Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
The fact it is written is implied since it is a book. Men can write, God doesn't that's also assumed. Since interpretation is subjective and God should be personal he probably assumed it would be individual (read as mis) interpreted. That is assuming that God has a consciouness. The machines at the Hershey Company make reese's pieces put people still argue which candy is the bestand how it's made. Me I appreciate the goodness of the end result (Sorry I'm really hungry and craving sweets).
I don't have a right interpretation, just my interpretation which is a right fit for me. I go about validating my interpretation with intuition, logic and trying the stip as much humanity out of the bible as possible.
Awful lot of assumptions in that post Tacka.
Though why God would need to make assumptions when he is All Knowing is a bit strange
wouldn't you think.
But again my point, Why didn't God make the Bible resistant to interpretation.
This is what I mean, no argument, no mistake, no changing! yours truly God.
He is Perfect( it is claimed) wouldn't His Word be as well?
Well first off, God doesn't make assumptions people do. We assume he makes assumptions, based on the assumption he has a consciouness. I disagree with all of them. I try and strip as much subjective truth based on human preconceptions as possible. Secondly, God didn't make the Bible anything. Men made the Bible to best interpret their ideas of God and Jesus. God did (according to the Bible) write down guidlines for us to follow once, but we destroyed those. Everything since then has been our best guess. This doesn't preclude God from being perfect. It's just fuel for man being less than perfect.
(January 16, 2010 at 7:09 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote:
(January 16, 2010 at 12:48 pm)tackattack Wrote: Objective truth would be observable, able to be described, peer-reviewed and lead to the best knowable truth. Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views only see scientific evidence as proof. How can reason (being an intangible construct) then be evidence. All of religion is intangible since religion itself is a construct. It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations. Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something. The fact you use the word God in a sentce actually takes it from your electrical synapses of thought and ascribes a definition to it. The details of that definition are subjective and debatable, but a definition none-the less. Religion is about universally defining the concept of God. If religion would get out of the self-service industry and talk more to people it might appear less subjective to outside observers... must work at some point today.... .
grrrr
Tell me tackattack are all these words meant as a reply to my question or as diversion? I bluntly put that question to you because I find it somewhat dissapointing that you seem to think I would take it for an answer. You must know I really have liked your inquisitive postings so far but it seems some other thing is creeping in now.
Objective truth, ah that ever elusive treasure of knowledge. According to Kant it (the noumenon) never will be observable, so I don't know how you came to conclude that it is observable?
"Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views", is that the category you had in mind for me dear friend? By now you should know I value more than the material. The atheistic part has nothing to do with what follows ("only see scientific evidence as proof"). And please don't put the distinction of what is tangible and what is intangible on evidence. Mathematics and logic are part of science and they both are intangible yet they constitute proof. 1 + 1= 2 you see?
If all of religion really is only intangible we're surely done here. But that is not what they tell in church don't they?
logic and intuition do not count as observation only as logic and intuition. You cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone.
"Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something." So there is some universal lexicon you have access to? Definitions are words, my friend, human language, and words alone do not necessarily constitute reality. Hell, it's even debatable whether words can get us anyway near truth. As Wittgenstein said "a new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion". But then again, he also said "our greatest stupidities may be very wise".
When you objectify religion it becomes a comparitative study of religions and the most obvious fact it presents is that religion is a subjective experience all over the globe and through all ages.
I don't use the word 'God' in sentences. I only use the word 'god' in sentences because writing in capitals would mean that I know the guy and I won't feign that. See it as my token of respect for truth.
Work? You'd better take a good nap and think things over.
Oh and yes that question. It kind of still stands. So here is it again: How can you distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretations if you have only access to your own subjective judgement?
It was intended as an answer, not a diversion. What seems to be creeping in now?!? I'm lost on that one.
OK objective truth I'll redefine. Truth is subjective information because it's what? unobservable, non-subject to peer review, able to be counted, imitated, describable. If it is the antithesis of theese things I'm calling it objective. Perhaps I should have used the term "non-subjective informational truth", but objective seemed better for brevity.
I was not ascribing you to any goup particularly, just stating that some athesits prescribe to materialistic views. That's not a fallacy so no need to paint it as such. As far as intangible evidence as proofs; mathmatical evidence supports mathmatical findings, logical thought progression supports a theoretical premise, historical evidence or provenance provide historical proofs. My point was the type of proof is relative (as it should be) to it's summation. You can use math or logic or history to prove some areas of let's say astronomy, but astronomical evidence that is observable is the best proof.
While I "cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone" (refferencing logic and intuiton) I am not concluding anything about the definition of reality you're using in the above quote. I am concluding spiritual truths based off spiritual evidence supported by logic, intuition, peers, and observations.
Do you have a "universal lexicon" that states that blue is blue? No we take the largest concensus of the broadest idea with as little specifics as possible and try and define common universal truth.
So an answer to your question of how to define subjective truths from a subjective perspective and attain a level of objectivity? Use objective language and tools stated above (observable, imitatable, describable, peer-review able, etc.) and constantly analyze your own perspective for as clear a view as possible.
