Do problems with the historocity of the Bible affect your faith (or lack of it)?

[afleitch]

I think if someone does have a problem with the historical claims made in the bible and can't reconcile then, then it should affect you faith. Note that 'affect' doesn't necessarily equate with 'abandon'. Many of the metaphysical claims are historic in nature. If Matthew 27 is correct and an earthquake opened up the tombs of many of the godly men and women of Jerusalem so that they walked the streets again then that is an historical event, a physical event in a major local city of a population about 80,000-100,000. It is a throwaway passage with not so throw away problems.

In either event Christianity is very much like the Ship of Theseus; it has been deconstructed and reassembled with additions and omissions since the time of the original Jewish Christians (see the discussion we had way back on adoptionism for example) that we can't really be sure if it's the same ship (or more accurately given the divergent sects within the religion, which is the right ship) But like any counter-intuitive, Christianity has always been inventive. You can make the same appeals as thinkers like Celsus used to do back at the beginning but it doesn't diminish people's belief in an idea.

[afleitch]

The only thing that would make me seriously consider abandoning Christianity for another faith (notice I didn't say "abandon religion altogether") would be some kind of evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Jesus did not in fact walk the earth

So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it? There is likely evidence for Buddha and Mohammed. There is of course irrefutable evidence that there was a Joseph Smith, and in the case of Emperor Haile Salassie and L. Ron Hubbard we even have them on tape. Would you accept at face value the spiritual and metaphysical claims that they made? The answer is of course no, but why does it not concern you about your own faith?

You've said that even if an addition or interpretation of an event is fabricated, then as long as it makes Jesus look better that's okay. You even said that those additions shouldn't be given any less authority than what is less likely to have been fabricated just because they don't happen to be true. Does that mean (and this is really what's coming across) that it doesn't matter if anything is true? Even when you yourself have sufficient evidence through your own investigation, to convince you that something you took at face value isn't true? Do you invest the same energy in evaluating the competing claims made by those who don't have any religious belief and those who believe in different gods?

[afleitch]

Strawman of the year award.

I specifically said that whether it was fabricated to improve Jesus' image or not does not take away from the the inherent value of the story itself.  In other words, forgiveness is a virtue whether or not it was preached from the mouth of a divine figure.  Forgiveness is a good idea because it's a good idea, not because we'll be punished by an omnipotent being if we don't forgive.  (And usually, you'll face the consequences for not having forgiveness in this life, anyway, because no one's life has improved as a result of grudges or vengeance.)  In other words, if you only treat another person well because you expect to be rewarded for it, then what does that say about the human condition in the first place?  Mankind must be more morally bankrupt than I thought!

I have to say, with all due respect, I'm a little bemused at your posts today.  You're a smart person.  This is rather intellectually lazy on your part...

You gave the example of a story in the New Testament that you, through your understanding and research, consider to be a fabrication. You then said;

'And, even if it didn't happen at all and was fabricated to simply create a better image of Jesus, that doesn't take away from the value of the story itself and that's why I don't think Christians should give it any less authority than they would any other passage.'

I then said; 'So in short, it doesn't matter if what someone says is true, or even if they said anything at all that wasn't later attributed to them, it only matters that there was a real person who may have said it?' I was referring of course to the fact that you have no issue with parts of  the book of your religion and the words of your god being a fabrication if it 'creates a better image of Jesus'. Or in short, attributing things to Jesus that he didn't say or do does not present to you as a problem when placed side by side with other key tenets of your faith. That's extraordinary. That's all I was trying say.

I don't disagree with you and I feel that you've probably misunderstood exactly what I was proposing. For example in all likelihood, it's 50/50 whether or not Socrates existed and if he didn't, it means he never said anything that was attributed to him. It doesn't detract from the wisdom imparted and that's okay because the destination of my soul doesn't depend on whether I believe Socrates existed.

You can't escape that. The whole point of Christianity is that you have to accept that Jesus is your saviour. He can't just be someone who said 'a lot of interesting things' if you don't take the next step because Jesus was one of many contemporaries or came after others who said exactly the same interesting things as he did. The rest of your post in reply is curiously agnostic. I can't dispute anything else you say with regards to forgiveness or morality because that's exactly the view that I hold. As I said what Jesus said on issues of morality or simply on the best way in which to conduct yourself are not unique.

What's problematic for me is that Jesus wants more than that. Seneca in his Epistulae Morales says; 'If you want to be loved, love.' and to 'Take care not to harm others, so others won't harm you.' These are universal truths that people have always reached regardless of what belief they hold or don't. Marcus Aurelius says; 'We should not say ‘I am an Athenian’ or ‘I am a Roman’ but ‘I am a citizen of the Universe.'

Jesus says these things too, but he also says 'If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.' That's not necessary. As you say yourself, if your only reason for being moral is so that you may please authority, it's not real morality.

[afleitch]

Sadly, I fear that you are trapped in the mindset that there is a single approach to Christian doctrine among believers.  Or, maybe you don't believe that, but your preconceptions of Christianity cause you to overlook those differences or downplay their importance.  It could very well be subconscious, too.  Or I could be completely wrong and it's something else entirely.  In any event, I think that's why it's near impossible to reach a conclusion that's satisfactory to everyone when you are forced to not approach things on your own terms.

I don't believe there is a single approach to Christian doctrine. I am aware there are 40,000 different Christian denominations and countless many interpretations folded into each of them. Many different views are expressed on this forum regularly. If I pick one to focus on I am not being purposely ignorant of the others You might forget that I was a practicing Christian until 2010 and was one of the banner bearers of liberal Christianity on this board until that point. I am not a Christian because I don't understand what people believe. It's because I 'get' the point with which I do not agree.

What I find surprising in many of your recent posts is a very classical agnostic approach to morality. You might not be comfortable with that inference (which is not by any means a slight) and at a point in my life neither was I, but I find it intriguing and the way in which you have been defensive of that is interesting That's all.

[afleitch]

Such problems did effect my faith some.  I mean, to whatever degree both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures represent "salvation history," then major difficulties with the historical narratives did, for me anyway, whittle away at the credibility of the whole narrative.  But ultimately these historical problems are not what did away with my Christian faith.  I was willing, even after learning about historical issues, to say to myself that the authors of the scriptures were human beings who, though they either made errors or were creating a mythic (not a derogatory term here) narrative, struggled to understand the relationship between God and the experience and history of their people.  Besides, as one political historian of India once aptly put it to me; "studying ancient history is a little like shining a penlight into outer space;" the instruments we have at our disposal are limited too, and there is so, so, so much we don't know about the past that humility and not arrogance is the proper attitude toward it all.  I ultimately turned away from Christianity because of larger philosophical and personal reasons. not because of historical issues. 

I had a similar experience I think. Certainly the historical problems were always at the back of my mind. I sort of forgave the Old Testament really, but was less forgiving of the New. Playing around with census dates, making Mary and Joseph move faster than a Roman Legion to Egypt and back in a few days and the ‘raising of the dead’ in Jerusalem after the crucifix which as I mentioned early is not only a supernatural claim but an historic one and so forth were problems, particularly as history was my academic specialism at one time. But it’s easy to dispense with them when you still believe.

What was more damaging were far greater issues surrounding god. You can no longer internalise an entire theological structure built on the Judeo-Christian notions of a god or any notions of a god when that issue gets challenged. It’s left me with a secular world view that took a little while to get used to. People seem to forget that when you no longer believe in what’s been told to you since you were a child, and don’t replace it with something that might be different but similarly structured that you do grieve a little internally. There is a feeling of loss that doesn’t immediately abate. I felt more comfortable dealing with metaphysical ideals standing outside of that particular sand pit. If I ever felt there was a ‘god’, then I don’t really have much stock in Christian theology to revert to type. For me, there’s more structured and persuasive arguments in other philosophies.

There were personal reasons too. Being LGBT and dealing with Christian responses to the same was at times nightmarish. There was always a jarring disconnect there, coupled in part with the fact that the only homophobia I have personally been exposed to has been from a predominantly Christian bent, either from a practicing Christian or from someone who makes appeals to faith, Christian hetero-normism or the Bible itself. I can't say it was a catalyst as I juggled it all fairly well personally from about 12-25 but it certainly zapped me of energy at times trying to defend myself!