Christians don't believe in God!?

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 5:49 pm

The following is from another thread, and the auther is not a believer. He said some interesting things, (though faulty of course) and I thought it would make an interesting discussion;:

I've been in, and followed, way too many pointless discussions about the existence of God that ultimately went nowhere but straight into the philosophical morass of epistemology: what can we know, when are we justified to believe into something, does there have to be a First Cause, etc. etc. ?

Then suddenly I realised it. We are actually talking about the wrong thing. The root of the matter is not believing in God, it is believing in the source of the belief in God. In other words, before someone comes to the believe in God (in any more but the most general and amorphous notion) one has to believe in the veracity of the Bible, or the Talmud, or the Koran, or any other 'sacred text'.

Those sources are where it all comes from, right? If the Bible would be shown to be a work of fiction, the entire bottom would drop out of Christianity. It would vanish in an instant.

Therefore, when somebody tells me that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not, to believe in the Christian God, all he is saying is that I should believe that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not that the Bible is really a true, non-fictional account. Because no Bible ==> no Christian God. So, before Christians can believe in God, they first must believe in the Bible.

In other words, Christians don't believe in God. They believe in the Bible.

And that is a totally different, and vastly simpler, discussion than those endless abstract metaphysical discussions about the existence of God.

So, next time I get told that the only reasonable position is to believe in God, I will turn round and demand solid evidence that the Bible is more than fiction. And in view of the total lack of any external supporting data that is a pretty tall order 2000 years after the fact. I can just imagine the court case where someone has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a factual account - ha!

Think away!

Post by **_Sean** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:23 pm

The bible itself is a historical account. So the burden of proof falls on the one claiming it is historically inaccurate. It would be that person who would have to "go back 2000+ years" and prove something other than what was recorded actually happened.

Besides, the bible itself says:

Rom 1:19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Rom 1:20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Psa 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psa 19:2 Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.
Psa 19:3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.
Psa 19:4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun,

So I disagree that you have to start with the bible or some other text to believe there is a God.

Post by **_TK** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 9:37 pm

i agree with sean- for quite a long period of time there were no scriptures. God revealed Himself as he saw fit. the argument that we need scriptures to believe in God is not true. admittedly, today we base our views on scripture, but this was not always (and need not be now) the case.

TK

Post by **_Paidion** » Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:57 pm

Soaring Eagle, I think the writer you quoted was on to something there. There's a lot of Bibliolatry within many Christian circles.

Post by **_dexter** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:24 am

I agree with Sean. Christians believe in evidences and since God have shown us evidences of his existence then the most logical thing to do is to believe. It will not be logical not to believe if evidences are present right before your eyes.

Post by **_schoel** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 9:29 am

Those sources are where it all comes from, right? If the Bible would be shown to be a work of fiction, the entire bottom would drop out of Christianity. It would vanish in an instant.

Therefore, when somebody tells me that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not, to believe in the Christian God, all he is saying is that I should believe that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not that the Bible is really a true, non-fictional account. Because no Bible ==> no Christian God. So, before Christians can believe in God, they first must believe in the Bible.

In other words, Christians don't believe in God. They believe in the Bible.

This is oversimplistic and misses the point. It is true that the Bible's accuracy and reliability point us to God's specific direction, however, there is much extrabiblical evidence that also leads us to God, albeit in a more generic sense.

Try this on for size:

Therefore, when somebody tells me that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not, to believe in that George Washington existed, all he is saying is that I should believe that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not that the historical accounts by eyewitnesses are really true, non-fictional accounts. Because no historical accounts ==> no George Washington. So, before Americans can believe in George Washington, they first must believe in reliable, historical, eyewitness accounts from that time period.

In other words, Americans don't believe in George Washington. They believe in the history books.

Paidion wrote:There's a lot of Bibliolatry within many Christian circles.

Agreed.
While the Bible is the world's most precious document, too often it becomes the focus. Many Christians get so caught up in defending the Bible that they miss the point that it is a springboard into relationship with God through obedience to Jesus Christ. Christianity becomes solely about "adhering to the manual" instead of a dynamic, relationship.

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:09 pm

Try this on for size:

Therefore, when somebody tells me that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not, to believe in that George Washington existed, all he is saying is that I should believe that it is logical and rational and what-have-you-not that the historical accounts by eyewitnesses are really true, non-fictional accounts. Because no historical accounts ==> no George Washington. So, before Americans can believe in George Washington, they first must believe in reliable, historical, eyewitness accounts from that time period.

In other words, Americans don't believe in George Washington. They believe in the history books.

Hehehe

Good one Shoel

Post by **_SoaringEagle** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:10 pm

Soaring Eagle, I think the writer you quoted was on to something there. There's a lot of Bibliolatry within many Christian circles.

Paidon, I think you have a point. Interesting!

Post by **_Steve** » Tue Oct 03, 2006 12:27 pm

Quote:
"I can just imagine the court case where someone has to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible is a factual account - ha!"

Another quote:
"I have often thought how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law. . . the recent researches by workers like Dean and Henschelwood already suggest the possibility of incipient cracks in the seemingly monolithic walls of the neo-Darwinian Jericho." — Ehrl White, former president of London's prestigeous "Linnaean Society," in 1966

Another quote:
"“The presumption of law is the judgment of charity. It presumes that every man is innocent until he is proved guilty; that everything has been done fairly and legally, until it is proved to have been otherwise; and that every document, found in its proper repository, and not bearing marks of forgery, is genuine. Now this is precisely the case with the Sacred Writings…If any document concerning our public rights were lost, copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels have been, would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesitation.”
—Simon Greenleaf, co-founder of Harvard Law School, author of the text "A Treatise on the Law of Evidence"

Post by **_JC** » Thu Oct 05, 2006 4:00 pm

This person states his argument as though it's something original and profound. I wonder why no other Atheists throughout history have tried to strike down the bible to get rid of Christianity.

Atheists have long been unable to defend a natural universe explaination when confronted with strong arguments from design, so the andedote has always been to belittle the bible. Does this poster think he's positing some new mechanism for discrediting Christianity? Frankly, I'm kind of tired of the whole discussion. You'll never convince someone against their will, nor did Jesus or the apostles every try to do so. When Jesus sent out the 70 they were told to leave if the intended party didn't heed the message. Why do so many Christians stick around and fight tooth and nail with individuals who are obviously predisposed to disbelieve in supernatural occurances.

We should save our energy (and time) for those individuals who are actually open to the idea of the supernatural. Close-minded people in the guise of "truth seeking" can't be dislodged from their position by logical arguments. I've tried. It doesn't work. People who actually care about truth, yet are looking for evidence, are a completely different story.