Man vs God

[cvanwey]

1 Timothy 2:1-15

Such text 'appears painfully difficult/hard to read', and to not conclude that such writings, viewpoints, assertions, and/or opinions are of a mere mortal; verses any claimed directive from a higher power or authority.

Such a chapter appears to speak more about an assertive directive to dictated rules and guidelines, from the mere subjective standpoint of fallible humans; verses any claimed never-changing and/or claimed righteous being or entity.

Moving forward, below are my main question(s).

1. Is it possible this entire chapter was not God inspired? If not, why not? If yes, then please explain why this entire chapter exists, and why might any other chapter from the Bible then instead be valid?

2. How might we know which Chapters actually were inspired, verses which ones were not?

3. What gauge, meter-stick, or absolute standard might one use to determine which verses in scripture are given from anything other that the opinions or conclusions of just humans?

My assertion is the Bible was written with none other than human hands, with no inspiration from 'above'. This is the default position to any writing(s), book(s), text(s), or claimed scripture. The onus is on the one(s) whom claim otherwise.

Notables:

(Circular reasoning- 'This is true because I'm not lying?'): 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

(Apparent inequality which appears to more-so reflect subjective human opinion from the era, verses any claimed asserted never-changing rules/dictates) 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women" will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

 

[bcbsr]

1 Timothy 2:1-15

Such text 'appears painfully difficult/hard to read', and to not conclude that such writings, viewpoints, assertions, and/or opinions are of a mere mortal; verses any claimed directive from a higher power or authority.

Such a chapter appears to speak more about an assertive directive to dictated rules and guidelines, from the mere subjective standpoint of fallible humans; verses any claimed never-changing and/or claimed righteous being or entity.

Moving forward, below are my main question(s).

1. Is it possible this entire chapter was not God inspired? If not, why not? If yes, then please explain why this entire chapter exists, and why might any other chapter from the Bible then instead be valid?

2. How might we know which Chapters actually were inspired, verses which ones were not?

3. What gauge, meter-stick, or absolute standard might one use to determine which verses in scripture are given from anything other that the opinions or conclusions of just humans?

My assertion is the Bible was written with none other than human hands, with no inspiration from 'above'. This is the default position to any writing(s), book(s), text(s), or claimed scripture. The onus is on the one(s) whom claim otherwise.

I don't really see what your problem is with that section.

Notables:
(Circular reasoning- 'This is true because I'm not lying?'): 7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—I am telling the truth, I am not lying—and a true and faithful teacher of the Gentiles.

Nope, not circular reasoning. He's not saying this is true because I'm not lying. He's simply making an assertion based on his reputation being a man of integrity.

(Apparent inequality which appears to more-so reflect subjective human opinion from the era, verses any claimed asserted never-changing rules/dictates) 9 I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10 but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women" will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

The scriptures have gender-specific commands. So what? There are areas where men have different roles than women. I don't think Bible has to apologize for being counter-culture.

 

[cvanwey]

I don't really see what your problem is with that section.

This response is vague and addresses no specifics from my post. If you care to hone in on key points, by all means...

Nope, not circular reasoning. He's not saying this is true because I'm not lying. He's simply making an assertion based on his reputation being a man of integrity.

Following your response in logic, here is what I'm left to surmise.

The author actually believes his writings are God inspired. However, if this were the case, the author would provide other points of reasoning to substantiate the necessity to assert such dictates. But instead, the author states 'it's true because he is not a liar.'

The author is claiming such dictates are inspired or given by a higher authority, and is true because he's not a liar. Not instead because he is attempting to prove that his believed 'communication from above' is actually valid by some other means; demonstrating his 'channels between himself and God' are not mistaken or in error.

Following your reasoning, the verse would read something more along the lines of:

'7 And for this purpose I was appointed a herald and an apostle—the communication I receive from the almighty is verified by the fact(s) that.......'

The bases for this conclusion is predicated upon him stating he's telling the truth, and not lying. But the default position is that all written works are human inspired, and not from a 'higher power.' So aside from the author stating he's simply not a liar, what basis may we conclude such a result?

Another classic example of circular reasoning is as follows, (which also applies to above):

(Statement) 'The Bible is the Word of God'.
(Response) 'How do you know?'
(Statement) 'Because the Bible tells us so.'
(Response) 'Why should I trust the Bible? Isn't it claims from humans, whom state such verses are given from a higher power?'
(Statement) 'Yes, and it's true because the person/people whom wrote as such are deemed trustworthy.'
(Response) 'Okay, even if such an author believed what they were writing was true, how might one investigate to assure that such inspiration was actually given by a higher power, and not instead self manifested?'
(Statement) 'Because the Bible tells us so, and it's fully trustworthy'
(Response) 'How do you know?'

Rinse/repeat

The scriptures have gender-specific commands. So what? There are areas where men have different roles than women. I don't think Bible has to apologize for being counter-culture.

You have missed the point entirely. It's not about the fact that social norms change. It is instead that women are applied a differing set of non-physical rules, based upon their genitals. If you have a vagina, you are not allowed to teach in certain forms, etc. Seems more-so in line or parallel with the times (of humans and their human thoughts at the time it was written), as such a dictate does not appear like something a claimed all loving and all equal God might assert.

Yes, men and women can be assigned differing roles, for differing reasons. But the restriction applied to women in such cases, at the time in which such text was written, does not apply to the physical differences of women, but instead implies the apparent misogynistic or chauvinistic nature of the author. Or even worse, is stating that all future women cannot do something because of something one of their ancient female ancestors committed.

According to the Holy Bible, the book would have to be a never changing objective set of truths. And yet, a woman is restricted in such roles, as stated, because they own a differing set of genitals. Women and men possess the same potential brain power. This does not make any logical sense. One is left to instead conclude such verses were written in the manor I have indicated above.

 

[Tolworth John]

Is it possible this entire chapter was not God inspired?

It is possible, just as it is equaly posible that it is God inspired.
What are your grounds for assuming it is just an invention of the author?

 

[cvanwey]

It is possible, just as it is equaly posible that it is God inspired.
What are your grounds for assuming it is just an invention of the author?

I doubt this is the way you evaluate all opposing claimed theological texts.

Anytime any text claims God inspiration, does not yield equal probability between fact and fiction. Otherwise, I could write an assertion to paper, and state I received this message directly from my believed almighty. It appears imbalances to assume that it is 50/50, true or false.

By default, text is written by humans, using their own human inferences, and nothing further.

I am not asserting a conclusion. I'm stating that text is written by humans, and that the onus is on the one(s) who state that the text is anything more; 'God inspiration' included.

Quick rhetorical example...

I write, 'All females must wear red shoes on Thursday.' I also claim I received this information from a supreme being.

Is it 50/50 true of false? no
Does it matter whether I'm straight up lying or not? Not necessarily, because either I'm lying, my senses are flawed, I'm delusional, or it actually happened.

In many cases, the person may have earnestly felt they had a real experience. However, it's more likely such a sense was not actual.

So here's the question....

How might one actually evaluate if the claim is fully warranted?

 

[Tolworth John]

I doubt this is the way you evaluate all opposing claimed theological texts.

Anytime any text claims God inspiration, does not yield equal probability between fact and fiction. Otherwise, I could write an assertion to paper, and state I received this message directly from my believed almighty. It appears imbalances to assume that it is 50/50, true or false.

By default, text is written by humans, using their own human inferences, and nothing further.

I am not asserting a conclusion. I'm stating that text is written by humans, and that the onus is on the one(s) who state that the text is anything more; 'God inspiration' included.

Quick rhetorical example...

I write, 'All females must wear red shoes on Thursday.' I also claim I received this information from a supreme being.

Is it 50/50 true of false? no
Does it matter whether I'm straight up lying or not? Not necessarily, because either I'm lying, my senses are flawed, I'm delusional, or it actually happened.

In many cases, the person may have earnestly felt they had a real experience. However, it's more likely such a sense was not actual.

So here's the question....

How might one actually evaluate if the claim is fully warranted?

You are the one claiming it isnot from God. It is upto you to substasiate your claim.

 

[cvanwey]

You are the one claiming it isnot from God. It is upto you to substasiate your claim.

Please read my response again. I do not wish to repeat myself.

But I will add one additional note. Can you prove the Holy Qur'an was not also inspired by God? Oh, you can't? Why not My point is that we investigate the claims. And in doing so, we can really only investigate the stuff which is actually testable and/or repeatable. Long ago claimed witnessed accounts, which leave behind nothing physical is a little difficult.

We are instead left to evaluate the testable claims.

 

[devolved]

1. Is it possible this entire chapter was not God inspired? If not, why not? If yes, then please explain why this entire chapter exists, and why might any other chapter from the Bible then instead be valid?

2. How might we know which Chapters actually were inspired, verses which ones were not?

3. What gauge, meter-stick, or absolute standard might one use to determine which verses in scripture are given from anything other that the opinions or conclusions of just humans?

A counter question for you would be ... what do you mean by "Inspired?"

Consider the following scenario. There's an era in which humans are consistently dying of hunger. And no matter how hard they try, they can't overcome the natural problems with the environment. They lose all hope and put an X on human project, and prepare themselves a nice little lot on the cemetery.

Everyone then believes that they are done for, and shut all of the research down as hopeless enterprise.

So, one day mourning that fact, a man walking on the beach... [insert the starfish story here]

And inspired by the actions of the boy he writes a "Resilience Manifesto". That manifesto catches on, and humans find that they gave up a bit too soon and within days of shutting down the human enterprise they find solutions to the hunger problem.

Inspiration isn't a text, but rather a continuum of certain catalyst-type of information that such text provides for people to move and change certain moments in history.

So, the reason why people find it inspired, because it is inspirational. And the setting of inspirational is not in reductionist academic context. I can't point you to something and say "this is inspiring, and this is not, and ooooh this one is really inspiring". It's actually for you to either recognize or reject. None of that narrative is a static book that you read and brainlessly follow as though it's a golden standard for you here and now. But, you can still derive principles that may transfer, and that's what modern Christians do.

While we don't tell women to "shut up, stop wearing that nonsense, get back to the kitchen and take care of the kids" the overarching principle is that of shared responsibilities that we have in context of the family, and working as a complimentary unit "saves us" better than continually trying to fight for who would be dominant.

So, the idea of inspiration is a that of a continuum of God's progressive revelation of history through human activity. It doesn't start or stop with the Bible.

 

[gaara4158]

A counter question for you would be ... what do you mean by "Inspired?"

Consider the following scenario. There's an era in which humans are consistently dying of hunger. And no matter how hard they try, they can't overcome the natural problems with the environment. They lose all hope and put an X on human project, and prepare themselves a nice little lot on the cemetery.

Everyone then believes that they are done for, and shut all of the research down as hopeless enterprise.

So, one day mourning that fact, a man walking on the beach... [insert the starfish story here]

And inspired by the actions of the boy he writes a "Resilience Manifesto". That manifesto catches on, and humans find that they gave up a bit too soon and within days of shutting down the human enterprise they find solutions to the hunger problem.

Inspiration isn't a text, but rather a continuum of certain catalyst-type of information that such text provides for people to move and change certain moments in history.

So, the reason why people find it inspired, because it is inspirational. And the setting of inspirational is not in reductionist academic context. I can't point you to something and say "this is inspiring, and this is not, and ooooh this one is really inspiring". It's actually for you to either recognize or reject. None of that narrative is a static book that you read and brainlessly follow as though it's a golden standard for you here and now. But, you can still derive principles that may transfer, and that's what modern Christians do.

While we don't tell women to "shut up, stop wearing that nonsense, get back to the kitchen and take care of the kids" the overarching principle is that of shared responsibilities that we have in context of the family, and working as a complimentary unit "saves us" better than continually trying to fight for who would be dominant.

So, the idea of inspiration is a that of a continuum of God's progressive revelation of history through human activity. It doesn't start or stop with the Bible.

All but the last paragraph here could be taken as a very reasonable, secular view of the idea of inspiration not as direct, divine interference with people’s beliefs but rather the effects of a theistic philosophy permeating many aspects of a civilization’s culture. I think what cvanwey was getting at was the question as to how you can tell the inspiration is ultimately from God as an actual living agent rather than just the idea of God having an effect on people’s lives.