|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who is really in charge of inspiration? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 802 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Which might be relevant if I was trying to test the divinity of the Bible. Is that not the topic of the thread? Or is divinity not synonymous with inspiration? Are we not questioning the "divine inspiration"?
But stop and think. If we were discussing any other story one of the very major issues would be the content of that story. Perhaps, but it just seems to me to be awfully circular. It, to me, seems to boiling down to not much more than "well, this passage says it was god saying it so god must be saying it". Without outside evidence as to who said what, we are left with comparing passages, yes? Maybe I'm not digging deep enough....... "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Is that not the topic of the thread? Or is divinity not synonymous with inspiration? Are we not questioning the "divine inspiration"? Of course divinity is not synonymous with inspiration. Even "divine inspiration" is not synonymous with divinity. And if you will read what I post I believe that you will find that I point to many other possible sources of inspiration. But in discussing the Bible, it is nearly impossible to not look at the actual passages in the...wait for it...Bible.
Perhaps, but it just seems to me to be awfully circular. It, to me, seems to boiling down to not much more than "well, this passage says it was god saying it so god must be saying it". Without outside evidence as to who said what, we are left with comparing passages, yes? Maybe I'm not digging deep enough....... There really is more that can be examined but as with so many subjects it takes some work. For example, studying the Talmud and the concept of Talmudic discourse can help you understand how people over time have proceeded. Remember, there is no evidence of who actually wrote just about anything in the Bible. We just plain don't know very much about the authors of most of it. We also have only a pretty fuzzy idea of when many of the stories were written. If you look at what I actually post though I believe you'll find that I constantly say that you cannot just pull pieces parts out and use them as proof texts without also looking at the passages in context as well as some of the historical material. In the end though, it will always come back to what is actually written. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
The ancient challenge:
" Did God really say, You shall not eat of any tree of the garden ?" (Genesis 3:1) The modern day version of the same challenge:
"But how you KNOW that that Bible was not a trick of the Devil? Did God really inpsire the Bible ?" There's nothing much new under the sun. Get them to doubt God's word. Get them to question God's heart. The ancient challenge:
"Did God really say, O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and enjoy (its good things) as ye wish: But approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression. (Qur’an 7:19)?" The modern day version of the same challenge:
"But how you KNOW that that Koran was not a trick of the Devil? Did God really inspire the Koran?" There's nothing much new under the sun. Get them to doubt God's word. Get them to question God's heart. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Is that not the topic of the thread? Or is divinity not synonymous with inspiration? Are we not questioning the "divine inspiration"
No, that is not the topic. We are questioning the identity of any inspiration, and assuming the inspiration where necessary for the sake of argument.
Perhaps, but it just seems to me to be awfully circular. It, to me, seems to boiling down to not much more than "well, this passage says it was god saying it so god must be saying it". Without outside evidence as to who said what, we are left with comparing passages, yes?
Yes, indeed we are left with only circular reasoning. No, it's not something that requires deeper digging; it really is as simple as the circular logic being circular. Hence, how do we know it really is that god saying so, and not somebody pretending to be him/her/it? We must require something external, which nobody has yet presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Yet further dodging.
How do you know it is actually God's heart? How do you know it is God's word? Relying on some form of circular logic ("the Bible is right ebcause the Bible says so") or subjective experience ("I know it's God because he told me he was God") is not sufficient.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
jaywill writes:
Try to put it in perspective. Suppose somebody from your church offers to invest your money for you. How do you know whether or not you can trust him? What steps do you take to check him out before you put all of your eggs in his basket? Get them to doubt God's word. Get them to question God's heart. "He told the truth several times before" isn't quite sufficient, is it? "It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hence, how do we know it really is that god saying so, and not somebody pretending to be him/her/it? We must require something external, which nobody has yet presented.
Yes. It is imperative for the institution or church to validate the things they are saying are inspired from God. This is a bible study forum. It is assumed people are deriving they're information from historical church doctrines and biblical sources. And of course those sources are the very thing in question. No?In other words there is no way to know which is why it is taken on faith.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminModulous Administrator Posts: 897 Joined: |
Hey dickwit, if you paid attention, I specifically asked in the original post that this be about methods and facts that demonstrate the inspiration for any and all holy texts to be who they say they are. That sentence would have expressed your dismay, and reiterated your request without the first two words. While we're fairly relaxed about swearing, and a little bit of rhetorical flare - there are some standards we like to try and keep to. A witty put-down might be overlooked, but "hey dickwit', shouldn't be. Please try to reel that kind of thing in, so as we won't need to start issuing suspensions. Thanks. Please don't reply in this thread, if you want a second opinion from a moderator please post a message in Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
The thread is in "Bible Study" because the forum doesn't have a general "Holy Text Study". While the example I used was of course Christianish, 'twas so because it's the first one to jump into my head.
The question is intended to get people to think about their faith. The creotards and godbots here won't be shaken from their blind worshipping, but the ones who have a somewhat less tenuous grip on reality will begin to wonder: why do I believe this thing without any evidence? And they will see that out of dozens of different concepts and ideas and stories, they make one exception to the otherwise-solid rule of "evidence first, acceptance later". They will then start to wonder further: why that one exception? Many will continue to think it is because of some calling or some spirit entering them or merely because "it is the truth!". But a few, a rational few, will recognise that there really is no reason for that exception. And they will discard it in favour of thinking critically, of not going along with the fairy tales.If naught but one person gets that, then that is still one more person managing to see the farce of faith for what it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1504 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hello Nij,
Nij writes: Oh the first on to jump into your head, sort of inspired?
The thread is in "Bible Study" because the forum doesn't have a general "Holy Text Study". While the example I used was of course Christianish, 'twas so because it's the first one to jump into my head. The question is intended to get people to think about their faith. The creotards and godbots here won't be shaken from their blind worshipping, but the ones who have a somewhat less tenuous grip on reality will begin to wonder: why do I believe this thing without any evidence? Sure but when you get down to the nitty gritty many premises boil down to a argument to authority. I bet you on a daily bases believe things without evidence.Every time you read the paper or watch TV or just about any assimilation of facts. Do you personally verify all sources? Why do you believe the things you do? Because you have intellect and an empirical nature does not mean your information may not be flawed. We all operate on the notion of belief. Some people seem content to live their lives under less stringent criteria. Some folks accept things based of their traditions, customs and yes religion. If you’re convinced they have it wrong to believe in mythology so what.
Nij writes:
Good thing you brought this thread up, your unflinching devotion to guide the unwashed ignorant masses is to be commended. If naught but one person gets that, then that is still one more person managing to see the farce of faith for what it is.Your opinion is duly noted. But for now, some people less intelligent and enlightened than you, will let their faith continue to serve them well if you do not mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The question is intended to get people to think about their faith. The creotards and godbots here won't be shaken from their blind worshipping, but the ones who have a somewhat less tenuous grip on reality will begin to wonder: why do I believe this thing without any evidence? Wow. Do you really think we haven't thought about this stuff until you shat your brilliance upon us? The conceitedness is strong with this one.
But a few, a rational few, will recognise that there really is no reason for that exception. And they will discard it in favour of thinking critically, of not going along with the fairy tales. Because of the question in your OP!? Well, here's it is again, followed by my answers:
quote: You can't. So what? Your question is as profound as asking how do you know anything is real. How do you know that the devil isn't just tricking you into thinking that you're sitting at a computer typing on a message board? Whoa man... that's sooo deep. Uht--ooh Arg.. What's this? This critical thinking has invaded me! I will no longer go along with fairy tales! Give me a break... ... and cut down the pompousness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Thank you for the enlightened condescension, CS.
But no, the question is not equivalent to asking whether anything is real or not. You posit one supernatural entity with having done one thing, yet you have entirely no evidence of this action. You then claim that no, it could not have been another entity at all, again with no corroborating evidence.You're the one who thinks some magical sky-fairy crept into a guy's head and convinced him to write a book a couple of dozen centuries ago, not me. I'm asking you how you know it was that sky-fairy and not another. Personally, I think the notion of sky-fairies is laughable in the extreme, but consider me curious as to why the mind would accept something despite not having a rational basis for it.Seeing as you've admitted you can't and don't know, why are you so sure in your faith then? I seem to recall that children should be weaned away from the use of security blankets relatively early in life. But then again, acting like sheep seems to be a motif of Catholicism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4890 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Oh the first on to jump into your head, sort of inspired?
More likely, the product of a dozen years' attempted indoctrination and the continued pervasion in society; also given that it's one most people here would identify with easily.
Sure but when you get down to the nitty gritty many premises boil down to a argument to authority.
I suppose they do. But whose authority is the question.
I bet you on a daily bases believe things without evidence.
But then again, if I do find evidence showing something not to be factual, I'd change accordingly. Tentative acceptance of the facts when they can be/are consistent is somewhat the nature of rationality; dogma has a slight issue in that respect.
Every time you read the paper or watch TV or just about any assimilation of facts. Do you personally verify all sources? Why do you believe the things you do? Because you have intellect and an empirical nature does not mean your information may not be flawed. We all operate on the notion of belief. Some people seem content to live their lives under less stringent criteria. Some folks accept things based of their traditions, customs and yes religion. If you’re convinced they have it wrong to believe in mythology so what
I'm convinced that having faith in something without any form of objective external support is a bit silly, yes.The fact that people believe is not so much the issue, but more the fact that they believe it is one thing when it could easily be another, quite different thing. Coupled with the idea that they base their argument on their belief it is the first thing. Good thing you brought this thread up, your unflinching devotion to guide the unwashed ignorant masses is to be commended.
yes, 'tis nice to be lauded for one's effort every so often.
Your opinion is duly noted. But for now, some people less intelligent and enlightened than you, will let their faith continue to serve them well if you do not mind
As will a number of people more intelligent and supposedly more enlightened as well. Got no problem with somebody saying it's faith and leaving it at that; if they begin trying to tell me they know for sure directly after saying they can't know for sure, well, that would understandably be a good reason to get annoyed.Am I to take it your answer to the question is also "we don't know" then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Nij writes: Seeing as you've admitted you can't and don't know, why are you so sure in your faith then? Faith is a matter of belief, not rational, not logical, not even reasonable. Many of us believe but we also know that we could be wrong. Edited by jar, : ralli appalin spallin Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 285 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Your question is as profound as asking how do you know anything is real. Well, no. It's like asking: "Who wrote this graffiti on this wall. Was it Alice or Bob?" It's a perfectly sensible question so long as you believe that Alice and Bob are real people and not just figments of your imagination. Let me extend this metaphor further. Suppose that you know: (1) From circumstantial evidence, the graffiti must have been written either by Alice or Bob. (2) Alice is a good kind person and scrupulously honest. (3) Bob is a sociopath and a compulsive liar who hates Alice. (4) The graffiti runs as follows:
ALICE IS A SERIAL KILLER. THIS GRAFFITI WAS WRITTEN BY ALICE. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THIS GRAFFITI, THEN ALICE WILL KILL YOU. Now, use your judgment. Who wrote that, Alice or Bob? Do you have to believe out of deference to Alice that Alice wrote the graffiti? Do you have to believe out of deference to Alice that the accusations against her are true? Would having faith in Alice involve believing the graffiti --- or disbelieving it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024