Why do Christians trust the Bible?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Chad, come on, if your nonsense was fact there would be zero debate about it, just as there is no debate about mathematics.

Keh!?

Can you remember a time when you weren't this insane, prof?

[Chas]

Chas, thanks for watching.
I am not going to get into your favorite delusion.

What delusion? If I had any, how would you know what my favorite one was?

You are a delusional person in need of psychiatric treatment.

[Chad32]

Chad, come on, if your nonsense was fact there would be zero debate about it, just as there is no debate about mathematics.
I am reminded of a book I heard about called something like, "Popular delusions and manias" having to do with financial stuff
(like the Tulip bulb mania or the current Dow Jones).
How applicable that observation is to your religion.

Well this is what research is for. That's why I asked for citations. You can throw around whatever thoughts you have about how evil homosexuality is, or how great religion is, but if you don't have studies to back up your claims then you're talking out of your ass.

I'm not going to use the bible to determine what rights people have. Otherwise I'd have to agree with slavery, genocide of non christians, and rape of women who are not already married or betrothed to someone. To determine what people should do, I think to myself that consenting adults should be able to do what they want. The idea that children grow up worse off if raised by homosexual parents needs to be grounded in research if it's going to go anywhere. Screwed up people come from all kinds of homes, because they're raised by imperfect Humans.

[ThomM]

Actually - christians do NOT even accept the bible - much less trust it

If you ask them about MANY things that are in the bible - like the sexism - the disregard for human life - the errors and contradictions - and many other things - they simply say that those things no longer apply (Based on what?).

If you quote the bible to a christian feminist that she should have NO power over a man - and be silent and submissive - And THAT is in the NEW TESTAMENT - they will not agree with the bible

Christianity has LONG been a Cafeteria religion - and the "believers" only believe what they want - and disregard LOTS of the bible

OF course - since some of the bible conflicts with reality - they really have no choice

[professor]

Chas and Fidel,
Insane?
Naw, that would be me saying, "I am a duck (not dick- duck)".

The standard practice of totalitarian tactics is to label anyone who disagrees with the Official line to be insane.
We have seen that over and over, doesn't matter if it is the guy who comes out saying the earth is round or those who reject emperor worship or the dissidents of communism.

In the West, anyone who rejects the priesthood of Darwin and their "Science" gets similar treatment.
Of course, you guys would never do that would you?

Thom, I agree with you.
Unregenerate minds see all kinds of contradictions in the bible.
Doesn't matter what the person calls himself who is evaluating it.
The book is largely spiritually discerned- it even says so.

[Chad32]

I'm pretty sure we've moved past Darwin when it comes to evolution and biology, though his findings certainly helped get the ball rolling. As for science, it's the best method of finding out how the universe works. It's certainly better than a book that says you can influence the coat patterns of livestock by putting striped rods in front of mating pairs.

And yes we would mock you for believing Humans came from a dirt golem and his rib wife, and there was somehow no birth defects from eve having sex with her children, and her children having sex with their siblings. And that this is a better idea than Humans evolving from the same common ancestors as the rest of the great apes, of which we have mountains of evidence for.

[DramaQueen]

Galen was wrong about a lot of shit.

[Anomalocaris]

Chas and Fidel,
Insane?
Naw, that would be me saying, "I am a duck (not dick- duck)".

The standard practice of totalitarian tactics is to label anyone who disagrees with the Official line to be insane.
We have seen that over and over, doesn't matter if it is the guy who comes out saying the earth is round or those who reject emperor worship or the dissidents of communism.

In the West, anyone who rejects the priesthood of Darwin and their "Science" gets similar treatment.
Of course, you guys would never do that would you?

Thom, I agree with you.
Unregenerate minds see all kinds of contradictions in the bible.
Doesn't matter what the person calls himself who is evaluating it.
The book is largely spiritually discerned- it even says so.

What you don't seem to understand is just because you might be called insane under a totalitarian regime doesn't mean you are really not insane.

---

I'm pretty sure we've moved past Darwin when it comes to evolution and biology, though his findings certainly helped get the ball rolling. As for science, it's the best method of finding out how the universe works. It's certainly better than a book that says you can influence the coat patterns of livestock by putting striped rods in front of mating pairs.

You would surprised how prescient Darwin was, and as a result how many facets of evolution he had predicted that subsequent researchers thought to have been wrong, but which we have only recently, or even only now, have begun to discover had really been right. So in areas like the power of sexual selection in controlling overall evolution, we have not so much moved beyond Darwin as much as just realizing darwin had been right all alone while most so subsequent called "evolutionists" since darwin had been wrong.

In many ways Darwin was a truly intuitively perceptive genius who was at least 160 years ahead of his time. It is not often the founder of field of science proved to have been so prescient and insightful that his theories anticipated results in the field he founded - a very large field staffed by many of the greatest scientific minds I might add - by a century and a half. If anything, Darwin is underestimated by even the most fervent evolutionist.

You might say at the beginning of science of evolution, Darwin has intuited a more comprehensive and accurate overall picture of behavior of the phenomenon of evolution than vast majority of subsequent researchers, even if he didn't know the detailed mechanisms. Indeed I would say Darwin intuited a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of behavior of evolution than Einstein had understood his relativity.

[RobbyPants]

Wow, I hope your a better studied atheist than you are PRETENDING Muslim.

That's fair. My point is that people of different religions claim to have divine revelations or be able to experience God. I shouldn't have bothered retyping what you did with any one random religion.

Still, how do you reconcile the claims of adherents of other religions when they claim to have the same type of experiences you have?

So... It is your medical opinion that dopamine and wishful thinking, can spawn a successful business, a couple US patents, a successful ministry, over coming a deadly disease, and answers to any God bible related question I or any of you can come up with? All without studying any of it formally?

That's not what I said, and it's a complete nonsequitur.

You could both be successful at business for one reason and experience dopamine for others. I was merely talking about that vague feeling people describe when "feeling God". If this doesn't match your experiences with how you "feel God", please explain the difference.

In your experience maybe shooting a retard with dopamine produces prodigies on a regular basis. My experience is slightly different. Retard + dopamine= blissfully ignorant.

I never said anything approaching this.

[Drich]

That's fair. My point is that people of different religions claim to have divine revelations or be able to experience God. I shouldn't have bothered retyping what you did with any one random religion.

That's the thing, Christianity is unique that way. One does not get to 'experience God' in anyway shape or form unless that person is claiming to be a prophet. Because their 'god' is far too easily falisifed.

Still, how do you reconcile the claims of adherents of other religions when they claim to have the same type of experiences you have?

That's another thing. It is the God of the bible's MO to take the simple quickly ignored, but faithful and use it to destroy conventional wisdom.

In all other religions, their various gods take the already 'holy/set apart/special' people and turn them into people to aspire to. The common/ignored/simple man (someone like me) gets rewarded not in this life but later on in the next. Again, the only people who can claim direct contact with their deity are considered prophets. (outside of Christanity)

Direct Contact with the Holy Spirit/God is unique to Christianity and the reason Christ died on the cross. (So we all may have direct contact with God.)