What Should the Bible Be Like?

[Tree of Life]

I agree. But that was not a miracle on a world wide global scale, it was a miracle on a personal one.

So what?

 

[ananda]

Actions have consequences. This seems to me to be an application of the principle of cause and effect.

I reject this if it is taken in the absolute. God stays the same and does not change.

Whatever the case may be, I think my point still stands - that the highest form of revelation should be embedded into Reality itself, which was the question in your OP.

 

[Tree of Life]

Whatever the case may be, I think my point still stands - that the highest form of revelation should be embedded into Reality itself.

What if God speaking is part of reality?

 

[ananda]

What if God speaking is part of reality?

That would be a failure on God's part, IMO.

 

[Tree of Life]

That would be a failure on God's part, IMO.

God speaking is a failure?

 

[ananda]

God speaking is a failure?

Yes, because implicit in that statement is the idea that God would be using human language, which is fallible. I don't see why a supposedly infallible being would use fallible methods to transmit its supposedly infallible message.

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes, because implicit in that statement is the idea that God would be using human language, which is fallible. I don't see why a supposedly infallible being would use fallible methods to transmit its supposedly infallible message.

What language would you suggest that God use to communicate with humans?

 

[ananda]

What language would you suggest that God use to communicate with humans?

The language of natural Law.

 

[Tree of Life]

The language of natural Law.

We believe that God has spoken both through creation (perhaps what you mean by "natural law") and also through human language. Reading creation can tell us a lot about God, but it's not sufficient to tell us many other things that we need to know. For example, creation cannot tell us what God's plans are for creation.

 

[Petros2015]

So what?

Well, events and intervention on personal scales usually have influence and evidence going forward. Take an example of Bill Wilson, who is a drunk, has an encounter with God. It changes him. He goes forward and founds an organization that is now international with over a million members called AA. 80 years later I am sitting in the rooms of this organization, and slowly I come to realize:

"Drunks don't do this sort of thing. You know what drunks do? They sit and they drink and they resent. They die in hospitals and jails and streets and mental institutions. But they don't start THIS sort of thing. Not unless they meet God and God gives them an awful lot of help."

Same thing with Jewish fisherman. I was standing in a church in the year 2016 AD in America and looking around. And I thought: "Jewish fisherman are kind of like drunks. You know what Jewish fishermen do? They stay in Israel. And they fish. But they don't do THIS sort of thing. Not unless they meet God and God gives them an awful lot of help."

Geologically, it is different. The evidence is left in the past. We can pretty much tell when volcanoes have erupted. We can tell that there were dinosaurs. We would know if there was a global flood. I think when I was about 6, I asked my Mom, 'if the Bible says the world was made in 6 days, what about the dinosaur bones?' And her response after she thought about it was 'I don't know... maybe Satan hid them there to fool people."

I still remember trying to wrap my head around the inconsistency. 'Mommy doesn't have an answer for this question and she has come up with something completely strange to justify this book'. Then, I suppose I went back to playing with my dinosaur toys after a while. But anyway, it stuck with me. You remember things like that.

These days, I don't worry about it too much. There are spiritual truths within the Bible that I needed. The Word of God, to my mind, is Truth. And where the Bible (or anything else) contains Truth, it contains the Word of God. I wouldn't call it 'infallible' the way someone else might, but I had to ask myself at some point, was it sufficient? For me, over time, the answer became yes.

I still think it should have pop-ups though.

 

[ananda]

We believe that God has spoken both through creation (perhaps what you mean by "natural law") and also through human language. Reading creation can tell us a lot about God, but it's not sufficient to tell us many other things that we need to know. For example, creation cannot tell us what God's plans are for creation.

In terms of early Buddhism, its whole system revolves around what we consider the perceivable Laws governing Reality and nothing more. For us, anything else would belong in the realm of imagination.

 

[Tree of Life]

In terms of early Buddhism, its whole system revolves around what we consider the perceivable Laws governing Reality and nothing more. For us, anything else would belong in the realm of imagination.

So your problem with God is that he does not fit into your worldview?

 

[ananda]

So your problem with God is that he does not fit into your worldview?

I do not perceive "God", therefore I am agnostic to its existence.

 

[Tree of Life]

I do not perceive "God", therefore I am agnostic to its existence.

I'm willing to bet that you don't consistently apply this principle.

 

[ananda]

I'm willing to bet that you don't consistently apply this principle.

How so?

 

[Tree of Life]

How so?

You probably believe in many things that you cannot perceive. Examples would be ethical norms and Buddhist philosophy.

 

[ananda]

You probably believe in many things that you cannot perceive. Examples would be ethical norms and Buddhist philosophy.

That is true, but I never claimed that I hold the same standards for all subjects. In fact, I admittedly don't - and I don't think it's a bad thing.

When it comes to the highest good, I personally hold the highest standards and expectations for it. For lesser subjects, I have lesser standards.

 

[juvenissun]

First of all, it shouldn't contain incorrect scientific facts. The world isn't six thousand years old, there wasn't a global flood, and mankind isn't descended from two individuals.

The Bible never says the world is 6000 years old.
About the other two, if you know enough sciences, you will find that the Bible is right and you are wrong.

 

[Tree of Life]

That is true, but I never claimed that I hold the same standards for all subjects. In fact, I admittedly don't - and I don't think it's a bad thing.

When it comes to the highest good, I personally hold the highest standards and expectations for it. For lesser subjects, I have lesser standards.

So your standard "I don't believe in things that I cannot perceive" is applied in a way that suits your interests. This shows that you're not interested in the truth, strictly speaking, but in crafting a philosophy that fits with your understanding of your interests. No problem with that?

 

[juvenissun]

I wouldn't include scientific facts which pre-scientific peoples wouldn't understand, but I wouldn't use stories which hadn't actually happened either.

God tells pre-scientific people about sciences that modern scientific people won't understand.

" In the beginning ..." Gen 1:1

Do you understand that? Good.
Did Einstein understand it? No.