What makes your faith true?

[Odoital77]

Odoital77 Wrote: But apparent contradictions are "apparent", not real contradictions.  Keep in mind that the Biblical texts were written by different individuals and were not collected into a book until many years later, so it wasn't as if someone got them together and edited them so that everything matched up tightly.

Fake Messiah Wrote: Main reason the Bible hasn't been able to convince everyone everywhere that Jesus is the only path to heaven is that it is poorly written and structured. I could do better than the Bible. The main problem of the Bible is flowery language, metaphors, poetry and that confuse people and are therefore are misinterpreted to sometimes mean to kill people to commit genocide, to be peaceful. I mean we are talking about the book that was the first line of defense for slaveholders looking to provide moral justification for owning human beings and yet other people see it as a "most moral thing ever", because it is muddled.

If it were written by sane supreme being would it not be crystal-clear sentences because she is omniscient and would know that her words would be translated into different languages over thousands of years. She would never be so careless as to pass on lengthy passages that could be easily misunderstood and misapplied. There would not be any outdated rules and advice for owning slaves, beating servants, or killing people for minor infractions.

So the problem is that God chose to use people in revealing His message to mankind, and it failed to meet your expectations and that of others.  Well, I can entirely agree with that.  Unfortunately for you, God is under no obligation to meet your particular expectations.  He chose a method for revealing His message to mankind that was sufficient rather than rationally compulsory.  In short, He chose a method that put a premium on human freedom and was merely adequate to the task rather than something so compelling that you would have had to be in a deep state of denial or otherwise deluded to reject it.
 
Perhaps you could do better than the Bible, but think about what you’re talking about.  Letters written in the first century about a backwater preacher from an unimportant and unremarkable portion of the globe survived with the highest degree of fidelity known in the ancient world to become the top world religion over the last 2,000 years.  How many religions have come and gone during that time?  For such a poorly written and structured book or collection of books, it’s done a remarkable job.  You’re presence in opposition to it here today is evidence of the very thing you say it’s failed to do.  If it had been such a failure, this forum would likely never have come into existence.  Atheism certainly attacks other religions beyond Christianity, but Christianity has always been the main impetus.  If it were such a failure, atheism would not enjoy the kind popularity that it does today.  Don’t you see?  Atheism itself is a reaction to Christianity’s success as well as its failures.
 
And yes, people are free to misinterpret any text.  I could misinterpret your writing, if I chose to do so, but that wouldn’t say anything about what you’d written. It would say something about my character, reading comprehension, and possibly my intelligence.  It wouldn’t necessarily be any kind of commentary on what you’d written or what you meant to say with the written word you shared.  In short, it doesn’t follow that because people can and do distort the Bible and all kinds of other documents all over the world to serve their own ends, that there is necessarily something wrong with the Bible.  Every document is open to this kind of behavior, and that speaks to the nature of human beings, which the Bible describes quite accurately.  In fact the Biblical description of human nature accounts for the very complaint you’ve made and, if taken seriously, makes that kind of illicit behavior from human beings almost predictable.
 
Yes, there were some who used the Bible to defend the American institution of slavery, though anyone who has studied the Bible knows how illegitimate that interpretation was.  Slavery in the Bible was nothing like chattel slavery in America.  And as a person with an advanced degree in American History, I would point out that the Bible was also the first line of offense against the institution of slavery and moral ammunition for the abolitionist movement in the United States, which ultimately prevailed in the struggle to end slavery.  I would also add that the west was not unique in being saddled with the institution of slavery.  It existed in virtually all societies around globe and still exists today where Christianity has not had a great influence or has waned.  But the west or Christendom is unique in history for having ended the practice of slavery throughout the world.  Something that had never been accomplished prior to Christianity.  Where Christianity has had a deep and abiding influence, widespread slavery of the type you’re talking about is virtually unheard of.  So while I take your objection seriously, I’m afraid it is historically and factually misplaced.
 
No, what you’ve stated about the crystal clarity of communication from a supreme being is not the Christian doctrine of inspiration or inerrancy.  If you’re interested in that topic, I would point you toward good resources like:
 
“Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (Text and Canon of the New Testament)” By Daniel B. Wallace and Philip M. Miller
 
“The Heresy of Orthodoxy: How Contemporary Culture's Fascination with Diversity Has Reshaped Our Understanding of Early Christianity” By Andreas J. Köstenberger and Michael J. Kruger
 
“The Question of Canon: Challenging the Status Quo in the New Testament Debate” By Michael J. Kruger
 
Communication that is sufficient or adequate to its intended purpose is all that is necessary, and providing the kind of clarity you are looking for when you’re dealing with things like human freedom and human nature probably isn’t a reasonable expectation to begin with.  And whether the Bible has met your particular standards in this regard or not, it is clear what Christianity teaches when it comes to the essentials of the Christian faith, and this was accomplished despite its humble beginnings more than 2,000 years ago.  It has achieved what no other document of its type has achieved, and I would say that this goes some distance toward setting itself apart from its competitors in a way that is obvious to the modestly informed without being in your face and rationally compulsory.
 
As I’ve already stated… there is no writing that cannot be easily misunderstood or misapplied when one takes into account the premium placed on human freedom, human nature, and the nature of the message itself.  For example, if one is telling the story and revealing the nature of Jesus Christ or talking about issues of sin, forgiveness and love, it would hardly be reasonable to suggest that such things should have or even could have been communicated in something like the language of mathematics.  God deals with human beings, as they are, not has He would want them to be.  Your expectations, given the context, are simply inappropriate, and I would urge you to reconsider on the basis of what I’ve suggested above.  God is interested in the free choices of mankind, for which you and I are culpable.  He is not interested in forcing Himself upon you, or requiring you to descend into a state of insanity and utter delusion in order to possess the irrational powers to reject Him.
 
With regard to “…any outdated rules and advice for owning slaves, beating servants, or killing people for minor infractions …”, I would have to ask just what you’re talking about?  For the most part, I’m not aware of anything you’re addressing with that comment that has anything to do with prescriptive behavior for the Church or Christians today.  You might be talking about something that was being addressed in their day, that is, the time of the Apostles… some 2,000 years ago.  But I’m afraid that has nothing to do with today.  I’m not aware of any instructions to which I am bound that tells me that I can  have slaves, how I should treat them, that I am free to beat them, or that I’m allowed or prescribed to kill anyone beyond what legitimate defense of one’s life or that of another might allow.
 
 

Odoital77 Wrote: With regard to most of the rest, I would simply remind you that an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Fake Messiah Wrote: Sure but you don't believe in god Ganesha although there is no evidence to disprove the existence of the god Ganesha.

This is true, but I’m not required to believe by default.  I’m simply saying that the absence of evidence doesn’t allow you to conclude falsehood, and it doesn't mean that evidence that has yet to be marshaled or discovered doesn't exist.  At best, it allows you to suspend giving assent, but that’s about it.
 

Fake Messiah Wrote:The way I see it the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making the claim and no one else. If, for example, someone says to me, "Pink flying unicorns are real and you should believe in them," it's not my responsibility to prove that PFU don't exist. I cannot claim there are positively no gods because universe is a big place. A few gods might be hiding somewhere over in the next galaxy. I don't think gods are real. My best guess is that they are the creations of imaginative people who were coping with deep fears, hopes, and curiosity about life and the universe, but I certainly don't claim to know this for certain.

Based upon what you’ve said, I would say that we’re both making claims.  For example, I believe that God does exist.  You say, “I don’t think gods are real.”  Those are both claims.  From my point of view, we are both responsible for making our case and providing good reasons and/or evidence for the truthfulness of those claims.  Those reasons can be good logical reasons like the best explanation for the beginning of the universe, the best explanation for the applicability of mathematics to the structure of our world and existence, the only objective ground for objective moral values and duties, etc… OR they can be things like “best guess(es)”.  It’s up to each of us to come up with reasons or evidence for why we think our beliefs are true and not mere fantasies or the holding onto of stories and fables told to us by our well-meaning parents.
 
 

Odoital77 Wrote: In addition, the sense in which the flood was global can be different.  If water covered all of the land where human beings were, rather than all of the earth, from the perspective of the humans, it would have been covering the whole earth.

Fake Messiah Wrote:But the Bible says it covered every mountain top because, I guess, humans and animals could just go up above the water and not get drowned. Taking stuff from the Bible that only make sense to you is picking and choosing so why not leave it altogether?

And of course, it may have covered every mountain top that was relevant for the locations of mankind at that time.  If everywhere human civilization existed on the planet at that time was affected, saying that every mountain top was covered isn’t a hard thing to understand.  Speaking from the perspective of ancient man, that is exactly how it would have appeared, even if the flood has been massive but still relatively local, as in only in and around the Middle East.  I’m not taking stuff from the Bible that only makes sense to me.  There are many many people that hold my same views.  It’s a question of an appropriate understanding of what’s being communicated, not picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe.  My own suggestion is that you look into the matter more deeply, as it’s clear that there is quite literally a massive amount of information and scholarship on these issues of which you are unaware.  That’s not a criticism, as most people are unaware of the information on these topics.  It’s a genuine claim that there is a great deal of information that could serve to clear up many of your questions and confusion about the how and why of the Bible, if you’re willing to avail yourself of it.  I certainly hope that you will.

[Fake Messiah]

He chose a method that put a premium on human freedom and was merely adequate to the task rather than something so compelling that you would have had to be in a deep state of denial or otherwise deluded to reject it.

What? His method was to whisper into the ears of crazy people, hermits stuff that are historically unprovable and non existent like Moses, Samson, Adam, Daniel, Noah etc. That were later re-written in all sorts of versions. Even today Catholics don't read protestant Bibles and so on. I mean if some deity wanted us to follow some written word why not write it on some non destructible monoliths on some place where no one can't live for long (so that no one can claim the land) so that everyone can read it as it is meant.

Atheism certainly attacks other religions beyond Christianity, but Christianity has always been the main impetus.

Hey atheism exists long before Christianity. Just remember what Epicurus said: Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

And yet he was right, even by your account because he was talking about Olympian gods which everyone now knows don't exist.

Every document is open to this kind of behavior, and that speaks to the nature of human beings, which the Bible describes quite accurately.

Not really. Bible is hardly a document considering that it's written, like I told you before, as poetry and metaphors which is open for interpretations. Some parts are straight but contradictory elsewhere. Like divorce, in one part Jesus says people can't divorce and in other that divorce is OK if woman is caught in adultery and that's why some denominations allow divorce and some don't.

Slavery in the Bible was nothing like chattel slavery in America.

I really don't understand how you can say that considering that Bible lets you beat slaves, rape their wives and if they were not from your Jewish tribes there weren't no constrains you could kill them and do what ever you liked.

Yes, there were some who used the Bible to defend the American institution of slavery, though anyone who has studied the Bible knows how illegitimate that interpretation was.

Some?! Only the president of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, who claimed to follow what the scriptures said: "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God ... it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."
While on the winning side leaders were mostly deists, not very religious although most of the soldiers and people were Christians and they clearly were not guided by the literal words of scripture but by their own interpretations and innate senses of a higher good.

Where Christianity has had a deep and abiding influence, widespread slavery of the type you’re talking about is virtually unheard of.  So while I take your objection seriously, I’m afraid it is historically and factually misplaced.

Take Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church who owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The Church did not condemn slavery until 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished the practice.

If everywhere human civilization existed on the planet at that time was affected, saying that every mountain top was covered isn’t a hard thing to understand.

Bible claims that God said he'd kill every living thing so it's hardly local and even if it was local then it would have been very stupid of Noah to spend 100 years building a giant ark when he could have just moved away to the "unaffected parts" of the world that you claim existed.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not seeing why a god would need books.  Of all the pass-times the lord of cosmos might whittle away eternity with, writing shitty fiction seems like a strange choice. Whispering sweet nothings into the ears of some loon living out in the sticks is an even more baffling decision.

[Odoital77]

[Whateverist]

The problem with your latest answer is it is too long and full of bible-scripture-bullshit. I guess this is where you strut away extolling your great victory. But I can no more be coerced to wade into the morass of what you have written than a God almighty could be bothered to write the bible or whisper sweet nothings to his believers.

[brewer]

Did gods tooth come here to have a discussion or give a sermon?

[Odoital77]

Whateverist Wrote: The problem with your latest answer is it is too long and full of bible-scripture-bullshit.  I guess this is where you strut away extolling your great victory.  But I can no more be coerced to wade into the morass of what you have written than a God almighty could be bothered to write the bible or whisper sweet nothings to his believers.

It’s just a response.  I’m sorry that it’s not to your liking or too long from your perspective.  I do find your comment a bit odd though.  Why would I strut at all?  Not only that, but what supposed “victory” are you referring to?  I’m not trying to and have no illusions about “victory” or winning some kind of imaginary debate.  I’m simply responding to statement made and attempting to bring a little more clarity to those topics that were brought up.  I have no control over what’s done with them who might find them the least bit persuasive rather than “bible-scripture-bullshit”.  And just so you know, from my perspective, I’m not attempting to be coercive.  I’m offering a reasoned point of view that is generally based upon my own knowledge and understanding of the faith I claim (i.e. mere Christianity).  You’re free to read or not read.  It honestly make little difference to me.  In any case, I wish you well.

[brewer]

mh.brewer Wrote: Did gods tooth come here to have a discussion or give a sermon?

If you’re referring to me, then it would be the former, I assure you.

Then you posting behavior does not support your statement.

[Odoital77]

mh.brewer Wrote: Did gods tooth come here to have a discussion or give a sermon?

If you’re referring to me, then it would be the former, I assure you.

---

---

mh.brewer Wrote: Did gods tooth come here to have a discussion or give a sermon?
 
Odoital77 Wrote: If you’re referring to me, then it would be the former, I assure you.
 
mh.brewer Wrote: Then you posting behavior does not support your statement.

 
If you say so, but it’s a mystery to me as to why that would be the case.

[Abaddon_ire]

Whateverist Wrote: The problem with your latest answer is it is too long and full of bible-scripture-bullshit.  I guess this is where you strut away extolling your great victory.  But I can no more be coerced to wade into the morass of what you have written than a God almighty could be bothered to write the bible or whisper sweet nothings to his believers.

It’s just a response.  I’m sorry that it’s not to your liking or too long from your perspective.  I do find your comment a bit odd though.  Why would I strut at all?  Not only that, but what supposed “victory” are you referring to?  I’m not trying to and have no illusions about “victory” or winning some kind of imaginary debate.  I’m simply responding to statement made and attempting to bring a little more clarity to those topics that were brought up.  I have no control over what’s done with them who might find them the least bit persuasive rather than “bible-scripture-bullshit”.  And just so you know, from my perspective, I’m not attempting to be coercive.  I’m offering a reasoned point of view that is generally based upon my own knowledge and understanding of the faith I claim (i.e. mere Christianity).  You’re free to read or not read.  It honestly make little difference to me.  In any case, I wish you well.

None of that screed is convincing in any way shape or form. As written, it seems to be an attempt to convince oneself that god exists despite the lack of any evidence that any such entity exists at all. It is simply an attempt to account for the capricious nature of god.