I was wrong

[Checkmate]

I agree.  Which is what I began harping about a few pages back.  Personal experience cannot possibly be a means to finding truth.  I do not believe what I believe because it "feels right".  I believe because I have found it to be true.Perhaps.  And that expectation will not be fulfilled.

 

I have two requests here.

 

1) Jay, could you please elaborate on your statements that "Personal experience cannot possibly be a means to finding truth". And, "I believe because I have found it to be true."

 

I am interested to know HOW you have found Xianity to be TRUE apart from any experience? What, precisely, have you "found to be true"? Many of your brethren claim to have "a personal relationship with Jesus". I presume YOU would regard THIS as "experience" and ergo CANNOT be trusted nor held reliable? And so THEY cannot be True Christians™?

 

I contend that experience is the ONLY thing a believer "by faith" can go by. You apparently think differently. Please be kind enough to explain this.

 

And my second request (and this is for everyone involved here),

 

2) Can we begin a separate thread to discuss all these things? (As I see we've neatly taken this thread of Kevin's apostasy WAAAYYYY off track.)

[Jay]

OK, I doubt neither you nor I need the whole Heb 11 posted, so I just put a couple of relevant parts.  Verse 2&3 backs up that verse 1.  The ancients (believers) were commended for believing by faith the unprovable, which was that God formed the universe.  Which so far, with our technology and knowledge which is more vast than the ancients, we still can not prove a god formed the universe.  But we have disproved many things they attributed to god, like lightening.  So it is still a faith thing without proof- without basis.

But it does appear that the universe had a beginning.

So it was likely that when you went seeking a religion, you would already be conditioned to seek out a christian version of God, with the whole heaven and hell package, Jesus, angels, satan..etc.

All I am suggesting to you is that you might be better off discovering what I actually believe rather than assuming you already know...

You basis for seeing god the way christianity describes him is because that is what you have been taught.  Muslims, Hindus, Buddists have been taught something else and they are equally affected by their teachings.  What makes you think you have better truth discerning powers than they?

I have been taught many things. I only believe a few. What makes me have better truth discerning powers than those who blindly followed President Bush into an invasion of Iraq?

Well, the atomic theories continually hold up under investigation.  In other words, it can be tested.  Religious beliefs are transient, no better than chance, and they do not hold up under repeated testing.

If the scientific method is the only way of knowing things...

Sorry, but I've already heard the "wife loves me but I can't prove it" analogy quite a few times.  You can read your wifes expression, you can hear the words she says, you can view her actions..etc.  You have something tangible.  You can at least prove she is there, and that is a decent starting point.  All you have with God is what you hope to get after you die.  At least the wife is in the here and now.

Again...based on the idea that the only things that are true can be proven through some tangible means. Yet we all believe the Law of Non-Contradiction, even if we don't apply it properly.

*sigh* If we boil the arguement down to the level of inane ridiculousness, it still won't prove christianity.  If you can not prove you exist, then please stop thinking, talking, breathing, eating..etc.  Even if you are a "character" in someone's dream, the fact that you have autonomy and the ability to think means that you exist in some way.

But that is hardly a testable postulate.

The use of one's senses and logic to investigate ones surrounding is using scientific method.

Logic hardly falls in the category of the scientific method, but whatever. If you are willing to accept it as a means of knowing the intangible then we are on common ground.

[Mike D]

I see that some have not studied Aristotle and are unfamiliar with what, exactly, the Law of Non-Contradiction is. 

The law of non-contradiction seems pretty self-explanatory. What exactly is it about the law of non-contradiction that we're not quite getting right?

 

So you dismiss the Bible's contratictions because it is written by men, eh? Then how can you be sure the basic premises of Christianity are valid, since you must read what those fallible erroneous men wrote to come to any understanding about it?

[Jay]

"I love you, but if you don't love me back, I will torture you eternally."  In my book, eternal torture contradicts love.

It does not violate the Law, because love cannot be defined in logical terms. It is not supported by the Law, either.

 

The Law of Non-Contradiction is a law of logic, and can only be used to apply to logical concepts.

[Jay]

1)  Jay, could you please elaborate on your statements that "Personal experience cannot possibly be a means to finding truth".  And, "I believe because I have found it to be true."

 

I am interested to know HOW you have found Xianity to be TRUE apart from any experience?  What, precisely, have you "found to be true"?  Many of your brethren claim to have "a personal relationship with Jesus".  I presume YOU would regard THIS as "experience" and ergo CANNOT be trusted nor held reliable?  And so THEY cannot be True Christians? 

 

I contend that experience is the ONLY thing a believer "by faith" can go by.  You apparently think differently.  Please be kind enough to explain this.

I do claim to have a personal relationship with God, however, I do not offer that as any sort of evidence of anything. It is just my experience. I have studied the claims of Christianity and found them to be true. Beginning with, "There is a God", and ending with "There is only one way to be saved". It is true that not ALL of them can be proven scientifically or logically. Many can, and the rest follow from there. Of course, I happily admit that some claims made by dominant western Christianity are clearly false, even if they believe every word written in the Bible.

[Jay]

The law of non-contradiction seems pretty self-explanatory.  What exactly is it about the law of non-contradiction that we're not quite getting right?

The Law of Non-Contradiction is a law of logic that states two contradictory claims cannot both be true without at least one being qualified. But it is a law that applies to things that can be defined in terms of logic.

 

So you dismiss the Bible's contratictions because it is written by men, eh?  Then how can you be sure the basic premises of Christianity are valid, since you must read what those fallible erroneous men wrote to come to any understanding about it?

Well, most of the basic premises of Christianity are observable through nature. I do accept that the Bible is a useful book for understanding certain things, just like the New York Times is useful for understanding certain things. But neither are infallible.

[dogmatically_challenged]

*sigh* If we boil the arguement down to the level of inane ridiculousness, it still won't prove christianity. If you can not prove you exist, then please stop thinking, talking, breathing, eating..etc. Even if you are a "character" in someone's dream, the fact that you have autonomy and the ability to think means that you exist in some way

This disrespect for axioms is pure blasphemy! I say lets string him up! hehe.

 

His argument there is extremely self defeating! (A play on what is axiomatic..hehe.)

 

If he is part of someones dream then why would he be self aware? If he can think and act and is self aware then that is confidence enough that he exists. Are the images of people in film self aware, or just recordings of light and sound? A dream is just recordings of light and sound were we can mix it up a bit in our minds from what we have recorded while awake.

 

He only has his feelings of the story and tries to reconcile the real world with his attachment to a story. Many things in the bible story have elements that are axiomatic from personal experience of the real world...in general.Some places and things.

 

Yet god is not axiomatic. Neither are miracles. Niether is the relationship with his invisible friend. As far as his relationship with his god goes, he only has what is in his mind. And we know the mind is suseptable to wishful thinking, mental illness, making judgements on events that he is really ignorant of what is really going on, yet does not honestly investigate for a clearer picture, and instead tries to tie events strange or not into his preconcieved notions based on an unvarifiable story.

 

All he has to show for his invisible friend is fuzzy warm feelings that could be caused by many other things and not his fantastic friend, as well as, maybe, some strange events that he never really investigated for a more accurate understanding.

 

To test the bible , just as we would test anything else, we must not have preconvieved notions or biases. ExChristians were believers, yet reached a point were we accidentaly or intentionaly became truth seekers. We tested the bible and our beliefs in biblegod.

[Mike D]

The Law of Non-Contradiction is a law of logic, and can only be used to apply to logical concepts.

So what in the Bible do you define as a "concept" to be tested with logic, vs. a non-concept which can be dismissed as human fallability and not subject to testing? Do you consider Jesus being his father and son at the same time to be a concept to be tested with logic, or does this get tossed out the window as human error?

[Mike D]

The Law of Non-Contradiction is a law of logic that states two contradictory claims cannot both be true without at least one being qualified.  But it is a law that applies to things that can be defined in terms of logic.

Jay, there are numerous examples of claims within the Bible that contradict each other. I think the problem here is not that we can't grasp the concept of the law of non-contradiction without brushing up on our Aristotle, the problem is that you seem to be commiting the fallacy of special pleading. Based on what you said, things that contradict each other in the Bible are not actually "concepts" to be tested with rules of logic, they are simply texts written by men who messed up. So you want us to allow you to dismiss them. That's my take on this anyway.

[♦ ficino ♦]

That may be, but I am not at all convinced that de-converting is that much different than converting.  I am watching what has been happening here...Kevin has described his experience as being nearly identical to that of someone who converts to Christianity.  He feels at peace...he feels free...he has some concern about what his friends might say...he felt the need to come here to publicly proclaim his newfound unbelief system.  And some who are already de-converts do not believe his de-conversion is for real.

 

No, I believe the experiences are very much the same.  Which tells me something very important...

 

One's personal experience really doesn't mean too much...

 

 

Exactly. So Christians (not you necessarily) should lay off the talk about their experience as though it is evidence for the religious doctrines they want to promulgate.

[Jay]

Jay, are you and Amanda husband and wife by any chance?

sorry...not sure who amanda is.

[Ouroboros]

I'm just reading an article, or review, in New Scientist, of a book called The Spiral Staircase by Karen Armstron, and in there is a very interesting explanation of the root to the word Belief.

 

The word Belief is considered to come from to word Beleven, wich means "To Love", and the word Credo originates from "I give my heart", so belief is a matter of what you love or give your heart to. Which is kind of true. What we love to believe, is what we believe.

 

Any thougths?

[Jay]

If he is part of someones dream then why would he be self aware?

I realize that to some, self-awareness is axiomatic, but how, exactly, do you prove it?

If he can think and act and is self aware then that is confidence enough that he exists.

Interesting enough, am not sure how you prove that any of us think, for openers. Perhaps you should start by defining that.

Are the images of people in film self aware, or just recordings of light and sound? A dream is just recordings of light and sound were we can mix it up a bit in our minds from what we have recorded while awake.

Perhaps that is what we think it is, but how, exactly do we know that? And how do we know that there is not some other being that has dreamed us up? If a dream is "just recordings or images", perhaps whatever it is we think we are is nothing more than the next level in whatever that imagery might be. I am not saying this is so, I am just suggesting that you have not provided a proof at all, and are actually using a false analogy to make your case.

Yet god is not axiomatic. Neither are miracles. Niether is the relationship with his invisible friend. As far as his relationship with his god goes, he only has what is in his mind. And we know the mind is suseptable to wishful thinking, mental illness, making judgements on events that he is really ignorant of what is really going on, yet does not honestly investigate for a clearer picture, and instead tries to tie events strange or not into his preconcieved notions based on an unvarifiable story.

Which is why I refuse to use my personal experience as evidence in this discussion.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Jay,

 

Would this violate the law of non-contradiction?

 

"I love you, but if you don't love me back, I will torture you eternally."  In my book, eternal torture contradicts love.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The higher goals of love that humans say are goals to reach for is superior to bible gods selfish love in every way.

 

Here is something that I got from todangst at I.G. forums another hero of mine.

 

candleinthedark.com todanst's webpage. Very good!

 

 

Mohandas K. Gandhi 1890-1948 VS God timeless

 

On Morality

Well, on the surface, you'd figure that this contest would be rather one sided: We have in one corner, a meek humble man who would be the first to conceed that he is a sinner. In the other corner, we have an omniscient, omnibenevolent super deity, who's reportedly gone undefeated in just about any sort of contest you could contemplate, since the dawn of time. (Well, he has one draw, if you count the old testament account of god's wrestling match with Jacob...)

 

But, let's at least take a look at what each has is on record for saying, regarding some very important moral matters, before deciding. Then I will ask Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg, eminent psychologist and creator of a theory of moral reasoning, to choose the winner

 

On Honesty:

 

"The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee." - I Kings 22:23

 

VS

 

Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and hammered with nonviolence, reject it.

 

 

On Physical Threats and Coercision

 

"But God will shatter the heads of his enemies..." - Psalms 68:21

 

VS

 

One who uses coercion is guilty of deliberate violence. Coercion is inhuman. The more efficient a force is the more silent and the more subtle it is.

 

 

On the Use of Physical Force as a Means of Justice

 

Slay and utterly destroy after them, says the Lord, and do all that I have commanded you. - Jeremiah 50:21

 

"Behold the day of the Lord comes, cruel, with wrath and fierce anger...Whoever is found will be thrust through and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes, their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished." - Isaiah 13:9, 13:15

 

"I will strew your flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with your carcass. I will drench the land even to the mountains with your flowing blood..." Ezekiel 32:5

 

"'Pass through the city after him, and smite; your eye shall not spare and you shall show no pity; slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women...'" - Ezekiel 9:5

 

VS

 

Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will. Love is the subtlest force in the world. Civil disobedience means capacity for unlimited suffering without the intoxicating excitement of killing. Peace will not come out of a clash of arms but out of justice lived and done by unarmed nations in the face of odds.

 

Satyagraha has been designed as an effective substitute for violence. Satyagraha and civil disobedience and fasts have nothing in common with the use of force, veiled or open. The force of nonviolence is infinitely more wonderful and subtle and powerful than the use of violence.

 

 

On Women and Equality

 

For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman but woman for man." - 1 Corinthians, 11:8

 

"As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." - 1 Corinthians 14:34

 

"Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord." - Ephesians 5:22

 

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11-14

 

VS

 

There is no occasion for women to consider themselves subordinate or inferior to man. Woman is the companion of man, gifted with equal mental capacity.

 

 

On Respect Towards All Life

 

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered. - Genesis 9:2

 

VS

 

And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Genesis 6:7

 

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated...I hold that, the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man."

 

 

On Slavery

 

"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your bretheren the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another, with harshness." - Leviticus 25:44

 

VS

 

No society can possibly be built on a denial of individual freedom.

 

Now, to decide our winner, Dr. Lawrence Kohlberg

 

Greetings Web denziens and pursuers of the truth. Here is my decision, based upon my theory of moral reasoning:

 

My (Kohlberg's) classification can be outlined in the following manner:

 

 

LEVEL STAGE SOCIAL ORIENTATION

 

Pre-conventional 1 Obedience and Punishment

 

2 Individualism, Instrumentalism,

and Exchange

 

 

Conventional 3 "Good boy/girl"

 

4 Law and Order

 

 

Post-conventional 5 Social Contract

 

6 Principled Conscience

 

 

God , is operating on the first level of moral thinking - a sort of reasoning usually found in pre school children. In the first stage of this level, people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment.

 

The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests.

 

The second level of moral thinking is typical of the morality generally found in society, hence the name "conventional." The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty.

 

The third level of moral thinking is one that I (Kohlberg) feel is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience. It is this stage that Mr. Gandhi , is operating on.

[Jay]

Jay, there are numerous examples of claims within the Bible that contradict each other. I think the problem here is not that we can't grasp the concept of the law of non-contradiction without brushing up on our Aristotle, the problem is that you seem to be commiting the fallacy of special pleading.  Based on what you said, things that contradict each other in the Bible are not actually "concepts" to be tested with rules of logic, they are simply texts written by men who messed up.  So you want us to allow you to dismiss them.  That's my take on this anyway.

Actually, all I am saying is that the Bible not be inerrant for my beliefs to be true. I am not claiming that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible. Of course, there are. I am not sure how that is germane to the conversation, since the only ones who have brought up the Bible in this conversation are Ex-Christians. I don't generally use the Bible in my argumentation for most of my points.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Actually, all I am saying is that the Bible not be inerrant for my beliefs to be true.  I am not claiming that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible.  Of course, there are.  I am not sure how that is germane to the conversation, since the only ones who have brought up the Bible in this conversation are Ex-Christians.  I don't generally use the Bible in my argumentation for most of my points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then you have no real points for bible god since your only understanding of bible god comes from the bible story that you uncriticaly believe in.

[Jay]

Perhaps you have better discerning powers in that area.  But what makes you better at discerning the truth than everyone who is a muslim or everyone who is a hindu.  In what way were your discerning powers better than theirs?  So you do not concede that living in a christian predominate nation may have made you more suseptible to accepting chritianity over another religion?

I don't know. My search was for truth, not some religion to cling to. I was on the border of atheism myself.

What other means do we have?  We have our senses, we have our brains and to a lesser degree we have our emotions.  What means do we have left that does not fall into the realm of "booga booga".

Well, the rules of logic are not tangible, in the sense of being concrete. Many things we prove things are through abstract thinking, without physical proof.

Logic and science work together better than logic and religious experience.  Can you prove God without committing a logical fallacy?

Yes. And I am not asking anyone to accept religious experience as evidence for anything. Not quite sure how many times I have to state that in this thread.

I asked a couple times in debate, that if world was created before light, as it says in genesis, what was the earth rotating around before the sun was created.  The christian response, "Well God was holding the earth in his hands...."

Yeah, well, not sure what to tell you about that. I do not believe that Genesis 1 is a literal story of how God made things. It is an allegory, as I see it.

No Christian will ever have to prove or be able to show that God held the earth in his hand while he created the sun.

Just as no scientist will ever be able to show that it is even possible for life to emerge from non-life.

[Jay]

Exactly.  So Christians (not you necessarily) should lay off the talk about their experience as though it is evidence for the religious doctrines they want to promulgate.

But I never have, dammit. Read my posts before criticizing.

[Mike D]

Actually, all I am saying is that the Bible not be inerrant for my beliefs to be true.  I am not claiming that there are contradictions and errors in the Bible.  Of course, there are.  I am not sure how that is germane to the conversation, since the only ones who have brought up the Bible in this conversation are Ex-Christians.  I don't generally use the Bible in my argumentation for most of my points.

Since the Bible is the basis of knowledge for your beliefs I gather it is somewhat relevant to the discussion. You said you apply the law of non-contradiction to Christianity, yet you're not sure the very source of Christianity itself - the Bible - has any place within discussion of your application of that law against it. I don't really know what to say here

[Ouroboros]

If I understand Jay correctly, he doesn't see the Bible necessarily as a complete historical document, but he accepts parts of it to be mythological.

 

It's interesting that this was the common view before the modern scientific era started. The stories in "holy books" were meant for introvert discovery, kind of a rudimentary form of psychology and giving meaning to life, not an explanation to why things worked a certain way.

 

The two ways to discover truth "Logos" or "Mythos". One by the experimental, empirical process to see how the world works, and the other to explain the reason to why it exists but not necessarily how it exists.

 

Jay, have you been reading Joseph Campbell and John Shelby-Spong by chance?

[Jay]

Jay, have you been reading Joseph Campbell and John Shelby-Spong by chance?

I am not familiar with Campbell.

 

I know Shelby-Spong's name, but have not read anything from him.

 

Most of my conclusions (such as my belief that Genesis 1-11 are not actual true stories but parables), are arrived at by textual analysis. Also, understanding what the Bible is, and what its intended purpose is.

 

The Bible is not a book of science.

 

It contains all sorts of literature in it, including poetry, parable, allegory, history, etc. It is nonsensical to claim that every word of the Bible was intended to be construed as literal fact. I actually had my membership in one church revoked because I believe that. The Bible is what it is. It is a document written by men. Just like the New York Times. It is skewed and biased. If you read it knowing those things, then you can gain some useful information from it.

[dogmatically_challenged]

(dogmatically_challenged @ Jul 31 2005, 01:22 PM)

"If he is part of someones dream then why would he be self aware?"

 

Jay

"I realize that to some, self-awareness is axiomatic, but how, exactly, do you prove it?"

 

Axioms are self evident. Evidence is something evident. Things not so self evident require axioms as support. Silly xer. If you are not self evident then you would not be having this dialog whith me. Stop refuting yourself. hehe!

 

(dogmatically_challenged)

"If he can think and act and is self aware then that is confidence enough that he exists."

 

Jay

"Interesting enough, am not sure how you prove that any of us think, for openers. Perhaps you should start by defining that."

 

Stop being a disingenious cretin. We are having this convo are we not? I will not do your homework for you here, as you are being dishonest. A part of the foundation of our thinking is self awareness as well as being aware of our envioronment..yadda yadda...abilities which are dependant on our physical make up. If you are not a thinking person I'll not argue with you, but speak for yourself cretin.

 

QUOTE(dogmatically_challenged)

"Are the images of people in film self aware, or just recordings of light and sound? A dream is just recordings of light and sound were we can mix it up a bit in our minds from what we have recorded while awake."

 

Jay

"Perhaps that is what we think it is, but how, exactly do we know that? And how do we know that there is not some other being that has dreamed us up? If a dream is "just recordings or images", perhaps whatever it is we think we are is nothing more than the next level in whatever that imagery might be. I am not saying this is so, I am just suggesting that you have not provided a proof at all, and are actually using a false analogy to make your case."

 

First you ask me to define what thinking is then you use the word think in this next statement as if it means something to you. You are a contrarian. You are a simple minded naysayer who's only gift is a memory to mindlessly parrot what one reads. You pseudo intellectual cretin. We have hard evidence of what dreams are. You rediculous cretin. I will not do your homework for you. Read a book that covers human physiology/neurology you idiotic naysayer. Oh! better not do that, becuase books might not really exist and it might be a waste of time. Idiot!

 

Jay

"perhaps whatever it is we think we are is nothing more than the next level in whatever that imagery might be."

 

How we interpret the input from our environment is irelevant to what I have said about dreams. Dreams are made up of the input from our environment that we have recorded. You are an idiot. If we are constistently rewarded or punnished by actions based on our perceptions of self and enviornment then that is all that is real to us and therefore I give you reason for having confidence in our ability to have a clear enough perception of reality. Stop playing with purely abstract concepts that do not draw on axioms but merely a game of somantics you disingenious cretin. At least try to be more coherent in your statements.

 

(dogmatically_challenged)

"Yet god is not axiomatic. Neither are miracles. Niether is the relationship with his invisible friend. As far as his relationship with his god goes, he only has what is in his mind. And we know the mind is suseptable to wishful thinking, mental illness, making judgements on events that he is really ignorant of what is really going on, yet does not honestly investigate for a clearer picture, and instead tries to tie events strange or not into his preconcieved notions based on an unvarifiable story."

 

Jay

"Which is why I refuse to use my personal experience as evidence in this discussion."

 

You don't even have personal experience's for your god that is grounded in what is self evident to you, you just build arguments from ignorance while believing in what has no evidence for it what so ever. You try to torture reality to fit your precious god story that was given to you by peoples long dead that you never even knew. I only believe in what has evidences to give me confidence, therefore I do not have to make argument from ignorance. That is the difference between me and you.

[Ouroboros]

I am not familiar with Campbell.

 

I know Shelby-Spong's name, but have not read anything from him.

 

Most of my conclusions (such as my belief that Genesis 1-11 are not actual true stories but parables), are arrived at by textual analysis.  Also, understanding what the Bible is, and what its intended purpose is.

 

The Bible is not a book of science.

 

It contains all sorts of literature in it, including poetry, parable, allegory, history, etc.  It is nonsensical to claim that every word of the Bible was intended to be construed as literal fact.  I actually had my membership in one church revoked because I believe that.  The Bible is what it is.  It is a document written by men.  Just like the New York Times.  It is skewed and biased.  If you read it knowing those things, then you can gain some useful information from it.

I think you would enjoy reading the two authors I told you about, because they dive into this subject. And I understand your view.

 

Next question I have is if you see God as infallible and omniscient?

 

And do you see God as omnipotent and yet omni-benevolent?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I think you would enjoy reading the two authors I told you about, because they dive into this subject. And I understand your view.

 

Next question I have is if you see God as infallible and omniscient?

 

And do you see God as omnipotent and yet omni-benevolent?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much of the philosophy xers enjoy to make it seem less ridiculous to believe in thier sky pixie is a house of cards that is built on argument from ignorance and host of other logical fallacies.

 

Also I think it is very disingenious to make the skeptic do all the work without any effort on the xers part to present something that would give confidence in biblegod.

 

The tactics used by him here is the exact same tactics of creationists who naysay evolution theory as a means to divert attention from thier ridiculous beliefs in the bible god story.

 

Since jay has nothing for his own fantasy land beliefs he must try to pull the "you too" fallacy as a smoke screen. Also, what points he does make only points to a god without anything that points to bible god and this all is still argument from ignorance. I will never waste my time on bullshit philosophy that xers enjoy so much. To them I say put up or shut up. They can shove thier conjecture based on nothing.

[Jay]

Next question I have is if you see God as infallible and omniscient?

Well, those two words require some explanation. I would answer yes to both. But it is not what you think...

 

I believe that God is infallible, in that God does not make mistakes. For instance, if God were doing a crossword puzzle, he would not fill in the wrong word. If God were trying to calculate the derrivative...ok, you get the idea. However, sometimes God does things without knowing how it will turn out, for sure. That gets to omniscience...

 

I am an open-theist. In short, I do not believe that God has exhaustive knowledge of the future. In fact, some things in the future are impossible to know, even if you are God. Since I believe that God made us as truly free agents, it would be impossible for all the effects of 7 billion free agents to be perfectly knowable, else they would not be free. So God, I believe, has exhaustive knowledge of the present, but his knowledge gets more and more uncertain the farther into the future you project.

 

And do you see God as omnipotent and yet omni-benevolent?

I believe God is omnipotent in that he can do whatever is logically possible. God cannot make a square circle, etc. I am not certain what you mean by onmi-benevolent (I have never heard that term before), but, just going by what I can piece together grammatically, I do not believe God is omni-benevolent, with the caveat that I do not know precisely what you mean by that.