10 reasons why the Bible can be trusted

[SteveB]

Ah, you misunderstand, and I wasn't entirely clear. By real I mean He is the Son of God. I agree that Jesus actually existed.

Then ask him! It's a simple concept.

If he's actually who he claims to be he'll respond to your question.

Who does say-

Whosoever will call on his name shall be saved.

 

[Whatsisface]

Actually, it's been addressed, dozens of times before.
You simply don't like it.

No it hasn't.

I never said that you have to believe he's real beforehand. I quoted what Jesus said...

You effectively said that.

Here's what you said earlier. "The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says".

You then give a quote of what Jesus says ...

Joh 14:23 WEB Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

So, in order to know what the Bible says is true, you have to love Jesus in the first place.

I've explained to you several hundred times before.... I had no idea if he was real or not.
I asked him!

But by asking, you were half way to belief.

 

[Whatsisface]

Then ask him! It's a simple concept.

If he's actually who he claims to be he'll respond to your question.

I've done that, with no response.

 

[SteveB]

No it hasn't.

You effectively said that.

And this is the problem right here!
This is a perfect example of your own bias and preconception about what I actually stated.

Here's what you said earlier. "The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says".

Pixie stated that.
I stated

Joh 14:23 WEB Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

if you Ignore this, in order to exclude yourself from learning the truth, all you have is ignorance.

You then give a quote of what Jesus says ...

Yep.

So, in order to know what the Bible says is true, you have to love Jesus in the first place.

If you love him, you're going to keep his teachings.
If you don't, you won't keep his teachings.

If you love him, you will be loved by God and both the Father and Jesus will come and make their home with you.

in this you'll actually meet Jesus. You'll actually learn, and know that God exists and is knowable.
YHVH himself will make himself known to you. Not as something you coerce yourself to think. But as an actual relationship between you and him.

But by asking, you were half way to belief.

That's your belief.
You're basing this on your opinions, biases, and preconceptions.
I had no idea. I asked because I didn't know.

 

[Whatsisface]

Pixie stated that.

No, you did in post #9 of this thread.

Here's what you said again. "The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says". Found here.

Then you said ...

I stated

Joh 14:23 WEB Jesus answered him, “If a man loves me, he will keep my word. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.

So, to find out if what the Bible says is true, you have to love Jesus in the first place, then you will get the confirmation. But if you love Jesus, you already believe.

 

[SteveB]

No, you did in post #9 of this thread.

Here's what you said again. "The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says". Found here.

Then you said ...

So, to find out if what the Bible says is true, you have to love Jesus in the first place, then you will get the confirmation. But if you love Jesus, you already believe.

It's your eternity.
If you don't care, then you will get exactly what you want.

 

[The Pixie]

So?

Hm? Any reasonably complex ethos requires the weighing of conflicting imperatives against each other, and resolving those conflicts in a practical and healthy way. That's a good chunk of what a religion IS, a set of narratives that outline the ethical imperatives and the cultural apparatus for resolving conflicts between those imperatives.

Then you might as well say Christianity says murder is okay if you really, really want the guy dead! The commandment against murder is just one side of the conflicting imperatives, right, and we can just ignore that as-and-when convenient.

At that point, Biblical morality has lost all meaning.

And again, this all started because SteveB states we should do as Jesus said, when he is clearly doing so selectively when it is convenient to him. Well, I am doing the same. I am only doing what Jesus tells us to do when it is convenient to me.

 

[The Pixie]

Pixie stated that.

No, Steve, I quoted YOU saying it.

What a tangled web you weave.

 

[Whatsisface]

It's your eternity.
If you don't care, then you will get exactly what you want.

It's just incredible that you would say this yet again as if it would have any impact on an atheist. Try to think, atheists really don't think that there is an eternity, and you offer no good reason to think there is. It also doesn't reply to the point in my post, instead it tacitly admits you don't have an answer.

To get what I want as you say I would obviously have to think it exists, which as you should know I don't, so again it's not a very well thought out thing for you to say.

 

[Algor]

Then you might as well say Christianity says murder is okay if you really, really want the guy dead! The commandment against murder is just one side of the conflicting imperatives, right, and we can just ignore that as-and-when convenient.

If a Christian doctrine DID say that, you could ask why. But it doesn't. It doesn't say anything like that, so why is that relevant to the question of what it should or should not say, given the text?

At that point, Biblical morality has lost all meaning.

And again, this all started because SteveB states we should do as Jesus said, when he is clearly doing so selectively when it is convenient to him.

How would you demonstrate that SteveB is selectively interpreting the text to do what is conveniant to him?

Well, I am doing the same. I am only doing what Jesus tells us to do when it is convenient to me.

Well, you can do that, but that isn't informative as to the validity or non-validity of SteveB's position. Simply because there are a multitude of possible interpretations of a text doesn't mean any are wrong or right; that makes no sense.

 

[The Pixie]

If a Christian doctrine DID say that, you could ask why. But it doesn't. It doesn't say anything like that, so why is that relevant to the question of what it should or should not say, given the text?

What do you mean by "what it should or should not say"? Does "it" refer to Christian doctrine? Where did I say what Christian doctrine - or anything else - should say?

How would you demonstrate that SteveB is selectively interpreting the text to do what is conveniant to him?

Jesus told his followers to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor. SteveB has not done that; I am guessing because it is more convenient to keep his house, car and so on.

Well, you can do that, but that isn't informative as to the validity or non-validity of SteveB's position. Simply because there are a multitude of possible interpretations of a text doesn't mean any are wrong or right; that makes no sense.

Me ignoring everything Jesus said was not meant to be informative. It is just responding to SteveB's instruction to do as Jesus told us.

 

[Algor]

What do you mean by "what it should or should not say"? Does "it" refer to Christian doctrine? Where did I say what Christian doctrine - or anything else - should say?

post #61 (you seem to be at the least saying what doctrine should NOT say):
Right, so you go for the most literal interpretation of scripture, to avoid doing what God actually wanted.
Hmm, just like those Pharisees he railed against.

Jesus told his followers to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor. SteveB has not done that; I am guessing because it is more convenient to keep his house, car and so on.

That didn't answer the question. Strictly, you don't know everything SteveB has and has not done, but more importantly, maybe SteveB doesn't think that's what Jesus meant all his followers must do. How would you determine if SteveB's interpretation is in good faith, or motivated by convenience?

Me ignoring everything Jesus said was not meant to be informative. It is just responding to SteveB's instruction to do as Jesus told us.

SteveB is telling you what HE thinks Jesus is telling his followers to do. I mean, he's the guy who thinks that Jesus and God are real, so presumably its all part of a package. How does your interpretation of what Jesus means to tell his followers enlighten us as to the motives and reasoning behind SteveB's interpretation? I don't understand this. I used to run into it a lot on Muslim boards: Christians and Muslims telling each other what the other should believe, in order to be "consistent". El Cid is pulling it below with the "Atheists have no grounds to condemn Nazis" business. It is on one level an ordinary form of polemic, but on another a very weird way of thinking, and seems fundamentally uninterested in what people actually think, and why, in real life.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Jesus told his followers to sell their possessions and give the money to the poor. SteveB has not done that;

What exactly is your interest here? Are you SteveB's accountant?

 

[Furion]

Me ignoring everything Jesus said was not meant to be informative.

It is quite informative.

But not surprising considering your burning angst.

It's really just mocking framed as ignorance.

Clearly the bible is over your head. Try bowling instead.

 

[Whatsisface]

It is quite informative.

But not surprising considering your burning angst.

It's really just mocking framed as ignorance.

Clearly the bible is over your head. Try bowling instead.

What nonsense you post.

 

[The Pixie]

post #61 (you seem to be at the least saying what doctrine should NOT say):
Right, so you go for the most literal interpretation of scripture, to avoid doing what God actually wanted.
Hmm, just like those Pharisees he railed against.

You misunderstood me, and I am not sure how. Where in what you quoted did I say what doctrine should not say? What am I saying it should not say?

My point was that stiggy was taking a very literal interpretation of "neighbour", pretending God commanded him to love those people in his immediate neighbourhood only, when the Bible tells us God wanted people to love everyone.

That didn't answer the question. Strictly, you don't know everything SteveB has and has not done, but more importantly, maybe SteveB doesn't think that's what Jesus meant all his followers must do. How would you determine if SteveB's interpretation is in good faith, or motivated by convenience?

That is what seems most likely to me. In any discussion like this we cannot be certain of the facts. For all I know, you are just an AI churning out nonsense responses. I think that that is very unlikely, so I am going with the assumption that you are a real person.

SteveB is telling you what HE thinks Jesus is telling his followers to do. I mean, he's the guy who thinks that Jesus and God are real, so presumably its all part of a package.

SteveB may well be sincere in what he says. He is parroting what he has been told to believe, and it is in his best interests not to question that. If he does start to question it, me might find Jesus expects him to live in poverty, and he does not want that! There is a wider issue here that Christianity has had two thousand years to distort Jesus' message. Two thousand years of Christians wanting to follow Jesus, but also wanting material goods. Two thousand years of Christians trying to sell Christianity to rich and influential people.

Would Constantine have become a Christianity if he was told it meant giving away all his wealth? I somehow doubt it. The version of Christianity that has flourished is the one that was most popular, the one that ignores Jesus' instruction to live in poverty.

How does your interpretation of what Jesus means to tell his followers enlighten us as to the motives and reasoning behind SteveB's interpretation? I don't understand this. I used to run into it a lot on Muslim boards: Christians and Muslims telling each other what the other should believe, in order to be "consistent". El Cid is pulling it below with the "Atheists have no grounds to condemn Nazis" business. It is on one level an ordinary form of polemic, but on another a very weird way of thinking, and seems fundamentally uninterested in what people actually think, and why, in real life.

SteveB is telling me what I should do, based on what Jesus said.

"The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says."

I am pointing out that - as per my interpretation of what Jesus said, and what I guess about SteveB's lifestyle - SteveB does not do what he tells others to do. And I think that that is good enough reason for me to reject what SteveB's is telling me to do.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

You misunderstood me, and I am not sure how. Where in what you quoted did I say what doctrine should not say? What am I saying it should not say?

My point was that stiggy was taking a very literal interpretation of "neighbour", pretending God commanded him to love those people in his immediate neighbourhood only,

I am also told to love my enemy. As far as my comment about my neighbor, I should have known better than to have made a joke to such a humorless person as you.

SteveB may well be sincere in what he says. He is parroting what he has been told to believe,

So Steve "parrots" his beliefs, but your atheist beliefs are 100% your own, right?

 

[Algor]

You misunderstood me, and I am not sure how. Where in what you quoted did I say what doctrine should not say? What am I saying it should not say?

My point was that stiggy was taking a very literal interpretation of "neighbour", pretending God commanded him to love those people in his immediate neighbourhood only, when the Bible tells us God wanted people to love everyone.

Given that stiggy is a Christian, then presumably stiggy should be interpreting scripture according to what God intended the scripture to mean. If you are saying that stiggy's interpretation is the opposite of what God intended, then you are telling a Christian the appropriate interpretation of Christian scripture.

That is what seems most likely to me. In any discussion like this we cannot be certain of the facts. For all I know, you are just an AI churning out nonsense responses. I think that that is very unlikely, so I am going with the assumption that you are a real person.

Right, it seems likely to you, but how would you show it to be true? I mean anyone can just accuse someone else of bad faith, venality or self serving.

SteveB may well be sincere in what he says. He is parroting what he has been told to believe, and it is in his best interests not to question that. If he does start to question it, me might find Jesus expects him to live in poverty, and he does not want that!

He might find that, but he might not. Why is the possibility of that interpretation grounds to reject his actual interpretation?

There is a wider issue here that Christianity has had two thousand years to distort Jesus' message. Two thousand years of Christians wanting to follow Jesus, but also wanting material goods. Two thousand years of Christians trying to sell Christianity to rich and influential people.


Would Constantine have become a Christianity if he was told it meant giving away all his wealth? I somehow doubt it. The version of Christianity that has flourished is the one that was most popular, the one that ignores Jesus' instruction to live in poverty.

Maybe.

SteveB is telling me what I should do, based on what Jesus said.

"The most effective way to know if what the Bible says is true is to do what Jesus says."

Right. And he has an interpretation of that. Why is his interpretation wrong?

I am pointing out that - as per my interpretation of what Jesus said, and what I guess about SteveB's lifestyle - SteveB does not do what he tells others to do. And I think that that is good enough reason for me to reject what SteveB's is telling me to do.

Seems slim grounds to reject. I mean, this is like a Christian saying "Atheists simply want to do whatever they like, unconstrained by any real morality or ethics. How do I know that? Well, it just seems likely, because superficial self serving motives are what causes people to believe things."

 

[Howie]

Interesting you are not quoting the second command.
Is that because you fail to observe that one too?

Jesus sold all his possessions, and lived owning nothing but the clothes on his back. His disciples did likewise.

I've been over this with you. I'll keep it simple

1 Tim 5:8 ... But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever ...

Why do modern Christians feel they should not do likewise? Because they want to have nice things. They want the comfort of a nice house and the security of knowing they will have food and shelter tomorrow. I get that.

But they are still ignoring what Jesus did, what the disciples did and what Jesus told his followers to do.

And if we see Christians ignoring what Jesus told them to do, why would anyone imagine non-Christians are going to do as Jesus said?

See, stiggy, the point at the root of this is SteveB wagging his "nyah-nyah finger" at me. But with usual Christian hypocrisy, you just ignore that. And, of course, Jesus also condemn hypocrisy, and Christians ignore that one too.

My prediction is, The Pixie will continue in this imbicility, even though I've corrected his misunderstanding many, many times. 😒

 

[Whatsisface]

I've been over this with you. I'll keep it simple

1 Tim 5:8 ... But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever ...

Do we not then have two Bible verses, one from Jesus and one from Timothy saying the opposite?

Why does Timothy trump Jesus?