Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 03-20-2005, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The Bible does not say that the proper basis of a belief in God is a belief in the authority of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

Actually it does. Many times over, the people in the bible say their words are the very words of god, so therefore they are gods words. Otherwise what you're believing in is not the christian conception of god. The authors claims that the christian god put all these words in their mouth and the words they speak are not their own. How clear does it have to be?

There are places where it says that the prophet is speaking the words of the Lord. This would mean, for those who believe it, that the statements are a true revelation of God. However, my statement stands that the Bible does not say that the proper basis of a belief in God is a belief in the authority of the Bible.

Romans 1:20, "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made." So, in at least one place it says that there is a basis of belief in God separate from scripture.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran · 03-20-2005, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

However, my statement stands that the Bible does not say that the proper basis of a belief in God is a belief in the authority of the Bible.

Do you believe the Jews (before Jesus) and the Christians believed that 'scripture' was not a 'proper basis of a belief in God'?

If so, how do you explain texts such as the Misheh and Talmud? If 'scripture' is not a 'proper basis of a belief in God', then why so much elaboration on 'scripture' throughout history? Was there no point? Were they mistaken?

I have always understood the Bible to say that people can come to a knowledge of the existence of God (and perhaps perceive 'his laws') but that 'scripture' is the 'proper basis'. If not, then what was the point of 'scripture' in your opinion?

Peter Kirby · 03-20-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Do you believe the Jews (before Jesus) and the Christians believed that 'scripture' was not a 'proper basis of a belief in God'?

If so, how do you explain texts such as the Misheh and Talmud? If 'scripture' is not a 'proper basis of a belief in God', then why so much elaboration on 'scripture' throughout history? Was there no point? Were they mistaken?

I have always understood the Bible to say that people can come to a knowledge of the existence of God (and perhaps perceive 'his laws') but that 'scripture' is the 'proper basis'. If not, then what was the point of 'scripture' in your opinion?

Well, perhaps I can quote The Catechism of the Catholic Church here:

Quote:

II. WAYS OF COMING TO KNOW GOD

31 Created in God's image and called to know and love him, the person who seeks God discovers certain ways of coming to know him. These are also called proofs for the existence of God, not in the sense of proofs in the natural sciences, but rather in the sense of "converging and convincing arguments", which allow us to attain certainty about the truth. These "ways" of approaching God from creation have a twofold point of departure: the physical world, and the human person.

32 The world: starting from movement, becoming, contingency, and the world's order and beauty, one can come to a knowledge of God as the origin and the end of the universe.

As St. Paul says of the Gentiles: For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.[7]

And St. Augustine issues this challenge: Question the beauty of the earth, question the beauty of the sea, question the beauty of the air distending and diffusing itself, question the beauty of the sky. . . question all these realities. All respond: "See, we are beautiful." Their beauty is a profession [confessio]. These beauties are subject to change. Who made them if not the Beautiful One [Pulcher] who is not subject to change?[8]

33 The human person: with his openness to truth and beauty, his sense of moral goodness, his freedom and the voice of his conscience, with his longings for the infinite and for happiness, man questions himself about God's existence. In all this he discerns signs of his spiritual soul. The soul, the "seed of eternity we bear in ourselves, irreducible to the merely material",[9] can have its origin only in God.

34 The world, and man, attest that they contain within themselves neither their first principle nor their final end, but rather that they participate in Being itself, which alone is without origin or end. Thus, in different ways, man can come to know that there exists a reality which is the first cause and final end of all things, a reality "that everyone calls God".[10]

35 Man's faculties make him capable of coming to a knowledge of the existence of a personal God. But for man to be able to enter into real intimacy with him, God willed both to reveal himself to man, and to give him the grace of being able to welcome this revelation in faith.(so) The proofs of God's existence, however, can predispose one to faith and help one to see that faith is not opposed to reason.

III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH

36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."[11] Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God's revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created "in the image of God".[12]

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful.[13]

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God's revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also "about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error". [14]

Basically, I was responding to the idea that the Christian position (as though there is only one) is that there is no knowledge of God apart from the Bible. In response, I say that many Christians believe that there are ways of knowing God apart from the Bible and that the Bible itself doesn't limit knowledge of God to the scriptural witness. If you are simply saying that Christians believe that scripture is a source for belief about God, then I agree.

best,
Peter Kirby

Mordy · 03-20-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

There are places where it says that the prophet is speaking the words of the Lord. This would mean, for those who believes it, that the statements are a true revelation of God. However, my statement stands that the Bible does not say that the proper basis of a belief in God is a belief in the authority of the Bible.

Romans 1:20, "Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made." So, in at least one place it says that there is a basis of belief in God separate from scripture.

best,
Peter Kirby

Notice the self-refuting nature of what you just said (I highlighted it), a christian evolutionist says he believe in the *christian god*, what does a christian god mean, define a christian god, and what does it want of his followers or believers. Where does this information come from, how can we trust it as authoritative? How can you tell if its from the christian god or Allah, or Zoraster since they all have contradictory teachings?

Anyone can say what romans says, this does nothing to tell us who god is. Allah could say the same thing but he has different ideas and different laws then the god yahweh. You still cannot not believe in the christian god by the criteria you've given, like I said your definitions only allow for belief in some kind of deism. The only way you can give the god you believe in christian attributes is to derive those christian attributes and knowledge from the bible itself. They (christians) get authoritative information about the attributes of the christian god from the bible. You can't get christian conception of god from islamic holy writ or zorastrian holy writ. Otherwise it becomes impossible to distinguish what and who god is and what god wants of anyone, since they all have conflicting teachings, agreed?

Peter Kirby · 03-20-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mordy

Notice the self-refuting nature of what you just said (I highlighted it), a christian evolutionist says he believe in the *christian god*, what does a christian god mean, define a christian god, and what does it want of his followers or believers. Where does this information come from, how can we trust it as authoritative? How can you tell if its from the christian god or Allah, or Zoraster since they all have contradictory teachings?

Anyone can say what romans says, this does nothing to tell us who god is. Allah could say the same thing but he has different ideas and different laws then the god yahweh. You still cannot not believe in the christian god by the criteria you've given, like I said your definitions only allow for belief in some kind of deism. The only way you can give the god you believe in christian attributes is to derive those christian attributes and knowledge from the bible itself. They (christians) get authoritative information about the attributes of the christian god from the bible. You can't get christian conception of god from islamic holy writ or zorastrian holy writ. Otherwise it becomes impossible to distinguish what and who god is and what god wants of anyone, since they all have conflicting teachings, agreed?

My first reply concerned a claim about what is contained in the Bible, when it was said, "their whole criteria for belief in god is entirely different from the standard the christian god lays out in his writings." Since the Bible doesn't say that the basis for belief in God is belief in the Bible, I replied.

Now, what you are saying is that a person can consistently claim to have knowledge about the existence of God from natural means, but that knowledge of a specifically Christian deity must derive from the Bible.

This, however, is a Protestant idea about the Christian faith (sola scriptura). The Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican communions would not say that revelation is limited to the Bible. The Anglican three legged stool, for example, consists of reason, tradition, and scripture. The authority of the community of Christian believers is important to many; as Augustine put it, "I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). What Augustine means is that the Gospels were chosen in accordance with the rule of faith "handed down to the saints" (Jude 3). The New Testament itself attests to the importance of tradition and the consensus of the church (e.g., 1 Cor 15:3-11, 1 Tim 3:15, 2 Tim 1:13-14, 2 Pt 3:2).

Of course, Christians generally accept scripture as a means of revelation as well, including Christians who accept evolution. What you are saying depends on the presumption that Christians who accept evolution do not accord any inspiration to scripture, but that is not the case.

To sum up: Could natural reason establish all the doctrines particular to Christianity? No, nobody has said that. Does the Bible say that the proper reason or the only reason to believe in the existence of God is that the Bible says God exists? No. Do Christians believe that the Bible contains revelation? Yes, naturally. Does this include Christians who believe in evolution? Yes. Do Christians limit revelation to the Bible? Only Protestants do. What do some Christians regard as a basis for belief? In addition to scripture, also reason, tradition, consensus, authorities, and/or personal experience.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran · 03-20-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Basically, I was responding to the idea that the Christian position (as though there is only one) is that there is no knowledge of God apart from the Bible. In response, I say that many Christians believe that there are ways of knowing God apart from the Bible and that the Bible itself doesn't limit knowledge of God to the scriptural witness.

Of course, I am a protestant flavor Christian (as though there is only one)

, but I do not particularly see a problem with the part of the Catechism quoted (though I am certainly no theologian). I assume that you quoted it in defense of what you are saying?

Quote:

If you are simply saying that Christians believe that scripture is a source for belief about God, then I agree.

I suppose I would agree with this while adding a caveat. I believe that God may reveal himself in ways other than 'scripture'. Many protestants believe in the 'priesthood of the believer' or the 'annointing of the Holy Spirit'. However, I believe that any 'revelations' will be in "lockstep" with principles put forth in the Bible.

Peter Kirby · 03-20-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Of course, I am a protestant flavor Christian (as though there is only one)

, but I do not particularly see a problem with the part of the Catechism quoted (though I am certainly no theologian). I assume that you quoted it in defense of what you are saying?

I quoted it as an example of the idea among some Christians that there is knowledge of God outside of the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

I suppose I would agree with this while adding a caveat. I believe that God may reveal himself in ways other than 'scripture'. Many protestants believe in the 'priesthood of the believer' or the 'annointing of the Holy Spirit'. However, I believe that any 'revelations' will be in "lockstep" with principles put forth in the Bible.

Yes, a strict view of of "sola scriptura" is limited to a subset of Protestants.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.