Interpretation and Religon

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When you choose to believe, you'll know.

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems to be saying that if you find yourself believing in God, but accept a possibility you may be wrong - you dont really believe. Is that what you mean?

Also, do you think it is possible to choose to believe something? If I consider a question which I dont know the answer to - there is no way I can "make" myself believe an answer is one way or the other. I can look into it, mull it over, eventually I discover I believe something. Are you able to choose to believe on any topic? Or is it only God that you make that choice with?

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to state that Txag has repeatedly said people must "choose to believe."

As if belief is something you merely choose. I cannot choose to believe something without a compelling reason. I cannot suddenly decide to believe that I'm an elephant living alone on Mars.

I have expressed exasperation with Txag's 'logic' before because he repeatedly says things like suggesting people "decide to believe something." Like, "just accept Jesus in your heart and watch what happens."

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Using the Bible to prove that your beliefs in the God of the Bible is not a delusion is... delusional.

[img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Internally consistent though - NotReady has acknowledged his belief is circular in the past. He claims (rightly imo) that any basis for human knowledge is circular. If true, this would mean circularity is not in itself grounds to label his beliefs irrational.

I was speculating that his post may have more been an attack on the "personal experience" form of theism which I have defended. It seems his point was that what's "in my heart" is never going to be enough, I need God/Jesus as revealed through the bible to have true belief.

EDIT: In other words it was directed at a believer, not an unbeliever and as such the use of the bible seems more relevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't agree with you on the circular beliefs part. If I start with a false premise and then use my false premise to assert my premise... I'm 'delusional.'

"I believe God is real.
I believe it because the Bible says so.
I believe the Bible because it is written by God."

This is complete nonsense in terms of being a logical proof.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed. My suspicion is that it was presented to a believer, rather than as a proof to persuade skeptics. As such it is more theology than philosophy and doesnt have to be logically persuasive. With regard to circular basis of a belief system, let me start another thread as I think this is an area atheists dont want to concede, but in actuality should.

[ QUOTE ]
And it certainly does not distinguish itself from other religions.

"I believe the Muslim Faith is correct.
I believe in God.
I believe because the Qu'ran says its true.
The writer of the Qu'ran was writing what God told him."

There is no reason why the person quoting the Bible has any more credibility then someone quoting the Qu'ran or "the Night Before Christmas" as proof that Santa exists.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I think the (and I hate to use the word but...) context is important. The person quoting the bible has more credibility to someone who has accepted that the bible is the word of god. I think NotReady was answering my question theist-to-theist if you like.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It seems his point was that what's "in my heart" is never going to be enough, I need God/Jesus as revealed through the bible to have true belief.


[/ QUOTE ]

There is a subjective and objective element to all human knowledge. There are many passages in the NT that assure us God will make Himself known to us. In the OT I can't think of a single instance where God spoke to someone who did not immediately understand it was God speaking. Though I don't believe He communicates that way now He does give us assurance through His word and through His own actions on our heart. I think both fideism and mysticism can be avoided this way.

[kurto]

Hi, Bunny

[ QUOTE ]
Agreed. My suspicion is that it was presented to a believer, rather than as a proof to persuade skeptics.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true but then its appearance is odd. As it rests within a thread where people are attempting to make persuasive arguments.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I think the (and I hate to use the word but...) context is important. The person quoting the bible has more credibility to someone who has accepted that the bible is the word of god. I think NotReady was answering my question theist-to-theist if you like.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this thread (unless I'm getting my threads mixed up [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]) was started by someone talking about how the evidence does not allow one who does not believe to distinguish between different faiths. Posting something that only makes sense to someone who is already a believer is somewhat nonsensical in context of this thread, no?

[bunny]

I think it was probably a hijack of the thread on my part to ask txag007 how he would suggest a believer convince himself he isnt deluded. I was kind of restricting my query to a believer convincing themselves, irrespective of whether such methods would convince anyone else.

I would certainly agree that if you ask a believer how he knows he isnt deluded and he responds by quoting the bible - you are unlikely to change your mind.

[hashi92]

So what about the people during the inquisition who killed thousands of innocent people. where they deluded. im sure they felt god and did what they thought was his will. if the pope the catholic church can be wrong cant everyone else.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
So what about the people during the inquisition who killed thousands of innocent people. where they deluded. im sure they felt god and did what they thought was his will. if the pope the catholic church can be wrong cant everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would appear that many committing horrible acts during the inquisition believed they were acting in accordance with their religious beliefs. They no more considered they were deluded then Muslims on Jihad think they're deluded or the sixty whatever percent of Americans that think the Bible is the literal word of God and that the earth is only a few thousand years old.

[hashi92]

[ QUOTE ]
So what about the people during the inquisition who killed thousands of innocent people. where they deluded. im sure they felt god and did what they thought was his will. if the pope the catholic church can be wrong cant everyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

what happened to all the people and their feelings.

[ojc02]

[hyde]

[ QUOTE ]
This reminds me of a sermen my brother wanted to play for me to show me the tolerance of Christians. he had taped it off of some religious cable network and had saved it just for my wife and I to watch. (He's a born again and he's constantly trying to save my wife and I)

It went something like this....
"What does it mean to be Christian towards other Faiths? If you have neighbors who are Muslim you should show them Christian hospitality. Encourage your children to be friendly with Jewish children in the neighborhood. Be CHRISTIAN. (this goes on in this fashion for another minute or so giving examples of how you are to be nice)

But if your child says she wants to learn about Islam, you cannot allow it. Your children cannot be indulged to try out other religions. (Here's where he gets very angry and his voice is booming) Because the Muslims are calling Jesus a LIAR. Because the Jews are calling Jesus a LIAR. The atheists are calling Jesus a LIAR."

I remember being confused about exactly what my brother thought I was supposed to get about this or why this would make me feel all warm and fuzzy about his beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bait and switch.
It's about the love....let me teach you how to hate....