The Christian Agnostic

I'm going with Webster's Dictionary definition, which is the gold standard of American English, and carries greater weight than McGill university or anonymous poster IBDman



Agnosctic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
 
I'm going with Webster's Dictionary definition, which is the gold standard of American English, and carries greater weight than McGill university or anonymous poster IBDman



Agnosctic:
a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

Pretty similar definition to the one I posted.

It's the "unknown vs unknowable" aspect that I find most interesting. OBVIOUSLY in every single day of every life we have many "unknowns" which we all agree are probably not real. It is only with regards to "God" that anyone ever carves out a special "epistemology" of "agnosticism".

If agnosticism is technically that the question cannot be known then I'm fine with the carve-out exception. Personally, though, I am of the opinion that if any single human CLAIMS there is a God then that God, by definition, can be "known" since that person CLAIMS to know that God's existence.

The agnostic is, for the most part, just making a special "stop" on the logic train that is not necessarily how they operate on any given day in real life.

There's no agnostic who is driving down the highway thinking that "it is an unknown possibility that someone has erected a giant clear glass wall across the highway that I will run into at 70mph and crash". No, they go about their day saying "There is no real evidence to suggest such a thing exists so I won't behave in any way that indicates it's even a possibility and I will continue to drive at 70mph knowing there is almost no chance of my running into a giant glass wall."



"Sordidly tricked speckles"
 
Well I am not a linguistic expert.
I'm always happy to help.

Science deals with nature (falsifiable models that predict nature). Religion/theism deals with the supernatural, which includes "gods" but includes everything surrounding the supernatural. Buddhism is a religion without any gods, i.e. it has much theism of the supernatural. Those who insinuate that Buddhism is not a religion need to explain that to the Buddhist monks.

So someone either has some theism and is therefore theistic, or said person has no theism and is atheistic, i.e. lacking any theism.

Can you think of any religion that insists that it is not a religion, and that hijacks normal, everyday words pertaining to the earth and weather as names for the deities and spirits in its pantheon, and as such, declares itself to be "settled science" and that tries like the dickens to be a clone of Christianity, i.e. "repent of your carbon sins, but it might already be too late," and "the waters shall prevail 15 cubits and extreme weather shall kill all life," and "May the heathens/deniers be forced to face their Climate justice when they are brought before the Ground Zero of Judgement," etc. ...?

The supernatural is inherently unfalsifiable. All of science is completely falsifiable and unambiguous (formally defined). The next time you observe someone claiming that Global Warming is science, notice that everything mentioned about the faith is unfalsifiable and that nothing is unambiguously defined. Just notice.

8ff26a0a36773ea9fa84a4b49575a4a8.jpg
 
I'm always happy to help.

Science deals with nature (falsifiable models that predict nature). Religion/theism deals with the supernatural, which includes "gods" but includes everything surrounding the supernatural. Buddhism is a religion without any gods, i.e. it has much theism of the supernatural. Those who insinuate that Buddhism is not a religion need to explain that to the Buddhist monks.

So someone either has some theism and is therefore theistic, or said person has no theism and is atheistic, i.e. lacking any theism.

Can you think of any religion that insists that it is not a religion, and that hijacks normal, everyday words pertaining to the earth and weather as names for the deities and spirits in its pantheon, and as such, declares itself to be "settled science" and that tries like the dickens to be a clone of Christianity, i.e. "repent of your carbon sins, but it might already be too late," and "the waters shall prevail 15 cubits and extreme weather shall kill all life," and "May the heathens/deniers be forced to face their Climate justice when they are brought before the Ground Zero of Judgement," etc. ...?

The supernatural is inherently unfalsifiable. All of science is completely falsifiable and unambiguous (formally defined). The next time you observe someone claiming that Global Warming is science, notice that everything mentioned about the faith is unfalsifiable and that nothing is unambiguously defined. Just notice.

8ff26a0a36773ea9fa84a4b49575a4a8.jpg

Not in my wheelhouse.

I only took one religious studies class in college.

I can't argue something which you apparently are an expert in.
 
200w.webp
200w.webp
200w.webp

That definition is so nebulous, diffuse, and ill defined it could apply to anything and everything.
Not at all, but don't worry. I don't think anyone on this board holds you to any high academic standards or level of English comprehension. I certainly don't expect you to understand your Greek roots, and if anyone on this board gives you heartburn for being a total ignoramus, you just refer them to me; I'll straighten it out. You have just as much right to spam this board with nonsense as Terry does.

8ff26a0a36773ea9fa84a4b49575a4a8.jpg
 
Not at all, but don't worry. I don't think anyone on this board holds you to any high academic standards or level of English comprehension. I certainly don't expect you to understand your Greek roots, and if anyone on this board gives you heartburn for being a total ignoramus, you just refer them to me; I'll straighten it out. You have just as much right to spam this board with nonsense as Terry does.
Bulverism. Bigotry.
Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.
Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.
bigotry, bulverism,
 
I don't think anyone on this board holds you to any high academic standards or level of English comprehension. I certainly don't expect you to understand your Greek roots

I know what gnosis is. I have at least twenty posts on this board about the Gnostics.
But I didn't see the need to strut around blustering about Attic Greek words because we are speaking English, and the Webster's Dictionary definition of agnostic is the gold standard of American English.
 
I far prefer to discuss than to argue, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Let me know if you ever want to discuss the Bible. We'll have a blast.

2ae1079d3119615490806d7885fc1fcb.jpg

I know the Bible very well.

But I will ask a question.

Are the books that are not included in the Bible actually biblical texts such as the Book of Ezekiel?
 
I know the Bible very well.
I'm sure you do. I rate my own Biblical acumen as "moderate."

Are the books that are not included in the Bible actually biblical texts such as the Book of Ezekiel?
There are three answers to this question, each dependent upon its context.

1. The logic puzzle: Question: What weighs more, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers? Answer: They're the same; a pound is a pound. Question: Which books that are not in the Bible are Biblical texts? Answer: none of them. If they're not in the Bible, they're not Biblical texts.

2. The base reference. Before a group of people begin a game of Scrabble, they agree on a particular dictionary or word list as the final determinant of what constitutes a valid word. Similarly, with so many versions of the Bible, in order to facilitate discussion, often one particular version is selected as the context for discussion. Personally, I use KJV as my go-to version unless another version is specified beforehand. Anything not in the KJV is normally not considered Biblical ... although I realize that this answer will infuriate certain Christians, especially certain orthodox sects.

3. The question of faith. Your question really is one of faith, i.e. what someone believes is the Word of God and uses as a basis for his personal faith. I am an atheist, and as such, I don't reference the Bible for any theistic doctrine. Instead, just as the manner in which I select the KJV as my base reference version in the preceding point, I outsource my theism interpretations to gfm7175, i.e. I go with whatever he says something means or how something should be interpreted. So for this answer, we'll have to wait until gfm7175 tells me what answer I should give you, then I'll give you that answer as my definitive answer.

@gfm7175 re: Tinkerpeach's question above. I'm on tap to provide an answer and I'm outsourcing to you. What is the correct Christian response?

@Into the Night - I'd be interested in your thoughts as well.

99628464b348b5cfc612848f755725a8.jpg
 
Are the books that are not included in the Bible actually biblical texts such as the Book of Ezekiel?

There are three answers to this question, each dependent upon its context.

1. The logic puzzle: Question: What weighs more, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers? Answer: They're the same; a pound is a pound. Question: Which books that are not in the Bible are Biblical texts? Answer: none of them. If they're not in the Bible, they're not Biblical texts.

2. The base reference. Before a group of people begin a game of Scrabble, they agree on a particular dictionary or word list as the final determinant of what constitutes a valid word. Similarly, with so many versions of the Bible, in order to facilitate discussion, often one particular version is selected as the context for discussion. Personally, I use KJV as my go-to version unless another version is specified beforehand. Anything not in the KJV is normally not considered Biblical ... although I realize that this answer will infuriate certain Christians, especially certain orthodox sects.

3. The question of faith. Your question really is one of faith, i.e. what someone believes is the Word of God and uses as a basis for his personal faith. I am an atheist, and as such, I don't reference the Bible for any theistic doctrine. Instead, just as the manner in which I select the KJV as my base reference version in the preceding point, I outsource my theism interpretations to gfm7175, i.e. I go with whatever he says something means or how something should be interpreted. So for this answer, we'll have to wait until gfm7175 tells me what answer I should give you, then I'll give you that answer as my definitive answer.

@gfm7175 re: Tinkerpeach's question above. I'm on tap to provide an answer and I'm outsourcing to you. What is the correct Christian response?

@Into the Night - I'd be interested in your thoughts as well.

99628464b348b5cfc612848f755725a8.jpg

@Tinkerpeach

I need additional clarification.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1&version=AKJV

Is the above-linked "Book of Ezekiel" the book that you are referencing as an example?

If so, then the book of Ezekiel is most definitely included in the Bible (as a part of the Old Testament, between the books of Lamentations and Daniel) and is therefore biblical text. [@IBDaMann -- This is my "Item #3" response]

Otherwise, IBDaMann is correct in identifying the multiple avenues involved with answering your question, and he answered your question appropriately per each individual avenue.
 
@Tinkerpeach

I need additional clarification.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+1&version=AKJV

Is the above-linked "Book of Ezekiel" the book that you are referencing as an example?

If so, then the book of Ezekiel is most definitely included in the Bible (as a part of the Old Testament, between the books of Lamentations and Daniel) and is therefore biblical text. [@IBDaMann -- This is my "Item #3" response]

Otherwise, IBDaMann is correct in identifying the multiple avenues involved with answering your question, and he answered your question appropriately per each individual avenue.

My mistake, I meant the Book of Enoch.

The one that speaks about the fallen angels and Satan's trip to Hell.

The Giants

It was found with the other Dead Sea Scrolls I believe but for some reason the Church decided not to include it in scripture.
 
My mistake, I meant the Book of Enoch.

The one that speaks about the fallen angels and Satan's trip to Hell.

The Giants

It was found with the other Dead Sea Scrolls I believe but for some reason the Church decided not to include it in scripture.

Those books which didn't make the canon are always fascinating. What was it about certain books that didn't make the cut? Couldn't be based on "outlandishness of the claims" in the books.
 
Those books which didn't make the canon are always fascinating. What was it about certain books that didn't make the cut? Couldn't be based on "outlandishness of the claims" in the books.

The belief is that the Holy Spirit did not guide the people who put it together to include them.

Considering it was the will of God who wanted the Bible written I imagine He has the power to dictate what He wants in it.

I guess I should have asked the question on if they should still be considered as part of biblical text even though they are not officially included.
 
The belief is that the Holy Spirit did not guide the people who put it together to include them.

Considering it was the will of God who wanted the Bible written I imagine He has the power to dictate what He wants in it.

I guess I should have asked the question on if they should still be considered as part of biblical text even though they are not officially included.

That's a tricky question.

If one believes that God inspired the Canon's selection it makes pretty much a done deal that whatever made the cut made the cut. But it raises some issues since the Catholic Canon is somewhat different from the Protestant Canon as to which tradition God was inspiring and which tradition was NOT of God.

I think the people of each faith would see the answers somewhat differently.
 
That's a tricky question.

If one believes that God inspired the Canon's selection it makes pretty much a done deal that whatever made the cut made the cut. But it raises some issues since the Catholic Canon is somewhat different from the Protestant Canon as to which tradition God was inspiring and which tradition was NOT of God.

I think the people of each faith would see the answers somewhat differently.

Well the Bible is pretty clear about this point.


“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)


So whoever changed it from it's original form is probably going to have to answer some questions.
 
Well the Bible is pretty clear about this point.


“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut. 4:2.)


So whoever changed it from its original form is probably going to have to answer some questions.
What was its original form? The council rejected a book Jesus quoted, the Book of Enoch, so what books were the originals?
 
Back
Top