Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Siquo]

That's not logic.
I could say that the content of the bible is logical because the paper it was printed on adheres to the physical laws of the universe.

[Andir]

That's not logic.
I could say that the content of the bible is logical because the paper it was printed on adheres to the physical laws of the universe.

That's saying that the construct of the book is logical, but the content is another matter.

[Vester]

That's not logic.
I could say that the content of the bible is logical because the paper it was printed on adheres to the physical laws of the universe.

That's saying that the construct of the book is logical, but the content is another matter.

It actually follows a logical symbolic progression. For example, Luke and Matthew:

Healing of the deaf
Feeding
Healing of the blind
Feeding
The last supper
Death

Although, I'll have to dig up my bible for that. It's a Jerusalem bible, so I dunno.

[Siquo]

That's not logic.
I could say that the content of the bible is logical because the paper it was printed on adheres to the physical laws of the universe.

That's saying that the construct of the book is logical, but the content is another matter.

Exactly, and the same goes for our minds.

[Micro102]

Siquo is humans acted first then rationalized then there would be nothing stopping murder. I think your getting rationalization mixed up with morals. Humans already know that killing another human is wrong. It's part of the natural instincts every creature gets. Protect yourself, protect your species, mate...

[Siquo]

And we act through those natural instincts. I don't "know" that it's wrong to kill another man, au contraire, logic tells me that it's not wrong at all, but I still won't be able to do it.

Afterwards we say that it's logical we didn't kill that one annoying guy, because that would mean the end of civilisation or something. 20/20 logical hindsight.

People usually act "because they feel like it". There's no Logic behind it (yes, a certain form of logic, but by that reasoning the bible also follows "a certain form of logic"). They just make it up if you ask them why they did or didn't do a certain thing. (Usually, there are rare occasions where we do think before we act).


Point being: Humans are irrational, and that's okay. Getting mental and spiritual support from an irrational book is okay, too. Nothing wrong with irrationality.

[Micro102]

There is a huge problem with irrationality. Being irrational means a higher chance for mistakes. You cannot leave everything to luck.

Humans do think before they act, it's called the subconscious. You don't consciously think "well if I do this, this will happen", your mind analyzes things instantly based on previous experiences. I don't even know if you can call contradictions in the bible irrational. It's not like having a passage about stoning a person and then having one about not stoning them is done without thought. They were written down as lessons after much though. Frankly they should both just be removed since if someone reads the book and reads both passages it will lead to them not having any different opinion on whether to stone someone or not.

[Siquo]

Then you could scrap 90% of it

The subconscious is irrational, it's completely useless with statistics for instance, but it's a really fast parallel processing computer, able to process vast amounts of data in a short time. Just not very accurate. But so is Science. We can determine pi, or Plancks constant, or the mass of a neutron, only within a certain accuracy. We have no Real knowledge, it's all approximations.


So descriptions of God are approximations as well, at best. "Omnipotent" is an approximation of the power, "Omniscient" an approximation of its intelligence, and so on. We lack the real knowledge, but we try to get as close as possible to the "Real Truth", as far as that even exists.

Also, this week I'm an agnostic humanist. Or a humanistic agnostic. Haven't decided yet.

[Micro102]

So chances are that our view on god and the bible is wrong. Which means ever religious person is wrong?

[Siquo]

It means there is no wrong and right. There's only acceptable levels of accuracy.

As I asked RAM before: where does your "right" start and your "wrong" end? At 3.14? Or at 3.14159265? Or at 3?
(the bible states that pi = 3 somewhere. Literalists can't draw circles.)

[Micro102]

Is relating the symbol 1 with one wrong? No it isn't.

[Urist McOverlord]

And yet, equating "one" with "1.0000000000000000000000000000" is more accurate. Equating "one" with "4" is so wildly inaccurate as to be laughable.

If equating "one" with "1" is right, but so is equating it with "1.0" and "1.00" and so on and so forth, at what point does it become wrong? And if I have 1.000000000000000000000000... (infinite number of zeros here)  ...000001, is it wrong to equate that with "one?"

[Micro102]

It's never wrong, and no that last part wouldn't be wrong either. It is a symbol created by humans. Just be you recognizing a symbol towards something means it's correct because there is no standard for it to be incorrect unless you compare it to others. You can probably show a Japanese symbol for one to a french guy and he wouldn't have any idea what it is.

[Siquo]

Urist sais it right: right and wrong is a grey area.



Irony intended.

[Hyperturtle]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God

~ (Urist) Epicurus