rhutchin

As I understand those who work in the field of textual criticism, we can basically assume that the Bible we have today is as close to the original manuscripts as we are likely to get.

Johnny Skeptic

But Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. A commitment like that is not possible based upon the evidence that we have. Such a commitment would require much more than a 50/50 probability that God tells the truth, and you obviously do not have that kind of evidence. You can misinterpret what Jesus said all that you want to, but it won't work.

I have posted the following a number of times, and I understand your reluctance to reply to it:

Actually, you are representing God’s position, and your position, not mine. While God is willing that some will perish, (I actually agree with you that that is the case. I have just been arguing, along with the majority of the Christians, that some Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish.), and while God endorses unmerciful eternal without parole, I am not willing that anyone perish without having the opportunity to know the truth, and I do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

That is false. As I have said on numerous occasions in many threads at three forums, the real issue comes back to whether or not rational minded and fair minded people are able to will themselves to accept a God’s whose character is questionable.

If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being who he would accept if he knew that the being exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are uncertain that the God of the Bible exists. You obviously do not have any problems loving a God who opposes people not for what they know and reject, but for what he says they OUGHT to know. You obviously do not know the difference between IGNORANCE of a truth that is UNKNOWN, and REJECTION of a truth that is KNOWN.

Lest you claim that if Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, no one would become a Christian who was not previously convinced, I will tell you that modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

Humans place great importance on physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. There is great rejoicing among everyone, including Christians, when preventions and cures for diseases are discovered. ANY being who healed all of the sick people in the world, whether a human being, an alien, or a God, would be greatly appreciated. Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in copies of ancient records. Helping people in TANGIBLE ways, not just in SPIRITUAL ways, helps to gain their trust and confidence that you have their best interests at heart. As it is, Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, great fear spread among the people. It is much too much of a coincidence that the issue was over money and not something else. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. Hypocrisy is sufficient ground to reject any being. If God has no interest in keeping his own rules, he should not expect rational minded and fair minded people to love a being who is a hypocrite. If God wishes to punish rational minded and fair minded people for refusing to accept his numerous detestable actions and allowances, that is his choice, but rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. If God has the right to be a hypocrite, then he also has the right to be a liar, right?

If you can convince me that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, or allowing people to be injured and killed in hurricanes, and refusing to clearly tell people that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, are in any way beneficial to God, and to mankind as a whole, I might be willing to become a Christian.

I am only interested in accepting a God who will look out for MY best interests, and EVERYONE ELSE’S best interests, not HIS OWN best interests. In the U.S., we believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You believe in a government of God, by God, and for God. Such a government is arbitrary, tyrannical, and dictatorial.

Some non-Christians are more loving, kind, generous, and forgiving than the typical Christian is. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

rhutchin

No. Allegedly rational and fair-minded people are limited to the infomation that they have. They do not always know whether that information is true. In the case of the Bible, it is true or it is not. Regardless, that which matters is what the Bible says. The rational and fair-minded person would take the Bible for what it says and ask, as prompted by Pascal, Do I decide to believe the Bible when find out too late that it is false or Do I decide not to believe the Bible and find out too late that it is true? The decision for the rational and fair-minded person is not whether to accept a God’s whose character is questionable but whether to accept a God before whom they must stand and give account of all that they have done.

jakejonesiv

If you really believe this nonsense, you better go for the God that threatens the most dire punishments and the most sublime rewards. Why aren't you a Muslim?

Jake Jones IV

Doug Shaver

If the data are inconsistent, then all intepretations are correct. From a contradiction, any conclusion may be inferred.

Doug Shaver

True but irrelevant, since the Bible makes no such claim for itself. The Bible does not claim anything about itself.

Doug Shaver

What books besides the Bible do you consider inerrant? Are they the only other books you care about?

Doug Shaver

Oh, well, if postmodernists have pointed it out, then it must be true.

I guess we'll be seeing the bumper stickers any day now:

Johnny Skeptic

No, rational minded and fair minded people know that God is a hypocrite and breaks his own rules. God says that killing people is wrong, but kills people himself, including babies, and innocent animals, with no apparent benefit to himself or to mankind. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, with no apparent benefit to himself or to manking. God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, with no apparent benefit to himself or to mankind. God tells people to be merciful, but endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, with no apparent benefit to himself or to mankind. God refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists, with no apparent benefit to himself, and with no possible benefit to those people. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message that he would accept if he knew that the being who delivered the message (supposedly) exists. As far as rational minded and fair minded people are concerned, risk assessement and choice have nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not they are able to endorse God's destestable practices that oppose HIS OWN RULES. If Pascal's Wager is actually valid, then it would also apply to a supposed God who showed up and endorsed lying, and required that in order for a man to go to heaven, he would have to love him. You would not be able to love such a God, and yet you ask people to love a God who commits acts that are much worse than lying. Killing your own devout followers is something that even Attila the Hun would not have done.

While tangible benefits are frequently distributed to those who are not in greatest need, they are frequently withheld from those who are in greatest need, which is exactly what rational minded and fair minded people would expect would be the case is the God of the Bible does not exist. The best evidence indicates that tangible benefits to humans, and to animals, are distribute in a RANDOM manner according to the laws of physics. Bible believers have NEVER been able to depend upon God since Adam and Eve supposedly ate forbidden fruit. After Adam and Eve ate forbidden fruit, God imposed a tough mandate on mankind, a largely unnecessary, unfair, and unproductive mandate. He essentially said "I will create hurricanes and destroy houses with them". Adam and Eve essentially said "Not if I and my hurricanes shutters can prevent it", and Bible believers have been trying to overturn God's tough mandate ever since. God makes people blind, deaf and dumb, and yet, Christian doctors try to prevent and cure blindness, deafness, and dumbness. This situation is quite ricidulous.

Try as you may, you will never be able to reasonably prove that decent people ought to, and are able to accept the God of the Bible.

Johnny Skeptic

As I understand those who work in the field of textual criticism, we can basically assume that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that additions were not made to the originals, and that the originals told the truth regarding all major issues. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that he was born of a virgin, that he was a descendant of the House of David, that he never sinned, and that his shed blook and death atoned for the sins of mankind. Those are most of the major tenets of fundamentalist Christianity, and there is not one single bit of historical evidence that any of those claims are true. One wonders if God is trying to reveal himself, or conceal himself.

None of the anonymous Gospel writers ever claimed to have witnessed a miracle, and they never revealed who their sources were. Some of the books of the New Testament were written decades after the supposed facts, and I doubt that the writers had any clue that their writing would comprise the New Testament centuries after their death.

Noted award winning scholar, author, and college professor Dr. Elaine Pagels is one of those who work in the field of textual criticism. She is a liberal Christian. Elaine has aptly said "The victors [meaning orthodox Christians] rewrote history, 'their way'". Elaine is fluent in about five languages, including Greek and Hebrew.

How much do you know about the formation of the New Testament Canon?