Originally posted by jmdewey60
Well I have invested a lot of money in more Bibles and more lexicons and more study aids, so I am not giving up on it completely.
I just think doing things like thinking God wrote the KJV is not at all helpful.
There are bad things in it which I have tried to point out. That does not mean throw the thing out entirely, but to see it for what it is, which is a
helpful guide, once you understand which parts were created through good intentions, and which were not. I'm working through the maze to figure that
out and will keep you all posted on my progress.
Imo a 'healthy' attitude.
It's difficult to put 'values' to anything without some 'higher' reference-points, but as the contributor Racasan wrote app. a month ago elsewhere,
'truths' can have greater or smaller probability.
I know that many religionists have a tendency to strive for absolutes (which is no problem for me, as long as said absolutes aren't pushed on other
people), but epistemologically speaking the whole concept of absolutes per se is a very, very difficult position to justify, and in the case of
specific absolutes impossible to validate at all.
But contrary to what the most invasive (and least informed) christian missionaries regurlarly claim as a part of their propaganda-campaigns, "all is
not lost" because we have no absolutes.
The quotation from Racasan is actually one expression of the epistemologically part of the Jain religion (popularized through the writer R.A.Wilson),
where there are 'local truths' which in their local context are fully functional and which can give a sound basis for existence. (I have admittedly
tinkered a bit with it myself).
Say e.g. gravity (or electro-magnetism), which most likely are phenomena restricted to cosmic existence. Trans-cosmically they are (according to
contemporary knowledge) non-existent.
So while it's anybody's guess on how an alleged trans-cosmic existence really is (though we do have some safe
indications that a trans-cosmic existence as such is real..... through quantum entanglement), we can give functional, but relative 'values' to things
by using the best of what our 'local truths' with high probability give us.
I've had some interesting exchanges with Akragon about that on more abstract subjects, and while he and I ultimatively don't agree academically on the
finer points (and me being a non-theist) ofcourse don't agree theologically, this isn't really that much of a problem. Akragon has from his direction
arrived to conclusions, which I from my 'mundane' direction can support a long part of the way and even give my own 'approval' of as being
An unreasonable amount of time and energy is wasted on this forum, debating undebatable theist claims of ultimate truth/reality/absolutes. Usually
because of the missionary mindset's obsession with having exclusive monopoly on 'truth', falsely promoting the subjective to objectivity.
For those of us who aren't in such a need of an enforced 'truth'-monopoly, but either can accept personal (but not pushy) 'truths'....or as in my case
'relative truths', the possibilities of both co-existence and learning are much bigger than what the invasive missionaries ever can offer or
And my interest in this thread comes from, that it more than any other thread demonstrates and profiles all the options of faith vs. fact,
subjectivity vs. objectivity, truth/reality-seeking methodologies, epistemology, the possibility of co-existence (or not) between different worldviews
(and from a psychological perspective also gives an insight in the fanatical mindset).
So while you, jm, may use several 'maze-solving' criteria differing from mine, I believe that we walk parallel paths, not further apart than
meaningful communication is possible, where some less visible common basics and values are at play.
edit on 22-10-2011 by bogomil because:
short addition and spelling