|
Replies: 64
| visibility 701
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Rule #1 when reading the Bible:
2
Mar 2, 2024, 8:26 AM
|
|
The writers weren't illiterate.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Can I ask the point of this rule? Of course people who can writ aren't
1
Mar 2, 2024, 9:02 AM
|
|
illiterate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Sure.
1
Mar 2, 2024, 9:18 AM
|
|
When you read any story and think the writer is contradicting himself eventually you realize you're not understanding something. Stupid people write but what we call writers are not stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Sure.
2
Mar 2, 2024, 9:27 AM
|
|
>When you read any story and think the writer is contradicting himself eventually you realize you're not understanding something.
Are you serious? ANY story we read where there is an apparent contradiction means the read isn't understanding something? It's not possible that the writer is simply... contradicting themselves?
Yeah, hard disagree.
>Stupid people write but what we call writers are not stupid.
Again, hard disagree, stupid people write all the time; go look at any news outlet. Also, you seem to have some hang up about biblical authors being stupid. Who is calling them stupid? I'm not, and I don't know anyone else on this board doing that either.
Being wrong or contradicting yourself doesn't mean you are stupid, it can simply be an honest mistake. Happens literally all the time.
So when John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." and then Genesis 17:1 says "the Lord appeared to Abram and said, "I am God Almighty."" and Exodus 33:18-23 says he saw god's "back parts" and job says "Job 42:5: My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you."
I'm not calling whoever wrote John stupid, but clearly it looks like a contradiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 9:56 AM
|
|
I'm done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 10:12 AM
|
|
You all are as soon as your opinions are critiqued, it's not surprising at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 10:40 AM
|
|
This is not to invoke a personal response; I would rather not start office hours to discuss people and feelings. I am offering a possible explanation of 88's response.
In your examples of an apparent contradiction, those appearances were made in ways that the viewer did not actually see Him as He is, sort of like the burning bush. What 88 had previously said is that apparent contradictions of truth reveal their own explanations if examined, rather than merely stated as gotcha. He then perceived your response to have immediately done the latter. So he said, "Got it. No thanks."
This is not unlike the loooooong thread below where you called me a 'moderator' for predicting, in 5 lines, how the thread would go. (That is fine by the way, no worries about you saying that, am just using it as example.). You might have had a point, but then over the course of 5000 words that is exactly what happened. And that is fine, too, my choice. But 88, probably wisely, just now exited the predicted outcome up front. I went through the predicted circle about 5 times. I think he made the better choice.
So, it's not about being willing to engage. He just decided to not go in another circle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 10:55 AM
|
|
>This is not to invoke a personal response
Let's be honest, that's precisely what you're doing, let's check the very next sentence.
> I would rather not start office hours to discuss people and feelings
Even if I'm charitable, what else could that be? You do it constantly. It's a pattern.
>So, it's not about being willing to engage. He just decided to not go in another circle.
If this wasn't a pattern with you, hunt and him, I might agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 1:12 PM
|
|
|
|
No, but I know that is what I am here for. Not what I enjoy, but business is business, so 50 minutes, once a day.
It is good to hear from you. What is on your mind today? Anything bothering you? Anger, irritability, resentment, anything like that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
Mar 2, 2024, 1:22 PM
|
|
I get it, I’d respond that way too if my position involved talking snakes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Knowledge without understanding is ignorance.
1
Mar 2, 2024, 1:49 PM
|
|
This is good. I'm hearing you do not like the way several people respond to you. Why do you feel that way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
yawn***
Mar 2, 2024, 2:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: yawn***
2
Mar 2, 2024, 2:21 PM
|
|
|
|
Identifying one's emotions and motivations is indeed difficult. You are not the first to initially shrink from the opportunity, so do not be discouraged. I sense a breakthrough. This is a good stopping point, and our 50 minutes for today are up.
Lucy will stamp your receipt today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
yawn***
Mar 2, 2024, 2:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Rule 1.a. Yes, the NT writers spoke Greek.***
Mar 2, 2024, 9:41 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Rule 1.a. Yes, the NT writers spoke Greek.***
Mar 2, 2024, 10:56 AM
|
|
Of course, whoever wrote them in Greek, spoke Greek. They just probably weren't the illiterate apostles they are attributed to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Rule 1.a. Yes, the NT writers spoke Greek.***
Mar 2, 2024, 10:57 AM
|
|
and yes, before it's brought up, I realize not all of them would be illiterate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Rule 1.a. Yes, the NT writers spoke Greek.***
Mar 2, 2024, 1:04 PM
|
|
And they spoke Greek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: Rule 1.a. Yes, the NT writers spoke Greek.***
Mar 2, 2024, 1:36 PM
|
|
Sure, unfortunately we don’t know who the writers were
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
3
Mar 2, 2024, 2:24 PM
|
|
Remember that what most of us call "The Bible" has only existed for several hundred years, and we have no original texts, but rather only copies of copies of copies and so on, which involves countless mistakes, ommisions, changes, reinterpretations and revisions over the years. The result is a relatively modern collection of older, often ancient writings, which reflect the biases, agendas, and fallibilty of the men who created it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 2, 2024, 5:35 PM
|
|
I mentioned this in another post, and what I think we have is a disjunct, perhaps, between the Written and Oral traditions. There are some translational or reproduction errors in some of the texts, but I think by and large those are remarkably few. The Dead Sea Scrolls are virtually identical to copies of the ones made centuries later.
The words hardly change. But what does change, sometimes drastically, is the culture around, and therefore the interpretation of, those words. Sometimes that matters a great deal. Sometimes not as much. It's exactly the same dilemma with strict vs. loose constructionists on the Constitution. Only with religion instead of rights. "What did they mean, back then?"
To the Founding Fathers, "arms" was a musket, not a hand-held nuke. They could have had no idea what the future held in terms firearm development, and so when they wrote those words, nukes didn't play a part in their decisions.
But the words themselves still sit, unchanged, on that piece of parchment under glass, while the world all around them has changed. We're the ones with the tough job of deciphering those old intentions, and how they apply in today's world.
That task doesn't get any easier when you throw in allegory and symbolism. And it might be impossible to do in full, in fact. So, one uses all the tools they have available, and approaches the problem with the full realization of that challenge. ie, "know your limitations, and account for them." As you nicely summed up with:
"...which reflect the biases, agendas, and fallibilty of the men who created it."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
1
Mar 2, 2024, 8:08 PM
|
|
Sorry, I have to run to a thing with MissTulsa, so no time here for intro niceties. I'll trust you'll let me just dive in.
There is not much culture and bias in the description of the execution and resurrection. I think we can agree that the wording of an account like that does not "reflect the biases, agendas, and fallibility of the men ...": it says what it clearly seems to say. And if it did occur, most of the NT is understood from that perspective, changing culture affecting some of it, but not the substance.
So, did it occur? Does the evidence for it support a reasonable person concluding that it more likely did than did not, that it is more likely than not that the accounts are accurate? I am not proposing we discuss that here: I'm not sure the internet has the space. And we already have a decent idea of who on the board is going to say yes and who will say no. And we know nobody's mind will be changed here. Fine.
So why even respond? Because I think it is important to understand that the skeptical view sometimes goes off on unsupportable tangents that obscure the issue in front of us. The writers were not biased. The writers were not unfamiliar with the events. The transcribers were not inaccurate. The current translations are neither corrupted nor biased. The accounts are not without credible historical support. None of those accusations are remotely true.
The only controversy is whether the events of 33 AD happened. Everybody has the right to decide what they will about that, and to defend what they think. A skeptic should be able to stand on his view without having to repeat or exaggerate false claims. If one has to do that, his confidence in the position appears weak, like sc fans who wouldn't acknowledge pregame that Wiggins was a pretty good player.
Be back in an hour or so. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
1
Mar 2, 2024, 8:45 PM
|
|
>Does the evidence for it support a reasonable person concluding that it more likely did than did not, that it is more likely than not that the accounts are accurate? I am not proposing we discuss that here: I'm not sure the internet has the space. And we already have a decent idea of who on the board is going to say yes and who will say no.
We don't need to rehash that here, you are correct, we know each other's position. I just want to point out a couple of things with regard to the evidence as far as the NT is concerned.
1. The only evidence we have of the resurrection (or any of the supernatural bits of the NT) is testimonial. If you have non-testimonial evidence, please do share.
2. We know testimony is notoriously reliable.
So the real question on whether it's reasonable to conclude that it is more likely that it happened than comes down to pretty much this single thing:
Is it more likely that the testimony is either made-up (not suggesting this one, but it is something we know for a fact happens) or sincerely wrong (this also happens all the time).
or
That a supernatural resurrection for which we have literally zero other evidence or precedence for happened.
The ONLY way to conclude the latter is by invoking faith, otherwise you are quite literally saying that a miracle (which is by definition unlikely to happen) is MORE LIKELY to have happened than something we know happens all the time: incorrect testimony.
>The only controversy is whether the events of 33 AD happened. Everybody has the right to decide what they will about that. Shouldn't a skeptic be able to stand on his view without having to make, or simply repeat, false claims? If one has to do that, I question his confidence in his conclusion.
As you can see above, you do not have to rely on any false claims to make a reasonable case that it probably did not happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 2, 2024, 9:40 PM
|
|
Fair enough. Two things:
1. Yes, testimony can be unreliable. Yet convictions are rationally obtained all the time on testimony, often with only one eye witness, before dna, etc. This is done by confirming the testimony via a variety of means: corroboration, credibility, resulting actions of others, resulting events, examination of alternate explanations, etc. A trial record with few witnesses can be folders thick due to all that. So, it is very possible to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether the witness knew the truth, attempted to tell the truth, and was then factually truthful. Errors in conclusion do then occur, but with these unreliable witnesses, the error rate of convictions is a single digit percentage.
So, yes, you are right, witnesses can be unreliable. However, it is wrong to then assume we accept unreliable testimony, or that we cant assess reliability. We test it in court, by a known process and rules of evidence, and we usually get it right, guilty or not guilty. That process should be, and can be, applied to the NT. Take the documents and subject them to that kind of testing.
I have reviewed that process, from the bottom up (reading denier articles last), and it seems to me that it is much more likely than not that the 33 AD events were accurately recorded. But that is my decision. I fully respect your contrary decision. Except for one offer to send you the data, I have never tried to dissuade you.
All I am saying here is that the 'no evidence' characterization is incorrect, whatever one's own conclusion from the evidence.
2. One might not have to make false claims to support the negative view, I agree, but it is the prevailing practice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 9:05 AM
|
|
> Yes, testimony can be unreliable. Yet convictions are rationally obtained all the time on testimony, often with only one eye witness, before dna, etc. This is done by confirming the testimony via a variety of means: corroboration, credibility, resulting actions of others, resulting events, examination of alternate explanations, etc. A trial record with few witnesses can be folders thick due to all that. So, it is very possible to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether the witness knew the truth, attempted to tell the truth, and was then factually truthful. Errors in conclusion do then occur, but with these unreliable witnesses, the error rate of convictions is a single digit percentage.
Sure, it's the best option available to us. The point is that it's a flawed system, and it absolutely results in wrongful convictions.
Also, while some trials do rely solely on eyewitness testimony, no judge would tell you that is their preferred evidence. It's literally the worst kind. Hard physical evidence is preferable in every instance.
This is a studied phenomenon https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/
More importantly, this process only works for mundane claims. It does not and cannot work for supernatural claims. The court isn't going to accept that a ghost killed someone even if we have 12 eyewitnesses.
However, this biggest part you are leaving out is that in court cases, WE CAN CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES. We have no ability to do that with the NT.
>That process should be, and can be, applied to the NT. Take the documents and subject them to that kind of testing.
We can't though, show me how I would assess these witnesses.
In conclusion, we have ZERO hard evidence of the resurrection, we can't interview the witnesses and the only documents we have are hotly contested as to who even wrote them.
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that the supposed most important event in history would be this lacking in evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 2, 2024, 8:58 PM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
>I mentioned this in another post, and what I think we have is a disjunct, perhaps, between the Written and Oral traditions.
I think this bit gets lost a lot. Even if we had EXACT copies of the first NT documents, that says virtually nothing about how many changes happened during the decades of oral tradition between Jesus' death and the Gospels.
The fact is though that we don't even have those. The first ones we have are over 100 years after Jesus' death!
If someone doesn't think legendary changes happen in oral tradition, I don't know what to tell you. The bottom line is we have ZERO access to what the oral tradition looked like in that time frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I have a guide.
1
Mar 2, 2024, 11:11 PM
|
|
1 Cor 2:
"16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Of course. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose to believe.***
2
Mar 3, 2024, 12:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: I have a guide.
2
Mar 3, 2024, 8:05 AM
[ in reply to I have a guide. ] |
|
That’s grest but it’s no different than a mormon or muslim oushing their scripture on me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Here ya go ...
1
Mar 3, 2024, 12:53 AM
[ in reply to Here ya go ... ] |
|
Those were excellent. I haven't had a chance to listen to the last one yet, but I learned a lot in the first three, including stuff about the Dead Sea Scrolls, the number and distribution of text fragments over time, and what's available today. A very nice find.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 2:05 AM
[ in reply to Here ya go ... ] |
|
Okay, I watched them. You are free to refer me to a specific comment, but I saw nothing that called into question the general accuracy of the NT documents. I watched to see a corruption that called reliability into question, but saw none. As to the "no eyewitnesses" ... on that comment alone, if he ever told me it was sunny outside I'd take an umbrella.
My purpose here is not to argue the opposite side - not without an hourly rate - but to show that his approach cant be taken seriously, so here are a few items:
- John. His comment that assignment of authorship came later is horrendously misleading. Yes, assigning John to that gospel cannot be 'proven', but no one credibly questions that it came from one of the disciples, as the writer says he is. So, which of the 12? There are many reasons to reasonably say it seems like John, but regardless one cant say "no eyewitnesses". Geez, that's bad. As to the other three:
- Luke. We all know there is no proof who wrote it. What is not questioned is that the author is in Paul's party, which was maybe 3 or 4 people: Barnabas (they split early), John Mark (who went home even earlier), Timothy for a while. And Luke. The author knew enough to write Acts, so Luke seems most reasonable. As to the Gospel account, no, he didnt see it, but the question is whether he was in a position to accurately report on what happened. The answer to that is yes. That does not by itself prove the 33 AD events occurred - the entire assessment process has to be applied - but the author is a reliable reporter.
- That leaves two gospels. Assigning Mark and Matthew to those is not proven but is defensible. In any case Mark was likely not an eyewitness - he was probably the young guy, John Mark, who left Paul and Luke earlier. But are the authors reliable reporters of those events? I can provide the evidence if you want to wade through it - it deals with Q and how early it can be dated, etc - but to me the answer is yes.
- While Paul is not an eyewitness in the strictest sense, no one questions his report of visiting the 12 to confirm first hand that the resurrection for which he had once killed people had actually happened: Luke and Paul both report this meeting, and Peter confirms it, all in separate documents.
All that is a thimble in the volume of corroborating material that can be applied to the entirety of the NT documents. But the guy in that video solemnly says "there are no eyewitnesses" as though he has just said something true and damaging to the NT: his comment is not close to either. But if one just watches this guy, it is very easy to think he presents what there is to know.
This does not mean one cannot conclude that the 33 AD events didn't happen. As Fordt said, 12 people thought OJ didnt do it, while millions of others thought he did, all looking at the same evidence. One can conclude either way, but one cannot defend the verdict by saying there is no evidence OJ did it. I have no intention of trying to talk anyone out of what they decide to believe, about OJ or Jesus. But if the claim is that 'there is no evidence', for either one, that is totally false.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 11:40 AM
|
|
"if he ever told me it was sunny outside I'd take an umbrella."
I laughed at that.
I agree with most of your post here actually. I hate when people make absolute statements like "there were no eyewitnesses". That's just ridiculous.
Some of the points I thought were interesting:
He says the statement "no central doctrine is effected by mistakes" is misleading because the central doctrines aren't really based on the text itself and I would 100% agree with that. In fact the realization of this is probably what effected my faith the most. I've pointed this out extensively in regards to "saving faith". The text certainly doesn't make clear what this is.
The distribution of manuscripts chart is extremely problematic for the "early manuscripts" claim. At first glance that can be pretty convincing for someone who doesn't dig deeper.
Our New Testament today is not based on any single manuscript, but our best guesses on which reading was original.
"but no one credibly questions that it came from one of the disciples, as the writer says he is."
This is not exactly true. I've read plenty even from evangelical scholars who admit that it could have been a "John the Elder" who was not the disciple of Jesus. Also, we know that the last chapter of John was a later addition.
https://www.bibleodyssey.org/articles/which-john-the-elder-the-seer-and-the-apostle/#google_vignette
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
1
Mar 3, 2024, 12:33 PM
|
|
Ha. And not only that, but I've seen really weird looking people say non weird things, so that's fine, but honestly, that guy takes it to another level. Maybe needs to back away from the camera a foot or so? Not sure that would help.
Yes, there is back and forth on all those things. Each person has to decide what he thinks the reasonable conclusions are. I'm not talking about the overall conclusion about the events - that too - but about these individual questions. John 21, for instance. As best I remember, the idea that it was added comes from the last sentence of 20. But then there is much internal evidence in 21 that indicates a common author. If it was added, it was added pretty quickly. It was written, I think (actually, I forget when) in maybe 90-ish, and the earliest copies are within a few years, if a decade or so is a few. I don't think any manuscript excludes 21. So, there is no actual evidence it was added, but speculation. There is evidence it was not.
But still, yes, it could have been added. I don't say any of this to convince you on that point. Each person has to make their own decisions. I am only saying these types of clips are usually posted as though there is not a long standing examination of whatever issue it is raising. You'd think the guy discovered something new, with no rebuttal, as if only ignorants believe the affirmative.
The idea that salvation by faith resulted from text errors would be interesting. I haven't seen anyone say "this word/phrase was changed, and that is how the idea started" (that is simplistic, I know, just being brief), but would be interesting to discuss.
Thank you for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 12:47 PM
|
|
I agree nothing new in these videos and he gets oddly close to the camera. Seems like a very strange guy. Who is he exactly?
"The idea that salvation by faith resulted from text errors would be interesting. I haven't seen anyone say "this word/phrase was changed, and that is how the idea started" (that is simplistic, I know, just being brief), but would be interesting to see the case."
I don't think that is what he meant. The text never explicitly states that you must say a prayer and ask Jesus into your heart to be saved, yet that is what I would call the most central doctrine of christianity, at least here in the bible belt. That seems to be an example of what he means when he's talking about changes in the text not effecting central doctrine because those doctrines aren't foundational to the text in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
2
Mar 4, 2024, 2:05 AM
|
|
The Big Dog®, I am going to agree with you. In doing so I might support the salvation by faith idea. You are right: no prescribed prayer.
A person cant claim to be married by being monogamous: many a psycho girlfriend has tried. But a groom who screws a bridesmaid on the wedding day cant claim to be married in any meaningful way: many a marriage has ended by sundown. Does one have to be faithful to be married? Yes (forgiveness can restart it, but no guarantees). Can one create a marriage by being faithful? No. You know what doesn't matter in all that? The nature of the ceremony. How does that agree with you? And is it relevant to the NT?
You are right; there is no mention in the NT of anyone saying a salvation prayer. If for no reason than that, I wouldn't defend the necessity of it. It can make a good stake in the ground, a way of verbalizing what has taken place, but no, not necessary.
Rev 3:20 has Jesus saying "... if anyone will open the door (of his spirit) I will have fellowship with him, and him with me." That is a relational act, not a legal (work, faithfulness) one. But how does one do that?
The analogy of marriage to our relationship with Jesus is biblical. It began in Genesis 2, describing Adam, realizing his incompleteness and recognizing Eve as the provided completer: "For this reason a man will leave his family and be united with his wife." Then Ephesians 5, describing the sacrificial nature of the husband and wife relationship, quotes that same comment. But the very next sentence is: "This is a mystery, and I'm actually talking about Jesus's relationship with us. So, husbands and wives, sacrifice yourselves to each other."
How does a marriage begin? With faithfulness? Of course not. It starts with two people promising to each other to sacrifice self for each other. Marriage vows are still worded that way (self written ones can get a bit "Bridges Of Madison County"). Jesus and us. Hey, we even have the groom promise himself first, a diamond gift to prove it. We then wait, sometimes a year, to witness the bride's response. And how does the NT refer to us and Jesus? "Bride and groom." Mutual self-giving.
So, how does one begin a relationship with Jesus? The NT does not prescribe a certain prayer. However, it is a giving of self to Him, because He first gave self for us. How one does that, how he communicates that to Jesus, is open. "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone will open ..."
That is what faith is, and that is why we say "salvation by faith". Then faithfulness, whatever that looks like, necessarily follows, though imperfectly. It is a simple relationship, but not easy, to begin or continue. As you know, most dont do it. I'd love to see you do it.
And you know I mean that, because I've proven myself to not be a 'nice' person. Heck yeah I'll argue. And, regrettably, will say sh** I shouldn't say. But that doesn't mean I dont care about you, at a personal level, and it does mean I wouldn't say that if I hadnt thought it all along.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
2
Mar 4, 2024, 7:24 AM
|
|
Thats a good breakdown and I think the majority of christians if not all would agree with you that that is what a relationship with Jesus looks like, and your explanation of it is based on your understanding of the bible. Won't argue against that.
However I think you did prove his (video guy) point. You quoted Revelation 3:20, but added "(of his spirit)", that is negotiating with the text.
And the writer of Revelation, even if it was the disciple John who walked and talked with Jesus, could have been "negotiating" himself by explaining it in that way.
How much historical value does this quote that is supposedly from Jesus even have? Did he really say this, or was this John 60 years later explaining his interpretation to his congregation?
These "negotiations" with the text open up a lot of doors and lead to many different opinions and interpretations and possible changes to the text.
Maybe Jesus meant that a relationship with him is what really mattered and what it all boils down to, but for someone else, like Peter or James, he said a lot more and meant a lot more. For them it wasn't just about a relationship.
Let's take another example like the trinity. Nowhere is it stated that god is 3 persons, except in a verse that is believed to be a later addition. Take that out, and you'll say it's still obvious because at Jesus baptism all 3 are present. That is negotiating with the text.
What about alcohol? I've heard many a preacher stand in the pulpit and claim that drinking it is a sin. What do they base it on? Most point to where Paul said "don't cause your brother to stumble" or something to that effect.
So you can see how easy it would be to be going by "the bible" but still get way off track from the original writings. Personally when I look at the New Testament and the early church compared to the modern day church and what it stands for, I see a totally different religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 4, 2024, 12:59 PM
|
|
Just to be clear ... if I had not added (in one's spirit), I would not have been changing/negotiating text? Even though I put it in parentheses, with clearly no intent to editorialize, but to just to allow brevity? I am not going to pull a line out of context, so I suppose I can start quoting 500 word passages. But in this case that is a thin, misplaced accusation.
About John "negotiating ... interpreting to his congregation", I did assume you know the quote is Jesus talking to John, late in John's life, in the timeframe of the writing. Early in the letter John describes Jesus coming to him, telling John to "write what you see, and send it to the seven churches". He then turns to see Jesus standing there, who is then the one talking, John writing what he is hearing. If you didn't know that, I should have quoted the three chapters rather than adding a parentheses. Maybe that is why you thought I was changing/negotiating.
I admit to not knowing what you mean by "with Peter, it meant more than a relationship." After a relationship is formed, the faithfulness to it starts, whatever that requires, which is is very difficult, and they described some aspects of that. I don't see where the disagreement is.
As to Trinity: I have heard no one say the bible uses that word. We all know it is a term to describe what Jesus is talking about, when in one sitting he speaks of the Father, Himself, and the Spirit, or Comforter, who is about to come. One verse? Jesus's baptism? Sure, but this is also Jesus speaking in John 14, 15, 16, 17. So we look at all that, and put a term on it. That is negotiating the text? Have you been listening to that weird guy again?
Alcohol? Really? One person has one opinion of the NT take on it, another person has another opinion, and all the opinions are there for all to see, and it is never presented as a salvation issue. And that is "negotiating the text"? If that is an issue, come with me to the cigar bar with my Christian friends: I'll buy the first one, and a single barrel to go with it, and they'll be glad to see you. Whoever you heard say we couldn't do that ... they'll be fine.
Dog, I know you have heard things neither of us agree with, but you are classically listing "whatabouts", and you are smarter than that. You know this isn't about church, or who-said-what, or how-wrong-he-was.
In the best whatabout of all time, Jesus is telling Peter that the end of Peter's life is not going to be pleasant. Peter points to John and says, literally, "whatabout him?" Good question. Fair is fair, right? Jesus says, "What does he have to do with you? You follow me." That is the relationship being offered. Can't hide behind what someone else is doing and saying. It is between you and Him. He loves you enough to die to offer it, and he's truthful enough to not abide by you negotiating. Cant point to the other guy.
Message was edited by: CUintulsa®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 4, 2024, 5:59 PM
|
|
"Just to be clear ... if I had not added (in one's spirit), I would not have been changing/negotiating text? Even though I put it in parentheses, with clearly no intent to editorialize, but to just to allow brevity? I am not going to pull a line out of context, so I suppose I can start quoting 500 word passages. But in this case that is a thin, misplaced accusation."
That's exactly how things got added to the bible....
A scribe here, a scribe there, just clarifying for "brevity" made the text say what he wanted it to say. That's how you got your modern day "bible". You are not reading what "John", whoever that was, wrote.
"I admit to not knowing what you mean by "with Peter, it meant more than a relationship." After a relationship is formed, the faithfulness to it starts, whatever that requires, which is is very difficult, and they described some aspects of that. I don't see where the disagreement is."
Peter and James did not teach "salvation by faith" or a "relationship" with Jesus. They taught faith and works. Paul's view won out.
"As to Trinity: I have heard no one say the bible uses that word. We all know it is a term to describe what Jesus is talking about, when in one sitting he speaks of the Father, Himself, and the Spirit, or Comforter, who is about to come. One verse? Jesus's baptism? Sure, but this is also Jesus speaking in John 14, 15, 16, 17. So we look at all that, and put a term on it. That is negotiating the text? Have you been listening to that weird guy again?"
Yet for some reason someone along the way felt the need to add a verse confirming it....
"Alcohol? Really? One person has one opinion of the NT take on it, another person has another opinion, and all the opinions are there for all to see, and it is never presented as a salvation issue. And that is "negotiating the text"? If that is an issue, come with me to the cigar bar with my Christian friends: I'll buy the first one, and a single barrel to go with it, and they'll be glad to see you. Whoever you heard say we couldn't do that ... they'll be fine."
Yes I realize there are christians who have no problem with alcohol...most of them in fact. The point was to show you how these little christian communities can influence what is "biblical".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 5, 2024, 1:00 AM
|
|
> A scribe here, a scribe there, just clarifying for "brevity" ...
I have seen no one point to a scribe's input that changed the account of the resurrection or the formation of a doctrine. But that is not the issue. This conversation has turned in a way I do not enjoy, and had hoped we were past.
What we were actually talking about is 3 words, that I put in parentheses, which you then used to accuse me of "negotiating the text", which clearly wasnt true. Not 1 in 1000 people would think I was running a game on you there. I dont think anyone who knows me would think I ever would. Dog, that is a serious accusation. I very sincerely thought this would no longer happen here.
So, if accusations are on the table, here's what that looks like. You know that little verse you're on about, that "negotiated text"? You know why I wasnt aware of it? Because the NIV, NAS, or any of the most commonly used translations do not even have that wording. Unless your go-to is the KJV, you havent read it either: you are repeating what someone is telling you. It is not skeptics who discovered this, but bible translators, quite a while ago. You didn't even look up the verse, or you'd have known. That's all I had to do. To reveal bias and laziness by repeating anything one reads, without verifying, should be embarrassing enough to prevent one from doing it. But here you are. Talk about "negotiating the text" ...
Is this the kind of conversation you like, trading personal accusations? I do not. But that is where you went, and doubled down on it. Is that what you want?
As to the rest of your response, it is opinion stated as fact. And that is fine, you are free to any opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 5, 2024, 8:03 AM
|
|
"I have seen no one point to a scribe's input that changed the account of the resurrection or the formation of a doctrine. But that is not the issue. This conversation has turned in a way I do not enjoy, and had hoped we were past."
You seemed like you were getting agitated. Sorry if I sounded snappy with that last response.
I haven't seen anything that really changes the account of the resurrection either. While there may be some timeline issues between the gospel accounts, that part of Jesus' life is pretty solid.
How that event is interpreted is a different story. We've discussed that plenty on here, and that's where some of these additions I think come in.
You don't take anything Bart Ehrman says as serious, but he points out a lot of these scribal additions in his books. The copy of the bible you have recognizes some, but not all of them of which there are thousands. Some are insignificant, some not so much.
"What we were actually talking about is 3 words, that I put in parentheses, which you then used to accuse me of "negotiating the text", which clearly wasnt true. Not 1 in 1000 people would think I was running a game on you there. I dont think anyone who knows me would think I ever would. Dog, that is a serious accusation. I very sincerely thought this would no longer happen here."
I didn't mean to accuse you of lying, I was just pointing out that you did exactly what the guy in the video says people do with the text.
"So, if accusations are on the table, here's what that looks like. You know that little verse you're on about, that "negotiated text"? You know why I wasnt aware of it? Because the NIV, NAS, or any of the most commonly used translations do not even have that wording. Unless your go-to is the KJV, you havent read it either: you are repeating what someone is telling you. It is not skeptics who discovered this, but bible translators, quite a while ago. You didn't even look up the verse, or you'd have known. That's all I had to do. To reveal bias and laziness by repeating anything one reads, without verifying, should be embarrassing enough to prevent one from doing it. But here you are. Talk about "negotiating the text" ..."
Again, you quoted a verse, added what it means to you, and I just simply pointed out that that's what scribes did for centuries when they copied the text.
Sometimes they would add things like you did for clarification, but it wasn't clear whether it was meant to be added in or a footnote, so that would be added to the text.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but you can see how these little things could add up and in some places change the meaning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24515]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13987
Joined: 7/3/01
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 5, 2024, 3:20 PM
|
|
I wasnt publishing to a million people. I was writing directly to you. The parentheses said only, "he is not talking about house doors". I knew that, you knew that, and you can instantly read the text yourself. You were immediately able, actually invited, to offer any response/disagreement
That is the opposite of "negotiating text": Whatever that means, any negotiation was with you, not text.
You instead took some idea of what you think other people allegedly have done, and applied it to me, a direct accusation of a thing I didnt come close to doing. And when confronted on it you explain why an accusation is 'snappy'.
I think I got it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Here ya go ...
Mar 5, 2024, 4:19 PM
|
|
The earliest scribes who painstakingly copied by hand weren’t publishing for the masses either. It was small Christian communities and that’s why you see differences among them in the manuscript traditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
He is presenting information and a perspective that most people
2
Mar 3, 2024, 5:01 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here ya go ... ] |
|
have never heard. Sure, to people like you who have devoted a great deal of time to serious study of the Bible in depth, and read in depth about the history of the Bible, like you have, I can see why this bible scholar would be irritating, especially since you seem to disagree with his conclusions. However, for a dolt like me who is not an authority on the subject, I find his clips highly informative and very interesting. And yes, I realize there is another side to the story, and I have watched a gazillion rebuttals to his clips and others who share a similar perspective. I try to see all sides.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Okay
2
Mar 3, 2024, 12:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here ya go ... ] |
|
I understood his actual point to be that, as he says "not a single first person claim to being an eyewitness to Jesus's life", and that assigning authorship of the gospels to people who would have known Jesus and been his disciples was not done until 160 or 170 CE, and until that time, these writings were circulated with annonymous authorship. In other words, none of these gospels originally said, "I am (insert name), personal friend and disciple of Jesus, and here is what I saw". Instead, they were written anonymously, more like a narrative of events, with authorship only assigned much later.
Is all of that evidence that the gospels are not true or unreliable? Of course not, and I don't think that was his point. There is no question, however, that first-hand eyewitness testiomony is more reliable and carries more weight than second-hand reporting, and I think a lot of people believe that the gospels are indeed first-hand accounts, and I think his point is to make that distinction, that we have no one claiming to be an eyewitness, and reason to believe we may have no first-hand accounts at all.
One must then decide for themselves what all of that means.
Also, who the heck is Fordt?
Thanks again for your indulgence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: Okay
2
Mar 3, 2024, 3:28 PM
|
|
One thing worth noting here that favors traditional authorship is the fact that these names clearly carried weight in Christian circles.
Bottom line is there were people who walked and talked with Jesus still around when they were being written.
While John may have not penned every word, the gospel that carries his name can probably be traced back to him.
There’s really no reason to doubt Mark or Luke. Mark abandoned the apostles and Luke was nobody when it came to Jesus.
If I was gonna lie about who wrote them I certainly wouldn’t have chosen those two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Absolutely, you could be right.
2
Mar 3, 2024, 4:43 PM
|
|
No way to really know, but we can make a pretty good guess. Luke was believed to be an acquaintance and traveling companion of Paul's, so that could have been a reason authorship was assigned to him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Okay
2
Mar 3, 2024, 6:42 PM
[ in reply to Okay ] |
|
>Also, who the heck is Fordt?
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
Now I really do feel dum.
2
Mar 3, 2024, 7:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 12:15 AM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
I had hoped to illustrate this with a series on Gnostics. But I've put it off while I work on Revelation instead, coming in a few days.
The thing about the Gnostics is this. They were contemporary with Jesus's other followers. Some perhaps even walked with Jesus. Some absolutely, undeniably believed in the Resurrection, as a spiritual, though not physical event.
But their world view, and what place the Resurrection had in it, will make your head spin. It's so foreign to today's sensibilities it might as well be from Mars. And it's not even uniform among all Gnostics.
My point being that even if we all believe in the same basic facts, that doesn't mean that our separate conclusions will be even remotely close to one another.
Belief, conclusion, and implication isn't as simple as a linear a>b>c>d. It's more like this:
As I've said before, "How many beliefs do you want? How many people do you have?" And every one of them will have a reasoning behind those differing beliefs. Even if they all read from the very same book.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
1
Mar 3, 2024, 11:11 AM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
I believe there is a fragment of the gospel of John from around 125 AD. The earliest full copy I believe dates to around 3-400 AD.
However it is claimed that you could reconstruct the entire New Testament just from the writings of the church fathers writing in the 2nd and 3rd centuries I believe, without a single manuscript.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That is true.
2
Mar 2, 2024, 10:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
It's a matter of denotation vs connotations. While modern dictionaries list the various meanings for words we often walk in the well worn path of applying the most often used meaning for words. At times misunderstandings happen between modern folk even when they are from the same neck of the woods.
Two such examples in modern day when reading the Bible are are 'fear,' and 'evil.'
2 Kings 17:
"37 And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandment, which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore; and ye shall not fear other gods."
If you read that chapter you can get a full description of what fearing God means by understanding what they did to 'fear,' fake gods.
In the days of the KJ translators a rabid storm which destroyed crops and property would be considered evil. The Black Plague was considered evil. Evil doesn't always mean against God's will or counter to God Himself.
It's as if we need a Rosetta Stone to interpret English.
1 Corinthians 2:
"7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory:
8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.
16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ."
Reckon how we are so sure of what we believe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: That is true.
1
Mar 3, 2024, 7:12 PM
|
|
>Reckon how we are so sure of what we believe!
Again, though, some other religious folks believe so much they'd fly themselves into buildings for it. This is why personal testimony doesn't move the needle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [94262]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95529
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 2, 2024, 10:29 PM
[ in reply to My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
My God was able to produce, protect and provide His Holy Word to me.
My God is Almighty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [58598]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 46405
Joined: 4/23/00
|
All opinions are welcome.***
1
Mar 3, 2024, 12:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 8:44 AM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
Again, Muslims will say the same things. This is why I'm not interested in personal testimony unless it can be corroborated
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 7:01 PM
|
|
Just as a precaution though, I wouldn't count differing interpretations as evidence that God doesn't exist. That is, I wouldn't say that "You guys disagree on what God is, therefore there must not be one.
Testimony alone may or may not be particularly strong evidence from either Christians or Muslims, depending on one's belief threshold, but, them saying that they both experience something, only in different ways, shouldn't be seen as undermining their point of view.
God could come to people in different ways. It's a fine point, and it parses between 'evidence that God exists' vs. 'evidence of God's nature and characteristics.' An important difference, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
2
Mar 3, 2024, 7:18 PM
|
|
>Just as a precaution though, I wouldn't count differing interpretations as evidence that God doesn't exist.
"God doesn't exist" isn't my claim. "Personal testimony alone isn't sufficient evidence to believe he does" is.
If they have personal evidence of God, that's great, but I don't. The fact that I can ask three N number of people and they can give me N personal accounts for conflicting gods means that personal testimony is not an able to get us to the truth, even though one of them may be the truth.
>Testimony alone may or may not be particularly strong evidence from either Christians or Muslims, depending on one's belief threshold, but, them saying that they both experience something, only in different ways, shouldn't be seen as undermining their point of view.
Again, I'm not trying to undermine them, if they are having these experiences that's great, all I am saying is that is not sufficient evidence to convince me personally.
>God could come to people in different ways. It's a fine point, and it parses between 'evidence that God exists' vs. 'evidence of God's nature and characteristics.' An important difference, I think.
I totally agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
1
Mar 4, 2024, 7:29 AM
|
|
I think the fact that other people experience it, and SO many people have throughout history, has to at least give some credence to the idea of god.
If you're just gonna boil it down to what you've personally experienced, there's literally nothing you can have confidence in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
1
Mar 4, 2024, 8:35 AM
|
|
>I think the fact that other people experience it, and SO many people have throughout history, has to at least give some credence to the idea of god.
Sure, but the experiences you are referring to involve conflicting beliefs. If a Muslim and a Hindu both have experiences and attribute them to conflicting Gods, then one of them is wrong. If the Muslim God is true, then there are no Hindu Gods, this means that it is entirely possible for people to have religious experiences that are misattributed to god(s).
Basically, we already have strong evidence that incorrect belief in god(s) exists. What we don't have is strong evidence that any one of them is right.
I personally had experiences as a Christian that I attributed to God at the time. I'm all too aware of how easy it is to do so without.
>If you're just gonna boil it down to what you've personally experienced, there's literally nothing you can have confidence in.
If that's what I was saying, then yeah, I'd agree. Not going to argue against a position I don't hold, though.
Also, I'm not sure what your point is entirely. Are you saying I should be open to the idea that maybe these people are right? If so, I already am. If that's not the point, can you clarify?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29948]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8864
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
Mar 4, 2024, 11:22 AM
|
|
>If the Muslim God is true, then there are no Hindu Gods
Keep in mind that ultimately, our expression of what God may be is merely descriptive. It might be a spot-on description, or it might be wildly off.
If I hear a thrashing in the woods at might, it might be a boar rooting around in some leaves, or it might be a family of squirrels doing the same.
That is, I might perceive that that experience as coming from a single entity, or from multiple entities; Muslim, or Hindu. A pretty bad analogy, granted, but the idea is that two wildly different descriptions can still be describing the very same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
Mar 4, 2024, 11:29 AM
[ in reply to Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ... ] |
|
I don’t think conflicting beliefs would be a tally mark in favor of god not existing though. That seems to be what you are saying. In that case evolution didn’t happen because we aren’t 100% sure how it happened and what it looked like every step of the way.
You said their experiences aren’t sufficient evidence. But you rely on the experience of others when it comes to science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
Mar 4, 2024, 11:38 AM
|
|
>I don’t think conflicting beliefs would be a tally mark in favor of god not existing though. That seems to be what you are saying. In that case evolution didn’t happen because we aren’t 100% sure how it happened and what it looked like every step of the way.
I think there is some confusion here but i'm not sure what it is
>You said their experiences aren’t sufficient evidence. But you rely on the experience of others when it comes to science.
Ah, but this is where I disagree HARD. I absolutely do not have to rely on others to know the scientific method works.
You seem to conflate the fact that I haven't personally run/seen every experiment with the fact that I've seen science work first hand myself.
The latter is what I'm referring to wrt to the supernatural. I have no equivalent experience there.
Your last statement is demonstrably wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2165]
TigerPulse: 69%
Posts: 2581
Joined: 6/4/22
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
Mar 4, 2024, 12:24 PM
|
|
You seemed to be saying that conflicting ideas about god imply that he doesn't exist. If that wasn't your point I must have misunderstood.
"You seem to conflate the fact that I haven't personally run/seen every experiment with the fact that I've seen science work first hand myself.
You haven't actually seen one species change into another, we can't fly back in time and confirm that radiometric dating is correct, or that dinosaurs lived exactly this long ago....
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1012]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 1458
Joined: 11/15/23
|
Re: My #1 rule when reading the Bible ...
Mar 4, 2024, 12:36 PM
|
|
>You seemed to be saying that conflicting ideas about god imply that he doesn't exist. If that wasn't your point I must have misunderstood.
No, I'm saying we only have hard evidence that some people who believe in god are wrong. We don't have hard evidence in the opposite direction.
Again, I'm 100% open to the possibility God exists.
>You haven't actually seen one species change into another, we can't fly back in time and confirm that radiometric dating is correct, or that dinosaurs lived exactly this long ago....
Is my statement not clear? I thought I clarified this: "You seem to conflate the fact that I haven't personally run/seen every experiment with the fact that I've seen science work first hand myself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 64
| visibility 701
|
|
|
50
