Isn't history based upon faith? If so, then isn't the Bible also a form of history?"?

Question

"Islam is based on faith, Christianity is based on faith, so isn't Islam a form of Christianity?"

"Cats are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, dogs are a form of animal based on carbon chemistry, so aren't dogs a form of cat?"

Answer 1

I understand your question. But be careful because you could cause doubt in the opposite way.

Answer 2

History is supposed to be based upon verifiable fact, not faith. Admittedly, however, history has been a bit dilluted to help the folks in power look good, often times - but that is more lies or interpretation than faith.

The Bible doesn't claim to be a verifiable, factual document - it could just as easily be a book of fables, artistically written specifically to leave itself open to interpretation (making it an interactive experience).

Cats are based upon a feline carbon chemistry and dogs a canine carbon chemistry. They are both forms of Mammals...

Christianity is not so much based on Judaism as it is the next chapter and I think you will find that in many religions. They can agree with this other one, up to a point, but there is all this new stuff that the other one doesn't know yet or realize, somehow.

Answer 3

History.

History is written by the victors to suit the victor's needs. sAnd all of history is interperted and reinterperted based on the culture and generation. There is not such thing as an "unbaised" historical account. Simply because everything and everyone has a bias. But history can come through in various formats - mythology, religious doctrines, letters, diaries, biographies, etc.

In this, yes the Bible is a form of history documentation as it records the religious beliefs and the actions those beliefs inspired. And yes, history does require some faith; as we are having to relay on the perceptions of people who are now dead (ie: trusting that they reilably witnessed and recalled the events on which they wrote); and histroy relies on the scholars either correctly reading (and translating) written documentation as well as making correct assumentions based on artifacts. So yes, I agree with that statement (though your intial statement makes a logical fallacy that is more clearly evident in the following two statements. I would assume that you basic assumption for the question is to show that the Bible is not reliable historically. To this I point out the requirements for a primary source; of which the Bible qualifies. And I make the observation that the primary source are never (niether are secodary sources) with out a level of faith).

Islam and Christianity.

Alot of people would be upset by the inferance that Islam and Christianity is one and same or forms of each other. I admit I don't agree and I think that you logical framework breaks down here. The reason is simple: Islam and Christianity are based in faith (believing what is not known or can not be known or be subjected to emperical testing). But the similarities end there. The other basic tennents (or pillars in Islam) of the two religions are vastly different and contradict each other.

The Short answer here is no they are not the same or forms of each other. To be so they would need to have much more in coman than simple faith; which they do not.

Cats and Dogs.
Um, same logic fallacy here. Come on, scientifically we can prove dogs are alot different than cats (ie: if they were forms of eachother cats and dogs should be able to mate with each other, but they can't. They can't even produce strile hybrids like donkey's and horses can!). Just because two items share a commanality does not me they are the same or forms of each other. Think about.

Answer 4

I answer your questions in order. History is based on the tale of the victor or the observer of the event, that's why i like to break it down into his-story. It isn't based upon ones faith unless your faith biases your view of history. The bible is exactly that, a biased piece of history. The events in the bible have been tainted to make history appealing to those who are searching for answers but have weak minds.

Religion is based on faith, so that makes them similar but not the same. Consider Islam as a distant cousin of Christianity. Jews were the first and then Abraham split away and created Islam. Jebus was a Jew who died, and was a prophet who's teachings were misguidedly re-interpreted into a religion after his death by his disciples. Now days Christianity is a whore that has been ****** over and re-interpreted to suit every ones agenda.

Answer 5

No because the Bible is and contains real history. No one has ever been able to disprove one thing in it. Islam is not a form of Christianity. Islam is a false manmade religion. Christianity on the other hand is not a religion. It is a relationship between man and God. Read John 3:3-6 and Ephesians 2:8-9

Answer 6

Your basic assumption is wrong, history isn't based upon faith. History is based upon historical records, diaries, oral histories, and artifacts that have been preserved from years past. Really nothing to do with Faith at all, actually.

Islam and Christianity are both based on faith, but they are based on faith in different prophets and religious texts (although the same God). So your logic is again fatally flawed.

The same mistake is made when you talk about cats and dogs. Sure they are both carbon-based life forms. You could say that dogs and cats are both forms of carbon chemistry, but logically you can't make the leap to say they are forms of one another.

Hate to say this, but you seem kind of dumb.

Answer 7

Ah, conundrae.

Scripture is a form of history, as well as of literature, as well as of religious inheritence. Be careful here - when you call the Bible a history, you're also implying it is true. Some may not want to hear that ;-)

Your second argument is not logically correct. All Christianity is a Faith, but not all Faith is Christianity. Islam is not a form of Christianity as it would not agree with the basic precepts of Christianity.

The same goes for your third argument. You have it established as:

C is part of B, D is part of B, therefore D is part of C.

This is illogical, therefore your argument is incorrect. It would only be correct to say that C and D are both contained within B.

Answer 8

WHAT THE ????? History isn't really based on faith.It's based on the observations of people over time as to what is going on around them.Granted history can be biased but it is pretty much factual where as religion isn't.Most of the history during the time of Jesus conflicts with what the Bible says and the stories in the Bible even conflict one another!As far as the cat dog thing...In a sense all living things are related because we all came from the same primordial ooze...basically amino acids and such.As life evolved though we def all became separate organisms...Isn't it kind of obvious?

Answer 9

Never thought of history that way--but I guess you're right--we have faith to believe that what the history books say is true. That is not the same as having faith in God, though.

As far as the dogs and cats go--maybe that applies to all domesticated animals?

I don't think that Islam is a form of Christianity--but they do believe in one God--even if by another name.

Answer 10

Good question. Yes, theists would argue that history requires faith, and that is true, but it's not faith with no foundation at all. It's true to say that in practice we do not normally reserve judgment on the existence of figures such as Julius Caesar and Plato, but I would say that the reason we do not do so is this: If, in the light of the available evidence, the *falsity* of a proposition would be much more improbable than its truth, then we're justified in making the provisional assumption that it's true. In the example of Julius Caesar, we have many documents from many different sources which refer to him, we have statues and inscriptions and coins and relics all dating from the correct time, and so on... I think it would be true to say that it would be much *more* remarkable for all that to exist if JC never existed than if he *did* exist. We are using reason when we make that judgment.

Compare that with believing on faith that a man called Jesus existed, that he was the son of a god, that he died for 3 days and then came back to life, that he flew up to heaven and still exists today. Is believing that this *didn't* happen more improbable than believing that it *did*? I don't think so. I think the claim that all this did happen is so much *more* incredible that it would require *vastly* more evidence than a story in an old book to make any rational person believe it.

Answer 11

what did you eat last night? lets say you ate potato salad at home alone. but someday when you're famous for whatever reason and you're put in the history books, they put in there that you ate pizza at a pizzeria with some friends. you protest. it was potato salad....you should know, you were there...alone....nobody else could have possibly known. but sadly as you're opening your mouth to protest, you and all your friends suddenly and inexplicably die. so it goes down as recorded fact that you ate pizza with your friends. obviously, the recorded fact is not accurate, but no one living knows that.
so is this new smidgeon of history based upon faith? yes.
is the actual event based on faith? no
and nobody will ever know the actual event.....and they will probably never question the accuracy of the history books because they have faith that you ate pizza with some friends. in fact, pizza was your favorite food.....the history books say so, even though you never ate pizza because you were lactose intolerant, allergic to yeast, and hated tomatoes in any form. but no one from the future will ever know that.