Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 4:00:27 GMT -5
Quote - "What is your belief as regards the bible being the Word of God or inspired by God? How do you support that view?"
Fiendishly difficult question. Yes, I accept the bible is the inspired word of God. But... that inspired word isn't what people think. God sends "strong delusion" and people don't expect that in scripture. ie Ninety percent of the OT Messiah prophecies were for a reigning, conquering King, just ten percent portrayed the suffering Jesus. This is THE major reason why most "thinking" or secular Jews rejected Jesus. God relies upon mortal people to record and transmit that message - people think that could be done better. ie this gives people huge latitude to translate as they see fit, and thus scripture loses credibility with the cognoscenti. God's word is contradictory. Amazingly contradictory. This offends people who think they are smart. The bible is so "small" It focuses upon one tiny family or people in one tiny part of the earth on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in a rather small galaxy in a remote part of a VAST universe. Lots of people feel it could have done better had it "known" more. And so on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 4:10:31 GMT -5
Quote - "What is your belief as regards the bible being the Word of God or inspired by God? How do you support that view?"
Fiendishly difficult question. Yes, I accept the bible is the inspired word of God. But... that inspired word isn't what people think. God sends "strong delusion" and people don't expect that in scripture. ie Ninety percent of the OT Messiah prophecies were for a reigning, conquering King, just ten percent portrayed the suffering Jesus. This is THE major reason why most "thinking" or secular Jews rejected Jesus. God relies upon mortal people to record and transmit that message - people think that could be done better. ie this gives people huge latitude to translate as they see fit, and thus scripture loses credibility with the cognoscenti. God's word is contradictory. Amazingly contradictory. This offends people who think they are smart. The bible is so "small" It focuses upon one tiny family or people in one tiny part of the earth on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in a rather small galaxy in a remote part of a VAST universe. Lots of people feel it could have done better had it "known" more. And so on. Bert, perhaps I missed it but you don't appear to have provided anything to support your belief that the bible is inspired of God. Perhaps you'd like to have another go? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 4:11:15 GMT -5
That's a matter of faith.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 4:18:11 GMT -5
That's a matter of faith. Bert, you did say that you don't care what anyone believes but you do care how they support their view. You said this in relation to Stephen Hawkins I believe. Is there no hint of irony in the fact that you are unable to support one of your most fundamental and publicly declared beliefs? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 4:34:30 GMT -5
Yes, that's our vulnerability. I believe God through the power of the Gospel, and the experience. I don't say you can "prove" God, but many want to "disprove" God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 5:17:39 GMT -5
Yes, that's our vulnerability. I believe God through the power of the Gospel, and the experience. I don't say you can "prove" God, but many want to "disprove" God. Bert, of course this wasn't anything to do with proving or disproving God. This was about you providing support for your beliefs - in this case your belief that the bible was inspired by God - something which you couldn't do despite you appearing to be demanding it of people who believe differently than you do. I expect others can make up their own minds on whether there's any hint of hypocrisy here. Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 5:24:45 GMT -5
You might need to reword this. The argument is interesting.
I believe in the bible because of the power I feel in it I am suspicious of someone who "proves" there is a God, just as I am of someone "disproving" God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 5:52:18 GMT -5
You might need to reword this. The argument is interesting. I believe in the bible because of the power I feel in it I am suspicious of someone who "proves" there is a God, just as I am of someone "disproving" God. Bert, at the risk of repeating myself to the point of nausea this isn't/wasn't about proving or disproving God. It was about your belief that the bible is inspired by God. I note you are now using a different phrase i.e. that you "believe in the bible". I've never really understood what the term "believe in the bible" means even though it's trotted out regularly. Does it mean one believes everything in the bible is true? Does it mean that every event n the bible has been recorded accurately and very word spoken translated accurately? Does it mean that God dictated every word in it? Does it mean that those who wrote all the books in it believed in God and recorded what they believe God was saying to them? It isn't at all clear. Can you therefore clarify what you mean when you say that you "believe in the bible"? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 6:02:47 GMT -5
Ok, "I believe in the bible." I believe it is the inspired word of God, because of its power, its authority, and its history. I don't believe it is fully literal - there's lots of symbolic stuff there, too. I believe it was written ** largely ** by those who witnessed its record. I believe it has been mangled through translations - but its message remains the same. And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 12:08:41 GMT -5
Ok, "I believe in the bible." I believe it is the inspired word of God, because of its power, its authority, and its history. I don't believe it is fully literal - there's lots of symbolic stuff there, too. I believe it was written ** largely ** by those who witnessed its record. I believe it has been mangled through translations - but its message remains the same. And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve. I don't understand why anyone would actively want to disbelieve if it held even some iota of common sense. I think if there was proof that there is 1. a God and 2. the bible is inspired by that God, most people would be just fine with believing it. However, there is no proof that 1. there is a God, and 2. that the bible is inspired by this God. I have been told that the reason I don't believe in God is because I am 'unwilling'. My question is Unwilling for what? I don't kill anyone, I try to be loving and kind, I try to be as honest and truthful as I can be, I neither drink nor smoke nor do drugs. What exactly would I be unwilling for that would change the way I currently live my life? It wouldn't be a hardship for me to believe in God if there was proof. I'm already as good as any Christian as far as what is asked for in the bible and the commandments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 13:34:07 GMT -5
Ok, "I believe in the bible." I believe it is the inspired word of God, because of its power, its authority, and its history. I don't believe it is fully literal - there's lots of symbolic stuff there, too. I believe it was written ** largely ** by those who witnessed its record. I believe it has been mangled through translations - but its message remains the same. And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve. I don't understand why anyone would actively want to disbelieve if it held even some iota of common sense. I think if there was proof that there is 1. a God and 2. the bible is inspired by that God, most people would be just fine with believing it. However, there is no proof that 1. there is a God, and 2. that the bible is inspired by this God. I have been told that the reason I don't believe in God is because I am 'unwilling'. My question is Unwilling for what? I don't kill anyone, I try to be loving and kind, I try to be as honest and truthful as I can be, I neither drink nor smoke nor do drugs. What exactly would I be unwilling for that would change the way I currently live my life? It wouldn't be a hardship for me to believe in God if there was proof. I'm already as good as any Christian as far as what is asked for in the bible and the commandments. you dont do it for God, Christ or the Holy spirit, thats the difference...
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 23, 2014 14:59:40 GMT -5
I don't understand why anyone would actively want to disbelieve if it held even some iota of common sense. I think if there was proof that there is 1. a God and 2. the bible is inspired by that God, most people would be just fine with believing it. However, there is no proof that 1. there is a God, and 2. that the bible is inspired by this God. I have been told that the reason I don't believe in God is because I am 'unwilling'. My question is Unwilling for what? I don't kill anyone, I try to be loving and kind, I try to be as honest and truthful as I can be, I neither drink nor smoke nor do drugs. What exactly would I be unwilling for that would change the way I currently live my life? It wouldn't be a hardship for me to believe in God if there was proof. I'm already as good as any Christian as far as what is asked for in the bible and the commandments. you dont do it for God, Christ or the Holy spirit, thats the difference... You missed my point. If I believed in God I would do all those things for God and I still wouldn't have to change anything but who I did it for. If I knew there was a God who loved me, I would do those things for that God. My point was it's not that I'm unwilling because there is nothing I'm doing I would have to change. So it wouldn't be any hardship. Most people say those who don't believe in God are unwilling because they insinuate that we don't believe because we would have to give up something. I would say that in my case I wouldn't be giving up anything and I think there are a lot of non believers that wouldn't have to give anything up either. It's just that they don't see any proof or reason to believe in a God.
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 23, 2014 15:49:44 GMT -5
you dont do it for God, Christ or the Holy spirit, thats the difference... You missed my point. If I believed in God I would do all those things for God and I still wouldn't have to change anything but who I did it for. If I knew there was a God who loved me, I would do those things for that God. My point was it's not that I'm unwilling because there is nothing I'm doing I would have to change. So it wouldn't be any hardship. Most people say those who don't believe in God are unwilling because they insinuate that we don't believe because we would have to give up something. I would say that in my case I wouldn't be giving up anything and I think there are a lot of non believers that wouldn't have to give anything up either. It's just that they don't see any proof or reason to believe in a God. One thing you would be giving up, I think... Your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of Christ.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 16:54:30 GMT -5
Ok, "I believe in the bible." I believe it is the inspired word of God, because of its power, its authority, and its history. I don't believe it is fully literal - there's lots of symbolic stuff there, too. I believe it was written ** largely ** by those who witnessed its record. I believe it has been mangled through translations - but its message remains the same. And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve. A fairly decent attempt Bert at explaining this (even if I wouldn't agree with most of it). Matt10
|
|
|
Post by déjà vu on Nov 23, 2014 17:54:33 GMT -5
Psalm 14:1 Richard Dawkins dying words ..? I hope some darn fundie doesn't quote mine my last words to make it seem like I recant my atheism and accept Jesus as my saviour". What percentage of fundamentalists would quote his final words as "I recant my atheism and accept Jesus as my saviour"? answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091024095322AACfL7v
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 18:06:07 GMT -5
I am not sure if I need to go any further with this subject. It takes quite a while to think this stuff through and take notes as I read. I don't need to convince myself. And if I answer a point here the subject moves onto something else.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 18:09:28 GMT -5
I have referred to things he said with enough precision for you to agree, had you read his book. I gave you these two quotes verbatim 1 - God is a "monster." 2 - Jesus is a "milk sop."
and addressed them with more thought than he did in his assertion.
NO, BERT, YOU HAVE NOTreferred to things he said with ANY precision!
TWO QUOTES YOU GAVE:
1 - God is a "monster." 2 - Jesus is a "milk sop." (can't even find that he ever made that statement)
DAWKINS GAVE REASONS FOR THOSE STATEMENTS! Why don't you give his reasons if you really read them? IF YOU DID read them, you would realize that his critique of GOD is correct & you just don't want to expose the truth!
You have NEVER given examples of your list of so called "fallacies!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 20:18:03 GMT -5
Sorry, I am at school and don't have access to that book. I am not sure if Dawkins gave a reason for calling Jesus a quote unquote "milk sop." It's quite an appalling thing to say - given the professed offense Dawkins felt for the harshness of God's judgment in the Old Testament. Here's Jesus, judging no-one, giving his life for his people, and he's a "milk sop."
Dawkins judgement of God as a "monster" could have referred to any number of things recorded in the OT - destruction of the Egyptians, or Canaanites, or the Jews or even the world.
As Jesus said, "as for those who won't that I should rule over them, bring them here and slay them before my eyes." So we need to define what a "monster" is to Dawkins, and for that matter, what a "milk sop" is.
And besides, monster or milk sop, it says nothing about whether God is a "delusion."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 21:06:42 GMT -5
Quote - "What is your belief as regards the bible being the Word of God or inspired by God? How do you support that view?"
Fiendishly difficult question. Yes, I accept the bible is the inspired word of God. But... that inspired word isn't what people think. God sends "strong delusion" and people don't expect that in scripture. ie Ninety percent of the OT Messiah prophecies were for a reigning, conquering King, just ten percent portrayed the suffering Jesus. This is THE major reason why most "thinking" or secular Jews rejected Jesus. God relies upon mortal people to record and transmit that message - people think that could be done better. ie this gives people huge latitude to translate as they see fit, and thus scripture loses credibility with the cognoscenti. God's word is contradictory. Amazingly contradictory. This offends people who think they are smart. The bible is so "small" It focuses upon one tiny family or people in one tiny part of the earth on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in a rather small galaxy in a remote part of a VAST universe. Lots of people feel it could have done better had it "known" more. And so on. Isn't that what I have been saying all along? It was people who created GOD in their image not GOD creating people in HIS image.
"God's word" certainly is contradictory!
The bible certainly does cover only one tribe who believed that they are the only chosen people of GOD! Other tribes had their "GODS." Other countries had their "GODS."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 21:26:46 GMT -5
That's a matter of faith. We understand that of course your belief is a "matter of faith."
You say that you "believe it is the "inspired word of God," because of its power, its authority, and its history."
You don't give us the evidence of what is that "power," or evidence of what is that "authority," or how it has affected "history," -as the reason that you believe that it is the "inspired word of GOD."
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 22:05:52 GMT -5
Yes, that's our vulnerability. I believe God through the power of the Gospel, and the experience. I don't say you can "prove" God, but many want to "disprove" God. Nope, You got it wrong again, Bert! We don't need to disprove the existence any of your paranormal beings!
You are the one that needs to prove your god with evidence!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:10:09 GMT -5
The power and authority of the bible is summed up by reading Matthew 5, 6 and 7.
The bible effected history is some seriously strange ways, ie When Daniel was in captivity in Babylon God spoke of a SECOND COMING of the Jews back to Israel - and a nation of people will be living in "cities without walls." Kind of strange back then. That history is played out in the news nearly every day now.
And the OT speaks of the Messiah as one "whom the Gentiles shall trust." Jesus became the most influential man that ever lived.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:12:17 GMT -5
Quote - "Nope, You got it wrong again, Bert! We don't need to disprove the existence any of your paranormal beings! You are the one that needs to prove your god with evidence!"
Dawkins tries to "disprove" God. I don't care to "prove" God. I "believe" in God - he is the God of my experience. I have understand as I got older/old that there are NO AUTHORITIES on the issue, ultimately. (and certainly, not Dawkins...)
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 22:12:52 GMT -5
I am not sure if I need to go any further with this subject. It takes quite a while to think this stuff through and take notes as I read.I don't need to convince myself. And if I answer a point here the subject moves onto something else. Yes, I understand it takes awhile to think though. Took me quite a long while to arrive at my conclusions.
I had to do a lot of reading & thinking.
Just keep on reading, Bert.
Let us know later some of your comments.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2014 22:16:49 GMT -5
Well his comments on some guy who believed in God because he "heard the devil" one night (an animal, I believe) attests to the sheer shallowness of Dawkins argument.
I suppose I am soon to read about what "religious wars" did to the world too. Without any test of what "secular" terrors have done in the last century, or how people are beginning to behave without religious constraint. That won't be mentioned, for sure.
I got a bored Catholic student once to spend a day or two counting how many people died in secular vs religious conflict in the 20th Century. It was quite amazing - something like 85-90% were secular.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 23, 2014 22:31:27 GMT -5
You missed my point. If I believed in God I would do all those things for God and I still wouldn't have to change anything but who I did it for. If I knew there was a God who loved me, I would do those things for that God. My point was it's not that I'm unwilling because there is nothing I'm doing I would have to change. So it wouldn't be any hardship. Most people say those who don't believe in God are unwilling because they insinuate that we don't believe because we would have to give up something. I would say that in my case I wouldn't be giving up anything and I think there are a lot of non believers that wouldn't have to give anything up either. It's just that they don't see any proof or reason to believe in a God. One thing you would be giving up, I think... Your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of Christ. Emy, if you had to give up "your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of", instead the mind of Christ, let's say the mind of The Vedic deity Mitra?
or the mind of Gautama Buddha?
Would you be willing to do that? After all, they are also "Gods."
|
|
|
Post by emy on Nov 23, 2014 22:50:59 GMT -5
One thing you would be giving up, I think... Your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of Christ. Emy, if you had to give up "your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of", instead the mind of Christ, let's say the mind of The Vedic deity Mitra?
or the mind of Gautama Buddha?
Would you be willing to do that? After all, they are also "Gods."
First of all, I would need to know what they stand for. But at this point, no, I wouldn't, because there is no other name ... wherein we must be saved.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 24, 2014 1:27:55 GMT -5
Religion, like sex and politics, speaks to the individual in every one of us. We tend to support our positions with whatever tools we have. I had lunch beside a lake today with a very intelligent woman who takes me to science conferences. One subject was Dawkins God Delusion book. She quoted Steve Hawkings to support her atheism - Hawkins!!!! Hawkins used the logic fallacy called "Appeal to Improper Authority" - ie Hawkings is an authority on science, not an authority on God. Would you quote the "New Age" Shirley MacLaine as an authority on science? I don't care what someone believes, but I do care how they support that view. My friend was impressed that Hawkings said that "God couldn't create the big bang because time was created during that event, and nothing can operate outside time." Lots of fallacies and wrong assertions there. Hawkings should know that religious people believe that God exists OUTSIDE of the universe - so to take on religion he must take on what religious people believe. "Dazzling with Science" is actually just another logic fallacy. Why should Hawkings have to take on that argument even though he does know that religious people believe that God exists OUTSIDE of the universe?
That is not HIS job! That is your job to explain!
Doesn't that statement you quoted of his, "God couldn't create the big bang because time was created during that event, and nothing can operate outside time," confirm that there is NOT any need for a God to exist OUTSIDE of the universe?
How can you get what someone states so muddled that you have them saying just the opposite of their meaning?
|
|