How do you decide what is True in the Bible?

Yes, I do believe that he lived 969 years and that in no way contradicts criteria 6. But that's for another thread.

quote:

---

And thats what it's all about. The little things all add up.

---

Yes, that's so true.For me, living for this life rather than an imagined, hoped-for next brings with it both a peace and an urgency/openness to a lot of experiences.

I'm a little curious schraf. Do you really think that those of us who believe that there is a life subsquent to this one are sitting around waiting to die? Do you really think that my life is less full than yours because of my religious beliefs?To be honest I seldom think about the life after this one because I'm too busy dealing with the life I'm living now. I enjoy this life and I work at keeping healthy to extend this one as long as I can.I became and remain a Christian because I believe that it represents the truth. I try to live a life that fulfills the commandments of loving God and loving my neighbour. To be honest once I started living my life based on the Christian faith the quaility of this life improved considerably. If all else were the same and the Christian message was that this life was all there was, I wouldn't change one aspect of my life.

Hi, Well, since this thread is 'How do you decide what is true in the Bible' I would say that this is the perfect place to explain why you believe that this Bible verse is true.Brian.

quote:

---

1. The Bible is its own interpreter.

---

This rule is clearly dubious. The Bible is an anthology of works with a number of different authors, some of them centuries apart. Obviously we must be very cautious in relying on one part of the Bible to interpret another part.

quote:

---

2. We must interpret the Bible literally-"as it is written".

---

This rule denies that the Bible contains any figurative language at all. It is clearly in error.
Even if it were to be rewritten as follows:2a) The Bible should be read as it is written - figuratively where it is figurative, literally when it is literalIt would still potentially come into conflict with rule 1 - yet the rules contain no guide on how such a conflct is to be resolved.

quote:

---

3. The Bible is to be interpreted like any other book.

---

This goes against rule 1 and 2.

quote:

---

4. Obscure parts of the Bible are to be interpreted by the clearer parts.

---

This has the same problems as rule 1. Since any reasonable use of it is covered by rule 3 it is either redundant or wrong.

quote:

---

5. The implicit is to be interpreted in light of the explicit.

---

While this rule is unclear, any reasonable use is already covered by rule 3.

quote:

---

6. The rules of logic govern what can reasonably be drawn or deduced from Scripture.

---

Any reasonable use is already covered by rule 3.So the rules are incomplete and only one out of six is reasonable and uncontroversial. That's a pretty poor showing.This message has been edited by PaulK, 06-14-2005 04:03 AM

quote:

---

I'm a little curious schraf. Do you really think that those of us who believe that there is a life subsquent to this one are sitting around waiting to die?

---

No, probably not.

quote:

---

Do you really think that my life is less full than yours because of my religious beliefs?

---

Well, I don't know.I do know that there are some, perhaps many, people who greatly restrict what they allow themselves to think, do, feel, and experience due to their wanting to get into heaven, avoid hell, achieve Nirvana, or what have you.

quote:

---

To be honest I seldom think about the life after this one because I'm too busy dealing with the life I'm living now. I enjoy this life and I work at keeping healthy to extend this one as long as I can.

---

We are very alike in this regard.

quote:

---

I became and remain a Christian because I believe that it represents the truth.

---

I left Christianity because I believe that all religions are very likely to be human constructions designed to control group behavior and explain what we fear and/or don't understand.

quote:

---

I try to live a life that fulfills the commandments of loving God and loving my neighbour.

---

I try to live a life that fulfills the basic human principle of treating others the way I'd like to be treated.This principle is present in many religions, including Christianity.But there are WAY too many bad things and inconsistent, nonsensical things about Christianity for me to ever consider it The Truth.

quote:

---

To be honest once I started living my life based on the Christian faith the quaility of this life improved considerably.

---

Well, the opposite is true for me.Once I gave up my faith I became a much happier, kind, and loving person.

quote:

---

If all else were the same and the Christian message was that this life was all there was, I wouldn't change one aspect of my life.

---

Great.I'm not sure this is true for many other Christians.

Hi,PB, the enjoyment in my life covers a wide spectrum. I can start by just enjoying the fact that I am alive, savoring the breeze after a hot day, full of exciting scents and the promise of a clearing thunderstorm. I can find joy in the blush of a young girl when her love comes into view, the cry of a new-born babe. I revel in the changing colours of the world as the seasons do their annual dance. I dive underwater and view a world mainly unknown to most land-dwellers, full of menace and movement, but ever-changing. I get excited by a scientific breakthrough, knowing how it will change the life of people for the better, ease pain,cure diseases,solve problems. I love the exploration of space, mysteries withheld from folk whose horizons were limited by lack of science and religious dogma. I explore the world of the microscope, unknown till we broke the shackles of those who said the Bible fulfils all, that God was the only answer.I absorb the beauty of music from all lands, not the dirge of churches, or the condemnation of other beliefs. I revel in delving into the philosophy of 'what if?'without having to limit my travels due to the strictures of a tribal god. I find joy in living a life with my standards, not one regulated by 513 commands. I can appreciate the wisdom in the Bible without slavishly learning chapter and verse. I don`t pray on Sunday and prey the rest of the week. My joy in helping my fellow man comes from the knowledge it is beneficial to all, not from gaining brownie points for an eternal life which has never been proven. I don`t dwell on the selfishness of looking out for number one in the salvation stakes, but find satisfaction and reward in helping another. My joy can be found in simple things, or in the depths of complexity. It all depends on the perception of the beholder.

Hi,GDR, when I said that religion was a con, I meant that so much effort and brain-power was devoted to what I regard as a waste of time. Sure, it can bring comfort to people, especially in times of pain, loss or danger. But in return, it has caused much of that pain, loss and danger. Take Jesus, for example. For a guy who never hurt anyone (maybe His family, but I guess we will never know the full story), and whose message was to love one another,He certainly had an odd way of proving it. Having the cure for leprosy, He could have passed on the remedy and helped millions of sufferers over the millenia, but we had to develop science and multi-drug therapy to help those unfortunates. Hardly a loving gesture. In the meantime, try to calculate how much prayer-power was wasted by sufferers pleading for a cure. It wasn`t till we got started on the cause of disease using science, that we could finally offer relief and hope to the afflicted. All this nonsense about original sin over the disobedience of one man, has to be the biggest con of all. Billions of believers have regulated their lives trying to atone for the fault of Adam. Fallen nature, confessions, penances, indulgences--what a wonderful industry has sprung up from original sin. Who can go through life without tripping over the numerous snares set in our path? If you want to feel like a guilty child during your life, you are welcome to it. Lurching from fear of eternal consequencies to the exhilaration of forgiveness is not my idea of a fulfilled life.

Yes, you're right. Economically original sin has been a great boost.

I won't take up a lot of bandwidth but reposting your posts.I'd just like to compare your last two posts. (217 and 218)In post 217 you outline all the joy that there is to be had in this world. I'm not sure who you give the credit to if for having a world which gives so much pleasure and joy but you certainly aren't giving any of the credit for that to God.In post 218 you talk about pain and suffering and are very quick to blame all of it on God. When things are wonderful it's just the way things are, but when there is pain it is all God's fault.I repeat that without suffering there can be no joy. If everything were always wonderful we would have no comprehension of it being wonderful. It would just be the way things are. It's like we don't appreciate the air we breathe until we are suffocating.Edited to add the following.The Bible says that to whom much is given much is expected, and so I think we can assume that the opposite is strongly implied. The beatitudes tell us things like "blessed are those that mourn fo they shall be comforted". I blieve that it is part of Christ's message that there is a rebalancing of circumstances in the next life.This message has been edited by GDR, 06-14-2005 10:18 PM

I see that you are a relativist! Philosopher William James has this to say about truth: I guess that I am just an old fashioned absolute truth type of guy.

The problem is that solipsism is an irrefutable counter to absolutism. There's no way that the absolutist can know what he claims to know.

Strictly speaking, rationalism only works in fields like pure logic or formal systems. It doesn't work perfectly even there (an obvious example is Goedel's Incompleteness theorem) but it does work well.When it comes to the empirical universe then rationalism fails and empiricism must be the dominant approach. Empirical knowledge is uncertain (there are unfalsifiable views such as solipsism or Descartes decieiving demon which would invalidate it). But rationalism is even worse - it must begin with "self-evident" axioms. But there is no such set of axioms capable of describing our universe and thus we must use applied reason based on empirical knowledge to describe the physical universe - pure reason literally cannot begin to do so.

A Rabbi explains a similar question rather well. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-28-2005 05:43 PM

The methodolgy is applied to the Bible not to God! He has done a fast switch. The Bible is a completely human document. It was a human hand that wrote the letters. Human hands that made the materials. It is written in a language developed and spoken by human beings. It features a human religion typical of thinking of a certain period of time complete with the scientific ignorances of that time. And it is even human voices claiming that this book was written by God. No where in this is any evidence of any interest by the source of the universe in this book beyond the interests of beings like ourselves stemming from the source.It would appear God has then a consciousness equivalent to about four different authors? Interesting but hardly convincing as an argument. If you have a book with inconsistencies then you attribute that to God rather than to the rather comphrehensible obvious that people tend to disagree? This is the self hynosis of apologetics! To claim that it's improper to analyze the Bible because humans can't analyze God is a bold fast switch but it's very clear right there in his writing how he accomplished the trick. He said Bible but then said God. It's like I ask you to loan me a dollar and then as you are nodding "yes" I thank you for the million dollars you just promised me fully expecting you not to notice I only initially asked you for 1 dollar. Kind of like the guy who was very impressed with himself when he learned he had been speaking prose all his life without knowing it. But this too is a gloss on the problem to put the believer back to sleep. It explains nothing but sounds as if it might. Two different stories so these multiple dimensions are TWO? These two perspectives make a holistic life approach? A holistic life approach to what?Ludwig Wittgenstein would make short work of this author.I decide what is true in the Bible the same way I decide what is true. It's only respecting authority over our own capacities to understand and accepting the past saying because I was told this and I wish to think as this tradition thinks and I've been told that the Bible is a special book and the only way to understand it is the way my pastor, priest, church, sect whatever says do we accept a "special" non-logical, non-rational, and non-evidential "truth". Which truth is a participating in a view of reality that this or that person or persons have created and then they ascribed their creation to the source of the Universe that they call Yahweh, Jehovah God, Jesus, Allah, Krishna, etc.Phat, you shouldn't read authors like this uncritically. Or maybe you should. Apologetics doesn't make sense but it can make some people feel good. The sound of the words has a superficial sense of meaning if unanalysed they appear to imply security and power, but when looked at closely that claims dissolve into fast talking confabulation.This Rabbi's lack of logic and his willingness to play fast and loose with language and argument is what I find so off putting about religion. I feel thoroughly disrespected. Like he thinks I don't have any sense or intelligence. He could be trying to sell me the Brooklyn bridge but instead is trying to sell me his old religion but it's the same kind of shameless manipulation by words used without regard for meaning or logic.lfen