If you don't trust the Bible, Where do you look for truth?

[2timothy316]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 8 by JehovahsWitness]

...accept everything in the bible as the Word of God

Did God say...

God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

We heard him say, I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and within three days I will build another made without hands.

Is there any place within the bible that suggests that the bible is the word of God? Are there any claims made by the authors that the scriptures inspired by God are actually God's word?

If not the Bible, where do you look for truth about God? So far not too many answers on that question. Other than myself, only one person out of the perhaps dozen people on this sub-forum even bothered to answer the poll question.

[Elijah John]

What say you?
Also, if you don't see an option in the vote then add it in a comment.

Where do I look for truth? From God. If you consider the Bible your sole source of truth, isn't that making a god out of the Bible?

Nope.

If God spoke to you does that make the air vibrations God? Your answer is 'from God'. What communication method from God do you trust?

I think Thomas Paine puts it well.

The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.

I think the last part of that is an overstatement, but in spite of the undeniable good contained therein, there is also a lot of human contamination, barbarity and bias in the Bible.

In general, whatever parts of the Bible that accord with common sense and God-given Reason, I accept. Those passages which contradict those things, I reject. Like Exodus 21.20-21, for example. That part is not from God, but from "Moses" own primitive barbarity. The same God who revealed the Golden Rule would not have condoned slave keeping, and slave beating.

And the same God who had just liberated his people form slavery in Egypt, would not have condone those same liberated people enslaving others.

So something is amiss in the Bible. It certainly does not always reflects God's benevolence and perfection.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 32 by Elijah John]

So what communication method from God do you trust?

[shnarkle]

The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries.

I think the last part of that is an overstatement, but there is a lot of human contamination, barbarity and bias in the Bible.

In general, whatever parts of the Bible that accord with common sense and God-given Reason, I accept. Those passages which contradict those things, I reject. Like Exodus 21.20-21, for example. That part is not from God, but from "Moses" own primitive barbarity. The same God who revealed the Golden Rule would not have condoned slave keeping, and slave beating.

And the same God who had just liberated his people form slavery in Egypt, would not have condone those same liberated people enslaving others.

So something is amiss in the Bible. It certainly does not always reflects God's benevolence and perfection.

I don't think this takes into consideration the context of human as well as cultural development. We can't go from poking holes in the ground and dropping seeds into them, to harvesting soil samples on the moon or Mars.

What Moses proposes is more than radical enough for the times in which he lived. Slavery was a fact of life, just like work is a fact of life today. To say that those who claim one should be considerate and treat one's employees with the respect and dignity that they deserves as human beings, should be ignored or rejected just because one is employing them, misses the whole point of these regulations in the first place. Why should it be any different when dealing with slavery?

Slavery was a fact of life because resources were scarce, and not everyone can fend for themselves. Some need to be taken care of, and slavery was the most efficient way to accomplish that sometimes.

Sometimes it requires severe discipline. This is especially the case when dealing with people who are completely out of control. It isn't slavery that is to blame for beating the rage out of a madman, it is human nature that has degenerated to the level of an animal. Wild animals cannot be tamed with reason or compassion. They are broken, and need to be "broke" in order to be trained up and restored to the human family. This is true regardless of whether it be in the context of slavery, work, or time in prison. You simply don't let wild animals roam free in a civilized society.

[marco]

So because you can't attain certainty no one else can. Is this not an anchor that you were merely ready to accept and why accept this one?

No - your causal clause is incorrect. My conception of what truth involves leads me to conclude that it is unattainable. It would be a foolish Marco who generalised from a mark on his own finger.

[marco]

Yet do you see the hypocrisy when you speak with such absolute certainty?

Hypocrisy has nothing to do with - we are playing games with words. In some areas we have certainty, for what it is worth. In other areas, characterised by opinion, we do not have certainty by the nature of the subject.

Yet many times you are telling me personally what I know and what I don't.

Of course I am not; you choose to endow my words with this meaning. You and I have not found certainty, nor has anyone else since the area of religion and morals is one where opinion is paramount. I think you would accept not even Pope Francis has certainty here. I have no idea what you know or how you know it.

I have found Matthew 7:7 to be good advice, "Keep asking, and it will be given to you. Keep searching, and you will find. Keep knocking, and the door will be opened to you."

You asked how I knew I had found truth. I wonder how, when you have asked a few dozen times, you conclude you have truth.


We are all in the gutter but some of us are looking at the stars. That's Wilde.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

My conception of what truth involves leads me to conclude that it is unattainable.

Do you believe this conclusion is true? Truth is defined as the quality or state of being true, is it not? If truth is unattainable, then how can one come to anything other than false conclusions?

[marco]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

My conception of what truth involves leads me to conclude that it is unattainable.

Do you believe this conclusion is true? Truth is defined as the quality or state of being true, is it not? If truth is unattainable, then how can one come to anything other than false conclusions?

I assume you've just not read what has been written. I said that we have truth in mathematics, so yes, we can obtain truth. In the field of religion, where we offer opinions, there is no certainty.


We can agree to take guidance from some religious leader, some religious reformer, some professor of theology - but we are merely guided to a position. So I say that certainty is not achievable here.


I accept some folk say they have found truth but this is a simple claim, no better than a child saying "my dad's the greatest."

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 35 by marco]

My conception of what truth involves leads me to conclude that it is unattainable.

Do you believe this conclusion is true? Truth is defined as the quality or state of being true, is it not? If truth is unattainable, then how can one come to anything other than false conclusions?

I assume you've just not read what has been written. I said that we have truth in mathematics, so yes, we can obtain truth.

I wasn't referring to your mathematical claims. I was referring to your claim that your " conception of what truth involves leads me to conclude that it is unattainable."

In the field of religion, where we offer opinions, there is no certainty.

And yet, with regards to religion, there is no way you can be certain of this claim, correct?

We can agree to take guidance from some religious leader, some religious reformer, some professor of theology - but we are merely guided to a position. So I say that certainty is not achievable here.

And yet your claim seems so certain. How is that possible? You seem so certain that certainty isn't achievable here.

I accept some folk say they have found truth but this is a simple claim,

Again, you seem certain that this is a simple claim. How is your claim not so simple? or is it just as simple?

[marco]

And yet, with regards to religion, there is no way you can be certain of this claim, correct?

Which rather illustrates the point that certainty is elusive.

And yet your claim seems so certain. How is that possible? You seem so certain that certainty isn't achievable here.

You seemed to accept we are dealing with the uncertainty of opinions on religion. The statement you are commenting on is a commentary on the imperfection in human reasoning tools, not on the field of uncertainty we outlined. It is very easy to mistake a rabbit for a hare.