Why believe The Bible?

[Paintanker]

Many theologically savy people quote the bible - taking it as the final word on the matter. My question is: "How do you know it's right?"

The answer that most people will give me is (and my insides turn over every time I hear it, I'm sorry, I have to use the F word here) faith. They don't know, but they have faith that the word of the Bible is the word of God and thus correct and true. I am pretty sure that didn't answer the question at all; I fundimentally asked why they believe and how they know... they answer they don't know and they believe because of their beliefs.

Would any of you be kind enough to tell me: If you hadn't been indoctorinated since birth into Christianity (as some people haven't; they converted later in life), what would persuade you to take a book, the Bible, and believe that what it says is true.

And: What sets this book apart from other religious books, like the Tora(h?) - or vice versa? Why would you believe one over the other?

Perhaps you had a religious experience? My friend tells me he was praying one day and as a man tried to approach him the man found he couldn't breathe while within 10 feet of my praying friend. That's cool, I amy be hesitant to believe that, but that's not what we're talking about. For the other 95% of us who haven't experienced such things, why would they commit themselves to blind faith?

My final question is: If you were to find out that the book was a lie, that I had infact written it around 2000 years ago, what would you do then (besides ask me the secret to my longevity)?

 

[Caladan]

I'll repost my opening post in this thread: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/71840-world-sacred-texts-literalism.html

"Humanity has inherited quite a few grand works of world literature, philosophy and more embodied in ancient religious canons many times with a cultural context. these texts have been held in high regard for centuries and more, but do we really appreciate them for their actual value?

Many view the texts through literal eyes, failing to value their literary essence and try to find answers to biological, astronomical, questions through these texts, forgetting that the texts have been written in times when these fields did not have the the bank of information and applied technology we have today, on the other hand many 'non believers' as a protest of religious threat, take these texts out of context as well, and try to diminish their relevance, forgetting that these texts are world heritage and have provided historical (in the anthropological sense of the word), archaeological etc. information.

Can a mainstream middle ground be found, that will range/find its way outside the scholarly world, a mainstream perspective that will appreciate major texts as world heritage, and of relevant value to us as humans who want to learn and understand our own cognitive development and history, a perspective outside a religious outlook that does not take the story telling and writings of our forefathers at face value, and is willing to examine and research it with objectivity and maturity?"

 

[Paintanker]

Oh, I have no objection to it as a literary work. Infact, I have a bible sitting not two feet from me here on top of my desk. That is not, however, relevant to my questions. I want to know why people believe things for the sole reason that those things are written in the bible.

 

[Autodidact]

Ya got me, Pain, but you sure hit the nail on the head.

 

[Green Gaia]

It's quite simple: because they want to.

 

[Dunemeister]

There are no knock-down arguments that lead one to believe that the bible is reliable (whatever you mean by that). That said, there are arguments that lead one to believe in the bible's historical veracity, at least in general terms and in accordance with the standards for first century texts with which it can be compared.

Believing that the bible is a decisively authoritative text is of course a matter of faith. It's an odd Christianity indeed that denies biblical authority. There are some arguments in favor of this authority; generally such arguments appeal to fulfilled prophecy and whatnot. The problem with those arguments (if it's indeed a problem, I'm not convinced it is) is that they are not decisive. There are unfulfilled prophecies and prophecies fulfilled in strange ways (even on a faithfully Christian reading of them), and it's unclear how to handle these without some sort of special pleading. That doesn't defeat the arguments entirely, but it does make the positive arguments less than fully compelling.

But that's as it should be. If there were arguments that were so demanded by logic and therefore obvious that one would disbelieve them only on pain of insanity or chronic malcontentedness, belief in God would be infantile and almost meaningless. As it is, belief in God (disbelief, too) requires a measure of risk-taking, and THAT demands that believers (and unbelievers) do their homework. So whether you believe or disbelieve, if you've done your homework, you're better off than believers and disbelievers who haven't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And: What sets this book apart from other religious books, like the Tora(h?) - or vice versa? Why would you believe one over the other?

Oy vey ...

 

[Don Penguinoini]

... Another one

 

[MoonWater]

uh, the torah is part of the bible pain

 

[timjamz]

Oh, I have no objection to it as a literary work. Infact, I have a bible sitting not two feet from me here on top of my desk. That is not, however, relevant to my questions. I want to know why people believe things for the sole reason that those things are written in the bible.

For the same reason people believe Obama is going to bring "Change." They want to believe it.

Is there really any other reason for believing anything?

 

[timjamz]

uh, the torah is part of the bible pain

Yes, but by itself, it's not the "Christian" bible.

 

[Autodidact]

There are no knock-down arguments that lead one to believe that the bible is reliable (whatever you mean by that). That said, there are arguments that lead one to believe in the bible's historical veracity, at least in general terms and in accordance with the standards for first century texts with which it can be compared.

Believing that the bible is a decisively authoritative text is of course a matter of faith. It's an odd Christianity indeed that denies biblical authority. There are some arguments in favor of this authority; generally such arguments appeal to fulfilled prophecy and whatnot. The problem with those arguments (if it's indeed a problem, I'm not convinced it is) is that they are not decisive. There are unfulfilled prophecies and prophecies fulfilled in strange ways (even on a faithfully Christian reading of them), and it's unclear how to handle these without some sort of special pleading. That doesn't defeat the arguments entirely, but it does make the positive arguments less than fully compelling.

But that's as it should be. If there were arguments that were so demanded by logic and therefore obvious that one would disbelieve them only on pain of insanity or chronic malcontentedness, belief in God would be infantile and almost meaningless. As it is, belief in God (disbelief, too) requires a measure of risk-taking, and THAT demands that believers (and unbelievers) do their homework. So whether you believe or disbelieve, if you've done your homework, you're better off than believers and disbelievers who haven't.

Is the Bible any more reliable than other religious texts? Have you compared them?

 

[Autodidact]

For the same reason people believe Obama is going to bring "Change." They want to believe it.

Is there really any other reason for believing anything?

Well those of us in the reality-based community like to use this thing we call "evidence." And there's no need to tar Obama-voters with the irrationality of religious devotees.

 

[Dunemeister]

Is the Bible any more reliable than other religious texts? Have you compared them?

I haven't made a comparison of any depth. Nevertheless, I'm convinced of the authority of the Christian canon for reasons that fall in the categories I described earlier. I won't bother to rehearse them because someone who is not already inclined to believe them probably won't. It's also fair comment that I became convinced of the authority of the Christian canon during the process of my conversion to Christianity. Since my conversion, I have had plenty of good reason and many opportunities (which I have taken) to re-examine my commitment.

 

[Paintanker]

uh, the torah is part of the bible pain

That's irrelivant, but ok. You're right

 

[Paintanker]

There are no knock-down arguments that lead one to believe that the bible is reliable (whatever you mean by that). That said, there are arguments that lead one to believe in the bible's historical veracity, at least in general terms and in accordance with the standards for first century texts with which it can be compared.

Ok, we can aggree there. The bible is accurate historically in some parts, that is as fact as it can get. But just to clarify my original point, the Bible's word is not law, and much of what is in it is not known for certain to be true, especially those accounts which don't talk about the same time period as the time in which they were written (i.e. genisis, future prophecies, etc.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Many theologically savy people quote the bible - taking it as the final word on the matter. My question is: "How do you know it's right?" ...

And: What sets this book apart from other religious books, like the Tora(h?) - or vice versa? Why would you believe one over the other?

uh, the torah is part of the bible pain

That's irrelivant, but ok. You're right

What is relevant is the state of your understanding. So, for example, you assert

But just to clarify my original point, the Bible's word is not law, and much of what is in it is not known for certain to be true, especially those accounts which don't talk about the same time period as the time in which they were written (i.e. genisis, future prophecies, etc.)

when you obviously lack the most minimal knowledge required to make your opinion at all credible. Perhaps you should learn before presuming to instruct ...

 

[doppelganger]

Its reliability depends entirely on what you are trying to accomplish with it.

 

[lamplighter]

I think people are looking for acceptance and also understanding of the unknown, they were brought into a society where everyone reads that particular holy book and therefor it must be acceptable information, though they might take it all with a grain of salt and rationalize it, skipping over inconsistencies and contradictions, but it also provides a community and familiarity, where a set of doctrines and traditions are followed (more or less) by everyone. I don't think for the majority of the worlds population that their preference in religion is based on comparison of any sorts with other religions or secularism, and becoming secularist is probably a much harder process for people in a more religious oriented family, where as switching religions is probably easier, and usually it seems that people switch based on the philosophies of another religion not how more believable one is over the other.

 

[doppelganger]

As a science textbook - not very reliable.

As a history textbook - more reliable than as a science textbook, but still not very reliable

As a guide to moral decisions - a mixed bag of outdated values (slavery, subjugation of women, sexual mores from a radically different culture and time) and profound spiritual insights into the nature of morality ("whatever you do unto the least of these . . . ", "judge not lest ye be judged", the "Greatest Commandment", etc.)

As a pointer to spiritual insights - also a mixed bag, with some of it among the greatest works of this sort ever written, and some of it frustratingly narrow-minded and tribal

As a book with enough heft to crush a cockroach - very reliable