The Bible...

[bartleby]

Hi Josephus,
Happy Birthday!
My question - How can we be sure that the Bible wasn't written by Satan to lead us all astray?
Thanks
bb

 

[Josephus]

Thank you!

Well, first of all, Satan can't write anything - he doesn't have a physical form and thus can't grip a writing tool and write. We know the bible was written by men of God because history confirms the historical events from which they were based. Satan has nothing to do with "good" so the mere fact that the Jews are still alive today, have their own nation again after 2700 years of God's promise, certainly gives a lot of credit to God - a serious blow to Satan's attempts to always discredit him.

Why would Satan want to give God all the glory for the things that happened in the bible?

 

[bartleby]

Josephus,
Thank you for your reply and sorry for my own delay but I went a away for a couple of days and haven't had a chance to get on line until now...
That said, I must admit that I found your answers slightly unsatisfactory, so if I may be permitted I have a few follow up questions.

"Well, first of all, Satan can't write anything - he doesn't have a physical form and thus can't grip a writing tool and write."
This 'fact', if such a title it deserves, that "Satan can't write anything" is, if not pure speculation, at best a 'truth' derived from the Bible. As it is the integrity of said book that is at question to use the book itself to affirm its integrity seems to be not just circular but viciously so. Rather along the lines of - "Satan can't have written the Bible because the bible says Satan can't write" and this, I'm sure you'll agree, is hardly satisfactory...
However, even if we could guarantee Satan's inability to write it would still not rule out the possibilities that he either possessed or inspired the mortal writers of the Bible, would it?

"We know the bible was written by men of God because history confirms the historical events from which they were based."
I don't really see here how the conclusion "the bible was written by men of God" follows from the premise "because history confirms the historical events from which they were based" even if one accepts it. I see no good reason to suppose that Satan does not know history and isn't equally capable of inspiring men to write it accurately, after all it is often the case that the best, the most plausible, lies, find their basis in truth, and it is more than possible that Satan could have encouraged the inclusion of historical, physical facts, in order to fool people into believing the false metaphysics and theology that he also included and that cannot be confirmed historically. After all one could imagine his purpose was not to fool people as to historical fact but to lead people astray with respect to their souls. Furthermore the inclusion of historical fallacies would lead to such a book being easily disproved and so his purpose, if such a purpose we can attirbute to him, would have been defeated, don't you think?

"Satan has nothing to do with "good" so the mere fact that the Jews are still alive today, have their own nation again after 2700 years of God's promise, certainly gives a lot of credit to God - a serious blow to Satan's attempts to always discredit him."
Again this argument lapses into circularity because we can only be sure that "Satan has nothing to do with good" and that God actually made this promise to the Jews if we presuppose the validity of the Bible and we have so far seen no good reason for doing this. Not neglecting that such an event might have been little more than chance, it could have been Satan pretending to be God who made that promise to the Jews (if such a promise was ever made) and so the fact that they have their own nation can hardly be seen to be a credit to God, unless we once again beg the question we're trying to answer...

"Why would Satan want to give God all the glory for the things that happened in the bible?"
This is not a question that I can claim to answer with anymore than the catch-all answer - to lead people astray, and if this is the case, we can certainly see that he has been and is being very succesful if we imagine that he did write the Bible. It is not enough to simply remember all the atrocities that have been carried out in Christ's name throughout the ages but we can also see in the Bible itself God making mistakes, as well as encouraging sexism, infanticide, genocide and even commiting mass murder himself. Perhaps it is the Devil's aim to get us to accept these things as good, the easier to corrupt us? After all, how many Christians question the morality of God's behaviour at Sodom and Gomoragh or the doctrine of eternal pain and suffering for those in hell, both of which if committed by mortals would be generally regarded as immoral?

so i guess my continued question is - how can we be sure that it wasn't Satan that wrote (or inspired) the Bible to lead us astray?
thanks
bb

 

[Othniel]

Let me ask a rebuttal question:

Why would Satan "lead people astray" by teaching them that God is love, that they give God all glory, seek Him above all things, and conform their lives to goodness, mercy, peace and the like?

But the real answer to your question is this: Because the Spirit of God testifies that it is so. If this does not satisfy you, then you must pray for an answer because no logic will give you an answer if the Spirit of God is denied access to your heart.

If you have the Spirit, then you can know that the Bible is from God because it says so. It testifies to itself again and again, and is furthermore, testified to by the Spirit in the lives of all who here the words of prophecy and put them into practice.

Peace to all who seek it,

<><

 

[Josephus]

"We know the bible was written by men of God because history confirms the historical events from which they were based."
I don't really see here how the conclusion "the bible was written by men of God" follows from the premise "because history confirms the historical events from which they were based" even if one accepts it. I see no good reason to suppose that Satan does not know history and isn't equally capable of inspiring men to write it accurately, after all it is often the case that the best, the most plausible, lies, find their basis in truth, and it is more than possible that Satan could have encouraged the inclusion of historical, physical facts, in order to fool people into believing the false metaphysics and theology that he also included and that cannot be confirmed historically. After all one could imagine his purpose was not to fool people as to historical fact but to lead people astray with respect to their souls. Furthermore the inclusion of historical fallacies would lead to such a book being easily disproved and so his purpose, if such a purpose we can attirbute to him, would have been defeated, don't you think?

You didn't understand my point. I was meaning that it was human historical tradition passed down from witness to oral accountibility from generation to generation, that it was certain people who actually wrote the books we now see in the bible. The historical tradition proves that it was their physical hands, or at least their input to a writer was the cause of the original texts we now have copies today.

Again this argument lapses into circularity because we can only be sure that "Satan has nothing to do with good" and that God actually made this promise to the Jews if we presuppose the validity of the Bible and we have so far seen no good reason for doing this.

So you believe the bible is guilty of Satanic influence until proven innocent?

Not neglecting that such an event might have been little more than chance, it could have been Satan pretending to be God who made that promise to the Jews (if such a promise was ever made) and so the fact that they have their own nation can hardly be seen to be a credit to God, unless we once again beg the question we're trying to answer...

If you postulate this, then to support it, you'd need a reason; and so far I don't see the reasoning behind Satan masqeurading as God. God could very well rationally make him out to look like a fool, and yet, God has not yet discredited the bible. If you do hear of God doing that, please tell me. If not, then to assume this position is just as ludicrous, if perhaps MORE ludicrous and baseless than simply starting out accepting the bible as the true word of God.

It is not enough to simply remember all the atrocities that have been carried out in Christ's name throughout the ages but we can also see in the Bible itself God making mistakes, as well as encouraging sexism, infanticide, genocide and even commiting mass murder himself. Perhaps it is the Devil's aim to get us to accept these things as good, the easier to corrupt us?

This doesn't prove anything. Bad things happen all the time. Obviously God is allowing natural disaters to happen. And if you include your position, you're making out God to be indifferent to everything that discredits him, - even allowing Satan to discredit him as you say is possible! What a weakling God that would be. I would never serve such a weakling.

After all, how many Christians question the morality of God's behaviour at Sodom and Gomoragh or the doctrine of eternal pain and suffering for those in hell, both of which if committed by mortals would be generally regarded as immoral?

What, you think it was bad for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Bad to wipe out whole civilizations He knew were bad to the core? Don't you realize he gave these people hundreds of years to change their ways, but obviously it became MORE LOVING for God to exterminate them than to let them continue. Just as God uses natural disasters to make his point, God uses other people as instruments of his judgement: the Israelites against the Canannites, Babylon against Israel, Persia against Babylon, Rome against Persia... and so on. God knows when someone is beyond help, and when the only loving choice remains (for the hope of future generations) to remove a people. After all, God did send a flood to wipe out the whole world minus one family...

How limited we make God out to be.

"so i guess my continued question is - how can we be sure that it wasn't Satan that wrote (or inspired) the Bible to lead us astray?"

Easy. When God makes Satan out to be a liar in the very bible you're supporting your evidence for his existence. I see no logical reason for the Devil to author a book, masquearding as God, telling everyone that the Devil is a liar to begin with. How circularly unprogressive, unproductive, and obviously stupid that would be.

 

[bartleby]

Othniel,

Glad to have you joining in. The more the merrier as they say!

"Why would Satan "lead people astray" by teaching them that God is love, that they give God all glory, seek Him above all things, and conform their lives to goodness, mercy, peace and the like?"
Again I must own up to my ignorance as to his motives but doubtless the devil works in mysterious ways. In fact one can imagine that that is just the sort of double bluff he'd use to lead people into believing his lies...

"Because the Spirit of God testifies that it is so. If this does not satisfy you, then you must pray for an answer because no logic will give you an answer if the Spirit of God is denied access to your heart."
This really just forces the question to take a different shape - how can you tell that it is the spirit of god and not satan that is in your heart?


Josephus,
Thanks for your continued answers. I'm still not quite with you yet so if you could just be patient with me.

RE - the point about history, it may well be that I misunderstood your post though my reading does to me seem the most natural but either way I guess it is irrelevant to our discussion, as even if we can rule out the devil actually physically writing the Bible for these reasons I still see no reason for assuming that he didn't inspire or possess the writers.

now to answer your questions...

"So you believe the bible is guilty of Satanic influence until proven innocent?"
You misunderstand my point. All I'm saying is that in order to answer questions regarding the integrity of the Bible it is pointless to presuppose the integrity of the Bible. Much as if we were questioning the integrity of the Koran and tried to argue "the Koran must have been dictated by the almighty Allah because almighty Allah says so in the Koran". I'm sure you would not except this as proof of the divine infallible nature of the Koran?

"If you postulate this, then to support it, you'd need a reason; and so far I don't see the reasoning behind Satan masqeurading as God."
The reasoning would be to lead men astray, to make them worship something that wasn't God, to trick them into their own damnation. There are and have been since the beginnings of humanity countless religions many of whom who have beleived in some kind of devil or evil god. Perhaps it was the norse god Loki (to name one from a multitude) who wrote the Bible and created a whole new religion in order to lead people away from the true faith. You can see surely that if Judeo-Christian beliefs were false it would aid the devil greatly and so provide him with a reason for masquerading as God?

"God could very well rationally make him out to look like a fool, and yet, God has not yet discredited the bible. If you do hear of God doing that, please tell me."
What you say is true - God could easily make him out to be a fool or discredit the Bible and it is also true that God has not, but there is no logical neccessity that God would do such a thing. There are plenty of other texts that claim to be the divine dictates of the one true God and yet I haven't noticed God discrediting these either. It could be that God has every intention of discrediting the Bible but is in no rush, after all a couple of thousand human years is surely not long for him? Alternatively, he could even be expecting us to work it out for ourselves...

"If not, then to assume this position is just as ludicrous, if perhaps MORE ludicrous and baseless than simply starting out accepting the bible as the true word of God."
I almost agree with you here. I find both positions equally ludicrous and baseless as I see no good reason for choosing between them. Which is why I asked you my initial question.

"This doesn't prove anything. Bad things happen all the time. Obviously God is allowing natural disaters to happen. And if you include your position, you're making out God to be indifferent to everything that discredits him, - even allowing Satan to discredit him as you say is possible!"
You misunderstand my point. I'm not trying to prove anything nor am I necessarily stating a position that I hold. What I'm doing is trying to get a satisfactory answer to my original question. It's a question of reasonable doubt and so far I don't feel that you have satisfied my reasonal doubt with regards to my initial question.

"What a weakling God that would be. I would never serve such a weakling."
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that God would be a weakling if he didn't publically discredit the Bible even though he hasn't publically discredited many other books that claim to be the work of the one true God?

"What, you think it was bad for God to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Bad to wipe out whole civilizations He knew were bad to the core? Don't you realize he gave these people hundreds of years to change their ways, but obviously it became MORE LOVING for God to exterminate them than to let them continue."
again you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was either good or bad, just pointing out that if the devil had writen the Bible it could be (as one of a number of reasons) to fool us into thinking that genocide could ever be condoned and so making it easier for 'christian' countries to drop nuclear weapons on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or to carpet bomb Dresden, or to launch crusades and inquisitions, or any one of innumerable other horrors.
But let's not get side tracked here...

"When God makes Satan out to be a liar in the very bible you're supporting your evidence for his existence. I see no logical reason for the Devil to author a book, masquearding as God, telling everyone that the Devil is a liar to begin with. How circularly unprogressive, unproductive, and obviously stupid that would be."
I'm not clear on the first sentence here, could you explain?
As for the rest I'm not asking for a logical reason for the Devil to author this book (though I see no logical reason, and I've yet to find one here, why he couldn't have) but what I asking for is what good reason do we have to be sure that he didn't?
I'm never sure about the statistics and I think to a large degree it depends on who you ask to gather them but Christianity, if not the biggest religion in the world, is certainly one of them and as such if, as per the hypothesis that the devil authored the Bible, it is a false religion and those that follow it will be going to hell then in terms of the Devil's aim to lead people astray I cannot consider it unprogressive, unproductive, or obviously stupid, rather it would seem, judged by its results, a work of devilish genius...

so i guess my question remains - How can we be sure that the Bible wasn't written by Satan to lead us all astray?

Thanks again to you both...
bb

 

[psycmajor]

Hmm, let's see Louis Booth try to censor me by telling me to be quiet in here again...

bartleby , I think the main point that the guys are trying to get across is that Satan would not write a book that glorifies God. It is counter to his nature.

The Bible has answered prophesy, proven science, etc. Check out some of these sites:

Apologetics [By the way, apologetics has nothing to do with apologizing. It means "to answer"!]
Stand to Reason
Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Out of curiousity, who do you think Satan is? Do you believe he exists? How did you learn about Satan?

Originally posted by bartleby


"Why would Satan want to give God all the glory for the things that happened in the bible?"
This is not a question that I can claim to answer with anymore than the catch-all answer - to lead people astray, and if this is the case, we can certainly see that he has been and is being very succesful if we imagine that he did write the Bible. It is not enough to simply remember all the atrocities that have been carried out in Christ's name throughout the ages but we can also see in the Bible itself God making mistakes, as well as encouraging sexism, infanticide, genocide and even commiting mass murder himself. Perhaps it is the Devil's aim to get us to accept these things as good, the easier to corrupt us? After all, how many Christians question the morality of God's behaviour at Sodom and Gomoragh or the doctrine of eternal pain and suffering for those in hell, both of which if committed by mortals would be generally regarded as immoral?

so i guess my continued question is - how can we be sure that it wasn't Satan that wrote (or inspired) the Bible to lead us astray?
thanks
bb

I felt like I needed to respond to this particular quote. When you examine a faith, you cannot use its "followers" as the example. Christ is the example. People are fallible, Christ is not. People who do heinous things in the name of religion are flat-out wrong. Jesus was a peaceful person (except for that time he overturned tables in the temple where people were buying and selling ).

Here's an analogy that I've always liked:
If Einstein robbed a bank, would that make E=mc^2 incorrect?

Don't be afraid to disagree (especially with me), we're not going to hate you for it! It won't create friction between us unless you start calling names or something, which I doubt you'll do.

 

[Josephus]

"The reasoning would be to lead men astray, to make them worship something that wasn't God, to trick them into their own damnation."

Isn't damnation a biblical concept? *wink* see the circular reasoning?

 

[Othniel]

Originally posted by bartleby
Othniel,

Again I must own up to my ignorance as to his motives but doubtless the devil works in mysterious ways. In fact one can imagine that that is just the sort of double bluff he'd use to lead people into believing his lies...

Sounds like your trying to get inside the head of Satan, which is a dangerous place to want to go. Not where I care to even think...I die serving Christ. The Spirit testifies I am not deceived.

This really just forces the question to take a different shape - how can you tell that it is the spirit of god and not satan that is in your heart?

Because it is in line with what the Scriptures teach.

Seriously, my friend, start praying, because you're giving the devil way to much credit. You're in my prayers, to say the least.

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

 

[Josephus]

I'm not so certain he believes in the Devil, Othniel. I think he's just arguing a contradiction which doesn't exist.

 

[Othniel]

"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist." -Keven Spacey in the Usual Suspects

A worldly movie, but God often inserts His Truth in spite of our sin...wouldn't you say?

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

 

[bartleby]

psycmajor,
thanks for joining in and for the references...

"I think the main point that the guys are trying to get across is that Satan would not write a book that glorifies God. It is counter to his nature."
2 points - both slightly related - 1) whether the book glorifies god or not depends on how close it is to the truth, and if the devil wrote it then we have no way of knowing whether it is close to the truth or not and therefore whether it glorifies god or not...
2) surely we can only judge what Satan's nature is like if we have a reliable source of information about him, so far I have been given no reason to assume that the Bible wasn't written by Satan, so no reason to assume that the information given about him in the Bible is accurate.
regarding my personal beliefs about Satan, I don't really think they're relevant here. Likewise, the judging a religion by its followers which is incidental to my question (which is, and remains, - "How can we be sure that Satan didn't author the bible?")

Josephus,
You seem to be misunderstanding my position - I am not arguing that Satan did write the Bible but am asking you how we can be sure he didn't. And you may remember that I have not offered myself up as an authority upon the devil's motives and therefore I don't see how my "circular reasoning", if of course we accept that damnnation is a singularly Biblical concept, critically undermines either my initial question (which is still unanswered) or my rebuttal of your arguments.
The initial question assumes that Satan would be doing it to lead us astray I don't see that his specific intention other than to cause us harm or lead us from God needs to be stated, and the value of why he would do it is the millions of Christians world wide who he would have succesfully lead astray if he had written the Bible.
The question is, and remains, therefore - "How can we be sure that Satan didn't author the bible?"

Furthermore, I'm not "arguing a contradiction", I'm asking a question, which I thought was the purpose of this particular forum.

Othniel,
You seem to be confusing my desire to receive a sufficient answer to my question with a statement of my theological position. I don't really see how helpful this is to our discussion, nor how it answers either my initial question or the question I asked you in my last post.

Speaking of which the answer you actually gave was -
"Because it is in line with what the Scriptures teach."
So to cut our discussion down to the bare bones here what we've got is, and excuse me for paraphrasing-
Me- "How can we be sure that the Bible was written by Satan?"
You- "Because the Spirit says so."
Me- "How can we be sure it's the true Spirit"
You - "Because the Bible says so"

Am I really alone in finding this unsatisfactory?

Thanks
bb

 

[Othniel]

Your desire for an answer has everything to do with your theological position because your theological position predisposes your willingness to accept the Truh. You said: "How can we be sure that Satan didn't author the bible?"

Any Christian will tell you that their salvation is based on Faith. The very nature of faith is that it is accepting something that one could not otherwise "be sure" about. You may rest assured that if our answers as of yet have not satisfied your desire, no answer will. Without faith, a gift from God, there is no answer to your question. You will have to settle for going to the grave unsatisfied with Christ's offer of salvation.

May I add, however irrelevant it may be, that for me one of the greatest arguments for the Bible is man's own unwillingness to accept it. Even among Christian circles, much of what is said is refuted, explained away, and in some places expunged. Man doesn't like the Truth. The more I learn of the Truth from the Bible, the more it is made self evident in the way we, as humnas, live.

This, of course, is no argument for you. You have said that perhaps it's all a fleece pulled over my eyes by the Enemy to keep me from the True path. You in that statement, perhaps without even understanding it, are labeling absolute and life-changing Truth which exposes the reality of the universe in ways most people choose not to understand or see, as a lie, or, at the least, implying that it may be. How can you be sure that the sky is blue? How can you be sure that your next breath will keep you alive? How can you be sure that your toilet will flush? How do you know that your life is not one big lab experiment being conducted by machines just to see if they can drive you insane by implying disinformation? How do we know that we all aren't actually bannana's and bannana's are humans, and if we'd just hang from tree tops we'd be happy?

Any skeptic can not accept anything. It's very easy to do and it's twice as easy to justify oneself in one's own mind.

How do I know the Bible is True, not written to dissuade me?

Because I do. Because it says so and the Spirit testifies to the Truth as Christ promised that it would. Because Wisdom contained within exposes life for the lie which it is, and the promises of life becoming a Truth take place day by day. Because your very unwillingness to accept an honest answer for what it is is prophecied by the Scriptures. Coincidences simply stop being coincidences after a while. Is it subjective evidence? Yes...everything is. If you won't accept the testimony of eye witnesses to the Truth, then what will you accept?

There's a book which might help you with this...or might not...perhaps you've already read it...it's called "The Case for Christ" and it's by Lee Strobel. I will be praying for you.

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

 

[bartleby]

Othniel,
Thank you for your recommendation, I've read the "Case for Christ" and whilst I have no real complaints about it I found the arguments shallow and unconvincing almost to the point of duplicity.
With respect both to that book and your most recent post I really don't see why so many think Christian faith and intellectual rigour are mutually exclusive, and again I must caution you about confusing my desire to ask a question with my theological stance, this doesn't mean I "will have to settle for going to the grave unsatisfied with Christ's offer of salvation" though I may have "to settle for going to the grave unsatisfied with" your answers. Huge difference, no?
on the same subject - "Your desire for an answer has everything to do with your theological position because your theological position predisposes your willingness to accept the Truh."
if you had said we can't be sure to start with rather than trying to fob me off with poor examples of circular reasoning masquerading as the truth I'd have accepted it...

However, to return to the matter at hand -

Are you telling me now that we can't be sure that the Bible wasn't written by the Devil and that its something you accept on faith? If that's your answer then fine, I don't know if it's any more satisfactory but it's certainly seems more coherent and honest than the previous counts of circular reasoning.
one problem I have with this line of argument (ie. citing the Spirit to testify) is that people of every faith use a similar argument to justify their own holy scriptures whether they be Muslims defending the Koran, or Mormons defending the Book of Mormon. But then I hardly see the reason for insisting one religion is true and another (or the others) false especially when on your own admission we can't be sure...

"How can you be sure that the sky is blue? How can you be sure that your next breath will keep you alive? How can you be sure that your toilet will flush? How do you know that your life is not one big lab experiment being conducted by machines just to see if they can drive you insane by implying disinformation? How do we know that we all aren't actually bannana's and bannana's are humans, and if we'd just hang from tree tops we'd be happy?"
i don't know why you're asking me questions because this forum is called "ask josephus" and not "ask bartleby" (which is also why i haven't set myself up as an 'expert' on an internet forum) but (sigh) i'll do my best - the sky is not blue (though i won't deny that sometimes it appears that way to my human eyes), i can't be sure that my next breath will keep me alive because it might not (vide - all those people that die), i can't be sure that my toilet will flush because sometimes it breaks and doesn't, i can't be sure that my life is not one big lab experiment but i don't see what difference it makes to me either way, and i doubt we're bananas because hanging from trees hurts my arms and doesn't make me happy (not to mention that i don't take an essentialist view on bananas and humans and so find the suggestion meaningless).
but this is all sounding much like a sidetrack so if you don't mind i'll leave it...

finally,
"How do I know the Koran is True, not written to dissuade me?

Because I do. Because it says so and Allah testifies to the Truth as Muhammed promised that He would. Because Wisdom contained within exposes life for the lie which it is, and the promises of life becoming a Truth take place day by day. Because your very unwillingness to accept an honest answer for what it is is prophecied by the Koran. Coincidences simply stop being coincidences after a while. Is it subjective evidence? Yes...everything is. If you won't accept the testimony of eye witnesses to the Truth, then what will you accept?
"May I add, however irrelevant it may be, that for me one of the greatest arguments for the Koran is man's own unwillingness to accept it. Even among Muslim circles, much of what is said is refuted, explained away, and in some places expunged. Man doesn't like the Truth. The more I learn of the Truth from the Koran, the more it is made self evident in the way we, as humans, live."
This, of course, is no argument for you. You have said that perhaps it's all a fleece pulled over my eyes by the Enemy to keep me from the True path. You in that statement, perhaps without even understanding it, are labeling absolute and life-changing Truth which exposes the reality of the universe in ways most people choose not to understand or see, as a lie, or, at the least, implying that it may be." etc. etc. ad infinitum...

thanks again
bb

 

[psycmajor]

bartleby-ben

Just to get a better idea, what do you hold as whole truth/partial truth? What do you believe in?

 

[bartleby]

psycmajor,
"what do you hold as whole truth/partial truth? What do you believe in?"
i must admit that i'm not entirely sure on what you're getting at with your first question - could you spell it out for me?
with that said and all due respect i don't really see your questions (as they appear to me) as being relevant.

i have come here to ask a question - "How can we be sure that Satan didn't write the Bible?" and whether I believe that Satan exists or doesn't, whether the Koran is the inerrant word of God or the Bible is, whether I worship the Devil or don't, whether i believe that Jesus died for my sins or not, whether i believe the Bible should be read literally or metaphorically or any of an infinite number of possible beliefs I could hold, does not mean that I must accept, as an answer to that question, an argument that is plainly circular.
as i pointed out above to Othniel i see no reason why Christian faith and critical thinking should be mutually exclusive and i find it slightly insulting that my faith is being doubted for the simple reason that i find answers such as "The Bible must be true because it says so in the Bible" and "The spirit tells me that the Bible is true because the Bible says the spirit must be true" pointless...
as far as i'm aware there is no verse in the Bible that says "you must accept an answer if it accords with what you want to hear no matter how bad or false the reasoning that leads to it is", but perhaps i've got one of the copies authored by the devil...?
thanks
bb

 

[armothe]

If I may interject:

Matthew 12:24-26:

But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons.” He knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. &#65279;If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand? &#65279;

You claim that Satan wrote the bible to decieve many? Well guess what-- many have eternal life with God due to the teachings of the Bible. Why would Satan write a Bible that negates everything he stands for?

Christ taught that Satan was an advesary who did nothing good to further the kingdom of God. If he did, he would be divided against himself....and would cease to exist.

-A

 

[Othniel]

Originally posted by bartleby
Thank you for your recommendation, I've read the "Case for Christ" and whilst I have no real complaints about it I found the arguments shallow and unconvincing almost to the point of duplicity.

I am sad that simple facts are not enough.

I really don't see why so many think Christian faith and intellectual rigour are mutually exclusive

Because the Bible tells us it is.

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Prov 1:7a
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." 1 Cor 2:14

Intellect is not enough to understand the things of God. It takes God to understand God. Faith taken root in His Spirit alone is the only way a man can hope to ever understand his life, or anything else. Otherwise, his view will always be foggy and blind.

, and again I must caution you about confusing my desire to ask a question with my theological stance, this doesn't mean I "will have to settle for going to the grave unsatisfied with Christ's offer of salvation" though I may have "to settle for going to the grave unsatisfied with" your answers. Huge difference, no?

My answer is Christ's offer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved." All else is secondary. If you do not accept Him, you cannot accept my answers.

on the same subject - "Your desire for an answer has everything to do with your theological position because your theological position predisposes your willingness to accept the Truh."
if you had said we can't be sure to start with rather than trying to fob me off with poor examples of circular reasoning masquerading as the truth I'd have accepted it...

i did not attempt to fob you off. I answered you as if you were a Christian looking for an honest and Biblical response. That is not enough for you, because, without faith, Christ's answers are foolishness. (1 Cor 1:18)

Are you telling me now that we can't be sure that the Bible wasn't written by the Devil and that its something you accept on faith?

I am telling you that without faith, you must accept the Bible on faith. If a person has faith, the Bible proves its own Truth on a daily basis. It's Wisdom and message of Salvation have daily applicatoin which, if they were false, could not hold up time and again. My faith in freedom is not enough to make the Bible set me free. It is the Truth of the Bible (who is Christ) which sets me free.

I accept the Bible as Truth because it says that it is Truth. That would appear to not be enough for you, so to you it must be explained in terms of faith.

If that's your answer then fine, I don't know if it's any more satisfactory but it's certainly seems more coherent and honest than the previous counts of circular reasoning.

Accusations will eventually cause me to stop responding to you. You ask questions, you get answers. Don't believe them if you don't want to. That is your choice.

one problem I have with this line of argument (ie. citing the Spirit to testify) is that people of every faith use a similar argument to justify their own holy scriptures whether they be Muslims defending the Koran, or Mormons defending the Book of Mormon. But then I hardly see the reason for insisting one religion is true and another (or the others) false especially when on your own admission we can't be sure...

Um... I have not personally heard Mormon's sight God testifying to Truth Himself by living within them. I've heard them say they feel its True. A Muslim who says God lives within them must be killled. etc etc...

One can be sure...if they believe. Of course, before one believes, there's no more certainty to the facts laid out in the Bible by many eye witnesses. If facts are not enough, nothing will be. We then live outside reality and nothing exists. This is the world of your logic (which could also be called circular because it depends on your perceptions).

"How can you be sure that the sky is blue? How can you be sure that your next breath will keep you alive? How can you be sure that your toilet will flush? How do you know that your life is not one big lab experiment being conducted by machines just to see if they can drive you insane by implying disinformation? How do we know that we all aren't actually bannana's and bannana's are humans, and if we'd just hang from tree tops we'd be happy?"
i don't know why you're asking me questions because this forum is called "ask josephus" and not "ask bartleby"

Well, I was attempting to illustrate a point which is becoming more and more apparent that you've no desire to see illustrated. Rather, you have resulted to antagonization.

"How do I know the Koran is True, not written to dissuade me?

Did I ask that? I surely did not mean to. But I can tell you how I know its false. It says that Mt. Sinai is on the Sinai Penninsula, when it is really in Arabia, in the ancient land of Midian. If you can smuggle yourself into Saudi Arabia, you can check it out yourself. It's called Jabal Al Lawz. You can buy a book about it at your local Christian bookstore called "In Search of the Real Mt. Sinai"

Because I do. Because it says so and Allah testifies to the Truth as Muhammed promised that He would. Because Wisdom contained within exposes life for the lie which it is, and the promises of life becoming a Truth take place day by day. Because your very unwillingness to accept an honest answer for what it is is prophecied by the Koran. Coincidences simply stop being coincidences after a while. Is it subjective evidence? Yes...everything is. If you won't accept the testimony of eye witnesses to the Truth, then what will you accept?
"May I add, however irrelevant it may be, that for me one of the greatest arguments for the Koran is man's own unwillingness to accept it. Even among Muslim circles, much of what is said is refuted, explained away, and in some places expunged. Man doesn't like the Truth. The more I learn of the Truth from the Koran, the more it is made self evident in the way we, as humans, live."
This, of course, is no argument for you. You have said that perhaps it's all a fleece pulled over my eyes by the Enemy to keep me from the True path. You in that statement, perhaps without even understanding it, are labeling absolute and life-changing Truth which exposes the reality of the universe in ways most people choose not to understand or see, as a lie, or, at the least, implying that it may be." etc. etc. ad infinitum...
bb

You are right. It is not. Using Truth against itself may be wise, and was even the ploy used by Satan when he tempted Christ, and when he inspired the Koran to be written a false prophet who was more concerned with winning wars then with accepting the messiah who had come four hundred years before, but it does not make the lie into Truth.

Again, I have said, you can believe whatever you choose to believe, and I cannot condemn you. Only God can do that. I have responded to all you questions honsetly and have met with nothing but accusation and other attempts to anger me. I am sad that that is how you spread you religion. I spread mine through love.

I love you, and I will pray for you. May we both meet in the Kingdom of God.

Peace to all who seek it,
<><

 

[psycmajor]

bartleby

In case you didn't notice, I'm asking you these questions to try to understand why you feel the way you do about the Bible. I'm also wondering if you have any preconceived notions on what Christianity is all about, and if so, if that is clouding your judgment.

What I mean is: Do you have any "religious" beliefs? Do you think man is inherantly good? Do you think men are sinners? How do you see God? What do you think of when you hear the word "God" (with the first letter capitalized)? How do you see Christ?

Do you even know what you believe, or are you confused by all the different options and roads that there are that seem to lead to God?

Finally, were you looking for a particular answer from us, so that when you hear what you want, you will be satisfied? When will you be satisfied?

 

[bartleby]

armothe,
of course you may interject but i fear you too are missing the point.

"You claim that Satan wrote the bible to decieve many? Well guess what-- many have eternal life with God due to the teachings of the Bible. Why would Satan write a Bible that negates everything he stands for?"

my question was "how can we be sure the devil didn't write the Bible to lead us astray?". as such it is false to say that I claim that Satan wrote the Bible, when I claim nothing of the sort.
secondly, the point is that if Satan wrote the Bible to lead people astray then then all those who follow the teachings of the Bible are being lead astray rather than having an eternal life with God.
is that clear?

othniel,
"I am sad that simple facts are not enough."
i am sad that you mistook those for simple facts...

"Because the Bible tells us it is.
"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline." Prov 1:7a
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them." 1 Cor 2:14"

perhaps your interpretation of these verses allows you to think that intellectual rigour and Christian faith are mutually exclusive but to me they support the opposite position.

"Intellect is not enough to understand the things of God. It takes God to understand God. Faith taken root in His Spirit alone is the only way a man can hope to ever understand his life, or anything else. Otherwise, his view will always be foggy and blind."
and if you reread my post you will find I am not saying intellect is enough, what I'm saying is that Christian faith and intellectual rigour are not mutually exclusive therefore all we're disagreeing about is what you think I'm saying, not what I'm actually saying.

"My answer is Christ's offer. "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved." All else is secondary. If you do not accept Him, you cannot accept my answers."
now I'm not quite sure who's appointed you as supreme interpreter of the Christian faith. if God is going to do this I wish he'd at least have the nerve to tell the rest of us. Until he does I will continue to think that I can accept Christ's offer (though I don't remember him wording it quite like that in my Bible...) without having to accept your answers.

"i did not attempt to fob you off. I answered you as if you were a Christian looking for an honest and Biblical response. That is not enough for you, because, without faith, Christ's answers are foolishness. (1 Cor 1:18)"
congratulations on your appointment as second coming by the way. I suppose if all else fails you can always teach me humility...

"I am telling you that without faith, you must accept the Bible on faith. If a person has faith, the Bible proves its own Truth on a daily basis. It's Wisdom and message of Salvation have daily applicatoin which, if they were false, could not hold up time and again. My faith in freedom is not enough to make the Bible set me free. It is the Truth of the Bible (who is Christ) which sets me free."
I am telling you that without faith, you must accept the Bhagavad Gita on faith. If a person has faith, the Bhagavad Gita proves its own Truth on a daily basis. It's Wisdom and message of Salvation have daily application which, if they were false, could not hold up time and again. My faith in freedom is not enough to make the Bhagavad Gita set me free. It is the Truth of the Bhagavad Gita (who is Krishna) which sets me free.
I accept the Bhagavad Gita as Truth because it says that it is Truth.

"Accusations will eventually cause me to stop responding to you. You ask questions, you get answers. Don't believe them if you don't want to. That is your choice."
even if they're true accusations or especially if they are?

"If facts are not enough, nothing will be. We then live outside reality and nothing exists. This is the world of your logic."
no, it's a straw man...

"Well, I was attempting to illustrate a point which is becoming more and more apparent that you've no desire to see illustrated. Rather, you have resulted to antagonization."
Well, I was attempting to answer the questions you posed to me, I'm sorry if that counts as resulting (or even to resorting) to antagonization, but you didn't mention that having people answer direct questions that were asked of them is antagonizing...

"Again, I have said, you can believe whatever you choose to believe, and I cannot condemn you. Only God can do that. I have responded to all you questions honsetly and have met with nothing but accusation and other attempts to anger me."
and I have thanked you for your responses. all i have accused you of is circular reasoning, which as it is a statement of fact, i can hardly see as being outside the remits of a serious discussion and if you think that i have tried to anger you then i am afraid you're once again wrong. all i've tried to do is have a serious discussion about a line of enquiry that interests me without having to resort to the 'us and them' mentality that you have forced on our conversations. obviously, i have failed.

"I am sad that that is how you spread you religion. I spread mine through love.
"I love you, and I will pray for you. May we both meet in the Kingdom of God."

who's being accusatory now? one word of caution though, you may believe that you are trying to spread your religion through love but in my honest and personal opinion this is not how it comes across. it comes as across as prejudgemental and arrogant. not that one can have too many prayers but i think you'd be better off spending your time praying for yourself rather than me.
as for your love fo rme i thank you for that but i would rather it be directed at the person who i actually am rather than the one you have decided i am.
finally, i agree with you at least on your final sentiment.

thanks
bb