Determining Reality

[razeontherock]

\ an understanding of the Hebrew culture. Christ was the "teacher" and the teacher's authority was in the spoken word and not the text.

Quoted for emphasis. SO many people, Christians included, need to understand this!!

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nonsense. The lesions detectable by an MRI are still there in remission; they don't vanish w/o a trace.

http://www.medhelp.org/tags/health_...appear-A-Hypothetical-Case-Overview?hp_id=566

Wrong again Raze...do you actually look stuff up before you post? I found this on my first search.

 

[food4thought]

Sorry, I meant to add that yes, I believe there are things about reality we don't currently know. Can I say we will never know them? No, I cannot. There seems to me no limit to understanding founded on logic and reason.

As my other post indicates, I would disagree. Our capacity for understanding is indeed limited.

" but when it comes to reality beyond the natural world it is utterly useless."

You said this in the above statement. I'm curious as to how you know that a "reality beyond the natural world" exists?

If you want I will share some of my experiences that have confirmed my faith in God, and thus the supernatural. Also, there is the Bible. Other than those, it is more intuition... every time science seems to have gotten a good grip on reality, we discover a deeper layer... just how far down the rabbit hole does it go? How can such a spectacularly intricate and complex reality just BE? I consider an expanding space-time universe, and cannot help but wonder what it is expanding into... is that also a part of the natural world? What of my soul? How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Can we know the supernatural empirically... I'm not sure. Miracles have the darndest habit of not being repeatable, making confirmation by expiriment impossible. Anything that is empirically observed and repeats consistently can be written off as natural; and anything empirically observed and not repeated can be written off as human error or a statistical anomaly. Human experience can be explained away as subjective or even delusional. The Bible can be misunderstood.

Heb 11:6 NKJV But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

 

[razeontherock]

http://www.medhelp.org/tags/health_...appear-A-Hypothetical-Case-Overview?hp_id=566

Wrong again Raze...do you actually look stuff up before you post? I found this on my first search.

At the time these results were found with my Dad, we all had the latest info available - from a Dr no less. This is an interesting development that everyone in my family needs to understand. I just forwarded it to them - thank you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

At the time these results were found with my Dad, we all had the latest info available - from a Dr no less. This is an interesting development that everyone in my family needs to understand. I just forwarded it to them - thank you.

Dr.s can be wrong, and medical knowledge grows everyday. Far be it from me to tell you that god did not intervene on your father's behalf, its certainly a possibility. Perhaps, even a harmless one to think in the meantime. HOwever, should he ever relapse (and I hope he doesn't) now he also has a perfectly natural explanation. There would be no need to think he was being "punished" or "tested" by god. No reason to question his faith or doubt his earlier miracle. Although it isn't my belief, you could even say that the "miracle" was that he has gone so long without a relapse as it is.

 

[razeontherock]

And yet far from this being anything medical science can explain, MS is one of those many things that we DON'T have sufficient understanding of.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Illogical statement. It is always good to have corroboration in historical accounts from separate sources, but just because one stands alone does not define its contents as unreliable. To deny Tacitus credibility as a historian because he believes in something we now can call error, because of other evidences, is unnecessary. The Bible is the only book whose original autographs are error free. The writings of Tacitus are not so guaranteed. The standards of the Bible are guaranteed by God's inspiration



The reason why Jesus never wrote His own accounts is based in an understanding of the Hebrew culture. Christ was the "teacher" and the teacher's authority was in the spoken word and not the text. Christ had the Gospel writers as His historians.


The Bible is the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant word of God inspired by God, free from error in its original autographs. A better study of historiography in the Ancient Near East would reveal to you that in all the Near East, to force the same standards of recording history on that culture as we do on our own is wrong. The Ancient Near East did not record events as reporters and modern historians do today.

The Bible is even more unique in that its historical purpose was focused not on events of historicity but rather on the historical recordings of God's covenantal relationship with His people. History in the Bible was focused on God's revelation and covenant.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying about Tacitus, I believe he was historically reliable. My point was that even though he is historically reliable, he made mistakes, so you can't simply accept everything he wrote as fact merely because he wrote it. What do you mean by "the bible's original autographs"?

It's funny you should mention that the "Gospel writers" were Jesus's historians. Did you happen to check out any of the links that I've posted earlier in this thread? THere was an attempt recently by many well known and respected biblical scholars to determine which sayings in the bible could actually be attributed to Jesus. The result was that they decided the overwhelming majority of quotes attributed to Jesus are incorrect, and in all likelihood he never said them.
Jesus Seminar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, of course this doesn't prove their findings, but it does represent the views of a wide range of members with varying educational backgrounds.

" The Ancient Near East did not record events as reporters and modern historians do today."
THis much is true. THere were no concerned scholars searching for facts, checking sources, or establishing any sort of attempt to critically examine evidence or witnesses. It was a time of cults and magic and superstition. People believed stories based on the fervor of the story-tellers. There are plenty of gods raised from the dead, talking dogs, magicians, demons, and all sorts of nonsense we don't believe in today. THat is why it is crucial to examine any writings from the period through external sources, otherwise its impossible to know the truth.

 

[razeontherock]

" The Ancient Near East did not record events as reporters and modern historians do today."

THis much is true. THere were no concerned scholars searching for facts, checking sources, or establishing any sort of attempt to critically examine evidence or witnesses.

False. That's exactly what Luke was.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As my other post indicates, I would disagree. Our capacity for understanding is indeed limited.



If you want I will share some of my experiences that have confirmed my faith in God, and thus the supernatural. Also, there is the Bible. Other than those, it is more intuition... every time science seems to have gotten a good grip on reality, we discover a deeper layer... just how far down the rabbit hole does it go? How can such a spectacularly intricate and complex reality just BE? I consider an expanding space-time universe, and cannot help but wonder what it is expanding into... is that also a part of the natural world? What of my soul? How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Can we know the supernatural empirically... I'm not sure. Miracles have the darndest habit of not being repeatable, making confirmation by expiriment impossible. Anything that is empirically observed and repeats consistently can be written off as natural; and anything empirically observed and not repeated can be written off as human error or a statistical anomaly. Human experience can be explained away as subjective or even delusional. The Bible can be misunderstood.

Heb 11:6 NKJV But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

So here we reach basically the end of the discussion of the beginning of the universe. Your position, as I understand it, is that an incomprehensible god existed in an incomprehensible state and then created the universe in a manner incomprehensible to us. In spite of the incomprehensibility of this explanation, you're certain its true. I, on the other hand, believe in the big bang, believe that a singularity existed (as is the consensus, regardless of its form) and although I'm not certain, I believe its possible that singularity existed in some form for eternity. Now, because my answer leaves some things open to question, you believe its no more valid, or less valid, than your answer. However, your answer doesn't even require any further explanation (because its incomprehensible). While the basis for my answer is arguably the deepest understanding science has of our universe, the basis of yours is...the bible. Is that a correct assessment of where we are at?

 

[Ana the Ist]

False. That's exactly what Luke was.

LOL and who exactly do you think Luke was interviewing and what did he investigate?

Also, I'm sure you are aware that the gospels were originally anonymous, and authors weren't attached to them until the second century, so its more than possible that Luke didn't actually write "Luke".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Good to see you readily admit you can't grasp what's being said. Have you ever considered that might be why you never got anywhere with the Bible?

" Good to see you readily admit you can't grasp what's being said." Nowhere in my statement that you responded to did I say, or admit, anything like this. I think perhaps you're confused about which post you are responding to.

I happen to think I've "gotten further with the bible" than you have. At least I can see it for what it is.

 

[Ana the Ist]

As my other post indicates, I would disagree. Our capacity for understanding is indeed limited.



If you want I will share some of my experiences that have confirmed my faith in God, and thus the supernatural. Also, there is the Bible. Other than those, it is more intuition... every time science seems to have gotten a good grip on reality, we discover a deeper layer... just how far down the rabbit hole does it go? How can such a spectacularly intricate and complex reality just BE? I consider an expanding space-time universe, and cannot help but wonder what it is expanding into... is that also a part of the natural world? What of my soul? How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior? Can we know the supernatural empirically... I'm not sure. Miracles have the darndest habit of not being repeatable, making confirmation by expiriment impossible. Anything that is empirically observed and repeats consistently can be written off as natural; and anything empirically observed and not repeated can be written off as human error or a statistical anomaly. Human experience can be explained away as subjective or even delusional. The Bible can be misunderstood.

Heb 11:6 NKJV But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.

"Our capacity for understanding is indeed limited."
LImited by what? All of human history indicates that our capacity for understanding only grows. BAck when mankind was squatting in caves, marveling at fire, gods explained everything. FRom the sun, moon, and stars...to the oceans, mountains, and weather, gods were used to answer phenomena we didn't understand. Now, as reason and science have peeled back the layers on our universe, god's realm has only gotten smaller. He's left with "how did life begin" and "what came before the universe". Even the question of how life began seems within reach of an answer. If we figure out decisively what existed before the universe, would you finally abandon your notion of god or would you simply look for the next unanswered question and say "god did it"?


I would love to hear any stories you have that you think proves a reality beyond our natural world exists. (Of course this leads to the problem of defining "supernatural" itself).
" I consider an expanding space-time universe, and cannot help but wonder what it is expanding into... is that also a part of the natural world?"
I believe I've heard answers to this, not sure though.
" What of my soul?"
Doesn't exist. No evidence for it.
" How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior?"
ALso, no evidence for that either.
The rest of what you wrote gets into the problem with "miracles", but hopefully my post to Raze coming up will explain that.

 

[razeontherock]

LOL and who exactly do you think Luke was interviewing and what did he investigate?

That's not left up to speculation

 

[razeontherock]

" What of my soul?"
Doesn't exist. No evidence for it.

Only because you re-define it, away from what is meant. If you address what is meant, there is nothing but evidence for it!

" How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior?"
ALso, no evidence for that either.

That you have no evidence for this, is proof positive that you never got anywhere with the Bible, or with Christianity. It was never real to you. And everything you have expressed about it, has been false, that you are commended for getting away from.

 

[oi_antz]

" How exactly do I quantify that part of me that the Bible calls "spirit", which came alive when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior?"
ALso, no evidence for that either.

That you have no evidence for this, is proof positive that you never got anywhere with the Bible, or with Christianity. It was never real to you. And everything you have expressed about it, has been false, that you are commended for getting away from.

I just wish this guy would develop an interest in pursuing the truth about faith. Boy he loves to argue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I just wish this guy would develop an interest in pursuing the truth about faith. Boy he loves to argue.

Welcome back Antz!

Don't be so hard on Raze, he's harmless. He may come off as angry sometimes, but deep down I think he has a genuine interest in the truth. Why else would he keep coming to my threads?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's not left up to speculation

TRue, its not even left up to discussion. Luke makes no mention of his methods at all. The great historians of ancient times do. Even some of the lesser historians do this. He makes no reference to sources, or any claims that are contrary to the stories he's recording. That's another thing most of the great historians of ancient times did. All we really know is that Luke wasn't an eyewitness to the events he recorded, and he had some knowledge of the area he lived in and the people he lived around. We can say for certain that Luke (if that was his name) was likely better educated than most people of his time. To place him among the best historians of ancient times is a poor exaggeration at best.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And yet far from this being anything medical science can explain, MS is one of those many things that we DON'T have sufficient understanding of.

TRue, like most disorders that are believed to be genetic in origin, the cause and solutions are likely years away. What we do know though, is that your dad's experience is not uncommon given the known pathology of the disease/condition. Of course, you can call natural events "miracles" as so many often do, but I happen to think this greatly diminishes the notion of god. AFter all, if any natural event can be declared a "miracle" then who is to say what isn't a miracle?

I think we've unintentionally made a great point regarding the OP raze. Here we have a perfect example of someone who disregarded logic and reason in their determination of reality. Instead of critically examining Christianity and its claims about reality through the lenses of logic and reason, this person has accepted the claims based on something else (for the sake of this example, we'll call it faith). This biblical misunderstanding of reality led to another misunderstanding much later, regarding a diagnosis of MS. While it may be a harmless misunderstanding, who knows how it could've turned out had the person with MS relapsed? Would the patient be emotionally troubled and question why he had been afflicted with MS again after god "miraculously" cured him? Would the patient be physically harmed from not seeking medical attention because he believed his MS was "miraculously" cured and done with? How many other times in this person's life has he held wrong beliefs or made incorrect decisions based on this fundamental misunderstanding of the truth?

Logic and reason will always be the best methods for determining reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Only because you re-define it, away from what is meant. If you address what is meant, there is nothing but evidence for it!



That you have no evidence for this, is proof positive that you never got anywhere with the Bible, or with Christianity. It was never real to you. And everything you have expressed about it, has been false, that you are commended for getting away from.

"I" redefine it? LOL as usual, I'm comfortable with the standard dictionary definition. This one comes from Mirriam-Webster and I think it fits the concept he was shooting for
Soul -noun.- 1 : the immaterial essence, animating principle, or actuating cause of an individual life.
If he meant something other than that he should've made that clear from the start, and unless some major advances have been made by science that I'm unaware of, there is no evidence of this "soul" existing.

" That you have no evidence for this,"
That I have no evidence of what??? My claim was that there was no evidence for his claim, maybe you didn't actually read his whole post because he didn't present any. If he has some, I expect he'll come forward with it. Your feeble attempts to defend his position are actually hurting him more than helping. Unless he asked you for help, maybe you should let him speak for himself.

 

[s123mith]

Hello,
"for the question - How do you know truth from opinion or belief? Is the bible your main source for this kind of determination? Something else?"
answer is all about spirituality. when a person thinks so much for his tradition then of course about this question he will definitely go for HOLY books but in case of just increasing the knowledge not about the spirituality its depend on that person for the source.