Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
You are discounting the possibility that there is more than what we can physically observe. Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but there is supposed to be a spiritual world which we can't always interact with in the same sense.
I'm not discounting anything, but I'm also not affording the same level of likelihood to everything and there is not 'supposed' to be a spiritual world, where did you get that idea from? Since you cannot in any way at all demonstrate the existence of your hypothetical 'spirit world' I'll retain what I think is a reasonable and healthy skepticism toward the idea. I wonder why you don't do the same? It seems like the rational thing to do and I'm sure you behave that way with many many beliefs that you don't subscribe to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Aside from that, lets say God audibly spoke to you but you didn't see him, it is because that you can't see him that you can't attribute it anyone, for lack of evidence, so you must attribute it to a mental anomaly. This seems like a rather restrictive way to look at God, that he can only reside in the natural world.
If I heard a voice and had no explanation for it, I still wouldn't default to 'god'. I think the fact that you did that says more about what you want to believe than what is and isn't real.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Y
The other possibility is that you and I have not had the same experiences.
I've also not had the same experiences as many people who've been shown to be victims of their own cognitive biases, it's completely irrelevant that I haven't had your experiences. What is relevant is that we are both subject to those biases and that neither of us can trust what our minds are telling us. I'm fine with that because it doesn't change anything I believe, are you fine with it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Y
No one is a complete literalist.
I'm pretty sure this is factually incorrect and there are several sects that are biblical literalists. Jehovah's Witnesses for starters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Y
For instance when Christ was asked about forgiveness, he replied that one must not forgive 7 times, but 77 times, but this was not meant literally. When he said you must be "born again" surely he didn't mean that one must literally die, he meant a spiritual rebirth.
No, he literally meant do it 77 times, you are clearly not a true believer if you doubt this, it's the word of Jesus, who are you to challenge it where you blindly accept the veracity of so many other biblical accounts? Ideas and movements can be born so your interpretation of the second example doesn't need to be metaphorical and can't be used to support that your interpretation of the first example must be allegorical, it can be read and followed literally. Since you cherry pick the bible and so far have been unable (or unwilling?) to explain how you do that, I can't really take your position seriously. The bible is the divinely inspired word of your god, is it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
Y
Apart from these figures of speech, and parables, I take it literal. There are cases where I don't know. For instance, the book of Job seems quite allegorical, but again, does it matter? It makes the point regardless, and it's written beautifully. Kind of off topic, but the last two speeches by God are some of my favorite passages.
Was the earth created in 7 days? No idea, could have been 7 million years for all I know.
So where there is strong evidence to suggest that the bible is wrong, you don't believe it, but you continue to believe everything else? How can some parts of it having been so devastatingly debunked not cause you to doubt everything else it contains? How do you shrug off this clear demonstration of biblical fallacy and simply say '
but the rest is true'? Is it? Until it's proven not to be again....