-
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.
What is reality, what foundation do you use for your beliefs?
- Thread starter StormyOne
- Start date
Interesting that you don't believe that an actual encounter between God and a human being would result in the human turning away from God... Understand I am talking about a human actually knowing without a doubt that they are interacting with God.... I believe that in that situation a human will recognize the error and change....
Fair enough... it is based on reasonable thought, that is what would a reasonable person, faced with all the information laid out on the table, what would that person do....
So then reality is based on societal consensus... fair enough...
So then if with God nothing is impossible, why do you believe that an encounter between God and a God-hating human will result in the God-hating human still hating God?
So are you saying that your belief system is free from dogma? I would not call supporting what you believe with biblical texts facts, I would say that you believe the bible to be authoritative and because you do it provides you with the foundation you need to believe... However, if a person does not accept your source i.e. the bible you cannot prove anything to them unless they view the bible as you do....
Upvote
0
Perhaps we can review the relationship between What Is and social consensus.
When we speak of perception, we have stopped talking about What Is, and begun to speak of the aspects of What Is that we can sense and process.
And again when we speak of social consensus, we have stopped talking about sensing and processing, and started talking about a taught, communal, and largely arbitrary basis for describing the data that people have sensed and the frames they use to filter and interpret that data.
I was once taught that a certain object was a "rock". Social consensus usually agrees on what a "rock" is. But whether or not there is agreement, and whether or not someone hacks at it with a hammer, the nature of the rock does not change; nor does its rock-ness.
Its purposes can change depending on the kind of frame I take to it. It can become part of my house foundation, or a weapon in a slingshot. Its form can change too. But nothing changes what it is. What it is -- and it is itself -- is not a consensual matter.
When we speak of perception, we have stopped talking about What Is, and begun to speak of the aspects of What Is that we can sense and process.
And again when we speak of social consensus, we have stopped talking about sensing and processing, and started talking about a taught, communal, and largely arbitrary basis for describing the data that people have sensed and the frames they use to filter and interpret that data.
I was once taught that a certain object was a "rock". Social consensus usually agrees on what a "rock" is. But whether or not there is agreement, and whether or not someone hacks at it with a hammer, the nature of the rock does not change; nor does its rock-ness.
Its purposes can change depending on the kind of frame I take to it. It can become part of my house foundation, or a weapon in a slingshot. Its form can change too. But nothing changes what it is. What it is -- and it is itself -- is not a consensual matter.
Upvote
0
Re. authority for beliefs, my friend Gary once said: "Paper or Papal? Book or Bishop?"
I have noticed that I don't need a belief for anything I know. Things I know are things I have experienced. I don't have to debate those things with people. I know them, and that knowing often surpasses languaging. I may not know everything about things I have I experienced, but I know as much as I know and work with that.
I generate beliefs when I do not know.
I have noticed that I don't need a belief for anything I know. Things I know are things I have experienced. I don't have to debate those things with people. I know them, and that knowing often surpasses languaging. I may not know everything about things I have I experienced, but I know as much as I know and work with that.
I generate beliefs when I do not know.
Upvote
0
Re. authority for beliefs, my friend Gary once said: "Paper or Papal? Book or Bishop?"
I have noticed that I don't need a belief for anything I know. Things I know are things I have experienced. I don't have to debate those things with people. I know them, and that knowing often surpasses languaging. I may not know everything about things I have I experienced, but I know as much as I know and work with that.
I generate beliefs when I do not know.
I like that AzA.... gonna have to incorporate that in my fund of info....
Upvote
0
k4c when you give me the date and time that God wrote or dictated "his word" I will agree that it is his word and drop my reservations about the bible... Until then, my position remains unchanged, the bible is the writings of inspired men about God as they understood him during their time.... when used as intended I have no problem, however the bible more often than not is misused.... so what you call rejection, I call a realistic view of what is called the bible.... I don't expect that we will see eye to eye, and that's fine with me... I would ask that you resist the urge to name call, denigrate, and or condemn to hell which is the usual response some christians resort to when people don't view the bible as the "word of God."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
k4c
Well-Known Member
I have never condemned anyone so if you feel condemned maybe you should look elswhere for the source of your condemnation.
1 John 3:18-21 My little children, let us not love in word or in tongue, but in deed and in truth. And by this we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before Him. For if our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and knows all things. Beloved, if our heart does not condemn us, we have confidence toward God.
Upvote
0
remember, I'm using the Bible as my source for my answers, and since you don't put much weight on the Bible, I don't know if my answers would be worth anything to you.
But from the Biblical record, humans have indeed encountered God and turned away from Him. I won't bother to give examples, because we first need to come to some kind of agreement about the authority of our sources.
Because God has given humans freedom of choice, and some humans apparently choose to hate God, regardless. Personally, I believe many God-haters can be changed through intercession for them, but it is all done along the lines of freewill.
Exactly my thought. If you agree that physical reality is based on generally-accepted facts, and mental reality uses generally-accepted definitions of words to interpret these facts, then here are some of my facts:
Fact 1 -- There are certain writings of men that predict events that have come to pass.
Fact 2 -- Humans are unable to predict the future.
Conclusion: Such writings must have a non-human source behind them and should thus be given their due weight.
Upvote
0
Re. authority for beliefs, my friend Gary once said: "Paper or Papal? Book or Bishop?"
I have noticed that I don't need a belief for anything I know. Things I know are things I have experienced. I don't have to debate those things with people. I know them, and that knowing often surpasses languaging. I may not know everything about things I have I experienced, but I know as much as I know and work with that.
I generate beliefs when I do not know.
I can agree, for the most part, but Stormy might be able to tell you that there are people who have experienced things that most people recognize as not real, but since the experience appears to be real to the person, they will proclaim that they know, from experience, that, for instance, everybody is out to "get them" and do them harm. They think they know, but actually, by the standards of reality, they only believe.
So I think that a certain degree of consideration needs to be given to generally held beliefs as a touchstone to keep us in contact with reality. There's safety in numbers....up to a point. And there's wisdom in a certain amount of discussion and debate...up to a point.
Upvote
0
I haven't accused you of anything, again this is what I said;
I said that because usually name-calling and denigration end dialog. I don't feel condemned, nor do I feel guilty, so if my comment does not pertain to you, then there is no need for you to get bent about it....
Upvote
0
Sure, I'm familiar with delusions, and I'm also familiar with majority disbelief. For a long time everybody knew from experience that the earth was flat.
Much of the time our assertions of fact are only partially accurate. Lubbock, TX, is flat, but Tibet? Not so much.
Upvote
0
not unless you recognize that what was written was not written for us, but written at a different time for a different audience... can you extrapolate from what was written for that time to a time here and now? Perhaps, but very carefully....
Really? I don't think so.... there has been alot of human history that has occurred that has not been captured in the biblical narrative... as such you cannot say what humans do when they actually encounter God....
It remains to be proven that we have "freedom of choice." You state it, but there is no indication that your statement is true. As I said, I have not seen a person who has actually encountered The Creator choose to hate him... you say you have, which is fine, however I suspect there is more to the story....
Again a tenuous argument because those things that were predicted were written when? You don't know.... I believe that some of the things were written after the fact.... I also believe that the bible writers wrote as if Christ was returning in their lifetime, as such they were not receiving visions of 2010 and predicting events in our lifetime... Example.... there is evidence that Daniel did not write the book attributed to him and whoever wrote it did so AFTER those kingdoms mentioned in Daniel came to power, so rather than predictions, they were recounting history... Now what examples do you have of writings that predict the future event that then came true?
Upvote
0
So we should question even our experiences to a certain extent, if we are to remain sane. Discussing our basis for believing that we know might help clarify whether we really know or not.
Upvote
0
Originally Posted by Laodicean
Maybe I should inquire whether you believe there is a God who cares about you, Stormy. And if you do, on what basis do you feel confident that He cares?
In any event, even if you think Scripture was not written for us, you can still find the principles back of what was written "for a different audience," as you say, and apply them to our time.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
And there's a lot of human history where we neither know or don't know about encounters with God. Where does that get us? I prefer to stick with accounts of those who have encountered God.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
Didn't you exercise freedom of choice when you decided to start this spinoff thread instead of continuing it in the 28 Fundamentals thread? I tried not to make your decision for you.
Are we going to go to the next fundamental, by the way, or should we hash out this "foundations of reality" issue first?
And at that rate, you will have it your way in the end. By adding that there is probably always more to the story. There's nothing more I can say on this point then.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
Maybe AzA can help us with this one. Is believing that some things were written after the fact, without any corroboration, the equivalent of "knowing"? I don't think so, and THAT is what I would consider a tenuous argument. I stated two facts. You have chosen to doubt Fact 1 on the basis of "I believe." I don't think you should build a philosophy on doubts. Thats not a good foundation for reality.
source for this evidence, please?
There is the prediction of nations to arise after Babylon. The prediction of the Messiah's appearance exactly at the time He appeared. Predictions of nations that would vanish or remain. Should I name more, or do we work with one at a time? Or are you going to dismiss it all with one fell swoop of doubt?
remember, I'm using the Bible as my source for my answers, and since you don't put much weight on the Bible, I don't know if my answers would be worth anything to you.
Maybe I should inquire whether you believe there is a God who cares about you, Stormy. And if you do, on what basis do you feel confident that He cares?
In any event, even if you think Scripture was not written for us, you can still find the principles back of what was written "for a different audience," as you say, and apply them to our time.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
But from the Biblical record, humans have indeed encountered God and turned away from Him. I won't bother to give examples, because we first need to come to some kind of agreement about the authority of our sources.
And there's a lot of human history where we neither know or don't know about encounters with God. Where does that get us? I prefer to stick with accounts of those who have encountered God.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
Because God has given humans freedom of choice, and some humans apparently choose to hate God, regardless. Personally, I believe many God-haters can be changed through intercession for them, but it is all done along the lines of freewill.
Didn't you exercise freedom of choice when you decided to start this spinoff thread instead of continuing it in the 28 Fundamentals thread? I tried not to make your decision for you.
Are we going to go to the next fundamental, by the way, or should we hash out this "foundations of reality" issue first?
And at that rate, you will have it your way in the end. By adding that there is probably always more to the story. There's nothing more I can say on this point then.
Originally Posted by Laodicean
Exactly my thought. If you agree that physical reality is based on generally-accepted facts, and mental reality uses generally-accepted definitions of words to interpret these facts, then here are some of my facts:
Fact 1 -- There are certain writings of men that predict events that have come to pass.
Fact 2 -- Humans are unable to predict the future.
Conclusion: Such writings must have a non-human source behind them and should thus be given their due weight.
Fact 1 -- There are certain writings of men that predict events that have come to pass.
Fact 2 -- Humans are unable to predict the future.
Conclusion: Such writings must have a non-human source behind them and should thus be given their due weight.
Maybe AzA can help us with this one. Is believing that some things were written after the fact, without any corroboration, the equivalent of "knowing"? I don't think so, and THAT is what I would consider a tenuous argument. I stated two facts. You have chosen to doubt Fact 1 on the basis of "I believe." I don't think you should build a philosophy on doubts. Thats not a good foundation for reality.
source for this evidence, please?
There is the prediction of nations to arise after Babylon. The prediction of the Messiah's appearance exactly at the time He appeared. Predictions of nations that would vanish or remain. Should I name more, or do we work with one at a time? Or are you going to dismiss it all with one fell swoop of doubt?
Upvote
0
Lao, do you think that science and or archaeology should be able to corroborate any of the narrative found in the bible? If not, then we probably have ended any productive discussion on this issue.... If so, then what percentage of the narrative do you think should be confirmed by independent verification?
Upvote
0
Stormy, I think that the data collected by science, paleontology, archaeology, and geology are well able to be explained in the light of Biblical history. It is not the data that is a problem for creation theory, but the evolutionist's interpretation of the data that is the problem. And their interpretation is considered to be the only correct interpretation to be had.
True, the Bible was not meant to be a science book, but it provides a good starting premise on which science can build.
As to percentages, I can't say at the moment, since I have not thought along that line. You would have to bring up whatever parts of Biblical history you question, and then we can discuss that.
I remember one area that called forth much scoffing from an evolutionist. He presented to me this tidbit of error, that, hey, don't you know that the Bible says that insects have only four legs? Hahhahaha.
Well, first of all, he must not have realized that by laughing at the concept that there could be a time in the Bible that insects supposedly had four legs, is to laugh at evolutionary theory itself, because that is the whole idea of evolution -- changes in species as they evolve into new species.
However, I went back and read the much maligned text, Leviticus 11:21. "Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth."
At first, it did seem to say what they said, that insects have four legs. And so I said to God, "Father, they are right, it does say that the locusts go on all four. What about this?" Then the impression came to read the text again. More carefully. And there they were, the extra two legs. "which have legs above their feet," two legs above the four feet for the purpose of leaping=six. Picture grasshoppers...or locusts, as the next verse says.
Just a small example. But I submit that here the Bible was actually more rigorous in its description of an insect than that particular evolutionist scientist was.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
