|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is faith the answer to cognitive dissonance? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I guess you miss the point completely. The point is that you claim. that the Bible is written to meet the standard prescribed in the Levitical Law was false, that you should have known that it was false, that the Bible doesn't even try to meet that standard. So why pretend ? Especially as it gives the impression that the Biblical standard is in fact lower than it is - where the mere assertion that there were witnesses would apparently be sufficient. Which is silly. It seems to me that you're doing more to insult the Bible than support it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I haven't said anything I don't believe. If you don't believe me that's your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2133 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
I haven't said anything I don't believe. If you don't believe me that's your problem. See various items in my signature...Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Believing the truth rather than what you say is a problem ? And you really BELIEVE that ? Even when it means knowing the Bible well enough to see through your false assertions ? Think about the implications of what you say, Faith. WIth regard to your earlier assertions, I see three possibilities. First: You don't realise that the Bible calls for the TESTIMONY of multiple witnesses, and think that the mere assertion that there were multiple witnesses is sufficient - and you think that this is a good standard. That would mean that you don't know the Bible, and that you can't tell a good standard from a bad one. That would be your problem. Second: You think that there actually is the testimony of multiple witnesses for much of the Bible. But you can't actually point to any of it save for the obvious examples (which are likely wrong anyway) and you aren't aware of the problems of making that claim even for the Gospels. That would also be your problem - not only the ignorance but making assertions you can't support. Third: You know damn well that the Bible doesn't really match up to the standard set in the Levitical Law. But you decided to pretend otherwise. And you don't really care that the simple assertion that there were witnesses is such an absurdly low standard that falsely attributing it to the Bible makes the Bible look stupid. And you somehow thought that you could get away with it here. Which would make you foolish, dishonest, and a lot less respectful of the Bible than you would have us believe. That would also be your problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18338 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ProtoTypical writes: Even if we start with the assumption that there is a God and that he created the universe, why do people give more weight to the words of the Bible, something that we know men had a hand in creating, than they do to the physical evidence contained in the universe that he created? This is a point to be considered. Romans talks of this.Rom 1:20 writes: What does the evidence show? It shows that we humans are learning a lot more about time and space and heavenly bodies. Critics would disagree that Gods "qualities" are understood a priori from what has been made.
20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature-have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So put that scripture on the back burner for now. Lets look at a doozy from the OT: Deut 4:15-20 writes: You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, 16 so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, 17 or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, 18 or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. 19 And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars--all the heavenly array--do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven. 20 But as for you, the LORD took you and brought you out of the iron-smelting furnace, out of Egypt, to be the people of his inheritance, as you now are. In context, some say that Deuteronomy was written by Moses, but according to Wiki, quote: Perhaps it is not so important who wrote it as it is to determine the motive behind the writings as well as the message being told through the writing. Why was it important to not bow down (figuratively or literally) to things---or our interpretation and/or understanding of the significance of things? Finally, should I give more weight to what I personally observe and test than I do to what a book or another person---through the book---tells me to think?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Isn't that bit part of the nationalist/monotheist agenda ?(I say "nationalist" but there are huge overtones of racism in it, too) We know that the Hebrews originally were a Canaanite people with Yahweh as their patron in a polytheistic culture where all the peoples had their own patron. This (slowly) morphed into the belief that Yahweh was the one-and-only-God - but still the special patron of the Hebrew people. Along with this there were moves to radically separate the Hebrew people -and their religion - from the other Canaanites and their faiths, which were (so far as we know) still similar to the earlier Hebrew religion. Banning Canaanite religious practices would be a part of that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
I know your standard is single. I was pointing out that it's a poor standard. A double standard would be better if one of them was reliable - at least you'd be right half of the time.
Someone said I have a double standard so I answered no, my standard is single. Faith writes:
There's evidence outside the Bible that some of the Bible is true - e.g. the city of Jerusalem exists. The only evidence you have that all of the Bible is true is in the Bible. Hence, circularity.
Oh there's tons of evidence outside the Bible that the Bible is true too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 375 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
First, I'd never "start with the assumption that there is a God" I was offering you the benefit of the doubt.
I am saying that the Bible provides abundant evidence that there is a God, a lot of it eyewitness evidence to miracles. I look at the bible and see plenty of evidence that there were plenty of people who thought that there is a God. It is obvious to me that someone living 2500 yrs ago would see things happening every day that they could not explain. I am sure that if I were to witness any one of the miracles described in the bible I would offer a different explanation for what actually happened. For example, I went looking for some modern day miracles and found this account from some guy writing about modern day miracles.
quote: So this guy describes it as a miracle. Is that evidence that a miracle has taken place? I would describe it as a fortunate coincidence and certainly not evidence for the existence of God.
Second, it's a strangely weak omnipotent God who couldn't guide human beings to an honest report of witnessed events. My thoughts as well which is why I think that they would not rely on the stories of ancient shepards written on parchments that fade. They would instead use the rocks and stars and light to let us know what is really going on. They would use immutable laws so that there could be no mistaking if you are right or wrong in your perception. Which, if there is a God, they have done.
Three a: the physical universe has to be interpreted too, there is nothing straightforward about what it presents to the human mind or it wouldn't have taken thousands of years before we learned anything of use about it. Suck it up Buttercup! Who ever said that anything was going to be straightforward? Besides, when the child asks a question, do you just give them the answer or do you try and show them how to figure out the answer?
Three b: Show me where the physical universe gives evidence of what the Bible reveals of the Creation and Fall or the Flood or God's plan of redemption or the need for salvation answered by the incarnation of God Himself to die for us? On this you are correct. There doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever.
We simply believe the Bible is the undistorted truth given by God Himself. Why though is the question. How can these accounts be more credible than the Universe that is spread out before you? Why should they deserve more weight than what you can see with your own eyes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I am saying that the Bible provides abundant evidence that there is a God, a lot of it eyewitness evidence to miracles.
I look at the bible and see plenty of evidence that there were plenty of people who thought that there is a God. It is obvious to me that someone living 2500 yrs ago would see things happening every day that they could not explain. I am sure that if I were to witness any one of the miracles described in the bible I would offer a different explanation for what actually happened. Maybe you would, I don't know. The water into wine? The turning of a few fish and loaves of bread into enough to feed thousands? The healing of a blind man, the raising of dead people? Or back about 1500 years, the parting of the Red Sea, the dew on Gideon's fleece -- and off it; the fire from heaven that burnt up Elijah's water-soaked sacrifice, the floating of Elisha's ax head, the miraculous filling of the widow's empty vessels with oil. As John said at the end of his gospel, "these were written that you might believe." But I suppose that someone determined enough could just assume a priori, without proof, based on prejudice against such things, that there must be naturalistic explanations and defeat John's purpose. Must happen quite a bit actually.
For example, I went looking for some modern day miracles and found this account from some guy writing about modern day miracles.
quote: When David Newkirk, now a youth pastor at Church of the Open Door in Glendora, California, woke up in the middle of the night, he was still exhausted from a college basketball victory the day before. "Twenty minutes after my head hit the pillow, I was catapulted out of the deepest sleep," he writes in the book. Along with his mother and sister, he was jerked awake to pray for his brother Dan. Dan was in Israel. Running out of money, he had chosen to sleep on a park bench for the night. In the wee hours of the morning, a snarling dog woke him up, battling with a chicken under the bench. Unable to break up the animals, Dan found another bench and resumed his rest. The next morning, a bomb exploded right next to the first bench, hurtling it through the air, leaving "a mess of tangled metal and concrete." Properly speaking that's not a miracle, but it is what is called "Providence," meaning God's provision of something needed when needed. In this case it's answer to prayer given in response to a prompting by the Spirit. God provided a dog and a chicken to save the person from death. If you don't believe in such things, then such stories won't convince you. But there are a lot of such reports these days, especially in charismatic and Pentecostal circles. Some of them are quite believable I think. But again, they aren't miracles. Miracles involve the suspension of natural law, such as seen in the multiplication of fish and bread, water into wine, instant healing of the blind, raising of the dead, floating of an ax head etc. Answered prayer must seem miraculous to some, but properly speaking it's not.
So this guy describes it as a miracle. Is that evidence that a miracle has taken place? I would describe it as a fortunate coincidence and certainly not evidence for the existence of God. I wouldn't offer that kind of example as evidence for the existence of God myself, as I would offer the Bible with its God-chosen witnesses.
Second, it's a strangely weak omnipotent God who couldn't guide human beings to an honest report of witnessed events.
My thoughts as well which is why I think that they would not rely on the stories of ancient shepards written on parchments that fade. Hm. But why can't God use ancient shepherds the same way He could use anyone? If you agree that He should be able to "guide human beings to an honest report of witnessed events" why are you so picky about whom He chooses?
They would instead use the rocks and stars and light to let us know what is really going on. They would use immutable laws so that there could be no mistaking if you are right or wrong in your perception. Which, if there is a God, they have done. And as I said before, what's to guarantee 1) that human beings have the capacity to interpret these things correctly, especially 2) the Moral Law that runs the universe and the destructive effect of human violations of that Law, the death of living things for instance; in fact the evidence of such destruction in the planet itself -- you all don't see that, you assume that what you see is what you get, i.e. it's the way Nature just IS, as expressed in the principle of Uniformitarianism that never dreams there could have been a better original Creation. We'd never figure that one out on our own. We'd never figure out that we're less than we were originally created to be either, that sin has corrupted us in essential ways and in fact blinded us to what meanings there ARE in Nature; or that sin condemns us all to a miserable eternity, from which God planned to save us by sending God the Son to die in our place. The rocks and stars could not tell us that, not in our fallen condition. This is why we need special revelation from God Himself. Sure, if you HAVE to be able to apprehend everything through your senses and simply refuse to believe that there are things you cannot know by those means, you'll ignore it. You have that prerogative.
Three a: the physical universe has to be interpreted too, there is nothing straightforward about what it presents to the human mind or it wouldn't have taken thousands of years before we learned anything of use about it.
Suck it up Buttercup! Who ever said that anything was going to be straightforward? Besides, when the child asks a question, do you just give them the answer or do you try and show them how to figure out the answer? I thought the point was that we should be able to understand all we need to know about God and His Creation from the rocks and stars. To my mind that suggests we shouldn't have had to stumble around in the dark for thousands of years with the loss of untold generations of human beings to misery to get the first glimmers of what it all means. And what little we DO know about all that even now convinces very few of the existence of God anyway, which rather defeats your idea, doesn't it? I mean, just listen to all the strident cocksure voices of Science that tell you that the physical universe is "all there is or ever was or ever wiil be," and how we've sent rockets into space and nobody has seen God out there and so on and so forth. So tell me again how God communicates with us through the rocks and stars?
Three b: Show me where the physical universe gives evidence of what the Bible reveals of the Creation and Fall or the Flood or God's plan of redemption or the need for salvation answered by the incarnation of God Himself to die for us?
On this you are correct. There doesn't seem to be any evidence whatsoever. Not that the fallen mind would ever discover on its own, that's for sure.
We simply believe the Bible is the undistorted truth given by God Himself.
Why though is the question. How can these accounts be more credible than the Universe that is spread out before you? Why should they deserve more weight than what you can see with your own eyes? It takes words to communicate clearly, not that words always accomplish that, but some words that tell me to stay away from that rock because there's a rattlesnake behind it are of far more value to me than my own inadequate eyesight. I'm sure cave men sat and contemplated rocks and stars endlessly. I can imagine them yearning in their heart of hearts that the God who made it all would come down from heaven and explain it all to them, or if they could read would write something down for them so they could understand it all. Well, He did. I for one am VERY grateful. But perhaps I have no way of convincing you. That's up to God I guess.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
So basically all your "evidence" relies on a strong bias in favour of your preferred conclusion to get to the conclusion you want. Isn't it odd that your God has so much trouble providing good evidence ?
1) Miracle stories are hardly unique to Christianity. Do you believe all miracle stories or just those that your religion claims to be true ? 2) What you call Providence, but which I would consider more likely coincidence, confirmation bias and fallible human memory. At the least we would need something more rigorous than anecdotes to turn this into good evidence. 3) Assuming your religious dogmas to be true. Which isn't evidence at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
REAL miracles ARE unique to Biblical Christianity. You can't come up with a real miracle from any other source.
Actual fulfilled prophecy is also unique to the Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: In other words you assume that the miracle stories you approve of are "REAL miracles" and the others aren't. You can't expect any non-Christian, or anyone who cares about honestly evaluating evidence to use that assumption.
quote: But there are no demonstrable examples in the Bible. This forum has gone through that enough times. So really you don't have any good evidence at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
By redating the scriptures past the events prophesied you eliminate prophecy. Clever of you. Not so clever of you to believe such a ploy of course.
I don't know if there are even reports of actual miracles outside the Bible. I've read a lot of religious and occultic lore and can't think of any. Miracles defined as the suspension of natural laws. There are some kinds of phenomena that are mistaken for miracles, such as Providential occurrences as I said, and there are some shoddy imitations, there are Hindu tricks and demonic tricks for instance, but there are no REAL miracles as I've defined them. You have one up your sleeve? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'll point out that questioning the dating of the prophecy is a reasonable objection and one you need to counter with evidence. However, it is not an all-purpose ploy as you claim and I am not aware of any case where the dating is based solely on the presence of "fulfilled" prophecy.
quote: Are you saying that there are no miracle stories outside of the Bible or that there are but you dismiss them as not being about "REAL" miracles ? It's really not clear. I'd also add that dismissing miracle stories from other faiths as "demonic" would just be another example of your prejudice at work. Again, this discussion is supposed to be about evidence. If you're compalining that other people don't share your prejudices you're admitting that you don't have the evidence you claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith ![]() Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I've given you plenty of evidence of the CLAIMED miracles of the Bible. I'm asking for even a CLAIMED miracle that really is a miracle -- which is the suspension of natural law, such as water to wine, thousands of fishes and loaves of bread out of a few, instant healing of paralysis, lameness or blindness, bringing the dead back to life, etc. -- outside the Bible. As I said, I don't know of any.
Demonic "miracles" are not The evidence of prophecy is in the scriptures themselves, accepting the traditional dates given for them. Just read it, it claims to be prophetic. The traditional dates were in place up until the 19th century, at which time Liberal Christianity and Higher Criticism came along and reinterpreted it all, sticking on dates that were SUBJECTIVELY determined. They have NO OBJECTIVE grounds for their late dating. The Jesus Seminar that came out of that Liberal context is an example of this "method," SUBJECTIVELY deciding what's authentic in the New Testament and what isn't. ABE: That's also how they determined that there were different authors of different books of the Bible, by their own subjective judgments about style and so on. STUPID STUPID STUPID excuse for "scholarship" but this kind of stupidity reigns today in academe. /ABE Now perhaps you think the subjective vaporings of a bunch of men sitting around pondering things is sufficient evidence to change the traditions of thousands of years, traditions that established the canon we have today as authentic and the prophecies as prophecies. But the burden of proof is on you and all those who recently decided their own mental vaporings were authoritative over the work of thousands over all those millennia. To my mind that is evidence enough, but I'm sure it won't be for you. \ Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024