Seeing is believing?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, yes, I was responding to Athanasius who asserts something similar, and I was attempting to reason within that framework. The meat of my point is that while the bible isn't a science book that does not preclude it from being accurate when it comes to apparent factual information that is contained within it. Would the bible be worse at life instruction if it were scientifically accurate?

I think it's just not relevant. The bible doesn't need to reveal scientific truths to us because we can discover those ourselves. And our knowledge of science or lack thereof doesn't change our standing with God.

is it consistent with your beliefs that if a person doesn't have access to the bible then they are essentially doomed because they cannot discover the truths contained within it in any other way? If biblical truth can be discovered elsewise then there it grounds to segregate science and theology/metaphysics in this way, but If there is no other way then you have mooted my point and I concede.

[Fenris]

is it consistent with your beliefs that if a person doesn't have access to the bible then they are essentially doomed because they cannot discover the truths contained within it in any other way?

No, it is not.

A person is judged according to their own individual potential based on their life's experiences and knowledge.

Why were the Jews punished with exile for idolatry when their neighbors were not? Because they had the revelation at Sinai and therefore knew better. Amos 3:2 “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”

[CadyandZoe]

What did Kierkegaard say about the ditch?

Nothing that won't get him accused of being a subjectivist/relativist

You studied this subject yes? I thought maybe. Perhaps my memory is failing me. Do you remember what K said with regard to Lessing's ditch?

That's right; Climacus (not K proper) wrote about Lessing's ditch (or ditches?) in Philosophical Fragments and Postscript. It's been a while so I'd need to familiarise myself, but Climacus' answer, if we can call it that, was to do something like properly place the subjectivity of the individual, bring in relevation to overcome any problems posed by historical distance, emphasize faith, make notions of historical belief, etc. As far as I remember.

I think you will find that K remarked something like this, "For someone who doesn't want to jump; the ditch is infinitely large.

In other words, giving mental ascent to an idea is a matter of the mind, but agreeing with an uncomfortable truth is a matter of the will. 

[Oscar_Kipling]

is it consistent with your beliefs that if a person doesn't have access to the bible then they are essentially doomed because they cannot discover the truths contained within it in any other way?

No, it is not.

A person is judged according to their own individual potential based on their life's experiences and knowledge.

Why were the Jews punished with exile for idolatry when their neighbors were not? Because they had the revelation at Sinai and therefore knew better. Amos 3:2 “You only have I chosen of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your sins.”

so, to be clear, these truths can be discovered without access to the bible? how is this different than the way scientific truths can be discovered without the bible?

[Fenris]

so, to be clear, these truths can be discovered without access to the bible?

That's not clear to me. The values of western civ come from the bible. No bible and we'd still have people sacrificing their kids to their gods. My point was that people who live outside the bibles values while not knowing any better are not completely responsible for their behavior.

how is this different than the way scientific truths can be discovered without the bible?

Because God doesn't judge us by how much science we know, but by how we live our lives.

[Oscar_Kipling]

so, to be clear, these truths can be discovered without access to the bible?

That's not clear to me. The values of western civ come from the bible. No bible and we'd still have people sacrificing their kids to their gods. My point was that people who live outside the bibles values while not knowing any better are not completely responsible for their behavior.

how is this different than the way scientific truths can be discovered without the bible?

Because God doesn't judge us by how much science we know, but by how we live our lives.

oh okay, I misunderstood, without a bible a person is doomed to ignorance, but not doomed by God.

[CadyandZoe]

Well, if Paul the apostle said so then how could I even question this? If this is the case then everyone should qualify for a supernatural visitation or emmanation because we all already know for a fact that God is real and I guess presumably that its the Christian God...I mean that is at least an order of magnitude better than a mustard seed of faith.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise, and your premise is weak to start with.

Paul isn't focused on the question of God's existence as such. Rather, he is focused on those who know for certain that God exists. He asserts that the wrath of God is being poured out on those who "suppress the truth [about God] in unrighteousness . . ." He argues that human-kind has discovered the true nature of God empirically, i.e. by observation from the things that he has made. And that among this group of people, some or all of them suppressed that truth. 

[Fenris]

Rather, he is focused on those who know for certain that God exists. He asserts that the wrath of God is being poured out on those who "suppress the truth [about God] in unrighteousness . . ." He argues that human-kind has discovered the true nature of God empirically, i.e. by observation from the things that he has made.

I mean Paul is all over the place in Romans 1, but I don't agree with the assertion that God's existence is "obvious" in any way. It is one possible conclusion that an individual may come to, but there are others. 

[The Parson]

I'm wondering that with all the reasoning I'm seeing here, that some of you folks feel that faith is a mute point. Not calling anybody out, but if that's the way you believe, then you're probably believing that we can be saved by science. Am I wrong here???

[Fenris]

you're probably believing that we can be saved by science.

Am I the only one thinking of this?

[CadyandZoe]

Rather, he is focused on those who know for certain that God exists. He asserts that the wrath of God is being poured out on those who "suppress the truth [about God] in unrighteousness . . ." He argues that human-kind has discovered the true nature of God empirically, i.e. by observation from the things that he has made.

I mean Paul is all over the place in Romans 1, but I don't agree with the assertion that God's existence is "obvious" in any way. It is one possible conclusion that an individual may come to, but there are others.

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

[CadyandZoe]

I'm wondering that with all the reasoning I'm seeing here, that some of you folks feel that faith is a mute point. Not calling anybody out, but if that's the way you believe, then you're probably believing that we can be saved by science. Am I wrong here???

We are saved by a person: God. Paul argues that God has made himself evident in his creation. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse." If we define science in terms of empirical observation, then yes, science is compatible with faith. Reason is not the enemy of faith; fantasy is.

 

[The Parson]

Well, before we try to discount Paul for what he said, shouldn't we look at what he read to have him come to that conclusion?
Psalms 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Psalms 90:2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.

[Fenris]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

[Athanasius]

Name another possible conclusion? The only two alternatives are 1) chance or 2) creator. Number 1 is not likely.

Yes, those are the two possible conclusions. As to what is "likely", well, who can say?

Aliens.