God-Inspired Scripture

[Redemptionsong]

How do you define "fact"?

It's possible to define the word 'fact' as a something that can be known by the five senses. There happen to be many things in the Bible that I receive by faith. For example, I believe that Mary conceived as a virgin. I have no factual knowledge.

 

[McBell]

It's possible to define the word 'fact' as a something that can be known by the five senses. There happen to be many things in the Bible that I receive by faith. For example, I believe that Mary conceived as a virgin. I have no factual knowledge.

please give your definition of the word "fact".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In philosophy classes I was taught that there are two main methods of reasoning. One is called induction, and the other is called deduction. Inductive reasoning involves starting with particulars ('some') and working towards a universal conclusion ('all'). The conclusion reached can only ever be a probability, unless we have evidence that every possibility has been taken into account. The alternative method of reasoning involves deduction. According to this method you begin with a universal and work to a conclusion that is a proof. Mathematics allows this form of reasoning because it creates artificial universals.

I am saying that both deductive (objective) and inductive (subjective) reasoning can be applied to the Bible. God is the universal spirit. He can make himself known. Like a deductive argument God can descend to earth and make himself known to human beings. He can also dwell within a man, giving a man a knowledge that is not subjective. This is described in the Bible as the indwelling Holy Spirit, or Comforter. This spirit can reside in 1000 people at one time. This means it is no longer a purely subjective experience. It's a shared experience, and one that allows the Church to call itself the Body of Christ on earth.

So when I talk to another believer, born-again of God's spirit, they should understand what it means to experience the 'fruits of the spirit' (Galatians 5:22). This makes my subjective experience a shared experience.

Interesting. I haven't taken philosophy before but really cant understand a lot of the language use.

Ima really break down your post. Here we go.

I am saying that both deductive (objective) and inductive (subjective) reasoning can be applied to the Bible.

My argument (or counter statement) is that god is only subjective. He is not objective. He does not exist outside of our definition, personal conviction, and stories about him.

If you can show god exist without our personal convictions, testimonies, and associations based on prior knowledge (say I see a tree, its assumed to be from god), then, that would help me see god from an objective perspective.

Until then, he, it, or life is very personal. It's not objective (true for all).

God is the universal spirit. He can make himself known. Like a deductive argument God can descend to earth and make himself known to human beings.

God is not universal. If he were, like my math, everyone would know it even if they decide to disbelieve or disagree in it.

He cannot make himself known. Since he is not objective, the god I see is known because god is life (not a person. not an entity). God/s of paganism is objective and it seems they are defined either by mythology or the people who believe in them. Hindu have their scripture. Muslims have their own interpretation. And so on and so forth.

It comes from the people not the other way around. Without the people, the idea of god would not exist.

He can also dwell within a man, giving a man a knowledge that is not subjective.

This is your personal conviction; it is subjective. It is your belief and faith not Truth. Truth is known by all even if they are not aware of it.

You must look outside your point of view and belief and accept to be Truth that other people of other religions are right in their own way just as you are in yours. You have to step out of your shoes and see the Truth from another person.

Until then, god is a personal conviction. If an atheist believe that the earth is what he reveres, and if you cannot step into his shoes and see that he does not believe in god, than how can you understand that there are people who do not believe god exist? Even more so, how can you accept in their point of view that they do not believe in god and understand it?

Truth is objective. truth is subjective.

Most religions are subjective. There is nothing wrong with that.

This is described in the Bible as the indwelling Holy Spirit, or Comforter. This spirit can reside in 1000 people at one time.

Yes it is. Millions of people believe in their ancestors. A big smaller amount honor their ancestors. A bit smaller revere them. In many parts of cultures, they worship them. Ancestors reside in over 1,000 people at one time. They are our comforter. They indwell within us. They are us.

This is a personal conviction. It is not objective. Even if 99 percent of people believed in their ancestors, that doesn't make it objective if that one percent decided to join in. We are not the center of the universe.

This means it is no longer a purely subjective experience. It's a shared experience, and one that allows the Church to call itself the Body of Christ on earth.

Subjectivity is not bad. It's just saying that our beliefs are not universal. They are personal convictions and as such, unlike mathematics, the logic and understanding behind their authenticity is different. Not wrong. Different.

Hang it up (positive idiom). You are defending your belief based on the wrong method. It is not objective. It is subjective. Your opponents don't seem to accept this fact; and, it is true. You need subjective methods to prove your argument. You cant eat soup with a fork.

So when I talk to another believer, born-again of God's spirit, they should understand what it means to experience the 'fruits of the spirit' (Galatians 5:22). This makes my subjective experience a shared experience.

Between believers, then logically only between you two, the experience and belief are objective in their own right. It is subjective when we compare it to those who do not share those experiences.

Shared experiences do not make the experience universal nor does it make it objective (which experiences are, by definition, subjective).

This is more of a logical argument rather than an opinionated one. Can you see that your experiences shared or not are your experiences? Can you see that the god you define is not the god of Pagans and not the god of, I don't know, Hindu? If yo do, cant you see that is evidence that your (and their) god/s are subjective experiences and not truth for all people?

Also, even if 100 percent of people believed a god exist, it has to be a fact. If 100 people believed two and two is fourteen that doesn't make it true. Shared experiences. Holy Spirit. Etc likewise.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That all depends on how you define 'a fact'.

You you defined it in context.

If you believe everything in the Bible is fact/True/Objective, then the post I replied to contradicts that. Why would you believe in a book if it was not a fact/True/Objective (or however you define it) to you?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yes,
You have to believe in order to believe.
That is fine for the choir, but it does nothing for those outside the choir.

The choir are singing about love, in order that those outside the choir will listen and be turned.

 

[McBell]

The choir are singing about love, in order that those outside the choir will listen and be turned.

Perhaps you should try a different song and dance?
I would suggest one that is not choir dependent.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It's possible to define the word 'fact' as a something that can be known by the five senses. There happen to be many things in the Bible that I receive by faith. For example, I believe that Mary conceived as a virgin. I have no factual knowledge.

I know you depend on faith; and doesn't that faith have to depend on something real? Or did you choose to have faith in something that you don't want to have knowledge of its authenticity in?

If it is impossible to have knowledge in its authenticity, doesn't it bother you to believe or have faith in something you do not know is a fact (since you have no factual knowledge)?

How do you debate that the Bible is authentic, when you have no factual knowledge that it is?
Basically, faith is subjective just as are experiences. You cant support your argument with faith. You have to have at least some factual knowledge to support your views.

 

[Riverwolf]

We'll let the Hindus speak for themselves.

Well, I did used to be one.

But if we're letting them speak for themselves, then perhaps it's unwise to start making broad statements about their traditions.

The Vedas, for example, are not "Scriptures", exactly.

As for circular logic, I would argue that this must be perfect logic. If the logic is universal (from God) then you have no outlet - you have oneness and Truth.

You just made another logical leap, this time a non sequitor. You equate universality as being "from God", but on what grounds do you make such a declaration?

I'm not sure you understand how logic works.

Do you have a particular prophecy in mind?

I don't really need one. I can just point to the fact that nobody can agree about what they "mean", and that when it comes to clearly failed ones (such as "before this generation is done"), all kinds of stretches are made to reinterpret the meaning of the words. I've seen many over the years, individual interpretations, or those made by organizations. The simple fact that nobody can agree is all I need.

I'm not particularly interested in prophecy, anyway. I've never once come across one that couldn't be tailored to fit any number of events, contemporary and historical.

It's possible to define the word 'fact' as a something that can be known by the five senses.

Well, that wouldn't be too reliable given how our senses (and there's significantly more than five, for the record) can be so easily fooled.

 

[blue taylor]

It is rather presumptuous to ascribe actions and motivations to a construct that you cannot demonstrate exists.

"Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd Of Hermas. Why would God put them in and take them out later? Did God make a mistake? The first New Testament contained only the Gospel Of The Lord and 10 epistles of Paul. No old testament. Did God make a mistake here too?"

Do you not know history? Do you know what the Codex Sinaiticus is? Do you not know what the first canon of the NT was? Since God has human attributes could God not make a mistake?

 

[Sapiens]

God demonstrates his own existence. He does so through his Word.

That's a snake eating its own tail.

As stated in another post, there is a first underlying premise that I accept as true and which leads me to receive God's Word by faith. It's the statement made in Genesis 1:1, 'In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.' How does God create? He does so through his Word (verse 3).

Yet more circular reasoning.

You, Sapiens, seem to think that to accept God as the creator is foolishness.

That's fair.

I see only two alternatives. Either our universe has existed eternally (which science denies), or there was a beginning. If there was a beginning, it makes no logical sense to say that it came from nothing. Nothing is not a concept, and nothing comes from nothing.

That 's a misrepresentation of science as well as a false dichotomy. There may be an infinite number of solutions, or none, we do not know, as yet. Yow seemed trapped in the hubris of being able to say, "I don't know." I readily admit that I don't know the answer ... yet. But there are "answers" that have such a low probability and that require such logical compromise that I do not take them seriously, god, especially Abrahamic god, is on that list.

Yet from an eternal spirit it is possible to have a creation, just as an embryo is created within a mother. To me, creation is not a nonsense. It explains our place in the universe.

But you analogy is nonsense. An embryo is not "created" within a mother ... well know and defined cellular matter grows ... that's all.

I wonder at your world. Is it an accidental world without meaning or purpose? Are you blindly fighting for survival without a care for your neighbour?

Accidental, no. Based on stochasticity? Sure. Different purpose and meaning than what you'd recognize, but from my perspective you worship an absurd golden calf while I understand caring for my fellow creatures as a result of immutable laws every bit are profound as gravity, Evolutionary Stable Strategies, look it up some time: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0040580987900293

 

[metis]

God demonstrates his own existence. He does so through his Word...

You have inadvertently, I assume, slipped into a form of idolatry. The Bible is a good book, no doubt, but the minute one attributes divinity to it, this because idolatry, or at least dangerously close to it. God is not the Bible and the Bible is not God, plus we know with certainty that it is not inerrant. The Bible is about God, and that's where the difference is.

The early church well knew that what were going to become the scriptures were not perfect books and, as a matter of fact, they more relied on what was and is called "apostolic succession" as the prime determiner of what constituted the "true church", especially when confronted with various "heretical" groups that had their own set of scriptures, such as the Gnostics. This clearly shows up in Acts and some of the epistles whereas they show who appointed whom, and that people need to heed their advice and teachings.

The canon of the Bible wasn't even selected until the 4th century, and there was much debate as which books to include in it. It's bizarre that so many Protestants bad-mouth Constantine, and yet it was under his demands and leadership that the canon was selected. Early debates even argued over whether the "O.T." should be included in the full canon.

 

[Sapiens]

"Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd Of Hermas. Why would God put them in and take them out later? Did God make a mistake? The first New Testament contained only the Gospel Of The Lord and 10 epistles of Paul. No old testament. Did God make a mistake here too?"

Do you not know history?

Yes, but this is not history, it is mythology.

Do you know what the Codex Sinaiticus is?

Yes, do you read ancient Greek?

Do you not know what the first canon of the NT was?

Christians have been arguing over what goes and what gets left out in the most self-serving fashion, as long as they have been around. It is not important enough for me need to form an opinon.

Since God has human attributes could God not make a mistake?

How can the nonexistent make mistakes?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You have inadvertently, I assume, slipped into a form of idolatry. The Bible is a good book, no doubt, but the minute one attributes divinity to it, this because idolatry, or at least dangerously close to it.

^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^

 

[Redemptionsong]

Hang it up (positive idiom). You are defending your belief based on the wrong method. It is not objective. It is subjective. Your opponents don't seem to accept this fact; and, it is true. You need subjective methods to prove your argument. You cant eat soup with a fork.

From a purely rational position I have to agree with you. As an individual seeking God through natural reason I can only know things subjectively. This is the position of a relativist. There are truths, but no Truth.

From the position of faith, I have to disagree. This is not now me alone. As the scripture say, 'There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.'

It's a bit like asking whether there is anything that is common to all humanity. And I guess I would have to say, Yes, the need for love. Can love be purely subjective?

 

[Neo Deist]

My two cents...

1. Humans make mistakes all the time. Humans wrote the Bible, and every other holy book on the planet. Logic would tell you that those hoy books contain errors.

2. God inspired does not mean "God came down from the cosmos, sat at a desk with quill and ink, and wrote the Bible." Religions have a habit of saying that the Bible (or their version of it) is God inspired with the emphasis being that you can't question it. Why not? Because every religion knows that it has some BS in it, and they'd rather not talk about it.

I can look at a waterfall and be inspired to do a painting.

3. Science prevails where religions often flounder.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

"Codex Sinaiticus contains the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd Of Hermas. Why would God put them in and take them out later? Did God make a mistake?

It's so fun to see such pretentious 'expertise' stumble out of the gate. So tell us, blue, why the pompous appeals to Sinaiticus rather than, say, Vaticanus?

 

[Ingledsva]

Hello again!

You're right, belief does not make it a fact. But then again, the most important things in life cannot be established by fact - or visible evidence. Facts can be used to point to the Truth, but the Truth will always be spiritual in character.

Can you prove the existence of love?

Yes.

Throughout history people have done heroic thing out of love.

Many people have directly given their lives for others. That is true love.

Others give their own organs to loved ones in need, etc.

Women with killer diseases - choose to have their babies - knowing the pregnancy will kill them.

Love can be seen all around us.

*

 

[blue taylor]

It's so fun to see such pretentious 'expertise' stumble out of the gate. So tell us, blue, why the pompous appeals to Sinaiticus rather than, say, Vaticanus?

Sinaiticus is older.

 

[Riverwolf]

It's a bit like asking whether there is anything that is common to all humanity. And I guess I would have to say, Yes, the need for love. Can love be purely subjective?

Yes.

Because, in fact, not all humans need love. There are people who lack this need.

Furthermore, even if there were no such humans, it would still be subjective, because the English word "love" encompasses so many things that it can be difficult to know what we're talking about without context. (I happen to know that you're talking about compassion and altruism, specifically, because of context from the topic at hand.) And humans are still just one among many animals, and many don't require it at all.

If you want something that is common to all humanity, though, there are many such things:

We all live on Earth (the people living in Space Stations orbit close enough, and that's just temporary, mmkay?).
We're all apes.
We all need food, water, and oxygen to survive.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes.

Throughout history people have done heroic thing out of love.

Many people have directly given their lives for others. That is true love.

Others give their own organs to loved ones in need, etc.

Women with killer diseases - choose to have their babies - knowing the pregnancy will kill them.

Love can be seen all around us.

*

My wife proves her love several times a week when she goes for a ride on the "wild stallion."