Everything what is true

Author: Utanity
true
everything

Posts

Total: 137
Topic's author
#61
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the bible is not a necessary axiom, its quite arbitrary, of course I wouldn't accept it out of anything but what the bible says. If a comic book had on it's pages, "Everything in this book is real" and was intended by the author seriously, would you believe it? No, of course you wouldn't, now, I don't think the bible is like a comic book, just a more general analogy. 
You sea the bible is true because god is true and he said that he is talking his words in the bible because also what is real is true and true christians they have a lot of realty which they no is true. Because you cant say what is realty and what is not realty but true christians do no their realty so it must be true so the bible must be true and because it is real it cant be arbitrary.
#62
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
But the bible is not a necessary axiom, its quite arbitrary, of course I wouldn't accept it out of anything but what the bible says. If a comic book had on it's pages, "Everything in this book is real" and was intended by the author seriously, would you believe it? No, of course you wouldn't, now, I don't think the bible is like a comic book, just a more general analogy. 
Hi Theweakeredge, thanks again for your comments. 

I disagree with you.  You don't see the Bible as being necessary. I do. It is the revelation of God from God. It is in written form. It is therefore transparent. It is objective. And it is the axiom of billions of people around the world.  

You say it is not necessary. Yet without the Bible, as an axiom, then everything else loses focus and becomes relative and purely subjective.  

I have no issue with the stories in the Bible.  I think the author's intent - is genuine. And clearly communicable.  What parts would I not believe? 

The Bible is a bookcase of books.  It has lots of genres. It was written prior to Gutenberg.  It is not a textbook. Yet it is a book which has guided and helped and comforted and brought joy to millions of people in history.  Yes some people have used it terribly. Just like some people have used science terribly. 

As I said above, no one is asking you to make it your axiom.  Yet if you want to have fruitful discussions with Christians,  with those who DO see it as an axiom, then commencing with your own axiom is not going to cut it.   Historically, Christians who utilize their axiom of the bible have been at the forefront of many wonderful discoveries. Explorers traveled extensively. Scientists finding new science.  Mathematicians with new formulas.  Christians love knowledge.  I always find it amusing when atheists suggest Christians are dumb or stupid. Such suggestions come about when atheists shut their eyes to history or try and put a different spin on history. 

A comic book is not suggesting it is revelation. There are very few books in the world - even amongst the religious which claim themselves to be the words of God.  I would suggest that most of these books - are a bit like like your comic book.  (I don't think that self-witness is evidence it is true. Yet conversely without self-witness it could not be true) Yet given the existence of God, it is self evident he would reveal himself to us - as he chooses, not as we would like.  This is why no one can see God at any time, except those who he chooses to reveal himself to. Yet, for God to suggest he is not only the creator of the world, and the giver of life, but importantly also the judge of the world, it would be foolish then not to provide to humanity the standards by which he will judge. 

Ignorance is not an excuse. I am sure you have heard that said before. Just because a crook says - I don't know that law or I don't accept your jurisdiction, or I don't agree with your views, is not going to prevent the judge from sentencing that crook.  Yet, the judge has no power to judge anyone if there is no standard. 

The Bible indicates that these standards in the past were brought by God to man through prophets. They brought God's lawsuits against humanity. These are written down for us to read - in the OT.   The Bible also says that in these latter days - God has revealed himself through his son, the Lord Jesus.  His Apostles and others such as Paul took Jesus's teachings and expounded them. They are known as the apostolic teaching. This is the NT. 

For Christians, the bible is God's standard.  It is his measure of right and wrong. It contains many examples of good people and of bad people. Sometimes good people did bad things. Sometimes bad people did good things. It is a book that shows humanity in all of its ugliness and in all of its righteousness.  Yet running right through it is a picture of God, an entirely righteous and holy God who points on every page to his Son the Lord Jesus.  

What is interesting is that despite the fact that Christians see the holy and righteous God in its pages, others don't. I have mentioned this before - but I think this is one of the most fascinating aspects of the Bible. That two people can read the same passage and see two different narratives.  And when I say two people - I mean two groups of people. For it is not that every individual reads it and sees something different, but that there really are two ways of perceiving its contents.  A holy and Good God or an evil and vindicate god. Of course there is a third subset - those who say they don't care or have not made up their mind yet. 

The point is - that for Christians the Bible is their axiom.   Hence why some people continue to demonstrate its weakness by pointing out so called contradictions and how it is inconsistent with science etc and why God is such an evil monster. 

The problem of course for these people is that they are always starting with their own axioms. Not with the Christian's axiom.  


#63
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
No... they start with, "Until these assertions have been demonstrated, they aren't true. If they are demonstrated, then they are true." Whereas a Christian assumes its true. No, the bible is not the only way people put things as objective, but it doesn't do that in the first place. 
#64
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Everyone has assumptions. No one is immune or an exception to this rule. 

I don't know anyone who says - until logic and reason has been proved, I won't use it.  An axiom is something which is a self witness of itself.  

I can think of nothing in the Bible which has not been demonstrated to be true.  Can you? 


#65
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
God
Jesus
Adam and Eve
A global flood
Jews being slaves in Egypt
Jews leaving Egypt through a path, taking them 40 years, where they could literally make a line and stand from edge to edge on
Jesus's resurrection
Any bible author besides maybe Paul

These have not been demonstrated. 

Also, saying, "Until you prove logic, I won't use logic" how fun, you are using logic to disprove logic, therefore you are using logic whether you like it or not, hence it being an axiom. 
#66
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Oh, just more unproved stuff from the bible:

The creation order
The creation time
The "creator"
The development of life
That one time a donkey talked
That other time a snake talked
The time where water was turned to wine
That time where like, 5 bread and some fish fed 5000 people

Do you want more? I can give you more.
Topic's author
#67
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh, just more unproved stuff from the bible:

The creation order
The creation time
The "creator"
The development of life
That one time a donkey talked
That other time a snake talked
The time where water was turned to wine
That time where like, 5 bread and some fish fed 5000 people

Do you want more? I can give you more.
Different peoples they have different realtys and your ignorant and arrogant if your refuse to no this. To a true christian the bible is being real so then it is also being true. Your realty isnt coincidence with gods realty so you will go to hell just saying.
#68
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Utanity
Well... then prove it. If you find these things to be true, prove it. If you proved these things I would change my mind.
Topic's author
#69
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
Well... then prove it. If you find these things to be true, prove it. If you proved these things I would change my mind.
You said these things are unproved stuff so your gotta prove that they are unproved. Do your thinking that I dropped in the last shower.
#70
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Utanity
No.... I pointed out that these things have not been proven, that's not a claim, that's me noticing something. If you think that these things have been proven, show me it, if you want to prove it, prove it.
#71
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
The bible is not attempting to prove any of the things you have listed so your point is invalid. 

I never said I don't use logic. I said the reverse actually. 

The point of an axiom is it cannot be proved.  It is an example of circular reasoning.  It is its own self -witness.  

Logic testifies to itself - but you cannot prove it.  Yes, you use it. But you cannot prove it.  This is called "faith". Faith that it is true.  

This is the same with the Bible as an axiom.  It cannot be proved. It testifies to itself - this is circular reasoning.   Christians believe it so by faith. 

Yet, like logic, it is also reliable.  And trustworthy.  

And like Logic, can be distorted and used wrongly. 


#72
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
Wrong, at the very least we have very definitions of faith. But I don't even have what I think you mean by faith. Axioms are things that have to be true in order for things (in general) to work, reality being reality, logic, that kind of stuff, so no. I still don't think the bible is an axiom.
#73
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong, at the very least we have very definitions of faith. But I don't even have what I think you mean by faith. Axioms are things that have to be true in order for things (in general) to work, reality being reality, logic, that kind of stuff, so no. I still don't think the bible is an axiom.
Ok, I agree with you that generally, an AXIOM is a simple principle or statement that cannot be simplified further.

HOWEveR,

Let's imagine for a second,

for the sake of argument,

that "The Bible" is 100% true.

I know this is difficult, and I'd like you to know how much I do appreciate the enormous effort you're making in order to entertain this hypothetical.

What would this mean to you?

Would you stop wearing mixed fabrics?

Would you start stoning divorcees to death in the public square?

Would you start slaughtering prisoners of war who worshiped other "god($)"?
#74
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Everyone has assumptions. No one is immune or an exception to this rule. 
Yes, but who is making the fewest assumptions?

And who is making their assumptions (AXIOMS and definitions) EXPLICIT?
#75
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
No... they start with, "Until these assertions have been demonstrated, they aren't true. If they are demonstrated, then they are true."
FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary.
#76
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Yet without the Bible, as an axiom, then everything else loses focus and becomes relative and purely subjective.  
Try to imagine something.

Just for like, two minutes.

Try to imagine you are born into a remote village.

You don't know what time-period you're in and you don't know what part of the planet you're living on because you're a baby.

Now try to imagine growing up, getting older.

You learn to herd your family's goats and gather grains and carry water.

You fall in love.

You have a child.

You've never seen a book.

Is your life meaningful?
#77
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The problem with this hypothetical is that if took everything the bible said, as absolutely true, I wouldn't be me anymore, as some of my fundamental processes and my way of thinking would be completely altered for everything in the bible to be true, therefore I couldn't answer that question. I guess if I thought everything was true in the bible then I would think it was an axiom. The problem here is that in your scenario the bible is 100% accurate, whenever that isn't the case. At all. None of the supernatural claims have been demonstrated, a ton of the historic and geographic claims have been debunked. The difference is, this hypothetical supposes the bible, whenever I am saying: Until you prove the bible is an axiom, it isn't an axiom, simple as that. Or at least demonstrate why, without the bible, some fundamental nature of how we interact or analyze anything wouldn't work.
Topic's author
#78
Utanity
Utanity's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 375
0
2
2
Utanity's avatar
Utanity
0
2
2
-->
@Theweakeredge
I pointed out that these things have not been proven, that's not a claim
Pointed out and claim and say are all the same things because of the explication and your positive pointed out and claimed and said that these things have not been proven so your must prove your positive asearchin.
#79
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Utanity
No... if you had brought up an argument and then I said, "This has not been proven" that would be a claim, there is literally nothing for me to conclude: This has been proven. As a law of physics, supernatural things cannot exist, so that's evidence in favor of there being none. Anyways, no, it isn't. Its pointing out a fact, there has been no demonstration for the brought up points. If you have demonstration, then provide it.
#80
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
The problem with this hypothetical is that if took everything the bible said, as absolutely true, I wouldn't be me anymore, as some of my fundamental processes and my way of thinking would be completely altered for everything in the bible to be true, therefore I couldn't answer that question. I guess if I thought everything was true in the bible then I would think it was an axiom. The problem here is that in your scenario the bible is 100% accurate, whenever that isn't the case. At all. None of the supernatural claims have been demonstrated, a ton of the historic and geographic claims have been debunked. The difference is, this hypothetical supposes the bible, whenever I am saying: Until you prove the bible is an axiom, it isn't an axiom, simple as that. Or at least demonstrate why, without the bible, some fundamental nature of how we interact or analyze anything wouldn't work.
Right, ok, I applaud your effort.

All I'm trying to say is that, most Christians don't follow the rules prescribed in "The Bible".

They make up all kinds of excuses.

Like, "Jesus changed some of the rules but not all of the rules" and "some of the old testament rules are moral and some of the old testament rules are civil" (even though there's no scriptural basis for such a "moral versus civil" distinction).

Try this,

(IFF) a good friend of yours believed "The Bible" was 100% true (THEN) how would you advise them (in good faith) to implement the "will of YHWH" in practical-real-world terms?
#81
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
"This has not been proven".
Prove it.
#82
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to. I genuinely think the application of most of the rules in the bible are harmful. Anything that is useful can be derived from other means that don't carry as much baggage. My boyfriend believed that the bible was true, whenever he asked me about it, I told him that I would throw it out completely if I were him. My point is, I grew up religious, I know a lot of religious people. I've been in this scenario before and that's what I would do, tell them not to believe it, or to investigate into the claims closely and not just take them on "faith". 

Now, if they just, weren't at all convinced, and they believed everything in this, I find it very hard to imagine myself friends with someone like this. Let's just suppose that I had to and they converted in adulthood or something, whatever, fine. If I had to advise anything, it would be: All of the old laws are taken up by jesus, so they don't need to be fulfilled all the time, the book is only informing your religious life, not any other so don't let it influence those, the bible says, "all authority is put there by me so listen" or whatever, so listen to laws and stuff, I don't know, my best piece of advice would be to seriously not believe everything the bible says. 
#83
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
No.... if a claim is supposed, the burden of proof is on the claimer, this is me pointing out that - as far as I am aware, this has not been demonstrated. This is me responding to a claim, I do not have to prove that the claim has not been proven, as in order to give that I would just have to point you to the arguments, that don't exist on this thread. If someone believes there to be valid evidence of these claims, I don't know about it, so provide it. 
#84
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
If I had to advise anything, it would be: All of the old laws are taken up by jesus, so they don't need to be fulfilled all the time, the book is only informing your religious life, not any other so don't let it influence those, the bible says, "all authority is put there by me so listen" or whatever, so listen to laws and stuff,
That makes sense.

A Christian should never protest their government or their government's laws.

Good point.
#85
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
No.... if a claim is supposed, the burden of proof is on the claimer, this is me pointing out that - as far as I am aware, this has not been demonstrated. This is me responding to a claim, I do not have to prove that the claim has not been proven, as in order to give that I would just have to point you to the arguments, that don't exist on this thread. If someone believes there to be valid evidence of these claims, I don't know about it, so provide it. 
Are you suggesting that I need to prove that your original claim ("This has not been proven") demands proof?
#86
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
No. I am saying that the original claim requires proof. Which that there were no un-demonstrated claims in the bible. I provided examples of undemonstrated claims- it is then the original claimers burden to either demonstrate or not demonstrate those claims. 
#87
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
No. I am saying that the original claim requires proof. Which that there were no un-demonstrated claims in the bible. I provided examples of undemonstrated claims- it is then the original claimers burden to either demonstrate or not demonstrate those claims. 
We both know that NONE of the claims (historical or otherwise) in "The Bible" are empirically demonstrable OR logically-necessary.

But instead of trying to convince the "true believers" to adopt this rather mundane and rudimentary definition of "FACT", which they've apparently inoculated themselves against, it might be more productive to try and figure out what these "true believers" think the logical implications are for all of this "truth" in "the-real-world", you know, in practical terms.
#88
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps - but whenever someone makes a claim or a statement saying that there are no claims in the bible that haven't been demonstrated, then I expect demonstration. If we want to talk on the implications, fine, but changing the subject whenever you can't answer evidence is dishonest, to me anyway.
#89
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Nothing is necessarily logically-necessary...But it helps.

And it also helps if things are empirically demonstrable.

Otherwise one hasn't got a lot to go on, other than wild assumption and  blind faith.


#90
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
For the bible to be 100% true

Would you stop wearing mixed fabrics?

Would you start stoning divorcees to death in the public square?

Would you start slaughtering prisoners of war who worshiped other "god($)"?
I can understand and believe the bible to be 100% true and not be obligated to comply with those commands to the OT Israelites. 

In fact if the bible is 100% true, then those things applied only to the OT Israelites and not even to modern ones.  

Each of those laws had a purpose which once fulfilled was completed.  Not ended. Just completed.  Even in the day of Jesus some of these things for instances the second one - was no longer biblically necessary, even if the culture at the time still condoned it. 

The Bible was miles ahead of the times even for NT Israel. 

The Bible has a context - and unless you are going to take some time to understand this context you will continue to throw out - strawman arguments. 

Christians as a general rule do not follow the Mosaic Law in its literalness.  Yet they still hold to the Bible being a measure of right and wrong.