Subject:
|
Re: Science and beliefs (was Re: Alien races)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 6 Feb 2001 00:06:57 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
q_harlequin_p@hotmail/spamless/.com
|
Viewed:
|
692 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 5 Apr 2001 22:19:31 GMT, "James Brown"
<galliard@shades-of-night.com> wrote:
> > > > 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?
Uh...what question? Are you getting something I'm not or did I miss
another meeting?
> Ryan stated his belief that the
> bible (not portions, or "except the bits to test our faith") is literal
> truth.
A yup.
> 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.)
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
talking about all sorts of things that probably go over your head as
well as mine. It's basically like Post Hoc, Ergo, Propter Hoc. In
our everyday thinking we don't really see how the effect can precede
the cause, however there are numerous scientific theories and
calculations which prove that under given circumstances such a thing
can occur. Again though that delves into all sorts of really high
level thinking and math that I've only barely scratched the surface
on. My point was that in all "reality" anything is possible, and that
to say you are right and someone else is wrong is quite laughable at
best. Just because you're not capable of understanding something (I
mean that on a physical note, there are some things that we as humans
just cannot fathom) doesn't mean that such things are impossible.
> > > 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.
Making assumptions are you now? Hmmm, well that isn't much of a
surprise, you're going to have to start making some if you want to try
and throw everything into a single pot.
> 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).
Again, that was my point.
> > > 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?
He called me on the phone, it was divine intervention, the pope said
it, the dog down the street, who cares, the fact of the matter is that
if God does exist he could very well have the ability to tell one or
more people anything he wanted. Do you deny that a God could have
that ability?
> > > 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?
Hmmm...my sarcasm was clearly overlooked...oh well, can't say I didn't
try.
> > > 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.
Uh...why not, you are.
> 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?
An infinite number of possibilities. Open up a Crayon box and
contemplate for a bit.
> > > 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.
So is he like your puppet or can you just read his mind?
> Also look into the concept of Occam's Razor.
I fail to see what the law of parsimony has to do with the situation,
but hey, whatever blows yer hair back and all that. On a side note I
liked Contact too, but I usually try to avoid getting scientific facts
from mainstream media. : )
Robert
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (24 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
|
|
|
|
