I’m not here to debate, I want answers.
If it is true that we have evolved, if it is true the Bible cannot be relied upon for questions of history, how does it follow that I should believe the Bible and what it teaches? It’s all fine and well to give reasons to believe in a God, but that does nothing to prove Christianity.
For what reasons are you Christians?
Thank you.
My form of Christianity is different from many others in here. So not all of this will be the same for everyone.
The Bible should not be understood as a book full of facts on history and science. It’s better understood as a story in my opinion. Not just a single story, but several different stories of humanity trying to reach a greater good. It mixes many different kinds of genre including several forms of fiction like mythology, satire and lots of hyperbolic fantasy and action.
I don’t think you need to hyper fixate on Christianity. But rather on the teachings of Christ and that’s not the same. Christ is the embodiment of truth, love and compassion. He looked back at Judaism and corrected so much he saw wrong with it. Don’t stone but forgive. God desires love and mercy, not sacrifices. Rituals don’t outweigh meeting the needs of humans.
To go further off of fixing on Christ, there is the concept of accomondationism. That’s the idea that things like Genesis 1-11 was written to meet the needs of ancient Jews. That’s why it’s a story about global floods, flat earth, dome, and so on. God wanted a story to meet them where they were. But we also see that these verses are God breathed. We often say that’s inspiration. But we also know that these stories were borrowed and reimagined by Jews. So was these other stories inspired? What about when psalms rewrote pagan poetry? To me that gives me permission to recognize that these other faiths are inspired by God as well. So I think Christ came to fulfill all faiths including paganism and even if you argue about contradictions, it’s not different from the biblical seams in the Bible. This is Christian Omnism.
Also even if you don’t believe it, does not change it’s valuable. Same as Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Animism, or philosophical views like stoic or Confucianism. All of these things are thousands of years of wisdom and faith that has heavily shaped our modern world. Teachings of Christ is still beneficial for an atheist who rejects all the supernatural claims.
So despite having no evidence, I choose to have faith because I think the story is beautiful and I think Christ is amazing. His teachings are wonderful. Not perfect, but wonderful. I choose to have faith he is the spirit of god made in flesh.
As a Christian I am a follower of Christ. It’s in my name. I am a Christ-ian. I am not a Bible-ian. I don’t follow or worship a book but the transforming and living Jesus the book speaks about. Read the Gospels thoughtfully, meditate, maybe even pray and give that Jesus fellow a shot. For me, I encountered Jesus and the love and forgiveness of God while reading the Gospels. I believe God uses scripture to mediate the sacred. I believe Jesus represents God incarnate and it’s important to follow His teachings and moral example. I cannot prove the Bible is God’s word, only tell you I accept it because of this and it is now the imperfect light by which I view the world after having that transformative experience. It has to be interpreted and wrestled with. The Bible is a window through which I see glimpses of the Divine on the other side. There are some smudges and cracks in the window but I believe I can clearly glimpse God despite them being there. As Jesus says in the Gospel of John, “my sheep hear my voice . . . and they follow me.” The Bible can be misunderstood, abused and used as a tool to control people, or it can be used to “equip us to do good works” though a God who chose to become one of us to show us the way.
I think you may be trapped into thinking the individual books of the Bible must be history. This, in my view is a question of genre. Scripture is about story and narrative. Its goal is to move us to action and if the Genre of the books is not history, we should not judge their correctness using history as our criteria. Now you are correct, some things narrated do need to be true. For example, if everything about Jesus was fiction, Christianity would seemingly be a false religion. This is not the case but the Gospels are a little more creative than many Christians are comfortable with. The Bible’s power to me is not in it being inerrant and infallible. It only has power in my view because God uses it and moved over the authors, nudging them as they wrote.
There are some very valid questions, such as how does a God of love fit in with a bloody and violent process like evolution and answers aren’t easy or simple. But the alternative (nihilism) to God fares even worse. I think the problem of evil is the single greatest difficulty Christianity (and theism in general) has, but I genuinely think its far worse for atheism because the evil is there with no one to “wipe every tear from their eyes.”
Vinnie
One thing to keep in mind is that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former–Genesis 1-11 are not history as someone post-“enlightenment” would conceive of it, essentially because “history as someone post-“enlightenment” would conceive of it” did not exist at all until at least 800 BC (the Babylonian Chronicles being the first surviving work that comes close to modern-style history). Instead, they are true in a similar way to that in which a parable is true–both communicate theological truth while essentially ignoring history (in the case of Genesis 1-2, some of the more distinct ones include “God created everything”, “there are no rival gods”, “do not worship parts of creation”, “creation is orderly and good”, “all people are important”).
In general, the Bible is neither a science textbook, nor a history textbook, nor even a systematic theology manual; but is a description of God’s interactions with humanity, how we are to relate to him, and some of his attributes. However, where it describes historical events and facts, we either have no data to check it again (e.g., exact personal names of individuals); it is compatible with the date that it is describing, but beyond that we can’t say and shouldn’t really expect to be able to (e.g., political situation in the ANE during Abraham’s lifetime), or we have external corroboration (e.g., names of kings post-853). Thus, it seems to generally be pretty reliable historically (at least to be on par with contemporary texts in similar genres).
As to why I believe Christianity to be true, that is something that I still am not satisfied that I can articulate an answer to.
As an addendum, I will note that among those here, l am one of the most theologically conservative regular contributors, but as I am confident that I am a far better expert in paleontology than in theology, I tend not to contribute as much on theological topics, and will generally leave arguments for Christianity to those who can actually identify when in their lives they converted to Christianity.
How do i makes sense of the notion that inside me, for all of my life, i have had this inbuilt feeling that this is not all that there is for me as an individual. There must be something more…is it fairies and fairytales, ghosts and demons, or God and heaven?
I cannot accept that my 3 score and 10 years approximately is all that i have…i will not accept that.
So… now what???
Well, now the search/research begins.
Whatever my destination, lives experience tells me it must be logical and consistent. Some may argue Christian faith isn’t logical and that is largely true, however, that’s not where I’m up to in this point. The logic is the story behind the what comes next world view. A significant part of that is its history and the evidence that supports that history.
We have loads of supporting evidence for almost the entirety of the bible narrative. We know that the vast majority of bible writers really existed.
We know that the stories of the bible, the vast majority of them, really happened…we have loads of archeological evidence (physical evidence you can touch and see) that proves these stories were real and that the writers who wrote them did so quite accurately and that they are not simply a rehash of some ancient Sumerian cultures writings (the internal consistency of Biblical writings and how it aligns with history proves that idea false). there are some cultures we didn’t even know existed outside of the bible until relatively recently (Hittites for example).
When one considers morality, i would argue that generally, if one lives according to the biblical model, one should live a more fulfilling life.
If you think or anyone tries to convince you that God may be found via science…i would argue that’s nonsense. the bible tells us exactly how God reveals Himself to us and “the heavens declaring the glory of God” does not explain Gods plan for His creation in any way. It does nothing to explain theologically the ultimate purpose of an old lady getting squashed flat right before my eyes by a semi trailer!
So if i want to know how to reconcile the horrifying death of an old lady under the wheels of a semi trailer and how that meaningless end to her life came about and whether or not some else comes next…I’m struggling to find a logically, internally consistent, and historically supported answer elsewhere. Im not a person who takes well to guesses and wild theories strung together in order to form what appears to be a consistent proof. Theory base on theory is exactly that…still a theory. I will take my world view from eyewitnesses and historical evidence over theory any day of the week…because real people left us those experiences in their time.
For me, all of the above helps reconcile the idea that my faith isn’t a timewaster.
BTW…your question i think needs answers with some rather blunt language. I am one who is more than willing to let fly in that arena. I wish i could do that, however, this forum probably wouldn’t allow it. So I’ve avoided the swearing that normally flows out of me when talking with individuals who use the phrase “why bother” 
Why am I a Christian? I was brought up with the faith but at the age of 15 I decided it was all hot air. But, within 24 hours I realised I needed God to be there. I had talked with Him for so long Ì didn’t want to lose that.
So where does the bible fit in? The bible was where I learned about God and Jesus. However my faith does not rely onthe bible. My faith comes from my life experience of walking with God.
That God forgives I get from Scripture. Some moral and social guidance I get from scripture but most of that is just common decency.
There are those here and elsewhere who claim to rely on the bible for everything and I get pulled across the coals for not doing the same.
I am a Christian because I think the basic values and message fit with me. But, I fall short from the dogmatism and exclusivity that Christianity is renowned for.
The Christian message does not stand or fall by the minutia of the Old Testament. It would be a little more awkward if the Gospel of Jesus was proved false.
Richard
OhLord…a new testament only proponent.
I have to ask, how do you even know that Christ is nothing more than a more then modern vereion of socrates? If it wasnt for the Old Testament, you wouldnt and thats the point. Christ came very specifically to fulfill the prophesies of the Old Testament. It seems rather absurd fo me that one can ignore Christs own history in order to believe his message. Thats a rather empty message you have there. Its a real shame you do not understand the importance of the Old Testament Sanctuary service, because even the book of Hebrews (most likely directly or indirectly authored by the apostle Paul), goes into great detail explaining the link between Christ and the Sanctuary built in Moses time. If theOld Testament is unimportant, than neither is the essence of Christs existence on this earth…TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF MANKIND!!!
Salvation is impossible without atonement for sin! Moses spent 40 years of his life trying to explain that to the Israelites. (Apparently you dont believe Moses was real? So much for the New Testament then)
Formatting altered by Kendel
Welcome, @cogitoergosuspiro.
Discussion boards are for discussion, not interrogation or meeting demands. Asking personal questions requires your personal participation as well.
How do you see the Bible? What is it’s nature, so to speak? What do you think it tells us? Why do you see it that way?
Does the Bible prove Christianity? Does anything? What do you mean by “prove?”
All or nothing again?
Give me a break! I said minutia, not none of it!
I do not need a lecture on the preparations needed for Christ’s time on earth. Or even a lecture on the relevance of the Old Testament
Richard
It certainly doesn’t follow.
I grew up without it. And I know for a fact that a claim of necessity is nonsense. For example, you certainly can develop a system of morality without it. I did so myself.
Neither does it follow that you should study science.
But how can you decide whether either of these are of value or interest to you until you take a look at them for yourself?
That is what I did. I took a look and I found both of them to be quite valuable and interesting to me personally.
Well first there are my reasons for believing in more than science: What Would You Consider Your "Intellectual Reasons" for a Godly Belief? - #4 by mitchellmckain
Then here are my reasons for choosing Christianity: Why Should Christianity Be the Truth? - #54 by mitchellmckain
The basic challenge of religion (how you will live your life) is not one you can avoid. How much thought you choose to put into that choice is up to you. But those claiming to live by science are deceiving themselves. Their choices in that regard is not science and science simply cannot help you with such a thing. Science is objective observation, while life is subjective participation. The two cannot be more disjoint in what they require.
I suppose I had better give you some of my background.
I have been raised in by strict Young Earth Creationists. They are awesome parents, I have nothing against them.
I began having doubts about my Christian faith/upbringing almost as soon as I started thinking for myself, as I am sure most have. That would have been at about fourteen and a half.
For some reason, I don’t know why, I stopped doubting entirely.
Then, at about fifteen, the doubts came back. I pretty much rejected Christianity and God entirely because I thought that the only valid version of it was the faith I had grown up under. It seemed, and still seems, manifestly obvious that the universe is a lot older than 6000 years, that there was no global Noahic Flood, and that the geologic column and fossil record clearly indicated evolution. More or less, I adopted a staunch Dawkins-style atheistic worldview.
It still remains a mystery to me why I rejected God. Perhaps it was because I was unsure about an afterlife, and the vivid descriptions of Hell communicated to me in Sunday school prompted me to reject the spiritual entirely.
Since then, I have come to realize that an atheistic worldview is naive at best. The amazing fine-tuning of the Universe, the amazing complexity of the genetic code, and many other things seem to rule that out. I certainly believe in a higher power, but who or what It is I have no idea.
For the most part, I have no objection to Christian teachings or beliefs. I do find the Biblical view of women to be sometimes unfair, but it is indeed far more “liberal” than many other religions, for example Islam. My main difficulty is accepting Christianity when it is based on a book that seems uninspired.
I think it is uninspired because:
I guess to a lesser or greater extent that would depend on your understanding of “Inspired”. Especially as Paul seems to claim the opposite.
Inspired does not have to mean perfect or inerrant. This is an ongoing dispute here and elsewhere.
If you have truly rejected the faith your parents encouraged then you need to reject their definitions and reasoning as well. It is very difficult to start over and read the Bible with “fresh” eyes.
That would seem to be a valid perspective, but not one that sits well on this forum.
The consequence should be that you accept or reject what is written by your own values rather than just accepting them wholesale. Few people will expect you to ecnompass the male dominant perspective that underpins Scripture. But I would caution against dismissing the lot because of it.
I think that is almost impossible to answer because it involves a personal perspective that doesn’t easily commute. IOW you are getting a second hand, at best, proofs which entail believing the teller as much as believing Scripture.
Richard
And don’t be surprised if your own children come to different conclusions than you have.
No mystery there that I can see.
I just have one warning for those raised in religion and leaving it. Just because you have decided a religion is wrong, DOESN’T mean there are no good reasons for many of the rules of moral behavior we have in society. I am watching this film right now called “Let there be light.” The description promises that this prominent atheist will face a tragedy that changes his mind, and I can see it coming with him driving drunk. Well… that is not tragedy but completely criminal and he deserves what He gets and far more for the other people he is putting in danger! Too many people like this snap back to their old religion when tossing out the rules of society ruins their life. But that doesn’t mean their old religion was correct, but (quite the contrary) only the poverty of the authoritarian morality they were taught!
I defend the atheistic worldview… along with science and Christianity. Seems good to me. And the promise of nothing after death sounds pretty sweet. Atheism looks quite good to me compared to most religions and compared to quite a few versions of Christianity as well. It is my final answer to those pushing a particularly nonsensical religion or version of Christianity – “well atheism is better than that!”
But obviously I do think there is an understanding of Christianity which I think is better.
As you can see above those are not among my reasons for belief so I don’t find these so convincing.
The Bible on the whole is not bad. But there is a passage which is terrible – bad Christianity as well as misogynistic: 1 Timothy 2: 11-15. It is the one Bible passage which I certainly object to – but I put it down to the cultural prejudices of the writer. Fall of man because of Eve? No. Woman can only be saved by bearing children? No.
I think Genesis 1 has only the purpose to teach that all things like sun, moon, land, sea, plants and animals are not gods but creations of God.
I think Genesis 2 is historical but not literal. Even the Bible treats elements of this story as symbolic rather than literal. So golems of dust and bone eating magical fruit? No. God bringing the mind of man to life with teachings to chosen individuals about love and personhood (with a parental commandment much like "don’t play in the street or you will die)? Yeah, I can believe in that.
As for the flood, the principle problem is confusing the word “earth” with the planet “Earth” which cannot possibly be what the word in the text means at all.
To that my reply is the book of Jonah.
I am not a big believer in prophesy.
Prophesies tend to be either self-fulfilling or self-defeating. In either case, should they really be called prophetic?
I would suggest… it is not about prophesy but about changing the human condition.
I am not so stingy with the word “inspired.” I think the inspiration of God rains down upon us like a torrent to be found in most books, art, and film. Not such a great word for the Bible as far as I am concerned. I like “word of God.” And by this I mean… written by God using human writers and history as His (imperfect) writing implements. And God has the sole proprietary rights so nobody should be changing it as they see fit. And like many here, I see it as largely raising important discussions which we can learn from rather than simply dictating what we should believe.
First of all, welcome.
Allow me to comment only on one of your points, the one above.
Consider the reading of Genesis chapter 3, also known as the fall of mankind. Adam and Eve lived in Paradise, a supernatural place where the laws of physics did not count. They lived in the presence of God (we don’t), there was no death (we do), there was no cruel eat-or-be-aeting picking order (I like my daily meat), Adam and Eve together with the created animals lived from fruit and vegetables (no flesh).
Then the devil came and seduced Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden tree and to be like God knowing the difference between good and evil. And God gave Adam and Eve what they wanted, He removed them from Paradise away from His presence and they landed on the evolved Earth, a perfect place to learn and experience both good and evil.
As such I reconciled YEC and evolution.
I fully agree. I am not rejecting religion because I disagree with the moral principles of Christianity — I think that Christian morality is overall one of the best systems offered by religion.
What I meant when I referred to the naivety of atheism is its dubious application of methodological naturalism to questions of origins — the Universe’s origin (if it had one), the origin of life, the origin of consciousness, etc. It seems laughable to argue that the origin of the Universe can be solely attributed to an inevitable consequence of scientific law, that only “natural” causes are valid causes of the first life, etc.
A lot of the “prophecies” were not even actual prophecies to be fulfilled. Like being born of a young woman. That was not even about Jesus.
Hello Cogito, thank you for your questions! I will share some literature that you may find useful.
Article 1:
Article 2:
Moses and the King of Siam
Article 3 (a story, actually):
The Temple
Book 1:
Plowshares and Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic
Book 2:
The Lost World of the Prophets: Old Testament Prophecy and Apocalyptic Literature in Ancient Context
Book:
The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority
Podcast / video’s:
https://bibleproject.com/
BibleProject does a great job in seeing the Bible as a unified whole, a story that leads to Jesus. They have a whole series on how to read the Bible:
https://bibleproject.com/podcast/series/how-to-read-the-bible-series/
As a book of facts we can do better but as a book of wisdom it can give you as much as you’re ready to receive.
An interesting way to reconcile it. Isn’t that rather ad hoc? Especially since that entails there were other humans already present. Adam and Eve are presumably results of special creation, but not everyone else, they are the result of evolution.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.