razzelflabben
Contributor
It seems to me he is answering the questions very well...at least the new ones you are asking.
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.
It seems to me he is answering the questions very well...at least the new ones you are asking.If you persist in being unwilling to address the question at hand, please leave this discussion.
someone truly determined to know truth would never use these arguments you present here. In addition to that, the Bible talks about both directly. According to scripture, there is only one God therefore only one interpretation. that is why the one who is determined to know truth does not rely on interpretation but one a careful study of the word and the consistency of what it says. Other layers can be added if available. For example, I personally do a lot of study of the Bible. I have no less than 7 layers of protection to make sure that what I uncover is the 1 interpretation that God intends. Now before someone gets crazy on me, I am NOT saying I am always right, I am saying however that I apply at least 7 practices of good study to make sure I don't get it wrong. What I find happening is I will talk to people who disagree, and in the end they always end up saying something like, "well, that is what it says but..." Interpretation isn't as fluid as we try to make it so that we can justify our own sins.You don't seem to understand the point being made.
That point is simply this:
Beliefs can be wrong. The question is, how would you find out that your beliefs are wrong. The answer to that question is evidence, falsifiability, testing, etc.
But therein lies the problem... religious "faith" isn't achieved through evidence, falsifiability, testing, etc.... So how can such "faith" be shown to be wrong then?
Not through evidence etc, because a believer always has a get-out-of-fail freecard...
There's lots of pathways to avoid the obvious...
The most common one is a reïnterpretation of scriptures. Usually followed by "see, so our scripture was saying this all along, we just didn't understand it yet".
again, not a Biblical answer and the Bible is suppose to be the authority on God, remember? The Biblical answer is that God has told us who He is and what we need to know in order to know and follow Him. IOW's we know why He does what He does, we know what He does, etc. We may not understand all of it, but that doesn't mean we don't know.And if all else fails, there's still the good ol' "god works in mysterious ways".
You were given a new belief, the new belief is that you were wrong in your previous belief.
someone truly determined to know truth would never use these arguments you present here.
In addition to that, the Bible talks about both directly. According to scripture, there is only one God therefore only one interpretation. that is why the one who is determined to know truth does not rely on interpretation but one a careful study of the word and the consistency of what it says.
Other layers can be added if available.
For example, I personally do a lot of study of the Bible. I have no less than 7 layers of protection to make sure that what I uncover is the 1 interpretation that God intends.
Now before someone gets crazy on me, I am NOT saying I am always right, I am saying however that I apply at least 7 practices of good study to make sure I don't get it wrong. What I find happening is I will talk to people who disagree, and in the end they always end up saying something like, "well, that is what it says but..." Interpretation isn't as fluid as we try to make it so that we can justify our own sins. again, not a Biblical answer and the Bible is suppose to be the authority on God, remember? The Biblical answer is that God has told us who He is and what we need to know in order to know and follow Him. IOW's we know why He does what He does, we know what He does, etc. We may not understand all of it, but that doesn't mean we don't know.
Take creation for example. According to Gen. which btw is a polemic not a scientific treatise, God spoke and it was...what that tells us is that the mechanism for creation was God's word
, but the process by which that word became the creation is still a mystery from the standpoint of Gen. So, God does have some mystery to Him, but we also know what He wants and how He intends to bring it about, that isn't a mystery at all.
In fact, even Isaiah 53 tells us that He revealed the mystery as do dozens of other passages.
Yes, if you must express it in terms of belief, but strictly, it's a lack of belief. It's akin to the difference between strong and weak atheism - one is a belief that there are no gods, the other is a lack of belief in gods.You were given a new belief, the new belief is that you were wrong in your previous belief.
By following my definition at the outset. I am classifying delusions as those beliefs which fail to comport with the evidence from the real world. That's the differentiation.
and yet, we are here discussing it and throwing those arguments out....would be wise to keep in mind that they are not being used here, don't you think?I agree. But as it turns out, most theists who care enough to argue about it, use exactly those arguments.
not at all...the bible is understandable, however, light is switched on by God when one believes. IOW's it is understandable without God, but with God, it comes alive.Wich would result in......and interpretation.
It is and stays just text, poetry.
....or required, in order to make sense of it?
short version of the process I personally use to ensure the correct interpretation. 1. I pray...now I know that for someone who does not believe, this sounds crazy, but it works even for the unbeliever because God wants to reveal Himself to us. So if we sincerely ask Him to reveal Himself, He will. 2. we apply common literary rules to the text. This insure that we can't make excuses for what it says by reading into it what is not there. Just asked this same question on another thread. Some said, "I think it means X" I asked why there would be a change of thought midway through the text without warning that there would be a change. You see, one of many literary rules we use every single day is that an author does not change topic midway through without warning. 3. context, context, context. A vast majority of false interpretations come from dismissing context. 4. Context of the totality of the work. IOW's it isn't just important to look at context, we also have to look at that context in light of the total work in question. 5. we need to look at translation. Because the Bible was not written in our lang. originally, it is vital to proper understanding to look at interpretation issues that might have risen. 6. context of culture of the day. Many things become clear when we understand the culture that the text is speaking to. and 7. test the conclusion. Allow it to be tested and scrutinized by the same things that tell us when we properly understand any author.7 "layers of protection"? What does that even mean?
how so? After we determine what the text intends to be saying as above, then, we test the "lesson" or "principle" that it speaks of....let me see, an example...ah, a common one that is often misunderstood. Romans 8:28 All things work together for good...okay, if we understand the text right, we understand that what we are testing isn't just whether something ends up good or not but we are testing several variables that have to line up first 1. what is considered good...good here is God's standard not ours. 2. this only applies to those that are living in and out the Love of God 3. and third it is only true for those that are called by God to reveal His purpose. See, it is testable, but unless you first understand the variables you can't test it. That is why you must have knowledge so that you can test and know what and how to test the principle.You seem to be conflating "knowledge" with "beliefs" here.
wow, that is totally opposite of what I said...how did you get it so wrong? Let's try again. what I am saying is that I have studied the bible to see what claims it makes. Tested those claims, then because I have found no flaws in what we can evidence, I believe.You are saying that there is stuff claimed in the bible which you believe to be from god, or inspired by god. And because you believe that, you will believe what the bible says.
at this point, I have no idea what you don't understand much less what you are trying to argue. One place you say I am confusing knowledge and belief, in another you suggest the opposite. At this point, all I can do is refer you to the correction given above and hope that you listen and respond to me not your ideal of what you want me to say.That's not what "knowledge" is. That's what "belief" is.
yep, which is consistent with what I am saying to you.Knowledge is actually independently demonstrable. IOW, it doesn't depend on "faith" in a certain text, merely declared to be an authority.
wow, there is tons just in Gen. that tells us a lot about our world. For example, I am confident that you are unaware of the fact that Gen. talks about adaptation. IOW's we knew from Gen. about adaptation before our scientists came up with the theory.Which, in turn, tells us nothing at all. It's just a (rather absurd) claim that is to be "just believed". There's no sense to be made of it. There's nothing about reality that is suddenly better understood, by that belief.
see above, and not only that, it adds the polemic understanding to the equation....iow's it enriches our understanding of our world in ways that you refuse to even think about or acknowledge (at least as per these comments in your post.)It explains absolutely nothing and it adds absolutely nothing of value.
????what don't you understand...the claim is that He has revealed the answer, the interpretation. If He has, we should be able to use study to come to a consensus of what it says just like when I showed you what people say more times then not...you know, "yes, that is what it says but I don't believe it..."
To paraphrase the old adage - no longer having a delusion is a belief the way no longer collecting stamps is a hobby.
I'm not trying to be condescending, but I already stated that we are theistic by default, not atheistic, and there is evidence and logic to back this up. So with that in mind, it would appear that your own perspective on things is a delusion. Consider, you believe you came from a fish, or a worm; with that reasoning what makes you think that your brain would be precise in making philosophical perceptions, or any moral judgements at all? Your brain is just a byproduct of sludge that turned into a fish brain, etc. Even Darwin himself touches on this,
If atheism be true that there is no God, then there is no perception of right and wrong. Why would your perception on delusion be more valid then the next persons perception on delusion? In an atheistic worldview, there are no absolutes, no rights and no wrongs, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
"If a person doesn't think there is a God to be accountable to, then whats the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?" ~ Jeffrey Dahmer. A serial killer, cannibal, atheist.
What evidence...scripture tells us that the evidence that God has given us as to our salvation is the HS. The evidence of that HS is a changed life. It is a desire and goal of righteousness, it is Love, Joy, Peace, etc. Galatians 5, the fruit of the Spirit for those that might want the full list. When these things are present and in the form that the Bible tells us is consistent with the HS, we have tangible evidence of our salvation. It may not be measurable as in X number of inches or Y ounces, but it is measurable in light of who we were before and who society is at large. Without that evidence, we simply can't be sure if it is your religious belief or your salvation.
How do you know that you are believing in accordance with reality, while they are obviously incorrect? Test. The Bible tells us to test the spirits, to test things, not just accept them because it is what you were taught. I have been a believer for almost 50 years now. Over that 50 years I have taken very serious the admonition of the Bible to test and interesting enough, I have yet to find one claim that is actually made in the bible to be false.
The Bible tells us that in Christ we are more than overcomers (one way to measure) yet when I brought that up to a "christian" that is one who claims belief but lives like an unbeliever, they were upset to even think that anyone (refused to even acknowledge scripture says it) would suggest not allowing our abuse to define us was a good thing much less do able. Yet I know of people who live above their abuse and I am one of those people. Evidence of the Living God of the Bible. Take all that evidence and add it together and you have a very strong case for knowing truth from delusion.
hum...so when we want to know something, we apply faith then test and test and test and what? See, if you read what I said for comprehension you would know that what I said was that I studied, removing as many variables as possible in order to know the intent of the passage. After that, I took the claims and tested those claims and upon finding none that were falsified, I came to the viable conclusion that it was worth putting my faith into. But you claim that sin't how we deduce other circumstances...so what process do we use?But you have to be able to recognize it as a poor reasoning, because under every other circumsntances that's not how we deduce causes behind any given events.
wow, that is like the total opposite of what I said and what I clarified and you still try to assert it is what I said...at this point I am beginning to think you are a troll and will be watching your posts carefully for evidence that you are purposely flaming me not simply misunderstanding.We don't begin with presupposing that whatever good results come our way are necessarily an effect of the vague X factor... otherwise, we'd obviously interpret reality against such perception... which is the nature of any given delusional thinking a described in the OP.
but you would have to test the theory, not just assume it is true...which is what you keep removing from my posts. Now I know it is to your agenda's benefit to do so, but to do so is inflammatory and disrespectful and will not be tolerated.For example, I can ascribe every win that I've made in basketball to the presence of my lucky socks that I was wearing, and at the same time comment on all of the shortfalls on playing against the power that the lucky socks were guiding me into.
But that isn't what I said, I told you repeatedly that it is tested, yet you leave testing out of your analogy which is inflammatory when you have repeatedly been told it is part of the process...so how about responding to me and what I say not what you want me to say.Thus, it's a delusional mindset in which lucky socks end up at no fault ever, because I assume that they are lucky. If we win, it's the lucky socks. If we lose, then it's my fault.
since none of this is reflecting what I said, I will assume you intend to respond to someone else and just got confused. Thus I am not ignoring it because I am being rude, but because it does NOT address the post you are claiming to be referring to.That's how psychics operate. They attribute every hit to their unique ability to communicate with the dead, and every miss they blame on people who fail to recognize what spirits communicate.
But, what did I say? Look above where I repeatedly corrected your misrepresentation of what I said....what I said is 1. I study to know what the claims are 2. I test the claims 3. if there are no falsifications in the claims, I conclude they are true, if there are falsifications, I conclude they are false.But, if such is the set up... the of course people see the truth of Psychic ability ... HS ability, or whatever. What they tend to ignore is that they do all of the workand merely interpret the reality through a filter of belief.
But that's exactly the question of the OP. How can you tell the difference, if you follow a very circular pattern of self-evaluation?
so...you admit to not reading my posts but instead, assume that I am saying what everyone else says to you...now very deceptive of you, none the less, at least you are confessing here to being a troll and that shows a lot of character.Again, it's the same circular self-evaluation described above.
From my experience, it generally comes through people who don't know much about Biblical history, or who are shielded through rationalization of difficult issues that exists in Biblical narrative.
and...there are two things you are missing here 1. we don't know what or if and where any watering holes might have been. 2. that this is one of the things we don't yet have enough evidence to test. We know that there are watering holes in deserts and that it is possible they could have survived no matter how unlikely. What we don't know is if they did or not. But I allowed for those things that we can't yet test for, so not an issue.For example, the Exodus story isn't very believable when we actually try to work through the reality of the subject matter, which is 2 million people and their animals existing Egypt and wandering around the desert. We we consider how much water it takes to sustain so many people, and how much time it takes for 2 million people to take turns drinking water from a singular source flowing from a rock, especially when it comes to refilling that water and dragging it around the desert.... the story breaks down.
read it again, this time using common literary rules.It quickly becomes obvious that the point of the story wasn't intended to be the truth of reality, but some moral lessons, and that's how story is told. It's never told in a way that examines the mechanics of sustaining 2 million people exiting a country in an orderly fashion, and then surviving in a desert for so long.
wow, how so, I didn't talk about the children of Israel in the desert, nor did I include everything in the bible as being testable, in fact, I left out those things that at this point are not testable....so I guess this is more of you speaking to someone other than me.Thus, you are talking about something entirely different in the above quote. You seem to be talking about your own projection of your own Biblical interpretation on reality around you.
testing like I have repeatedly said...but not just testing one claim and calling it, testing every testable claim we can find, requiring all of them to be true in order to believe it to be the true God.The question remains as to how can you know that you are not wrong, especially when it comes to claims of the other people that your projection isn't entirely accurate.
how horrible...but again, your analogy is the opposite of what I have said, so carry on, but please in the future quote who you are responding to instead of quoting me then talking to someone else. If I was told something only worked if I believed it, I would automatically be a skeptic that would remove all possibility of it working. But then again, what I told you about what the Bible says about God is that He will be found by all who seek to know truth, not all who believe it is possible, which is why you are talking to someone else. This quoting me but talking to someone else makes your posts very difficult to follow and makes the thread difficult to participate in.I certainly think that there is a utility in belief in a scope of any discipline. But of itself it's not a credit to the belief itself. It's a credit to specific action that such belief leads you to.
For example, I could point you to weightloss pills, and tell you that in order for these to work ... you need to believe that the pills will work, and then exercise and have proper diet.
I don't know, it's your claim you tell us...my claim is that God promises to be found by all who seek Him not all who believe...so your talking about something completely different from what I said in your quote of me. Thus, your story to tell us what you want us to address.The faith in pills is not what caused you to lose weight. In all actuality, it's exercise and diet, and it's demonstrable. So, the question is... why do you even need pills in such context?
huh? What are you going on about now? Let's look at the first of the fruit of the Spirit, Love...Love is something that is measurable and has specific criteria as laid out in I Cor. 13. Anything that does NOT hold all the characteristics of I Cor. 13 is NOT Love. That makes it measurable and you don't need belief to measure of know if it is there or not. You do need the HS for it to be there and you need belief to have the HS but that is where the testimony of others comes into the picture. Their living out Love gives us reason to believe, but not enough reason, because we have to add all the other fruit and test it before we can draw a conclusion...so let's say we test 1. Love and the test comes back that give the criteria, it is truth...cool, so we go to 2. Joy...now joy here is that joy which defies the understanding of the world. IOW's this is a supernatural joy that does not rely on circumstances. We look at true believers and see that, yes, they have this time and time and time again. You know, tested to be true. That is two...now we move to 3 and on and on again. If even one of the list is falsified, we must throw out the whole thing as being falsified. If all come back as true then we have no justifiable reason to not believe. This is what I have repeatedly told you....so either respond to what I am saying, or leave the discussion because forum rules say you need to respond to my posts.You point to the fruits of the HS, but HS seems like a weightloss pill in this context. If we decouple actions from imaginary causes, life makes a lot more sense. It took me seminary-level theology curriculum to see that unfortunately, but it seems to be a much more healthy approach to life than attaching some weight loss pill or lucky socks in order to feel some security and sense of stability in one's life.
hum...so when we want to know something, we apply faith then test and test and test and what? See, if you read what I said for comprehension you would know that what I said was that I studied, removing as many variables as possible in order to know the intent of the passage. After that, I took the claims and tested those claims and upon finding none that were falsified, I came to the viable conclusion that it was worth putting my faith into. But you claim that sin't how we deduce other circumstances...so what process do we use?
So, at a higher level, you do not differentiate between beliefs and facts or proofs? Doesn't "belief" necessarily include an element of faith?
To be clear, I am using 'belief' in a broader sense, not in the narrow religious connotation. I see a difference in usage between 'I believe that the earth is roughly spherical in shape' with 'I believe a god exists'. One is based in evidence from the real world, the other from an acceptance of "things unseen".
So basically the entirety of reality should be limited to only that for which we have actual physical and material evidence.
you don't know "christians" do you? Most "christians" are like you, they don't care what the bible really does say. In fact, the majority of them take one of two approaches or both 1. scripture is just a guideline so we can interpret it any way we want and/or 2. we will rely on the teachings of man to tell us what it really does say. In fact, I am part of the christian community and I only know a very small handful of christians that believe that it is important to study the word and actually study it with safe guards against interpreting it any way we want to. It is a plague of the church, an ugly blotch on them, so tell me again how I am wrong because all christians do what I suggest doing when in reality they don't care enough to even try....No. Such an approach represents a disaster in rational thinking!
Consider........millions of Christians around the world and throughout the ages have done what you suggest.....read the text in context, allow for interpretation, assess for consistency, etc, etc, etc........
And what has been the result?
30,000 different beliefs of what the Christian religion and the Christian God represents!
that is why we need to study scripture with safeguards (AS I SAID AND YOU IGNORED) that prevent us from interpreting it any way we want to. You see, without an actual study of the word for meaning and intent, you are just talking about a belief that man extracted from in most of these cases the bible. That isn't what I suggested at all...so again, you refuse to address my posts but quote me as if you are. I have asked you to stop doing that, that is 1...this is the second time I am asking you to stop quoting me but responding to someone else. I am establishing a new policy of three strikes and you are out. Meaning that after 3 times of being warned, I will assume it is not accidental and thus purposed flaming.Protestant vs Catholic, Baptist vs Methodist vs Presbyterian vs Mormon vs Jehovah's Witness, the trinity is true vs not true, transubstantiation is true vs not true, works vs faith....and so on and so on and so on.....
but none of them based on a careful study that I suggested we do....so not responding to the quote you post.Differences in belief that have been so marked that people have torn one another apart over them!
It's pretty effective when used, just seldom used....so how about showing it being used but ineffective if you want to prove me wrong. Feel free to use any literary work as evidence of the 7 step method not working when determining intended meaning of a literary work....don't rely on removing the steps as evidence they don't work, that is misleading, rude, and inflammatory to the point being made.Far from being effective in removing confusion and delusion, your '7 steps' seems to be a perfect recipe for creating it!
and yet, when I tell you that "belief" in God can and should be based on "things seen" you go off about how I didn't say what I clearly did....if you are not a troll discuss the things you are being told.To be clear, I am using 'belief' in a broader sense, not in the narrow religious connotation. I see a difference in usage between 'I believe that the earth is roughly spherical in shape' with 'I believe a god exists'. One is based in evidence from the real world, the other from an acceptance of "things unseen".
Yes, as has already been covered, that accurate knowledge may simply be that the delusion is false, e.g irrational; so, for example, the realisation that the idea that registration plates contain secret messages is irrational. I assume you don't believe registration plates contain secret messages, yet I doubt you'd list that as one of your beliefs, any more than you'd list a belief that duct tape isn't a form of life, or a belief that the Queen of England isn't a reptilian alien, etc. There is an uncountable number of false beliefs you don't hold. Is it reasonable to suggest that you therefore necessarily have an uncountable number of true beliefs that each is false? I would suggest it isn't.No longer having a delusion would mean one now has accurate knowledge and one can only gain accurate knowledge from an objective source of what's actually true.
Or can be extrapolated from that evidence, yes. I see nothing controversial in such an understanding. You've virtually defined the term there.
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?