KAwAR on Nostr: I agree that there is text which is considered canon by churches and institutions. ...
I agree that there is text which is considered canon by churches and institutions. You are claiming that the Bible is canonised by God. I say that the Bible was canonised by men.
You claim that the Bible was written by God.
I claim that it is a compilation of books written by different men, over a long period of time. Sometimes they are recording the speech of God and sometimes they are recording the events of their lives. Sometimes it's poetry and sometimes it's prophecy.
The first book of the new testament is commonly referred to as, the gospel according to Matthew. It was important for Matthew to be the author of his testimony otherwise he would not be considered a credible witness.
If you say the book was written by God through Matthew you are implying that the manuscript is true on merit of it's source and not on merit of it's content.
This tactic of exalting a book by canonization I believe is because an institution wants to exert authoritative power over individual humans and that they should not be allowed to question that authority.
The power of the truth lies not only in the believing of it but in the understanding of it also. To understand something you must be willing to stress and challenge it to see where it's limits and capacity lies. When it comes to testing the veracity of knowledge we should not fear contention.
Only problem is you are a heretic as soon as you suggest that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.
Challenging consensus with hubris and pride means there is a hidden agenda and evil intent. Challenging consensus with sincere concern or perhaps greater insight is honest and useful.
You claim that the Bible was written by God.
I claim that it is a compilation of books written by different men, over a long period of time. Sometimes they are recording the speech of God and sometimes they are recording the events of their lives. Sometimes it's poetry and sometimes it's prophecy.
The first book of the new testament is commonly referred to as, the gospel according to Matthew. It was important for Matthew to be the author of his testimony otherwise he would not be considered a credible witness.
If you say the book was written by God through Matthew you are implying that the manuscript is true on merit of it's source and not on merit of it's content.
This tactic of exalting a book by canonization I believe is because an institution wants to exert authoritative power over individual humans and that they should not be allowed to question that authority.
The power of the truth lies not only in the believing of it but in the understanding of it also. To understand something you must be willing to stress and challenge it to see where it's limits and capacity lies. When it comes to testing the veracity of knowledge we should not fear contention.
Only problem is you are a heretic as soon as you suggest that the earth orbits the sun and not vice versa.
Challenging consensus with hubris and pride means there is a hidden agenda and evil intent. Challenging consensus with sincere concern or perhaps greater insight is honest and useful.