Why believe the bible?

[Minimalist]

The NT contains page after page of claims about the supernatural.

Thanks for reminding us.... as if we would ever forget such blithering nonsense.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

The sole intent of the biblical stories is to indoctrinate people into the ideas that they need to be completely obedient and loyal to the Boss. It's like a military code of conduct for everyone. If the Boss tells you to throw babies off a cliff you do it without question or hesitation. If you are offered $100 Billion for switching to another team you refuse even if it costs your your life.

All of the biblical stories are based on at least one of the Ten Commandments found in Exodus 34:11-28. The miracles are based on Exodus 34:10. Most of the stories illustrate the First Commandment. It's pretty much universal in all cultures. Invade other people's lands, expel or kill them, and destroy their culture. The stories don't have to be true to illustrate the principles.

[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.

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.

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down. There is no proof. Only whether you believe the evidence and have additional reasons to think the evidence is true. Christian belief does not happen because you read about a miracle and believed it to be true. It is a process I outlined in my very first post in this thread. 

Bringing up people who purportedly perform miracles today is a red herring. I have no knowledge of or access to these claims.

[possibletarian]

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.

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down. There is no proof. Only whether you believe the evidence and have additional reasons to think the evidence is true. Christian belief does not happen because you read about a miracle and believed it to be true. It is a process I outlined in my very first post in this thread. 

Bringing up people who purportedly perform miracles today is a red herring. I have no knowledge of or access to these claims.

Well that's the question posed, why in the face of what we know in naturally possible do you believe in a spiritual world or miracles at all? (and by extension the claims the bible makes)

If you search for Indian guru's you will come across claims that these people carry out miracles along a similar theme, some of them still alive and with eye witness accounts many of whom are still alive.  I assume you reject these miracles out of hand (please correct me if i'm wrong). Why not research some of them, and see if eye witness account is adequate for you to believe they can indeed do miracles.

If it's not adequate for you now despite the masses of people saying they see miracles, or whatever other supernatural events you care to describe from all religions and creeds, then why believe them in the bible ?

[vorlon13]

So, inerrentists;

At the Last Supper, was it bread than wine, or wine than bread ??

Get back to me when you figure it out.

[SteveII]

We are talking about a specific set of miracles chronicled in the NT. They can be substantiated by people who saw them. These people later wrote things down, told other people and had them write them down. There is no proof. Only whether you believe the evidence and have additional reasons to think the evidence is true. Christian belief does not happen because you read about a miracle and believed it to be true. It is a process I outlined in my very first post in this thread. 

Bringing up people who purportedly perform miracles today is a red herring. I have no knowledge of or access to these claims.

Well that's the question posed, why in the face of what we know in naturally possible do you believe in a spiritual world or miracles at all? (and by extension the claims the bible makes) 

Why would knowledge of the natural world preclude any belief in the supernatural? What knowledge did the first century people lack about the natural world that would have made a difference in how the chronicled miracles were seen? They understood that lame was lame, leprosy was bad, dead was dead, and 5000 people eating 12 loaves and fishes had no naturalistic explanation. 

Are you also aware that each miracle had context and a stated purpose that illustrated something. For example. Mark 2:1-12 showed he had the power to forgive sins.  

If you search for Indian guru's you will come across claims that these people carry out miracles along a similar theme, some of them still alive and with eye witness accounts many of whom are still alive.  I assume you reject these miracles out of hand (please correct me if i'm wrong).  Why not research some of them, and see if eye witness account is adequate for you to believe they can indeed do miracles.

If it's not adequate for you now despite the masses of people saying they see miracles, or whatever other supernatural events you care to describe from all religions and creeds, then why believe them in the bible ?

I googled Indian Guru Miracles. The first page of links is not promising. I am not chasing this rabbit for such a weak list of 'miracles' surrounded by controversy. If you want to pick one out to discuss, by all means...

[possibletarian]

Why would knowledge of the natural world preclude any belief in the supernatural?

It does not preclude belief in the supernatural, that is not in doubt, nor was it the question. We know people believe in the supernatural, the question is why.

What knowledge did the first century people lack about the natural world that would have made a difference in how the chronicled miracles were seen?

Yes I agree, why believe them though we can see clearly people believe them now, even though they themselves have not witnessed them?

They understood that lame was lame, leprosy was bad, dead was dead, and 5000 people eating 12 loaves and fishes had no naturalistic explanation.

That's what makes them seem so made up, just like all miracles. 

Are you also aware that each miracle had context and a stated purpose that illustrated something. For example. Mark 2:1-12 showed he had the power to forgive sins. 

Again, evidence that they were not real, but stories intended to make a point, or make people believe in someone. 

If you search for Indian guru's you will come across claims that these people carry out miracles along a similar theme, some of them still alive and with eye witness accounts many of whom are still alive.  I assume you reject these miracles out of hand (please correct me if i'm wrong).  Why not research some of them, and see if eye witness account is adequate for you to believe they can indeed do miracles.

If it's not adequate for you now despite the masses of people saying they see miracles, or whatever other supernatural events you care to describe from all religions and creeds, then why believe them in the bible ?

Steve replied
I googled Indian Guru Miracles. The first page of links is not promising. I am not chasing this rabbit for such a weak list of 'miracles' surrounded by controversy. If you want to pick one out to discuss, by all means...

Well of course they are not promising, that's because miracles likely do not really happen, and did not happen. They were made up events as part of a story and or delusion.
I did the same for christian miracles and found a similar weak list.

The question is though, why believe those chronicled in the bible ?
This is what happens when you believe a book is holy, it becomes the claim and evidence all rolled into one.

[I_am_not_mafia]

There's a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

That's a claim. But according to xtians it is also the evidence so I don't have to back it up with anything else. You should all believe now me.

Problem is that there are many different contradictory claims so we need some way of differentiating between them.

I could provide further evidence if you like though. There's smoke coming from my garage. I could provide a picture or some third party report on it.

That's a claim and now that's actual evidence.

Thing is that we need to evaluate the claim and the evidence separately. This is what Huggy didn't understand in the thread about moral behaviour in animals. I used the evidence provided by Frans De Waal but disagreed with his interpretation of that evidence. In other words, the claim.

In the same way you may accept the evidence of there being smoke in my garage but disagree about the claim of the smoke breathing dragon. You might instead want to point out that it's more likely that my garage is on fire (Occam's razor and all that).

This is why we need to know what the evidence is and what the claim is. But all xtians can do is equivocate, bluster and insult when faced with this problem. But what else can they do? There is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it, but plenty of evidence to tell us that it's claims are incorrect.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Even the biblical characters didn't believe the miracles that they supposedly saw first hand. So why do dummies today believe in biblical miracles?

[Amarok]

Oh yes the tired science can't disprove it because it's not natural canard.Nothing circular about that 

---

There's a fire breathing dragon in my garage.

That's a claim. But according to xtians it is also the evidence so I don't have to back it up with anything else. You should all believe now me.

Problem is that there are many different contradictory claims so we need some way of differentiating between them.

I could provide further evidence if you like though. There's smoke coming from my garage. I could provide a picture or some third party report on it.

That's a claim and now that's actual evidence.

Thing is that we need to evaluate the claim and the evidence separately. This is what Huggy didn't understand in the thread about moral behaviour in animals. I used the evidence provided by Frans De Waal but disagreed with his interpretation of that evidence. In other words, the claim.

In the same way you may accept the evidence of there being smoke in my garage but disagree about the claim of the smoke breathing dragon. You might instead want to point out that it's more likely that my garage is on fire (Occam's razor and all that).

This is why we need to know what the evidence is and what the claim is. But all xtians can do is equivocate, bluster and insult when faced with this problem. But what else can they do? There is no evidence outside of the Bible to support it, but plenty of evidence to tell us that it's claims are incorrect.

Agreed the bible is the claim never the evidence until we have a good reason to accept the reason to accept the Bible or even the supernatural it's a exercise  in futility .