Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz2  If there is evidence, then there is proof OG. Therefore, you don't deal in proof because you have NONE. You CHOOSE to not believe, for the sake of your own convenience. |
You are mistaken. Data is truth. How we interpret it is an entirely different thing. Evidence is an interpretation of data in terms of a theory. Proof is useless. Proof indicates that you stop questioning your assumptions or the system you're interested in. Achieving proof is an end. Accumulating evidence is the unending process of science.
If, in your version of the english language, my definition of evidence equates with your definition of proof, then I will say that I have proof*.
Quote:
|
NOT that there's any proof or evidence to support your assumptions about the Bible's validity. You simply just choose. You and your like-minded friends have tried to twist and turn this issue around to where it best suits you and to put the "burden of proof" onto those of us who are Christians to prove accuracy and validity of the word of GOD. I say it's on you all to prove that the bible is not what WE claim it is... The Word Of GOD.
|
First, define what the "word of god" is. Are you claiming that god has a mouth and uses language and conveyed words to scribes or had it directly translated onto the paper?
If so, one example of disproof of the bible is in the insistence of punishment for the wicked in eternal hellfire and the general stance of the Yaweh as a judgmental God. What modern neuroscience (my field) is making clear is that the notion of an individual is just a way that us human organisms interact with one another. It has no cosmic meaning. Your brain is a computer that is driven by its own internal chemistry and sensory inputs. The notion that someone is ultimately/cosmically responsible for their actions and could be judged by an absolute or supreme being is false.
Quote:
|
Those of us who are Christians CHOOSE to believe, just as you all CHOOSE not to. Simply on FAITH.
|
Faith in reason? Faith in my own ability to look at data and form a testable hypothesis? How do you reconcile the fact that we are neural machines and that condemning someone for their evil actions makes about as much sense as getting mad at the weather for taking out your trailer with a tornado? There's no faith involved in my belief. I simply CAN NOT believe in the face of such realizations. There's no choice or faith about it. It just doesn't track.
Quote:
|
And for me, certain life experiences. I know the Almighty GOD, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Alpha and Omega, is REAL and ever present. I have only the bible as my proof. That's all I need. But, in the same sense, you all have no proof that HE does not exist. Seems like a stalemate to me. Closed minded? OK. I can live with that. As far as this issue is concerned anyway. All that we as Christians can do is give you the information. What you CHOOSE to do with it, is entirely up to you.
|
Interesting that you put it this way. Not only does the realization of modern neuroscience illustrate that there is no intrinsic identity to individuals, but it also precludes the notion of individual beings at all. On a cosmic scale, we are all one gigantic process of interacting elements. If there is a God, it is identical with us on the cosmic scale. This is, I believe, what Jesus' message was. "I and the Father are One." It's fundamental hinduism and buddhism.
Let me ask you this:
500BC = Buddha. 400bc or so is the persian incursion into the west. 334 is alexander the great mixing back into india. 200 or so is ashoka the great sending buddhist missionaries into the west. All the while, trade is happening across the roman silk road from east to west.
In the western world, you have the patriarchal religious structures of the greeks and hebrews where the gods are certainly distinct and separate from the people.
In the eastern world, you have people who fold their hands over their heart and say "Namaste" which means "I see and salute the God in you and that you are."
Now imagine if one person comes over to the west with the notion that he and the divine are identical. Can you imagine how that would effect the ideas of the western world who have this notion of distinct differences between god and them? Can you imagine how they might react to such a person? Might they crucify him?
Jesus is the Buddha of Bethlehem.
I think it makes a lot more sense than this supernatural white beard god incarnate thingy. It's much more in line with history and global culture.
Given the option between taking a stand on the bible as literal fact and taking a stand on the bible as a confused populous trying to interpret a bizarre culture who thought that they were God, I think that there's more reason to lead towards the latter option.
Wouldn't you say? I think historical evidence supports my stance (read proof* in your terms). You have a personal experience (supposedly) which is necessarily subjective. Then you have some thing called faith. Faith is basically belief in the absence of proof* (evidence). So I'm not sure why you're asking for proof when your belief is based on the absence of proof.