What serious inquiry is and what it is not

Disclaimer: This post is not directed at Lovesgravity specificly. It is directed any everybody, just as any other public post is. It is partly inspiried by lovesgravity, but that is as far is it goes.

I will begin here with an example of what a serious question regarding Christianity might look like. I will follow it up with what an example of a question that is not serious inquiry.

Ex1.(Serious inquiry) The New Testament is comprised of four gospels, the acts of the apostles, several epistles and cannonical letters, and the book of revelation. Only the four gospels deal with the life and teachings of Christ directly, yet Christians take the entire book as the word of God.
There are Gospels not contained in the New Testament, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary. Generally speaking Christiains not only do not take these as the word of God, but ingnor them entirely. Why then do Christians pay no attention to these Gospels, which deal directly with the life and teachings of Christ, but consider books such as Philemon and Titus, which seem to have little bearing on the teachings of Christ, to be the word of God.

Ex2. (Not serious inquiry) How can Christians believe in the Bible when it is worng at about so many things? The Noah's ark story is stupid and impossible (insert anti-Noah diatribe here). The Bible says that God is unchanging, but God sometimes makes differnt laws for different time periods and different situations. If God were unchanging there would only ever be one law for everything. God can't be a loving God because he destroyed Soddom and Gemorrah. Christians need to realize that their Bible is wrong in many places. I'm really just trying to learn about Christianity. I just want a legitimate response. I don't want to hear that context is important or that God gives different laws to address differnt problems or that much of the Bible is methaphoric. I just want a legitimate response, but I can only get BS from Christians. Again, I'm only trying to learn about Christianity.


Epilouge: Serious inquiry involves putting aside your contempt and perjudices (if any) towards the group or theory that your are trying to learn about. Additionally, it involves accepting the fact that you may not hear what you want to hear. You must ask a question free from nastiness and scorn, and pay attention to the answer. If the only answer that you will accept as "legitimate" is "Well I guess us (insert religion of choice here) are full of shit after all" then you are not engaged in serious inquiry. You cannot geniunely learn about and shout insults at a belief system at the same time. You can do one or the other, not both. Finally, serious inquiry seeks to learn what others believe, it does not seek to point out to others why you think that they are wrong.

 

About what? The New Testament warns against paying to much attention to Jewish Fables: "The Noah's ark story is stupid and impossible."

What if God's creation needs more than one specific set of laws to function properly? Would it be wrong for an unchanging God to give appropriate laws to different parts of creation with the intent of benefiting said creation?

Why can't God be loving and destructive at the same time? If you live after your mortal flesh dies, don't you think the whole concept of death is funny?

lol....

Unless your prejudice is correct. In that case, it would be wrong not to discriminate against a group.

 

Damnit Kharakov, You replied to what was my example of what serious inquiry is not as if I had been aking that question seriously.

 

Ohh. I shouldn't take you seriously then?

 

Professor

As a secular inquirer.
Occam must step up a level

How can any of the gospels of the bible be taken as the word of god?
Because the bible says so?
Or because the bible says christ was god?

Both are cases of logical 'bootstraping'
[lifting oneself off the ground by ones own bootstraps]

Occam involves no contempt or prejudice in the above question.
And there is NOTHING occam does not want to hear.
He has freely admitted he would believe in your god.
If your god manifested in reality.

As far as occam can ascertain. Everything in the bible was written by men.
And if that same is the 'revealed' word... what god 'would' say.
Then who decides that?
More men.

Occam

 

It's also a two-way street, Jumbo. I've read many a so-called religious poster questioning in the same vein as your "not serious" question, such as "I'm just looking for the truth", then using every perverted logic and contrivance and manipulation in the book searching for supposed failings in any viewpoint not in accord with their own using entirely specualtive religious perceptions as supposed 'fact'. Liars will lie, manipulators will manipulate, distorters will distort, and whether "religious" or not, it all comes down to the psychological bent of the individual.
Oh ~ and the religious invariably prosetylize.

 

Do you think we can transcend our own misconceptions without outside influence?

 

I believe that "outside influences" are the motive forces that initiate change. The pain of any experience will eventually force re-evaluation, while pleasure solidifies behavioural tendencies. "False" pleasures such as recreational drug and alcohol abuse eventually lead to painful experience, thereby creating the grounds and reasons for transcendent change. Those who refute opportunities to transcend current experiential or perceptual deficiencies are simply claiming their right to live the experience of choice ~ the "sun" shines upon good and evil alike; to each his own.
The "system" appears to be perfect.
However one can transcend personal misconceptions easier if one accepts that one is far from perfect in one's own perceptions and becomes, as is said "reborn like a little child" by reviewing and re-learning the truths of reality from un-biassed sources. This has an added advantage of initiating understanding and acceptance of all, as well as becoming "my brother's keeper" and assisting in the process of belief review wherever possible. Even when painful.

 

How do we know that information does not come from a biased source?

 

Generally by merit of assessment.

 

Doesn't this rely upon our own understanding of merit (we cannot turn to an outside source for the understanding of merit, but can only compare to our own personal experiences)?

 

Exactly. By merit of our own personal experience, we asses. By refuting experience because of inherant bias, prejudice, or dogmatic adherance, the real truth of reality will never be perceived accurately. By rejecting the fullness of life and experience, experience, perception, and understanding are severley limited and compromised. That is why people who have had life-threatening or experiential trauma are "changed forever". They are in fact "born again" by having connected to deeper aspects of life and reality, which is truth. The "near death" experience, or overcoming addictions etc involves the reality of experience which overpowers the falsity of dogmatic belief systems that are all talk no substance. Those who limit their experience will eventually one day come face-to-face with the truth of reality, even if it is on their death bed, because that cannot be avioded. That way everyone can "repent", even up until death.

 

Dude, we asses!!! lol.... plural of donkeys...

Everything else you said was great. I just love it that you left off the s....

 

Truth is stranger than fiction indeed.

 

Awesome picture. happy...