Why is the bible the "word of god"?

[Jenyar]

Originally posted by matnay
Great analogy. You've shown that, like a dictionary, the bible contains no real truth, but rather an arbitrary set of man-made definitions to give meaning to otherwise meaningless things. There are many different laguages out there, and many different dictionaries. No one dictionary contains the ulimate truthfull language. Just as there are many different Holy books out there, none being any more truthfull than the next, all of them equally made-up.

OK then: qualify real? If I translate what you just said into 200 different languages, using any number of dictionaries to do it accurately, will it change what you said?

That leaves two options (or a mixture of the two) - either the Bible (to extend the dictionary metaphor) is the transparent word of God (since it can contain nothing that was not initialized by God), or it is the result of the generation of thought and meaning about God. Either way, it "translates" meaning into language.

No dictionary contains the "ultimate truthful language", but I can say with some certainty that all dictionaries contain 99% the same content. That is not the case with different religions, so the analogy ends there. To extend the analogy further will only make it meaningless.

By the way, are you saying that language is an "arbitrary set of man-made meanings"? What does that mean? Isn't truth and meaning then arbitrary as well? Or is it a case where a well-defined question makes an answer irrelevant?

 

[wesmorris]

I'm glad for your comments Jenyar. You're smarter than most of the theists and as such, it is more stimulating to dismantle your arguments because they're more coherent than most of the theists I'm aware of. MarcAC is the only theist besides yourself whom I've seen even come up with good points (depending on what Tiassa is considering himself at a given time I guess).

Originally posted by Jenyar
Not quite fallacy, Wes.

Yes, exactly fallacy.

Originally posted by Jenyar

By using a word as defined in a dictionary and at the same time attributing the meaning to it that is attributes to it in the dictionary is not a logical fallacy.

The bible is not a dictionary. The association of "god" with the bible is no more valid in this contex that "ra" with the sun. As a matter of fact Jenyar, I can probably find or write you a book that claims whatever you'd like and base it on whatever you'd like. Does that make it a dictionary? If I tell you that I created the universe such that you may be my bitch, why is that less valid than your circular biblical god references? It's not, you're wrong but must defend your cult by the definition of being a good member eh?

Originally posted by Jenyar

The word in the dictionary evolved through use and attributed meaning before it was placed in the dictionary.

What word. You mean "the words"? If so, then yes okay... but the dictionary is not a work of religion. It doesn't command you this or that or make bosterous claims. It is a reference which attempts to make a benchmark for language. Do you see the difference between the 'faith' required to believe in the dictionary as compared to that required by religion(s)?

Originally posted by Jenyar

Yet today we have to recognize the dictionary as authoritive.

No, it's a reference, it's a benchmark. Specialized words are still subject to the scrutiny of experts in the field. The word "agnostic" for instance is defined incorrectly in the dictionary. It doesn't require "faith" to explain why, it merely requires logic and reason. Your belief that the bible is applicable to god cannot be reached by an extension of logic and reason. It can only be reached through fallacy.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Scripture as the "word" of God developed in the same way. It took on that interpretation through thousands of years of belief in God, and today we use it that way as the authoritive source of belief in God. It has been a kind of conversation - a formation of meaning.

If you were discriminating, that would be a clue for you right there. How does the dog explain the sun Jenyar?

Originally posted by Jenyar

Words form similarly: meaning comes first, the word used to describe that meaning comes afterwards.

True but eronious to the argument at hand. Transcribing popular belief in god is no statement as to the validity of the the belief. It's merely documentation of fallacy.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Words by themselves have no meaning, so you need that circular process.

You are confused. Defining a word is not circular. That's called "labelling".

Originally posted by Jenyar

So maybe it is a logical fallacy.

Yes it is. Nice of you to admit it.

Originally posted by Jenyar

but at least it's not an illogical one.

Yes, it is. Silly of you to contradict yourself.

Originally posted by Jenyar

Did language develop from words, or did words develop from language? Because religion developed the same way.

You're right.

Originally posted by Jenyar

It's no coincidence that all cultures say writing was a gift from the gods, and that writing - words - were considered to contain mystical power.

While poetic I can't see the relevance. You're comparing apples and oranges. You're painting the bible to be some type of religious dictionary. While I agree that the processes that produced either text are similar, the functionality of either text is completely different.

In order that two people can say the same thing about one meter, it's imperative that we have a common definition as to what that meter is. It's practical to create a standard. This is the function of a dictionary. The function of religious texts is entirely dissimilar. They promote themselves as TRUTH regarding objective conditions. The bible claims to explain the beginning of the universe and blah blah blah. This is not a standard, it's an agenda, like all other religious texts (that I'm aware of). Can you see the difference?

 

[God_IS]

Re: Re: Re: Why is the bible the "word of god"?

Originally posted by wesmorris
You'd think that would make people think twice before believing anything to such an extreme. It's doesn't though obviously and for so many reasons.

Well, supposing that we live in a world full of people looking desperately for answers (or truth), a person would be doing an act of "Love", in his willingness to share this precious knowledge with his fellow man, in spite of whatever consequences for himself.

Yes, that's the way a cult functions.

That's not necessarily true; there are many cults that are inward focused. In 'cults' where preaching goes on, it may be guilt or the fear of a threat that motivates it's members or followers.
I cannot name many religions that moves people through love.

That still doesn't address why the bible is applicable to arguments regarding god. Worse, it makes christians look stupid for buying a circular argument.

Allow me to appear a little 'lame' here; A circle is a representation of infinity. God lives and moves in infinity. The mere fact that human logic has problems with validation of such a concept does not bother me.

I believe human logic and reasoning to still be very deficient as a tool in an argument about the existence of God, or the truth of the Bible.

Isn't it a stoic's perception that 'Reason' is the highest thing?
I believe that philosophy has many 'cults' aswell, in which the followers cling to a particular point of view. Philosophy, Reason, Logic, all these 'sciences' have followers in a similar way as a "religion" does. In fact, my point of view is that it's the same.
Philosophy has known many twists and turns, mistakes and triumphs. In that, it is human (imperfect).

Christians throughout history have all basically believed the same thing about God, Jesus, creation, eternity.
God, throughout history has always been the same. There have been saddening interpretations of His will and character, I agree, but that's human error, not divine imperfection.

Don't you feel that there is "truth" in human experience?
When many people testify to similar experiences, wouldn't that make a strong case for truth?

As to why Christians use the Bible as their source of reference about God: When the spiritual and moral principles in a book that is said to be inspired by God are put into practise and turn out to "work" according to that writing, that experience leads a person to believe the truth of it. When particular actions are taken acording to the teachings of the book, and a person experiences the RELATIONSHIP with this God as the book predicted (s/)he would, there is an experience that is percieved to be "truthful" to that person. And leads that person to believe in the authority of that book.
In this way, there IS an experimental validity that can only be experienced by someone who's willing to accept the possibility of God's existence and the validity of "His Word".
And as you know, Christians the world over testify to such experiences.

(the language barrier is getting in my way at times, I apologize)

That could be represented as the foundation of agnosticism. To be more direct: It is an answer regarding epistemology. The general authoritative argument "god is" sickens me based on it's presumption of authority. Hence my agnosticism.

I will readily confess that I never studied philosophy during my education and only recently have taken an interest (as a hobby) in it, reading up on the main 'doctrines' of each period in philosophy.
As to the "God IS" issue: I find it striking that one of the greatest questions in life seems to be "what does it mean to BE"?
And that God simply says "I AM".

What? I'll just say that you are obviously just making shit up to attempt to justify your argument. You should re-read what you wrote and re-consider the validity of your conclusion.

So you wouldn't agree that science can only testify about the observations it makes in the material world?
Or do you not believe that the reality that we percieve is not eternal nor infinite?

You are rambling senselessly. There is truth in science, albeit relative. Let me ask: How is it that you come to the conclusion that "the truth is a concept that is eternal"? I mean, if there were no thinking beings the truth wouldn't be relevant would it? The truth only matters when there might be things that aren't. Dig the dichotomy. Truth is meaningless without the possibility of un-truths. Regardless of my ramblings, you've shown no basis whatsoever for your conclusions.

I think there may be a communication problem because of a language barrier here; What I meant to say is that I observe 'truth' to be something that applies to things outside of the material world. Universal truth. Of course there is always an "un-truth" to it. I agree.

That's a mighty tall IF there partner.

There's a large petition of Christians throughout history to the validity of that statement.
That is an assumption that leads to the answer of your initial question.

Your lack of comprehension doesn't invalidate anything but that which spews from your word-hole. Logic and science prove MUCH relative truth. They provide a structure by which relative truths can be ascertained in a repeatable manner. IMO, that sure beats "god did it, now shut up and pray". Idiot.

Be polite.
Don't you agree that science can only provide evidence of things by observing the physical realm and drawing conclusions?
Providing a non-physical (spiritual) realm exists (and thus opening up the possiblity of the existence of God), science will not help you discover it.
A Christian's faith is empty without the most important factor of that belief: The RELATIONSHIP with God. It is the essence of his belief. Many people testify that they KNOW God; I can understand that it seems very strange to someone who never experienced such a relationship. But not having experienced something doesn't prove it doesn't exist.

Logic and science provide no structure for movement in the spiritual realm, we know only of experiences. There is truth in the number of testimonies that all testify to the same personal experience.

Since logic and sience do not apply, it seems weak to 'hide' behind it.

 

[God_IS]

Originally posted by wesmorris

What word. You mean "the words"? If so, then yes okay... but the dictionary is not a work of religion. It doesn't command you this or that or make bosterous claims. It is a reference which attempts to make a benchmark for language. Do you see the difference between the 'faith' required to believe in the dictionary as compared to that required by religion(s)?

No, it's a reference, it's a benchmark. Specialized words are still subject to the scrutiny of experts in the field. The word "agnostic" for instance is defined incorrectly in the dictionary. It doesn't require "faith" to explain why, it merely requires logic and reason. Your belief that the bible is applicable to god cannot be reached by an extension of logic and reason. It can only be reached through fallacy.

Well, can you logically explain to me why "apple" is the designated word for a particular type of food?
It takes a lot of faith to believe that it really is the applicable tag. Perhaps the true meaning of the word is "kangaroo".
The reason "experts" still don't know how to exactly define certain words, may be because they have little understanding of the principles that word describes.

A dictionary is a summary of labeled meanings (words), that defines a language.
A Bible is a dictionary of "words" that define principles, that defines a belief. Together if forms THE WORD of God.

By the way, the Bible mentions your point of view (that it's validity can only be reached through fallacy).

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why is the bible the "word of god"?

Originally posted by God_IS
I believe human logic and reasoning to still be very deficient as a tool in an argument about the existence of God, or the truth of the Bible.

Then this discussion is pointless.

You are hopeless because you reject reason. As such, you are compelled to promote that others join you in your cult mentality such that it isn't challenged and the delusion can perpetuate itself. That makes me sick. You are by your own assertion, unreasonable. I find it telling that you selectively employ reason where it doesn't contradict with your cult teachings. Convenient.

Originally posted by God_IS

Be polite.

I'll be as I am. If you don't like it ignore me.

I should add that this comment is telling of your authoritarian tripe.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by God_IS
Well, can you logically explain to me why "apple" is the designated word for a particular type of food?

There is little to explain. It's utilitarian, it's a label.

Originally posted by God_IS

It takes a lot of faith to believe that it really is the applicable tag. Perhaps the true meaning of the word is "kangaroo".

That's retarded. Decide what you want to call it (which is inconsequential) and get back to me. (don't really, it's rhetorical)

Originally posted by God_IS

The reason "experts" still don't know how to exactly define certain words, may be because they have little understanding of the principles that word describes.

I think you need education. That is entirely convoluted. How about trying an example of a word that "experts still don't know how to exactly define".

Originally posted by God_IS

A dictionary is a summary of labeled meanings (words), that defines a language.

Close enough I suppose.

Originally posted by God_IS

A Bible is a dictionary of "words" that define principles, that defines a belief.

Hehe, that is stupid dude. It is NOT a dictionary, it defines NOTHING besides a cult. Well, it does have historical value, but I'm not interested really.

Originally posted by God_IS

Together if forms THE WORD of God.

Man, you type as if you are setting up logical statements and drawing valid conclusions. The only thing you've come close on so far is a description of a dictionary.

Originally posted by God_IS

By the way, the Bible mentions your point of view (that it's validity can only be reached through fallacy).

You're saying that my point of view can only be reached through fallacy? *sigh* Sir, I would say that you are not intellectually equipped to recognize fallacy.

 

[God_IS]

Originally posted by wesmorris
You're saying that my point of view can only be reached through fallacy? *sigh* Sir, I would say that you are not intellectually equipped to recognize fallacy.

It == Bible. Based on a comment of yours in a previous post.

As to your comment about my intellectual equipment: No comment :bugeye: besides that intellect != knowledge.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by God_IS
It == Bible. Based on a comment of yours in a previous post.

So you're saying that the bible itself claims that belief in it can only be reached through logical fallacy?

Originally posted by God_IS

As to your comment about my intellectual equipment: No comment :bugeye: besides that intellect != knowledge.

Sorry man, I call them like I see them. Of course I'm not always correct. You're right that knowledge and intellect are not the same, but the application of intellect is about as fallable as the pertinent knowledge available to that intellect.

 

[okinrus]

Wesmoris most of us quote from the bible as a historical document on what Jesus said. If you have another first hand accounts of what Jesus said and you want to quote from them then you can. So like if I want to quote from Shakespear to prove a point or the Quran then what's that to you? I'm not forcing you to believe that God wrote what's on the page.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by okinrus
Wesmoris most of us quote from the bible as a historical document on what Jesus said.

That is circular. Do you understand why? I ask "why is the bible applicable to the topic of god" and you say "because it's a historical document on what jesus (god) said". You just said that the bible is applicable because it says that it is. That is fallacy.

Originally posted by okinrus

If you have another first hand accounts of what Jesus said and you want to quote from them then you can.

Honestly I don't care what Jesus said. I selectively care about what you said, or what my wife, kids, coworkers or the other posters say.

Originally posted by okinrus

So like if I want to quote from Shakespear to prove a point or the Quran then what's that to you?

Depends on the argument in question. Either might be valid depending on your point. The bible can be valid depending on your point. My point that the bible is not applicable as an authoritative source of information regarding the nature of god. It's inherently biased propaganda.

Originally posted by okinrus

I'm not forcing you to believe that God wrote what's on the page.

How is that to the point? I didn't accuse you of forcing me to do anything.

 

[okinrus]

That is circular. Do you understand why? I ask "why is the bible applicable to the topic of god" and you say "because it's a historical document on what jesus (god) said". You just said that the bible is applicable because it says that it is. That is fallacy.

No new testament book gives a blanket endorsement of the entire new testament because the texts had not been group together. The bible is historical just like any other document such as Josephus. Acts chronicles the growth of the early church. You are free to believe how much of the history in the bible is true or not.

Depends on the argument in question. Either might be valid depending on your point. The bible can be valid depending on your point. My point that the bible is not applicable as an authoritative source of information regarding the nature of god. It's inherently biased propaganda.

Well I agree. An atheist would not say that the writings of their famous atheist are the word of God anymore than the bible. However they are still free to quote from them and if they are logical and prove their points, then they impart wisdom.

 

[God_IS]

Originally posted by wesmorris
So you're saying that the bible itself claims that belief in it can only be reached through logical fallacy?

No, I'm saying that your point of view on that is mentioned. Not that the Bible agrees with it.

Sorry man, I call them like I see them. Of course I'm not always correct. You're right that knowledge and intellect are not the same, but the application of intellect is about as fallable as the pertinent knowledge available to that intellect.

Ok, then we'll assume that you are more intelligent than me; congratulations!!!

Anyway, to me you seem more interested in xian-bashing than honestly and receptively discussing God and the Bible.
IMO it's a useless endeavour to engage in any form of discussion or trying to convince anyone who's as selective in his responds as you; You do not respond to the *interesting* remarks I make, only to the bits where you discover a logical flaw or unconsistency in my reasoning. Thanks for pointing those out by the way; that's very educative of you

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by wesmorris
For the life of me I can't figure out why you christian types think the bible has any relevance regarding conversations on god.

Why do you think it has no relevance on such conversations?

It makes me sick to see you spewing the bullshit you read in the bible as if it pertains in some way to something people other than you should deem 'holy'.

Lets take........for the benifit of your simplistic mind, the ten commandments, why are they bullshit?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

Re: Re: Why is the bible the "word of god"?

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
Why do you think it has no relevance on such conversations?

So you answer my question with a question....

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

Lets take........for the benifit of your simplistic mind, the ten commandments, why are they bullshit?

... and then accuse ME of having a simple mind?

Are you mad at me for exposing your stupidity to you?

Tisk tisk Jan. Don't be mad or you'll burn in hell right?

You're such a passive aggressive BITCH Jan. Got any naked pictures of yourself?

I think George Carlin did an entertaining job summing up the stupidity of the ten commandments.

(ps, in the future could you attempt to employ reading comprehension before cluttering up a thread with your brainless tripe? I asked "why is the bible relevant to discussions about god?". To expound: Let's assume there IS a god. Why the abrahamic one? Why does the bible apply in any more than a general historical sense (to be anthropologically analyzed)? Why, JAN, would you think that a collection of folk tales from history gives you a clue about something so magnificent as to have created the entire universe? Do you even understand the scope of the question? I'm sure you think you do. )

 

[Mucker]

Wes Morris I find your lack of faith disturbing (said in Darth vader style).

Surely you can see how reason alone can give answers for a way of life, that must at least be considered to be successful. If men thousands of years before us wrote down what reason pertains, then following these laws on faith alone, could probably turn out to be true!

If things we already know can be seen to be true, then there's nothing to say that the other laws, however ridiculous they may seem now, are also true!

 

[korey]

This thread has been quite nice. I love to see what Christians' consider logic put into action. I've posted on other religious forums about things like this...about bible contradictions and such, and it boils down to the fact that Christians are mindless zombies that will just ramble on and on with their 'But never fear! Jesus loves you and if you act now, you can get a SUPERSIZE halo! Woohoo!' ... strange little people...although I have found one good use for Christianity, which is fooling the people where I live into thinking that I'm 'one of them' so to speak..I live in Mississippi, and if you've ever been here, anyone that isn't a white Christian Supremist is considered evil. Oh well, only three more years til highschool is over, then away I go

 

[Crystal]

Originally posted by korey
This thread has been quite nice. I love to see what Christians' consider logic put into action. I've posted on other religious forums about things like this...about bible contradictions and such, and it boils down to the fact that Christians are mindless zombies that will just ramble on and on with their 'But never fear! Jesus loves you and if you act now, you can get a SUPERSIZE halo! Woohoo!' ... strange little people...although I have found one good use for Christianity, which is fooling the people where I live into thinking that I'm 'one of them' so to speak..I live in Mississippi, and if you've ever been here, anyone that isn't a white Christian Supremist is considered evil. Oh well, only three more years til highschool is over, then away I go

You said it well.

Mindless Zombies.

This is perfect - mindless in that they are like a prerecorded program that is unable to change regardless of it's input

Zombies - because they, in comparison to intelligent folk ei atheists, appear to be incredibly sub-human, not even really living, like pseudo-life

 

[Crystal]

Wes said it well too

BITCH

 

[Mucker]

Nuthin wrong with Christyuns. They are purer than snow itself, just for the fact that they are Christyuns.

 

[EvilPoet]

"Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd
and bloody religion that has ever infected the world."
-Voltaire