Is the bible really the Word of God? – Part 2

I'll have a response up on Reck's blog in a few minutes.

I'm really not interested in playing "devil's advocate", as it were, but I'd like to respond...I can appreciate you spending your time writing it. And while I'm agnostic, I do enjoy reading something different than my own presuppositions.

My understanding of the term agnostic is that it's a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God), is unknown and probably unknowable. They're not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God.

Whereas, the atheist, beilieves that there is no deity. I often see these two terms sort of lumped together, so I just wanted to point out the differences between the two. I personally, don't expect anyone to prove to me that God exists, just as I cannot prove that He doesn't.

The only other thing is in your last paragraph, where you mention you could accept the arguement that the NT writers were biased except for "why would people die for something that wasn't true". People die every day for something they believe is true. (Prove to those Islamic suicide bombers that there won't be virgins waiting for them. Right, so they'll just believe it as it's in their "bible".)

I guess that's it for now! I'll keep readin'!

Linda -
> ... I personally, don't expect anyone to prove to me that God exists ...

Neither do I, but I expect better attempts when they claim it as fact. ;-)

If Sharp said "I think God exists", I probably wouldn't even respond at all. Think it all you like!!!! It's (supposed to be) a free country.

But if I don't claim that a (supposed) God doesn't exist, don't expect me to bother with attempting to prove something I'm not claiming.

You're right Linda about the Islamists. What I meant to say was no one is willing to die for something they KNOW is a lie. My point being that if the disciples were being killed for their belief in Jesus as Messiah, and they had written the books of the NT knowing that they had made up most or all of the accounts, then they would've quickly recanted. But since they believed in what they wrote/said, they chose death/torture.

Oh and by the way Linda, I do know the differnce between agnosticism and atheism, although I can see where I may have given the impression otherwise. I was lousy in English class in school. When it comes to trying to get a point across, I'm probably somewhere between a booger-eater and Jethro Bodine.

I would have to be WAY better read on the bible to comment intellegently... so I think I'll comment unintellegently. I didn't mean to imply that the apostles "made it up" necessarily. I can believe that they meant what they wrote, and that they thought they were inspired by God. But I also think people will go to great lengths to prove or support their beliefs, and 'maybe some stories thrown into this historical document will really drive it home'. Do you know what I mean?