Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hinduwoman · 01-12-2002, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


I wanted to go back to this point - not that it bears directly on the discussion (I'm not sure what does bear directly on the discussion), but because it reflects a common misunderstanding of Christian theology.
No one is "punished" because of Adam and Eve's sin, or anybody else's sin.
When Adam sinned, he "fell," and all his descendants fell "in him." The fall brought the corruption and contamination which we see all around us. It also eliminated the possibility of any person being reighteous before God "on his own merit."
Each man bears the guilt of his own sin because all sin.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

That statement makes no sense. If all descendants fell "in him" that means they are paying the price of Adam's deed. And I refuse to bear the guilt of all sin --- I would agree that I am guilty of stealing if I have embezzled, but not what Ku Klux Klan is doing.

However I would leave this theodogical dodging in the hands of more experienced infidels.

David Gould · 01-13-2002, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus:


Well, if you want to challenge the conclusions someone else draws from their senses and reasons or if you want to make statements about the ultimate nature of things, i.e., there is/isn't a God, then you need some standard other than yourself.
Otherwise, such statements are just expressions of personal preference and this whole process is a worthless enterprise - don't you think?

I have a standard other than myself - other people. I do not accept myself of them as an authority on everything. I test what they say; they test what I say. We can never know for absolute certain that we have the truth (or indeed any part of the truth) but that is not really the point, is it?

The point is what keeps humans alive and what keeps humans happy. As I am the only human I can experience directly, I use my desire for happiness and extrapolate it to others.

The fact that you have chosen to have an authority for truth that is untestable in any human way seems to me a poor choice.

<possible strawman alert>

God exists. God gave humanity the Bible as His special revelation of the truth (the Universe is the general revleation). Human logic can never prove or disprove God - our logic is a pale reflection of true logic.

If our logic is fallible when it comes to God then how do we have any understanding of God at all? God may say he is the truth and by his definition that may be true but under ours it might be seen as false. How can we mere mortals know which is which, after all?

Do you admit that you cannot know the ways of God, being a fallible human yourself? How then can you know what God's purpose was in inspiring the Bible? Aren't you arrogantly assuming that you know God's truth, which is supposedly unknowable?

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:


I have a standard other than myself - other people. I do not accept myself of them as an authority on everything. I test what they say; they test what I say. We can never know for absolute certain that we have the truth (or indeed any part of the truth) but that is not really the point, is it?

I don't think this really helps. Since, in the final analysis, it is YOU who do the evaluation, you still only have yourself as the standard. You do not share consciousness or experience with another single person. You can only know what they think or what they experience as you perceive their communication to you.

The point is what keeps humans alive and what keeps humans happy. As I am the only human I can experience directly, I use my desire for happiness and extrapolate it to others.

So, happiness is the standard? Why?

The fact that you have chosen to have an authority for truth that is untestable in any human way seems to me a poor choice.

Measured by what authority(standard)?

<possible strawman alert>

God exists. God gave humanity the Bible as His special revelation of the truth (the Universe is the general revleation). Human logic can never prove or disprove God - our logic is a pale reflection of true logic.

If our logic is fallible when it comes to God then how do we have any understanding of God at all? God may say he is the truth and by his definition that may be true but under ours it might be seen as false. How can we mere mortals know which is which, after all?

We do not know truth by logic. Logic only validates arguments. It is possible for an argument to be valid but false. The "truth" that I cannot run a mile in under 4 minutes cannot be derived logically.
Knowledge of God is possible and [u[only[/u] possible when he reveals himself to us. Since his purpose in revealing himself is that he might be known, his revelation must be effective to that end. That men choose not to "acknowledge" their "knowledge" of God, does not negate the effectiveness of his revelation.
As to why some respond to his revelation and others don't, that is a theological issue (which the Bible explains, wouldn't you know).

Do you admit that you cannot know the ways of God, being a fallible human yourself? How then can you know what God's purpose was in inspiring the Bible? Aren't you arrogantly assuming that you know God's truth, which is supposedly unknowable?

To admit such would be to deny the efficacy of God's revelation. There is an important difference in knowing God's "ways" and knowing "him" comprehensively. It is the latter that is not possible.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: theophilus ]

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman:


In that case, no debate is possible at all. The bible is the word of god because it says so. But that same argument can be given about Gita: Krishna says he is God; ergo, he is god. But somehow I don't think that is how christians think.

No, that is not how they think, and that is not what I've argued. The Bible does present itself as the word of God - that does not "prove" it is. The "proof" of the Bible is beyond argumentation. However, there are certain observations we can make about it and other religious books which are important, i.e., do they deal realisitically with human experience, are they historically accurate? The Biblical account of creation while clearly supernatural, is not "fanciful" as are other religious accounts. The Bible does not give false scientific information, e.g., the planets and stars are presented as being "hung" in space, not resting on the back of a giant tortise.
Again, this does not "prove" that the Bible is God's word. The Bible "proves" itself to those who have "ears to hear."
The logical proof of the Bible is that, without it, there is no foundation for knowledge at all.

David Gould · 01-15-2002, 03:03 PM

Theophilus,

If you are saying that I make decisions based on what I think to be true, so do you!

Even if you argue that you use the Bible as your standazrd, the only reason you do so is because you think it to be true!

Ultimately, all of us are our own standard for truth. As you said:

"Since, in the final analysis, it is YOU who do the evaluation, you still only have yourself as the standard. You do not share consciousness or experience with another single person. You can only know what they think or what they experience as you perceive their communication to you."

This applies to everyone.

Thanks for showing that no 'authority' is used by anyone - everyone relies upon their own judgment and everyone of sense recognises that their own judgement may be wrong.

David

Apikorus · 01-15-2002, 03:37 PM

The Bible does not give false scientific information to those who are inclined to explain away its various absurdities. For example, I daresay any qualified geneticist would smirk at the manner in which Jacob's sheep acquire their markings (by looking at striped branches while mating!). Perhaps the author of the story himself was smirking as he wrote it, never imagining that 2800 years later people living in a time when the human genome is revealed in rich detail might take his story literally.

Apparently the author of Leviticus thought bats were birds, that rabbits (Heb. arnevet) chew their cud, that many six-legged insects have four legs, etc. No doubt an accomplished apologist can find many ways to harmonize these errors.

No qualified astronomer or physicist would find it less than ludicrous that the sun and moon were created on the same "day", or that the sun was created after the earth.

Again, I have no doubt that theophilus and his brethren are able to respond with detailed apologetics which attempt to explain away these and other related scientific errors. From my point of view, it is silly to expect that an ancient text such as the Bible would not contain scientific errors. They in no way detract from the pleasure of reading the Bible for me; indeed they help vivify it by properly contextualizing it. But to those who are inclined to read fundamentalistically, no error, no matter how innocuous, can be acknowledged (even though some of these people will admit to the existence of scribal errors).

That such apologetics is manifestly ludicrous is easily demonstrated, since using the same warped hermeneutic one can easily demonstrate that any text - the Bible, the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, the Bonfire of the Vanities - is divine and perfect.

Another canard of theophilus is to state that the Bible "claims to be the word of God". This simply is false. Nowhere in the Book of Ezra, for example, is it stated that the message conveyed is divine and inerrant. God is never so much as mentioned anywhere in Esther. Nor is the canon of the Hebrew Bible self-consistently identified within the text itself. Indeed, there are many lost books (e.g. the Book of Yashar, the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, etc.) which are cited in the Bible. The canonical NT book of James quotes prophecy from the noncanonical book of Enoch. What is true, rather, is that a collection of men decided by acclamation upon a particular canon. And the canon differs between religions: the Jews exclude the New Testament; the Protestants include the NT but exclude Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees, et al.; the Catholics include Sirach et al. but exclude Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees; the Eastern Orthodox...well, you get the picture.

The fact that theophilus refuses to address the issues I have raised regarding the biblical canon suggests that he is uncomfortable with this issue. He has protested, weakly, that he cannot hold forth on such divine matters to an atheist such as myself - surely it would be casting pearls before swine! - but I suspect the truth lies elsewhere.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David Gould:
Theophilus,

If you are saying that I make decisions based on what I think to be true, so do you!

Even if you argue that you use the Bible as your standazrd, the only reason you do so is because you think it to be true!

Ultimately, all of us are our own standard for truth. As you said:

"Since, in the final analysis, it is YOU who do the evaluation, you still only have yourself as the standard. You do not share consciousness or experience with another single person. You can only know what they think or what they experience as you perceive their communication to you."

This applies to everyone.

Thanks for showing that no 'authority' is used by anyone - everyone relies upon their own judgment and everyone of sense recognises that their own judgement may be wrong.

David

The difference is, I do not claim my standard is true "because I say so" or because it meets some criteria for truth which I have established. That is why I don't make arguments to "prove" the Bible is true. And, the Bible presents an objective standard which can be appealed to by anyone.
Making youself the standard of truth makes truth a meaningless concept. You must first know that truth exists and what it is before you can make any authoritative statements. This leads unavoidably to skepticism.
The question is, which "authority" makes knowledge possible and best explains life as we experience it?

Apikorus · 01-15-2002, 03:53 PM

Each of us is free to decide what is true and what is not, and to defend his conclusions by rational argument.

When people refuse to justify their assertions, as is the case with theophilus here, who utterly fails to demonstrate his central claim that the Bible holds itself to be the word of God, what is one to assume but that such people are unable to defend their vision of the truth? As I have argued, the Bible does not even define its own extent, and the biblical canon was set by extrabiblical acclamation of a committee.

That theophilus relies on much more than the Bible alone is quite clear. For starters, he apparently is illiterate in Hebrew, so he relies upon the work of translators in order to so much as read much of the Bible. (I suspect the same is true with respect to Koine Greek.) He relies upon the aforementioned committees which decided upon the biblical canon. Does theophilus acknowledge that Sirach is scripture or not? For what reason? It also is quite impossible for him to divorce himself from the religious sensibilities inculcated in him as a child, the social pressures he is under, etc.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in more detail.

[ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lpetrich:

Satan? Theophilus, do you have any direct acquaintance with this entity? Have you been eavesdropping on Satan and his friends? Have you found any documents in which Satan and his friends had described their plans to plant fake mythic-hero stories?

Yes, in fact, I do have direct expereience, though no "personal" acquaintance with him through his anti-Christ work. My knowledge of Satan, as with all other knowledge of the supernatural, comes from the authoritative word of God.

This seems much like the theory, common among early Christian apologists, that Satan had set up pagan mystery religions to distract people by offering them an opportunity to practice similar religious rites.

It is a reasonable inference from what Scripture tells us of his workings. Do you have some information to suggest that this is not true?

That's been discussed a fair amount, and IMO, Hume's criterion is a legitimate one.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this comment re Hume.

theophilus · 01-15-2002, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hinduwoman:


That statement makes no sense. If all descendants fell "in him" that means they are paying the price of Adam's deed. And I refuse to bear the guilt of all sin --- I would agree that I am guilty of stealing if I have embezzled, but not what Ku Klux Klan is doing.

However I would leave this theodogical dodging in the hands of more experienced infidels.

It makes perfect sense; it explains the human condition.
You do NOT bear the guilt of all sin, just your own.

01-15-2002, 03:37 PM	#126
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	The Bible does not give false scientific information to those who are inclined to explain away its various absurdities. For example, I daresay any qualified geneticist would smirk at the manner in which Jacob's sheep acquire their markings (by looking at striped branches while mating!). Perhaps the author of the story himself was smirking as he wrote it, never imagining that 2800 years later people living in a time when the human genome is revealed in rich detail might take his story literally. Apparently the author of Leviticus thought bats were birds, that rabbits (Heb. arnevet) chew their cud, that many six-legged insects have four legs, etc. No doubt an accomplished apologist can find many ways to harmonize these errors. No qualified astronomer or physicist would find it less than ludicrous that the sun and moon were created on the same "day", or that the sun was created after the earth. Again, I have no doubt that theophilus and his brethren are able to respond with detailed apologetics which attempt to explain away these and other related scientific errors. From my point of view, it is silly to expect that an ancient text such as the Bible would not contain scientific errors. They in no way detract from the pleasure of reading the Bible for me; indeed they help vivify it by properly contextualizing it. But to those who are inclined to read fundamentalistically, no error, no matter how innocuous, can be acknowledged (even though some of these people will admit to the existence of scribal errors). That such apologetics is manifestly ludicrous is easily demonstrated, since using the same warped hermeneutic one can easily demonstrate that any text - the Bible, the Qur'an, the Mahabharata, the Bonfire of the Vanities - is divine and perfect. Another canard of theophilus is to state that the Bible "claims to be the word of God". This simply is false. Nowhere in the Book of Ezra, for example, is it stated that the message conveyed is divine and inerrant. God is never so much as mentioned anywhere in Esther. Nor is the canon of the Hebrew Bible self-consistently identified within the text itself. Indeed, there are many lost books (e.g. the Book of Yashar, the Book of the Wars of Yahweh, etc.) which are cited in the Bible. The canonical NT book of James quotes prophecy from the noncanonical book of Enoch. What is true, rather, is that a collection of men decided by acclamation upon a particular canon. And the canon differs between religions: the Jews exclude the New Testament; the Protestants include the NT but exclude Sirach, 1-2 Maccabees, et al.; the Catholics include Sirach et al. but exclude Psalm 151 and 3-4 Maccabees; the Eastern Orthodox...well, you get the picture. The fact that theophilus refuses to address the issues I have raised regarding the biblical canon suggests that he is uncomfortable with this issue. He has protested, weakly, that he cannot hold forth on such divine matters to an atheist such as myself - surely it would be casting pearls before swine! - but I suspect the truth lies elsewhere. [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

01-15-2002, 03:53 PM	#128
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Each of us is free to decide what is true and what is not, and to defend his conclusions by rational argument. When people refuse to justify their assertions, as is the case with theophilus here, who utterly fails to demonstrate his central claim that the Bible holds itself to be the word of God, what is one to assume but that such people are unable to defend their vision of the truth? As I have argued, the Bible does not even define its own extent, and the biblical canon was set by extrabiblical acclamation of a committee. That theophilus relies on much more than the Bible alone is quite clear. For starters, he apparently is illiterate in Hebrew, so he relies upon the work of translators in order to so much as read much of the Bible. (I suspect the same is true with respect to Koine Greek.) He relies upon the aforementioned committees which decided upon the biblical canon. Does theophilus acknowledge that Sirach is scripture or not? For what reason? It also is quite impossible for him to divorce himself from the religious sensibilities inculcated in him as a child, the social pressures he is under, etc. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues in more detail. [ January 15, 2002: Message edited by: Apikorus ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-15-2002, 03:03 PM	#125
David Gould Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Australia Posts: 759	Theophilus, If you are saying that I make decisions based on what I think to be true, so do you! Even if you argue that you use the Bible as your standazrd, the only reason you do so is because you think it to be true! Ultimately, all of us are our own standard for truth. As you said: "Since, in the final analysis, it is YOU who do the evaluation, you still only have yourself as the standard. You do not share consciousness or experience with another single person. You can only know what they think or what they experience as you perceive their communication to you." This applies to everyone. Thanks for showing that no 'authority' is used by anyone - everyone relies upon their own judgment and everyone of sense recognises that their own judgement may be wrong. David

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.