Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
545 times
|
| |
|
|
<oh look, yummy bait. CHOMP. Oops, I've been trolled.>
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Robert Bevens writes:
> 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"?
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 invalidates the entirety as literal truth. (It does not
necessarily mean that none of it is literal truth, but it does indicate that
not *all* of it is literal truth.)
> > 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.
Let's just call this "Point 1". I can't speak for Dave, but I personally
operate under the basic assumption that my perceptions are reliable. If you
aren't willing to accept that basic premise, then there is no common ground
and it's pointless trying to debate, because any participant can "what if"
ad infinitum (and ad naseum).
> > 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.
Where?
> > 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?
According to how you interpret the Bible. Who says you're right?
> > 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.
He has made no such presumption, don't put words in his mouth. If there are
two (or more) interpretations of the Bible, and they are not all correct
(which is the premise being talked about), then what determines which one is
correct?
> > 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?
He isn't.
> > 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?
See point 1.
> > 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?
See point 1.
> > Your view of the literal word is widely held, and I take issue with that
> > untenable position itself.
>
> 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?"
See point 1.
Also look into the concept of Occam's Razor.
James
yum.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss another meeting? (...) A yup. (...) Not entirely true, it could all be literally true whilst parts could still be incorrect. You might ask why, but then I'd have to start (...) (23 years ago, 6-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
| (...) What if God isn't perfect? What if he purposefully put in mistakes as a sort of "test of faith"? (...) 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. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 5-Feb-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
|
|
|
|
