A Book?

[Kyuuketsuki]

The Bible isn't like you say. Parts are literal, parts are allegorical. Parts are not definitely one or the other. So... most of it is clear; small parts are not. The nature of God is clear; his purpose for our lives is clear, plus there's loads more. There's no end to our current understanding but to state that it's 'all irrational' is somewhat simplistic and very inaccurate, unless you're looking through very tinted glasses.

OK ... if everything in scripture is not meant to be taken literally how do you decide which is or is not the literal truth? To say that you simply use your brain is not an adequate answer because it means that someone else can interpret it in an entirely different and (to them) completely justifiable manner ... you must be able to fully explain why it is you regard whatever bits of your bible as false or metaphor and which you do not.

IOW, if we are to accept that your bible has real credibility then there must be reliable, consistent and verifiable methods of distinguishing true from false and both from metaphor ... if ultimately all you do is decide for yourself then your beliefs are meaningless in any real terms.

Oh I know you'll have some glib, wishy washy answer to this but deep down you know this is not unreasonable ... I'm not even asking for real evidence any more, just reasonable consistency of interpretation of your own bible.

Kyu

[lilphil1989]

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

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

Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life.

Any chance you'll share these observations?

You want me to share the entire bible?!

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?

The bible is all true. The bible isn't all literal.

How can something be true, but not literally true?

Show me where in the Bible it says that the Sun orbits the earth.

Psalm 93:
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

In Joshua 10, the sun is made to "stand still". But in a solar-centric model of the solar system this is meaningless.

The act of faith is also beneficial in itself.

How so?

[fr0d0]

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

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

Using rationalisation

Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life.

Any chance you'll share these observations?

You want me to share the entire bible?!

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...

The bible is all true. The bible isn't all literal.

How can something be true, but not literally true?

God didn't 'literally' create the universe in 6 days, as we define day = 24 hours. there wasn't actually a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. etc.. These are statements of truth not concerning literal truth.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the Sun orbits the earth.

Psalm 93:
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

In Joshua 10, the sun is made to "stand still". But in a solar-centric model of the solar system this is meaningless.

Psalm 93 - you can't be serious!

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

The act of faith is also beneficial in itself.

How so?

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

[Edwardo Piet]

1. Why should science and evidence be dumped for either of those things when both are so rational? Why should anything be believed without evidence nevermind things such as God and the FSM?

This thing can't be seen any other way. If you don't want to ee it, fair enough. If you do, you know what to do.

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?

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.

As I asked in my question above (and I don't see how you answered it??): Why give God special treatment over the FSM?

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

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??

What evidence is there that the Bible is any more evidence for "God" than the FSM Gospel is for the FSM?

Because I reasoned that the leap of faith would be worthwhile based on observations in the bible that applied to my own life.

Any chance you'll share these observations?

You want me to share the entire bible?!

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?

...any more or less than than the FSM Gospel is evidence for the FSM?

fr0d0 do I have to put it any more bluntly than: There's no evidence to BELIEVE in "God" whether we CAN have evidence for him...or not.

EvF

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

[lilphil1989]

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?

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?

The gospel of the flying spaghetti monster contains observations about His noodly holiness.
Whether or not they are true is a different matter.

Show me where in the Bible it says that the Sun orbits the earth.

Psalm 93:
The world is firmly established;
it cannot be moved.

In Joshua 10, the sun is made to "stand still". But in a solar-centric model of the solar system this is meaningless.

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.

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")

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".

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

What are the benefits?

[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.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I assume that you have no answer to my point Frodo.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

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.

Fair enough. I just have no idea why you believe without any rational reasoning. If you DO have rational reasoning then that would equate to evidence so faith would be impossible because there can be no faith with evidence.

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.

Why? Cos 'you say so'? I made an argument and you have no argument back...that's what it looks like to me.

As I said you can't have rational reasons to believe in the bible AND have faith in it. Because if you had rational reasons to believe in the TRUTH of it and that God therefore actually exists then that would equate to evidence and hence cancel out the faith. There's logic there. You simply say it's bollocks...

I assume that's because you have no counter argument..?

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.

That's all very subjective though and everyone sees it differently. Where is the OBJECTIVE evidence for something OBJECTIVE such as God???? Where is this 'reasoning' that God actually exists that would therefore equate to evidence that you speak of? If there IS some it would cancel out your faith and I would like to know of it!! If there ISN'T any (and I of course, don't believe there is) - then you WOULD need faith TO believe but to do so would be entirely irrational because it means you are believing without reason at all. Because if you actually had rational reasons then it would count as evidence. Faith is irrational - you can't both have faith and rational reasoning to believe - because rational reasoning to believe would equate to evidence.

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.

And I don't see any evidence. Or know of any reason to believe the Bible is any more evidence that the FSM gospel. If you have any 'reasoning' or evidence (which is what it would equate to if this 'reasoning' is at all rational).

If you want to just keep it to yourself then fine. But why are you here if whenever asked why you believe you keep it a secret?

What I want to know is HOW on EARTH you think the bible is reason to believe God exists or reason to believe in God on faith (without evidence (and therefore without reasons!!! Totally irrational)).

EvF

[fr0d0]

Sorry Kyu I did have a reason for ignoring it which escapes me now. That point has been covered a lot recently. the video I posted answers it, from my perspective of course, if you haven't seen that.

To me Evie we've reached the end of that thread. The reasoning is there and at this height (our discussion on the logic) all I can say is that you will learn what you want to learn. If you've considered the evidence (the Bible ) and you don't see it well that's fine. I've studied the same evidence and see it. This is the nature of it.

Maybe when talking specifics we can get into the nitty gritty of it.

[Edwardo Piet]

To me Evie we've reached the end of that thread. The reasoning is there and at this height (our discussion on the logic) all I can say is that you will learn what you want to learn.

But if the reasoning is there and it's at all valid then you can't have faith because the reasoning would equate to evidence, unless the reasoning has no bearing whatsoever on God's existence in which case you have no reason to believe that he exists! Right?

EvF