SaintCog

And who gets to decide what, if anything, in the Iliad is historical? Who gets to decide which of Plato's dialogues most accurately reflects the philosophy of Socrates? Who gets to decide where Josephus and Tacitus report history accurately by modern standards and where they are inventing details?

These are all topics that are held up to critical scrutiny, discussion and peer review. There is no reason Biblical literature should be exempt from this process. This is all that is happening on this forum and, indeed, in this very thread.

If you don't like critical discussion, then why do you post here?

Cheers,
SC

Peter Watts

Easy, SaintCog, I'm being critical as part of this critical discussion.
I'm wondering how we evaluate Paul's statements in light of the fact that there might not have been any such statements from Paul. Let's say we come to a consensus about the verses selected here. At the end of the day, what do we have? Do we believe there is worth to the New Testament, or do we keep on thinking it's a useless book? If we decide a tiny bit, some, or much of the New Testament has merit, it begins to put us on shaky ground as skeptics. Next thing you know, we're babbling about being "Left Behind" and we're sending money to TV preachers.
That's where I'm coming from. I post here because I enjoy the give and take of these discussions, and I think I've learned a lot from those who post. One day I hope to have a better handle on what I believe. I don't think that will happen in my life if I'm shut out because I'm asking tough questions.

SaintCog

Peter, I confess that I am utterly confused by your last post.

How exactly does standing on "shaky ground" as skeptics lead to sending money to televangelists? You lost me there. Actually, you lost me before that. Who was arguing that Paul never made the statements quoted above? No one that I can remember. Are you also trying to take issue with the process of forming a concensus through independent critical examination? Where are all of these non-sequitors coming from?

The last point I understood from you is that people who believe the Bible to be one big fairy tale should just get a life, stop wasting their time debunking it, and let everyone else be. Are you still trying to make that point, or are you trying to say something else now?

Please state your point in plain language without digressing into a funky, tripped out stream of consciousness. I generally like to know what exactly I'm discussing before I go through all the trouble of discussing it.

Cheers,
SC

Peter Watts

You know, one moment you're reading scripture to pick it apart. Then you find yourself thinking about it and coming to believe it. Next thing you know, you're a believer. I've seen it happen too much.
Look at that journalist, Lee Strobel. He was a great investigative reporter. He was also an atheist. He started researching the Bible to do what you're doing, analyze it critically and debunk it. Then it hit him that he could believe what he was reading. No telling what happened to make him fall for what he was reading, but there you go.
I think you should leave the book alone unless you're willing to risk becoming a believer. The Bible is dynamite, man. Too many atheists lose their way, and the next thing you know, they're taking up space on a pew in some church.

Toto

That's not my understanding of what happened. Strobel found religion and then read the Bible and decided it had to be valuable because he needed Jesus to help him give up alcohol.

CS Lewis decided he wanted to become a believer because some people he admired were Christians, and read the Bible and made up reasons to believe it.

I don't know of any skeptics who have read the Bible and become convinced of its truth just from study.

You will find skeptics who think the Bible has some worth - as literature, or as a source for history. But that doesn't mean that they believe in it as a religiously true document(s) or that they will send money to those frauds on TV.

pharoah

I would argue just the opposite, that people who really read and study the Bible in its entirety are much more likely to become skeptics than believers. The vast majority of believers are people who either never read the Bible at all, or people who only read the "feel-good" passages suggested by their pastor. Personally I believe that many of the evangelists are fully aware that the Bible is hogwash, but hey it's a multi-billion dollar tax-free business with marks ripe for the plucking.

Peter Watts

You can make any argument you want, Pharoah. I still have known too many atheists who started reading the Bible to pick it apart and who became believers.
Does the opposite sometimes happen, as you described? Sure.
But once Lee Strobel and C.S. Lewis, and a lot of people I've known personally, became Christians, they were highly influential and led a lot of people to faith. It was like something powerful was at work in their lives.
Scary.

freigeister

I was an out-and-out atheist when I started university. I had been raised an atheist. I took it for granted that the whole thing was bunk. I was doing a B.A. in a French college. I took the only two philosophy courses: a general survey and a course in philosophy of religion, offered by a liberal Roman Catholic priest. I came out of the religious philosophy course more atheist than ever, but I became interested in the subject of religion. I realized that the mere fact that billions of people over millennia had dedicated themselves to religion made it an important subject of inquiry. So I continued reading about it. Having reasoned that the question of Jesus was at the heart of the religious question, I read a whole bunch of the historical Jesus material. I was really interested in how we could come to an understanding of the essence of the Christ phenomenon. I was still thoroughly skeptical. Then I found a book that gave an explanation of the Christ phenomenon that I found utterly convincing. I haven't become a religious person or a church-goer, but I feel that I know Christ, and I am devoted to him. So I am an example of a skeptic who has been turned.

BTW, it seems to me that a lot of the skeptical literature is really a bunch of excuses for not reading. "It's all bunkum", "it's a conspiracy", "it's unknowable", "it's unverifiable": all these are ways of saying, "don't make me read it!"

I understand that most skeptics are former Christians. I blame institutional Christianity for so badly botching its business that its best and brightest are also its most vehement critics. 'Twas ever thus, I'm afraid. This new thing of denying Christ's historicity is, however, the nadir of Western thought.

Amaleq13

I am skeptical of this claim. It seems more like something a True Believer might say in an effort to create doubt in the minds of skeptics/atheists.

I've encountered Believers who made such a claims about themselves but, when questioned closely, their actual conversion experience or, at the least, initial doubts about their lack of faith, preceded any "examination" of the Bible. To their credit, they are honest enough to admit it.

I agree that the power of the human mind to rationalize in order meet perceived emotional needs can be impressive but we've already seen that neither Strobel nor Lewis actually match your description of atheists who converted after reading the Bible. It says less about the Bible than it does about human psychology.

If one only read your posts, one might think that you were a confused skeptic/atheist trying to deal with "scary" stories that suggest there might be something to this God stuff but your profile indicates you are a Christian. Did you become a Christian after trying to critically examine the Bible?

Joan of Bark

Reading the Bible reinforced my atheism. I don't believe the Bible could ever convert anyone; as I have said before, it is a justification for a pre-existing belief, not the originator of that belief.