Who Said the Bible is True?

[Orbit]

Right there. Your subjective experience of the electrochemical reaction in the brain is irrelevant to everyone but you.

You are committing the sin of reductionism, which is a no-no in the scientific method. You are doing biological determinism. The mind is not the brain. You seem to think physical science is the only science out there. Epistemologies are tools. You wouldn't use a microscope to look at the stars; and you shouldn't try to use an MRI to look at the mind.

Subjectivity is quite real. Pain is subjective and it matters a great deal to you if you are the one in pain. It is not defensible to dismiss all experience on the basis of it being subjective. In addition, meditative states have been well documented, and we do see patterns in the kinds of subjective experiences that people have. If you were being rigorous, you would turn to phenomenology, not physical science, to examine the question of mystical experience.

 

[Cephus]

You are committing the sin of reductionism, which is a no-no in the scientific method. You are doing biological determinism. The mind is not the brain. You seem to think physical science is the only science out there. Epistemologies are tools. You wouldn't use a microscope to look at the stars; and you shouldn't try to use an MRI to look at the mind.

Subjectivity is quite real. Pain is subjective and it matters are great deal to you if you are the one in pain. It is not defensible to dismiss all experience on the basis of it being subjective. In addition, meditative states have been well documented, and we do see patterns in the kinds of subjective experiences that people have. If you were being rigorous, you would turn to phenomenology, not physical science, to examine the question of mystical experience.

If you hold that it is not the brain, where is your evidence? You're just making unsupported assertions. We take what we know and we stick with it until something shows it to be wrong. So go ahead, show it to be wrong. We'll wait for your amazing revelation that, we both know, is never coming.

While subjectivity is certainly "real" in the sense that the individual experiencer has a particular interpretation of the sensory data, that doesn't mean that it's "real" in the larger world. If you have a dream about zombies, regardless of your subjective experience, that doesn't mean that the walking dead are really running around, any more than the stereotypical drunk seeing pink elephants means that pink elephants actually exist. That's what I keep trying to get you to look at but you keep arguing. If you talk to that drunk and they tell you they saw pink elephants, they need to realize that the effect of alcohol on their brain was the cause, not some mystical experience, not some desire to see pink elephants, there is a rational explanation for what happened, regardless of their individual subjective experience. But some people around here seem totally emotionally wedded to the idea that something special is happening to them when there is no evidence whatsoever that there is.

 

[Domenic]

And why should we believe them? The evidence?

The Focus on the Family web site tried this tact but failed miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is." Nice, but hardly convincing. Nothing becomes true simply because we believe it is. Of course other characteristics were cited that supposedly confirms the Bible's truth: "it corresponds to reality," it's "internally consistent," and it's "coherent." But as we all know, this can be equally true of a whole lot of BS.

Then they presented a basket full of specious evidence such as, "copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately," "the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history," and "making a case for the truth of the resurrection also makes a case for the truth claims of Jesus and, in turn, the reliability and truth of the Bible." and what makes the case for the truth of the resurrection? They say it's Paul's admission that "if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith "is futile; you are still in your sins."

But perhaps Focus on the Family is simply inept in making a case for the truth of the Bible, and really botched the job. So I ask:,

What rational evidence do you have that the Bible is true?
(No need to bother yourself with things such as the Flood or Jonah in the "big fish." We'll just accept them as tall tails)

TRUE OR FALSE?

There are many things in the Bible that prove itself true...If I showed prophesies, and matched them to history, and they showed they were correct, the likes of you would reply. "The prophecy was written after the history event"...but the likes of you never show proof they were written after the event. So my reply the your OP is..."Believe what you want, it helps make our position clear to God. It is one of the things we are judged on.

 

[Cephus]

TRUE OR FALSE?

There are many things in the Bible that prove itself true...If I showed prophesies, and matched them to history, and they showed they were correct, the likes of you would reply. "The prophecy was written after the history event"...but the likes of you never show proof they were written after the event. So my reply the your OP is..."Believe what you want, it helps make our position clear to God. It is one of the things we are judged on.

That's ridiculous. There are no specific prophecies in the Bible, only vague claims that apologists have fitted to later events. The same is true of Nostradamus. You cannot produce a single specific prophecy from the Bible or any other religious book that is so detailed that it can only refer to a single event.

 

[JoStories]

And why should we believe them? The evidence?

The Focus on the Family web site tried this tact but failed miserably. It asked "How Do We Know the Bible Is True?" and then went on to answer by essentially saying "because Christians believe it is." Nice, but hardly convincing. Nothing becomes true simply because we believe it is. Of course other characteristics were cited that supposedly confirms the Bible's truth: "it corresponds to reality," it's "internally consistent," and it's "coherent." But as we all know, this can be equally true of a whole lot of BS.

Then they presented a basket full of specious evidence such as, "copies show that the Bible has been transmitted accurately," "the Christian worldview is robust, reasonable and grounded in history," and "making a case for the truth of the resurrection also makes a case for the truth claims of Jesus and, in turn, the reliability and truth of the Bible." and what makes the case for the truth of the resurrection? They say it's Paul's admission that "if the resurrection did not happen, Christian faith "is futile; you are still in your sins."

But perhaps Focus on the Family is simply inept in making a case for the truth of the Bible, and really botched the job. So I ask:,

What rational evidence do you have that the Bible is true?
(No need to bother yourself with things such as the Flood or Jonah in the "big fish." We'll just accept them as tall tails)

If you define rational as that which be proven scientifically, then the answer is obviously none. Even if we broaden that definition to what a person can prove to another in the absence of physical evidence, its still sketchy. I personally do not believe in the authenticity of the Bible. Nor the historicity. However, what a person holds to be true may be unable to proved and what is the harm in that? My mother believes completely in the Bible and nothing can shake her faith. Nor would I want anything to as this gives her solace. Where is the harm in people finding peace wherever they can?

 

[JoStories]

I would disagree. I use several holy books for contemplation from several traditions, and all give me something that secularism cannot--a window into the mystic experience. Of course being a materialist, you will dismiss that, saying mystic states are just altered brain chemistry. But my experiences and insights are valuable, my growth is valuable, and no, I can't get it from a secular source.

Agreed. Strongly agreed in fact. I also get spiritual thoughts and growth from many sources. I love the Teachings of The Buddha as well as the Tao Te Ching, the Bible and quite a lot of others. I use these in my daily meditations but in using them, I do not require proof of their veracity. For me, it is about examining one's role in life and how to make that journey better for all of humankind by my presense.

 

[JoStories]

There is no demonstrable mystic experience. There is a serious difference between a demonstrable mystical experience and an experience someone just stamps the "mystic" label on. So far, every single case has been the latter. That's why I specify in my sig "demonstrably real". All you're doing is feeding your ego with nonsensical woo.

that may be true but who does my 'feeding my ego with nonsensical woo"...curious what exactly woo is other than a word might to insult.... harm? You? Doubtful. And in fact, it harms no one. I am not sure what your point is here. Do you want those of us who do use these sources for "nonsensical reasons" to stop using them?

 

[JoStories]

@Skwim If you say so.....no one is standing over anyone with a big stick forcing them to believe.

We will all know the truth one day, won't we?

Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds.....

I am curious why all people like you feel the need to browbeat by threat every time someone challenges your belief system. This tired routine of saying...neener neener..one day you will see I am right...grows very tiresome.

 

[Cephus]

that may be true but who does my 'feeding my ego with nonsensical woo"...curious what exactly woo is other than a word might to insult.... harm? You? Doubtful. And in fact, it harms no one. I am not sure what your point is here. Do you want those of us who do use these sources for "nonsensical reasons" to stop using them?

You just have to look it up. Woo: n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo".

 

[Windwalker]

You just have to look it up. Woo: n.(or adj), the way a person is when they uncritically believe unsubstantiated or unfounded ideas. Short for "woo woo".

In which case, I'd say all your responses are woo. I'll dissect your uncritical thought later when I have the time. BTW, have you ever provided your definition of mystical per my request? That to me would be the basis for critical thought. Let's give it a whirl, shall we?

P.S. Just because one uses Science'ese the way a Christian speaks Christian'ese, doesn't make one a critical thinker. The progression of your thought processes do. I haven't been impressed yet.

 

[Skwim]

TRUE OR FALSE?

There are many things in the Bible that prove itself true...If I showed prophesies, and matched them to history, and they showed they were correct, the likes of you would reply. "The prophecy was written after the history event"...but the likes of you never show proof they were written after the event. So my reply the your OP is..."Believe what you want, it helps make our position clear to God. It is one of the things we are judged on.

See Cephus' response, post 44, above.

 

[Cephus]

In which case, I'd say all your responses are woo. I'll dissect your uncritical thought later when I have the time. BTW, have you ever provided your definition of mystical per my request? That to me would be the basis for critical thought. Let's give it a whirl, shall we?

P.S. Just because one uses Science'ese the way a Christian speaks Christian'ese, doesn't make one a critical thinker. The progression of your thought processes do. I haven't been impressed yet.

I said I had no obligation to define mystical because I'm not the one claiming it exists! You haven't defined it either. Why don't you stop playing games and posturing and actually defend your views?

 

[Skwim]

If you define rational as that which be proven scientifically, then the answer is obviously none.

But I'm not. And why are you shouting? It's bad posting form, which is why you don't see others doing it.

I personally do not believe in the authenticity of the Bible. Nor the historicity. However, what a person holds to be true may be unable to proved and what is the harm in that?

As we've seen with creationism, it can be a belief used to abuse the minds of children and the gullible.

Where is the harm in people finding peace wherever they can?

The harm can arise when they use the source of their peace to deceive others; unwittingly or not.

 

[Orbit]

If you hold that it is not the brain, where is your evidence? You're just making unsupported assertions. We take what we know and we stick with it until something shows it to be wrong. So go ahead, show it to be wrong. We'll wait for your amazing revelation that, we both know, is never coming.

While subjectivity is certainly "real" in the sense that the individual experiencer has a particular interpretation of the sensory data, that doesn't mean that it's "real" in the larger world. If you have a dream about zombies, regardless of your subjective experience, that doesn't mean that the walking dead are really running around, any more than the stereotypical drunk seeing pink elephants means that pink elephants actually exist. That's what I keep trying to get you to look at but you keep arguing. If you talk to that drunk and they tell you they saw pink elephants, they need to realize that the effect of alcohol on their brain was the cause, not some mystical experience, not some desire to see pink elephants, there is a rational explanation for what happened, regardless of their individual subjective experience. But some people around here seem totally emotionally wedded to the idea that something special is happening to them when there is no evidence whatsoever that there is.

You have done the posting equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you"

 

[Windwalker]

I said I had no obligation to define mystical because I'm not the one claiming it exists! You haven't defined it either. Why don't you stop playing games and posturing and actually defend your views?

Holy Crud! You have just confirmed you don't read the content of other post, and just preach your new religion of Scientism. 3rd time now, see post #20.

Here, I'll make it easy for you so you don't have to look to find the number in the upper right corner. I'll quote it here for you. Now no more excuses from you.

It's actually not very hard. It's the experience of the transcendent. There are actually different levels of this, but that definition itself is enough. It's the experience of something beyond the mundane, the ordinary, that opens one's self beyond the typical confines of one's ordinary state of being to that which, for lack of a better word, is timeless. Read that Einstein quote for a hint. It's like the word spiritual. I define that as that which deals with one's absolute concern, to borrow from Tillich. The mystical is the experience of one's being, beyond ones small self-identifications.

Good enough?

See it now? It's what's in red text above so it will stand out so it's not missed a 3rd time now. Now, you have gone on the attack of mysticism. You do in fact have an obligation to define how you are using the term, since you say it doesn't exist and it's "Woo". Let's see if you rise to the challenge here. But my bet is it will just be more of this irrationality and evading actual discussion like I'm used to with religious fundamentalists.

 

[Parsimony]

Are you a gambler? You must be confident of your odds.....

Everyone is a gambler in the religious sense. There is always a chance that one can be wrong, regardless of whatever spirituality one practices, and end up enduring the punishment of a religion that they did not accept during life.

 

[Cephus]

You have done the posting equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la I can't hear you"

What, by expecting you to actually produce evidence? Yeah, so unfair, cry me a river.

 

[Cephus]

Holy Crud! You have just confirmed you don't read the content of other post, and just preach your new religion of Scientism. 3rd time now, see post #20.

Here, I'll make it easy for you so you don't have to look to find the number in the upper right corner. I'll quote it here for you. Now no more excuses from you.

See it now? It's what's in red text above so it will stand out so it's not missed a 4th time now. Now, you have gone on the attack of mysticism. You do in fact have an obligation to define how you are using the term, since you say it doesn't exist and it's "Woo". Let's see if you rise to the challenge here. But my bet is it's will just be more irrationality.

That's not a definition, it's a vaguery. It doesn't define exactly what it is. What would qualify, specifically, as mysticism? What are the boundaries? How could mysticism be falsified? That's what's required of you. Get to work.

 

[Windwalker]

That's not a definition, it's a vaguery. It doesn't define exactly what it is. What would qualify, specifically, as mysticism? What are the boundaries? How could mysticism be falsified? That's what's required of you. Get to work.

Oh brother. You're a troll. Ignore list. *Plonk*

 

[Cephus]

Oh brother. You're a troll. Ignore list. *Plonk*

You just have nothing, as expected. No surprise there.