Well stated. I cannot argue against any of the points that you bring to focus. At the highlighted text is a most interesting point. Those questionable historical facts are the issues that require that added element of faith/trust/confidence from each individual. So, regardless of which option the individual chooses (true or false) will determine the 'fact' characteristic as seen by each individual. To those choosing the 'false' option, renders the whole or merely parts of the Bible as 'mistaken facts'; and to the person who chooses the option of "true", then the entirety or selected segments are 'fact'. Those options do not violate the definition of the term 'fact', wherein the thing believed to be true and real, is chosen by the individual,,, not mandated either way upon the entirety of society, but a matter of choice as to what to 'believe'. The choice to believe or not to believe makes the difference as to whether it is 'fact' or 'fancy', in keeping with the definition. In either case of choice... it remains a 'fact'. Thank you for that input... I enjoy reading such thoughts that you have expressed.
To say that they are interchangeable is not true. The words are similar but are not direct synonyms. The common similarity is the issue of 'belief' as in 'believed to be true or real'. It is because of that 'believe' factor or commonality that prevents them from being synonyms. Believing, will allow ambiguity in interpretation of the words. I am saying that everyone is entitled to their own belief and subsequently entitled to form their own basis of 'fact'. BTW: My apology for the 'ordained minister' comment. I thought I had read in one of your posts such a comment, but I was mistaken.
---- Ehem excuse me . for ROFLMAO. I suspect only an american has the balls to say such a thing. Good for you , but just please dont expect everyone - apart from - a few gullible Yanks to share your belief in every word of the Biebel. Truth ? truth - ? as Pontius Pilate was alleged to have said What is truth?" (John 18:37-3 Pilate's response is fascinating . "What is truth?", I dont think he voiced the question as a genuine query - it is a rhetorical question, a statement describing reality as Pilate observes it - there is no truth, there are only constructed ideologies and practical necessities and people act based upon these and function within the social/economic/political realms generated by these constructs. Right and wrong, truth and justice exist only within the relativistic confines and context of these constructs. Pilate's response was quintessential a modern response - in a world of relativity, "what is truth?" In a world dominated by pragmatic realities, ideological loyalties, religious indoctrination and political manipulation what, indeed, is truth? ------ btw - read my siggy abt theories + "facts" . + I look forward to your definition/understanding of "TRUTH " - ......
Perhaps it would be of more benefit to tackle them in the same place, along with the concepts of belief and perception and evidence(without the religious meaning parameter)? These things are interconnected in such a way as it becomes difficult to speak of one while avoiding the others. If everyone has their own basis of fact, then one single thought or idea or belief can be a fact and 'not a fact' at the same time and both are right and wrong at the same time. Aside from the problem of the paradox, you wind up defeating the purpose of calling it a fact in the first place. Wouldn't the act of showing such an item as false invalidate it as fact regardless of the basis of fact for either party? I understand the difficulty of keeping track of so many players on the board. No harm done. Thank you.
I can envision your concerns in the above matters, however, the major problem that would exist is that little thing called human nature (consisting of all the inherent as well as all the learned biases and prejudices). Such an example I have pointed out in another post, wherein a former Supreme Court Justice kept on the wall of her office, a placard which carried an inscription from the book of Deuteronomy. Her rationale was that it kept reminding her daily of the teachings that she received in her Synagogue. Hence, no 'real' separation of powers. Even though she signed an Oath of Office that was designed to insure no such biases, she admitted to such a bias. As you so eloquently pointed out in a former post, the definitions that are found in the Strongs' dictionary, carry with them both sides of the conflict, why not then use that definition as the standard? That way both ends are justly served. The problem I see with that, is the fact that using that set of definitions would require the usage of the Holy Scripture as a valid form of evidence. You can imagine how that would set with those that are opposed to the Bible or even other religions that do not adhere to the Bible (thus my reasoning for asking for others (perhaps from another religion) to give input. There has to be a solution to the problem. Invalidation then would have to involve other evidence and that other evidence would necessarily have to exclude 'logic' as 'logic' immediately establishes a bias against religion in regards to 'supernatural' activities. Example, my basis of fact being the Bible, another persons not being the Bible. In my reality, the Bible is true and real, in the others reality, my reality appears as a delusion. The problem would be the changing of one belief or the other. That is essentially what the Christian agenda is... to cause as many conversions in belief as possible. You already know what sort of problems that results in. Honesty is the best policy.
The fact is, we have developed and created all the modes, devices, systems and formulas of measure by which we define physical attributes.... Are we then able to claim that there is nothing beyond these physical attributes because the systems that we alone have created are unable to measure it?
Good question. I will defer to those who might think that man has learned all there is to know about the physical world. I would add this: is it possible that the physical 'universe' is only a small part of the 'universe'? Is that possibility a 'fact'?
Religion itself is an interesting beast, it makes claim of defined points of absolutism; in essence it dogmatically limits our capacity of thought and expression using it's own aspects of measure.
Redirect those questions to the science forum. Capacity of thought and physical attributes would probably be better suited for the science segment of the PF.
In reading this relevant part of the definition of 'fact', you see it is talking about "something believed to be true or real". http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fact Something (in the example of the OP) the Bible is that something. That sentence in the definition would look really strange and weird if you substituted 'believing' in the place of 'something': it would then read "believing believed to be true or real". So you can see, that 'believing' or even "believe" will not work in that sentence structure. However, if you say "..the Bible believed to be true or real..." makes more sense and fits the structure.
Depending on what religion you are talking about. The Bible makes no restriction such as those that you have listed above, but speaks contrary to your suggestion. "Luk 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible." "Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." So, if there is a restriction on the capacity of thought and expression, that restriction is man-made, and the power of God removes that restriction, making all things possible. Your choice which road to travel.
No. The relevant part is the question to the issued statement of which the answer is yes...the fact is your belief.
And the relevant part of this thread is the subject of "fact". In searching out the solution to that problem, turn first to a viable source of the basic information pertaining to that subject, which is the definition. That definition presents a consideration that is applicable to any subject even a subject outside of religion. So until an understanding of that consideration presented by the definition is resolved to a point where it can be applied to the question in the OP, then we are still working with the definition. As an example: substitute the word Bible in the OP with the word Science (which is also an incorporeal thing), are you still willing to cast aside that consideration presented in the definition of 'fact'? Remember, science is just an intellectual tool; science has no more physical existence than does religion.
There is a belief that every life has chosen their position and condition, that it is an offering to their knowledge through experience. I understand the thought, it's obvious that there is no aspect of equality in these positions..... There is incredible suffering that exists. It is difficult for the mind to accept that a creator could create one life to suffer, discarded and abused; and another into a caring and nurturing environment. We are pondering concepts of perfection..... How does a perfect being indulge in extreme aspects of inequality in how we are created? The mind has different ways of dealing with such a thought, even to go as far into ridiculousness to create a separate being..... A scape goat.... "The devil did it", or my favorite mind (*)(*)(*)(*).... "Does not the potter have power over the clay to make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor?.... To make the riches of his glory known to those he had afore prepared unto glory", God's chosen! Another mind comes to terms with this by actually being mindful in thought that we must have had some sort of choice in it. But then we begin to think further, why would any life choose to suffer? The conclusion to coddle such a thought is that there must be a purpose to suffering in ones decision to experience it! Oh but we have just begun weaving, if there is purpose to suffering and knowledge to be gained through the experience of suffering, there must be knowledge to be had from many positions in life..... Suddenly the mind begins to reincarnate itself through the necessity of knowledge through all the experiences to be had. The interesting thing about each of these paths in thought is that suffering has to exist.... To make God's glory known, or the simple knowledge through the experience of Karmic growth..... But wait, to package it up nice and neat..... Suffering is a necessity towards knowledge in either example, however, there is a loop hole.... At any time, any life, you have a choice not to suffer; join us here in God's glory or join us here in thought that suffering is an illusion through the attachment to ego...... Side note to logic and reason, if you are able to comprehend what is being purported here and accept it as truth, well, you are already there! Choice? No, no, no.... Choice in this instance is the illusion!!!!!!! A tool used for those at this point of acceptance to stroke their own ego! Now is the time to stop edifying yourself, break free of this terrible cage of belief and all of it's indulgences that condemn a life to suffer.
In an infinite number of lives in this body and mind and all that has influenced it in thought, never could I accept what you purport to be the true interpretation of God....... Now, to consider logic and reason, if you walked within my shoes in the identical biological makeup and influence surrounding it, how would your choice be any different than mine? Were you created with some innate quality to discern this choice in such a way and I was created without it? If we were created in absolute equality within this example, are you just better than I am? Are you God's vessel that he had afore prepared unto glory, and I am the vessel to be destroyed so that you might receive his glory? If you are in fact correct, I willingly sacrifice myself to that knowledge, that you might receive his glory.... I hope that you find nobility in this sacrifice where your God has created me to be this vessel..... It does not change my offering to you!
Indeed there are many hundreds if not millions of 'beliefs' out there in this world. And each of those beliefs and possibly more are all optional for the choosing by the individual. For some, I suppose it could be difficult for the mind to accept the mentions you have made. again, acceptance of rejection is a matter of personal choice. Considering that our being is not perfect, are we really in a position to judge and potentially condemn that which is considered (as you mentioned) "perfection"? As for the HOW, you would have to inquire of that one that is "perfection". Again, are you so 'perfect' that you can question that one that is more perfect than you? Remember you are the one who laid the groundwork in this discussion of 'considering perfection'. Perplexing, don't you think? That is of course conditioned upon the premise that one actually makes such a choice. In other words, one would start scheming to see if one can create a better life and possibly one that is better than the hand that has been dealt to him/her. OK. Advocating Freewill. OK. Life predetermined by God's glory... OK ... God exists if God is the one that has predetermined everything. To blame God is to recognize God and the existence of God. Advocating Freewill again. You really do need to make up your mind.
Please show quotation of or link to this alleged statement of mine where I purported "to be the true interpretation of God....." Your use of the words "identical biological makeup" makes this an easy one. It would still be my choice. You see, you said nothing about the soul or spirit, but only the identical biological makeup. I draw distinction between this physical (biological) body that I inhabit and me as the being that I am. No difference with regard to 'faith'. "Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [of himself] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith." It is that 'faith' that allows us to receive that spirit of discernment... Faith, a part of the spiritual body, is much akin to the muscles of the flesh body. If you don't exercise it, it will become subject to atrophy. Better than? NOPE. But then comes the personal perspective... just better off, because I know where I will be when this physical body stops functioning. I cannot receive His Glory. That glory is His alone. So that little slip of suggesting that my glory (which I have none) is dependent upon your destruction is plainly spoken through you not knowing the Bible. Fortunately for you, that is not how it works. So drop all the self sacrifice notions. Well, as far as the nobility thing goes.. I have no idea of where you obtained such a vision... but anyway, that is your vision. As for me, just give me a little tar paper shack on the south side and across the wrong side of the train tracks of heaven.
I'm not the one quoting the bible, anyone seen someone doing that around here? So now we're playing simplistic word games? biological makeup, soul or spirit whatever you want to title it.... If it were identical to mine Whoops, there's that bible quotation you alone use to purport truth. God must have forgotten to deal me in thankfully.... But of course he would have known that this is something that is impossible for me to receive right? What good is a personal perspective and to be given one that should have been known to contradict God's desire, just to use it as an example of destruction.... This is a loving God.... Highly conditional! Let me quote your belief that you might understand it better.... Romans 9 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Make known the riches of his glory, I said receive his glory; do I need to spell it out.... How do you suppose he makes the riches of his glory known if it isn't an offering? I want you to know my riches but stand on the other side of a cage just to look upon them? Sounds awful! Oh, this cut and paste dissection of a post, is it really necessary beyond removing contextual value to what is being said?
Is it really difficult to respond to someone without dissecting a post, the only thing I see in doing so is destroying any context and making the entire thing highly convoluted..... Sit independent upon your expression without having to dissect another's, that is what I think nobility looks like
