Because the bible tells you so?

[The Grand Nudger]

They didn't see the need to change them, Nica (or at least saw no need to change them any further than they -have- changed them).  When they look at those scriptures they -do- see the trinity and hellfire.  Eh?  Ask a catholic, they'll give you chapter and verse.  I could play the part of the catholic if you'd like.

[Won2blv]

God wasn't always invisible. In genesis he walks about like a man in full view. But really, it's not surprising that the first thing someone is going to say about something they can't prove exists is "It's invisible!"

My main problem with the argument that the bible is inspired (or any holy book) and that it's gods way of communicating with us is that it's about the very worst possible way of communicating us I could ever imagine. I bet anyone could list at least 5 better ways than this which would leave no doubt as to who was sending the message.

Let me have a guess at some of the "real" reasons people believe. These may be way off as I've never been under myself, so let me know if I'm on or off:

1) I've always been told it's true and those around me all think it's true

2) I'm scared to even think about it not being true, questioning God is a sin and I don't want to go to hell

3) It feels like it must be true

4) I haven't yet been given a better set of complete answers for how things all came to be

5) It makes me feel good inside to believe in it

6) I want/need it to be true, and I don't want to even think about reasons it might not be true

7) I'd rather keep believing than consider I've been wrong for all this time and that I've been fed a bunch of bull

I'm giving a rough guess that some combination of those are the underlying reasons for belief. All these other "arguments" are just defence mechanisms in order to not have to think about or challenge the core reasons. It is quite possible people do not realise the core reasons.

I agree Pyr, belief is a complex thing. It got me thinking when you said about the belief the Earth is spherical. Straight away I thought, "Oh crap! I better have some reasons for this!" On inspection, I found I have numerous sensible, testable reasons to believe this.

I think that is what I really want to do with theists, if they are interested in obliging. I want to find out these underlying reasons. I just don't accept that all these weak-ass pseudo logical arguments are what has convinced them, mainly because most of them "work" for any religion! If a theist hasn't even thought about those real reasons, I'd love to them to try. And then I'd be interested in hearing them analyse those beliefs, and see what other beliefs they rest on, like you say. I understand this is a scary thing for a theist to do, and I've encountered a lot of resistance in making this suggestion. I've tried with several people and I just get fobbed off with more cover arguments I've debunked a million times already.

If the theist's beliefs are actually true, they should not fear closer examination. I found it exciting rather than scary to examine why I believe what I do about the Earth, because I'm confident it will hold up, and if it doesn't, I want to know about it! It's the unexamined beliefs that cause all the problems I think.

What say you, theists? Do you want to travel into your mind and really challenge those beliefs?

I agree with you about the close consideration. JW's do read their bibles more than most religious people on the whole. That is not just my opinion. As a witness, I have discussed peoples beliefs in my door to door ministry for many years and have observed this with just about most religious people. Of course there are exceptions. I talked to some that would start quoting a scripture before I could look it up

Witnesses always use the scriptural example of the boreans. They studied what the christians were saying was true or not and were commended for their incredulity

---

Christians sure do use a lot of those graven images for people who were specifically instructed not to.

I agree whole heartedly, but this only proves that these cant be true christians right? Or at least they cant say that they follow Jesus teachings the closest

[The Grand Nudger]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the contention of just about every sect of christianity that we all fall short of those teachings?  If that's the case, how would falling short make one christian less christian than another?  That's ignoring that different sects think the phrase "the teachings of jesus" mean different things, of course.

[Won2blv]

Relative, barbarians.  It is implicit in the claim that the system in the bible was the best possible system for the world at that time.  There were other people in the world, following apparently lesser systems......barbarian is probably an aggressive word to use...but it's accurate.  Do you disagree with my word choice, in using "barbarian" or are we discussing whether or not that statement you made was true?  I don't have any notion of what you believe other than what you write on the page, numbskull.  I know better - christianity is harder to nail to the wall than jello.  For all I know you were part of one of the JW splinter sects and not "JW Proper".

You tell me that you believe that the system in the bible was the best possible for the world at that time..and I take you for your word, I accept that you believe that.  I'm not required to accept that your belief is factual.  No amount of calling me ignorant will speak to the point I raised with you.  No amount of claiming my responses are unreasonable will actually make them so - or even speak to that response itself...and no amount of dissatisfaction with my word choice will demonstrate that the point those words were used in service of is in error....

You don't know what my preconceived notions are, and you -couldn't possibly know- what they were....... even if I had them.  No more, in fact, than I could know yours.  So just stop.

I have bolded and italicized what I quoted from you, the statement to which I responded.  Do you or do you not believe that the system in the bible was the best possible system for the world at that time?  If theres some misunderstanding -there- then you can disregard my comments.  If not, you're stuck with them.

(you seem to think, btw, that my complete lack of patience is some effect that you have on me, or that's brought about by some idea of you that I have.....that's not the case at all.   In the years I've been here, I've heard those same claims over and over.  It aint you, if that helps.   I'm actually quite fond of you....)

Well this is the problem I see then, take what I say at face value. Don't paint a broad brush from every other theist you've talked. I would probably have the same qualms with most of them. I never used the word barbarian and that isn't how I feel. I believe that the Moasic law was a system that protected gods ultimate plan. Paul illustrated the law covenant as a tudor, or protector, to christ. It was not a perfect system. But for the ISRAELITES, it was the best possible system to protect them as a people that served to gods purpose. The Israelites were supposed to be kind to alien residents. Again, I am on the fence with what I ultimately believe but I am just responding the OP about what helped me have faith in the bible

---

They didn't see the need to change them, Nica (or at least saw no need to change them any further than they -have- changed them).  When they look at those scriptures they -do- see the trinity and hellfire.  Eh?  Ask a catholic, they'll give you chapter and verse.  I could play the part of the catholic if you'd like.

I have gone toe to toe with catholics, mormons, and protestants about their beliefs. Even if they have scriptures to back them up, I know that the composite picture doesn't work for them. Scripture mining is not more noble than quote mining

---

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it the contention of just about every sect of christianity that we all fall short of those teachings?  If that's the case, how would falling short make one christian less christian than another?  That's ignoring that different sects think the phrase "the teachings of jesus" mean different things, of course.

Of course, so then I would say that the sect that has the least deviations from christs teachings wins

---

   I'm actually quite fond of you....)

Thanks for adding this, I need to remember that I am not talking to the happy hands alliance. I'll try to not take offense to every word uttered

---

[The Grand Nudger]

Well this is the problem I see then, take what I say at face value. Don't paint a broad brush from every other theist you've talked. I would probably have the same qualms with most of them. I never used the word barbarian and that isn't how I feel. I believe that the Moasic law was a system that protected gods ultimate plan. Paul illustrated the law covenant as a tudor, or protector, to christ. It was not a perfect system. But for the ISRAELITES, it was the best possible system to protect them as a people that served to gods purpose. The Israelites were supposed to be kind to alien residents. Again, I am on the fence with what I ultimately believe but I am just responding the OP about what helped me have faith in the bible

I absolutely understand that this isn;t how you feel, however, that is what the statement implies.  Perhaps, if you didn't see the bible as that "best possible" business you would feel differently.  And hey, here you are, in the vipers den..as it it were...you should expect to hear things approached from an angle that may not have presented itself to you previously.  

I'm not commenting on what other theists say - you said that-...do you not want to explore that statement, or it's implications?  If I take it at face value I'd simply state that you cannot reasonably make that claim, you will be unable to explain why..other than personal preference, you believe it to be true.  -and I did say that, eh?  The isrealites had more than one religion operating in their region and within their population......so again, no it wasn't even the best possible system for the israelites of that time period - by any metrics that would make it a less woeful statement than before -even with this modification-.  When were they supposed to be kind......when they weren't exterminating those aliens at the expressed -command- of their god?  

Color me unimpressed with their system.

I have gone toe to toe with catholics, mormons, and protestants about their beliefs. Even if they have scriptures to back them up, I know that the composite picture doesn't work for them. Scripture mining is not more noble than quote mining

Yes, within the framework that you have the right interpretations, and quote the right scriptures.  The situation for them is entirely the same only in reverse, you understand?

Of course, so then I would say that the sect that has the least deviations from christs teachings wins

-and again, since the meaning of the phrase "the teachings of jesus" is demonstrably variable between groups.....you're simply favoring your own sects meaning of that phrase as the metric.  You shouldn't be surprised when other sects come up short.....but you probably shouldn't take that to mean anything - as you've rigged the game.

lol@the happy hands alliance..... Think of every southern stereotype....then add the military, it's just who I am....my foul mouth and aggressive style can put a person off...but they're just the rough exterior to a warm, welcoming southern heart brutha!   Consider my comments regarding the relative barbarism of other systems, lesser systems and your interactions with other christians. It's not so much I'm criticising -your system- or -your metrics- primarily in this.....as I'm standing up for theirs (even though I think those other systems are equally ludicrous.)

[Won2blv]

Well this is the problem I see then, take what I say at face value. Don't paint a broad brush from every other theist you've talked. I would probably have the same qualms with most of them. I never used the word barbarian and that isn't how I feel. I believe that the Moasic law was a system that protected gods ultimate plan. Paul illustrated the law covenant as a tudor, or protector, to christ. It was not a perfect system. But for the ISRAELITES, it was the best possible system to protect them as a people that served to gods purpose. The Israelites were supposed to be kind to alien residents. Again, I am on the fence with what I ultimately believe but I am just responding the OP about what helped me have faith in the bible

I absolutely understand that this isn;t how you feel, however, that is what the statement implies.  Perhaps, if you didn't see the bible as that "best possible" business you would feel differently.  And hey, here you are, in the vipers den..as it it were...you should expect to hear things approached from an angle that may not have presented itself to you previously.  

I'm not commenting on what other theists say - you said that-...do you not want to explore that statement, or it's implications?  If I take it at face value I'd simply state that you cannot reasonably make that claim, you will be unable to explain why..other than personal preference, you believe it to be true.  -and I did say that, eh?  The isrealites had more than one religion operating in their region and within their population......so again, no it wasn't even the best possible system for the israelites of that time period - by any metrics that would make it a less woeful statement than before -even with this modification-.  When were they supposed to be kind......when they weren't exterminating those aliens at the expressed -command- of their god?  

Color me unimpressed with their system.

The point that I am trying to get across is that I want you to argue with what I say. Not what you'll anticipate I'll say

I have gone toe to toe with catholics, mormons, and protestants about their beliefs. Even if they have scriptures to back them up, I know that the composite picture doesn't work for them. Scripture mining is not more noble than quote mining

Yes, within the framework that you have the right interpretations, and quote the right scriptures.  The situation for them is entirely the same only in reverse, you understand?

No, its completely different. Most theists don't even know what the bible says. A point often repeated on these boards. So, ignorance from the bible, yet credulity to your church is not equivalent. Most witnesses can explain their beliefs with scriptures. Mormons for example, will not even use the book of mormon for their beliefs. They might go to the pearl of great price or the doctrines and covenants. If a catholic or mormon wants to show me their framework based on the scriptures then its a different story. 

Of course, so then I would say that the sect that has the least deviations from christs teachings wins

-and again, since the meaning of the phrase "the teachings of jesus" is demonstrably variable between groups.....you're simply favoring your own sects meaning of that phrase as the metric.  You shouldn't be surprised when other sects come up short.....but you probably shouldn't take that to mean anything - as you've rigged the game.

It seems to be a favorite pastime on these boards to point out all of the hypocrisy of christians. Especially when it comes to Jesus own words. But for me, I'll start with the Trinity. Jesus said that no one is good, including himself, but god in heaven. He said that God was the only being that knew when the end would come, even he himself didn't know at that time. When he got baptized, gods voice was heard saying, "this is my son the approved" so for starters, I don't believe anyone can say they truly follow christ and believe that he is equal to god. Sure, you can pick a scripture here and there that says what you want but you're ignoring the composite picture of the scriptures

[Cyberman]

Can we please try to keep these quotes from getting tangled?

[Minimalist]

it's gods way of communicating with us is that it's about the very worst possible way of communicating us I could ever imagine.

You see, this god was locked in to the technology of the time.  Best he could do was scribble on papyrus.  Yes, he looks like something of a schmuck because of that.  You would think that a "god" would not be bound by the limits of men but, WTF.  'Gods' are just not very impressive.

[robvalue]

Yeah, and his ability to heal is limited by man's ability to heal. I'm seeing a pattern...

[comet]

Lately, I've been very disinterested in anything to do with religion, which is probably why I've been so inactive with a majority of the discussions here. I just have a hard time taking it seriously. For me, the problem starts with man writing the bible; I can't get past that fact to lend myself to any other argument for the existence of a biblical god. Things only get slightly more fun with discussions on non-personal, I.D style gods, but not by much.

Now, I know that most Abrahamic theists believe that the authors were divinely inspired, but that's so fucking weak, so here are a few questions I'd like answered (yeah, this shit again):

1. What are your reasons for believing the authors were divinely inspired? (I'm not looking for definitive proof or anything, just your reason, so "because the bible says" is perfectly acceptable to me.)

2. What do you make of the fact that written language is a human invention?

3. Is there anybody that you know of who you would believe if they told you some stuff they wrote was the word of god, or divinely inspired? Why or why not?

4. What role does time play in the believability of a claim that some written words are the word of god?

5. Do you think religion would exist if writing was never invented?

I guess that's it for now. Again, I don't care what your reasons are, I'm not even really looking to argue, so "I just do believe" is fine. Just curious. Although, I may have comment or follow-up questions depending on the answers.

well, I don't do literal bible.  so if I back track as far as I can go the only conclusion is that the universe wrote the bible.  Then we would have to put our beliefs aside to take about what it can mean in terms of traits given to the universe.