Why believe the bible?

[Whateverist]

IMO, for the millions of adult converts every year, belief in the Bible starts at the end and goes backward. It starts with the final revelation of God (Jesus' message):


1. It is obvious that we are somehow wired to believe in God/higher power/supernatural/purpose/destiny etc.

I would agree we are wired to believe in something more than our own direct attempts at deliberation.  That I assume is because of the way the depth of consciousness exceeds what is available to our conscious minds.  But that doesn't justify expectation of an afterlife.  It doesn't justify positing omni-powers so great that they end up contradicting each other.  Nor does it justify the claim that this God/call-it-what-you-will had any part whatsoever in the creation of the cosmos or life on earth.  Everything beyond its fit in the phenomenology of human conscious experience is gratuitous grafting.  
 

2. Jesus' main message that forgiveness, personal peace, a relationship with God, and eternal life is possible really resonates with some people.

I've always found it was possible and preferable to appreciate and agree with people without worshiping them.  What's up with that?

 
     a. there are a lot of people, who have had tough experiences that find the forgiveness and internal peace very appealing.
     b. when you meet somone who has been a Christian a long time and exemplifies Jesus' teachings and shares how God has been a constant comfort and support to them in their daily lives, it is very appealing.
     c. eternal life, how can you beat that? This component also helps you make sense/cope of the shortness of life, tragedies, and pain endured while we are here.

Well that certainly is an impressive pile of benefits you claim can had by making the choice to believe in God.

3. Another appealing quality of Christianity is having the question of purpose and place in the universe answered. 
     a. with atheism, at best, you are a happy accident with no purpose that will very shortly die and cease to exist.
     b. contrast that with the purpose of man is to "Glorify God and enjoy him forever". We were created for a reason and daily life has purpose.

Do you guarantee that I may have 100% certainty that I know what cannot possibly be known, complete with all the swagger of a used car salesman?

4. Jesus modeled his teachings of love, compassion, and forgiveness for your fellow man and in doing so set an example that, if aspired to, would result in a very fulfilling/satisfying life.

Not sure aspiring alone would actually be enough.  Neither does that guy Jesus have the trademark on love, compassion or forgiveness.
 

If this message resonates with you and you take what is offered, you have now accepted that the main themes of the NT are true. Notice that you don't actually have to believe the Bible (or have even seen one) to get to this stage. This is important because it shows that believing the Bible is inerrant is not required for salvation.

You're right.  Trump too has shown that thinking is greatly over rated and actually plays only a small role in what people come to believe.  Thanks for setting the record straight.

[I_am_not_mafia]

The 27 individual books are the evidence. They individually discuss and outline the claim.

So the 27 individual  books are the evidence and the claim? That was my entire point. You're just restating it as if you are counteracting what I was saying.

And does every xtian agree what parts are the evidence and which parts are the claim? Is it specified as that anywhere in the Bible? Or are you speaking for every xtian on the planet in order to try and win an argument?

What part of the NT is "not actually correct"?

I see you are now ignoring the OT for no reason. Is that no longer part of the Bible? This just makes you look disingenuous.

What specific thing in the NT has been disproven by science or historical research? My guess is that you don't really know what you are talking about. Go ahead, answer.

Anyway, to name a few examples from the NT:

• the virgin birth
  
• the resurrection
  
• All, or almost all if we're being generous, of the miracles of Jesus such as walking on water, calming a storm, feeding a crowd of thousands from a few simple items of food, raising the dead, his cures etc
  

These all violate what we know from biology and  physics.

[SteveII]

The 27 individual books are the evidence. They individually discuss and outline the claim.

So the 27 individual  books are the evidence and the claim? That was my entire point. You're just restating it as if you are counteracting what I was saying.

And does every xtian agree what parts are the evidence and which parts are the claim? Is it specified as that anywhere in the Bible? Or are you speaking for every xtian on the planet in order to try and win an argument?

There is no argument to win. Evidence is a piece of information or fact. A claim is an idea.  The evidence is the actual book or letter. The content of that book or letter is the claim. The reason they are not the same is that you can have multiple pieces of evidence (books or letters) written by different people over decades that have basically the same claim. Each book is  physically, logically, epistemologically, contextually, and chronologically different. 

You need to have the Bible be one thing. So then the evidence and the claim become the same thing. But that is not reality. 

What part of the NT is "not actually correct"?

I see you are now ignoring the OT for no reason. Is that no longer part of the Bible? This just makes you look disingenuous.

Different set of claims separated by four centuries. Lumping them together serves no discussion purpose other than to make irrelevant points by people who don't know the difference.

What specific thing in the NT has been disproven by science or historical research? My guess is that you don't really know what you are talking about. Go ahead, answer.

Anyway, to name a few examples from the NT:

• the virgin birth
  
• the resurrection
  
• All, or almost all if we're being generous, of the miracles of Jesus such as walking on water, calming a storm, feeding a crowd of thousands from a few simple items of food, raising the dead, his cures etc
  

These all violate what we know from biology and  physics.

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Evidence is a piece of information or fact. A claim is an idea.  The evidence is the actual book or letter. The content of that book or letter is the claim.

So the Bible is both the evidence and the claim.

The reason they are not the same is that you can have multiple pieces of evidence (books or letters) written by different people over decades that have basically the same claim.

Again. Both the claim and the evidence.

You could argue the same applies to a scientific paper for example, but a paper will make it clear what the claim is and what the evidence is. That way a reader will be able to evaluate both the claim and the evidence individually. Nowhere in the Bible does this occur though.

I see you are now ignoring the OT for no reason. Is that no longer part of the Bible? This just makes you look disingenuous.

Different set of claims separated by four centuries. Lumping them together serves no discussion purpose other than to make irrelevant point by people who don't know the difference.

Oh right. Your only answer to that is arrogance.

Anyway, to name a few examples from the NT:

• the virgin birth
  
• the resurrection
  
• All, or almost all if we're being generous, of the miracles of Jesus such as walking on water, calming a storm, feeding a crowd of thousands from a few simple items of food, raising the dead, his cures etc
  

These all violate what we know from biology and  physics.

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

And you presume that the supernatural exists despite there being no evidence of it or even any logical definition of what the supernatural could even be.

[Crossless2.0]

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

Fair enough. But there may be some naturally occurring events at work behind these claims of the sort routinely studied by anthropologists, social psychologists, philosophers and psychologists of religion, experts in the spread of comparative mythologies, etc. After all, the ancient world was rife with extraordinary stories and claims. Hiding behind, "But these are claims about supernatural events" doesn't really cut it for me or, I daresay, for most other non-believers.

[possibletarian]

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

I don't think anyone is claiming that you are claiming they are natural, rather that the 'supernatural' claims cannot be substantiated by any experience people can be proven to have, if one merely has to make the claim followed by eye witness accounts then why not believe the claims of the Indian guru's who are alive today and have many like miracles said about them.

While you can claim they are supernatural in origin they are definitely able to be empirically observed if true.

[SteveII]

Evidence is a piece of information or fact. A claim is an idea.  The evidence is the actual book or letter. The content of that book or letter is the claim.

So the Bible is both the evidence and the claim.

No, the Bible contains claims. The claims exist independent of the Bible. They were not all written down for many years so it is logically necessary that they existed prior to us having anything we can call "the Bible". Paul, the earliest writer referred to beliefs way before the gospels were written. 

The reason they are not the same is that you can have multiple pieces of evidence (books or letters) written by different people over decades that have basically the same claim.

Again. Both the claim and the evidence.

You could argue the same applies to a scientific paper for example, but a paper will make it clear what the claim is and what the evidence is. That way a reader will be able to evaluate both the claim and the evidence individually. Nowhere in the Bible does this occur though.

Sure it does. As I mentioned above, Paul was referring to beliefs that his recipient already believed to be true YEARS before the gospels were written. There is ample evidence that people believed the core content of Christianity long before the gospels were written. Paul wrote to churches scattered throughout the Roman empire starting around 50ad. 

Different set of claims separated by four centuries. Lumping them together serves no discussion purpose other than to make irrelevant point by people who don't know the difference.

Oh right. Your only answer to that is arrogance.

It only seems that way because you don't know what you are talking about. You are throwing out objections that you think are successful because someone else told you they were successful or they sounded good when you read them. You actually don't know the beliefs of the people you criticize or what the Bible may or may not contain. 

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

And you presume that the supernatural exists despite there being no evidence of it or even any logical definition of what the supernatural could even be.

Well, the NT is evidence. I thought you conceded that above? Easy, the supernatural is anything that not originating in the natural world.

[Minimalist]

As best I can gather from this brief survey, the reasons are:

1. The bible says so;
   
2. The bible is internally consistent;
   
3. The bible successfully describes historical events;
   
4. The bible predicted specific archaeological discoveries;
   
5. The bible changes lives;
   
6. Jesus said to believe the bible.
   

1.  Ludicrous at face value.  The koran claims to be inerrant also.  Xhristards would be the first to lose their shit over that.
2.  Not at all true.  Yhwh is a vile, petty, tyrant.  "Jesus" is a wimpy socialist.
3.  Such as?
4.  Such as?
5.  So does a bullet.  So what?
6.  There is no more evidence for fucking jesus than there is to back up the fucking bible.

[SteveII]

Nope. Science does not disprove these things because no one ever claimed they were naturally occurring events (and therefore the purview of science). To think so is question begging--the most popular sport of AF.

Fair enough. But there may be some naturally occurring events at work behind these claims of the sort routinely studied by anthropologists, social psychologists, philosophers and psychologists of religion, experts in the spread of comparative mythologies, etc. After all, the ancient world was rife with extraordinary stories and claims. Hiding behind, "But these are claims about supernatural events" doesn't really cut it for me or, I daresay, for most other non-believers.

The NT contains page after page of claims about the supernatural. Any alternate naturalistic theory you can propose for the existence of the NT and the first century church and their obvious beliefs has no evidence. It's fine if people don't believe as I do, but there is no escape-hatch-theory available for a "misunderstanding". So it would seem it's an all-or-nothing kind of thing. Either you believe events of the NT happened pretty much as it describes (because it is an interdependent system) or you believe that the whole enterprise is a fabrication by someone. The obvious question though is by whom and how did they pull it off without leaving any evidence?

[robvalue]

If God/Jesus had any detectable difference on anything, or just showed up once in a while, belief in the bible wouldn't even be required. I guess they enjoy playing silly hide and seek games.