The Authority Of Scripture

Excelsior

In another thread, someone uncontextually asked if I stoned children, washed my hands after sharing contact of an object with a menstruating woman or killed the gay people I met. The challenge he thought he was presenting was that it is ludicrous to say that I am a Christian who takes the Bible as my supreme authority in all matters of faith.

He was supported by someone who thought that it was sufficient to point out that interpreting the Scriptures requires a morality and therefore, the Scriptures can't be the source of the morality.

So what I want to ask the Christians here is how they would describe in practical terms or with useful illustrations (IFX will of course respond with "straw man" ) what they mean when they say the Bible is authoritative.

I have my own silly explanation but Wright probably says it better than me.

Zombrex

Excelsior wrote:

In another thread, someone uncontextually asked if I stoned children, washed my hands after sharing contact of an object with a menstruating woman or killed the gay people I met.

You mean you don't

Speaking as an atheist, not necessarily someone who agrees with IFX on this point, the problem a lot of "non-believers" have is that we simply don't get how morality is shaped by Christians using the Bible, between the old and new testements. Which is why it appears that you guys are simply picking and choosing the bits from the Old Testement that you morally agree with or disagree with, and therefore your morality is external to this since you have to have it in the first place to pick which bits of the Old Testement you believe are relivent today.

I know yourself and BC will say that the Old Testement was Gods old laws, his old covenant with the Hewbrews, before Jesus came. Jesus is the new covenant, which made a lot of the instructions in the Old Testement irrelivent for modern Christians. That is why it is not necessary for you to wash your hands after touching a menstrating woman (eww), or kill someone who lets mold into their home, or necessary to stone an gay man.

The issue us non-believers is how do you know which of the old testement laws are no irrelivent and which aren't. Its not like there is a list in the New Testement. Jesus says that he does not come to destroy the old laws, but to fufill them. What that means is not clear at all to someone like myself, and it seems it isn't that clear to some Christians as well. Which is why you have some Christians beating up gays while others say Jesus loves gay people.

There is also the issue that a lot of non-believers, including myself, are rather disgusted at the idea that these things describe in the Old Testement where ever considered moral. I mean, the nature of morality didn't change did it?

Excelsior

Its a fascinating, tantilising post Wicknight. I'm sure the Christians will jump in with all sorts of explanations but it would be great if the fellow God-botherers don't forget to share their explanations of Authority.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Speaking as an atheist, not necessarily someone who agrees with IFX on this point, the problem a lot of "non-believers" have is that we simply don't get how morality is shaped by Christians using the Bible, between the old and new testements. Which is why it appears that you guys are simply picking and choosing the bits from the Old Testement that you morally agree with or disagree with, and therefore your morality is external to this since you have to have it in the first place to pick which bits of the Old Testement you believe are relivent today.

Speaking as a person who believes that whatever put us here, whether you call it god or a big bang, is amoral, I often am beguiled by how ****ed up things get when morality is divorced from village wisdom. For example, keeping menstruating women away from dairy products. This once upon a time made sense, as womens bodies get very acidic at this time of the month and collectively their presence was known to curdle milk. The hijab and burkha are another example. In the hot mid eastern sun, it makes sense to protect your hair and skin from the relentless and dangerous heat, but it has been converted into something entirely different.

Wicknight wrote:

The issue us non-believers is how do you know which of the old testement laws are no irrelivent and which aren't. Its not like there is a list in the New Testement. Jesus says that he does not come to destroy the old laws, but to fufill them. What that means is not clear at all to someone like myself, and it seems it isn't that clear to some Christians as well. Which is why you have some Christians beating up gays while others say Jesus loves gay people.

Your supposed to love the sinner and hate the sin. Beating up fags is not a christian thing to do. Just ask your local priest, chances are he's gay.

Wicknight wrote:

There is also the issue that a lot of non-believers, including myself, are rather disgusted at the idea that these things describe in the Old Testement where ever considered moral. I mean, the nature of morality didn't change did it?

Morality doesnt have a "nature". Its constructed and changes through time and geography. I would have anticpated you would be a moral relativist and accepted that and not be disgusted by it?

The bizarre thing about what your saying, is that for Jews, who follow soley the OT, they debate the laws of the OT, and have that debate enshrined. If you look at the Talmud/Torah, it has the laws and then around it is has Rabbis comments and interepretations of it. So it would seem odd that if Christians are going to go OT that they adopt a literalist code.

BrianCalgary

Hey Wicknight, I'll do my best to answer some of the questions you have raised.

The issue us non-believers is how do you know which of the old testement laws are no irrelivent and which aren't. Its not like there is a list in the New Testement.

Matthew 22:36-40
36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

That is Jesus list for the law. Every other rule described in the OT can fit into one of these. Some will be a little more difficult than others.

Jesus says that he does not come to destroy the old laws, but to fufill them. What that means is not clear at all to someone like myself, and it seems it isn't that clear to some Christians as well.

Matthew
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until
everything is accomplished.

Jesus is fulfilling the prophets by coming as foretold.

He also clarifies the law in a few places. As far as even looking at a woman with lust is a sin, you don't even have to act on it.

With regard to the stoning, His clarification is that let he who is without sin cast the first stone. None of us have the right to stone anyone, beacause we have all sinned.

Matthew 7
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

We can not judge others, this does not prevent us however from pointing out lovingly to people where they are going wrong. I have been teaching Sunday School now for 11 years, I have been spoken to three times about certain incidents and it was done in a loving mannere where lessons were learned, but judgements were not made.

This passage also indicates that we have bigger problems to deal with in our own lives than to be overly critical of others sin.

I hope that answers a couple of but all your questions.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is Jesus list for the law. Every other rule described in the OT can fit into one of these. Some will be a little more difficult than others.

But that is the problem that non-believers like myself have.

Jesus doesn't fit the OT laws into the convent, he tell you guys to do that. Which means it is largely left up to yourself to figure out how the OT fits into the teachings of Jesus. You can see the problem. There isn't a whole lot to tell you "no actually that is wrong, thats not what God means at all".

The choices you make of what do or do not apply to the new covenant are therefore made largely using your original morality, your morality interprets the passages of the OT and how they should fit into the NT.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Jesus is fulfilling the prophets by coming as foretold.

I'm not being smart but I actually have no idea what that actually means in practical terms. What does fufilling the prophecies actually do to the old testement laws?

BrianCalgary wrote:

We can not judge others, this does not prevent us however from pointing out lovingly to people where they are going wrong. I have been teaching Sunday School now for 11 years, I have been spoken to three times about certain incidents and it was done in a loving mannere where lessons were learned, but judgements were not made.

No judgements beyond the inital judgement that what happened was wrong? The point is how is this inital judgement made, using the Old Testement laws or using your own moral judgement?

BrianCalgary wrote:

This passage also indicates that we have bigger problems to deal with in our own lives than to be overly critical of others sin.

But how does that work for maintaining a moral framework for society?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Morality doesnt have a "nature". Its constructed and changes through time and geography.

Not if God exists and defines it for us. Which is kinda the point of religion is it not?.

metrovelvet wrote:

I would have anticpated you would be a moral relativist and accepted that and not be disgusted by it?

I'm not a moral relativist. It was no more moral to stone to death a woman for having an affair in 2000 BCE than it would be to do it today. The fact that God, who is supposed to be a being of supreme love, would ever have considered this a moral act to teach to his children is the disgusting part.

metrovelvet wrote:

So it would seem odd that if Christians are going to go OT that they adopt a literalist code.

Religion seems "odd" to me, so maybe I'm not the best to comment on that ...

Dades

Excelsior wrote:

He was supported by someone who thought that it was sufficient to point out that interpreting the Scriptures requires a morality and therefore, the Scriptures can't be the source of the morality.

For the record that 'someone' merely said this idea "raises the question as to how the word of God can be a sole source of morality for humans".

Is the bible really supposed to be the ultimate moral authority - or would it be acceptable to a Christian to say that God has given them morality? In other words that the morality used to sort out the biblical wheat from the chaff (as it were) comes from knowing God?

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

So what I want to ask the Christians here is how they would describe in practical terms or with useful illustrations (IFX will of course respond with "straw man" ) what they mean when they say the Bible is authoritative.

Incorrect. But I would point out this question sometimes evokes another logical fallacy:"circular reasoning".
Q. Why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. So why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. So why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. So why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. So why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.
Q. So why is the Bible authoritive?
A. Because it is the word of God.
Q. Why is it the word of God?
A. Because it says it in the Bible.

JustHalf

Straw man!

O my, that was delightful.

You are providing both sides of the argument here, IFX. Perhaps you should allow the Christians to argue their side themselves?

BrianCalgary

Why Do I count the Bible as authoratative?

The book was written over @1500years or 40 generations, by 40 different authors.

Every prophecy that it put forth has come true, except for eschatological (end times) prophecies.

It was written by people who were rich, poor, paupers, Kings and servants.

In times of distress and times of joy.

On three continents, in three different languages. And it all agrees on morality and contains one theme and that is God's unfolding plan of salvation for mankind.

Only God can give the prophecies that come true. Only God can raise people from the dead and perform miracles. As a result the words in it are therefore God's words spoken through man.

So, when it says that the words contained are true and then backs them up with the actions contained, then it becomes authoritative.

So IFX, your circular reasoning is correct, however it leaves out the very important steps above.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Not if God exists and defines it for us. Which is kinda the point of religion is it not?.

I guess yeah you're right - if you're talking of formal religion, which must have doctrine and creed - otherwise it's a cult.

Wicknight wrote:

I'm not a moral relativist. It was no more moral to stone to death a woman for having an affair in 2000 BCE than it would be to do it today. The fact that God, who is supposed to be a being of supreme love, would ever have considered this a moral act to teach to his children is the disgusting part.

You're seeing it through contemporary, western, evolved eyes. There are people in the world, and you know who they are, who would consider stoning a woman to death exactly the right thing to do, because a woman is less than human, a woman is the seed of evil, and to destroy evil is in the end GOOD. See how that works?

Wicknight wrote:

Religion seems "odd" to me, so maybe I'm not the best to comment on that ...

Religion, as far as I learned, emerged as an answer to fundamental questions, such as who are we, why are we here, where did we come from.

We used to have myth for this, then people got organised and used that myth to control peoples behavior, via morality.

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

In another thread, someone uncontextually asked if I stoned children, washed my hands after sharing contact of an object with a menstruating woman or killed the gay people I met. The challenge he thought he was presenting was that it is ludicrous to say that I am a Christian who takes the Bible as my supreme authority in all matters of faith.

He was supported by someone who thought that it was sufficient to point out that interpreting the Scriptures requires a morality and therefore, the Scriptures can't be the source of the morality.

So what I want to ask the Christians here is how they would describe in practical terms or with useful illustrations (IFX will of course respond with "straw man" ) what they mean when they say the Bible is authoritative.

I have my own silly explanation but Wright probably says it better than me.

Interesting stuff. Possibly it (or that you would accept the explanation it offers) explains why you make so much more sense (to me, anyway) than some of our other Christian posters. Rather than pick a word here and a phrase there out of Scripture, as the Devil does, accept it in totality and write the next act as God's people should do...hmm.

hedgily,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

You're seeing it through contemporary, western, evolved eyes.

That is kinda the point isn't it?

metrovelvet wrote:

There are people in the world, and you know who they are, who would consider stoning a woman to death exactly the right thing to do, because a woman is less than human, a woman is the seed of evil, and to destroy evil is in the end GOOD. See how that works?

Just because they wish to do it doesn't make it a moral action. The woman still suffers just as much as if she was alive today, does she not?

The reasons I hold that stoning a woman to death for adultry is an immoral action are exactly the same if she was alive now or alive then.

The disgusting part of the Bible is the idea that at one point is was perfectly moral to stone a woman to death, and then it wasn't. Which to be honest is a big part of why I originally rejected the idea that the Bible was the authoritive word of God. If it is that is not a god I would wish to worship or obey

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why Do I count the Bible as authoratative?

The book was written over @1500years or 40 generations, by 40 different authors. Every prophecy that it put forth has come true, except for eschatological (end times) prophecies.

Not to dwell on this point, cause it is a bit off topic, but pretty much every holy book in existence have prophecies that "come true". It is quite easy to produce a prophecy that "comes true", people have been doing it for thousands of years. All of the Greek and Roman prophecies from people like the Oracle "came true"

Are you sure its not that the Bible was just the first one you read? Were you raised Christian?

IFX

JustHalf wrote:

Straw man!

O my, that was delightful.

You are providing both sides of the argument here, IFX. Perhaps you should allow the Christians to argue their side themselves?

Incorrect. That's not a straw man. An accusation was made about me in the opening post. I was merely rebutting it.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

Why Do I count the Bible as authoratative?

The book was written over @1500years or 40 generations, by 40 different authors.

Do not beg the question.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Every prophecy that it put forth has come true, except for eschatological (end times) prophecies.

The prophecies are vague, abstract and some are under dispute whether they were written retrospectively e.g. Daniel. The Bible makes a load of claims abot metaphysics but yet tells us nothing about physics - I wonder why?

BrianCalgary wrote:

It was written by people who were rich, poor, paupers, Kings and servants.

In times of distress and times of joy.

On three continents, in three different languages. And it all agrees on morality and contains one theme and that is God's unfolding plan of salvation for mankind.

Do not beg the question.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Only God can give the prophecies that come true.

Disagree, I can make a prediction that several of the Christians on this forum will never admit they are wrong - are my a God now?

BrianCalgary wrote:

Only God can raise people from the dead and perform miracles. As a result the words in it are therefore God's words spoken through man.

No evidence to proof the above.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, when it says that the words contained are true and then backs them up with the actions contained, then it becomes authoritative.

I bought a book about morals by Colin McGinn. Any of his facts / actions are true but it doesn't mean it's authoritative.
Again you are doing:

Do not beg the question.

BrianCalgary wrote:

So IFX, your circular reasoning is correct, however it leaves out the very important steps above.

I left out the other steps because they are not logical.

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

Incorrect. That's not a straw man. An accusation was made about me in the opening post. I was merely rebutting it.

I was talking about the part of your post after the rather blunt and mechanical "Incorrect". The remainder of your post was by no means a rebuttal of the "accusation", as it was entirely unrelated.

A response is not necessarily a rebuttal!

Would you mind terribly waiting until you are somewhat qualified before attempting to lecture us all on logic and reason?

Dades

BrianCalgary wrote:

And it all agrees on morality and contains one theme and that is God's unfolding plan of salvation for mankind.

Agrees with who exactly? Every book contains a theme - so what?

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, when it says that the words contained are true and then backs them up with the actions contained, then it becomes authoritative.

Shouldn't it becomes authoritative when what is said in the book is backed up by sources other that that book?

IFX - I respectfully ask you do us all a favour and stop linking to that website in your posts. An admonished poster is hardly going to go off and visit an external site to see why you think they are wrong - give your own replies.

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

IFX - I respectfully ask you do us all a favour and stop linking to that website in your posts. An admonished poster is hardly going to go off and visit an external site to see why you think they are wrong - give your own replies.

Thanks for the feedback. I have updated the last post slightly with the rule and link all in the one. The reason why I am using these links is to keep my posts brief and to the point and so that I am sticking to the rules of logic.
How should I stick to the rules of logic if I can't reference the ruels of logic?
Perhaps anybody who has an issue with this should PM me or else I will volunteer to leave these discussions altogether. I don't see a point in having debates if people get annoyed with logical rules as if there are no rules of logic the debate becomes a diatribe. Sorry. IFX RIP.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

So, when it says that the words contained are true and then backs them up with the actions contained, then it becomes authoritative.

But that is the circular argument IFX is talking about

Say you meet a man in a pub. He says that he is an immortal

You go "Don't be silly, that is not possible. If you were immortal you could not be killed"

He goes, "But I can't be killed. Sure only last week I was knocked down by the 48a bus going at 50 miles an hour. No one could have survived that accident, but here I am talking to you in a pub without a scratch on me"

The man then gets up and walks out of the pub. You turn to your friend and go "That was amazing! That guy was an immortal"

Your friend, naturally curious, goes "Really? How do you know that?"

And you reply "Well he was knocked down by a bus last week, in an accident that would have killed a person, but he survived without a scratch. He must be immortal, otherwise he would be dead now"

Do you see the point?

The mans story is self-referencing. He provides the assertion and then he also provides his own story as proof to back up his original that assertion. In the end it simply comes down to if you believe the person or not. And the reason you believe are external to the story the man has told.

Dades

IFX wrote:

How should I stick to the rules of logic if I can't reference the ruels of logic?
Perhaps anybody who has an issue with this should PM me or else I will volunteer to leave these discussions altogether. I don't see a point in having debates if people get annoyed with logical rules as if there are no rules of logic the debate becomes a diatribe. Sorry. IFX RIP.

No need for talk of leaving.

It's not the logic that bothers me (or others I suspect) its the repeated web references. Lets face it - anyone can find a website backing up their claims no matter how dodgy. I'm not saying your referenced rules of logic are wrong, just that you'd be better putting it in your own words.

ps Don't ever visit the creationist thread if the complete lack of logic upsets you.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote:

Just because they wish to do it doesn't make it a moral action. The woman still suffers just as much as if she was alive today, does she not?

Right, but it is only immoral if you accept firstly that sufferring is bad. For a long time, in Catholocism, sufferring was good, ie hair shirts.

And if an evil woman is punished and she is sufferring then it is seen as good.

Wicknight wrote:

The reasons I hold that stoning a woman to death for adultry is an immoral action are exactly the same if she was alive now or alive then.

Believe me, Im with you here, but that is our morality, because a) we dont see adultery as bad enought to warrant a death penalty b) because we or I anyway dont support the death penalty c) it takes two to tango and if the woman is to blame then so is the man

Wicknight wrote:

The disgusting part of the Bible is the idea that at one point is was perfectly moral to stone a woman to death, and then it wasn't. Which to be honest is a big part of why I originally rejected the idea that the Bible was the authoritive word of God. If it is that is not a god I would wish to worship or obey

But thats not just the Bible, thats life, thats history, thats humanity. What was once seen as good changes to be seen as bad and vice versa.

I dont see how people can justify covering womens faces up with big pieces of black cloth or to cut out their clits but hey, many people find this perfectly moral.

Or even in our own law books, it was fine to rape your wife I think up until not to long ago.

However, what really gets me about calling on the Bible or the Koran or whatever text, is the hypocrocy behind it, because ultimately we make up our ethics and morals. But to turn around and say "because God says so" just takes the biscuit.

Scofflaw

JustHalf wrote:

I was talking about the part of your post after the rather blunt and mechanical "Incorrect". The remainder of your post was by no means a rebuttal of the "accusation", as it was entirely unrelated.

A response is not necessarily a rebuttal!

Would you mind terribly waiting until you are somewhat qualified before attempting to lecture us all on logic and reason?

Well, sometimes logical errors are so egregious as to be obvious even to the untrained eye - however much they may be invisible to the eye of faith. Justification of Biblical authority by reference to Biblical authority would certainly be such an error.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote:

Right, but it is only immoral if you accept firstly that sufferring is bad.

I can't imagine any woman who have ever been stoned to death enjoyed her suffering, or believed it was a good thing.

metrovelvet wrote:

And if an evil woman is punished and she is sufferring then it is seen as good.

Like I said, that fact is largely irrelivent. My reasons as to why it is immoral are not dependent on views of those inflicting the suffering.

metrovelvet wrote:

Believe me, Im with you here, but that is our morality

All we have is our morality. There is no universal morality. Christians would argue that God is the universal morality, but then that was the original point. If God is the univerisal morality then this morality leaves a lot to be desired as God instructed people to be stoned to death.

metrovelvet wrote:

But thats not just the Bible, thats life, thats history, thats humanity. What was once seen as good changes to be seen as bad and vice versa.

But you are missing the original point.

Christians, through the Bible, asserts that God is the ultimate source of human morality, that He decides what is and what is not moral or sinful. Therefore at some point God decided that stoning a woman to death was actually a pretty ok thing to do, that it was the approprate punishment for the "crime" of adultry.

Just because the New Testement changes that some what (and it is arguable that it actually does) doesn't mean that that original decision by God is some how now ok, just because it happened thousands of years ago. If God is supposed to be the ultimate wisdom when it comes to morality then clearly something is very wrong if he could instruct that punishment at any point in time.

metrovelvet wrote:

Or even in our own law books, it was fine to rape your wife I think up until not to long ago.

But that is the point. The law back then was immoral. Just because the people at the time didn't realise that and thought it was grand doesn't change that fact. And before you say "only by your standards", all I have is my standards. Something is either moral or immoral based on what it is and my views towards what it is. When it happened is irrelivent.

On the other hand Christians will argue that the laws in the Old Testement were moral, even if they are now irrelivent because Christ has come. The OT wasn't immoral because it was the wishes of God at the time, it was just different. That is the disgusting part.

Tim Robbins

JustHalf wrote:

Straw man!

O my, that was delightful.

You are providing both sides of the argument here, IFX. Perhaps you should allow the Christians to argue their side themselves?

Not a straw man. A straw man is when you deliberately misintrepet the other person's point, to make it easier to argue against. IFX was simply, (correct me if I am wrong IFX?) making his point w.r.t. to the OP. The circular reasoning is specifically about authority and the Bible. Ironically, by you calling his point a straw man, it is you who are committing the straw man.

JustHalf

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, sometimes logical errors are so egregious as to be obvious even to the untrained eye - however much they may be invisible to the eye of faith. Justification of Biblical authority by reference to Biblical authority would certainly be such an error.

Did Excelsior make that very point though?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Not a straw man. A straw man is when you deliberately misintrepet the other person's point, to make it easier to argue against. IFX was simply, (correct me if I am wrong IFX?) making his point w.r.t. to the OP. The circular reasoning is specifically about authority and the Bible. Ironically, by you calling his point a straw man, it is you who are committing the straw man.

1. Straw men are not always a DELIBERATE misinterpretation of an opponents position. People are allowed to make mistakes.
2. Did the OP actually make that point? I am afraid I have yet to read through the linked text by NT Wright, but I am certain that Excelsior did not in any way present this case in his own post.

Scofflaw

JustHalf wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, sometimes logical errors are so egregious as to be obvious even to the untrained eye - however much they may be invisible to the eye of faith. Justification of Biblical authority by reference to Biblical authority would certainly be such an error.

Did Excelsior make that very point though?

Not as such. The NT Wright piece is arguing for a different concept of Biblical authority (you could call it holistic authority) which makes the arguments about what exactly the Bible says/said about X irrelevant, but does not address the question of how we know the Bible is authoritative in the first place.

One need not argue that what the Bible says in any specific place is immoral to deny the moral authority of the Bible - one need merely point out that it has no claim to moral authority that does not rest on its own claim to moral authority.

As to the argument that one accepts God, therefore accepts the Bible, that only works for the Biblical God, which makes it an extended form of the same argument. If you accept Krishna, you will not find the Bible very authoritative, or even relevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

I think it interesting that there are a lot of non-Christians discussing various tangents and very few Christians answering my question. Maybe when I say interesting I am just politely saying disappointing.

Scoffy, seeing as you are the only fellow who seems to have taken the time to read Wright, I guess you can see how the "performance" of the final act which the Christian life consists of will be testing ground for the claims of the authority the text makes for itself.

JustHalf

Excelsior wrote:

I think it interesting that there are a lot of non-Christians discussing various tangents and very few Christians answering my question. Maybe when I say interesting I am just politely saying disappointing.

I hereby absolve myself of responsibility to answer your question, as I do not have any real understanding of the nature of the Bible's authority.

I can only assume this comment will be met by a polite verbal bitch-slap the next time I see you!

Puck

The Bible confirms that it is God's Word, this is one of the reasons I believe it is God's Word. However this would not be enough for me on its own. Something simply claiming to be the truth does not make it the truth. I certainly take IFX's point that the logic behind this is circular. However, when you place something at the top of a chain of authority, when you depend on that to be your guide and authority in life you will likely find yourself justifying its authority by using it's own claims or evidence. That's... really hard to explain in text so I'll try to offer an example:

Say you only believe only what you can observe immediately with your senses (your senses being the "top authority" in this case). You believe your senses are this authority because they have told you about the things you have observed (with your senses) and you have not observed (with your senses) anything that you do not believe.

I don't know if that helps. I'm trying not to just copy N. T. Wright here and you try following that guy.

As I said, Scripture's claims for it's own authority would not be enough on it's own for me to believe it. This is the same is if a person made some wild claim. If they are a stranger and you know nothing more of them than this wild claim it would be unwise to just take them at their word. However, if you know them, if you have learned from them and they have proven themselves wise in other areas, you might well believe their claim to authority. This is what the Bible is like for me. I have had my life changed by reading it.

By the way, my excuse is that I was away for the weekend at a God-botherer conference.