|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Feb 3, 2009 1:09:55 GMT -5
First, it most be pointed out that in order to ask this question one must assume that the Bible is not what it claims to be namely the very Words of God. Thus ones perspective on this matter will not change because of this underling assumption. However, why doesn’t everyone assume the Bible is what it claims to be the very Words of God? It is because most people have a prejudice towards the Bible. And have assumed the Sovereign God of the Bible does not exist, and that miracles like the preservation of the Biblical text are impossible. These unargued biases towards the Bible need to be argued and defended before the question concerning the Bible’s authorship can be answered. If not, the one asking if the Bible is the Word of God is inconsistent because he or she seeks justification for the belief the Bible is the Word of God, but will not justify their unargued (bias based) beliefs. The Christian perspective is the Bible is the Word of God. Unlike non-Christians, Christians do not have a prejudice or unargued bias towards the Bible. They acknowledge what the Bible claims to be the very Word of God. And Christians understand that if God speaks to us by a book we would have to believe it on God’s testimony. For example, if a human being was testifying on their own behalf in court he or she did not commit murder the judge would question their testimony, but if God testified on His own behalf we could not question His testimony because of who He is the ultimate authority.
To answer this question directly the Bible is the objective foundation for rationality and knowledge. If the Bible is not true then we have no basis for proving or knowing anything. I have proven this by the Transcendental argument in a different thread.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Feb 3, 2009 3:05:28 GMT -5
First, it most be pointed out that in order to ask this question one must assume that the Bible is not what it claims to be namely the very Words of God. Thus ones perspective on this matter will not change because of this underling assumption. However, why doesn’t everyone assume the Bible is what it claims to be the very Words of God? Why don't you assume that the Quran is the word of God? As for me, my default position is to be sceptial of everything. I won't assume that something is true simply because it's written down. There has been tons of bogus things written down throughout the ages, believe me. I think you should be careful on how you use the word prejudice. I wouldn't call it prejudice to assume that goblins and trolls don't exist, would you? Yet this is the logic you are employing. Again, is it really that biased to be skeptical of a book that claims exceptions to the laws of physics? If I gave you a small book about a guy who says he can fly, would you believe the book just like that? Would it be fair of me to call you biased because you don't accept it right away? Aw, come on, this is just the most rotten argument ever. non-Christians are biased, Christians is not, and that is that! Give some justification to your wild claims please. Part of the problem here is that God is NOT testifying to us. Instead, we have a salesman (you) who is trying to sell a book which you claim speaks for God. That is absolutely not the same as God himself speaking to us directly. It doesn't matter if you insist that the book is the direct word of God, because you are the salesman, and we have to take your claims with a pitch of salt. You just have a thread about the transcendental argument where you claim that only the Christian world view is valid. This is not the same as proving that only the Christian world view is valid. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Feb 17, 2009 12:19:33 GMT -5
I will respond soon; I just do not have the time needed presently to respond reply.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Dozier on Feb 22, 2009 20:31:36 GMT -5
I would assume the Quran is true, but I know the Bible is true which excludes all other revelations (Holy Books), so the Quran cannot be true. The Quran has no foundation for logic, knowledge, induction, morality. Moreover, the Quran is self-contradictory. I can explain further if you would like.
I agree that one should be careful on using the word prejudice, but I think I used it appropriately. Most people that claim the Bible is not the Word of God typically has not studied it, and they assume it to be false based on preconcieved ideas that are unjustified.
However, your criticism does not apply here because if God speaks to us through the Bible it would have to be self-authicating. And we are refering to God the ultimate authority not the existence of goblins or trolls.
The Bible claims to be the Word of God and is the only foundation for the laws of science, logic, knowledge, and everything we encounter in our human experience, so it is very different from the book of a guy flying.
Everyone has a biased towards the Bible until God changes them. Sinners love sin so they do whatever they can to justify their sin, but the Bible condemns it. The Bible states the holy, just, morally self-consistent God will judge sinners for their sin (lying, stealing, fornicating, lust). And God will execute justice on the sinners casting them to hell because of their cosmic crimes against his infinite holy, just, and righteous character and nature. People hate anything that prevents them from doing what they want, so they deny its validity.
I am not trying to sell anything. Remember God is the Ultimate Authority because He is the author of all things. If God says something we would have to believe on the basis of His authority.
What do you mean? I gave an objective argument for the existence of God. I did not make assertions. I argued that one cannot prove anything unless the Christian wordview be true, and
I gave justified my claim.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Feb 23, 2009 5:54:17 GMT -5
I would assume the Quran is true, but I know the Bible is true which excludes all other revelations (Holy Books), so the Quran cannot be true. The Quran has no foundation for logic, knowledge, induction, morality. Moreover, the Quran is self-contradictory. I can explain further if you would like. You would assume that the Quran is true just like that? I'm sorry, but you come off as a little too trusting in my view. Don't you realize that with this standard, all a person would need would be a few magical tricks, optical illusions and some hidden assistants, and he would seem miraculous enough to appear divine? Oh, and by the way, I know this prince in Nigeria that just needs a small deposit of 1000$ so that he can open his hidden banking account and send you a million dollars! :D My personal philosophy has always been that since there are so many opposing views and ideas, one must reject them all with equal harshness until one of the world views can prove to be of worth. I find all religions to be flawed and contraction filled. Have you ever studied the Gilgamesh? (And no, saying that the Bible is so fantastic that you don't need to look at other options ignores that perhaps the Gilgamesh is even more fabulous, making the Bible appear dry and undivine in comparison) You never quite explained to me how the Bible is self-authenticating. I'd love to hear how. Well, we will have to disagrees on that then. I find the Bible to provide a world view about as solid and realistic as the Lord of the Rings. I find no basis for science, logic or knowledge, nor any reasonable explanation for our existence. All it does is claim there is this supreme being up in the skies that seems to love us for no apparent reason. This is not providing a logical groundwork for existence. It's merely a claim, and a pretty unrealistic one at that. On the contrary, I see it the other way. You are really heavily biased FOR the Bible because you have based such a large portion of your life, and pride, on it. Should you be wrong, then not only is your world view where somebody takes care of you, loves you no matter what, and forgives your every little error, just vanished into a puff of smoke. But you'd also lose out of the afterlife you have been expecting when it all ends. It doesn't matter that believing in God and the Bible is illogical and full of contractions, because You cannot afford to be wrong.And I find it funny how you claim people deny God so that they can do what they want, ignoring that most passionate atheists or humanists usually live lives very alike those of the Christians. I, nor my friends, have never done drugs, we don't sleep around, we don't steal the moment we have a chance, we don't murder people we don't like, etc. If we started believing in the God of the Bible, then we would perhaps go to church at Sunday and pray at night, but it's not like a big part of our lives have to change to fit with Christianity. The people who do these things, use drugs, sleep with whoever, etc. Are usually the people who don't think about matters such as religion and God at all. One might argue that this is the "suppressing of God", but it appears quite foolish as an argument against the intellectual opponents you might face in the future. Insisting that some atheist professor, 50 year happily married, soon to retire, just don't believe in God because he wants to live a lifestyle of drugs and rock&roll that God wouldn't accept is just hilarious. But you are! You are talking as if all there is to the world is Christianity and atheism. At the town square of world views, you are just another seller shouting about how his product is the finest in the world, at the best prices. The salesman insisting that it's really really really really really true that his products are the best just doesn't cut it for conniving people. The only justification I ever saw was the claim that Christianity has beaten all other world views, and that's that. But let's keep that to that thread. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 1, 2009 15:18:42 GMT -5
"My personal philosophy has always been that since there are so many opposing views and ideas, one must reject them all with equal harshness until one of the world views can prove to be of worth. I find all religions to be flawed and contraction filled."
Skepticism is self contradictory. What is your criteria for "proof"? Have you examined every religion?
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 2, 2009 5:05:18 GMT -5
Can you explain how Skepticism is self contradictory?
My criteria for proof is the same as I use in all settings. Something that I can verify using my own mind and logic. You might think that narrows down it too much but, I mean, if God is above my mind, then I'm simply unable to believe in him, as he is above my mind. There is nothing more to it than that. Either there is proof that I can understand for God so that I can believe in him, or there isn't proof that I can understand for God, and thus, I have no reason to believe in him.
I and Paul (I think it was Paul) talked a great detail about examining every religion before. Paul pointed it out as a fallacy.
I mean, if you said "this is the best thing I ever tasted", would it be reasonable for me to demand you eat every kind of food that exists?
|
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 2, 2009 22:30:39 GMT -5
Drakim,
I responded to the skepticism topic on another thread.
No, God is not above the mind: God is a rational being and we are created in his image. Christ is the Logos of God that lights every man that comes into the world. God has revealed propositions that man can understand, so in that sense, no, God is not above our minds. God does not think in irrational thoughts because he is the God of truth and truth implies logic. Man's problem with God is not that they do not understand him; it is that they do not believe him. In fact, your offense to the Gospel of Christ would seem to indicate that you understand its message; but you remain yet in your unbelief. Your unbelief is rooted in nothing more than your love for your sin, your desire for autonomy and your hatred for God.
You did not merely say that "some of the religions I have examined I have found to be contradictory", but rather, "I find all religions to be flawed and contraction filled". This presupposes that you have examined "all" religions which I would find quite a feat indeed if you did such a thing; but you didn't.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 3, 2009 1:43:48 GMT -5
Drakim, I responded to the skepticism topic on another thread. No, God is not above the mind: God is a rational being and we are created in his image. Christ is the Logos of God that lights every man that comes into the world. God has revealed propositions that man can understand, so in that sense, no, God is not above our minds. God does not think in irrational thoughts because he is the God of truth and truth implies logic. Man's problem with God is not that they do not understand him; it is that they do not believe him. In fact, your offense to the Gospel of Christ would seem to indicate that you understand its message; but you remain yet in your unbelief. Your unbelief is rooted in nothing more than your love for your sin, your desire for autonomy and your hatred for God. Ah, yes, I predicted this would come in the other thread. "If you don't agree, it's simply because you are blinded by the devil". Why do you presume me blind and yourself seeing? How do you know that you are not the one who is deluded and thus come to the wrong conclusions? But anyway, why should I even bother to reply now? Your basic presumption is that I'm wrong and your right. That's your very framework in this debate. It's useless. My wording was a bit poor, but, seriously, at one time, you start seeing that all religions are quite alike. They all follow an unmistakable pattern of claiming that something is wrong with you (that you didn't know about) and that they have the cure. Hoot if you find something else. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 3, 2009 23:29:31 GMT -5
No, it does not take the devil to blind you. Natural man does it quite fine without him.
You have not examined all religions to make that kind of a judgment. Part of determining whether all religions have this common thread would be to define religion. That is a topic for another time perhaps. Suffice it to say, that given the ambiguity of the word, Humanism could be considered a religion. What is Humanism basic premise? That man is good and that he can achieve almost anything. There's your "something".
Seriously though, it would be nice if you dealt with axioms. You have quite fled from the concept.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 4, 2009 4:07:48 GMT -5
No, it does not take the devil to blind you. Natural man does it quite fine without him. You have not examined all religions to make that kind of a judgment. Part of determining whether all religions have this common thread would be to define religion. That is a topic for another time perhaps. Suffice it to say, that given the ambiguity of the word, Humanism could be considered a religion. What is Humanism basic premise? That man is good and that he can achieve almost anything. There's your "something". Indeed it can. If somebody asked me, I'd probably say that Humanism is a religion. However, humanism lacks a certain number of things that religion traditionally has. But one could argue that that's simply because humanism is such a new religion. Well, let's see... Uhm, I can't find anything about axioms in this thread. Must be one of the others. I'll check them next time I post. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 5, 2009 20:31:37 GMT -5
Ok, if humanism is a religion, then your theory of every religion having a common thread of man being messed up would be false.
Well, we would need to define religion. Seriously. How do we know if humanism lacks certain things that religion "traditionally" has if it has not yet been defined? If it is not defined, which, as I will argue, it cannot be without self contradiction, then the word must be interpreted and defined off of a presuppositional base. As a Christian, of course, I would say that religion is Christianity and in particular Calvinism since even Christianity needs to be defined. However, let us proceed to attempt to define it. You may do so sir. I await your definition of the word.
Haha! Sorry about that. Yeah, I lost track of which thread I said that in.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 6, 2009 7:16:30 GMT -5
Ok, if humanism is a religion, then your theory of every religion having a common thread of man being messed up would be false. Perhaps I worded myself wrong. I didn't mean it was an inherit part of the very definition of religion, just a common theme that tends to come back over and over. I'm sure we can find tons of small religions that don't follow this pattern at all. My point was more to that out of all the big religions, this pattern is repeated over and over. You see it in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. You have original sin, or you are living in a way that doesn't please God, or your desires are keeping you down so you can't reach enlightenment, etc. Oh, let's see.... My personal definition would be the worship of something. If you knowingly and willingly worship something, then it is your religion. Of course, the dictionaries are much more conservative, often citing the need for a supernatural force or something like that. This is just my personal opinion (which I haven't thought that much about really) of what constitutes a religion or not. |
|
|
|
Post by reformeddogmatist on Apr 6, 2009 16:11:12 GMT -5
Drakim, you wrote:
"You see it in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. You have original sin, or you are living in a way that doesn't please God, or your desires are keeping you down so you can't reach enlightenment, etc."
This is not true. Some sects of Buddhism do not even believe in a god. As far as Islam; it retains its name "religion" because it broke off from Christianity.
Ok, you will have to define "worship" as well. I am not trying to be tedious.
|
|
drakim
Full Member
Two hands working do more than a thousand hands clasped in prayer
Posts: 177
|
Post by drakim on Apr 6, 2009 16:28:09 GMT -5
Drakim, you wrote: "You see it in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. You have original sin, or you are living in a way that doesn't please God, or your desires are keeping you down so you can't reach enlightenment, etc." This is not true. Some sects of Buddhism do not even believe in a god. I never said that all Buddists believe in God (the list contained a number of points. I didn't say either that Buddhists believe in original sin). But a central point to Buddhism is that your desires are holding you back, and that they have the teachings that "cures" it. Actually, it might be so that any religion not shaped in a "you are sick, we have the cure" will die out because it doesn't attract enough followers. That's okay. Hmm, let's see. Worship is hard to define because it can vary so much because of what people believe. My personal definition of worship would be an action which main aim is to glorify the thing you are worshiping. Meaning, if your God says that eating chicken is good, I wouldn't call eating chicken a form of worship, because the main purpose of eating chicken is simply to consume a food. Praying, meditating, or something like that, does not have a regular everyday purpose, and thus I see it as a form of worship. Again, I haven't really thought much about this, so I can't stand for the result of my reasoning being logical in the end. |
|
