Religion and logic

[Satya]

This is all I'm going to contribute to this discussion.

http://forums.infjs.com/showpost.php?p=295734&postcount=37

 

[Poetic Justice]

This is all I'm going to contribute to this discussion.

http://forums.infjs.com/showpost.php?p=295734&postcount=37

I can't watch videos as I'm at work.

Could you sum them up?

 

[frozen_water]

I'm new, but might as well introduce myself, I recently learned I'm an INFJ this past year, I'm Catholic, and I'm 16, but back to my topic, Going through my Junior year in high school, I've recently taken an AP Biology course, which I passed with flying colors, but at the cost of realizing that the world around me has changed significantly. I started my ministry age 5 in kindergarten and received my confirmation last year, and I've been happy since, until recently one day when I was just thinking in my head if there a really is a God, after taking that AP Course I look at the world differently and think logically how could there be one despite all the evidence against the possibility of there actually being a God. We have fossils and evidence of the Earth being more than 6 Billion years old. I am at a crossroads right now trying to believe there is a God, but it seems more and more I am disappointed. In the answers the church has given me, as well as friends, but they all say the same thing, that "God is testing me", which I also find hard to believe, why would he also hurt the world and its people, despite my knowledge gained from my ministry, things just don't make sense. I am looking into atheism, but I haven't told my family yet. Just looking at the forums, I can see that there is a community here who can really help others.

so..... from what I know of Catholic doctrine (which is a fair amount), it's not very logical. Unfortunately I've long since lost it, but I once went through and wrote down all the contradictions I could find in their beliefs, and it was something like 12-13 pages of size 8 font... so I'm not even going to try to defend them.

Religions in general are far more logical than people give them credit for, though. That doesn't mean they're true, of course (logic is preserves truth given known past truths... it doesn't determine new truth in any way whatsoever), but most religions are pretty logically sound, in their doctrine.

Christians in general, I've noticed, are staggeringly bad at looking at their text like the people of the time would. Since you expresed concern over the Creation story, I'll use it as an example. Something like "make man in the image of God" is an abstract concept to us, but that same description was used for every gold/stone/wood idol that was made in the Ancient Near East. It's modern-day arrogance to think that people simply built idols and started worshipping them. Instead they had a ceremony, in which they believed the spirit of the "real god" whose statue they were worshipping came into the idol--after which point they would say that the idol was "made in the image of" the god.

If man is analogous to the idol, creation is analogous to the temple in which the idol resides. And it is, in the many future passages where the bible compares planets to God's throne and footstool. You would expect that Creation would obey men, because the idol is the most important thing in a temple--and it does, when Jesus comes and brings the Kingdom with him to his disciples... they are able to heal diseases and command other things in creation, and they obey. This also has profound implications for God's character. How many atheists have it in their minds that the Christian God is petty or egotistical for prohibiting idol-worship? Yet if people are likened to idols in a temple, then people who worship idols made out of "created stuff" is like an idol getting up and worshipping a table in the corner of a temple. I can only imagine how horrified someone would be if they watched the idol they had been worshipping get up, move across the room, and begin to worship a rock sitting in the corner. So from Genesis 1-3, we learn that idol worship is demeaning to yourself and an abomination to the other (non-human) elements of creation... which in turn suggests that even the most egotistical-sounding of God's laws are not for his benefit, but for yours.

Yet people insist that if those passages aren't full of factually true statemetns about the world's beginnings, the bible is wrong and Christianity should be thrown out the window--despite the fact that it was many thouasnds of years would have passed before anyone began to interpret it this way at all. This sort of thing happens a lot..... so I would reiterate what someone else said, earlier in the thread. Read... read... read. We really must live in the "information age", to look at a writing so rich in meaning, but fixate on and discard it for innacurate information.

 

[Riven]

When I read these treads I kind of feel like I

 

[Shai Gar]

Here's my opinion:

First off, standing in a Church makes you no more of a Christian than standing in a garage makes you a car.
There is so much more to religion than doctrine and figure heads. You can choose what you believe in, but be aware of why you believe it and, more importantly, what it means to you; whether or not God "exists" can't be proven, but you can't really say that something is pointless if it gives you real meaning.

Religion has existed for as long as people have been around. It grew hand-in-hand with civilization. People are hardwired to have beliefs in something, really. Although it may not be "logical," spirituality of many forms is universal and kind of important. Logic helps us understand the world; spirituality helps us accept it and become content and happy.

Spirituality is different from religion, of course. You can be religious and lack a strong sense of spirituality, but usually religion is a catalyst for it.

Either way, in the end, the wonderful thing about religion is that it speaks to the individual. You may be in the same religion as someone else and have a totally different sense of spirituality. And anyways, before you ask if God is illogical, maybe you should first ask what God is to you -- people seem to have it in their heads that God is some guy with a toga and white beard, but really, although the Bible states we were fashioned after God's image, that really doesn't give much clue to what God is. I see God as everything, and I believe that people connect with different aspects of the same entity, even across different religions. God could just be a perception for all we know, but that doesn't change the fact that "knowing God" creates strong senses of self-worth and contentedness in people.

So, yeah. That was a lot of rambling, actually. Recap: God and religion is what you make of it, and plenty of logical people have benefited from spiritual beliefs. That is perfectly alright, too.

And this is why I love Gloomy.

 

[Krumplenump]

Anyone who holds staunchly religious convictions but who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder and who presumably has the capacity for rational unbiased thinking would take a look at evolution and biology and come to the conclusion that the evidence based methodology of it all is so much more realisitc and laudable than the dogma of religion which is quite frankly laughable yet thinks it has a leg to stand on because of it's age. All its age indicates is that collective humanity has been quite stupid for quite a long time.

People who look at the two opposing 'theories' for explaining life and who stick with religion are either neurologically deficient (rare) or are simply still held in some sort of mental thrall by dogma that they've known since birth. Fear is a big part of it, fear of dropping the implausibility of faith based 'explanations'. Once you overcome that hurdle and realise you can live a perfectly happy and full (if not more) life without the blackmail of religion breathing down your neck then I think you'll be able to fully make the transition from biblical babble to objective, tangible evidence-based reason. And the wider secular, atheist, humanist community would be fully behind you.

 

[alcyone]

Quoted for Critical Thinking on the Topic of Religion and Logic.

Stubborn insistence on the truth of the ancient myths is, in my opinion, is a recipe for the decline and fall of the religion. Makes you look silly. The greater culture laughs at you. The crappy thing is that as they ride their myths into irrelevance, conservative believers are taking with them the values—the morality, the belief in right and wrong and goodness and evil—that have been at the center of our culture and success.

That's a bad thing.

I copied this from the POCM website that Poetic Justice linked us to. How many examples of persecution in the name of religion do we see played out in the countries of the world today?

BTW....this is rhetorical in nature. I would prefer that people think rather than jump into responses.

 

[Quinlan]

Maybe God exists maybe he doesn't, maybe Sasquatch exists maybe he doesn't, I suppose it depends on how much of your life you want to invest in something with little evidence to support it.

If you want to believe in fantastical beings (like God and Sasquatch) then I think the burden of showing proof should be on you, especially if you want to use that belief to heavily influence society and persecute others.

Unless you believe in every god ever mentioned (including the likes of Zeus, Thor, Ra, flying spaghetti monster etc.) then in some sense we are all atheists.

 

[lilpixieofterror]

The problem is that it isn't evidence any which way you look at it. No interpretation is valid because it is just a book written by a man/several men. I dismiss christianity because of the complete lack of evidence to support it and the countless instances of it being proven to not be true

And that is simply wrong, we can look at the historical and literacy evidence to see what we got. Besides, how does it follow that since the book was written by men that it therefore follows that not interpretation is valid? That is absord and because any interpretation that turn books (such as Pride and Prejudice) into true stories are clearly false? But before you say this is absurd, didn't you just get done saying that a book that is written by man has no valid interpretation? So therefore, I can re-write whatever I want, into whatever I want and not have to worry about it or are you holding the Bible under a different standard then you are holding other books to? Is this logical or is this illogical to do?

The argument that it's not meant to be literally true is just another copout like "faith" and "god is testing us".

Which I rejected both of these arguments because well, they are just silly. Faith (according to the ancients) was based upon past performance, not upon some blind alligance to something. That is a huge difference between how modern's view faith and how the ancients viewed faith. Shoot, take a read into some of the Christians (like St Augustine or St Justin Maryter) and you'll find that they are very specific about requiring evidence, here is what Justin Maryter says:

"The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. Now the word of truth is sent from God; wherefore the freedom claimed by the truth is not arrogant. For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves; since what is disbelieved, until proof is produced, gets credit when such proof is produced, and is recognised as being what it was stated to be. But nothing is either more powerful or more trustworthy than the truth; so that he who requires proof of this is like one who wishes it demonstrated why the things that appear to the senses do appear."
Fragements on the lost work of Justin on the Resurrection, 150 to 160 AD

So again... Justin clearly understood this and he was writing almost 18 centuries ago. So is it the ancient view that is screwed up or is it the modern view of faith that is wrong? The Christian faith is built upon the truth of the resurrection and upon sound and reasonable argument (aka the ancient view of faith), not upon the modern view of faith.

It's very easy to say that the stuff that has been proven false is not meant to be true and everything else is.

And since the ancients did not take Genesis to be 'literal truth' and the fact that Augustine (writing in the 4th century, nearly 17 centuries ago) understood this fact does not work for your argument at all. For your argument to hold water, you'd have to show that the ancient view of Genesis was YEC and it was only rejected once evidence showed it was wrong. However; that is not the case, so your entire argument falls apart.

It's not an assumption. if you research the pagan background of christianity it's easy to see how many of the rules of christianity were invented.

I have done a lot of research upon the early church orgins and we have much to thank Christianity for, such as charities and the better treatment of women were all thanks to Christianity and it's infulence upon the world. If anything, Christianity has had some of the most positive impact that the world has ever known. In fact, it is interesting to note that the Roman Empire's last pagan emperor Julian the Apostate (he was the emperor from 355 to 363 AD) actually tried to model the pagan religions after Christianity. If you don't believe me on any of this, there is various books on the topic, including (one of my favorates), Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies actually explores this concept in real depth. So over all, do you think that charities or the better treatment of women is a bad thing? If not, than your argument here also holds no water.

I study belief systems in depth. Please don't think of me as someone who is just dismissing this out of hand. I don't believe in christianity because of the research I have done that clearly shows it is an invention.

And yet... I have not seen you show a very in depth knowledge of Christian thought and liturature at all and in fact, much of your research reminds me of the stuff I find on the internet. Your argument against faith, is wrong based upon the ancient view of faith. Your argument against 'reinterpretations' doesn't hold any water becaue, in reality, the idea the earth is just a few thousand years old is a 'reinterpretation' and if anything, the ancients did not hold to such views. Your final argument, that Christianity is an 'invention' doesn't hold any water when we look at the positive impact Christianity has had on our society. We have Christianity to thank for the rise of science, the moral's we enjoy today, and much of our philosophy. If anything, Christianity was introduced into a hostle, pagan, world and changed that world for the better. It is not the pagans we have to thank for how our world is today, it is the Christians we should thank.

Sorry, I disagree with this and don't see how it has any relevance

It is because you clearly don't have as much of a grasp upon Christianity as you think shoot, you are using Pagan Origins for the Christ Myth as a source! I have used scholars as well as the ancients themselves to establish my arguments and show that your arguments are not nearly as powerful as you believe them to be.. However; if you want a further refution of POCM and it's likes, JP Holding has some rather good ones on his web site www.tektonics.org and even has a pretty good parody of their web site on www.tektoonics.com. So sorry, you're going to have to do better than this.

 

[VH]

People who look at the two opposing 'theories' for explaining life and who stick with religion are either neurologically deficient (rare) or are simply still held in some sort of mental thrall by dogma that they've known since birth.

Or they have the intellectual capacity to reconcile the two as not being mutually exclusive (apparently even more rare).

Evolution and creationism are not antagonistic theories. The problem is that many people who espouse them are antagonistic to one another. If there is an omniscient and omnipotent benevolent creator who created a dynamic environment, why wouldn't said creator create life with the ability to adapt to said environment? It would be a logical fallacy otherwise.

To assume that these two theories are not congruent is nothing more than looking for an excuse to call the guy who has views you don't like wrong.

 

[bamf]

And that is simply wrong, we can look at the historical and literacy evidence to see what we got. Besides, how does it follow that since the book was written by men that it therefore follows that not interpretation is valid? That is absord and because any interpretation that turn books (such as Pride and Prejudice) into true stories are clearly false? But before you say this is absurd, didn't you just get done saying that a book that is written by man has no valid interpretation? So therefore, I can re-write whatever I want, into whatever I want and not have to worry about it or are you holding the Bible under a different standard then you are holding other books to? Is this logical or is this illogical to do?

I'm just going to butt in for a quick second and explain how I understand what Poetic Justice was saying, and that there is a huge difference between the Bible and Pride and Prejudice.

Pride and Prejudice is a novel, the Bible could be seen as a work of fiction or non-fiction depending on the person reading it. If one looks at it as fiction, and interpretation can be made and is seen as an interpretation of fiction. There are no real right or wrong answers when it comes to literature.

However, if one looks at the Bible as non-fiction (the new testament for example) or mainly non-fiction (as in seeing parts of Genesis as myth with a moral), then one has to begin to look at the validity of the writing, especially if it is going to guide them and others in life.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing one way or the other, nor do I care what people believe/how they live as long as they don't force it on me, but when Poetic Justice says it was written by man, for all we know it was. When people claim it to be the word of God, and there isn't tangible proof that it is (seeing as God hasn't claimed copyrights...I'm partially joking) people have all the right to dismiss it as not being credible.

As for rewriting literature, what ever floats your boat, just don't call Pride and Prejudice yours. If you're rewriting a science book (an analogy to the Bible when applied as truth) you better be able to back it up if you want people to believe you.

 

[lilpixieofterror]

Dammit, ok.

I'm just going to post a link though because I can't be bothered to drawn any deeper into this debate

Pagan origins of christianity:

http://www.pocm.info/

It is simply a re hashing of previous religions. So is Islam. haven't you ever wondered why islam has so many similarities to christianity. Just like lord of the rings, religions are copied with a few minor adjustments and resold to the masses.

Sorry, but POCM has been refuted long ago and the fact that they use scholars from the 19th century (instead of modern scholarship) and that has already been refuted by modern scholars. However; I will let you pick one of these religions that 'Christianity copies from' and I will show you that isn't possible and is, in fact, wrong.

Regarding what is and isn't true in the bible. again it seems rather convenient that you can pick and choose what to believe and what not to. I have no desire to go through it page by page and decide what is meant to be true and what isn't. Once again it comes down to interpretation so one interpretation can't be believed over another

I think I have already dealt with this one by showing that the ancient view towards creation is not the 6,000 year old, earth view and if you want to ignore that, you are welcome to do it, but YEC is a modern interpretation of Genesis and wasn't held by the early Christians.

regarding the cities found, this isn't proof of god or the bible. it is proof that they were cities many years ago and some of them have only just been found. Maybe the writer of the bible knew about the cities, maybe they have nothing to do with the bible and are just cities. it hasn't been proved that they are the ones talked of in the bible.

Well, unless you can find a road sign in these cities that name them as being the same city as mentioned in the Bible or you find something like, "Moses, Jesus, David, etc was here" you'll just be spinning your wheels. However; I will point out that it is very funny how the Bible often describes the city (in detal) as well as it's location and it just happens to be in the same place, with the same general detals as the Bible describes, to be quite interesting myself.

Of course religious studies in college would show religion to be true. That is the point is it not?

Then you haven't taken any religious studies classes in college because the one I took on Christianity, did nothing of the sort. I did find it pretty easy to refute much of what they said though and I even wrote some papers that did this (which my professor thought were good). Of course, it all depends on what school you go to though.

I research everything from quantum physics, philosphy, religion, the possibility of an afterlife, string theory, neurology. the list goes on.

Internet research is hardly in depth research.

I have no prejudice regarding what I believe. Everything is challengable, everything I think I know is regularly revisited and re assessed for validity.

So why are you debating it if you believe 'everything is challengable'?

The main problem I have with religion is the way it discourages this. Before you disagree, it does discourage this. christians get their beliefs from a single book and try and make everything else fit. This is the opposite of the logical, scientific approach.

Hummm, then what about Peter's speech in Acts 2:22-24:

"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him."

Notice how peter makes an appeal to the evidence and says that they saw what Jesus said and did, why would he appeal to the evidence if religion was about not appealing to the evidence? I'd also note that Paul, and the others, were often found engaging in debates with people in the cities they came into and the early church fathers (such as St Polycarp, St Clement, or St Justin Martyr) wrote numerious debates and spent a lot of time answering objections to the faith. So nope, Christianity encourages discussion and questions and the fact that so many of the world's universities were founded by Christians is an indication that Christians should value wisdom and knowledge.

 

[lilpixieofterror]

I'm just going to butt in for a quick second and explain how I understand what Poetic Justice was saying, and that there is a huge difference between the Bible and Pride and Prejudice.

Pride and Prejudice is a novel, the Bible could be seen as a work of fiction or non-fiction depending on the person reading it. If one looks at it as fiction, and interpretation can be made and is seen as an interpretation of fiction.

And yet the argument is this:

1. The Bible was written by men.
2. Books that are written by men have no correct interpretations.
3. Therefore, the Bible has no correct interpretations.

I took this argument and re wrote it to something else:

1. Pride and Prejudice was written by men (although she was technically a women, but we are using a more general term here).
2. Books that are written by men have no correct interpretations.
3. Therefore, Pride and Prejudice has no correct interpretations.

This argument is faulty and rest upon a bad argument, just because a book is written by men, doesn't mean there are not right and wrong ways to view it.

There are no real right or wrong answers when it comes to literature.

Then your English classes in high school and college are a total waste of time since they clearly teach you that there is right and wrong ways to view peices of literature.

However, if one looks at the Bible as non-fiction (the new testament for example) or mainly non-fiction (as in seeing parts of Genesis as myth with a moral), then one has to begin to look at the validity of the writing, especially if it is going to guide them and others in life.

Ummm no one does not because I already explained this one in my argument. You must look at how it was written, who it was written to, what the people who it was written to understood it, and how often it is thought of as being literal truth. Isn't it funny that ancient Jews and Christians alike did not view Genesis in the 6,000 year old earth since and it was actually a 17th century Archbishop (James Ussher). The earliest Jewish view you found dates from the 11th century. So again, what view is modern and what view is ancient?

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing one way or the other, nor do I care what people believe/how they live as long as they don't force it on me, but when Poetic Justice says it was written by man, for all we know it was. When people claim it to be the word of God, and there isn't tangible proof that it is (seeing as God hasn't claimed copyrights...I'm partially joking) people have all the right to dismiss it as not being credible.

Are you somehow expecting it have written on it, "Thy is written by God"?Besides, no actualy Christian I know of states that the Bible was written by God, but they state it was inspired by God. You can say that it wasn't, but such views are mere assertions and well... can be dismissed by the same standards.

As for rewriting literature, what ever floats your boat, just don't call Pride and Prejudice yours. If you're rewriting a science book (an analogy to the Bible when applied as truth) you better be able to back it up if you want people to believe you.

I have backed up my arguments with facts and quotes, by the ancients, as well as by scholars. What should be believed, websites like POCM (that are rejected by modern scholars) or credible, modern scholarship work? Decisions decisions...

 

[lilpixieofterror]

Anyone who holds staunchly religious convictions but who doesn't have a chip on their shoulder and who presumably has the capacity for rational unbiased thinking would take a look at evolution and biology and come to the conclusion that the evidence based methodology of it all is so much more realisitc and laudable than the dogma of religion which is quite frankly laughable yet thinks it has a leg to stand on because of it's age. All its age indicates is that collective humanity has been quite stupid for quite a long time.

Too bad that YEC is not a requirement to be a Christian, eh?

 

[VH]

When people claim it to be the word of God, and there isn't tangible proof that it is (seeing as God hasn't claimed copyrights...I'm partially joking) people have all the right to dismiss it as not being credible.

As a Christian minister, I have to address this point, since it seems to be the theme of the debate.

The Bible was most certainly written by men.

Whether or not these men were inspired by God to write what they wrote, and if so to what degree, is the question. Theologians have debated this for centuries. This isn't a new debate fostered by the free thinking people of our modern era. Christianity itself is fully aware of this debate and it is one that will never be resolved because there is no way to resolve it.

However, the Bible isn't the word of God. It's a book.

The word of God is the word of God. If God created the entire universe, then God is capable of speaking for himself.

Most importantly, how could the Bible be the word of God if it mentions itself as the word of God before it was ever written or compiled as the Bible some 300 years after the books in it were written? It's ridiculous to assume that the writers were referring to a book they did not have, nor had any idea would be written when speaking to people in their present day with what they wrote. They could not have been referring to 'the Bible'. They were referring to how God speaks to us directly, and the reason those books were adopted into the Bible as we now know it was because they were considered the best writings on this thing that could never be contained in a book... a very present relationship with a very present God.

Rome... the world's largest military empire at the time... was taken over from within by a religion that was considered treason and carried a death penalty for practicing... from within... and without a Bible. The Bible was not created until the Council of Nicea when Rome was declared Christian by Constantine. If that isn't proof that if there is such a thing as 'The Word of God' that it isn't the Bible, I don't know what is.

Do I believe that God can speak to people through the Bible? Absolutely. But then, I believe that God can speak to anyone who is open to listen through any means... even a book written by men who may or may not have been inspired by God.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

What I want to know is, if someone is personally religious (and not the Bible-thumping nutcase people tend to think all religious people are), why do they need to prove anything to anyone?
If you believe it, then believe it. If you don't, you don't. There's really no need to be so pushy. And if you are questioning whether you believe it or not, have people explain to you why they believe what they do, rather than why they don't believe what they don't -- usually, people that only bash the opposite beliefs aren't worth listening to anyways.

 

[TheLastMohican]

I'm new, but might as well introduce myself, I recently learned I'm an INFJ this past year, I'm Catholic, and I'm 16, but back to my topic, Going through my Junior year in high school, I've recently taken an AP Biology course, which I passed with flying colors, but at the cost of realizing that the world around me has changed significantly. I started my ministry age 5 in kindergarten and received my confirmation last year, and I've been happy since, until recently one day when I was just thinking in my head if there a really is a God, after taking that AP Course I look at the world differently and think logically how could there be one despite all the evidence against the possibility of there actually being a God. We have fossils and evidence of the Earth being more than 6 Billion years old. I am at a crossroads right now trying to believe there is a God, but it seems more and more I am disappointed. In the answers the church has given me, as well as friends, but they all say the same thing, that "God is testing me", which I also find hard to believe, why would he also hurt the world and its people, despite my knowledge gained from my ministry, things just don't make sense. I am looking into atheism, but I haven't told my family yet. Just looking at the forums, I can see that there is a community here who can really help others.

Well, to start with the age of the Earth: the Catholic church accepts evolution and the other mainstream scientific theories about the history of the universe. There's no need for conflict on that. I do think that it raises some tough theological questions when you have Genesis and all the issues derived from its accounts, but that's a different discussion, and something the church leaders are already dealing with. Bottom line: Catholicism and cosmology generally agree. Don't sweat it.

Now about the religion as a whole: don't try to believe in anything. If the evidence and/or reasoning don't make sense to you, then just work out whatever fits best for you. I had a lot of problems with the traditional, personal God depicted in the Bible so eventually I stopped believing in that God. I don't believe in any God currently, but some people with whom I would have no significant disagreements would say that they do believe in God

 

[lilpixieofterror]

Rome... the world's largest military empire at the time... was taken over from within by a religion that was considered treason and carried a death penalty for practicing... from within... and without a Bible. The Bible was not created until the Council of Nicea when Rome was declared Christian by Constantine. If that isn't proof that if there is such a thing as 'The Word of God' that it isn't the Bible, I don't know what is.

Ummm VH, the council of Nicea was not about establishing the cannon, it was more about determining the diety of Christ.

 

[bamf]

And yet the argument is this:

1. The Bible was written by men.
2. Books that are written by men have no correct interpretations.
3. Therefore, the Bible has no correct interpretations.

I took this argument and re wrote it to something else:

1. Pride and Prejudice was written by men (although she was technically a women, but we are using a more general term here).
2. Books that are written by men have no correct interpretations.
3. Therefore, Pride and Prejudice has no correct interpretations.

No, that is not the same. People do not apply Pride and Prejudice as a way to live, or as real life, unless they are absolutely insane. Now, the bible does have historical context to it, as do the stories, but there is no proof to many people that it is inspired by God. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just that something as intangible as God, to many skeptics, just cannot be proven. You can't prove that God did in fact inspire the bible, you can say that people said they were inspired by God, which for all we know they could or couldn't have been, but that is not proof.

This argument is faulty and rest upon a bad argument, just because a book is written by men, doesn't mean there are right and wrong ways to view it.



Then your English classes in high school and college are a total waste of time since they clearly teach you that there is right and wrong ways to view peices of literature.

You contradict yourself.

Also, I've never had a class that told me there is a wrong way to view literature. You can claim what ever you want, and you could be right, because unless the author clearly states their intentions, it will never be known. However, you are expected to back up your interpretations on things from the time-period, and the novel its self. Much the same can be done to the bible, but again, we cannot know for sure.

Are you somehow expecting it have written on it, "Thy is written by God"?Besides, no actualy Christian I know of states that the Bible was written by God, but they state it was inspired by God. You can say that it wasn't, but such views are mere assertions and well... can be dismissed by the same standards.

No, I never said that, and you know I was joking. You can take what the writers say as fact, but to many people word of mouth to explain something as important as science or God, is not enough. The views and assertions that it is inspired by God are just as provable as the assertions and views that it wasn't inspired by God. Point being, neither can be proven, and just because you quote some scholars does not mean you've dismissed anything. Being an expert in a subject does not make someone right, unless they can back it up with facts beyond a doubt.

Also, there are plenty of Christians out there who say the Bible is the word of God. Just because you don't view it that way doesn't mean other people don't, that they're any less "Christian", or that anybody is right or wrong.

The way I see it is Religion and Science are two separate things, that in the end cannot prove the other. I don't find it possible to judge religion completely on the scientific method, but I also don't try to prove science by using religion. They are different things.

And let me make it clear, I am not trying to prove your beliefs right or wrong, nor am I agreeing or disagree with your beliefs, I'm just refuting some arguments you have made.

 

[lilpixieofterror]

What I want to know is, if someone is personally religious (and not the Bible-thumping nutcase people tend to think all religious people are), why do they need to prove anything to anyone?

Isn't it important to determine what the truth is? Shouldn't we go about to demolish bad argument and to get ourselves a better understanding of the world around us? Besides, isn't it important to know if one religion is true?

If you believe it, then believe it. If you don't, you don't. There's really no need to be so pushy. And if you are questioning whether you believe it or not, have people explain to you why they believe what they do, rather than why they don't believe what they don't -- usually, people that only bash the opposite beliefs aren't worth listening to anyways.

I don't see were I 'bashed' anybody or where I was pushy. If anything, I gave arguments and reasons to defend Christianity with and exposed bad arguments and showed why they are false. What is more important, the truth or protecting feelings? If a religion is true, shouldn't that be the most important thing to know?