|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 137 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-24-10 | | YouRang: <playground player><Sooner or later one must admit some infallible standard. Without such a standard, how can we reason at all? Every chain of reasoning must start somewhere.> Okay, I agree so far. You are talking about "axioms". For example, the chain of reasoning in mathematics begins with axioms such as "If a=b and b=c, then a=c". One doesn't prove axioms, one just accepts them as true by virtue of being self-evident. All who accept this axiom as true benefit from the ability to use it as a foundation for moving forward in their reasoning, but at the "risk" that this axiom is not true. But notice that axioms like this are fairly simple statements for which there is practically no dispute regarding what it means or whether its true. That's a *long* way from accepting the infallibility of the Bible as an axiom. <Whatever undetected errors the Bible might contain, vis a vis the spelling of proper names or the transmission of numbers, these are dwarfed by the errors inherent in any other standard of infallibility we might recognize. > I don't know how one would begin to support such a statement. <Of course I admit my insistence on the Bible's infallibility is a matter of faith. How could it be otherwise?> You could accept it for what it is without assuming it is infallible. Since you admit that it's infallible as a matter of personal faith, then it's okay for you -- but you cannot realistically expect others who don't share this faith to accept your reasonings that depend on Biblical infallibility. <But let's say none of us here has ever heard of the Bible. (<Whatthefat>, you might as well jump into the discussion, too.) We would all still have some standard which in our minds would be the ultimate court of appeal, as it were, and the beginning of all reasoning. What would it be?> I think we have to start with the realization that there is a difference between that which *is* true, and that which *we believe* is true. And, it isn't valid to equate them simply by having faith that they are equal. |
|
| Apr-24-10 | | cormier: <we are all egual ... <i beleive in the visible universe and the invisible unierse .... <no spirit no life into the flesh(body),> i also beleive we have a consciousness and we can choose to hate, stay indifferent or love> ..... tks> |
|
| Apr-24-10 | | cormier: Now in Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha
(which translated is Dorcas).
She was completely occupied with good deeds and almsgiving.
Now during those days she fell sick and died,
so after washing her, they laid her out in a room upstairs. So Peter got up and went with them.
Peter sent them all out and knelt down and prayed.
Then he turned to her body and said, “Tabitha, rise up.”
She opened her eyes, saw Peter, and sat up.
He gave her his hand and raised her up,
and when he had called the holy ones and the widows,
he presented her alive.
This became known all over Joppa,
and many came to believe in the Lord. |
|
| Apr-24-10 | | cormier: The cup of salvation I will take up.
My vows to the LORD I will pay
in the presence of all his people.
Precious in the eyes of the LORD
is the death of his faithful ones.
O LORD,
I am your servant, the son of your handmaid;
you have loosed my bonds.
To you will I offer sacrifice of thanksgiving,
and I will call upon the name of the LORD.
How shall I make a return to the Lord for all the good he has done for me? Alleluia. |
|
| Apr-24-10 | | cormier: It is the Spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail.
The words I have spoken to you are Spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.”<(for now = yet = actual)>And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me
unless it is granted him by my Father.”
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go?
You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe
and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.” |
|
Apr-24-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: OCF, I think we've beaten our disagreements regarding scientists to death several times over. > It may very well be you're wrong in that claim.
<Honestly, you keep making statements like this as if you've never read my previous responses to them. > It may very well be you're wrong in that claim.
<But notice that axioms like this are fairly simple statements for which there is practically no dispute regarding what it means or whether its true. That's a *long* way from accepting the infallibility of the Bible as an axiom.> It may very well be that you're wrong in that claim.
<I think we have to start with the realization that there is a difference between that which *is* true, and that which *we believe* is true. > It may very well be that you're wrong in that claim.
<And, it isn't valid to equate them simply by having faith that they are equal.> It may very well be you're wrong in that claim. |
|
Apr-24-10
| | OhioChessFan: <YouRang: However, I had always been impressed with the rigor, logic, integrity and success of science.> I won't clutter your forum with such insightful comments as this: You may very well be wrong in that claim. <Thus, I was never really comfortable with the premise that scientists were in the business of sacrificing a true understanding of nature just so they could undermine the Bible.> You may very well be wrong in that claim.
<Also, there were a couple of occasions where this pastor made comments regarding matters of science that I knew were flat out wrong.> You may very well be wrong in that claim. |
|
Apr-24-10
| | OhioChessFan: I agree with <playground> that there really are no other competing theories. Either life arose from some dramatic act of creation, or it arose from some act of evolutionary processes upon nonlife. One side is right, and one side is wrong. Period. |
|
Apr-24-10
| | OhioChessFan: <What is the basis for assuming that the books of the Bible are literally the word of God, when they claim to be authored by many different humans (and in fact, some of the gospels have been discarded as non-canon)? Where exactly is it stated that this particular subset of scriptures is the word of God?> <whatthefat> I can't begin to address that in a forum. If you would like, I could link you to discussions of the matter. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><I am quite comfortable defending my views in the intellectual arena.> Still waiting... |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | achieve: Hi - just posting a quote I encountered, not specifically directed at any one person/poster in the discussion at hand. "The spirit of inquiry, the search for greater truth beyond religion and science, the profound seriousness of doing real thinking, philosophy and ontology – these are almost totally lacking in humanity. Humanity is therefore subhuman from lack of genuine intelligence...they automatically reject any emergent facts or realities that do not fit their brain dead cognitive pattern of belief and disbelief. They watch too much television" -- Gabriel Chiron, "Truth Is Greater Than Man" |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: Jesus said:
“My sheep hear my voice;
I know them, and they follow me.
I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.
<No one> can take them out of my hand.
<My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all,
and no one can take them out of the Father’s hand.
The Father and I are one.>” |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Achieve> I am guessing most people would have an immediate reaction in seeing someone else fitting that description. The hard part is to consider oneself in those words. |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan><I am quite comfortable defending my views in the intellectual arena.> <YouRang: Still waiting... > I'm not sure what you're waiting for. The problem is if I bring forth whatever you mean, and whatever I believe, I may be treated to the penetrating response "You may very well be wrong in that." |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: let's say i place a large white-immaculate painting and voluntarely put a black dot at a bottom corner of it in front of 100 peoples, all will say(judge) the painting is not perfect because humans are subject to do so ... this is from the tree of judgement of what's good or bad .... i firmlly suggest <dicern with grace>, not any judging here.....tks ps. the Father won't loss one of us out of His hands |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan> <I'm not sure what you're waiting for. The problem is if I bring forth whatever you mean, and whatever I believe, I may be treated to the penetrating response "You may very well be wrong in that."> I don't know why you would think that. I don't recall ever giving you such a blunt response without explanation, but perhaps you would be kind enough to show me otherwise. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | playground player: <You Rang> Please don't think I take an existential position. Truth is truth: there is no "my truth" or "your truth," there is only "the truth." God's word would be true whether I believed it or not. I would have to be dense indeed not to see that others don't accept God's word as true. I'm only saying that I can't "prove" it to them by submitting data from some higher source to their "reason" as the highest court--because then some human being's "reason" would be a higher authority than God. So in that sense yes, the Bible is axiomatic, in a manner of speaking. But, OK, fine, let's say I'm ready to throw away the Bible, cease belief in God, etc. So what now will be my ultimate authority? |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <OhioChessFan> <I'm not sure what you're waiting for. The problem is if I bring forth whatever you mean, and whatever I believe, I may be treated to the penetrating response "You may very well be wrong in that."> <YouRang: I don't know why you would think that. I don't recall ever giving you such a blunt response without explanation, but perhaps you would be kind enough to show me otherwise.> What else does this mean?
<I'm saying that there may well be undiscovered errors that are *undiscoverable* -- despite the best effort of many, because they don't happen to create contradictions with other scripture.> |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: the mystery of the Holy-Trinity is a mystery, the greatest ... the Father is the first, the Son is the second and the Holy-Ghost is he thirth .... the three are united as one and the three are God egually if one is there the other-are, He is pure Spirit and took human condition(s), Jesus is the Father united by the Spirit .....we are His Home and He is our Home(Love+++), tks |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan><What else does this mean? <I'm saying that there may well be undiscovered errors that are *undiscoverable* -- despite the best effort of many, because they don't happen to create contradictions with other scripture.>> I've read it over a couple times, and I think the meaning is pretty plain. I wonder if you're reading more into it that what I said? So I guess I should inquire from you to discover where you find fault with that comment. To that end, here is a series of questions: 1. Isn't it obvious that some copyist errors have occurred? 2. Isn't the reason that we know about copyist errors due to the fact that they create contradictions with other scripture? 3. Isn't it possible that a copyist might have made an error that does not happen to create a contradiction? 4. If a copyist error did not lead to a contradiction, might it then be impossible to detect the occurrence of that copyist error? 5. If there is no way to detect such a copyist error, would it be true that we don't know how many there are? If you answer yes to these questions, then you've pretty much arrived at the conclusion stated in my comment. If not, then even so, it would be far more beneficial (and interesting) for you to explain where I am wrong, rather than childishly repeat the same statement over and over, as in your earlier posts. |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <1. Isn't it obvious that some copyist errors have occurred? 2. Isn't the reason that we know about copyist errors due to the fact that they create contradictions with other scripture? 3. Isn't it possible that a copyist might have made an error that does not happen to create a contradiction? 4. If a copyist error did not lead to a contradiction, might it then be impossible to detect the occurrence of that copyist error? 5. If there is no way to detect such a copyist error, would it be true that we don't know how many there are? > 1. Yes 2. Sometimes 3. Yes 4. Yes 5. Yes. I guess you find it plausible to posit a bunch of if this, then that claims. I note you don't cloak any of those questions in the realm of relative likelihood. But the original statement wasn't a vague "if", which I guess includes a 1 in a billion shot. Your exact words were:
< It very well may be > Using that as context, my answer to the questions are:
1. Yes 2. Some times 3. No 4. Yes 5. Yes
I will also note you have changed the terms of the discussion from "infallibility" to "scribal errors". The original context was infallibitliy which simply is not amenable to obvious scribal errors. You managed to tweak the discussion to suggest some vague notion of undetected scribal errors, which in fact matters not a whit in infallibility terms. That is, known or not, scribal errors are not part of the equation of the original discussion of infallibility. If you deny that, you need not address your hypothetical undetected errors, since the already detected errors renders any further discussion moot. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | YouRang: <playground player><Please don't think I take an existential position. Truth is truth: there is no "my truth" or "your truth," there is only "the truth."> I don't think you're an existentialist, and I agree with your idea of truth. <God's word would be true whether I believed it or not.> Okay, there you are making a couple assumptions: (1) that there is a God, and (2) that the Bible is his word. If those assumptions are false, then they are false wheter you believed it or not. <I would have to be dense indeed not to see that others don't accept God's word as true. I'm only saying that I can't "prove" it to them by submitting data from some higher source to their "reason" as the highest court--because then some human being's "reason" would be a higher authority than God. So in that sense yes, the Bible is axiomatic, in a manner of speaking.> It's a side issue, but I would propose that at some point, whether one decides to believe in God & the Bible or not, one must ultimately use their reason to do so. But the main point here is that you seem to accept the Bible as an axiom. That is, something that requires no proof, because it is self-evident. You can (and obviously do) use this axiom as the foundation for developing other beliefs. I would argue that this is way too complex and doubtable to serve as a good axiom. Therefore, you will encounter a great deal of frustration if you intend to make any conclusions based on this "axiom" credible to others. <But, OK, fine, let's say I'm ready to throw away the Bible, cease belief in God, etc. So what now will be my ultimate authority?> Your reason and an honest desire to seek truth without bias. Perhaps it will lead you to believe the Bible & God after all. If so, then the reasonable steps you took to get there will make you better at explaining the reasons for your beliefs to others, and you will understand them better yourself. |
|
Apr-25-10
| | OhioChessFan: <Playground: I'm only saying that I can't "prove" it to them by submitting data from some higher source to their "reason" as the highest court--because then some human being's "reason" would be a higher authority than God. So in that sense yes, the Bible is axiomatic, in a manner of speaking.> I think you can in fact present data from a higher source for examination. If you want to know if anything is true, you examine it. If you want to know if the Bible is true, you examine it. Its claims of being from a higher source qualify, don't they? The vast majority of the world would rather not, for there's a strong moral quality involved in examining the Bible. That is, if someone who knows their lifestyle doesn't measure up with that mandated by the Bible, they may want to just leave the whole matter alone. That is, their lack of faith is not driven by an examination of the Bible and seeing it fails, but in fact an a priori dismissal of something they know might make them uncomfortable in accepting. Cognitive dissonance is a powerful force. In my view, it is axiomatic that life can't come from nonlife, that consciousness can't come from nonconcsciousness, that morality can't come from amoral matter, that uncaused motion can't exist, that a world full of order can't arise from random processes. People don't need to agree with me on those matters, but to be considered intellectually deficient thereby is surprising. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | achieve: <OCF>-<The hard part is to consider oneself in those words.> True - and the term "complacency" is likely insufficient in describing the "deficiency" -- but yeah, by definition humans are more inclined to to project (onto others) than to introspect; self inspect. Just a personal "off on a tangent" remark, but for this very reason I find it hard to withstand my chagrin and eagerness to leave a discussion when I encounter debates on certain websites that sees people (creationist vs evolutionary theorist) go at each-other in rather blunt and unintelligent ways, either overstressing certain trivial details, or the opposite, just to sway the discussion to *their* territory, avoiding direct questions and try and make the other look stupid. A strong debater allows - and gently nudges his adversary into- making his/herself look uncomfortable and shaky, and even unreliable and dyshonest. Or, ideally, both sides find each other's viewpoints worth considering and indeed take time to reflect, and perhaps come closer on an issue. |
|
| Apr-25-10 | | cormier: Sing joyfully to the LORD, all you lands;
serve the LORD with gladness;
come before him with joyful song.
Know that the LORD is God;
he made us, his we are;
his people, the flock he tends.
The LORD is good:
his kindness endures forever,
and his faithfulness, to all generations.
<We are his people, the sheep of his flock.
Alleluia.> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 137 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...