This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time. Question Who's Online | Find Members | Private Messages
Questions
Quizzes
Articles
My Journal
Forums
Answer Questions | Question Comments | My Questions | Favorites | +Add Question
LATEST
POPULAR PRIORITY RANDOM

All | Games | Funny | Entertainment | Quizzes | Weird | Tech | People | Arts/Lit | News | Science | Sports | Places | Misc

3,215 hits Rate me! Share Favorite | Flag 18 years ago by WisenHiemer

If the Bible is full of contradictions, do you have a theory why they didn`t edit them out when they were changing it?
This of course is assuming it has contradictions and has been changed over time.


Put This Question on Your Page (MySpace, Livejournal, Blog, etc)
[Preview] EMBED CODE:


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 51-75 of 175)

Bottom Last Post

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:57:15 AM EST (GMT-5)
I'd like to intrude and ask Senorita a question: What in your definition is a proof (an example would be good), and how would it be interpreted subjectively?
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:59:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
This is a good question. And I figure I'm just going to repeat what a lot of people have said.
It's all about interpretation. I think the bible is full of crap, so who knows who it's contradicting? I don't live my life by it so I'm not really concerned with it. It's just a fictional book in my eyes. Sorry I couldn't give you more insight than that.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 6:59:58 AM EST (GMT-5)
omega, I disagree - one can have wholly unfounded beliefs.

And a proof that is subjective in nature is not a proof, surely? It would be question-begging - that is, have premises that are not in themselves unquestionable.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:00:36 AM EST (GMT-5)
*sorry, who knows *why it's contradicting.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:00:45 AM EST (GMT-5)
"Proof absolutely is not subjective."

Kyry, if a person prays to God that they will survive an impending auto accident, and they do, they attribute their survival to God. Many times, this is all it takes for people to start believing. Because they have their own 'proof' of God's existence. Is it solid fact-driven evidence? No. But I dont think that kind of evidence is required to sustain a belief.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:01:31 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's not proof, omega - that's just a motivation.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:03:18 AM EST (GMT-5)
kyry, i see you love your objective truths, what it has to do with anythign is that i can interpret something my way and u can interpret it your way,a nd u will argue that you are right and i will argue that i am right..and thats jsut how it is
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:04:51 AM EST (GMT-5)
Yeah, yeah, yeah, but one can be unjustified in one's interpretation and the other not.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:06:20 AM EST (GMT-5)
"That's not proof, omega - that's just a motivation."

You may call it just motivation, but by definition, 'proof' is motivation by evidence that an assumption is true.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:07:55 AM EST (GMT-5)
If that's "just the way it is," senorita, you're going to end up in some really nasty fights here. If you are actually seeking conversation instead, I advise you to keep my admonition (not a threat) in mind if you are interested in good discussions.

I don't think faith and *blindly* following something are synonymous. Faith does not preclude the possibility of doubt, confuion, or acceptance of other things. It sounds like you are saying that would prevent you from believing, so therefore the only kind of faith you recognize *is* blind faith, and I agree that faith without challenges and tests has questionable strength. I would not presume to know what qualifies as a challenge to faith for others. There is a little balance in true, strong faith, but it still requires a leap.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:08:02 AM EST (GMT-5)
proof is interpreted subjectifvely when 2 people look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:09:14 AM EST (GMT-5)
omega, I don't see that point. The proofs in question are objective and therefore compelling. You seem to be using the term in a pseudo-scientific way - in which proofs are based on an amount of evidence and controlled factors. The difference is that science controls for variables and rules out alternative explanations, unlike your example which, consequently, is not a proof. It is a motivated belief.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:12:19 AM EST (GMT-5)
UncleLaughie, i said just the way it is, because thats how it is, pepole interpret things differently and argue over them all the time...

and youre misunderstanding me, whati was saying is that i do not beleive that faith must be blind, i beleive that for u to be ale to beleive soemthing, you must have researched it untill the point where you are sure about every aspect, mayb i didnt clarifly that properly

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:12:37 AM EST (GMT-5)
That sounds that those two persons have -chosen- to look at it from a subjective perspective, which in my view is denying the logical nature of the -logical- proof therein.

I'm not convinced as how to interpret a proof subjectively, unless there lies a subjective thought behind it!

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:13:44 AM EST (GMT-5)
...in which case, sal, it's not a proof - it's but a questionable argument.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:15:07 AM EST (GMT-5)
That's exactly my point!
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:15:38 AM EST (GMT-5)
I know - I was agreeing with you.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:17:17 AM EST (GMT-5)
ok, im looking from the POV that the proof is a fact or an object or something, 2 people looking at it may conclude different things..thats all
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:19:12 AM EST (GMT-5)
That falls under the definition "argument of observation", not proof.
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:21:22 AM EST (GMT-5)
ok i classify it as interpretation of proof...which may differ...
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:22:35 AM EST (GMT-5)
Then there is no faith anywhere, senorita, because certain things *cannot* be researched and known beyond a doubt, such as kyry's example of the sun exploding tomorrow. What I define as thoughtful and well-reasoned faith, you define as blind because it isn't perfectly and objectively definable.

I think proof can be subjective, as what suffices for one person may differ for another.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:26:06 AM EST (GMT-5)
UncleLaughie, in my limited experience (hey im young) i have foudn that in terms of belief, everything i have questioned,i have foudn answers to, mayb you might say i dont question enough

kyry's example was flawed in the simple fact that it does not have anythign to do wiht faith. In any case, if you told me the sun was going to explode, andi said where did u get that from,a nd u said, oh i just did..i wouldnt beleive you...

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:26:57 AM EST (GMT-5)
but i agree with u onthe proof issue...
18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:27:14 AM EST (GMT-5)
Nothing in this world outside of mathematics is protected from interpretation. Even in the scientific world. As we are creatures of perception, and all different, all stimuli are subject to the interpretation of each individual. We may like to think we have it all right. Scientists hundreds of years ago thought they had all of their facts right too. A vast majority of their work has been proven wrong however. In light of this, its hard to say whether 'God working in mysterious ways' is really God working in mysterious ways. The Christians may have it right. The Bible *may be* solid proof and us non-believers have just passed it off as nonsense.

Proof, unless it is mathematical in nature, is not always 100% correct. This is because no matter how you interpret the evidence, it can, and most likely will, be interpreted differently by someone else.

18 yrs ago, 9 mos ago - Tuesday 10/28/03 - 7:31:13 AM EST (GMT-5)
Well that's simple. But what if there was a lot of readings pointing to the sun had become very unstable and growing (becoming a red giant), and that there were scientific research and theories who showed that the sun might explode tomorrow?

But all in all, it was all inaccurate and total bull?


Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next (showing 51-75 of 175)



You need to be logged in to post a reply

New to YT? Create a Free Account ~ Have an Account? Log In

Top



10 Most Popular Questions Today
1 If you were allowed to make all guns OR all abortions illegal in your country, which one would you choose to eliminate?

2 Do you still wear a face mask in public?

3 Do you think it's really all that surprising that Iraq detainees are being abused and killed, considering people who voluntarily join the military have no problem with violence?

4 do you prefer fractions or decimals?

5 Are you concerned about the state of the American health care system?

6 Should advocating self harm or suicide result in a permanent ban?

7 Do you think these pictures of Cindy Crawford`s 5-year-old daughter are inappropriate for such a young child?

8 Do you prefer croissants or bagels?

9 Corn on the cob or candy corn: which do you prefer ?

10 Which sport takes more guts and hard work?

More Questions
 
Edit