llamaluvr

Okay, this is interesting, because I can ask and maybe finally figure out why people do this. Why does everybody bring up the whole geocentric universe thing? The Bible doesn't claim that the universe is geocentric. And that fact that some religious men believed otherwise and fought against claims to the contrary is irrelevant in regards to the veracity of the Bible. They're the claims of men, not God. There's nothing logically inconsistent with religious men being wrong and God still being right.

I find it odd that a book that comes right out and says that men are quite often wrong about things considered invalid on account that men are quite often wrong about things. It pretty much comes out and says "men are going to distort my word for their own gains", and then everybody gets all surprised when that actually happens. Nevermind the fact that logical (in)consistency is only determined with the source itself and no sources outside of it- the notion sounds ridiculous without me breaking out the truth tables!

You make strong statements like
but that needs to be demonstrated. Dismissing my beliefs as "campfire stories" doesn't cut it. If my beliefs are really verifibly fictitious, then that should be able to be demonstrated. I want to know that if it's true- I refuse to believe anything that can't be true. If Christianity can't be true, then I'll ditch it and become a...I don't know...something else. But, until then, I'm inclinded to believe the voices in my head ;-).

It's not that I think your beliefs suck on that account, it's just that, if one side or the other isn't actually demonstrably false, then we can just be up front about it and go back to me having my reasons, and you having your's, and chipping away at the stone to see which model fits the available evidence best.

Any nontrivial belief is not arrived at by a logical deduction, but is a conclusion reached with incomplete evidence, filled in by our will to make jumps in some places and not to in others, along with (at least I think) some very significant external factors.

Godless Wonder

The claim that the Bible is related to any god in any way is also a claim of man. It could be wrong.
Not all false claims can be verifiably demonstrated as false. Prove that leprechauns don't exist. Prove that an exact replica of Jimi Hendrix's flaming stratocaster doesn't orbit Saturn. You can't. Yet you don't believe it. You believe the Bible for no good reasons. State one good reason you believe the Bible. Because other people believe is not a good reason. Voices in your head? The smiley indicates you don't really mean that.
And there is NO evidence that the Bible's extraordinary claims are actually true. "Incomplete" evidence? How about NONE WHATSOEVER.

IamMoose

OIC. Erm .. about that, I have not the faintest idea :devil3:

Buffman

That was helpful! :rolling: :rolling: :wave:

IamMoose

we aim to please

llamaluvr

Yep, but it's also in the Bible, so it does factor into an internal consistency test of the Bible. Dead popes musing about geocentric universes are not in the Bible, and, thus, do not factor in similarly. That was the point.

Proper background for this can be found in my first large post (here), where I state many of my reasons for belief. Basically, I believe because of how Jesus has personally impacted me before I believe for any other reason. But before you dissect that statement, catch up with what I have said before, please.

Anyway, I think aliens are more believable than leprechauns, simply because more people have claimed to have had experiences with them. Nobody ever talks of having experiences with leprechauns, or about finding their pot of gold, yet plenty (reletively speaking) of people claim to have seen alien saucers, gotten beamed up into their ships, and impregnated with their larvae.

So, here I am, listening to such stories, skeptical of them not only for their sheer outrageousness, but for the near-impossibility of there being any intelligent life close enough to travel here, yet I can throw them a bone and say, "Y'know, maybe something really is coming down to the surface of the earth in a saucer and shoving a probe up their rectums." I don't believe that these things are aliens, and I am dubious of many of these stories, but I don't just outright dismiss every single thing they say. Precious few people are 100% right, but even precious fewer are 100% wrong.

How much more believable should it be that God is inhabiting the souls of people who ask him to, talking to them, and doing great things through them?
Unlike aliens coming to earth and probing people, at least there's no irreconcilable physical impetus preventing God from communicating with and doing things through men. Unlike aliens coming to earth and probing people (how much information can you really get by looking up someone's rear OVER and OVER and OVER?), we can ascribe a great deal of purpose and motivation for God doing such things.

There's plenty of reasons to not believe in God, but please don't do so just because the evidence isn't lined up the way you'd like it to be. The only way the church could have been built is through the reliable testimony of witnesses to the work of Jesus, and Jesus verifying that to those who took that testimony seriously. If knowledge of God was only built through archeology, DNA testing, and written histories, while we would have had a good historical picture of God and his doings, we would have no reason to worship him. For all we know, he could have only been an active force in the time period we have the historical data from. He could be nonexistent, or at least uninterested in humans at this point if that's all we had to go by.

Therefore, spiritual verification is necessary. Jesus must make himself known to me personally. If Jesus is not an active force *personally* in the world today, there is no reason to believe. If he is not dwelling in me, or I don't know about him dwelling in me, there is no reason to believe. If his impact is only as a historical figure, then he's just that-a historical figure. I would have no more reason to worship him that I would Thomas Jefferson, even if a million Romans wrote books about him before 50 AD.

So, you can choose to discount that all you want, but just realize that you're creating a God that is systematically unknowable, no matter what other concessions are made.

--------------

A lot of conversations here have reminded me of the late Charles Templeton's Farewell to God. I have a great deal of respect for Templeton, because he approaches the subject without the slightest bit of disdain for Christians. He is also dead-on regarding a lot of issues hurting the church. Despite his beliefs, he would have probably been very useful in an advisory role for a church.

But, his book is also very frustrating. He details the process of his conversion, and speaks of a feeling he had as it happened. I'd love to quote it directly, but I can't find my copy of the book. He describes it as being very strong, and, if you didn't know who wrote the book, you would think he would have been describing the spirit of God descending upon him and entering him. He gives it a lot of props!

But, he never addresses that feeling again. He doesn't even dismiss it as he recounts how he later rejected Christianity. Instead of addressing the immediate verification of his faith at that one point, he substitutes that positive verification for bits and pieces of evidence that don't really add to up to something that could dismiss that feeling. For example, evolution was a big sticking point for him, and he recounts how he had talked to Billy Graham, saying that faith was unreasonable in the face of such evidence. But, what we know about evolution is not mutually exclusive of faith, and, more importantly, doesn't account for that feeling experienced personally by Charles Templeton (at least, not from what he tells us).

Despite all his good points, the book leaves a sour taste in my mouth, because Templeton exchanged something that he could verify personally for one big non-sequitur. The proper conclusion from his argument was not that Christianity should be rejected, but he used those reasons to reject Christianity anyway, when he had described a very good reason why he should not have. I first became interested in reading Templeton's works after reading Lee Strobel's interview with him in The Case for Faith. After reading Farewell to God, I was not shocked by what he had said to Strobel.

I was going to have some big lengthy conclusion to that, but I guess all I can really say is that I think that is an appropriate illustration why I take my personal experiences, and those of others, very seriously, and also why I don't throw my faith out the window the moment somebody says something that appears to contradict my beliefs.

My tounge was so far in my cheek that I think I could taste a pimple :-P.


Anyway, I'm going on vacaction, and the internet doesn't get to follow me! :-). Have a good week, everybody! :wave: