Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
ExChristian.Net Open Forums > Debating with Christians > How Do You Know The Bible Is The Word Of God?
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 16 2004, 11:22 PM
The http://www.pieofknowledge.com/about.html depicts an individual's theoretical knowledge base relative to all knowledge in the universe as follows:
1. Things you Know You Know
2. Things you Know You Know Don't Know
3. Things you Don't Know You Know
4. Things you Know but Have Forgotten
5. Things you Think You Know but Really DON'T KNOW
So Christians...can you explain how you KNOW the bible is the Word of God?
Posted by: Farasha Jan 16 2004, 11:31 PM
The Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so. The Bible is true because the Bible says so. Circular reasoning.
Welcome to the board, RA.
Posted by: Guest Jan 17 2004, 01:13 PM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 16 2004, 11:22 PM)
5. Things you Think You Know but Really DON'T KNOW
RA,
Welcome, Sun god.
I think most of the xtian faith belongs squarely in the red slice of the pie. Which should be a bigger slice incidentally.
Posted by: PriorWorrier Jan 17 2004, 01:15 PM
QUOTE (Guest @ Jan 17 2004, 01:13 PM)
RA,
Welcome, Sun god.
oops, me forgetting to log in again.
RA, what's your avatar? I can't quite make it out.
Posted by: Reach Jan 17 2004, 01:48 PM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 16 2004, 11:22 PM)
The http://www.pieofknowledge.com/about.html depicts an individual's theoretical knowledge base relative to all knowledge in the universe as follows:
1. Things you Know You Know
2. Things you Know You Know Don't Know
3. Things you Don't Know You Know
4. Things you Know but Have Forgotten
5. Things you Think You Know but Really DON'T KNOW
Editor's Correction?
2. Things you Know You Don't Know
3. Things you Don't Know You Don't Know
reach welcomes you RA!
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 17 2004, 02:13 PM
QUOTE (PriorWorrier @ Jan 17 2004, 04:15 PM)
RA, what's your avatar? I can't quite make it out.
His avatar seems to be a Guinea Pig with a Pancake on it's head...
Posted by: _jjacksonRIAB Jan 17 2004, 02:16 PM
Unless I'm mistaken... two pancakes.
Remember, no one can eat just one. I leave it up to you to decide whether I'm referring to guinea pigs or pancakes...
Posted by: Farasha Jan 17 2004, 02:26 PM
Hah, that's a great avatar, RA.
Posted by: TruthWarrior Jan 17 2004, 04:04 PM
That's what that avatar is from.
Posted by: starstuff Jan 17 2004, 05:36 PM
We know the Bible is true because the gospel writers pointed out all of those wonderful specific prophecies in the old testament that point to jesus . . . ummmmm . . . wait, those were not prophecies. Nevermind
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 17 2004, 07:32 PM
Hello All -
Reach - thanks for pointing out the mistakes on numbers 2 & 3.
The bunny avatar with the pancakes on its head struck me as perfect non-sequitur to many of the responses I've received on other boards from Christian apologists. (Christain apologist: "A=B, therefore B = a bunny with a pancake on its head"). Also, it's just plain funny.
The question was posted in all seriousness though.
How can one really know that the bible is the Word of God?
I think it likely that a lot of Christians have never really considered the question, and I have yet for a Christian to provide me with a plausible answer...
Posted by: Loren Jan 17 2004, 08:34 PM
QUOTE (Reality Amplifier @ Jan 17 2004, 07:32 PM)
Hello All -
The bunny avatar with the pancakes on its head struck me as perfect non-sequitur to many of the responses I've received on other boards from Christian apologists. (Christain apologist: "A=B, therefore B = a bunny with a pancake on its head").
Oh, my gawd, that is so perect and funny! What an appropriate response to so much we've heard and will hear again.
It wouldn't surprise me, RA, if you and your bunny have given the community a new tool for dealing with fundies.
"Ah, yes. I see that your apologetics approach is #3C; the old `bunny with a pancake on his head' gambit..."
Wouldn't that confuse the hell out of them?
Thanks, RA!! That gave me a several great, loud laughs! It's good for a replay!
Oh, god, that is so funny!
Posted by: Emperor Norton II Jan 17 2004, 08:42 PM
Sweet soy sauce, RA, that's awesome. If you ever come to Indiana, I owe you a beer...
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 24 2004, 12:50 PM
Despite the first few lighthearted posts, I did pose the question in all seriousness, and so far no Christian has ventured an answer.
Does any Christian on this board have an answer to the question? Have you ever thought about it?
How do you KNOW the bible is the word of God?
In my mind, this is one of the most crucial of all questions that can be asked here. Christian theology is predicated on the bible being the word of God. Sin, Homosexuality, The Flood, The Resurrection, Salvation, etc, all become topics of little consequence if the source material (the bible) cannot first be shown to be valid. For if the bible cannot be proved valid, or if the validity of it proves doubtful as the actual Word of God, where rests the foundation for faith?
How can one expect to call on others to believe without answering this first step?
Posted by: Post-Evangelical...I think. Jan 25 2004, 10:54 AM
Let me offer an answer as a Christian--not only a "regular" Christian, but, for better or worse, a highly "visible" Christian professor at an evangelical university. But nevertheless a Christian who often feels more at home conversing with folks who may not share my worldview...
This question of certainty is huge in christian circles right now. Some--the more conservative or even reactionary--would argue that we do have absolute certainty. As one person on this board pointed out quite rightly, that is circular reasoning.
The interesting thing is that christianity built only on the Bible is a largely 19th and 20th century phenomenon. Even the reformers (Calvin, Luther) gave a lot more credence to history, tradition, etc, than is generally supposed.
No, I don't think there is any proof that the Bible is the Word of God. It does make claims in places, and there are "prophecies" and so on, but on my opinion none of that really makes or breaks the issue.
But neither is it a "blind leap" issue either. I don't think my faith is anti-rational. But as I (and all human beings) am more than my rationality, so my faith is more than merely rational.
I guess the thing that has me occupied right now is the question of community. Jesus did not start a school but founded a community of people who were supposed to love one another. As we all know who have any life experience, people generally treat each other like crap.
So to me, a compelling piece of evidence for the truth of this whole thing is: are threre any people who really live differently? That would be, perhaps not proof, but something worth thinking about.
Posted by: chefranden Jan 25 2004, 12:35 PM
Professor,
Please stick around if you are into this message board sort of thing. It would be nice to have your point of view.
chef
Posted by: Loren Jan 25 2004, 01:23 PM
Indeed. I second Chef. You seem like someone with whom it would be fun to engage.
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 25 2004, 01:42 PM
While that did not answer the question for me, it’s probably the best and most straightforward answer I’ve heard about where your foundation for faith rests.
It’s seems you’ve stepped outside the box in regards to where the core of your theological beliefs lay in relation to my question.
Asserting that Christianity’s migration of faith to the bible only occurred within the last few centuries in an interesting concept. Do you think there was a catalyst which prompted it (tradition versus the bible)? I thought one of the key drivers of the Reformation was Luther’s struggles the epistles of Paul, and especially that the bible recorded the “just shall live by faith”. That sounds like it was a jump from tradition to scripture. Do you think it was Luther that started the migration from tradition?
Personally, I think tradition can be unreliable, and seems as leaky a vehicle for me to put faith in as the bible. However, I think it likely that in the time after the purported death and resurrection until there was a bible (some 500 years), Christian faith must have mainly propagated via oral history and tradition…
In any case, don’t you think it would be hard for most people today to put faith in oral history and tradition?
To me, it does seem like blind faith, and perhaps Christians will tell that is my struggle to comes to contend with. I just think that believing things on faith very rarely leads to truth.
I agree with you that an ideal goal would be for people to treat one another with more kindness. However, I've read and concurred with most of the testimonies of ex-Christians on this site. About how much better they felt after divorcing themselves from the Christian religion, so does that beg the question of Christianity being the best vehicle to achieve that end? Finally why not Deism or Buddhism?
Thanks for your thoughts, I found them very unique and interesting.
Posted by: SuicydeAlley Jan 25 2004, 01:52 PM
QUOTE (Loren @ Jan 17 2004, 09:34 PM)
It wouldn't surprise me, RA, if you and your bunny have given the community a new tool for dealing with fundies.
"Ah, yes. I see that your apologetics approach is #3C; the old `bunny with a pancake on his head' gambit..."
Wouldn't that confuse the hell out of them?
Thanks, RA!! That gave me a several great, loud laughs! It's good for a replay!
Oh, god, that is so funny!
LMAO Loren
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 25 2004, 04:27 PM
This is the Professor guy again. My name is John, incidentally.
Thank you for the courteous remarks. I really enjoy conversation, even about religion, but religious debate--no thanks. Like one of my favorite writers (and, I am pleased to say, friends) Brian McLaren says, arguing about religion is like pornography: stupid and destructive but somehow still attractive.
Let me try to answer one or two things as best as I can.
For me, the whole question of having faith (in my case, faith in Jesus Christ) is not about the strength of my evidence, my ability to investigate, or really in any way about about how good I am at doing all this. It all turns on whether god is any good at finding me.
If in fact (for the sake of discussion) there is a real Jesus and he is this strange god-man thing and is out to save the world, then presumably my whole experience of faith is actually his doing--his project more than mine, if you will. I am, in a sense, being messed with. But if it is a good god that is messing with me, then it will be a good adventure.
On the other hand, if this is all crap, then my faith is pointless. I have no interest in some kind of religion that I make up, or even one that centuries of wise people made up. Only if a real god is behind it. Otherwise, not interested.
Reality Amplifier: Yes, this is outside the box, depending on where your box is. Evangelicals are often (rightly) critiqued for nearly idolizing the bible, even of putting their faith in the bible. While I use the bible and do in fact "believe" it, my faith is not "in" the text but in the god whom I think is behind the text.
You make a lot of good points about tradition and the bible. Yes, there was no fixed bible for the first few hundred years of christianity. There was no clear line between tradition and written text--the text was viewed as just another aspect of the tradition. And the canon (books chosen for the new testament) was selected how? On how well those books fit with the tradition! So the tradition and the bible are inseparable.
So is tradition unreliable? Depends how you look at it. The Hebrews were amazing in preserving their sacred text, and the copies of the new testament manuscripts agree to a fine degree. But certainly errors are possible. Yet on the whole it seems reasonable that we have in essence what was originally written.
As for Luther, he is often quoted saying things like " a plowboy with the bible knows more than the pope". So yes, that's where the huge move toward sola scriptura (bible only) began. But our current culture makes us see the reformation with modern-colored glasses. What kind of sources do we go to for "certainty"? Science! Experimentation! Objective textbooks. Stuff like that. The modern desire for objective certainty did not exist in Luther's day, or any time in history before the Enlightenment. Here's my point: we often expect the bible to behave like a modern text, and it doesn't. We hold it to standards for which it may not have been intended, and then trash it when it does not meet those standards. An honest reading of the bible, or any text, means trying to understand its cultural context and its original intent.
As for putting faith in tradition: Again, depends on what you mean. Some traditions, like being decent to each other, are self-evidently good. I am going to trust that tradition.
About doubting: Doubting is an act of faith in god. You haven't really escaped being a religious person until you stop doubting. Why? Because when I doubt something, I am looking for something better, for something real. The only way there can be something better and something real in the universe is if a god put it there. If all is chance and molecules, if there is no metaphysical reality, then my own thoughts are shit, just random motions of proteins in a stupid meaningless dance in my skull.
To trust my own thoughts I must also trust that someone is at home in the universe.
That's probably enough for now. I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing--if I do, I suck.
Loren, do you by chance play the pennywhistle?
Good cheer and thanks for reading a long and winding post. Since you are all so kind, I will check back later to see what you have to say.
John
Posted by: SpaceFalcon2001 Jan 25 2004, 04:56 PM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 25 2004, 07:27 PM)
Like one of my favorite writers (and, I am pleased to say, friends) Brian McLaren says, arguing about religion is like pornography: stupid and destructive but somehow still attractive.
It's like something my dad used to say when advising me about holding my first real job.
"First rule in the business world: Never discuss religion or politics."
Posted by: Reality Amplifier Jan 26 2004, 11:14 PM
Interesting thoughts.
Coming from a Deist’s perspective, I also think someone is at home in the Universe(as you put it) but I don’t think that someone is the God of the Christians, the Jews, Muslims, Mormons, or any other religion. However, I think it likely that God is out there, he just evidently does not actively engage with our little corner of creation.
As far as Christianity, I'm most familiar with it than other religions, and I don’t think it can be correct. If it’s based on the bible, there are too many parts that are either too confusing, contradictory, farfetched, debatably allegorical/metaphorical, or too challenging to reconcile with the words of a morally just God.
If it were based on tradition, I think Catholism would probably have the closest traditions mapping back to the its beginnings. However, the Church’s early history also precludes me from placing any faith there. Also interestingly enough, according to the traditions of the Jews, they don’t credit the Christian story.
I also find it noteworthy that all the miracles that first attended the birth of Christianity purportedly occurred at its inception, which certainly must give one pause for reflection, as we don’t see anything like that today. Supposedly, the Apostle Thomas would not believe with compelling proof, so why should we be any different?
In any case, I am at a loss to conceive how anyone can Know that any religious texts are the Words of God. If God were to reveal himself to me that would be one thing, and I could not but help take notice. Yet he has not so far, and I cannot bring myself to place faith in hearsay. Supposing God did communicate to me, my sharing of that communication would likewise just become hearsay. For if you did not hear the word of God personally, you only have my word that I said I heard God. What if I was lying or mistaken?
Another challenge for me is that the mutability of language, and the lack of a universal language seems to preclude the likelihood that the written word (the bible) and spoken word (tradition) could ever by a vehicle to carry the Words of God. Semantics and contextual changes over time would muddle the original message, which would never translate with near enough approximation for such important messages.
I’ll be interested to see if you have any additional thoughts to share John (anyone else too).
Posted by: Loren Jan 27 2004, 02:36 AM
John,
Your pennywhistle reference went by me. However, being a diehard PDQ Bach fan, I might be persuaded to learn to play the left-handed sewer flute.
Posted by: PW Jan 27 2004, 08:37 AM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 25 2004, 04:27 PM)
...we often expect the bible to behave like a modern text, and it doesn't. We hold it to standards for which it may not have been intended, and then trash it when it does not meet those standards. An honest reading of the bible, or any text, means trying to understand its cultural context and its original intent.
PEPG,
I would use this as an argument against the bible being the inspired word of god. Wouldn't god have used language that could still make sense to us today? Revised translations should still capture the original timeless message regardless of the context. With foresight he would have known that there are many more potential converts in this day and age looking for meaning in the scriptures. The audience grows larger in each generation, so why would god's intention be to address only the time and culture of that day.
QUOTE
In any case, I am at a loss to conceive how anyone can Know that any religious texts are the Words of God. If God were to reveal himself to me that would be one thing, and I could not but help take notice. Yet he has not so far, and I cannot bring myself to place faith in hearsay. Supposing God did communicate to me, my sharing of that communication would likewise just become hearsay. For if you did not hear the word of God personally, you only have my word that I said I heard God. What if I was lying or mistaken?
Another challenge for me is that the mutability of language, and the lack of a universal language seems to preclude the likelihood that the written word (the bible) and spoken word (tradition) could ever by a vehicle to carry the Words of God. Semantics and contextual changes over time would muddle the original message, which would never translate with near enough approximation for such important messages.
RA,
It all boils down to how well your culture and family beat their faith into you. Unless the conditions were right and the pastures are greener somewhere else, it's more than likely that one shares the faith of their parents.
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 27 2004, 05:48 PM
Loren--sorry for the bizarre comment. There was someone by that name on an Irish music discussion board. I suppose the world is big enough for more than one person of that name. I also love PDQ Bach!
To keep this from being too long, let me take a stab at two things: miracles and language (although in a way they are the same thing...)
The lack of miracles (or worse, the presence of faith-healer type phony miracles) is often taken as evidence that this whole Christ-event can't be real. The general view is that the bible times were this golden age of one miracle after another.
Not so, really. The recorded miracles are understood as exceptions within the narrative, not the norm. Take the Hebrew bible: that's thousands of years of history with only a few dozen really spanking good miracles. The psalm writers are always saying things like "why the hell don't you do something spectacular in our days, God?" Likewise Lamentations, long stretches of the histories, etc.
In the NT, again the miracles surrounding Jesus and the apostles are amazing (if you believe them) but again life gets back to business once the church is established. Much of the letters of Paul are taken up with mundane tasks of teaching theology and instruction for life, with no hint that the miraculous has much of a role.
So I guess my point of view is that miracles were (maybe are) always the exception and always a surprise (the word miracle means "to cause to smile"). If after all God likes the created order and all his weird laws of physics, he should have a damn good reason for messing with them. In this way the Deists have a good instinct--that the world was well-made and doesn't require constant miraculous interference.
About language: I dearly love language! Yes, it mutates and does all kinds of frustrating things over the centuries. Its meanings are always imprecise no matter how hard we work to define our terms. This is partly what I mean by a modernistic approach: perhaps we demand a scientific precision from language that is alien to its nature.
To me the issue is not whether language is absolutely precise but whether it is sufficient. In every day life I find that indeed I can communicate. I can even learn foreign languages and communicate adequately in them.
But again it comes back to the old question: is God up to something? Is God trying to find me? If so then language may be a means to that end. I will not understand everything but I'll understand enough.
This reminds me of one last thought: the apparent taste for weakness on the part of God. If one follows the biblical narrative, God created ex nihilo--out of nothing. Humanity is formed of, essentially, dust. Abraham, a cowardly dolt, is called out to form a nation. The nation turns out to be quite lame. So the Messiah shows up in a thoroughly unimpressive guise, and by all accounts is a spectacular failure.
The church is even worse. The phrase "church history" wil suffice to illustrate its many weaknesses.
So if God is involved in this venture then this is a God who likes to work in weakness. So why not see the bible as part of the same process? A terribly problematic book, infuriating in fact, full of problems to drive scholars mad, but nevertheless the central text of human history.
I very much hope I'm right about this--that God likes to associate with weakness and failure. Because if God is only interested in excellence then my odds don't look good.
Again, thanks for the invitation to converse. The funny part is that I don't go looking for this sort of debate at all. I found it by accident when doing a search for homemade beer recipes.
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 06:11 PM
A search for homemade beer recipies? Now that's a new one!
I'm sorry, but I just can't swallow this "God works in weakness" theory. If that's true, should it really come as a surprise to him that skeptics tear apart his works and ultimately refuse to give into his problematic and nonsensical mandates and records?
I daresay Herr Bush could do better, but not even Xian theology is deserving of an insult that biting. However, if Joe Theologian out to make a buck can create a better and more logical system than the alleged creator of the universe, that's not saying much for "Let there be light."
Understand, I'm not trying to attack you with this, merely stating my thoughts on the matter. I agree with Chef and Loren that you seem an intelligent and amiable sort, and I would enjoy further conversation with you.
Posted by: chefranden Jan 27 2004, 06:43 PM
QUOTE (Professor)
we often expect the bible to behave like a modern text, and it doesn't. We hold it to standards for which it may not have been intended, and then trash it when it does not meet those standards. An honest reading of the bible, or any text, means trying to understand its cultural context and its original intent.
Towards the end of my preacher days, having at last admitted out loud to myself that the bible was not the word of any one coherent being, whether god or Alfred E. Neumann, I tried to preserve the remains of my faith by calling it the finger pointed at the moon. However, the finger is just too crooked for anyone to tell what moon it is pointed at. Since the bible is supposed to be the record of the remedy for some supposed problem labeled sin that we are to use in this age, what is the difference between depending on its cure "Jesus" and depending on the works of Galen to guide one trough heart surgery?
Posted by: Reach Jan 27 2004, 07:07 PM
Just a welcome to the new guy, Post-Evangelical Prof Guy.
hmmm... do I know you?
I celebrate your safe landing. Enjoy the place.
~reach
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 27 2004, 08:36 PM
It's almost my bedtime, but how can I not respond when called intelligent and amiable? I deny the charge emphatically.
Hi, Woodsmoke. Not sure if I get what you mean about the weakness theory. Are you saying that it would be dumb of God to leave himself (no gender bias intended--it's just convenient to talk this way) open to attack and criticism? Maybe that's true. Everything about Christ and Christ-followers is open to attack and criticism. Most of it is our own fault. I heard someone read from a (disaffected) Christian high school kid's paper as follows: "Maybe all this faith stuff is real and we all suck at it."
As for critics tearing the bible apart--yes, they certainly do. And I have a few critical questions of my own. But it may be going rather far to say that the bible is "nonsensical". After all, humanity has had every chance to discard this book, and for better or worse has kept it. That really is odd, when you stop to think about it.
It really appears that God is not much in the business of self-defense--or at least is not very good at it. Look what happened to poor old Jesus. His critics really tore him apart.
Chef: Hi. You were really a preacher? Were you interesting? Please don't tell me you thumped bibles... In a way, it's peculiar that you would speak of a "supposed problem of sin". I think everybody agrees on a problem of sin--but maybe not with that vocabulary. Everyone I know thinks something is wrong with the world--that unjust institutions or societal structures should be undermined--that meaningful relationships are terribly elusive, and so life is a sick joke because what we want more than all is else meaningful relationships--and the people in general do horrible things to other people for no good reason. Wasn't it C. S. Lewis who said that the main lesson of history is sin?
Let me give a smartass answer to your last item. The only difference between Jesus and any other cure (if there is a difference) is which one of them is real. What I mean is, if there is a real Jesus who is actually alive and trying to save the world, then the frailties (actual or imagined) of the bible are not ultimate obstacles. Why not? Because this whole gig is not about me finding God but God finding me. God can talk to me through this text. But also through people, nature, art, all kinds of stuff. It's like a conspiracy theory--all around me life is conspiring to tell me something about God.
Please please please nobody apologize for disagreeing! That's why we're here.
Reach: I don't know if you know me, but I do know some girls uncomfortable in man-shoes. Like my wife.....
OK. Gotta go. Thanks for reading. Good Cheer. (And where ARE the beer recipes????)
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 27 2004, 09:10 PM
Touche.
You've definitely given me some things to think about. I'm going to need to read over your post a few times to actually understand what was written and write a legitimate and practical reply of my own, methinks.
I'll take a crack at it, though. Don't be surprised if I come back later and change my mind when I finally understand the meaning you were trying to convey.
I don't think it would be foolish of God to leave himself open to criticism so much as I think it's foolish that he leaves no trail to follow to come to a logical conclusion. The Creator is certainly open to criticism. Ask a Deist, and they'll gladly tell you so. However, in all fairness, they'll ask you to honestly give their theology a chance. They'll ask you to investigate the presepts of Deism, to study the natural universe we live in and see if it leads you to the belief that there exists--or did exist--a beginning Creator or Creative Force which put it all in motion.
In those circumstances, a person can do as asked, investigate the claims of Deism, and eventually decide for themselves wether they see personally perceived evidence in support of a Creative Force or not.
However, the Xian deity seems to leave himself open to criticism with no obvious agenda. Nearly everyone on these forums have investigated the claims made by Xians, and upon serious consideration of it all, come out of the whole thing severely disappointed with the near total lack of results. No logical conclusion can possibly be made. The only way one can come to accept the Xian deity is to forego their sense of cognitive reasoning and simply believe with blind faith.
The Creator leaves geck open to criticism, but seems to have an agenda. Regardless of which side of the debate you ultimately fall upon, you come out of the experience with greater knowledge and understanding of the universe you live in. If the Deists are to be believed, that was the Creator's entire plan in the first place, so technically everyone wins.
The Xian deity, however, leaves himself open to criticism with a very vague agenda. I'm not even sure how to give words to it. "Believe....or, uh.....because I said so!"
I see what you mean about the bible sticking around for millenia, but I don't think that necessarily makes it logical or sensical. A young woman who was raped is forced to marry the rapist? Joshua stops the rotation of the Earth? An army brings down the walls of the mighty city of Jericho by marching around them and singing? Not to mention talking snakes and donkeys. I fail to see how any of this makes sense in any way. In fact some of it seems downright silly.
Of course, when you think about it, God doesn't really need to defend himself. Most Xians are more than happy to do it for him. How successfully they defend him is another matter, but they're sure ready to defend.
I just can't bring myself to invest my time, effort, and worship in a being who obviously cares so little about what we think. Would you vote for a politician who never personally stood up to criticism of his policies and decisions, regardless of how valid or outrageous the claim? I sure wouldn't.
Xianity usually conveys the message of "believe or else! " I'm still waiting for the "or else" part.
I don't know what I'm learning more from, reading your posts or writing my responses. Either way, I await your reply and the gems of knowledge/wisdom that I will doubtless divulge therefrom.
Oh, and by the way, the accepted genderless pronoun around here is geck. Easier than the traditional "s/he/it."
Posted by: TexasFreethinker Jan 28 2004, 06:49 AM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 27 2004, 11:36 PM)
As for critics tearing the bible apart--yes, they certainly do. And I have a few critical questions of my own. But it may be going rather far to say that the bible is "nonsensical". After all, humanity has had every chance to discard this book, and for better or worse has kept it. That really is odd, when you stop to think about it.
Hi John,
Welcome to the forums.
I would agree that the bible is not complete nonsense. As with many ancient holy texts, there are pearls of wisdom mixed with beautiful poetry and exciting fantastic stories. And a fair share of nonsense including outdated moral codes.
However, I disagree with your statement that it's odd that humanity has had a chance to discard the bible and hasn't.
There are several "holy" texts still in widespread use around the world. Many are approximately the same age as the books in the old testament, and are therefore even older than the christian books in the new testament.
From what I understand, the Veda - the sacred texts behind Hinduism - were compiled between 1000 BCE and 500 BCE. That makes them older than the old testament (as a whole).
Holy texts for Confucianism date to around 300 BCE, and even the Koran is only four or five hundred years newer than the old testament.
The world has had every chance to discard these books, but hasn't. Even in more recent and supposedly enlightened times, we've seen the arrival and rapid rise in popularity of The Book of Mormon - a book most christians would claim is full of nonsense. Yet educated, intelligent people still follow it.
It seems to me that there's little reason to think that a sacred book's longevity is any validation of the religion it supports. Instead, it appears to be evidence that mankind has a hard time giving up religious beliefs of any kind.
Posted by: I Broke Free Jan 28 2004, 07:01 AM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 27 2004, 11:36 PM)
After all, humanity has had every chance to discard this book, and for better or worse has kept it. That really is odd, when you stop to think about it.
What percent of "All of humanity" actually reads the Bible as a guide for how to run their life?
After subtracting all non-christians and all the christians who rarely read the bible unless instructed to, I would put the world percentage at maybe five-percent!
Has humanity discarded this book? For the most part, a resounding YES!
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 28 2004, 05:45 PM
Both Texas Freethinker and I Broke Free have excellent points to make on the general acceptance of the bible. Of course you are both right--there is no universal acceptance, never has been, and in some cases the text remained influential because it was used as a tool of the ruling classes.
I have a tendency to speak in broad generalizations, and both of you bring needed "detail thinking" to the conversation.
I guess the only point I'm trying to make is: look at us. Here we are, still talking about his maddening book. I just think that's weird.
Woodsmoke: Very, very interesting remark: "I think it's foolish that he [God] leaves no trail to follow to come to a logical conclusion."
So that's a huge and important question: is there a trail? And is the conclusion necessarily logical, or logical only?
If there is a trail, how do I look for it? How will I know if I find it? Why do I find within myself a desire to go looking for a trail anyway? Or a sense of dismay if I become convinced there is none? These last two questions become more intriguing to me the more I think on them.
I found reading C.S Lewis tremendously interesting on this subject. Even (especially?) his fiction is helpful in this regard. No one should go through life without reading the Chronicles of Narnia.
My disappointment grows at the LACK OF BEER RECIPES.
Posted by: chefranden Jan 28 2004, 06:30 PM
Professor,
QUOTE (Professor)
Chef: Hi. You were really a preacher? Were you interesting? Please don't tell me you thumped bibles...
Yes I was, Church of Christ (Christian). I think I got interesting after I noticed that the adults paid more attention to the children’s sermon than to my detailed and learned parsing of the text (it was my dream to move on to professorhood). I did have a floppy bible, but I don’t think I ever thumped it. I got fired from my last church for calling on women to pray in the assembly!
QUOTE
In a way, it's peculiar that you would speak of a "supposed problem of sin". I think everybody agrees on a problem of sin--but maybe not with that vocabulary. Everyone I know thinks something is wrong with the world--that unjust institutions or societal structures should be undermined--that meaningful relationships are terribly elusive, and so life is a sick joke because what we want more than all is else meaningful relationships--and the people in general do horrible things to other people for no good reason. Wasn't it C. S. Lewis who said that the main lesson of history is sin?
All of that is what leads me to the conclusion that even if there is a god it won’t be TriGod, Yahweh maybe, but not TriGod.
I reject the idea of sin as offense against God propitiated by a blood offering, though I once toyed with the idea that the offering was God’s atonement for being the megalomaniac he appears to be in scripture. Nevertheless, as you say, the human condition leaves quite a bit to be desired. I doubt the blood offering was the “proper cure” for the human condition, because after two millennia the problem has shown no improvement and maybe has gotten worse -- thus, my reference to Galen and ancient cures.
QUOTE
Let me give a smartass answer to your last item. The only difference between Jesus and any other cure (if there is a difference) is which one of them is real. What I mean is, if there is a real Jesus who is actually alive and trying to save the world, then the frailties (actual or imagined) of the bible are not ultimate obstacles.
Not so smart assed. That is the question. 2000 years seems to be enough of a clinical trial for me. Jesus is either not real, or ineffective. (I hope that I have not excluded a middle there.)
It is time to take another wild ass guess, about how being human works.
QUOTE
Why not? Because this whole gig is not about me finding God but God finding me. God can talk to me through this text. But also through people, nature, art, all kinds of stuff. It's like a conspiracy theory--all around me life is conspiring to tell me something about God.
Maybe, but why do you need to conclude that TriGod is it, other than that is the one you are closest to culturally speaking?
chef
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 28 2004, 08:08 PM
Chef: Is there anything worse in life than being fired by a church over a triviality? I am sorry, sorry, and one more time sorry.
Are you now a chef? If so, what do you make?
As for Jesus being ineffective for 2000 years: hmmm. In my case there has at least been some effect. Whether for good or ill, perhaps others can say. But the effect is real enough. Let us say that Jesus has been effective enough in my case to make my priorties rearranged around what I perceive as the values of the kingdom of god. For example, I do anachronistic things like say evening prayers. I really should know better. I am (ahem) very educated and know all the reasons why it is silly to do so. Yet I find great joy in it. I find it "real". It speaks to my soul in a way that little else does. I even allow myself to imagine that in some sense I am "meeting God".
To say the least, this is a problematic way to live, and raises ten questions for every one it answers. But there is an effect on me...
Great question, by the way, Chef: even when following the "trail", why suppose it is the christian god and not someone else leaving the bread crumbs?
I suppose one would have to hope that the trail-leaver would be willing to give at least some clue to his/her/its identity. The clue that intrigues me most is that I have any interest in following the trail to begin with. Why should I? I might finally encounter some divine being who would make impossible demands of---god knows what--money or obedience or something. A very dangerous undertaking to be sure. So what is this fatal attraction to chase down the trail of god?
Speaking of searches, no one has yet offered any help with beer recipes.
I don't want to have to use my STERN VOICE, but I will if necessary.
Good Cheer to all,
Post-Evangelical Prof Guy, In Search of Fine Ale Recipes But So Far Disappointed in the Quest
Posted by: Outsider Jan 28 2004, 10:32 PM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 28 2004, 11:08 PM)
Post-Evangelical Prof Guy, In Search of Fine Ale Recipes But So Far Disappointed in the Quest
Prof Guy,
Here you go follow the link.
http://www.geocities.com/longriverbrewer/ales.html
Sorry we did not have any recipes here for you. I guess us former christian are not living up to our "sinful" reputation.
Anyway, welcome here and I have been enjoying reading the discussion here. Have you ever considered registering here?
Posted by: Jay Jan 29 2004, 12:11 AM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 25 2004, 04:27 PM)
Evangelicals are often (rightly) critiqued for nearly idolizing the bible, even of putting their faith in the bible. While I use the bible and do in fact "believe" it, my faith is not "in" the text but in the god whom I think is behind the text.
This is a crucial to being a Christian, not an evangelical or fundamentalist...
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 29 2004, 12:19 AM
Again, give me a little while to try to soak all o' this in. It's kind of new and very definitely refreshing to enter into such a personally stimulating discussion with one as intelligent and thought-provoking as you seem to be.
And though you may deny it, I'm stickin' to my guns in declaring you an amiable sort o' guy!
Begging the question of wether or not there's even a trail to be found, let alone follow--if there's no trail, how does God expect us to find him? If the Xians are to be believed and God punishes those who do not find and worship him, don't you think it's just the teensiest bit unfair and irresponsible on his part to expect us to do so without exercising our most powerful abilities of cognitive reasoning and logical process which he allegedly gave unto us in the first place?
This is just my own personal opinion here, but a deity who expects me to find geck without leaving an attainable method of doing so--especially while denying me use of the most valuable and useful tools humanity is possessing of--isn't a deity I'm so sure I want to find in the first place.
You'd look for that trail the same way you'd look for anything else, I would imagine; by honestly seeking. The way I see it, if God intended for us to go about it another way, it's kinda' his fault for programming us to default that way in the first place.
Obviously, I haven't found this trail yet myself--if one even exists--so as to how you know if/when you've found it.....Your guess is as good as mine.
You're right about those last two, they certainly are inriguing--like a headache that hurts so good. Very good points, but I'm really going to need some time to digest those particular queries.
I know, I've been bad. The closest I've ever associated myslef with Lewis' works was the old animated film made from The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe. One of these days, when I no longer have a reading list stretching from here to Yugoslavia, I'll definitely have to look into reading the Chronicles.
Check that, latest reports say my reading list now goes to just outside Kiev. I suppose I'll just have to add them on at the end and get around to them in about 80 years.
Thanks for helpin' the man, Outsider. I was just going to add a plea at the end of this post to our resident search gurus to see what they could turn up. After the wonderful converstaion he's been giving us, the man deserves a drink.
Besides, now I get to learn how to make booze, too!
Posted by: Ruthie Jan 29 2004, 05:35 AM
Hello again,
Its been ages since I was last here! But pleased to say I'm getting along very nicely with the de-programming
But for me, I'm not ready to burn the Bible, any more than I am ready to burn the Buddhist scriptures, the Bhagvad Gita, the Koran or any other interesting texts that currently line my bookshelf...
Is the Bible God word? Of course, because it says so...or so the Christians tell us...Right....well, I'm not convinced, and neither is any other sane, sensible and intelligent person. So is there a better way forward, for those who want to maintain some kind of faith, or indeed for those who think the Bible might just be worth a read, even if they don't believe any of it.
The way I see the Bible is as a collection of writings from Jewish and early Christian people wrestling with what it means to be human and what it means to interact with God for their day and their time. As such, I don't see it as a theological text book with all the right answers, but rather as a starting point for exploration rooted to an ancient tradition. So when I read the Bible, I remember that the same words have been read through many generations. I allow myself to be challenged and provoked by its words and by the history of how those words have been applied. It roots me to a tradition from which it is possible to grow, develop and be very creative with.
Which all sounds fine, until you remember that the great book has been used to justify bloody atrocities (the Crusades, the Inquisitions etc). And then again...it has also provided some of the raw materials used to bring liberation, hope and healing in the face of injustice, apartheid, racism, poverty and sickness (e.g. Martin Luther King, Oscar Romero, Dietrich Bonhoffer, Corrie Ten Boom, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa, Gandhi etc.)
So for me, the Bible is intricately tied up with other things & other people. The Bible speaks to me but only in so much as it is inter-woven with many other influences - great thinkers, protestors, liberationists, literature, art, music, other faiths, the natural world, the people around me etc - all of these things knit together. I believe that God speaks to us through a great mish-mash of voices, images, ideas and events and challenges us concerning how we are going to respond in the society in which we live in the 21st century.
Perhaps the Bible in and of itself is just a collection of writings, But it, (like many other books and ideas) as the potential to becomes the word of God in its interpretation and practical outworking of that interpretation. So in order for the Bible to be the word of God, it must become incarnational. It must be lived - much like Christ, who according to the Bible, actually is the word of God, took on flesh and lived amongst us.
I once saw an image of Christ holding out a giant Bible. Needless to say, I wasn't so keen on that little piece of art. However, perhaps if I was a decent artist I would paint it the other way round, in that the Bible holds out Christ to us - but it is only in interpreting and living the Bible in our every day experiences that we actually hear and experience God's word with us.
And in addition, I don't think its only the Bible that offers Christ to us - but rather, Christ can also be found in history, in art, in literature, in human rights movements and especially in lifestyles of compassion and love.
Does that make sense and is that a helpful way to be thinking?
Ruthie
PS. Professor - you know Brian MacClaren, how cool, I just read one of his books!
Posted by: michelle Jan 29 2004, 05:49 PM
I would read philosophy before I read the bible although it would have to be an atheist philosopher. Im looking at Ayn Rand right now. To each their own. Little did I know that when I was a Christian, it was knowledge that I was thirsty for, boy did I look in the wrong places. Not to mention it has to be my own knowledge not just a bunch of suggestions and rules. Again, to each their own.
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 29 2004, 05:51 PM
WOW. Outsider, you are amazing. What an attractive bunch of beer recipes. Not a stinker among them. I'm toying with the idea of making my own, and would like to try to craft a really exquisite nut brown ale. Three cheers! Thanks for the invitation to register--I'll see if I can figure it out.
Ummm--OK, where's the conversation?
Ruthie, Hi. Thanks for the point of view. You sound like you've read Karl Barth. In my little subculture he's generally demonized but I have to say that after reading him a bit, he was: A. A good and humble man, and B. A brilliant theologian. Also: C. He hated the Nazis.
Yes, McLaren is quite the outstanding dude. For those readers who don't keep track of the conversations (shouting matches?) within the evangelical church, Brian McLaren has written some books on how the church has forgotten some things, what it might want to remember right about now, and what all this has to do with the current cultural transition to postmodernism. He is taking the proverbial knife to the throat many of fundamentalism's favorite sacred cows. I recommend his book called "A New Kind of Christian" if you want to find out what the buzz is all about.
Ruthie, this is a good quote: "And in addition, I don't think its only the Bible that offers Christ to us - but rather, Christ can also be found in history, in art, in literature, in human rights movements and especially in lifestyles of compassion and love."
Woodsmoke: Greetings to you. I've been thinking about what you said: "This is just my own personal opinion here, but a deity who expects me to find geck without leaving an attainable method of doing so--especially while denying me use of the most valuable and useful tools humanity is possessing of--isn't a deity I'm so sure I want to find in the first place."
I agree completely. How could any god who demanded to be acknowledged, yet remained hidden, be any good? We all learned on the playground that we want things to be fair.
I remarked earlier that logic may not be the only way on this trail, not downplaying the role of logic but only suggesting that intuition, emotion, love of beauty, and "moral goodness" (i.e., people like Mother Teresa) are also perhaps clues. Things that make logical sense are logically satisfying; they have a certain undeniable rightness about them. So do things that are beautiful, emotionally rich, and morally good. They all have their own kind of self-evident rightness.
Likewise, some things are intuitively "right". For example, we all like it better when we are nice to each other on this board. Actually, I could be an ass to everybody and call you nasty names and expend my whole vocabulary of vindictive upon the bloody lot of you. It would take no logical thought (and no time!) for everyone to react negatively. We all know the intuitive wrongness of being a jerk.
So as I think about the Trail (may we capitalize it now, just for fun?) it seems to make sense that if a god is leaving a Trail, we would be well-advised to bring all of our human faculties to bear on the situation: logic, emotion, aesthetics, intuition, and the moral realm. This will affect the kind of tracking I try to do. I may puzzle out logical conundrums, certainly: what is the first cause of the universe? Where did human consciousness and self-awareness come from? And so on. But I may also seek to enjoy nature and ponder what I experience there. And art! And literature! And MUSIC!
Here is a parting thought. Let me know what you think:
Doesn't it make sense to live as if there is a Trail? Even if I think it highly unlikely, I bet I'm going to enjoy my life more if I at least keep an eye out for things wondrous and mysterious.
Did you see the movie Conspiracy Theory (Mel Gibson)? It's so funny that he's nuts and sees clue about a plot everywhere he turns. And then it turns out he's right...
Posted by: Ganeshya Jan 29 2004, 10:19 PM
Prof Guy
While I don't brew beer as such, I do brew ciders and an alcoholic lemonade/ginger beer. My husband brews beer though.
As I live in Australia and all of the recipes are based on home brew kits that you buy from the shops, I'm not sure that our recipes are specifically useful to you, but I will write them out if you wish.
We bought a kit from a shop that specialized in home brewing supplies. Cost about $70. Had a vat with an airlock at the top and spigot thing at the bottom. Also bought a bottle capping device. You need to start saving your beer bottles. Some brands of bottle will be better than others for this.
You may also need an electric heater belt to go around your brewing vat. Hygiene is very important. A lot of people worry about bursting bottles. With hygienic preparation about 1 in every 500 bottles will burst. Don't add more sugar than the recipe says if you don't want bottles to burst.
I presume there are home brewing supply shops in the Us. You need to go and chat up the shop owner.
Ganeshya
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 30 2004, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Post-Evangelical Prof Guy @ Jan 29 2004, 07:51 PM)
Here is a parting thought. Let me know what you think:
Doesn't it make sense to live as if there is a Trail? Even if I think it highly unlikely, I bet I'm going to enjoy my life more if I at least keep an eye out for things wondrous and mysterious.
As for the rest of your post, all that needs to be said on my part is simply, "Agreed."
I think you may have something with that Trail theory, Doc. In fact, though I may not have described it in such a way before, that's how I've been living my life pretty much since the day I was old enough to know what wonder and mystery were.
I suppose that's why I like my apatheism so much. If there is a deity, cool. If not, oh well. I'm going to keep living and learning as much as I can regardless.
This of course is exactly what you proposed I do, if I read you right.
Hats off to ya', Prof. We should get together for a drink sometime.
Posted by: Post-Evangelical Prof Guy Jan 30 2004, 07:42 PM
"Apatheism?" That is a brilliant word. Very precise and descriptive.
Woodsmoke: You have said very many kind words, and I thank you. So it is with regret that I venture to disagree most respectfully on one point:
Your quote: "I suppose that's why I like my apatheism so much. If there is a deity, cool. If not, oh well. I'm going to keep living and learning as much as I can regardless."
It's just that one phrase: "If not, oh well." That's where I'm stuck. Because it really seems to me that, if not, then not "oh well," but "oh crap."
Why so? Why can there not be a satisfying life for me in a universe without a known god?
There are actually many reasons, but I think I sense a preference on this board for linear, logical thinking, so let me trace just one path.
It's my head. My brain. That's where the problem is.
As has been noted previously, if the "source" of christianity--the bible--is proved false, the whole structure collapses. Yes, naturally. That is clear and logical. Well done.
Now, what about the "source" of rational or meaningful thought? How did we come to have thoughts in our heads that correspond to reality? If the universe is only a matter of particles acted upon by inexorable physical laws, then everything about us is also merely a result of blind physical inevitability. That includes my mind. I can only think whatever obediently interacting subatomic particles dictate that I should think. There is no ghost animating the machine. All my ideas are mere unavoidable chemical reactions.
There is no reason, then, to suppose that my thoughts are telling me anything about the world as it actually is. My thoughts are only telling me whatever evolution has found useful for me to know in perpetuating the species. I must not suppose that I am actually a free thinking being. I must not suppose anything. I am incapable of supposing.
The careful reader will of course note that this is not an argument for christianity, or against some other religion, but only an illustration of why I could not live cheerfully as an Apatheist. And I do so desperately want to live cheerfully!
Good cheer to everybody, and especially to Woodsmoke. I think it would be the most wonderful thing in the world if you would buy me a drink!
Posted by: Guest Jan 30 2004, 09:05 PM
Sorry to interrupt...
QUOTE (prof)
Doesn't it make sense to live as if there is a Trail? Even if I think it highly unlikely, I bet I'm going to enjoy my life more if I at least keep an eye out for things wondrous and mysterious.
I think we all eventually need to find something to make us want to get out of bed in the morning. What gets me out of bed is knowing that the only paradise that anyone I care about will ever know is the paradise I help them create.
QUOTE (prof)
Did you see the movie Conspiracy Theory (Mel Gibson)? It's so funny that he's nuts and sees clue about a plot everywhere he turns. And then it turns out he's right...
It was just a movie.
Carry on...
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 30 2004, 09:11 PM
Well, first, for clarification purposes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/Rauch.htm
http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/cetera/apatheism.html
http://bindsocket.tripod.com/apatheism/faq.html
Those three basically describe what apatheism is, according to different understandings of different people, of course; but overall it's basically the same system. Over timee, I've come to hate citing only one source or when only one is cited by someone I may be in debate with. All too often, it seems, while the source may be mostly accurate, there will inevitably be some of the author's personal opinion thrown into the mix. Hence, three is better than one.
Here is an article written by an atheist critiquing the philosophy of apatheism. Rather interesting, and many good points are made, even if one is not of the atheistic persuasion.
http://ravingatheist.com/archives/apatheism.html
Posted by: woodsmoke Jan 30 2004, 10:08 PM
Oy, now we're getting into the realm of the psychological at best, Doc. Possibly even spiritual. Not necessarily unwelcoming territory, but the former is largely unknown to me, and the latter, it seems, is a minefield. Everyone has their own beliefs on the matter, and an honest and innocent mistake in what most would consider an insignificant place could set someone off.
Not that I'm really worried about that with you, of course. Just stating my apprehension, as I feel confident may you understand my feelings in the matter.
Honestly, I haven't the slightest idea how to satisfactorally answer your query concerning our bodies and minds being nothing but a series of electrical impluses, chemical reactions, firing neurons, etc. This thought has occurred to me as well, and I don't know what the hell to make of it.
I will say I've always been somewhat partial to the Deist belief system. Though I don't believe in a supreme deity myself, I agree with them that the most logical and seemingly surefire way to discover the answer to that question would be through study, observation, and learning of the universe which this deity allegedly created for us and which would most likely hold the most clues as to geck's nature, intentions, purpose, etc. It's much like astronomers searching for extra-terrestrial life. Definitely, there is the possibility that life could exist on countless planets and under any number of conditions which would be unsuitable for humans, but if we were to conduct our search in that mind-set, it's unlikely we'd get anywhere in the next few eons. Instead, they concentrate on what they know and search for material which would be familiar to them in an effort to narrow the search and make the finding of results--if, indeed, there are any to be found--easier for the astronomers doing the searching.
Same goes for the deity concept. Sure, it could be a deity which relies on faith, or miracles, or revelation, or any number of other spectacular and largely unreliable mediums. However, having allegedly created us, and knowing that humans as a majority will naturally gravitate toward the logical, reliable methods of science and reasoning, it would make sense for that deity to leave geck's mark in those areas.
Not that a deity should need to make sense to us, mind you, but that merely starts the old hashed and rehashed to death and decay, "beyond the capability of human understanding" ploy.
I have to admit, I am partial to the theory laid out by Carl Sagan in his book The Demon Haunted World. That being (roughly) our conscious minds are nothing more than a simple figment of our imaginations.
Our brains have to deal with near incalculable amounts of data input every day. The quantity of incoming information is so overwhelmingly massive that it's difficult for our brains to keep pace. As a result, it has constructed this fantastic thing which we call consciousness in an effort to cope with it all. As a result of this, we perceive, experience, and remember things in the fashion we are familiar with.
However, our consciousness is not a corporeal component of our physiology. It enters into the realm of the psychological, and thus cannot legitimately be considered as such. Sagan proposes the theory that after we die, this fictional consciousness, along with the rest of our psychological mind-frame which exists as a by-product of the brain's effort to cope with and successfully interpret the data it is constantly receiving from the environment surrounding it, will simply cease to exist.
I know, it sounds scary, but it does make sense if presented properly. I can't come anywhere near doing justice to the superb way in which