My Kind of Logic
Love this. It's taken from a book called 'A Ready Defense' by Josh McDowell, and he's quoting a guy called Charles Wesley.
The Bible must be either the invention of good men or angels, bad men or demons, or of God. Therefore:
1. It could not be the invention of good men or angels, for they neither could nor would make a book, and tell lies all the time they were writing it, saying, "Thus saith the Lord" when it was their own invention.
2. It could not be an invention of bad men or devils, for they would not make a book that commands all duty, forbids all sin, and condemns their souls to hell to all eternity.
3. Therefore, I draw this conclusion, that the Bible must be given by divine inspiration.
Thoughts?
posted by Dboy @ Tuesday, February 07, 2006
35 Insightful Contributions
.jpg)
35 Comments:
THIS IS LEGENDARYCHIPMUNK! SAYING....I AM THE KING OF THE WORLD!!!! not really... im jus saying hi...
I do a lot of waffling, but I think I believe it was written by good people doing their best to capture what they thought was their understanding of God, and if it was effective to say it was a quote, that would not constitute a lie. That could be attributed to many things, such as trying to take dictation, literary conventions at the time (or as time progressed -- I don't profess to ever have read anything in an original form), poetic licence, rhythm (thinking here about oral tradition and what makes something easier to remember and pass along until it can get written down), their understanding of the capabilities of their audience...in short, all the things that good, responsible authors do.-legendarychipmunk!
The problem with this, once it's all said and done
Is that it also makes true the book, the Koran
Right?
No, necessarily, because the content and call are quite different. Although I can see how many 'holy' books could try to make the same claim using that logic. I believe that Bible is the word of God. Not some invention of man. Why would anyone write a book and claim to have it be directly from God, if it is indeed people trying to capture the essence of God, why not just say that it is a reflection of what they see of God, why pretend to be God himself? How arrogant to pretend to be God and pass it off as truth! I don't think that 40 different authors over 6000 years could all be doing that and have the end product so consistent. If it was merely man's interpretation, it would be all over the place.
While at first it sounds okay, that excerpt assumes that what The Bible says about sin, good and evil is definitive. If we're arguing the origin of the book itself, we cannot use the book's laws and statements as truth.
And as for evil men not writing it, anything besides absolute truth leads people astray, thus achieving it's assumed goal.
I believe The Bible is 100% truth, but I remember reading a far better version of what you posted that made a lot more sense.
now i know that this is way off topic but i just had to point this out -
www.indipod.com
watch the movie.
lol - everyone is hacking on dboy's qoute so i think i will too.
here's another option (to which legendarypuffin aludes); crazy men, or at best misguided men.
though, that said, it is an option that can be quickly discounted due to the coherency of the writings, the fact that they were written over such a long period of time by so many people and the fact that they have stood the test of time. this shows that there is an undeniable intelligence behind it, and a deliberate manner in it's writing.
while this does not completely exclude the possibility of 'misguided men' i think that when the text itself is taken into account, i.e the historical/archealogical accuracy, the accountability of the authors (as far as the new testament goes, there simply was not enough time for myths to develop between the life of jesus and the writing of the early gospels - too many living witnesses) and the importance put on being accurate (in oral tradition) it would be silly to say that they would aim to be totally accurate with history but then just vaguely accurate about God - especially when you consider that this is a society do reverent that they would write G-D rather than God.
haha - an essay!
also LP to directly address your post, as with most things we must come to a conclusion whether or not God actually exists so that we can discuss within the same framework, so...
option 1 God exists:
God exists and these are really the experiences of people through history. how will we respond?
God exists, these are not the true experiences of people but only vague apporoximations. unlikely, since God wants to get to know us (yes i know that is a large presupposition) he would not be vague or allow others to be vaue on his behalf and therefor obscure himself. also comes back to the "good men/angels" argument
God exists but the bible is all lies. this comes back to the 'bad men/demons" argument.
option 2 God does not exist
God does not exist and we are all wasting our time discussing this post.
i sit firmly with option 1-1
Not specifically referring to the Jews (why does that sound like an expletive) or the Bible but in general I see no reason why a person wouldn't say his writing is from God even when it isn't.
Here I am, a man who wants to have power over others but without any tangible claim to it. I know! I'll write a text and pass it off as God's or any diety.
~0~
This line of reasoning means that any text that is attributed to a deity, and extolls good virtues is written by God.
or that specific deity...
another couple of links people might be interested in:
http://gerrymanderring.blogspot.com/
http://gerrymanderringthebible.blogspot.com/
for all you ebc people out there see if you recognise any of the authors ;)
HEY HEY HEY!!!!!!
WAIT ONE COTTON PICKING MINUTE!!!
YOU ARE ALL, REPEAT ALL, MISSING THE BIG REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT THING HERE.....
CHIPPY IS BACK!! AND HE'S BAD!!!
CHIPPY IS BACK!!
CHIPPY IS BACK!!
CHIPPY IS BACK!!
CHIPPY IS BACK!!
YAHOOO!!!!!!!!
Love the way Wire put it. How can such a book be written by mere good men? They would be liars! And how could a book like that be written by dillusionals, it's historially and geographically accurate, from a time when they had no access to records of all that stuff. How is it possible that a book so consitent, written over thousands of years happens without divine inspiration?
Hahaha... aliens - people will invent the weirdest things to escape from having to see something true. There's infinite times the evidence for God than there is for aliens - pure speculation.
Wow - awesome thoughts guys.
I agree with the fact that this thought could be used to justify the Koran, etc. However I think that you need to assess each text on its merits - just like Megan said, the content of the Koran, its claims (which contradict both Judaism and Christianity, its predecessors), and the integrity of the 'main character', so to speak, are all things that need to be assessed in order to ascertain its value.
So I guess in that way, my original quote isn't totally comprehensive, but it didn't intend to be :)
Love that, Tink - only a vast mind that has existed over the millenia could have brought together such a book.
Really? Why? What evidence is there for Aliens? And why do you reject the evidence there is for God? Do you really think it's implausable and inaccurate? or do you not want to believe?
And I think if mere 'good' men wrote this book, they'd be liars, because they are claiming absolute universal truths spoken (in some cases directly) from God. How could they do such things if they were good men? Liars!
"The more chance there are aliens, the more chance they wouldn't have visited our planet"
"Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence" Carl Sagan
I think I'd believe in aliens before I believed in God.
Since I believe in God for other reasons than just statistical reasons, I believe the universe is more purposful, so there are only aliens if God wishes them, not just because it's likely.
I don't think the line of argument by Wesley is particularly convincing. Quite simply, because it is not that simple!
I think it was King Kohl who suggested that such arguments could be put forth for say, the Koran, or any other faith. I think this is a very good point.
Dboy said: the content of the Koran, its claims (which contradict both Judaism and Christianity, its predecessors), and the integrity of the 'main character', so to speak, are all things that need to be assessed in order to ascertain its value.
People could quite easily argue that Christianity contradicts Judaism and even itself...so I think we need to be careful going down this line. Eg. it would seem ludicrous to most, and certainly a Muslim, to suggest that God is one...only three...or is it one??! Or that Jesus is God...I mean man...ok, both.
If you mean Muhammed by your reference to the "main character", I think Muslims would say that Allah is the main character - the first pillar of Islam...the shahadah suggests this to be the case.
Granted, Muhammed is pretty central, but in the Bible so is David (adulterer), Saul\Paul (persecutor) etc.
In terms of historical accuracy and construction of myths (lack of time b/w JC's death and writing the NT), I don't this proves anything about divine inspiration. It may help substantiate, but doesn't, in the end, prove a thing. There were many Ancient Near East texts in existence during OT times which show historical accuracy and correlation with the Bible. For example, there are other creation stories very similar to the Christian one...hmm, suspicious!
Well said Steve!
I can see what you're saying Peebody. But there is a complete lack of evidence, that is merely an assumption. Whereas we are arguing evidence for God, not speculation and mere logic.
Yep, spot on. The basis for belief in aliens is purely speculative, whereas the basis for belief in God sits near your hand, ready for the taking.
Nice work, Stevo, but I think you talked around my central point rather than addressing it :)
I think one of the most important ways of identifying an inspired (not just historical) text is making sure that it doesn't contradict previous texts that it claims to abide by (eg. the Qur'an contradicts both the New and Old Testaments, and funnily enough, it even contradicts itself). Muslims justify this by saying that the newest revelation is the right one. However, what holy (ie. perfect) text would contradict itself? That claim is inconsistent with the very terms that it wishes to employ.
You stated that we need to be careful when saying that a text contradicts another text, and I agree. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it. In terms of the doctrine of the trinity, I think we need to clarify the difference between a contradiction and something which is difficult to understand. They aren't one and the same.
I like your comment about Muhammad as a central character being flawed, just like David and Saul/Paul. I think the difference is primarily that David, Paul, Moses and any other flawed character knew that they were flawed (Paul said "I am the worst of sinners"), and/or were punished for their flaws (Moses not being allowed into the promised land).
Muhammad killed hundreds of people in cold blood and enforced his religion by the sword, all of which was seen as a good thing. The Qur'an itself encourages wife-beating.
Now, I am not saying here that all Muslim people are violent, nor am I saying that they beat their wives. All I am doing here is having a theoretic discussion of truth.
Well said Dboy. I have nothing else to add at this stage.
I have to confess that I have not read all the comments, so I am sorry if I talked around your central argument -- you will have to tell me what it is and then I may be able to address it!!
In terms of dboy's recent comment:
However, what holy (ie. perfect) text would contradict itself?
Well, have a look at this. I really don't think this is as simple as Dowling and Wesley think.
While we, as Christians, may see things as difficult to understand and not contradictions, perhaps this is harder for the non-believer. If this is true, than could it also be true that our understanding of other faiths' texts may be somewhat skewed?
In terms of Muhammad enforcing religion by the sword - I agree - but what about Constantine, Crusades...George W Bush?
Now I may be wrong, but my understanding is that Muhammad did not consider himself flawless -- certainly Muhammad is not meant to be seen as divine in Islam.
While we, as Christians, may see things as difficult to understand and not contradictions, perhaps this is harder for the non-believer. If this is true, then could it also be true that our understanding of other faiths' texts may be somewhat skewed?
I absolutely agree, but if you ask any Muslim, they will tell you straight out that the Qur'an plainly contradicts itself. As I said earlier, their way of explaining this is to say that the most recent exhortation is the right one. From this point you can reread my past comments about the definition of a holy text.
In terms of people who claim to be Christian enforcing Christianity on others, I don't see why that point was raised. I follow Christ, not other Christians. Jesus said to love your enemy, Muhammad compels us to slay the unrepentant. Muslims follow Muhammad. You draw your own conclusions.
Good debate!
Was Jesus a christian then? Actually... forget I said that.
Koran = Qur'an = Smartypants
Jesus started Christianity, before that it was just Judaism, because Christianity is (at least God meant it to be) the continuation of Judaism, because it's the same faith, just adding Jesus to the picture, the reason they are separate is that some peopel chose not to believe that Jesus was from God, but Christians and Jews worship the same God.
And it seems to be great proof to me, that Christianity/Judaism is the only religion with no point of origin in history. It has always been. God created the world and people have followed him as long as life has existed, but all other religions have a point in time when they were founded by a person. I want to follow God, not something any person has created.
That's true, except some people would view Jesus as a human.
We're still talking about proving the Bible right?
I think Dboy's logical statement is entirely wrong, except for the conclusion. The first part says it can't have been written by good men or angels because they couldn't lie.
Now if when they say 'good men' they mean true born again Christians, then yes, this is true.
But if by 'good men' it means 'men of honourable intent' and assuming then that the Bible was/is not true and God didn't have intent to write it or didn't exist, then I'm sure good men would (not necessarily could) write it and lie
The second part says it can't have been written bad men or demons cause they would be condemning themselves and condoning good.
Assuming the Pharasees (or however one spells it) were 'bad men' then the Bible benifited them greatly, I'm sure if they could they would have written it. It's stupid to say that someone who enforces or knows the laws and the consequences would not sin.
What's the logic called when someone slowly rules out all the options, so the remaining choice must be true? I know there's a word... let's call it Logical Deduction cause I can't think of it.
I wouldn't have used Logical Deduction to prove the Bible, and I wouldn't have said that the Bible is flawless to prove it either. Athiests love that angle because all you need is one unexplainable 'loophole' for want of a better word.
There are the inconsistancies Steve pointed out, there's all those incompatabilities in Mat and Luke (I think) and a multitude of hard to understand stuff that sound like flaws.
Perhaps one could prove the Bible from the prophecy angle, like all the ones to do with the Hebrew peoples.
I hope I havn't made a fool out of myself, I'm not exactly an expert.
logical deduction can be a great starting point (and it often leads to short little quotes that look great on posters) but i'm with KK positive evidence is more powerful than deduction.
an interesting point on aliens - if you want to talk probability on aliens forget how many stars, forget how many life sustaining planets, none of it matters because we are talking purely about the unknown. therefor the probabilty of e.t. life is 50%, either it exists or it doesn't. only one of those options can be true. no other factor matters in this case.
LP, as for what i meant by God not wanting to be vague - we all may struggle at times with the 'silence' but to say that God has been vague? i can hardly see how we could call what happened at the cross vague. it was an in-your-face, upfront declaration of love. while on an individual level we may struggle sometimes to figure out what God wants with us, if there is a failing it is on our end. God created us to know him intimately and fully - he walked with us in Eden. that is no longer possible to the same degree in this life but that is certainly not to say that God wants to hide himself from us or his intentions for us.
as for "praying in our rooms" if memory serves that was not an instruction on how to hear God's voice but rather an directive against being like the pharasees and praying for public acclaim and image. God is to be our one concern, not what others think of us, if going and sitting alone, out of sight helps us do that then that's what we should do.
steve, i had a read of your link and i think at a cursory glance the second example would be a result of grace. the law is always able to be overidden by mercy (in fact that may well be the definition of mercy) and it is always God perogative to do so.
in fact looking back at the article the first example fits grace as well.
Uh... sorry. I completely have no idea what you're talking about with the 50% idea of aliens.
Great discussion!
In terms of people who claim to be Christian enforcing Christianity on others, I don't see why that point was raised. I follow Christ, not other Christians. Jesus said to love your enemy,
Maybe, but those who did\do slay others apparently with the Christian God's favour - ie. they are also followers of Christ.
The point was raised because Dboy seemed to raise the slaying of others by Muslims as a reason not to believe in Islam.
Surely it works both ways?
In the end, my point is this: like many others seem to be suggesting, you cannot prove the divine inspiration of the Bible using McDowell's apologetical approach. It is simplistic and incomplete and logically flawed.
I also think Christians need to be careful when referring to the inconsistencies in other "holy books" to try and prove their point.
Haha... what a great topic! Paul, I'll create another post in the line of your question. Man, have I got a bucket-load of evidence for the existence of God.
Steve, you fully missed my point. I don't give a rat's tooter what other people have done in the name of Christianity. I follow Christ himself.
The central point is this (repreating myself, I know): you have to look at the specific exhortations of the central text.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Now, if that is true, then the Crusades were wrong. There's a million more quotes from the New Testament I could give here to prove the same point, and surely I don't need to inform someone of your (Steve) knowledge of them.
The religion of Islam, through Muhammad, openly condones the enforcing of their religion by killing people. It seems as if we are taking a step back in terms of righteousness: the Jews were told 'an eye for an eye', Jesus tells Christians to go a step further an turn the other cheek, and then Muhammad comes along and not only doesn't turn the other cheeck, not only doesn't merely repay the same injury to those who caused it, but he wages war on those nations around him simply for the sake of establishing a theocracy! Phenominal. The Islamic faith claims to supercede both Judaism and Christianity, and implements both of the holy texts of these religions, but then totally contradicts both! Surely we must question the truth of a religion that requires military force for its survival.
Let me give another example:
Ephesians 5:22-25 says - "Wives submit to your husbands as you do the Lord... and you husbands must love your wives with the same love Christ showed the Church." (Pretty heavy stuff there, might I add).
However, from the Islamic holy text, Sura 4:31 says:
Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other and because they spend their wealth [to maintain them]. So good women are obedient, guarding the unseen [parts] because God has guarded [them]. As for those whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and banish them to beds apart and beat them; then if they obey you, seek not occasion against them."
Now, I have never claimed that prving the Qur'an is not a holy text proves that the Bible is. The whole reason this came up is because it was posed whether the same logic in the original post could be used to justify other holy texts.
Have I made my point explicit enough?
Ooo, I would, but there's just way too much to email. Plus other people will have some good stuff too - they'll be more than interested :)
Ok, fair enough Dboy...my last question: after all this, do you still love Wesley's logic?
I never claimed that Wesley's logic is completely watertight - I just like it :)
So yes, I still love Wesley's logic, but no, I don't think that it is a comprehensive argument. I do think it has weight though.
*sings* "Dboy and Wesley's logic sitting in a tree..."
ok so that was juvenile but what can i say - it's 140 in the morning.
I know no posting has happened since Feb, so I may be talking to no-ne, but MPB, you said ...
It's being proven that man infact evolved from a form of primmate and that we weren't anything like what we are now.
Proven? - I think not my friend.
What evidence?
There is no mere missing link - the whole damn chain is missing!
You see, even you are religious - your faith is just placed in something else other than God - namely "man's infinite intelligence" - especially in regards to his infallible assumptions about the origins of life.
[url=http://www.realcazinoz.com]casinos online[/url], also known as accepted casinos or Internet casinos, are online versions of father ("piece and mortar") casinos. Online casinos franchise gamblers to assess as ingredient in and wager on casino games with the help the Internet.
Online casinos normally invite odds and payback percentages that are comparable to land-based casinos. Some online casinos handling higher payback percentages fitting area group games, and some along known payout man effectively audits on their websites. Assuming that the online casino is using an fittingly programmed unsystematically infant up generator, note games like blackjack plead in the service of an established congress edge. The payout shard in liking to of these games are established to the small the rules of the game.
Split online casinos countenance into societal see or mastery their software from companies like Microgaming, Realtime Gaming, Playtech, Cosmopolitan Ploy Technology and CryptoLogic Inc.
Post a Comment
<< Home