The Circular Logic of Today

[Steve R.]

Dilbert Cartoons by Scott Adams

 

[Galaxiom]

Second one reminds me of the religious who are confident that the Bible is the word of a supreme deity.

They are sure because it tells them so in the Bible.

 

[Isaac]

This article was an interesting read for me.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/john-mcwhorter-white-fragility-robin-diangelo-atlantic

Quote of this particular African-American who was criticizing a particular book White Frigility

"In my life, racism has affected me now and then at the margins, in very occasional social ways, but has had no effect on my access to societal resources," McWhorter went on. "If anything, it has made them more available to me than they would have been otherwise."

Something many people already know, but it is somewhat refreshing to hear a person just come right out loud and admit it. Someone who has the privilege of not being subjected to the current cancel culture, and thus, felt free to truly speak their mind. And frankly, as children I think being taught this truth from a young age would actually be very empowering. And is, to the extent that it occurs.
Of course, I know that this has not been true in years gone by.

 

[Isaac]

Second one reminds me of the religious who are confident that the Bible is the word of a supreme deity.

They are sure because it tells them so in the Bible.

I don't intend to get into the merits of any of these arguments, but would like to correct the cute-but-incorrect portrayal of the line of thinking of Christian faith, deity, and biblical authority.

I am not a theologian so I'm sure I will make some mistakes on the terms or the ranking of these things.

Regardless, the basis for the authority of the Bible goes something a little more along these lines:

1) Evidence of the existence of God, most particularly in the person of Jesus, based on fulfilled prophesies from throughout the Bible, references to only later-known scientific aspects, the resurrection of Jesus as witnessed by many, and the miracles of Jesus (as well as earlier acts of God also witnessed by many), and finally the occurrence of miracles post-Jesus.

2) The Bible being a collection of these events and teachings, very carefully inventoried by earlier Christian scholars and historians, and remaining relatively undisputed thereafter.

3) The final assumption being that of biblical authority, or another way of saying it sometimes is, simply, that all portions of the bible are useful for instruction in some way or another.

While obviously there is all kinds of disagreement in the world over everything in these 3 numerical points I've listed, yet, as far as the line of thinking goes, that is very different than what you have stated, which was more along the lines of: Christians found a book that simply told them it was authoritative and so therefore they considered it is. If this statement were actually true, then Christians would consider every book that claimed it was authoritative to be so on the basis of the book's statement alone. Obviously, such behavior by Christians regarding every other possible book in the world that makes this claim, does not exist.

Again, not commenting on the merit of the individual claims or what some think to be evidence of this or that, (anyone interested can Google and find a large body of discussion explaining different findings or beliefs), just correcting the portrayal of the basis of the faith.

 

[Isaac]

Thanks for sharing, U.G.

 

[Galaxiom]

1) Evidence of the existence of God, most particularly in the person of Jesus, based on fulfilled prophesies from throughout the Bible, references to only later-known scientific aspects, the resurrection of Jesus as witnessed by many, and the miracles of Jesus (as well as earlier acts of God also witnessed by many), and finally the occurrence of miracles post-Jesus.

The accounts of these witnesses for the events and miracles are only found in the Bible. Indeed the miracles of Jesus are only mentioned in one of the canonical books. Funny the other authors didn't think them worth mentioning. The Bible is inconsistent with itself and there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus even existing, let alone performing miracles. Jesus is as real as Harry Potter. It is very easy to fulfil a prophecy with a work of fiction.

There are no references to only later known scientific facts. The Bible's chronology of creation is not in the correct order.

2) The Bible being a collection of these events and teachings, very carefully inventoried by earlier Christian scholars and historians, and remaining relatively undisputed thereafter.

Irrelevant. The makeup of this collection was by arbitrary selection and enforced by decree.

3) The final assumption being that of biblical authority, or another way of saying it sometimes is, simply, that all portions of the bible are useful for instruction in some way or another.

The Bible is used to justify anything including brutal violence as it often has throughout history going back to the Hebrew genocide of the more than thirty tribes who were already living in the land they claimed God had given them. It tells us that God sometimes implores that babies be cut from their mother's wombs and there head smashed on rocks in front of the them while demanding every enemy be slaughtered without mercy.

The Bible presents nothing more sophisticated than the prejudices of primitive ignorant misogynists willing to kill to enforce their tyrannical, self serving fascism.

 

[Isaac]

The accounts of these witnesses for the events and miracles are only found in the Bible. Indeed the miracles of Jesus are only mentioned in one of the canonical books. Funny the other authors didn't think them worth mentioning. The Bible is inconsistent with itself and there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus even existing, let alone performing miracles. Jesus is as real as Harry Potter. It is very easy to fulfil a prophecy with a work of fiction.

There are no references to only later known scientific facts. The Bible's chronology of creation is not in the correct order.

Irrelevant. The makeup of this collection was by arbitrary selection and enforced by decree.

The Bible is used to justify anything including brutal violence as it often has throughout history going back to the Hebrew genocide of the more than thirty tribes who were already living in the land they claimed God had given them. It tells us that God sometimes implores that babies be cut from their mother's wombs and there head smashed on rocks in front of the them while demanding every enemy be slaughtered without mercy.

The Bible presents nothing more sophisticated than the prejudices of primitive ignorant misogynists willing to kill to enforce their tyrannical, self serving fascism.

Galaxiom, I respect your opinion, and I'm glad you were able to get that out as I expected you would. I won't address any of your points and will let your post be the last word on it. Maybe I'll study some of your points further to allow my own beliefs to be challenged and strengthened. Thanks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

G beat me to it because I've been distracted by household issues include a visit from our Florida daughter who was cleaning out a storage locker. It's a sign that she is actually cutting the apron strings!

Isaac, most of us don't care what you believe but reserve to right to comment on what you say in support of your belief. I'm no expert on much of anything but I have a few skills here and there. One of them is logic. The logic of the Bible is self-referential in that it makes claims about itself. Christians know the Bible is the word of God because it says it is. They know the Bible is true because it says it is.

The catch is the dearth of any contemporary works to corroborate the stories. Which is not really surprising since those stories are all actually repetitions, distorted by time, of older stories. The great flood is derived from a Sumerian myth. The life of Jesus is derived from an Egyptian myth about Horus, which is in turn derived from older myths as far back as the time of Gilgamesh. The Exodus story cannot be corroborated by Israely archaeologists even though they had a vested interest in finding that story to be true (since it would prove they ARE the Chosen People.) That story must derive from some older event as well. So any contemporary support would actually come from 1200 to 3500 years earlier.

The "later-known scientific facts" argument is usually not brought out from the Bible though the followers of the Quran like to trot that one out. But the ambiguity of the archaic language makes it hard to justify the claims. I don't know which "facts" you want to discuss. Are we talking about the "flat earth" or the appearance of rainbows only after the flood (as part of the promise of the rainbow, the implication being that placement was later ratehr than earlier)?

Remember, there was a LOT of knowledge available in the Library of Alexandria until it was destroyed by invading members of the early Middle-Eastern empires like the Ottomans. We don't know what was available in those old documents. The Egyptians were advanced enough to be able to do minor brain surgery (sometimes successful). If you are talking "medical science facts" then the Bible could have absorbed Egyptian knowledge. The Greeks were wizards of geometry and astronomy. The Romans were pretty good with metalwork such as weapon and tool smithing. So ... to what later-known facts do you refer?

 

[Isaac]

@The_Doc_Man
Honestly, I've seen what happens to threads overly saturated with religious arguments, and don't want to get into the merits of the arguments (as previously stated). If you wish to research, there is an enormous body of discussion on all of these topics. I doubt I'd be an expert conveyor of much of it.
Remember, my main goal in responding to Galaxiom's post was this:
- to counteract the notion that Christians only believe in the Bible solely because the Bible says it is authoritative. Rather, Christians believe in there being various proofs to support the faith from a variety of angles, they then pay attention to the Bible as the collection of these events. The latter is very different from the former.
As I stated, if Christians actually believed in the Bible SOLELY because it told them to, then it would logically follow that they would believe any book in the entire world which similarly told them to - which obviously, that behavior does not exist.

My purpose as stated is not to discuss the merits of what some consider 'evidence'. It was merely to point out the error in Galaxiom's portrayal as Bible believers only basis for their belief being as he stated.

While we can disagree at length about the merits or non-merits of quote 'evidence', (i.e. what G. did), there is no reasonable basis for disagreement on the fact that Christians' basis for their belief stems from more than the mere claim of authority out of the book itself. See again italic portion above. : )

Galaxiom feels that the Bible is basically an entirely self contained, self-referencing, stand alone piece of fiction. This is a common argument. Whether right or wrong, most Christians do not feel that the entire picture is entirely circular and self referencing, they see it as much more supported than that. And it is THAT belief that they base their faith on, in part. Again, whether they are right or wrong isn't my point - simply that they do. It is easy to feel that you are verbally 'shredding' a particular belief system when you actually misstate the basis for it.

Despite it being tempting as I disagree (of course) with what Galaxiom stated, I don't want to devolve into brutal arguments on merits of things....it would last absolutely forever and take up too much of my time. I do appreciate your response.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I will avoid the temptation to hijack the thread. YKW suckered me in for devious purposes. You are not him and I have no quarrel that you have that particular belief. I will respectfully say that I disagree at a fundamental level but will not go into specifics.

 

[Isaac]

I will avoid the temptation to hijack the thread. YKW suckered me in for devious purposes. You are not him and I have no quarrel that you have that particular belief. I will respectfully say that I disagree at a fundamental level but will not go into specifics.

You are a fine gentleman, and I find you to be full of sincerity and class which is greatly appreciated by not only me but probably many who read your posts!
It truly is very unfortunate that people like YNW sometimes are a voice, a hideous and antagonizing voice, of a particular belief system. I can't do anything about that, but I am glad he is not part of the voices here anymore.

 

[Dick7Access]

You are a fine gentleman, and I find you to be full of sincerity and class which is greatly appreciated by not only me but probably many who read your posts!
It truly is very unfortunate that people like YNW sometimes are a voice, a hideous and antagonizing voice, of a particular belief system. I can't do anything about that, but I am glad he is not part of the voices here anymore.

And he knows some good restaurants.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you, Dick, but in New Orleans that is almost a trivial feat. I should actually say "WAS" though. Sadly, the corona virus has SO badly crippled some Mom&Pop joints that your statement is less true than it used to be. Some of those neighborhood joints were the REAL cuisine of the city, like the one I took you to when you visited. That place is still open for take-out and does a good business because that was the bulk of their business before corona hit, but a little place across the street from them folded.

We finally lost K-Paul's (Paul Prudhomme's place) this month because the limited seating and stiff mortgage for French Quarter businesses was just too much for them. Some smaller restaurants are being besieged by the fact that they cannot control the actions of their customers who do things that get them cited. And a lot of bars have now been forced to close down almost entirely because they can't make it on take-out and due to cramped quarters can't manage enough business from bar seating. We have seen pictures that I never thought I would see - such as Bourbon Street in the middle of the afternoon with nobody on the street in the 2nd and 3rd blocks. When I was in college and played music there, even at 4 AM there were people out and about on Saturday mornings. (Yes, we played the graveyard shift because that was PARTY time for the locals who didn't want to mingle with the tourists so much.)

 

[Dick7Access]

Thank you, Dick, but in New Orleans that is almost a trivial feat. I should actually say "WAS" though. Sadly, the corona virus has SO badly crippled some Mom&Pop joints that your statement is less true than it used to be. Some of those neighborhood joints were the REAL cuisine of the city, like the one I took you to when you visited. That place is still open for take-out and does a good business because that was the bulk of their business before corona hit, but a little place across the street from them folded.

We finally lost K-Paul's (Paul Prudhomme's place) this month because the limited seating and stiff mortgage for French Quarter businesses was just too much for them. Some smaller restaurants are being besieged by the fact that they cannot control the actions of their customers who do things that get them cited. And a lot of bars have now been forced to close down almost entirely because they can't make it on take-out and due to cramped quarters can't manage enough business from bar seating. We have seen pictures that I never thought I would see - such as Bourbon Street in the middle of the afternoon with nobody on the street in the 2nd and 3rd blocks. When I was in college and played music there, even at 4 AM there were people out and about on Saturday mornings. (Yes, we played the graveyard shift because that was PARTY time for the locals who didn't want to mingle with the tourists so much.)

Sad but true

 

[Steve R.]

I would suppose that everyone, at one time or another, during their working career has run into this same situation.

 

[neuroman9999]

i have never read dilbert, not even once. alone with never drinking coffee in my life.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, Adam, you SHOULD read Dilbert now and then. I swear that Scott Adams must have worked in my government office incognito because he so accurately catches corporate idiocy. You are one who constantly harps on the way business works (or doesn't work). Dilbert captures that in so many beautiful yet funny ways.

 

[Dick7Access]

i have never read dilbert, not even once. alone with never drinking coffee in my life.

No coffee, what does your body use to make blood.

 

[neuroman9999]

I swear that Scott Adams must have worked in my government office incognito

well he must be a pretty rich man by now!

Scott Adams - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

he so accurately catches corporate idiocy.

YOU are calling corporations, idiots!? wasn't it you that said capitalism was the greatest system on Earth!? after all, without corporations, you would starve to death. that is, if the government stopped taking care of you in retirement.

Dilbert captures that in so many beautiful yet funny ways.

speaking of beautiful things, have you heard of this group (per their name)?

Community of the Beatitudes | Fr. Jacques Philippe

www.frjacquesphilippe.com

THE MAN:

Home | Fr. Jacques Philippe

Fr. Jacques Philippe is a member of the community of the Beatitudes, founded in France in 1983. After studying in Nazareth, Jerusalem, and Rome, he was ordained a priest in 1985. He primarily devotes himself to spiritual direction and preaching retreats internationally. His published books on...

www.frjacquesphilippe.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I am not calling corporations idiots. Corporations are a legally fictitious person for business purposes. They have ZERO brains. Idiocy comes from the people who work in corporations and who strongly exhibit the "Peter Principle" - that people rise to the level of their incompetence. Capitalism AS A SYSTEM is better than outright socialism or communism. It is an apples-to-oranges comparison if you try to compare corporations to capitalism.

Regarding Fr. Philippe - Have not heard of the group or person and don't care.