Is Bible inerrant
- Thread starter yip1997
- Start date
Well a liberal one world view that would dilute the validity of the Bible and undermine the deity of Christ would sell you a bunch of crap claiming you dont need to be saved from anything. After all you are a gGod. problem is you as a God cant solve the worlds problems. LOL. BARF BAGS!!!
We need a metric to have a concept of "superior". What is the standard? Should we use God as an absolute standard?
However, how can one believe something that he considers bad as God? Isn't one of the characteristics of God good? What is the definition of God? That was one of the good reasons imo why one doesn't believe in the God described in the Bible.
Even if it's apparent that God isn't moral by your standards is your stance rational? Why would a solid logician like yourself condemn himself to an eternity of misery for the sake of one brief moment of heroic defiance ( a moment you may deal with forever but that would soon be forgotten by heavenly management)?
Assuming you had met God and had one last chance at reconciliation wouldn't you be inclined to weigh the certainty of the perpetual agony of damnation against the uncertainty of the ultimate wisdom of your own moral value complex developed in a state of mortal ignorance? Also, wouldn't you weigh the wonder and beauty of being against it's sadness and perhaps see some good in this willful God?
Surely you might be inclined to ask for a little time to think the matter over having discovered that God in fact is, however tyrannical God may be.
And first point last: "Who would want him as a god?" . We can't simply choose our beliefs. A belief can come, go, or change through reasoning, intuition, experience, revelation, programming or some other intervening process but we can't simply choose to believe something.
Quote from traderNik:
Hi Hansel
Well.... although I'm sure Deists are capable of effective reasoning, that faculty gets somehow shut down when considering the existence of a Creator God.
It is interesting to me that lately, Deists have started this crusade (crusade!!) to get Christianity bumped up the level of science. I have yet to see one iota of evidence (that is, evidence derived by modern methods) for the existence of God.
I see statements like 'It is not unreasonable to assume that the complexity of life on earth could only be explained by invoking an Intelligent Creator God as Designer'. However, when asked to provide evidence for this theory, proponents of ID/Creation simply say 'Can you prove otherwise?' or 'It seems reasonable to me' (Teleologist, are you following along?).
Can reason be underpinned by a false set of assumptions? Can the result of 'reasoning' be false? Of course it can!! What about witches? What about Ahmedinejad? What about Hitler? What about genital mutilation of young girls? What about the flat earth theory? What about bloodletting as a cure? All invoked or invoked by an appeal to reason, right?
That's why we have experimentation.
In fact, religious belief does not require a reasonable basis. It is faith, right? Faith.
I think I know what you mean when you say that the religious are unfairly labelled 'unreasoning'. I hope what you mean is that because of their belief in God, they are assumed to be unable to reason their way through non-religious problems. At least, I hope this is what you mean.
If you are saying that there is an argument for the existence of God that is underpinned by an empirically testable theory (which is what we mean by 'reasonable' in this context), you'll have to incur the continued wrath of the Men of Reason, who will say 'Sorry, brother... but that's total bullshit. Belief in God is Faith, and the Faithful do not need our petty reasonings to hold their beliefs tight'.
Is the scientific method the be-all and end-all? Of course not, and it's scientists who have shown us this. However, it's the best thing we've got, and is responsible for many of the good things we have, right? I am warm right now, and I live in a cold country.
You have raised many points here that will require some time to answer. It's 1:00 AM here and I'm off to bed, but I'll get back to you.
Good luck,
Hans
Hans:
>Even if it's apparent that God isn't moral by your
>standards is your stance rational?
If one has decent morals -- quite.
>Why would a solid logician like yourself condemn
>himself to an eternity of misery for the sake of one
>brief moment of heroic defiance
A: It's not for the sake if defiance -- it's for the sake of what's right for oneself.
B: An eternity bowing to a god like that would bring far more misery.
>Assuming you had met God and had one last
>chance at reconciliation wouldn't you be inclined
>to weigh the certainty of the perpetual agony of
>damnation against the uncertainty of the ultimate
>wisdom of your own moral value complex developed
>in a state of mortal ignorance?
You can bow to a god you don't respect if you wish. It's just not for me.
>Also, wouldn't you weigh the wonder and
>beauty of being against it's sadness and
>perhaps see some good in this willful God?
There's some good in every mass murderer -- doesn't mean you bow to them.
>Surely you might be inclined to ask for a little time
>to think the matter over having discovered that
>God in fact is, however tyrannical God may be.
Surely not.
>And first point last: "Who would want him
>as a god?" . We can't simply choose our beliefs.
Perhaps *you* can't, but for many of us you couldn't be more wrong.
>A belief can come, go, or change through
>reasoning, intuition, experience, revelation,
>programming or some other intervening
>process but we can't simply choose to
>believe something.
Hogwash -- women choose to believe that their philandering husband will change his ways. Men choose to believe that the drunk women in the bar is actually hot for him. People *choose to believe* all sorts of things because the *want* it to be true. It happens everyday for good and bad.
JB
>Even if it's apparent that God isn't moral by your
>standards is your stance rational?
If one has decent morals -- quite.
>Why would a solid logician like yourself condemn
>himself to an eternity of misery for the sake of one
>brief moment of heroic defiance
A: It's not for the sake if defiance -- it's for the sake of what's right for oneself.
B: An eternity bowing to a god like that would bring far more misery.
>Assuming you had met God and had one last
>chance at reconciliation wouldn't you be inclined
>to weigh the certainty of the perpetual agony of
>damnation against the uncertainty of the ultimate
>wisdom of your own moral value complex developed
>in a state of mortal ignorance?
You can bow to a god you don't respect if you wish. It's just not for me.
>Also, wouldn't you weigh the wonder and
>beauty of being against it's sadness and
>perhaps see some good in this willful God?
There's some good in every mass murderer -- doesn't mean you bow to them.
>Surely you might be inclined to ask for a little time
>to think the matter over having discovered that
>God in fact is, however tyrannical God may be.
Surely not.
>And first point last: "Who would want him
>as a god?" . We can't simply choose our beliefs.
Perhaps *you* can't, but for many of us you couldn't be more wrong.
>A belief can come, go, or change through
>reasoning, intuition, experience, revelation,
>programming or some other intervening
>process but we can't simply choose to
>believe something.
Hogwash -- women choose to believe that their philandering husband will change his ways. Men choose to believe that the drunk women in the bar is actually hot for him. People *choose to believe* all sorts of things because the *want* it to be true. It happens everyday for good and bad.
JB
Hansel
I got your reply and np, I will check back later if you have a chance to respond. However, I just had to comment on this bit above.
I vehemently disagree that we can't choose to believe something. I see people who choose to believe things all the time. In fact I see that tendency as being one of the primary ways in which people rationalize their failures.
The only question I used to have is 'Do they really, truly believe in the excuses they make? Isn't there a small part of them, deep inside, that knows that all the excuses are bullshit? Was there a part of Hitler that knew all his racist rhetoric was bullshit?'
I used to think there was. I now believe that that's not necessarily true.
The other side of this is the question. Can you force yourself to believe something that all available evidence tells you just is not true? Even if you could wouldnt an all knowing God know you were faking it and fry you anyhow?