The conversation has continued. To see the first part, click here.
K: I know the bible is true because I've lived with it, I've read it and every time it has proven itself true and alive to me. I know my Word and my God to be true, then everything that go against the truth in It is wrong.
The contradictions you pointed out aren't good examples because they both imply that He dies on a Shee-Shee, Friday as we know it, the day when the Sabbath started from 6 p.m.-6p.m. our time, John 19:14-16 and Mark 15:25 are talking about Shee-Shee, and Mark 14:12 is talking about Hah-Mee-Shee which is thursday, the day Jesus met with the disciples.
I believe most of science is based on untruths. However a lot of it is truth such as atoms, elements, physics and others.
So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?
T:Every single verse in the bible has "proven itself true"? Tell me, how is it that a verse like II Kings 2:23-24 has proven itself to be true (that's the verse where the 2 she-bears maul 42 youths, one of my favourites)?
I think you've misunderstood the biblical contradiction with the passover - John clearly states that Jesus was arrested and crucified before the passover meal, and all of the other gospels contradict this. But you've made your point - you believe all of the bible, and I fear if we pursue the finer details of all of the contradictions we will just be quoting things at each other and neither of us will be convinced.
Here are a couple of questions you haven't commented on yet:
1. Even if you take the bible as completely true, how do you know your particular interpretation of James 1:17 (which is a very vague verse, in my opinion) is correct?
2. Even if you take your interpretation of James 1:17 as true, this does not imply that a universe that has no god would have no good - it just implies that in this universe, where you claim there is a god, there is no good that does not come from your god. This being the case, do you still believe that a world without a god would be full of evil, and if you do, why?
3. Why are believers in other religions, who believe in their holy book just as fervently as you (and give no justification for it, just as you don't), wrong? Do you just think the feeling you get about the bible is different from the one they get about their book, and so it must be right?
It's very unfortunate that you reject so much of science. I hope you pursue a better education in science at some point, because I think you are far too quick to dismiss a lot of very good science.
"So you believe emotions are chemical reactions, or processes in ones brain?" Yes. You can ask me more questions than one at a time, you know.
K:1. Yes there are many different translations, but all have their roots in the original Hebrew, or Greek text, and all mean the same, the reason that there is dispute between verses is because of misunderstanding, and yes I claim to understand this verse. Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what I had said originally.
2. You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real, of course some people are going to come up with certain explanations, but they're not true, and it's not possible.
3. Jesus says in John 14:6 (from my Bible, not online) "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Light. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Jesus said He was the only way to come to KNOW("yada'" Hbrw. Recognition of truth through personal experience, and intimate relationship) the Father. So I believe Jesus is the only Way, not the ways other people describe.
I prefer one question at a time, so... did you know that I would give my life for you? Every real Christian would when it comes down to it. If I had to choose between my life and anyone else's, I would gladly give my life up for them. Not only because my God would want me to, but because I've come to love everyone (that I know of) and this means I love you. I care for you and what happens to your life.
T:1. I said interpretation, not translation. "Every gift He gives is good and perfect, not what i had said originally." This has a drastically different meaning than the actual quote, "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows" and it is different from what you were originally claiming (which is that every good and perfect thing comes from above). It also still leads to ambiguity - what "gifts" are we talking about here? Is anything a gift, as you seemed to originally think, or only objects, or only things given from one person to another?
2. "You asking me to imagine the world without God is like myself asking you to explain physics to me if science was not real" There are many disanalogies here - for one, science is just a method of discovery, without which there would be no physics. I can explain physics theories (just not how they are come up with or supported) without science. A better analogy would be something like "Explain how science would work in a world where empirical inferences were not a valid way of attaining knowledge", to which I would reply "I don't know". Instead of saying you don't know, you claimed to know how the world would be, failed to support why the world would be this way, and contradicted yourself repeatedly.
3. So basically, the bible is true because it says it is. If you were brought up in a different religion, you would defend it in the same way as you defend Christianity now.
4. You haven't answered one of the questions posed in my last reply, so here it is again: You claim that the bible has proven itself to be true to you. I asked how every single verse could have possibly proven itself to be true, particularly a verse like II Kings 2:23-24.
It's easier to die for someone (or something) than to live for them. You claim you would die for me, or someone like me, yet do you give every cent you own to Unicef? Surely your money is worth less than your life. Did you know that for about every $200 given to Unicef, a life is saved?
Reflection
The conversation has, in my opinion, greatly deteriorated at this point and I don't think I can go any further with it. I wanted to try to understand a theist's perspective, but this theist went from being a bit ignorant (which is fine - I'm ignorant too) to being utterly dogmatic. I don't expect him to justify why he believes the bible when the bible says it is true, yet I can't help asking more questions. I am honestly curious how he could possibly justify and believe certain things.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I think part of the problem here lies in the use of terms. Judging just from this correspondence, I’d say that part of what Young Theist means when he uses the word ‘good’ is an action that is objectively meritorious. Helping the needy, donating to Unicef or volunteering at a soup kitchen may all be doing good things but there is nothing objectively meritorious in these actions. ‘Objectivity’ here conceived as something apart from human acts of meaning-bestowal. In other words, kind acts either obtain merit from human beings/communities or it receives merit intrinsically for being in conformity to some moral order apart from humanity. If the former, then a moral action has no objective goodness to it, only the bestowals of such a meaning and, as a result, open to reassessment and change. If the latter, then this suggests something like a personal God who would both be responsible for such a moral order and capable of judging actions as deserving merit. Therefore, yes, a universe without God is a universe without objectively meritorious goodness. This is why, for him, he can't do something good without doing it for God. For him the motivational and definitional are collapsed into one.
I think there is something about human moral intuition that tends to lead in this direction. Imagine Robinson Crusoe isolated on his island. Is there anything he can do to become a morally good person? Can we say there is a moral difference for isolated Crusoe to spend his time gorging his face with dates and nuts compared to writing a guide for future castaways to perhaps find and use to survive? It intuitively seems odd to say there is no moral difference. We want to say the benevolent Crusoe writing for future victims is a better person than hedonistic Crusoe, but the problem becomes difficult when Crusoe’s book is destined to never be found. What merit can be given to a good act that never finds purchase through human recognition?
Of course, I recognize, even if Young Theist doesn't, that human intuition is notoriously flawed in favor of evolutionary ends. But I figured I'd throw my fallible interpretation of his thinking into the mix.
Post a Comment