Re: Re: Re: Why is the bible the "word of god"?
Originally posted by wesmorris
You'd think that would make people think twice before believing anything to such an extreme. It's doesn't though obviously and for so many reasons.
Well, supposing that we live in a world full of people looking desperately for answers (or truth), a person would be doing an act of "Love", in his willingness to share this precious knowledge with his fellow man, in spite of whatever consequences for himself.
Yes, that's the way a cult functions.
That's not necessarily true; there are many cults that are inward focused. In 'cults' where preaching goes on, it may be guilt or the fear of a threat that motivates it's members or followers.
I cannot name many religions that moves people through love.
That still doesn't address why the bible is applicable to arguments regarding god. Worse, it makes christians look stupid for buying a circular argument.
Allow me to appear a little 'lame' here; A circle is a representation of infinity. God lives and moves in infinity. The mere fact that human logic has problems with validation of such a concept does not bother me.
I believe human logic and reasoning to still be very deficient as a tool in an argument about the existence of God, or the truth of the Bible.
Isn't it a stoic's perception that 'Reason' is the highest thing?
I believe that philosophy has many 'cults' aswell, in which the followers cling to a particular point of view. Philosophy, Reason, Logic, all these 'sciences' have followers in a similar way as a "religion" does. In fact, my point of view is that it's the same.
Philosophy has known many twists and turns, mistakes and triumphs. In that, it is human (imperfect).
Christians throughout history have all basically believed the same thing about God, Jesus, creation, eternity.
God, throughout history has always been the same. There have been saddening interpretations of His will and character, I agree, but that's human error, not divine imperfection.
Don't you feel that there is "truth" in human experience?
When many people testify to similar experiences, wouldn't that make a strong case for truth?
As to why Christians use the Bible as their source of reference about God: When the spiritual and moral principles in a book that is said to be inspired by God are put into practise and turn out to "work" according to that writing, that experience leads a person to believe the truth of it. When particular actions are taken acording to the teachings of the book, and a person experiences the RELATIONSHIP with this God as the book predicted (s/)he would, there is an experience that is percieved to be "truthful" to that person. And leads that person to believe in the authority of that book.
In this way, there IS an experimental validity that can only be experienced by someone who's willing to accept the possibility of God's existence and the validity of "His Word".
And as you know, Christians the world over testify to such experiences.
(the language barrier is getting in my way at times, I apologize)
That could be represented as the foundation of agnosticism. To be more direct: It is an answer regarding epistemology. The general authoritative argument "god is" sickens me based on it's presumption of authority. Hence my agnosticism.
I will readily confess that I never studied philosophy during my education and only recently have taken an interest (as a hobby) in it, reading up on the main 'doctrines' of each period in philosophy.
As to the "God IS" issue: I find it striking that one of the greatest questions in life seems to be "what does it mean to BE"?
And that God simply says "I AM".
What? I'll just say that you are obviously just making shit up to attempt to justify your argument. You should re-read what you wrote and re-consider the validity of your conclusion.
So you wouldn't agree that science can only testify about the observations it makes in the material world?
Or do you not believe that the reality that we percieve is not eternal nor infinite?
You are rambling senselessly. There is truth in science, albeit relative. Let me ask: How is it that you come to the conclusion that "the truth is a concept that is eternal"? I mean, if there were no thinking beings the truth wouldn't be relevant would it? The truth only matters when there might be things that aren't. Dig the dichotomy. Truth is meaningless without the possibility of un-truths. Regardless of my ramblings, you've shown no basis whatsoever for your conclusions.
I think there may be a communication problem because of a language barrier here; What I meant to say is that I observe 'truth' to be something that applies to things outside of the material world. Universal truth. Of course there is always an "un-truth" to it. I agree.
That's a mighty tall IF there partner.
There's a large petition of Christians throughout history to the validity of that statement.
That is an assumption that leads to the answer of your initial question.
Your lack of comprehension doesn't invalidate anything but that which spews from your word-hole. Logic and science prove MUCH relative truth. They provide a structure by which relative truths can be ascertained in a repeatable manner. IMO, that sure beats "god did it, now shut up and pray". Idiot.
Be polite.
Don't you agree that science can only provide evidence of things by observing the physical realm and drawing conclusions?
Providing a non-physical (spiritual) realm exists (and thus opening up the possiblity of the existence of God), science will not help you discover it.
A Christian's faith is empty without the most important factor of that belief: The RELATIONSHIP with God. It is the essence of his belief. Many people testify that they KNOW God; I can understand that it seems very strange to someone who never experienced such a relationship. But not having experienced something doesn't prove it doesn't exist.
Logic and science provide no structure for movement in the spiritual realm, we know only of experiences. There is truth in the number of testimonies that all testify to the same personal experience.
Since logic and sience do not apply, it seems weak to 'hide' behind it.