User Tag List

First 56789 Last

Results 61 to 70 of 97

  1. #61
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    To know that the God of The Holy Bible exists is easy. The sentence 'the God of The holy Bible exists' is true, if and only if, the God of The Holy Bible exists. That is, if someone thinks that the sentence 'the God of The Holy Bible exists' is true and it actually corresponds to the facts (or accurately describes reality), then that someone knows that the God of The Holy Bible exists. Nothing else matters.

    The traditional definitions of 'knowledge' have surprisingly little to do with the facts or the truth, and can be safely ommitted without important consequence. There is no practical difference between conjecturing, "knowing", or even pretending that an idea is true. A person who "knows" that a sentence is true is not going to be any more successful than a person who conjectures the same, and so even if such "knowledge" is attainable, it doesn't do anything.

    In some cases, where "knowledge" does not gaurantee truth, a true conjecture is superior to false knowledge i.e. you would rather not know and be right, than know and be wrong.
    wait a minute!

    think about the implications you're making. There's no difference between "simply taking a math formula for being true" and "deriving it", when it comes to learning a mathematical principle. This is not a perfect analogy i will admit.

    but dont you think there is a time and a place for "it doesnt matter how you get there, as long as you got it"? I just dont feel this is one of those places! Think of the importance of this decision! It may not require 100% reason, but it certainly requires a fricken reason you believe! Otherwise we are just deciding on stuff because of our cultural influences and/or personal world views lining up. I just cant see how God respects people who make no effort to question or understand beyond the text and just take it for truth because someone told them to. The reality is that i'm putting forth an insane amount of effort even outside of this forum in my search for the truth. I just can't accept that the robots of the world are going to be rewarded.

    The best believers are no doubt going to be the ones with reasons for why they believe that lie outside of personal testimony, i was raised on it or "it just feels right".

    The traditional ideas on knowledge DO apply. yes I agree that justificationism has no place in theology. We cant 100% prove the God of the bible does or doesnt exist, but surely there are arguments that CAN be evaluated both for their utility in describing the world and the historical evidence they stand on (example being lack of proof for Exodus...).

  2. #62
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    This is a valid point, but to go to the level of detail and rigor required for a careful interpretation is beyond the discussion of an online forum.

    For example John's Gospel uses the term "eternal life" or simply "life" many times, and if you read the passages carefully you will detect layers of meanings to this word, i.e. multiple meanings at once. To see this clearly one needs to study the whole Gospel and identify the main themes, and then study in detail the relevant passages in John. Instead of overanalyzing one passage, the context of the whole writing should be taken into account.
    I'm not sure why you are going here, since my point was the opposite.

    It's easier if I just move straight to my bottom-line stance: Truly understanding and experiencing God cannot be dependent upon a meticulous text study because such a thing is not accessible to everyone.... and is in fact only accessible to a small percentage of people.

    Whatever truth there is of God needs to be able to be perceived, fathomed, understood, and lived without understanding meticulous nuance. It has to be livable by a five-year-old.


    And furthermore John is much easier on the ears than Paul is. People often find John enjoyable to read just for aesthetic of the poetry. This is not true of Paul. Paul can be difficult to grasp in a variety of passages.
    John is more aesthetic, certainly, although I tend to still very much enjoy Paul because of the clear arguments he pushes (you can see how his logic works) and he still has an eloquence about him (whether we're talking Phillipians 2 or 1 Cor 13... or Romans 8:38-39... which has to be one of my favorite passages in the Bible ). The language in the Bible in general is moving in many spots; while the KJV is a weaker translation than most, the language itself is more beautiful than many modern translations and worth reading.

    So for someone who isn't familiar with the text, it's usually easier and more effective to give a person a single verse. The main message of the new testament is essentially summed up in John 3:16. So instead of having people understand every part of the new testament they say, "here memorize John 3:16". It's a simplification, but it's effective and not meant to be misleading. (The bad part is when other people come in using the same tactic and they are trying to be misleading. )
    That's not really what I was referring to, so I'm confused over your point. After having been through that phase of my life, I came to the conclusion that finding God and becoming perfected wasn't going to happen through more extensive Bible study than I was already doing.

    (It tends to be detached from the reality and rigor of actual life and also often interferes with the need for one to make actual moral choices rather than complying with whatever scriptural status quo that is accepted in the day and age.)

    Overall, having been there myself and having seen the impact of others who do it, I don't think that the intellectualization of the faith is a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beat View Post
    I too grapple with this concept. What confuses me and is the crux of my doubt on the topic of "God" is that if he is indeed a loving, benevolent force and has us, his creation in his best interest, how can he expect us in our limited knowledge and ability to understand the complexities of this universe, to understand this issue? We have the ability to think, analyze and doubt and I find myself doing this a lot. God encourages/forces/prods us to "live by faith" and just accept that there's a way we can't understand but to be ok with that.

    How can I be expected to blindly accept that or be damned if I don't? For me, it's not a choice, it's an inability to understand. From what I've always been told and from all I can gather is that that isn't good enough and hell still awaits me and my heresy. If there is a god, I'm angry at him for that. That "system", if you will, isn't one of a humane beholder of justice.
    That is a pretty honest appraisal. I don't know how I would answer that. Sigh.

    When I was younger I really thought I understood truth and had answers that worked; but the older I got and the more things I had to work through in life, and the more things I saw OTHER people dealing with, the more ambiguous it all became, and the more I realized I was just trying to live out answers that were ultimately unsatisfying, without real conviction or certainty my assertions were true.

    Coming along with that, I do not know how we "have faith." We can't just choose to have faith, we either have it or we don't, so it's almost like a gift... and so how could a god hold us accountable if we don't have it? I do not know the answer.

    I guess in my life for a long time I had faith. Or thought I did. And maybe on one level I did, but my intellectual needs were not satisfied; once I was forced to confront the reality that belief is based on faith, not knowledge, I really really crashed. I realized any faith I had had been built on the assumption that I could prove what I believed... and when I realized I couldn't, I no longer knew what I believed. (So my faith actually had built on rationality.)

    I went through various cycles feeling that God either didn't exist or that he had abandoned me, and eventually I came to a point where I realized the question of God didn't even matter in terms of what I was going to do with my life and what convictions I held about all that was good and right. For me it became walking through the eye of paradox between belief and unbelief, realizing that regardless of whatever intellectual discordance I ran across, I still was going live as if it were all true -- and I did know the values were true. Because it was what mattered to me and embodied life as I knew it. (I don't know if this aligns with what Reason said above, as far as practical value goes, but maybe... And what more can a limited human being do?)

    I am saying this simply to say that one can still believe, still not understand, and still wonder if it's all true. I also think the value is in the seeking, not necessarily the understanding. And you can't always find everything right away, if ever. But seeking shows a desire to find, and I have to believe that is honored, and that there is not a time limit on the finding.

    sorry, it's late, I probably sound preachy.


    The best believers are no doubt going to be the ones with reasons for why they believe that lie outside of personal testimony, i was raised on it or "it just feels right".
    Where I see that sort of faith breaking down: It's okay to think that way, but where the rubber meets the road is receptivity to OTHERS thinking that way.

    IOW, the people who accept an authority, or have a personal testimony, or a cultural upbringing, or an "it just feels right" mindset are morally stilted if they have the hubris to suggest that OTHERS who follow the exact same patterns but come to different conclusions must be wrong.

    Because they're right, obviously.

    People are allowed to have convictions stemming from many sources. The pride and faultiness comes in how they place themselves over others (or not) and think they have more of a handle on truth.

    People who are humble actually will listen to other viewpoints and consider them. They won't slander the character of those they disagreement, based solely on the fact they disagree. THey understand they don't know everything, that they only know what they know, and that there is much that is beyond them.

    Does that make sense?

    The traditional ideas on knowledge DO apply. yes I agree that justificationism has no place in theology. We cant 100% prove the God of the bible does or doesnt exist, but surely there are arguments that CAN be evaluated both for their utility in describing the world and the historical evidence they stand on (example being lack of proof for Exodus...).
    You can do all that, and certainly it is useful... but salvation itself is not to be found in it. In the end it's just knowledge and argument, not conviction and belief.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #63
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Think about the implications you're making.
    I have done, at great length, and continue to.

    I encourage everyone to take leaps, not of faith, but of imagination. New ideas are obtained by imagination, while reason seperates the wheat from the chaff. That is the role of logic and evidence, to scrutinise and criticise, to select and eliminate, not to imagine and create. That is why evidence is best used in its critical role, (to falsify, not to verify or support), and why logic is best used to test for consistency, (deduction can do this, induction and abduction can't). However, this is the selection process, not the creative. The perfect reasoning machine is stale, boring, incapable of anything new, forever unpacking the logical consequences implicit in whatever ideas it has been programmed with, whereas the creative being can have new ideas, producing the variation on which reason can exert its selective pressures. There is no reasoning in this process of creation, but neither is it irrational, for rationality would be impossible without it.

    Do not build knowledge piecemeal upon a foundation, that is entirely the wrong way to think about the process. If you insist on using the metaphor of construction, then use your imagination to build, not just one, but many alternative structures, bold, elaborate, risky, interesting, leap into the lanscape of ideas and don't look back. Then, use reason like a bulldozer, keen to demolish these structures, pretenders to the truth, inconsistent, erroneous, and false. Weed out the bad ideas, but never stop introducing the new. Insulating ideas from criticism is easy, done by denying aany standards of criticism. Any theory, whether scientific, mathematical, ethical or whatever, can be immunised from criticism in this way. If a theory is to be criticisable, then you need to decide what kind of criticism you will accept. Clarify the problem which you want to solve, and then specify what kind of argument or experiment could be deployed as a test of your ideas. The rationalist ought to be someone who voluntarily enters into this arrangement, eschewing authority outright, with the intention of learning from his errors before acting on them.

    There is no prohibition here on the idea of God, and to know that God exists takes nothing more than the belief coupled with the actuality.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  4. #64
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    I have done, at great length, and continue to.

    I encourage everyone to take leaps, not of faith, but of imagination. New ideas are obtained by imagination, while reason seperates the wheat from the chaff. That is the role of logic and evidence, to scrutinise and criticise, to select and eliminate, not to imagine and create. That is why evidence is best used in its critical role, (to falsify, not to verify or support), and why logic is best used to test for consistency, (deduction can do this, induction and abduction can't). However, this is the selection process, not the creative. The perfect reasoning machine is stale, boring, incapable of anything new, forever unpacking the logical consequences implicit in whatever ideas it has been programmed with, whereas the creative being can have new ideas, producing the variation on which reason can exert its selective pressures. There is no reasoning in this process of creation, but neither is it irrational, for rationality would be impossible without it.

    Do not build knowledge piecemeal upon a foundation, that is entirely the wrong way to think about the process. If you insist on using the metaphor of construction, then use your imagination to build, not just one, but many alternative structures, bold, elaborate, risky, interesting, leap into the lanscape of ideas and don't look back. Then, use reason like a bulldozer, keen to demolish these structures, pretenders to the truth, inconsistent, erroneous, and false. Weed out the bad ideas, but never stop introducing the new. Insulating ideas from criticism is easy, done by denying aany standards of criticism. Any theory, whether scientific, mathematical, ethical or whatever, can be immunised from criticism in this way. If a theory is to be criticisable, then you need to decide what kind of criticism you will accept. Clarify the problem which you want to solve, and then specify what kind of argument or experiment could be deployed as a test of your ideas. The rationalist ought to be someone who voluntarily enters into this arrangement, eschewing authority outright, with the intention of learning from his errors before acting on them.

    There is no prohibition here on the idea of God, and to know that God exists takes nothing more than the belief coupled with the actuality.
    Alright. Im trying to take that all in .... big breath .... Are you sure you're not some sort of NT? hahaha ...(i guess the ESFJ DOES asprire to Ti.)

    I think Bluewings thread "faith of a rationalist" is an awesome example of building a spiritual idea with imagination that is restrained by logic. The whole idea is extremely logical, yet is spiritual, yet is still not hokey.





    I know i already mentioned the Jews in a post, but i want to expand on how I think the key to evaluating the NT lies in the OT.
    1. all ancient civilizations have stories that link "their own" culture straight to "the true God". They especially liked to form links that showed how God had divinely picked their king. Egypt to China, they ALL did it...including the Jews. So by you're standards, is it not an ok critisism to ask, :

    2 what arguments makes the Jewish faith any different from other ancient faiths? Just like how people in Greece aren't that literal in the belief of their creation stories anymore, I don't see any Jews doing animal sacrifices today. How literal can they still take the Torah if they aren't making animal sacrifices today? (im aware that they cant really do them without the Temple on the Mount...but if they REALLY believed in this as their only way, i gotta believe that they'd be willing to die to regain that temple!) Some Jews claim that the sacrifice was never really for vicarious atonement and is only to commemorate the reunion with God. This shows a clear contrast to Modern Christians who conviently hold that Jesus IS the passover Lamb.

    Hebrews 9:22
    And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

    Numbers 9:13
    But the man who is clean and is not on a journey, and ceases to keep the Passover, that same person shall be cut off from among his people, because he did not bring the offering of the LORD at its appointed time; that man shall bear his sin.

    Im still not sure of this animal sacrifice being neccessary or not yada yada yada...the point is, its in the law, yet no one does it, or believes in it enough to make it happen again (not saying that i DESIRE they start a war to reclaim it!)

    3. If the Jews hardly take the OT literally, then why should the Christians build an entire faith on it? (im aware of the orthodox vs reform Jews). I would bet most christians reading the OT would say to themselves, "geeze, glad I dont have to even debate if I could do any of the stuff prescribed here".

    4. Im going to make that leap that if most Christians actually had to do ALL the stuff in the OT, and mean like literally, ALL of it, they wouldnt still be Christians. My evidence for this is the obscenely small % of Jews who do EVERYTHING prescribed in the OT.

    5. If the OT aint 100% true, then why the heck is the NT true? I find it amazing that most evangelicals want to always start someone off with the NT and Jesus...really, they should start on page 1 genesis! anything else is deceptive.

    6. Convince me of Jesus? aren't we getting ahead of ourselves?! Convince me of Judaism!

    7. How does it not bother Christians that the evidence for Exodus is as shaky as they try to claim the evidence for evolution is? Really, there is no record of it. We know A LOT about Egypt. We can read their records, and many Egyptologists will point out the peoples were NOT afraid of recording stuff that made the Egyptians look bad...

  5. #65
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I'm not sure why you are going here, since my point was the opposite.

    It's easier if I just move straight to my bottom-line stance: Truly understanding and experiencing God cannot be dependent upon a meticulous text study because such a thing is not accessible to everyone.... and is in fact only accessible to a small percentage of people.

    Whatever truth there is of God needs to be able to be perceived, fathomed, understood, and lived without understanding meticulous nuance. It has to be livable by a five-year-old.
    We aren't talking about understanding and experiencing God in general. We are discussing what the Bible says about eternal suffering (if anything). First you criticise ArtlessFuture for taking a scripture out of context, and now you criticize me for studying too carefully. Well which is it? Are we being too careful or not careful enough?

    Also while not everyone can perform a meticulous text study, everyone can potentially benefit from a person who does. This is assuming they trust the person doing the study. A simple childlike faith in eternal suffering is not the same as a simple childlike faith in a merciful God. A person's view of the afterlife does affect their view of God even if they are a five year old. I wouldn't put the concept of hell under the category of pointless minutae.

    That's not really what I was referring to, so I'm confused over your point. After having been through that phase of my life, I came to the conclusion that finding God and becoming perfected wasn't going to happen through more extensive Bible study than I was already doing.

    (It tends to be detached from the reality and rigor of actual life and also often interferes with the need for one to make actual moral choices rather than complying with whatever scriptural status quo that is accepted in the day and age.)

    Overall, having been there myself and having seen the impact of others who do it, I don't think that the intellectualization of the faith is a good thing.
    This is getting away from my point, but my personal experience has been the opposite of this. I don't have much difficulty turning ideas into action, although it took me a while to see that other have difficulty doing this. I think this may just be a quirk of me being ENTP. I naturally look for ways to turn abstract ideas into concrete reality. I prefer to base my actions on carefully thought out ideas rather than just following the same format that has always been there. However, I like to hold onto the idealistic notion that other people can be taught the same.

    In particular I think the concept of hell (and the afterlife in general) is important to understand because it affects how we see God, and it affects how we act now. For example I often wonder why many Christians don't seem bothered by the acts done at Gitmo and Abu Graib. Then I remember, "oh yeah...most people think God is a sadist. I keep forgetting." I think if more people understood that the idea of eternal suffering is not Biblical, then they would have a more positive outlook on God and life in general.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  6. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    How? You can't. The bible is a collection of nonsense written by people that thought the world was flat, or so I believe.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    How? You can't. The bible is a collection of nonsense written by people that thought the world was flat, or so I believe.
    People who thought the world was flat. For Christ's sake, man, get it together.

  8. #68
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    bible is a collection of nonsense written by people that thought the world was flat, or so I believe.
    uh, bullshit. Most people stopped believing the earth was flat looong before "The Bible" existed. We're talking centuries.
    I don't wanna!

  9. #69
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    I think if more people understood that the idea of eternal suffering is not Biblical, then they would have a more positive outlook on God and life in general.
    ya but who says its not? in the past week ive asked a number of people IRL who i used to trust based on how much theyve studied the Bible, and none of them gave agreeing answers on the nature of:

    -how sin is payed for through Jesus (subsitution, legalist, 'as long as theres bloodshed' etc...)
    -if there is an eternal hell, no eternal hell, a short term hell, a last chance for all at the resurreciton etc...

    these people werent even "amatures". they were all non-denominational pastors or people who make faith ministry part of their livlihood. And yet non of them agreed (i didnt ask them all in front of each other, no arguing or anything).

    This only leads back to one of my main points. An omnipotent God, has this all important message, and he chooses to limit himself to this 2000 year old book that even his own followers can't agree on. Its sounding more and more ridiculous as i press on...

  10. #70
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by booyalab View Post
    uh, bullshit. Most people stopped believing the earth was flat looong before "The Bible" existed. We're talking centuries.
    They believed it was flat not long before Columbus decided to test the theory in 1492.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

Similar Threads

  1. How do we kick countries out of NATO for the offence of the European Army?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 01-05-2017, 03:57 PM
  2. [Fe] How is Fe a feeling function for the Fe user?
    By Dreamer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 11:05 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 05:24 PM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO