For those that don't believe the Koran is the word of God...

[loco]

I think one could apply this formula to any God - Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, or any one that man might choose to create in the future.

How to Believe in God
Six Easy Steps

1. First, you must want to believe in God.
2. Next, understand that believing in God in the absence of evidence is especially noble.
3. Then, realize that the human ability to believe in God in the absence of evidence might itself constitute evidence for the existence of God.
4. Now consider any need for further evidence (both in yourself and in others) to be a form of temptation, spiritually unhealthy, or a corruption of the intellect.
5. Refer to steps 2-4 as acts of “faith.”
6. Return to 2.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sam_harris/2007/09/religion_as_a_black_market_for.html

Cute, but Sam Harris is hardly an authority in theology.

1. First, you must want to believe in God.

Plenty of people who did not want to believe in God have become theist, even Christians.  You'll find some in this list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity#From_agnosticism_or_atheism

[loco]

would you say that Muslims who believe the Koran is the word of God are delusional or just misinformed... or something else?

Good question.  I don't know.  I'd have to spend more time with practicing Muslims and learn more about them.  My current Muslim friends are not really devote...they drink alcohol while acknowledging that they are not supposed to.  I have also known former Muslims turned Christians.  They might say devote Muslims are misinformed.

[Straw Man]

Cute, but Sam Harris is hardly an authority in theology.

you're right - he's more of an authority on neuroscience - i.e the neural basis of belief, disbelief, etc..

[loco]

Thank you for answering that.  I had a similar experience while reading a Walter Kaufman book on Nietszche--the skies opened and the pathway to thinking was opened to me.

I think the Bible offers some beautifully written inspirational words.  I think you will find many detractors when it comes to prophecy though.  That's a tough sell.

You are welcome!  I studied Nietszche in one of several philosophy classes I took in college years ago, a secular college by the way.  Nietszche did not have the same impact on me.  

As for prophecy,  I am not basing my entire belief just on that, but it is part of it.  I have heard and read the arguments against it.  Still the arguments for are more convincing to me than the arguments against.  For example, before 1948, an argument against the prophecy that Israel would one day become a nation in just one day might have been convincing to skeptics.

Another one, if the Bible had a prophecy that in the future, knowledge would stay about the same and that faith would increase, an argument against such prophecy would be convincing.  However, the Bible actually says instead that in the future knowledge would greatly increase and that faith would decrease.  I think we clearly see that today, something made specially possible by the Internet.

[loco]

you're right - he's more of an authority on neuroscience - i.e the neural basis of belief, disbelief, etc..

He has a degree in philosophy, not neuroscience, not theology.

He is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

Way too soon to call him an authority on neuroscience and on its link to belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

[Decker]

... However, the Bible actually says instead that in the future knowledge would greatly increase and that faith would decrease.  I think we clearly see that today, something made specially possible by the Internet.

Surely you can see how that is a very logical and foreseeable proposition.  Faith gives way to advances in knowledge.  I don't think its prophetic value is very high.

[loco]

Surely you can see how that is a very logical and foreseeable proposition.  Faith gives way to advances in knowledge.  I don't think its prophetic value is very high.

I see your point, but if that was written two thousand years ago with the purpose to, as some say, control people and to gain a as many converts as possible, I don't see the point in telling the early believers that faith in what they are being told is the truth will decrease in the future.  That is not very encouraging.  I would imagine they would have instead been told the opposite "Hey, faith in this 'truth' will increase to the point where the majority of the world's population will eventually believe it. 

And this prophecy as is, that knowledge will increase while faith will decrease, would have seemed ridiculous during the middle ages, when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the known world and nearly everybody claimed a Christian faith, even if only out of fear of persecution by the church. 

[OzmO]

I see your point, but if that was written two thousand years ago with the purpose to, as some say, control people and to gain a as many converts as possible, I don't see the point in telling the early believers that faith in what they are being told is the truth will decrease in the future.  That is not very encouraging.  I would imagine they would have instead been told the opposite "Hey, faith in this 'truth' will increase to the point where the majority of the world's population will eventually believe it. 

Actually quite the opposite.  What it does is create a greater seperation and exclusivity between the few believers and multitudes of those destined to burn in hell.   In other words, be the few who make it! 

[Decker]

I see your point, but if that was written two thousand years ago with the purpose to, as some say, control people and to gain a as many converts as possible, I don't see the point in telling the early believers that faith in what they are being told is the truth will decrease in the future.  That is not very encouraging.  I would imagine they would have instead been told the opposite "Hey, faith in this 'truth' will increase to the point where the majority of the world's population will eventually believe it. 

And this prophecy as is, that knowledge will increase while faith will decrease, would have seemed ridiculous during the middle ages, when the Roman Catholic Church ruled the known world and nearly everybody claimed a Christian faith, even if only out of fear of persecution by the church. 

Prophecy was an intellectual currency of the day no doubt.  But there were people that recognized it for what it was, as you said, "...the purpose to, as some say, control people and to gain a as many converts as possible,...".  I think prophecy may exist in the form of an extreme form of precocious mentation by a person adept at extrapolation--like Asimov.

[loco]

Actually quite the opposite.  What it does is create a greater seperation and exclusivity between the few believers and multitudes of those destined to burn in hell.   In other words, be the few who make it! 

But for what purpose?  If you had the desire and the chance to create a lie of a religion to acquire wealth and power through the control of many believers, if you wanted this new religion to grow in great numbers, why would you then tell your early followers that there will be only a few, and the faith in this new religion will decrease?

And when the Roman Catholic church was at the peak of its power and control, who could believe in "multitudes of those destined to burn in hell"?  There was no competition for the Catholic Church during this time.

[Straw Man]

He has a degree in philosophy, not neuroscience, not theology.

He is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research into the neural basis of belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

Way too soon to call him an authority on neuroscience and on its link to belief, disbelief, and uncertainty.

well he's more an authority on neuroscience than he is on the bible

what would you say qualifies someone as an "authority" on the bible?

[loco]

well he's more an authority on neuroscience than he is on the bible

what would you say qualifies someone as an "authority" on the bible?

Gleason Leonard Archer, Jr.

B.A. from Harvard University (summa cum laude in Classics) and received an LL.B. from Suffolk Law School in 1939, the same year he was admitted to the Massachusetts bar.

In 1940 he received a masters degree and in 1944 he was awarded a Ph.D. at Harvard University in Classics. Finally he received his Bachelor of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1945.

Archer served as a Pastor of Park Street Church in Boston from 1945 to 1948. He then became a Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965. From 1965 to 1986 he served as a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. He became an emeritus faculty member in 1989. The remainder of his life was spent researching, writing, and lecturing.

Archer served as one of the 50 original translators of the NASB published in 1971. He also worked on the team which translated the NIV Bible published in 1978.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleason_Archer

This guy knew Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, traveled the Middle East, studied Jewish culture, Biblical History and Archeology.

[Straw Man]

Gleason Leonard Archer, Jr.

B.A. from Harvard University (summa cum laude in Classics) and received an LL.B. from Suffolk Law School in 1939, the same year he was admitted to the Massachusetts bar.

In 1940 he received a masters degree and in 1944 he was awarded a Ph.D. at Harvard University in Classics. Finally he received his Bachelor of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1945.

Archer served as a Pastor of Park Street Church in Boston from 1945 to 1948. He then became a Professor of Biblical Languages at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California from 1948 to 1965. From 1965 to 1986 he served as a Professor of Old Testament and Semitics at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois. He became an emeritus faculty member in 1989. The remainder of his life was spent researching, writing, and lecturing.

Archer served as one of the 50 original translators of the NASB published in 1971. He also worked on the team which translated the NIV Bible published in 1978.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleason_Archer

This guy knew Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, traveled the Middle East, studied Biblical History and Archeology.

ok but this is a person and not a list of qualifications - would you say that someone who can read the texts in their original languages would make them an authority? 

Anything else?

Are all legitimate authorities de facto believers or can one be a scholar while also not believing the bible to be the word of god or, even worse also being an agnostic or athiest?

[loco]

ok but this is a person and not a list of qualifications - would you say that someone who can read the texts in their original languages would make them an authority? 

Anything else?

Sorry, thought you wanted an example.  What else?  In addition to actually reading the Bible and knowing the original languages(Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek):

1. Know Biblical History
2. Know Biblical Archeology
3. Advanced degrees in theology and divinities

Are all legitimate authorities de facto believers or can one be a scholar while also not believing the bible to be the word of god or, even worse also being an agnostic or athiest?

True, you can be a Bible scholar and an atheist at the same time.

[Straw Man]

Sorry, thought you wanted an example.  What else?  In addition to actually reading the Bible and knowing the original languages(Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek):

1. Know Biblical History
2. Know Biblical Archeology
3. Advanced degrees in theology and divinities

True, you can be a Bible scholar and an atheist at the same time.

1.  how are you defining "know" - it justs seems ambigous

2. can you give me an example of a someone you would consider a "legitimate" biblical scholar who is also an atheist?

3.  If one doesn't have these qualifications (as I suspect is the case for the vast majority of Christians) - would you say that their opinion is not relevent?

[loco]

1.  how are you defining "know" - it justs seems ambigous

2. can you give me an example of a someone you would consider a "legitimate" biblical scholar who is also an atheist?

3.  If one doesn't have these qualifications (as I suspect is the case for the vast majority of Christians) - would you say that their opinion is not relevent?

I mean that they have to have studied those disciplines.

An example of a "legitimate" biblical scholar who is an atheist?  None come to mind at the moment.  There is Bart D. Ehrman, but he claims to be agnostic.

Is the opinion of average Christians relevant? Yes.  If they read the Bible, study it daily and do their best to practice what they preach, and go to church.  Church going Christians usually have the opportunity to listen three times a week to pastors who have advanced degrees in theology and divinities. 

Are they an authority on the Bible who can write books, commentaries, debate atheist scholars, teach in seminary, be a senior pastor of a church?  I don't think so.

[OzmO]

But for what purpose?  If you had the desire and the chance to create a lie of a religion to acquire wealth and power through the control of many believers, if you wanted this new religion to grow in great numbers, why would you then tell your early followers that there will be only a few, and the faith in this new religion will decrease?

And when the Roman Catholic church was at the peak of its power and control, who could believe in "multitudes of those destined to burn in hell"?  There was no competition for the Catholic Church during this time.

Chosen few, exclusivity, standing apart, are all attractive concepts.  And as your "lie" (which i don't think was as deliberate it's made out to be sometimes) get's exposed more and more you keep control of what you have by that separation and exclusivity concepts.

And with the roman church at it's peak power, few knew what the bible said.

I will say this, the writers and those who chose the books of the NT were very wise.