11 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillGod is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.
This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.
Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.
To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect the change in the condition of the human heart.
Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.
11 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by josephw……The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault..…
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.
Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.
To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect t ...[text shortened]... change in the condition of the human heart.
Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.
That will be true only for the completely rational reader because the Bible is not based on reason.
I may start reading about a scientific hypothesis that I initially distrust but then, if I am surprised to find the evidence/reasoning it is based on is sound, I will not find fault in it.
…Distrust is a symptom of sin....…
How would “distrust” cause, say, me to commit murder? atrocities come from hate, greed, lack of empathy etc and not particularly from “distrust”. I distrust string theory -is that “a symptom of sin”?
…Sin is the result of disavowing God.
...
How do I go from not having a belief that there is a god to, say, committing murder?
Explain to me the intermediate process that would make me go from not having that particular superstition to, say, committing murder.
Theists sometimes commit atrocities and they believe there exists a god thus demonstrating the falseness of your claim.
…Only God can effect the change in the condition of the human heart.
...…
Rubbish. I once fell in love -no “god” observed and no “god” required.
11 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwGod, you say? Any god?
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.
Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.
To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect t ...[text shortened]... change in the condition of the human heart.
Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.
11 Jan 09
1 edit
A question:
When opening up the Koran to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Book Of Mormon to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Canon of the Therava School to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Shri Guru Granth Sahib to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Kitáb-i-Aqdas to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Bhagavad Gita to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
11 Jan 09
11 edits
Originally posted by PawnChop……Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
A question:
When opening up the Koran to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
When opening up The Book Of Mormon to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why shou ...[text shortened]... start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
..…
But that is not the position of most atheists (if that is what you are implying here) -I am an atheists but I do NOT simply always “start from the initial default position that what I am about to read is fabricated and untrue”. I certainly don’t normally do that when I look up something in a science textbook about, say, chemistry.
But if it is a known self evident fact that what I am about to read is not based on logic/evidence then,
NOT even then would I;
“start from the initial default position that what I am about to read is fabricated and untrue”
although I would;
“start from the initial default position that what I am about to read is probably untrue although not necessarily deliberately fabricated” (note the word “probably&rdquođ
but that is just because it is just plain old common sense that if a claim is not based on logic/evidence then that is reason in itself to believe that it is unreliable. I am sure this is also the actual default position of most atheists simply because this is the only default position that makes reasonable sense.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillwhat is the difference between the Bible and let's say the Koran?
In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.
This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
"In opening up the Koran to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?"
how about the Harry Potter series? if J.K. Rowling would claim it is based on a true story, would you believe it? after all, she explains quite clearly in those books why you don't see dragons and wizards. And how can you say there are no dragons and wizards if you haven't read the books(like someone said Hamilton is not entitled to an opinion because he have not read the big book)
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwlet's say this is true. (though the distrust part means we deny a part which makes allows us to progress scientifically)
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.
Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.
To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect t ...[text shortened]... change in the condition of the human heart.
Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.
what in the world ties this to the bible? god infallible therefore his word is likewise, but what is his word? who says it is the bible? maybe it is the koran? or Nietzsche's "thus spoke zarathustra"? who said bible is the word of god? man? since when is man infallible? or is he when he is inspired by god? and who can say whether a man is inspired by god at any time? is it man again?
a healthy dose of skepticism is always correct. in fact more skepticism than the healthy dose is quite reasonable. you would be disappointed less often.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephwThe difficulty then lies in how to accurately identify what is Gods word and what is not. The method of 'blind faith' clearly has flaws. Any other method similarly is either arbitrary or relies on our flawed understanding.
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by josephw…We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed. ...
God is infallible, therefore His word is infallible.
We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed.
The one who begins reading the Bible with distrust will invariably find fault.
Distrust is a symptom of sin. Sin is the result of disavowing God.
To trust God one must acknowledge one's flawed state and seek the remedy. Only God can effect t ...[text shortened]... change in the condition of the human heart.
Only then will one begin to learn to trust God.
It logically follows from that assertion that you are flawed and your understanding of reality is flawed thus you "understanding" that the word of “God” is in the Bible is flawed.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonno it doesn't because he claims that the bible is infallible and he trusts the bible completely.
[b]…We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed. ...
It logically follows from that assertion that you are flawed and your understanding of reality is flawed thus you "understanding" that the word of “God” is in the Bible is flawed.[/b]
what he claims is that humans cannot be trusted to think for themselves and as such require outside help to dictate what to do. and that outside source is the bible. and god personally intervened in the creation of the bible so no one can claim it was made by flawed humans. and the reason we know god inspired the bible is that god told the writers of the bible, to write in the bible that He wrote the bible. logical, don't you think? i don't understand how you cannot understand the obvious.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillThere's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me...you can't get fooled again!
In opening up the Bible to read why should the default attitude be one of distrust and skepticism?
Why should the reader start from the initial default position that what he is about to read is fabricated and untrue?
Someone please explain the rational for a default position towards God of mistrust.
This question would apply to either the New ...[text shortened]... to read is a error, lies, untruths, attempts to deceive or take advantage, fable, untrue myth.
12 Jan 09
Originally posted by Zahlanzi……no it doesn't because he claims that the bible is infallible and he trusts the bible completely...…
no it doesn't because he claims that the bible is infallible and he trusts the bible completely.
what he claims is that humans cannot be trusted to think for themselves and as such require outside help to dictate what to do. and that outside source is the bible. and god personally intervened in the creation of the bible so no one can claim it was made by ...[text shortened]... he bible. logical, don't you think? i don't understand how you cannot understand the obvious.
I was taking his assertion as if, hypothetically, it was the absolute truth in ALL circumstances and then seeing what logical conclusion would follow from that.
he asserted:
“We are flawed, therefore our understanding is flawed”
-taking this assertion as the absolute truth to the absolute extreme, this would mean that his own “understanding” that the Bible is “infallible” must be flawed.
-of course, I don’t actually take his original assertion as the truth -there is no premise for the belief that the understanding of every person without exception of every aspect of reality must be flawed without exception.
…what he claims is that humans cannot be trusted to think for themselves and as such require outside help to dictate what to do. and that outside source is the bible....…
I am aware of this fact and I am appalled by it -as if it were not bad enough that he is unwilling to think critically and independently himself, he also doesn’t want any of the rest of us to think critically and independently.
…and the reason we know god inspired the bible is that god told the writers of the bible, to write in the bible that He wrote the bible. logical, don't you think?...
Not really. We cannot rationally “know” that any words that indicate in the Bible that “god” wrote the Bible originally came from actual words of “god”.
12 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI am afraid I think my answer to that is pretty boring;
Just as a matter of interest -- where do you think they came from, in the most fundamental sense?
I think most of the words in the Bible came only by people (i.e. no “god” involved in any way) and that those people often actually believed (erroneously) that those words actually came from “God” (possibly sometimes from hallucinations or possibly sometimes from superstitious misinterpretations of something they actually heard/saw in real life?) although I am guessing here that sometimes it was simply made up by less than honest people (possibly sometimes for political reasons?).
I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess which one of these hypotheses is correct for the origin of any words in the Bible that specificly indicate “god” wrote the Bible (indirectly through people writing his words).