That is an intriguing claim by anyone’s measure.
What do you mean by ‘spiritual’? And what is it to be ‘true’?
It sounds like you have already jumped on the ‘reduction’ bandwagon, ‘easily’ reducing the rich spiritual tradition in Christianity by an appeal to - what? Social factors/brain chemistry/illusion? If so, that would imply that you are a materialist, believing that the spiritual can be reduced to the material and thus is not transcendent at all. That is a position in common with many people.
tomatohorse can answer, but I’ve never sensed that most who say that they affirm “spiritual” realities are necessarily meaning that they insist “that the spiritual can be reduced to the material world and thus is not transcendent at all.” I find that most of them hope that there is a transcendent and spiritual reality.
I think when they distinguish affirming the “spiritual” from endorsing “religion,” that they are often saying that many literal claims of traditional religions seem to them contrary to the evidence (as in the Randi example), and that they are thus inviting us to share on what basis we affirm a spiritual hope, and the actual meaning of that for us.
1 Like
No, I haven’t. But I have studied under…and have used, as a professional consultant…a person who is producing, a six volume (i.e. 500- 600 detailed pages each) homeopathic repertory.
See, this hits the nail on the head.
-
Ayurveda, Tibetan Medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine, have been going on for centuries.
-
Homeopathy has been going on, for 200 - 300 years
-
Native American ceremonies, have been going on for centuries.
Then modern medicine comes along. Which has its virtues - emergency medicine, lab tests, etc. And brings good to the world. But how do we know, the three items I mentioned - are true or false?
We need to test the waters, for ourselves.
Sure, I can show the Swiss government study on homeopathy - for example. And they do look at statistical studies, etc.
The Swiss HTA report on homeopathy
But the key is to test the waters, for yourself. Spend several years as a patient - and as a student. Which I did for each, of the three disciplines.
I’m happy you at least are agnostic. And hoping Christianity is true. Just as I am hoping (which is also an officially allowed, EO and RC stance) - that universalism is true.
I haven’t heard of Derren Brown. I hope he’s not like this chap, I have watched on TV.
Oh, and least I forget. A US homeopathic history song - for you!
Bob - that is the statement I was referring to. That is ‘reduction’ plain and simple. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, just saying what it is.
My point was that once we start using terms like ‘spiritual’ and ‘truth’ it is natural that people will want to know what you mean.
If spirituality can be dismissed by ‘easy’ naturalistic explanations, then in what way is it ‘spiritual’? Reduction again. If by ‘spiritual’ we mean ‘supernatural’ - then by definition it cannot be dismissed as naturalistic. If ‘spiritual’ means no more than an experience of depth in one’s life, then that needs to be stated.
You may be right in ‘what they are asking’ - but all I’m asking is: is that what TH is asking?
Once again, I am not pushing back, just trying to get clarity.
@DaveB2.0 Spiritual would be beyond materialism. I’m hoping that there’s a spiritual realm, but I do not yet know that this is the case. I remain open to it though, and seek through spiritual practices. (I still go to church, for instance; I also read sacred texts, and practice meditation)
@Bob_Wilson You pretty much have it right. I used the term spiritual so that it would be inclusive of things beyond just the traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, etc.
@Holy-Fool-P-Zombie James Randi has a $1 million offer for anyone who can demonstrate the supernatural… in any way. It’s incredibly open and generous, and has been put out there for years. Many people have attempted (Reiki, dousing, homeopathy, psychic powers of all kinds, clairvoyance, you name it) but strangely enough all these people who claim to have all these powers just can’t seem to do what they say they can do on the day of the demonstration for some reason or another! You should check it out. Videos of Randi and his challenge abound on YouTube.
The thing is, he’s an accomplished stage magician, so he knows how most tricks are done.
Thanks for that clarification TH.
That’s the problem. Folks who “advertise”, “sell tickets” or “charge admission” - are not the real thing. Sure, they might be excellent stage magicians themselves. Or they might even have a demon (s) or evil spirit (s) - assisting them. But they are not, who you want - to hang around with.
I believe I needed to witness, the real stuff for myself. Perhaps to increase my faith. Or maybe to share with others. But they didn’t advertise", “sell tickets” or “charge admission”.
Take a look at this article - for example - for a real example:
Let me quote a bit, from the end:
When I ask Shaykh Taner about these things he tells me that he does nothing. That things happen by the will of Allah, who has all power to do and not by the will of Shaykh Taner who has no power at all.
I have asked Shaykh why he does not let people know that he can do these things.
His reply is always “I can’t do anything. If Allah wishes for something to happen, then it does. If I think that I can do anything else it is my Nafs talking, and if I say I can do this or do that, then I am saying that “I” have power, which is not true. Only Allah has power, only Allah can"Do”. To think anything else is saying that Allah has a partner."
Perhaps this is the biggest miracle of all.
It is interesting that just today I was reading about magic (illusionists) and psychology on the Guardian. As I was recently in Branson, MO, we saw Reza, and illusionist. The show was great. After the show, I was pondering that 500 years ago, heck even 150 years ago, the masses could be fooled that it was actually wizardry. Even myself cannot explain how they do it, but I refuse to believe it is magic. Sleight of hand and misdirection is all it is, unless you are a believer.
So it does make me wonder if perhaps miracles were happenstance tricks or simply not yet explained circumstances.
But even more than that and back to the article, it asserts that what we think we know, it just a perspective. This has implications for atheist and theist alike, as an atheist uses only his senses to interact with the material world, and yet those physical senses are not as reliable as we think… Food for thought, which only makes me more agnostic overall.
1 Like
Well, I don’t hear skepticism of most of religion’s supernatural claims as a reduction that nothing is ‘spiritual.’ Indeed, I think most of we Christians also find most of religion’s claims to be false.
Indeed, if skepticism of ‘supernatural’ claims means claims to miracles that violate physical laws (such as in the Randi example), some Christians believe that even much of what is seen even in their own Biblical tradition as doing that is not contrary to believing that God is actually working powerfully through the processes of the ‘natural’ world.
In any event, I personally would articulate skepticism of many claims that amazing events involve a suspension of cause and effect. But that doesn’t mean that I am not open to spiritual realities or even radical exceptions (Easter could be an example).
I’m simply trying to establish the fact that ‘supernatural’ as a concept needs to be elucidated. It is hard to show support for or criticism of statements that have little or vacuous meaning, without clarification of underlying terms.
Strangely enough, I DO hear it that way.
Clarity is good.
Q: Do you believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant or both? Why/why not?
-By ‘infallible’ I mean one of these two or both of the following two ideas:
–incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
– dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, certain, safe, sound, tried and tested
A: May I ask for clarification of your question, so that I can feel confident I am answering the correct question?
-By ‘Bible’ do you mean the OT and the NT in up-to-the-date translations? Include the apocryphal works as well?
-Are you asking if both testaments and the apocrypha are to be questioned in the same way?
-What kind of ‘mistakes’ are you asking about?
-Would you agree to the following? “Any one mistake in the Bible proves that all the rest of it is unreliable or untrue? No part of the Bible is reliable? Or at least, we have no way of knowing if it is, because of that one mistake?”
—Typo’s, scribal transcription errors, mix-up in dates (OT)? Got examples that we could look at?
–What are the ‘mistakes’ that shake your confidence and cause you to lose faith in God? Is your loss of faith derived from something in the Bible?
At least, this approach would tell us what your concern really is. And those concerns could be addressed by those who support them (who would give their reasons why they do) and those who deny them and give their reasons.
Forum conversations are all too often just throwing stuff against the wall and seeing what sticks. A moderated debate format would be more helpful, but probably not possible in cyber space.
For starters on clarity, I perceive that all forms of ‘Bibles’ lack “infallibility” in that its’ writers are capable of mistaken ideas. What most convinces me is the evident presence of significantly diverse beliefs, e.g. as amply illustrated in Pete Enns, “How the Bible Actually Works.” I also illustrate this on the forum in my O.T. paper, and especially in those on how the Gospel’s Jesus challenges some plain readings of the O.T.
I mentioned a RC priest, I hung around with. Who “allegedly” has the gift of healing and hearing the voice of God. Well, when he was in Illinois - I attended his healing services. One day, there was a woman speaking. She had terminal brain cancer. But she went to one, of the Catholic sacred sites - and was healed. Well, what does that mean - in terms of science? It means that the medical doctors, conducted all their tests…did all their therapies - brought in all the specialists… Before concluding, nothing more can be done. And it means that the Catholic scientists and medical doctors, reviewed all the tests, doctor reports, treatments, etc. And they also would follow up, with after healing tests (i.e. blood work, MRI scans, etc.).
There is a similar process, with the Bruno Groening Circle of Friends. I receive their journal. And they have healed cases, from around the world. But they also have a group, of worldwide medical specialists - investigating the doctors’ reports, tests, etc. Then they provide commentary, following the medical success report.
Here’s also a Native American medicine man I know. Who recorded some YouTube talks, at the Theosophical Society in America - in Wheaton, Illinois.
@Holy-Fool-P-Zombie Why doesn’t God heal amputees?
Also, I went to that very same theosophical society once!
@DaveB2.0 by infallible I mean incapable of error and authoritative in matters of Christian doctrine, faith, practice.
By “Bible” I will go with the traditional Bible (not apocrypha), and the traditional answer of them being inspired in the original versions, which are now lost.
Infallibility clearly does not function to protect against copying or translation errors.
My concern is that this is a huge claim for a book and there should be compelling evidence to back it up. As the saying goes, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” Not only does there not seem to be a lack of extraordinary evidence FOR infallibility, but there seems to be quite a few mitigating factors against it.
So… why accept that the Bible is anything more than a human book, like many others down through history?
That question was answered by me before. There’s historical evidence, that it has happed:
The answers
First, the Got Questions answer. Along with some other answers:
Is God real, or is he imaginary?
Why hasn’t God ever healed amputees?
Now the cases:
Cool. Tell me about it. What brought you there? Did you see a speaker or attend a workshop? If so, which one? Did you like it? Why or why not?
[quote=“tomatohorse, post:164, topic:14070”]
Whoa there, fella. The one does not entail the other. That is clear, isn’t it? You’ve really said two things there. I personally am not an infallibist (if there be such a word) in the first sense of my post above:
-–incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.
But I think it is infallible in the second sense:
-– dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, certain, safe, sound, tried and tested.
And in that second sense, what more would you ask of it?
I still think you are attacking that straw man - which is the first sense, above. I agree that that particular sense is not what the Bible is all about.
It does not follow that therefore it is not dependable, tried and tested, sound, etc. Dare, I say it is TRUE in those respects? Yes, I dare.
The most sensible and wise man on this general subject - of course, imho! - said the following. This is where I come from:
We regard the Scriptures as the records of God’s successive revelations to mankind, and particularly of the last and most perfect revelation of his will by Jesus Christ.
-Whatever doctrines seem to us to be clearly taught in the Scriptures; we receive without reserve or exception. We do not, however, attach equal importance to all the books in this collection. Our religion, we believe, lies chiefly in the New Testament. The dispensation of Moses, compared with that of Jesus, we consider as adapted to the childhood of the human race, a preparation for a nobler system, and chiefly useful now as serving to confirm and illustrate the Christian Scriptures.
Our leading principle in interpreting Scripture is this, that the Bible is a book written for men, in the language of men, and that its meaning is to be sought in the same manner as that of other books…Human language, …admits various interpretations; and every word and every sentence must be modified and explained according to the subject which is discussed, according to the purposes, feelings, circumstances, and principles of the writer, and according to the genius and idioms of the language which he uses. These are acknowledged principles in the interpretation of human writings
-We profess not to know a book, which demands a more frequent exercise of reason than the Bible. In addition to the remarks now made on its infinite connexions, we may observe, that its style nowhere affects the precision of science, or the accuracy of definition. Its language is singularly glowing, bold, and figurative, demanding more frequent departures from the literal sense, than that of our own age and country, and consequently demanding more continual exercise of judgment
-With these views of the Bible, we feel it our bounden duty to exercise our reason upon it perpetually, to compare, to infer, to look beyond the letter to the spirit, to seek in the nature of the subject, and the aim of the writer, his true meaning; and, in general, to make use of what is known, for explaining what is difficult, and for discovering new truths.
We reason about the Bible precisely as civilians do about the constitution under which we live; who, you know, are accustomed to limit one provision of that venerable instrument by others, and to fix the precise import of its parts, by inquiring into its general spirit, into the intentions of its authors, and into the prevalent feelings, impressions, and circumstances of the time when it was framed. Without these principles of interpretation, we frankly acknowledge, that we cannot defend the divine authority of the Scriptures. Deny us this latitude, and we must abandon this book to its enemies.
-If reason be so dreadfully darkened by the fall, that its most decisive judgments on religion are unworthy of trust, then Christianity, and even natural theology, must be abandoned;
-The worst errors, after all, having sprung up in that church, which proscribes reason, and demands from its members implicit faith. The most pernicious doctrines have been the growth of the darkest times, when the general credulity encouraged bad men and enthusiasts to broach their dreams and inventions, and to stifle the faint remonstrances of reasons, by the menaces of everlasting perdition. Say what we may, God has given us a rational nature, and will call us to account for it.
We answer again, that, if God be infinitely wise, he cannot sport with the understandings of his creatures. A wise teacher discovers his wisdom in adapting himself to the capacities of his pupils, not in perplexing them with what is unintelligible, not in distressing them with apparent contradictions, not in filling them with a skeptical distrust of their own powers. An infinitely wise teacher, who knows the precise extent of our minds, and the best method of enlightening them, will surpass all other instructors in bringing down truth to our apprehension, and in showing its loveliness and harmony.
-It is not the mark of wisdom, to use an unintelligible phraseology, to communicate what is above our capacities, to confuse and unsettle the intellect by appearances of contradiction. We honor our Heavenly Teacher too much to ascribe to him such a revelation. A revelation is a gift of light. It cannot thicken our darkness, and multiply our perplexities.
No mention of infallibility. Lots of emphasis on reason, study, wisdom, understanding - very human abilities.
Dave, I appreciate the efforts to clarify terms. You repeat that you believe the Bible can be “wrong and mistaken,” but is also “dependable, trustworthy, reliable, sure, and certain.”
Wouldn’t most hear those terms as conflicting and confusing? When someone cites a Biblical idea that I find “mistaken,” and claims it is “certain” because the Bible is reliably sure, how would he I sort out such apparently different assumptions?
Can you develop how you assume that a book that can be mistaken is always dependably certain?
if you notice, my quote was “or simply not yet explained circumstances…”
Just because science can’t explain how the body can ‘heal’ itself, doesn’t mean the body can’t heal itself. We know very little about human physiology in comparison to what there is to know. We don’t even fully understand cancer. A Dr who “thinks a case is hopeless and terminal” is merely expressing his limitations that if nothing in the condition changes, the patient will likely be dead. So this doesn’t prove a miracle. Isn’t it odd how all these miraculous healings seem to be limited to hidden ailments? Why don’t limbs grow back? I believe Paidions claim a limb grew back, to which I don’t believe, but never-the-less some people believe limbs grow back. So… I mean, why would God’s miraculous healing be limited to hidden ailments? I’ll tell you why, in my opinion: Because these are NOT (edited to include “directly”) God’s doing directly, but happen as a result of our physiology. That seems better explained than trying to explain why limbs don’t grow back, but that at the same time miracles are totally alive and well…
Randy,
You are going to have to do a lot better than that. A story from the 16th century and an article that it happens? What if I told you the tooth fairy comes out on a full moon, but only if you are blind? Does that make it true? I mean, you can’t disprove it…
First, it’s not an assumption. And no, I don’t see any conflict.
Dependably certain about WHAT? What do you mean, specifically? Every jot and tittle? Each date that seems in conflict? How man fish Peter really caught?
Can a book be mistaken about sheep mating in front of a striped pole, but at the same time give us dependable information about a real resurrection, the judgment to come, the glory of God? Yes of course.
We’re back to sound-bites. I do believe the bible is infallible in the sense I stated earlier. That was the question. To develop that further on a forum is for me just simply a) tiresome - read one of the 10,000 books on it if you’re interested - and b) pointless.