The same is true of the Bible.
@LaserGuy
That would depend on why the Bible is being quoted vs why Wikipedia is being quoted.
For example, if we're using quotes from the Bible to guide us through surgical procedures, space exploration, and weapons manufacturing, then we are probably entirely out of context. Conversely, if we're using Wikipedia as a source of real world facts, then we are again out of context because Wikipedia is NOT the source of all knowledge and wisdom....it's merely a FOR-PROFIT website that anyone can add or subtract from its knowledge bank....hence, if Trump were to declare war on some other country because of something he read on Wikipedia...then we would find him insane! However, if Trump were to wage war due to VERY CREDIBLE sources from the CIA, FBI, etc....then that would be entirely different!
When reading the Bible it's necessary to have a mindset that is open to hearing the word of God. If the attitude of the reader is that of a belligerent and hostile teenage in a math class who REFUSES to to his/her homework because it's "MY BODY MY RIGHT!!" then obviously the Math class is not going to do the student any good REGARDLESS of how much wisdom the teacher possesses!
That would depend on why the Bible is being quoted vs why Wikipedia is being quoted.
For example, if we're using quotes from the Bible to guide us through surgical procedures, space exploration, and weapons manufacturing, then we are probably entirely out of context. Conversely, if we're using Wikipedia as a source of real world facts, then we are again out of context because Wikipedia is NOT the source of all knowledge and wisdom....it's merely a FOR-PROFIT website that anyone can add or subtract from its knowledge bank....hence, if Trump were to declare war on some other country because of something he read on Wikipedia...then we would find him insane! However, if Trump were to wage war due to VERY CREDIBLE sources from the CIA, FBI, etc....then that would be entirely different!
When reading the Bible it's necessary to have a mindset that is open to hearing the word of God. If the attitude of the reader is that of a belligerent and hostile teenage in a math class who REFUSES to to his/her homework because it's "MY BODY MY RIGHT!!" then obviously the Math class is not going to do the student any good REGARDLESS of how much wisdom the teacher possesses!
Wikipedia is actually a non-profit funded entirely by donations. Its error rates have been found to be comparable to dead-tree encyclopedias like Britannica or Oxford.
Wikipedia asks for donations EVERY year and both the University I attended and the Seminary I attended both had professors who reminded us CONSTANTLY to NOT use wikipedia! Now teaching at a University I hear the same thing from my fellow professors. If something about wikipedia has changed, then the academic community remains UNAWARE of it!
"𝐀𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞" coming to the 𝐨𝐟𝐟 𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐜 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐮𝐦 of an 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑐𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑠 𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑒 to 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 "𝐆𝐨𝐝".
This made my day. 😃
This made my day. 😃
@lishadowapps
As it should! Socrates spoke VERY plainly that "philosophy BELONGS in the streets!" Now, I somewhat disagree because the modern day beggars and paupers of the "streets" may not understand what we're talking about nor does it give them bread and shelter, but I CERTAINLY think that the new "street" that Socrates was referring to could very well be this chess forum! It is filled with an exceedingly diverse and interesting selection of our global community and is certainly more of an adequate representation of our common humanity than a stuffy lounge of college professors!!
As it should! Socrates spoke VERY plainly that "philosophy BELONGS in the streets!" Now, I somewhat disagree because the modern day beggars and paupers of the "streets" may not understand what we're talking about nor does it give them bread and shelter, but I CERTAINLY think that the new "street" that Socrates was referring to could very well be this chess forum! It is filled with an exceedingly diverse and interesting selection of our global community and is certainly more of an adequate representation of our common humanity than a stuffy lounge of college professors!!
Socrates was 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐡 for guess what 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐭𝐲 (sic!) and 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡.
Keep it up. I just feel sorry for stand up comedians, they are in danger of losing their job.
Keep it up. I just feel sorry for stand up comedians, they are in danger of losing their job.
Wikipedia has things that can be shown to be demostrably true or when something is controversial, then it will state that clearly and not present it as a fact. The Bible on the other hand doesn't have anything which can be verified as true, at least concerning the supernatural aspects of it. People quote the Bible thinking it gives credibility to their words without having demonstrated the Bible's truth beforehand.
"The Bible on the other hand doesn't have anything which can be verified as true, at least concerning the supernatural aspects of it" - The first part of this is wrong, the second part is almost correct.
@TheLordOfLight You're commiting an equivocation fallacy when trying to justify your belief in God as a necessary beginning of everything and at the same time trying to reconcile it with the notion of God as it's been presented to you as a Roman Catholic.
To quote one of your earlier posts "God, however, is something beyond logic and beyond experiential knowledge." If it's something beyond logic how can you tell if it's actually there or not? How can you claim to know something beyond logic or even begin to understand it when logic is all we use to understand the world around us? You can't. What you do instead is gather all the great questions whose answers can exceed human logic, questions such as "why is there something instead of nothing?"etc, gather all those great phillosophycal mysteries, say that there must be an answer to them, something that goes beyond human logic, and then finally label that answer "God"
That is a very vague and abstract definition of God that is incompatible with almost every existing religion. If something is beyond logic then you stop there. You don't label it as a person or a thing or anything else, nor claim to have any knowledge of its attributes and properties. Going from "There must be an explanation to why everything came to be" to "There exists a supernatural, eternal, omnipotent mind outside of space and time (plus tens of other properties people give him)" is a gigantic leap of knowledge, which people trying to justify their faith through cosmological arguements, always fail to adress.
To quote one of your earlier posts "God, however, is something beyond logic and beyond experiential knowledge." If it's something beyond logic how can you tell if it's actually there or not? How can you claim to know something beyond logic or even begin to understand it when logic is all we use to understand the world around us? You can't. What you do instead is gather all the great questions whose answers can exceed human logic, questions such as "why is there something instead of nothing?"etc, gather all those great phillosophycal mysteries, say that there must be an answer to them, something that goes beyond human logic, and then finally label that answer "God"
That is a very vague and abstract definition of God that is incompatible with almost every existing religion. If something is beyond logic then you stop there. You don't label it as a person or a thing or anything else, nor claim to have any knowledge of its attributes and properties. Going from "There must be an explanation to why everything came to be" to "There exists a supernatural, eternal, omnipotent mind outside of space and time (plus tens of other properties people give him)" is a gigantic leap of knowledge, which people trying to justify their faith through cosmological arguements, always fail to adress.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.