Why the bible?

[Syd the Human]

Lying might be a questionable thing to do, but it is not blasphemy.

An equivalent thing today would be for a group of Christians to claim that Pat Robertson was God Incarnate. Unless they had witnessed him raising the dead, or performing some other equally extraordinary feat, they would have no reason to claim it, and still less to believe it.

You were the one who brought up blasphemy not me. Or it was someone else, I don't remember.

And yes, a person can lie in order to promote something they believe in, regardless of whether it is true or not. It would actually help their case for god if they were to create a story to help boost his image, but I digress.

The only point I was trying to make was this:

• Religious people want to spread their religion
• In order to spread their religion, people must accept what they are saying and see it as having some affect on their lives
• If people do not feel like the religion will have an impact on their lives, they will not follow it
• So, in order to show that the religion will have an impact on their lives they will give examples of how it impacted others
• The better the example, the more likely people will accept their religion
• If getting people to accept their religion is not going so good, they may exaggerate or lie to convice others

I am not necesarrily saying that this happened in this instance, but that it is a possibility. People do not always live up to their ideals. Unless you can give me an example (except Jesus) who has always did the right and has never done any wrong, then you might be right.

 

[Senator Cheese]

I was simply stating that a religious person is capable of lying, even in Crazyland that is possible.

Even religious people, are capable of going back on their own ideals if they feel it will get what they feel is the best decision.

Once a person becomes a Christian or Jew or whatever, they do not instantaneously become perfect. Even your religion says so, unless you are into the once saved always saved idea. Why you are suddenly excluding them makes no sense.

You were not saying that any religious individual can lie - you were accusing the evangelists of maliciously spreading a blasphemous message in the name of the LORD in order to deceive the world.
Aside from the fact that this is a broad claim, you failed to provide even a shred of a motive as to why they should have done this - altogether completely ignoring the fact that these people risked not only their entire social credibility but their lives for this message.

First, you claim it's because they want to "further their religion in order to please God" - ignoring the fact that the God that they are furthering with the gospel explicitly commanded them not to lie.
Then, you claim they didn't need to fear God because he was probably made up as well, which fails to adress the simple fact that a group of seventy people don't randomly decide to drop what they're doing, renounce their previous concepts of divine law and start preaching radical ideas that get will have them killed in an instance.

I'm done for the night.
Have a blessed Easter holiday.

 

[Senator Cheese]

• Religious people want to spread their religion
• In order to spread their religion, people must accept what they are saying and see it as having some affect on their lives
• If people do not feel like the religion will have an impact on their lives, they will not follow it
• So, in order to show that the religion will have an impact on their lives they will give examples of how it impacted others
• The better the example, the more likely people will accept their religion

Yes.

• If getting people to accept their religion is not going so good, they may exaggerate or lie to convice others

1.) This presupposes that the religion in question condones lies as a means of conveying faith (which it doesn't).
2.) This presupposes that there is a "religion" or "faith" to begin with and completely ignores the fact that the evangelists must have had a reason to come to faith in Jesus Christ in the first place, especially given the circumstances of the time.

 

[lesliedellow]

• Religious people want to spread their religion
• In order to spread their religion, people must accept what they are saying and see it as having some affect on their lives
• If people do not feel like the religion will have an impact on their lives, they will not follow it
• So, in order to show that the religion will have an impact on their lives they will give examples of how it impacted others
• The better the example, the more likely people will accept their religion
• If getting people to accept their religion is not going so good, they may exaggerate or lie to convice others

All of that may be true, but the religion of the first disciples was Judaism, and that remained the case even after they had acquired the nickname "Christians". As Jews, to claim that a human being was divine would normally have been the grossest blasphemy in their own eyes, let alone the eyes of their fellow Jews. Apart from going against the beliefs they had held since birth, they would have known that to make such a claim could no nothing except get them in very hot water.

If, in spite of all that, they still claimed that Jesus was divine, they:

a.) Must have believed it, and

b.) Have had good reason to believe it.

 

[Syd the Human]

You were not saying that any religious individual can lie -



Yes I was. Which is why I am so confused at you getting so upset over this. Religious people are not perfect, which again, your religion says so. you were accusing the evangelists of maliciously spreading a blasphemous message in the name of the LORD in order to deceive the world.
Aside from the fact that this is a broad claim, you failed to provide even a shred of a motive as to why they should have done this - altogether completely ignoring the fact that these people risked not only their entire social credibility but their lives for this message.

I was only trying to point out that they could have lied to promote their god, and, if I remember this conversation correctly (I haven't read it all) we were discussing miracles? I just gave you motive, to promote their religion. By the way you are writing this you are getting a little emotional. I promise, I am not making up that people lie.

Here is one example, from a Christian blogger, about how people do lie in order to accomplish what they feel is right. FYI, she is against it.

Lying for Jesus: A Faustian Bargain



First, you claim it's because they want to "further their religion in order to please God" - ignoring the fact that the God that they are furthering with the gospel explicitly commanded them not to lie.




Then, you claim they didn't need to fear God because he was probably made up as well, which fails to adress the simple fact that a group of seventy people don't randomly decide to drop what they're doing, renounce their previous concepts of divine law and start preaching radical ideas that get will have them killed in an instance.

Read the above blog.

I'm done for the night.
Have a blessed Easter holiday.

You too

 

[Syd the Human]

All of that may be true, but the religion of the first disciples was Judaism, and that remained the case even after they had acquired the nickname "Christians". As Jews, to claim that a human being was divine would normally have been the grossest blasphemy in their own eyes, let alone the eyes of their fellow Jews. Apart from going against the beliefs they had held since birth, they would have known that to make such a claim could no nothing except get them in very hot water.

If, in spite of all that, they still claimed that Jesus was divine, they:

a.) Must have believed it, and

b.) Have had good reason to believe it.

Weren't we discussing miracles? I will go back and reread the thread, I just remember reading about why would a religious person lie since it was against god, but religious people do lie so I pointed that out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Weren't we discussing miracles? I will go back and reread the thread, I just remember reading about why would a religious person lie since it was against god, but religious people do lie so I pointed that out.

Does it surprise you that religious people lie?

I hear they can't walk on water either!

 

[Syd the Human]

Does it surprise you that religious people lie?

No.

I hear they can't walk on water either!

If that surprises you that can explain a lot of your posts.

A human cannot walk on water without something else to support them, our bodies are just too dense.

 

[AV1611VET]

OOPS! I promised the OP I wouldn't post here until after post 490!

Sorry!

Carry on!

 

[Syd the Human]

OOPS! I promised the OP I wouldn't post here until after post 490!

Sorry!

Carry on!

Nice save.

Excellent way to back out of addressing what was said.

 

[Syd the Human]

The question in the OP was a meta-based analysis as to why individuals choose one religion over another. I assume that from an anthropological view, cultural upbringing will play an important factor. However, the OP asked for personal testimony - I have outlined the reasons that lead me to accept considerable parts of the Bible as true.
One of those reasons is that I believe that the documentation of events by a single author will be more prone to subjective misinterpretations than a documentation by various individuals. Kind of like how soccer games have more than one referee to improve objectivity.

Are you saying that the authors are saying different things? If the message is the same, why does it matter that only one person said so? If only Jesus talked about the truth and no one else, would that mean that the Christian faith is false? I am pretty sure that more than one person helped write the Qur'an, but you're making it seem like religion is only credible if more than one person accepts it.

The absolute number of followers matters only to the extent of evangelisation (that is to say: I cannot judge a 30-man religion in Papa New Guinea). Christianity started out with very few (70) individuals but quickly spread across nations peacefully by proactively demonstrating the love of the LORD within few decades. It was no less "correct" when it had little numbers.



The supposed observation is that most individuals have an intuitive moral compass, that is to say they "know right from wrong".
The hypothesis that this morality merely boils down to "observing others" and through "instruction" is not supported by this observation; I would argue the observation would tangentially rather contradict than support your notion.


I read the underlined portion part as you saying that observation is present but not important to morality. But, humans learn through observation. That is why you see children imitating what they see their family, friends, and peers do. Which can be good or bad depending on who they are observing.

From experience, I know that the good are not necessarily rewarded with earthly wealth and that the bad are not necessarily punished by being poor.
This experience is congruent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who broke the exact paradigm you described.

It does not really break it. Good things and bad things happen to all people in different proportions. That does not get rid of the fact that the Muslim god rewarded his prophet while the christian god punished himself.

The Bible documents that Jesus Christ said he has written himself into our hearts - which I believe to be a documentation of the moral compass instilled in every human. Even an Eskimo that has never heard of any world religion can experience the moral compass and thus can experience Jesus Christ.
It doesn't matter what he calls his God - ultimately, he will be praying to the same one.

So as long as you are in a religion, it does not matter that you are not in the Christian religion?

A just God would never send anyone to hell for something he could not change. As such, the Eskimo would surely be saved as well.


Yes, he would. If a person does not worship the Christian god then they go to hell, the Bible is clear on this. It's even in the ten commandments have no false idols (gods, material objects etc) before me.

It would also be a double standard. What about atheists who have received no proof for his existence? Based on the above sentence you admit that god's presence is not "self-evident" and will have people not accept who he is (since the Eskimo did not believe in god and did not come to him on his own free will) will god give them a pass too?

Sorry for the confusion about the lying part, I only saw the thing in which it said that an evangelical would never lie. I forgot about the previous, so that is my fault.

But the point still stands that religious people do in fact lie.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Are you saying that the authors are saying different things? If the message is the same, why does it matter that only one person said so? If only Jesus talked about the truth and no one else, would that mean that the Christian faith is false? I am pretty sure that more than one person helped write the Qur'an, but you're making it seem like religion is only credible if more than one person accepts it.

No, and I am sorry if I was unable to properly convey what I was trying to say. As I said already, my English is a bit rusty.
I'm saying that if different witnesses independently confirm a sighting, then that sighting will be more credible.
The New Testament is an independent collection of verifying accounts (even if you take the synoptics as one), whereas the Quoran is a manifesto that was dictated by one individual.

I read the underlined portion part as you saying that observation is present but not important to morality. But, humans learn through observation. That is why you see children imitating what they see their family, friends, and peers do. Which can be good or bad depending on who they are observing.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see various indications that morality is something deeply intuitive which is the reason why the core social rules are the same in almost every society and why children (who have yet to undergo model learning) often share more values than adults.
There's no doubt that intuitive morality can be reeducated to suit the distorted views of evil (i.e. child soldiers, etc.) - but I am certain that an intuitive compass remains nonetheless.

Many of the rules that are seemingly secularist (for example, the Kant'sche Imperativ) are not "logical" and presuppose a conscience. But I believe that this discussion would be worthy of another thread.

It does not really break it. Good things and bad things happen to all people in different proportions. That does not get rid of the fact that the Muslim god rewarded his prophet while the christian god punished himself.

The paradigm was that the rich were supposedly more blessed.
Jesus Christ "set the record straight" by saying that worldly wealth is no indicator of spiritual wealth - in fact even saying that someone who holds on to his money more than to his heart will have a hard time before the LORD.

Alas, I don't really believe that the LORD "rewarded" his prophet - just as much as I don't think Abramovic, Steve Jobs or any other rich individual is "rewarded".

So as long as you are in a religion, it does not matter that you are not in the Christian religion?

This might not be a very fundamentalist biblical approach, but you're asking for my personal opinion: works and grace go hand in hand.
If you lead a life in which you value your fellow man and in which you make yourself aware that all of your little "achievements" aren't the result of your superiority but the result of that awesome blessing that you had in being able to be the person you are (with all your faults and strengths combined), then I believe you will be given the chance to meet God in the kingdom. The Bible says that the LORD is just, the Bible says that it's more important to truly live according to the LORD than to pay lip service and as such, someone who has never heard of Christianity by definition will have the chance to be saved.

Jesus Christ said the law boils down to two different concepts, which is loving your neighbor (compassion) and loving the LORD (humility) - these concepts have been written into every man's heart and as such are universal.

But again, this is my personal opinion. I am no Bible literalist and this opinion may not reflect their interpretation of Christian faith.

Yes, he would. If a person does not worship the Christian god then they go to hell, the Bible is clear on this. It's even in the ten commandments have no false idols (gods, material objects etc) before me.

It would also be a double standard. What about atheists who have received no proof for his existence? Based on the above sentence you admit that god's presence is not "self-evident" and will have people not accept who he is (since the Eskimo did not believe in god and did not come to him on his own free will) will god give them a pass too?

Again, you're asking my personal opinion: I think the Bible is a great guideline, but I would hardly call it the inerrant word of God. Jesus Christ didn't sit down and spend 30 years writing an instruction manual, but he wrote himself into our hearts.
The fact that his story was documented is great, because his teachings are, plain and simple, awesome.

Having been atheist myself, I am also certain that every man has the possibility to experience the LORD if he is able to put aside all preconceptions first.
But even if he does not - as I said, I believe works and grace go hand in hand. If you are humble and compassionate, then you will find the LORD or he will find you. And yes, I even think this is possible after death.

Oh, and on a side note: I do think the LORDs existence is self evident. I don't see how an Eskimo would know that the LORD came to earth in Israel, was named Jesus Christ and know exactly what he taught - but even the Eskimo would feel his love and be compelled to be compassionate and humble.

Sorry for the confusion about the lying part, I only saw the thing in which it said that an evangelical would never lie. I forgot about the previous, so that is my fault.

But the point still stands that religious people do in fact lie.

I'm sorry if I seemed as though I was enraged. You are entitled to your opinion very much - I just sometimes get the feeling that Christian views are mocked when they use a similar logic.

And yes, religious individuals do lie. God will call that sin and hold them accountable. I've lied too many times to count in my life.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Oh, and HAPPY EASTER EVERYONE!!!!

 

[Syd the Human]

No, and I am sorry if I was unable to properly convey what I was trying to say. As I said already, my English is a bit rusty.
I'm saying that if different witnesses independently confirm a sighting, then that sighting will be more credible.
The New Testament is an independent collection of verifying accounts (even if you take the synoptics as one), whereas the Quoran is a manifesto that was dictated by one individual.

I guess I can give you this one.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I see various indications that morality is something deeply intuitive which is the reason why the core social rules are the same in almost every society and why children (who have yet to undergo model learning) often share more values than adults.
There's no doubt that intuitive morality can be reeducated to suit the distorted views of evil (i.e. child soldiers, etc.) - but I am certain that an intuitive compass remains nonetheless.

I do agree with this, I just think that observation also plays a large role.

Many of the rules that are seemingly secularist (for example, the Kant'sche Imperativ) are not "logical" and presuppose a conscience. But I believe that this discussion would be worthy of another thread.



The paradigm was that the rich were supposedly more blessed.
Jesus Christ "set the record straight" by saying that worldly wealth is no indicator of spiritual wealth - in fact even saying that someone who holds on to his money more than to his heart will have a hard time before the LORD.

Alas, I don't really believe that the LORD "rewarded" his prophet - just as much as I don't think Abramovic, Steve Jobs or any other rich individual is "rewarded".

Not really, but that if a god were to demonstrate which religion to follow it might be a good idea to show that he really cares about those who follow him.

This might not be a very fundamentalist biblical approach, but you're asking for my personal opinion: works and grace go hand in hand.
If you lead a life in which you value your fellow man and in which you make yourself aware that all of your little "achievements" aren't the result of your superiority but the result of that awesome blessing that you had in being able to be the person you are (with all your faults and strengths combined), then I believe you will be given the chance to meet God in the kingdom. The Bible says that the LORD is just, the Bible says that it's more important to truly live according to the LORD than to pay lip service and as such, someone who has never heard of Christianity by definition will have the chance to be saved.

Jesus Christ said the law boils down to two different concepts, which is loving your neighbor (compassion) and loving the LORD (humility) - these concepts have been written into every man's heart and as such are universal.

But again, this is my personal opinion. I am no Bible literalist and this opinion may not reflect their interpretation of Christian faith.

It has nothing to do with being a literalist. If you don't worship the Christian god you don't go to heaven. If worshiping the Christian god was not necessary then the whole religion would be pointless.

Again, you're asking my personal opinion: I think the Bible is a great guideline, but I would hardly call it the inerrant word of God. Jesus Christ didn't sit down and spend 30 years writing an instruction manual, but he wrote himself into our hearts.
The fact that his story was documented is great, because his teachings are, plain and simple, awesome.

Having been atheist myself, I am also certain that every man has the possibility to experience the LORD if he is able to put aside all preconceptions first.

I was a christian first, so I don't think I have any preconceptions that are blocking me.

But even if he does not - as I said, I believe works and grace go hand in hand. If you are humble and compassionate, then you will find the LORD or he will find you. And yes, I even think this is possible after death.

Oh, and on a side note: I do think the LORDs existence is self evident. I don't see how an Eskimo would know that the LORD came to earth in Israel, was named Jesus Christ and know exactly what he taught - but even the Eskimo would feel his love and be compelled to be compassionate and humble.

They would probably have their own religion since they live in a different geographical area. They would not just drop their religion for a foreign one.

I'm sorry if I seemed as though I was enraged. You are entitled to your opinion very much - I just sometimes get the feeling that Christian views are mocked when they use a similar logic.

And yes, religious individuals do lie. God will call that sin and hold them accountable. I've lied too many times to count in my life.

Don't worry about it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Two plus two is 'four', because that is the name of that digit. If we called it 'five' it would be five.

The bible is God revealing himself to the descendants of Israel. The Koran was written to the Arabic peoples. Those who believe and understand the bible are those to whom the bible was intended. It was not intended for unbelievers (who are free to comment on it however). The Koran was written for a troubled and violent people, and is understood by them as such. "East is east"..... and so forth.

 

[Syd the Human]

Two plus two is 'four', because that is the name of that digit. If we called it 'five' it would be five.

The bible is God revealing himself to the descendants of Israel. The Koran was written to the Arabic peoples. Those who believe and understand the bible are those to whom the bible was intended. It was not intended for unbelievers (who are free to comment on it however). The Koran was written for a troubled and violent people, and is understood by them as such. "East is east"..... and so forth.

The Bible was written by people. The Qur'an was written by people. Both religions have had violence in their past. Both religions have made mistakes.

Arrogance, I am pretty sure, is something that the Bible talks against.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The Bible was written by people. The Qur'an was written by people. Both religions have had violence in their past. Both religions have made mistakes.

The OT and the Koran were written for a troubled and violent people. Not so the NT.

Arrogance, I am pretty sure, is something that the Bible talks against

Ok?

 

[Syd the Human]

The OT and the Koran were written for a troubled and violent people. Not so the NT.

I don't see how that is at all relevant. God and Allah are violent gods. *shrug* It's in their nature.

Ok?

You were saying that those who don't believe don't understand the Bible, which is arrogant.

 

[bhsmte]

You were saying that those who don't believe don't understand the Bible, which is arrogant.

Many non-believers understand the historicity of the bible better than Christians. Pew did a study a couple of years ago on religious knowledge and; non-believers scored the highest, evangelical Christians scored the lowest.

Matches up well with this premise; many non-believers tend to investigate something thoroughly before deciding to believe in it or not. Other people, tend to believe what they have always been told.

 

[DogmaHunter]

About the lying argument: i think that's silly. It's pretty obvious for me that both christians and muslims believe what they say. Both today as at the dawn of their respective religions. To death even. Literally.

But, off course, what people believe s irrelevant. Beliefs can be wrong. And idd, at least one of these religions is necessarily wrong. I say that most likely, all are wrong.

Don't have time to address the rest in detail now.

Plus, i'm kinda drunk. And high. Lol

Just came back from a great spring equinox party