1. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Jan '09 02:07
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New Testament or the Old Testament.

    What is "normal" about an initial attitude that what I am about to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
  2. Donationkirksey957
    Outkast
    With White Women
    Joined
    31 Jul '01
    Moves
    91452
    10 Jan '09 02:23
    Originally posted by jaywill
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
    I'll take a stab at this. I think you make the assumption that reading the Bible is the only thing that we (humans) immediately go to in doubt or mistrust. I think you can make an argument that there are times when mistrust is a good thing. Eric Erickson's 8 stages of development begin with Trust vs. Mistrust. That is where we ALL begin. I think for the infant trust vs. mistrust is about consistency of parental involvement and love. Do people tend to have a concept of God that is consistent in love and involvement? I'm just asking.
  3. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    10 Jan '09 02:49
    Originally posted by jaywill
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
    When it comes to GOD, the only link between us and him is his message which he sent through his prophets. If some one comes to me and claim that he has a message from GOD, then I must suspect him until he proves that he is write.

    Applying this to the Bible, you christians claim that it is the message of GOD, so do you expect me to just believe you or should I (and you by the way) analysis this claim, check weather or not it is true or false.

    The same applies for any and all messages claimed to be from GOD, and every one should do that, otherwise anyone can claim anything.
  4. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    10 Jan '09 03:08
    Originally posted by jaywill
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
    What is normal about opening any book and believing everything in it by default?

    Would you read the koran with the attitude that everything in it is true?

    The default shouldn't abject denial, but it also shouldn't be mindless acceptance.

    Healthy skepticism about everything is good.
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Jan '09 04:033 edits
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    What is normal about opening any book and believing everything in it by default?

    Would you read the koran with the attitude that everything in it is true?

    The default shouldn't abject denial, but it also shouldn't be mindless acceptance.

    Healthy skepticism about everything is good.
    ===========================================
    What is normal about opening any book and believing everything in it by default?

    Would you read the koran with the attitude that everything in it is true?

    The default shouldn't abject denial, but it also shouldn't be mindless acceptance.

    Healthy skepticism about everything is good.
    ============================================


    I find this perculiar: You come to a discussion like this. And someone pipes up that in Matthew chapter 2 it says that Herod had a lot of children under two years old slain, just in case they were the "born king" in his domain.

    Then that person will skeptically argue that there is no such secular account of many Jewish children being slain by a king Herod, therefore it is doubtful that it happened. That's a nice piece of "healthy skepticism".

    However, I doubt that this person opened up the book of Matthew and started reading through, and then stopped at chapter one and went off to do some historical checking as to whether he should believe the account of Herod's slaughter or not.

    It appears to me rather that someone injected doubt and skepticism in some article or website. They come accross rather like they were reading and stumbled in mistrust about this detail and decided that NT could pretty much not be trusted further.

    It seems perculiar to me for someone to come across - "I was reading the New Testament and all of a sudden I got to this place where Herod had some children killed in an attempt to slay Jesus. Well, then I stopped and did some historical research and couldn't verify that. So, you see, I doubt that that story is true. Christians must have made it up."

    It does not come off as objective or as "healthy" as they think it sounds.

    I wonder if when they were told by their parents that this man and this woman was their mother and father, if they had a default attitude of suspicion that probably that was not so. I mean, Why should they believe that this man and woman are REALLY their parents?

    Better to be skeptical about it.
  6. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    10 Jan '09 04:152 edits
    Originally posted by ahosyney
    When it comes to GOD, the only link between us and him is his message which he sent through his prophets. If some one comes to me and claim that he has a message from GOD, then I must suspect him until he proves that he is write.

    Applying this to the Bible, you christians claim that it is the message of GOD, so do you expect me to just believe you or sho ...[text shortened]... sages claimed to be from GOD, and every one should do that, otherwise anyone can claim anything.
    Your response as a muslim is interesting to me.

    I think that suspicion comes by a sense that one's self interest is being threatened. When you talk to someone and they give you the sense that they are out to get your money, for example, you get alert and take what they say with a grain of salt

    I would like to know exactly where some people, upon reading the Bible, suddenly get the feeling that they are threatened. Perhaps the feeling that the writer does not have their personal interest in a good intention. Someone is out to hurt them. So they become cautious and suspicious.

    I mean in reading the book of Matthew, the first book of the New Testament, at what passage does this sense of dread come over some skeptics?

    Is it when it says "Jesus ... He will save His people from their sins"

    I wonder if at that point a Red Light of Danger comes on of "Caution, Caution, man trying to save you from your sins, Danger ahead. Beware."

    What triggers people's sense that their self interest is not being served upon reading the New Testament ?

    What passage signals that it is better not to believe but rather to be distrustful of a trick, a scheme, a swindle?
  7. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Jan '09 04:56
    Originally posted by jaywill
    Your response as a muslim is interesting to me.

    I think that suspicion comes by a sense that one's self interest is being threatened. When you talk to someone and they give you the sense that they are out to get your money, for example, you get alert and take what they say with a grain of salt

    I would like to know exactly where some people, upon re ...[text shortened]... it is better not to believe but rather to be distrustful of a trick, a scheme, a swindle?
    I'll take a stab at this!!

    I have always said that belief is important because all data we encounter tends to be molded to those beliefs. So the question is, how is a belief formed? I think the Bible was correct when it says that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. In other words, we only know what we are told and what we experience in our own lives so the more we are told something the more we tend to believe it unless confronted by a truth we cannot deny.

    As for Ahoseney, I suspect he was raised a Muslim. He has been told over and over again what to believe just as many Christians are told to believe. In fact, I think atheists are in the category as well. They have been filled with skepticism to the point that the reinforced disbelief is now what they believe and all data is then molded to fit their belief system.

    Having said all that, I guess the greatest mystery is why we may abandon what has been drilled into our heads? In other words, why does an atheist abandon his atheism for a faith of some kind or vise versa?
  8. Joined
    06 May '05
    Moves
    9174
    10 Jan '09 05:121 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    ===========================================
    What is normal about opening any book and believing everything in it by default?

    Would you read the koran with the attitude that everything in it is true?

    The default shouldn't abject denial, but it also shouldn't be mindless acceptance.

    Healthy skepticism about everything is good.
    =============== man and woman are [b]REALLY
    their parents?

    Better to be skeptical about it.[/b]
    I don't understand how you go from being skeptical about the bible to being skeptical about who your parents are.

    Then that person will skeptically argue that there is no such secular account of many Jewish children being slain by a king Herod, therefore it is doubtful that it happened. That's a nice piece of "healthy skepticism".

    I don't see anything wrong with that. Whenever you look at historical accounts you look for corroborating evidence. The more evidence comes together that confirms a story then the more sure you can be.

    However, I doubt that this person opened up the book of Matthew and started reading through, and then stopped at chapter one and went off to do some historical checking as to whether he should believe the account of Herod's slaughter or not.

    Who are you talking about? I hope you don't presume to talk about all skeptics.

    I can be skeptical of something and think that it's probably not true and then not think it's worth my time to read book after book trying to find evidence for or against it. That's called prioritizing.


    "I was reading the New Testament and all of a sudden I got to this place where Herod had some children killed in an attempt to slay Jesus. Well, then I stopped and did some historical research and couldn't verify that. So, you see, I doubt that that story is true. Christians must have made it up."

    Well, it's not wrong to say that just because they did historical research and couldn't verify it then to continue to doubt the veracity of the story. Suggesting they "must have made it up" ... well, that's not necessarily a valid conclusion from just that even if it is true.
  9. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    10 Jan '09 11:211 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
    …Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
    .…


    The answer to that is so extremely obvious and simple that I fail to see why you cannot see it:
    the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason.
  10. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Jan '09 11:54
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    [b]…Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
    .…


    The answer to that is so extremely obvious and simple that I fail to see why you cannot see it:
    the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason.[/b]
    a typical statement from one who has quite obviously never read it, or, one who cannot grasp it in its composite parts, nor as a whole!
  11. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    10 Jan '09 13:462 edits
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    a typical statement from one who has quite obviously never read it, or, one who cannot grasp it in its composite parts, nor as a whole!
    Are you implying that what I just said is false?

    Does this mean you deny the fact that the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason?
    Are you implying that the Bible is scientifically based?

    I don’t need to read a book to know that its main claims are unreliable -all I have to know is whether or not its most fundamental claims are based on reason/evidence. If you pointed out to me the existence of a book about astrology, I do not have to actually read it in order to rationally know that it is not based on reason/evidence and thus its main claims are invalid -do you deny this simple fact?
  12. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    10 Jan '09 16:481 edit
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    Are you implying that what I just said is false?

    Does this mean you deny the fact that the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason?
    Are you implying that the Bible is scientifically based?

    I don’t need to read a book to know that its main claims are unreliable -all I have to know is whether or not its most fundamental claims are base ...[text shortened]... not based on reason/evidence and thus its main claims are invalid -do you deny this simple fact?
    i am implying nothing, i am emphatically stating with grandiose gesticulation that you are talking pants! yes 100%, unadulterated, super delux, hyper concentrated, double pants! you are the worst of critics Mr. Hamilton, for you profess to render a judgment concerning something for which you have no knowledge, based on what you have not read, formulated an opinion on the basis of prejudice and a flimsy pretense of reason, that sir is the epitome of unreasonableness!

    how can you tell whats its claims are after never even having considered it, duh?
  13. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    11 Jan '09 06:24
    Originally posted by jaywill
    What triggers people's sense that their self interest is not being served upon reading the New Testament ?

    What passage signals that it is better not to believe but rather to be distrustful of a trick, a scheme, a swindle?
    How about the part where the "loving" god not only fails to save some people, but blames them for this failing and condemns them accordingly. Believing a contradiction is not in my self-interest.
  14. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    11 Jan '09 10:59
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    i am implying nothing, i am emphatically stating with grandiose gesticulation that you are talking pants! yes 100%, unadulterated, super delux, hyper concentrated, double pants! you are the worst of critics Mr. Hamilton, for you profess to render a judgment concerning something for which you have no knowledge, based on what you have not read, formul ...[text shortened]... onableness!

    how can you tell whats its claims are after never even having considered it, duh?
    …you profess to render a judgment concerning something for which you have NO KNOWLEDGE...… (my emphasis)

    I have the knowledge that the that the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason/premises. From this piece of knowledge I reason that the Bible’s most fundamental claims are almost certainly unreliable.

    ……based on what you have not read..…

    As I have already clearly said, I don’t have to read it to know that the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason. Do you deny this?
    -if so, does the Bible even pretend to be based on reason? -yes or no?

    …formulated an opinion on the basis of prejudice ...…

    Is it “prejudice” to note that the Bible doesn’t even pretend to be based on reason? -yes or no?

    …and a flimsy pretence of reason...

    Is it a “flimsy pretence” of reason to reason that if a claim is not in any way based on reason/evidence/premise/logic etc then the claim is unreliable?

    …how can you tell what’s its claims are after never even having considered it
    .…


    But I DO know what its main claims are -for example, I know that it claims there is a god. I have considered these claims for a microsecond -and the next microsecond any claim for the reliability of the main claims (especially the one that says there is a god) where debunked in my mind the moment I acknowledged the fact that these claims are not based on reason i.e. they have no premise.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Jan '09 14:02
    Originally posted by jaywill
    In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?

    Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?

    Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.

    This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
    When opening up any book, some skepticism is normal. If that book happens to be ancient and mythological in nature then even more skepticism is in order. I am sure you agree. I am sure you would have a fairly high level of skepticism for any Greek stories, Norse legends or any text from thousands of years ago.

    On the other hand my skepticism of the Bible is far different from that. I have not simply 'opened up the Bible and started reading'. I was brought up as a Christian and also believe I know a large amount about the origin of the Bible and the accuracy of its contents and so I am even more skeptical than I would be for the average text.

    On top of all that many of the claims in the Bible are fantastic in nature and fantastic claims should always be met with some skepticism whereas basic historical records (as some of the Bible is) can simply be taken as quite possibly factual (though even then I would not make a bet on it).
Back to Top