• 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!

Bibliolatry

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
How prevalent do you think Bibliolatry is in the United States, using this definition:

"In Christianity, bibliolatry is used to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or to biblical inerrancy.[3] Supporters of biblical inerrancy point to passages (such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17) interpreted to say that the Bible, as received, is a complete source of what must be known about God."

Bibliolatry - Wikipedia

There's a couple of Biblidoliters on these forums... right up to the point you quote a Bible verse they find inconvenient. The ad hoc rationalisations can get pretty funny then.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
That is simply not true. You are ignoring the failures of the Bible. Its weak successes do not excuse that. Also you do not realize that when you claim it to be the word of God you put a huge burden of proof upon yourself. Perhaps we need to go over what is and what is not a proper test.

So let's forget your false experts with terminal confirmation bias, tell me a valid test for the Bible.
1. What is 'not true!'? :shrug:
My post covered a lot of territory, and you were not specific in your rebuttal/dismissal.
2. What i 'realize!' is irrelevant. Your conjectures about my understanding are ad hom. I presented statements, opinions, and reason. You should address them, rather than straw men.
3. I am making no claim of God's authorship of the bible. I am defending it as a valid and necessary component of Christian orthodoxy.
4. No 'failures!' of the bible have been presented or claimed. How can i ignore something that has not been presented?
5. Alleged 'failures!' or 'errors!' are not the topic, here. I am refuting the claim that Christians (or anyone) who reveres the bible and its message are idolaters.
6. I have made no arguments of authority, nor rested on the laurels of 'experts'.

Other than these few nitpicks, it was a fine reply.. ;)
 

syo

Well-Known Member
How prevalent do you think Bibliolatry is in the United States, using this definition:

"In Christianity, bibliolatry is used to describe extreme devotion to the Bible or to biblical inerrancy.[3] Supporters of biblical inerrancy point to passages (such as 2 Timothy 3:16–17) interpreted to say that the Bible, as received, is a complete source of what must be known about God."

Bibliolatry - Wikipedia

I don't know. But bibliolatry is a coin of two sides. One is bad because it doesn't allow changes. One is good because it gives certain guiding lines.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1. What is 'not true!'? :shrug:
My post covered a lot of territory, and you were not specific in your rebuttal/dismissal.
2. What i 'realize!' is irrelevant. Your conjectures about my understanding are ad hom. I presented statements, opinions, and reason. You should address them, rather than straw men.
3. I am making no claim of God's authorship of the bible. I am defending it as a valid and necessary component of Christian orthodoxy.
4. No 'failures!' of the bible have been presented or claimed. How can i ignore something that has not been presented?
5. Alleged 'failures!' or 'errors!' are not the topic, here. I am refuting the claim that Christians (or anyone) who reveres the bible and its message are idolaters.
6. I have made no arguments of authority, nor rested on the laurels of 'experts'.

Other than these few nitpicks, it was a fine reply.. ;)
your post covered a lot of territory so of course I was not specific.

I pointed out a simple fact. Those that think that th a Bible has been tested and it passed do not know how to test the Bible properly.

But let's work on this a bit. Tell me, do you read the Bible literally? If that is the case it is easy to test the Bible and its failures are obvious. Do you think prophecies are a valid test? Again,we can do that.

If I don't know your specific beliefs I can't help you with a proper test. Any proper test has to have the possibility of failure. Otherwise what you probably have is confirmation bias, and not a real test.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
your post covered a lot of territory so of course I was not specific.

I pointed out a simple fact. Those that think that th a Bible has been tested and it passed do not know how to test the Bible properly.

But let's work on this a bit. Tell me, do you read the Bible literally? If that is the case it is easy to test the Bible and its failures are obvious. Do you think prophecies are a valid test? Again,we can do that.

If I don't know your specific beliefs I can't help you with a proper test. Any proper test has to have the possibility of failure. Otherwise what you probably have is confirmation bias, and not a real test.
1. You accused me of lying, so i wanted to get the specific part that you claim is 'not true', so i can offer a rebuttal.
2. Disbelief and/or hostility toward the depictions in the bible is hardy 'fact'. ..biased opinion is a better descriptor.
3. Test? How about, 'God vs no God?' How do you propose testing those opposing beliefs? :shrug:

How do you test philosophical opinions?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1. You accused me of lying, so i wanted to get the specific part that you claim is 'not true', so i can offer a rebuttal.
2. Disbelief and/or hostility toward the depictions in the bible is hardy 'fact'. ..biased opinion is a better descriptor.
3. Test? How about, 'God vs no God?' How do you propose testing those opposing beliefs? :shrug:

How do you test philosophical opinions?

Where did I accuse you of lying? All I could see was a correction of an error of yours. You claimed that the Bible had been tested and I explained why it had not been tested by the people that you referred to. It is also why I asked you how you would test the Bible so that I could explain what is being done right and what is being done wrong. Most so called "tests" are merely searches for confirmation bias. An actual test of a concept must have a possibility of a failure to be a valid test.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Hilarious. ;) Ridiculing other's beliefs is always a riot..
:D


If a person keeps one's beliefs to oneself then they are not subject to ridicule. The problem is when on tries to make laws or affect the education of people based upon unjustified beliefs.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
your post covered a lot of territory so of course I was not specific.

I pointed out a simple fact. Those that think that th a Bible has been tested and it passed do not know how to test the Bible properly.

But let's work on this a bit. Tell me, do you read the Bible literally? If that is the case it is easy to test the Bible and its failures are obvious. Do you think prophecies are a valid test? Again,we can do that.

If I don't know your specific beliefs I can't help you with a proper test. Any proper test has to have the possibility of failure. Otherwise what you probably have is confirmation bias, and not a real test.

You sure that was a "lot of territory"?

Not, "all over the place"?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
If a person keeps one's beliefs to oneself then they are not subject to ridicule. The problem is when on tries to make laws or affect the education of people based upon unjustified beliefs.

As in, dont hang ridiculous ideas out on the
clothes line and then get all bent outta shape
when there is-gasp-ridicule! (the horror!)
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Where did I accuse you of lying? All I could see was a correction of an error of yours. You claimed that the Bible had been tested and I explained why it had not been tested by the people that you referred to. It is also why I asked you how you would test the Bible so that I could explain what is being done right and what is being done wrong. Most so called "tests" are merely searches for confirmation bias. An actual test of a concept must have a possibility of a failure to be a valid test.
1. Saying something i said is, 'Not true!' is an accusation of lying. I wanted specifics on what you claimed was 'not true', so i could offer a rebuttal.
2. Since no specifics were offered, i can only assume it was meant as a smear, with no basis.
3. How do you 'test!' philosophical beliefs or opinions?
4. Historically, factually, and textually, the bible has withstood ALL 'tests', and stands inviolate.
5. Confirmation bias goes both ways. Hostile critics look for 'gotcha!' points that corroborate their own bias.

Truth. Can it be known? Or does Indoctrination and propaganda drown out the truth, so that delusion is the majority experience in human philosophical beliefs?
 

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
1. Saying something i said is, 'Not true!' is an accusation of lying. I wanted specifics on what you claimed was 'not true', so i could offer a rebuttal.
2. Since no specifics were offered, i can only assume it was meant as a smear, with no basis.
3. How do you 'test!' philosophical beliefs or opinions?
4. Historically, factually, and textually, the bible has withstood ALL 'tests', and stands inviolate.
5. Confirmation bias goes both ways. Hostile critics look for 'gotcha!' points that corroborate their own bias.

Truth. Can it be known? Or does Indoctrination and propaganda drown out the truth, so that delusion is the majority experience in human philosophical beliefs?
Saying something that isn't true is only lying if you KNOW it to be untrue. It is very possible to say things that are untrue without lying. If you have any other false dichotomies that need busting, I'm here all week.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
If a person keeps one's beliefs to oneself then they are not subject to ridicule. The problem is when on tries to make laws or affect the education of people based upon unjustified beliefs.
Yes, that is such a problem... :rolleyes:

Like mandating Indoctrination of universal common descent? Global warming? Pick your gender or identity?

I suppose you mean the false caricature of all these evil 'Christians!', who want a theocracy, even though no mainline Christians want that. Freedom of conscience, aka, 'religion', has been the best thing for Christianity. Why would we want to change that to some state sponsored, state mandated religion?

We actually have that, now, with state mandated, state indoctrinated beliefs about the Nature of the universe. Atheistic naturalism is indoctrinated by the public education system, allowing no contradictory beliefs.

Progressivism is the unofficial state religion, and every year another crop of progressive indoctrinees are churned out.. they cannot spell, do arithmetic, or know. history or classic literature, but they can dutifully recite the tenets of Progressivism.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Saying something that isn't true is only lying if you KNOW it to be untrue. It is very possible to say things that are untrue without lying. If you have any other false dichotomies that need busting, I'm here all week.
Thanks for the helpful clarification. ;)

What is saying 'untrue!', without specifying the target? How does one rebut a general charge of, 'untrue!'?
:shrug:

I can see dismissal, for an offered opinion, but would not an accusation of 'untrue!', need substantiating evidence? Would you need to at least specify WHAT was accused as 'untrue!'?

No, a generic accusation of 'untrue!', is just a device to smear an opponent, without directly calling him a liar. It is a ploy to evade infraction, while still getting the idea across.

..no problem.. its a common tactic in forums. I only point it out occasionally. :sunglasses:
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
come back when you learn the djfference between evidence based and faith based positions
Do you know the difference?

Is something indoctrinated by state institutions automatically, 'evidence based!', because it is a required belief?

Specifics would help, here.. though probably not much.. ;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
1. Saying something i said is, 'Not true!' is an accusation of lying. I wanted specifics on what you claimed was 'not true', so i could offer a rebuttal.
2. Since no specifics were offered, i can only assume it was meant as a smear, with no basis.
3. How do you 'test!' philosophical beliefs or opinions?
4. Historically, factually, and textually, the bible has withstood ALL 'tests', and stands inviolate.
5. Confirmation bias goes both ways. Hostile critics look for 'gotcha!' points that corroborate their own bias.

Truth. Can it be known? Or does Indoctrination and propaganda drown out the truth, so that delusion is the majority experience in human philosophical beliefs?
As long as you keep repeating that first error there is no point. Someone can say something "Not true" without lying. Creationists do it all of the time. Granted they often are quoting lying sources when they do so, but that does not mean that they lied themselves. You made an error. You said something that was not true. Unless you intended to mislead you were not lying.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Do you know the difference?

Is something indoctrinated by state institutions automatically, 'evidence based!', because it is a required belief?

Specifics would help, here.. though probably not much.. ;)
To understand you would need to learn what evidence is in the first place. From your posts you do not understand the concept.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Yes, that is such a problem... :rolleyes:

Like mandating Indoctrination of universal common descent? Global warming? Pick your gender or identity?

I suppose you mean the false caricature of all these evil 'Christians!', who want a theocracy, even though no mainline Christians want that. Freedom of conscience, aka, 'religion', has been the best thing for Christianity. Why would we want to change that to some state sponsored, state mandated religion?

We actually have that, now, with state mandated, state indoctrinated beliefs about the Nature of the universe. Atheistic naturalism is indoctrinated by the public education system, allowing no contradictory beliefs.

Progressivism is the unofficial state religion, and every year another crop of progressive indoctrinees are churned out.. they cannot spell, do arithmetic, or know. history or classic literature, but they can dutifully recite the tenets of Progressivism.
Now you are projecting again. Just because you do not understand the sciences or the concept of evidence does not mean that there is indoctrination going on. Your beliefs were indoctrinated into you. They are not based upon evidence.

Do you want to go over the basics so that you do not keep repeating these errors?
 
Top