How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I almost think it is a catch-22.

The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

Question to all the humanists on this board:

As a side note,

Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?

No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

You mean the one I quoted as well?

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

No one read my post about how the Armenian Church views scripture, so I am assuming everyone is content in holding fast to their own biases and not interested in dialogue.

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

Aaaaand ctl-a and delete...

That is OLD school (assuming you meant ctrl-alt-delete)

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

So using your logic...

I used to think Armenians were good because I saw that they are a very hospitable people, very intelligent and give much cultural value to the world, but then I saw that there are certain Armenians who are involved in Insurance fraud and the like, so therefore all Armenians and Armenianism is bad?

I think the more correct extension of my logic is this:

Suppose you have two methodologies for doing things: A and B

A: Let's call this "faith" based. Is not really a logically sound approach by definition. Sometimes it will have positive outcomes (like calming people in stressful situations) and sometimes it will have negative outcomes (e.g. the parents that may let their kids go untreated with proven medical techniques in the hopes that prayer will help or starting wars and such).

B: Fundamentally sound way to reason about thoughts and actions given what we know. Sometimes it will be very unpleasant (like facing the inevitable truth that you are in a shitty situation about to die) and sometimes it will do great things (e.g. all of our scientific and technical accomplishments as humans).

Given A or B as the choices, I would ALWAYS pick B even if I have to face certain possibly painful facts such as life might be completely pointless .. sometimes accidents happen with no good "reason" behind them. In other words, about these people that choose to pray when they face a life threatening situation, I guess I rather die very scared but knowing the Truth rather than be all calm warm and cozy thinking I am going to meet my creator and hang out on some fluffy clouds for the rest of eternity.

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

I almost think it is a catch-22.

The humanists want undeniable proof that God exists, yet Jesus Christ himself values faith in the "things not seen".

How can we reconcile the two? I think the only answer is an open heart and personal experience. Be that as it may, you can scream and holler from the rooftops that you want more proof than what has been give, but even Christ told his followers when they asked for a sign, "no sign shall be given except that of Jonah".

Question to all the humanists on this board:

As a side note,

Would it be possible for you to read one Gospel book, setting aside your biases and need for proof? I.e. without saying: I do not believe that this miracle could happen or God must be terrible to send his own Son to die, etc. Or is this not possible?

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

No, because he wasn't talking about people or some trait about the people (especially one that's not chosen like ethnicity).
He was talking about a specific behavior and if we stretch it, then belief about that behavior. He's not making a statement about all believers, all Christians, or even all Armenian Christians.

Some people use atomic theory to advance our knowledge about science and how the works, but some "stretch it" and use it to make atom bombs, therefore atom theory is bad.

It may be crude, but I fail to see how it is a bad comparison.

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

So using your logic...

I used to think Armenians were good because I saw that they are a very hospitable people, very intelligent and give much cultural value to the world, but then I saw that there are certain Armenians who are involved in Insurance fraud and the like, so therefore all Armenians and Armenianism is bad?

No, because he wasn't talking about people or some trait about the people (especially one that's not chosen like ethnicity).
He was talking about a specific behavior and if we stretch it, then belief about that behavior. He's not making a statement about all believers, all Christians, or even all Armenian Christians.

[yerazhishda]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

But I have to add thought that my epiphany was rather short lived because then I started thinking about all the cases where people tend not to take useful actions and pray instead ... like people that choose to pray rather than seeking medical attention for their young child (or themselves) for example.

So using your logic...

I used to think Armenians were good because I saw that they are a very hospitable people, very intelligent and give much cultural value to the world, but then I saw that there are certain Armenians who are involved in Insurance fraud and the like, so therefore all Armenians and Armenianism is bad?

[Siggie]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

But I have to add thought that my epiphany was rather short lived because then I started thinking about all the cases where people tend not to take useful actions and pray instead ... like people that choose to pray rather than seeking medical attention for their young child (or themselves) for example.

Aaaaand ctl-a and delete...

[Sip]

Re: How Much of the Bible Must Be Historical to Believe?

But I have to add thought that my epiphany was rather short lived because then I started thinking about all the cases where people tend not to take useful actions and pray instead ... like people that choose to pray rather than seeking medical attention for their young child (or themselves) for example.