If you can be a good person without God then why need Him?

[Bradski]

One really needs to be blind to logic and reason to make an assertion as astonishing as, “Well, yes, something can indeed come from nothing!”

That’s why almost every single human person, who has used logic, can reason this way:

It wasn’t so long ago that you might have said that any fool can see that the sun is moving around the earth: 'Yeah, Bradski, look at me! I’m spinning around at hundreds of miles an hour! (Sheesh, what an idiot…).

And you might now say that something cannot possible be in two places at the same time.

Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics. (It may be too early for Peter Higgs to win the Nobel Prize for the Higgs boson. Maybe next year). They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time. bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

‘Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.’ Heisenburg.

 

[Bradski]

Please 'splain to me how it’s not circular:

I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains myths.

AND

The resurrection is a myth. It’s in the Bible, therefore the Bible is a book full of myths.

I find that there’s hardly anything in the bible that I can say without any doubt: ‘This is true’. Apart from some historical realities, it is packed with myths, metaphors, parables and flights of the imagination and some of it is obviously just made up (the resurrection is just one of those things).

That’s not circular.

 

[PRmerger]

It wasn’t so long ago that you might have said that any fool can see that the sun is moving around the earth: 'Yeah, Bradski, look at me! I’m spinning around at hundreds of miles an hour! (Sheesh, what an idiot…).

And you might now say that something cannot possible be in two places at the same time.

Congratulations to Drs. S. Haroche and D. Wineland for winning the Nobel Prize in Physics. (It may be too early for Peter Higgs to win the Nobel Prize for the Higgs boson. Maybe next year). They proved the correctness of the bizarre properties of quantum mechanics, i.e. that electrons can be two places at the same time. bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

‘Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.’ Heisenburg.

Fair enough.

You go right ahead and consider whether we have free will or not…

Wait. You can’t really do that, if your premise is true…

But you think you are examining it, so maybe that enough, yeah?

Shoot! But now it’s meaningless to examine it, because what’s the point of only thinking you’re doing something when reality is what’s important…

:hypno:

 

[PRmerger]

I find that there’s hardly anything in the bible that I can say without any doubt: ‘This is true’. Apart from some historical realities, it is packed with myths, metaphors, parables and flights of the imagination and some of it is obviously just made up (the resurrection is just one of those things).

That’s not circular.

Ok. So let’s take this argument from the presumption that God exists: why couldn’t the resurrection be true?

(Note: if you say it’s because it’s recorded in a book of myths, then that would be circular, no?)

So what’s the reasoning Jesus couldn’t have risen from the dead, (if God exists)?

 

[PRmerger]

As I said earlier, God is all things to all men. My God wouldn’t be one to fear. My God would be one with whom I could discuss things and one with whom I could have a debate.

Let’s go back to BC Johnson’s comment. Are we agreed that if you said, “I believe God is a little elf who hops around on 1 leg! That’s* my* definition!”

…that this is essentially an inutile definition of God. It “strains the meaning of the word.”

As St. Augustine says: * “Si comprehendis, non est Deus"*
If you understand Him, He is not God.

You may as well be an atheist if you have a god whom you can completely, with finality and fixity, say you understand him. 'Cause that ain’t God.

 

[fhansen]

As an addendum to my lack of belief…

When I was a young lad I read Papillion by Henri Charrier. You probably know the story perhaps by the film with Dustin Hoffman and Steve McQueen.

I had great difficulty with a lot of the book because chunks of it were written in the first person. I said this and then he said that. And it was all written as quotes. Originally taken as a novel, at some point Carrier began to insist that it was an autobiography. And an accurate one at that. Even to the point of insisting that the detailed conversations were verbatim. Hold on, I thought. I can’t remember who I was talking to last week, let alone exactly what was said.

And years later, when working overseas, having a company diary on my desk at the time, I got into the habit of jotting down what my wife and I had been getting up to during the week. That continued for a few years. I still have those diaries and if I open one up to any given day it does tend to jog one’s memory about what we were doing. But even with a reasonably accurate account of something that happened to us I can no more tell you exactly what went on that night or that weekend than I could tell you what you were doing then.

You can probably see where I’m going with this…

When I was constantly told that the bible says this and this person in the bible said that, even in my young teens, I knew, beyond any shadow of doubt whatsoever - and I can’t emphasise that strongly enough, that it couldn’t have possibly happened exactly the way it was being explained. And anyone who treated the book as anything other than religious myth mixed in with historical stories mixed in with analogies and metaphors for life and ways and means of How To Be A Good Christian, was either being less than honest with me (and probably themselves) or being extremely naive.

Yes, it’s not all meant to be taken as verbatim (those talking trees!), but I guess it started there. The whole edifice was built on foundations that could not be trusted. I had no choice in the matter. I simply didn’t believe any of it, therefore I was an atheist.

And one thing added to that, to get back to the OP. My parents were very good people. And I realized that they were very good people and Christian. That is, they would have been very good people even if they weren’t. Them being good was not dependent on their faith. And my grandfather was a great man who had no faith to start with. So it was apparent that, not only did the whole shebang come across as unbelievable in the first instance, it wasn’t a requirement in the second.

Christianity isn’t based on the bible. It’s based on the continuous teachings of the church, which in turn are based on her experience at the beginnings of the faith. The Christian bible has its roots in the same beginnings.

 

[ready]

Without supernatural faith a person can only possess natural goodness – nothing supernatural. In order to have supernatural charity (which we need to enter heaven) we need supernatural faith. Possessing natural goodness without supernatural faith and supernatural charity will not make us able to enter heaven. People who have no faith and no love of God really are not good people, for they must possess supernatural faith (belief in God) and supernatural charity (the supernatural love of God and neighbor) in order truly to be good. God bless you.

 

[Bradski]

Ok. So let’s take this argument from the presumption that God exists: why couldn’t the resurrection be true?

(Note: if you say it’s because it’s recorded in a book of myths, then that would be circular, no?)

No, it wouldn’t be circular, but it’s not what I’m saying in any case.

Let’s say someone gave you a book full of stories to read. It’s historical - about people who lived thousands of years ago. As you read it you realise that a lot of it isn’t factual. In fact, if no-one told you otherwise, you wouldn’t treat it as such.

Then some people tell you that everything happened exactly as it’s written. No, really! Then others tell you that, no, good grief, you aren’t meant to take it all literally, just some of it. But there doesn’t seem to be any concsensus on which bits and you’re finding it very difficult to believe any of it in any case.

So when you’re asked, you say that you personally think that it stretches credulity past the point where you could use it as an historical record. If asked about particular events, then you might well say that if what is written in the book, which you now don’t trust as a record of past events, is the only evidence for those events, then it becomes impossible to believe that they actually happened.

It’s then pretty difficult to believe in God if you don’t trust anything that He has effectively written.

On the other hand, if, as per the original question, you presume that God exists, then there wouldn’t be any problem at all in believing that the resurrection happened. Unless you were perhaps a Muslim.

 

[PRmerger]

On the other hand, if, as per the original question, you presume that God exists, then there wouldn’t be any problem at all in believing that the resurrection happened.

Excellent.

So you don’t reject the resurrection because it’s recorded in a book of myths.

Unless you were perhaps a Muslim.

Well, that makes sense since Muslims don’t believe Jesus is divine.

But they certainly don’t argue that Allah couldn’t resurrect someone, right?

 

[PRmerger]

No, it wouldn’t be circular, but it’s not what I’m saying in any case.

Let’s say someone gave you a book full of stories to read. It’s historical - about people who lived thousands of years ago. As you read it you realise that a lot of it isn’t factual. In fact, if no-one told you otherwise, you wouldn’t treat it as such.

Then some people tell you that everything happened exactly as it’s written. No, really! Then others tell you that, no, good grief, you aren’t meant to take it all literally, just some of it. But there doesn’t seem to be any concsensus on which bits and you’re finding it very difficult to believe any of it in any case.

So when you’re asked, you say that you personally think that it stretches credulity past the point where you could use it as an historical record. If asked about particular events, then you might well say that if what is written in the book, which you now don’t trust as a record of past events, is the only evidence for those events, then it becomes impossible to believe that they actually happened.

It’s then pretty difficult to believe in God if you don’t trust anything that He has effectively written.

Fair enough.

So you’re pretty sure that the Bible isn’t reliable historically.

Does that mean that nothing in the Bible is historically reliable? Like, do you really think that there was no such person as Pontius Pilate? Or John the Baptist? Or Paul?

 

[Bradski]

Fair enough.

So you’re pretty sure that the Bible isn’t reliable historically.

Does that mean that nothing in the Bible is historically reliable? Like, do you really think that there was no such person as Pontius Pilate? Or John the Baptist? Or Paul?

The majority of books that I read are non fiction. But I’d be pretty certain that all the fictional ones I have ever read (with perhaps the exception of some of some sci fi), contain instances of people and places that actually existed or events that actually took place. Should I trust them as accurate historical records?

The fact that the Empire State Building exists does not mean that King Kong did.

 

[PRmerger]

The majority of books that I read are non fiction. But I’d be pretty certain that all the fictional ones I have ever read (with perhaps the exception of some of some sci fi), contain instances of people and places that actually existed or events that actually took place. Should I trust them as accurate historical records?

The fact that the Empire State Building exists does not mean that King Kong did.

Ok.

So how do you know which details in the Bible are historically accurate and which ones aren’t?

For example: what about John the Baptist? Real? Or Fiction?

 

[unioman]

I find that there’s hardly anything in the bible that I can say without any doubt: ‘This is true’. Apart from some historical realities, it is packed with myths, metaphors, parables and flights of the imagination and some of it is obviously just made up (the resurrection is just one of those things).

Bradski, where is your evidence that these things are myths? I am amazed at how atheists come to conclusions without really studying the evidence for something. Let us take a simple example. Are you taking into consideration any of the miracles that are done in the name of Jesus? I can mention things I’ve seen with my own eyes (people who have been blind for years able to see as the result of a command at a healing service, people who could not walk due to MS or other diseases healed and able to walk after prayer for healing, … I know some people personally who have been healed at a healing conference). coretlumenchristi.org/videos.php

But let’s work with something you can actually investigate. In John 6, Jesus says that his flesh is real food, his blood is real drink. It is clear that those who heard him understood him, because they were saying, “surely he cannot give us his flesh to eat”, but Jesus repeated this to make sure they understood he was in fact talking about giving us his body and blood to eat/drink. If there is one line of scripture that should be taken literally, this is it - for Jesus emphasizes these words not twice but three times.

This is what we Catholics believe about the Eucharist. Jesus gives us his body/blood/soul/divinity in the form of bread and wine. Now, you might say “where is the evidence that this is actually his body/blood”. Obviously, we would have a very difficult time receiving this in the form of flesh and blood - which is why he gives it to us in the form of bread/wine. However, to help those who struggle believing this, he has done several eucharistic miracles - where the host actually changed into heart tissue that bleeds. There are many of these miracles.

Many of these you could go to and see for yourself. If you don’t want to travel, you can find out about them online, see photos, videos - just look up “Eucharistic miracles”. Some were even studied by scientists, not knowing what the tissue was that they were asked to evaluate, and the scientists stated that the tissue given them appeared to be heart tissue from a man of Jewish descent.

I would suggest that before you claim to know that certain things are “myths”, that you actually investigate them rather than assuming that they cannot be just because they don’t fit into your world view. God often uses nature to accomplish his will, but he is not bound to it as are we. You have the opportunity right now to discover God - but only you can choose to seek him out. I’ve given you a couple pieces of evidence, there is a lot more.

 

[Bradski]

Ok. So how do you know which details in the Bible are historically accurate and which ones aren’t?

For example: what about John the Baptist? Real? Or Fiction?

The fact that individuals who are mentioned in the bible actually existed is no indication whatsoever that the events with which they are reported to have been involved are in any way accurate representations of what actually happened. Especially when interwoven with these events are stories that are obviously not true.

People are fond of saying that the bible is not to be treated as a science text book when problems arise with matters of physics or geology or biology. But the same people will treat the whole book as the most detailed and accurate historical record of fact. Even to the point of quoting what people actually said over two thousand years ago. Is that in any way credible?

Case in point…

…but Jesus repeated this to make sure they understood he was in fact talking about giving us his body and blood to eat/drink. If there is one line of scripture that should be taken literally, this is it - for Jesus emphasizes these words not twice but three times.

He emphasised it three times! Not only did this event apparently occur without any shadow of doubt whatsoever and is reported exactly as it happened, but the exact words that Jesus used were apparently recorded without error as he said them and then transcribed verbatim.

Blessed are the cheese makers indeed…

 

[PRmerger]

The fact that individuals who are mentioned in the bible actually existed is no indication whatsoever that the events with which they are reported to have been involved are in any way accurate representations of what actually happened.

So we are agreed that there are some things that are in the Bible that could be true?

That is, there may have actually be a Pontius Pilate? And, a Roman empire? And a means of execution that involved torturing someone on a cross until he asphyxiated?

Yes?

Especially when interwoven with these events are stories that are obviously not true.

Well, now you see how you’re being circular, Brad!

You are actually begging the question, and assuming what you’re actually trying to assert.

“I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains things that are obviously not true” and “Jesus couldn’t have walked on water because it’s in a book that contains things that are obviously not true!”

Circular.

 

[PRmerger]

People are fond of saying that the bible is not to be treated as a science text book when problems arise with matters of physics or geology or biology.

That is correct.

But the same people will treat the whole book as the most detailed and accurate historical record of fact.

Not knowledgeable Catholic people.

Even to the point of quoting what people actually said over two thousand years ago. Is that in any way credible?

Catholics don’t get our beliefs from a book, no matter how holy, Bradski. Our beliefs come from Christ, through His Apostles, to the Church.

He emphasised it three times! Not only did this event apparently occur without any shadow of doubt whatsoever and is reported exactly as it happened, but the exact words that Jesus used were apparently recorded without error as he said them and then transcribed verbatim.

I sometimes feel as if you keep forgetting you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with Catholics, rather than on a fundamentalist bible forum. Or perhaps you may believe you are in dialogue with Muslims? Isn’t it Islam that describes the Koran as being written verbatim by the hand of Allah to Muhammad?

We Catholics, however, do not profess that the words of Jesus were “transcribed” verbatim.

 

[Bradski]

So we are agreed that there are some things that are in the Bible that could be true?

That is, there may have actually be a Pontius Pilate? And, a Roman empire? And a means of execution that involved torturing someone on a cross until he asphyxiated?

Nobody is disputing that. The bible is not written as fantasy. It obviously refers to people alive at that time and reflects how people lived and thought at the time.

“I don’t believe in the Bible because it contains things that are obviously not true” and “Jesus couldn’t have walked on water because it’s in a book that contains things that are obviously not true!”

Circular.

I don’t know why you keep repeating the same line because it is not one I am following.

Most of the bible was written at a time when the vast majority of people couldn’t read or write. To say that someone was always at hand to record events exactly as they happened, as they happened, including detailed conversations transcribed verbatim (and accepted as such, as per one of the posts above) is not credible by any stretch of the imagination.

In addition to that, many events we know simply did not take place. There was no global flood. There were no talking trees. Jonah didn’t live in a fishes belly. If there is so much written that is obviously false, isn’t it reasonable to entertain serious doubts about other stories, especially ones written in a time when superstition was commonplace.

‘I’ll bet He could even walk on water. I’ll bet that He did. Didn’t Peter say someone saw Him do that? I think he did, he wouldn’t lie, so he must have seen Him do it. The water wasn’t shallow. No it was really deep! Someone said it was this deep. He must have done it because He’s the son of God and He can do anything! Hey, did you hear that, boys? They all saw Jesus walking on the water! No, seriously, it really happened.

Catholics don’t get our beliefs from a book, no matter how holy, Bradski. Our beliefs come from Christ, through His Apostles, to the Church.

Then I can’t see why there is any dispute about what I have said. Most of what appears in the bible is very difficult to accept. Hence the start of my doubts so many years ago.

 

[PRmerger]

Nobody is disputing that. The bible is not written as fantasy. It obviously refers to people alive at that time and reflects how people lived and thought at the time.

So if you are going to assess whether the Bible details the inspired words of God (presuming God exists, of course. No need to mention you are an atheist. That is understood. But for the sake of this question: “Is the Bible the Word of God”? let’s presuppose a belief in God)…

how would you do this?

You cannot say: it’s not God’s revelation because it contains fanciful things.

That’s not a logical reason to reject it.

What’s your reason, if you were a Deist?

 

[PRmerger]

To say that someone was always at hand to record events exactly as they happened, as they happened, including detailed conversations transcribed verbatim (and accepted as such, as per one of the posts above) is not credible by any stretch of the imagination.

That is a fundamentalist approach to the Bible.

It is not the Catholic paradigm.

We note a difference between the* ipsisima verba* and the* ipsisima vox* of Christ. That is, God’s words themselves and God’s voice itself.

 

[Bradski]

So if you are going to assess whether the Bible details the inspired words of God (presuming God exists, of course. No need to mention you are an atheist. That is understood. But for the sake of this question: “Is the Bible the Word of God”? let’s presuppose a belief in God)…

how would you do this?

You cannot say: it’s not God’s revelation because it contains fanciful things.

That’s not a logical reason to reject it.

What’s your reason, if you were a Deist?

It is patently, blindingly obvious to me that the bible is not the word of God but the work of man. Just as the Book of Mormon probably appears to you, so does the bible appear to me.