Completely useless strategy in game theory. Doesn't work - you get royally screwed. However, I can't see it contradicted anywhere in the New Testament.
actually, no. the cooperate-iterate model always produces the best result.
Absolutely. The English language is not nearly as sophisticated or in depth as, say, Greek. And because their language was so much more expansive, this is why we need a good concordance to accurately translate the meaning of any given word.
that's crap. we need a concordance because different languages are used differently and greek is not a code for english. it's the way greek people decided to interface with their world. it's no more complex, it's just different.
The book, Addictions: A Banquet in the Grave, states that "what really guides the thinking of many people who struggle with drugs or alcohol is a syncretistic set of beliefs that combines AA, pop psychology,pieces of scripture, and miscellaneous features of American culture." The author emphasizes practical theology as the guideline--in that one needs to ask themselves how scripture addresses the problems facing us today.
Ringo writes:
You also haven't made clear what the difference is between the "theological perspective" and the "philosophical perspective".
The philosophical perspective questions everything. No fundamental beliefs are allowed to form. Theology takes a stand. Belief is expressed and everything else is compared and contrasted with the belief.
Interesting. When I ask you to clarify the distinction between philosophical perspective and theological perspective, you answer twice. Do two obscurites make a clarity? :)
Phat writes:
The philosophical perspective questions everything. No fundamental beliefs are allowed to form.
I think "fundamental" beliefs are allowed to form. They just don't appear a priori fully formed.
Theology takes a stand. Belief is expressed and everything else is compared and contrasted with the belief.
You describe the difference between a theological approach to thinking and a more generic philosophical approach. But that doesn't address the idea of God's wisdom versus human wisdom.
Your definition of theology seems to presuppose that we "know" what to "believe" - we decide what to trust. The question is: how can we know what "God's wisdom" is? How do we decide which version of God's wisdom to believe?
"Because the Bible tells me so" is neither a logical answer nor a satisfying one.
The OP seems to suggest that there are some things in the Bible that "make sense" and that is why we believe them. God's-wisdom-is-not-our-wisdom is not one of those sensible things.
Your definition of theology seems to presuppose that we "know" what to "believe" - we decide what to trust. The question is: how can we know what "God's wisdom" is? How do we decide which version of God's wisdom to believe?
Keyword: Decide. The wonderful thing about being human is that we have the ability, the obligation, and usually the desire to make our own decisions in life. Some Calvinists would assert that we are incapable of choosing Gods way without His help. That book that I'm reading says that "..Sometimes it is not so much that we are poorly taught or unaware of what Scripture says, but it is that we don't want to believe the truth we already have. Even though we know the truth, we don't always want it to guide our lives."
The book goes on to use an a-priori truth that Jesus Is Lord. Even though many Christians embrace it, sing it, and taught it...throwing in an occasional amen for good measure, it was not practical theology when their desires conflicted with the Scripture.
Another example would be a husband who says he loves his wife, but by his actions actually loves flirtatious work relationships or even pornographic habits.
Jim may sing "Jesus shall reign", but his drinking indicates that he wants Jesus to reign only when his desires and God's commands do not conflict.
actually, no. the cooperate-iterate model always produces the best result.
Actually still no. The cooperative-iterate model only works when both parties agree to cooperate. There is not much gaming that can go on in that case. But in real-life, we don't have everyone cooperating either, so you still get royally screwed often when you give and don't get back.
The cooperative-iterate model only works when both parties agree to cooperate.
It's not clear that you know waht the C-I model is. Could you explain your understanding of it?
Also you seem to be baseing the above statement on some sort of personal experience ("you still get...") and the end of your statement "and don't get back" also suggests that you don't know what the model is saying. Can you explain why you think the model only works as you describe or why you say "actually still no"?
I don't know all the particulars Ned. Maybe I jumped the gun in saying that brenna is wrong about the models.
I only mean to say that cooperative altruistic behavior is proved to be beneficial, but it isn't always the best game strategy for one player to be altruistic and not the other. I was being redundant in saying that cooperation must be cooperation. In religious belief, you must be altruistic regardless of what you expect from the other, so it would be a weak 'game strategy' in survival if you know the other isn't going to cooperate.
In fact it appears you don't understand the overall concept of the model either. Another name given (used for a winning computer game strategy) is "tit-for-tat". The "iterative" part of the name is another clue. The model is not at all one cooperating and the other not.
Even though many Christians embrace it, sing it, and taught it...throwing in an occasional amen for good measure, it was not practical theology when their desires conflicted with the Scripture.
As I've asked you before, how do we even know what The Scripture™ is, in terms of God's wisdom? You're arbitrarily choosing the Judeo-Christian tradition and then you're arbitrarily choosing a Protestant version of The Judeo-Christian Scripture™. The question still remains: how do you decide? How do you convince yourself that you have an inkling of a clue what God's will and wisdom is?
How do you know the real God doesn't want husbands to spread their genes around?
Where does the wisdom that "a good husband is faithful to his wife" really come from? Aren't you really deciding what is "right" first and then projecting your decision onto God?
Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
Why are you so stuck on your idea that foolishness must equal false? Its like you're TRYING to make the passage more confusing than it actually is.
If someone were to start a new topic thread with an opening post that began: "The theory of evolution is total foolishness....", would you conclude that this person believes the ToE to be valid, just limited to some extent in its compass? I would conclude that he is arguing that the theory is false.
Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
If someone were to start a new topic thread with an opening post that began: "The theory of evolution is total foolishness....",
Allow me to strike the word "total" from the situation. I think it only adds confusion.
would you conclude that this person believes the ToE to be valid, just limited to some extent in its compass?
Actually, yes I would. I would expect that the person did not think that the theory was false, but that it did not descibe reality in its totality. That the theory missed something extra but was accurate within itself.
For example, the poster might think that God had a hand in evolution and that the ToE was accurately descibing how God did it. And since the ToE leaves god out of it, then that person would be calling it foolish in that it totally missed God entirely.
I would conclude that he is arguing that the theory is false.
Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
I think you're being disingenuous. Around here, we see people saying that "ToE is foolishness" all the time - and they nearly always mean it's false.
Well nonetheless, I would still contend that they are using the word improperly.
Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science"
He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man. -Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
CatholicScientist writes:
I would still contend that they are using the word improperly.
Your contention is noted. However, most of us are using the English language as is, straight out of the box - not your peculiar personal dialect. In plain English, the word "foolishness" does not have positive connotations.
Somebody, I think anastasia, has already mentioned the Greek word translated as "foolishness". Here's what the almighty Strong has to say:
quote:G3472 μωρία mōria mo-ree'-ah From G3474; silliness, that is, absurdity: - foolishness.
quote:G3474 μωρός mōros mo-ros' Probably form the base of G3466; dull or stupid (as if shut up), that is, heedless, (morally) blockhead, (apparently) absurd: - fool (-ish, X -ishness).
I contend that "foolish" means foolish - not incomplete.
™ Version 4.0 Beta
