A Book?

[fr0d0]

If I don't want to? It's not a case of want - except that I want the truth. And as far as I know there is no more evidence that the Bible is evidence of God than that the FSM Gospel is evidence of the FSM. There is zero evidence in both cases. So why would I believe otherwise?

I want to know the truth too. You look where you wanna look, I'll look where I wanna look. I have no interest in shoving your head into my world. You finding out by yourself is fine by me.

2. Why make an irrational leap (dumping evidence) to GOD rather than the FSM?

Because there's rational support from the bible to make the leap.

WHAT rational support? And if there really IS rational support then that would equate to evidence and hence cancel out the "Faith". If there is rational support from the bible - a reason to believe it is actually true - then why would you need faith? You can't anyway - you've got evidence if there's rational support to believe it's actually true so you can't have "Faith" because Faith is WITHOUT evidence.

Illogical bollocks Evie.

I've answered that question many many times here. You see no difference between what is empty & meaningless and what holds reason.

I do not see one answer. You simply say the Bible carries rational reasons to believe in God but I do not know of any. I know of no more evidence for the TRUTH of the Bible being evidence for "God" than the FSM Gospel being evidence for the FSM...

HOW did you answer my question? How is the Bible any different? "Because it is"? -How does that answer my question??

I didn't say "because it is". You have to want to work it out for yourself. It isn't something anyone can prove to you. That's the point. I won't mess with your mind, so you have no choice but to do it for yourself.

How about show ANY bits of it or ANY small amount of ANYTHING however tiny that is even REMOTELY evidence to believe that God actually exists?

Like I said. It's there for everyone to see Evie.

I beg to differ. How do you know?

As far as I know there is no evidence to believe that God exists whether we CAN have evidence for him or not....so I don't believe.

You beg to differ? So you think there CAN be evidence to believe in God? I thought you said there couldn't?

EvF

Sorry I must've mis-read you there.

---

Without evidence, how do you decide what is meaningless, and what isn't?

Using rationalisation

Surely rationalisation has to be based on some kind of evidence?
If not, can you describe the rationalisation for me?

Is drunkenness good or bad. There are various angles to consider and you'd rationalise, given the presented situations if we were using the Bible, and make a decision one way or the other. It's an intellectual exercise.

sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you had observed things that applied.
So you're saying that everything in the bible is direct observation?

I didn't say that. There are observations of God. Of Gods involvement & interactions with humans...

I think that observation is too strong a word, in that they could just as easily be purely fiction.
But anyway, how do these "observations" apply to your life?

I disagree of course. These observations are extremely rare and beautiful things. People can agree that this is what they are. They are perfect statements.

These observations enable me to know ultimate purpose and a focus as opposed to freedom to not know what the hell the point is and wandering around in darkness. To be extreme. We all search for meaning and the right choice. We all make assumptions. These are the basis for a lot of my assumptions.

Psalm 93 - you can't be serious!

Why not? This part isn't meant to be taken literally because..... ?
Describe your process of differentiating between fact, fiction and metaphor.[/quote]

The Psalms are poems. That's what Psalm means. We know these books are allegorical because that is the nature of the poetry here.

Very obviously the story in Joshua is allegorical. I'll place you in the nutters pigeonhole with the Creationists then.

How do you decide what is allegorical and what literal truth?
Personal incredulity?
Random choice?
Social acceptability? (e.g "all the parts where god condones slavery must be metaphorical, because it's socially unacceptabe to condone slavery")

From thorough study of the facts aligned with professional consultation to try to realise the meaning most closely intended.

And as Kyu rightly pointed out, your decision on what's true could differ wildly to another christian's.
But the truth isn't open to decisions on what's true. The truth is the truth.
So for your bible to hold any truth value at all there must be a reliable, consistent, way of choosing truth, that is independant of the "chooser".

What you're suggesting, from a position of ignorance if I may suggest, is that interpretation is entirely random. There is in fact a reliable and consistent interpretation, which is how Christians agree. This would be impossible if your statement was true. Certainly any nut job could make far out interpretations, but if that fell outside accepted interpretive boundaries then Christians would disown it, and this happens.

It follows the logic. Brings the benefits promised from the rationalisations leading to the reasons for leaping.

What are the benefits?

A better chance of living for the moment and not being distracted by irrelevant shit. Being aware of stuff that's detrimental to that.