The place of truth

[Not_Now.Soon]

We are told not to lie. Not to give false witness. And even in how we worship, to worship God in Spirt and truth.

Yet here in these forums compairing topics of Christianity to topics in science, what can we say that we have done. Arguing points of intrest that one person holds as true and another holds as a falsehood, but often enough both sides rebuttal against our sources of what is true. Bible quotes are an authority until they are not understood or paint a different picture. Then they are conviently ignored, confidently reinterpreted with a newer "enlightened" understanding, or even just mocked alongside the poster who set the quote into the thread. Scientific figurings are counted with even less authority because we are more liberal about quoting one idea or another person and ignore others of the same merit or the same field of study. But somehow we stand by these points stronger anyways. Is this how we hold to the truth? Is this the merrit of our Christian standards? Muddying up any valid counter points and seeking to win the debate? We should be better then this.

In this light I'm giving a poll on what our greatest standard of truth is. What can correct and rebuke the others sources of knowledge and fact if they disagree, or if our understanding takes a nose dive. For anyone who frequents the Christianity & Science section, I hope you will add to this thread or at least give your answer to the poll.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I've made the poll answers so that a we can see who chose what answer, and so that you can choose a mamixum of two answers, in case there is a tie between options. Please be bold and give your answer here. I think we need a discussion on the merits or flaws of each standard for discerning the truth. And in general where we place our faith in when it comes to what is true and what isn't.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Last thought for tonight. Here are some of what I've heard as counter points to each answer in the poll.

• Life Experience: Anecdote. Witness testimony the weakest form of evidance.
• Logic: Too philosophical. No standard between one person's opinion and another's
• Studies / Reasurch: one finding counters another's. Too political and biased to be reliable.
• The Bible: Interpreting the bible. What's symbolic verses literal, what's meant for all times verses the audience of that time.
• Contact with God, with the Holy Spirit: arguments over whether it was really from God or not.
• Trusted religous teacher: Usually critisms are more placed into mocking the person being quoted, or personal attacks against them. Sometimes a vague answer to not take someone esle's word for it, or that there is a higher authority then so and so.
• Other source of truth: Any time I've seen a different source for truth and it's challenged, the chrallenges seem to be the same as the kinds listed for religous teachers.

These just some things I've seen to challenge any kind of claim to truth or correct understanding. My hope in sharing this is to put it out into the open before they are used to shut down anyone's answers. The purpose of this thread is to get away from that kind of behavior. Be aware of these challenges or why they are untrue if you answer and explain your answer.

 

[Eugene]

I suppose this is where we're to explain life experience. For the past two nights rain was forecast with science letting me down again and my lawn turning brown. On matters subject to man's learning, there are always failures of experimentation. why argue them?
There is scripture covering such disagreement in a way: Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Maybe we can discuss phony rain science issues, but not to doubtful disputations. Rom 14:1????

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I suppose this is where we're to explain life experience. For the past two nights rain was forecast with science letting me down again and my lawn turning brown. On matters subject to man's learning, there are always failures of experimentation. why argue them?
There is scripture covering such disagreement in a way: Rom 14:3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him.

Maybe we can discuss phony rain science issues, but not to doubtful disputations. Rom 14:1????

Maybe your right Eugene. It seems like these issues are in this forum section often enough. But perhaps bringing it up like this will only add fuel to the fire instead of calming the flames.

Thanks for the encouragement in the right direction.

 

[Barbarian]

There is no source of information, however reliable, that humans can't misunderstand. If science and scripture seem to contradict each other, it is because someone has misunderstood one or both of them.

As Martin Luther said, let us have the humility to admit that we can be wrong. Don't try to split Christians apart over issues that don't matter to salvation.

 

[jasonc]

Logic?

Define logic.

 

[Cygnus]

Don't try to split Christians apart over issues that don't matter to salvation.

It's been pointed out to you on more than several occasions that evolution when mixed with the bible destroys doctrine essential for salvation.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Arguing points of intrest that one person holds as true and another holds as a falsehood, but often enough both sides rebuttal against our sources of what is true. Bible quotes are an authority until they are not understood or paint a different picture.

My favorite part of your OP. Yes, yes and yes!

 

[Papa Zoom]

There is no source of information, however reliable, that humans can't misunderstand. If science and scripture seem to contradict each other, it is because someone has misunderstood one or both of them.

As Martin Luther said, let us have the humility to admit that we can be wrong. Don't try to split Christians apart over issues that don't matter to salvation.

I could have written this myself. Sounds exactly like something I'd say!

 

[Papa Zoom]

It's been pointed out to you on more than several occasions that evolution when mixed with the bible destroys doctrine essential for salvation.

Let's not go there with this thread. It heads off in the wrong direction.

 

[Cygnus]

Let's not go there with this thread. It heads off in the wrong direction.

No problem. I plan on creating new thread on that topic when i figure out all I want to say.

 

[Barbarian]

I could have written this myself. Sounds exactly like something I'd say!

In spite of your politics, you're a pretty smart guy.

 

[Papa Zoom]

In spite of your politics, you're a pretty smart guy.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

There is no source of information, however reliable, that humans can't misunderstand. If science and scripture seem to contradict each other, it is because someone has misunderstood one or both of them.

As Martin Luther said, let us have the humility to admit that we can be wrong. Don't try to split Christians apart over issues that don't matter to salvation.

The issue I see often in these threads is that scientific reasurch is quoted and scripture is bypassed, ignored, or rationalized away to be nothing of what it says. It basically says that scientific reasurch that is here today and changes tomorrow is a greater authority then the bible. I don't mean to say that our understand of scripture is spot on (see theology and Apologitics threads for scripture verses logic butt heads often) but when scientific reasurch and scripture have the occasion to butt heads, we should hold scripture as the authority. Or we should not say we hold the bible as an authority compaired to scientific understanding.

That said you and Eugene are right. When it is not concerning salvation we shouldn't split ourselves up about these issues.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Logic?

Define logic.

Mankind's rationell and understanding. Philosophy, detective work with dectutive or inductive reasoning, hypothesis before observation, theory to explain after observation. Almost any answer to why something occurs. It's very impressive on what we can determine as true and not true just by our logic and understanding. However we can be stubbernly unwavering in being wrong in spit of experience showing us the logic is wrong. In bibical aspects, consider doctrines that are not mentioned in the bible as our logic and rationelle, and an example of logic in error is Job's friends in their discussion with Job to turn from his sins and the explainations of his suffering.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

It's been pointed out to you on more than several occasions that evolution when mixed with the bible destroys doctrine essential for salvation.

Let's not go there with this thread. It heads off in the wrong direction.

While you're right Papa Zoom, that would head this thread in the wrong direction, it is one of the main reasons I made this post. There has been quite a bit of repeated bickering and talking past eachother over scientific precepts verses religous precepts. My hope was originally to talk about where we place the truth when considering multiple sources. As was pointed out earlier though this might not have been a good idea. Like poking a bear instead of letting it settle and hibernate.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

My favorite part of your OP. Yes, yes and yes!

It's just been an observation. In Apologitics and theology threads often scripture is pitted against other scripture with one section ignored and another pressed hard in support of a stance. Listening to a radio station a few weeks ago a man made a good point. We should bend ourselves to the bible regardless of our understanding, instead of bending the bible to our understanding and cherry picking verses to supports our positions.

In light of what I've seen I think it was a very good point.

 

[jasonc]

Mankind's rationell and understanding. Philosophy, detective work with dectutive or inductive reasoning, hypothesis before observation, theory to explain after observation. Almost any answer to why something occurs. It's very impressive on what we can determine as true and not true just by our logic and understanding. However we can be stubbernly unwavering in being wrong in spit of experience showing us the logic is wrong. In bibical aspects, consider doctrines that are not mentioned in the bible as our logic and rationelle, and an example of logic in error is Job's friends in their discussion with Job to turn from his sins and the explainations of his suffering.

Deduction. Logic.the bible uses logic.it must or otherwise, apologetics would be useless and syntax of any language incomprehensible.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Deduction. Logic.the bible uses logic.it must or otherwise, apologetics would be useless and syntax of any language incomprehensible.

Your right the bible has points where it uses logic, and it has other points that it doesn't. Many of the laws given are given without an explaination except at the end of that law God says "I am the LORD." Therefore I count logic when part of the bible to be by the standard of the bible. And thus it's at a higher standard then logic in general.

Would you count logic to be the higher standard, and say instead of the logic being higher because it was in scripture, but say that scripture is more trustworthy because it holds sound logic?

When logical rationelle and scripture overlap, would you count it as good more so because of the logic or because of it being in the bible?