On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 20:49:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> And, well, it gets a bit worse than that, because its not the toaster
> telling them this, its someone else, who told them that the toaster
> thought it was the case. So.. technically, they may not be "insane"
> themselves, but they are never the less following an idea that really
> truly is insane.

I think it comes down to what andrel was saying about trusting a prophet 
to have interpreted things correctly if you haven't been in direct 
contact with your deity - and if you have, that you may have interpreted 
things incorrectly as well.

Because interaction with a supernatural being is not verifiable.  What 
transpired isn't verifiable, so it can mean anything you say it means.

Some of the more religious that I've talked to about this in the past 
have said that it has to do with "internal consistency" when it comes to 
the bible (and I think they extend that to the deity telling you to do 
things that aren't compatible with the bible), but I've always found that 
to be a bit of a cop-out, because I have studied the bible a bit myself 
(I was raised Lutheran), and I found a fair number of inconsistencies 
myself.  The two faces of God (the forgiving one of the NT and the 
vengeful one of the OT) is the biggest example, and I've had the debates 
and arguments over the years about "no, it's not inconsistent" - and the 
arguments did not persuade me (so for those thinking this time may be 
different:  probably not, and I don't really have the time for a deep 
discussion of it now anyways).

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message