Bible quoter

[MemeFan]

Bible quoter is person who is who is able to quote Scripture and because of this, he believes he is in possession of absolute truth. No evidence against his interpretation, especially any non-Biblical is acceptable. Only Bible can refute Bible. And that is a problem.

To many here above "problem" will be seen as strange. Bear with me, you will understand.

It is time to do little diving into a branch of philosophy called epistemology which deals with what is knowledge and truth. Key question is how do we know that something is true.

What is hidden presupposition of Bible qouter? Bible is only source of truth and it is superior of any other. But is that really a case? Let's assume it is and check it's implications. Let's try with simple example. Is 2+2 = 4 false or not? Well, there is no verse which proves 2+2=4, therefore previous math formula is false/can't be know. Without any verse which proves any math formula, we must conclude that all math is false/or unreliable. There is no verse proving atoms, therefore atoms don't exist. There is no verse mentioning cars, therefore cars don't exist. Somehow all my senses can't perceive any truth, except when my eyes are reading Bible. Do you see insanity?

Math is true. Logic is true. Atoms and cars exists. And there is more than one reliable source of truth in this world. Thanks to Greek philosophers we know some attributes of truth. Key law is of non-contradiction. Truth always has internal consistency. Two truths can't be in contradiction against itself. Also, two truths are always valid. There is no such thing as "higher" or "superior" truth which overrides "smaller" truths. All truths are always true all the time.

First implication is that Bible can't be in contradiction with math, logic, atoms, cars etc.... Secondly, we use sciences and what we know about world to check our Bible interpretations. When interpretation implies something crazy about laws of physics, economics, math, people it is interpretator who has crazy ideas.

Pay attention to your beliefs about epistemology because errors here are painful. You will be convinced something is true and be unable to see your errors.

Here is example of Bible qouter. Christian mainstream sociologists. All societies, in practice, are polygamous. Therefore, polygyny is part of human nature. And since Lord created such humans, He must be OK with polygyny. No way, say "Christian" sociologists. All these polygamists are doing evil and Lord's work is defective. Who is crazy here? How can such people not see that human nature is testament against their heresy? Oooo, easy. They have absolute certainty in their interpretation.

Truth is always accessible. But searching for truth requires that we search contradictions between our beliefs and contradiction between our beliefs and reality.

 

[rockfox]

Here is example of Bible qouter. Christian mainstream sociologists. All societies, in practice, are polygamous. Therefore, polygyny is part of human nature. And since Lord created such humans, He must be OK with polygyny. No way, say "Christian" sociologists. All these polygamists are doing evil and Lord's work is defective. Who is crazy here? How can such people not see that human nature is testament against their heresy? Oooo, easy. They have absolute certainty in their interpretation.

Homosexuals use much the same line of argument.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know Him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

The reproducability crisis has proven Science is an unreliable source for truth: worse than random chance. Science is unreliable. We have a word for reliable science: Engineering. The soft 'sciences' are laughably unreliable; including those that seem good like economics.

Logic and human reason? That's the athiests argument. Logic is fallible too; a smart man can concoct a false logic trail good enough to fool those simpler. As a general rule humans use reason to justify their position instead of derive it. The smarter one is, the better they are at fooling themselves.

Math is true. Logic is true. Atoms and cars exists. And there is more than one reliable source of truth in this world. Thanks to Greek philosophers we know some attributes of truth. Key law is of non-contradiction. Truth always has internal consistency. Two truths can't be in contradiction against itself. Also, two truths are always valid. There is no such thing as "higher" or "superior" truth which overrides "smaller" truths. All truths are always true all the time.

Math isn't always true, hence the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics". The problem is much of what the world thinks is truth, isn't. Hence why people hold to the Bible as an objective standard and arbiter of truth. We may not always get the interpretation right. But we know the testimony of the scriptures is true. If they aren't, our faith is void.

What is hidden presupposition of Bible qouter? Bible is only source of truth and it is superior of any other. But is that really a case? Let's assume it is and check it's implications. Let's try with simple example. Is 2+2 = 4 false or not? Well, there is no verse which proves 2+2=4, therefore previous math formula is false/can't be know. Without any verse which proves any math formula, we must conclude that all math is false/or unreliable. There is no verse proving atoms, therefore atoms don't exist. There is no verse mentioning cars, therefore cars don't exist.

Red herring and a catagory error. No Bible believe looks to the Bible to prove maths. It's a religious book, not a chemistry or math book. But on the things it does teach us, these we can count on to be true and the world a lie.

 

[raulus]

Homosexuals use much the same line of argument.



The reproducability crisis has proven Science is an unreliable source for truth: worse than random chance. Science is unreliable. We have a word for reliable science: Engineering. The soft 'sciences' are laughably unreliable; including those that seem good like economics.

Logic and human reason? That's the athiests argument. Logic is fallible too; a smart man can concoct a false logic trail good enough to fool those simpler. As a general rule humans use reason to justify their position instead of derive it. The smarter one is, the better they are at fooling themselves.



Math isn't always true, hence the saying "lies, damned lies, and statistics". The problem is much of what the world thinks is truth, isn't. Hence why people hold to the Bible as an objective standard and arbiter of truth. We may not always get the interpretation right. But we know the testimony of the scriptures is true. If they aren't, our faith is void.



Red herring and a catagory error. No Bible believe looks to the Bible to prove maths. It's a religious book, not a chemistry or math book. But on the things it does teach us, these we can count on to be true and the world a lie.

I second all of what rockfox says.

The scriptures is the only source of ultimate truth, things having to do with eternity. Vain philosophies have only to do with the temporal. They can help in reason and practicality, but they cannot edify. You can't compare a branch of philosophy to actual truth, that frees people from bondage. The first question people should ask, like herod is, what is truth? Truth is Christ. This form of thinking that you've brought forth is largely unnecessary.

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”
‭‭Colossians‬ ‭2‬:‭8‬

“while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.”
‭‭2 Corinthians‬ ‭4‬:‭18‬

“And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.”
‭‭Ecclesiastes‬ ‭12‬:‭12‬

“How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”
‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭14‬:‭26‬

“Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them, I find in him no fault at all.”
‭‭John‬ ‭18‬:‭38‬

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
‭‭John‬ ‭14‬:‭6‬

 

[MemeFan]

I think you either get my point or not.

Either you search all truth no matter the source and it can withstand all tests no matter wah of testing or you believe some sources are better than other.

Maybe here some will get points for blind obedience, but will you win points for thinking about Lord requires? Restorating Christian civilization requires, firstly, creating Christian law applicable in all condition and in working with reality. And using reason when to use which Bible command.

The reproducability crisis has proven Science is an unreliable source for truth: worse than random chance. Science is unreliable. We have a word for reliable science: Engineering. The soft 'sciences' are laughably unreliable; including those that seem good like economics.

Category error. Science is about finding laws of nature. Scientist prefer isolating variables, studying only one. Scientist's worst error is written gibberish laughted by other scientists.

Engineering is applying math and natural to solve problems. All laws of nature are executed at same time, there is no effort toward isolation. And engineers, same as doctors, do bury tgeir mistakes.

'Soft science' sucks because they use idiotical methodoloy. Is essence, stupid epistemiology, worthless results. 90% or of economists are paid by state, so they do state bidding. States wants more money, economists write gibberish by inflation is good.

Logic and human reason? That's the athiests argument. Logic is fallible too; a smart man can concoct a false logic trail good enough to fool those simpler. As a general rule humans use reason to justify their position instead of derive it. The smarter one is, the better they are at fooling themselves.

You use both when intepreting Bible. So inteprentation is also faillable. If all logic and reson is false then we couldn't understand anything in our own power, only by revelation.

Homosexuals use much the same line of argument.

Not important. Any larger society will have many deviancies. So their presence doesn't matter. What matters is that something is done naturally or desired by most people. Invalids born unable to walk don't prove that human nature isn't to walk. No, their existence in small numbers proves their their sickness.

And polygamy is naturally desired by all men.

 

[MemeFan]

What will exist in heaven?

Who will decide what to do with our bodies? This leads to property rights become decided is also owner of body.

Scarcity will exist. Our bodies won't be able to be at same time at multiple places. So we would have too chos which will create scarcity. So economics will exist.

Political science will exist become Lord will have to justify His rule.

Even transport system equivalant of trains and busses will exist if we couldn't teleport and have reason for travelling.

Heaven will be another world, but a lot of things will be familiar.

 

[ABlessedMan]

I am enjoying this string. (@rockfox - I always enjoy your input). I've been struggling with epistemology for . . . a while. My introductory question comes from German and French: there is a distinction between verbs for knowing about (objectively) and knowing (via experienced relationship). Science (scientia / techne) tends to focus on instrumental logic and control. Even in philosophy there is a marked tendency toward abstraction and generalization that push away from the concrete world of experiential data (theoria). Conversely, those domains of thought that embrace both concrete experience AND imaginative reconstructions seem to have been excluded from "science" as a discipline (which I find ironic since a great deal of Einstein's work is based in imaginative thought experiments).
So . . .when we're thinking about thinking . . . how do we "zero the scale"? Stated in another way, how do we know that we're not "pulling on the rug that we're standing on"? For example, from a materialist logical standpoint scripture is loaded with contradictions. Life in Christ is Freedom. Life in Christ is Slavery. Life in Christ is Death. Life in Christ is Eternal Life. The list could be multiplied at length. However, viewed from a wisdom (sapientia) standpoint, these are not contradictions but paradoxes. They are not marks of logical inconsistency, but of real and experienced truth. So how do we "check our manner of thinking?" And how do we dialog with people who think in a different manner?

 

[MemeFan]

I have watched series explain Evola and his desire to return to Tradition (old ancestor worship) and rites connected to them

There was claim that some knowledge can only be experienced. No description was possible. That was little strange to me.

 

[rockfox]

However, viewed from a wisdom (sapientia) standpoint, these are not contradictions but paradoxes.

I have found that most hard to understand things in scripture have their root in either false presuppositions / beliefs or the Holy Spirit not enlightening the individual.

And using reason when to use which Bible command.

And that right there is where you go off the rails. Most people don't use reason. Rather they find something in the Bible emotionally offensive or contrary to their beliefs and then concoct "reasons" why they don't have to do it.

Decide: is the Bible good and true and applicable to us or not?

Jesus invited a little child to stand among them. “Truly I tell you,” He said, “unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes a little child like this in My name welcomes Me.

There are many things in scripture which we as moderns find offensive, wrong or are just plain unable to understand. We must approach God's will for us as little children and just do them, even thought we do not understand why they are important. With time, maturity, and the Holy Spirit we might yet come to understanding.

 

[MemeFan]

@rockfox, to even use Bible your epistemiology must claim that Bible actually exists and it's not figment of your imagination.

Practical application of Bible without reason is impossible. First, you have to understand relevant verse(s). Second, you have to understand your situation. Third, you have to match you situation with proper verses.

Applying verses for murder for theft situation is . Logical mistakes don't disprove value of logic. They can only show us how not use logic. And nobody here claims that logic is perfect tool when used by humans.

Avoiding instruction(s) from Bible because we don't like them is special issue.

And my central point still stands: if person finds some truth using his natural means, then this truth is always equal to whatever Bible says. If contradictions exist, then we didn't understand reality correctly or Bible inteprentation is wrong. Because all "truth elements are always consistent between themselves".wit