Why believe in the bible?

D

Dreamwalker

Whatever
Valued Senior Member
Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...

Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.

So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.
 
Dreamwalker said:
Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...

Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.

So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.
Click to expand...

Why believe it? I can tell you what a Christian can say right now. Heaven and hell are reasons to believe it. Pascal's Wager. The Carrot=heaven, The Stick=hell. "What if you're wrong? If you're wrong, you get the eternal torture pit. If I'm wrong, I just die like a dog." Psychological manipulation from what I can see. The "love of God" in one hand and the "wrath of God" in the other. Or so their reasoning could be. But Pascal's Wager can be applied to other religious constructs. It's not Christianity vs atheism. It's Christianity vs Islam vs Mandaeanism (if that's a word) vs Hinduism vs Buddhism vs Judaism vs Zoroastrianism vs Jainism vs etc.

Also, I suppose they think it could help one to be happy in this life. That depends. There are some people who are happy who are not Christians and some who are Christians who are not happy.
 
I know what a christian will say about it, but making a wager on a stupid advertisement pamphlet is crazy...
 
To answer the question as simply as I can muster, it's because without the bible there is no christian god. All you'd be left with are texts describing other gods. As religious people depend on the texts for their beliefs, the bible is an absolute prerequisite, and as follow on from that, 'the truth'.
 
The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

All Praise the Ancient Of Days
 
Well, I suppose I could answer my question and just say that you need "faith in god", am I right?

But better wait until a christian comes this way...

...and it just happened when I wrote this post.
 
Adstar said:
The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.

All Praise the Ancient Of Days
Click to expand...

As I have told okinrus:

--
That is an incredulously stupid statement.

Without the Bible you wouldn't know what the heck the Holy Spirit is so saying you need to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible is a foolish and circular claim.
----
 
I do not think that you find god in the bible, all you find in that book are fairy tales...or satan.

The bible must be read from the start to the finish. One must understand the significance of Jesus as the central hub. Without belief in God i think it is near impossible to have understanding of the bible. One needs the help of the Holy Spirit to understand. Even the Apostles did not truly understand until the day of Pentecost and they had lived with Jesus for 3 years.
Click to expand...

How can you read the bible from one end to the other if the church has deleted/omitted/censored parts of it? There is not complete bible that could be read from one end to the other. Also, founding a believe on the very book that I devalue is not that great an argument. The only "holy spirit" that could help one understand god while reading the bible is delivered in bottles and can make one believe everything...
 
You're making several very sweeping statements. Perhaps it is best to examine them one at a time.
Dreamwalker said:
Ok, I have this very simple question: Why should anyone believe in the bible?

I mean, obviously not everything is true that is written in there, except if you are believing in divine creation and that all humans descended from only two people...
Click to expand...
Not so obvious. While creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution. You have a choice here. If you wish to just let that one pass and believe the rest, you can. As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible. It's OK to just say "We don't know but we will keep investigating"
Texts are not running under the names of the appropriate authors, that is true for nearly all texts in the bible. The names were added afterwards, texts were edited from the bible because they did not fit into the concept and so on. Some scriptures are obviously discarded by many people because they think they are not contemporary (like the scriptures of Leviticus, many people do not want to stone people to death because of sodomy...).
Click to expand...
First let's reexamine what the bible is. The OT is a book of books by various authors which proports to show the history of the Israelite people (sometimes called the Jews, although the word Jew really refers just to the tribe of Judah, but after the Babylonian exile, it became an all-inclusive word referring to the entire Israelite people). It is only in the last few decades that some, whose goal is to discredit the scriptures, have started questioning the authorship of the bible books. Should they be believed? Well, I have checked out the arguments and have found them extremely wanting (absurd) but then you would have to believe me. How about thinking through the question like this... Those who wrote the books believed and those to whom they were passed believed, and those who became caretakers thereafter believed. It is only now, more than 3000 years after the fact, that someone is questioning authorship. How would someone 3000 years later have any idea who wrote the books? If I must choose between the bible and some three-thousand year removed hecklers, which should I believe? Either way, I must believe one or the other.

The NT is a compilation of writings made by some first century Christians, not necessarily all who were disciples of Christ. The writings were gathered into a book by a set of church elite, led by a sun-god worshipper who only took on the guise of Christianity because it was convinient. However, despite this non-auspicious beginning, the NT has still proved to be true. I too am sceptical of the NT. I am much more likely to believe the witnesses of those who were there (the disciples who wrote the gospels) than the writings of a murderer from the camp of the Pharisees who only later saw the light and changed his evil ways (Paul). However, when I read Paul's writings carefully and ignore the misreadings and obvious distortions attributed to him throughout the centuries, I find that Paul too, preaches the gospel of Christ - amazing but true. Shall I trust those who try to malign the disciples but keep the corrupted teachings of the murderer-turned-Christian? I think not. I find it safer to reject the modern distorters and retain the ancient original. But, then again, that is what I believe. You must make up your own mind.
So people are only referring to some parts, others are said to be false or not fitting into the time...what the hell? How can the word of god not fit into this time???
Click to expand...
Yes, what the hell? Peoples over many times and in many centuries have asked this question - does the bible apply to me and to my time? Amazingly, the eventual answer has always been - YES. Cultures go in cycles (even the old Jewish culture) and always seem to end up back to the bible original. Our's just hasn't gone full circle yet. In the end, we must retain the scriptures in total.
So, how can one know what is real and what not considering the bible? It is all just a question of personal preference, even the very explicit laws of god are not heeded or just subjectively interpreted.
Click to expand...
No matter what society tells you or the intellectualists tell you, you will some day be made to answer for your actions. It has always been a matter of personal preference, but there will come a time when God will judge and you (and I) will be held accountable for our decisions. Just because some have fallen into error and desire to drag you down with them, does not excuse you. You must make a decision.
So, why believe in it anyway? It may be all wrong, or it may all be considered obsolete. And I do not think that there would be such a problem if the bible is the real word of god, since that would be imperative and universally true.
Click to expand...
Atheists like to use the patience and long-suffering of God as proof of His absense or demise. Just because God does not jump when an Atheist snaps his fingers, does not proclaim his existance or lack thereof. God is the master, not the servant. Atheists too - especially those on this forum who know the truth (it seems most of the Atheists on the forum are fallen Christians) - must make a choice and must eventually account for their actions.

The Atheist line is: Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth.

Why believe? That is a choice - a personal preference. If nothing else, believe because the bible has not been proved false.
 
Not so obvious. While creation cannot be proved, neither can evolution. You have a choice here. If you wish to just let that one pass and believe the rest, you can. As long as you don't label Genesis as "false" then you are still fine with the rest of the bible. It's OK to just say "We don't know but we will keep investigating"
Click to expand...

Err...I do not discard creation in general, but the biblical one is suspicious, clearly, there are fossils of animals that are millions of years old, but no human remains, they only appear about 600000 years back... So, discard that 6 day creation.
Also, there are too many different genetic variations, this should not be the case since in the beginning there was Adam and from him, Eve was created, so only one genetic type is available (technically, Adam having sex with Eve was the first case of incest).
Furthermore, there are far too many independed and uninfluenced language to account for a biblical creation history.
There are many more things, but I do not want to make a multiple page response.

Just let me say that I do not know if there was a divine creation or just evolution, this is a moot point, but there surely was no biblical creation. Evolution can be proven for the past, but the beginning is unknown.



Quoting the next two paragraphs would be too lenghty, so I will just give the beginning and end of the referred passage:

First let's reexamine what the bible is. [...]
You must make up your own mind.
Click to expand...

Well, there is the problem, isn't it? First, why do I have to choose between only two things? I could also take hinduistic scriptiures, they are in a way just as valid as the bible.
I know that the bible is built by believers who only picked what they wanted and destroyed the rest that was considered heretic by them. As a result, the bible is amorph and not true. Some existing texts also appear to be heavily edited, and their point of view is very one dimensional and a bit questionable in my opinion. If you want to believe in it anyway, that is your problem.
Considering the old testament, I think that it is also lacking in credibility due to the fact that only oral stories were at some point recorded. To base my whole life on something like that doesn't seem right.
As a whole, I would regard the message of the bible with a great deal of suspicion. Of course, not everything that is written in it is total mental bullshit, I agree that it represents some morally acceptable values. Nonetheless, the bible was originally created as an advertisement of christianity, a handbook for wandering preachers that were send out to christianize unbelievers.
So I think that a distant and critic viewpoint is recommendable when the bible is read.

Yes, what the hell? Peoples over many times and in many centuries have asked this question - does the bible apply to me and to my time? Amazingly, the eventual answer has always been - YES. Cultures go in cycles (even the old Jewish culture) and always seem to end up back to the bible original. Our's just hasn't gone full circle yet. In the end, we must retain the scriptures in total.
Click to expand...

Oh, now we are getting into communism? Culture/history is cicular?
I do not think so, perhaps a spiral but no circle. Why should out culture be a circle? Would that not mean that everything else also goes around in circles? Then we have to die out at some point and dinosaurs have to appear again...
No, I do not see a way that would make us just the way we were 6000 or 10000 or 100000 years ago.

No matter what society tells you or the intellectualists tell you, you will some day be made to answer for your actions. It has always been a matter of personal preference, but there will come a time when God will judge and you (and I) will be held accountable for our decisions. Just because some have fallen into error and desire to drag you down with them, does not excuse you. You must make a decision.
Click to expand...

I do not have a problem with that, I am doing what I believe in, and I am prepared to answer to whomever interrogates. But that doesn't mean that I need any kind of god or religion.
If some are afraid of their own personality than it might be recommendable to give in to their weakness and submit to a god-figure.
But we cannot know the way of god, he/she/it may be a cruel being that despises the weak and honours the strong, not the other way round.

Anyway, if I ever meet god, I will not move an inch from my beliefs and my self.


Why believe? That is a choice - a personal preference. If nothing else, believe because the bible has not been proved false.
Great, then all religion are worth the same.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Are all religions the same? Well, you get to decide, and so do I. My choice is just as valid as yours.

Yes, history is circular - have you never read "Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it"?

On meeting God - I would think when that happens, you would quickly discard any unbelief you have. Thankfully God seems to like exactly your position.
Revelations 3
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.​
At least you are fervent in your beliefs - whether they are hot or cold - it seems God disapproves of non-comital more than outright rejection!
 
Whew, lucky me... :D

I still do not think history is circular, I would stick to "those who do not know history will repeat the mistakes of the past"...

And I did not say that all religions are the same, but all have the same validity.
 
§outh§tar said:
As I have told okinrus:

--
That is an incredulously stupid statement.

Without the Bible you wouldn't know what the heck the Holy Spirit is so saying you need to have the Holy Spirit to understand the Bible is a foolish and circular claim.
----
Click to expand...
Now, SouthStar, I know you're not this foolish.

You are trying to turn AdStar's statement into a "which came first, the Chicken or the Egg?" scenario - and I know you know better. The Holy Spirit came first - and the Holy Spirit taught all the patriarchs, including Moses who wrote the first scriptures (perhaps with some source material). The only way you get to your conclusion is by denying that God exists at all - which you know AdStar does not believe.

You are purposely misunderstanding what AdStar wrote just to mock him - and that makes you a hypocrite.
 
Dreamwalker said:
Whew, lucky me... :D

I still do not think history is circular, I would stick to "those who do not know history will repeat the mistakes of the past"...

And I did not say that all religions are the same, but all have the same validity.
Click to expand...
Yes, and from my vantage point, it seems that today's society (shall I include you in that group?) is making the same mistakes which have been made over and over throughout history - to reject God and his principles.

As is often said, history will be the judge.
 
Perhaps, but it may be another group that makes the mistake of insisting on the existence of god.

So subjective... good that I have subjective beliefs. I tried to learn from history, that is partially a reason why I do not believe in god (unlike every past culture, even ancient human tribes had gods...)
 
You are not the first. Even if you don't know it, you are following the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. That has been tried and rejected - I reject it.
 
I know I am not the first, neither are you. This could go on with no end... so I will end it now if no new point arises.
 
Are all religions the same? Well, you get to decide, and so do I. My choice is just as valid as yours.
Click to expand...

You get to decide? Based upon what? Dude, it isn't as simple as picking a name out of a hat, and I resent people who think otherwise.

Remember how much of a hissy fit you threw over the word 'evolution'. Why is it now different in this scenario?

Where is your evidence, your proof?

Your 'choice' is not valid, and neither is anyone elses when it comes to religion. You're all making it up as you go along, based upon what sounds particularly pleasing to you, or indeed what mummy told you was true.

Surely you would be smart enough to be as scrupulous in your analysis of religious texts as you would be when debating evolution? Where are all the numbers you were reeling off, where are the 'statistics' and other such bunkem you couldn't help but relay to me?

Is this not hypocricy of the gravest order? Why so lenient now, when you have shown just how different you can be regarding something you don't personally appreciate?

Still, I don't want to judge too harshly, so I hereby give you the opportunity to present some evidence. I wont do what you did, (which is to ignore every question and every piece of evidence- and to indeed not understand what the thing you were debating against means).

Bring it on.
 
SnakeLord said:
You get to decide? Based upon what? Dude, it isn't as simple as picking a name out of a hat, and I resent people who think otherwise.

Remember how much of a hissy fit you threw over the word 'evolution'. Why is it now different in this scenario?

Where is your evidence, your proof?

Your 'choice' is not valid, and neither is anyone elses when it comes to religion. You're all making it up as you go along, based upon what sounds particularly pleasing to you, or indeed what mummy told you was true.

Surely you would be smart enough to be as scrupulous in your analysis of religious texts as you would be when debating evolution? Where are all the numbers you were reeling off, where are the 'statistics' and other such bunkem you couldn't help but relay to me?

Is this not hypocricy of the gravest order? Why so lenient now, when you have shown just how different you can be regarding something you don't personally appreciate?

Still, I don't want to judge too harshly, so I hereby give you the opportunity to present some evidence. I wont do what you did, (which is to ignore every question and every piece of evidence- and to indeed not understand what the thing you were debating against means).

Bring it on.
Click to expand...
I will not present evidence. I have only witnesses - which is good enough for any court of law. I can neither prove nor disprove my religion (which is why it is called religion and not science). I do not ask you to believe what I cannot prove, not now and certainly not in any previous posts. I believe it out of choice. You do not believe it out of the same choice.

What I can do is prove the falsehood of evolution as I have already done for you. That's why evolution is called science. However, if you choose to believe in evolution despite the proof of falsehood, then you have made it into a religion. I have nothing to say to you concerning your "religion" of evolution. Go ahead and believe - that is your choice.
 
David F. said:
I will not present evidence. I have only witnesses - which is good enough for any court of law. I can neither prove nor disprove my religion (which is why it is called religion and not science). I do not ask you to believe what I cannot prove, not now and certainly not in any previous posts. I believe it out of choice. You do not believe it out of the same choice.

What I can do is prove the falsehood of evolution as I have already done for you. That's why evolution is called science. However, if you choose to believe in evolution despite the proof of falsehood, then you have made it into a religion. I have nothing to say to you concerning your "religion" of evolution. Go ahead and believe - that is your choice.
Click to expand...

The problem though David is that your alleged witnesses are dead. What court of law would take a book which has many, many "alleged discrepancies", and is a thousand+ years old and put it on the stand and accept it as fact without the ability to cross examine? Your book is not an acceptable witness in a court of law, at least that I'm aware of.

You mentioned that people didn't question the Bible in the past and just relatively recently started criticizing it. Not true from my understanding. For instance, the book of Daniel was attacked as a forgery by Porphyry, and he lived in the 4th century from my undertstanding. And look at the alleged writings of the "church fathers". In it there are criticisms of Christianity by opponents. Ever hear of Celsus and Trypho? This is not new David. And even if the Bible was completely accepted by everyone, so what? Also, openly attacking the Bible was not really allowed for much of the past. Do you think someone could, in the 5th century, attack the Bible in a Christian controlled area? Look at today in Muslim countries, can you openly attack Jesus? Blasphemy laws were in effect and still are in some places. Many, many people believed the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. That was the dominant position, wasn't it? The amount of people who believe something doesn't make it true.

I don't have a problem with believing there's a God. I don't have a problem with believing that God created the universe. Science will never explain everything. There will always be, at the least, the "God of the gaps". "God" as an explanation for what we don't, or can't understand.

And the reverse, I don't have a problem with you believing that your alleged witnesses were telling the truth. Christianity is fine, along with other religions, as long as they don't try to enforce their worldview on others through mental manipulation, laws, war, etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top