Quoting Post Archived Topic: It will not be bumped to the top of the forum. Topic What are your reasons for or against believing in the bible? Membername   Not a member? Sign Up Free (takes 20 seconds) Password   Forgotten your password? Post Font: Verdana Arial Black Georgia Comic Sans Impact   Size: Tiny Normal Big Huge   Color: Default Dark Red Red Orange Brown Green Olive Cyan Blue Dark Blue Indigo Black [ Check Spelling ] [ Post Preview ] [ LiveTags ] Quote: from [m]Serj Tankian[/m] at 11:24 pm on June 26, 2009[quote]Faith. [/quote] FAQ Keyword Search: Post Options Favorites Manager Notify me of new replies to this topic by email Notify me of new replies to this topic by private message Original Post Wunarmdscissor Posted at 11:22 pm on June 26, 2009 .

Replies S0LITUDE Posted at 12:01 pm on July 4, 2009 It's just difficult to believe? I mean talking snakes, guy from the sky, etc. I don't necessarily hate it or have any hostility toward it. I simply don't believe everything in it happened. But just because something is a work of fiction, does not mean it has no meaning. marty euman Posted at 10:58 am on July 4, 2009 it will last forever the bible gives me hope and keeps my faith strong the bible is true Forever Angel Posted at 1:57 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 3:47 pm on June 28, 2009 Those terms are metaphors for "current cumulative knowledge" and "amount to feel awe towards". This does not make it anymore spiritual than calling certain biological structures in bacteria for "syringes". It still requires "interpretation"... rationalize all you want. Moridin Posted at 1:47 pm on June 28, 2009 Those terms are metaphors for "current cumulative knowledge" and "amount to feel awe towards". This does not make it anymore spiritual than calling certain biological structures in bacteria for "syringes". Forever Angel Posted at 11:51 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:03 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:50 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth.   But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically?   I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? That statement is empirically testable. The more things we know, the more areas of inquiry open up and the more awe people who like knowledge will feel. It is clearly empirically valid or invalid. The statement as it is made, is a spiritual one. It cannot be tested as stated. There is no "island of knowledge", no "shoreline of wonder"... You have to 'interpret' its meaning in order to "empirically" test it. Perhaps you are right. You don't understand what 'spiritual' means. Moridin Posted at 11:03 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Forever Angel at 8:50 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth.    But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically?    I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? That statement is empirically testable. The more things we know, the more areas of inquiry open up and the more awe people who like knowledge will feel. It is clearly empirically valid or invalid. exceedinglyrare Posted at 11:03 am on June 28, 2009 That really does not surprise me, as you likely lump in the existence of God with any other fantastical beliefs. I don't. Moridin Posted at 11:00 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 8:47 pm on June 28, 2009 You likely are; however, I wonder that you call the philosophical Truths of Plato's works "factual," since nearly all of them make claims about the metaphysical and aren't things that can be empirically proven or disproven. That said, however, for this instance, the differentiation between "literally, factually accurate" and "spiritually True" is the difference between "I believe that the world was created in six days and Jonah was eaten by a giant fish" and "I believe that the world exists because of God's will and that God has a sense of humor when we're being dipshits about doing what He asks of us." I'm afraid I don't really understand the difference between those two.   Forever Angel Posted at 10:50 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 12:41 pm on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth. But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically? I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? What is your signature? exceedinglyrare Posted at 10:47 am on June 28, 2009 You likely are; however, I wonder that you call the philosophical Truths of Plato's works "factual," since nearly all of them make claims about the metaphysical and aren't things that can be empirically proven or disproven. That said, however, for this instance, the differentiation between "literally, factually accurate" and "spiritually True" is the difference between "I believe that the world was created in six days and Jonah was eaten by a giant fish" and "I believe that the world exists because of God's will and that God has a sense of humor when we're being dipshits about doing what He asks of us." Moridin Posted at 10:41 am on June 28, 2009 But the truths displayed in Plato are factual truths, even if they are fictional discussions. Similarly, a fictional thriller that includes the claim that water consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms, this would not somehow be a nonfactual truth or a spiritual truth. But I cannot help by wonder if the truths you've presented are factual truths as well, rather than someone "spiritual". Surely "that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have" is factual, since you can test it pragmatically? I'm afraid I still don't understand what "spiritual truth" is or how you differentiate that from mere factual truth. Maybe I am beyond all help? exceedinglyrare Posted at 10:35 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from Moridin at 1:32 pm on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:29 pm on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? What does it mean for something to be "spiritually truthful"? How does this differ from factual truth? Something that isn't factual can still convey deep truths. Consider the philosophical works of Plato, which are almost always written as fictionalized accounts of conversations between Socrates and someone else. The fact that they aren't factual accounts does not detract from the philosophical and spiritual truths that can be found in them (if, in fact, you agree with Plato). Also consider Aesop's fables. The fact that ants and grasshoppers don't talk and grasshoppers don't spend all summer dancing for the fun of it does not change the Truth that it's better to be prepared for the day of necessity than to assume that you'll never need more than what you currently have. Moridin Posted at 10:32 am on June 28, 2009 Quote: from exceedinglyrare at 7:29 pm on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? What does it mean for something to be "spiritually truthful"? How does this differ from factual truth? Moridin Posted at 10:32 am on June 28, 2009 The bible is incompatible with a lot of things we know from historical and natural sciences. exceedinglyrare Posted at 9:29 am on June 28, 2009 To the OP: What, exactly, do you mean by "believing in the Bible?" Do you mean believing the Bible as entirely, literally factual or do you mean believing that it is entirely, spiritually Truthful? Most recent 15 of 33 previous replies displayed.