how do you know that?

So Protestants believe that the men were inspired by god because the book they wrote said so, and Catholics believe that the church was inspired by god in regard to the creation of itself and the book because the church says so?

Where is the objective reasoning in any of that?

It is all reliant on third parties instead of direct communication with their god...

 

That's not the question.

the question is: If the bible was written by sinful (i'm guessing this means imperfect) men, then how do you know that their claims of divine inspiration are accurate and truthful, instead of the other holy texts that are claimed to be the work of divine inspiration?

The burden of proof is on those that wrote the book and those who give it authority, not those who doubt the men or the authority.

 

No, Catholics believe that the men that wrote the Bible were inspired by God to write what they wrote, but that the church has the authority to determine which books were inspired by God and which weren't. The fact is that the church did this in several church councils, and finalized the 'canon' of the scriptures-that is, the books that it said were the inspired words of God, excluding the ones it determined to not be inspired. These were historical occurences, regardless of what you may or may not believe about them. By the time the Protestant Reformation occurred in the 16th century, the Bible had already been in the same form, with the books in the order that people recognize today, for well over a millenium. Luther then proceeded to throw out 11 or 12 books from the Old Testament that he didn't believe were inspired.

One difference between the Catholic and Protestant positions is that Catholics believe that the church itself is guided by Christ, and not just individual believers. So the ultimate authority that determines that these books are inspired is the church, not just individuals.

 

But the church is made of individuals, a catholics believes that the church is gods representative on earth because the church says it is.

That is not what i would call objective.

I'm questioning the theology not the history.

I'm aware of the the split between catholics and protestants and orthordox, what i don't get is why anyone would choose one over the other when none of them can present any evidence for the legitimacy of their authority or the authority of the texts. It seems to be belief based on what the texts say, or belief based on what the church says, or a combination of both, with no real questioning of the motivations behind those who claim this authority.

Why not Mormonism, the LDS claim authority, have historical texts, a prophet and a lot of believers.

Why is one claim of authority legitimate and another false (to a believer)?

 

Well, Catholics believe that the church is God's representative on earth because Christ said it was..."he who hears you hears me..' 'thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it'. It's an objective fact that He made those statements-if you choose to believe them then that's an act of faith. Although the church is made up of individuals, the Catholic Church believes that the promises given by Christ were to the corporate body of the church, under the leadership of the Pope, not just individual members of it.

 

And how do you know that Christ made those comments?
Because the book says so?

It is not an objective fact that Christ made those comments (unless you have a video recording of him saying them).

The only reason it is believed that Christ made those comments is because the book says that he made those comments, but how do you know that the book is accurate about what Christ did or didn't say or did and didn't do?

How do you know that the words and actions attributed to Christ were in fact those of Christ?

 

Well, it's recorded in the Gospels, which are pretty accurate books even from a historical standpoint. The objection could be made that the Apostles put those phrases in there to bolster their own authority-the only problem is, they didn't have any authority to speak of. Eleven of the twelve apostles died as martyrs, and Christianity was outlawed for 300 years after it's inception. The church for the most part existed in hiding during that period. So if those words were put there just to prop up their own authority, that pretty much failed miserably.

Of course, if you believe in Christianity, then you believe that God inspired the writer to write those words. That again is an act of faith, not necessarily something that can be 'proven', at least in a scientific sense. The Gospels themselves record that there were people that heard Christ utter certain words, but didn't believe them, and they consequently left His company. It's not that He didn't make the statements, it's just that certain people chose not to believe them.

 

So you agree then?

The catholic church (along with Protestant denominations, and the orthodox churches) bases it's authority on comments that might or might not have been made by Jesus Christ.

Not only that, but even if Christ did make those comments (which can not be proven), it still can not be proven that he had the authority to grant anyone else authority (unless oif course, you believe it because the books say so).

I wish christian would just be honest and say: "i believe that what i believe is true, because this book(s) says it is true and i want/need it to be true."

 

That's the whole point!

If it can't be proven, and it is unknown how accurate the texts are to what actually happened, then why accept it as truth? Why faith in this, but not in mormonism or islam or buddhism?

If you can't know (not faith but knowledge) that it is true, how can you tell yourself and others that it is true? That seems more than a little dishonest...

especially since reason and logic tell you that it can not be true (men can not rise from the dead water can not be turned to wine and people can not walk on water)...

 

Well, honestly, I wouldn't believe any book, including the Bible, just because the book itself says that it's true. If there's no authority to back it up beyond that, then the book is basically worthless, and that includes the Bible.

Christ did say that the authority extended beyond just the people that he directly gave it to, when He said to Peter that 'the gates of hell would not prevail against' the church, and that He would be with it 'until the consummation of the world.' Whether you choose to believe those things is, of course, an act of faith, but it is recorded that He said them.

 

Christ recorded that?
HE wrote that down?
That can be verified?
No?

So what you are saying is:

This book says
that this apostle says
that jesus said
that god wants
and it's true because
this book says

Am i wrong or does that pretty much sum it up?

and just because something is "historical" (old) doesn't make it true or accurate.

There is also a historical documentation of the Island of Atlantis.

Just because a book says that "christ said this or that" doesn't mean that Christ did say "this" or even "that".

Other than the Bible, is there any proof or record of the actions of Jesus Christ?

Other than the Bible is the any way to verify that he died and rose again?
That he was the son of god?
That there is a god?

Other than this old book (one of many old books claiming divine inspiration) is there anything that shows that christianity (any sect) has the right answer?

 

To me it appears that the answer Christians must give to "how do you know that" is "i don't".

And it seems ridiculous to base your life around something that you dont know is true.

 

Of course I have done those things. But what you fail to see is imperfection actually aids our survival, in times of war and hardship, those things actually are vital skills that can help decide the course of a war - or can help one person to survive it. The only times I have stolen are when I had to survive
and no-one would help me - (I stole a sandwich or two from a shop every day for a two weeks because I was desperately poor and hungry). etc - what you dont see is the perfection of imperfection, its actually a device within us that aids survival it only looks like sin we choose to do these things as a career choice - or to fool gullible people.

Artificial Intelligence researchers long ago realised that true intelligence is perfect because it is imperfect, so they built neural networks because one machine could be buggy, but several machines would talk and work out that one was suffering an anomoly. Which is what this thread is really about.
In a neural network anomolies are seen as possibilities to be revealed as probabilities or falsehoods
Some of us are reasoning against you in order to see what the world REALLY is like

 

I dont trust anything written by man. Simple as that.

 

"Artificial Intelligence researchers long ago realised that true intelligence is perfect because it is imperfect, so they built neural networks because one machine could be buggy, but several machines would talk and work out that one was suffering an anomoly. Which is what this thread is really about.
In a neural network anomolies are seen as possibilities to be revealed as probabilities or falsehoods
Some of us are reasoning against you in order to see what the world REALLY is like"


Thats like how some say you find out whats right by figuring out whats wrong first. And You find out who you are by finding out who you arent. I was ;earning about this in philosophy. How we find out whats real and true by finding out whats wrong and false. The hard thing to do is find out whats wrong especially when ti comes to somethign as skeptical as religion seeing as there is no substantual eveidence pinting us in a direction.

 

That is the question to ask for those who would object to imperfect men being able to accurately transcribe God's Word, which is what I thought you asked in your original question.

There is no authority higher than God to authenticate His Word. The Bible is self-authenticating.

Christianity corresponds with reality.Christianity is proven true by the impossibility of the contrary.

Every worldview exists on faith. Everyone of us has faith-assumptions at the base of our view of reality.

The evidence for the God of the Bible is demonstrated in His Word, His creation and the creaturehood of man. The Bible says that none of us can claim ignorance when we stand before God for judgement because we have in addition to the Scriptures both the light of creation and the light of conscience.

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith." The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. (Romans 1:17-21)

 

I'm sorry you had to go through that. But can we say that anything that aids in our survival is permissible? If I can expolit the weak to help me along is that okay?

I think reasoning is very important. Discussion and asking questions leads to the truth.

 

So you believe that what the book says (7 day creation, original sin, worldwide flood, virgin birth, rising from the dead) is true, because the book says it is true and that is good enough in your opinion.

 

This is precisely how a philosopher would answer that:
How do you know that?
Since you claim to know this, there must be some reference outside the bible which has as much authority as the bible in order for you to say
that, otherwise you could not KNOW this was true.
In light of that can you point me to where this knowledge you have comes from?
If you claim the bible itself carries that information I need to know how you can be certain the person who wrote this has not been mistaken - for you to assert this truth you must show that the person who wrote it is neither lying, mistaken, or delusional in some way.

Well it may have escaped your notice but more than 9/10 ths of the worlds population would disagree with you. It would appear that you are either mistaken about this or that you have a knowledge that 9/10ths of the worlds population do not.
Given that their brain is equal in its ability of cognitive recognition, reasoning on empirical factsl and deductive powers of reason, as yours - do you still persist in saying that you are somehow better able to judge this?
If 100 other people say there is a tsunami tidal wave approaching and they are running for their lives - just because you are looking in the wrong direction doesnt mean you will not soon be swept away.
Surely it would pay to run with them - wouldnt it - - who is going to be more right about a tidalwave?
Surely you have to accept that others reason and logic is equal if not better than your own? and that a hundred to one chance that you are right and they are not isnt that safe a bet

Some are more grounded in logic than mythology - pragmatism for example

,
The evidence of Frodo's existence is given in Lord of The Rings, and Princess Leah on that assumption used to live in a far off galaxy
Men wrote the bible - not god and by far the majority of the work was written up to 500 years after the death of christ

I dont see any evidence anywhere else other than the bible for this
I refer you to my first questions
Since you claim to know this, there must be some reference outside the bible which has as much authority as the bible in order for you to say
that, otherwise you could not KNOW this was true.
In light of that can you point me to where this knowledge you have comes from?
If you claim the bible itself carries that information I need to know how you can be certain the person who wrote this has not been mistaken - for you to assert this truth you must show that the person who wrote it is neither lying, mistaken, or delusional in some way.

 

Shane & Columbo,

Well, like I said we all have faith-assumptions at the base of our view of reality, even you. Everyone accepts certain starting points in their thinking. Most people think reason and faith are exclusive but really reason is faith based.

Now in the case of Christianity:

The evidence for the God of the Bible is demonstrated in His Word, His creation and the creaturehood of man. The Bible says that none of us can claim ignorance when we stand before God for judgement because we have in addition to the Scriptures both the light of creation and the light of conscience, meaning we all can see there is a God from the universe we live in and from our very nature as humans. The Bible explains morality, existence of the universe and the human mind.

It's not that Christianity is illogical but I believe it anyway because I want it to be true. We all have reasons we want what we believe to be true but if we're honest with ourselves that isn't a very good way to judge what is true and what is false.

There is no authority higher than God to authenticate His Word. To do so would put that authority higher than God. But Christianity does correspond to reality and answers many of the key questions.

Christianity is not a philosophy. It is a personal relationship with God.