Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We's shown often enough that we are aware of that. But Belief is NOT (despite the mindset of the believer) what it's all about. It is about the evidence and the logical reasoning. If the evidence is wrong, and the logic is wrong - or both - that can be demonstrated. A differing perspective can be discussed and understood, but Mindset, Ozzy, old mate, is irrelevant to the evidence and the logic.
Of course. Don't we all? But some look at -say - the Gospels and say 'It's all true. Why should we think it wasn't?" Others look at it and say "But it all contradicts. How can you say 'It's all true'?" Same evidence, different approach. That's what the arguments are about.
You say they are "wrong" when it is usually just a differing perspective, neither of which side can ever be proven. Don't you realize by now that people cannot help what they believe about this subject?
They can't? Oh yes they can. Some of us changed religions. Some of us became agnostics. Some of us became atheists.
Of course. Don't we all? But some look at -say - the Gospels and say 'It's all true. Why should we think it wasn't?" Others look at it and say "But it all contradicts. How can you say 'It's all true'?" Same evidence, different approach. That's what the arguments are about.
There IS a third approach, and I think you lump it in with the first: "the physical facts related don't have to be correct for the message and intent to be made known." The fact that legendary and doctrinal elements have crept in only prompt us to analyze the reasons for them and see how they affect the simplest message. The question for the OP then, is how to deal with the implications of what has been called a "social gospel" which is less dependent on an external (to humanity) force than it is on the dynamics in humanity of the idea(s) expressed. Is it something to be challenged on the basis of a perception of "Diety" or analyzed on the basis of impact?
There IS a third approach, and I think you lump it in with the first: "the physical facts related don't have to be correct for the message and intent to be made known." The fact that legendary and doctrinal elements have crept in only prompt us to analyze the reasons for them and see how they affect the simplest message. The question for the OP then, is how to deal with the implications of what has been called a "social gospel" which is less dependent on an external (to humanity) force than it is on the dynamics in humanity of the idea(s) expressed. Is it something to be challenged on the basis of a perception of "Diety" or analyzed on the basis of impact?
That's all part of the argument. If the 'physical' Facts are not correct, of what value is the message? The message has to stand and fall on it's own merits, by comparison with other messages, whether religious, ethical of philosophical. It is nothing really to do with the validity of the facts. Indeed, if the message is not valid in abstract (humanitarian) terms, the facts are irrelevant even if true.
They can't? Oh yes they can. Some of us changed religions. Some of us became agnostics. Some of us became atheists.
This is correct. I often see the claim that we can't change anyone's mind. It certainly doesn't happen often, though it does happen. But the argument (or I have to hope - and the results seems to not debunk the idea) is based on the ripple effect - that the message is getting out.
That's all part of the argument. If the 'physical' Facts are not correct, of what value is the message? The message has to stand and fall on it's own merits, by comparison with other messages, whether religious, ethical of philosophical. It is nothing really to do with the validity of the facts. Indeed, if the message is not valid in abstract (humanitarian) terms, the facts are irrelevant even if true.
I don't think these two thing should be confused.
The point is that one may hold a faith tradition on the merits of the message while recognizing legendary elements added to the narrative.
Quite so. Then the 'message' stands or falls on its' own merits (as I said) and the medium, shall we say, is irrelevant, except as literature or entertainment. It would be erroneous if not dishonest to argue that the 'Message' is true; or ancient or very well -written. That's a different matter entirely.
There IS a third approach, and I think you lump it in with the first: "the physical facts related don't have to be correct for the message and intent to be made known." The fact that legendary and doctrinal elements have crept in only prompt us to analyze the reasons for them and see how they affect the simplest message. The question for the OP then, is how to deal with the implications of what has been called a "social gospel" which is less dependent on an external (to humanity) force than it is on the dynamics in humanity of the idea(s) expressed. Is it something to be challenged on the basis of a perception of "Deity" or analyzed on the basis of impact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
That's all part of the argument. If the 'physical' Facts are not correct, of what value is the message? The message has to stand and fall on its own merits, by comparison with other messages, whether religious, ethical or philosophical. It is nothing really to do with the validity of the facts. Indeed, if the message is not valid in abstract (humanitarian) terms, the facts are irrelevant even if true.
I don't think these two things should be confused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateswift
The point is that one may hold a faith tradition on the merits of the message while recognizing legendary elements added to the narrative.
It seems that you are talking past each other about the difference between looking at the Bible as part of the spiritual fossil record versus as a secular historical record. This distinction is generally misunderstood by most, unfortunately. As a spiritual record, it is documenting the spiritual evolution of our understanding of God during the eras covered by it. That is its primary spiritual purpose. This concerns what is evoked in and dominates and influences our cognitive outputs about God across generations and cultures. All the carnal and worldly concerns are largely irrelevant and simply distract from its purpose.
Sorry, Mystic you are miles off. Nate i conflating thelSiritual and secular record, whether religious or irreligious. I am saying that the medium does not vaiidate the message. Inded the medium being wrong does not invalidate the message. They are bot different things. Though of course the validity of the Medium (say the gospels) greatly affects the validity of the message.
You of course are saying nothing relevant, but merely "This is Mystic's Theory. You should take my word for it being true."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
