Without standards for analyzing/evaluating/judging [A/E/J or a/e/j] people/things/events [P/T/E or p/t/e], anything goes, emotionalism reigns: if it feels good, it must be true/if it feels bad it must be false; if it is wanted, it must be true/if it is not wanted, it must be false; etc.

Here is a list of potential standards for the analysis, evaluation and judgment of holy books:

1. The gods, if they exist, must be subject to the same laws of logic as are men.

2. Holy books not only in their original form but all copies and translations must be inspired, written, guided, etc. by gods, not written by men.

Eyewitness books/reports ought to be separate from holy books, clearly marked, and their authors clearly biographed.

As men write, we might expect them to make mistakes; but when the gods inspire/write/etc., we should be able to expect that they should not make any mistakes.

3. The presence of contradictions of any kind in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Contradictions shall include (1) differences of temporal sequences; (2) exclusions/inclusions wherein details excluded in one story or account are included in another story/account, and vice versa.

Holy books should not contain multiple stories of the same people/things/events existing/occurring at the same timepoints and in the same locations. Multiple stories are unnecessary; one story should be sufficient to give all the details which are true.

The presence of multiple stories containing contradictions concerning the details of the same p/t/e's existing/happening at the same timepoints and location logically means (A) one story is true and (B) all others are false or all stories are false, because all (C) stories which contain conflicting/contradictory details could not possibly be true. Thus, the presence of conflicting/contradictory multiple stories shall be proof/evidence that they were written by men and not inspired by gods.

4. The presence of historical inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

5. The presence of archaeological inaccuracies in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

6. The presence of hypocrisy by the gods in a book shall be evidence that the book was not inspired/written/guided/etc. by gods and is therefore not an holy book.

Hypocrisy shall be (A) saying one thing [setting standards/guidelines/commandments/etc.] and doing another or (B) doing one thing in one situation and something else in other similar situations.

Gods should be logical and free of hypocrisy. They should be consistent in all that they say and do. Inconsistencies shall be clear and obvious evidence of the hypocrisy of the gods, or else that the stories/accounts in which inconsistencies of the gods are presented are written by men and not inspired by gods.

7. The gods should inspire/etc. the writing of holy books in a simple form comprehensible to all people of all cultures/ethnic groups [so any translations would have the exact meaning] so that any possibility of having to be a scholar of ethnic literary devices as a qualification for who should be able to read accurately and effectively holy books is eliminated--so normal people [nonscholars] would be qualified to read the holy books, not just priests/scholars.

Ernest Sparks

Well, that pretty much leaves the Holy Bible out of competition. Don't be surprised if the regular bible people don't go along with these. Does any book stand up?

Ernie

Bob,

And what exactly are your qualifications for telling this god how it should do things? If we assume (for the sake of argument) that god exists, then you don't seem to be in much of a position to give orders.

Peace,

Polycarp

That's not "giving god orders", evaluating something is NOT the same thing as controlling something.

LMAO!!!

I'm sorry Bob, but I think I reject every single one of your conditions.

On the other hand, I think any reasonably well educated Muslim around (say Baalthazaq for example) is going to be able to demonstrate that the Qur'an meets your criteria. So, does that make you an Islamic believer? At least if Baalthazaq comes here and proceeds to shread your feeble objections to his holy book?

Just wondering.

Nomad

Polycarp:

I am setting my standards for accepting/rejecting claims that certain books are holy books, not telling the gods what to do/not to do.

Ipetrich:

You got my intentions right! Thanks.

Nomad:

Define: LMAO!!!

Baalthazaq has replied to a similar "Standards" topic posting on the Existence of God(s) forum.

The fundamental problem of religion is determining if or not gods exist.

The fundamental question of religion is thus: Do gods exist/not exist?

If books pass the tests of contradictions [by not having any] and other tests there still remains the problem of determining if or not gods exist and could therefore be the authors/inspiration/etc. of the holy books.

At least the standards might eliminate some claims that certain books are holy books--by revealing contradictions, abnormally esoteric language and literary devices, etc.

Bob & Ipetrich,

Bob IS telling god what to do. In effect he's saying, "I don't care if you exist. I'm not going to believe in you because you didn't do things the way I said you should do them."

In other words, Bob wants to tell god how to run the show. This is a complete role reversal from how things should be if we admit that some god exists. If god exists, then god would be telling Bob how things work NOT Bob telling god how it ought to be...

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp:

For what reasons would you accept a being's claim to be a god?

[NOTE: Look for a topic posting re: Standards for the Analysis/Evaluation/Judgment of Gods on BOTH the Existence of God(s) forum AND the Biblical Criticism & Archaeology forum.]

In what ways would your reasons NOT be standards for gods?

For what reason(s) would accept a human being's claim [or a god's claim] of an holy book?

In what ways would your reasons NOT be standards for holy books?

Do you have ANY standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of a person/thing/event including gods and holy books--to determine if or not a god is a god or an holy book is an holy book?

If you have such standards, what are they?

Originally posted by Bob K:

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> For what reasons would you accept a being's claim to be a god? In what ways would your reasons NOT be standards for gods? For what reason(s) would accept a human being's claim [or a god's claim] of an holy book? In what ways would your reasons NOT be standards for holy books? Do you have ANY standards for the analysis/evaluation/judgment of a person/thing/event including gods and holy books--to determine if or not a god is a god or an holy book is an holy book? If you have such standards, what are they?

Rather than answer all six of your questions, let me briefly explain my methodology.

First of all, no book(s) can prove/disprove the existence of god. So these questions could be turned around and be asked to you. Hence, "What book DISPROVES the existence of god?" If you have one, then please let me know. We don't ONLY use books to reach our conclusions.

So, the first thing I would do to decide if there was a god would be to examine everything I knew about reality (part of which includes books). This includes philosophy, science, history, human experience, etc. After examining everything, I'd ask which is more probable - "god" or "no god".

If I decided "god" was more likely than "no god", then I'd ask myself if and how god might communicate to us. One possibility is communication through events. Books are only an attempt to explain events from the perspective of the writer. Hence, when it comes to Christianity, Christians don't worship books. They worship something they believe is revealed in the books.

I'm sure you've heard the following explanation before, but I'll repeat it. Contradictions and errors don't disprove the occurence of an event. If you read two conflicting news accounts about an airplane crash, do you then conclude the airplane did not crash? No. You probably conclude that one (or both) of the accounts was wrong in some way. Why should we do things any differently when studying other events in ancient history? Treat religious books like you'd treat any other writing.

Peace,

Polycarp

Laughing My Ass Off.

Good. After he demonstrates that the Qur'an meets your criteria will you accept that it is a true holy book?

Of course, and your objections or criteria for judging books does nothing to address that question, nor to advance the pursuit of an answer to that question.

So what's the point of this thread? To tell us why you reject the Bible? If so, that is cool, just don't expect God to listen to you when you try to tell Him how to give His Word to us.

Why should God listen to you on this matter?

Just curious.

Nomad