Why do Christians trust the Bible again?

[Prodigy54321]

???

This questions comes from more thought on..."If I were a Christian..." from a little while back.

What makes them/you so sure that, even if there is a single god, the books that were chosen by men to be considered indicative of the truth are actually just that.

I'm not quite sure about how and when these lists of "correct books" were compiled, but I do know that there was/is more than one different list..so why is the one that you follow right? What evidence is there in support of that list being the correct one? Were the writers of your list inspired by God? How can you possibly know that these men were inspired by God to pick the right books?

The Apocalypse of Peter(I wrote a post about it a while back if you would like to search for it..it wasn't met with much enthusiasm), for instance, was quite popular for a long time and considered for the canon that we know..it was, however, narrowly left out. This text happens to include a conversation that Peter had with Jesus in which Peter confronts Jesus about the horrifying nature of hell that it seem unfair for a person to suffer an eternity...Jesus conforts him by confiding in him a secret..that you CAN get out of hell, that it is not permanent. If there were perhaps just a little more support for this text, most people today would hold radically different view of Christianity.

my point is not that the Apocalypse of Peter should be included..as a matter of fact, there was and now is even more suspicion that the Apocalyse of Peter is not a trustworthy source.

my point is that the assumption that the Bible is the word of God is not afforded by what we know.

so why do you consider it to be?

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure about how and when these lists of "correct books" were compiled

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the assumption that the Bible is the word of God is not afforded by what we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to "know" a lot for someone who hasn't studied the issue.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure about how and when these lists of "correct books" were compiled

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that the assumption that the Bible is the word of God is not afforded by what we know.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to "know" a lot for someone who hasn't studied the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am asking questions, not claiming to know the answers.

the second quote is referring to the average christian who does not know much to anything about the subject.

I would guess that the average christian knows less about the subject than I do, yet they live their lives based of an assumption of a conclusion that demands knowledge of that subject.

care to actually offer an answer? or would you prefer continuing to avoid it?

[txag007]

I'm not avoiding it, but I would suggest that you read a little on the subject of the Old and New Testament canons before you assume that they aren't the Word of God.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not avoiding it, but I would suggest that you read a little on the subject of the Old and New Testament canons before you assume that they aren't the Word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

umm, when did I assume that they weren't? so I ask, What evidence do you have that it is the word of God?...and you respond to the effect of..."What evidence do you have that it is not?"

wtf is all I can say to that.

I am simply asking for you to give me some reasons why you believe that they are

so give me some..if you are so knowledgeable..

[furyshade]

i have read a reasonable amount of the new and old testament, along with some of the mahabharata and other religious texts, and have seen no evidence that it is the word of god. sure there are some proficies that were "fulfilled" but if i were to write several hundred pages of predictions, don't you think over the next thousands of years that were realistic, a few of them would come true? also how do you refute the fact that it is proven that the bible was written hundreds of years after the events that are being told?

[ChrisV]

Prodigy, don't bother with txag. This is his usual modus operandi. He'll just sit there telling you your opinion is worthless because you don't have a Ph.D. in Christian history, but won't actually tell you what he thinks is wrong with your argument. You can see him in action in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8530887&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1) where there was also a little argument about canon. Just read mine and txag's posts.

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not avoiding it, but I would suggest that you read a little on the subject of the Old and New Testament canons before you assume that they aren't the Word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Heard of the First Council of Nicaea?
My understanding is that before this council Christianity had many different forms. Many were considered heresy after the Romans decided exactly what would be contained in their version of Christianity.
Surely the believers of say Arianism believed their version was the true inspired word of God as well?

[furyshade]

[ QUOTE ]
Prodigy, don't bother with txag. This is his usual modus operandi. He'll just sit there telling you your opinion is worthless because you don't have a Ph.D. in Christian history, but won't actually tell you what he thinks is wrong with your argument. You can see him in action in this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=8530887&page=0&fpart=all &vc=1) where there was also a little argument about canon. Just read mine and txag's posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

i've never been more pissed at a 2p2 poster than i was at txag here, i wish i could have a 1 on 1 conversation with him because he just blatantly avoided every question he couldn't answer. people like this make up the ignorance in the world, they become "knowledgeable" on a certain, narrow line of facts, be it religion, global warming (not saying global warming isn't happening, just people use this logic with it), or a myriad of other topics; they then use this narrow line of biased "knowledge" to act superior and assume that no one else is worth arguing with because they havent spent the time on the subject as you. for most of the 20th century everyone KNEW the universe was constant, people had based years of research and schooling on this and guess what, they were wrong. you can't just learn a lot about something and assume that this knowledge makes you such an authority on the subject that you don't need to prove it anymore

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
so I ask, What evidence do you have that it is the word of God?...and you respond to the effect of..."What evidence do you have that it is not?"


[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't my response. There are many places where you can objectively read about the canonization of the Bible. I'm not playing your game.

[txag007]

Nicaea served a specific purpose, but prior to it, Christianity was not as splintered as you make it sound.

[Sun Wukong]

But what makes you think that the current version of the bible isn't missing a crucial passage or hasn't been corrupted in some way.
I'm not saying it has or that it even matters if it has, but how can you be sure it is the authentic word of God?

Edit: In reply to your latest post.
Maybe there weren't thousands of different versions but there were many disagreements regarding the exact status of Jesus to God (the Father).
Why was a Council required? Because there was no agreement on the exact nature of some of the fundamentals of Christianity as we now know it.
All this supports the idea that organised religion is in fact a construct of mankind for control of the masses not as I believe the message of Jesus should truly be interpreted.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not avoiding it, but I would suggest that you read a little on the subject of the Old and New Testament canons before you assume that they aren't the Word of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suggest you study every god/gods that have ever been worshiped or ever could be worshiped before you assume that they don't exist.

[txag007]

I don't have a PhD, and you don't need one to objectively evaluate an argument. What you do need is to be aware that the internet is a lot like the Bible in that it can be used to support any argument with enough incorrect assumptions and sentences taken out of context.

[txag007]

I'm sorry you misinterpretted my purpose in the linked thread. My aim wasn't to answer questions, but to get people to think about what they believe.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
the fact that it is proven that the bible was written hundreds of years after the events that are being told

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the fact that it is proven that the bible was written hundreds of years after the events that are being told

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe not proven but definately suspected by many scholars (rightly or wrongly).
I haven't read enough to make an informed decision about this but certain things seems fishy to me to say the least.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Why was a Council required? Because there was no agreement on the exact nature of some of the fundamentals of Christianity as we now know it.


[/ QUOTE ]
No, to publicly acknowledge the exact nature of the fundamentals of Christianity so as to stop (and prevent) the spread of false doctrine.

[Sun Wukong]

But who deicided what would be deemed false and what would be considered true. IMO powerful Bishops who may have had less than Godly reasons for the decisions they made.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read enough to make an informed decision about this but...


[/ QUOTE ]
I stopped reading there.

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read enough to make an informed decision about this but...


[/ QUOTE ]
I stopped reading there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you shouldn't have.
I can admit when there is a gap in my knowledge which I would like to plug. But that doesn't invalidate the fact there are problems with Christianity, do you have the humility to consider that possibility??

[furyshade]

ok txag007, i have read a good deal of the bible, include the gospels and genesis, be it that it has been some time, i still have a knowledge of what we are talking about, no please answer some questions rather than pushing them away, i have thought my beliefs through extensively as im sure you have, now i want to go to the next level and get some questions about what i do not believe answered. don't tell me to "read up on outside texts", this is a weak excuse and you know it. Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is. Please tell me how it is that the bible, a book with no corroberation of its miracles than its own word. how can you say that the bible is correct yet other religious texts are not? how do you justify "first hand accounts" such as the gospel of peter being excluded from the bible, and assume they are not credible yet assume the ones put in the bible are? please don't just say "____ part of your argument is wrong" and ignore the rest of what i say, if you can't personally back your argument up, don't tell us to read more on the subject, that is a bs defense.

[dknightx]

furyshade, a lot of your question can be answered by doing a search on your own. why do you demand a poster on this message board do the research FOR you? Why dont you, instead, offer the answers to your questions that you find, and explain why you dont like those explanations. If theres something you dont understand about the answers you find, then feel free to ask questions about them, i have no problem answering questions in a non-hostile environment, otherwise its clear to me that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing (and neither side is ever going to agree with the other)

[furyshade]

a good question, i ask these question for the reasons i stated before, i am yet to find a text which offers the answers i seek. most do what txag has done, and dance around the points i am asking about and just assume the bible is infallible without addressing that it might not be. also saying "why don't you do the research yourself" is just a ludicrous argument, why would anyone argue anything, we could all just do the research on our own and never be directly challenged. im arguing because i want to know how someone who is apparently so informed as txag answers my question. im 100% you, as well as every other human being, have argued and asked questions on certain points rather than looking it up. you simply cannot fault me for wanting to argue a point, and the only reason i am hostile is because txag hasn't been answering questions that were in an amicable environment so i felt it necessary to ask him more directly.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so I ask, What evidence do you have that it is the word of God?...and you respond to the effect of..."What evidence do you have that it is not?"


[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn't my response. There are many places where you can objectively read about the canonization of the Bible. I'm not playing your game.

[/ QUOTE ]

what game? the game where I post on in a forum on a topic and ask questions to christians..then they actually answer them!?!?!?!? it's obvious that you are not playing that "game"

you have no answers txag, that's why you tell poeple that there is an answer, but you are not going to tell them what it is..you tell them to go find it themselves so that you don't have to actually think about your own beliefs.

if you don't want to "play my game" then get out of my thread...you have offered nothing of substance to the discussion..you are simply trolling.

so many post in this thread and you managed to say nothing of value.

and it has nothing to do with the fact that you hold a different opinion than I do...NotReady actually contributes to discussions instead of trolling..and thus, I appreciate his input..he doesn't avoid questions, even very tough ones...you avoid them all..

I imagine you covering your eyes and ears screaming "lalallala I can't hear you" over and over again.

[Sun Wukong]

[ QUOTE ]
Why dont you, instead, offer the answers to your questions that you find, and explain why you dont like those explanations.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'll have a go...

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened,

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer my Christian parents would give to this is that the Bible says so and their personal experience of God leads them to believe this is true.
To me this isn't enough to establish whether it is fact or fiction.
Why do you believe it to be true?

[ QUOTE ]
how can you say that the bible is correct yet other religious texts are not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Same response from Christians coupled with the fact historical truths are also mentioned in the bible.
Once again this doesn't make me a believer.
Why do you believe?

[ QUOTE ]
how do you justify "first hand accounts" such as the gospel of peter being excluded from the bible, and assume they are not credible yet assume the ones put in the bible are?

[/ QUOTE ]

This question is one no Christian has ever answered any other way (in my experience) than whoever deicided was inspired by God.
Is that your response?

[MidGe]

I have read the bible numerous times. I challenge anyone to read it with an open mind. That will be the end of their beliefs in the monstrous christian god. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
have read the bible numerous times. I challenge anyone to read it with an open mind. That will be the end of their beliefs in the monstrous christian god.



[/ QUOTE ]

I was yanked out of bed everyday at five in the morning to read the Bible or the Book of Mormon. My favorite by far was the old testament. It was a moral tale. Solomon, upon his father’s death, killed every possible enemy of state. For example, when his dad, king David was coming home from a military campaign, some dude threw a rock at him. King David’s men surrounded the man immediately, and were prepared to kill him. But the king asked the man his reasoning. The man apologized and said that he disagreed with the king’s policies. Well David pardoned the man and that was pretty much the end of the story of this man. But when David died, Solomon, his son, killed this man among other potential enemies.

Was Solomon wrong? Heck no, he did what Michael Corleone would do or what Machiavelli would suggest. Nothing wrong with that, just mere prudence. God blessed him with wisdom. But please don’t suggest that Solomon’s God is an all loving God. I didn’t glean that at all from my numerous readings of the old testament. He was a pragmatic, ruthless, God that was in no way omnipotent. Just like a Greek God he had weaknesses, and of course, strengths.

( Please keep in mind that the above is a paraphrase of my reading of the bible more than 30 years ago, so of course I could be a bit inaccurate.)

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

my point is that the assumption that the Bible is the word of God is not afforded by what we know.


[/ QUOTE ]

I've mentioned the book Evidence That Demands A Verdict by Josh McDowell before. I like it because it serves as a good introduction to many of the common questions about Christian evidences. It's a good primer for beginning the study of textual criticism and ancient documents. It also gives you a good start on understanding the canonizing process for both Old and New Testaments.

As I've said before, McDowell isn't a scholar and the book isn't intended to convince non-Christians. It's basically a workbook for Christians, an introduction. It has an excellent bibliography if you want a deeper study.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
It's basically a workbook for Christians

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean a workbook for the already closed minded?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's basically a workbook for Christians

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean a workbook for the already closed minded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. At least he was honest with his assessment of the source. Given that an extremely high percentage of posts in support of religion are trollish, I think it's pretty neat when one of them avoids using those tactics.

[MidGe]

Point taken.
BTW, were the previous times he mentioned it, only as a reference for xtians?

[Ben K]

The upsurge in christians believing the bible again is due to the threat of another religion. Simple.

America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics. A couple of hundred years later and some religious nutters fly a plane into a building and suddenly god is telling the president to invade and religion is a huge topic again.

So religion is a huge topic again and all the rational (if you think religion has any basis in rational thinking then maybe I have used the right word) people are scrutinising the texts. So the believers are attempting (poorly) to defend them - often by simply shouting louder or evasion.

Thankfully, most intelligent people know all religions are bogus and I think they'll get through the religious obstructions eventually.

P.S. Religious people are, on average more stupid than atheists. This has been shown by numerous studies. I like being in the smart set even if I am actually not that smart.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's basically a workbook for Christians

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean a workbook for the already closed minded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on. At least he was honest with his assessment of the source. Given that an extremely high percentage of posts in support of religion are trollish, I think it's pretty neat when one of them avoids using those tactics.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT, I appreciate NotReady's posts...txag claims that he is trying to make other people think about their beliefs..1) he should look at his own...2) he fails miserably because he offers nothing of substance...NotReady, on the other hand, often accomplishes what txag fails to..(for me at least)..because NotReady actually offers us some of his reasoning and doesn't avoid questions.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken.
BTW, were the previous times he mentioned it, only as a reference for xtians?

[/ QUOTE ]

atheists can still learn from these types of texts IMO..for instance, Lee Strobel's works made me even more confident that his conclusions were incorrect /images/graemlins/laugh.gif...for some reason, Christians always recommend his books though. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The Apocalypse of Peter(I wrote a post about it a while back if you would like to search for it..it wasn't met with much enthusiasm), for instance, was quite popular for a long time and considered for the canon that we know..it was, however, narrowly left out. This text happens to include a conversation that Peter had with Jesus in which Peter confronts Jesus about the horrifying nature of hell that it seem unfair for a person to suffer an eternity...Jesus conforts him by confiding in him a secret..that you CAN get out of hell, that it is not permanent. If there were perhaps just a little more support for this text, most people today would hold radically different view of Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently there were good reasons for setting aside this Apocalypse, because the notion of hell you ascribe to it is found nowhere in the Bible. What the Bible refers to as "hell" is by and large either the grave or the city dump of Jerusalem.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

BTW, were the previous times he mentioned it, only as a reference for xtians?


[/ QUOTE ]

If I remember correctly I've always given the same assessment of the book. It is flawed, no doubt. The reason I cite it is because Christian evidences are not my strong suit. I read McDowell when it was first published and felt it more than answered any of that type question I had. I've always been more interested in the philosophical side of apologetics.

So McDowell's book is the only one in that area I've read. I have no doubt there are many better, more scholarly works. McDowell himself says in the introduction that the book isn't intended as a major effort of scholarship, that he's just drawing together much of the material for Christians as a reference.

I recommend it because it addresses many of the issues non-Christians have about evidences, gives a good overview, and then points to a lot more material if you are interested in a deeper knowledge.

You might think of it as a kind of Cliff notes to the subject of evidences.

[Duke]

@OP

I didn't realize that anyone trusted it the first time. What's this "again" stuff?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
@OP

I didn't realize that anyone trusted it the first time. What's this "again" stuff?

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant "again" as in, I can't recall a Christian ever giving me the resoning behind their confidence in it...they just seem to assume it.

[PairTheBoard]

[ QUOTE ]
ok txag007, i have read a good deal of the bible, include the gospels and genesis, be it that it has been some time, i still have a knowledge of what we are talking about, no please answer some questions rather than pushing them away, i have thought my beliefs through extensively as im sure you have, now i want to go to the next level and get some questions about what i do not believe answered. don't tell me to "read up on outside texts", this is a weak excuse and you know it. Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is. Please tell me how it is that the bible, a book with no corroberation of its miracles than its own word. how can you say that the bible is correct yet other religious texts are not? how do you justify "first hand accounts" such as the gospel of peter being excluded from the bible, and assume they are not credible yet assume the ones put in the bible are? please don't just say "____ part of your argument is wrong" and ignore the rest of what i say, if you can't personally back your argument up, don't tell us to read more on the subject, that is a bs defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought this was an excellent Link to a Discussion of the Resurrection (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html) provided by ChrisV in This Recent Thread. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=9341853&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

It gives a view of the Resurrection that's palatable to a modern thinker as well as insight into the likely development and construction of parts of the Bible.

PairTheBoard

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence?

[/ QUOTE ]

The god it's referring to is not a Christian god, or any god that actually has a religion founded on it. A lot of the elite 'top top' leaders were not religious, but they loosely used the term 'God' in their discussions as a term to cover every religious and scientific basis for how the universe was created.

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology."

--Thomas Jefferson, the main brains behind the constituion


"the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

-- Treaty of Tripoli, Passed by the United States Senate, 1797

[CORed]

Christians know the Bible is correct because the Bible tells them so.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
The god it's referring to is not a Christian god, or any god that actually has a religion founded on it. A lot of the elite 'top top' leaders were not religious, but they loosely used the term 'God' in their discussions as a term to cover every religious and scientific basis for how the universe was created.

[/ QUOTE ]

"...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."

We can see something in the above of the God the signatories to the Declaration considered to have the leading role in their enterprise. A natural process does not fit here, as the founders including Jefferson himself made clear elsewhere.

"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"

--Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227

Also, I'm not talking about the government of the United States. I'm talking about the sovereign people who created that government. They are the ones referred to as having inalienable rights from their Creator. We have a secular government which does not share that attribute.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess I misread the establishment clause.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
The god it's referring to is not a Christian god, or any god that actually has a religion founded on it. A lot of the elite 'top top' leaders were not religious, but they loosely used the term 'God' in their discussions as a term to cover every religious and scientific basis for how the universe was created.


[/ QUOTE ]
See this book (http://www.amazon.com/Christianity-Constitution-Faith-Founding-Fathers/dp/0801052319/ref=sr_1_1/103-9202151-2326205?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173067995&sr=1-1) for insight on why this is wrong.

[furyshade]

txag, why don't you actually answer any questions asked of you?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
txag, why don't you actually answer any questions asked of you?

[/ QUOTE ]

txag is the all knowing one...

his disagreement is enough to make you know that you are wrong and need to find out why..

much like the "Do you see why?" of Sklansky /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
txag is the all knowing one...


[/ QUOTE ]

He happens to be the world authority on biblical interpretation. If you disagree with him you are misinterpreting or quoting out of context.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights..."

We can see something in the above of the God the signatories to the Declaration considered to have the leading role in their enterprise. A natural process does not fit here, as the founders including Jefferson himself made clear elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was before the theory of evolution existed, so I'm not sure what naturalistic process you expected them to refer to.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably by the same method that you know the earth revolves around the sun: you either believe what other people tell you or you have some personal subjective knowledge that confirms a sense of certainty. Honestly, how do you know the earth revolves around the sun? Testimony? Personal validation?

I really don't know how you can say any of your conclusions would be more subjectively valid than his. It would be nice to get an honest answer - do you have first hand knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, or are you basing your belief on what people tell you?

The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said. I guess it would be possible to verify it, but that's the same argument the religious folk would use: if you believe you'll know. What's the difference?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said.

[/ QUOTE ]

At last, the truth comes out! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said.

[/ QUOTE ]

At last, the truth comes out! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

To return the favor and use your gift of "selectively" quoting words.
MidGe quotes:

[ QUOTE ]
you are misinterpreting or quoting out of context.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I challenge anyone to read

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a workbook for the already closed minded

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That will be the end of their beliefs

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At last

[/ QUOTE ]

But it would be nice if you could honestly answer the question - do you know (first hand account) the earth revolves around the sun or believe (second hand account) it? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MidGe]

I can deal with either as long as everything else is consistent. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[alphatmw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably by the same method that you know the earth revolves around the sun: you either believe what other people tell you or you have some personal subjective knowledge that confirms a sense of certainty. Honestly, how do you know the earth revolves around the sun? Testimony? Personal validation?

I really don't know how you can say any of your conclusions would be more subjectively valid than his. It would be nice to get an honest answer - do you have first hand knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, or are you basing your belief on what people tell you?

The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said. I guess it would be possible to verify it, but that's the same argument the religious folk would use: if you believe you'll know. What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]if you really believe that these two things are analogous, how do you explain that ~100% of people believe the earth revolves around the sun and not close to 100% of people believe in the bible?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably by the same method that you know the earth revolves around the sun: you either believe what other people tell you or you have some personal subjective knowledge that confirms a sense of certainty. Honestly, how do you know the earth revolves around the sun? Testimony? Personal validation?

I really don't know how you can say any of your conclusions would be more subjectively valid than his. It would be nice to get an honest answer - do you have first hand knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, or are you basing your belief on what people tell you?

The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said. I guess it would be possible to verify it, but that's the same argument the religious folk would use: if you believe you'll know. What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're conflating two different things here. Believing in the resurrection is not analogous to believing that the Earth orbits the Sun, because one is a historical event and the other a current objective fact. A better analogy would be between the resurrection and another, roughly contemporaneous historical event. Such a comparison is made here (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html), with the basic point being that the reason we believe historical events happened is that there are multiple pieces of evidence for them, including multiple independent written accounts of the event. For the resurrection, by contrast, we have the word of the Bible and a conspicuous lack of any other evidence.

Alternatively, you can compare the Earth revolving around the Sun with another current factual claim, such as that the Christian God exists. In the first case, as you point out, anyone who wants to know why we think that can be told how to go about personally verifying it (in addition to the reams of evidence such as space photographs). OTOH, if I want to know why I should believe in the Christian God, believers can refer back to things like the resurrection - in which case we run into the aforementioned historicity problem - or they can use the "if you believe you'll know" argument. The idea that you can figure out what's true by what "feels true" doesn't exactly have a very illustrious history. In the specific case of religion, it is in fact certain that this method of determining truth has led the majority of people employing it to the wrong conclusion. This is not the case with the Earth orbiting the Sun; 99.9% of people who look at the evidence come to the same conclusion.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
America was founded as a secular nation where religion was not intended to influence politics.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guess I misread the establishment clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not, but you appear to have misapplied it.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tell me how you know for a fact that the resurrection happened, how the bible is a credible soure given how edited and metaphorical it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably by the same method that you know the earth revolves around the sun: you either believe what other people tell you or you have some personal subjective knowledge that confirms a sense of certainty. Honestly, how do you know the earth revolves around the sun? Testimony? Personal validation?

I really don't know how you can say any of your conclusions would be more subjectively valid than his. It would be nice to get an honest answer - do you have first hand knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun, or are you basing your belief on what people tell you?

The reason I'm asking is I happen to believe that the earth revolves around the sun, but I certainly don't know it. I just believe what others have said. I guess it would be possible to verify it, but that's the same argument the religious folk would use: if you believe you'll know. What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, and the reason you don't know it in any more certain way is because it doesn't matter. The absolute truth of the matter of the Earth's revolution makes almost no difference to your daily life, so you are perfectly right to just accept it on personal testimonial or some such thing. If it suddenly became really important to your life, I would hope you would stop accepting authority and find the truth out yourself, to a more satisfactory degree. While you won't be able to completely erase doubt, the benefit of science is that you are always free, at any time, to seek explanations to any degree of certainty that you require.

Now do you see why this is different? In the Biblical case, you are at an impasse, and the roadblock comes up awfully early in the search. For the Biblical things that don't much matter, thats probably ok. But when you start to realize that your eternal soul might be on the line, some of us wish that it was possible to obtain a little bit greater degree of certainty. This is possible in every other arena...but not this one. THAT is the difference.