Christianity and wealth

Your question then was how can we know anything except by reason. It was a great question in that it opened up the possibility of a thread which could examine the basis for other ways of knowing and for these ways of knowing to be valid even if they didn't have the same characteristics as objectively demonstratable.Objections would immediately be made on the basis that "objectivity/empirical is the only way you can know". This is an assertion that needs backup in order for it to be said to be true. If it can't be shown to be true then it becomes obvious that it is a philosophical position - not an objective one. That would have consequences for someone who attempted to use classical objectivity as an objection.Note I am not saying that you cannot know via the objective. You patently can. But this is not the only way. I can ask for objective evidence that objectivity is the only way we can know. Whether or not I provide an alternative at this point is irrelevant. The claim has been made in one form or another dozens of times. Can folk back it up? Objectively?To date no one has. Hmmm. That gives me an idea for a thread

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

It may come up in another thread but when I googled this word, the first listing gave a description of this sense. It described too a person who had lost this sense. It seems that it is only a feedback part of the sensory system. A knowledge for example of how crooked your finger is without sight or feel to determine how crooked it is. By your reckoning, if the person who hadn't got this sense lost their other 5 sense they would cease to exist. I can't think how you would test this assertion (if all 6 senses were't there, there would be no way to input or get feedback from/to the person to know one way or the other.We are more than the sum of our senses. If a person only had speech, hearing and proprioception they would be a much a person as you or me (and we would treat them as such) Then they loose hearing. We would know that lack of hearing hasn't changed them as a card-carrying member of the human race one bit. If they then lost speech we would still know that they existed but just couldn't communicate. Proprioception isn't vital to them anymore because their is nothing for proprioception to do - as there is nothing to get feedback from in order to apply control. If the person lost proprioception then so what? It would be as useful as them as an appendix is. They would still be them.The person in this instance had no proprioception. When they heard however, what they heard meant something to them. To THEM not proprioception or any other of the senses. The THEM isn't dependant on any of the '6' senses.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

Millions know Christianity to be true because this "fact is something that is so strongly supported by evidence that to disbelieve it is perverse". But you aliken it to Peter Pan. Why? I suggest that it is because the word evidence YOU use has the adjective 'objective' inextricably linked with it. It's Peter Pan-ish because the only evidence you find acceptable is objective evidence as defined by you. That other evidence which is more compelling may exist but that you aren't privy to it says nothing about it's existance. You may say "I don't believe in Christianity because there is no evidence of any sort which has enabled me to take it as fact" Fair enoughBut in Peter Panning it, you go one stage further and reveal a view that "objective is the only way we can know - any other claim about knowing is as ridiculous as believing in Peter Pan".Millions of smart, discerning people over thousands of years believe in Christianity. Few (except perhaps the children and the simple) believe in Peter Pan. Alikening the two together reveals a level of resistance to accept that this objective evidence demands an explaintion - which borders on fanaticism - so irrational is it.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

And I'll be polite and say that Charles should take the plank out of his own eye before he worries about the speck of sawdust in others. Because Brian asserts that I've mis-underestood him doesn't mean that I have. Your propensity to hop in with a conclusion before you've listened to both sides is your perogative but as with your recent Coffee House lurking-demands for quote references has shown, it pays to consider the whole position before moving in for the kill.

---

Romans 10:9-10: " if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved....."

quote:

---

but as with your recent Coffee House lurking-demands for quote references has shown

---

which is not what happened! Do you just lie out of habit or for fun?I asked for clarification of the example not references -one of my first statements on the matter was:

quote:

---

Yes I've found the reference

---

http://EvC Forum: Abortion -->EvC Forum: Abortionsomething that was further compounded when you tried to lie and said that I'd asked for "peer-reviewed material" - something that never happened - anyone can read the thread and check for themselves.

quote:

---

Your propensity to hop in with a conclusion before you've listened to both sides is your perogative but as with your recent Coffee House lurking-demands for quote references has shown, it pays to consider the whole position before moving in for the kill.

---

in fact the whole statement when take in context is total bollocks of the first order and another attempt to try and distort the interaction we had - how could I have been "moving in for the kill" when I was asking for clarification of your example?That's ALL I was doing (and defending myself from your misquoting of my questioning - something you did about 3/4 times in about 10 posts. Admin however felt that you didn't deserve a suspension because your comprehension skills are serverely limited)

quote:

---

The quotation itself is of interest because it clearly shows the thinking and comprehension levels of the audience. Anyone who could accept such a quotation as being valid IS severely limited and does deserve extra cconsideration.

---

http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consecution -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The ConsecutionAnd that's my final word on the matter - what more needs to be said ? People can check the thread themselves and make up their own mind about the situation and your posting habitsThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 10:37 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-Sep-2005 11:26 AM

quote:

---

Millions of smart, discerning people over thousands of years believe in Christianity. Few (except perhaps the children and the simple) believe in Peter Pan.

---

There have probably been many more Hindus "over the years" than there have been Christians.That means, if we use your logic, Hinduism is correct because it has had the most number of adherents over the longest time.

If only it were that simple...I don't say Christianity is correct or even true just because millions believe it. What I do say is that to simply dismiss Christianity or Hinduism as Peter Pan in the face of the evidence of millions, is unworthy of people who seem to adhere to some notion that observed phenomenon have reasons and that those reasons need to be investigated with a view to finding out the reasons why the occurance occursIf someone is interested in the natural world and what science reveals about it then fair enough. They don't have to be interested in why millions of people (the vast majority in fact) down through the ages believe in a god. But to write it off with Peter Pan and delusion and indoctrination by Religion and fear of death etc. without knowing whether there is any sound basis for saying so, says more about the people so dismissing that it does about the adherents to a belief in a god.I would be loathe to say that this is sloppy thinking from those who seem to pride themselves on clarity of thinking in their own area of interest - I think there are other reasons for itBut objective it most certainly isn't...

Contact with the topic theme has been mighty thin since somewhere before message 30.Closing.Adminnemooseus

---