Why?

[michabo]

I'm sorry, Michabo, but I don't think you understand my point. Faith is knowing without a doubt in your heart it is true, even if your brain is saying "But it can't be true..." or "But that's impossible!".

I understand your point. You're saying just what I said you're saying: that you want, wish, feel, or hope something is true, but have no way to know if it is true. If you say that you "know" it is true, then you are lying to yourself, or you don't understand what "to know" means.

 

[Jedi christian]

Look, I'm sorry, I don't want to argue with you. Here is one scripture I leave you with, although it may have no meaning to. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

The exodus story is supported by Egyptian records. They have a different slant on it, of course, but they record the event.

The global flood did occur, though not the way it is popularly understood. Rising sea levels from the end of the last ice age sugmerged several cities and nasceant civilizations that existed before Babylon, Egypt, etc. Submerged cities and structures have been located off the coast of India and Japan. The Black Sea was originally a fresh water lake until sea water from the Mediterrenean came pouring in (itself a large valley until about 80,000 years ago when rising sea water from an even earlier and more massive ice age melt off flooded it). Archeologists long thought that rivers were the cradle of civilization because they permitted farming and trade; now it seems that rivers were where fleeing inhabitants of flooding coastal cities went. It also explains why so many geographically diverse civilizations seemed to spring up within a few centuries of one abother along the great rivers of the world: Coastal civilizations would have been in contact with one another long before that and the rising sea level would have only isolated them by forcing them upriver.

The ark is often depicted in art as a boat, but a more accurate depiction would make it more like a barge. At the time Noah and his family were living in the Black Sea basin; to them it must have very much seemed like the whole world was flooded.

And we have to ask what exactly was meant by "the world" in the story of Noah. Was it literally the entirely planet covered in water? Or was "the world" used metaphorically, the same way Caesar taxed "the world" at the birth of Christ. Did the Meso-Americans and Chinese send tax dollars to Rome?

"The world" to Noah consisted of the Black Sea basin, and there would have been far fewer animals to catch and carry than if the entire planet was involved. Further, assuming Noah wasn't stupid, he probably carried the youngest animals he could find to save space and supplies aboard the ark: A pair of lion cubs would be far easier to handle than a full grown pair of lions, right?

A lot of words for simply stating that a global flood didn't actually happen. Of course it doesn't jive with how the event is explicitly described in the particular religious text and there would be no reason to save any animals at all. It's either a mistake on the part of the author or a fictional story. In any case, no global flood occurred despite how it's explicitly described in the Bible as affecting all life and covering the earth completely.

 

[michabo]

Such as.....

Looking just at the Case for Christ which makes the most direct claims, and would be the most persuasive, there are several incorrect or outright false claims made. It would take a book to enumerate all of them, but just a smattering:
- the authorship of the books is claimed to be Matthew, Mark and Luke with no contention, yet the first appearance of these names is in 180AD. Bloomberg claims that it can be based on writings by Papais in 125AD, but this is another deceit because we don't have any writings from Papais! Instead, we rely on Eusebius in the 300's writing about Papais. Further, Bloomberg would have us believe this is uncontested, but given the dates, this appears to be hearsay of hearsay, and not the done deal that is claimed

- Dr. Metzger makes a claim that the bible is complete and dated to within one generation of the original wiriting, and we have surviving copies in other languages which would allow us to reconstruct the text accurately, even if everything else was lost. The reality is that Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus "are datable no earlier than the 300s CE", we have some fragments of the epistles, acts and revelations datable to the 200s, and a few smaller pieces datable to no earlier than 200.

There are also the typical distortions about Josephus, but I'm sure we've all heard these before.

McDowell makes many claims but it's hard to look into them because he provides no footnotes. From what I recall, he makes a big fuss about the empty tomb, and yet, where is this tomb? Missing, for hundreds of years? He makes a big deal about the problems this caused at the time, and yet despite several active writers at the same time and place, no mention is made. Strain at the gnat but swallow the camel, huh?

 

[Buzz Dixon]

If the New Testament was written after 72 AD, wouldn't it have included references to the Disapora? If nothing else, then allusions to show how Christ and/or the disciples predicted it?

The earliest known fragment of a text is about 100-110 AD; it's from John and it jibes with all known copies of John (though, admitedly, it's only a fragment). Even making the extremely unlikely assumption that it was the first part of the Gospel ever written down, it was still written down within the lifetime of eye witnesses to the events.

But there's an even more basic, more common sense bit of reasoning: We know scores if not hundreds of people claimed to be messiahs and prophets in the centuries around the birth of Christ. Many of them had very large followings. Why, then, did none of them flourish into religions?

(And before you whip out Mohammed, remember he was a military and political leader who established an empire and whose political heirs used his prophecies to promote their own power. Christianity was the religion of slaves and losers for its first two centuries. Virtually all the early church leaders lived lives of poverty and were then martyred, so they weren't making it up for personal gain, were they?)

As much as the rationalists strain at gnats, they keep missing one key point: Something truly unique and extraordinary in the history of the human race occured in first century Galilee, and no amount of rationalization can explain it away.

 

[michabo]

But there's an even more basic, more common sense bit of reasoning: We know scores if not hundreds of people claimed to be messiahs and prophets in the centuries around the birth of Christ. Many of them had very large followings. Why, then, did none of them flourish into religions?

That's your strongest argument? Some hints, some question begging, a bit of argumentum ad populum?

Something truly unique and extraordinary in the history of the human race occured in first century Galilee, and no amount of rationalization can explain it away.

Whatever. Something truly unique happens at the birth of every religion. Big whoop. Doesn't make any of them true.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Every other religion's origins can be rationally explained. Not Christianity.

Its adherents didn't seek wealth and power in this world.
They were often pursecuted and frequently executed.
They were a low status religion, the religion of slaves.
There was much to be gained by betraying the faith.
Indeed, any of the original apostles seeking a soft, easy life could have simple betrayed the faith and claimed the resurrection was all made up, and both the Jews and the Romans would have rewqarded him handsomely.
Something greater that wealth, power, physical comfort, etc., kept the nasceant church alive under deliberate and intense persecution. No other religion ever faced such persecution and survived without an army to back it up.

 

[brightlights]

More than a Carpenter, and Lee Strobel's books are excellent books for christians, but they make many errors and are very deceptive. If you have to lie to support your belief, is the belief worth having?

have you ever read them?

 

[michabo]

have you ever read them?

I've read many apologetics books. I've read the Case for Christ, More than Just a Carpenter, and I'm currently reading the Case for Faith.

My grandmother is a passionate Anglican and so I do this as a favour to her

 

[michabo]

Every other religion's origins can be rationally explained. Not Christianity.

Bwaa ha ha ha! Woooooo! Now there's a line to swallow!

I'm sorry my man, but that's got to be one of the top ten least credible arguments I've ever heard, and I've heard a lot of arguments.

 

[michabo]

Look, I'm sorry, I don't want to argue with you. Here is one scripture I leave you with, although it may have no meaning to. "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

That's nice and poetic, but it doesn't address the issue of how we acquire knowledge. There is simply no way to know anything through faith, no matter what scripture might tell you (and I'm sorry but I don't see how this quote even supports your case).

 

[brightlights]

I've read many apologetics books. I've read the Case for Christ, More than Just a Carpenter, and I'm currently reading the Case for Faith.

My grandmother is a passionate Anglican and so I do this as a favour to her

could you please point out some "lies" within the stroble books?

please note that the quotations are not meant to belittle you.

 

[michabo]

See my response on the previous page.

 

[Vermeulen]

k....sorry to be offensive in this post, but,

this is not what i wanted, infact, THIS is the exact opposite of what I wanted!

I consider all of the bibles storys to just be that, storys, that came out of nothing. There is no arguement you can make to change that to me, unless you prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. What your now doing is the exact thing I said I didn't want, arguing the small points like the evidence of the flood. To me these storys are false till proven true!!!!!

Now, what I don't understand is how faith in these storys and such can come out of nothing. I mean, the only way to justify believing in these storys in just to say you do, and give no reason?

What I am asking for is simply if anyone can actually tell me a reason for believing in these storys, rather than faith (which is basically saying you just believe in them with no actual reason).

If this can't be done thats fine, I just want to know if christians are under some pleasure filled drug or that they have actually logically chosen to believe in these storys.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Vermeulen, if you've decided 2 + 2 = 5 and refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, what's the point of even asking what 2 + 2 equal in the first place?

We're showing you our math. 2 + 2 = 4, 4 = 2 + 2. 4 = 1 + 3, 4 = 3 + 1. 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1, etc., etc., and of course, etc.

You do not appear willing to accept any proof that challenges 2 + 2 = 5.

 

[DXRocker73]

As a Catholic I take the Bible conceptually, and not literally like most of my Protestant brothers and sisters.

Meaning when I read the Bible, rather than looking for historical and scientific fact. I look for God was trying to say when he inspired the author to write it. I believe the Catholic Church has done an excellent job interpreting Scripture, which is part why I remained Catholic all these years.

We can sit here and argue all day long about historical and scientific issues in the Bible, and we'd both be right as well as wrong. But it doesn't matter because the Bible is not our science book or history book, it's the word of God.

 

[Vermeulen]

Vermeulen, if you've decided 2 + 2 = 5 and refuse to consider evidence to the contrary, what's the point of even asking what 2 + 2 equal in the first place?

We're showing you our math. 2 + 2 = 4, 4 = 2 + 2. 4 = 1 + 3, 4 = 3 + 1. 4 = 1 + 1 + 1 + 1, etc., etc., and of course, etc.

You do not appear willing to accept any proof that challenges 2 + 2 = 5.

None of you have given any reasons why you think that! What I said was there is no way you can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the bibles storys just by giving an extremely small amount of evidence under one topic (the flood).

I am not trying to prove the bible storys wrong, and I am not asking for people to give evidence of why they are right. I am asking, WHY YOU BELIEVE IN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The exact problem I have with arguing with religous people is that the storys are true till proven false. Which, makes no sense.

 

[DXRocker73]

I am not trying to prove the bible storys wrong, and I am not asking for people to give evidence of why they are right. I am asking, WHY YOU BELIEVE IN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That's not a question I'm afraid I or any other religous person can really answer. Why believe really in anything at all? The answer is is that we just do.

Some people have extraordinary stories of life-altering events that made them believe, others like me, were raised in religous households and through questioning, we decided we did believe. I can't really say, but faith is in fact believing in something without real proof. And no one can explain why faith is so universal.

Now as far as the Bible goes... if you believe there is one God who created the Earth and he sent his son Jesus Christ to die for the sins of mankind. You accept the Bible just because well... it's the book of our Faith. Why do Islamics accept the Quo'ran?

The Bible is just the book of our Faith and that's what we as Christian accept and use.

 

[Buzz Dixon]

None of you have given any reasons why you think that! What I said was there is no way you can convince me beyond a reasonable doubt of the bibles storys just by giving an extremely small amount of evidence under one topic (the flood).

I am not trying to prove the bible storys wrong, and I am not asking for people to give evidence of why they are right. I am asking, WHY YOU BELIEVE IN IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The exact problem I have with arguing with religous people is that the storys are true till proven false. Which, makes no sense.

Jerry Pournelle has pointed out the Bible is better documented than 90% of what is accepted as historical fact from that era.

As to WHY I believe it, all I can say is (1) it works for me (2) it makes sense overall even if some parts are puzzling (3) I have felt God working in my life in a way consistent with what I have read in the Bible.

 

[repentandbelieve]

Whenever I am debating with a religious person, the arguement is always on why not to believe in certain elements of that persons religion. Such as the flood, the creatures in the bible, and etc.
How come the arguement is never why they believe in that religion? If there is any logic in that decision? If there is no proof, nothing close to even evidence, why believe it just because you were spoon feed it as a child?

I would say people believe in these religions for their own pleasure, to help put a human face on the universe. But I am not asking why you like to believe it, i am asking why you logically think these storys are the truth.

Isn't faith just believing in whatever you want for your own satisfaction? WHY believe in these storys with no proof, other than your own pleasure?

When a person is "born again" their eyes are opened to a new level of understanding. To the person who has not recieved the "born again" experience spiritual things seem foolish because they are unable to discern them.
Jesus said to Nicodemus "unless one is born from above they cannot see the kingdom of God."

I'm can understand your point of view, because I can still recall the mindset I had before I was "born again" and all things became new.

The greatest minds, unless they are guided by the Holy Spirit, become bewildered in attempting to understand spiritual things. It is vain to argue these points "for the natural man recieveth not the things of the Spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14)
I'm unable to explain to you how someone can logically believe in the supernatural. I can testify that there is a guide that is more relaible than human logic. Leaning on our own understanding instead of trusting in Gods ability to work both in us and through prevents a person from coming to a knowledge of the truth.
I'm not ridiculing you or blaming you for seeing things as you do. The natural thing for man to do is rely on his own intelect in attempting to understand the things of God.