Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Mar 2000 02:32:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1740 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Karim Nassar writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bill Farkas writes:
> > I wasn't saying that we shouldn't think. What I meant was that our own minds
> > are incapable of true objectivity. We all translate experiences according to • a
> > sum total of all our previous experiences. The human psyche has the tendency • to
> > recoil and react defensively to negative stimuli. If our belief system is
> > framed by reacting against someone else's, are we likely to arrive at THE
> > truth? There is after all only one actual truth about God and how we got • here.
> > Can that be discovered by constantly reacting in opposition to a philosophy
> > whose practitioners have ofended you. Not to be overly redundant, but many of
> > us feel and believe a certain way reactively and not proactively. That's my
> > point. We are all subjective.
>
>
> If that's the case (and I'm not debating that point...I happen to agree) then
> the Bible is even less of an objective source than our own minds... After all,
> the content of the Bible is purportedly eyewitness testimony, right?
A lot of it is more like a court transcript in the sense that they were
official documents (O.T. historical books). Much of the Bible is didactic in
nature and therefore doesn't fit your argument. As for the narrative/historical
portions of it, the people described in those sections (whether positively or
negatively) were still alive when it was written and circulated and could have,
therefore, conclusively disputed any inaccuracies.
>
> So it was subjectively interpreted once when they saw an event, again when • they
> wrote it down, yet once more when someone reads it, and a final time when they
> apply it to their lives. That is not counting any translation, which for most
> people adds another few layers between them and the book (unless you read
> ancient greek as your first language).
>
> Now before you answer that the Bible is Divinly inspired, keep in mind that
> that is your subjective point of view (regardless of how many others happen to
> share it) and that it holds no weight whatsoever and has no bearing on mine.
I've said before, God Himself doesn't *demand* that we obey. He presents
Himself as He chooses and leaves it to us to respond as we choose. I'm not
saying that it should have any bearing on your point of view. You are a free
entity and may choose what you wish. I disagree that my assertion that the
Bible is authoritative is subjective to my own opinions. I had no preconceived
notions on the matter prior to meeting God. After He introduced Himself to me I
pretty much trusted that He had my best interest at heart and took His word for
it (pun intended). But only after discovering the Author Himself to be
reliable. Which is where my contention lies. None of you have ever met my
Grandfather and such being the case cannot tell me that he doesn't exist or
wasn't who I experienced him to be. Yet you (general you, not specifically you
Karim) presume to adjudicate as to whether a Person that I have personally come
to intimately know does in fact exist. Yet people who don't believe in God have
no evidence to support their position.
> If
> you want me to accept & agree with your point of view on this matter, you have
> to provide me with Hard (non-subjective) evidence... which based on your above
> definition, means that it must be either 1) something external to any given
> person, or 2) something internal to ME, because *mine* is the only subjective
> perception that I can naturally accept as objective.
I'll take door #2. That is precisely my point. This argument can only be won in
each individual heart.
>
> *This is Why* trying to quote Christian scripture when arguing with someone
> who is not is ALWAYS pointless.
I don't think it's "pointless". It has more effect than you know.
> Or to put it more generally, the same thing
> that Jeremy was trying to tell you about starting from a common frame of
> reference.
Yeah, but I'm not trying to convince the *participants* in the argument, I have
other motives. I have no delusions of LarryP and others ever conceding to my
point of view. My point of view is just that: "my point of view". They don't
have to agree with me, of all people. I'm also not trying to "evangelize" any
of them. We all agree that these arguments cannot be conclusively or decisively
won. I'm not trying to win a contest or a prize. This is a much bigger ball of
wax. Besides, it's fun just participating in the free exchange of ideas.
>
> BTW, it is for this reason that eyewitness testimony in trials is FAR less
> desireable than hard evidence. If you gather ten people together, all of whom
> witness the same event, Guaranteed, each one of them will tell you a different
> story... because their perceptions are colored by what is important to each of
> them.
Agreed. Hence all the discord on my side of the aisle.
>
> --Karim
Bill
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) to (...) If that's the case (and I'm not debating that point...I happen to agree) then the Bible is even less of an objective source than our own minds... After all, the content of the Bible is purportedly eyewitness testimony, right? So it (...) (25 years ago, 12-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
