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.
I would have to analyze it according to my worldview. All of us come to the table with certain commitments and worldviews that tell us how to interpret data. Our commitments give us parameters and tell us what is possible and acceptable.
Having a Christian worldview I would have to analyze the claims in light of scripture.
There's more to say, but I'll start with that.
Most people feel differently.
Anecdotal and personal testimony count as evidence in a court of law.
Of course personal testimony and anecdotal evidence should be examined. But especially when two or three witnesses agree about something that happened the evidence can be strong indeed.
I suppose you're equally skeptical of other historical claims?
If historical account doesn't count as evidence then you must be skeptical that anything ever happened at all in the ancient world.
Sure. There's no obvious reason why the Bible deserves more consideration than other historical claims. All of them deserve some consideration.
Again, historical accounts themselves are pieces of evidence.
Especially when they're corroborated by multiple historical accounts coming from different parties that say the same thing.
Should we look for other evidence? Sure. What kinds of evidence should we look for? That would depend upon the nature of the claim. Is it true, as you say, that there is "no evidence" for any of the Bible's historical claims outside the Bible itself? Not at all.
But the Bible isn't written by those who believe outlandish claims. It's written by those who claim to have seen amazing things.
I would have to analyze it according to my worldview. All of us come to the table with certain commitments and worldviews that tell us how to interpret data. Our commitments give us parameters and tell us what is possible and acceptable.
Having a Christian worldview I would have to analyze the claims in light of scripture.
There's more to say, but I'll start with that.
I suppose you reject the biblical accounts of God's miraculous works in history. Why dismiss that evidence?
Most people feel differently. Anecdotal and personal testimony count as evidence in a court of law. Of course personal testimony and anecdotal evidence should be examined. But especially when two or three witnesses agree about something that happened the evidence can be strong indeed.
I suppose you're equally skeptical of other historical claims? If historical account doesn't count as evidence then you must be skeptical that anything ever happened at all in the ancient world.
Sure. There's no obvious reason why the Bible deserves more consideration than other historical claims. All of them deserve some consideration.
Again, historical accounts themselves are pieces of evidence. Especially when they're corroborated by multiple historical accounts coming from different parties that say the same thing. Should we look for other evidence? Sure. What kinds of evidence should we look for? That would depend upon the nature of the claim. Is it true, as you say, that there is "no evidence" for any of the Bible's historical claims outside the Bible itself? Not at all.
Yes these anecdotes are possible pieces of evidence. Now I don't believe in any of these things so I would question the validity of the alleged evidence but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
But the Bible isn't written by those who believe outlandish claims. It's written by those who claim to have seen amazing things.
I think that the Euthyphro dilemma is simple enough. Morality is rooted in the person of God himself. Good behavior imitates God. Therefore it's not a standard outside of God that even he must submit to. But neither is it arbitrary such that it could change on God's slightest whim. It's unchanging -- rooted in his person and character and thus not arbitrary. But it's not an impersonal standard outside of himself.
Dilemma solved in my book.
That's not as clear cut as you make it sound. More often then not, these testimonies need to be corroborated.
That is again a very dubious statement.
I can, for example, point you to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who'll claim to have been sexually abused on an alien space ship.
Depends on the claim.
The more fantastical the claim, the more skeptical I'll be and the more evidence I will require to accept it.
Humans coming back to life is about as fantastical as it can get.
You seem to desperately try to equate any claim about ancient times as being equal in merrit and plausibility. But that simply is not true. It simply does not work like that.
Come on.Depends on the account. In the case of the bible, they are not. They are claims.
Only if those accounts are independent from one another. The bible, while a collection of books, is all part of the same cult/sect. That's not what I consider corroboration and independent contemporary accounts.
You don't know that because the bible is written by anonymous authors.
I wanted to address this part in a separate post. If God is so unchanging, why the change from the old testiment to the new? Why all the killing, burning, and genocide done by him and in his name in the old? And then in the new he is all forgiving?
So.... you'ld use your personal bias and go from there?
Honest question: how much of the Bible have you studied? Granted it can seem as if the God of the OT and the God of the NT are very different but upon further study these seeming differences dissolve. I've been studying the Bible for more than 10 years and am convinced that the OT and NT present a consistent God.
How does your world view impact actual evidence? If available evidence goes against your world view, do you automatically discard it, no matter how valid the evidence is?
Tell us how these differences just dissolve.
My worldview doesn't impact evidence at all. But I cannot help but interpret data I receive through my worldview. It's impossible to do otherwise.
It is possible for our worldviews to change but this is a long process that requires much cognitive dissonance and, I believe, the grace of God.
If one wants to look at evidence objectively, they don't view it through the lens of a world view that has already been determined, they view the evidence on it's own merits and follow it to where it leads. If one can not do this, very little would ever be learned from evidence, because the pre determined world view, would always be getting in the way.
Accurate discoveries of truth, are independent of world views and stand alone based on the evidence.
Nope. It was your claim the differences in the OT and NT are dissolved when the bible is studied, so support your claim with evidence.
I'm afraid that even this is an expression of ideology and worldview. As Zizek says, as soon as we think we've escaped ideology it's precisely then that we're within ideology.
There is no such thing as "analyzing the facts objectively".
The first claim was that the OT and NT present a different God. I'll wait for someone to show me evidence of this.
It is your opinion then, that the scientific method is not an attempt to view evidence in the most objective manner possible and is much better at being objective then holding onto an ideology when viewing evidence?
So, what ideology would a scientist be in, if they were a Christian and they set aside their Christian ideology, when doing scientific work?
You responded to that by saying the "differences" are dissolved with study, so you are acknowledging with that statement, that apparent differences exist.
So, show us how this study, dissolves the differences.
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?