• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Bible & Critical Thinking

Audie

Veteran Member
As much as I would like to simply concur with the notion that for this individual truth is fundamentally irrational and rational dialog fundamentally impossible, for reasons the author probably wouldn't accept there is some truth in his assertion of an axiom in spite of even overwhelming evidence against it. I dont know that I would want to derail this topic by exploring that here.

Can you say that in plain english?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
So, you are saying that "belief" in a paycheck is exactly the same but the difference is in timing.

And yet in my belief, I do get factual experiences in smaller measures, in particular manifestations as I "believed". But, as you said, the actual "paycheck" or "no paycheck" will happen when I cease breathing on this earth.
I said there is 1 difference ... I did not imply "only 1" ... just this 1 came to mind.

Not exactly "timing" being the difference ... more like "before you die you experience plenty of the regular paychecks = lot's of `real` time experiences, whereas the Divine (final) paycheck you don't experience during your lifetime, except in the end (but then you can't share it on RF anymore, a few exceptions excluded maybe)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
I do get factual experiences in smaller measures
Only for @KenS: That is true ... Once Jesus appeared to me (and that was not a dream) ... So I totally agree that we do get factual experiences
And that is easy to understand ... that I even call a science ... study hard physics and you become EinStein ... study hard Jesus and you become ....
(So trying to disprove spirituality one will create a life without spiritual experiences ... no need to be a scientist to understand such logic IMHO)
(Note: I don't say one is better than the other ... just that the Law of Action/Reaction works miracles if you are open to miracles)
(Note: Of course the above is my personal opinion ... feel free to disagree ... I agree to disagree)
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Only for @KenS: That is true ... Once Jesus appeared to me (and that was not a dream) ... So I totally agree that we do get factual experiences
And that is easy to understand ... that I even call a science ... study hard physics and you become EinStein ... study hard Jesus and you become ....
(So trying to disprove spirituality one will create a life without spiritual experiences ... no need to be a scientist to understand such logic IMHO)
(Note: I don't say one is better than the other ... just that the Law of Action/Reaction works miracles if you are open to miracles)
(Note: Of course the above is my personal opinion ... feel free to disagree ... I agree to disagree)
Actually, there is much truth in what you just said.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Not sure. It may take a few more proddings of my intuition to have enough to attempt a clear argument.

Tidy up the grammar and make clear who
you are referring to with words like
"author" and "his".

lets try this
"What audie said is correct, tho Dr K Wise would
never agree"

Is that it?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Anyway, how I actually view this subject is complicated. On the other side, I view some really brilliant minds. Then they seem to believe certain things which lead to a lot of questions for me.... with less questioning than what I have. Much less. Yet I almost feel like with intelligence comes questioning everything. I cannot separate the two personally.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
Anyway, how I actually view this subject is complicated. On the other side, I view some really brilliant minds. Then they seem to believe certain things which lead to a lot of questions for me.... with less questioning than what I have. Much less. Yet I almost feel like with intelligence comes questioning everything. I cannot separate the two personally.
Some brilliant humans made some wise remarks:
At the trial, Socrates says, “The only true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”
Some say Einstein said “the more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know”
The really wise ones become more and more humble the more they learn
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Alright. Well if the Bible is one big allegory that isn't literal, I might select a "better" book to get my allegories from.
But that doesn't ring quite true. The reason why the Bible as mythology, or rather as metaphor, and that is what it really is, uses a language and a basic way of approaching life which is ingrained in us through culture. Both theists and atheists alike have been programmed though the Western Christian ethos. It defines our culture. Even atheists, are Christians in this sense of the word, regardless of what beliefs about God or church affiliations they have.

If one is interested in the spiritual, beyond just the rational pursuits of science and technology, then its myths and symbols are already felt through culture. Speaking for myself, it's an easy language which is more accessible being raised in this culture, then say in the Middle East, or the East in general.

But not taking it literally, is the only way that is possible for someone who is themselves operating solidly in the rational worldspace of Modernity, or beyond as the case may be. The rational mind can't hold these stories on the same level of verifiable facts. And those who try to make them that, are not doing so on any true modern rational basis.

They are metaphors, symbols pointing to something beyond even themselves. The literalist on the other hand, mistakes the finger pointing to the moon, as the moon itself.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Anyway, how I actually view this subject is complicated. On the other side, I view some really brilliant minds. Then they seem to believe certain things which lead to a lot of questions for me.... with less questioning than what I have. Much less. Yet I almost feel like with intelligence comes questioning everything. I cannot separate the two personally.

With an estimated IQ of 146, F. D, Roosevelt attended Harvard University and Columbia Law School before entering politics as a Democrat and winning election to the New York Senate in 1910.

He believed that if whites had mixed blood children
with Japanese or Chinese, the results, nine times out of
ten would be some unfortunate, inferior child.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I searched google and I found this on wikipedia

''Fundamentalists are almost always described as having a literal interpretation of the Bible''

Is it correct?

Yes. Though members have seemed to make the case that the key aspect of this definition is believing Bible inerrancy, rather than on Bible literalism.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
But that doesn't ring quite true. The reason why the Bible as mythology, or rather as metaphor, and that is what it really is, uses a language and a basic way of approaching life which is ingrained in us through culture. Both theists and atheists alike have been programmed though the Western Christian ethos. It defines our culture. Even atheists, are Christians in this sense of the word, regardless of what beliefs about God or church affiliations they have.

If one is interested in the spiritual, beyond just the rational pursuits of science and technology, then its myths and symbols are already felt through culture. Speaking for myself, it's an easy language which is more accessible being raised in this culture, then say in the Middle East, or the East in general.

But not taking it literally, is the only way that is possible for someone who is themselves operating solidly in the rational worldspace of Modernity, or beyond as the case may be. The rational mind can't hold these stories on the same level of verifiable facts. And those who try to make them that, are not doing so on any true modern rational basis.

They are metaphors, symbols pointing to something beyond even themselves. The literalist on the other hand, mistakes the finger pointing to the moon, as the moon itself.

We are all "spiritual" in our own ways.
The ones who insert an imaginary "god" think
they are better than those who do not.

There is, btw, tremendous spiritual power in
the pursuit of science.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes. Though members have seemed to make the case that the key aspect of this definition is believing Bible inerrancy, rather than on Bible literalism.

Which, btw, is actually personal inerrancy.

They deny it, of course, as that is quite the thing
to say of oneself.

But it is so.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Yes. My experience is that they were usually teenage anarchist atheists rebelling against everything as some teenagers are wont to do.

Oh, the ones who grew up in a church,
went teenage on us, and decided they
are atheists.

Later, when the regress to type, they will some
of them be preachers who will make the most
of their little pranks and indiscretions.

"Yes, I, I who stand before you now (flapping a
softcover bible) I know sin, the Devil's dark ways
and the power of the LORD to redeem!!

For Lo, I was the greatest of sinners, in the
thrall of the Great Deceiver, yes, I was an
atheist, a lover of sin and all that is vile!

But in his infinite Mercy, the LORD reached
down into the very pit of hell where I reveled
in my lust, and I, disgusting creature that I
was, filthy with every sin and vice, I took
His hand, and he uplifted me!" (etc)
 
Top