Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Free Thinkr · 02-11-2002, 01:54 PM

I've engaged in many a debate with christians, and much like most atheists I often cite examples where the bible is wrong to attack its inerrancy. Often times though, the christian backslides to the position that not all of the bible is right, just most of it. This got me thinking, and I came up with an analogy:
What if I make my resume, and for the most part I include only facts, but on other parts I toss in some fiction. Now say that my potential employer does a background check on everything I put down. Would my potential employer take the position that most of what I wrote was true and hire me? I think not. Its about credability. The bible or my resume need to be 100% correct if they are to be believed!

Dark Jedi · 02-11-2002, 02:05 PM

But isn't it S.O.P. for a resume to be mostly true?

Free Thinkr · 02-11-2002, 02:16 PM

That definitely depends on the job.

waxm · 02-12-2002, 05:57 AM

Free Thinkr- The bible or my resume need to be 100% correct if they are to be believed!

Wax- And this is exactly the point that you must make to any "Christian" that claims an acceptance of errors in Biblical text.

In order to form faith, one MUST believe in devine inspiration.
Because if even one Biblical claim can be said to be in error, then none can be trusted as factually based.
In that case, the person with this, so called, faith, is simply guessing at what may, or may not be true.
Look at it this way: According to Biblical scripture, Saul/Paul never actually met Jesus.
He only claimed to have had a vision, much like many other men, that Christians despise, have.
Yet Saul/Paul is credited with writing 14 books of the new testament!
If any Christian even considers that one hundred percent of those words in those books may not have come directly from God, then they are no better off than the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh(sp?), or for that matter, Charlie Manson.(All of whom claimed to have had visions just like Saul/Paul).

Of course, the problem that this presents for Christians is the fact that the Biblical text can not be devinely inspired, because much of it is in error.

Tercel · 02-12-2002, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Free Thinkr:
I've engaged in many a debate with christians, and much like most atheists I often cite examples where the bible is wrong to attack its inerrancy.

Probably quite pointless. Anyone who believes in inerrancy on blind-faith is hardly going to listen to logic.

Quote:

Often times though, the christian backslides to the position that not all of the bible is right, just most of it.

A good position in my opinion. Although, I object to the use of the term "backslides" as it seems to imply that we Christians should believe in Inerrancy and anything else is somehow less Christian.

Quote:

This got me thinking, and I came up with an analogy:
What if I make my resume, and for the most part I include only facts, but on other parts I toss in some fiction. Now say that my potential employer does a background check on everything I put down. Would my potential employer take the position that most of what I wrote was true and hire me? I think not. Its about credability.

I agree about the resume. I don't agree with the soundness of the analogy though.

Quote:

The bible or my resume need to be 100% correct if they are to be believed!

I agree about the resume. But appart from your stating that the bible needs to be 100% correct to be believed I don't see any supporting argument other than "The Bible is like a resume ~wavehands~".

It seems to me that the only similarities between the Bible and a resume is if you think of the Bible as written by God to convince you of his existence.
But if you think of the Bible as a collection of books of human writers recording their observations of God's doings in the world and their attempts at understanding God, as I do, then there seems to be little similarity to a resume, and plenty of perfectly good reasons for errors which do not invalidate or reduce the credibility of the entire Bible.

The trouble comes with the insistence that divine inspiration = dictated by God, rather than simply meaning the writers were moved to write because of their experiences of God or that they were godly men.

The writers of the Bible were human. They made some mistakes like all humans do. Please stop trying to use it as an excuse to throw out the whole Bible.

Tercel

Tercel · 02-12-2002, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by waxm:
In order to form faith, one MUST believe in divine inspiration.

Why? I have faith in God, but I don't believe in divine inspiration as you understand it.

Quote:

Because if even one Biblical claim can be said to be in error, then none can be trusted as factually based.

Why? Plenty of ancient historians made mistakes, yet we still trust what they say for the most part. Sure we cautiously assess the truth of their writings, as we should the Bible.

Quote:

In that case, the person with this, so called, faith, is simply guessing at what may, or may not be true.

It's called life. We always guess at what may or may not be true, some things we are more sure of, others less so. The different parts of the Bible being no different.

Quote:

Look at it this way: According to Biblical scripture, Saul/Paul never actually met Jesus.
He only claimed to have had a vision, much like many other men, that Christians despise, have.
Yet Saul/Paul is credited with writing 14 books of the new testament!

Is there a problem with this? I can see why there might be a problem if Paul had written a history of Jesus' life based on his "vision": such would be rather dubious.

Quote:

If any Christian even considers that one hundred percent of those words in those books may not have come directly from God, then they are no better off than the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh(sp?), or for that matter, Charlie Manson.(All of whom claimed to have had visions just like Saul/Paul).

I claim the words came directly from Paul, and things which Jim Jones, David Koresh etc wrote likewise. No doubt you'd agree it's the wisest position.

Quote:

Of course, the problem that this presents for Christians is the fact that the Biblical text can not be divinely inspired, because much of it is in error.

I think I've covered this already in my above post. It's not a problem at all. You simply need to consider what is meant by "divinely inspired".

Tercel

Free Thinkr · 02-12-2002, 06:23 PM

Quote:

But if you think of the Bible as a collection of books of human writers recording their observations of God's doings in the world and their attempts at understanding God, as I do, then there seems to be little similarity to a resume, and plenty of perfectly good reasons for errors which do not invalidate or reduce the credibility of the entire Bible.

Man wrote a great many books about a great many gods. If you acknowledge that the bible is nothing more than humans writing about the gods they believe in, what is your reasoning for believing the christain faith over any other?

Tercel · 02-12-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Free Thinkr:
Man wrote a great many books about a great many gods. If you acknowledge that the bible is nothing more than humans writing about the gods they believe in, what is your reasoning for believing the christain faith over any other?

My own religious experiences, personal testimony of others, miracles in the Christian tradition, scientific investigation into those miracles, scholarly investigation into the Bible etc.

I believe all religions no doubt are reflections of the divinity to some extent or another, but the experiences have a tendency to get filtered through different cultures and subsequently garbled. I call myself a Christian because I believe in Jesus Christ as the greastest revelation of God to man. The incarnation gives the Christian teachings an authority beyond all other human experiences and gives religion a basis in objective factual history as opposed to the subjective religious experiences filtered by cultures.

Tercel

Kikimalaka · 02-13-2002, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tercel:
<strong>My own religious experiences, personal testimony of others, miracles in the Christian tradition, scientific investigation into those miracles, scholarly investigation into the Bible etc.</strong>

And there you have it. How can one argue against "religious experiences?" I guess God likes you more than me, because I have had NO religious experiences.

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kikimalaka ]</p>

waxm · 02-13-2002, 05:09 AM

Tercel- Why? I have faith in God, but I don't believe in divine inspiration as you understand it.

Wax- Then your "belief" is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and choices made on the assumptions that what you choose to adhere to will be correct.

Tercel- Plenty of ancient historians made mistakes, yet we still trust what they say for the most part.

Wax- Bull! In fact, an outright lie!
No ancient writings are to be assumed to be correct in content until supporting evidence is found. Period!

Tercel- It's called life. We always guess at what may or may not be true, some things we are more sure of, others less so. The different parts of the Bible being no different.

Wax- If that is the way that you handle life, then..good luck!
Without supporting evidence of a belief, the belief is nothing but a supposition.
And if the Christian faith, as you know it, is allowed to have varying degrees of accuracy, then there is no way that you can claim punishment for sinners...thus no Christian theology that you can follow.

Tercel- Is there a problem with this? (Paul writing 14 new testament books, though he never met Jesus in life)

Wax- Yes, quite a large one!
The Christian faith is based, by a very large part at least, on Pauls writings.
According to the scripture; Jesus did not say that you could ask him to forgive your sins, only Paul, and others after the death of Jesus assert this.
Jesus did not say that those who did not believe in him would suffer an eternity of pain and damnation.
Jesus did not say that money should be wasted on buildings in which to worship him.
Jesus did not support the idea of tithing, or paying dues as though you were a member of some great society.
Jesus did not support the idea of Armegeddon in todays age, in fact, according to scripture, Jesus thought that the end would come within the lifetime of his own generation!

Tercel- I claim the words came directly from Paul, and things which Jim Jones, David Koresh etc wrote likewise. No doubt you'd agree it's the wisest position.

Wax- It sure is the wisest position!
Which means that nothing that Paul wrote can be considered a reliable text in which to accurately come to the conclusion that God even exists!
Your faith then, is as reliable and trustworthy as any other, and you must admit that it is just as likely that the Gods of Babylon were more truthfully represented than the God of Christianity.

Tercel- You simply need to consider what is meant by "divinely inspired".

Wax- Devine inspiration can only mean one thing in order to justify faith in a religion!
If you claim that Paul just wrote what he thought Jesus might, kind of, in a way, wanted him to, perhaps, suggest, then you are left in a hollow place my freind.
Many were "inspired" by the story of Atlantis, and added to it over time.
Yet you would be an idiot and a fool to believe that Atlantis truely existed, and thrives under the sea, simply because the new Disney cartoon depicts it as being so!

Tercel- miracles in the Christian tradition... scientific investigation into those miracles, scholarly investigation into the Bible etc....
I believe in Jesus Christ as the greastest revelation of God to man. The incarnation gives the Christian teachings an authority beyond all other human experiences and gives religion a basis in objective factual history as opposed to the subjective religious experiences filtered by cultures.

Wax- Really?
Well by all means, if you have truely found this factual evidence that gives the supposed incarnation of a man named Jesus factual authority...please share this wonderful and glorious discovery with the rest of us!
Because I can promise you, that like myself, many here have searched for a very long time for it.

02-11-2002, 01:54 PM	#1
Free Thinkr Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,379	The bible vs. my resume I've engaged in many a debate with christians, and much like most atheists I often cite examples where the bible is wrong to attack its inerrancy. Often times though, the christian backslides to the position that not all of the bible is right, just most of it. This got me thinking, and I came up with an analogy: What if I make my resume, and for the most part I include only facts, but on other parts I toss in some fiction. Now say that my potential employer does a background check on everything I put down. Would my potential employer take the position that most of what I wrote was true and hire me? I think not. Its about credability. The bible or my resume need to be 100% correct if they are to be believed!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-11-2002, 02:05 PM	#2
Dark Jedi Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Afghanistan Posts: 4,666	But isn't it S.O.P. for a resume to be mostly true?

02-11-2002, 02:16 PM	#3
Free Thinkr Banned Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,379	That definitely depends on the job.

02-12-2002, 05:57 AM	#4
waxm Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: saint peter mn Posts: 18	Free Thinkr- The bible or my resume need to be 100% correct if they are to be believed! Wax- And this is exactly the point that you must make to any "Christian" that claims an acceptance of errors in Biblical text. In order to form faith, one MUST believe in devine inspiration. Because if even one Biblical claim can be said to be in error, then none can be trusted as factually based. In that case, the person with this, so called, faith, is simply guessing at what may, or may not be true. Look at it this way: According to Biblical scripture, Saul/Paul never actually met Jesus. He only claimed to have had a vision, much like many other men, that Christians despise, have. Yet Saul/Paul is credited with writing 14 books of the new testament! If any Christian even considers that one hundred percent of those words in those books may not have come directly from God, then they are no better off than the followers of Jim Jones, David Koresh(sp?), or for that matter, Charlie Manson.(All of whom claimed to have had visions just like Saul/Paul). Of course, the problem that this presents for Christians is the fact that the Biblical text can not be devinely inspired, because much of it is in error.

02-13-2002, 05:09 AM	#10
waxm Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: saint peter mn Posts: 18	Tercel- Why? I have faith in God, but I don't believe in divine inspiration as you understand it. Wax- Then your "belief" is based on nothing more than wishful thinking, and choices made on the assumptions that what you choose to adhere to will be correct. Tercel- Plenty of ancient historians made mistakes, yet we still trust what they say for the most part. Wax- Bull! In fact, an outright lie! No ancient writings are to be assumed to be correct in content until supporting evidence is found. Period! Tercel- It's called life. We always guess at what may or may not be true, some things we are more sure of, others less so. The different parts of the Bible being no different. Wax- If that is the way that you handle life, then..good luck! Without supporting evidence of a belief, the belief is nothing but a supposition. And if the Christian faith, as you know it, is allowed to have varying degrees of accuracy, then there is no way that you can claim punishment for sinners...thus no Christian theology that you can follow. Tercel- Is there a problem with this? (Paul writing 14 new testament books, though he never met Jesus in life) Wax- Yes, quite a large one! The Christian faith is based, by a very large part at least, on Pauls writings. According to the scripture; Jesus did not say that you could ask him to forgive your sins, only Paul, and others after the death of Jesus assert this. Jesus did not say that those who did not believe in him would suffer an eternity of pain and damnation. Jesus did not say that money should be wasted on buildings in which to worship him. Jesus did not support the idea of tithing, or paying dues as though you were a member of some great society. Jesus did not support the idea of Armegeddon in todays age, in fact, according to scripture, Jesus thought that the end would come within the lifetime of his own generation! Tercel- I claim the words came directly from Paul, and things which Jim Jones, David Koresh etc wrote likewise. No doubt you'd agree it's the wisest position. Wax- It sure is the wisest position! Which means that nothing that Paul wrote can be considered a reliable text in which to accurately come to the conclusion that God even exists! Your faith then, is as reliable and trustworthy as any other, and you must admit that it is just as likely that the Gods of Babylon were more truthfully represented than the God of Christianity. Tercel- You simply need to consider what is meant by "divinely inspired". Wax- Devine inspiration can only mean one thing in order to justify faith in a religion! If you claim that Paul just wrote what he thought Jesus might, kind of, in a way, wanted him to, perhaps, suggest, then you are left in a hollow place my freind. Many were "inspired" by the story of Atlantis, and added to it over time. Yet you would be an idiot and a fool to believe that Atlantis truely existed, and thrives under the sea, simply because the new Disney cartoon depicts it as being so! Tercel- miracles in the Christian tradition... scientific investigation into those miracles, scholarly investigation into the Bible etc.... I believe in Jesus Christ as the greastest revelation of God to man. The incarnation gives the Christian teachings an authority beyond all other human experiences and gives religion a basis in objective factual history as opposed to the subjective religious experiences filtered by cultures. Wax- Really? Well by all means, if you have truely found this factual evidence that gives the supposed incarnation of a man named Jesus factual authority...please share this wonderful and glorious discovery with the rest of us! Because I can promise you, that like myself, many here have searched for a very long time for it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.