johnson1010 wrote:Doulos:
A valid assertion. I would simply say the the source of the experience can often be determined by the nature of the experience.
I’m not sure I follow you here. The nature of the experience being what? That you had a “communication”? You mentioned earlier that you didn’t hear anything. That’s fine. So some other sensation? Maybe a realization? You haven’t been very specific about this, so it’s hard for me to address specifically. But if you experienced some realization, or came to some conclusion, then the “nature” of your experience is that some status changed in your mind. That does not point to something external by necessity, and it certainly does not point to something supernatural. It is merely a state in your mind, governed by bio-chemistry. That was the nature of the experience.
I'll start this as a fresh thread at a future time.
[quote="="johnson1010""]
As to the 'capability' argument, what are your own views based upon?
As in people are capable of being wrong? What are you saying? That we are unable to establish the difference between a lie, or a mistaken account, vs an accurate account of reality? I hope not.
There have been plenty of times where I have been wrong about what I thought I heard or saw. And when I have doubts about whether I’ve correctly interpreted something I witnessed, the first thing I will usually do is consult someone else who was present and ask them what they remember of the event. [/quote]
I'm saying that your argument against Biblical belief here could be used against any viewpoint. As such, it really is meaningless in terms of trying to differentiate what is 'truthful.'
johnson1010 wrote:
Have a look at this video, Doulos. It speaks directly to your interpretation that convinced believers somehow = a belief of something true.
I've never said that Johnson. I've merely been talking about my own experiences giving me a personal certainty. This does not mean that a person who is 'convinced' is necessarily right (though it doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong either).
johnson1010 wrote:
flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality"
Are these things that the Bible asserts to be true?
You are getting into word games, Doulos. They are tacitly implied to be true, otherwise what is the use in saying them? If I tell you that the moon orbits the earth as part of my description of the night sky, then have I asserted that to be true?
And I’m not talking about analogy, I’m talking about how the cosmos was said to be arranged by the authors of the bible.
Here's a discussion that's been had on this forum about taking the creation story of the bible literally. Sure, you may not take it literally (and that's a good thing) but it obviously is taken very seriously by a large number of people.
Not word games Johnson... specifics. Its easy to make general assertions, but often these fall apart when we look at the specific details and analyze them.
I do take the creation story literally, and thus would say that the central points to Genesis 1 are that:
a) God is the creator
b) that his creation was orderly
c) that He viewed his creation as good
d) that man is not an accident, and that both man and women are created in God's image
e) a bit more, but you get the drift
Factors such as period writing conventions, literary style, etc also play a role, but my main point is that much of what is often understood by 'literal' (by both Christians and non-believers) is more an anachronistic modern understanding of 'extreme literalism' that has never been asserted by the Bible itself.
You mention, "tacitly implied to be true" and I'd say you were a million miles off on that. Do I mean you are literally a 'million miles/1 609 344 km' off in physical distance? Certainly not, but I would use the appropriate term for my culture and time.
So where specifically do you see the Bible, "flat out wrong in it’s depiction of the many things which we can check against reality?"