Cyclical authority of holy books

Zombrex

How can a holy book be justification for its own authority?

This is a genuine question.

If someone actually knows a logical answer to this, even if it requires belief in the supernatural, that's fine. My understand (because I was told this by theists) used to be that God confirms to theists, through some kind of spiritual communication, that the Bible/Qur'an is in actual fact, his book, thus giving it authority.

Naturally I don't believe God speaks to people in their own head, but that did at least make sense as an argument, in the same way that Mick Jagger saying "This biography of me is al'ight" would give authority to a biography of Mick Jagger, even if someone believes Mick Jagger is actually a robot.

Because of that understanding of divine communication I thought we were all well passed the argument that faith in the Bible is cyclical, and based on this (apparently false) understand I had I used to defend theists against charges that their faith in the Bible was cyclical, a charge that I saw as the result of lack of understanding of atheists. Oh how foolish I feel now

So anyone, believers or not believers, explain this?

Dave!

What a ridiculous banning. Can't have you asking difficult questions now, can we?!

5uspect

What no feedback thread? And I was hoping to do a pope cat picture...

Did I ever post this one here?
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53784520&postcount=7

Zombrex

5uspect wrote: »

What no feedback thread? And I was hoping to do a pope cat picture...

LOL .. no, no outraged thread in feedback ... perhaps in my youth

5uspect

Hivemind might reopen his one for you

Schuhart

Wicknight wrote:

How can a holy book be justification for its own authority?

Interesting question (I'm only entering the discussion now, I haven't see the background).

As regards the Quran, there is a lot of weight placed on the integrity of the text - i.e. that the exact wording now in circulation can be demonstrated to be unchanged from the earliest copies in existence. This was assisted by the action of an early caliph, who ordered any deviant versions to be destroyed. Beyond that, there's a little industry in identifying 'scientific miracles' in the Quran - i.e. quotes from scripture that suggest the text anticipates knowledge that could not have been known at the time. As can be guessed, these 'miracles' are tenuous in the extreme and about as sound as evidence for the Yeti, but it seems to hold a certain currency among believers.

Anyhow, there's a way that the Quran can be presented as proving its own authority - that the text seems to be an authentic record of Mohammed's visions, and those visions anticipate knowledge he could not have known.

As to the Bible, I honestly don't know why the Old Testament is meant to hold authority - and why there is a consequent importance placed on Jesus being foretold in its pages. On the New Testament, I suppose its validity depends ultimately on whether the description of the miracles is correct and I have a dim memory of reading that one of 'those guys' like St Augustine or Aquinas said that the without the miracles the religion would cease to have meaning. I would suppose that would take us into all of that stuff about how soon after the events the text was written down.

Obo

Someone who I know, who I consider to have a fundamentalist religious viewpoint, takes the view that the original texts of the bible are "inerrant and infallible".
If I remember the argument right, the fact that the bible is a collection of text from many authors over a relatively large time period, yet still maintain the same message lends to its authority.

I'm not familiar enough with the bible (certainly not the original text) to debate it.

Maybe I can get him to come here an give his own account. He's apparently moving to Ireland from the US so he might be interested (and he just loves this sort of debate ).

5uspect

Obo wrote: »

Maybe I can get him to come here an give his own account. He's apparently moving to Ireland from the US so he might be interested (and he just loves this sort of debate ).

Not another one! :rolleyes:

I suppose people will rationalise it whatever way they want with whatever spin suits.

Splendour

Obo wrote: »

Maybe I can get him to come here an give his own account. He's apparently moving to Ireland from the US so he might be interested (and he just loves this sort of debate ).

And pray (:rolleyes:)tell, why can't he communicate with us now..? Living in the States should not be a barrier.

Anyway, my viewpoint is this: The bible is justified in it's own authority as it makes sense to the world and mankind.

If I were to read a biography of Thomas Edison, I would expect to learn about his background, his first attempts at designing the lightbulb, explaining how and why he did what he did etc.As I read through this book it would become clear to me exactly what Edison was about-Edison would make sense to me-as would his invention. It would be a book of authority which I would have no good reason not to believe.

But (there's always a but...), the bible if not read with an open heart will just be a bunch of nonsense which just won't make sense at all.

Schuhart

Splendour wrote: »

The bible is justified in it's own authority as it makes sense to the world and mankind.

Is it unique in this respect? The Bhagavad Gita, for the sake of argument, seems to make reasonable sense. The Quran covers much the same ground as the Bible, albeit from a different slant, so presumbly it can claim the same authority.

If human sense is the ultimate arbiter, isn't that throwing the net rather wide? Sam Harris makes sense to me.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

And pray (:rolleyes:)tell, why can't he communicate with us now..? Living in the States should not be a barrier.

Anyway, my viewpoint is this: The bible is justified in it's own authority as it makes sense to the world and mankind.

If I were to read a biography of Thomas Edison, I would expect to learn about his background, his first attempts at designing the lightbulb, explaining how and why he did what he did etc.As I read through this book it would become clear to me exactly what Edison was about-Edison would make sense to me-as would his invention. It would be a book of authority which I would have no good reason not to believe.

Sorry I'm not following.

If you read a fictional account of Thomas Edison would that not make just as much sense if it was written to seem authentic? It is something fiction authors aspire to, creating a fictional yet authentic description of a time or place.

You appear to be saying that you would accept as accurate a biography of Thomas Edison if it sounded, to you, like an accurate account of things you could imagine him doing.

The problem is though, how would you possible know? Especially if the only book on Edison you ever read was this one. The author could describe Edison holidaying in the Rockies, at a time when he was actually in New York. It may sound plausible that he went on holiday to the Rockies, but that in no way means he actually did.

Splendour wrote: »

But (there's always a but...), the bible if not read with an open heart will just be a bunch of nonsense which just won't make sense at all.

So the feeling in your heart confirms to you that the Bible is actually the word of God, and you don't get this similar feeling when reading other holy books?

While I wouldn't accept the feeling in your heart as supernatural, that at least makes more sense than your explanation above about accepting as authentic something if it sounds authentic.

Splendour

Schuhart wrote: »

Is it unique in this respect? The Bhagavad Gita, for the sake of argument, seems to make reasonable sense. The Quran covers much the same ground as the Bible, albeit from a different slant, so presumbly it can claim the same authority.

If human sense is the ultimate arbiter, isn't that throwing the net rather wide? Sam Harris makes sense to me.

So Sam Harris, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran can shed light onto why the world is in the mess it's in today? Can they explain why 'good things happen to bad people?!'

Schuhart

Splendour wrote: »

So Sam Harris, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran can shed light onto why the world is in the mess it's in today? Can they explain why 'good things happen to bad people?!'

Well, as I understand it, yes. With apologies to each source, I'll try to set out my understanding of how each answers your questions:

Sam Harris
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Because people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought. Things are likely to get worse, because there's no reason to think that someone with the technical ability to build a nuclear bomb won't think that God wants him to detonate it in the middle of a city.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Because bad people can successfully interact with society to get what they want. It would be nice if it were otherwise.

Bhagavad Gita
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Is the world in a mess, or are you just too attached to it? Nothing lasts forever but, ironically, at the same time nothing dies. Just try to do the best you can at whatever it is you are meant to be doing - however humble or great. Dedicate yourself to that, and you really don't need to worry about whether the world is a mess or not.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
They don't - they only seem to be good things, but they are actually distractions from things that are truly good. Anyway, you shouldn't be so worried about what the other guy is doing and spending more time doing whatever it is you are meant to be doing.

Quran
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Nothing happens except what Allah wills, so clearly the world is in a mess because we have displeased him by not being good Muslims. So if you want to improve matters, the best thing is to drop your Bible and pick up the true holy book. You see, your book got all messed up which is why Allah had to send us the Quran with the real message.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Easy. Allah is just raising them up to make their fall all the more painful.

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Sorry I'm not following.

If you read a fictional account of Thomas Edison would that not make just as much sense if it was written to seem authentic? It is something fiction authors aspire to, creating a fictional yet authentic description of a time or place.

You appear to be saying that you would accept as accurate a biography of Thomas Edison if it sounded, to you, like an accurate account of things you could imagine him doing.

The problem is though, how would you possible know? Especially if the only book on Edison you ever read was this one. The author could describe Edison holidaying in the Rockies, at a time when he was actually in New York. It may sound plausible that he went on holiday to the Rockies, but that in no way means he actually did.



So the feeling in your heart confirms to you that the Bible is actually the word of God, and you don't get this similar feeling when reading other holy books?

While I wouldn't accept the feeling in your heart as supernatural, that at least makes more sense than your explanation above about accepting as authentic something if it sounds authentic.

So how do we know Nero existed, or Platos or King Edward the first? How do we really knoe any of these people ever existed? These historical people I take as being true though I myself didn't experience the lives of these folk at the time.

And no I don't get similar feelings when reading other books. As a teenager I read the Bhagivad Gita and was impressed by it's colourful stories, but that was all. At the time I worked in an Indian clothes shop and was exposed to that culture.

Fallen Seraph

Splendour wrote: »

So Sam Harris, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran can shed light onto why the world is in the mess it's in today? Can they explain why 'good things happen to bad people?!'

Yes. Other religious texts explain this. Of the list you've got there I can only say I've read the Bhagavad Gita, and that was too long ago to make any serious business statements about it.

But take, for example, the Dhammacakkaappavattana Sutta: it's internally consistent, and certainly gives an explanation to the questions that you've posed.

And, imo, a much more plausible explanation to them.

What, then, makes the bible more valid?

Splendour

Splendour wrote: »

And no I don't get similar feelings when reading other books. As a teenager I read the Bhagivad Gita and was impressed by it's colourful stories, but that was all. At the time I worked in an Indian clothes shop and was exposed to that culture.

The bhagavad gita is a discussion of actions and their consequences - far, far more than "colourful stories". The setting of a battle is just useful to give practical examples of what's discussed, imo.

Scofflaw

Fallen Seraph wrote: »

Yes. Other religious texts explain this. Of the list you've got there I can only say I've read the Bhagavad Gita, and that was too long ago to make any serious business statements about it.

But take, for example, the Dhammacakkaappavattana Sutta: it's internally consistent, and certainly gives an explanation to the questions that you've posed.

And, imo, a much more plausible explanation to them.

What, then, makes the bible more valid?

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, surely? Only eight a's?


very very very cheekily,
Scofflaw

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Because of that understanding of divine communication I thought we were all well passed the argument that faith in the Bible is cyclical, and based on this (apparently false) understand I had I used to defend theists against charges that their faith in the Bible was cyclical, a charge that I saw as the result of lack of understanding of atheists. Oh how foolish I feel now

I must have missed your redoubtable defence of theists on this issue. I was going to say more, but I will take your statement at face value:

This is a genuine question.

and try to give you a genuine answer. Since much religious terminology appears to bring out the worst in some of our posters (not all being such staunch defenders of theists as Wicknight) let's talk about how any book comes to be viewed as authoritative. We'll call it PDN's Guide to the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.



My first motorcycle was a 1976 Honda 400/4 - a real classic bike. It was rather the worse for wear and needed lots of TLC. Other bikers recommended that I invest in a Haynes Manual. They assured me that it was the best handbook I could buy for repairs and maintenance. So I went down to my local bike dealer and bought a copy. It did say on the cover that it was the best and most complete handbook available, but I didn't pay too much attention since I'm fairly cynical when it comes to advertising blurbs on books (believing a book to be the best handbook available because the book itself says so would be rather cyclical - pun intended). However, the testimony of others, particularly those who were knowledgeable about the subject at hand, did increase my estimation of the Haynes Manual.

Next I carried out a few simple jobs on my beloved Honda. I carefully followed the instructions in my manual and was impressed at how things worked out. My estimation of Haynes Manual rose further.

I guess one of the things that impressed me was that everything the manual told me made sense in the context of what I already knew about my bike. In other words, it was congruent with other things that I could see to be true.

The big test came the day that I was working on a carburetter. The Haynes Manual told me that I needed to tighten a screw - but my common sense told me I should loosen the screw to get the desired improvement in performance. Did I trust the manual enough to allow it to trump my own feelings? Had I reached the stage of viewing it as being that authoritative? I took a leap of faith and trusted the manual - and the resulting roar from my 4 into 1 Marshall exhaust system vindicated that decision.

For many happy years that Haynes Manual was a constant companion to me. It never let me down, and to this day I advise any first time biker to buy himself a helmet and a Haynes Manual (in that order). In fact, I came to heartily agree with the blurb on the cover that claimed Haynes was the best and most complete handbook available. I even quote the blurb to others!

I've also got some other reasons for holding the Haynes Manual in such high esteem. For example, Haynes are the only publisher who completely strip down and rebuild every model of bike or car before they produce a manual. That in itself would not make it authoritative, but it reinforces my existing opinion, and it is not a cyclical argument.

Funnily enough I once met a guy on the Holyhead ferry who saw me in my leathers and started chatting about bikes. He asked me what I was riding, and when I mentioned the 400/4 he claimed to be one of the authors of the Haynes Manual. He gave me a few bits of advice as regards maintenance of the bike, but it didn't sound right. When I got home I looked up my Manual and realised that his advice was different from that contained in the Haynes Manual. So, even though he claimed to be one of the authors, I rejected what he had to say because it conflicted with what I viewed as an authoritative source - the Manual itself. Was he really who he claimed? Maybe, but I doubt it. Either way I felt it was safer to go by the book.

So, the process by which I came to view the Haynes Manual went something like this:
a) I was influenced by the testimonials of others, particularly those whose knowledge and experience of the subject I admired.
b) At first I was a bit sceptical of the book's own claims about itself.
c) I tried the principle of 'taste and see'. I tested the book out in a few minor ways and found it to be uniformly reliable.
d) The book was congruent with my existing knowledge and experience of the subject.
e) I took a step of faith and trusted the book even in a case where it contradicted my gut instinct. The book was right and my gut instinct was wrong.
f) The book continued to prove itself uniformly accurate and trustworthy. My experience was consistent with the initial testimonials of others that had led me to buy the book in the first place.
g) Now I was no longer sceptical about the book's own claims concerning itself. In fact I now repeated those claims to others.
h) I discovered other arguments for the reliability of the book. These, while not cyclical, supported the book's own claims and reinforced my opinion of the book as authoritative.
i) When I heard a voice that claimed to come from the author of the book, I used the book to check the authenticity of the voice.
j) At no point in this process did I ever receive a letter, phone call, or indeed any other communication from the producers of the book that led me to view the book as authoritative.
k) I still hold the Haynes Manual in high esteem to this day. Now I am wealthy enough to pay a mechanic so my current bike, a Yahama Virago, gets worked on by someone else. But if I ever wanted to work on the beast myself I would immediately go out and purchase the appropriate Haynes Manual. I view the Haynes Manual as authoritative, and it still claims to be the best handbook available, but I do not believe my reasons for agreeing with those claims are circular.

I would imagine that a similar process is involved for all of us concerning the various sources we view as being authoritative (the Oxford English Dictionary, BBC news, a thermometer, Wikipedia, the Daily Star - depending on our interests, life experiences and intellectual capacity, or lack thereof). Oh yes, and the same would apply to the Bible.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I would imagine that a similar process is involved for all of us concerning the various sources we view as being authoritative (the Oxford English Dictionary, BBC news, a thermometer, Wikipedia, the Daily Star - depending on our interests, life experiences and intellectual capacity, or lack thereof). Oh yes, and the same would apply to the Bible.

Interesting, and entirely reasonable, as far as I'm concerned - I'm not sure how many atheists are aware of the way that life is genuinely transformed (and informed) by faith.

However, I do find it rather irresistible to point out that exactly the same kind of process confirms me in my atheism.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Talon1977

Holy wall of text from PDN!

But worth the read, nonetheless. That's one of the best analogies for evaluating an authoritative source I've ever heard.

I am the aforementioned Yank affiliate of Obo. His statement of one of my lines of reasoning with regard to the Bible's inerrant nature is accurate enough, but it's only one point in a long list of reasons I believe it is what it says it is - the true and infallible Word of God.

First and foremost on this list would be personal experience with it, over the last 18 years of studying it, and going through exactly the kind of thing PDN describes.

If anyone is truly interested in my humble opinions, I can go into some of the other reasons as well. Cheers!

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

Oh yes, and the same would apply to the Bible.

I'm afraid the metaphor is entirely inapplicable to the Bible. Your example of the Haynes book involves testable claims about the universe, whereas most of the claims in the Bible are impossible to test.

Sorry that such a large post would be such a waste. Maybe you tricked someone.

SubjectSean

Scofflaw wrote: »

However, I do find it rather irresistible to point out that exactly the same kind of process confirms me in my atheism.

Ah but unfortunately you have no Haynes manual equivalent 'produced' by God here at hand to prove your confirmation.

I suppose maybe the nearest thing Athiests have is a book by Richard Dawkins.

SubjectSean

Zillah wrote: »

I'm afraid the metaphor is entirely inapplicable to the Bible. Your example of the Haynes book involves testable claims about the universe, whereas most of the claims in the Bible are impossible to test.

Sorry that such a large post would be such a waste. Maybe you tricked someone.

The claims about the Bible being a useful tool for living by and to draw inspiration from are well documented. Believers in it undoubtedly draw benefits from the act of using it.

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

Ah but unfortunately you have no Haynes manual equivalent 'produced' by God here at hand to prove your confirmation.

I suppose maybe the nearest thing Athiests have is a book by Richard Dawkins.

Not really, since PDN's analogy is an analogy. He is talking about doing things the way the Bible suggests he should (thus avoiding the 'objective testability' issue), and finding that this works. He therefore concludes the Bible is reliable as a guide to living life, from which he concludes that it is authoritative ([EDIT]I see you have commented as much above[/EDIT]).

Without going into the weaknesses of that position, it should be clear that the analogy would work whether or not the precepts and history of Christianity had been codified into a physical object. To claim otherwise is (a) bibliolatry, and (b) highly ironic, considering the example given of motorcycle maintenance.

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN

Zillah wrote: »

I'm afraid the metaphor is entirely inapplicable to the Bible. Your example of the Haynes book involves testable claims about the universe, whereas most of the claims in the Bible are impossible to test.

Sorry that such a large post would be such a waste. Maybe you tricked someone.

Typically Pavlovian response from Zillah. I do hope your keyboard is not too wet.

In fact, despite all the maintenance I carried out on that bike, I never did get to test everything, or even most things in that Haynes Manual. Some of it was way beyond my technical capabilities. Other claims, for example concerning the popularity of that model in other countries, were way beyond my resources and abilities when it came to testing them, particularly in those pre-internet days. If I were using this analogy to prove the inerrancy of a particular text then that might be a problem - but Wicknight's question was to do with why a book should be treated as authoritative.

By the way, given that I was simply giving an honest answer to an honest question I don't view this as an argument, so I don't see how my answer could be designed to 'trick' anyone.

philologos

Wicknight: I'll answer your question. The Holy Spirit serves as confirmation of how much trust I put in the Bible.

Scofflaw wrote:

Easy. Allah is just raising them up to make their fall all the more painful.

I think you could apply that to Judeo-Christianity, a lot of reference to arrogance and why good things happen to bad people, and their eventual fall.

Zillah

PDN wrote: »

If I were using this analogy to prove the inerrancy of a particular text then that might be a problem - but Wicknight's question was to do with why a book should be treated as authoritative.

Doesn't matter... you repeatidly refer to testing the Bible's claims, which impossible in any meaningful sense given the lack of falsifiability and subjectivity of it.

pH

What about say the book of Mormon? If someone testifies that it is useful in their life, full of wisdom and that it is enlightening to read and would you accept that as proof that God did indeed send an angel with golden plates to Joseph Smith?

Jakkass wrote:

Wicknight: I'll answer your question. The Holy Spirit serves as confirmation of how much trust I put in the Bible.

If you think that an invisible spirit is communicating with you (either verbally or sending you signals/messages) then you should seriously consider getting some help.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

If you think that an invisible spirit is communicating with you (either verbally or sending you signals/messages) then you should seriously consider getting some help.

In fairness this makes more sense than accepting a holy book is the word of God because it fits a vague idea of what a holy book written by a god should look like

philologos

pH wrote: »

If you think that an invisible spirit is communicating with you (either verbally or sending you signals/messages) then you should seriously consider getting some help.

I see it as a spiritual defecit on your part.

pH wrote: »

What about say the book of Mormon? If someone testifies that it is useful in their life, full of wisdom and that it is enlightening to read and would you accept that as proof that God did indeed send an angel with golden plates to Joseph Smith?

Not that I believe in this but the angel told Joseph Smith where the golden plates were, he didn't give Joseph the plates.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oh, well *that's* far more likely

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

At no point in this process did I ever receive a letter, phone call, or indeed any other communication from the producers of the book that led me to view the book as authoritative.

An excellent post and honest post, which I think reflects the clear thinking you’ve brought to these discussions.

The thought that occurs to me, again, is the way that believers and unbelievers can be talking about two different things. Many atheists (I’m thinking in particular of the line of argument represented by Dawkins) concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, as if this is the bedrock of religion. However, as I think is reflected in your post, belief in God is a consequence of some other process.

I think where the divergence of opinion should come is in the perception of this process. I know you’ve put forward a sort of developmental approach – the fact of religion doing good and true things in some circumstances leading to a trust that it does good and true things in places that you are not certain.

From the atheist perspective, I think the fear is that religion is a bit like a hire-purchase agreement. The initial costs per week seem utterly reasonable for the unmistakable good of a fine car under your butt, but it’s only a sweetener that ties us in to the crippling balloon payment later in the process.

Plus (for me) it involves the saddening thought that humans function best when believing something which, at the end of the day, is most likely not true.

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

Not that I believe in this but the angel told Joseph Smith where the golden plates were, he didn't give Joseph the plates.

Typical of what we see here on these forums - the the theist's ability/desire to dig into the irrelevant minutiae while leaving the bigger issue untouched.

Because of the lost 116 pages, Smith said that between July and September 1828, the angel Moroni took back possession of the plates and the Urim and Thummim as a penalty for "delivering the manuscript into the hands of a wicked man".[89] The angel is said to have returned them to Smith in Harmony again on September 22, 1828, the autumn equinox and the anniversary of the day he first received the plates.[90]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_plates

Now let us have a pointless detailed debate on what constitutes an 'angel', and maybe the definitions of the words 'leading' and 'give' while leaving aside the broader question - how can you accept the bible as the word of God and yet reject the Book of Mormon?

SubjectSean

Talon1977 wrote: »

His statement of one of my lines of reasoning with regard to the Bible's inerrant nature is accurate enough, but it's only one point in a long list of reasons I believe it is what it says it is - the true and infallible Word of God.

Presumably then if you are shown that the text of the NT has been added to, or subtracted from, by the hands of men you will then abandon this position?

Here is one such redaction for you to be going on with that was discovered by Issac Newton. In the King James Version of the NT John 1 5:7 reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This support for the doctrine of the trinity is entirely missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in later latin versions firstly as an inclusion in the margin and then later incorporated into the text.

Here we can clearly see that the unavoidable truth that the Bible has been altered by the hands of men, something that you say cannot happen.

philologos

pH wrote: »

how can you accept the bible as the word of God and yet reject the Book of Mormon?

Let me tackle it then.

1) I'm not acquainted with the Book of Mormon
2) The Book of Mormon is only an addition to the Bible so therefore I would either have to accept both, or reject the Book of Mormon.
3) There are notable theological differences between the Church of the LDS and my own church the Church of Ireland.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?

philologos

Mordeth wrote: »

so the reason you're sure your version of christianity is the right one for you is that it's the one you're most familiar with?

No. It suits my interpretatation. The COI has 39 Articles of Faith on their website: http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

pH

Jakkass wrote: »

No. It suits my interpretatation. The COI has 39 Articles of Faith on their website: http://ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=14

So you're familiar with it and it suits you - therefore it must be right - yes that makes perfect sense all right.

philologos

pH wrote: »

So you're familiar with it and it suits you - therefore it must be right - yes that makes perfect sense all right.

Did I say that?

If I did fair dues to you, but if I didn't I would advise you not to be so smart. I was answering Mordeth not your original question.

There are numerous other reasons why I believe in the Bible. The figures are actually historically correct, Xerxes, Cyrus the Great, Alexander the Great (Maccabees), among others such as Herod Antipas. The events are probable in my opinion anyway, that is always subject to debate. In addition to this there is a lot of historical basis for Jesus Christ as a figure, it's probably futile in terms of an argument to deny that Jesus Christ did exist given the writings of Tactius, Pliny the Younger, and Josephus. I've also consulted other writings of church historians that happen to give solid answers to questions that normally people would have difficulty answering. (Fair due to you Eusebius the father of Church History), such as the genealogies of Christ given in Luke and Matthew. The sheer amount of material and historical sources alongside the Bible is truly encouraging. This asides from the validation of the Holy Spirit (I don't care if you think I need help by the by) also fulfills whatever reasoning I need to justify my faith, and I will continue to do so godwilling.

I can't say that for the Book of Mormon or many other faiths asides from Judaism, which is the solid foundation of the Christian faith.

SubjectSean

Jakkass wrote: »

Fair due to you Eusebius the father of Church History.

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

Scofflaw

SubjectSean wrote: »

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

Wrote and rewrote his 'histories' according to the swings of political fortune - was Constantine's poodle in the end because Constantine won.

I can recommend "The Conversion of Europe: from pagansim to Christianity 371-1386AD" by R. Fletcher.

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

SubjectSean wrote: »

Eusubius was Constantines poodle. Quite the scribe to beware of AFAIK

I've heard of this. However according to the introduction of the Penguin publication of it was written before he had become that poodle who you describe.

Although there are sections which I don't agree with, such as the Siege of Jerusalem was a direct punishment for the death of Christ. I don't think that was the intention of the passion at all. Over 1mn died according to Josephus' figures and it did seem a bit out of place. He also has a slightly fanciful interpretation of much of the Old Testament if you read his first section. Yes I have my own criticisms of him, reading many of these is a good practice in relation to textual criticism.

Scofflaw wrote:

I can recommend "The Conversion of Europe: from pagansim to Christianity 371-1386AD" by R. Fletcher.

Noted, thank you Scofflaw I'll look towards getting it.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote: »

I've heard of this. However according to the introduction of the Penguin publication of it was written before he had become that poodle who you describe.

Although there are sections which I don't agree with, such as the Siege of Jerusalem was a direct punishment for the death of Christ. I don't think that was the intention of the passion at all. Over 1mn died according to Josephus' figures and it did seem a bit out of place. He also has a slightly fanciful interpretation of much of the Old Testament if you read his first section. Yes I have my own criticisms of him, reading many of these is a good practice in relation to textual criticism.

There's a sense in which Eusebius is the intellectual author of what is often called the Constantinian compromise between Christianity and the Empire.

Jakkass wrote: »

Noted, thank you Scofflaw I'll look towards getting it.

My pleasure!

cordially,
Scofflaw

philologos

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a sense in which Eusebius is the intellectual author of what is often called the Constantinian compromise between Christianity and the Empire.

Indeed I heard something about him giving Constantine almost divine status in his reconciliation between the two, but is it in the Church History? If it is could you provide a page reference, that'd be interesting to look at.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed I heard something about him giving Constantine almost divine status in his reconciliation between the two, but is it in the Church History? If it is could you provide a page reference, that'd be interesting to look at.

I think it's rather more in his Oration in Praise of Constantine, in which he describes Constantine as "our divinely favoured emperor, receiving as it were a transcript of the divine sovereignty, directs, in imitation of God himself, the administration of this world's affairs".

The work is described by Fletcher as "an oily panegyric", which is pretty accurate.

To be fair, Eusebius is not the first Christian writing nice things about Roman Emperors. Melito (he's in Eusebius) wrote a very nice Apology to Marcus Aurelius in about 170AD. In the century from the Gospels, Christianity had already come a long way from Rome as the "harlot, drunk on the blood of innocents".

cordially,
Scofflaw

Splendour

Schuhart wrote: »

Well, as I understand it, yes. With apologies to each source, I'll try to set out my understanding of how each answers your questions:

Sam Harris
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Because people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought. Things are likely to get worse, because there's no reason to think that someone with the technical ability to build a nuclear bomb won't think that God wants him to detonate it in the middle of a city.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Because bad people can successfully interact with society to get what they want. It would be nice if it were otherwise.

Bhagavad Gita
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Is the world in a mess, or are you just too attached to it? Nothing lasts forever but, ironically, at the same time nothing dies. Just try to do the best you can at whatever it is you are meant to be doing - however humble or great. Dedicate yourself to that, and you really don't need to worry about whether the world is a mess or not.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
They don't - they only seem to be good things, but they are actually distractions from things that are truly good. Anyway, you shouldn't be so worried about what the other guy is doing and spending more time doing whatever it is you are meant to be doing.

Quran
Why is the world in the mess it's in today?
Nothing happens except what Allah wills, so clearly the world is in a mess because we have displeased him by not being good Muslims. So if you want to improve matters, the best thing is to drop your Bible and pick up the true holy book. You see, your book got all messed up which is why Allah had to send us the Quran with the real message.

Why do 'good things happen to bad people'?
Easy. Allah is just raising them up to make their fall all the more painful.

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

Nearly all religions and religious holy books put forward explanations as to why wickedness and evil exists in the world. If you think the Bible is unique in this regard you simply have not been exposed to other religions.

For example, Hesoid described the Ancient Greek belief that evil exists in the world because of the curiosity of Pandora, the first woman.

Prometheus, a Titan, stole fire (commonly understood to mean knowledge or technology) from the gods and gave it to the race of men (humans).

In a rage, Zeus decided to give men another "gift", the gift of woman. Pandora was created and bless by the gods with beauty and music. In an act of curiosity Pandora opened a jar of the gods (a common interpretation of the jar is the female womb) that she was told not to open. Out of the jar came all evil, and it rushed over the land. Pandora closed the jar just in time to trap hope (Elpis). The meaning of translation of elpis is still debated today, whether that is a good or bad thing that it is in the jar.

That to me makes as much sense as a woman eating a fruit because a talking snake in a garden told her to.

Scofflaw

Splendour wrote: »

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I'm quite surprised to find you an athiest, using the Q'uaran and the Bhagavad Gita as a theory for this.

I'm not sure why you are, though - it's in answer to what you asked Schuhart, surely?

Splendour wrote:

So Sam Harris, the Bhagavad Gita and the Quran can shed light onto why the world is in the mess it's in today? Can they explain why 'good things happen to bad people?!'

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

Scofflaw wrote:

The work is described by Fletcher as "an oily panegyric", which is pretty accurate.

Oily indeed in his treatment of Constantine -- see this unctuous signoff to his Life of the man:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iv.vi.iv.lxxv.html

Scofflaw wrote:

To be fair, Eusebius is not the first Christian writing nice things about Roman Emperors.

And neither was he the first nor the last christian to confine his view of events to whatever was needed to support his religion. See these quotes from Eusebius himself which formed the basis of Gibbon's disposal:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiv.xiii.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xiii.iii.html

.

Schuhart

Splendour wrote:

None of the above is an explanation as to why the world is falling apart.

I think they are (although admittedly one of the views amounts to ‘So what if looks like it's falling apart? It probably isn't, but just do what you do do well.’). Maybe you need to expand on what, for you, constitutes an explanation.

Splendour wrote:

I want to take your Sam Harris statement a step further and ask why people are clinging on to irrational modes of thought.

I recall seeing a youtube video of Sam Harris when he explained it simply in terms that there’s no reason for people to stop (he said something like “there’s no part of the science curriculum that says to stop believing that stuff”).

For my own part, I suspect religion persists for practical social reasons. (I should explain that the question of religion’s persistence is of great interest to me, but it’s a question I have not reached a final position on).

My feeling (as distinct from Sam Harris’) is people are attracted to religion as it fulfils needs such as a sense of identity and validation of what is a good life. For example, I read a book a while back on the psychology of religion which (inter alia) quoted research that suggested American women converts to Islam were at least partly attracted by an ideology that values the homemaker role. I think that’s how religion works in general – people accept the unlikely stuff as a consequence of the good stuff that attracts them in.

I’ve said this a few times on posts, and even recently on another thread here, that I think discussion of religion between believers and unbelievers can be skewed as we talk about different things. Atheists can tend to concentrate on the credibility of the God concept, where believers probably see belief in God as a consequence of deciding to pursue a faith, rather than as a cause of faith. Put another way, I expect people like yourself don’t pursue religion because you think God is a compellingly believable concept.

Scofflaw wrote:

Schuhart is presumably giving his interpretation of how each of them would answer your question.

I thought this would be clear to Splendour so I’m relieved my intention seems to be clear to others.

I’d also confirm, to remove any possible misunderstanding, I’m just presenting my understanding of those three views, which is clearly open to error.

Talon1977

SubjectSean wrote: »

Presumably then if you are shown that the text of the NT has been added to, or subtracted from, by the hands of men you will then abandon this position?

Here is one such redaction for you to be going on with that was discovered by Issac Newton. In the King James Version of the NT John 1 5:7 reads

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This support for the doctrine of the trinity is entirely missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts and appears in later latin versions firstly as an inclusion in the margin and then later incorporated into the text.

Here we can clearly see that the unavoidable truth that the Bible has been altered by the hands of men, something that you say cannot happen.

As Obo rightly noted from the start, my assertion is that the books of the bible in their ORIGINAL TEXTS were inerrant. Any later translations/copies of course are the work of man. Many of these copies and translations are very accurate, some are not so well done, and yes some have deliberate changes and additions. The King James Version, unfortunately, is not a very reliable translation comparatively, due to its being a rushed translation of a very early compilation of manuscripts that had already been translated to Latin from the limited greek texts that were then available. The New American Standard and the English Standard Version are the two most accurate in the English language at the current time, IMHO.