Minimising our Axioms.

[throughfaith]

I start with: there is a God.

From this proceeds: He is the Creator of the universe, and the giver of life

Out of this springs: He has a purpose for creation, and us individually

The search for meaning and purpose is ages old. Knowing that
God loves, and knows what is best for us, underpins all else.

Allowing Him to then direct our lives makes much more sense

And you would base that on the bible, which comes from God and God cannot lie ?

 

[Magenta]

And you would base that on the bible, which comes from God and God cannot lie ?

All of that is certainly Biblical And ours to discover for our own selves, as well

Though the natural man does not normally start with the Bible, being that generally they reject it outright

However, a sincere search for meaning, purpose, and truth will lead there

And that is Biblical as well For God's promises are true

 

[throughfaith]

All of that is certainly Biblical And ours to discover for our own selves, as well

Though the natural man does not normally start with the Bible, being that generally they reject it outright

However, a sincere search for meaning, purpose, and truth will lead there

And that is Biblical as well For God's promises are true

"And ours to discover for our own selves, as well" Love this part 😀

 

[Dino246]

Nothing wrong with circular reasoning. Why do you believe the bible?

In some very limited contexts, circular reasoning is legitimate. This is not one of them.

 

[Dino246]

Can you prove those 3 points ?

Which three points?

 

[throughfaith]

In some very limited contexts, circular reasoning is legitimate. This is not one of them.

How so ?

 

[throughfaith]

Which three points?

1 The Bible Comes from God.

2. The Bible is true.

3 God cannot lie .

 

[Dino246]

Would it have been better to have said " before we approach the bible to have as little ' starting points ' as possible?

My comments would be no different, though I may not have referred to mathematical axioms.

 

[Dino246]

1 The Bible Comes from God.

2. The Bible is true.

3 God cannot lie .

You're employing the fallacy of 'burden of proof reversal'. It's your responsibility to prove your assertions, not mine.

 

[Dino246]

' Not a work of fiction ' about what?

There is no "about what" to it. My assertion stands on its own: "The bible is not a work of fiction."

 

[Dino246]

How so ?

Your are starting with assertions that are rightly conclusions of studying Scripture, not foundational principles.

You can (and probably did) derive your assertions through studying Scripture. Once they are established, you can used them as a basis for further study, but you cannot rightly begin with them.

 

[throughfaith]

Your are starting with assertions that are rightly conclusions of studying Scripture, not foundational principles.

You can (and probably did) derive your assertions through studying Scripture. Once they are established, you can used them as a basis for further study, but you cannot rightly begin with them.

But we can with ' The bible is not a work of fiction ' ?

 

[Dino246]

But we can with ' The bible is not a work of fiction ' ?

Yes. Consider the alternative.

 

[throughfaith]

Yes. Consider the alternative.

Which is discovered within ,surely?

 

[throughfaith]

Yes. Consider the alternative.

Fiction about Who ?

 

[throughfaith]

As a believer
1 The Bible Comes from God.

2. The Bible is true.

3 God cannot lie .

 

[Dino246]

Which is discovered within ,surely?

Not necessarily. People do read the Bible as if it is a piece of fiction, and never get past that.

 

[Dino246]

As a believer
1 The Bible Comes from God.

2. The Bible is true.

3 God cannot lie .

This repetition of your original assertions leads me to think that you don't really want to discuss this topic, but merely to have your (non-axiomatic) "axioms" affirmed by others.

 

[throughfaith]

Not necessarily. People do read the Bible as if it is a piece of fiction, and never get past that.

Believers ?

 

[Dino246]

Believers ?

Generally, no.