How do you know the Bible is from God?

Post Reply New Topic

Perfectly true. No question.

I judged - quite possibly unfairly - oodain for quoting a comedian as if an authority, partly because I have been frustrated by the number of people here who say that they see a comic jibe as a more effective argument than discussing the facts. Based on what oodain replied, I think I was too hasty in lumping him with the middle school gang, and I repent and apologise. Obviously there is nothing wrong in citing a neatly worded summation of an intended serious point.

BUT - I rejected and reject the content of the quote, not because of its source, but because it reflects a misunderstanding of what faith is. A common, an all TOO common misunderstanding, but the frequency with which a false statement is repeated does not make it true.

I am reminded here of Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme" - "Par ma foi ! il y a plus de quarante ans que je dis de la prose sans que j'en susse rien, et je vous suis le plus obligé du monde de m'avoir appris cela"

So amazed to realize that he has been speaking in prose.

So the Unignited rail against "Faith" [if only they would at least say "Blind Faith" or Forlorn Hope" - I would let them get away with that]. when all this time they are expressing and living by faith. Just not faith in the things they rail against.

I'm a Methodist here is our views on the Bible also if you do not believe in God in the first place why bother asking such a question I don't go around asking why people who don't believe in God about why they do not believe in him that would just be a waste of my time

A Methodist view of the Bible
The Bible is a book honored and respected by Methodists, but it isn't carried into services of worship before the minister, as is done in the Presbyterian Church as a sign that it is that Church's supreme source and rule of belief and practice. Methodist preachers, both ordained and lay, usually preach from the Bible and follow the Lectionary (that idiosyncratic annual selection of passages from the Bible to be read aloud during the liturgy), but they are expected to use their minds when they do so, and challenge and critique the biblical texts when that is necessary. So are the Methodist congregations to whom they preach.

Like the rest of their generation, the Wesleys believed in the literal, eternal truth and divine inspiration of every word in the Bible. Contemporary Methodists are less awe-struck, much more sceptical about such claims for any book (or collection of writings). We have learned that the Bible's writers are as contradictory, fallible, rooted in their own cultures, and individual as any other human authors. Yet Methodists acknowledge that as a whole the Scriptures are an irreplaceable part of their faith heritage, and that at their best they offer deep wisdom and precious principles and insights that are as applicable and necessary now as they were centuries ago. Above all, the biblical documents are valuable because they contain virtually the only near-contemporary set of documents recording the life and teachings of Jesus. Methodists will continue to interpret and study the Bible texts as energetically as they have always done, but for them the Bible is not the only place where they can hear the Words of God, and Methodists get plain bolshy when biblical texts are used as some kind of magic weapon to attack and oppress others.

Why is it wrong to ask this question? You have a perfect right to ask why we don't believe in God, many agnostics/athiests would be happy to tell you. Whether or not it's a waste of time is up for the individual to judge. I personally don't see anything wrong with that. It's only natural to try and understand eachother. It's curiosity.

How do you know this book is from god? Perhaps you feel an inexplicable something when you read it. Perhaps it is because your preacher said so? That's fine if it is. That is a perfectly acceptable answer.

Most people however are much smarter than that, they are like you. Where they acknologe that


How do you know which parts are tainted by the writers and which parts correctly state the word of god?

...This does seem to be interesting ~ If I ever get to READ! the whole SCHMEER!

Well, you've had over 5 years, to do so.

...Pls. read , oh , the old post I just put up before now , the " Add To Amputation Post " one , for the reason that it is not all that doable for me to read all of lengthy lines .

The Bible is mostly a book of tales created by late bronze age people who had not yet developed the natural sciences.

I was a christian once, but I became skeptical....I don't have an real belief, but if I did have one the pagan idea of multiple gods would make more sense. How can one single god represent everthing?

* Lights match *

You don't,

What if all religions are right? You can't say they aren't but you can decide to believe which one you want to follow and have faith in? Is that too radical of a thought for you? Why can't all love be accepted? If I believe in A and you believe in B, what causes the conflict? Is God causing the conflict? Would a God that loves us would provide us with conflict?All this and more is covered in scripture.

Have fun with that bowl of cherries,

* Leaves thread *

So I asked, myself, who is Tim Minchin with the so great understanding. So I looked. Of course - I should have known. He is a comedian. There are only two ultimate authorities referenced to settle matters of politics, philosophy and religion: comedians and Youtube. Sometimes comedians ON Youtube. Master Pedant tries with links to statistics, kxmode brings in the arguably leas

So: I will simply sneer at Fnord with "Faith proves nothing." Nobody said faith proves anything. Faith derives from evidence, it is an attitude to evidence, not evidence itself - and DON"T quote Hebrews 11: 1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" at me, I know it already, and if need be I would explain it to seriously interested folk in private.

Fnord, what you need to realize is that repeeating a monkey mantra proves nothing, mumbling "faith proves nothing" in fact is a STATEMENT OF FAITH no different except in content from Shema Yisrael -m http://www.aish.com/jl/m/48954656.html - or La ilaha illa Llah - La ilaha ilallah - or I believe in God, the Father almighty ... - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_Creed . Fine. You have faith that faith proves nothing. You know, I share that faith.

ruveyn: "Faith is vapor ware. Faith is dreck. " Every time I see one of those vacuum ads - http://www.oreck.com/ - I cringe, don't you? They could use a different type face so it does not look like a Dreck vacuum.

But back to you. Do you believe the earth goes around the sun? Even though every day you live the sky LOOKS like the sun is going across the earth? Maybe you don't believe the earth goes around the sun. After all, unless you have sat in a space craft at a fair distance for most of a year you will not have observed the earth going around the sun, and you only believe what you can see. Or have you personally studied the paths of the planets and doe the calculations and confirmed Copnericus' conclusions? That would be evidence.

But I suspect that - like me - you read the fourth hand reports of the conclusions of scientists who have msde the observations and / or done the calculations. You rely on their work, and that is not overridden by the appearance picked up by your senses. But soft - that is faith. Which you say is dreck.

oodain - back to you. AND your comedian. "Science adjusts it's views based on whats observed, Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved". Is that really so?

Does science adjust its views based on what's observed? As a scientist, I will tell you - yes and no. Suppose I conclude that mammals do internal gestation and suckle their young. Then I watch a platypus.hatching. Do I adjust my views? Likely no. I keep watching and mama feeds little platy with milk. Do I adjust my views? PROBABLY I get excited, I start gathering data, and eventually conclude either that the platypus is NOT a mammal or that not all mammals do interior gestation. But it never happens from one observation - failed equipment, operator error, poor experimental design, freak accident. You need a stack of data taller than the original data stack before you get even a minor paradigm shift.

Faith is the attitude to data that says: I trust THIS body of data and THIS conclusion until the evidence for THAT conclusion outweighs it.

I happen to have more faith in my own observations than in the statements of authority. My experiences - a tallish data stack - convince me that there are too many "authorities" who reverse themselves too often, as compatred to a fairly consistent observed world.

Some people put more faith in a particular authority, and stick to that till another "authority" talks louder, or sometimes until they notice one time too many that the spleen is not where the book says.

THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH IN AUTHORITY A will very often point to the people who have faith in authority B and shout - Unreasonable Blind Faith. The ones who have faith in Scientific America say it to the ones who have faith in the Bible - who say it back.



A homeless bum is perfectly capable of posing a valid arggument ,







...Like me ? Awww !



, and a nobel laurete is perfectly capable of uttering nonsense. (just look at Paul KrugmTo suggest that the validity of an argument or a statement has anything to do with the status of one's career is totally absurd, but lets suppose for a moment that we followed this logic. By this line of reasoning a politician or philosopher could independently recite this quote verbatim and would be correct by virtue of being a politician or a philosopher. Being a politician or a philosopher makes you no more qualified to pose an argument. Arguments ought to be judged on their own intrinsic merit, and not on the status of the person who made it.[/quote]