Yes, of course there are differences. The comparison can only be taken so far.
I understand your point, but I wonder what strings you think are attached to trusting the Bible?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
That's an interesting point. You do realize.there is a huge difference in trusting the claims of some scientist and the claims of the bible, don't you?
The obvious difference is the strings attached to the claims of the bible.
Or my daughter might, if she continues to pursue a career in physics. It is a possibility....
Sometimes it's about trust rather than evidence ... even in science. On this forum I have asked: Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK.
Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference.
Yes, of course there are differences. The comparison can only be taken so far.
I understand your point, but I wonder what strings you think are attached to trusting the Bible?
So you see...it isn't just a claim of "this is the truth....". It's a claim of, "this is the truth....here's how you should live your life....". That's part of what I meant by "strings attached." IMO religion (especially christianity) would be a lot more appealing if god were more like a FWB that wasn't all up in everyone's business trying to tell them how to live, what to do, and asking for money. I mean really...why would god need your money? (That's a rhetorical question)
Of course, you like only the negative conceptualization of freedom, no matter how spiritually impoverishing and ultimately destructive that may be: a life without rules. Yet rules give rise to positive freedoms, the freedom to achieve mastery in ones life rather than simply flounder around through trial-and-error. Life is too short to reinvent the wheel, and it's not coincidence most of the worlds religions have very similar moral codes... because they might have some insights into how reality really works?
God doesn't need our money, but obviously its difficult to have religious institutions without some kind of money.
Ok, when you said that you didn't see any difference in trusting the two types of claims...I thought you meant you didn't see any difference. My mistake?
Well, just to throw out an example of a "string"....how about this one?
2 Corinthians 6:14
I was tempted to point out that your little jokes earlier in the thread were based on conflated meanings, but as I said, I was getting bored with the game. For example, the "talk to a horse" thing. You knew many would assume "talk" meant to engage in an interactive conversation. "Talk" has the literal meaning of employing speech (per definition 5 here): Talk | Define Talk at Dictionary.com
And you played off that. But the primary meaning (definition 1) is an exchange. Even more interesting is the preposition. I think "to" is a subtle implication of definition 5, so the twist in your game was justified. Had the preposition been "with", it would have implied definition 1.
Anyway, you're doing it again, but you know what I meant. I didn't see a difference per the comparison I was making. You expanded the comparison beyond what I used it for. There are a number of expanded versions of the comparison that might highlight a variety of differences.
I see you enjoy semantic games.
This thread is about Confessional Lutheranism. Shouldn't you be asking me about strings rather than claiming them?
The FWB comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It's a post-modern justification for using someone without caring about them. When you care about someone, you tell them when you think they are engaging in harmful behavior. That is not attaching strings to the relationship. It is fulfilling the nature of a caring relationship. It is not a requirement whereby someone will be sent to hell for marrying an unbeliever.
I'm sure there are cases where interfaith marriages work - though it depends on what one would consider a successful relationship. However, every case I'm familiar with has caused significant stress and strain. I've never seen an example of pluralism working over the long term. The tension eventually rips the relationship apart because people have to choose one path or another. So you have a problem with Christians being upfront about the significant challenges of an interfaith relationship?
Wow. You missed both points I made entirely. Let me try this again...
We cannot necessarily just go and check the truth of the claims...we simply have to trust them. That was the point you were making was it not?
If they don't believe it, they go on living exactly as they did before. It affects the average person in no way at all.
Can we say the same about the claims in the bible? Certainly if you don't believe them they affect your life only as much as those who do affect your life. However, if you do believe them...there are many many ways in which they affect your life. You don't deny this do you?
I was tempted to point out that your little jokes earlier in the thread were based on conflated meanings, but as I said, I was getting bored with the game. For example, the "talk to a horse" thing. You knew many would assume "talk" meant to engage in an interactive conversation. "Talk" has the literal meaning of employing speech (per definition 5 here): Talk | Define Talk at Dictionary.com
And you played off that. But the primary meaning (definition 1) is an exchange. Even more interesting is the preposition. I think "to" is a subtle implication of definition 5, so the twist in your game was justified. Had the preposition been "with", it would have implied definition 1.
Anyway, you're doing it again, but you know what I meant. I didn't see a difference per the comparison I was making. You expanded the comparison beyond what I used it for. There are a number of expanded versions of the comparison that might highlight a variety of differences.
I see you enjoy semantic games.
This thread is about Confessional Lutheranism. Shouldn't you be asking me about strings rather than claiming them?
The FWB comment is, IMO, ridiculous. It's a post-modern justification for using someone without caring about them. When you care about someone, you tell them when you think they are engaging in harmful behavior. That is not attaching strings to the relationship. It is fulfilling the nature of a caring relationship. It is not a requirement whereby someone will be sent to hell for marrying an unbeliever.
I'm sure there are cases where interfaith marriages work - though it depends on what one would consider a successful relationship. However, every case I'm familiar with has caused significant stress and strain. I've never seen an example of pluralism working over the long term. The tension eventually rips the relationship apart because people have to choose one path or another. So you have a problem with Christians being upfront about the significant challenges of an interfaith relationship?
The friendly advice analogy is, IMO, ridiculous.
So, before we go into any examination of whether or not it actually is a bad thing to have an interfaith marriage (to use your words) we can both agree that it is indeed a string attached to the claims of the bible, right?
I know. My silly little brain does struggle doesn't it?
Yes, and you seem to agree with it. Do the implications of those claims change that we have to trust them? No. That was the only point I was trying to make.
Don't overstate your case. CERN was funded somehow, and that funding employed more than just scientists. Then, there were the people who didn't get funding because CERN was funded. CERN occupies real estate, so I imagine that had an impact. CERN creates waste. That has an impact. And, if an experiment went really really bad, I bet the gaping, buring hole in the ground would make the news.
You agreed with me and I agreed with you, and now it seems like you're trying to find reason to disagree with me. I can imagine how agreeing with me might have toxic results at the next atheist club meeting, but please. It sure seemed like you were making a semantic play off my statement - I mentioned "no difference" in one post and that there is a "difference" in another post. I was clarifying that those statements referred to two different things:
1. The first point (my narrower one), that both situations involve trust.
2. The second point (your broader one), that the consequences of that trust are different.
I still see those as consistent ... silly me.
Yes, the Bible affects my life. It affects your life as well ... after all you're here at CF talking to me. That's different than saying there are strings attached. It was that phrase I objected to.
CERN affects my life as well, but in a different way ... silly me, I seem to keep using that word "different" all the time when I'm talking about different things ... oh my, I just can't stop. Please help.
Your statement wasn't about if CERN itself has an affect on your life. Your statement was about trusting the results of an experiment they do/did. Your statement was about comparing one truth claim (CERN experiment) to another truth claim (everything in the bible). You said you see no difference.
Now I'm a nice guy, so I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of purposely committing a logical fallacy. I'm not even sure which one you just committed (moving the goalposts or perhaps a red herring) though I'm sure if I asked everyone here from "the atheist club" they could tell you rather quickly. No, since I'm a nice guy, I'm just going to show you what your comment was since you seemed to have forgotten already.
"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."
So this nonsense about CERN affecting your life by burning a hole in the ground doesn't have even a tiny thing to do with what we're discussing. If you're trying to make the point that the results of a CERN experiment, if you believe those results to be true, will affect your daily life...well I'd honestly love to hear that. Go on, I'll wait.
You're right. It wasn't what I was talking about. It was something you introduced. If that was moving the goal posts, then it seems you were the one who moved them. If it was a question, I tried to answer it. [edit] But I do understand (I think) the distinction you're making between your statement about CERN not impacting daily life and my examples. If you're of the opinion that CERN has no potential to ever impact people's daily lives, I'll not argue that with you. Especially since I wasn't disagreeing with you that the impact of CERN and the Bible is diff... nuts, there's that word again.
Wow. You make it hard to agree with you.
I'll be more blunt this time. If you noticed, the style of my reply changed. That was the first sign that IMO this conversation is becoming absurd. I think we should be done with this particular discussion point.
When exactly did I introduce the impact of CERN itself? Can you back that statement up? After a quick double-check, I've only been talking about truth claims and their impact.
If you now agree that there is indeed a difference between trusting the claims made by a CERN experiment and trusting the claims made by the bible, does that mean you no longer stand by this statement?
"Have you actually been inside CERN and run the experiments yourself? If not, you're trusting those who have. The answer is: well, yeah, but theoretically I could run the experiments. OK. Theoretically God may speak directly to you someday. Until that happens you'll have to trust the Bible. I don't see the difference."
To repeat what I put in post #51:
1. The 2 cases both involve trust (me)
2. The consequences of trusting the truth claims for those 2 cases is different (you)
The two points are independent. The quoted statement only refers to #1. So, yes, I still stand by it. And I still agree with #2. That's the last I'll say on it, as I don't know what else to say.
I'd like to hear what you mean by "negative conceptualization of freedom". It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where freedom becomes a "negative"...but if you're familiar with one please share.
I'm also very intrigued by the term "spiritually impoverished"...that almost sounds like a real thing. Please explain and don't skimp on the details. What's the difference between someone (like myself) who's spiritually impoverished and one who isn't? Is there some spiritual currency, maybe a spiritual stock exchange that I'm missing out on? Is spiritual currency needed to buy your way into heaven? I really am curious.
Why doesn't god just provide for them? Why ask people at all...why not pray for the money?
I didn't use the phrase "friendly advice". My phrase was "caring relationship". When my wife expresses her view to me, it's more than friendly advice. It's something I take very seriously.
If someone is drunk and all their "friend" does is give some advice on the hazards of drunk driving, they aren't much of a friend. A good friend would take action.
Not quite yet. I guess you'll have to explain to me what you mean by the term. And, FYI:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/interfaith-marriages-a-mixed-blessing.html
But I'm only offering that as friendly advice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?