Are your beliefs “self proving”?

​Do you still Care if it’s True or not? 


Mike.

You just do not get it. I DO NOT CARE what other sources say. Period.

The word of God needs no help from disinterested people to validate its intrinsic worth.

And until you understand this, you will continue to be more lost than london fog.

To which I replied… of course I did  🙂

  • Cs, how would your comment sound coming from a Mormon or a Muslim or a Scientologist?
    “I do not care what other sources say. Period” followed by “the koran… the book of mormon… or dianetics needs no help from disinterested people to validate it’s intrinsic worth.”
    CS, you would NEVER accept such an ignorant and thoughtless ‘defense’ coming from anyone else’s pie hole for their Religious convictions and Truth Claims. Why do you think it’s valid coming from yours

  • And he to me…

  • Because mike the contents of scripture are self proving. The genius of the only living God is on display and speaks in a manner otherwise impossible for all the world’s religions combined.

    Of course it does.Truth has no competitors, frauds are a dime a dozen, and the scriptures have commended your attention even in your current state, and it is why you do not crusade against scientology or all the other isms or schisms.

    God’s word stands apart, and you know it. 

  • Amazing… Scripture is ‘self proving’? 

 

Really? The scriptures are self confirming, self ‘proving’? The problem that cs realizes but refuses to admit is that by his own admission… He doesn’t actually care if the bible is corroborated or refuted by outside evidence or sources. He believes it to be True on its own because it says it is. What circuitous thinking and brazen bulls#!t.

With that thinking, he would never be able to condemn or refute what any other religious fanatic believes when that one says “it’s self proving” or “we don’t care about outside sources confirming or disconfirming what we believe”

 

His own “defense” of the Truth  (tm) of his beliefs could be spoken verbatim by any other religious zealot,  including those who he would never accept such brainless drivel from.  From such a mindset, what could CS’s biblical god command that he would not obey? What would you NOT be prepared to believe? You might be persuaded that God wants you to obey Him in some of these activities:

  • murder,
  • Genocides
  • child sacrifice,
  • suicide bombings,
  • crusades against other Religions or even denominations within your own religion in the middle east,
  • Inquisitions to torture and kill those who refuse your Divine Authority in ‘Christian’ medieval Europe, 
  • Burning of ‘witches’ in ‘Christian’ Salem Massachusetts? 

Or most recently… Launching a war in Iraq on God’s “say so”?

 

Really, what could the god of the Bible command that you would not obey with a lobotomized mindset like that? What insanity would you not be willing to believe because God declared it to be True in Holy Writ?

Tell me in the comments below. -kia

Advertisements

63 thoughts on “Are your beliefs “self proving”?

  1. I’ve always taken the content of the Old Testament (which can be extremely gruesome) as life lessons told in the extremes of the day when methods of war, punishment and religious rites were much different. The stories were entered as moral lessons showing consequences for certain actions where were against God’s plan for man. The lessons are as true now as they were then, but we would not tell them quite that way. I think your friend means to say that there is a way the world works well and The Bible contains the keys to this way. I believe this is true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • moral lessons? have you thought of david and bathsheba’s first child?
      god struck it with terminal illness after birth and let it suffer 7 days before finally killing it, an innocent newborn, instead of punishing david for his adultry, rap and murder.
      if you can see that as moral… just Wow

      Liked by 1 person

      • Not in the way you are describing it no. But generally, if a person, let’s use me, makes a very poor decision (which I have many times over), the effect is much like physics and dominos. God doesn’t intervene on all that as He’s not some grand puppet master. It is much like every action has a reaction naturally, and people being imperfect, the imperfections pile up and destruction occurs. So let’s say, Bathsheba felt guilty or worse during her pregnancy or David’s sperm was inflicted by his guilt or both, this might result in some issue with their child. This is not God inflicting the child but a result of natural laws that exist. David should think, “Yes this is result of my selfish behavior” and extrapolate the repercussions.

        I have seen life work exactly this way. People find it hard to tie action with consequence if there is any space in time in-between the two, but even today something I did 22 years ago greatly affects and bubbles up from time to time. God didn’t want this for me in any way, but I ignored what were “clear signs” “red flags” whatever we want to call it.

        Please keep questioning. It is a good thing. Please keep allowing me to reply in kind.

        Like

            • Why is god not subject to the same standards of morality as he requires of us? Isn’t he ‘the standard’? Then how could you in any meaningful sense call him “good” and just and Righteous and Merciful?
              If your foundation is Divine Command Theory, whatever God does is right because he does it, then you’re screwed as far as using him as any moral compass.

              Like

              • I’m certainly not screwed. I’ve got the best Heavenly Father ever. He know’s so much more than I and He loves me. This life is but temporary and perhaps a bit a trial. I’m hanging on and trusting as I know so little. We all know so little. He doesn’t hold me to a different standard. He wants me to be happy and knows what it takes in the end. I trust in that which he has shown me. He never wanted me to be blinded as a child. He never wanted my ex to rape my daughter. He allows the world to operate generally without much intervention. But in the end God is in charge and he works everything together for our good. He intervenes here and there but in the end he allows things to flow for the good which may not be clear to us.

                Like

              • So again, god striking the child with illness, making it suffer for 7 days without hope of Recovery, then finally killing it… instead of punishing David as the rapist of Bathsheba, the adulterer against and eventual murder of Uriah, that was the ‘morality’ of the god of the Bible and your totally fine with that? He was totally Just in not punishing David, but killing the Innocent newborn? And yes… if this back and forth is going to continue, I’m going to make you say it. Was god ‘good’ and was killing the child instead of killing David the ‘moral’ thing to do?

                Like

              • Yes it is. Killing, the taking of an innocent life and not punishing a rapist, murdering adulterer IS a moral issue… answer the question, you’re dodging

                Like

              • I gotta go to bed. I have to work a real job tomorrow and pay taxes to support you now or in the near future.

                But hey….in reality you are a lot of fun and I enjoy the effort.

                Like

              • My real job wakes me up at 3 am. But you’re dodging. You need answer why the god of the Bible gets a pass on morality, when you think he’s the standard and the law giver for our morality.
                You don’t support me, I work too. But nice try at the insulting ad Hominem slap in the face. Nice behaviour from one who claims to be Christian and filled with the fruit of the Spirit.

                Liked by 1 person

              • Yeah I did feel bad for that honestly. I just got tired. Your demeanor was so abrasive from the get-go and it wore me down. Not an excuse You can’t believe the day I’ve had…first visiting with my old man in the geriatric psycho ward (he has serious Alzheimer’s) and then being with my best half Kent at the hospital for his surgery all day. I went back and forth with you a few times during all of that but then I caved to a snarky remark that shows my humanity. I’m sorry. I feel bad. I know you want to engage folks for their own good and a few other reasons.

                Anyway, here is the thing. I’m a mom. I could be your mom but I’m sure you have a better own. Well anyway, as a mom, I care. I was a really good philosophy student once but my mistakes in life piled up and shit happened. Then things got a bit better… then more better. (Yeah more better!)

                Well then I found Jesus and things were awesome and then they were worse. It’s a long story. But man…lady or whomever you are. God loves you and knows more than you or i will ever know. If you are a former know it all then you know you need to surrender and some point and just believe. Love, Bonsai.

                Like

              • Again, a non answer. You’re dodging and you know it. No… you could not be my mom. Probably way too young and mine has been gone for 4 years.
                You need think about my question regarding the morality of God killing David’s child instead of killing David. And stop trying to psychoanalize me. It’s your thinking that I’m after here. You’re trying hard to push it back on me because you’re in a corner where you don’t have a good answer. Think

                Like

              • Please re read the chapter again… it specifically says god struck the child with illness, it suffered 7 days and it died. God killed the child. Re read the chapter.

                Like

              • Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. And Nathan departed unto his house. And the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife bare unto David, and it was very sick. David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth. And the elders of his house arose, and went to him, to raise him up from the earth: but he would not, neither did he eat bread with them. And it came to pass on the seventh day, that the child died. And the servants of David feared to tell him that the child was dead: for they said, Behold, while the child was yet alive, we spake unto him, and he would not hearken unto our voice: how will he then vex himself, if we tell him that the child is dead?
                2 Samuel 12:14‭-‬18 KJV
                http://bible.com/1/2sa.12.14-18.KJV

                Like

              • He never wanted my ex to rape my daughter.

                I’m sorry to hear this. A horrendous thing, to be sure. Are you aware, then, that you are saying your god (I’m assuming you’re a Christian, so you believe in the Middle Eastern god, Yhwh) favoured the free will of the rapist over the free will of the child as it watched the rape? Is that immoral?

                If you could have stopped it, would you have stopped your daughtrer being raped?

                Like

              • Hi. I want to answer your question as well as Kia’s last but I must must get to work and need to concentrate today. So I will pick this all up tomorrow. Thanks for asking.

                Like

              • Just stick the question I asked, I’m not letting you make this personal. You need to consider my question in light of what that passage says and answer. I’m not letting you off the hook or dodge the question.

                Like

              • You keep saying that it’s not an issue of morality, god doesn’t have to have the same morality as he has for us and yet you never answer whether God was moral in the case of the child of David that God killed instead of killing David.
                Yet at the beginning of your comments here you asserted that there are great moral lessons to be learned. Have you learned them yet?
                God struck and killed, after 7 days of suffering, an innocent newborn baby in order NOT not kill David, the guilty, for his adultry, rape and murder.
                Was this moral?

                Like

    • Tkx jz for this.

      Your quotation here is proof positive that truth is not arrogant, such as this arrogant reading implies. You have just made every reason to point out the bastard religions of the world as imposters. Well done. The ko-ran reads like some dime novel where people can’t string 5 words together to make a coherent sentence.

      Then there is the majesty and incomparable wording of scripture which speaks to reason, intellect, faith, science, the conscience, and absolute truth.

      ‘the seed within itself.’
      ‘the cherubim of glory.’
      ‘the sun moved backwards ten degrees.’
      ‘He made great whales’
      ‘the dry land He called Earth.’
      ‘the gathering together of the waters called He Seas.’
      ‘male and female created He them.’
      ‘faith hope, charity, these three…..’
      ‘He made the stars also.’
      ‘Now Ehud was fat, and the haft was buried…..’
      ‘There was not a man such as Job.’
      You have heard of the wisdom of Solomon? Cut the baby in half!

      Deep answers unto deep if a man is truly interested. Everything else in wading in stagnant waters of rust.

      I could do this all day, but you get the point.

      Liked by 1 person

        • You are a fence sitter pete. You know that God’s word is not comparable to the ko-ran. You know the contents of scripture are self proving; you simply do not like the implications and obvious ramifications.

          Ever heard of this? Unto the froward God reveals Himself as froward?????????????? or unto the pure, He reveals Himself as pure?

          You may want to reread the book of books, and give God the courtesy of actually knowing more than you. After all, He owns all the blueprints for the human brain. But your constant gripes are boring.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I had afternoon tea with some Christian friends yesterday. One of them told me they had been reading through the Book of Numbers. They raised with me the challenge they felt in reading Numbers 31.

            Now I ask you, what do you make of that chapter?

            Liked by 1 person

              • The point is that the atrocities of Numbers 31 were ordered by ‘God’. These people were outside of Israel, the slaughter was ordered by ‘God’ purely for revenge. The only survivors were female virgins to be taken as sex slaves. Still I suppose it must be moral as ‘God’ ordered it.

                However when ISIS did something similar to the Yazidis the whole world decried it as a crime against humanity. So tell again about how we are supposed to get our morality from the Bible?

                Like

              • You must have missed this truth:

                —Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord.—

                As I said, you may want to re-consider the plague of idolatry and the ramifications of sin.

                As to morality, who are you to dictate to God what is moral when you question his very existence?

                In addition, God’s dealings with one nation, according to His sovereignty, have nothing to do with you, unless of course, you understand His purpose.

                Liked by 1 person

              • ‘As to morality, who are you to dictate to God what is moral when you question his very existence?’

                That ‘God’ commanded Israel to commit the Numbers 31 atrocity is one of the alerts to the discerning that the Bible is a human not a divine book.

                Feel free to defend the indefensible, but seeing an action as moral because ‘God’ commanded it when in any other circumstance it would be seen as an atrocity should cause the discerning pause for thought.

                Like

              • Peter, I agree. Even if the biblical god actually exists… and cs has yet to demonstrate that, oh yeah, he said he doesn’t actually CARE if he does or not in any verifiable way… he would not be any god worthy of our worship or even admiration.
                It’s clear that Fear and Hell is the only thing going for this monster to motivate and manipulate people to submit to his authority and demands.
                Good thing that the Biblical ‘god’ doesn’t actually exist.

                Like

              • That wicked people would take and crucify the Son of God………….is indefensible, especially with God’s full knowledge.

                As usual, you always look at things from the wrong point of view.

                Take this valuable lesson to heart and you may appreciate what you do not understand.

                Like

  2. Another good post Mike. If the Bible can’t even gets it story straight on simple facts, like the nativity story, then who in their right mind could see it as a book of truth?

    To the outsider the hypocrisy of religious people in giving preference to their own holy book whilst ridiculing those of other faiths is all too apparent.

    Unless a person is prepared to accept the possibility they might be wrong then they have no basis to claim they are seekers of truth. A seeker of truth will be prepared to follow the evidence wherever it might lead. A seeker of truth will evaluate evidence to reach a conclusion. However if evidence is interpreted through a prism which excludes the possibility of the persons Holy Book being in error then the person involved has no basis to claim that they are seeking truth. No! If a persons Holy Book is treated as infallible, regardless of contrary evidence then the person is seeking validation not truth.

    Galileo found the truth about the Earth orbiting the Sun because he was prepared to set aside the infallibility of the Bible as a presupposition.

    I just get so tired of people claiming to be seekers of truth when they are not interested in truth at all, but instead the confirmation of their beliefs. Perhaps the Bible is truth, but unless an enquirer is prepared to allow the possibility that it is not true, then they cannot call themselves an honest seeker of truth.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thx peter. honesty dictates we all be open to new evidence that might possibly contradict our previously cherished beliefs about reality. CS is evidence that there are some who are still not prepared for that level of honesty or integrity. Recovery awaits!!

      Like

      • Hey mike-
        Will you extend to peter the same courtesy when he comes to his senses and tells you God’s word is good, very good, and that he has trafficked in unbridled nonsense and intellectual rebellion for entirely too long? Or is he only useful to you as long as he rides your train?

        And btw, I agree, I do know very little, compared to God whose understanding is infinite, but what little I know, I am certain.

        ………….as opposed to certain knowitalls.

        In addition, it is the height of mental treason, to say, ‘there is no God.’ Arrogance suits the atheist quite well. On the other hand, the same atheist despises believers who have confidence in the living God. It appears you do not know the difference.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Cs, atheists DO NOT SAY, I repeat… Do not say that there is no God like you have defined them. Although I am not atheist, I will continue to correct your wilful ignorance and slanderous definition.
          Atheist don’t believe. They lack belief because people like you provide none. Or if you provide it, it’s little more than inueno, inference and arguments from ignorance and incredulity.
          I understand why you hold to your definition of atheists saying ‘there is no god’. It’s to knowingly and incorrectly attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself. Dishonesty. But then again, you don’t really care if it’s true in any real sense. You’ve given us a great verbatim quote as the foundation of this post. Thx and cheers.

          Like

          • My view is borrowed from that of Dr David Eagleman:

            ‘We don’t know enough to be able to say there is no god, but we know way too much to believe in the deities of any of the world’s known religions’

            Liked by 2 people

  3. Here ya go pete, a bonus answer to your thought! –‘then they cannot call themselves an honest seeker of truth.–

    An HONEST seeker. Key word there fella, HONEST. Honesty as in the sun above and HOW it got there. For WHAT purpose, for HOW long. For WHOM. Key word HONEST seeker of truth.

    When you tire of blaming God for the acts of men, when you tire of comparing the stupid religions of the world, when you tire of thinking that CONFIDENCE in the living God is ARROGANCE………you may begin to wake up.

    You want arrogance? Read the ko=ran, read christian science by Mary Eddy, read the tablets by Joe Smith, yeah, like God has a valid competitor. Ha!

    His word is sure, demure, matter of fact, gracious, powerful, true in every respect, unequalled in prose, excellent in history, unashamed in citing despicable acts by men, fearless in narrative, and continues to change hearts, as it has for thousands of years, so unlike the lame attempts of derelict sons who think blowing themselves up does God a favor.

    But you know this already………..key word: HONEST.

    Like

  4. One of the passages of Scripture that intrigue me most has these two statements:
    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord)
    To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord)
    Both found in 1 Corinthians 7.
    Since everything in the Bible is God’s / the Lord’s Word, inspired by God – then somehow something that the Lord didn’t say has become God’s Word, making a liar out of Paul and putting words into God’s mouth at the same time. Neat trick, right?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s a tricky topic, because at the end of the day I think Cs is (on some strange level) correct. Can you prove the truth of Truth? Can you prove any of the most essential beliefs that are logically implied by the way we live? (For example, if you only experience the world through sense-experience, you could never prove the reliability of your senses or their correlation with external reality, because all of your contact with that external reality is mediated by the very senses you are questioning.) As annoying as it is, I think Cs is doing what all of us do – working within a logical circle. There is no other Truth besides truth (to me) because I have no perspective to think from besides my own.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This is the way I see it Tyler. Kia has asked me several times whether God is moral and used the example of striking down a child for the sins of its father. Piling on, John Zande asked whether I would have stopped harm to my child if I knew in advance what was about to take place.

      God created this earth for what purpose I do not know, but in his creation he allowed for free will and although what was originally created was perfectly good, it didn’t take us long to muck it up and be less than perfectly loving toward each other. We couldn’t manage. And for everything we do positively and negatively there are results and consequence which is different from punishment.

      As for David of the Bible, he received the forgiveness he asked for and was not punished, but consequences are a completely different matter as they happen by the laws of God and occur in ways we often don’t even realize– often appearing separated from the act(s) of evil. I know this from personal experience that what I thought I “got away with” came back in the form of acid rain that affected many others.

      God isn’t moral or immoral. Why he created this or that in the way that he did I have no clue from my limited senses, but I see overall a system in place that is fair. We think it is unfair that an innocent child is afflicted– and it would seem so if we think in terms of this life and this body as being the end goal which is not the case.

      The term moral is a term of judgement loftier than bad or wrong. I reckon that I rarely use it, and certainly I’m not going to use it to describe the actions of our maker who sees the big picture. Afflictions, tragedies and disasters happen all time and we are overcome in those moments. Whether God actively afflicted and struck down a particular child or allowed consequences to play out I cannot say. The Word in David’s case indicates a deliberate, active role (vs. just letting the chips fall) but with the eternal life on the other side (which the God of the Bible certainly promises to this innocent) the child is spared having to wade through all of this complexity and long suffering to get there. David on the other hand has to watch his child suffer for a time and dies knowing why.

      To those who suffer consequences, both by their own doing and the doing of others (whether by a bad parent, crossing paths with a derelict or just something falling out of the sky seemingly unattached to anyone in particular) there is something gained, through the suffering and pain, that can be offered to others.

      This is the way I see it. I expect KIA that you will come after me again, but I have (as maybe you have) though some very particular circumstances that make this clear to me even knowing so little. I am making my wager, taking the leap, to believe that the God of the Bible is true and am trying these days to do my best although I often, as you’ve seen, fall short. There are consequences for that and I may never put the action/inaction together with the fallout but naturally (likely passively but not necessary) occur by design.

      When you respond it might take me awhile to get back with you and I might not go much further than this as I have a massive chore list. In any case, thank you for bringing up this topic. Bonsai

      Liked by 1 person

      • Bonsai, thanks for the response. Here you have brought up what philosophers call the “problem of evil” – or maybe more specifically the “problem of suffering”.

        You have given up on calling God moral, which I think is a humble and admirable admission. I wonder if you would still call God “loving.” In my opinion, a God who literally, actually strikes down children for sins committed by others is not worth calling a God of love. Whether it is more important to hold onto the love of God or onto the unlimited power of God and the “literal” truth of the Bible’s English translation is probably a matter of preference. To me, the former is more important, so I must reinterpret God as well as the bible. The priority of love over power and tradition seems to be a very Christian conviction to me.

        Perhaps you are able to believe that God has done troubling, unloving things in the Bible, and yet still call God love. And who knows? When it comes to God, there’s always the big possibility that what seems true is false. But you must at least acknowledge that to someone not already committed to your worldview, the God you describe does not seem even remotely loving. Right?

        Liked by 2 people

          • @mike

            Bonsai is crushing you with common sense, insight, and consistency with scripture. As long as YOU set the parameters for what is moral or good, you will never be satisfied with her answers.

            Newsflash. God is more than good. He is perfect.

            Like

            • Common sense is not what either of you are offering. You are offering the bold assertion that God is good and right and the standard of morality without dealing with what is clearly the straight reading of the text that disputes that assertion, and then refusing to admit when what is again, the clear reading of the passage, demonstrates that not to be the case.
              If your God requires such dishonesty and lack of integrity from you, he cannot be god, cannot be good and cannot be any standard of morality for mankind other than a standard of immorality and evil.
              Now… bugger off cs

              Like

        • Because of my limited senses I cannot possibly know enough to say what is ultimately good or bad at the scale of the universe and beyond given that I shooting for something more, beyond this world. I have bought a golden ticket for eternity by electing to believe in the salvation offered, the stepping stone to God that is Jesus Christ. It requires a huge leap– one I didn’t take until later in life after studying philosophy long before and being a skeptic for many years. Sure, I could very well be wrong, but I have decided given the evidence that it is a reasonable choice.

          Additionally I have found my faith to be amazingly powerful in my life. I can’t begin to describe the miracles here.

          As for those with a different world view, they may see God as cruel and I can see why at first glance many would think this. As for me, I have always appreciated a strong father and tough-love teacher who is trying to get me to a better place. I believe God is quite dismayed at our behavior and arrogance thumbing our noses at Him. He has to be terribly conflicted concerning how to bring us around without taking away our free will. We can be a bunch of nincompoops but he hasn’t given up yet.

          A neighbor of mine told me today her son (an old classmate of my son) is in prison. She was happy about it because they tried so hard to keep him straight. They are a good family from what I know and my husband even hired him for awhile giving him a big chance at his factory but alas. Of course she doesn’t want to see him suffer in prison but perhaps after he serves his three years he will come back a better person. God wants the same.

          Like

          • I get that. But I’m saying that if you’re admitting you can’t tell what is ultimately good or bad on the scale of the universe, how could you also say that God is loving? If you have surrendered your right to comment on things of this magnitude, you cannot still call God loving.
            As a Christian, I say that God is love, and I actually mean those words. This prevents me from needing to perform the kind of theological contortions you are making. And since I think that God is revealed in jesus (a weak person who influenced the world by love, not by force), I have few qualms about saying that God’s power is limited. I would encourage you to consider making the kind of theological and philosophical revisions necessary to say “God is love” and actually mean it. The love of God is Christianity’s pearl of great price, and in my opinion it is worth selling the whole field (which in this case includes some outdated and concerning metaphysical descriptions of God) in order to buy and and hold onto that treasure.
            I get to say that God is love, and I don’t have to also imply that God is a jerk (allowing cancer, punishing children for their parents’ sins, etc.). It’s great!

            Liked by 1 person

            • Clearly God is love. I don’t know how he works out the details, but I trust that it is for love and the greater good. The evil is ours and God is just more or less dealing with it actively or passively for the sake of love.

              Like

Please comment Responsibly and Respectfully

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s