What makes you think the bible is the word of God?

[tigers08]

The bottom line here is faith. You seem to search for proof before you can believe; therefore you have no faith.This is a free gift of God which you can receive by simply asking. Try it.
Bill

So is logical reasoning. Thanks but I think I will rely on that.

 

[tigers08]

If you can’t actually know that “free will is an illusion”, why would you accept that as your “operating principle”?

You accept it “on faith”, which is a basis on which belief in God (or free will which implies God) is AT LEAST as persuasive as a belief in “mechanical universe sans God” and it’s corollary “free will and the universe are an illusion”.

Your faith tells you the universe is an illusion, where all is decided beforehand as a clock inexcerably decides what time it is. Even if it’s “run down”, as there is no one to wind it back up.

To say that there is a quality called “good or bad” in such a universe is to be utterly free to define good and bad to mean absolutely anything. Do you agree?

I don’t really accept it on faith. I accept it based on the evidence I have seen. For instance, there is nothing random about physics. It takes something random to created a split in the time line. Thus, there is only one time line, and the universe can only develop in one way.

Yes, I do agree. But then again the Church basically has that same power.

But here’s the thing: While I do believe there is only one course through time, I don’t know what that course is. For instance, if I have a test tomorrow. I don’t know whether I was destined to study or not. So to me, the decision to study seems like a decision, but this thought process was already set to happen. Even picking a “random” number. While it’s completely random to us, it’s based on the ideas already in our head, and was already set to happen.

 

[tigers08]

The answer to all of these is that it has only the power of persuasion, which is available to any “leader(s) of groups of humanity”. Why should the Church have any LESS of this “power” than anyone else?

Yes, they only have the power of persuasion. When you can persuade a billion people, that’s a lot of power. I didn’t say they don’t deserve this power. All I said was that this power depended on their followers believing them.

Do you think that ANY large group should be “controlled” so as not to be “too persuasive”?

No.

 

[wanner47]

the crusades

Uh, no. First of all, the Crusades didn’t involve “half the world.” Secondly, the Crusades were organized in response to an invading force of Muslims – the Pope didn’t wake up that morning and decide, “Hey, I think I want to start a war, because it’d be fun.” Thirdly, the Pope called for crusaders but no one was ORDERED to fight.

I think you should brush up on your history. This would be a good place to start.

i haven’t rejected God. And that is huge power: deciding the moral code is pretty much the biggest thing an organization could control.

Deciding it, sure. But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Catholic Church can also *enforce *it, which it cannot do. That’s where our free will comes in. We can choose, or not choose, to adhere to the Church’s teachings.

Power: The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority; A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others.

The Church has great influence over people. They have great authority over them. Thus, they have great power.

You’re wrong according to your own definition. The Church has influence, yes, and SPIRITUAL authority (not civil or legal) for those who CHOOSE to follow the Church. But the Church has no means to exercise control over its followers. Again, free will. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; similarly, the Church can lead a man to baptism but can’t dunk him against his will.

Yes, my parent have a lot of power over me. Power doesn’t mean complete control. Our government has a lot of power over its citizens, too. That doesn’t mean that people don’t have a choice to break the law.

But you said in an earlier post that people, in fact, *don’t *have a choice to break the law. In fact, that’s your whole theory – that people don’t have any choices in their actions because it’s all predetermined by brain chemistry, environment, etc. So which is it – do we have choices or do we not?

Regardless, the Church doesn’t mandate civil or legal consequences for breaking spiritual laws, so they have no civil or legal power. As for spiritual power, the Church’s followers are free to reject the Church’s teachings if they choose, with no consequences (other than the ones God chooses to enforce) so there’s no real power there, either.

 

[wanner47]

I don’t, and I don’t claim that they are. That’s the huge difference.

Well, you’re relying pretty heavily on something that you don’t know for sure is right. Given the eternal consequences involved if you’re wrong, do you really want to take that chance?

 

[Theodora]

This is one way of accepting God and at the same time denying Him.
There was a big flood covering the whole town with water. A "man of faith"was trapped on the bell tower, there was no way he could escape as the water was still rising. A boat passed by and the man on it shouted to the one on the bell tower to come to the boat. But the man on the bell tower shouted back saying, “Don’t worry, God would save me here.” For three times a boat passed by the bell tower, and three times also the invitation was made. But the man, confident of his faith, remained in the bell tower. The water rose further burying the bell tower, and together with it the man drowned. That is a faith in God that denies God.

I tried to give the most direct answer as to the request of the OP how I could believe the BIBLE to be God’s word without anyone telling me it to be so. The request was to look only at the Bible without any other outside influence of a person.

My point is that only by God’s grace could I be disposed to reach for this Book and come to the realization and be convinced in the heart that what is written in this Book comes from God…

Hope I made sense. I do not know if God works in the way I described, but that is how I imagine it could go.

It has nothing to do with denying God.

 

[johnnydigit]

I don’t really accept it on faith. I accept it based on the evidence I have seen. For instance, there is nothing random about physics. It takes something random to created a split in the time line. Thus, there is only one time line, and the universe can only develop in one way.

Yes, I do agree. But then again the Church basically has that same power.

But here’s the thing: While I do believe there is only one course through time, I don’t know what that course is. For instance, if I have a test tomorrow. I don’t know whether I was destined to study or not. So to me, the decision to study seems like a decision, but this thought process was already set to happen. Even picking a “random” number. While it’s completely random to us, it’s based on the ideas already in our head, and was already set to happen.

if you want to go at it from a more scientific point of view, why don’t you start with creation. examine the arguments for and against an intelligent designer. establish your view on God (i haven’t read the entire thread so don’t know what yours is).

from there, if you believe there is a God, then start from a clean slate and examine which religion has the most logical information on God. this will undoubtedly lead you to some sort of written text. the rest will unfold itself for you.

otherwise, this thread is arguing just for the sake of arguing. it’s like, do you want to stand outside the window and mindlessly talk in circles about ping pong and every aspect of it, from the material of the ball to the manufacturer of the table, or do you want to go inside and learn how to actually play it? it all starts by walking in and picking up the paddle.

if you’re sincere, then God bless. if not, continue getting off on arguing an uphill battle.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

We’re inside the “machine”. So while I think every “choice” I have made was always meant to happen, they still seemed like choices to me. We still hold a murderer responsible even if all he’s known his whole life is violence. So just because he was pretty much set to be a murderer from the time he was born, we still hold him responsible (a bad example, but you get the idea). Plus me taking responsibility for my actions was also set to happen.

But isn’t it “handy” that you can at least “after the fact” say, “Yup, I did it, but it was meant to happen because it did, and it’s ‘God’s’ fault that I did it!”?

If you don’t believe in “utter determinism” (your professed belief) there is ONE LESS COP-OUT to taking responsibility for your actions.

People tend to take ANY out that is available to them when faced with extreme pain, and the pain of “being responsible for the pain of others” prompts people “avoid” the pain of responsibility.

Quote:
If you ARE compelled to take ANY responsibility for your acts, what “force” is “responsible” for that?

The illusion of consciousness makes me think I made choices. Thus it also thinks I am responsible for those choices.

I’d say God is responsible for making me feel this way, since He set up the universe and knew I would be feeling this feeling.

So, YOU are once again absolved of being “responsible”, for even your own feelings, simply by your realizing that the universe is a vast illusion?

Once again, a very handy way around the necessity of taking responsibility for one’s actions should doing that (taking responsibility) be “too painful”.

Do you see how your “beliefs” allow, rather easily, for unrepentant psychosociopathic behavior?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I don’t really accept it [mechanistic universe] on faith. I accept it based on the evidence I have seen. For instance, there is nothing random about physics. It takes something random to created a split in the time line. Thus, there is only one time line, and the universe can only develop in one way.

So, you accept that you have no “real” free will because of what evidence that the universe is an illusion?

Please ask a quantum-physicist about the determinism of the universe. Your mutual definitions of “random” may differ somewhat.

Yes, I do agree. But then again the Church basically has that same power.

But here’s the thing: While I do believe there is only one course through time, I don’t know what that course is. For instance, if I have a test tomorrow. I don’t know whether I was destined to study or not. So to me, the decision to study seems like a decision, but this thought process was already set to happen. Even picking a “random” number. While it’s completely random to us, it’s based on the ideas already in our head, and was already set to happen.

The Christian view is that your test result will be the result of your choices during the test, which God allows you to make freely (He does not ordain your choices) which God will “work into” the “eternal plan” such that it SEEMS to us to have been predestined by God. It SEEMS to be predestined because He uses EVERY choice of those He gives free will to to bring MOST GOOD (maximizes good) into our story of history (economy of salvation) for our, mankind’s, benefit in his search to fully know the “consequences of sin”.

You ASSUME that “it’s all been written”, both in anticipation and in hindsight from your point of view. You simply “KNOW” that your test result WILL be what it was meant to be even before it happened. This is logically obvious, and correct, as far as it takes you! But you can only HOPE that the universe is “predestined” to a “satisfactory” (from your point of view) state, at some “random” (chosen by you) point in time. This hope is incredibly precarious, as is necessary given it’s basis in “materially observable empiricism”.

We HOPE in exactly the same way, but we have no “out” for not “being MASSIVELY motivated” in taking responsibility for our actions (God will pay us our due!) to “do good”, and we believe that “the best state of the universe” will eventually win out at an actual “end” state.

I’m not saying your belief isn’t rational, or even humanely (motivationally) doable, but only that my belief is JUST as rational, and more motivationally doable, as well as easier to accomplish actual good. (As well as more psychologically and socially healthy!)

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
The answer to all of these is that it has only the power of persuasion, which is available to any “leader(s) of groups of humanity”. Why should the Church have any LESS of this “power” than anyone else?

Yes, they only have the power of persuasion. When you can persuade a billion people, that’s a lot of power. I didn’t say they don’t deserve this power. All I said was that this power depended on their followers believing them.

So, you’d agree that IF an institution with hugely persuasive power that is truly good (aka From God) that the power that they could apply toward their goals would be a good?

(( What I’m trying to tease apart is the rather too prevalent assumption these days that “ANY massive accumulation of power of persuasion is an EVIL”. ))

Quote:
Do you think that ANY large group should be “controlled” so as not to be “too persuasive”?

No.

Then you’re way ahead of the pack in being correct!

 

[tigers08]

Uh, no. First of all, the Crusades didn’t involve “half the world.” Secondly, the Crusades were organized in response to an invading force of Muslims – the Pope didn’t wake up that morning and decide, “Hey, I think I want to start a war, because it’d be fun.” Thirdly, the Pope called for crusaders but no one was ORDERED to fight.

It was a hyperbole. And ya he didn’t order them, but he told the ones who fought they had automatic admittance into heaven.

Deciding it, sure. But you seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Catholic Church can also *enforce *it, which it cannot do. That’s where our free will comes in. We can choose, or not choose, to adhere to the Church’s teachings.

No, obviously the Church can’t enforce anything. I never said that.

You’re wrong according to your own definition. The Church has influence, yes, and SPIRITUAL authority (not civil or legal) for those who CHOOSE to follow the Church. But the Church has no means to exercise control over its followers. Again, free will. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink; similarly, the Church can lead a man to baptism but can’t dunk him against his will.

They have a huge amount of influence over their followers. They have a huge number of followers. Therefore, they have a huge amount of power.

But you said in an earlier post that people, in fact, *don’t *have a choice to break the law. In fact, that’s your whole theory – that people don’t have any choices in their actions because it’s all predetermined by brain chemistry, environment, etc. So which is it – do we have choices or do we not?

We don’t from a universal perspective. “We”, as in our consciousness, make choices. My argument is that this consciousness is an illusion. “We” think “we” make choices, but all of our thoughts were already set to happen, so we didn’t really choose.

Regardless, the Church doesn’t mandate civil or legal consequences for breaking spiritual laws, so they have no civil or legal power.

Completely disagree. Just because they can’t enforce their “laws” doesn’t mean they don’t have power. Even though a kindergarten teacher can’t paddle kids anymore, the kids will still most likely do what they’re told. So that teacher has power over the kids.

As for spiritual power, the Church’s followers are free to reject the Church’s teachings if they choose, with no consequences (other than the ones God chooses to enforce) so there’s no real power there, either.

Again, you don’t have to be able to enforce a law to have power.

 

[tigers08]

Well, you’re relying pretty heavily on something that you don’t know for sure is right. Given the eternal consequences involved if you’re wrong, do you really want to take that chance?

This is Pascal’s wager, which as the forum with the same name has showed, its a bad argument. You can use the same thing to go against Christianity. Watch: “You’re relying pretty heavily on something you have absolutely no evidence for. Given that if the Muslims are right, you will burn in hell, do you really want to take that chance?”

 

[wanner47]

It was a hyperbole. And ya he didn’t order them, but he told the ones who fought they had automatic admittance into heaven.

Didn’t seem like hyberbole.

Moreover, the Crusaders were granted indulgences and temporal privileges for their service (source) but that didn’t guarantee automatic admission into heaven (unless they became martyrs for the faith, which is debatable).

No, obviously the Church can’t enforce anything. I never said that.

But you said the Church had power. One who has power also has the ability to enforce said power. Otherwise, it’s not “power.”

They have a huge amount of influence over their followers. They have a huge number of followers. Therefore, they have a huge amount of power.

Your logic is flawed. Influence does not equal power. Power implies the ability to enforce one’s believes against another.

We don’t from a universal perspective. “We”, as in our consciousness, make choices. My argument is that this consciousness is an illusion. “We” think “we” make choices, but all of our thoughts were already set to happen, so we didn’t really choose.

So you have made NO choices in your life, at all? Ever? If everything is so predestined, what’s the point of living? Why should we all just commit mass suicide if we don’t have any control over our actions or our choices; if we’re just cosmic puppets? What’s the point of trying to achieve happiness if the ability is out of our reach because all of our choices are predestined and predetermined?

How depressing.

Completely disagree. Just because they can’t enforce their “laws” doesn’t mean they don’t have power. Even though a kindergarten teacher can’t paddle kids anymore, the kids will still most likely do what they’re told. So that teacher has power over the kids.

An authority figure has limited power in the civil realm. The teacher you mention can employ discipline. I have a toddler and, believe me, she often disobeys me when I tell her to do something. She has to accept the consequences of her actions when she disobeys me (usually a time-out), but I couldn’t **force **her to obey even if I wanted to.

The Church imposes spiritual consequences for disobeying, but the Catholic in question can freely choose to ignore those consequences (i.e., not believe in them or not care about them). The Church can’t MAKE someone obey (nor do they want to), and the Church can’t MAKE someone care. If the Church truly had “power,” She would be able to force a person to adhere to her laws. But she can’t.

Again, you don’t have to be able to enforce a law to have power.

Yes, you do, otherwise your power is meaningless. If people are free to reject you or not care in the least what you think, then any exercise of this alleged “power” is worthless.

 

[wanner47]

This is Pascal’s wager, which as the forum with the same name has showed, its a bad argument. You can use the same thing to go against Christianity. Watch: “You’re relying pretty heavily on something you have absolutely no evidence for. Given that if the Muslims are right, you will burn in hell, do you really want to take that chance?”

Pascal’s Wager was intended for skeptics, not Christians, so your argument really doesn’t hold water. I for one have a tremendous amount of support and logical evidence for my belief in Christ and in Catholicism. I’ve looked at Islam and I’m 100% convinced that they aren’t right, so I’m not gambling.

Your theory doesn’t seem to have much logical support in the slightest, nor do you seem interested exploring the holes in your theory. That’s a pretty arrogant position to take; that you are right and all the great thinkers of the past several thousand years who have believed in and preached about God were all just poor, stupid, deluded individuals.

Have you ever checked out the writings of Peter Kreeft? If not, I encourage you to do so. He makes a case for the existence of God with six different arguments:

Argument from Design
Argument from First Cause
Argument from Conscience
Argument from History
Argument from Pascal’s Wager
Argument from Desire

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Regardless, the Church doesn’t mandate civil or legal consequences for breaking spiritual laws, so they have no civil or legal power.

Completely disagree. Just because they can’t enforce their “laws” doesn’t mean they don’t have power. Even though a kindergarten teacher can’t paddle kids anymore, the kids will still most likely do what they’re told. So that teacher has power over the kids.

The paddle has been replaced by some other “implement” of enforcement. Are you REALLY going to claim that only paddles are “implements of enforcement” and any use of, say, a “spiked mace to the face” would PROVE that the teacher doesn’t have an implement of enforcement because it’s not a paddle?

You confuse influence with “power”. The POWER of influence is persuasive, and resides in the influencees (the people) and not in the influencer (the Church).

Are you saying that it is “not good” that people decided to put their power into use directed (influenced) by their Church?

 

[tigers08]

Pascal’s Wager was intended for skeptics, not Christians, so your argument really doesn’t hold water. I for one have a tremendous amount of support and logical evidence for my belief in Christ and in Catholicism. I’ve looked at Islam and I’m 100% convinced that they aren’t right, so I’m not gambling.

That wasn’t my point at all. I was saying that your question was Pascal’s wager, then showing why its a bad argument. It assumes that either there is no God, or the Christian beliefs are right. My point was to show that this doesn’t acknowledge the thought that some other system of beliefs could be right. And I think Islam is wrong too, it was just an example.

Your theory doesn’t seem to have much logical support in the slightest, nor do you seem interested exploring the holes in your theory. That’s a pretty arrogant position to take; that you are right and all the great thinkers of the past several thousand years who have believed in and preached about God were all just poor, stupid, deluded individuals.

I really do think about “my theory” all the time, and I’m always looking for any reason why it wouldn’t work. And again, I have never said that I am for sure right. I will never claim to be infallible on any subject. Where are you getting all this from? I never said anything bad about the “great thinkers of the past several thousand years”.

Have you ever checked out the writings of Peter Kreeft? If not, I encourage you to do so. He makes a case for the existence of God with six different arguments:

Argument from Design
Argument from First Cause
Argument from Conscience
Argument from History
Argument from Pascal’s Wager
Argument from Desire

Nope, but I will. And I’ve never said that God doesn’t exist.

 

[tigers08]

But you said the Church had power. One who has power also has the ability to enforce said power. Otherwise, it’s not “power.”

Your logic is flawed. Influence does not equal power. Power implies the ability to enforce one’s believes against another.

This is the definition for power I am using: A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others. It’s the 5th definition on answers.com. So yes, influence does equal power.

So you have made NO choices in your life, at all? Ever? If everything is so predestined, what’s the point of living? Why should we all just commit mass suicide if we don’t have any control over our actions or our choices; if we’re just cosmic puppets? What’s the point of trying to achieve happiness if the ability is out of our reach because all of our choices are predestined and predetermined?

How depressing.

“I”, the consciousness writing this right now, “thinks” and “makes choices”. So I think I think. But what I’m saying is all of these thoughts were predestined. To “me”, I can think and make choices, but in reality it’s all just happening the way it was supposed to. That’s my theory. “You” try to reach happiness because you don’t know what you’re supposed to do, so you think you have the option of either being sad or happy, so “you” try to be happy. But this thought process was already set to happen, so you were already set to try to be happy. It’s really not depressing because to you, there’s no difference whether there’s free will or not. Even if everything was predestined you would still have the illusion of thinking and making decisions.

All the rest was about the word power, and I already said the definition I’m using.

 

[tigers08]

The paddle has been replaced by some other “implement” of enforcement. Are you REALLY going to claim that only paddles are “implements of enforcement” and any use of, say, a “spiked mace to the face” would PROVE that the teacher doesn’t have an implement of enforcement because it’s not a paddle?

No, of course not. The paddle was a metonymy. I’m sorry but I use a lot of figurative language.

You confuse influence with “power”. The POWER of influence is persuasive, and resides in the influencees (the people) and not in the influencer (the Church).

The Church has the power to influence people…the Church has power. That’s all I’m saying.

Are you saying that it is “not good” that people decided to put their power into use directed (influenced) by their Church?

I’m pretty sure this whole thing about power started from me saying the Church needs people to believe what it says for them to keep the power they have. If you want to replace that “power” with “influences” that’s fine. My point was that they aren’t trustworthy saying that their beliefs are right, because they need you to believe those things in order to maintain power. I guess you could say that’s “not good”, but I was just showing that the Church claiming itself infallible is meaningless.

 

[tigers08]

Back to the subject…this has drifted pretty far.

How can you determine whether a book is inspired by God?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

This is the definition for power I am using: A person, group, or nation having great influence or control over others. It’s the 5th definition on answers.com. So yes, influence does equal power.

Then why use two words? But I do see where you’re coming from, and agree with the “spirit” of what you’re saying. My difference with you is that I see the POWER as wielded not by the influencer but by the influenced. If “power” and “influence” are absolute synonyms my last sentence is “silly”.

“I”, the consciousness writing this right now, “thinks” and “makes choices”. So I think I think. But what I’m saying is all of these thoughts were predestined. To “me”, I can think and make choices, but in reality it’s all just happening the way it was supposed to. That’s my theory. “You” try to reach happiness because you don’t know what you’re supposed to do, so you think you have the option of either being sad or happy, so “you” try to be happy. But this thought process was already set to happen, so you were already set to try to be happy. It’s really not depressing because to you, there’s no difference whether there’s free will or not. Even if everything was predestined you would still have the illusion of thinking and making decisions.

All the rest was about the word power, and I already said the definition I’m using.

I have yet to see anyone actually live in their “imaginary” (to me) world of “All is ONE and Illusory in It’s Diversity - OUM!”, other than suicidal catatonic psychotics.

We Christians seek detachment to all but that one thing most worthy of attachment to. The “buddhist” has that same goal, but they misidentify “Nothingness” as “God”.

They are not atheists as their god is nothingness. At least they have the wisdom that the singular only thing which is above and behind all “things” is worthy of their worship.