Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 24 Jan 2001 02:30:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
395 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> > And if only personal preference,
> > then out of what? Pride? Fear? Or bad experience? Something else? I'll put
> > my money on 'pride' (though for both you and I, I don't think I'd name it as
> > 'pride' per se, but it's subject to interpretation :)
>
> 2 things in particular come to mind.
> 1) personal relationship with God - difficult to explain. Outwardly could
> appear to be similar to your beliefs. Although there's more historical basis
> for mine... I also have the evidence of my life and others' whom He has
> changed.
You'll have to clarify here: your personal relationship has a historical
basis, and is based on the evidence of your life and others'? Actually, I'll
correct myself by saying I think you're adressing two topics-- both the
personal connection, and the evidence to 'back it up'.
And on that note, I'd argue that your system is no more accurate than mine,
because neither can be proven-- it's only a matter of our 'pride' as you
called it. We both have faith in our ability to judge our respective
experiences. It's just that our abilities to judge differ, and our
experiences probably differ. As for who is right, does it really matter? And
if it does, then I'd argue that there is no way to prove that either of our
ways is better than the other's.
> 2) Logic / reason
> a) the logic of the failings of man's interpretation of the universe -
> evolution et al...
Indeed. And would not the failings of religion be similarly applicable? I
would say that while science has 90% of the time agreed with itself, it's
also been progressive. It grows as does our experience as a species, as well
as the headway that we constantly make. Religion? It's all over the place.
Religion has almost never agreed with itself, and further isn't as
progressive. While various religions have become 'extinct' so to say, most
religious beliefs stick around for a LONG time and aren't CAPABLE of being
disproven, thanks to the power of interpretation.
In other words, right back atcha :)
> b) the logic of the witness of the man Jesus who claimed to be God and thus
> was either God or crazy - but nothing of His life supports madness
Oh? So if someone claims they're God but don't show signs of madness they're
worthy of being deemed as God by you? Honestly, I don't expect that to be
your reason at all. I rather expect your reasoning to be that you see the
inherent value in his teachings, witnessed (indirectly) his miracles, and
seen the faith that he inspired in people. Would that be any closer?
Basically, it comes down to the amount of trust you have in yourself, I
think. You trust your judgement in judging that the Bible is right. I trust
my judgement in judging that it's not. And honestly I don't see much of a
difference. (Except, of course, that I'm right! :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) 2 things in particular come to mind. 1) personal relationship with God - difficult to explain. Outwardly could appear to be similar to your beliefs. Although there's more historical basis for mine... I also have the evidence of my life and (...) (24 years ago, 24-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
