chriss wrote: ↑Sun Jan 31, 2021 5:16 pm
Christians are parroting their particular interpretations of bible verses as unsupported statements. That is the nature of Christendom so one expects that this would happen. I am simply pointing out the obvious when I see it.
It is not an unsupported statement. It appears to be so to you, but for 2000 years the Bible has been regarded as an authority.
I am not arguing that is hasn't. My argument is focused upon the different interpretations which are used as if those interpretations were an authority.
The fact that you do not accept its authority does not make a quote from it unsupported.
A quote is always unsupported if it does not accompany evidence regarding the claims made through the various interpretations of the quotes offered.
I believe that, in the search for knowledge, the results of other men's search for truth are a great help.
They certainly have been helpful in exposing the many various biblical interpretations which are parroted [oft repeated] without accompanying evidence to support said interpretations.
One cannot point to "True Christianity" and say "There it is!" [one true Scotsman fallacy]
I do not believe that one can get very far totally unaided.
There are far better story books on the market which can and do provide useful knowledge to those looking for such.
Many men believed that the writers of the Bible had a real contact with God.
Rather - upon reading, one sees clearly enough that the authors did at least have their own individual interpretations as to what a 'real contact' with a god was.
Therefore they provide support for the truth of the Bible. You can dismiss the support as inadequate, but I do not think that you can say that the Christians position is unsupported.
[eta replaced "bold" with "quote"]
Not only that, but the whole middle eastern mythologies can be said to be unsupported. Even the idea that Eve sinned before Adam, is unsupported. As I say, I am focused upon the understanding that anyone's particular Christian belief in any interpretation of the bible, requires they present supporting evidence for their belief in said interpretation. Whatever the interpretations might be.
Have you gone into the reasons why the person who you believe is parroting accepts the Bible as his authority.
It is not a case of my believing this is what occurs. It is actually what occurs. And yes, I always attempt to uncover the reason someone does this. Often I am met with more parroting, and when I have shown them to be very wrong in their beliefs, they ignore me from then on.
If you showed them that their beliefs were wrong, why would they ignore you?
Because they prefer their interpretations. One can lead a horse to water but...
Ironically, it is oft implied in their arguments that I am somehow deceived by 'The Devil', as if to argue such a thing is somehow legitimate as argument. It is not. If it were, it would be I who is fleeing because of their resistance. As it turns out, their ignoring me is a kind of 'fleeing' on their part {the superstitious adage to "ignore it and it will go way"} but I doth not 'go away' when they resist me, which pretty much shows that their claim I am influenced by a Lying Spirit, is incorrect.
It does not appear that actually showed them that ? Maybe an impasse was reached where neither side accepted the other's position.
If the ignoring was a two way thing, I would agree with that.
Maybe he has a good reason for so doing.
Give me some examples then? What do you think would be 'good reason' to parrot biblical interpretations?
Because believing the Bible has changed many men's lives. If it has proved helpful to some men then why should they not inform others of it?
If those changes were transferred into the world in a manner which showed the world these changes, I could agree with you there.
I do know for sure that the bible mythology has cause a lot of mental illness in the weak and unwary.
If having an authority is parroting then does someone who avoids parroting speak without any authority?
That is another question entirely unrelated to my argument, for I did not write that Christians actually have "an authority" but that they parrot their favored interpretation of the bible, believing such to be "authoritative".
Belief in something [one's interpretation of] is 'the truth' does not therefore automatically mean that it must be the truth.
I do not say that an authority must be true.
Nor do I. But Christians do claim that their particular interpretations of the bible are true. Claims require supporting evidence.
An authority is the set of beliefs and values that a person lives their life by. No-one can prove that their authority is true but we have to decide how we are going to live our lives. If we are discussing the search for knowledge then I would say that the sum of the authorities which we accept as true will be the result of that search.
We are discussing the parroting of different Christian interpretations of the bible. I am sharing my knowledge regarding that.
