You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe.
The Naked Emperor Forum
You know what I believe. Feel free to post what you believe. |
||
| Search For Similar Forums · Return to Website | ||
 First |
 Prev |
 Reply |
 Home |
Next  |
Last  |
| Viewing Page 1 of 1 (Total Posts: 7) |
| Author | Comment |
Jimbojsr
Dec 25, 05 - 11:08 AM |
So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
I’m actually going to change Wayne's question by replacing the word “Bible” with “Gospels”. Why? Well, basically because if the Gospels are correct then Jesus is God incarnate, and Jesus repeatedly endorses the Old Testament (which is indeed the major reason I accept the OT – one can, of course, discuss objections to the accuracy of the OT, but if we can settle the ‘Gospels’ issue, then these become secondary.) Why do I believe the Gospels? I suppose the simplest answer would be that I have yet to find a strong reason not to. I was brought up by church-going parents who figured that I should be exposed to the teachings of Christianity in my youth – in Scotland, there are plenty of non-Christian influences out there, and they reckoned that if I was given basic information from an early age, I’d at least be in a position to make an informed choice when I started to question things more seriously for myself. As I entered my late teens, I did exactly this, and spent quite some time grappling with tough questions, many of which I had actually never heard an intelligent Christian answer to. I’ll also admit that there were times when doubt threw me into some pretty horrible places, places where I was forced to confront the possibility that all I had been brought up with was plain untrue. Nevertheless, I still believe that the tough times were good for me, as they made me engage my brain and look seriously at the objections people raised to my professed beliefs, as well as the validity of the answers which various people provided. Having found good, reasoned, evidence-based answers to virtually all of the objections I’ve been faced with so far, I feel my original position was vindicated (though I have learned a great deal, and continue to discover new things about the Christian message). As a result, when asked why I believe that the documents we have are true, the most logical answer is “Why not?”. Here we have historical accounts with internal (and external) corroborating data which were taken seriously by a great many people in an inherently skeptical society, and rapidly accepted by the church at large across great cultural and geographical distances – and my challenge to whoever poses the headline question is “On what grounds do you NOT believe them?” There are, of course, many objections raised, some with more foundation than others: for example, that the Gospels weren’t really written by those in a position to know Jesus; that they were written long after the event, long enough even for legendary elements to creep in; that there are many contradictions within the different accounts; the early church just made stuff up; and so on. Any of these can be looked at, and their validity evaluated – and if there are particular objections that anyone would like me to address, then I can certainly do that (mainly because most have been done before!). The other ‘objection’ of sorts that is commonly raised is the old adage of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; in other words, “because I find what the Gospels say incredible, I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt”! Now, even the Bible agrees with you there (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/everythg.html) in as much as there is such as thing as healthy skepticism. The problem comes when one is asked to define “extraordinary evidence” – for example, pertaining to the occurrence of the resurrection, we have several accounts from different individuals of those who saw Jesus die, and then alive again in the month or so following! Do we need a videotape of the event to convince a skeptic? Even THAT could be doctored up, as anyone who has been to a recent action movie knows. As a result, we find ourselves in danger of starting off by assuming the impossibility of the very thing we set out to investigate! If, on the other hand, we accept the possibility that these things may be true, then really the only evidence a Christian needs to be vindicated in their belief is the level of evidence a historian would use to evaluate any secular ancient document. In this respect, the Gospels pass every test a historian can throw at them with flying colours; from external corroboration to textual criticism to numbers of available copies, the Gospels are in vastly better shape than any other ancient document. My point is that if one rejects the historicity of the Gospels, then it is either largely based on an axiom of “no supernatural stuff can ever happen”, or we have to be consistent and discard most of history with it! In summary, whilst it’s obviously essential to explore people's objections and subject the Gospels to the appropriate examination, I have yet to see an objection which stands up to evidence-based scrutiny. As I see no good a priori reason not to give the Gospels the benefit of the doubt, I therefore accept their testimony as histor |
|
Wayne
Dec 25th, 2005 - 11:40 AM |
Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
Why do I believe the story of Santa Clause? I suppose the simplest answer would be that I have yet to find a strong reason not to. I was brought up by Christmas celebrating parents who figured that I should be exposed to the story of Santa Clause in my youth – in Scotland, there are plenty of non- story of Santa Clause influences out there, and they reckoned that if I was given basic information from an early age, I’d at least be in a position to make an informed choice when I started to question things more seriously for myself. As I entered my late teens, I did exactly this, and spent quite some time grappling with tough questions, many of which I had actually never heard an intelligent believer answer to. I’ll also admit that there were times when doubt threw me into some pretty horrible places, places where I was forced to confront the possibility that all I had been brought up with was plain untrue. Nevertheless, I still believe that the tough times were good for me, as they made me engage my brain and look seriously at the objections people raised to my professed beliefs, as well as the validity of the answers which various people provided. Having found good, reasoned, evidence-based answers to virtually all of the objections I’ve been faced with so far, I feel my original position was vindicated (though I have learned a great deal, and continue to discover new things about the story of Santa Clause). As a result, when asked why I believe that the Santa stories have are true, the most logical answer is “Why not?”. Here we have historical accounts with internal (and external) corroborating data which were taken seriously by a great many people in an inherently skeptical society, and rapidly accepted by the people at large across great cultural and geographical distances – and my challenge to whoever poses the headline question is “On what grounds do you NOT believe them?” There are, of course, many objections raised, some with more foundation than others: for example, that the stories weren’t really written by those in a position to know Santa; that they were written long after the event, long enough even for legendary elements to creep in; that there are many contradictions within the different accounts; the early Christmas revelers just made stuff up; and so on. Any of these can be looked at, and their validity evaluated – and if there are particular objections that anyone would like me to address, then I can certainly do that (mainly because most have been done before!). The other ‘objection’ of sorts that is commonly raised is the old adage of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; in other words, “because I find what the Santa stories say incredible, I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt”! Now, even the “Night Before Christmas” agrees with you there (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/everythg.html) in as much as there is such as thing as healthy skepticism. The problem comes when one is asked to define “extraordinary evidence” – for example, pertaining to the occurrence of sliding down chimneys we have several accounts from different individuals of those who saw Santa die, and then alive again in the month or so following! Do we need a videotape of the event to convince a skeptic? Even THAT could be doctored up, as anyone who has been to a recent action movie knows. As a result, we find ourselves in danger of starting off by assuming the impossibility of the very thing we set out to investigate! If, on the other hand, we accept the possibility that these things may be true, then really the only evidence a believer needs to be vindicated in their belief is the level of evidence a historian would use to evaluate any secular ancient document. In this respect, the Christmas stories pass every test a historian can throw at them with flying colours; from external corroboration to textual criticism to numbers of available copies, the Christmas stories are in vastly better shape than any other ancient document. My point is that if one rejects the historicity of the Christmas stories, then it is either largely based on an axiom of “no supernatural stuff can ever happen”, or we have to be consistent and discard most of history with it! In summary, whilst it’s obviously essential to explore people's objections and subject the Christmas stories to the appropriate examination, I have yet to see an objection which stands up to evidence-based scrutiny. As I see no good a priori reason not to give the Christmas stories the benefit of the doubt, I therefore accept their testimony as histor |
|
Wayne
Dec 25th, 2005 - 11:45 AM |
Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
Why do I believe the story of Mohamed? I suppose the simplest answer would be that I have yet to find a strong reason not to. I was brought up by Muslim parents who figured that I should be exposed to the story of Mohamed in my youth – in Scotland, there are plenty of non- Muslim influences out there, and they reckoned that if I was given basic information from an early age, I’d at least be in a position to make an informed choice when I started to question things more seriously for myself. As I entered my late teens, I did exactly this, and spent quite some time grappling with tough questions, many of which I had actually never heard an intelligent Muslim answer to. I’ll also admit that there were times when doubt threw me into some pretty horrible places, places where I was forced to confront the possibility that all I had been brought up with was plain untrue. Nevertheless, I still believe that the tough times were good for me, as they made me engage my brain and look seriously at the objections people raised to my professed beliefs, as well as the validity of the answers which various people provided. Having found good, reasoned, evidence-based answers to virtually all of the objections I’ve been faced with so far, I feel my original position was vindicated (though I have learned a great deal, and continue to discover new things about Islam). As a result, when asked why I believe that the Koran is true, the most logical answer is “Why not?”. Here we have historical accounts with internal (and external) corroborating data which were taken seriously by a great many people in an inherently skeptical society, and rapidly accepted by the people at large across great cultural and geographical distances – and my challenge to whoever poses the headline question is “On what grounds do you NOT believe them?” There are, of course, many objections raised, some with more foundation than others: for example, that the stories weren’t really written by those in a position to know Mohamed; that they were written long after the event, long enough even for legendary elements to creep in; that there are many contradictions within the different accounts; the early Muslims just made stuff up; and so on. Any of these can be looked at, and their validity evaluated – and if there are particular objections that anyone would like me to address, then I can certainly do that (mainly because most have been done before!). The other ‘objection’ of sorts that is commonly raised is the old adage of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; in other words, “because I find what the Koran says incredible, I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt”! Now, even the Koran agrees with you there (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/everythg.html) in as much as there is such as thing as healthy skepticism. The problem comes when one is asked to define “extraordinary evidence” Do we need a videotape of the event to convince a skeptic? Even THAT could be doctored up, as anyone who has been to a recent action movie knows. As a result, we find ourselves in danger of starting off by assuming the impossibility of the very thing we set out to investigate! If, on the other hand, we accept the possibility that these things may be true, then really the only evidence a believer needs to be vindicated in their belief is the level of evidence a historian would use to evaluate any secular ancient document. In this respect, the Muslim stories pass every test a historian can throw at them with flying colours; from external corroboration to textual criticism to numbers of available copies, the Muslim stories are in vastly better shape than any other ancient document. My point is that if one rejects the historicity of the Muslim stories, then it is either largely based on an axiom of “no supernatural stuff can ever happen”, or we have to be consistent and discard most of history with it! In summary, whilst it’s obviously essential to explore people's objections and subject the Muslim stories to the appropriate examination, I have yet to see an objection which stands up to evidence-based scrutiny. As I see no good a priori reason not to give the Muslim stories the benefit of the doubt, I therefore accept their testimony as histor |
|
Wayne
Dec 25th, 2005 - 11:50 AM |
Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
Why do I believe the story of Joseph Smith? I suppose the simplest answer would be that I have yet to find a strong reason not to. I was brought up by Mormon parents who figured that I should be exposed to the story of Joseph Smith in my youth – in Scotland, there are plenty of non- Mormon influences out there, and they reckoned that if I was given basic information from an early age, I’d at least be in a position to make an informed choice when I started to question things more seriously for myself. As I entered my late teens, I did exactly this, and spent quite some time grappling with tough questions, many of which I had actually never heard an intelligent Mormon answer to. I’ll also admit that there were times when doubt threw me into some pretty horrible places, places where I was forced to confront the possibility that all I had been brought up with was plain untrue. Nevertheless, I still believe that the tough times were good for me, as they made me engage my brain and look seriously at the objections people raised to my professed beliefs, as well as the validity of the answers which various people provided. Having found good, reasoned, evidence-based answers to virtually all of the objections I’ve been faced with so far, I feel my original position was vindicated (though I have learned a great deal, and continue to discover new things about Joseph Smith). As a result, when asked why I believe that the Book of Mormon is true, the most logical answer is “Why not?”. Here we have historical accounts with internal (and external) corroborating data which were taken seriously by a great many people in an inherently skeptical society, and rapidly accepted by the people at large across great cultural and geographical distances – and my challenge to whoever poses the headline question is “On what grounds do you NOT believe them?” There are, of course, many objections raised, some with more foundation than others: for example, that the stories weren’t really written by those in a position to know Joseph Smith; that they were written long after the event, long enough even for legendary elements to creep in; that there are many contradictions within the different accounts; the early Mormons just made stuff up; and so on. Any of these can be looked at, and their validity evaluated – and if there are particular objections that anyone would like me to address, then I can certainly do that (mainly because most have been done before!). The other ‘objection’ of sorts that is commonly raised is the old adage of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”; in other words, “because I find what the Book of Mormon says incredible, I refuse to give them the benefit of the doubt”! Now, even the Book of Mormon agrees with you there (http://www.christian-thinktank.com/everythg.html) in as much as there is such as thing as healthy skepticism. The problem comes when one is asked to define “extraordinary evidence” Do we need a videotape of the event to convince a skeptic? Even THAT could be doctored up, as anyone who has been to a recent action movie knows. As a result, we find ourselves in danger of starting off by assuming the impossibility of the very thing we set out to investigate! If, on the other hand, we accept the possibility that these things may be true, then really the only evidence a believer needs to be vindicated in their belief is the level of evidence a historian would use to evaluate any secular ancient document. In this respect, the Book of Mormon stories pass every test a historian can throw at them with flying colours; from external corroboration to textual criticism to numbers of available copies, the Mormon stories are in vastly better shape than any other ancient document. My point is that if one rejects the historicity of the Mormon stories, then it is either largely based on an axiom of “no supernatural stuff can ever happen”, or we have to be consistent and discard most of history with it! In summary, whilst it’s obviously essential to explore people's objections and subject the Mormon stories to the appropriate examination, I have yet to see an objection which stands up to evidence-based scrutiny. As I see no good a priori reason not to give the Mormon stories the benefit of the doubt, I therefore accept their testimony as histor |
|
Wayne
Dec 25th, 2005 - 11:57 AM |
Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
Your response sounds like the typical response of the adherents of any other religion Jimbo. I have no doubt that had you been born in Iraq you would be arguing in favor of Islam right now. You accepted what you were given as a child and though you may have wrestled with it at some point your early childhood indoctrination won out over logic. This doesn't make you unique. It's just another example of the strength of societal influences. It's exactly why different societies embrace different religions. The argument for Christianity is no more persuasive here than in Iran and the argument for Islam is no more persuasive in Iran than here. The difference that causes the majority in each location to accept different religions is societal pressure. |
|
Jimbojsr
Dec 25th, 2005 - 12:46 PM |
Re: Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
"You accepted what you were given as a child and though you may have wrestled with it at some point your early childhood indoctrination won out over logic...It's just another example of the strength of societal influences" Naturally, exactly the same could be said for atheism in a culture where there are a lot of humanists - indeed, if anything people can be MORE drawn to atheism / agnosticism as it should effectively become the "default position" in an agressively secular society (France is a good example - a country with a number of recent controversies in the Church & State field, which is commonly referred to as the "missionary's graveyard"). The real issue here (and the whopper of a begged question) is the issue of people's objections to the gospels themselves. The case for Santa, Islam or Mormonism presented in each of your alternative readings is perfectly reasonable ASSUMING THAT there are, indeed, "good, reasoned, evidence-based answers to virtually all of the objections I’ve been faced with so far" - and, in my opinion, such answers don't exist as far as these 3 beliefs are concerned. If there are any particular objections that you feel really nail the gospels' reliability (and I'm sure you have a few contenders), then great - but until these are provided, there are simply no grounds to reject the historical accounts other than an axiomatic "Bah! It can't be true!"... which completely defeats the purpose of the investigation. |
tracyanne
 Apr 28th, 2006 - 9:07 PM |
Re: So, why believe the Bible? (or rather, the gospels)
quote:: If there are any particular objections that you feel really nail the gospels' reliability (and I'm sure you have a few contenders), then great - but until these are provided, there are simply no grounds to reject the historical accounts other than an axiomatic "Bah! It can't be true!"... which completely defeats the purpose of the investigation. ::quote What in particular makes you assume the "Gospels" are historical? What corroberating evidence do you have that supports the assumption that the "Gospels" are historical? Do you have some evidence that none of us are aware of that supports the notion that the Jesus of the "Gospels" even actually existed? Until you can provide such corroberating evidence. The very lack of evidence to support any assumption that the "Gospels" are historical means that it is an assumption that is based on a false premise. quote:: In summary, whilst it’s obviously essential to explore people's objections and subject the Gospels to the appropriate examination, I have yet to see an objection which stands up to evidence-based scrutiny. As I see no good a priori reason not to give the Gospels the benefit of the doubt, I therefore accept their testimony as history ::quote So you are saying, in effect, that when a claim that has no evidencial support, is made, that claim can and should be accepted as true, just because no one can prove it is not true. And that is actually what you are arguing for, that those who do not accept something for which no evidence exists, prove they are right to not to believe in it. It's the old prove the negative con that religionists love to use when they have no evidence to support their silly position. You accept the "Gospels" as history simply because you were taught to do so. Using your logic, it is therefore reasonable to assume that any or all of the thousands of Gods that humanity has managed to believe in actually exist, after all there is actually no evidence for or against their existance, as like your "Gospels" they are myths that people choose or choose not to believe. You would also have to accept fairies at the bottom of your garden, Ghosts, Goblins, and all manner of mythical creatures. |
| First |
Prev |
Reply |
Home |
Next |
Last |
bravenet.com