The Bible as a Source of Knowledge

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
pyrheraklit
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 12:08 pm
Location: Greece

Post by pyrheraklit » Thu May 04, 2006 9:04 am


phpbb

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Thu May 04, 2006 9:51 am

Bert wrote:
ThomasGR wrote: Aside form that, that knowledge is totally useless.
Then this discussion is useless.
If we discuss getting scientific knowledge from the bible, yes it is useless to talk about that. For in the Bible one finds only spiritual values.

ThomasGR
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 444
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49 pm

Post by ThomasGR » Thu May 04, 2006 10:10 am

Rhuiden wrote: Also, on what do you base the statement that Heaven today is different than Heaven in the Gospel times. God tells us that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. That would seem to suggest that Heaven is the same today as it was during the days of Jesus.
What was meant by Heaven in those times and what is today? Heaven and sky was the same. Heaven was conceived as dome around the earth, with the stars like candles lighting the night. Heaven was also the place where people's soul go after we have died, something like paradise or hell. Today we conceive Heaven quite differently. For a scientist, Heaven are the suns / stars, the dark matter that is filling the empty spaces far way, and all the different galaxies which we measure their distance from our sun (or galaxy) in light years. For religion, Heaven kept the meaning as the paradise / hell and as a kind of life after dead, though one may argue if it is still up there in the sky and not down here on earth. In Jesus' times it was always up in the sky. That may also answer your question and give an example of what is understood under knowledge in religion and science. In science that knowledge should one be able to prove with every expreriment and reaffirm the theory. For religion it is enough one's belief. You believe that heaven exists, or you don't. It's basic dogma, not a scientific theory.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu May 04, 2006 11:36 am

ThomasGR wrote:What was meant by Heaven in those times and what is today? Heaven and sky was the same. Heaven was conceived as dome around the earth, with the stars like candles lighting the night. Heaven was also the place where people's soul go after we have died, something like paradise or hell. Today we conceive Heaven quite differently. For a scientist, Heaven are the suns / stars, the dark matter that is filling the empty spaces far way, and all the different galaxies which we measure their distance from our sun (or galaxy) in light years. For religion, Heaven kept the meaning as the paradise / hell and as a kind of life after dead, though one may argue if it is still up there in the sky and not down here on earth. In Jesus' times it was always up in the sky. That may also answer your question and give an example of what is understood under knowledge in religion and science. In science that knowledge should one be able to prove with every expreriment and reaffirm the theory. For religion it is enough one's belief. You believe that heaven exists, or you don't. It's basic dogma, not a scientific theory.
The fact that our definition or understanding of Heaven has changed does not in any way mean that Heaven has changed. Only our understanding of it may have. We are flawed creatures so it is to be expected that our understanding is also flawed and subject to better more current information.

The search for truth is the goal of both religion and science. There are not separate truths for each. They should overlap and merge into one at some point in time. If there is an apparent conflict between the two, then one is obviously wrong. The question then becomes which do we trust....religion or science. Religion should be based on the One who created everything and thus knows all while science is based on man's understanding and men are flawed. Which should we rely on, a perfect God or flawed men?

Rhuiden
phpbb

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Thu May 04, 2006 2:25 pm

Well, as flawed creatures, we can misinterpret God's word too (and I would be surprised, Rhuiden, if you have never come across examples of that). After all, the only ways to read the Bible are to, after learning a language, to a) listen to it being spoken with our ears b) learn how to read and use our eyes c) learn braille (or equivalent) and read it by touch. Therefore, it seems to me that God's word is also subject, to some degree, to our imperfect human senses, not to mention the imperfections of human language.

Though I am neither atheist nor agnostic, I'm not a terribly religious person. I am very bad about observing the Sabbath. However, I still take solace in the fact that God rested on the seventh day, and I try to remember that God made/wants me to work and rest, not just to work.

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Post by Rhuiden » Thu May 04, 2006 3:59 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:Well, as flawed creatures, we can misinterpret God's word too (and I would be surprised, Rhuiden, if you have never come across examples of that).
I am not sure that I completely understand your point about my not seeing examples of people misinterpreting God's word. It happens all the time. That is why we are to gather together to discuss/learn/teach God's word, we can correct and instruct one another.


Rhuiden
phpbb

User avatar
Rhuiden
Textkit Fan
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2004 12:23 pm
Location: East Tennessee

Re: The Bible as a Source of Knowledge

Post by Rhuiden » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:35 pm

annis wrote:
Rhuiden wrote:Mere Christianity is on my reading list. I plan to get to it someday. I have heard it is an excellent book.
I'm going to be reading that some time soon, probably this summer. Another reading group! :lol:

Let me know when and how this reading group would work. I have never been part of a reading group before but I am interested. Should be some good discussions. I bet there would be others who would be interested as well.

Rhuiden
phpbb

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Re: The Bible as a Source of Knowledge

Post by annis » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:38 am

Rhuiden wrote:Let me know when and how this reading group would work. I have never been part of a reading group before but I am interested. Should be some good discussions. I bet there would be others who would be interested as well.
Rhuiden, actually I was joking when I mentioned the reading group — that there should be one, not that there was one. That'd be way outside the usual Textkit study groups.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:22 pm

Are we all talking about the same god that "talks" to the American president?

God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.

If so, then this particular god sucks.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:32 pm

When Peter D posts something, it has to involve American politics and/or some sort of Bush-bash. :)
How much stock do you put in something that was reported from memory, what was heard from a translator, and than translated back into English, and then denied by the original reporter?
(In addition to that, Bush also denies having said it.)

Post Reply