Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

I think the issue is a lot more fundamental and simple than that.

Faith and logic are not compatible.

Faith requires belief and acceptance of things that cannot be observed or proven. All cults/religions are faith based, and so logic can't really enter into the picture.

I agree with you that the idea that the Bible people hold in their hands and read from on the pulpit is the pure infallible word of God is a logical disconnect... as anything that has been filtered and rewritten CANNOT be infallible.

I also think that people with that firm a grip on their followers could explain that fallacy away with "but God was the guiding hand in those edits" much like I have personally experienced with any fundamentalist.

I see the Bible more like a "how-to" guide of stories, each having a moral to the story to teach a lesson on how one should live their life. BUT... it is not the end all be all of everything, it's a guiding light, not an instruction booklet. You read the morals and lessons and take them as you see them to be, not as some sort of "do this, then that and BING! Heaven!" rigid structure.

@Ozone42

You have a good point, but... Faith is not necessarily blind acceptance of doctrine. I know many people with faith -- the belief in something that can neither be proven NOR disproven, i.e. God, afterlife, etc. -- who are also able to make sound judgment in choosing which doctrines do and do not make sense.

I think the difference between faith and stupidity lies in whether someone's perceived "faith" contradicts fundamental truths that can be (or have been) found by empirical means. It's one thing to believe in God regardless of whether or not it's been proven. It's another thing entirely to say that the bible is error-proof and free of contradiction when, clearly, it is not. So the key difference to me is not whether it can be proven, but rather if it has not been disproven.

[Ugh, whoops. Sorry for the double post... Edit somehow made a new reply.]

@RightOn

That's exactly my point! :) It's that fundamental flaw in logic that keeps them able to believe what they believe. If they one day chose not to accept that anymore, they would see that most of it is obsolete, even ludicrous by today's standards.

I do however disagree with this comment...

I think the difference between faith and stupidity lies in whether someone's perceived "faith" contradicts fundamental truths that can be (or have been) found by empirical means.

Blind faith doesn't mean the person is stupid. I know some VERY intelligent people that work in the scientific community, that will stand firmly on their belief that the world is 6,000 years old and that Dinosaurs are a "God joke" to fool those of weak faith into thinking the world is older than it is.

One can be intelligent and still be lacking in other areas that others would perceive as illogical or even stupid.

-- the belief in something that can neither be proven NOR disproven, i.e. God, afterlife, etc. --

That's an interesting distinction. The problem I have with it is that what led you to decide which of those things you have faith in. Since it can't be proven one way or another, nor observed or reasoned, what makes one better than the other?

For example, you can't prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist. You chose your god based on some criteria (usually it's simply upbringing,) but that criteria has no basis.

Blind faith doesn't mean someone is stupid, it simply means they aren't thinking.

Like the same friend who thinks Dinosaurs are a hoax put it once... prove that love exists... you know it's there, you feel it but it's not a tangible object. To him, that's the concept of his God.

He can see the world and all the wonders in it, yet he cannot see God. So to him, the world is his proof but it still requires his faith.

I'm not sure my ramblings made sense but it did when he explained it.

"Stupidity" was a terrible choice of words, so my apologies. Ignorance, perhaps, is a better word? There has to be something that isn't so demeaning and negative but still appropriate. (My vocabulary is broken today).

@Ozone42: I'll have to think on that one. ;)

@RightOn: That is the line of reason that most followers hold. I wouldn't even have a problem with it, if they didn't think it was real, logical proof. All they ever have to say to anyone is, "It isn't provable one way or another, but I believe this way." Most secular folks will say, "Okay, I respect that."

I also just realized I made a huge stereotype in my post, and that I really shouldn't assume that ALL believers of biblical inerrancy are loonies. I should clarify. Frankly, I could care less about the harmless ones! They tend to mind their own business and are overall decent people. The ones of whom I speak are the loonies who go around actively proselytizing, telling people they're going to hell, etc. The ones who prey on "lost souls" at funerals. That kind of thing.

I know this doesn't say that is "Gods word" specifically but it does say,

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" 2 Timothy 3:16.

If is is breathed out by God that means it is words directly from him and it is inspired by him. So, the writers that wrote those letters to the churches at the time were writing what God revealed to them.

A good find, jbondo! And, Ozone42, I think the following is a pretty good illustration/demonstration of what I mean when I mentioned deciding what one chooses to believe through reasoning.

One could easily equate scripture to God's word from that passage and it would be a reasonable conclusion. However, that brings up the question of "inerrant" versus "useful." Inerrancy, interestingly enough, is never actually mentioned in that passage. I may be splitting hairs here, but that passage says "profitable," or useful, for teaching and rebuke -- which is certainly true! -- but it does not mention infallibility anywhere.

From another angle, that letter was not written to us. That was a letter from Paul the Apostle to his son Timothy (N.B. 2 Timothy 1:1-2). Timothy would have more than likely taken what he would from the letter and done with it as he saw fit. Paul was considered a holy man, but he wasn't God. Certainly Timothy realized that. Why can't we?

Now, we are taken back to faith versus ignorance. (I think ignorance is a good word because you don't have to be stupid to be ignorant. There are many brilliant minds who are equally ignorant.) The fallacy, then, must lie in human ignorance when reading and taking the words literally and as-is, not taking into account the historical and cultural factors and comparing them to today's norms. It's almost as if nobody wants to do any real research and would rather just listen to some preacher, afraid to accept his own humanity and say, "I have no answers," babble on about silly nonsense he knows nothing about.

What seems to happen is, instead of having faith in God, people have faith in a man. They idolize the charismatic guy on the pulpit instead of knowing their own God. Why, though, do people choose ignorance over faith? Would it be more or less correct, to say that these people are idolaters, following the cult of personality instead of the God they claim to worship? Is "biblical inerrancy" that hole in logic that, once accepted, is the conduit through which a massive number of people may be controlled by said cult through manipulation and deceptive interpretation of scripture?

I've just been trying to wrap my head around why people would choose ignorance over real faith. Do they see it as the easiest path to guaranteed salvation or something?

Well, I think you're going on an interesting and very accurate line of observation there. People absolutely do decide to believe what their minster says, and take that as law. Of course, this isn't everyone, but it is pretty common. Look around at all the conflicts between various protestant sects. Their disagreements don't stem from their scriptures, but from their leaders, and decisions of previous leaders.

But is the decision they're making between ignorance and faith? I don't think so. I think they're choosing one faith over another. As they can't talk to their god, and do not choose to be biblical scholars, so they listen to someone they believe is an authority on it. Are they putting their faith in their minister? Certainly. Whether that detracts from their faith in their god and their doctrine is probably a question best left to those with degrees in theology.

The point I was making earlier is that any choice of faith--rather choosing to have faith--is a decision not to think. You decide something is a certain way, or at least decide to take someone's word that it is and that's the end of the matter. In some cases it does equate to willful ignorance, but I'm not trying to imply that all aspects of religion are.

@archangelchuck: Yes, Paul wrote that letter to Timothy (Tim was a minister to one of the churches that Paul planted) Paul wrote the letter specifically to tell young Tim some things on how to do ministry. Tim would have read this letter to the people in his church at the time, and often this type of letters would be circled around to other churches in the area. Thats one reason we have so many of letters written during the first century.

Also, I do think that christians should not just listen to their preachers they should do research on the bible and learn more about it. The more I have studied the Bible the more real is becomes to me and the more I understand the significance of Christ's life and death and resurrection really is.

I guess I just think there is so much evidence for the things of the Bible how can we not believe it?

Hope all of that make a little since. :-)

I held the belief that the Bible was a contrived attempt at control for the longest time. It had to be fake. Then I started to read it, and not just read, study it in an academic sense.

Once you start to see the connections between books written over long periods of time, its hard to ignore that it would have been impossible for people of that time to "fake it" if you will.

In my personal experience, a lot more depth can be gained by examining the original greek words used. Simple translation does not give the insight to what the word meant at the time the book was written.

I find Biblical word studies fascinating. I was just reading about the word "righteous" and what it mean to be righteous in the time of Moses, David and Jesus. Really helps with the understanding and immersion.

In the end, its a matter of faith. I could argue that Jesus was the messiah till I am blue in the face and have all the facts, figures and logic to back it up, but it won't matter at all if the person I am talking to has a belief system that is different.

Just my thoughts.

BTW, Timothy was only Paul's son in Faith...

"Timothy was quite young when he first met the apostle Paul. His father was Greek, a gentile. His mother was Jewish, an Israelite. Some think, based on comments in Paul's letters to him, that Timothy was timid. Yet a closer look tells a different story. He encountered persecution, faced it and weathered it well.

Timothy kept company behind bars with Paul. More than once he nearly died. He was a faithful courier for Paul. He served the church at Ephesus, in Asia Minor, where members were predominantly gentile. We can learn much from the young evangelist Timothy, a Greek to gentiles, a Jew to Jews."

@Ozone42: For the most part, I really agree. I think the only thing we disagree on is whether faith can or cannot be dynamic, and whether or not investigating and questioning are compatible with faith. That's fine, though, and really we're both correct in some ways.

@jbondo: The writings in the bible with clear historical evidence should be believed, though taken with a grain of salt (as often it is what the people perceived was happening, rather than what might have really happened in a more academic sense). It is a wonderful record of the history of the Israeli people. Saying that all of the doctrines of then still apply today to absolutely everybody on Earth -- literally and as written, based on one or two passages with little or no context -- doesn't necessarily make sense.

@Cappuccino: True enough. But what about people who choose /not/ to investigate, and /not/ to think? That's what bugs me, it isn't whether or not people choose to believe what they read, but rather whether they've really thought about it, and whether it really makes some sort of sense or not...

Obviously, I like to think that faith and rational thought are compatible, and I will stick to my guns on that. You certainly can't be logical for everything regarding religion, as faith by definition is holding a belief without sufficient proof.

@archangelchuck:

Well that's really the rub of it. If you are a Christian its not enough to perform good works, go to Church, read the Bible, etc. Those things are fundamentally attainable. The difficult part is changing the way we think, what is inside our hearts, etc.

In Genesis Abraham has done many good works that he could boast about as Paul writes in Romans, but it is only by his faith that God credits him with righteousness. Powerful message for the Jews of the time who saw righteousness not so much as a result of a relationship and faith in God, but rather as a results of works.

For Jesus to teach this was a radical change from the social setting of the time. For Paul to frame that message in the form of Abraham, the Father of the Jewish people was nothing short of genius.

That same message is completely applicable today as it was in the time of Jesus. Unfortunately too many Christians dismiss the Bible and downplay its significance. I know I did, I felt the exact same way as you did.

Felt that way for the better part of the last twenty years. Slowly, but surely I started to have a decline in moral fortitude for lack of a better word. Then one day my wife brought home a book she picked up at a book exchange our town does. The book was "Left Behind", she thought I might like it, end of the world fiction and all.

I started to read it, like a lot of fiction I just devoured it, it was an easy read and who doesn't like to read about a little chaos right? Before I knew it I was done with it.

About halfway through the third book, I started to feel something changing inside me. I couldn't put my finger on it, I chose to ignore it. Starting the fourth book it was getting harder to ignore this nagging feeling I was having. I pushed it away.

The feelings got stronger, and stronger and stronger until I knew, I had it all wrong, and I was in a shitload of trouble. I broke down, I wept, I asked for forgiveness, and I started to read the Bible.

I had lived God free for almost 20 years, I was reading fiction, but this was real. Visceral, and in my face. Immediately I was filled with fear, not of God but of how my friends and family would react to this change of heart. Odd right?

Eventually I became comfortable with myself to let others know. Is that the end of the story? Am I perfect no. I have falled many, many times since then in sin, I've done some bad things, but they have been tempering my faith, refining it if you will, getting the message through my thick skull that I can't do it, I need him -- and its only through him that I can hope to succeed and find salvation.

Sorry for the long winded words, I appreciate your respect and I respect your opinions. No feelings hurt if your opinion differs from mine.

@Cappuccino thats powerful. I think that is what is comes down to as Christians people can say we are wrong, but they cannot tell how the things God has down in our life is fake. We know it is real.
Also, there is a lot to be learned from the original text (greek and hebrew), but there are so many who could careless, thats a same! Most people do not begin to learn anything about the original text because their churches/preachers do not teach anything about it. I have had no clue about it and I grew up in church. I was about 18 or so before I began to learn anything about original text and really even then it was not that deep until I started seminary.

@archangelchuck: If one believes in the bible how can you take the teachings of Jesus and the apostles with a grain of salt? Is there one passage that we should not believe in?

*Hope I am not coming across as a jerk. :-)

"Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." -- Buddha

I don't claim to know whether there is something you should or should not believe in. I only argue that judgment and reason should be exercised. :)