Theists: would you view the truth?

[Ignorant]

The thing is, if the words in the bible have value, I don't see why that value disappears even if the events turn out to be semi-fictional. [1] If it's good advice, it continues to be good advice. In other words, belief in the original events doesn't seem to be all that relevant from the point of view of living this life. It just seems to be about making sure you're on the right side for the next life. [2]

If you viewed the events and it's not what you thought, nothing has changed. You're still you, you still have your morality and values. [3]

Of course you'll realise you spent a great deal of time talking to nothing, which would be a shame. [4]

1) Some of the words in the bible have value because they reveal things about human destiny and about god which human nature is not capable of naturally discovering on its own (e.g. God is Triune, The Son of God became incarnate in the person of Jesus, the struggle of the poor is salvific, Jesus rose from the dead and sent the Holy Spirit, everyone will be raised from the dead and judged according to what they've done, etc.). We know these words to be true ONLY by faith, and faith demands the reality of the truth and authority of the revealer. These things would lose their value upon the discovery that the revealer, in whom the truth of the words is known, is neither true nor authoritative nor existent. In other words, you can't know (by faith) that God is Father, Son, and Spirit if the only reason you had for believing it was the authority of a person who a) never existed, b) has not the authority, c) never taught such, etc.

Other words in the bible have value because they reveal things about human destiny and about god which human nature IS CAPABLE of naturally discovering on its own (e.g. murder is bad, social living is good, the golden rule, etc.). Even if it were just men writing according to the wisdom of their culture and time, there are parts which retain their value from the perspective of wisdom, and even literature.

2) Christianity is fundamentally a religion of a person, NOT a book. There is more than mere "advice" in the Bible. It also tells of the relationship God has with us, and what he wants for our life (which is to make our lives divine). If the one who brought that message in his very person never existed, or if he existed in a radically different way than what the Scriptures and the Community today report, then the the faith in that person and the hope for his promises become delusions. 

Jesus, in his very person - a union between God and humanity, is the revelation to which we hold. Union with god and his life is achieved through uniting your humanity to his (not to a book). If Jesus never existed or didn't exist like the Bible and the tradition reports, then that raises a lot of questions about the meaning and purpose of human life and the destiny that awaits it.

3) Exactly, but then some of the reasons for which you act may change. Some of the realities from which you determine how to act no longer determine how you act. Some of the things you value no longer exist. You still hold that murder, fornication, extortion, oppression, etc. are "wrong", but the idea of the "best" way to live and the reasons for it requires recalculation.

4) That too

[robvalue]

Thank you for your thoughtful response

What changes would you make to how you live your life?

[Ignorant]

It's hard to say what would change and what wouldn't. Do you mean if I were to witness something directly contradictory to the Catholic religion, or something which renders the Catholic religion a complete fabrication?

[robvalue]

Let's say it was all perfectly normal stuff. All mentions of gods and miracles and resurrections were fabrications. Jesus was just some preacher who got crucified for being a nuisance.

I suppose the question is what actions do you take just because of the story, and what things don't you do just because of the story. Take for granted you stop any religious rituals and such. I'm interested in morality.

I'd love to hear all theists' thoughts on this.

[FallentoReason]

in summary, I find it a bit comical when skeptics think that by reducing miracles to naturally occurring phenomena they have invalidated the witness of Holy Scripture.

Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but you're implicitly saying that miracles can only ever be natural in occurrence, yes? I'd have to agree with you, because to my mind I don't think God would fiddle with physics etc. but at the same time, isn't this a double edged sword? What would tip the event over to a 'supernatural cause', if indeed it can be called that, since causally speaking there is admittedly a gap?

[vorlon13]

Here's the link if you want to see the entire article:  http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/lack_o..._luke_acts

and that's not an isolated opinion piece either.  Ehrman is on board, and as we all know (or should know) as a Moody Bible College trained biblical scholar, Ehrman, whether you agree with the conclusions or not, knows the bible forwards and backwards.  If he says there are huge problems (my words, Ehrman tries to be diplomatic to a greater extent than me) in Luke regarding Christ's death failing to be described as providing atonement for sin, then there are huge problems in the Gospel of Luke for those desperately wanting Luke to describe Christ's death as providing atonement for sin.  As further confirmation of this problem, even to my un-Moody Bible College trained eye, the apologetics on this problem are even worse than the apologetics spewed forth in support of Mormonism, and that is no mean feat.




Lack of Atonement in Luke/Acts
 
This is our third rebuttal to Shamoun (previous rebuttals can be seen here *,*). We will respond to all of Shamoun's shoddy polemics, though not in the precise order in which he raised them.
 
I. Jesus (peace be upon him) as a righteous martyr in Luke/Acts
Consider the following passage in Mark 10:45:
"For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many"

The bit in italics conveys an atoning salvific value and significance to Jesus' (peace be upon him) death.

The author of Luke/Acts (henceforth known as 'Luke' for the sake of convenience), who is using Mark as his source, does not quote the above saying.

Some, however, claim that Luke does reproduce the above Marcan passage, albeit in a severely altered form, in :

For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

If so, then Luke has removed from Mark 10:45 the atoning significance of Jesus' (peace be upon him) death. There is no mention here of Jesus (peace be upon him) being a 'ransom' or giving his life 'for many'.

Luke also alters the confession of the centurion. Unlike the Marcan centurion, who says (15:39), "Surely this man was the Son of God," the Lucan centurion says (Luke 23:47):
"Truly this man was innocent." (or: "Surely this was a righteous man" - )

Even putting the above aside, consider the following passage from Acts 8:

25 So, when they had solemnly testified and spoken the word of the Lord, they started back to Jerusalem, and were preaching the gospel to many villages of the Samaritans.

 26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip saying, "Get up and go south to the road that descends from Jerusalem to Gaza." (This is a desert road.)

 27 So he got up and went; and there was an Ethiopian eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure; and he had come to Jerusalem to worship,

 28 and he was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.

 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."

 30 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"

 31 And he said, "Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?" And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

 32 Now the passage of Scripture which he was reading was this:
         ")HE WAS LED AS A SHEEP TO SLAUGHTER;
         AND AS A LAMB BEFORE ITS SHEARER IS SILENT,
         SO HE DOES NOT OPEN HIS MOUTH.
    33 "IN HUMILIATION HIS JUDGMENT WAS TAKEN AWAY;
         WHO WILL RELATE HIS GENERATION?
         FOR HIS LIFE IS REMOVED FROM THE EARTH."
 34 The eunuch answered Philip and said, "Please tell me, of whom does the prophet say this? Of himself or of someone else?"
 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture he preached Jesus to him.
Above, Luke has an Ethiopian eunuch read a passage from Isaiah 53 - a passage which came to be employed by Christians to explain Jesus' (peace be upon him) death as a vicarious atonement. It is precisely here where we should have expected a reference from Luke to Jesus' (peace be upon him) atoning death. But astonishingly enough, Luke makes no reference to the Servant of the Lord who was "wounded for our transgressions" (Isaiah 53:5), who was "bruised for our iniquities" (53:5) and who made himself "an offering for sin" (53:10). Luke stops citing Isaiah at a crucial point. He avoids citing the statement regarding the servant who was "stricken for the transgression of my people" (53:8).  Instead, Luke uses Isaiah to argue that Jesus (peace be upon him) died as an innocent victim who was subsequently vindicated.



Check the link to read the rest, or even better, go read Jesus Interrupted, and know the truth. 

[Cyberman]

It's hard to say what would change and what wouldn't. Do you mean if I were to witness something directly contradictory to the Catholic religion, or something which renders the Catholic religion a complete fabrication?

Well, if I were to be convinced that the Apollo Moon landings were filmed in a studio, and I was able to visit the supposed landing site at the appropriate time and saw the whole thing unfold in front of my eyes, I would be forced to reassess what I thought was true. That would go for the exact polar opposite scenario as well, of course.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, but you're implicitly saying that miracles can only ever be natural in occurrence, yes? I'd have to agree with you, because to my mind I don't think God would fiddle with physics etc. but at the same time, isn't this a double edged sword? What would tip the event over to a 'supernatural cause', if indeed it can be called that, since causally speaking there is admittedly a gap?

Thank you for your considerate reply.   I wouldn't say "only ever" but rather "sometimes maybe". An unpredictable yet anticipated, highly convenient and perfectly timed earthquake is pretty miraculous. Likewise, walking on water most certainly defies our current understanding of physics. It is conceivable that a future technology would enable such an ability. Even in that case, the ability to employ that technology in 30 A.D. would still be, well, pretty miraculous. Or, to wildly speculate for a moment, some bizarre quantum event could in some way and against all odds, have made firm water below Jesus's feet in precisely the direction he intended to travel. More to the point it isn't about how He did it. What matters is why He did it. That's all I really hoped to say.

But returning back to the question of how, what I am saying is that the author and sustainer of the universe could organize His creation in such a way that these kinds of natural yet fortuitous events work towards whatever purpose He desires. That is the doctrine of Divine Providence which is very commonly found in Christianity. Granted I have taken the concept to the extreme although not outside its parameters.

What I have great difficulty conceiving, and most honest believers will admit, is why things could not also be organized to eliminate all the pains and miseries of living. Then again, miracles seem more like engineering solutions, which generally don't apply to spiritual problems.

[Catholic_Lady]

It would be shocking, devastating, and confusing. I'd feel pretty lost. But I'm not the type of person who just tells myself things that I know aren't true just to make myself feel better. If I went back in time and saw that Jesus never really existed, or that he wasn't who he said he was, I'd be honest with myself and accept it.

Good to hear that Deb.
If that were to be the case, I'd then ask you to tell me where you "really" think you get your morals from ...

Natural law.

---

The thing is, if the words in the bible have value, I don't see why that value disappears even if the events turn out to be semi-fictional. [1] If it's good advice, it continues to be good advice. In other words, belief in the original events doesn't seem to be all that relevant from the point of view of living this life. It just seems to be about making sure you're on the right side for the next life. [2]

If you viewed the events and it's not what you thought, nothing has changed. You're still you, you still have your morality and values. [3]

Of course you'll realise you spent a great deal of time talking to nothing, which would be a shame. [4]

1) Some of the words in the bible have value because they reveal things about human destiny and about god which human nature is not capable of naturally discovering on its own (e.g. God is Triune, The Son of God became incarnate in the person of Jesus, the struggle of the poor is salvific, Jesus rose from the dead and sent the Holy Spirit, everyone will be raised from the dead and judged according to what they've done, etc.). We know these words to be true ONLY by faith, and faith demands the reality of the truth and authority of the revealer. These things would lose their value upon the discovery that the revealer, in whom the truth of the words is known, is neither true nor authoritative nor existent. In other words, you can't know (by faith) that God is Father, Son, and Spirit if the only reason you had for believing it was the authority of a person who a) never existed, b) has not the authority, c) never taught such, etc.

Other words in the bible have value because they reveal things about human destiny and about god which human nature IS CAPABLE of naturally discovering on its own (e.g. murder is bad, social living is good, the golden rule, etc.). Even if it were just men writing according to the wisdom of their culture and time, there are parts which retain their value from the perspective of wisdom, and even literature.

2) Christianity is fundamentally a religion of a person, NOT a book. There is more than mere "advice" in the Bible. It also tells of the relationship God has with us, and what he wants for our life (which is to make our lives divine). If the one who brought that message in his very person never existed, or if he existed in a radically different way than what the Scriptures and the Community today report, then the the faith in that person and the hope for his promises become delusions. 

Jesus, in his very person - a union between God and humanity, is the revelation to which we hold. Union with god and his life is achieved through uniting your humanity to his (not to a book). If Jesus never existed or didn't exist like the Bible and the tradition reports, then that raises a lot of questions about the meaning and purpose of human life and the destiny that awaits it.

3) Exactly, but then some of the reasons for which you act may change. Some of the realities from which you determine how to act no longer determine how you act. Some of the things you value no longer exist. You still hold that murder, fornication, extortion, oppression, etc. are "wrong", but the idea of the "best" way to live and the reasons for it requires recalculation.

4) That too

Excellent post, Ig.

---

Let's say it was all perfectly normal stuff. All mentions of gods and miracles and resurrections were fabrications. Jesus was just some preacher who got crucified for being a nuisance.

I suppose the question is what actions do you take just because of the story, and what things don't you do just because of the story. Take for granted you stop any religious rituals and such. I'm interested in morality.

I'd love to hear all theists' thoughts on this.

I'd stop going to church, praying, and believing of course. 

Other than that, my moral values are pretty well cemented at this point and I doubt many of them would change. Maybe the little things, like the belief that contraception and pre marital sex are immoral would change, but I still see the benefit of saving sex for marriage, and I still see the benefit of using abstinence during fertility to avoid pregnancy instead of condoms or hormonal contraceptives. So while I may not see those 2 things as immoral anymore, I'd still see the benefit of following those laws and I more than likely still would. Also, I would see no moral obligation to love thy enemy. But of course, I'd still have empathy so I wouldn't go around hurting other people even if I hated them. That's the big thing.

[Ignorant]

Let's say it was all perfectly normal stuff. All mentions of gods and miracles and resurrections were fabrications. Jesus was just some preacher who got crucified for being a nuisance.

I suppose the question is what actions do you take just because of the story, and what things don't you do just because of the story. Take for granted you stop any religious rituals and such. I'm interested in morality.

I'd love to hear all theists' thoughts on this.

If you take for granted that I stop any religious rituals (I assume that means also religious practices like prayer, no meat on Fridays, penance, etc.), then very little at all would change. I do those things because of the story. I would probably "replace" prayer with periods of quiet contemplation/reflection upon myself, my actions and relationships, and upon "being, itself".

I'm not sure any of the things I currently "don't do" would suddenly become more appealing to me.