Free Thinkr

In this thread Billy Graham is Cool stated the following:
This got me thinking about a problem I call the biblical paradox. Christians often claim that faith is a key component of christianity. To god, according to them, faith is of the utmost importance. We atheists then explain that we can not believe on faith alone; indeed believing in the bible on blind faith is foolish. Christians will invariably point out that theirs is not blind faith because the bible is overwhelming evidence in and of itself.

Here's the problem: either christians have faith, and the bible is indeed insufficient evidence, or the bible is sufficient evidence and christians do not need faith. If the former is true, than those which cannot believe blindly are doomed to hell through no fault of their own. If the latter is true, then god might as well show up and personally have dinner with each of us; no need for secrecy.

Silent Acorns

I guess they could say something like:

The Bible contains enough evidence to give me 95% certainty that it is the word of God. I then take a "leap of faith" and give 100% devotion to God.

However, I think a more honest and common story would be something like:

There has to be something more to the Universe. I can feel it; I've felt it all my life. When I was young ... <insert personal experience of the hand of God here>. My faith and worship of God fills a spiritual hole in me. I can't explain it any other way.

Maybe it's just the company I keep, but I've known many people like this. They just honestly believe that they are better people thanks to their faith. Personally, I think they're thinking emotionally rather than logically, but at least I can understand their point of view and how they got there.

When it comes to nutty fundies however, I'm at a bit of a loss. There is no way that they could honestly find "95% certainty" through biblical evidence. I can only assume that they find faith first for some emotional reason and then evaluate the Bible with this biased lens. There are only two ways for the bible to make sense:

1) read it with a critical open mind and see that it is just another mythology
2) assume beforehand that it is the "Word of God", twist your vision of reality to suit this point of view, and inevitably conclude that it really is the "True Word"

The defining mark of a fundy is that when face with an obvious discrepancy between reality and the bible they will inevitably do one of the following:

1) deny reality (e.g. "animals don't engage in homosexual acts")
2) claim it doesn't matter (e.g. "the bible says homosexuality is wrong")
3) invent a new and more compliated interretation of the bible (e.g. "when you consider Gen _:_, John _:_, and Rev _:_ together, and the meaning of the original Hebrew word ___, it becomes clear that "rabbits chew the cud" has nothing to do with rabbits, cud, or even chewing, but is, in fact, a condemnation of the feminist homosexual agenda to destroy families and sacrifice babies to Lucifer").

Aerik Von

That was wonderful.

Magus55

Or, Christians have sufficient enough evidence to leave little doubt about the accuracy and events in the Bible, and that which the Bible can't prove or explain, we take on faith. Faith encompasses the Bible. God said He offers us salvation to all who believe on Jesus Christs name. Now, no one has come back from the dead to tell us whether its true or not except Jesus, but we do have the accounts of the Bible showing that Jesus was who He said He was. So even though we don't have 100% evidence for Jesus' ability to offer us eternal life, we trust Him and have faith that what He said is true. Thats a large portion of what faith is about in Christianity - trusting God on His promises.

Philosoft

Sure, but the ones you have to "take on faith" are all the wacky supernatural ones, the ones that apparently really matter to God. I don't really care if there was a self-styled prophet named Yeshua, but even if I stipulate his existence, I'm not inclined to "leap" to his divinity or his resurrection. See the problem?

Quote:

Now, no one has come back from the dead to tell us whether its true or not except Jesus, but we do have the accounts of the Bible showing that Jesus was who He said He was.

You know, I see this point stated this way over and over, presumably to avoid admitting the obvious. It really doesn't fool anyone.
Well, from my point-of-view, the "large portion" is accepting that God exists in the first place. I can't trust him until that happens.

Koyaanisqatsi

In other words, the bible is sufficient enough evidence to leave little doubt about the accuracy and events in the bible.

No, the authors of the bible created the concept of faith; i.e., faith is contained within the dogma of the bible. One reads the bible and discovers the concept within and how one is supposed to employ faith whenever the bible contradicts itself or presents incomplete information or makes miraculous claims.

In the NT, not the OT. Had you simply read the OT, you would have no Jesus to "believe on." You'd have several messengers of Yahweh, but your salvation would not come from any of them, including either Elijah or Emmanuel, since the OT salvation comes only from Yahweh (and not any kind of sacrificial-based trinity). Likewise, if you had read just the Koran, you would not "believe on" Jesus [the] Christ's name.

So what makes the NT version the "true" version? Faith?

And you have evidence of this from what? The NT and nothing else (including Pliny and Josephus and the normal lot of extra-biblical sources that theists erroneously claim as evidence of the claims of the NT).

Do you see the circle within which you are arguing?

No, you have the accounts of the authors of the NT. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence by claiming that the OT prophesied Jesus, since that has been demonstrated false ad nauseam.

Promises that only found in the NT.

So, what you're really saying is that christians only have faith that the authors of the NT were telling the truth regarding their own divinity claims regarding someone named Jesus and that the "evidence" you're citing is the same claims of the same authors.

Thus, what you're arguing is that the authors of the NT made some claims that are then substantiated by the authors of the NT making these claims and that these same authors then stated that you are to believe their claims on faith. In other words, you don't have evidence; you have claims and you don't have any way of verifying those claims, so you simply do as you are told to do by the same authors making those claims, which is to believe their claims on faith.

If I make a claim that something is true, does that mean that my making the claim therefore proves it is true? If not, then why would you employ "faith" that I'm telling the truth? Because I told you to employ faith when hearing my claim? What if I claimed that I can levitate and teleport myself to any place in the galaxy and have done so many times and others corroborate my claim. Would you then believe me based on only that and nothing else? Would you employ faith that I was telling you the truth and believe, based upon that faith, that I actually can levitate and teleport myself to anywhere in the galaxy?

Why wouldn't you?

phil

by Free Thinkr
Actually it is neither case. You must have a balance of faith and reason.

Isaiah 1:18 " 'Come now, let us reason together,' says the Lord..."

I Peter 3:15 "...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have..."

God wants us to have faith too:

Habakkuk 2:4 "...the righteous will live by faith."

This is no mystical thing, parents require both of these things from their children. For example, a parent will tell their child not to touch the burner's of the stove because it will burn them. (If you were anything like me when you were a kid, you got burned )

The parent wants the child to know the reason for not touching the stove, and they also want the faith of the child so the kid won't burn itself.

It's good to know things, but sometimes there are things we shouldn't really know (experience) and that's where faith comes in.

Also, have you had an experience where someone was doing something weird and said "Just trust me." when you questioned them. Then things worked together so well you were glad you did. That's where faith comes in handy too (just make sure the person is trustworthy!)

-phil

Magus55

Except the Bible doesn't contradict itself. Sure, you read some part of the Bible and claim its a contradiction, but since when do you hold more merit over the millions of theologists who have been studying the Bible's supposed contradictions for thousands of years, and have yet to find any verse in the Bible without an explanation? I have yet to see a contradiction in the Bible, so what makes your understanding of the Bible, better than mine? You seem to think the Bible just hit shelves last week. The Bible has been studied endlessly for thousands of years, and is still considered the greatest and most reliable book in history, without contradiction.



Actually, the OT did pave the way for Jesus Christ. Animal sacrifices were substitutes to represent the true sacrifice of the "Lamb of God" that would come.


Nope i don't see circular arguing here because the Bible isn't one source. Do you not understand what the bible is? It is a compilation of 66 SEPARATE books over a period of 2000-3000 years. The NT is the same as if you went to the library, check out 20-30 books on some historical figure, and had them all verify the accuracy of each other. The Bible is 66 separate bibligraphical sources. It is not ONE book, it is many. Therefore it isn't circular because the books of the Bible verify other books of the Bible, not the Bible verifying the Bible. Quite the double standard though. If you check out 5 books on Julius Ceasar, and they all describe His life in roughly the same way, then there is no problem, because its 5 separate sources, all agreeing with each other. Yet you don't think its valid for the Bible, because its the Bible.



Um no it hasn't. But I guess you are insulting the intelligence of billions and billions of people for believing that the OT prophecized Jesus. Which it very well did, and I've never seen any proof against it on this board, only faulty reasoning and assumptions based on your own bias.




If the people corroborating your claim had no reason to do so, other than actually believing what they saw, and they were willing to give up their lives to stand behind your claim of being able to levitate, then yeah i probably would. If you said you could levitate, and a couple of your friends, said yup she can. With nothing else behind that statement, no I wouldn't.

Philosoft

I guess it's good that we can apparently solve this whole dilemma with a cliche.
Sure, the difference is I'm usually talking to the person when she says, "Just trust me." I don't have to read it out of a 2000 year old book.

conkermaniac

Did any of them have an IQ over 100? Err...no. Seriously, these men were so blinded by faith that they were totally unable to analyze the Bible in a rational and objective manner. If they ever saw something that looked a bit strange, they ignored it and took the word for what it was. That is why they were never able to find any contradictions when it was right in front of their eyes.

Then I dare you to go ahead and address all the issues listed on this page. Oh, and don't forget to justify the flood too -- you seem to have "conveniently" abandoned your thread over in the E/C forum.

Damn right we're insulting the intelligence of billions of Christians who have never questioned this *bull* (excuse my language). Chrstians make up 33% of the world's population, yet 99% of the world's geniuses are nonreligious. Doing the math, less than 0.4% of all geniuses are Christian. How is this to be accounted for?