact is, intelligence has nothing to do with the current trend away from a Christian worldview in North America. The shift has much more to do with philosophy than knowledge or intelligence.

Here's a list of about six hundred notable exceptions to your contention that "the more you know the less Christian you are":

http://www.tektonics.org/scim/sciencemony.htm

Peace to you.

 

[DarkProphet]

None of what precedes your last concluding statement actually supports it.

Statistics have been shown again and again to be easily manipulated and made to show whatever is desired. As Benjamin D'Israeli, former Prime Minister of Britain, once said, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

He was quoting Mark Twain, and yes stats can be manipulated but you cannot contest that a majority of people we would call "intelligent" are not Christian.

What may be statistically true today does not negate the fact that many brilliant men of the past did believe the Bible to be true. And don't confuse having access to a greater body of information with being smart.

In the past it was almost a requirement that people study the Bible inorder to study other high level topics.

People may know more today than they did a century or so ago, but this in no way means they are better able to think and assess facts critically - often the reverse.

I fail to see how knowing less would make you more critical. Historically people have filled gaps in knowledge with fantasy, lightning coming from Zeus or hurricanes coming from Poseidon for example.

It is interesting that you focus on those in Mensa who aren't Christian as if they somehow dissolve the fact that smart people, people who are members of Mensa, are Christian. What do you say about these folk? How is it that they are both highly intelligent and believers in Christ? According to you, their intelligence should have led them away from faith in God.

The census only tells of what people report themselves as, many go with the religion of their family as it is part of their origin. For example, my cousins might mark Catholic as their religion as we were all raised Catholic but that does not mean we go to church or believe in Catholic teachings. It's likely it's the same with a majority of those but we can't tell for sure. As for the small minority that would ACTUALLY believe then they are outliers. I've met a few people I would consider smart but seemed to truly believe, from what I've seen they believed because of social pressure (mostly from their parents). I really felt bad for one guy because I can see his struggle to reconcile what he is SUPPOSED to believe and the facts.

People at the university level are notoriously non-Christian? So? If, as you say, the more you know the less Christian you are, I should not be a Christian and neither should my wife. We are both university-level in our education and we both believe in Christ as Saviour. I suppose we are exceptions to the rule? But what about the many others we know who are both university graduates and Christians? How many intelligent Christians does there have to be before they are more than merely exceptions to your rule?

A statistical parallel between the number of self proclaimed Christians and people we consider intelligent. As it is there are far fewer people then would be predicted.

The fact is, intelligence has nothing to do with the current trend away from a Christian worldview in North America. The shift has much more to do with philosophy than knowledge or intelligence.

We are far off topic as it is but I do want to know more about this philosophy you feel is moving people away from Christianity. I'll create a thread on this.

Here's a list of about six hundred notable exceptions to your contention that "the more you know the less Christian you are":

Scientists of the Christian Faith: A Presentation of the Pioneers, Practitioners and Supporters of Modern Science

That's nice but thats 600 out of how many?

 

[aiki]

He was quoting Mark Twain, and yes stats can be manipulated but you cannot contest that a majority of people we would call "intelligent" are not Christian.

I think Mark Twain actually quoted D'Israeli, not the other way 'round.

Why would I contest that the majority of people who are intelligent are not Christian? The majority of people, intelligent or not, have always not believed in Christianity. Mind you, the vast majority of people have always held some kind of a belief in God - even now.

I fail to see how knowing less would make you more critical. Historically people have filled gaps in knowledge with fantasy, lightning coming from Zeus or hurricanes coming from Poseidon for example.

I never said "knowing less would make you more critical." I said that people in the past were as capable of high-level reasoning and critical thinking as people are today. Knowing more and being intelligent are not synonymous.

The census only tells of what people report themselves as, many go with the religion of their family as it is part of their origin. For example, my cousins might mark Catholic as their religion as we were all raised Catholic but that does not mean we go to church or believe in Catholic teachings. It's likely it's the same with a majority of those but we can't tell for sure. As for the small minority that would ACTUALLY believe then they are outliers. I've met a few people I would consider smart but seemed to truly believe, from what I've seen they believed because of social pressure (mostly from their parents). I really felt bad for one guy because I can see his struggle to reconcile what he is SUPPOSED to believe and the facts.

This kind of makes my point about statistics, doesn't it?

That's nice but thats 600 out of how many?

That's six hundred you have to account for. And these are just the notable ones. There are many more perfectly intelligent but lesser known folk - lawyers, accountants, engineers, scientists, artists, philosophers, seminarians, teachers, etc, - who believe but who aren't on this list. You made the claim that the more one knows the less likely one is to be a Christian, so it falls to you to explain why your generality doesn't apply to these people.

Peace to you.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

The reliability of the bible is shown in its effect on people today. Note the verse from the New Testiment:

1Co 12:28 And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues.
1Co 12:29 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles?
1Co 12:30 Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?
1Co 12:31 But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.

God has left Miraculous gifts available to the church to act as evidence to his existance and workings. To see an example of this visit John Mellor Ministries to see God working miraculously.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Because YOU believe the tale, and that is a dangerous proposition for everyone.

Here I thought the more dangerous person would be the one swinging thier arms at windmills that they think others apparently see as attackers.

 

[tansy]

It seems to me that a lot of Christian arguments about the validity of the Bible boil down to this, that a group of mostly illiterate superstitious people from an ancient culture that didn't have access to a lot of information or communication genuinely believed the claims in the Bible, of course even THAT claim is unverifiable. How is this argument compelling in anyway?

Now, for all I know, these people were mostly illiterate..but how does one know they were also superstitious?
Also, regardless of whether or not anyone is superstitious or illiterate, if one finds that believing in and following the claims of the Bible produces results in line with that book, then what has illiteracy or superstition got to do with it?