I believe the Bible should be accepted as true because . . . .

[Guy Threepwood]

Success is irrelevant. As I pointed out some book has to be the "most successful", however you define that. That does not mean "God" created it. Some building has to be the tallest, does that mean "God" built it?

You say that this must be inspired by "God" because it is infuluential. That is not logical.

You say that it must be inspired by "God" because you think if I was "God" this is what I would do. This is illogical, untrue, and nonsense.

If that building inspired mankind, influenced it's course in history more than any other object, yes, I'd suspect it was divinely inspired.

If God created the universe, and humanity with it, it's an odd assumption that he would have no interest in us

 

[fantome profane]

If that building inspired mankind, influenced it's course in history more than any other object, yes, I'd suspect it was divinely inspired.

If God created the universe, and humanity with it, it's an odd assumption that he would have no interest in us

If "God" does exist, then I think "God" is probably very odd. At least by human standards.

I find you reasoning to be flawed.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, this thread should have used the word "factual" rather than "true"

Yeah, asking if mythologies are factual is a different question, and the answer is obviously no. They are, and never were, factual. They are, and never were, books created under the premises of empirical naturalism or scientific methodology. I don't understand why people expect this to be the case, as that is not the purpose of mythology, and folks certainly wouldn't have this expectation of any contemporary mythologies.

Though interestingly, science texts aren't strictly factual either, they're collections of hypotheses, theories, and laws based upon currently available and assessed facts. A presentation of just the facts would basically be your raw data or the results section of a scientific publication. No introduction, methods, discussion, or conclusions, which makes for an amazingly meaningless and boring thing on its own. It's my least favorite section of a scientific paper to write because it's so boring and meaningless by itself, though it is easily the most important section and always the one I write first. Mythologies basically do the same thing the other sections of a scientific paper do; they provide context and meaning to observations. Granted, mythos is allowed to fudge facts to tell an engaging story, and the sciences obviously are not, but that's part of what makes mythos so much fun!

 

[Skwim]

That's a lot of opinion for someone who doesn't accept the validity of the Bible.

So, would you have to be a communist to have an opinion about communism? Or a nudist to have an opinion about it social nudity? Or an astrologer to have an opinion about astrology? See how dopey your remark is? Or don't you?.

I have no desire to convince you,

Okay. It wasn't mandatory or anything.

I couldn't care less what you believe or what you worship.

But thank you for caring enough to post your rather dumb, but entertaining, remark above.

 

[Desert Snake]

So, would you have to be a communist to have an opinion about communism? Or a nudist to have an opinion about it social nudity? Or an astrologer to have an opinion about astrology? See how dopey your remark is? Or don't you?.

Okay. It wasn't mandatory or anything.

But thank you for caring enough to post your rather dumb, but entertaining, remark above.

Actually yes, I like to have some knowledge about the things I criticize, especially religious texts and the such.

 

[sincerly]

Yeah, asking if mythologies are factual is a different question, and the answer is obviously no. They are, and never were, factual. They are, and never were, books created under the premises of empirical naturalism or scientific methodology. I don't understand why people expect this to be the case, as that is not the purpose of mythology, and folks certainly wouldn't have this expectation of any contemporary mythologies.

Though interestingly, science texts aren't strictly factual either, they're collections of hypotheses, theories, and laws based upon currently available and assessed facts. A presentation of just the facts would basically be your raw data or the results section of a scientific publication. No introduction, methods, discussion, or conclusions, which makes for an amazingly meaningless and boring thing on its own. It's my least favorite section of a scientific paper to write because it's so boring and meaningless by itself, though it is easily the most important section and always the one I write first. Mythologies basically do the same thing the other sections of a scientific paper do; they provide context and meaning to observations. Granted, mythos is allowed to fudge facts to tell an engaging story, and the sciences obviously are not, but that's part of what makes mythos so much fun!

Quint, the only Fact/evidence one sees, can be touched, hears, can be felt and tasted is what is called the earth and world and things upon it.

It is the Bible that gives one to answers to the existence of it all. One part of that which is seen is "LIFE". Mankind in all his knowledge/wisdom and experiments has not been able to prove how something came from nothing and then produced "life" spontaneously.
It is the "mythos" presented by mankind even in "fudging" what is seen (the existing world and things upon it) that is still lacking the crucial necessary elements/items to make their suppositions Truth/Fact.
There is the creator and the Bible was given to mankind to Know HIM(GOD).

 

[sincerly]

Guy Threepwood said: ↑
If that building inspired mankind, influenced it's course in history more than any other object, yes, I'd suspect it was divinely inspired.

If God created the universe, and humanity with it, it's an odd assumption that he would have no interest in us

If "God" does exist, then I think "God" is probably very odd. At least by human standards.

I find you reasoning to be flawed.

Since God is still inspiring/influencing some of mankind as is evidenced by the mounted opposition to denounce HIS existence, then the source for revealing that existence is/was divinely inspired.

Puny mankind can not create anything comparable to the "Whole of what is seen", therefore, mankind can not be the "standard."

 

[fantome profane]

.
Since God is still inspiring/influencing some of mankind as is evidenced by the mounted opposition to denounce HIS existence, then the source for revealing that existence is/was divinely inspired.

Do me a favour please. Try reading this paragraph out loud to yourself. And then tell me if it makes any sense. I have read it a few times and I can't discern any meaning from it at all.

 

[sincerly]

sincerly said: ↑
.Since God is still inspiring/influencing some of mankind as is evidenced by the mounted opposition to denounce HIS existence, then the source for revealing that existence is/was divinely inspired.

Do me a favour please. Try reading this paragraph out loud to yourself. And then tell me if it makes any sense. I have read it a few times and I can't discern any meaning from it at all.

That's because you are a part of the opposition.

 

[joshua3886]

"The bible is true because it says it's true".
-Every Christian argument about the bible.

 

[sincerly]

"The bible is true because it says it's true".
-Every Christian argument about the bible.

What is seen is what was revealed.