EPISTEMOLOGY: The Key to Everything

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:<<< I don’t see much good coming from God talk. >>>[/quote]Then you better stop talkin because everything you just said IS God talk. Look friend, don’t take this as ridicule. Seriously. I’m sure you’re much more educated than I am, but you are not grasping what is being discussed here. Not because you’re a bonehead, but because you had your mind made up before you popped in about what Christians were like, what epistemology could only be and quite certain that you had heard everything everybody could say to you already. Especially anachronistic idiotic young earth 6 day creationist antiques like me. [quote]silee wrote:<<< people trying to make this world a better place for all… >>>[/quote]That’s fabulous, but that has nothing to do with Christianity.

[/quote]

All of what you say is a bunch of gobbledegook. You claim to me open mind but admit your dogmatic, and dogmatic position is one that is not subject to change, and there is no discussion of dogmatic tenets. look who’s calling the kettle black.

So by implication in reference to your remark, that " You had your mind made up about what Christians were like what epistemology could be"

First off not all christian are fundamentalist As you are. I mention Soren Kiekaggard whom you dismissed, I doubt you even know what his position is is a thinker/ both religious and philosophical that I respect highly. Eric Bohoffer is another christian well mentioning as is Paul Tillich , Thomas Merton and many others and lets toss in Martin Buber while we are at it.

As to epistemology, its the study of knowledge, its relationship to Theology is thin. The only “proof” of God’s existence are metaphysical in nature and or rationalistic. We could do an epistemology of Reason and come to a similar conclusion that is if reason is limited to math and axioms then it too is another form of rationalism. You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend. Question: are you telling us that God speaks to you? or You have no doubt that the bible is the word of God. you said in a post that you despise those who have no conviction or who waver in conviction, but its exactly the other way around, those who have no doubt are the dangerous ones. Is implies that you have the Truth. Christ said " I am the truth". Do you have that much arrogance to say you are like him, and don’t give me this " man is made in the image of God" that is horrible given the history of man and his inhumanity to man.

We’ve seen many so called men of God do so much damage to others both in the way they live their hypocritical lives and in how they use people for their own materialist gain.
On the idea of epistemology its simply wrong to say people have only two,( i clarify this in the next sentence) analogously, do people have only two sociologies, or only two Histories or two ontologies? If you said two forms of knowledge that would at least be better, but epistemology is the subject matter that investigate what it is that we come to call knowledge. And analogously to say people have only two ontologies, this was of speaking is strange at best. Ontology is the study of what there is. Its the study of Being,and Plato raised the question is there only one or many? Is reality one or is it made up of many different things, or substances or qualities. anyway that’s off the track…

Oh and trying to make the world a better place has nothing to do with christanity?? for you its just empty headed talk. WHat happened to " love thy neighbor?“” Thou shall not kill"
and If GOd is all things to you then surely you are so mistaken to say that trying to make the world a better place and to respect the planet earth which is God’s creation, nothing to you? If so you are miss the forest from the trees, what is really important and valuable.

502

I am truly happy to see you here KingKai25:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I don’t think it’s on philosophical grounds that I disagree with you. >>>[/quote]Yes it is and theological ones as well. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< My issues are exegetical. On what grounds do you justify your assumption that “the image of God” refers to “our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words, thoughts, and deeds?” Is that what Paul means by the “image of God?” >>>[/quote]Unless he believed that man could exercise his commanded dominion void of the characteristics I mentioned then yes. He did. Or God might have given chimpanzees both His image and dominion. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Is that what the phrase meant to a first century AD Jew or an 8th century BC Israelite? Is that how they would have understood the term? >>>[/quote]Unless they believed that man could exercise his commanded dominion void of the characteristics I mentioned then yes. They did. Or God might have given chimpanzees both His image and dominion. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< The evidence from the ancient Near East >>>[/quote]While ancient extra biblical knowledge can and does shed much light on the interpretation of scripture, in this case what non covenantal nations thought is of no concern to me. If we are talking about extra biblical data bearing on the then biblical understanding, as far as it’s valid? Then see above.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< actually suggests that the term related to function, i.e., humanity’s role in the cosmos, not necessarily to inherent powers of thought. Indeed, for the denizens of the ancient Near East, being made in the image of God entailed primarily the responsibility to act as God’s hands in the earth. >>>[/quote]As far as it’s valid? Then see above.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Moreover, if you’re understanding is correct, how does that relate to children who are born with smooth brains, unable to learn or accomplish the kinds of tasks chimpanzees can do? Does their relative lack of intelligence imply that they do not bear the image of God? >>>[/quote]If your understanding is correct, how does that relate to children who are born with smooth brains, unable to learn or accomplish the kinds of tasks chimpanzees can do and therefore also unable “to act as God’s hands in the earth”. ? Does their relative lack of intelligence imply that they do not bear the image of God?[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Maybe I should ask first if that question even matters to you. Maybe you are the type of Calvinist for whom the Hebrew Scriptures did not originally speak to Israelites (that’s not meant as an accusation, only a possibility). >>>[/quote]The Hebrew scriptures originally spoke to all people through the ancient Israelites. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< What hermeneutic do you apply to the reading of Scripture? >>>[/quote]Historico-Exegetical[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I feel like you already have some people recognizing the cogency of your arguments, and I don’t know how many more are open to critical thought :). >>>[/quote]Is this intended to imply that these people conceding a level of cogency to my arguments are themselves not open to critical thought?

503

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I know, it’s not possible for my own unchristian world view to be philosophically defended on a point by point basis, for the very same reasons.
Sometimes, even the simplest thing need to be explained completely, starting with axioms, terminology, etc, until we get to the systematical conclusions. And it’s very hard to do on an internet board.
And it’s even worse when you ask questions, and try to “teach” people the socratic way.

If you ever try, you end up owing dozens of very long and complex answers to dozens of people.

sound familiar ? >>>[/quote]Yep =] I live there. And that’s why I am going to have to try to get some catch up time tomorrow. I just got in a little while ago. You have a couple things I really want to address.

504

[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I do have THEE truth about God and arrogance doesn’t begin to do justice to how modern men such as yourself view people like me. Don’t be shy now. I’ll have to postpone my response to the rest of your several misconceptions until hopefully tomorrow. I will say for now that I would doubt my own existence before doubting that the bible alone and in it’s entirety is the directly revealed mind of the one only true and living God. I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one. Make no mistake. You and I have vastly divergent views of what a Christian is and is not judging by your list.

505

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one.[/quote]

Does that mean that you think all the other sects are doomed to eternal damnation?

506

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one.[/quote]

Does that mean that you think all the other sects are doomed to eternal damnation?[/quote]No. There are and have been vast multitudes of true heaven bound born again believers which have been wrong about a great many things. There are points within my own interpretive tradition that I disagree with. There are points that I disagree with Calvin on. There are points of doctrine that I disagree with my own beloved pastor on who is also obviously in the same reformed (Calvinistic) tradition that I am. This is a huge subject that I’ve addressed elsewhere

507

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not sure I’m following you guys, but God uses anthropomorphic language in the bible to describe himself in gracious condescension to our limited capabilities. Our creation in His image refers to our high intelligence and communication, but especially in our moral agency wherein we can either please or offend Him by our words thoughts and deeds. It is not somatic in any way. All men (and women) of any ethnic origin bear His image equally and are therefore of equal spiritual worth and dignity.[/quote]

I like how you said spiritual. ;)[/quote]Are you being serious? Never can tell with you Chris. People look differently from one another, but are spiritually the same before God. What could you find wrong with that?
[/quote]

I’m giving you a hard time because of Calvinism’s total depravity being so close to the Manichean’s ideas about matter. [/quote]Why ya gotta do this to me again Christopher my dear boy? WHY? 09-12-2011, 12:11 AM [quote]Find me one Calvinist who believes that matter is evil in itself. Just one. I will tell you unequivocally that I absolutely denounce and reject any view that affirms such a heresy as the mythological, mystical dualism of the gnostics. Matter IS NOT evil. Morality is simply inapplicable to matter as such. I don’t know where you got the just incredibly false notion that I or any of the reformers embraced such a terrible doctrine. >>>[/quote]The biblical doctrine of total depravity, like all the doctrines of grace, is woefully butchered in the hands of it’s detractors. Come on Chris. I know yer jist givin me a hard time. That’s ok. I can take it from you =]

508

[quote]silee wrote:<<< All of what you say is a bunch of gobbledegook. >>>[/quote]Then I’m not worth your time. [quote]silee wrote:<<< You claim to me open mind >>>[/quote]Really folks. If some of you newer guys had any idea how long I’ve been putting up with this. Could you kind sir please quote me saying anywhere that I am open minded? [quote]silee wrote:<<< First off not all christian are fundamentalist As you are. >>>[/quote]You have no idea what a Christian is which is not your fault because the church barely has any idea what a christian is anymore.[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I do have THEE truth about God and arrogance doesn’t begin to do justice to how modern men such as yourself view people like me. Don’t be shy now. I will say that I would doubt my own existence before doubting that the bible alone and in it’s entirety is the directly revealed mind of the one only true and living God. I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one.[quote]silee wrote:<<< The only “proof” of God’s existence are metaphysical in nature and or rationalistic. >>>[/quote]Once again friend. I am not blasting you, but you are so far behind here you’re about to lap yourself. I have said what you just said one thousand times. You DO NOT understand my position which does not make you a moron, but you will not get anywhere int his discussion the way you are proceeding.[quote]silee wrote:<<< We’ve seen many so called men of God do so much damage to others both in the way they live their hypocritical lives and in how they use people for their own materialist gain. >>>[/quote]We most assuredly have indeed and I join you in denouncing these charlatans as the satanic imposters that they are.[quote]silee wrote:<<<
On the idea of epistemology its simply wrong to say people have only two,( i clarify this in the next sentence) analogously, do people have only two sociologies, or only two Histories or two ontologies? >>>[/quote]There are two and only two foundations for finite human thought and knowledge. The God I worship or man who worships himself. Ontology, sociology etc are not in same category and are the result of what I am advancing, not the thing itself.[quote]silee wrote:<<< Is reality one or is it made up of many different things, or substances or qualities. anyway that’s off the track. >>>[/quote]No it isn’t off track and a tip of my hat to you for this very astute question. I have mentioned the problem of the one and the many numerous times myself in these very forums. ULTIMATE reality is one AND many in the THREE persons of the ONE triune God. Comprehensive reality consists of the creature AND creator. The former being utterly dependent on the latter. [quote]silee wrote:<<< Oh and trying to make the world a better place has nothing to do with christanity? >>>[/quote]That’s right it doesn’t. That is a pathetic idolatrous modernism. Christianity IS God in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself. It’s about sin, death, righteousness and life itself. Every particle of creation is for the primary purpose of glorifying the most high God. Making the world a better place is for humanistic pagans who think this world and their happiness is the highest goal and good.[quote]silee wrote:<<< What happened to " love thy neighbor?“” Thou shall not kill" >>>[/quote]Nothing. What’s your point?[quote]silee wrote:<<<
and If GOd is all things to you then surely you are so mistaken to say that trying to make the world a better place and to respect the planet earth which is God’s creation, nothing to you? >>>[/quote]Just the opposite. It is important to me BECAUSE it is God’s creation over which He has given man dominion as KingKai rightly states. That does NOT make it the nucleus of Christianity. [quote]silee wrote:<<< If so you are miss the forest from the trees, what is really important and valuable.[/quote]What is REALLY important and valuable is surrender to the true saving gospel of Jesus Christ wherein men are raised from true death to true life in Him being re-enabled to worship, praise, honor and glorify Him in spirit and truth. That is narrow, precise and today very rare anymore. The societal benefits are inevitable, but they are NOT the primary object. As in all things, the glory of Father, Son and Holy Ghost IS the primary object.

509

[quote]kamui wrote:<<< I’m probably as dogmatic as you are.
but i don’t think i have faith in “what ultimately winds up being MYSELF”.
the “methodology” behind my epistemological positions explicitly “delay” the introduction of the “I” concept as long as it’s possible. In a way, my “axioms” predates “me”.
That’s how I attempt to avoid what you call “autonomy”. (And yes, i realize that autonomy has to be avoided). >>>[/quote]I’m going to kick this part down the road a bit for now.[quote]kamui wrote:<<< And in my eyes, the fact that you found the God of Abraham (who conveniently happen to be the God of your country founding fathers) at the end of your philosophical quest for a non-contingent being sound suspiciously “autonomous”. >>>[/quote]Very VERY good Monsieur. As you no doubt figured I have been waiting for this one. However, I was never on any search for a non-contingent being. I was already a committed Arminian Christian who already believed in the Christian God looong before I so much as even fluttered a thought in relation to self conscious epistemology. In other words, in your case you found the problems first and then sought solutions. In my case I didn’t even recognize the problems in truth until I already had the solutions. [quote]kamui wrote:<<< Well, hope feels better than despair, but both emotions are structurally identical, actually.
Hope is joy felt at the thought of an uncertain future event.
As such, it’s always linked to the (conscious or unconscious) fear of another uncertain future event.
It’s a “cloaked” kind of fear.
A tainted joy, that distract you from your actual powers and your actual weaknesses, and ultimately, from your actual responsibility.
I think we should work to change what we can change, and to fully accept what we can’t change, without ever “waiting” for the future.
And i think i would still hold this position if i believed in Providence. After all, you don’t need to hope when you “know” that future events are/will be providentially determined by God’s will. You only have to gratefully rejoice.[/quote]This last sentence IS the biblical definition of Christian hope.

510

These quotes quickly get out of hand. Kudos to you, Tirib, for having the patience to go through and divide up the posts neatly in your responses.

I agree that our differences are certainly theological. I wouldn’t claim otherwise. As you have rightly said, everything is theological.

I have yet to lay out my understanding, actually. I am simply mentioning some of the pertinent evidence. The scriptures don’t always explain things; because they were first addressed to others (i.e., the ancient Israelites), they assume a significant amount of knowledge on the part of the original audience. Consequently, since Israel “grew up” in the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East, and since no explicit explanations of the 'image of God" (tselem elohim) terminology is given, it is likely that a readily available concept is being employed.

Of course, this does not imply that the concept remains unchanged. By situating the concept in a new context, the author definitely alters the concept. In this case, a term that was originally applied only to (1) kings or (2) idols is now applied to humanity corporately. That’s a significant expansion of the concept, and it further clarifies some of God’s enmity toward idols - he has already placed his image in the world.

So yeah, I think the ancient Near Eastern context is, in this case, very pertinent. Moreover, the image of God seems to function on the level of an archetype, i.e., it is humanity in general that possesses this image, much like the church as a whole is the temple of God. In other words, when they use that concept, the biblical authors seem to think primarily in corporate terms. This understanding preserves human dignity by describing the characteristic telos of human existence without forcing us to narrowly define human life in terms of traits that some human beings do not possess.

“Unless they believed that man could exercise his commanded dominion void of the characteristics I mentioned then yes. They did. Or God might have given chimpanzees both His image and dominion.”

The issue of the nature of personal interiority in the ancient Near East is incredibly complex, and it may in fact be anachronistic to assume that you’re understanding of what makes humanity unique was shared by the Israelites and their neighbors. The Israelites seemed to have no problem accepting that, to some degree, animals could be wise and capable of speech (Gen. 3:1, Num. 22:28). Moreover, the author of Ecclesiastes considers human beings fundamentally akin to animals, sharing the same ruah and the same fate (Eccl. 3:18-21). My point is that this is a very complex issue; we cannot assume that the ancient Israelites assumed that the image of God consisted of cognitive capacity.

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I feel like you already have some people recognizing the cogency of your arguments, and I don’t know how many more are open to critical thought :). >>>[/quote]Is this intended to imply that these people conceding a level of cogency to my arguments are themselves not open to critical thought?
[/quote]

That’s actually the opposite of what I intended to communicate. Ahh, the ambiguity of language… Let’s try this…

Those conceding a level of cogency to your arguments = the ones thinking critically
Those refusing to concede = the ones refusing to think critically

I was simply making this comment as an excuse to shift the discussion a bit. After this much work, after this many of your coherent posts and this many of your opponents’ irrelevant responses, you’ve probably squeezed out as much critical thought (at least on the foundational issues) of the current posters as they are willing to give. Most of the posters respond exactly the same way - “no, my knowledge is based on facts, not belief. You’re the one who relies on belief; I simply stick to the facts.” They obviously aren’t willing to take the time to think through your arguments.

Anyway, I think Kamui’s remark about “someone’s” use of the socratic method was rather apropos. As my old philosophy professor used to say, “the socratic method is great, so long as you get to compose your opponent’s responses.” Unfortunately, since not everyone has thought through their positions as well you, most of your opponents don’t know how they are supposed to respond, so they mainly resort to non-sequiturs.

511

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one.[/quote]

Does that mean that you think all the other sects are doomed to eternal damnation?[/quote]

Fletch I know you are directing your question to TIribulus. I’ll just say this there are many many good people in the world, despite what we call them, I am thinking of atheist here. Its funny many of the atheist that i know , and I can’t speak for all but just an observation is that they are some of the most moral people I know. and what’s best is they aren’t shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats.

Well if trib is dogmatic in his believes and he already said he has the truth, he would have to show some doubt concerning his position thus allowing for a no answer. That to me would be a Man of God saying that he’s not in a position to answer that only God is and who can be so arrogant and full of himself to reply such. Plus “vengeance is mine saith the lord” Plus he’s got that problem, if he answers in the affirmative then he’s acting as if he were God,with all the problems of that response.
Lets wait for him.

512

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]silee wrote:<<< You act like you have the TRUTH about God, and that is the height of arrogance my friend.
[/quote]I will further be so grotesquely arrogant as to say that the interpretive tradition to which I adhere is the only fully faithful one.[/quote]

Does that mean that you think all the other sects are doomed to eternal damnation?[/quote]

Fletch I know you are directing your question to TIribulus. I’ll just say this there are many many good people in the world, despite what we call them, I am thinking of atheist here. Its funny many of the atheist that i know , and I can’t speak for all but just an observation is that they are some of the most moral people I know. and what’s best is they aren’t shoving their beliefs down other peoples throats.

Well if trib is dogmatic in his believes and he already said he has the truth, he would have to show some doubt concerning his position thus allowing for a no answer. That to me would be a Man of God saying that he’s not in a position to answer that only God is and who can be so arrogant and full of himself to reply such. Plus “vengeance is mine saith the lord” Plus he’s got that problem, if he answers in the affirmative then he’s acting as if he were God,with all the problems of that response.
Lets wait for him. [/quote]

I’ve known some seemingly really good people who were atheist, Christian, and even Wicca. People are people. And those powers that used religion for war would’ve found another way to wage war. Again, people are people. Look at Stalin and some of the oppressive Chinese regimes for atheist examples. There’s plenty of Christian and Muslim examples too. And so far, I haven’t seen Tribulus try to force anyone to do anything. Just explain his viewpoints which he’s given a ton of thought to and has been so gracious to spend hours on the internet explaining them to people who inquire. And I’ve been very appreciative and have learned a lot too. And the more of his view I see, the more I can respect it.

Now I do have a problem with hateful, spiteful, hypocritical people who cram their own individual will down people’s throats in the name of religion. But I don’t see that in the persona Trib displays in these forums.

And he already answered me above.

513

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
The biblical doctrine of total depravity, like all the doctrines of grace, is woefully butchered in the hands of it’s detractors. Come on Chris. I know yer jist givin me a hard time. That’s ok. I can take it from you =]
[/quote]

We already talked about this?

I believe I told you that as a Catholic and particularly a Thomist, the proper name for this “biblical” doctrine would be Total Inability. And, that I generally agree with it.

I also agree with Unconditional election, though I disagree with double-predestination. I disagree with Limited Atonement because of what you’re implying about Jesus’ Sacrifice, because Christ intended to make salvation possible for all men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual for all men. I also can agree to Irresistible Grace, though efficacious is a better term and I disagree with Calvinist on the point that God gives sufficient grace to all (he does). I also believe in perseverance of saints, but depending on how you define saints matters if we actually agree.

The two different ways, the Calvinist way, as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who will go on to have their sanctification completed. As a Catholic I recognize that there are people that experience initial salvation who go to lose that salvation. So you can see how the first way, would not be true.

514

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< These quotes quickly get out of hand. Kudos to you, Tirib, for having the patience to go through and divide up the posts neatly in your responses. >>>[/quote]I appreciate your appreciation. Unfortunately our friend “the bodyguard” has seen fit to ascribe nefarious motives to this practice. Maybe you can explain to him sometime that I do this out of both regard for the person’s contribution that I am responding to AND, just as importantly, the ease of access to others who will read my posts.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I agree that our differences are certainly theological. I wouldn’t claim otherwise. As you have rightly said, everything is theological. >>>[/quote]Yes they are and yes it is. We appear to agree there.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I have yet to lay out my understanding, actually. I am simply mentioning some of the pertinent evidence. The scriptures don’t always explain things; because they were first addressed to others (i.e., the ancient Israelites), they assume a significant amount of knowledge on the part of the original audience. Consequently, since Israel “grew up” in the cultural milieu of the ancient Near East, and since no explicit explanations of the 'image of God" (tselem elohim) terminology is given, it is likely that a readily available concept is being employed.

Of course, this does not imply that the concept remains unchanged. By situating the concept in a new context, the author definitely alters the concept. In this case, a term that was originally applied only to (1) kings or (2) idols is now applied to humanity corporately. That’s a significant expansion of the concept, and it further clarifies some of God’s enmity toward idols - he has already placed his image in the world.

So yeah, I think the ancient Near Eastern context is, in this case, very pertinent. Moreover, the image of God seems to function on the level of an archetype, i.e., it is humanity in general that possesses this image, much like the church as a whole is the temple of God. In other words, when they use that concept, the biblical authors seem to think primarily in corporate terms. This understanding preserves human dignity by describing the characteristic telos of human existence without forcing us to narrowly define human life in terms of traits that some human beings do not possess. >>>[/quote]We are going to butt heads on a list of things in this section above. The specific discussion of the “image of God” in man is incidental. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< The issue of the nature of personal interiority in the ancient Near East is incredibly complex, and it may in fact be anachronistic to assume that you’re understanding of what makes humanity unique was shared by the Israelites and their neighbors. The Israelites seemed to have no problem accepting that, to some degree, animals could be wise and capable of speech (Gen. 3:1, Num. 22:28). Moreover, the author of Ecclesiastes considers human beings fundamentally akin to animals, sharing the same ruah and the same fate (Eccl. 3:18-21). My point is that this is a very complex issue; we cannot assume that the ancient Israelites assumed that the image of God consisted of cognitive capacity. >>>[/quote]I didn’t say “cognitive capacity”. In fact I specified in other words and terms that man and animals share some characteristics, including what amounted to “cognitive capacity”. Last I October I said to’ of all people Bodyguard: [quote]Real quick. Got bible study tonight. Genesis 2:7 “God breathed into man the breath of life and man became a LIVING SOUL” King James Version. Genesis 1:20 “And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
This is just a quick example since you asked. The same root word rendered as “living soul” in 2:7 is rendered as “creature that hath life” in 1:20. The New American Standard Bible (nasb), my favorite translation, Gives us living creature in 1:20 and “living being” in 2:7. “nefesh hayya” in the Hebrew. What distinguishes one from the other is God’s personally enlivening man in His very image. Like I say one quick example.

I wasn’t trying to refute or support your argument. I was reporting the biblical view because I knew you’d be in unbearable suspense until I did… Couldn’t let ya down like that.[/quote] My Hebrew is even worse than my koine Greek which ain’t too spectacular either. However, you took great license with the verses you quoted above. God decreeing specific instances of talking animals, especially in the case of the serpent has no bearing whatsoever on the created order. Every earthly creature since the fall dies physically, as Solomon, who you seem hesitant to own as the author, very rightly declares. And that in a book written by a despairing King at the end of his life which contains a fair number of falsehoods. Everything in the bible is truly stated, but not EVERYTHING in the bible is a statement of truth. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< That’s actually the opposite of what I intended to communicate. Ahh, the ambiguity of language… Let’s try this…

Those conceding a level of cogency to your arguments = the ones thinking critically
Those refusing to concede = the ones refusing to think critically. >>>[/quote]Ok. You won’t be surprised to learn that I agree with this as stated.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I was simply making this comment as an excuse to shift the discussion a bit. After this much work, after this many of your coherent posts and this many of your opponents’ irrelevant responses, you’ve probably squeezed out as much critical thought (at least on the foundational issues) of the current posters as they are willing to give. Most of the posters respond exactly the same way - “no, my knowledge is based on facts, not belief. You’re the one who relies on belief; I simply stick to the facts.” They obviously aren’t willing to take the time to think through your arguments. >>>[/quote]Ok. You also won’t be surprised to learn that I agree with this as stated as well. Thank you? Forgive me man, but the silent alarm is blinking in my face and I’m strapping my Fundy helmet on while I type this. =] We’ll see if I need it. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Anyway, I think Kamui’s remark about “someone’s” use of the socratic method was rather apropos. As my old philosophy professor used to say, “the socratic method is great, so long as you get to compose your opponent’s responses.” >>>[/quote]My opponents responses we’re all essentially composed in the 3rd chapter of Genesis. They’ve simply been packaged differently over the centuries. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< Unfortunately, since not everyone has thought through their positions as well you, most of your opponents don’t know how they are supposed to respond, so they mainly resort to non-sequiturs. [/quote]No reflection on their intelligence, but this is very many times the case. I’m glad you changed your mind. I mean that.

515

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I also agree with Unconditional election and other stuff >>>[/quote]Yer killin me with this Chris. Ya know that don’t ya? Jist killin me. I can’t possibly take this up right now my friend. This should probably be in a different thread too, though it is related. Lord Jesus help me. There just ain’t enough hours in a day.

516

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:<<< I’ve known some seemingly really good people who were atheist, Christian, and even Wicca. People are people. And those powers that used religion for war would’ve found another way to wage war. Again, people are people. Look at Stalin and some of the oppressive Chinese regimes for atheist examples. There’s plenty of Christian and Muslim examples too. And so far, I haven’t seen Tribulus try to force anyone to do anything. Just explain his viewpoints which he’s given a ton of thought to and has been so gracious to spend hours on the internet explaining them to people who inquire. And I’ve been very appreciative and have learned a lot too. And the more of his view I see, the more I can respect it.

Now I do have a problem with hateful, spiteful, hypocritical people who cram their own individual will down people’s throats in the name of religion. But I don’t see that in the persona Trib displays in these forums.

And he already answered me above. [/quote]You are too kind sir. I thank you for your uplifting words. The doctrine of common grace, whereby God graciously restrains and governs the sinfulness of unsaved humanity is the explanation for the “goodness” of and toward unbelievers of any and all kinds. I don’t link that often to the work of others, but in this case Grudem will be most helpful. AND I have to go work Chest tris and shoulders =] http://life.biblechurch.org/slifejom/paradigm-audio-video/2030-the-doctrine-of-common-grace-wayne-grudems-systematic-theology.html Also, real quick. The true historic gospel CANNOT be legislated or forced upon ANYONE. It is the eternal work of the Godhead and as such is not subject to the pitiful machinations of man.

517

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

“First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly, in that I also recognize the creator God who guarantees the knowability of the world as the ultimate source of knowledge. I don’t know why some people here have such a problem with the necessity of belief as a prerequisite for knowledge. Read your Gadamer, people. Tirib’s arguing for the self-evident (though it takes awhile to get there).”

I don’t have a problem with belief as being part of the conditions of knowledge. ( who here does?)
But Belief isn’t not sufficient for knowing and for knowledge. Example : I believe mary is dying from the fact that she’s got cancer. Its a fact that mary does have cancer. Mary dies on Friday. I learn of this though a friend of ours, and say " yes I know she died of cancer"
An autopsy reveals that Mary died of a heart attack.
So for knowledge we need 1. that P is true and 2. that one believes p is true and C. and tha p has to be both necessary and sufficient.

Given this belief alone is not enough for a claim to be knowledge.

Tell us about Gadamer. What is your point there? Its been a long time since I read one of his works. I do know this that he certainly wouldn’t go along with a literal interpretation of any text. A text is always looked at through a person or person(s) who bring there traditions and cultural values with them which is also known as their time or the age they live in. As such there is never one true for all time reading of a text.
That’s not what your buddy Tribulus is saying, so how do you square that with Gadamer?

518

[quote]silee wrote:<<< So for knowledge we need 1. that P is true and 2. that one believes p is true and C. and that p has to be both necessary and sufficient. >>>[/quote]All three of these are fish. I’m talking about the ecosystem. I’m not very familiar with Gadamer which will make no difference for this discussion. He was in Adam in genesis three as well.

519

[quote]silee wrote:

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:

“First of all, I agree with you wholeheartedly, in that I also recognize the creator God who guarantees the knowability of the world as the ultimate source of knowledge. I don’t know why some people here have such a problem with the necessity of belief as a prerequisite for knowledge. Read your Gadamer, people. Tirib’s arguing for the self-evident (though it takes awhile to get there).”

I don’t have a problem with belief as being part of the conditions of knowledge. ( who here does?)
But Belief isn’t not sufficient for knowing and for knowledge. Example : I believe mary is dying from the fact that she’s got cancer. Its a fact that mary does have cancer. Mary dies on Friday. I learn of this though a friend of ours, and say " yes I know she died of cancer"
An autopsy reveals that Mary died of a heart attack.
So for knowledge we need 1. that P is true and 2. that one believes p is true and C. and tha p has to be both necessary and sufficient.

Given this belief alone is not enough for a claim to be knowledge.

Tell us about Gadamer. What is your point there? Its been a long time since I read one of his works. I do know this that he certainly wouldn’t go along with a literal interpretation of any text. A text is always looked at through a person or person(s) who bring there traditions and cultural values with them which is also known as their time or the age they live in. As such there is never one true for all time reading of a text.
That’s not what your buddy Tribulus is saying, so how do you square that with Gadamer?[/quote]

You weren’t actually the focus of my comments, Silee. However, I should have written that better; I was not talking about the logical preconditions of a particular belief becoming knowledge, but rather belief as the fundamental precondition of knowing anything.

Gadamer would question the very idea of a literal interpretation. So would I. What does “literal” mean? In any case, I am referring to Gadamer’s argument that our prejudices (or better yet, pre-judgments) constitute the historical reality of our being, i.e., they make us what we are as contingent, historical beings. Moreover, they are the preconditions for understanding. We are only able to understand something because of the prior things we understand. In other words, there is an inherent circularity to knowledge; new understanding is only possible because of what we already understand.

Also, in your post at the top of the page, you threw in Martin Buber in a (ostensive) list of Christians you respect. Martin Buber was Jewish, not a Christian (though he certainly had an impact on Christian thinking). And I assume by “Eric Bohoffer” you meant “Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” but why him rather than Karl Barth? The latter’s thinking was far more cogent and rich than Bonhoeffer’s.

520

[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I am referring to Gadamer’s argument that our prejudices (or better yet, pre-judgments) constitute the historical reality of our being, i.e., they make us what we are as contingent, historical beings. Moreover, they are the preconditions for understanding. We are only able to understand something because of the prior things we understand. In other words, there is an inherent circularity to knowledge; new understanding is only possible because of what we already understand. >>>[/quote]Very good your majesty =] This may be better than I thought.[quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<<. And I assume by “Eric Bohoffer” you meant “Dietrich Bonhoeffer,” >>>[/quote]I also knew he was reachin for Bonhoeffer, but it wasn’t integral to my response. [quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< why him rather than Karl Barth? The latter’s thinking was far more cogent and rich than Bonhoeffer’s.[/quote]Barth was a liberal heretic. Van Til pounded on him. I’m not ready to say that about Bonhoeffer though he pushed it sometimes. It’s been a couple decades since I read" The Cost of Discipleship". I’ve referred in Barth’s “Church Dogmatics”, but I don’t know of anybody who read that monster all the way through. Gittin off topic myself here.