On the Necessity of Proving Things

[needimprovement]

Ok, so it seems that you are not disagreeing with my premise that what is in the bible is not necesarily something that is real. That of course includes God.

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said.. And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

 

I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author's message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author's message.

 

I also said Scripture is both "human and Divine". This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author's message is infallibly true? It is because the author work's under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo.

 

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

[Moontanman]

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said.. And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

 

No but you have said that any god but yours is not real... with no proof what so ever...

 

I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author's message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author's message.

 

Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

 

I also said Scripture is both "human and Divine". This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author's message is infallibly true? It is because the author work's under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo.

 

This is in no way proof of anything other than you believe it to be true and there are others who are just as sure your belief system is not true...

 

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

 

Try going back and showing some evidence of your assertions that any other religion is nothing but superstition and old timey beliefs by gullible persons...

[Edtharan]

No, that is not a correct characterization of what I said.. And I certainly did not say that God is not real.

 

I spoke of what is infallibly true in the Bible: the author's message, what the author is teaching. We do not need to include all the details that provide the setting of a story, as being the author's message.

 

I also said Scripture is both "human and Divine". This is a clear affirmation of the reality of God. And how else can you account for the fact I said the author's message is infallibly true?

 

I think you are, again, misunderstanding what I mean by "Real" and "True" (the way I am using it "Reality" is a subset of "Truth" - for something to be real it must first be true, but not everything that is true is necesarily real).

 

In Aspo's fable about the Grasshopper and the Ant, the Authors message is undeniably true (that it is better to work had and prepare for hard times than it is to sit idle and then suffer through the hard times), but the story is not real. Grasshopper and Ants do not talk (to each other or us) and as we can agree on that, the story of the Grasshoper and the Ant is clearly a work of fiction. But this does not degrade the message within it.

 

So, as far as I am concerened, the bible could be a complete work of fiction, but that does not mean that there is no message (and that there might be truth to it or not - that is an entirely different discussion).

 

You are prepared to agree with my that other Gods, like Zeus or Aphrodite are not real (or am I mistaken here and you really do believe that the Greek Gods are real - whic would be a problem if you also believed that the Christian God is real).

 

All I have asked of you is to show why you think these other Gods are not real and yours is, when they have an equal amount of evidence that fits your requielrment for validity.

 

The reason I was asking all this was to encourage you to question the assumptions you have made.

 

You assumed that the Christian God is real and the Greek Gods are not. then you applied a reasoning based on that assumption to prove that your God is real. But, the exact same reasoning you applied proves the Greek Gods as real if you start with the assumption that the Greek Gods are real and the Christian God is not.

 

This is an answer to your opening post and theme for this thread: On the Necesity of Proving Things.

 

See, you do recognise the necesity to prove thing because otherwise you would have to accept that the Greek Gods are real. As you don't (because you say that you are a christian and the two beliefs are mutually exclusive), I can therefore conclude that you recognise the necesity to prove things.

 

However the purpose of proving things is to determine what is real and not real (remember I have differentiated between the words real and truth), and the only way to do that is with evidence (where evidence is data that will differentiate between which claim is real or not).

 

It is because the author work's under the influence of Divine Inspiration. Divine Inspiration means Yahweh is real. He is more real than the universe, which He created ex nihilo.

This conclusion that you ahve come to is based on the assuption that the Christian God is real. But you have not established this yet, or that it is specifically the Christian God rather than the thousands of other Gods that have thought to have existed.

 

For example, the Australian Aboriginies believe that the Rainbow serpent created the world. You have not established that this is not real. How then can you say that your God is real when you don't have any evidence that the Rainbow Serpent did not create the world?

 

 

You have a story, which you have already agreed does not ahve to be real to have a true message in it. I can write or produce any number of stories saying that they are true and that the world was created in such and such a way by such and such an entity. But, you will be willing to admit that each of them is just a work of fiction (and I would too). But you have not differentiated between why you think your "story" is the real way the world was made any any of these other ways.

 

Until you do that you can not make the calim or hold the assuption that you way is the real way it happened.

 

Can you see the necesity to prove things?

 

I am concerned that you come up with these kinds of profound misinterpretations of my posts. Maybe I will try keeping them short, perchance that will help some.

You equated the Myths and Fables (both words used to describe fiction, that is stories that are not real) to the Bible, that is why I thought you agreed with me that what is in the bible does not ahve to be real to be true. You washed your hands of the necesity for the bible's stories to be based on reality.

 

This means, that without proof to distinguish them from each other, how do you know what is real or fiction within the bible? I )(and other here) asked for proof that God is real, and you failed to produce it. Either you don't have proof that God is real (and must therefore accept that "God is not real" is of equal validity as "God is real") or you do and are witholding it.

 

I can not see you doing the latter as you seem quite genuine in your beliefs. However, if you step back from your beliefs, you will have to agree that you have presented as much "evidence" for your God as has been presented for the existance of Aphrodite or the other Greek Gods.

 

Without the necesit yto prove thing, any one can make any claim and assume it is true. Without this necesity to prove things, I can make the claim that you owe me $1,000,000. I would not then ahve to prove it is real and so you would ahve to owe me that money.

 

If I believed that Zeus created the world with a Thunderbolt, what meaningful conversation could we then have if we didn't have to prove our "story" is true.

 

Unless you are willing to accept that there is a necesity to prove an assuption is true, then you HAVE to accept that there is no proof that your God is real. IF thereis no proof that your God is real, and you are willing to accept that the stories in the bible don't have to be real (but the can be true), then you also have to accept that God might be a work of fiction.

[Marat]

Needimprovement, when you say that there are some elements of the Bible which are just the 'setting' of the story and so need not be literally true, while there are other elements which are the necessarily true message of God, we are confronted by the question, how do we tell which are the essential and which are the inessential parts of the story, so we know which are literally and necessarily true, and which are just unnecessary background details? In a book filled with mythological and fantastic features, there is no evident criterion for identifying one detail as essential (say, Christ being resurrected from his tomb), and another detail (Noah's flood) being just a metaphor which need not be taken seriously.

 

Similarly, when you admit that the Bible is a composite production of human and divine authorship, how can we tell now, at this distance, which parts are which, and thus which sections we can dismiss as inessential and which are vital? If you reply that you believe all of it because even the human-authored parts were written under divine inspiration, then that is just an assertion of a belief which itself cannot be proved.

 

But if it all comes down to a belief in an assertion of divine inspiration which cannot be proved, then how do the miracles help us believe any of it, since they could just be the tricks of an illlusionist operating in a gullible, superstitious age? But wouldn't an omiscient Deity have realized that the story would affect people that way and thus fail to convince them?

 

If the Bible were just made up by a group of humans, I could understand why the proof of its validity has such obvious flaws. But if it was of divine authorship, then I wonder why the idea was not communicated in such a way that it would have been clear and convincing? An omniscient intelligence could have inscribed the Christian teaching and Biblical message on everyone's brain, and then made us capable of accessing that message only if wee were good. If that had been done, then salvation would have an ethical basis and the message of God would be available to all, not just to those 'lucky' enough to live where the message of God was spread by the contingent forces of history. But that the message was not so inscribed, but was only communicated by the unreliable, arbitrary, and clumsy way it was, with linguistic, historical, and interpretive puzzles about its meaning and authenticity, is consistent with its authorship by people rather than by the divinity.

[needimprovement]

No but you have said that any god but yours is not real... with no proof what so ever...

Of course I did not offer "proof", since we were merely discussing how to read the Bible.

 

Do you have anything to back up that assertion?

You mean can I provide evidence for the falsity of pagan polytheistic myths?

From philosophical reasoning, there are the traditional demonstrations for the existence of the one, true God. These could be discussed here, except that I suspect you have no background in classical philosophy.

 

This is in no way proof of anything other than you believe it to be true and there are others who are just as sure your belief system is not true...

That is your belief. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

 

Try going back and showing some evidence of your assertions that any other religion is nothing but superstition and old timey beliefs by gullible persons...

No religion can provide the evidence, especially historical evidence, for its truth as can the Judeo-Christian.

 

You equated the Myths and Fables (both words used to describe fiction, that is stories that are not real) to the Bible, that is why I thought you agreed with me that what is in the bible does not ahve to be real to be true. You washed your hands of the necesity for the bible's stories to be based on reality.

You have not paid due attention to the distinctions I have made. When I spoke of myths, I stipulated that I was not using the term in the sense of something that is not true. A myth in the sense in which I using the term can very well be based in reality, and in some cases, actual historical events, though it may express those realities in figurative language. One cannot arbitrarily dismiss the historical realities or the moral truths, or the religious truths, or the philosophical truths behind the metaphors merely because they are being taught using figurative language.

 

Why do you think I need to question my assumptions? Or, better yet, Why do you assume, and assume so from the outset, that my beliefs are merely assumptions? It is you who are operating on assumptions, and have yet to find the truth.

 

I have studied all the major religions, the myths of the Greeks and Romans, the history of civilization, the major philosophical systems, and more. You do not understand Catholicism because you have no faith. Understanding only comes through faith. Without faith, you have a long, arduous journey, one fraught with many perils, on the road to truth. There is no royal road to ultimate truth. You have to make the necessary effort. You should spend some years studying classical philosophy. Classical philosophy is emimently thought that has been thought out.

 

I accept the truth of the Bible soley on the authority of the Catholic Church. Adhering to the infallible teaching of authority of the Church keeps one from many errors and pitfalls, and it opens up the mind and the heart to Reality itself. To quote from G.K. Chesterton, "In my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

 

Consider further what G.K. Chesterton said: "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist, as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- ...that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall: there are an infinity of angles at which one falls: only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect (Orthodoxy)."

 

You should read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton. Reading will add some content to your discussion.

[Moontanman]

Of course I did not offer "proof", since we were merely discussing how to read the Bible.

 

No, we were discussing the necessity of proving things, you seem to think your version of reality requires no proof but every one else's does....

 

You mean can I provide evidence for the falsity of pagan polytheistic myths?

From philosophical reasoning, there are the traditional demonstrations for the existence of the one, true God. These could be discussed here, except that I suspect you have no background in classical philosophy.

 

In other words, no you cannot provide any evidence other than the assertions of your religion that it is true...

 

 

That is your belief. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

 

So far you have failed miserably to show you assertions have any support other than your beiefs... I know many people who believe quite fervently that they are correct you are wrong both inside the Christian religion and outside it, not to mention totally out side the monotheistic traditions. You have nothing to stand on but myths, your myths are no better than the Norse gods, the Celtic gods, European pagans, Hindus, Raelians, Scientologists or Mormons. if you want to claim other wise it is indeed up to you to show some evidence that is not simply part of your own belief system. I am on PM right now with long time friend from India who is Hindu, he doesn't give your religion any more weight than you give his and he believes it just a surely as you do, his religion dates back to well before yours as well... as do many other religions.... so you are just another Johnny come lately .

 

 

No religion can provide the evidence, especially historical evidence, for its truth as can the Judeo-Christian.

 

Prove it with something other than your own claims and the claims of your religion.

 

 

You have not paid due attention to the distinctions I have made. When I spoke of myths, I stipulated that I was not using the term in the sense of something that is not true. A myth in the sense in which I using the term can very well be based in reality, and in some cases, actual historical events, though it may express those realities in figurative language. One cannot arbitrarily dismiss the historical realities or the moral truths, or the religious truths, or the philosophical truths behind the metaphors merely because they are being taught using figurative language.

 

Arguing in circles is not proof or evidence of anything...

 

Why do you think I need to question my assumptions? Or, better yet, Why do you assume, and assume so from the outset, that my beliefs are merely assumptions? It is you who are operating on assumptions, and have yet to find the truth.

 

 

I have studied all the major religions, the myths of the Greeks and Romans, the history of civilization, the major philosophical systems, and more. You do not understand Catholicism because you have no faith. Understanding only comes through faith. Without faith, you have a long, arduous journey, one fraught with many perils, on the road to truth. There is no royal road to ultimate truth. You have to make the necessary effort. You should spend some years studying classical philosophy. Classical philosophy is emimently thought that has been thought out.

 

Just more proselytizing

 

 

I accept the truth of the Bible soley on the authority of the Catholic Church. Adhering to the infallible teaching of authority of the Church keeps one from many errors and pitfalls, and it opens up the mind and the heart to Reality itself. To quote from G.K. Chesterton, "In my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

 

None the less it is just your belief, it's only evidence is that belief, nothing but a circular argument.

 

 

Consider further what G.K. Chesterton said: "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist, as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- ...that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall: there are an infinity of angles at which one falls: only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect (Orthodoxy)."

 

You should read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton. Reading will add some content to your discussion.

 

 

Nothing but more patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome your beliefs are, totally incestuous and irrelevant.

 

All you are doing is proselytizing your own beliefs, you have no more evidence for yours than any one else has for theirs. your constant assertion that your beliefs are true while others are superstitions is disingenuous at best and intentional lies at worst.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, look at it this way: if you could prove your religion, it wouldn't be a religion.

[needimprovement]

Arguing in circles is not proof or evidence of anything...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just more proselytizing

 

 

 

 

None the less it is just your belief, it's only evidence is that belief, nothing but a circular argument.

 

 

 

 

 

Nothing but more patting each other on the back and telling each other how awesome your beliefs are, totally incestuous and irrelevant.

 

All you are doing is proselytizing your own beliefs, you have no more evidence for yours than any one else has for theirs. your constant assertion that your beliefs are true while others are superstitions is disingenuous at best and intentional lies at worst.

Have a good life. Good bye.

[Moontanman]

Have a good life. Good bye.

 

 

It feels so good to have won so handily the opponent just can't go on!

Edited September 2, 2010 by Moontanman

[Zolar V]

The problem with this is you can also say that "Lord of the Rings" has equal weight to the bible as it has many moral and social issues and guidance in it. It is of course, not litteral-historical, but the there are truths in it (friendship, loyalty, standing against injustice and evil is a good thing, etc).

 

By stating that the Bible is not a literal-historical truth, then you are saying that the Bible is a work of fiction. This then raises the question of the existance of God: Is God just a fictional literary device?

 

It rasises the unconfortable (for believers) question of wheter or not God is real or fiction.

 

Actually, this sort of answers your initial question: "Why do some believe that things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?"

 

The answer is: To avoid ambiguity and unanswered questions.

 

If you don't use rigourious methodolgy in determining if a question is true or not, then it leaves open the possiblity for anyone to indert the answer that suits them best. This ambiguity means that what you have is not a truth, but an oppinion.

 

Because you have taken the position that the bible is not a litteral-historical truth, it leaves open any work that is not a litteral-historical truth to be substituted as equally "true" according to your criteria and "Lord of the Rings" has equal footing in that respect.

 

In another thread I described waht I meant by evidence: That it is a methodolgy to differentiate which of several positions are true or not. If you argue a point, but the arguments you give allow someone to reach a different (or even contradictory) conclusion than you do, you really haven't successfully argued your point.

 

As a better example:

 

In the Bible the first commandment is: You shall have no other Gods before me.

 

Now, for the sake of argument we will take that as true. But, imagine you are discussing God with someone and you putforward an argument that they should belive in your God. But, because you don't use arguments that preclude other Gods from being worshiped, or that they argumentsd don't properly describe your God, the person you are discussing this with ends up believing in the wrong (or false) God.

 

So, even if you accept the Bible as truth, you are under a form of obligation to make sure that you pass of the belief in the correct God, and the only way you can do that is to use a rigiours methodology that eliminate the posibility of a mistake.

 

That is: That things must be proven (rationally) in order be known as true?

 

 

If the Bible cannot be take literal then what is the point of it? If you can't take one story within it as literal, then why should you take the idea of a god literal? Like previously mentioned, other books such as Lord of the Rings also presents us with the same or similar ideological concepts as the bible. So what is the difference?

[needimprovement]

If the Bible cannot be take literal then what is the point of it? If you can't take one story within it as literal, then why should you take the idea of a god literal? Like previously mentioned, other books such as Lord of the Rings also presents us with the same or similar ideological concepts as the bible. So what is the difference?

One is God-breathed and one is not.

 

What are you trying to take literal?The 6 days of Creation? Or what God is trying to tell us in the Creation account? There's a huge difference.

 

For instance, what would the ancient world have thought if the Creation account included billions of years of evolution (with a Divine hand behind it) and plants and animals rising out of the primordial ooze?

[Moontanman]

One is God-breathed and one is not.

 

I disagree, I think the Lord of the Rings is divinely inspired discribes real people and places and is meant by God to replace the Bible, and it's a bettor read and how could god have inspired such a boring read like the bible?

 

 

What are you trying to take literal?The 6 days of Creation? Or what God is trying to tell us in the Creation account? There's a huge difference.

 

 

Equivocation a fallacious argument that uses both sides of the asserters mouth so he can contradict himself and assert two different things are true to confuse his fellow discussion members so they give up and throw in the towel... BTW, who's interpretation of what the bible is trying to tell us do we take as truth? There seems to be an awful lot of mouth pieces out there claiming to speak for god when these things need to be explained.

 

For instance, what would the ancient world have thought if the Creation account included billions of years of evolution (with a Divine hand behind it) and plants and animals rising out of the primordial ooze?

 

They might have been able to consider the truth instead of a fairy tale... but of course they were stupid old Timey folks and had to lied to before they could understand...

Edited September 2, 2010 by Moontanman

[swansont]

One is God-breathed and one is not.

 

What are you trying to take literal?The 6 days of Creation? Or what God is trying to tell us in the Creation account? There's a huge difference.

 

 

I'm going to go back to what I said in post #6 and apply it here: Is there an objective way for telling which parts are literal and which are not, without resorting to looking at the world around us?

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm going to go back to what I said in post #6 and apply it here: Is there an objective way for telling which parts are literal and which are not, without resorting to looking at the world around us?

 

Nope, it is God's Holy Spirit that allows believers to correctly interpret scripture. To non-believers, it looks like foolishness. That's why only believers can correctly interpret it.

[Moontanman]

Nope, it is God's Holy Spirit that allows believers to correctly interpret scripture. To non-believers, it looks like foolishness. That's why only believers can correctly interpret it.

 

 

Yes but how do we know when it's God's Holy Spirit guiding the believer and how do we tell when it's just a nut case who wants to control others through his interpretation of scripture?

[Edtharan]

You have not paid due attention to the distinctions I have made. When I spoke of myths, I stipulated that I was not using the term in the sense of something that is not true. A myth in the sense in which I using the term can very well be based in reality, and in some cases, actual historical events, though it may express those realities in figurative language. One cannot arbitrarily dismiss the historical realities or the moral truths, or the religious truths, or the philosophical truths behind the metaphors merely because they are being taught using figurative language.

But you did not tell us how to determine what is true myth and fiction myth. Without the ability to tell them apart, how can one get the right message?

 

Should I take the existance of God as fiction Myth and the creation in 6 days as true Myth? I don't know you, and all of the christian teachings do not provide this answer.

 

Why do you think I need to question my assumptions? Or, better yet, Why do you assume, and assume so from the outset, that my beliefs are merely assumptions? It is you who are operating on assumptions, and have yet to find the truth.

Unless you have evidecne that shows your claims are real, then they are just assumptions, it is what the definition of the word means. So by the dictionary definition, you are making assumtions.

 

Ohj, and here is the evidecne that my "assumtion" that you are making assumtions is true:

Dictionary definition of assumtion: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumption

3. The act of taking for granted

 

4. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic a statement that is used as the premise of a particular argument but may not be otherwise accepted Compare axiom

 

So, yes: You have been making assumptions. FACT

 

I have studied all the major religions, the myths of the Greeks and Romans, the history of civilization, the major philosophical systems, and more. You do not understand Catholicism because you have no faith. Understanding only comes through faith. Without faith, you have a long, arduous journey, one fraught with many perils, on the road to truth. There is no royal road to ultimate truth. You have to make the necessary effort. You should spend some years studying classical philosophy. Classical philosophy is emimently thought that has been thought out.

Much of these early philosopers have been disproved. that is relaity is not what they say it is.

 

Also, Argument from Authority (wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority ) is a logical falacy, so it does not hold as a logical argument.

 

You might also waht to check out these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi (Irrelevant Conclusion fallacy)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question (Begging the Question fallacy)

 

I accept the truth of the Bible soley on the authority of the Catholic Church. Adhering to the infallible teaching of authority of the Church keeps one from many errors and pitfalls, and it opens up the mind and the heart to Reality itself. To quote from G.K. Chesterton, "In my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect."

As I was saying: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

 

The Catholic Church is falable. The Church originally declared that Galileo was wrong. But it now says that it was wrong about Galileo. In other words, the Catholic Church itself has admited falability.

 

Your claim that it is falable has been disproved by the Church itslef.

 

Sorry, but you can not accept this position that the Church is infaliable if it has admitted falability.

 

Consider further what G.K. Chesterton said: "It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist, as it is easy to be a snob. To have fallen into any of those open traps of error and exaggeration which fashion after fashion and sect after sect set along the historic path of Christendom -- ...that would indeed have been simple. It is always simple to fall: there are an infinity of angles at which one falls: only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect (Orthodoxy)."

 

You should read "Heretics" and "Orthodoxy" by G.K. Chesterton. Reading will add some content to your discussion.

I have said it before and I will say it again: Just because something is poetic and seems to fit your beliefs does not make it true.

 

If you really believed that, then you could not believe in the Christian God.

 

 

Specifically:

Rev 19:6

Gen 18:14

Job 42:2

 

Therefore according to the bible, God has infinite power.

 

But God Loves us

Luke 12:6-7

Matthew 5:45

 

So if God did love us, then he would not want us to suffer. He is all powerful therefore He could end all suffering wihtout affecting any other purpose (see Job 42:2 specifically here).

 

So the only reason that there is ANY suffering, caused by people or not is because God want us to suffer. But if He loves us He does not want us to suffer.

 

So all those poetic phrasaes in the Bible, that also match with your beliefs can't be true. Something about them must be false. But in this case, what must be false is one of these 3 things:

1) God is all powerful: If God is not all powerful, then this is not the Chritian God, and there could be other, even more powerful being out there.

 

2) God loves us: If this is false, then God is a monster as He is the cause of all suffering.

 

3) God exists: If this is false then the whole of your religion is a lie.

 

So either God is not who you think He is, or He does not exist. That is, if you believe something just because it superficially matches with your beliefs.

 

You believe that God exists.

You believe that God loves us.

You believe that God is all powerful.

 

These properties are mutually exclusive to reality. Either reality is not real (and that is a real problem) or the God you believe in can not be real (it might be another God though).

[needimprovement]

I'm going to go back to what I said in post #6 and apply it here: Is there an objective way for telling which parts are literal and which are not, without resorting to looking at the world around us?

Most of the time we interpret Scripture literally, but we must realize Scripture speaks metaphorically or symboically at times, which is not to be taken as anything but a symbol or metaphor. But it is proper to realize that those metaphors do mean something specifically and are not to be generalized or brushed off as something totally allegorical, at least not as the primary interpretation. Usually those metaphors and symbolic language can be understood clearly by other passages of Scripture or oftentimes good ol' common sense. Some symbolic language such as we see in Revelation takes a great deal of study which requires all of Scripture to be consulted and factored in.

 

But we can also see from the New Testament that allegory has a place in interpreting Scripture, since the NT authors themselves did so, as well as analogically and morally.

 

Nope, it is God's Holy Spirit that allows believers to correctly interpret scripture. To non-believers, it looks like foolishness. That's why only believers can correctly interpret it.

 

Yes but how do we know when it's God's Holy Spirit guiding the believer and how do we tell when it's just a nut case who wants to control others through his interpretation of scripture?

That is done by following the Church that Jesus Christ established, that is the Catholic Church.

[Moontanman]

Most of the time we interpret Scripture literally, but we must realize Scripture speaks metaphorically or symboically at times, which is not to be taken as anything but a symbol or metaphor. But it is proper to realize that those metaphors do mean something specifically and are not to be generalized or brushed off as something totally allegorical, at least not as the primary interpretation. Usually those metaphors and symbolic language can be understood clearly by other passages of Scripture or oftentimes good ol' common sense. Some symbolic language such as we see in Revelation takes a great deal of study which requires all of Scripture to be consulted and factored in.

 

But we can also see from the New Testament that allegory has a place in interpreting Scripture, since the NT authors themselves did so, as well as analogically and morally.

 

 

 

 

That is done by following the Church that Jesus Christ established, that is the Catholic Church.

 

 

Even if I wasn't already aware of the way the "church" deals with people who disagree with them and the way they have dealt with other cultures not to mention the totally disingenuous way they twist and bend reality to fit their own agenda our conversations have been enough to convince me that allowing the church to decide whether anything is true or false is a big mistake... for me personally and for humanity as a whole... The church is a prime example of why things need to have evidence for proof and why religion cannot be allowed dictate anything about reality what so ever...

[swansont]

Most of the time we interpret Scripture literally, but we must realize Scripture speaks metaphorically or symboically at times, which is not to be taken as anything but a symbol or metaphor. But it is proper to realize that those metaphors do mean something specifically and are not to be generalized or brushed off as something totally allegorical, at least not as the primary interpretation. Usually those metaphors and symbolic language can be understood clearly by other passages of Scripture or oftentimes good ol' common sense. Some symbolic language such as we see in Revelation takes a great deal of study which requires all of Scripture to be consulted and factored in.

 

But we can also see from the New Testament that allegory has a place in interpreting Scripture, since the NT authors themselves did so, as well as analogically and morally.

 

That doesn't answer the question, though. Is there a way, using only the Bible, to tell what is literal and what is symbolic?

[pioneer]

It is always better if one can prove something. However, sometimes proof can get very expensive, restricting who can come up with the proof. For example, before a drug can be marketed, it has to go through long and expensive testing to meet FDA standards. The average Joe is eliminated from this proof circuit due to lack of resources. Even if he is correct, he can't afford proof. A worse drug could theoretically provide the expensive proof, to create the illusion of a better drug. Joe may have to sell to someone with proof money to level the field.

 

If we put too much stock into proof, it is possible, we can also narrow down provable science, anyway we wish. For example, Global warming put more bucks into one side, so it has a better chance to monopolize proof, creating the illusions this is more provable. If we spread the bucks in the opposite direction, we can make that more provable. Say we get 1 unit of proof per $1M, the side with more proof money wins.

 

That is why, although proof is important, it can be manipulated, to direct science.

Edited September 3, 2010 by pioneer

[Mr Skeptic]

That doesn't answer the question, though. Is there a way, using only the Bible, to tell what is literal and what is symbolic?

 

Yes, but it only works if you are a believer, and even then only if you are the correct brand of believer You heathens don't have the Holy Spirit so you can't do it Oh, wait, I think that makes the answer a "no".

[Moontanman]

That is done by following the Church that Jesus Christ established, that is the Catholic Church.

 

 

Correct me if I'm wrong; I said "correct me, not boil me in oil," but didn't The Catholic church actually come together after the year 300 and before that there were many smaller competing Christian communities that based at least some of their teachings on Gospels that were eventually banned. i don't think it would be correct to say that Jesus actually established the Catholic Church, The Catholic Church that resembled something we would recognize didn't come into being until 325 at the Council of Nicaea when most of the competing gospels were rounded up and destroyed and the ones we have now were declared as the only true gospels. it was cut down from hundreds to four.

 

Some of the competing churches were

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism

 

http://touritaly.org/magazine/400yrs02.htm

 

Strangely enough, the first mention of the Christian movement by a non-Christian Roman writer was by Pliny the Younger, governor of the province of Bithynia (modern Turkey) at the beginning of the 2nd Century, more than 100 years after Jesus’ death.(Wilken, introduction; xii)

A Chronology of

Events in Italy

 

60,000 BC - 1300 AD

 

1300 AD - 1998 AD

 

 

Either earlier writings have been destroyed as "heretical" by the Roman Catholic church or the Christians were considered to be simply another cult of the low-born and not worthy of note. Emperor worship had been instituted by the Romans after Augustus’s death, but by the 2nd Century, Mithraism and Christianity were beginning to undermine the old "gods."(Hearder, 34) In spite of the appeal of the Eastern religion of Mithras, Christianity proved to be popular with the common masses and with the upper society women, perhaps due to the Christian belief in spiritual equality of men and women. The impact of these women on Roman society was eventually great.(Chadwick, 58)

The young Christian group was already fighting an enemy more threatening than Rome: the ability to maintain the integrity of Jesus’ message. It was, in many cases, a losing battle. As early as 56 AD, Paul wrote to the four-year old church at Corinth, warning them against allowing the practices and teachings of other religions to infect their worship. Also, there were complaints against Christians made by businessmen, makers of idols or providers of sacrifices to pagan gods, who were unhappy over loss of revenue due to Christian teaching. Paul dealt with this problem in Ephesus as early as 56 AD(Nelson, Acts 19:23-4), and Pliny dealt with it a hundred years later.(Wilken, 15) When Pliny investigated the charges, he found them to be "innocuous", but nevertheless, executed all those who refused to renounce Christianity, with the exception of Roman citizens who were sent to Rome for judging by the emperor.

 

 

further incorporation resulted in Christs message almost being lost...

 

Though most churches had the New Testament in written form by the 2nd Century, it was read by the leaders and relayed to the common man orally.(Bowie, 15) The various interpretations led to many heated debates and political machinations. In 251 AD, Cornelius was elected as bishop of Rome and declared that there was no effective baptism outside the church.(Chadwick, 119) This declaration effectively invested all power over the eternal soul in the Roman church and purportedly changed the grace offered to all sinners through Jesus’ sacrifice to a salvation which could be denied or granted at the whim of a human being.

With Constantine’s edict of 313 AD and the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, events were set into motion which eventually led to the complete split between the western church in Rome, the parent of Roman Catholicism, and the eastern church which fathered the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches. Strangely enough, the edict which eliminated the persecutions of Christians almost proved to be the death blow to Christianity. The emperor’s acceptance of Christianity made it a "popular" religion, and new converts were often only vaguely aware of its true meaning and brought with them the trappings of their pagan religions.(Chadwick, 126)

 

Since Jesus was long dead before the church was established wouldn't it be less than true to say it was directly started by Jesus and more started by Rome with the elimination of competition by Rome? The pagans i write sermons for seem to think that Catholicism is nothing but paganism dressed up to look like a male version of paganism, with all the saints having direct counterparts in the pagan faith, even to the birth of the daughter of the goddess and various other saints being equal to beings in the Pagan group, even things like easter bunnies and Christmas trees really being disguised Pagan rituals and objects, of course a main difference is that Pagans must swear to never use their power to harm any one and pagans never prosetiltize...

 

Oh yeah, Many Pagan rituals involve nudity and sex as they reconfirm the seasons of the year by bringing you virgins together to have sex in the name of the goddess with everyone looks on and then everyone else getting in on it too after they are finished fertilizing the new seasons... Lots of herbs, spices and flat bread is offered to the goddess as sacrifice, big bonfire and nekked dancing afterward as well.... natural objects are often sacred, really large trees and deep forests,,, reminds me i need to get my cinnabar stone recharged,,,,

Edited September 3, 2010 by Moontanman

[Edtharan]

Most of the time we interpret Scripture literally, but we must realize Scripture speaks metaphorically or symboically at times, which is not to be taken as anything but a symbol or metaphor. But it is proper to realize that those metaphors do mean something specifically and are not to be generalized or brushed off as something totally allegorical, at least not as the primary interpretation. Usually those metaphors and symbolic language can be understood clearly by other passages of Scripture or oftentimes good ol' common sense. Some symbolic language such as we see in Revelation takes a great deal of study which requires all of Scripture to be consulted and factored in.

So that is a "No" on being able to tell us which parts are metaphorical and which arn't then.

 

That is done by following the Church that Jesus Christ established, that is the Catholic Church.

So we have to already know which bits are alegory and which bits aren't before we acan know which bits are alogory and which bits arn't?

 

You must remember that the Bible says that the devil will pretend divinity, so if we believe the bible, then the bible could ahve been written by the devil pretending to be God (hey, Iif I were the devil that would be the first thing I would think of doing ).

[swansont]

 

If we put too much stock into proof, it is possible, we can also narrow down provable science, anyway we wish. For example, Global warming put more bucks into one side, so it has a better chance to monopolize proof, creating the illusions this is more provable. If we spread the bucks in the opposite direction, we can make that more provable. Say we get 1 unit of proof per $1M, the side with more proof money wins.

 

That is why, although proof is important, it can be manipulated, to direct science.

 

No, that's not how it works. You can get the answer you want by doing bad science or by jettisoning integrity, but you can't change the answer simply by spending money. Things will not fall up just because you have a large budget.

[needimprovement]

Is there an objective way for telling which parts are literal and which are not, without resorting to looking at the world around us?

 

Of course there is an objective way for telling which parts of the Bible are literal and which contain figurative language. Check out the Catholic Church.

 

What makes the Catholic Church unique is that it is commissioned by Jesus Christ to interpret, teach and preserve the Divine Revelation contained in Holy Scripture.

 

The best source for the Catholic Deposit of Faith is:

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition, ISBN: 1-57455-109-4

 

Link: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm