With A Heavy Heart, I Say This to Atheists and Christians

[water]

I humble myself to a God to reveal Himself to me; I fear I cannot find Him if I cannot define Him.
/.../
So you do say there is a way to "define" God?

In a way, I believe it is possible to "define" God. However, this is not a definition with the structure definiens~definiendum. To define is to limit; and once something is limited, it is easy to miss it. Thus definitions like "God is the creator of everything" are forced reductions, and once they are mechanically used in logical arguments, they are bound to fail.

I can sympathize with your fear that unless you define God, you won't be able to find Him. Now, I don't mean to employ the now cheap tactic of "God's wisdom is way beyond our grasp". But I have, via reason, come to the conclusion that you cannot completely define a system (like a belief system) with the elements within this very system; meaning that extrasystemic definitions are necessary. (Do you know Gödel's incompleteness theorems?)

I therefore think that it is premature that one would define God in terms of traditional logic structures. Not because God as such would be flawed, but because traditional logic isn't all there is. There are many kinds of logical reasoning, from traditional or classical logic to fuzzy logic, logic of common sense etc., and what seems to be contradictive in one kind of logic isn't necessarily contradictive if viewed with another kind of logic.

I don't consider myself religious, but I do have an issue with those atheists who simply cast away the whole concept of God as "irrational", "unbased", "unnecessary" etc. Namely, when asked to define the God they lack belief in, it turns out that they don't have a defintion for this, or their definition of "God" is eventually revelead to mean 'old man with a beard'. And that's cruel, to go against religionists and say that they believe in the old man with a beard.

In conclusion, the "definition" of God is, to me, more like a placeholder, with no specified content. Our reason needs definitions, and as such my definition exists (albeit as a placeholder); but if this very reason sees that it cannot define itself out of itself, then it shouldn't act as if it could, it should stop somewhere -- it must stop at the highest principle, and that is God. Hence the definition of God is beyond our grasp, as it has the nature of an extrasystemic definition.

Rather unfortunate really. If their faith is unshakable and substantiated, I don't see what the problem is in taking a different perspective of things. I mean, that's what happened to me. I set out to look at various arguments against Christianity to disprove them and, ironically, I ended up being the one changed. And that's something.. considering my previous zeal for the faith which I'm sure you all knew.

Apparently, faith is not all that unshakeable and substantiated, is it? You have experienced this yourself.
Each person sets up certain boundary conditions as to how far they are willing to go with their mental wonderings. It is an internal safety mechanism.
Theoretically, one could go on and on doubting and relativizing -- but the risk is that one is left empty-handed and unhappy. And nobody wants that. And some point, we all say hic sunt leones, and stop; and we must stop somewhere, or we will walk into our own demise.

But some beliefs have more 'substance' to them than others. All Christians believe to some degree, the Biblical biographies of Jesus. When confronted with anachronisms, outright contradictions and doctrinal difficulties, they simply shrug and say 'God's thoughts are just so much above ours'.

Come to think of it, I once used to accept this "explanation" but not see it as a poor excuse and cop-out. If outright contradictions can be brushed aside so easily, then it implies that there really are no contradictions since any contradiction is something which we are simply unable to understand due to human limitation. Of course, Christians then change tone and say this explanation only applies to the Bible. And so a deeper hole gets dug and the more arbitrary the believer becomes through "faith".

If anything, God did not do whatever He has done for us to go and fight over it. The Bible isn't there for us to dispute whether verse ab is in contradiction with verse cd.
Apparently, we have too much time and energy, so we waste it on such pursuits instead of doing something practical.


Also, an example I have brough up in another thread -- the love letter.
A love letter is believed and understood as such only if the writer and the reader already know eachother, if there already exists a relationship between them *before* the letter is written and read.
The reader cannot believe a love letter and take it personally unless he already knows the writer. The love in a love letter isn't established there, it is *recognized* as already existing.
A reader cannot, merely from reading the love letter, without knowing the writer, establish that relationship of love.

And similar goes for your relationship with God.
The argument: "There are many beautiful things in the world. Therefore, there must be a God who loves us, for he has made these beautiful things for us." is flawed and worthless. Unless one *recognizes* this beauty as coming from God as love, this beauty will mean nothing to him. He can, out of fear and obligation to his society, profess that indeed God made this beauty because he loves us. But unless you *recognize* this beauty as God's love, your belief is only institutionalized faith. If you *recognize* for yourself that this beauty is God's love, then your faith is personal.

It really is annoying, I don't see why "God's Word" should require circular reasoning to defend..

"God's Word" as such does not require circular reasoning. It is just that the human mind works in circularities. Albeit they are actually spirals, not circles, but only time can tell this.

 

[§outh§tar]

There is no question that the Bible says that Michal had no kids.
There is no question that the Bible says that five sons were borne to Adriel
The question is whether the Bible says that the five sons were borne by Merab or Michal. If Michal - contradiction. If Merab - not.

BibleGateway's rendition of the NIV says that the boys were Merabs, with the footnote:
21:8 Two Hebrew manuscripts, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 1 Samuel 18:19); most Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts Michal

1 Samuel 18:19 says that Adriel married Merab, giving weight to the notion that the boys were borne by Merab, not Michal.

My conclusion - no contradiction here!

I wrote a longer, more detailed response but the stupid browser somehow lost it..

The gist of it was:

There is NO contextual evidence to support your claim that the marriage of Adriel and Merab gives "weight to the notion that the boys were borne by Merab, not Michal."

I challenge you to show me even ONE iota of contextual evidence to corroborate that claim of yours.

What more, just because TWO Hebrew manuscripts and the Greek Septuagint show 'Merab' instead of 'Michal' offers NO support of your claim.

Do you actually wish to claim that EVERY other manuscript got it wrong except these few copies? Is it not sensible to admit that pious scribes noticed the discrepancy and changed the wording to satisfy harmony in the texts?

I challenge you to also support this claim of yours, that a Greek Septuagint undisputably FILLED with erroneous translations is to be relied upon instead of the greater agreeing body of texts. The onus is on you.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: SouthStar, I think its now time for you to change your byline from "I want to believe" to "I now believe." You havent lost your belief, you have expounded on it! You may still be trying to recover your false beliefs, but you have progressed mentally and spiritually, and I cannot even begin to tell you how confident I am in you! You have saved your own soul, and you are a thriving example to everyone here on sciforums! In fact, I don't know that I've ever known a man who is as intelligent as you. You are truly an example that I have shown my children! They have much respect for you! I really can honestly say that they have not had a male role model in their lives, and I appreciate the fact that you have become a role model to them. I just want to tell you SouthStar, I love you. I really love you. You are my hero.

 

[TheERK]

*************
M*W: SouthStar, I think its now time for you to change your byline from "I want to believe" to "I now believe." You havent lost your belief, you have expounded on it! You may still be trying to recover your false beliefs, but you have progressed mentally and spiritually, and I cannot even begin to tell you how confident I am in you! You have saved your own soul, and you are a thriving example to everyone here on sciforums! In fact, I don't know that I've ever known a man who is as intelligent as you. You are truly an example that I have shown my children! They have much respect for you! I really can honestly say that they have not had a male role model in their lives, and I appreciate the fact that you have become a role model to them. I just want to tell you SouthStar, I love you. I really love you. You are my hero.

WTF

 

[phoenix2634]

Southstar, you're kidding right? The bible says Merab married Adriel(1 Samuel 18:19). Michal was given to David(1 Samuel 18:27(20-27). Michal despised David, David rejected Michal, so she had no children(2 Samuel 16-23). The Bible also says that Saul gave Michal, David's wife to Phaltiel the son of Laish(1 Samuel 25:44) and David sent messengers to get Michal back(2 Samuel 3:13-16). This brief and incomplete biography of Michals life (of course the bible is not the biography of Michals life) suggests that 2 Samuel 21:8 is simply a transcription/editing/copyright error.

You then say it's unlikely to be an error in 2 Samuel 21:8. So are you suggesting that Michal had 5 kids with Adriel? Are you suggesting that Michal was an adultress. That Michal had an affair with Adriel and had 5 kids? Of course there is nothing in reading the bible to suggest this.

I applaud you on your efforts to search for the truth however you define that to be. However it would probably be benificial to you to stop giving credibility to out of context quotes suggesting contradicitions in the bible. When reading the bible, do so with the goal of maintaining reading comprehension. It's really not that difficult. Don't fall into the trap of aimlessly believing these out of text quotes that sound more like media sound bites.

 

[Persol]

suggests that 2 Samuel 21:8 is simply a transcription/editing/copyright error

So when you don't agree with it it becomes a typo?

 

[Athelwulf]

They fear being struck down by the the Lord Gawd and His Son Geezus for saying outright that it's wrong, so they say it's a typo!

 

[coolsoldier]

I really recommend that you read this:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/stories/2002/12/26/thePreachersStoryIn4Parts.html

 

[TheERK]

I really recommend that you read this:
http://blogs.salon.com/0001772/stories/2002/12/26/thePreachersStoryIn4Parts.html

That was pretty good, until the cop-out at the end.

Sorry, but faith is something you think, not something you do.

 

[coolsoldier]

Sorry, but faith is something you think, not something you do.

Quite honestly, I have no clue what faith is. What I do know is that the man who wrote (and, I assume, lived) that story knows far more about religious history than I do.

What I do believe is that religious faith is worth doing even at the times when you don't intellectually believe it.

 

[TheERK]

What I do believe is that religious faith is worth doing even at the times when you don't intellectually believe it.

That's just dishonesty.

If you mean doing good works because your faith implies that it is the moral thing to do, that's fine. But faith is not a thing that you do. Faith is about belief--sometimes, those beliefs lead to actions, sometimes not. However, faith does not have a monopoly on those actions; secular people often do the same benevolent things.

 

[coolsoldier]

That's just dishonesty.

If you mean doing good works because your faith implies that it is the moral thing to do, that's fine. But faith is not a thing that you do. Faith is about belief--sometimes, those beliefs lead to actions, sometimes not. However, faith does not have a monopoly on those actions; secular people often do the same benevolent things.

I didn't mean to imply either of those things. Faith and action don't just go together, they are the same thing. You do not believe something unless you are acting on it. And when you do good things, you do them because of a faith that leads you to believe those things are right. It may be a faith in a deity or a faith in something more secular (faith is a far more general term than theism), but it is faith nonetheless.

But even if the beliefs dries up, you can continue to be faithful to the actions. The reverse is not true (If you do not continue in the actions, you cannot be considered faithful to anything). Therefore, the only true requisite to faith is action.

 

[TheERK]

Sorry, but I disagree with almost every word in your reply.

I didn't mean to imply either of those things. Faith and action don't just go together, they are the same thing.

No, they really aren't the same thing at all. One can have faith in God without knowing how to act upon that faith. Someone might have faith and God, and faith in the idea that God will take care of things, and therefore not take action to help other people.

Beliefs can lead to certain decisions, but sometimes they do not. To equate faith with action is wrong.

You do not believe something unless you are acting on it.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm sorry, but not everybody acts on what they believe, for whatever reasons--whether it be inability, or fault of character. For example, just because a Christian doesn't spend all day trying to convert other people doesn't mean he does not truly believe that God asks this of him.

And when you do good things, you do them because of a faith that leads you to believe those things are right.

Giant load of bullshit.

It may be a faith in a deity or a faith in something more secular (faith is a far more general term than theism), but it is faith nonetheless

What is 'faith in something more secular'? That doesn't even make sense. For many people, doing the right thing is something that they are driven to do by instinct, or perhaps because it makes them feel good about themselves to help others. This has absoltely nothing to do with faith.

But even if the beliefs dries up, you can continue to be faithful to the actions. The reverse is not true (If you do not continue in the actions, you cannot be considered faithful to anything). Therefore, the only true requisite to faith is action.

For the same reasons, this is also wrong.

 

[coolsoldier]

Sorry, but I disagree with almost every word in your reply.

Your disagreement does not make me wrong.

No, they really aren't the same thing at all. One can have faith in God without knowing how to act upon that faith. Someone might have faith and God, and faith in the idea that God will take care of things, and therefore not take action to help other people.

OK, I'll concede that one can be faithful to the specific belief that God will take care of everything and asks nothing of us without taking action to help other people. However, in your contrived example, one is acting on the belief that no action is necessary.

Beliefs can lead to certain decisions, but sometimes they do not. To equate faith with action is wrong.

True, not everyone acts on their beliefs, however, people who do not are simply not being faithful to those beliefs.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. I'm sorry, but not everybody acts on what they believe, for whatever reasons--whether it be inability, or fault of character. For example, just because a Christian doesn't spend all day trying to convert other people doesn't mean he does not truly believe that God asks this of him.

If a Christian believes that God asks that he convert others, and does not act on this, he is not being faithful to God.

What is 'faith in something more secular'? That doesn't even make sense. For many people, doing the right thing is something that they are driven to do by instinct, or perhaps because it makes them feel good about themselves to help others. This has absoltely nothing to do with faith.

It has everything to do with faith. If you act entirely on instinct, you do so because you have faith in your own instincts, and at the very least, whatever your reasons are, you are being faithful to your chosen course of action.

 

[TheERK]

True, not everyone acts on their beliefs, however, people who do not are simply not being faithful to those beliefs.

You're mixing two definitions of faith together. In a religious context, the idea of faith almost always refers to belief or trust in God, or other various religious concepts. Faith can mean fidelity, like being faithful to your wife, but it was not clear that you were talking about this. In the absense of clarification in a religious discussion, it's safe to assume you're talking about belief in a religious idea without solid proof.

It has everything to do with faith. If you act entirely on instinct, you do so because you have faith in your own instincts, and at the very least, whatever your reasons are, you are being faithful to your chosen course of action.

By the very definition of 'instinct', you cannot be faithful or unfaithful to them. Instincts are things that you do regardless of how you feel about them. They are reflexes.

 

[Persol]

By the very definition of 'instinct', you cannot be faithful or unfaithful to them.

No... we have the instinct to bread... yet logic often trumps that.

 

[coolsoldier]

You're mixing two definitions of faith together. In a religious context, the idea of faith almost always refers to belief or trust in God, or other various religious concepts. Faith can mean fidelity, like being faithful to your wife, but it was not clear that you were talking about this. In the absense of clarification in a religious discussion, it's safe to assume you're talking about belief in a religious idea without solid proof.

In a discussion relating to christianity, you must consider that the definition of "faith" is based on it's reading in christian scriptures, and in the time and culture that those scriptures were written, the distinction between the two was much less clear.

By the very definition of 'instinct', you cannot be faithful or unfaithful to them. Instincts are things that you do regardless of how you feel about them. They are reflexes.

Instincts and reflexes are different. Reflexes are things that you do regardless of how you feel about them. Instincts are patterns of behavior that originate in the brain, and you do not do them regardless of your thoughts and feelings -- in fact, it's been suggested that instincts operate through our thoughts and feelings.

 

[§outh§tar]

Southstar, you're kidding right? The bible says Merab married Adriel(1 Samuel 18:19). Michal was given to David(1 Samuel 18:27(20-27). Michal despised David, David rejected Michal, so she had no children(2 Samuel 16-23). The Bible also says that Saul gave Michal, David's wife to Phaltiel the son of Laish(1 Samuel 25:44) and David sent messengers to get Michal back(2 Samuel 3:13-16). This brief and incomplete biography of Michals life (of course the bible is not the biography of Michals life) suggests that 2 Samuel 21:8 is simply a transcription/editing/copyright error.

You then say it's unlikely to be an error in 2 Samuel 21:8. So are you suggesting that Michal had 5 kids with Adriel? Are you suggesting that Michal was an adultress. That Michal had an affair with Adriel and had 5 kids? Of course there is nothing in reading the bible to suggest this.

I applaud you on your efforts to search for the truth however you define that to be. However it would probably be benificial to you to stop giving credibility to out of context quotes suggesting contradicitions in the bible. When reading the bible, do so with the goal of maintaining reading comprehension. It's really not that difficult. Don't fall into the trap of aimlessly believing these out of text quotes that sound more like media sound bites.

I kid you not.

Again the stupid browser somehow lost my response so I am going to have to type it again. Where was I..

As Persol said, you are being extremely subjective and I daresay, naieve in your eisegesis. An honest person would admit that there is simply no way the majority of manuscripts could have contained a "typo", save for TWO Hebrew manuscripts and a flawed Septuagint. The Septuagint has over SIX THOUSAND variations from the Masoretic texts, including changes in organization. And yet you have the audacity to accuse me of "aimlessly believing out of text quotes" when you are conveniently relying on a flawed translation to rest your case, despite the clear evidence in the majority of tests. In all honesty, can you not admit, in view of so many changes in the Septuagint that a pious copyist supposed himself to be doing "the Lord's work" in correcting the oversight? Or will you actually insist that the flawed version has it right and that the majority have it wrong?

 

[§outh§tar]

The Bible has errors, I have to admit that.

That doesn't mean that everything in the Bible is wrong. The Bible has alot of wisdom in it. You shouldn't underestimate the Bible.

I do feel that a common truth is described in the Bible, some parts in the Bible can give light to other parts, you have to look at the whole picture.

Somehow I think we can recognise what is true.

I try to help you §outh§tar, you can use what I say any way you want, but if you try to use it against me then I take it as a provocation. Instead of seeking a "word-battle" you could try to see what I'm trying to say and tell me what you don't think is right and what you think is right. That way me may come to some conclusion.

But you do not answer my question.

What is your reason for placing your faith in a flawed Book?

 

[okinrus]

The Masoretic was composed after Christ and after Christianity by the Jews. The Septuagint, however, was composed before Christ. By that time there were variations between the Septuagint and versions of the Hebrew text by scribal error. It's conceivable that the Masoretic text is wrong here and the Septuagint was correctly translated from a earlier hebrew text that did not have the same error.