That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Where did I say that they are not reliable? I just say that, even if you believe that the Bible is a sacred text, you should read it critically. Our work, as Christians, is to search in the human words of these texts the message of life that God wants us to read. And he gave us tools to do that, our reason is one of them.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
if someone calls themselves “Christian” they have to abide by the teaching of Jesus Christ,
And later you write:
reading the Bible alone doesn’t give you a lot of clues about Christianity,
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.
(heck, what am I doing here! Jeg er faret vild)
The thing is, while I agree with your comment, it really sounds strange if you’re coming from an atheist perspective. It seems to imply that the truth has to be dictated to you, and not discovered by your own experience.
As an Italian author said, we have to rid ourselves of the false images of God we created ourselves, otherwise we cannot follow Him and we’re just following an idol that we, or our society, created ( the god-justice, the god-will-do-things-instead-of-me, …). Sadly, the book is available only in Italian.
It’s also really warming to read people discussing about faith on the net.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t think you have to have the same beliefs as me to be a good person. There’s a reason why people choose to be religious (and which one) or not.
I’ll just conclude you can’t answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that’s not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam’s razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you’d expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
there is always a counter scripture
I answered that later in my message.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn’t, that’s what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don’t really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don’t understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don’t.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you’re reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you’re obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @[email protected] has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you’re talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.
That’s what I said when I spoke about superficial knowing. In most of Christian denominations, the Bible is not the Word of God in the strict sense: when we call the Bible the Word of God, it’s a metonymy (with, again, the notable exception of the American evangelicals and those, in other traditions, which are unfortunately inspired by them). The Word of God is Jesus-Christ (John 1:1), and the Bible is the only certain way (but not the only way) to hear it. That’s why Luther translated the Bible: the Word of God is heard when someone read the Bible accompanied by their community, in prayer. Then, God speaks through the words of the Bible. But God’s free, he can speak outside of it.
So not even the so called prophets are reliable. And John is a 3rd hand account, neither he nor his sources are known.
So what exactly is the source for the belief?
Where did I say that they are not reliable? I just say that, even if you believe that the Bible is a sacred text, you should read it critically. Our work, as Christians, is to search in the human words of these texts the message of life that God wants us to read. And he gave us tools to do that, our reason is one of them.
I thought it was supposed to have been written by prophets that were inspired by god. Obviously it’s not the literal word of god.
My bank account is not the Word of God, but it’s a quite reliable document.
But you never answered that since The Bible is not, what then is the source for the belief?
Also you contradict yourself, because earlier you stated that a Lutheran must follow scripture.
And later you write:
So I ask again, if the Bible isn’t the source to learn about Christianity, then what is?
Read a book about Christianity if you want to learn the teachings of Christianity. To read the Bible directly without being accompanied by someone knowledgeable (or a good book) is like reading Plato without having any idea of what philosophy is. You’ll misunderstand, not because you’re not smart, but because you have to have keys that you can’t discover by yourself.
(heck, what am I doing here! Jeg er faret vild) The thing is, while I agree with your comment, it really sounds strange if you’re coming from an atheist perspective. It seems to imply that the truth has to be dictated to you, and not discovered by your own experience.
As an Italian author said, we have to rid ourselves of the false images of God we created ourselves, otherwise we cannot follow Him and we’re just following an idol that we, or our society, created ( the god-justice, the god-will-do-things-instead-of-me, …). Sadly, the book is available only in Italian.
It’s also really warming to read people discussing about faith on the net.
At the end of the day, however, I don’t think you have to have the same beliefs as me to be a good person. There’s a reason why people choose to be religious (and which one) or not.
I’ll just conclude you can’t answer that simple but fundamental question.
I have investigated the Bible also with guidance, even from multiple people who were pretty knowledgeable, and I have read the Bible. I know some of the keys you talk about, and some of them are really really extremely convoluted. But that’s not surprising, Christians have spent a 1000+ years trying to explain away the flaws of the Bible, and I admit some are very very good at it. But it never stands up to critical scrutiny.
You have an apparently very complicated answer to a simple question, but Occam’s razor suggests the simpler answer is more probable.
The reason there are so many flaws in the Bible is that it was never inspired by a deity, and the existence of god is extremely unlikely.
In fact everything in the Bible is exactly as ignorant as you’d expect for something written at the respective times. And nothing you have stated here shows otherwise.
I let that pass earlier, but No you didn’t, that’s what atheists call pick and choose.
You claim some parts are more reliable than others, but they could also all be unreliable, that would perfectly explain why it is so inconsistent.
I don’t really see any other explanation that truly makes sense, that justifies accepting the Bible as holy scripture.
But thanks anyway for an honest but cordial exchange, I don’t understand your reasons to believe, but I suspect you understand why I don’t.
Because my proposition is by far the simpler and more logical one.
I mean, if you’re reading any religious text from the premise of critical scrutiny and reason, you’re obviously not going to find any revelation. I suspect @[email protected] has a very different way of reading scriptures than you.
Not saying either of you are wrong, but you’re talking about so different things without really meeting in the middle that the whole debate is kind of moot.