Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:19:39 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmailNOMORESPAM.com
|
Viewed:
|
526 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 18:30:15 GMT, "Dave Schuler" <orrex@excite.com>
wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ryan Farrington writes:
> > The thing is, I believe the Bible to be literal truth about the universe!
> > So in that case, I never will stop believing the Bible.
> Ryan, I don't presume to question your Faith, but for a number of reasons
> your position on the nature of text isn't entirely supportable. If, for
> instance, even a single snippet of The Bible is found to be not literally
> true, then the literal interpretion of the whole work falls.
What if God isn't perfect? What if he purposefully put in mistakes as
a sort of "test of faith"?
> For that
> matter, as I've asked elsewhere, if we are to interpret The Bible literally,
> are we all literally and in fact mustard seeds?
We could be, where is your undeniable proof that we aren't? For all
you know your entire reality is just some form of illusion.
> If we are not, then The
> Bible by definition cannot be taken literally. Further, every parable,
> symbol, and metaphor must be taken literally, and Christ will appear as
> predicted in Revelations with a literal sword in his literal mouth. If not,
> we must be provided with an index of when scripture is to be read as written
> and when it is to be interpreted as metaphor.
> Beyond this simple rhetorical problem, we must ask whose literal
> interpretation of The Bible is the correct literal interpretation, and who
> is to judge the correctness of that interpretation? How is Aquinas'
> interpretation better or worse than Luther's or Nietzche's or Koresh's? And
> why?
Because God said so, that's why.
> Throughout history people have commited horrible atrocities in the
> name of Christianity, and even though no one believes these people to be
> shining examples of "true" Christians, in their own time they asserted that
> they were following the literal word of The Bible.
Well they were wrong, true Christians wouldn't murder people...unless
God told them to.
> How can we know that our
> interpretation is better than theirs?
Because killing is wrong, duh, didn't you know that?
> Did they simply misinterpret The
> Bible?
Yup.
> How do we know that we haven't misinterpreted it?
Why do you presume to think we have? I wonder what YOUR basis of
comparison is.
> One common
> answer, obviously, is that we're all human and therefore fallible, so
> naturally we may make mistakes in interpretation. How, therefore, can we
> assert with any confidence that the literal word (as we interpret it) is
> true?
How can you assert with any confidence that the literal word is false?
> On what basis can such a claim be made? For centuries the "literal
> truth" of The Bible stated that the Earth was the center of the Universe.
And how do you know for absolute certain that it's not?
> This was conclusively disproven,
Boy talk about hypocritical, first you say people make mistakes and
screw up, and then you go on to say that something has been
conclusively disproved. How do you know they aren't wrong? How do
you know there's not some piece of the picture that's missing?
Perhaps they, or most of us are being manipulated?
> and The Bible (or, more accurately, the
> assessment of the literal word) was proven incorrect. The problem is that
> any "correct" literal interpretation can be dismissed--after it's shown to
> be false--simply by saying "Well, they didn't really interpret it
> correctly." Such a position is circular and self-fulfilling.
Much like your position on the nature of the universe, huh?
> It may seem as though I am attacking you personally, but in fact I am not.
Somehow I doubt that's not entirely the case. Maybe attack is too
strong a word, but you definitely want to break down his belief system
and get him to exam your way of thinking. In a way that is a form of
attack.
> Your view of the literal word is widely held, and I take issue with that
> untenable position itself.
>
> Dave!
Maybe the reason you take such an issue with it is because you fear
that it could be the truth. The bottom line is you should never
assume that one religion or belief is more correct over another.
Facts and truths are constantly being redefined, broken down, being
rebuilt, etc, etc. You might think scientific measuring equipment is
an accurate way of telling the "truth" from the fluff, but then you
get into all sorts of questions like, "How do you know your equipment
isn't wrong, or being influenced by an anomalous component?"
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) How is that relevant to Dave's question? Ryan stated his belief that the bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal truth. If one holds the entirety as literal truth, then any example of non-literal truth (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Ryan, I don't presume to question your Faith, but for a number of reasons your position on the nature of text isn't entirely supportable. If, for instance, even a single snippet of The Bible is found to be not literally true, then the literal (...) (23 years ago, 5-Apr-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
126 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
