The Bible=Word of God or man? - Page 3

greywolf90 · 05-12-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

If you cannot see (and by this I mean any sensory experience or thought) or explain something, then what could possibly lead you to accept it? That's the million dollar question I guess. Why take a stance on it at all if you cannot see or explain something? How do you even have the first clue that your stance will be correct? I prefer informed stances instead of a stance for the sake of having a stance. Even more crucially, I prefer to let my stances be led by evidence and to not identify (i.e. "take") my stances with me.

the position of a true agnostic

.

romansh · 05-12-2008, 11:37 PM

Abel
All I can say is that your stance is that of cherubim and that of the flaming sword.

AB517 · 05-13-2008, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Just because you cannot place God into a concept you are able to grasp, you dismiss Him. Or worse, you invent a god that is what you want him to be.

I thought I made it clear that I was defining god in terms of NOT categorizing or conceptualizing (and thus limiting). That's the point of the transcendent. Did you misunderstand what I was saying?

Quote:

How sad that you refuse to accept that which you cannot see or explain. But understandable: Ephesians 4:18 "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart".

If you cannot see (and by this I mean any sensory experience or thought) or explain something, then what could possibly lead you to accept it? That's the million dollar question I guess. Why take a stance on it at all if you cannot see or explain something? How do you even have the first clue that your stance will be correct? I prefer informed stances instead of a stance for the sake of having a stance. Even more crucially, I prefer to let my stances be led by evidence and to not identify (i.e. "take") my stances with me.

Quote:

You may impress others with your words and your supposed education, but not me. True wisdom comes only from God: James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Hrm.. There seems to be irony here since I was equating myself (and you) with God. I guess what you meant to say here was that I am not identical with God not "true wisdom only comes from God." Hopefully you can stop worrying about my words impressing you and get more towards their content and begin addressing the concepts directly. Your continued dissection of the individual delivering the argument instead of the argument itself is tiresome and goes nowhere.

Quote:

You have stated your credentials in a display similiar to that of a mating peacock. I am not even able to verify that you went to a "tech" school, much less obtained a PhD. If I told you I had a PhD in Biblical Studies, would you automatically accept everything I said concerning the Bible based on my stated education? Probably not. And this is based on what I told GX. You have a presupposition, just as I do regarding the Scriptures. I will never sway you, nor you me as long as we hold to our presuppositions.

The back story was relevant to your characterization of me as a dogmatic follower of campbell. You clearly had a misconception of my back story and I was clarifying. You can accept it or not. It was not designed to indicate authority at all. I was not asking you to accept everything I said as fact. I was trying to lay out a picture that would educate you. You are more than welcome to follow any vein that I tried to describe in my above post and discover for yourself. Or not. Your comprehension of it doesn't change observable reality. Again, I was not trying to get you to take me as an authority. I was simply trying to dispell your notion of me as a dogmatic follower of some individual (campbell).

And finally, what are my presuppositions about scripture? It seems to me that I make no presuppositions about scripture. And please don't mistake a supposition (based on objective analysis) with a PRE-supposition which is based on subjectivity of the observer.

You are not God.

You are only fooling yourself if you think you are not running on ego.
There is nothing I can show a blind man.

Og · 05-13-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

You are not God.

You are only fooling yourself if you think you are not running on ego.
There is nothing I can show a blind man.

It is impossible to fool myself in such a manner. The use of terms such as I and myself and me are all indications of ego. The nature of me as a biological entity is such that a sense of self is essential to my existence.

But as I've carefully and methodically tried to describe, the reality is that there is no ultimate meaningful distinction between you and me or anything else. The difference between your parents and you and your society is similar to the difference between a tornado and the weather systems that produced it. It is a continuum.

This is the reality that the consciousness obfuscates. Consciousness is necessarily about categorizing and creating boundaries. Consciousness uses these boundaries to create perception and awareness of an "external" world. It uses these categories to define the behavior of your person in the world. This is the essence of the garden of eden story as interpreted by myself and others like carl sagan and joseph campbell. Those ancient peoples must have had an intuition for this kind of stuff as well.

"I" am not god. "I" or "Myself" is an illusion. The reality is that we are all expressions of the divine ground of being and necessarily identical with it. Please don't think that I'm saying that the categorical consciousness that creates the "me" is whatever your concept of "god" is...

The notion of "I" is of a boundary between what is me and what is not me. This boundary is an illusion. It's a useful illusion/fiction and creates our modern society and propagates our species, but it's not ultimately true.

I've seen your recent posts going after my notion of identity with the divine. I understand your misconception. It's hard to convey this idea in words. That's generally why metaphors are used in religion.

AB517 · 05-13-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Quote:

Originally Posted by AB517

You are not God.

You are only fooling yourself if you think you are not running on ego.
There is nothing I can show a blind man.

It is impossible to fool myself in such a manner. The use of terms such as I and myself and me are all indications of ego. The nature of me as a biological entity is such that a sense of self is essential to my existence.

But as I've carefully and methodically tried to describe, the reality is that there is no ultimate meaningful distinction between you and me or anything else. The difference between your parents and you and your society is similar to the difference between a tornado and the weather systems that produced it. It is a continuum.

This is the reality that the consciousness obfuscates. Consciousness is necessarily about categorizing and creating boundaries. Consciousness uses these boundaries to create perception and awareness of an "external" world. It uses these categories to define the behavior of your person in the world. This is the essence of the garden of eden story as interpreted by myself and others like carl sagan and joseph campbell. Those ancient peoples must have had an intuition for this kind of stuff as well.

"I" am not god. "I" or "Myself" is an illusion. The reality is that we are all expressions of the divine ground of being and necessarily identical with it. Please don't think that I'm saying that the categorical consciousness that creates the "me" is whatever your concept of "god" is...

The notion of "I" is of a boundary between what is me and what is not me. This boundary is an illusion. It's a useful illusion/fiction and creates our modern society and propagates our species, but it's not ultimately true.

I've seen your recent posts going after my notion of identity with the divine. I understand your misconception. It's hard to convey this idea in words. That's generally why metaphors are used in religion.

It is not me Og.
It is your misunderstanding of the notion of divinity.

We are one that is true.
We are not Gods.

You only null these notions to yourself, until you see that these are your beliefs you will not look past that image in the mirror ( I did not use the word “see”). I understand your position, I see your, and mine, limitations.

Well, maybe I am wrong, maybe we are using the word differently.

How are you using it?

jzzz75 · 05-13-2008, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jodou1

I am in the midst of reading Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, and I rather like many of his views.

Aside from his pointing out the chronological errors(though I'm not sure how if those have been debated effectively in the past 200 years.) he makes a very good point about the word of god in written form.

The book is a bit wordy for my taste, I can attribute that to the era of its writing, but I recommend it.

There is a complete version of The Age of Reason in modern english free online. If you just type in modern version The Age of Reason you should find that link. I loved the original but the new one is great also. Paine does a most excellent job of destroying the so-called bible prophecies. Let me know if you can't find it.

Jodou1 · 05-14-2008, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jzzz75

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jodou1

I am in the midst of reading Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, and I rather like many of his views.

Aside from his pointing out the chronological errors(though I'm not sure how if those have been debated effectively in the past 200 years.) he makes a very good point about the word of god in written form.

The book is a bit wordy for my taste, I can attribute that to the era of its writing, but I recommend it.

There is a complete version of The Age of Reason in modern english free online. If you just type in modern version The Age of Reason you should find that link. I loved the original but the new one is great also. Paine does a most excellent job of destroying the so-called bible prophecies. Let me know if you can't find it.

Nice I'll look that up and let you know what I find. Thanks for the info.

dameedna · 05-19-2008, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

We've shined light on all the corners.

See this alone, makes me doubt everything you've just said. (although I do agree with the majority of your statements regarding current scientific knowlege).

We have NOT shined the light on all corners. Our lack of understanding is more acute than what we know and do understand. I do think, we will gain a great deal more knowlege, and I agree that there is no supernatural being, that needs to be invoked to explain it.

But arrrghh...this just BUGS me. If you are truly involved in scientific endeavour then you MUST remain honest and speak with integrity. We get enough crap from those that make claims in the name of God that is not truth. We don't need those of a scientific Bent, doing so.

There is MUCH we do not know. It is okay for us to admit this. It is exciting, invigorating and requires no god-invocation.

The light, however, is as dim as a lantern across a lake on a smokey, foggy night

We don't NEED to claim the same certainty that pervades the mind of the religious fundamentalist. We are not like them. We embrace the unknown, admit to it and accept it and work our bloody asses off to figure it out.

They are the ones that need certainty, not us.

dameedna · 05-19-2008, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

Og
Your conclusions are the only one you can come to based on objective analysis that you can comprehend. What you fail to realize is how much more God is: Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Meaning, than mankind can never understand God, because we are not God. This is the conviction agnosticism that excited and embraced so many early christian philosophers.

Quote:

Or worse, you invent a god that is what you want him to be. How sad that you refuse to accept that which you cannot see or explain.

Now it appears you are both just patrionizing each other. Your words are both kind and calm. But quite frankly, you are both pissed at each other. It's okay to be pisssed, but lets not pretend empathy.

Quote:

But understandable: Ephesians 4:18 "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart".

This is applicable to any individual who does not agree with me.

Quote:

You may impress others with your words and your supposed education, but not me. True wisdom comes only from God: James 1:5 "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

See, I'm more of a socrates girl myself. Wisdom only comes, when one realizes that they know nothing.

Then again, to embrace God, is to realize that we can never know him or understand him. To embrace God, means we know nothing..and only from that place can we gain wisdom.

Hmm..maybe I agree with this statement after all

Quote:

You have stated your credentials in a display similiar to that of a mating peacock. I am not even able to verify that you went to a "tech" school, much less obtained a PhD.

Nor are you able to verify anything else you read..such as, I don't know..a 3000 year old book?

Heheh..sorry couldnt' resist :P

dameedna · 05-19-2008, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadowind

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abel

O "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."

1, if heaven and earth are the same...(not higher or lower)
2. if god is un-understandable, is he completly un-understandable? if so whats the advantage in attempting to make any statements about god. if ultimately he is not understandable. saying we can not understand god seems to turn god into nonsense, something we can't have specifics about, only a general idea that has nothing to say.

You Shadow, are a philosopher in the making.

You are absolutely correct. It seems strange doesn't it? to quote a passage that claims no knowlege of God can be obtained, only to turn around and claim knowlege of Said God.

Trust your mind...it seems like a might fine one to me.

Of course..I could be completely nuts :P