Figuring Out Religion

[Mountaineer]

Is that a positive or negative attribute- irrespective of content?

... M

[MachineGhost]

Faith = based on abundance of evidence
Facts = change with new information

Well, that's the kind of twisted pretzel logic I don't partake of. If that is what you have to do to believe what you do, then it's just not for me. I also don't have the threat of coercion hanging over my soul as you believe you do if you don't believe in whatever it is you're forced believe in simply to maintain cognitive non-dissonance. I prefer to be open minded and form my beliefs based on objective evidence aka facts rather than the opposite (i.e. faith). Indeed, I also upgrade my beliefs as new facts are uncovered, to paraphrase Keynes. Religions do not do that because how can they? They are "perfect" already despite being thousands of years old and thousands of years out of date (i.e. primitive anthropomorphism). Just look at the complete mess Buddhism became if you have any doubts. And Buddha specifically said DO NOT turn his philosophy into a religion. Well, it happened anyway and so it did for Christianity as well.

Re. the second paragraph. Perhaps many are like that, probably a whole lot of people. I honestly think that I am very secure and not scared about the afterlife; hopefully I will still feel that way when I draw my last breath. I am motivated by the love, forgiveness and mercy Jesus expresses far more than being scared of hell, whatever that might be. I do understand that many only see a god of cruelty, vengance, and punishment - perhaps because they see that kind of god as a reflection of themselves, most people are basically that way when backed into a corner. Carrot and stick. I am more of a carrot guy, perhaps because I see myself as a tiny, tiny, reflection of God, however dimly that is on this side of the Last Day. Disclosure: I am an INTJ, there are not very many of us, and, I think people are far more complicated than a Myers-Briggs type indicator. The INTJ description does seem to fit me fairly well though.

I don't see it either way, but its nice that you have such strong faith in what I view as fiction to be very secure about the afterlife. It helps to be very secure in your beliefs during the transition so you don't wind up as a trapped ghost or worse! Your guide(s) will gently nudge you out of your delusions into the actual reality you have to objectively deal with, so all will be well in the end either way. Its during the living that I have major problems with and that is primarily due to the exploitation of individual personal de-empowerment than anything else. (Of coruse if you believe that baloney about "God" judging you rather than you doing it to yourself, then that's just another anthropomorphic religious exploitation delusion. It's a gaping blind spot True Believers all seem to have about their ongoing personal de-empowerment to religion.)

[MachineGhost]

In other words it's simply a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil and MachineGhost and I are on the wrong side.

Of course it would be. You need a threat of coercion to believe in anything based on faith rather than facts There must be "winners" and "losers" and all the better if the "winners" are kowtowing to some omniscient "God" lest the "losers" be tortured for all eternity or whatever nightmarish bullshit a religion can think up to get its slaves followers to stay in the fold. Where have I seen that story many times before??? It's amazing how blind True Believers are to this but then again I don't personally know what the process is like to suspend disbelief in reality to believe in faith. It's tremendously easier to do that before facts come into the picture, that much I know for sure.

And BTW just based on reason and logic alone, it makes absolutely no sense to reconcile the stark reality of nature and the multi-verse with kowtowing to a coercive "God" that created it all. Errr! Does Not Compute! If "God" and "Jesus" are the existents, then religion is where the bullshit all is. Frankly, all of Christianity is based on a flawed premise that human beings have sinned just by virtual of being born and must eternally seek forgiveness. Utter rubbish! If you want to believe in that de-empowering crap, be my guest.

[Mountaineer]

In other words it's simply a spiritual battle between the forces of good and evil and MachineGhost and I are on the wrong side.

Of course it would be. You need a threat of coercion to believe in anything based on faith rather than facts There must be "winners" and "losers" and all the better if the "winners" are kowtowing to some omniscient "God" lest the "losers" be tortured for all eternity or whatever nightmarish bullshit a religion can think up to get its slaves followers to stay in the fold. Where have I seen that story many times before??? It's amazing how blind True Believers are to this but then again I don't personally know what the process is like to suspend disbelief in reality to believe in faith. It's tremendously easier to do that before facts come into the picture, that much I know for sure.

And BTW just based on reason and logic alone, it makes absolutely no sense to reconcile the stark reality of nature and the multi-verse with kowtowing to a coercive "God" that created it all. Errr! Does Not Compute! If "God" and "Jesus" are the existents, then religion is where the bullshit all is. Frankly, all of Christianity is based on a flawed premise that human beings have sinned just by virtual of being born and must eternally seek forgiveness. Utter rubbish! If you want to believe in that de-empowering crap, be my guest.

Please consider that it is not about what anyone seeks. It is about what God has done to seek you. The vectors are reversed from how you see it re. Christianity. Try for a moment or two to use your reason to think of the possibilities if that is true. Of course, in my opinion, and a couple thousand years of fine tuning since Jesus rose from the dead. Do people ignore the evidence of that just so they can feel more comfortable about themselves being their god? It is fascinating to think about how you see things vs. the way I do. I see Christianity as incredibly freeing, not confining as much of the world is trapped in believing for whatever reason. But, then again, I go to where God has promised to be and hear His Word. You might give that a try if you are as open minded as you profess. Who know what might happen?

Cheers and blessings either way, I still think it would be fun to chat about all this stuff over a beer with curlew, you, me, Xan, Pointedstick, and of course Desert to bring the brisket. Just think of the possibilities!

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Is that a positive or negative attribute- irrespective of content?

... M

You can take it whichever way you want but I thought it was interesting that it directly contradicted what you said about not automatically discounting contrary evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs because you are INTJ (I am too, according to the test, BTW). This attributes says that is exactly what INTJ's tend to do.

I also noticed you didn't respond to the part about believing what the Bible says about unbelievers, so I assume you agree with it. If so, then it only reinforces what I am saying above. By holding the "Biblical" belief you have programmed yourself to reject all contradictory evidence because it comes from the "god of this world" who is out to deceive you. Therefore it doesn't really matter what any of us have to say. You are only listening for the purpose of rebutting us.

[Mountaineer]

Is that a positive or negative attribute- irrespective of content?

... M

You can take it whichever way you want but I thought it was interesting that it directly contradicted what you said about not automatically discounting contrary evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs because you are INTJ (I am too, according to the test, BTW). This attributes says that is exactly what INTJ's tend to do.

I also noticed you didn't respond to the part about believing what the Bible says about unbelievers, so I assume you agree with it. If so, then it only reinforces what I am saying above. By holding the "Biblical" belief you have programmed yourself to reject all contradictory evidence because it comes from the "god of this world" who is out to deceive you. Therefore it doesn't really matter what any of us have to say. You are only listening for the purpose of rebutting us.

My response is long - you asked. And, from my point of view, it very much matters what everyone has to say. INTJs seek knowledge and learning, and every response someone makes increases our collective knowledge. Sometimes that increased knowledge even turns into increased understanding.

Can't all strengths turn into a weakness? I think so and have to work very hard at self-observing and self-remembering to stay out of the ditch on either side of the road. For example, look at these two attributes of an INTJ:

Strength - High Self-Confidence – INTJs trust their rationalism above all else, so when they come to a conclusion, they have no reason to doubt their findings. This creates an honest, direct style of communication that isn't held back by perceived social roles or expectations. When INTJs are right, they're right, and no amount of politicking or hand-holding is going to change that fact – whether it's correcting a person, a process, or themselves, they'd have it no other way.

Weakness - Arrogant – INTJs are perfectly capable of carrying their confidence too far, falsely believing that they've resolved all the pertinent issues of a matter and closing themselves off to the opinions of those they believe to be intellectually inferior. Combined with their irreverence for social conventions, INTJs can be brutally insensitive in making their opinions of others all too clear.

Bottom line for me, recognizing that most strengths can be weaknesses, what is the point of overtly focusing on either a strength or a weakness in a debate? It comes across as "mine is bigger than yours" rather than "here is the evidence, what do you think?". When it comes to religion, I am fascinated why seemingly intelligent people discount all the evidence about the Trinitarian God. Look at only a tiny piece of that evidence:
God the Father - look at the world around you? Can you really logically think all that wonder happened randomly? How do you account for why death exists? How do you explain if the physics of the universe were different by something less than 0.0000000000000000000001% we would not exist?
God the Son, Jesus - the historical evidence is almost overwhelming that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected? Why do you think man has been unsuccessful for two thousand years trying to disprove the resurrection?
God the Spirit - why do you think many men will sacrifice their lives for others? Darwinism would seem to indicate self-preservation would rule? Where does love come from and why do we even have the capacity to recognize what love is (not erotic love, the Greek agape love)?
I think these descriptions are more accurate:
Faith = based on abundance of evidence
Facts = change with new information
Truth = reality whether it is currently perceived or not

Than the ones proposed by MG:
Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

And lastly, to respond to your comments about the forces of good and evil and the Scripture you referenced, I think it is helpful to look at the two verses you used in context.

2 Corinthians 4 (ESV) - The Light of the Gospel
4 Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. 2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God's word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone's conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

John 3 (ESV) For God So Loved the World
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

Point 1 - God desires that all be saved. Point 2 - Sin is powerful, it blinds some to truth. Point 3 - Why are some saved and some not? That is trying to understand the hidden side of God which we are not to do (that is the original sin, man wanting to be like God and knowing all that God knows); God has revealed to us all we need to know to be saved, but not all we sinful beings would like to know. Point 3.5 - Why do some refuse a gift given by one who has a 100% track record of fulfilling promises? To me, that is just not logical. Point 4 - The solution. Even though God is everywhere, even in this inanimate keyboard I'm typing on at the moment, go to where God has promised to be FOR ME and FOR YOU (in Word and Sacrament). For example, see Romans 10, Luke 22, etc.

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

God the Father - look at the world around you? Can you really logically think all that wonder happened randomly? How do you account for why death exists? How do you explain if the physics of the universe were different by something less than 0.0000000000000000000001% we would not exist?

There is a biological reason why death exists but I assume you are asking a theological question based on your pre-supposition that there was a perfect creation to begin with. I know you get your own answer from the book of Genesis but that book starts out by claiming that the earth is a firmament with water above and below, that vegetation appeared on the earth before the sun was created, and that both the sun and moon are great lights in the sky. We know that none of this is true, so after laying a foundation like that, why should we believe that the story of Adam and Eve that follows is true?

In response to your argument of irreducible complexity, there is this from the wiki page on the subject...

"Other evidence that irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution comes from the field of computer science, which routinely uses computer analogues of the processes of evolution in order to automatically design complex solutions to problems. The results of such genetic algorithms are frequently irreducibly complex since the process, like evolution, both removes non-essential components over time as well as adding new components. The removal of unused components with no essential function, like the natural process where rock underneath a natural arch is removed, can produce irreducibly complex structures without requiring the intervention of a designer. Researchers applying these algorithms automatically produce human-competitive designs—but no human designer is required."

God the Son, Jesus - the historical evidence is almost overwhelming that Jesus lived, died, and was resurrected? Why do you think man has been unsuccessful for two thousand years trying to disprove the resurrection?

I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

God the Spirit - why do you think many men will sacrifice their lives for others? Darwinism would seem to indicate self-preservation would rule? Where does love come from and why do we even have the capacity to recognize what love is (not erotic love, the Greek agape love)?

Islamic terrorists sacrifice their lives all the time. Are you going to convert to Islam?

For a person with a scientific education you amaze me that you know so little about Darwinism. It is not about "self-preservation" but "survival of the species". Altruism and self-sacrifice among species is explained in a book called "The Selfish Gene" by Dawkins.

[Mountaineer]

God the Father - look at the world around you? Can you really logically think all that wonder happened randomly? How do you account for why death exists? How do you explain if the physics of the universe were different by something less than 0.0000000000000000000001% we would not exist?

There is a biological reason why death exists but I assume you are asking a theological question based on your pre-supposition that there was a perfect creation to begin with. I know you get your own answer from the book of Genesis but that book starts out by claiming that the earth is a firmament with water above and below, that vegetation appeared on the earth before the sun was created, and that both the sun and moon are great lights in the sky. We know that none of this is true, so after laying a foundation like that, why should we believe that the story of Adam and Eve that follows is true?

Your faith in something is quite strong to believe that .... what is that something and how do you know it is true, not wikipedia or the like, but how do YOU know it is true? Nice use of the imperial we though.

And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

Again, your faith in something is quite strong to believe that .... what is that something and how do you know it is true, not wikipedia or the like, but how do YOU know it is true? Re your wondering: Yes.

For a person with a scientific education you amaze me that you know so little about Darwinism.

I hate to be repetitive, but how is it exactly that you know what I know or don't know? I think the dark side of INTJ has taken up residence in you (it must be residing behind those blinders). Here are two of the more interesting articles I've read of several dozen in case you are interested.

The first is a Masters Thesis.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/151 ... Thesis.pdf

The second presents the pros and cons of "did Darwin become a Christian on his deathbed".
http://carm.org/secular-movements/evolu ... s-deathbed

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

(i am intj as well, for the record) Although the religious seem drawn to argue primarily against the anti religious, i think there is a third option missed by both..
The faith religion side is like a person with a map of Arizona, they are convinced that the map proves the existence of the grand canyon, they believe in the map on faith, they talk endlessly about how the map must be a promise that we will all go to the grand canyon someday, they write hymns about the map and gather to talk about it, they even argue endlessly with non believers on the Internet. The rational non believers understand that the rules of reason and proof make such claims patently absurd and argue (accurately) that the believers actually have no proof of their claims.. but neither side gets in their car and turn they key, The believers don't have to take any perilous journeys because their blind faith has pacified them and convinced them it is unnecessary, the rational don't take the trip because the folly of the believers arguments for "just having faith" has made the whole idea seem unrealistic..
So the third option is follow the map and try to visit the canyon.... The big problem actually with following the map is its no longer much of a map it has become more of a coloring place mat handed out to children at greasy a diner to keep them busy at the table, (this is true of all great teachings Buddhism Hindu Christian etc) the minute the great teacher dies (or dies, comes back, then leaves promising to come back again some day) they get turned into political movements, a means of control, an opiate for the masses and ritualized parodies of the real message... how to manuals for liberation and a true spiritual experience..

Welcome to the INTJ party. Interesting metaphor. I would say the map is much clearer than you describe however, and that we are all on the journey to the Grand Canyon whether we realize it or not. Maybe to help extend the conversation and potential learnings, I'll offer my presuppositions about my belief in Christianity, then perhaps you can offer your presuppositions that your faith is based upon if you like.

My presuppositions: The Holy Scriptures (original manuscripts of the 66 books included in our current Christian canon) are the inspired and inerrant Word of God - 100% inspired and 100% (understood in context) inerrant for the way God wanted it to be and 100% written by man. I also believe none of the original manuscripts have been discovered to date. I believe Jesus was 100% God and 100% man. I believe the Trinitarian Christian God is of one substance and three persons. I believe the Apostle's Creed, Nicene Creed, and Athanasian Creed are accurate summaries of what I believe. I further believe God the Creator remains active in his creation to assure His plan for us is understood in sufficient depth. I believe God comes to us in Word, water, and wine (the Means of Grace). I believe the teachings and writings of Moses, the Prophets, Jesus, Paul, Peter, John, Luke, etc. have come down to us as God intended. I also believe God's Word is performative and 100% truthful - God speaks and things happen, all for good even though we may not recoginze the good at the moment; God promises and the promises come true. I believe this, but cannot prove it, and the evidence for it is very substantial; more substantial and more reasonable than any other worldview I've studied.

You can boil this down to: I believe all of God's Word, not just the parts I can understand with my limited reason; after all, God is God and I'm not. I really would not think much of a God that is small enough for me to understand. If this is true (and I believe it is), there is no way I can understand all that God understands. I can no more completely understand God that a clay pot can understand the potter. I further believe if it turns out I'm wrong, it was a heck of a good ride anyway; I've lost nothing. If it turns out you are wrong, well, what can I say that would comfort you. I won't even try.

Blessings Dude!

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I think these descriptions are more accurate:
Faith = based on abundance of evidence
Facts = change with new information
Truth = reality whether it is currently perceived or not

Than the ones proposed by MG:
Faith = lack of proof.
Facts = proof.

How can you expect us to have dialog with someone like yourself who has the roles of objectivity completely reversed? If you don't understand the absurdity of your position vis a vis the rest of how society tries to operate in coming out of the Dark Ages, you're so far down the Wonderland rabbit hole, you no longer realize nor care!

You know, I've read some of the Bible. I don't see how you see what you see in it. Neither its age nor alleged miracles are objectively proven except by tautology, especially in what's evolved to be later known as Christian theology. You could just as easily replace the Bible with any other religion with a similar canon mythology and you would be be saying the same exact thing. It's not about facts or evicence, but the opposite (i.e. faith) in simply wanting to believe.



Sad thing is there is actually more circumstantial evidence for extraterrestrials than your religion.

[MachineGhost]

I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

I've tried arguing this before but he won't bite in that there is a historical "Jesus" vs his religious "Jesus". One is fantasy, one is mundane. The reality is much more depressing to Christianity which is why they won't want to believe it (i.e. "Jesus" is actually a composite of different people, the resurrection didn't literally happen, etc..) It's just hopeless when your entire premise of faith (defined as lack of evidentiary facts) is that anthropomorphological scribbles on paper is the literal... "WORD OF GOD" Nothing can be allowed to overturn that. Nothing!

Of course, its much, much worse for Muslims. They're all hypocrites about their religion of violence, except the extremists. There's no way in a snowball's chance of hell that Kahn "Muhammad" was a prophet of peace like "Jesus".

Come to think of it, what deductive proof is there that "Jesus" was a "Son of God" as opposed to all the rest of us that are allegedly made in "God's" image? "Jesus" was borned and died in the exact same way as any other human being. The only significance "Jesus" has is all purely in hindsight and lavished onto "Jesus" by his later devoted True Believers. Take out the alleged paranormal miracles, claims, etc., and what exactly are you left with but another failed "prophet" out of the thousands all soapboxing during Roman times?

[Mountaineer]

I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

I've tried arguing this before but he won't bite in that there is a historical "Jesus" vs his religious "Jesus". One is fantasy, one is mundane. The reality is much more depressing to Christianity which is why they won't want to believe it (i.e. "Jesus" is actually a composite of different people, the resurrection didn't literally happen, etc..) It's just hopeless when your entire premise of faith (defined as lack of evidentiary facts) is that anthropomorphological scribbles on paper is the literal... "WORD OF GOD" Nothing can be allowed to overturn that. Nothing!

Of course, its much, much worse for Muslims. They're all hypocrites about their religion of violence, except the extremists. There's no way in a snowball's chance of hell that Kahn "Muhammad" was a prophet of peace like "Jesus".

Come to think of it, what deductive proof is there that "Jesus" was a "Son of God" as opposed to all the rest of us that are allegedly made in "God's" image? "Jesus" was borned and died in the exact same way as any other human being. The only significance "Jesus" has is all purely in hindsight and lavished onto "Jesus" by his later devoted True Believers. Take out the alleged paranormal miracles, claims, etc., and what exactly are you left with but another failed "prophet" out of the thousands all soapboxing during Roman times?

MG, a favor please. Your quote of what you attributed to me is not correct. It is what curlew said in response to a quote of mine. Please attribute the quotes to the correct person, otherwise it gets very confusing. Thanks.

On a more serious note, I do not know where you get your information. There are a couple of billion souls that disagree with your assertions. I'm feeling a bit snippy, so I'll say one more thing. A first grader can "read" a calculus book, not so much on understanding it. It seems you are that way with the Bible and Christianity. Forgive me if I'm reading what you write vs. what you intend to say incorrectly. I do hope you can get your head together about what Christianity really is and why one of these days before it is too late. Peace bro. I pray for you daily; hope that does not cause you heartburn. I'll make you the same offer as I made to interactive processing ... I'd really like to understand your presuppositions, the basis for your belief system ... if you feel like sharing. Either way, ok.

Blessings, ... Mountaineer

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

Not sure what you mean about quote misattribution but I was just supporting what curlew was saying to you.

I think I've been pretty clear about my pre-suppositions (i.e. I operate based on broadband evidentiary facts) so if you're not groking it so far, well you're off in Christian Wonderland. I fear nothing I say will make any sense anymore than your "but there for the grace of God will save you" will make my eyes roll.

How exactly do people fall out of Christianity and adopt reason again anyway??? I had a Christian friend who was spiritually depressed, eventually became born-again and turned his life around, even went to a monastary for a few years... now he's a rabid atheist. Well, I'll never!!! I didn't have the heart to tell him I'm not one and that nothing had changed for me since he was spiritually depressed.

[Mountaineer]

The doubters may enjoy battling wits with John Warwick Montgomery. It will be informative to read your replies. Will you just poo-poo the article, ignore the article and say nothing, or will you make a better case that refutes what he says. I can hardly wait! Here is a sample:

Is the Bible Really the Word of God?

The Proper Cure for the Disease
John Warwick Montgomery tells us a parable:

A great king (God) had a son (mankind) who had grown up out of contact with his father. While journeying in a distant province the son fell seriously ill. The doctor accompanying him (reason) was incapable of treating the disease, but the king, learning of his son's plight, sent instructions (the gospel) for the healing of the boy. However, the king's numerous enemies also discovered what had happened, and they likewise sent remedies - purporting to come from the king - which were actually poisonous (non-Christian religious and philosophical options). The son's solution to this dilemma was to evaluate the remedies by three tests: first, what each remedy revealed about his father (comparison being made with the likeness to the father possessed by the son himself); second, how accurately each remedy pictured the nature of the disease; and thirdly, how sound the various curative methods appeared to be. With the help of the doctor, the son finally made his decision in terms of the remedy that best satisfied all three tests. (1)

Montgomery proposes three tests. The first test is "What each remedy revealed about the son's father." Evidence from the creation (2) strongly argues for the existence of a god who is personal, powerful, eternal, wise, and moral. The Bible declares all of these attributes of God.

Montgomery's second test is "How accurate each remedy pictures the nature of the disease." Many of the liberal and humanistic religions stress the basic goodness of man's nature. They say corruption comes from society. This goes contrary to the facts of history and logic (see 'People are Basically Good' - Proof to the Contrary). History reveals that man is not basically good; he is basically selfish and sinful. The liberal view is also illogical because society is a group of individual people. To blame the situation of the world on society is to blame it on people. This is exactly what the Bible teaches: "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

Montgomery's third test is "How sound the various curative methods appear to be." If God has revealed Himself in propositional form, that revelation would have certain properties due to His infinite knowledge and moral perfection:

It would be entirely true - His infinite knowledge would prevent errors and His truthfulness would keep Him from deception.
It would be a coherent unity, therefore not self- contradictory.
It would contain God's will for man, and provide the motivation to live according to that will (3).
God has revealed Himself in the Bible without error. The Bible itself claims this inerrancy (2 Timothy 3:16-17 (4); Matthew 5:18 (5); etc.). Let's look at some of the proofs for the Bible's claim to be the infallible word of God.

I suggest you read the entire article if you decide to respond so you will have all the information he presents: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html

Blessings to all,

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Not sure what you mean about quote misattribution but I was just supporting what curlew was saying to you.

I did not write this:

Mountaineer wrote:
I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

Regardless, I forgive you.

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I'm gonna let interactive processing and curlew handle that one! It's all tautological.

[MachineGhost]

Not sure what you mean about quote misattribution but I was just supporting what curlew was saying to you.

I did not write this:

Mountaineer wrote:
I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

Regardless, I forgive you.

... Mountaineer

Oh, its how the screwy new quoting system works. It wasn't intentional. I've edited it.

[Mountaineer]

Not sure what you mean about quote misattribution but I was just supporting what curlew was saying to you.

I did not write this:

Mountaineer wrote:
I agree that the evidence for Jesus existing is strong. And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

Regardless, I forgive you.

... Mountaineer

Oh, its how the screwy new quoting system works. It wasn't intentional. I've edited it.

Thank you ghost-er-ific.

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

God the Father - look at the world around you? Can you really logically think all that wonder happened randomly? How do you account for why death exists? How do you explain if the physics of the universe were different by something less than 0.0000000000000000000001% we would not exist?

There is a biological reason why death exists but I assume you are asking a theological question based on your pre-supposition that there was a perfect creation to begin with. I know you get your own answer from the book of Genesis but that book starts out by claiming that the earth is a firmament with water above and below, that vegetation appeared on the earth before the sun was created, and that both the sun and moon are great lights in the sky. We know that none of this is true, so after laying a foundation like that, why should we believe that the story of Adam and Eve that follows is true?

Your faith in something is quite strong to believe that .... what is that something and how do you know it is true, not wikipedia or the like, but how do YOU know it is true? Nice use of the imperial we though.

How do I know the earth isn't a firmament with water above and below? I've seen photographs.

And so is the evidence that he was a failed apocalyptic prophet and that the resurrection story as contained in the Bible contains overwhelming evidence of gradual legendary embellishment. I wonder if you have ever looked at any of it.

Again, your faith in something is quite strong to believe that .... what is that something and how do you know it is true, not wikipedia or the like, but how do YOU know it is true? Re your wondering: Yes.

I leave faith in the unknowable to religious folks like yourself. I have only said that there is strong evidence.

[Mountaineer]

Here is a brief diagram on Truth for you doubters as you get ready to share (?????) your presuppositions that are the foundation of your belief system:

http://adam4d.com/truth-absolute-relative/

... Mountaineer

[curlew]

Here is a brief diagram on Truth for you doubters as you get ready to share (?????) your presuppositions that are the foundation of your belief system:

http://adam4d.com/truth-absolute-relative/

... Mountaineer

Presupposition is a ruse, a parlor game to confuse the dialogue and help justify preferred beliefs. It is wanting to know masquerading as what to know, tactic rather than substance, a manufactured tool of a lost argument.

http://www.believeinreality.com/falsity-presupposition/

[Kbg]

Here is a brief diagram on Truth for you doubters as you get ready to share (?????) your presuppositions that are the foundation of your belief system:



... Mountaineer

Presupposition is a ruse, a parlor game to confuse the dialogue and help justify preferred beliefs. It is wanting to know masquerading as what to know, tactic rather than substance, a manufactured tool of a lost argument.

http://www.believeinreality.com/falsity-presupposition/

There's really only one "true" answer..."relative: There is no way to decide upon absolute truth." No doubt one can certainly shorten the odds one way or the other through many methods. However, the only way to know absolute truth is you ARE God. Religious or not religious (and I am), I find both sides who are absolutists about God one way or the other to be mainly filled with a lot of personal hubris. Strong faith, strong personal experience of a religious nature is not absolute knowledge. If someone has talked physically with God and has had a tangible physical experience with God, one can say they "know." Sans that, we see through a glass darkly and exercise faith, hope, love and charity to all.

[curlew]

Here is a brief diagram on Truth for you doubters as you get ready to share (?????) your presuppositions that are the foundation of your belief system:

... Mountaineer

Presupposition is a ruse, a parlor game to confuse the dialogue and help justify preferred beliefs. It is wanting to know masquerading as what to know, tactic rather than substance, a manufactured tool of a lost argument.

http://www.believeinreality.com/falsity-presupposition/

There's really only one "true" answer..."relative: There is no way to decide upon absolute truth." No doubt one can certainly shorten the odds one way or the other through many methods. However, the only way to know absolute truth is you ARE God. Religious or not religious (and I am), I find both sides who are absolutists about God one way or the other to be mainly filled with a lot of personal hubris. Strong faith, strong personal experience of a religious nature is not absolute knowledge. If someone has talked physically with God and has had a tangible physical experience with God, one can say they "know." Sans that, we see through a glass darkly and exercise faith, hope, love and charity to all.

Great answer, although I wouldn't say that having a tangible experience with God can really allow one to "know".

[Xan]

relative: There is no way to decide upon absolute truth.

The only problem is that that's an absolute truth statement. So is all truth relative apart from that one? :-)

[Kbg]

Great answer, although I wouldn't say that having a tangible experience with God can really allow one to "know".

I personally believe there are absolutes, but it's pretty tough as a human to know most of them with 100% certainty. Philosophers have been arguing over this stuff for ever so we can spare the debate which has been done with more erudition than we will ever muster here.

However, if someone has actually seen God in a real physical sense then to me that is as valid as me hitting my fist against the wall and determining the wall is hard and my hand hurts. That's as much truth as I can possibly experience with the sensory and information processing organs I have. Who am I to question their experience as I wasn't there? That is not to say I might not believe them or think they may have mental issues, but I wouldn't categorically rule it out either.

Similarly, I don't think those of religious faith should disbelieve credible science that was well done, peer reviewed and verifiable by second parties if it conflicts with a religious text. If one believes strongly/has strong faith in a God and has faith in Him/Her/It, then at least for me, it isn't a big jump to believe that it will all work itself out in the end. Science is a methodology and one of the better ones humans have developed for figuring things out. But because humans are human, the history of science provides ample evidence that outdated theory dies hard and scientists often aren't as objective as they think they are. As I tell my religious friends, why freak out about something scientific that doesn't square with pick your favorite religious text? At the end of the day the latest science is the best we know as humans about a subject today...and it can change and does change, often radically so.

Now I guess we could all be in a Matrix and I didn't really hit the table and they didn't really see God, but if that is the case does it really matter unless we can bust out of the matrix?