Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Introducing Thugpreacha
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 54 of 133 (852905)
05-20-2019 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
05-20-2019 1:02 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
Critical thinking leads to the fact that Book of Daniel is primarily concerned with Antiochus Epiphanes and that Daniel never existed.
Critical thinking leads to the fact that the Gospels are not historically reliable,
Does your “traditional view” accept those facts ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 1:02 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 1:24 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 56 of 133 (852907)
05-20-2019 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Phat
05-20-2019 1:24 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
I would argue that they are not facts
And how would you argue against the strange invisibility of Daniel in history (and the rest of the Bible) or his apparent ignorance of Nabonidus ?
How would you argue against the literary dependencies between the Synoptic Gospels, the disagreements between the Gospels (especially those concerning the post-Resurrection appearances) ?
Or even the Nativity ? Was Jesus born to a couple living in Bethlehem shortly before the reign of Herod Archelaus or to a couple resident in Nazareth shortly after that reign ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 1:24 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 2:09 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 2:58 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 58 of 133 (852915)
05-20-2019 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Faith
05-20-2019 2:09 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
You are arguing from an ABSENCE of information and making too much of tiny discrepancies which only show that different people had slightly different points of view.
Not just the absence of information - and even when I am it is information that should be there - and it certainly isn’t just “different points of view”. That is just completely ridiculous.
quote:
Critical thinking leads to the recognition that scripture was given to us by God and we are to read it from that point as "God-breathed" knowing that such questions as you raise are irrelevant.
By which you mean that critical thinking supports MY view - so you throw out critical thinking. But you know that’s bad so you have to pretend that you aren’t doing it even though you make it obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 2:09 PM Faith has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 61 of 133 (852918)
05-20-2019 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Phat
05-20-2019 2:58 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
As a believer, I have faced such arguments before. It is silly to deny that there are discrepancies...I am not a word-for-word literalist. I am, however, a thought-for-thought literalist.
The question is how you answer them - and in context how you answer them without abandoning critical thinking.
quote:
The main point of the Bible is to show humanity that God is alive even when He seems distant and imagined.
It certainly doesn’t do that for me.
quote:
...but to me, it is more folly to suggest the fact that we humans live on a dust speck of a planet---Sagans Pale Blue Dot---and have the audacity as a species of questioning, doubting, and attempting to disprove the existence of a Creator to ourselves while at the same time using mathematics to postulate the literal existence of multiverses.
It seems to me to be a far greater folly to throw out science in favour of myth and legend. Indeed, we do not argue that we can disprove a Creator - though we do argue that we can disprove the literal reading of many creation myths.
quote:
e of multiverses. You are free to take the meaning of the stories any way you so choose. I find personally that when I begin to relish the role of a critic higher than I do the role of a believer I, in essence, become my own god even while rejecting the God Who Is. Not a wise move.
The wise move is to double down on becoming your own god ? I don’t think so. Extreme skepticism is an error, of course, but the other extreme is so much worse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 2:58 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 3:45 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 63 of 133 (852922)
05-20-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Phat
05-20-2019 3:45 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
We both agree that the goal of applying critical thinking to our lives is not intended to be a tool used to dismiss the possibility of a Creator. Correct?
The goal of critical thinking is to expose falsehoods and those ideas inadequately supported by the evidence. Young Earth Creationism is the former, Deistic creation the latter.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 3:45 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 4:31 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 5:05 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 72 by Phat, posted 05-21-2019 9:02 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 65 of 133 (852931)
05-20-2019 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
05-20-2019 4:31 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
If a Creator existed and yet it could be scientifically "shown" that the universe need not require a Creator, as Hawking stated...it would boil down to faith rather than evidence. If no such Creator existed, those of you who have not found a reason to believe would be vindicated.
In fact the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient to support a claim does not require the claim to be shown to be false to be vindicated. Only the conclusion that the claim is false would need that.
And if there is insufficient evidence for belief then surely it must come down to faith.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 05-20-2019 4:31 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 67 of 133 (852933)
05-20-2019 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
05-20-2019 5:05 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
That's an inadequate definition. Critical thinking weighs whatever information is available on both sides, including vagueness, imponderables, suspected but not proven falseness, various kinds and credibility of evidence, and comes to conclusions based on the assigned weights since evidence on many subjects is really not all that compelling.
A goal is not a definition. In particular it is not required to state how the goal is to be achieved.
You would be far better advised to back up your strange assertion that critical thinking somehow leads to the view that “scripture was given to us by God” - apparently without even considering the contrary evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 5:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 8:29 PM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 69 of 133 (852939)
05-20-2019 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Faith
05-20-2019 8:29 PM


Re: Am I correct in assuming you were thinking of Colossians 2?
quote:
Critical thinking takes into account the experience of being born again and of spiritual discernment.
Subjective experiences and evaluations have little weight.
I can, however observe your behaviour and your claims of “discernment” and see that objectively they offer even less to support your opinions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Faith, posted 05-20-2019 8:29 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 12:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(2)
Message 71 of 133 (852941)
05-21-2019 12:44 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by Faith
05-21-2019 12:25 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
Since you yourself have no spiritual discernment, you can't judge someone else's.
Sure I can. If your “spiritual discernment” is obviously not helping you understand the Bible - if I can clearly see that it’s just giving your prejudice a fancy name to exalt it (and I can) then what more is there to say ?
I can judge your claim to “spiritual discernment” better than you can. Indeed, that would likely be true even if your judgement wasn’t marred by prejudice and irrationality and false pride.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 12:25 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 10:17 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 74 of 133 (852948)
05-21-2019 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Faith
05-21-2019 10:17 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
Yeah well I'm the one who gets it right about the Bible. Sorry
No, you’re the one who gets it wrong about the Bible. That’s how I know you don’t have “spiritual discernment”.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 10:17 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 10:46 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 75 of 133 (852949)
05-21-2019 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Phat
05-21-2019 9:02 AM


Re: Before We Go Any Further...RAZD Are You There?
quote:
Perhaps you can clarify your position, PaulK. I have understood you to be basically an atheist who defers to the latest in scientific understanding as to the origin of the universe as we know it.
I think the best clarification is to repeat what I said. I regard Deistic Creation as an idea with inadequate support from the evidence - but not one that can be disproved. Indeed, I would say that it is unfalsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Phat, posted 05-21-2019 9:02 AM Phat has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 81 of 133 (852957)
05-21-2019 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Faith
05-21-2019 10:46 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
You wouldn't know, though, because you don't have spiritual discernment
But I do know because your errors are so obvious.
quote:
I know it because I do have spiritual discernment.
And how do you know that?
quote:
You are all wrong about the book of Daniel for instance, ridiculously wrong.
You say that, but I have evidence. You only have false boasting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 10:46 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 11:27 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 84 of 133 (852960)
05-21-2019 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
05-21-2019 11:27 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
There are whole studies of Daniel that I've read that taught me the interpretation I follow.
And I note that they are unable to adequately answer my points.
quote:
Yours comes from revisionist modernists, mine comes from the standard approach followed by all orthodox Protestant evangelicals.
More accurately I take my views from study of the text and the relevant history - scholars pointed me in the right direction but I don’t take their views uncritically. But then again why shouldn’t scholars be better able to retrieve the original meaning before the revisionists got at it ?
And I contend that is exactly what has happened. Daniel speaks of an End Time in the 2nd Century BC - chapter 8 is especially clear on that. The revisionists first tried to move it to the 1st Century AD and now place it at an indefinite future time.
And you didn’t answer my question. How do you know that you have “spiritual discernment”? If you really used critical thinking that would be a very important point that you would have to address.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 11:27 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 11:48 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 05-21-2019 11:50 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 133 (852968)
05-21-2019 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Faith
05-21-2019 11:48 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
I know I have spiritual discernment because I use it all the time.
In other words you don’t know and you weren’t using critical thinking at all.
quote:
I know the traditional view of Daniel is correct because I have spiritual discernment.
So we’re back to the fact that I have evidence - including the actual text - and you just have false boasting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 11:48 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Faith, posted 05-21-2019 11:55 AM PaulK has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 104 of 133 (852980)
05-21-2019 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Phat
05-21-2019 11:50 AM


Re: Critical thinking/ spiritual discernment.
quote:
Were I to ask this question, I would seek to know the motives of the scholars and the motives of the revisionists if in fact there actually were revisionists. I am unconvinced at this point.
Scholars in general are trying to get at the truth. To understand the Bible in its historical context. But the first question you should ask is whether their views fit with the text - it isn’t hard to find a Bible and check ! That’s a lot better - and far more relevant than imputing motives to people you don’t know.
The revisionists on the other hand were likely trying to save a failed prophecy. Hardly uncommon behaviour amongst apologists even now.
quote:
For instance, it is claimed that the Gospel of John was written and revised and edited by redactors. The Christian Apologists never mention this claim, so either the Christian Apologists have an ulterior motive to direct and hide the full truth or (more likely in my mind) the scholars who claim to be unbiased and fully neutral are in fact tools of Satan.
That seems highly prejudiced and prejudicial. Apologists are inherently biased - and often less than honest. If you are looking for “tools of Satan” the latter seems a useful pointer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 05-21-2019 11:50 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024