Instruction to Believers: When Asked, “How Do You Know the Bible is the Ultimate Truth?”, Always Say, “Because it Says So”.

I’m always drawn to articles that claim to prove the Bible’s verifiability.  How do we know the things in the Bible to be true?

I’ve yet to come across an article that says much else other than to quote the Bible where it says, itself, it is the truth.  This is odd thinking.

When a medicine sold over the counter claims to cure cancer or grown back a severed limb, most of us would not believe it.  When a politician, especially one we do not like, makes extraordinary claims about what he/she will do, most of us would not believe it.

In either of these cases, if we asked whoever is making these claims to give us a source as to why the claims should be believed, and the answer was, “Because I said they are true,” we would shake our heads and walk away.   But, that doesn’t happen in Bible land.

The authors of the Bible were a cunning bunch.  They knew there would be skeptics, there were back then.  So, they had Jesus say, “There will be skeptics”.

They reinforced this by threatening hell for skeptics.  This was backed up further by saying you were born a sinner and Jesus died to take care of this sin you committed.  Therefore, if you don’t believe you should feel really guilty.

The gullible are happy with this deal.  Those who do not believe are happy to free of this oppressive logic.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/christian-apologist-having-answers-for-skeptics-can-lead-to-faith-90188/

Freethinkers Monthly Meeting tomorrow, Feb 17, 1 PM, Plains Art Musem, 704 1st Ave N, Fargo

Avatar of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Instruction to Believers: When Asked, “How Do You Know the Bible is the Ultimate Truth?”, Always Say, “Because it Says So”.

  1. entech says:

    “How do I know?”. Because it would seem so sad and pointless to me if I wasn’t the reason for it being written.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      entech 1:22 “sad and pointless..”

      I think the Bible would be sad and pointless to millions of today’s believers if it was so carefully written it could not be twisted into whatever they want it to be.

    • Jeffrey Eide says:

      Do you really believe you are the center of the universe? Do you truly think a deity is watching down on you, specifically, and creating things with you in mind? Do you honestly think a deity created us with a disease, punished everyone relentlessly, and even sacrificed his own child for the mistakes that HE himself made?

      I can not say you are egocentric, but as beliefs go, that is as egocentric as it gets. The truly humble position is to say there are great mysteries out there and we can get to answers by doubt and investigation. Certainly that means doubt about the validity of an ancient book as well.

      For me, SAD is knowing people use FAITH, a test of gullibility, to make judgments.

  2. Jinx says:

    I must question the status quo, I cannot exist with the answer and practice of “its always been done this way or its always been this way”. God always was and always will be is just not good enough for me and neither is any Bible that was ever written. No proof, no proof, no proof!

  3. Michael Ross says:

    “I’ve yet to come across an article that says much else other than to quote the Bible where it says, itself, it is the truth. This is odd thinking.”

    Primordial slime plus a few billion years equals everything. No mechanism for evolution. No transitional life forms. Charles Darwin says its truth. This is odd thinking.

    “The gullible are happy with this deal.” No God to answer to.

    • entech says:

      Michael you love your creationist websites and their video, Please TRY watch this all the way through, I picked a very short one so as not to take up too much of your. Anything by Ken Miller is interesting, he is a devout Catholic and a cell biologist, a scientist with a relevant degree.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re4zVcRgTz0

      • Michael Ross says:

        Ken Miller is full of it.

        • entech says:

          Yes, full of truth, honesty, knowledge, even then he still manages to be a devout Catholic.

          • entech says:

            Apologies to any Catholics, not intended as a slur. All those things do not, of course, prevent anyone from being Catholic. My remark was intended mainly to people who are anti-evolution simply because it is hurtful to their egos to even consider the possibility of common descent rather than being special and specially created.

          • Jinx says:

            Entech, I’ve been an evolutionist since I check out a book from our small town catholic school library in the 4th grade. It had the late 50′s/early 60′s version of the linear ascent of man from the australiopithecines to modern man….. Nothing I have studied, read or observed since that time has changed my mind.

          • Michael Ross says:

            All the so-called “missing links” have been proven to be fully human, fully ape, or fully neither.

          • entech says:

            Michael, you had better be careful, you are starting to get it right.
            The concept of a missing link goes to very early days of evolutionary theory, before there was much understanding. Understanding of the tree of life and the descent from common ancestors. The missing link metaphor is very attractive and at the same time very misleading, there is no chain to have links.
            Evolution doesn’t chain things together evolution has things, at some point, separating into different branches. Initially each sub branch is close to being identical to the original source, the common ancestor, over generations the two branches become more and more diverse. While the different branches diversify and become more and more like separate species the diversity between immediate ancestor/descendent pairs is negligible. There is little difference between mother and daughter, but over the generations the difference between the generations becomes ever greater.

            To explain it in Biblical terms as we all started from A&E we will find that the difference between, say Cain and Enoch is hardly anything, but since then we have an enormous variety of human beings, a variety of hair styles, facial features and skin colouring from dark brown to pale pink and everything in between, there is no “missing link” between Negro and Asian, there are many combinations though, indicative of a common sympathetic feeling between members of the human race (the human race being the only one there is) and a common ancestry in A&E.

            There are cases where the differences are even greater, leading to speciation, there seems little doubt to me that somewhere in the deep distant past there was an animal, a mammal, whose offspring diverged, over millions of years, to become, amongst others Human Beings and the Great Apes, this does NOT mean that any living ape is in any way directly related to any living human, the divisions along the way are so numerous and took place over so much time that the common ancestor was neither human nor primate.

            So once again we are in complete agreement All the so-called “missing links” have been proven to be fully human, fully ape, or fully neither..

            I also agree with you about Jon, polite to a fault I find, I don’t think that he goes deliberately slamming anyone. Most topics are derived from papers and magazines and offer the chance to consider different possibilities. Some people, Ed appears to be one that are simply too wrapped (or is that rapt) in self that anything that doesn’t agree with their thoughts is a deliberate insult.

          • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            entech 5:08 re: evolution

            I wish every creationist could spend time in the fields of entomology (bugs) or crop science. Evolution is taking place under our noses every day. Bugs and plants evolve to adjust so they can survive through the selection process. There are many examples of missing, missing links because evolution is so fast and been going on for so long things some origins are lost.

  4. Ed says:

    Once again Jon you have labelled Christians….this time gullible. You mock their beliefs, poke fun at their God (flying monster or whatever), and then slam them whenever someone dares to challenge your extremist views on gay rights or abortion. You sit atop your perch and portray the image of all-inclusive and all-accepting of others and then absolutely belittle and bash anyone who believes in God.

    Jon – you are an arrogant, hypocritical, ass. Back at ya.

    • Avatar of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Ed 4:46 “Jon–you are an arrogant, hypocritical, ass. Back at ya.”

      I certainly did say when people allow themselves to be subjected to fear of a hell that no one knows exists and is fearful of sins that have been manufactured out of whole cloth as gullible. Until someone comes up with evidence all this material has something going for it, I don’t know what other label to place on people who allow themselves to be subjected to it. Maybe you could help me with another accurate, but not so offensive label. I would appreciate that.

      As to a “slam” I did to anyone challenging my posts, I apologize if I did that. Maybe you could tell me who I did it to and over what issue. I’ve recently had a series of back and forths with Michael about use of the word “homosexuality” that appears in the Bible–originally “effeminate”. Did I “slam” him? Maybe Michael can reply to that.

      Anyway, I glad to have you as a reader and am always interested in what you have to say about issues that come up.

    • Michael Ross says:

      “Jon – you are an arrogant, hypocritical, ass. Back at ya.”

      Whether Jon is arrogant is an attitude of the heart. Only God knows a person’s heart. As for hypocritical, we are all that at times. As far as his blog post and comments I have always found Jon to be cordial and friendly to all that participate on his blog, even those like myself who most often sharply disagree with him. I think your above comment is uncalled for.

  5. Juan says:

    Ed @ 4:46am. best comment of the year.

  6. Ed says:

    Michael……you too are simply gullible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>