Philosophical crisis

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

STOLTZFUS
It has been proven to me numerous times that, by our standards and
definitions, the Bible contains errors.
<snip>
Now, however, I have to think about whether or not the Bible can still be
called perfect.  I think I can.  If there is a difficulty with this
conviction, it can only be contained in my flawed understanding of the
meaning of perfection.  Thus, while by at least some human standards the
Bible is errant, I can conclude that every word is written as God intended
it to be; and that, because His intent (= will) is perfect the Bible is also
perfect.

POOBAH
You know, when Jacob first introduced himself to us, I asked him:

 "Well you aren't the first person to come in here and make this claim, but
Jason Carter would never defend it. So perhaps you can. How exactly can a
book have 'historical errors' and still be 'inerrant in every conceivable
way'?"

He denied that he held such a view at the time, but now we see that he does.

Nonetheless, Jacob, do you realize where such a position leaves you? If the
Bible is in fact "perfect" but our reason is too flawed to realize it, how
can you possibly hope to discount the claims of any other religion? Perhaps
they are also correct (or are instead correct) and your reason is too flawed
to see it. Don't bother trying to prove to me that they are in fact flawed,
because your reason is too flawed for me to believe you.

In such a scenario, how can you possibly know that your understanding of
Christianity is correct? Since according to the Bible, God will deal rather
harshly with those that aren't of his flock, with such flawed reasoning how
can you possibly have any idea on form of baptism, predestination,
communion, faith, etc. etc. etc. are correct? As someone else noted, your
only recourse is gnosticism, which makes you a heretic... Damned if you do
and damned if you don't...

STOLTZFUS
However, I would argue that we have more reason to believe in the existence
of a single deity than of multiple; that monotheism is more reasonable and
has more evidence to support it than does pantheism.  I know this isn't
satisfactory but it's the best I can do 10 minutes before the lab closes.
I'll get back to you on Monday.

POOBAH
Jacob wrote the comments above *immediately* after he wrote the previous
quote. He first tells us that our standards & definitions are flawed, and
then disses someone else's religions definitions, presumably based on the
same type of evidence he just discounted. Sheesh!

There seems to be something about the Christian psyche that allows its
adherents to hold simultaneously contradictory ideas. I guess if you can
accept the concept of a god-man who died-but-didn't who is three-gods-in-one
and engage in cannibalism-that-isn't it just comes naturally.

Jacob, all's I can say is that if our reason isn't capable of showing that
Josiah couldn't possibly be both dead & not-dead like some Schroedinger's
Cat, then I don't possibly see how you can prove the above without me being
able to claim that your definitions & reason are flawed.

B.

• Previous message: Philosophical crisis
• Next message: Philosophical crisis
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]