Does this explain the impasse between Christians and no-Christians?

[Justus]

23 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Most of them won't cross a road with their eyes closed.

Oh, another disciple of Dr. House.   You do know he wasn't a real person don't you?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

19 minutes ago, Justus said:

 

That’s rich….

 

Of course, it seems like you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo- logic of Dr. House. 

 

Can I define what I believe, I think I just did when I said ‘it seems like you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo-logic of Dr. House. ‘ 

 

Or do I have to include I believe when I said ‘ it seems like you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo- logic of Dr. House.’  If I do then then let me rephase my belief ‘I believe you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo- logic of Dr. House.’

 

Since define is defined as ‘state or describe exactly’ then what part of, ‘ it seems like you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo- logic of Dr. House.’ don’t you understand what I believe.

 

Can I define my belief any clearer that what I stated and described what I believe when I said  ‘it seems like you got that nugget of pyrite from the pseudo- logic of Dr. House.’

 

So can you define your belief that there is no God without proving that you don't have any belief that God doesn't exist if it seems to you that if a person who can't  define what they believe don't really have any belief .  So let's hear what you believe when you say defining one beliefs.  Then prove it, unless you claim that proving it wasn't what you required. 

@Justus, either stay on topic or stay off the thread.

[florduh]

16 minutes ago, Justus said:

So can you define your belief that there is no God without proving that you don't have any belief that God doesn't exist if it seems to you that if a person who can't  define what they believe don't really have any belief .

 

Good example of the impasse.  I don't have a belief that there is no god, and that is apparently something that is impossible for theists to grasp.

[WalterP]

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Bear in mind these are positions I held that was doctrine of my Church. If you think my above posts don't accord with scripture very well you should see the rest of our doctrine! (Possibly part of the reason I started having questions). But again this is the problem with Christianity isn't it? You are basing your entire response to me based on YOUR interpretation of the scriptures from when you were a Christian.  Heard of Kent Hovind and Ray Comfort? Both fundy YEC Christians. Yet they differ on a substation piece of doctrine being how one is saved.

 

Also heard of Calvinists? They believed (as did we) that God has predestined his chosen ones. Non Calvinists believe one can have free will to choose to believe and thus be chosen.

 

Now BOTH positions can be supported by scripture so I generally reject your assertion that my beliefs surrounding the revealing of God didn't accord with scripture very well. One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief. 

 

LogicalFallacy, with all due respect, do you really mean that last sentence?  I ask, not to be awkward or combative, but to advise you that this 'almost anything goes' take on scriptural interpretation has possibly unhelpful consequences.  As I will now show.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

No. I meant what I wrote. Unlike scripture, generally you don't have to interpret my writing. Unlike God, if I appear unclear you merely need to ask and I will attempt to clarify.

 

 

I do it all the time, which is why I don't talk about religion with the family because I know their mindset. Discussion there is pointless and brings conflict so we have a truce where they don't preach to me, and I don't tell them they are full of B/S.

 

 

Fair enough.

 

 

Again you are forgetting about the interlink between scripture and doctrine. We were well aware of what was in the bible, but we also believed that we were at the end times and that God would reveal himself to his chosen, and when he did the rapture would take place. You are attempting to go hard-line down the scripture without taking into account wider doctrine. We are essentially two Christians here arguing about our respective doctrines like Hovind and Comfort. (Apologies for comparing us to them - perish the thought!)

 

⁷ But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Revelation 10:7)

 

The mystery of God should be finished. In other words God would reveal himself.

 

You cannot use scripture to tell me anything.  My personal interpretation of scripture was just as valid as yours.  

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

*Christian hat on*

Brother Walter, has it occurred to you that you have a legalistic interpretation of the scripture and are not letting the holy spirit guide you? Are you not open to God revealing himself. God has sent his word, but he also reveals himself to us personally.

/hat off

 

Again, that's your personal interpretation.  Mine was just as valid.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

/hat on

What kind of limited being is your God? You think God made the universe, and humans IN HIS IMAGE, for him not to be able to reveal himself?

/hat off

 

Ditto.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

This is an ironic logical problem. God makes the universe in which we are the pinnacle of creation. Sons and daughters of God. As a man and his wife so is Christ and his bride. And yet we are apparently less than the ants we crush without knowing it. Which is why my Church adopted the belief that God could and would reveal himself as a husband and wife do... metaphorically speaking. 

 

Ditto.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

It is an evasion tactic, and one borne out of the failure to think logically through the bible. If you view is that we humans are merely play things of God, then your position is reasonable for you. But if your view is that humans are made in Gods image, that we are children of God, then your position is illogical. 

 

 

/hat on

I, and my fellow church members from my Christian, days agree the bible doesn't reveal all... which is why God would reveal himself to his people in the last days!

/hat off

 

Ditto.

 

11 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

Our contrasting positions in this dialogue is one of doctrinal and interpretation differences. You cannot logically assert your position as true. You have merely adopted one interpretation of scripture, which with my Christian hat on (stepping into shoes as you'd say) I would say you are overly legalistic and lacking revelation. Cold, formal, luke warm, and god will spew thee from his mouth.

 

 

 

You see, LF?  Whatever you cite from the Bible or claim about scripture, I can turn around and use your own 'almost anything goes' standard against you.  The genie is now out of the bottle and won't be put back.  Whenever you try to hold any Christian to account, they can neutralize you by quoting your words.

 

One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief. 

 

It's a great thing for the Christians, but not a great thing for us Ex-Christians. 

 

Respectfully,

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

In terms of generality, you seem to have misread the situation, yes. We have no such belief as a group or anything like that. 

 

Let's look at this. True or false, the world was created in 6 literal days, each day consisting of an "evening and morning," where days can exist without the existence of the sun or any star in the universe? No gray area. True or false? 

 

While it may have been true enough to some bronze aged Israelite, it wasn't actually true at all. Not in the sense of being true. I don't think that it does any good to try and stretch truth to the point where it encompasses that which can be evident as false. What someone once thought of as true, was not the case. So it was false. Had they spent any time carefully considering the claim they could have known that it was false. Origen, in fact, spoke out on the 6 day creation and pointed out how taken literally, it's nonsensical. But he favored a mystical, symbolic reading. He was also branded a heretic over the same said work. Parting ways with orthodox christianity. I'm assuming that you know what I'm talking about. If not I'll provide citation. 

 

Josh,

 

I see what you are saying, but now, thanks to some input from LogicalFallacy, I can reply to you like this.

 

One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief. Therefore, Origen's interpretation of scripture could have been just as valid as the one settled upon by orthodox Christianity.  If personal interpretation allows almost anything to be believed about scripture, then you have no basis to ask me if anything is True or False about the book of Genesis.  It's all a matter of personal interpretation.  

 

I'm sure that LF didn't mean to open the floodgates in this way, but open them he did.  The fallout of this means that you can apply no standard and no ruling upon me that I need feel bound by.  The rules of reasoning don't' apply to me any more.  When it comes to scripture, I can now sidestep anything from this site... https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ ...and claim that we are simply disagreeing on matters of personal interpretation.  

 

Not good. 

 

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

 

I understand that the writers were not speaking in terms of what modern christians think they were. That's part of the debate. I introduce placing the writers back into their own historical, contemporary setting. But at the end of the day the writers are long dead. What we have now are the issues of today. And those issues entail people like WLC, for instance, trying to assert that the bible is correct and science is verifying it, which, is completely wrong. Wrong as in not true. A "ground of truth," that isn't actually true or correct if you will. 

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

It says that evenings and mornings were taken place three days before the existence of the sun or any other star. That's universally wrong, universally incorrect. What was the light source for an evening and morning without the sun? That's what I asked the apologist. I've heard answers ranging from 'I don't know' to suggesting that it was the light of god or jesus (logos). That's great, except for one thing. Day and night, evening and morning only exist due to facing towards or away from a FINITE light source that can be faced towards or away from.

 

Personal interpretation.

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

So my next question, is god or jesus finite or infinite and eternal at the creation of the earth according to scripture? If infinite and eternal, then light would be all around, all encompassing. What would be night, or darkness, in the all presence, of infinite and eternal light? The apology becomes increasing nonsensical as it devolves. The apologist digs the hole deeper and deeper. 

 

Personal interpretation.

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

And let me ask you, what sort of "ground of truth" value is there in what the bible claims from the outset in Genesis 1? What's true about it? I'm demonstrating exactly and precisely what's false about the bible from it's outset. That is the theme of the debate. For the benefit of people who are afraid of these big blow hard's and their threats of hell fire damnation for all those who don't believe their "truth!" 

 

As far as scripture goes, LF has declared that their personal interpretation is as valid as any of ours was, when we were Christians.  

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

I don't think that you can successfully manage the argument you're trying to make, to be honest. Refer to my questions to you.

 

You seem to think that truth is loosey goosey, and relative, subjective. But that strains what we mean by truth in this day and age. We don't mean something that's blatantly false but we'll call it truth anyways. We mean correct. Right. Something is true - real, not imagined. 

 

No.  I don't think that Josh.  I just happen to think that you are firmly stuck within the Western tradition of philosophy and use it in a way that's antagonistic to other traditions.  I'm a child of the Western tradition too, though.  The difference between us seems to be that you show no willingness to question yourself and your chosen tradition, whereas I do.

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

My method tells me that the bible is faulty because my method tells me that "evenings and mornings" are without cause, short of the existence of a solar orb or finite light producing object that I can be faced towards or away from relative to the black of space. It's the method of observing how the world and universe work, and checking people's claims against that global, if not universal reality of human experience. Call it Greek, call it what you will. It's the closest I can come to what is evident, and actual. 

 

In the Western tradition, yes.  As far as that goes, I even agree with you.  But are you happy to think outside of the box?  

 

10 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Apparently Genesis 1 goes back to times before they realized that the sun is the SOURCE of day light. They thought that day and night existed independent of the sun and moon. They thought that the sun, moon, and stars were place into the already existing day and night skies. They thought that the moon was it's own light source. And that the earth was a flat, round disk with a dome overhead, where the sun and moon took turns circling around the earth. I cited Dr. Steven Mattei during the debate (in several places) who outlines very carefully the contemporary period in which the writer of Genesis 1 was living, and thinking within. It's contradicting to us now because we now know different than what the writer of Genesis 1 knew. His truth, or his ground of truth, if you will, wasn't actually true at all. It was false the entire time and it's still false today. 

 

I'll let you digest and get back with me. 

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, Myrkhoos said:

If the Bibke revelation WAS sufficient for belief, everyone would believe. 

 

This again brings forth the question of what is belief and its connection to choice. I would argue this is a very important topic.

Well let me be very simple because my pool isn't that deep.  I think it's not so much what is belief, but that people are motivated to believe one direction or another based on belonging or being loved.  Some people though just won't accept a talking snake as a means to convey a message...there's that group as well.

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 10/31/2019 at 7:41 PM, WalterP said:

Hello Citsonga and LogicalFallacy. 

 

This is one Ex-Christian talking to two other Ex-Christians.  I get it too.  I really do.   But let me ask you guys three questions. 

 

When you were Christians did God give you a complete understanding of Himself? 

 

Obviously not. The Christian God is make-believe and therefore could not reveal anything.

 

Now, as far as what I believed as a Christian, of course I didn't think I had a complete understanding. That would be the standard view among most Christians, and any who actually thought that they did have a "complete understanding" of God would be considered arrogant and heretical by most Christians.

 

Quote

Did you believe that He should have given you that understanding?

 

Of course not. Who would I be to assert authority over God? I never saw him as being constrained to any outside requirement.

 

Quote

Did you believe that as human beings, you could understand God completely?

 

Only if God chose to make himself known completely, of course, but I didn't believe a complete understanding would happen in this life.

 

There, I answered your questions, but they seem quite irrelevant to the point I raised. My issue was solely with your claim that we ex-christians don't understand Christians. That's a load of crap. We do understand them. We used to be them.

 

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 11/1/2019 at 9:13 AM, disillusioned said:

Late to the thread, but I wanted to say that I think there is something to the OP. Much depends on how we define "true". This is a non-trivial problem, which may need further exploration if this conversation is to make headway.

 

I agree. Some interesting points were raised. My only issue was with the false claim that we ex-christians don't understand Christians.

 

[WalterP]

12 minutes ago, Citsonga said:

 

Obviously not. The Christian God is make-believe and therefore could not reveal anything.

 

Now, as far as what I believed as a Christian, of course I didn't think I had a complete understanding. That would be the standard view among most Christians, and any who actually thought that they did have a "complete understanding" of God would be considered arrogant and heretical by most Christians.

 

 

Of course not. Who would I be to assert authority over God? I never saw him as being constrained to any outside requirement.

 

 

Only if God chose to make himself known complete, of course, but I didn't believe a complete understanding would happen in this life.

 

There, I answered your questions, but they seem quite irrelevant to the point I raised. My issue was solely with your claim that we ex-christians don't understand Christians. That's a load of crap. We do understand them. We used to be them.

 

 

 

Hello Citsonga.

 

I'm sorry if I missed answering a post of yours.  JoshPantera, LogicalFallacy and I have been talking things through and it does look like I had the wrong idea about this forum.  Sorry for any offence caused.

 

I get what you mean about once being the Christians.  That applies to me as well.  Point taken

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Geezer]

I’ve been reading this exchange and it has taken a predictable path. It validates what has been well established eons ago. Religion is based on emotion not facts, evidence, logic, reason, or science. Attempting to reason with a believer is a waste of time and energy and therefore a pointless endeavor. 

 

People leave the faith when they figure out on their own that it’s all manmade nonsense. Until they figure that out on their own they will never reject their beliefs. I have come to accept that some people just have to have a God to worship in their life. Life, for some folks, without a God in charge of the world is just too scary to even consider.

 

 

 

[Justus]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Justus, either stay on topic or stay off the thread.

 

Isn't the topic the 'the impasse?'  Then are you saying Florduh is wrong?

 

4 hours ago, florduh said:

 

Good example of the impasse.  I don't have a belief that there is no god, and that is apparently something that is impossible for theists to grasp.

Since you offered no proof that you believe in god then I have no reason to believe that you have a belief in God.  Now that is comes from the mouth of God according to the prophet of your god.  Link

 

So maybe the reason it is impossible for you (a theist, one who believes in a god) to grasp that you believe that there is no god is because a double minded person is unable to grasp their double mindedness.

 

That is why you can’t grasp what I said isn't an impasse, so can you define your belief that this is an impasse since you state that until they offer proof of what they claim then there is no reason to believe them.  I mean you can’t believe and believe at the same time right? 

 

I am only saying that any god that cannot run at large without exemption from torts is no god.  That is why I believe your god is no dog that anyone needs to be afraid of.  So in conclusion just because you believe your dog is god doesn't make it true but just because you don't have any evidence to the contrary doesn't mean you are not free to believe that man's descent was from dogs and not monkeys.  

 

[Edgarcito]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 4:48 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I suppose if one considers oneself to be not in full possession of the facts, then belief would serve as an alternative to investigation.  Problematically, as Florduh has pointed out, christians believe themselves to be in full possession of The Truth; until called upon to support, or justify, it.  Then, suddenly, they are seeing as through glass darkly.

But see, upon investigation, then magically, the investigators are in full possession of The Truth.....#ego

[Edgarcito]

59 minutes ago, Geezer said:

I’ve been reading this exchange and it has taken a predictable path. It validates what has been well established eons ago. Religion is based on emotion not facts, evidence, logic, reason, or science. Attempting to reason with a believer is a waste of time and energy and therefore a pointless endeavor. 

 

People leave the faith when they figure out on their own that it’s all manmade nonsense. Until they figure that out on their own they will never reject their beliefs. I have come to accept that some people just have to have a God to worship in their life. Life, for some folks, without a God in charge of the world is just too scary to even consider.

 

 

 

The problem is you don't have sufficient facts to make the assertion you are making and never will.  We are subjects....

[Justus]

57 minutes ago, Geezer said:

Life, for some folks, without a God in charge of the world is just too scary to even consider.

 

You sure about that?  Seems like death is less scary than death with hell would be but then again death means it really doesn't matter since life goes on except for the dead.  So if one gets sent to hell then at least they are still alive, and with life there is hope.   

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But see, upon investigation, then magically, the investigators are in full possession of The Truth.....#ego

Ego is often demonstrated when an individual presumes to understand a group of which he or she is not a part.

[Justus]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ego is often demonstrated when an individual presumes to understand a group of which he or she is not a part.

So what group of people that isn't human?  Or you referring those of us who don't know everything that your group knows?  Dam there I go again presuming.....

[florduh]

37 minutes ago, Justus said:

Since you offered no proof that you believe in god then I have no reason to believe that you have a belief in God.

Prove your god exists and we'll go from there, it is you making a positive claim. For now, I don't have a reason to believe your assertion. For lack of evidence I must come to the conclusion that you offer an unverified claim with no reason for me to agree with you. I am not asserting there are no gods, nor can I make a negative argument to prove nonexistence. I state only that evidence has not been provided for your god. That is not the same as "believing there is no god." But again, I'm sure that nuance is lost in the static. 

[Edgarcito]

21 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Ego is often demonstrated when an individual presumes to understand a group of which he or she is not a part.

Hence the need to drop yours....so that communication can take place.  Problem is, often it's painful and we don't people to see us cry.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't mean to belabor the point already addressed by LogicalFallacy, Citsonga, and Walt, but I don't really think it is possible for christians and ex-christians to genuinely understand each other at the group level.  As has already been demonstrated, we, as christians, had different interpretations of scripture, doctrine, theology, etc.  We might have a better understanding of them than they do of us; but most likely, each of us only really understands the christians from the denominations of which we were a part.  At least, as I mentioned, at the group level.

 

On an individual level, it is much easier to find understanding.  We have had a few christians come here over the years I've been a member of this website, who, I believe, really understood us and who we really understood.  End3 and Ironhorse both certainly come to mind.  Perhaps they were precious rare exceptions; but, it does suggest that not all christians are total muck-savages.

 

Just my tuppence.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Justus said:

So what group of people that isn't human?  Or you referring those of us who don't know everything that your group knows?  Dam there I go again presuming.....

Troll

[TheRedneckProfessor]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Hence the need to drop yours....so that communication can take place.  Problem is, often it's painful and we don't people to see us cry.

Here again, think what you will of me.

[disillusioned]

3 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

JoshPantera, LogicalFallacy and I have been talking things through and it does look like I had the wrong idea about this forum. 

 

I'm curious Walter. What idea did you have about this forum,  and how has it turned out to be false?

[Joshpantera]

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

Josh,

 

I see what you are saying, but now, thanks to some input from LogicalFallacy, I can reply to you like this.

 

One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief. Therefore, Origen's interpretation of scripture could have been just as valid as the one settled upon by orthodox Christianity.  If personal interpretation allows almost anything to be believed about scripture, then you have no basis to ask me if anything is True or False about the book of Genesis.  It's all a matter of personal interpretation.  

 

 

I haven't finished. We're at the beginning still. 

 

We have a story that is claimed as true. There's a literal reading. The days are literal. That's exoteric in orientation. We can break all interpretations down to two categories - exoteric / literal and esoteric / symbolic. I examine them both in all of their varieties. What you were trying to respond to was the classic exoteric, or literal interpretation. The surface story line taken at face value. It suggests a six day creation, literally. Contradictions arise immediately. 

 

Origen was of the symbolic, mystical, esoteric view of interpretation. This can take on any number of forms. But the story is interpreted as symbolic, not literal. But that comes with it's own problems. Some say that the days are "symbolic" for long epochs of time. So the days are symbolic, but the story is still true in some way. The question is true in what way? The same problems remain. It's true that entire epochs of time were going by before the existence of the sun, moon or stars? Three days means what? Three epochs of time that could be hundred, to thousands, to millions or billions of years? Contradictions arise here, too. 

 

The actual order of the creation account is off no matter which direction we take, literal or symbolic. 

 

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

Personal interpretation.

 

 

Incorrect, again. Not personal interpretation, mass group interpretation with a formal title of exoteric / literal interpretation. You seem to think this is easier to excuse than it actually is. That wave of the hand dismissal you tried comes from a foundation of taking LF completely out of context. 

 

"Now BOTH positions can be supported by scripture so I generally reject your assertion that my beliefs surrounding the revealing of God didn't accord with scripture very well. One of the great things about scripture is that it can be used to support near any belief."

 

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

As far as scripture goes, LF has declared that their personal interpretation is as valid as any of ours was, when we were Christians.  

 

Context, Walter. Context. You're stepping out of it in the above. This devils advocate thing is getting you pinned down pretty tight.  LF said that the bible makes more than one claim in that specific case of revelation of god. "Both positions can be supported by the bible." And he mentioned that the bible contradicts itself by saying in some places that you can't know but in other places, like the end times, suggesting that you can know. That's what both positions can be supported means. 

 

He was of a variety of fundamentalists who believe that they are on the heels of the end times now. Or in the end times now. So they pick and choose the passages that say that you can know according to the end times. All christians, to my knowledge, pick and choose their way through the bible. Conservatives, liberals, exoteric and esoteric thinkers alike. Because the bible self contradicts all over the place. If two people pick one of two sides of a contradiction (like you and LF were doing by example) and stick to one but ignore the other, then both parties are correct in terms of they're believing what the bible says. It says that you can't know, and it says that you can know. So the bible says you can and can not know.  Both have a basis in scripture. That's the context. 

 

The two creation accounts contradict each other. But what is common to all of these interpretations about both accounts is that none of them work out against knowable, observable reality. We're looking at a self contradiction, which people pick and choose their way through, which, doesn't seem to work out in any actual, real, or correct type of way. And it's claimed and hailed as, "The TRVTH!"

 

It isn't. Not by a long shot. 

 

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

I just happen to think that you are firmly stuck within the Western tradition of philosophy and use it in a way that's antagonistic to other traditions.  I'm a child of the Western tradition too, though.  The difference between us seems to be that you show no willingness to question yourself and your chosen tradition, whereas I do.

 

I can just as easily switch gears and look at eastern views, though. I am an advocate of Joseph Campbell's work on world mythology. Let's look at how he framed the situation. In the eastern traditions myths can be read a metaphorical. But metaphorical for what? Let's keep with Genesis 1 because it's simple and easy for a working example of possible interpretation. Campbell said that that myths are not lies, they are true in certain senses. He said, 'true as metaphorical of the human and cosmic mystery.' 

 

Origins are actually a mystery, we both understand and admit this. So we could say that a creation myth is metaphorical for the actual mystery of origins. Because origins is a mystery as of yet unknown, so the creation could only be a metaphor pointing us toward an unknown. But that admits that the creation myth doesn't tell us, truthfully, how the world or humanity came to be in any actual, or correct sense. True origins remain mysterious, and we take the creation myth as a metaphor or place holder for the actual mystery, which, the writers have not actually disclosed with their writing.

 

Or we fast forward to the new testament and we could look at the jesus myth and read it in an eastern mythological way as, "The zeal of eternity for incarnation in time. Which involves the breaking up of the one, into the many and accepting the suffering of the world." 

 

But these do not help the christian cause, at all. They don't point to the bible being "true" in terms of actually disclosing how the world came to be, or how humanity came to be within the world. We could grasp at straws over and over again, looking for an apologetic way to claim that the bible is "true," and continuously come up short handed. Western minded. Eastern minded. Whatever you prefer. It boils down to the same problem. We're not dealing in terms of actual, correct, rightful truth.

 

These are indirect asides apologetically claimed as "true," which don't finally amount to truth in any meaningful or substantial way with respect to the people who are claiming to have, "The TRVTH!"

 

7 hours ago, WalterP said:

Quote

 

My method tells me that the bible is faulty because my method tells me that "evenings and mornings" are without cause, short of the existence of a solar orb or finite light producing object that I can be faced towards or away from relative to the black of space. It's the method of observing how the world and universe work, and checking people's claims against that global, if not universal reality of human experience. Call it Greek, call it what you will. It's the closest I can come to what is evident, and actual. 

 

In the Western tradition, yes.  As far as that goes, I even agree with you.  But are you happy to think outside of the box?  

 

 

Western, Eastern, it all comes back around to the same issue. Exoteric doesn't work out. Esoteric doesn't work out well either. What else? 

 

Considering all of the above, what are you proposing the box is and what are you proposing is outside of that box? 

 

 

 

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

I'm curious Walter. What idea did you have about this forum,  and how has it turned out to be false?

 

This is a difficult question for me Disillusioned.  Not because I cannot articulate a reply, but because I now have certain concerns about how my words will be received in certain quarters.  

 

Would you please do me the favour of allowing more time for discussion to take place?   Then, when matters are resolved, perhaps I can can answer you fully?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[disillusioned]

56 minutes ago, WalterP said:

 

This is a difficult question for me Disillusioned.  Not because I cannot articulate a reply, but because I now have certain concerns about how my words will be received in certain quarters.  

 

Would you please do me the favour of allowing more time for discussion to take place?   Then, when matters are resolved, perhaps I can can answer you fully?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

No problem. When you are ready.