|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Using the Bible as fact... | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Maybe someone can give me an explanation?"
--As a Bible Thumping YEC, I'd like to give some input. Basically if you were to argue with myself, your argument would be greatly flawed. Simply on the basis that I have never found the need to resort to any argument that requires a scientific mind-set. accept ofcourse for the bits and pieces that make the Christian faith a faith such as the ressurection, the universal creation, Noahs Boat (not noahs flood, but his boat that was in the flood requires a biblical based faith), ect. Basically, the way I look at it, is an ancient document that you compair and contrast with todays scientific observations and I myself find that it is amazingly compatable and accurate. Pretty much, its that the bible isn't to complement science, but science is to complement the bible. Hope this helps. -------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"This then begs the question, what method, if not the scientific method, would be better at finding the most likely theoretical truth?"
--The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input. "Since you think that your flood "model" is a better model than mainstrean geologies explanations." "Something that explains LESS observations? Something that ignores inconvenient observations?" -------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"What is wrong with using the scientific method on the bible, as an attempt to establish its "factual" accuracy. It could be done, although I doubt you would like the results. My point is, you require a level of "proof" from science that you don't require from the bible. This is hypocritical."
--Sure, apply the scientific method to the bible, that is perfectly reasonable. Though what I mean when I say "The scientific method is best in a scientific case, that is, anything where science can have any input", is that like I said, should be used when science can apply a test. For example, lets say we wan't to test the flood, lets just say we find it comes out that it is a plausable event (lets just say for the sake of example, no need for a disagreement, just follow me on this) well this was tested using the scientific method, ok. Though the bible says that God caused all this, now where is the scientific method going to go? It cannot apply a test for this. This logic should be followed throughout any biblical test. "Why not have pure, baseless, faith in Odin & blow God out? There's no evidence for either, so I'm questioning the mental integrity of someone who believes something without reason, & disbelieves something else which has as much basis in fact as what they believe." 2 Peter 3 "5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: "How, then, can you/anyone attempt to maintain "factual" biblical integrity when a rigorous method is being applied to science, & people deny that science in favour of faith, with no sound basis whatsoever? Do you not find it hypocritical that in every other aspect of christians (or any other religion) lives they require evidence?" "For example, you don't have "faith" that crossing a busy road with your fingers in your ears & your eyes shut will get you safely to the other side, because you have evidence that heavy objects kill when they hit you at speed. You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim." "You don't have baseless "faith" that you would drown swimming from Java to California, you have evidence based on observations that it would be foolish to attempt such a swim." "So, it seems hypocritical to me that this sound mental attitude, which you use in every other aspect of your life should be suspended because it is inconvenient to a notion of a factually baseless God. That said, what method would you apply universally to everything to determine its likelyhood, if it isn't the scientific method or something like it? To apply such a method to something, & not something else, is by definition, hypocritical. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Do you find it hypocritical that evidential determinants are sought by us all through our lives in order to make decisions, but this "modus operandi" is suspended where religion is concerned, or not?"
--This is not exactly true, as I explained above, I explained what should and should not apply the scientific method. You would be correct, however, that pure faith events, concepts, or anything of the like shouldn't be decided by applying the scientific method, simply because it is not applicable on scientific grounds. "Whether it is scienctific deciding how you cross the road is irrelevent. The scientific method is designed to best get at the most likely explanation." "This is exactly what we do when we try to decide what gossip to believe, or what newspaper article to believe. You're arguing that a rationale for deciding the most likely explanation is best suited to science, & only science? Nonsense, you apply a similar rationale to every non-religious decision you make." "What, intellectually, allows you to suspend this rationale, in the light that you use an evidence as a determinant for decision making in other areas of life?" ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Well, sure, it can show customs and cultural attitudes of the time, but this is not the same as being a record of actual events."
--The bible is used for the origin of Abraham's decendents, the bible doesn't exactly address much other cultural origins so in the first place, I don't know what else it would be used for. Second, they of course would not wan't to touch up on many other religious, let alone many other events given in the old-testament, mostly because it is all God ordained. ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Then again how long was Jesus up on the cross for?
A few hours wasn`t it? And yet crucifiction was a supposedly agonising death that took several days..." "And didn`t he allegedly crawl up the curtain immediately after they held a sponge with vinegar on it under his nose? Something that should have revived him?" "I think there are enough ambiguities surrounding his putative death to make any discussion on his rising from the grave highly speculative..." ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"OK, I’m not making myself clear. Forget the scientific method, I used it as an example."
--Allright then. "Do you find it intellectually hypocritical to apply one evidence based method of “truth” finding to one aspect of your life, but suspend it for another, because it won’t give the required results?" "Faith is irrelevant. This is precisely what such a method tries to determine against, & for the greater part of your/our decision making, does. That is to say, we try to make/perform informed decisions & actions." "If there’s no evidence of pink fairies, then ignore the possibility of the existence of pink fairies until evidence of their existence becomes available, or do you believe in pink fairies AND God?" "You see what I’m getting at? If you’re going to believe in something with no evidence, you are then logically obliged to believe in everything with no evidence, non? No? Why not, isn’t this reasonable?" "Clearly you don't believe in pink fairies, so why God? What evidential rationale have you applied to both scenarios? I suspect you simply haven't applied the same rationale to pink fairies & God. I ask, why not? Faith? Not really good enough, you can have faith in pink fairies but you don't. So what REASON do you have for faith in something without evidence, compared to something else without evidence that you don't have faith in?" ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"I'm not sure why this is relevant."
--The statement addressed history, and seeminly implied that the bible is not reliable for accurate historical events, so I pointed this out. "Cultural "origins"? I wasn't talking about the "origins" of culture or customs." "If you read the Bible, you get a pretty good idea of the culture and customs of the time" "For example, you learn that slavery was in practice, and that women were considered chattel." "Huh, what are you talking about? I don't understand." ------------------
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member |
"Now call me Mr Fussy if you must, but this doesn't seem to condemn harsh treatment at all.
What you must bear in mind is that "slavery" or servitude in the bible covered a wide range of situations: there are several contexts where it is clearly meant in an oppressive sense, and it is often referred to in contexts where the instution of slavery itself (not just the treatment of slaves) is seen as undesirable." "The translation "servant" is not more proper - rather it requires careful reading to separate contexts where servant or slave may be better, and where other terms - bondsman, bondservant, etc - may be substituted." "One thing we can be sure of: if the Hebrews of biblical times were remotely like the people of the modern world they would have taken all too many opportunities to abuse the institution of the law to their own advantage regardless of the suffering of others." "I doubt being a slave in ancient Judea can be compared to being a modern american child - pity the children if it can." "I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl! "I hope it's just that you are a day late with a bit of April foolery. If not - he's all yours Schraf! You go, girl!" ------------------
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019