Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8805 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-13-2017 7:30 PM
349 online now:
kbertsche, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Percy (Admin) (3 members, 346 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,104 Year: 28,710/21,208 Month: 776/1,847 Week: 151/475 Day: 44/17 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Because The Bible Tells Me So
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 76 of 111 (389038)
03-10-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Phat
03-10-2007 10:26 AM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
Phat writes:

I dunno...its kinda like a talent scout knows talent. hey can just smell it.

That's a good analogy. :)

There is no absolute standard of what "talent" is. A (good) talent scout has an ability to recognize talent that the general public will enjoy. A bad talent scout will be distracted by his own tastes.

Similarly, a good "wisdom scout" would have an ability to recognize what the general public would perceive as wisdom. A bad wisdom scout would be confused by his own preconceived notions of what wisdom is.

So we're back to square one: talent is what we perceive as talent and wisdom is what we perceive as wisdom.

Im not sure if we are programmed to be in touch with Gods wisdom or not, though.

If we were "programmed" to be in touch with God's wisdom, wouldn't that make our wisdom closer to His instead of farther?


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Phat, posted 03-10-2007 10:26 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 03-10-2007 11:48 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 77 of 111 (389042)
03-10-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by ringo
03-10-2007 11:06 AM


Wisdom Scouts and Preconceptions
Ringo writes:

If we were "programmed" to be in touch with God's wisdom, wouldn't that make our wisdom closer to His instead of farther?


Yeah.

I gotta go to work, but when I get home, I'll bring up some scriptures that would qualify as my preconceived teaching. (what I was taught) Then we can put our noggins together and see if it all makes sense or whether P.T. Barnum was right! :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by ringo, posted 03-10-2007 11:06 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 78 of 111 (389093)
03-10-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by ringo
03-09-2007 1:08 PM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
You can "pre"sume or "as"sume anything you want, but it's still a human presumption or a human assumption. It's human wisdom about what may or may not be God's wisdom.

So then the quote becomes:

quote:
The wisdom of the world is foolishness to a human wisdom about what may or may not be God's wisdom.

I can imagine god's wisdom being so great that the wisdom of the world is negligible compared to it. I think describing the wisdom of the world as foolishness could mean that. I don't think it has to mean that our wisdom is false.

There can not be any meaningful comparison between our wisdom and God's wisdom unless we know what God's wisdom is. And how can we know what God's wisdom is if our wisdom is so stunted?

Some guy had a belief about god's wisdom and said that our's is foolishness compared do god's. I don't think he was saying that all our wisdom is false. I think he's saying that ours is minuscule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by ringo, posted 03-09-2007 1:08 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-10-2007 4:26 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 79 of 111 (389095)
03-10-2007 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by New Cat's Eye
03-10-2007 4:00 PM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
Catholic Scientist writes:

I can imagine god's wisdom being so great that the wisdom of the world is negligible compared to it.

Again, what you can imagine/conceive/comprehend is human wisdom. You might be imagining a realy, really, really, really big elephant, but it's still an elephant.

I don't think he was saying that all our wisdom is false. I think he's saying that ours is minuscule.

In this context, what's the difference between false and miniscule?

However miniscule, our own wisdom is all we have. For practical purposes, it's the really, really, really, really big God-wisdom that's irrelevant. The "true" wisdom is the wisdom that works.


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-10-2007 4:00 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2007 11:10 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 80 of 111 (389234)
03-11-2007 11:10 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by ringo
03-10-2007 4:26 PM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
In this context, what's the difference between false and miniscule?

Because we are not wrong. We just don't know it all.

To say that the quote means that we are wrong makes the quote false, IMHO. To say that the quote only means that there is much-much more to learn, means that the quote is true, presumably.

For practical purposes, it's the really, really, really, really big God-wisdom that's irrelevant.

To the athiest, yes. To the theist, no.

The "true" wisdom is the wisdom that works.

Word.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by ringo, posted 03-10-2007 4:26 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 03-12-2007 12:17 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 81 of 111 (389243)
03-12-2007 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
03-11-2007 11:10 PM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
Catholic Scientist writes:

In this context, what's the difference between false and miniscule?

Because we are not wrong. We just don't know it all.

That makes no sense. If we don't know it all, how can we know we're not wrong?

To say that the quote means that we are wrong makes the quote false, IMHO.

Well, I showed that the Greek word translated "foolishness" means "silly", "absurd", "dull", "stupid". Your opinion notwithstanding, there can't be much doubt that that implies "wrong".

For practical purposes, it's the really, really, really, really big God-wisdom that's irrelevant.

To the athiest, yes. To the theist, no.

Theist or atheist makes no difference. Unless a theist knows what God knows, he is in the same boat with the atheist. He has only his own wisdom. (The atheist is just more honest about it.)


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-11-2007 11:10 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2007 12:57 AM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11841
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 82 of 111 (389254)
03-12-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by ringo
03-12-2007 12:17 AM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
That makes no sense. If we don't know it all, how can we know we're not wrong?

We can't. Its just a quote, Ringo. You don't have to wholly agree with it to say that foolishness does not equal falsehood.

Well, I showed that the Greek word translated "foolishness" means "silly", "absurd", "dull", "stupid". Your opinion notwithstanding, there can't be much doubt that that implies "wrong".

I don't find any of those synonyms to be equal to "false" by necessity, either.

Theist or atheist makes no difference. Unless a theist knows what God knows, he is in the same boat with the atheist. He has only his own wisdom.

But the quote is not about what the author knows, its just a belief of his. It is not some profound fact... just a musing, IMHO.

It is based on his belief about what he thinks god knows, not some fact about what god must know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by ringo, posted 03-12-2007 12:17 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 03-12-2007 1:12 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 83 of 111 (389259)
03-12-2007 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by New Cat's Eye
03-12-2007 12:57 AM


Re: Confused in California (and probably a little foolish).
Catholic Scientist writes:

I don't find any of those synonyms to be equal to "false" by necessity, either.

Unless you're yodelling My Fair Lady while doing backflips, "foolishness" is a lot closer to "false" than it is to "not false".

But the quote is not about what the author knows, its just a belief of his.

That's not what it says though. Paul was making a direct comparison between human wisdom and God's wisdom:

quote:
1Co 3:18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
1Co 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
1Co 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

He said directly, "The Lord knoweth...." - clearly implying that Paul knoweth what God knoweth. How can you twist that into Paul not claiming to have wisdom over and above human wisdom?

It is not some profound fact... just a musing, IMHO.

That's what I've been saying all along: "God's wisdom is not our wisdom" has no more meaning than "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves...."


Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-12-2007 12:57 AM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 84 of 111 (824554)
11-30-2017 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
03-01-2007 6:00 PM


The Chicago Statement Revisited
ringo writes:

How can we possibly know what is foolishness to God? The wisdom of the world is all we have.

You had a good argument ten years ago.

Lets discuss the Chicago Statement.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 03-01-2007 6:00 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:20 AM Phat has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13968
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 85 of 111 (824557)
11-30-2017 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
11-30-2017 11:10 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
Phat writes:

Lets discuss the Chicago Statement.


I Googled it. It's way too long to read but I'm willing to nitpick whatever parts of it you bring up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:10 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:27 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 86 of 111 (824560)
11-30-2017 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by ringo
11-30-2017 11:20 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
I think I already understand your position on it. I'm more interested in their position and how they arrived at it.

Let me get my ducks in a row and then I'll make a post here in a day or so.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by ringo, posted 11-30-2017 11:20 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 11:31 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 92 by kbertsche, posted 11-30-2017 5:36 PM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 29763
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 87 of 111 (824561)
11-30-2017 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Phat
11-30-2017 11:27 AM


Re: The Chicago Statement Revisited
They first decided what must be true and then wrote an apologetic to prove that what THEY wanted was TRUE.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 11:27 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-30-2017 11:43 AM jar has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 111 (824564)
11-30-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by jar
11-30-2017 11:31 AM


The Chicago Statement Revisited and Biblical documents.
quote:

They first decided what must be true and then wrote an apologetic to prove that what THEY wanted was TRUE.

I know that the Roman Catholic church has a 1911 rule of belief (that the faithful must follow) on the ORIGINAL Gospel of Matthew:

It must be in Hebrew or Aramaic.

It must contain substantially the same text as the later Greek Matthew.

It cannot simply be seen as a Sayings gospel (like Thomas and Q).

It is not required to have be written AFTER Peter came to Rome (after 60 A.D.) like Irenaeus & others said.

(understand that the Greek translation can be seen as later than Mark)

(I can find references)

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 11:31 AM jar has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 1024
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 89 of 111 (824565)
11-30-2017 12:12 PM


Jar said this on another thread.
here was my words first.

quote:

(LNA writes)
Rome believes the (GOVERNMENT IMPOSED) church was infallible when it determined which books belong in the New Testament. Protestants believe the (GOVERNMENT) church acted rightly and accurately in this process, but not infallibly.

Jar then said

quote:

And that is as dishonest as your quote mining. Sorry but just like the fundies you are just making shit up.

Yes, more education is needed but what you are doing is the same propagandizing as those you criticize.

You are also missing what is significant in the basics of the beliefs of some Chapters of Club Christian so go back and read it again in context and think about it as well as the actual basis for Biblical inerrancy.

The most recent formulation was the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and RC Sproul was a major organizer and signatory to that document so it is relevant to this discussion.

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy stands in direct opposition to Lockes position; but remember that it is still limited and does not reflect Christianity but just some Chapters of Christianity. It is the latest affirmation of a Christian Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty.


I was thinking of the Council of Carthage.

Here are protestant apologists.

Found this on www.bing.com
keywords: council carthage authoritative early church

quote:

The Roman church says they proclaimed which books were actually inspired and placed them in one volume, so we should all be indebted to the Catholic Church for the New Testament. Actually the Catholic Church in 397 the Council of Carthage had the 27 books considered the canon. However these books were read and distributed as Scripture for over 300 years by individual Christians and churchs long before their church councils claimed to give us the Bible. The Synod of Antioch in 266 AD. had rejected Paul of Samosatas teaching (a modalist) as foreign to the ecclesiastical canon. Athanasius, who fought to preserve the Trinity in the council of Nicea in 325 Ad. when the Church was being challenged had all 27 books of the New Testament. When Athanasius argued in his debate against Arius he used much of the New Testament and quoted from almost every book. He said they were the springs of salvation do not add nor take away.

Almost 40 years later the council of Laodicea in 363 A.D. decreed that only canonized books of the old and new Testament were to be read in the Churchs. None of the councils made any list of what is in or out, the reason being that the majority of the church had accepted and used these books for many years before them. Are we to accept the premise that 300 years passed with confusion and we waited for the church to decide in 397 A.D. what was to be our Scripture? Generations would have come and gone not having the whole Bible. The truth is that we can produce almost the entire Bible we have today from the early church writings in the mid 100s to 200s.

In 397 Ad. the council of Carthage put their approval on the canon that was already read by and throughout the church. It then became a fixed canon for the western church as it was for the eastern.

http://www.letusreason.org/RC15.htm


Found this on
www.google.com
keywords: cannon council carthage roman government Jerome

quote:

The Council of Nicea did not take up the issue of the canon of Scripture. In fact, only regional councils touched on this issue (Hippo in 393, Carthage in 397) until much later. The New Testament canon developed in the consciousness of the church over time, just as the Old Testament canon did. See Don Kistler, ed., Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1995).2See Joseph P. Gudel, Robert M. Bowman, Jr., and Dan R. Schlesinger, Reincarnation Did the Church Suppress It? Christian Research Journal, Summer 1987, 8-12.3Gordon Rupp, Luthers Progress to the Diet of Worms (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1964), 66

http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/


The government did decide these councils near 400 AD.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Phat, posted 11-30-2017 12:56 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 91 by jar, posted 11-30-2017 1:48 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 10230
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 90 of 111 (824569)
11-30-2017 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by LamarkNewAge
11-30-2017 12:12 PM


Re: Jar said this on another thread.
It appears to me that the desired focus of your discussion is earlier than the Reform Movement (Sproul topic) and not Eurocentric. Please clarify your position as to what your argument is. I was preparing to discuss The Chicago Innerancy statement here. What is it that you wanted to discuss?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-30-2017 12:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017