Humans are nothing special?

[TLK Valentine]

My point is that people can manipulate evidence, they can take the evidence and put their own interpretation on it and make it mean something it doesn't. That is what lawyers get paid to do in court all the time, that is why there is a court process with checks and balances. Because evidence may be objective but it can lead to theories of what happened by people who are subjective.

Were the authors of the Bible subjective or objective?

Are our priests, pastors, and ministers subjective or objective?

Are you subjective or objective?

 

[chapmic]

So "over a thousands(sic) years" is some kind of cutoff for scientific credibility as long as they have a web site?

The Quran, the Vedas, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tao Te Ching, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Buddhist Sutras etc have all lived up to the appropriate scrutiny and should be taken literally?

The standards of Sophisticated Theology never cease to amuse me.

Wow, nice way of misinterpreting of what I was saying. The poster was trying to deny the fact that the Bible is still relevant in the world. Whether people disagree or agree with the Bible, no one being intellectually honest can deny that it is still relevant in our society.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Whether people disagree or agree with the Bible, no one being intellectually honest can deny that it is still relevant in our society.

I agree. Even if one were to simply consider it's historical value, without it much of our history would be inexplicable.

Professor Vishal Mangalwadi: The Book That Made Our World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nHV3j8InRQ

 

[lasthero]

My point is that people can manipulate evidence, they can take the evidence and put their own interpretation on it and make it mean something it doesn't. That is what lawyers get paid to do in court all the time, that is why there is a court process with checks and balances. Because evidence may be objective but it can lead to theories of what happened by people who are subjective.

So what? The world isn't perfect and you can't know everything. That doesn't mean you shouldn't make any judgments just because you might be wrong.

 

[chapmic]

So....we should obsess about the age of the earth and spend our time trying to poke holes in biological science? Seems like we should maybe, out of personal love for God as you mentioned, focus more on, say, realizing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in our own lives. Or on helping the poor, for example.

I think this topic counts as one of the "fruitless disputes" Paul warned about, and it serves only to divide the body of Christ. If you want to believe in a six thousand year old earth, a literal global flood, dinosaurs living with humans, a literal tree with literal fruit and a literal talking snake, go for it. I'll continue to regard them as allegorical imagery, like most unprejudiced rational people, including the majority of Christians, would. There is no need for this divergence of interpretation to divide us.

That is the biggest myth about science, they are scientists who are prejudiced and evolution is not rational when you start asking questions. There is a bigger war that is going on that you don't understand, once you starting doubting the Bible then everything is up for grabs. It shows that when the opinion is not popular among people you will abandon what God teaches and follow people. I want to know what God teaches not what's popular opinion, popular opinion has been wrong so many times throughout history. It is literally a repeating cycle. Even in the Bible, everyone was against the prophet's they were rarely celebrated on the Earth. If you don't want to debate, but seriously think about that. It's a recurring thing in the Bible, people didn't like Moses, Elijah, even Jesus who was blameless. Just because the majority believes it doesn't mean its correct.

 

[chapmic]

Were the authors of the Bible subjective or objective?

Are our priests, pastors, and ministers subjective or objective?

Are you subjective or objective?

1. Good question, The true author of the Bible is God so it is subjective in his view because he is a supreme being with his own views but He is the Truth. He offers objectivity in to human thoughts and nature. It is tricky but I guess it depends on what we are defining as being objective.

2. Priests, pastors and ministers are subjective

3. I am subjective.

 

[TLK Valentine]

1. Good question, The true author of the Bible is God so it is subjective in his view because he is a supreme being with his own views but He is the Truth. He offers objectivity in to human thoughts and nature. It is tricky but I guess it depends on what we are defining as being objective.

Yes, but God didn't do his own work, did He? Even the most devout Christian must concede that He worked through human beings, subjective human beings, in order to get the Bible written.

We know that humans are subjective, and even if we accept that they were inspired by God, we must also recognize that such inspiration did not remove their subjectivity.

How do we know this? Simple -- the writing styles are different. Had God's inspiration overridden their free will, all 66 books of the Bible would read like they were written by the same author -- God. We know God is eternal and unchanging, so His writing would similarly be eternal and unchanging.

That's not what we see in the Bible -- so even if we accept that God told them what to write, they maintained enough free will to choose for themselves -- subjectively -- how to write it.

So it turns out the Bible is subjective, after all -- unless "inspired" is a euphemism for "mind-controlled drone"?

2. Priests, pastors and ministers are subjective

3. I am subjective.

Indeed -- and you, the priests, pastors, and ministers, and even the Bible authors had nothing to work with except a very subjective medium to capture and express Divine Truth -- human speech.

Do you really think that the infinite Truths of the all-powerful eternal Creator of the heavens and Earth can be perfectly, completely expressed in our finite language -- let alone the finite language of thousands of years ago? I've said it before -- it's like trying to play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on a kazoo.

Do yourself a favor -- don't mistake the kazoo for the symphony.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

There is a bigger war that is going on that you don't understand, once you starting doubting the Bible then everything is up for grabs.

I liked your earlier post, but this is simply paranoia speaking

 

[bhsmte]

1. Good question, The true author of the Bible is God so it is subjective in his view because he is a supreme being with his own views but He is the Truth. He offers objectivity in to human thoughts and nature. It is tricky but I guess it depends on what we are defining as being objective.

2. Priests, pastors and ministers are subjective

3. I am subjective.

If the true author of the stories in the bible is indeed God, why didn't God assure the original writings of the bible were preserved?

 

[hurste1951]

No one gets it perfectly right, its all about following the Bible with the heart of trying to getting perfectly right because of each own's personal love for God.

So it seems rather subjective. Hopefully you can see that scientists are simply attempting to explain the truth from the observations as well as they possibly can. And since it is a "community effort" they converge on a real solution, if not on "perfect knowledge".

It sounds to me like tossing off science as unworthy of following because it is imperfect is exactly the same as your statement up there about religious faith.


Only difference is: with science you don't have to wonder about what is in the observer's "heart".

 

[hurste1951]

So because other people have manipulated teachings of Christianity, it makes what Jesus taught false?

But that presupposes that everyone who disagrees with what YOU think the bible says has "manipulated" the teachings of the Bible. When in fact they are just as earnest in their different beliefs as you are in yours.

Would it be fair of them to accuse you of "manipulating" the teachings of Christ?

Like I said I don't blindly follow people whether scientist or religious. I follow the teachings of the Bible. On your last quote, so you really believe there are no honest Christians and no lying scientists?

I believe there are zillions of honest Christians and some lying scientists.

 

[hurste1951]

Wow, nice way of misinterpreting of what I was saying. The poster was trying to deny the fact that the Bible is still relevant in the world. Whether people disagree or agree with the Bible, no one being intellectually honest can deny that it is still relevant in our society.

There are many beautiful passages in the Bible that explain much of the world and the human condition and are quite relevant today.

There's also much to show us how vile humans can be when acting on the command of their god. 1Sam15:3 is the best example that comes to mind for me. Justification of genocide on the word of God's prophet.

It shows that people never really change. We can all be truly vile when it serves our purposes, even if we have to "enlist God" to justify our actions.

 

[hurste1951]

There is a bigger war that is going on that you don't understand, once you starting doubting the Bible then everything is up for grabs.

It takes strength and bravery to doubt the received wisdom of others. That is why atheists who have walked away from religion have a tougher time of it. It take overcoming training from childhood to simply accept the word of the parents and holy men.

It takes a lot of examination and thought and learning.

Same with science. To question it effectively one should come at it from a firm base of understanding what they are questioning (and I don't mean by simply reading Creationist websites).

 

[chapmic]

Yes, but God didn't do his own work, did He? Even the most devout Christian must concede that He worked through human beings, subjective human beings, in order to get the Bible written.

We know that humans are subjective, and even if we accept that they were inspired by God, we must also recognize that such inspiration did not remove their subjectivity.

How do we know this? Simple -- the writing styles are different. Had God's inspiration overridden their free will, all 66 books of the Bible would read like they were written by the same author -- God. We know God is eternal and unchanging, so His writing would similarly be eternal and unchanging.

That's not what we see in the Bible -- so even if we accept that God told them what to write, they maintained enough free will to choose for themselves -- subjectively -- how to write it.

So it turns out the Bible is subjective, after all -- unless "inspired" is a euphemism for "mind-controlled drone"?


Indeed -- and you, the priests, pastors, and ministers, and even the Bible authors had nothing to work with except a very subjective medium to capture and express Divine Truth -- human speech.

Do you really think that the infinite Truths of the all-powerful eternal Creator of the heavens and Earth can be perfectly, completely expressed in our finite language -- let alone the finite language of thousands of years ago? I've said it before -- it's like trying to play Beethoven's Fifth Symphony on a kazoo.

Do yourself a favor -- don't mistake the kazoo for the symphony.

That's not what we see in the Bible -- so even if we accept that God told them what to write, they maintained enough free will to choose for themselves -- subjectively -- how to write it.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion, The Bible has a reoccurring theme of people sinning and God offering a way of redemption to accept them.That happens in the Old Testament and in the New Testament What is the exact thing you disagree with in the Bible? What infinite truth do you think the Bible is missing? Even still, reading the Bible doesn't just make someone all knowledgeable, no matter what religion or science no person on this Earth is all knowledgeable nor ever will be. That's what I don't understand about people's quest to be the most well informed, being very smart does not mean you are going to be very happy.

 

[hurste1951]

That's what I don't understand about people's quest to be the most well informed, being very smart does not mean you are going to be very happy.

Take the debate here on Creation/Evolution. What tends to make educated people unhappy is to see people who have no background in science tell us what is wrong (usually fraudulent) in science they don't understand.

The thing that troubles me about things like YEC (young earth creationism) is that it actively relies on willful ignorance of the facts. Most of the defenders have never even darkened the door of a geology 101 class but they've memorized every bit of trash Ken Ham or Kent Hovind vomit up as gospel.

It makes me unhappy!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I believe there are zillions of honest Christians and some lying scientists.

All sorts of people here mates, but how many understand the meaning of why we're here?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca84ePED_4I

 

[hurste1951]

All sorts of people here mates, but how many understand the meaning of why we're here?

Does there have to be a "meaning" to why were here? Aren't we supposed to supply the "meaning"?

 

[chapmic]

But that presupposes that everyone who disagrees with what YOU think the bible says has "manipulated" the teachings of the Bible. When in fact they are just as earnest in their different beliefs as you are in yours.

Would it be fair of them to accuse you of "manipulating" the teachings of Christ?



I believe there are zillions of honest Christians and some lying scientists.

Lol wow man, I have been promoting the Bible all through this thread. That's the difference, sects and cults promote themselves and do so for their own glory. The leaders of sects and cults convince people that God is speaking to the leader only and they must only follow what they say. The Bible was around before I was alive and the Bible is needed as the foundation of principles because it shows God's true nature so followers can use the Bible as a way of checks and balances to make sure the leaders are following the Lord's will.

I believe there are zillions of honest Christians and some lying scientists.

Wow, you are showing your own bias here, did you use a scientific method to determine the statistics to make sure this is true?

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's not what we see in the Bible -- so even if we accept that God told them what to write, they maintained enough free will to choose for themselves -- subjectively -- how to write it.

I don't understand how you came to that conclusion, The Bible has a reoccurring theme of people sinning and God offering a way of redemption to accept them.That happens in the Old Testament and in the New Testament What is the exact thing you disagree with in the Bible? What infinite truth do you think the Bible is missing? Even still, reading the Bible doesn't just make someone all knowledgeable, no matter what religion or science no person on this Earth is all knowledgeable nor ever will be. That's what I don't understand about people's quest to be the most well informed, being very smart does not mean you are going to be very happy.

Being ignorant doesn't make you happy either. Understand that, yes, some people do experience joy at obtaining knowledge in and of itself, but personal happiness need not be the only valid motivation for learning.

 

[hurste1951]

Lol wow man, I have been promoting the Bible all through this thread. That's the difference, sects and cults promote themselves and do so for their own glory.

No, let's take it a bit more to brass tacks. I wouldn't call "protestantism" a "sect" or a "cult". And it is a significant schism in terms of soteriology from Catholicism.

These are crucial basic differences.

And they are all predicated on the Bible. Even the beginning of Christianity was a million different threads that had to be wrangled into a cohesive "orthodoxy". To ignore that is to ignore the very essence of Christianity.

And those heterodoxies from the first couple of centuries were all earnestly believed and just as earnestly put down.

Wow, you are showing your own bias here, did you use a scientific method to determine the statistics to make sure this is true?

I simply assume there are more honest people than dishonest people. Does that make me a bad person? Would I not be able to cut it as a Christian?