Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Tension of Faith
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 58 of 1540 (820511)
09-21-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
09-19-2017 3:16 AM


Faith writes:
The article made things somewhat easier between me and my friend, since in these cases I usually have to avoid saying much about my beliefs, so it was a big relief to have a less conflictful frame of reference. It's SO true, I don't WANT anybody to go to Hell, but if I believe God has decreed it I can't argue with God, and all I can do is pray that God will save those I care about.
Faith, great OP! I agree with you completely on this topic. When a doctor gives a terminal diagnosis to a patient, it's not because he WANTS them to die, but because they need to know the truth. What the doctor WANTS is irrelevant. For some reason, most atheists and agnostics can't see that our position is analogous to the doctor's.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 09-19-2017 3:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 09-21-2017 11:00 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 09-22-2017 2:01 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 68 of 1540 (820534)
09-22-2017 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Tangle
09-22-2017 2:01 AM


Tangle writes:
The point we're discussing is about whether the message itself makes any kind of sense and of course it doesn't. The message is at its very best a childish fantasy and horror story.
But that's NOT the point of this thread or of the OP, as I understand it. The point is to help unbelievers understand our perspective. We don't pick and choose the parts that we like about religion or theology, throwing away the rest. Rather, we have become convinced that the Bible is true, and we are captive to the Word of God. Often we become convinced of things that seem to be counterintuitive or that we would not have chosen on our own.
When a doctor gives you an unpleasant diagnosis, you are certainly free to reject it and to call it a "childish fantasy" and a "horror story".
But what if it is true?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Tangle, posted 09-22-2017 2:01 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Tangle, posted 09-22-2017 12:34 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 75 by PaulK, posted 09-22-2017 12:53 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 09-22-2017 1:04 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 70 of 1540 (820538)
09-22-2017 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by ringo
09-22-2017 11:47 AM


Re: Salvation from Hell comes by Jesus Christ
ringo writes:
Phat writes:
well, technically they had to eat from the tree of life first.
It doesn't say that.
Gen 3:22 says that IF they had been allowed to eat from the tree, then they WOULD have been able to live forever. What do you think this verse means?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by ringo, posted 09-22-2017 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 09-22-2017 12:52 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 96 of 1540 (820593)
09-23-2017 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
09-23-2017 11:41 AM


Re: Salvation from Hell comes by Jesus Christ
Logically, eternal life and procreation don't mix. Logically, there's no point to male and female without procreation.
Agreed. That's why Jesus said that there is no marriage (implying no procreation) in heaven.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 09-23-2017 11:41 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2017 10:06 AM kbertsche has replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 103 of 1540 (820728)
09-25-2017 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by New Cat's Eye
09-25-2017 10:06 AM


Re: Salvation from Hell comes by Jesus Christ
New Cat's Eye writes:
Wait, so if eternal life and procreation are mutually exclusive then; because God made Adam and Eve as male and female then He didn't intend for them to live forever.
Which makes sense that there was a Tree of Life that would make them live forever if they ate from it. That would be pointless if they already would live forever.
So do you agree that Adam and Eve were not created to live forever?
I agree that the omniscient God knew beforehand that His creatures would sin and that He would have to expel them from the Garden and not allow them to live forever in this sinful stare.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-25-2017 10:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 104 of 1540 (820729)
09-25-2017 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by NoNukes
09-24-2017 6:57 PM


Re: Salvation from Hell comes by Jesus Christ
NoNukes writes:
What understanding is gained by trying to model your relationship with Christ as spousal? I have heard of this before, but I find the idea absolutely bizarre.
See Eph 5:20-33. Similar husband-wife imagery was also frequently used of God and Israel in the Old Testament.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2017 6:57 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(2)
Message 156 of 1540 (821365)
10-06-2017 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Phat
10-05-2017 9:30 PM


Re: where the tension lies
Phat writes:
OK let's settle this. Does the Bible clearly say that God chooses or does the issue imply that humans choose?
The Bible seems to teach both, so I think we need to accept that both are true in some way. Since the issue involves an omniscient, omnipotent God who is outside of time and knows the future perfectly, it becomes very difficult for us to wrap our heads around.
Just a few brief comments:
1) the Bible teaches BOTH that "whosoever will may come" to Christ, AND that those who come to Christ have been "chosen before the foundation of the world".
2) Calvin himself said something like, "Christ's death is SUFFICIENT to save all, but is EFFICIENT to save only the elect.". He saw both sides of the issue, too.
3) The Bible is clear that salvation is a gift completely from God, not due to our own works, deeds, or actions (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
4) We are not saved BY faith, but THROUGH faith. The "power" for salvation is not in faith, but in Christ's work. We are saved BY Jesus' substitutionary death on our behalf.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Phat, posted 10-05-2017 9:30 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 164 of 1540 (821413)
10-07-2017 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 162 by Paboss
10-07-2017 1:58 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Paboss, do you think the original readers would have perceived contradictions in the Bible?
It seems to me that most of the supposed contradictions in the Bible are of our own making, due to reading anachronistically. If we apply 21st century western standards to first century (or earlier) middle-eastern writings, we will misread them.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Paboss, posted 10-07-2017 1:58 AM Paboss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by PaulK, posted 10-07-2017 6:46 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 186 of 1540 (821446)
10-07-2017 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by jar
10-07-2017 9:17 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Re the apparent contradiction between Calvinism and Arminianism:
jar writes:
If both positions are in the Bible then that is a contradiction.
It really is that simple Faith.
Maybe not. If my physics book says that photons are both particles and waves, is it contradicting itself? Or is this really true, and our limited perspective is misleading us?

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by jar, posted 10-07-2017 9:17 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by jar, posted 10-07-2017 4:15 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 222 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-09-2017 11:57 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 210 of 1540 (821528)
10-08-2017 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by PaulK
10-08-2017 9:34 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
PaulK writes:
That's not the question I asked.
...in the human perspective God wants to save everyone and in God's perspective that's not true at all. Perhaps you can explain how they could both be true. Or even how there could be a "different perspective" on that question.
Try again.
Here's my try at a brief explanation of the apparent contradiction between God's sovereign choice and our free will:
God's DESIRE is that all would be saved (2 Pet 3:9). But people don't want salvation (Rom 1:18-32); they prefer darkness to light (Jn 3:19). Left to their own, no one would be saved. So, by His mercy, God has DETERMINED to save some people, even though none of us deserve it.
Why does God only save some, but not all? Is He being unjust? It may seem so, but we can't see the whole picture. Paul addressed this apparent injustice directly in Rom 9:14-24, implying that it may be too hard for us to understand, but that God's actions are perfectly just.
Both God's choice and our free will are taught in the Bible. Both are suggested in one verse, in fact:
quote:
John 6:37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out.
Again, I see this apparent contradiction between God's choice and our free will as analogous to wave-particle duality. We tend to think that waves and particles are completely different from one another, and that an electron or photon cannot be both at the same time. But the data shows us otherwise. We need to be honest with the data, even though it may not make sense to our intuition and may seem to be an apparent contradiction. In the same way, if the biblical data is clear on an issue of apparent contradiction, we need to be honest with the biblical data, whether it is the dual human-divine nature of Jesus, the unity-Trinity of God, or God's choice and our free will regarding salvation.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by PaulK, posted 10-08-2017 9:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2017 12:31 AM kbertsche has replied
 Message 212 by NoNukes, posted 10-09-2017 1:02 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 223 of 1540 (821560)
10-09-2017 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by PaulK
10-09-2017 12:31 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
PaulK writes:
While the assertions are disputable I want to concentrate on the logic. If God genuinely wants to save everyone, and if it is completely down to God, with no human involvement in the process at all, why isn't everyone saved ?
An excellent question. But I don't believe I can give you a very satisfying answer. Scripture doesn't completely spell out how God chooses people for salvation.
But there are a few points that the Bible IS clear on:
1) God does not force people to act against their will; He honors their decision to reject Him (Rom 1:18-32).
2) God does NOT choose people based on their own merits or deeds (Eph 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
3) We can't really understand why God chooses some and not others, but we are assured that He is perfectly just. (Rom 9:14-24)
Sorry I can't give you a better answer. Ultimately, I just accept the biblical evidence, even though it seems counterintuitive (much in the same way that I accept particle-wave duality, even though it seems counterintuitive).

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2017 12:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 10-09-2017 12:45 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 282 of 1540 (821791)
10-12-2017 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Percy
10-12-2017 7:52 AM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Percy and Ringo,
You are asking good questions about biblical authority, inerrancy, etc. These are excellent questions for the "The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy" section of the "Science" forums. But I believe they are out of place in the "Bible Study" forums, where we discuss "What does the Bible really mean?" I suggest that, in this forum, we just "agree to disagree" about inerrancy, and discuss meaning. Whether or not we accept inerrancy, we can still all discuss what the Bible is trying to say and what it means.
I believe inerrancy is somewhat of an epistemological question. These are important questions, but they can hinder us from making progress about meaning. In science, for example, we can ask important epistemological questions, such as "why should I trust experiment?" or "why should I believe that nature is repeatable?". We cannot PROVE that experiment is trustworthy or that nature is repeatable. But if we allow this to stop us, we will never discuss the RESULTS of the scientific experiments or what they mean. Likewise here. Neither Faith nor I can PROVE to a skeptic that the Bible is inerrant. But we shouldn't need to do so in this forum. We should still be able to discuss what the Bible MEANS.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Percy, posted 10-12-2017 7:52 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Faith, posted 10-12-2017 5:00 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 295 by Percy, posted 10-13-2017 7:57 AM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 329 of 1540 (821909)
10-15-2017 5:17 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by Faith
10-13-2017 4:36 PM


Re: Conversations with Faith on faith.
Faith writes:
You're right, it does have to work as a sign to Ahaz, and I'm sure it does but I don't care to research it right now. Even so, it is definitely a prophecy of the virgin birth of the Messiah, because the New Testament says so, and the traditional Church says so, for a couple of millennia already, and they have a lot more authority than any unbeliever.
I believe that Is 7:14 is a good example of a "multiple fulfillment" of prophecy; in this case, it is a "double fulfillment".
The first fulfillment was in Isaiah's day, within just a few years of the prophecy being given. (This is clear from Is 7:16ff.) The second fulfillment was with Jesus, a few centuries later.
So was the first fulfillment also a virgin birth? The first fulfillment is explained in different ways, but I believe it refers to a woman who was a virgin at the time of the PROPHECY, but not at the time of the child's BIRTH. I believe the woman got married and had a child in the normal way. This is probably the birth described in Is. 8:3.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by Faith, posted 10-13-2017 4:36 PM Faith has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


(1)
Message 493 of 1540 (823104)
11-06-2017 6:02 AM
Reply to: Message 482 by Percy
11-05-2017 9:03 AM


Re: One More Thing For The Record
Percy writes:
We (meaning most of the world) believe the Earth is round because of the evidence supporting that belief. We believe in the germ theory of disease because of the evidence supporting that belief.
And likewise, we Christians believe the major tenets of our faith because of evidence.
But evidence is a funny thing. One person can see evidence as strong and compelling, while another can see the same evidence as weak and arbitrary. Witness anthropogenic global warming, for example. Most scientists are convinced by the evidence that it is real. But a vocal segment of the populace rejects this evidence and its conclusions.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Percy, posted 11-05-2017 9:03 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by jar, posted 11-06-2017 7:45 AM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 525 by Percy, posted 11-08-2017 4:23 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 2248 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 572 of 1540 (823484)
11-10-2017 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 569 by Percy
11-10-2017 3:35 PM


Re: How Faith is based on evidence and yet a gift
Percy writes:
GDR writes:
GDR writes:
I think that you are showing that your point is invalid. What you call is information is evidence. If it wasnt there would be no longer the need to look for further information to either verify or discount the original account. Once again, it is about the strength of the evidence.
I couldn't make sense of this paragraph, but let me take another stab at it by rephrasing it. Would it be an accurate paraphrase to say, "I think your argument disproves itself. What you call information is evidence. If the information wasn't evidence then there would no longer be the need to look for further information to verify the original information."
Hmmm. I thought rephrasing would help me understand what you were saying, but I still can't make sense out of it, at least not as a response to what I said. I'll try explaining again.
A newspaper article that says, "The fingerprints at the crime scene matched the suspect's," is presenting information, not evidence, and wouldn't appear at trial. Images of the fingerprints at the crime scene and the fingerprints of the suspect is both information *and* evidence, and would be introduced as evidence at trial. The Bible contains information, not evidence.
I think GDR is correct here. You are treating "evidence" in a Boolean fashion, and further are giving "evidence" a very restrictive definition. But in reality, there are different types of evidence and different strengths of evidence.
A written record such as the gospels is indeed "evidence". At the very least, it is evidence of what someone wrote at a specific time in history. Most of us would agree that it is also evidence of what the writer and his followers believed. Whether or not the gospels are evidence of actual history is a separate question which must be evaluated on separate criteria.
Making a blanket, black-and-white statement that the gospels are not "evidence" does not help the discussion, in my opinion.
Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 569 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 3:35 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 573 by Tangle, posted 11-10-2017 6:07 PM kbertsche has not replied
 Message 574 by Percy, posted 11-10-2017 6:20 PM kbertsche has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024