Gems:
Haaaaaaahahaaaa yeah just STOP READING THEM LOLOLOL!!!!!!
HAAAHAHAHAAA I believe this may be a princess bride reference maybe!
OH. MY. GOOOOOOOD HAHAHA ROTFL IT'S SO TRUE WHO MAKES UP THESE RULES OH GOD HAHA
Gonna go take a shower now, then fill out some job apps.
Peace.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
Blindy. fucked around with this message on 05-02-2008 at 10:32 AM.
"Don't want to sound like a fanboy, but I am with you. I'll buy it for sure, it's just a matter of for how long I will be playing it..."
- Silvast, Battle.net forums
quote:
Maradon! painfully thought these words up:
I'd like to know just how he figures that gospel isn't a unquestionable.
It's a matter of faith that the Gospel is unquestionable.
It's the task of reason to reconcile everything natural with everything revealed. Unfortunately, there's been a paucity of genuine attempts to do so since the Reformation.
Somewhere along the line, Christian intellectuals broke from Justin Martyr's dictum: "If it's true, it's Christian." That's more of a challenge to the Christian than anyone else...
EDIT: Granted, as St. Augustine figured out, that also requires that if something that is taken as revelation is irreconcilible with reality, it cannot possibly be revelation. Hence his departure from the Manichean church. Vorbis fucked around with this message on 05-02-2008 at 06:19 PM.
Either way, you're still relying on your own personal judgment and discretion.
You could argue that gospel is a guide to truth, but if you know some things in the gospel are irreconcilable and others aren't, you won't know what's right until you have some kind of proof. It's about as useful as a road map with a bunch of "irreconcilable" roads drawn all over it.
quote:
En Garde, Monsieur Greenlit! Them's Fightin words:
I just got done watching the first episode of Dexter. Aside from the 'spergin' main character, it seems like a pretty cool show.Gonna go take a shower now, then fill out some job apps.
Peace.
This may be completely irrelevant to this particular thread, but I have Seasons 1 and 2 of Dexter - and they are the best psycho-cop shows I've ever seen.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about dark elf butts:
But if you're going to apply reason to gospel to determine your beliefs, why not just skip the middle man and simply apply reason to the universe to achieve the same end?
Reason applied to the universe alone is handy enough for figuring out the mundane truth. And if that's what you're content with, good on ya and good day. If you're looking for positivistic proofs for the existence of God, the FSM, or Sting, you've got the wrong epistemology to be approaching the subject, and your conclusion is foregone.
quote:
Either way, you're still relying on your own personal judgment and discretion.You could argue that gospel is a guide to truth, but if you know some things in the gospel are irreconcilable and others aren't, you won't know what's right until you have some kind of proof. It's about as useful as a road map with a bunch of "irreconcilable" roads drawn all over it.
However, if you're to be Christian, then you must take the Gospel to be the Truth. Obviously, if you find something in the Gospel that's irreconcilable, then your reason won't allow you to be Christian without divorcing faith and reason--which forces you right there to break from the Gospel of John, and immediately alienates you from your own faith. Shit.
Revelation usually needs to be taken entirely. If something doesn't mesh with reality, it kinda discredits the text. That's not to say, however, that the individual should have the utmost confidence in their reason. Should one find a disconnect between Scripture and reality, he should examine his own reasoning before concluding--just as in the sciences.
Other religions reconcile these problems differently. The Mohammedeans take the simplest route--man's reason does not need to look in any way like Allah's reason. Therefore, Allah can contradict himself if he wishes. Just as an example.
quote:
Vorbising:
However, if you're to be Christian, then you must take the Gospel to be the Truth. Obviously, if you find something in the Gospel that's irreconcilable, then your reason won't allow you to be Christian without divorcing faith and reason--which forces you right there to break from the Gospel of John, and immediately alienates you from your own faith. Shit.Revelation usually needs to be taken entirely. If something doesn't mesh with reality, it kinda discredits the text. That's not to say, however, that the individual should have the utmost confidence in their reason. Should one find a disconnect between Scripture and reality, he should examine his own reasoning before concluding--just as in the sciences.
Isn't that a little circular? You're only examining your own reasoning using more of your own reason. Meta-reasoning. In the end, you're still only exercising your own judgment to determine what parts of scripture you're prepared to believe; forming your own belief system including, but not limited to, the ideas in whatever scripture you're reading.
Something you could happily do just as well with no scripture at all.
quote:
Maradon! had this to say about Duck Tales:
Isn't that a little circular? You're only examining your own reasoning using more of your own reason. Meta-reasoning. In the end, you're still only exercising your own judgment to determine what parts of scripture you're prepared to believe; forming your own belief system including, but not limited to, the ideas in whatever scripture you're reading.Something you could happily do just as well with no scripture at all.
First, you're ignoring that revelation can only be taken wholesale. Either you buy it, or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose.
Secondly, diagnostic reasoning has never, to my knowledge, been considered circular. Perhaps you could consider it circular to re-check your work. More probably, however, you've simply muddled 'will' and 'reason', which would explain your conclusion. Reason is far different from judgement.
quote:
x--VorbisO-('-'Q) :
First, you're ignoring that revelation can only be taken wholesale. Either you buy it, or you don't. You don't get to pick and choose.
That's what I was saying in the first place. If you choose to believe gospel, then it IS entirely unquestionable or else you don't believe it at all.
The fact that moral people need not be biblical literalists is an illustration of how gospel and religion in general are not the source of morality.
quote:
Secondly, diagnostic reasoning has never, to my knowledge, been considered circular. Perhaps you could consider it circular to re-check your work. More probably, however, you've simply muddled 'will' and 'reason', which would explain your conclusion. Reason is far different from judgement.
Ah no, I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were arguing that someone who had found a disconnect between scripture and reality could reconnect them by simply revising the reasoning that lead them to find a disconnect.
Nevermind!
quote:
So quoth Maradon!:
The fact that moral people need not be biblical literalists is an illustration of how gospel and religion in general are not the source of morality.
Ah, so that's what you were getting at. Well of course they're not the source of all morality.* They're the source of perfect--read: complete--morality, which includes theological morality. But any good Catholic should be able to tell you that revelation is only necessary for telling you what honor is due to the divine.
All worldly morality can be intuited rationally. It's the natural law that St. Thomas talks so much about, or the categorical imperative that Kant develops to replace the natural law in the Enlightenment.
*That is, religion is not the sole instructor of morality. Anyone who would argue this doesn't have enough faith in either his own, or anyone else's, reason.
