Religious debate (split from main board)

#676
#676
turambar85 said:
The problem is that scripture, and its validity, presuppose a theory on the knowability of god. To use scripture as an authoritative argumentative tool is to believe that scripture is divinely inspired, not sullied by human hands, and accurately reflects not what god wants us to believe, but what is the truth. Now, you can't use scripture to defend an interpretation of the knowability of god as it pertains to scripture, as you would have jumped into a vicious circle; you would be using the thing in question to address issues with the thing in question.

You can say "scripture is a legitimate tool to argue for theological points" but this is only if you already have arguments for the belief that there is a god, the belief that god is knowable, and the belief that god would not allow the bible to exist unless it were a true account of the nature of things. This is a problematic step.
Click to expand...

So what your saying is, if you can't find a answer (Non Bible) to prove God's existance, then you can't prove it's true?
 
Last edited:
#677
#677
turambar85 said:
The problem is that scripture, and its validity, presuppose a theory on the knowability of god. To use scripture as an authoritative argumentative tool is to believe that scripture is divinely inspired, not sullied by human hands, and accurately reflects not what god wants us to believe, but what is the truth. Now, you can't use scripture to defend an interpretation of the knowability of god as it pertains to scripture, as you would have jumped into a vicious circle; you would be using the thing in question to address issues with the thing in question.

You can say "scripture is a legitimate tool to argue for theological points" but this is only if you already have arguments for the belief that there is a god, the belief that god is knowable, and the belief that god would not allow the bible to exist unless it were a true account of the nature of things. This is a problematic step.
Click to expand...

You are implying a motive or agenda to change something, or make claim to fit something "true", or not

Could this be the case with, evolution, "man made" global warming, and other such ideas?
 
#678
#678
turambar85 said:
OV, you are a great thread-killer. This will be ignored, and unless you start to gain some sort of understanding for what it means to discuss, let alone 'debate' issues with other human beings, I have no interest in responding to you any further. You are narrow-minded and condescending. Your attempts to cast doubt on the sincerity of my previous religious experiences is insulting, presumptuous and lame. You can no more say that my past religious experiences weren't real or sincere than I could say that your marriage (if you are married) is a sham meant to cover up your hidden homosexuality - this is not an insult, but an example.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry turambar, But I'm merely making an observation from your posts.

As to man being able to know God,that requires salvation.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corn. 2:14
 
#679
#679
This thread has taught me a lot about mainstream Christians and how they see others, and it isn't very good. I've never thought of Christianity as a "cult," but it is starting to sound like one with no one being able to be an authority on anything unless they believe the same as Christians. Not even their own experiences.
 
#680
#680
Oldvol75 said:
I'm sorry turambar, But I'm merely making an observation from your posts.

As to man being able to know God,that requires salvation.

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Corn. 2:14
Click to expand...

By any definition of 'salvation', I had done what you would call attaining or achieving it. The inference you made was not implied in any of my posts. It was made solely within your own preconceived notions of me.
 
#681
#681
IPorange said:
This thread has taught me a lot about mainstream Christians and how they see others, and it isn't very good. I've never thought of Christianity as a "cult," but it is starting to sound like one with no one being able to be an authority on anything unless they believe the same as Christians. Not even their own experiences.
Click to expand...

Right, that is troubling me as well. Apparently, I was always an atheist. Who knew??? Not I.
 
#682
#682
BeecherVol said:
You are implying a motive or agenda to change something, or make claim to fit something "true", or not

Could this be the case with, evolution, "man made" global warming, and other such ideas?
Click to expand...

Not in any meaningfully similar way. The Bible is the single authoritative text on the issue of Christianity, and it is meant to stand as an pedestal on which one builds his or her faith. No text in evolution, climate change, philosophy or literature holds this type of power, and each are making claims that can be checked - that are falsifiable.
 
#683
#683
BeecherVol said:
So what your saying is, if you can't find a answer (Non Bible) to prove God's existance, then you can't prove it's true?
Click to expand...

Thats not an unreasonable inference from my post, but isn't really what I had in mind. What I had in mind, more so than that, was that unless you find a non-biblical explanation for god's knowability, then any attempt to explain the possibility of knowing god will be viciously circular and entirely unhelpful. It would presuppose what it is trying to prove.
 
#684
#684
turambar85 said:
Not in any meaningfully similar way. The Bible is the single authoritative text on the issue of Christianity, and it is meant to stand as an pedestal on which one builds his or her faith. No text in evolution, climate change, philosophy or literature holds this type of power, and each are making claims that can be checked - that are falsifiable.
Click to expand...

Didn't really get to the point with that post.

Let me put it this way.

The Bible can be altered to fit whatever motive, the writers of it, decide.

But, on the other hand, evolution, and things of such, can not altered by humans?
 
#685
#685
BeecherVol said:
Didn't really get to the point with that post.

Let me put it this way.

The Bible can be altered to fit whatever motive, the writers of it, decide.

But, on the other hand, evolution, and things of such, can not altered by humans?
Click to expand...

Well, my apologies, but I thought that was what I was responded to. The bible, and any other text, can be altered by humans, yes. However, it is different with the bible because any changes made in the past are invisible to latter readers - they can't test it with other data to see if it is legitimate. With other texts we can look and say "hmm...this was either changed or was done poorly initially - the data doesn't fit".

That is why what is problematic for religious texts is not for secular texts.
 
#686
#686
turambar85 said:
Well, my apologies, but I thought that was what I was responded to. The bible, and any other text, can be altered by humans, yes. However, it is different with the bible because any changes made in the past are invisible to latter readers - they can't test it with other data to see if it is legitimate. With other texts we can look and say "hmm...this was either changed or was done poorly initially - the data doesn't fit".

That is why what is problematic for religious texts is not for secular texts.
Click to expand...

Pardon me for saying this, cause its not meant to be slanderous in anyway. But to think that secular texts (or ideas), written by man do not have the same opportunity to be affected by agenda, is naive.
 
#687
#687
IPorange said:
This thread has taught me a lot about mainstream Christians and how they see others, and it isn't very good. I've never thought of Christianity as a "cult," but it is starting to sound like one with no one being able to be an authority on anything unless they believe the same as Christians. Not even their own experiences.
Click to expand...

Not really my place to say it, but Im not sure you needed this thread to do that.
 
#688
#688
BeecherVol said:
Pardon me for saying this, cause its not meant to be slanderous in anyway. But to think that secular texts (or ideas), written by man do not have the same opportunity to be affected by agenda, is naive.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think that that is a fair criticism. I said, very clearly, that secular texts can be affected in the exact same way as religious texts. I said they differed only insofar as we can look at secular texts that have been altered and say "hey, your data is actually false" or "hey, this is not a proper logic inference" or "hey, you clearly changed this to suit your agenda". All of the secular texts in the arenas you mentioned are regarding falsifiable information and can thus be shown to be mistaken. A religious text, when altered, will remain that way forever unless specific records of the alteration exist. If the original bible was written by humans, or if the original bible was altered after the fact, there would be absolutely no way to know this. It is an insular and isolated text.

Now, could you please say how I am naive?
 
#689
#689
IPorange said:
This thread has taught me a lot about mainstream Christians and how they see others, and it isn't very good. I've never thought of Christianity as a "cult," but it is starting to sound like one with no one being able to be an authority on anything unless they believe the same as Christians. Not even their own experiences.
Click to expand...

No IP, the way is see people is with Love. It maybe a love that you just don't understand.
 
#690
#690
turambar85 said:
By any definition of 'salvation', I had done what you would call attaining or achieving it. The inference you made was not implied in any of my posts. It was made solely within your own preconceived notions of me.
Click to expand...

Would you give me your definition of salvation so we could have a common ground?
 
#691
#691
Oldvol75 said:
Would you give me your definition of salvation so we could have a common ground?
Click to expand...

Baptized. Saved (i.e., went up front of my own volition and 'asked jesus into my hear'). Asked forgiveness for all of my sins. Beyond this, I read the bible, prayed nightly, sincerely believed in the divinity of christ, attempted to make my life better, had dreams of preaching, and attended church weekly.

Did I miss anything?
 
#692
#692
turambar85 said:
Baptized. Saved (i.e., went up front of my own volition and 'asked jesus into my hear'). Asked forgiveness for all of my sins. Beyond this, I read the bible, prayed nightly, sincerely believed in the divinity of christ, attempted to make my life better, had dreams of preaching, and attended church weekly.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Parable of the sower.
 
#693
#693
turambar85 said:
Well, I don't think that that is a fair criticism. I said, very clearly, that secular texts can be affected in the exact same way as religious texts. I said they differed only insofar as we can look at secular texts that have been altered and say "hey, your data is actually false" or "hey, this is not a proper logic inference" or "hey, you clearly changed this to suit your agenda". All of the secular texts in the arenas you mentioned are regarding falsifiable information and can thus be shown to be mistaken. A religious text, when altered, will remain that way forever unless specific records of the alteration exist. If the original bible was written by humans, or if the original bible was altered after the fact, there would be absolutely no way to know this. It is an insular and isolated text.

Now, could you please say how I am naive?
Click to expand...

Maybe a poor choice of word.

But who is to say, the next idea, that may prove the last guy wrong, is done in good faith, with nothing to gain?

Humans make this possible.
 
#695
#695
turambar85 said:
Baptized. Saved (i.e., went up front of my own volition and 'asked jesus into my hear'). Asked forgiveness for all of my sins. Beyond this, I read the bible, prayed nightly, sincerely believed in the divinity of christ, attempted to make my life better, had dreams of preaching, and attended church weekly.

Did I miss anything?
Click to expand...

Doesn't sound much different than my experience, less the dreams about preaching. Never really felt that call.
 
#699
#699
turambar85 said:
As, technically, could the ancient greeks, the flying spaghetti monster followers, and any number of believers of highly unlikely hypotheses.
Click to expand...

So then your position on Christianity is the equivalent of your position on the flying spaghetti monster. Which I'm guessing means you're pretty darn convinced of your position and don't think you will ever change your mind (i.e., you are convinced that no evidence will ever arise to convince you otherwise). I'm trying to understand in what way that makes you open-minded, which is where this inquiry started.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top