Is the Bible Trustworthy?

[Subduction Zone]

"don't be silly" is not in observation it's just rude, in my opinion.
If you meant it as an "observation" in a sense of "you are silly"... then it is even worse an offence. I am not silly.
I hate unsubstanciated claims and I hate debating with you these days:
this was a common answer you gave today in replying to my posts:
unsubstanciated claim. You did not present a quote. nothing. Just unsubstanciated guesswork.
since I hate "debating" in this style, I just offer you to end the debate between us right here.
I don't answer your questions any more here, I don't answer your posts for a while, that's it.

If you do not like a claim dispute it. Do not call it "unsubstantiated" without a valid reason. The first time you see something that you do not like the proper response is to ask what supports that claim. If I say "Rocks fall down when I drop them in a gravitational field" that is "unsubstantiated. It is such well known knowledge that people almost never ask for substantiation.

Let's take your post in one thread, I do believe it was #251 or the thread that it was in. I observed that it demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge of evidence and evolution. That was a proper observation. You called it "unsubstantiated". I politely offered to go over it with you and you ran away and instead only claimed "unsubstantiated". That does not work in a debate. At that point you admitted in effect that you were wrong.

If you object to a claim, make your objection clear. Claiming "unsubstantiated" is not a refutation. It is "rude" to keep making that claim.

 

[Kooky]

Just a little bit of common sense can be deployed. God doesn't interfere in the evolution of our wisdom, in fact he has decreed that human wisdom must evolve.

Man is partly to blame for his spiritual laziness, actually desiring the creation of fetish words, doctrines, rituals, creeds etc as a clever way of controlling the unknown, controlling the God experience rather than being controlled by it.

revelations occur but then we are at the mercy of the intermediaries, human recollection, speculation and conjecture. The imperfections of translations etc.

The God experience would be subjective
and therefore different for each and every being
right?

 

[PureX]

I would say we must explicitly not look inward and decide what feels right to each of us as individuals. We must all acknowledge we are inherently fallible. We can hold false beliefs, draw erroneous conclusions, engage in self-deception, and in rare instances be clinically delusional.

There is no protection from that fallibility. We are what we are. All we can do is do the best we can with what we have, and trust that it will be good enough.

It is for these very reasons that those who wish to discern fact from subjective illusion abandon classic Philosophy as a valid knowledge pursuit and instead embrace the principles and standards of science. This is the only means we have at our disposal to mitigate human fallibility and get at what is real.

Science cannot tell is what is real, and what is not. It can only tell us which of our theories function and which don't within the very limited context of physical interaction. It's as biased and fallible as any endeavor that we humans engage in.

Religious zealots make the Bible their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility. But it isn't, and it doesn't. Secular zealots make science their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility, but it isn't, and it doesn't. In the end all we can do is keep trying, and hope, and trust that it will all work out in spite of our ignorance and fallibility.

We call this 'living by faith'.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no protection from that fallibility. We are what we are. All we can do is do the best we can with what we have, and trust that it will be good enough.
Science cannot tell is what is real, and what is not. It can only tell us which of our theories function and which don't within the very limited context of physical interaction. It's as biased and fallible as any endeavor that we humans engage in.

Religious zealots make the Bible their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility. But it isn't, and it doesn't. Secular zealots make science their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility, but it isn't, and it doesn't. In the end all we can do is keep trying, and hope, and trust that it will all work out in spite of our ignorance and fallibility.

We call this 'living by faith'.

I didn't say what you quoted me as saying.

 

[PureX]

I didn't say what you quoted me as saying.

Fixed, sorry. That cut-n-past thing gets me every time.

 

[MikeF]

There is no protection from that fallibility. We are what we are. All we can do is do the best we can with what we have, and trust that it will be good enough.

No real arguments here. (Edit: other than the protection part. I say it can be mitigated, as opposed to solved or cured, but yes we cannot be made immune. It requires constant vigilance.)

Science cannot tell is what is real, and what is not. It can only tell us which of our theories function and which don't within the very limited context of physical interaction. It's as biased and fallible as any endeavor that we humans engage in.

Your contradiction in logic is explicit in this response. We are in full agreement then, that science verifies our theories on how the world works, or the physical world as you characterize it. It is not biased to say reality is that which is physical or supervenes on the physical for that is what is observed and verifiable. You admit to physical reality, which is great, but you imply there may be something else. This can only be characterized as a biased presumption on your part, as there is nothing to indicate this other. We have discussed elsewhere the problems that arise when you create an artificial construct of reality, that once created, it's not only your unverifiable ideals that can be placed in this construct, but anyone can imagine anything and place it in your construct. Allowing the artificial construct plays to the inherent fallibility of we human beings instead of mitigating or solving the fallibility.

Religious zealots make the Bible their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility. But it isn't, and it doesn't.

I think the term zealot is an emotionally charged generalization that does not help. There are real psychological and social reasons as to why people hold the beliefs they hold. Not everyone has the necessary tools or self-awareness to address the vulnerability of human fallibility that we all share. We do not have PhD's in every knowledge discipline to make the most up-to-date informed decisions about these issues. That is why we rely on each other to work through these questions and figure them out to our best collective ability.

Secular zealots make science their holy grail of truth so they can pretend they've found a way to overcome their own ignorance and fallibility, but it isn't, and it doesn't.

No argument against the notion that any human being can be closed minded, trapped in confirmation bias, or display extreme fallibility for many different reasons.

The beauty of science, which you fail to acknowledge, is that it has built in self-regulating mechanisms to explicitly account for the fallibility of the human condition. Your artificial construct of reality does not. This is the critical difference.

In the end all we can do is keep trying, and hope, and trust that it will all work out in spite of our ignorance and fallibility.

We call this 'living by faith'.

Faith is only required to live within an artificial construct of reality. Those who live in actual reality live by reasoned expectation based on experience, no faith required or desired.

 

[sojourner]

I would say we must explicitly not look inward and decide what feels right to each of us as individuals. We must all acknowledge we are inherently fallible. We can hold false beliefs, draw erroneous conclusions, engage in self-deception, and in rare instances be clinically delusional.

It is for these very reasons that those who wish to discern fact from subjective illusion abandon classic Philosophy as a valid knowledge pursuit and instead embrace the principles and standards of science. This is the only means we have at our disposal to mitigate human fallibility and get to what is real.

I disagree. What is right for one may not be right for everyone. We are individuals and the sort of one size fits all scheme you advocate simply would not work.

 

[sojourner]

Faith is only required to live within an artificial construct of reality

Unless I’m misreading you, I disagree. Faith is where our interior life intersects with our outer life. Faith addresses reality on both sides of the subjective and objective coin. “Faith,” FWIW, is not the same thing as “wishful thinking,” or even “belief in the unprovable.”

 

[MikeF]

I disagree. What is right for one may not be right for everyone. We are individuals and the sort of one size fits all scheme you advocate simply would not work.

All I would say is that there is a difference between identifying what is real, and how we as individuals cope with reality. That we are all not able to cope with reality the same way, I can agree with. That does not change the nature of reality. Reality is just the same, whether any human being exists to experience it or not.

Reality doesn't change to the individual, we individuals must learn to cope with reality, and hopefully we learn to cope with it as it is, as opposed to how we wish or imagine it to be.

 

[MikeF]

Unless I’m misreading you, I disagree. Faith is where our interior life intersects with our outer life. Faith addresses reality on both sides of the subjective and objective coin. “Faith,” FWIW, is not the same thing as “wishful thinking,” or even “belief in the unprovable.”

As with many discussions, using the same definition for a label is key to having a productive discussion. As the label, or word, "faith" can be used in a variety of ways, I would very much like your specific definition as it relates to this topic.

And I must apologize, I have no idea what FWTW means. Could you explain? Thanks!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And I must apologize, I have no idea what FWTW means. Could you explain? Thanks!

FWIW - "For What It's Worth"

 

[sojourner]

All I would say is that there is a difference between identifying what is real, and how we as individuals cope with reality. That we are all not able to cope with reality the same way, I can agree with. That does not change the nature of reality. Reality is just the same, whether any human being exists to experience it or not.

Reality doesn't change to the individual, we individuals must learn to cope with reality, and hopefully we learn to cope with it as it is, as opposed to how we wish or imagine it to be.

The way we intersect with reality changes what is real. Reality is not fixed. It is a fact, for instance, that we each perceive color differently. Which perceptions of a particular shade of green is “real?” Our perceptions are part of reality. There’s a difference between “physical fact” and “reality.”

 

[Moses_UK]

@Moses_UK ......... you asked......:-

I might......... if the exam was crank as well, I might just put down answers that the examiners thought were right. I can tell of several examples about that.

And then you would score a 0

Ah ha! You weren't going to wait for my answer anyway! Imagine being governed by folks who tell you what you think, what you want........ *shivers*

There you go again, telling more I would do. That's a bit manipulative isn't it?

Whose society? The UK's? The UK is mostly secular these days.

Am kinda fed up with Christian preachers on street corners and JW knocking on people's doors lying and trying to confuse people. Christianity is now in the spotlight because lots of people didn't have access to all the analysis done on the bible. Its become clear now people have been following false teachings.

And that........ shows me how you might handle any who disagree with you.
Off to the mental hospital, eh?
Now that's really frightening.

cultural Christians don't have a leg to stand on, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

 

[sojourner]

As with many discussions, using the same definition for a label is key to having a productive discussion. As the label, or word, "faith" can be used in a variety of ways, I would very much like your specific definition as it relates to this topic.

And I must apologize, I have no idea what FWTW means. Could you explain? Thanks!

“Faith” and “belief” are not the same thing. Faith, as I mean it, is the connective tissue, so to speak, of our interior and exterior lives. It involves belief, but it’s more a paradigm of living out our perceptions of self and world in relationship, according to a design that organizes sensory, emotional, theoretical, creative, and intuitive input into a meaningful and connected understanding that makes sense to us.

 

[sojourner]

cultural Christians don't have a leg to stand on, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

Is this from chapter one of First Assumptions, in My First Big Book Of Judgmentalism?

 

[MikeF]

The way we intersect with reality changes what is real. Reality is not fixed. It is a fact, for instance, that we each perceive color differently. Which perceptions of a particular shade of green is “real?” Our perceptions are part of reality. There’s a difference between “physical fact” and “reality.”

Ummmmm, no. There is a difference between perception and reality. Reality, however, is synonymous with physical fact.

Reality is not dependent on human observation. If humanity were to become extinct tomorrow, reality would continue on it's merry way, whether or not we are around to experience.

That the world and cosmos are under continual physical change (weather, tectonic plate movement, expanding universe) is a separate issue and just one characteristic of the reality of the cosmos.

 

[Moses_UK]

Is this from chapter one of First Assumptions, in My First Big Book Of Judgmentalism?

no, it's just common sense

 

[blü 2]

I stay with my opinion that the Bible is 100% truthful.

The bible is a human work, by many authors at different times and places and with many purposes. It also reflects the knowledge of those times and places. Even if we assume each author was sincere, that would not prevent errors, of fact, history and science, nor the inclusion of myths, folktale and folk history.

Do you think the earth is flat, and immovably fixed at the center of creation, and that the sun moon and stars go round it? That the sky ('firmament') is a hard dome you can walk on, and to which the stars are affixed such that if they come loose they'll fall to earth? That's the cosmology of the bible, the cosmology of the times and places it was written, but in 2021 we know those views are simply wrong. Since you very reasonably like chapter and verse, >here< is a list of quotes I put together for another thread.

 

[MikeF]

“Faith” and “belief” are not the same thing. Faith, as I mean it, is the connective tissue, so to speak, of our interior and exterior lives. It involves belief, but it’s more a paradigm of living out our perceptions of self and world in relationship, according to a design that organizes sensory, emotional, theoretical, creative, and intuitive input into a meaningful and connected understanding that makes sense to us.

Ahhh, see, I would have never guessed this definition in a million years. I would suggest that since this definition is so unique and not related to the common usage of the label "faith", that you might be better served to create a unique label to apply to this definition.
Reserve the label "faith" for it's more commonly understood uses.

Faith:
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
4. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
5. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
6. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
7. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
Source: Definition of faith | Dictionary.com

In my experience, the use of the word "faith" on this forum most often conforms to the religious uses above. That would be the safest use for this label to be understood clearly.

As to your paradigm, I have issue on a couple of fronts. First, it relies solely on personal, individual perception of both self and the external world. Without any external check or reference to personal perception we are vulnerable to many things that make use fallible, imperfect observers. From erroneous conclusions, false beliefs, and self-deception, without a mechanism to check ourselves we humans can convince ourselves of almost anything.

The second issue I have with the paradigm is with the word "design". This would need elaboration as to the source of the design, it's structure, it's purpose etc., in essence, how we know the design and how we verify it.

 

[oldbadger]

cultural Christians don't have a leg to stand on, so please keep your opinions to yourself.

Very poor observation on your part.
Very poor comprehension of anything that I wrote in those posts

I am not a Christian.