EMA responds to me:
quote:
You can use the Bible as proof of the Bible, if you are having a Biblical discussion in a Biblical context.
That is precisely the circularity I am talking about. You cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible. All you can do is show that the text is internally consistent. This tells us nothing about the validity or veracity of the text: Only that a statement made in one part is not contradicted in another part.
The Iliad has the same internal structure as the Bible, and yet I don't see you proclaiming the validity of the story told.
quote:
There is no indication in the OP as to why we should not assume for argument sake we are dealing with t he word of God as a whole
Circular reasoning. You are claiming that the Bible is the word of god because the bible says it is the word of god.
quote:
The idiocy, which proceeds in a discussion, assuming that these are simply the works of men, with no inspiration from and of God, is both a waste of time and and will result in total chaos from an argument standpoint, for those that believe that it is actually a total work of God.
Incorrect. There will only be a problem if the people who think that the text is "a total work of god" are unable to provide any justification for that claim outside of the book in question. That is a circular argument: The Bible is god's word because it says it is.
If all this is is a discussion about the internal consistency of the work, then knock yourselves out. That doesn't mean the work is by a single person, however. It simply means that the story doesn't contradict itself.
In order to show that the work has a single author (or even "inspiration" to be more abstract about it), you have to show evidence outside of the text in question. You cannot use the text to justify itself.
quote:
i do not believe the Iliad is a work of God, therefore we have no discussion or common frame of reference, to examine it, as to its application to real world affairs.
And yet, you demand anybody who dares to examine the Bible to kow-tow to your insistence that they believe.
Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote:
It is internally consistent with mythological items, so who cares what it has to say in relation to real world events, or the success of this person or that person
And your justification for why that same claim can't be made against your holy book?
Oh, that's right: You're assuming that which you're trying to prove through a circular argument. The Bible is the word of god because it claims to be. Well, the Iliad claims to be the story of the gods, too, so why should we deny it?
quote:
This is why I say, that for you and myself to have discussion about issues you believe (I think) are mythological is a waste of your time and mine.
First, you have no idea what I believe, so please do yourself a favor and stop trying to react to that impression that you have constructed for yourself. Pay attention to what I say and not what you wish I would say.
Second, your demand that others have to accept your premises in order to have any legitimate criticism of a text is illegitimate, especially when the premises are circular arguments. Your refusal to accept criticism from those who do not share your theological structure is just as offensive and false as that which you feel upon being forced to apply the same attitude you have toward other works.
Does the word "hypocrite" mean anything to you?
quote:
I could be wrong, but I dont believe this is really an area where you are going to have much success. however, I could be wrong, if you feel an atheist approach is warrented
Who said anything about "atheist"? I know I certainly didn't. You're suffering from two different fallacies:
First: Anybody who disagrees with your theology is an atheist.
Second: You can infer what someone believes simply because they disagree with you.
For all you know, I may certainly consider the Bible to be the word of god. The only thing you actually know is that I consider your method of reasoning to come to that conclusion to be invalid.
Please pay attention to what I actually say and not what you wish I would say. I take great pains to keep my personal theological position out of it precisely because of the reaction you had: Oh, you must be an X so of course your argument can be dismissed. No actual discussion of the argument that was put forward, just a knee-jerk dismissal because the argument was presented by a person who has a trait you find distasteful.
Consider the possibility that I am Christian. How would you respond to my assertion that using the Bible to justify the Bible is a circular argument and therefore invalid?
quote:
Perhaps you could explicate your views Rrhain, on the Word of God contained in the scriptures, Is it actually the work of God or the work of men?
Why does it matter? How does my answer to that question have any effect upon whether or not a circular argument is legitimate?
quote:
If it is the word of God, could that explain the connection of writers, words, thoughts and ideas across a long period of time?
Are you asking if it is internally consistent? It clearly isn't. And no, that has nothing to do with who authored it.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
™ Version 4.2
(1)