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

[tigers08]

Agreed. There is a big difference. The witnesses to his life, death, resurrection and ascension were provided ample evidence to show that he was who he said he was.

Disagree, the only witnesses are IN the bible, so you no longer have testimony from all those witnesses, just the word of the authors of the bible. So even if a gospel writer said that 10,000 people witnessed Jesus’ resurrection, you would still only have 1 witness, so it doesn’t carry much weight.

More likely, those who chose not to believe or not to follow were threatened by the need to give up their self idolotry and be humble enough to be instructed by another.

Possibly, but definitely not more likely. Most of these people were Jews, so they weren’t caught up in self idolatry, and they already did follow the instructions of another…Moses.

 

[tigers08]

Would this man in Miami let himself be put to an agonising & obscene & loathsome death for the good of his enemies ?​

Would Jesus? He was forced onto the cross. Whether or not he actually chose to be there we’ll never know, because he didn’t get down off of it.

False Christs never have a cross - the true one does More than that, the Cross is inseparable from Who & what Jesus is & does & says.

I disagree. Even if you don’t believe Jesus was God and resurrected, you can still follow his teachings on morality, just like you can follow Buddha’s teachings.

Anyone can fake being God - not everyone can live a life consistently of such a quality that one can account for such a person only by recognising him as numinous - as holy.

Anyone can write a book that says a certain man was "consistently of such a quality that one can account for such a person only by recognizing him as numinous - as holy. "

Most of us are not holy - that is what sets Jesus apart: His holiness; to be holy, is to be set apart. And this is met with in Luke 5, when Peter asks Jesus to leave him. Is your man from Miami like that ?Does he make people feel dirty, ashamed, confused, simply by being in their company ? Jesus does - & Isaiah is equally upset in Isaiah 6. So the Bible can defend itself - for passages like this show how upsetting the Holy God can be, when He confronts man who is sinful.

I don’t know. I know people have given him cars and rolex’s, so I guess they feel pretty inspired in his presence. Making people feel bad for doing wrong doesn’t mean you’re God. I know my parents used to lecture me when I made a mistake and I felt pretty guilty too.

What would happen, do you think, if you met someone who was perfectly good ?

I don’t know if there is such a thing. Morality is always relative. There is no black and white.

I don’t know about you, but I suspect it would be a very uncomfortable experience. The** difference** between God Who gives the Bible, & us wretched creatures who receive it, is what makes one think the Bible is the Word of God. Goodness is not always attractive - people rejected Jesus

Just like people reject the guy in Miami. Rejection doesn’t make them bad, it just means they THOUGHT. If they looked at Jesus’ work and decided that it wasn’t that impressive, then not believing he is God isn’t a bad thing.

 

[tigers08]

Can you present here what you called your logical reasoning that lead you to that thinking referred to in the previous subject post of yours?

OK there are lots of logical paths like this but here’s one example:
Belief that the bible is the word of God is not inborn. Thus, someone must have told us that it is. So if we believe the bible is the word of God, we must have been told this by someone. So the original reason for believing that the bible is the word of God is always that someone told you this was true. Since there is no conclusive evidence that all the events in the bible are true (quite the opposite actually), the belief in the bible is faith in another man. Since we know men are not trustworthy, if God actually wrote the bible and wanted us to believe it, he would be asking us to believe something merely because another man told us to. God would have to realize that this would make it impossible to know whether a certain text was actually his words. That’s why I don’t think any revealed religions currently existing on Earth are right, because none can be objectively researched and found to be without error.

 

[tigers08]

If you CAN “prove” to yourself that an “infallible statement of truth” is WRONG, then you’ve PROVEN (to yourself at least) that the statement-maker is NOT INFALLIBLE!

Therefore, PROVE that some supposedly infallible statement is WRONG!

Once you’ve done that, those “not infallible” statement-makers are highly suspect in claiming that their “infallible” statement that this book called “the bible” is what they claim it to be.

Agreed. Obviously to me I have, it’s incredibly hard to leave a religion and I wouldn’t do so on a whim. There are hundreds of examples for each but these are the most obvious and hardest to refute.

Bible is wrong:
Water is suspended in a sphere above the atmosphere (apparently this is where rain comes from) Gen 1:8

Church is wrong:
Earth centered universe

 

[tigers08]

Faith is NOT believing someone else. That is “gullibility”. Faith REQUIRES that you internally test that which is proposed as a thing to have faith in.

The proof of faith comes from the internal experience of “fitting” the proposed “article/item of faith” into one’s belief structure and dealing (via willful reason and humble inspiration) with how the fit fits.

If you think “faith” means “blind acceptance” then you are correct.

Since “faith” means “tested and internally proven acceptability” then the question is HOW an article of faith “fits” into one’s belief system and how that affects one’s behavior in “real life”.

You seek to be RIGHT! That is good, but without the capacity to determine what is actually “right” (true) you’re left in an insolvable quandry.

I disagree. I can believe as much as I can know for sure is right, and I know the options for everything I can’t prove. I’d rather not be wrong than just guess at the answers for the unanswerable questions.

Those who DEMAND of themselves that they be RIGHT but don’t demand of themselves that they do the hard work of discerning what “right” means doom themselves to the hell of “destination nowhere”.

Of course I do the work of researching and thinking about the truth. That’s why I’m on this site, I love to think about religion and debate it with others.

 

[Abbadon]

“And i unfortunately do not have an unshakable faith in man that would allow me to believe so.”

That’s why we don’t have faith in men, but only in God.

You attribute scripture to man instead of it’s actual source, then incorrectly discount scripture because of your correct interpretation of your incorrect identification of the source of scripture.

Why is it you can capitalize the “i” in “If” in your last sentence, but not the “i” in “I” next to it?

To believe in God is to believe more sensibly and respectfully in man, and without God man is a beast, and as one of them (a human) we give ourselves not an “I” but an “i”.

Well the bible was written by men. It wasn’t written by god otherwise there wouldn’t be so many holes in it. Full of writings that can be interperated in hundreds of different ways. All we have is writings of man that are said to be inspired by god. There is no actual way of knowing if it was inspired by god or they just said it was inspired by god. We just have to take their word for it.

Sorry there is no hidden subtext in me using the small i instead of the big I. Its just an automatic response to hold shift key at the start of a new sentence and on most nouns. Like sometimes i say God or say god. ANd i post to many times yesterday to bother to recheck it…

 

[agangbern]

OK there are lots of logical paths like this but here’s one example:
Belief that the bible is the word of God is not inborn. Thus, someone must have told us that it is. So if we believe the bible is the word of God, we must have been told this by someone. So the original reason for believing that the bible is the word of God is always that someone told you this was true. Since there is no conclusive evidence that all the events in the bible are true (quite the opposite actually), the belief in the bible is faith in another man. Since we know men are not trustworthy, if God actually wrote the bible and wanted us to believe it, he would be asking us to believe something merely because another man told us to. God would have to realize that this would make it impossible to know whether a certain text was actually his words. That’s why I don’t think any revealed religions currently existing on Earth are right, because none can be objectively researched and found to be without error.

Let us analyze the first half or so of the so-called logical path that you presented here.
Your assumptions:

1. the original reason for believing that the bible is the word of God is always that someone told you this was true - This assumption is somehow okay.
2. belief in the bible is faith in another man - This assumption
   does not inevitably follow from the assumption that precedes it. At most it is only an opinion whose basis is the limited knowledge that men of this world have. For in this world we usually consider as man someone who in the appearance of man told us that the bible is word of God. But we know that this is not true because not all that appears like man is in reality man. At this point, the first half of the so-called logical path that you presented crumbled.

 

[Abbadon]

Let us analyze the first half or so of the so-called logical path that you presented here.
Your assumptions:

1. the original reason for believing that the bible is the word of God is always that someone told you this was true - This assumption is somehow okay.
2. belief in the bible is faith in another man - This assumption
   does not inevitably follow from the assumption that precedes it. At most it is only an opinion whose basis is the limited knowledge that men of this world have. For in this world we usually consider as man someone who in the appearance of man told us that the bible is word of God. But we know that this is not true because not all that appears like man is in reality man. At this point, the first half of the so-called logical path that you presented crumbled.

So for all we know a deamon could have told us that the bible is true? Is that what your saying.

I know your not but you can see what i’m saying with your argument here… Sure it could have been god as a man, it could have been an angel as a man but what stops it bieng satan or a deamon? or perhaps a daemon? Or the goddess Hjell?

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Agreed. Obviously to me I have, it’s incredibly hard to leave a religion and I wouldn’t do so on a whim. There are hundreds of examples for each but these are the most obvious and hardest to refute.

Bible is wrong:
Water is suspended in a sphere above the atmosphere (apparently this is where rain comes from) Gen 1:8

Church is wrong:
Earth centered universe

The error of literalistic-ism (being “it’s actually physically raining cats and dogs”), as opposed to literalism (where what the writer MEANT is understood, “it’s raining really hard!”) is your error, and is not refutable until your education improves in the area of religion.

Please do some more homework, and/or take a course or two. Thanks for your interest in subjects WAY over your head, and your illustrating the not particularly unique perspective of the interloper.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Well the bible was written by men. It wasn’t written by god otherwise there wouldn’t be so many holes in it.

Fully realizing that there is no “defense” against this brand of ignorance, I’ll simply refer you to the catechism for clarification of what Catholics think, and understand that you’ll not do any such thing because you’ve no interest in what Catholics think in the least.

Full of writings that can be interperated in hundreds of different ways. All we have is writings of man that are said to be inspired by god. There is no actual way of knowing if it was inspired by god or they just said it was inspired by god. We just have to take their word for it.

SInce you won’t do the work necessary to prove to yourself that there is a way of knowing revelation is revelation, your statements are perfectly reasonable and true FOR YOU.

They are most definately not true for me, or many others here.

Sorry there is no hidden subtext in me using the small i instead of the big I. Its just an automatic response to hold shift key at the start of a new sentence and on most nouns. Like sometimes i say God or say god. ANd i post to many times yesterday to bother to recheck it…

That capital “n” in “ANd” above is yet another wonderful psycho-graphical sign!

What does it mean!? Beats the heck out of me.

I have noticed, though, that those who insist (and it IS conscious) on using small “i” for the 1st-person pronoun tend to be either somehow physically disabled such that it’s inordinantly difficult to do so, or their “typing” is as lazy and sloppy as their thinking.

 

[Abbadon]

Fully realizing that there is no “defense” against this brand of ignorance, I’ll simply refer you to the catechism for clarification of what Catholics think, and understand that you’ll not do any such thing because you’ve no interest in what Catholics think in the least.

SInce you won’t do the work necessary to prove to yourself that there is a way of knowing revelation is revelation, your statements are perfectly reasonable and true FOR YOU.

They are most definately not true for me, or many others here.

That capital “n” in “ANd” above is yet another wonderful psycho-graphical sign!

What does it mean!? Beats the heck out of me.

I have noticed, though, that those who insist (and it IS conscious) on using small “i” for the 1st-person pronoun tend to be either somehow physically disabled such that it’s inordinantly difficult to do so, or their “typing” is as lazy and sloppy as their thinking.

I saw the ANd error but i couldn’t be bothered going to fix it as it doesn’t really make a difference to what I’m saying.

I honestly don’t know how people KNOW revelation is revelation. For all i know that person may simply be schitzophrenic. What work is thier for me to do to prove this to be true? Can you disprove that what i am typing is not inspired by god? Just because it is against what your saying doesn’t make it less true. Maybe god is inspiring me to write this. How would i know and if it did how would i tell people and would they belive me?

I could write something that perfectly goes with what the catholic church says about whatever, say it was inspired by god and they might belive it because it goes along with what thier trying to say

 

[tigers08]

“Catholics” are people, and are not to be confused with the Church.

The Church never contradicts itself.

You have fallen into the most common trap out there, which is to confuse people with truth.

Once it dawns on you that humans are never good representatives of principles (truths) your “relativism” will start to wane, and the fog of indifferentialism will begin to clear.

OK, I’ll concede that I did apply the actions of people as a principle of the Church. In my defense though, I think almost all Catholics do pray that way and believe it works. I know the Father at my church does. But the Church does contradict itself, because I’m pretty sure the Church leaders don’t believe in an Earth centered universe anymore, yet they once tried to prove Galileo wrong.

 

[AnthonyM2]

OK, I’ll concede that I did apply the actions of people as a principle of the Church. In my defense though, I think almost all Catholics do pray that way and believe it works. I know the Father at my church does. But the Church does contradict itself, because I’m pretty sure the Church leaders don’t believe in an Earth centered universe anymore, yet they once tried to prove Galileo wrong.

The Church has not contradicted itself in matters of faith and morals. It does not claim to be infallible in the area of science. And the whole Gallieo thing gets blown out of proportion. It’s my understanding that the Church was not out to prove him wrong neccessarily but it was the way he went about pushing his ideas and then insulting the Pope that got him into trouble.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

I saw the ANd error but i couldn’t be bothered going to fix it as it doesn’t really make a difference to what I’m saying.

That was just a joke, of course, about the “n”, but I’ve definately noticed that some people DO indeed systematically (if not consciously) use the lower-case “i” for the pronoun, and that those people “tend” to be a bit “down” in their opinion of people in general and of themselves in particular due to their being one of those “somewhat dispised people”.

I honestly don’t know how people KNOW revelation is revelation.

Because they are using a meaning for “know” that you are (consciously) unfamiliar with. You DO understand the meaning of this “knowing” in other areas of life, but for some reason can’t apply it to “religion”.

For all i know that person may simply be schitzophrenic.

That is quite correct! This “knowing” has to come from INSIDE us, and no outsider can provide that for us. You would LIKE revelation to be provable by external means, but it can’t be.

The problem is that it requires a massive humbling of one’s ego to allow God to show you the “knowing” you seek, and that’s very very difficult.

The lovely thing, though, is that you’re not humbling yourself before other people, but only before God. The “imagined” horrors of “humbling oneself” do not happen when we humble ourselves to the singular appropriate offeree of our humbling.

Many people fear being seen as “psychotic” by acknowledging their ego’s inferiority “before another being”, when ONLY God won’t see them as psychotic in humbling themselves befor Him.

What work is thier for me to do to prove this to be true? Can you disprove that what i am typing is not inspired by god? Just because it is against what your saying doesn’t make it less true. Maybe god is inspiring me to write this. How would i know and if it did how would i tell people and would they belive me?

What you say here is not from the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church, which means the “truth-teller of the Body of Christ who is God”, which was the “thing” that not only AUTHORIZED the scriptures, but CREATED them!

How could what you say come from the Magisterium? If the Magisterium duplicated precisely what you said here, or elsewhere, in such a way as to be infallibly stated, THEN I would believe that what you said COINCIDED with truths from God.

I could write something that perfectly goes with what the catholic church says about whatever, say it was inspired by god and they might belive it because it goes along with what thier trying to say

If what you say in time coincides with something that God says in eternity, even if you said it in time before the Magisterium did, then God still gets the credit for saying it, because ETERNITY “beats” TIME, every time!

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

OK, I’ll concede that I did apply the actions of people as a principle of the Church. In my defense though, I think almost all Catholics do pray that way and believe it works. I know the Father at my church does.

Since we’re not talking about instances but principles, your defense is a defense of an irrelevancy. You have nothing to defend against as far as I’m concerned if you agree that people are sinful regardless of their “position” in any structure but that the Church is sinless as it is wholly (Holy!) from God.

But the Church does contradict itself, because I’m pretty sure the Church leaders don’t believe in an Earth centered universe anymore, yet they once tried to prove Galileo wrong.

Please do your research as regards Galileo. He was persecuted for claiming “infallibly” something that couldn’t be proven infallible at the time, and would cause some rather weird societal “unrest” which was avoidable.

The Church, as academe, DID believe that the Sol-centric solar system was most likely correct, but it hadn’t been proven (according to actual scientific standards of PROOF of the time) correct quite yet, and the “un-educated and malevolent” in society would use (did use) this unproven-proof as a hammer to assail their mortal enemy, the Church.

 

[Abbadon]

That was just a joke, of course, about the “n”, but I’ve definately noticed that some people DO indeed systematically (if not consciously) use the lower-case “i” for the pronoun, and that those people “tend” to be a bit “down” in their opinion of people in general and of themselves in particular due to their being one of those “somewhat dispised people”.

Well your kinda right there. Overall I do despise the human race, but thankfully there are brilliant men and women out their who make up for all the others. Plus it makes sense that their are alot of idiots out their, less rulers more workers.

Because they are using a meaning for “know” that you are (consciously) unfamiliar with. You DO understand the meaning of this “knowing” in other areas of life, but for some reason can’t apply it to “religion”.

That is quite correct! This “knowing” has to come from INSIDE us, and no outsider can provide that for us. You would LIKE revelation to be provable by external means, but it can’t be.

The problem is that it requires a massive humbling of one’s ego to allow God to show you the “knowing” you seek, and that’s very very difficult.

So pretty much faith, yea see thats the thing, I said it in my first post I don’t have faith. So faith is all you really have to KNOW that the bible is true. And as you said there is nothing provable by external means, all i can do is take your word for it that your faith is not fiction. Perhaps in due time i will have divine revelation and a personal experience and be “gifted” with faith.

Many people fear being seen as “psychotic” by acknowledging their ego’s inferiority “before another being”, when ONLY God won’t see them as psychotic in humbling themselves befor Him.

What you say here is not from the Magisterium, which is the teaching authority of the Church, which means the “truth-teller of the Body of Christ who is God”, which was the “thing” that not only AUTHORIZED the scriptures, but CREATED them!

How could what you say come from the Magisterium? If the Magisterium duplicated precisely what you said here, or elsewhere, in such a way as to be infallibly stated, THEN I would believe that what you said COINCIDED with truths from God.

If what you say in time coincides with something that God says in eternity, even if you said it in time before the Magisterium did, then God still gets the credit for saying it, because ETERNITY “beats” TIME, every time!

Pretty much what you said here is, if the church accept it, and its written over and over again by the church then it is accepted as the word of God. The person who is accepting my truth is a man, in the past when these books were being collected it was all down to men.

If say all the pages of all the texts about the teachings of god wree put in a room and a fire swept through and left all but a neat little pile in order. Or a gust of wind blew around leaving a neat ordered pile then FINE that is DIVINE. I mean thats so wack it has to be something divine.

NOT a bunch of men meeting with the emperor of rome and compiling a book from THIER choice of a set of books.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CalmDownWisWins
That was just a joke, of course, about the “n”, but I’ve definately noticed that some people DO indeed systematically (if not consciously) use the lower-case “i” for the pronoun, and that those people “tend” to be a bit “down” in their opinion of people in general and of themselves in particular due to their being one of those “somewhat dispised people”.

Well your kinda right there. Overall I do despise the human race, but thankfully there are brilliant men and women out their who make up for all the others. Plus it makes sense that their are alot of idiots out their, less rulers more workers.

So it’s, “Workers of the world, UNITE!”?

No, probably more like, “Slaves should NOT get uppity!”.

Pretty much what I was implying. Thanks for the confirmation.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:

Because they are using a meaning for “know” that you are (consciously) unfamiliar with. You DO understand the meaning of this “knowing” in other areas of life, but for some reason can’t apply it to “religion”.

That is quite correct! This “knowing” has to come from INSIDE us, and no outsider can provide that for us. You would LIKE revelation to be provable by external means, but it can’t be.

The problem is that it requires a massive humbling of one’s ego to allow God to show you the “knowing” you seek, and that’s very very difficult.

So pretty much faith, yea see thats the thing, I said it in my first post I don’t have faith.

The way you define faith, you have no faith, but since your definition is faulty, your conclusion is faulty.

You very definitely do have faith. You have faith that you know what you know and that any other way of knowing is not knowing at all but simply hallucinatory delusion. That is your faith.

So faith is all you really have to KNOW that the bible is true. And as you said there is nothing provable by external means, all i can do is take your word for it that your faith is not fiction.

You SHOULD NOT and CAN NOT, though you think you would HAVE TO, take anyone’s word for (external “proof” of) confirmation that divine revelation is what it purports to be.

But, since you insist on external proof of that which proof is only available by internal means, you can safely say that, “because the proof which I demand is impossible to get it is impossible to have faith as I define the necessary type of proof and the word faith, and all those who say they have this ‘faith’ are deluded”.

And in that you would be absolutely correct!

Perhaps in due time i will have divine revelation and a personal experience and be “gifted” with faith.

Perhaps, more likely, your demand for getting smacked off your horse will preclude the possibility of your getting smacked off your horse, and you will have successfully avoided becoming another Paul, which might be a good thing, as Paul was a real nasty guy there for a while.

Paul was doing what he felt needed doing according to his faith in persecuting his victims. You too will do what you need to do according to your faith, but since you already know the story of Paul, another lesson is most likely in store for you.

We are taught by God that which we need teaching, not that which satisfies our ego.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Pretty much what you said here is, if the church accept it, and its written over and over again by the church then it is accepted as the word of God. The person who is accepting my truth is a man, in the past when these books were being collected it was all down to men.

If say all the pages of all the texts about the teachings of god wree put in a room and a fire swept through and left all but a neat little pile in order. Or a gust of wind blew around leaving a neat ordered pile then FINE that is DIVINE. I mean thats so wack it has to be something divine.

NOT a bunch of men meeting with the emperor of rome and compiling a book from THIER choice of a set of books.

If that’s the way you wish to see it, that’s fine. Incorrect, but I’m not in a position to convince you you’re wrong.

You confuse “divine” with “spectacularly miraculous”. One COULD say that all things divine ARE miraculous, as I certainly would, but to say that all things divine need to originate in the sort of “MAGICAL Theater” sort of “divine” way as you seem to “request” is just your incessant need for being witness to exceptionality defined as “really REALLY spectacular”.

The demand that God move us in the way that we DEMAND to be moved, and not as is best for us, is the basic hubris and inhumility before the singular entity which deserves our utter humility which keeps us “insecure and anxious” and therefore power-mad and defensive.

 

[Abbadon]

The way you define faith, you have no faith, but since your definition is faulty, your conclusion is faulty.

You very definitely do have faith. You have faith that you know what you know and that any other way of knowing is not knowing at all but simply hallucinatory delusion. That is your faith.

Main Entry:
1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one’s promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b **(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof **(2): complete trust3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

That is how i use the word faith. And no actually your wrong for I think that what I understand to be true could be “simply hallucinatory delusion”. Thats the think shall never “know” anything. I can be sure that it is highly possible and highly supported. Something that was told to me (for which on science expirements i lost 5% for untill i learned my lesson). “Nothing is ever proven only supported”. And i really agree with that, but there is one thing i do know however and that is that you just never know.

You SHOULD NOT and CAN NOT, though you think you would HAVE TO, take anyone’s word for (external “proof” of) confirmation that divine revelation is what it purports to be.

But, since you insist on external proof of that which proof is only available by internal means, you can safely say that, “because the proof which I demand is impossible to get it is impossible to have faith as I define the necessary type of proof and the word faith, and all those who say they have this ‘faith’ are deluded”.

And in that you would be absolutely correct!

Actually i don’t think i said people who have faith are deluded i just said i don’t have it. And if i implied it i didn’t mean to. I simply find it hard to put 100% trust in something for which there is hardly any real support. I can understand people who put 100% trust that using pi will get them the correct answer. Or using e. Or even evolution. There is alot to support that.

Perhaps, more likely, your demand for getting smacked off your horse will preclude the possibility of your getting smacked off your horse, and you will have successfully avoided becoming another Paul, which might be a good thing, as Paul was a real nasty guy there for a while.

Paul was doing what he felt needed doing according to his faith in persecuting his victims. You too will do what you need to do according to your faith, but since you already know the story of Paul, another lesson is most likely in store for you.

We are taught by God that which we need teaching, not that which satisfies our ego.

I honestly don’t want to persecute anyone. Have no fear, I call no god god so i won’t be killing anyone in thier name. I like to question people about their beliefs as i have done my own, and i like to understand peoples beliefs and where they get them from.