Irrelevant, Tab: If you don’t find the Scriptures to be authoritative, then presumably figuring out which interpretation is the right one is not a terribly pressing issue for you. I agree that there may be reasons not to treat the Scriptures as authoritative at all, but if one is, and they want to know who’s interpretation to trust, then the answer would lie through apostolic succession. That’s why I said “for the purposes of this discussion”, after all.
But, if you want to start a discussion on biblical contradictions, their existence and relevance, that might be a hoot.
Sorry - I hadda look it up.
Reading your discussion with Tentitive upon credibility, I can’t help but observe that most *irrational beliefs are very interdependent - the first axiom standing on the coattails of the last, all of them drunk and desperately hoping none of their fellows should stumble, in case the whole pack should fall.
ie: The Bible is sacred because it was caused to be written by God. There is a God because look - here is this sacred book.
or: These marks are Alien marks, because the Aliens made them. Aliens exist, look at these marks they made on my skin.
I wonder how this circle of scripture and Creator, Alien and mark is ever broken. Ever becomes able to convince without an *irrational leap.
- I mean in the sense of being outside the day-to-day testable range of things.
Yes, that apostolic succession in a nutshell! To the list of powers, you may as well add canonizing Scripture, though it’s doubtful that particular power will ever be used again. But then that’s the whole point.
Regarding circular/irrational belief, that's just the way it goes with history. If Scripture has any authority, it must be because the writers had authority. This becomes circular for the Protestant, because the only connection they have with the authority of the Scripture writers is through the Scriptures. So yeah, the Bible is authoritative because it says so in the Bible.
On the other hand, if you admit a Church and a Tradition, then the Bible because authoritative because it's the guide that the Church has always used, and what other authority are we talking about other than authority in religious matters? The authority of the Church comes from it's traditions, the historical backing we have of those, the reality of the experience of people who take part in the Church, and yes, documents like the Scriptures (but not just those) that outline it's inception.
Ucc,
It seems to me, that as soon as one asks the question the split occurs. The circular confirmation only works as long as one chooses the dog-tail-dog perspective. One chooses to ignore any other possibilies other than the circular argument with its attendant dogma. It is declaring the world pink and ignoring the rainbow.
Is this then, your definition of credible?
All major religions, all eastern philosophies, all have spawned sects that didn’t get it “right” or created emphasis not intended by their founders. Even the “infallible” Christian church finally had to accept the error of their ways after forcing Galileo to recant his “heresy” that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe. Traditional authority and infallibility?
The incredulity necessary to grant authority to any organization that has proven itself fallible many times seems, well, incredulous to me. The world of rationality has its own problems, but credibility is something earned each time out, and not within tradition fraught with centuries of error.
I have a reponse to you a little higher up, Tent. 
The last thing we need on this good earth is yet another tome of man-made laws. Our law libraries are over-flowing as it is.
The written word is an artificial form of communication and will always be open to loop holes of interpretation, not matter how carefully it is worded.
All our religious scriptrures are museum pieces that should revered as such for they keep us in touch with the life and times and witticisms of our forefathers.
All of them urge us to practice good social behavior. Good behavior is to see no evil, hear nor evil and speak no evil. If we all do that evil cannot exist and only good or God exists, which is exactly what the scriptures try to say. Good behavior is also to love your neighbor as you do yourself. Turning the other cheek simply means for you to see onother point of view - not be a whimp.
Those Truths are timeless, logical, rational and universally spiritual.
If we all stop arguing over what the Bible or any other written lawbook does or does not say and simply practice the basic good that they preach, there will no longer be any need for more scripted laws, or for all the police forces and armies that are needed to enforce them - leaving us in peacful coexistence at long last
Dude, love you forever and all that, but you’ll probably want to address that to me, too. Or else just ignore the rest of this, always an alternative. 
My short answer is that perhaps one should take that ‘Hoisted by His Own Petard’ slogan more seriously than one has.
My longer answer is, yup, that’s the definition. If you haven’t figured this out by now, then I’m ‘a guessin’ you don’t get 'round these parts much, stranger.
As one who finds it hard to watch the suffering of that poor mutated dog you mentioned, I’ve found it helps to take breaks. Or poke the believers with a stick now and then, turn them over to verify imperforation, then move along.
In my more open states of mind, I figure this forum is bifurcated into ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in which we address reason and logic in relation to the holding of supernatural beliefs AND there’s ‘Religious Philosophy’, in which we give a pass on questioning the supernatural and somehow figure out how to address issues with the aforementioned reason and logic from that starting point. There can be a surreal feel to it. But only to some, only to some. That’s my excuse for writing stuff that gets me accused of being disrespectful to the religious and their religions. It’s not because I mean to be, really! it’s because I’m so confused! For all I know, I’m being disrespectful this very moment. 
Oh, and it pretty much means that in this forum, we can share trillions of bits of data questioning the credibility of God and not even one of those bits will matter. But, hey, it’s entertainment, at least in measured doses.
Ingenium-
Did you realize that wasn’t a private message? Why would I or any other theist with any self-respect talk to you now?
So what basis have errantists for stating that what they say is real in the Scriptures is so? Why should they think that we need whatever they call salvation? Why not other scriptures? Other ways of salvation? 
I get along quite well without the transcendent, whether the supernatural or the paranormal. I get what I want. Only death can defy me![Paul Kurtz 'The Transcendental Temptation.]
Burn heretic BUUURRRNNN!!!
When I say, “I have a response for you, a little higher up,” it means “I wrote a response to you, a little higher up the page, and you’re responding to the wrong one”.
But, whatever.
Well, there were a number of responses “higher up”. I’m sure I am responding to the wrong one… 
Just a final note and then I’ll quit. I guess I’m with Ingenium on this one. I simply find religion confusing. Three major religions all coming from the same root, all claiming authoritative holy texts, all in centuries old conflict with one another, two always ready to let violence toward the “unbelievers” be their final answer. I think I’ll pass. My spirituality means too much to me to submerge it in religion.
[b]Well, this thread isn’t going anywhere pleasant. I’m locking this thread for ~48 hours sometime this afternoon. I can’t be too specific on the time since I’m not sure how long some of my assays at work will take me, but probably between 1400 and 1600 EST (-0500). People, get your last words/shots in and then think about this thread for a while. Then come back in two days with a fresh, calmer perspective.
Philosophy, focus[/b]
tentative
Yeah, the one you'd want to respond to is the one that begins with your name in bold, quotes you twice, and answers all the questions you asked me. It, coincidentally enough, comes right after your response to me, instead of right after Tab's response to me. It is, I believe, the 17th post down on the first page. It contains a clear, concise definition of 'credible', which you asked for, unlike my response to Tabula, which did not.
Xunzian,
Aren’t you over-reacting a bit? Does discussion about religion have to be pleasant? Calmer perspective? If it were any calmer, we’d all be asleep.
Ucc,
Then in your eyes, the scripture (biblical) are credible simply because they exist. As a theist, I can understand that perspective, but what about other theists? Does the Quran and hadith have the same credibility? What about Jehova Witness? The Book of Mormon? Are the writings of Jewish theists who deny Jesus as Messiah not implicitly “credible”? What do we do with those who proclaim the KJV as the “true” bible and all other translations false?
It would seem that your idea of credible, however genuine, has a great deal of competition. Bible - Quran - Bible… I would suggest that credibility must have some other source than the fact that scriptures exist unless this discussion is limited to discussion of a specific religion, ignoring the claimed credibility of other than Christianity…
Think of it as a break in a boxing match.
tentative
Just to be clear, I never meant to address whether or not the Scriptures are the One Correct Scripture or anything like that. My point was that for those who take them to be so, there are rational ways to discern an authoritative interpretation from a wrong one. And to get to the original point, a failure to do this is why we have so much ‘cherry picking’.
Anyways, to answer your question, you’d have to ask them, but my impression is that it does, yes. And I think the same question would get the same answer- if they are questioning the authority of an interpretation, they’d want to look to the authors, who were apparently authoritative, and see where their authority came from and where it went. In the case of the New Testament, you have a pretty clearly established Church that the Scriptures get their authority from (Church members wrote them, sanctioned them, and collected them as the New Testament), so I don’t think you can have biblical authority without Church authority, and have it make any sense.
I really don’t know if the Quran is like that, or not.
There must be authoritative interpretations of those books, yes. The would be interpretations that can be traced back to the original authors, just like with the New Testament. An authoritative interpretation of a Scripture only entails that you're getting from it what the author intended, not that it's true. I'm sure there's an authoritative interpretation of every holy book, unless there was one that was specifically written to not mean anything. :slight_smile:
Yes, my point is that it IS limited in that way. There’s no point or method is discussing the authority of a Scriptural interpretation, unless we assume there is some authority to be had. The broader question, “Is the Bible more authoritative than the Koran” would be a completely different thing, evaluated in a completely different way. Not impossible, though.
meh, 30-odd hours is good enough for me. I hope those hatchets stay buried.