That's a copout. You're claiming that anybody who doesn't confirm your claims has an ulterior motive. That in itself is just another unconfirmed claim.
Well, I think you are jumping the gun.
It is possible that I might not want to know something of the true for reasons of my own.
Is that not possible? Make me the culprit here. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Maybe you have seen truth. Maybe I don't want it for whatever personal reason. My stubborness to repeat your seeing, I simply am not interested in.
I think you have to admit that this is possible of either one of us. I don't think I am asking you to believe, for example, that non-theists have an exclusive copyright on the ability to be stubburnly uninterested in truth.
Your suspicion is understood. However, the matter cuts both ways.
You don't have to be able to demonstarte your claims to everybody but it also isn't enough to demonstrate your claims to somebody. You have to be able to demonstrate your claims to a group of more-or-less randomly-chosen people and they have to come to a consensus. Think of it like jury selection.
What I hear you saying is that the knowing of big T Truth has to be able to be methodologically repeatable to at least SOME people.
But if that is true then I think you have to revize the axiom that Truth cannot be known. I think you would have to admit that Truth can be known by something like a jury - a subset of all the people.
Its apparent that they got a lot of stuff wrong. Why are you assuming that they got everything right?
I don't think they got anything wrong.
I believe that the way they phrased things, and their clever choice of words with a duality in their synonyms, allowed them to express what we would realize on the one hand, was scientifically and academically correct. While on the other hand, this allowed for the misconceptions of ancient peoples, throughout all the generations previous to our own to assume what they thought was what the Bible writers meant.
Does either statement represent your belief: Big T Truth does not exist ?
Or big T Truth exists but no one can know big T Truth ?
No. Neither represents my position. I would say that if big-t Truth exists, we have no way of knowing what it is. Human perception deals only with small-t truth and small-t truths don't add up to big-t Truth.
But you desperately want that to be true. This isn't some conclusion that's be arrived at. Its an assumption you make a priori.
I believe that the way they phrased things, and their clever choice of words with a duality in their synonyms, allowed them to express what we would realize on the one hand, was scientifically and academically correct.
You mean, you can interpret the words to be so vague that practically any explanation can fit within them. You just happen to choose ones that you think are scientifically and academically correct.
While on the other hand, this allowed for the misconceptions of ancient peoples, throughout all the generations previous to our own to assume what they thought was what the Bible writers meant.
So we've got all these Jews, who according to your ideas, were tricked by god into believing that the Bible says a bunch of stuff that it doesn't really mean. This complete ruse by your god has cost them their place in eternity just so that god's message can be kept secret until you come along and figure it all out. I don't see how you can respect that?
Again, we have to distinguish between big-r Reality and small-r reality. Everybody has his own small-r reality. Small-r reality is different in the Sahara desert from what it is in New York City. Small-r reality is different for a blind person and a sighted person.
If big-r Reality exists, we have no way of perceiving it. It isn't "real" in the same sense as small-r reality.
It does not matter, nor does Reality depend in anyway, upon whether you or mankind perceives it.
That your god has performed some pranks doesn't necessitate that everything they've said is a prank.
You call god a name and then refer to that as a charge against him.
What I read from he things you post is that you respond to things that church peple say about what they think the Bibketells us about this God. Then you take what theysay, as you did here with what you say, and condemn god.
What is it in the Bible that makes you say these things? They call the Bible the Word of God, so it is only fair that you take him at that word and tell us what is your complaint against him?