The one I would recommend for a beginner looking into an overveiw of Christian Apolegitics, is one I mentioned earlier in this thread, "Evidence that Demands a Verdict," by Josh McDowell. I recommend it not only because it is a good textbook style analysis but also because its readily available in bookstores. Chapters 1-4 of this book deal with the Bible, its uniqueness, the cannon and its authenticity. There are some others I have read that go into more detail but I think they are all out of print. (Edit - One of the better books I have read is J.W. McGarvey's Text and Canon, published in 1886.Thanks for the references! I live near a branch of the Houston Public Library, and can often get very obscure journals, manuscripts, etc. through interlibrary loan. (I also frequent used book shops whenever I can, and in Texas, the contents are usually about 90% Christian-related and 10% Alamo-related.)
I look forward to further study.
You might also find the book we use in our Text Criticism classes helpful "A Student's Guide to Textual criticism of the Bible" by Paul D. Wegner and published by IVP. It has some good details on the formation of the OT canon especially.
for the formation of the NT canon, any decent Church History textbook should give you a good account. The one we used in our Early Church History classes was "[i]The Birth of the Church: from Jesus to Constantine[i]" by Ivor J. Davidson and published by Monarch Books.
I also frequent used book shops whenever I can, and in Texas, the contents are usually about 90% Christian-related and 10% Alamo-related.o_O
I'm sorry, I just had to LOL at this. Not the Christian book part, but the Alamo part. From my experience living in H-town, Kirth definitely hit the nail on the head.
Did God just decide that some scripture didn't cut the mustard, and magically guide people in selecting which parts to cull? If so, then why do the Catholics and Protestants not even agree on which ones should be excluded? And what of the Koran, which is "scripture," but rejected by Christians -- even though Muslims themselves accept both Old and New Testaments? And the Talmud? On what basis is that rejected by Christians, although Jews accept it as scripture?
Muslims accept some of the New Testament, not all. Basically, if it's in the Quran and in the New Testament, it carries more weight. But there are some very core things about Christianity in the New Testament that Muslims don't accept.
I just don't get why you have to restrict your self to one (set of) book(s). :-)
I just don't get why you have to restrict your self to one (set of) book(s). :-)
Or any books at all, heeding back to the good Tom Paine and Ethan Allen.
If there is a god, he/she/it created me with a cynical mind. Therefore, I can say I am doing god's will.
|
I just don't get why you have to restrict your self to one (set of) book(s). :-)Or any books at all, heeding back to the good Tom Paine and Ethan Allen.
Didn't Ethan Allen write that furniture catalog?
;)
Didn't Ethan Allen write that furniture catalog?
Are you questioning the existence of furniture?!
|
|
Didn't Ethan Allen write that furniture catalog?Are you questioning the existence of furniture?!
Well, does the love seat I'm sitting on now REALLY contain love? Was I predestined to sit in it, or could I have selected the couch instead? Or, could I have elected to just stand?
These are the deep questions that keep me up at night...
The Love Seat did, originally, contain love. However, the first sitter was tempting into leaving the comfort of the Love Seat by the first commercial. We are all, therefore, doomed to bare the toil of commercials.
Didn't Ethan Allen write that furniture catalog?
That's the first thing my wife said, when she saw me reading Oracle of Man. She herself devoutly subscribes to the Clutterian sect: they believe that flat surfaces must not be tolerated under any circumstances; that horizontal planes are unnatural and an abomination; and that junk, clutter, and extra furniture are ways in which the faithful can defeat Evil.
|
|
Didn't Ethan Allen write that furniture catalog?That's the first thing my wife said, when she saw me reading Oracle of Man. She herself devoutly subscribes to the Clutterian sect: they believe that flat surfaces must not be tolerated under any circumstances; that horizontal planes are unnatural an abomination; and that junk, clutter, and extra furniture are ways in which the faithful can defeat Evil.
No wonder she and China get along so well. Same faith and all ;)
...and that junk, clutter, and extra furniture are ways in which the faithful can defeat Evil.
All hail brik-brak!
Camus goes into this in the Myth of Sisyphus; he says (if I have it 100%) assuming there is no God, no Heaven, what not, why not just kill yourself? Says that's the only philosophical question worth asking.
Well first, I would ask, what good does killing yourself do? What problems does it solve? Does it answer any questions?
Second, if there is no God, no Heaven, isn't it possible still to see life as a precious, fragile thing? Can we not enjoy it for as long as we have it? Can we not seek to make it better? Is despair really the only alternative?
Third, is the question of whether or not God exists truly the only philosophical question worth asking? Are there no other questions that are equally important? What is the cause of suffering? Why is there evil? How did the universe begin? Are none of these questions as important as the question of whether or not there's a God?
To me, it is more important to know myself; to understand why I get angry, why I get frightened, and why I despair. If I discover tomorrow that God exists, it will not change the fact that I still get angry. Conversely, if I discover tomorrow that God does not exist, it will not make me any less compassionate towards others.By trying to understand myself, I find I understand better the suffering of others, and it makes me more compassionate towards them. God is all well and good, but if the knowledge of his existence or nonexistence does not make me a better person, then what good is that knowledge? Better to know myself first, I think, then to pretend to know God.
Please jump in if I am way off here, but…
I believe that god fills up believers and they have a hard time imagining what the point of life would be with such a large hole in one’s soul. With such a view, despair would be the only alternative.
Chaos embraces you. Why can you not embrace chaos? :)
How about a compromise? Embrace chaotic women.
I don't subscribe to any specific religious dogma, but I prefer to believe there is "something". If all I can look forward to after this is feeding worms, then what's the point?
I find this view utterly fascinating.
For my part, I do not require (or desire) supernatural validation. The fact is, I exist. We exist. We should make the best of it, both for ourselves, and those who come after. Not only do I not see the point of there being more than that, I'm not convinced there is a point to wanting more than that.
To whom would such a purpose matter? To us? If so, then you're saying life only matters if it is eternal. But why should eternal life "matter" more than temporal? If anything, being in infinite supply would make it less valuable, would it not?
Also, how can you "prefer" to believe something? It is either supported by the evidence, or it isn't. I find the entire concept of choosing what to believe utterly perplexing.
If all I can look forward to after this is feeding worms, then what's the point?
You are what you eat, right? So after death, you don't just feed the worms; you become the worms, and they you. And the dirt. And the crops grown in the dirt, and the people that eat the crops! Death is a Great Becoming, in that sense.
|
|
I find the entire concept of choosing what to believe utterly perplexing.
I find choosing what to believe utterly human. I choose to believe or not believe a lot of things, based on my exposure to a subject, personal experiences, persuasive arguments for or against, or whatever.
You choose to not believe in a higher power because you cannot empirically prove one exists. You weren't born to a state of belief or disbelief, at some point you had to choose what you believe. Otherwise, you're a predeterminist who has no control over their thoughts. Biology or whatever hardwired your belief system, apparently.
|
|
If all I can look forward to after this is feeding worms, then what's the point?You are what you eat, right? So after death, you don't just feed the worms; you become the worms, and they you. And the dirt. And the crops grown in the dirt, and the people that eat the crops! Death is a Great Becoming, in that sense.
Well, yeah, I suppose, ultimately, I can take comfort in knowing I'll eventually feed one of Puff's future relatives ;)
Please jump in if I am way off here, but…
I believe that god fills up believers and they have a hard time imagining what the point of life would be with such a large hole in one’s soul. With such a view, despair would be the only alternative.
I think you're right, to a point. However, I think the reason the hole is filled, is because a lot of people who find God find a part of themselves in the process. I also think that God provides a path for further self awareness. That's why I think a lot of people see despair as the only alternative to God. They don't see that there are other paths to self awareness.
|
Also, how can you "prefer" to believe something? It is either supported by the evidence, or it isn't. I find the entire concept of choosing what to believe utterly perplexing.
Really though, you are "choosing" to believe that there isn't something. It really isn't that much different. And while there may not be that much "evidence" in the divine, what evidence is there that the divine doesn't exist?
...what evidence is there that the divine doesn't exist?
What evidence is there that Santa Clause does not exist?
...what evidence is there that the divine doesn't exist?What evidence is there that Santa Clause does not exist?
I don't get presents under my tree anymore. That's enough for me.
I don't get presents under my tree anymore. That's enough for me.
And coincidentally for my belief in god as well.
What evidence is there that Santa Clause does not exist?
Russel's Teapot. Flying Spaghetti Monster. Zeus.
Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Now you are speaking The Truth.
...what evidence is there that the divine doesn't exist?What evidence is there that Santa Clause does not exist?
I have his head and eight deer heads mounted on my wall. thought they were burglars, sorry...
Now you are speaking The Truth.
RAmen.
|
|
I don't get presents under my tree anymore. That's enough for me.
And coincidentally for my belief in god as well.
My point is that everyone believes something. Shoot, there are even people who believe that the news is unbiased. But regardless, whatever you believe, it requires at least some amount of faith. Even belief in the non-existence of any "god" requires faith.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
There's plenty of evidence Santa Claus doesn't exist. There's the historical origins of the ruse, there's the fact that we tell our children about Santa Claus knowing full well he isn't coming. Satellite photos of the North Pole and all that. I realize that wasn't a serious question, but contrast that with evidence that there is no God.
Creation exists, science might explain or attempt to explain creation or life, but even the events that (ahem) caused life to spontaneously grow on the backs of crystals has some origin, which there is no explanation for. Even if you (and heaven help you) believe in the theory of seeding, the aliens had to come from somewhere.
I believe God created the world, that he created humans to worship him and take care of the world, and he allowed his enemy to introduce sin into the world, as Milton said it, "so that Lucifer would heap damnation on himself". So I then believe God is active in history, and has a redemptive plan that was foretold centuries ahead of time so we could know it.
Finally, I believe God crafted a message for us throughout history so we could identify His character and His plan, and that he has protected that word up to today. Folks might misrepresent it, folks might manipulate believers with select passages. Folks might study it half-heartedly and fail to consider its context, but I believe the heart of my faith is in the Bible as God's word to us. I don't just believe there is a god, I believe there is a specific God. And I hope it's clear that I didn't choose a religion and therefore I believe it. Like a lot of current apologists, I came to believe it because I criticized it.
So..that's my first argument for God. It isn't the last, but the peace I have about the principles I live by, the answers to prayer I've witnessed and the conviction of my heart have to be my first (admittedly anecdotal) evidence. The other stuff is interesting to talk about, but I don't want to recommend a generic god based on bits of anthropology or history or science. I want to present a real and personal God, and discuss ther rest after I've said that much.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
But regardless, whatever you believe, it requires at least some amount of faith.Not to mention global warming.
Hey - and I want to say I don't intend to step on anyone's toes. I just sometimes think religious talk forgets to explore the human side of religion. As Descartes said, we are created by God and therefore born with an idea of God. It accomplishes little to present a belief in God if that God doesn't have a character or personal nature. If God doesn't want us to know Him for some reason, then the existence of said God is kind of academic to me.
I find the entire concept of choosing what to believe utterly perplexing.I find choosing what to believe utterly human. I choose to believe or not believe a lot of things, based on my exposure to a subject, personal experiences, persuasive arguments for or against, or whatever.
You choose to not believe in a higher power because you cannot empirically prove one exists. You weren't born to a state of belief or disbelief, at some point you had to choose what you believe. Otherwise, you're a predeterminist who has no control over their thoughts. Biology or whatever hardwired your belief system, apparently.
We're clearly using "choose" in a different sense. I cannot choose to believe in God any more than I can choose to believe in the Easter Bunny. I can wish those things are real, but how would I go about fooling myself, even if I wished to do so?
|
Please jump in if I am way off here, but…
I believe that god fills up believers and they have a hard time imagining what the point of life would be with such a large hole in one’s soul. With such a view, despair would be the only alternative.
If I can CF, and in the most serious of approaches possible ...
As a Christian, I believe in God, Christ, heaven, hell, all of it. As a human, I *hope* there is a God, Christ ...
Maybe I'm a terrible Christian, but I have to be honest. Sometimes I find myself asking, "Dude, what if you're wrong? What if this is all there is?" I can imagine quite clearly what life would be like without God. Perhaps you are right, because I know from the very depths of my being to my nose hairs that I can't imagine wanting to live without that comfort.
Our astronomers talk about what an absolute waste of space the universe is if Earth is the be-all and end-all of intelligent life.
I talk about what an absolute waste of "Cogito ergo sum" is if working at the corner Circle K is all there is to existence.
...what evidence is there that the divine doesn't exist?What evidence is there that Santa Clause does not exist?
Clearly, you haven't read "The Physics of Santa and His Reindeer."
Folks might misrepresent it, folks might manipulate believers with select passages. Folks might study it half-heartedly and fail to consider its context.
All sadly true.
I'd add just one more possibility, in honor of Thomas Jefferson: folks might study it carefully and still reject it, not out of ignorance or evil, but out of moral conviction.
I don't get presents under my tree anymore. That's enough for me.And coincidentally for my belief in god as well.My point is that everyone believes something. Shoot, there are even people who believe that the news is unbiased. But regardless, whatever you believe, it requires at least some amount of faith. Even belief in the non-existence of any "god" requires faith.
Nope; sorry. I don't buy your premise. Accepting the preponderance of the evidence doesn't require faith. In fact, quite the opposite. Simply because nothing can ever be 100% certain doesn't mean that all things are equally likely.
As has already been mentioned, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. God is fantastically unlikely, hence there is no reason to accept his existence in the absence of proof. Whereas evolution, the result of which appears equally unlikely, is supported by reams of evidence. It is also worth noting that humanity can only appear unlikely after the fact; had we evolved differently, we'd be pointing out the unlikely-ness of whatever form we *did* end up taking.
There's plenty of evidence Santa Claus doesn't exist.
There’s plenty of evidence that god does not exits. There's the historical origins of the ruse, the sun god, Zeus and any of the plethora of other fairy tales man made up to explain what he did not understand. There's the fact that man, for his own personal gain has lied about god knowing full well he isn't coming. Satellite photos of, well, the heavens where god was suppose to be until we found out, no, he ain’t.
Creation exists? Are you going back to the argument that if the universe exists, someone must have created it? If something can not exist without someone or something creating it, then who created god? If god does not need a creator, why does the universe?
|
As has already been mentioned, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. God is fantastically unlikely, hence there is no reason to accept his existence in the absence of proof.
"God is unproven" is a wildly different assertion - logically, epistemologically, and scientifically - than "God does not exist."
To muddy the waters with analogy, the existence of the Higgs Boson is as yet unproven, but that lack of proof is not held up as proof that it does exist. Quantum Physicists are certain they will find it because their math doesn't work without something that fills that niche; the religious are certain of God because their math doesn't work without It.
|
|
As has already been mentioned, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. God is fantastically unlikely, hence there is no reason to accept his existence in the absence of proof. Whereas evolution, the result of which appears equally unlikely, is supported by reams of evidence. It is also worth noting that humanity can only appear unlikely after the fact; had we evolved differently, we'd be pointing out the unlikely-ness of whatever form we *did* end up taking.
The creation of the universe, the earth, and life are incredibly unlikely events. These really have nothing to do with evolution and cannot be backed by any evidence. In fact, Steven Hawking's conclusion was that the odds of there being some kind of "god" are greater than there not being one. And to my knowledge, he isn't a believer. In addition, intelligence is not a natural evolutionary by-product. (At least in my opinion.) Dinosaurs and other creatures have had FAR longer to gain intelligence and we humans managed it in only a few thousand years.
|
|
As has already been mentioned, the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. God is fantastically unlikely, hence there is no reason to accept his existence in the absence of proof.
"God is unproven" is a wildly different assertion - logically, epistemologically, and scientifically - than "God does not exist."
To muddy the waters with analogy, the existence of the Higgs Boson is as yet unproven, but that lack of proof is not held up as proof that it does exist. Quantum Physicists are certain they will find it because their math doesn't work without something that fills that niche; the religious are certain of God because their math doesn't work without It.
The difference is people are trying to find evidence to support the existence of the Higgs boson to prove it exists, as they believe it must. No one is looking for evidence for God because they know he exists already and so don't need any proof. Once again, it goes back to the two mindsets Kirth describer earlier.
Personally, Dove Arrow's description of philosophical introspection seems to be to be a far better course than blind faith, or even blind unfaith.
And I agree with Kirth on the other option. I've read the Bible. I just don't believe it nor consider the God it represents as in any way a moral being whose example should be followed. I'm not looking to be converted, I'm just trying to understand what is to me an alien mindset, i.e. one completely different to my own to the point of being incomprehensible.