by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
I am not using Socrates to validate anything other than IF traditon is a valid form of evidence.
Fair enough.
So, to that point, there is a problem, known as the Socratic Problem, that adresses that. It is unknow what is and is not true about Socrates. There is a suspicion that Aristotle exaggerated a lot, but no way to tell what or by how much.
So, to that point, there is a problem, known as the Socratic Problem, that adresses that. It is unknow what is and is not true about Socrates. There is a suspicion that Aristotle exaggerated a lot, but no way to tell what or by how much.
Of course and it is feesable to aproach the gospels with the same view.
Taking the Gospels alone we do NOT know what is truth, fiction, exaggerating about Christ.
Nice, yes I have that beer before.
I am stuck at work :(
Me too. But I work from home. And the company is pretty much shut down for Xmas for the rest of the year.
You are passing judgement. Using synonyms doesn't change that.
Judging between things... testing the truth of falseness of something... is discerning, examining, testing. One is SUPPOSED to do this. So does doing these things make one arrogant? <= not a trick question.
That in no way changes that none of you started using that until you hung around with Shelby. And, the full name shelby uses is attributable only to her.
And all of the people that also use that name (in minor variations)? How did they come to that if one can only know that name through Shelby?
Only one name... the other is a title... same as the Messiah or the Christ.
I also pointed out that you are defeding what you claim you aren't doing by also attributing it to others.
No. I am trying to get YOU to see that what you are accusing is driven by bias, and not evidence... otherwise you would also apply it to everyone else.
Peace,
tammy
Taking the Gospels alone we do NOT know what is truth, fiction, exaggerating about Christ.
Agreed.
Peace,
tammy
Me too. But I work from home. And the company is pretty much shut down for Xmas for the rest of the year. ~~ EP
Is that some sort of tradition ?
Judging between things... testing the truth of falseness of something... is discerning, examining, testing. One is SUPPOSED to do this. So does doing these things make one arrogant? <= not a trick question.
Only if you are claiming they aren't "true" like you are using arbitrary standards
And all of the people that also use that name (in minor variations)? How did they come to that if one can only know that name through Shelby?
There are two points. NONE, not one, not a single one of you used ANY form of that name until after you started listening to her.
Two, the FULL name that she uses is ONLY attributable to her, anywhere, ever.
You change your ways to follow her. When she blatantly insults people, you never correct her. You defend the most illogical, easily disproven stuff she says. You hang on and wait for her words that she gets from God and suddenly god is telling you the same stuff even though, without her, he never did before.
In what way is Cofty wrong to call you a disciple?
No. I am trying to get YOU to see that what you are accusing is driven by bias, and not evidence... otherwise you would also apply it to everyone else.
I do apply it to others. All the time.
Is that some sort of tradition ?
Yes. Why?
When I came to know the One many CALL "Jesus" I came to know that "Jesus" has never done anything for me... because there is no such person. - Shelby
there is no "Jesus." Else, he would ANSWER everyone CALLING on him. - Shelby
Well then, by following your analogy, neither do you have any evidence. You can say you have it, but it wouldn't be any more or less valid than what cofty can come up with for the contrary. That's why it should concern you. cofty said: "It was evidence that brought me to disbelief and it was a difficult, heart-wrenching transition." I think you confuse what his evidence is. It is notthe lack of evidence that fails to support the idea of god. It IS the evidence that discounts the idea of God (at least the one that's commonly touted in the Bible).
Cofty does not believe... because He sees (and/or accepts) no evidence for God. He has stated so himself.
The evidence that he has against God is still evidence... but that does not mean that his evidence hold up. Because none of it is concrete... not even for him.
I have examined and discussed and debated with Cofty about his evidence. Again, it poses no threat to my faith.
"a false premise does not necessarily mean that the conclusion is not true. The conclusion can still be true, even if one or more premises are false)".
Correct. But then, one would not be using a deductive method at all, because the conclusion in a deductive method MUST STEM from the premises. If they are false the conclusion would be false. If the conclusion is correct it's not because of the premises and is either a coincidence or simply arbitration.
Yes, but how did that happen? To what degree did you just give in? It seems like you were particular enough and somewhat critical because you asked a lot of questions and received few answers. What happened that persuaded you at all? The failure of that mechanism is what we need to keep watching and testing. If you were persuaded once, you can be persuaded again by your own internal reasoning.
I told you what happened. I did not want to think anymore. I wanted to be TOLD what to think. I was no longer interested in truth. I was no longer reasoning. I was tired of trying to figure it out and wanted to pass the buck.
Like I said... it lasted a week. I could not continue with it. But I am glad to have had the experience, so that i can recognize it. So yes, I do keep watching and testing against that failure, so that it does not happen again.
OK. If you have examined to your satisfaction then your reality is self contained. But I find that what makes reality more worthwhile is that it also jibes with the rest of the world around us, not as some sort of popular confirmation (because others can also be wrong) but as a testable means of our beliefs via common rules. For that, you need exposure to the opposing "evidence". Obviously, for others, your "evidence" is shaky, starting with the Bible. Why? What is it that in the most formal sense of exploration, scholars find these problems in religious sources but people refuse to recognize them? If you reject those problems, what kind of examination have you really conducted of the "evidence" you say you have?
Etude, I DO recognize those problems. I do have exposure to opposing evidence... in fact, I am a big proponent of the fact that the bible has errors and is not inerrant. (no reason to think it is to begin with, it does not make that claim about itself)
So I have not rejected the problems with the bible. Indeed, I am often the one pointing them out.
See, this is a prime example that casts doubt on your "foundation". Apart from the Bible, there are no reliable references to Christ (Jesus) in any part of history. There are references to several other individuals who might fit some aspects of what the NT refers to Christ, but that is all. Any other reference to Christ has come via tertiary and quaternary sources centuries after his alluded time. So, if your foundation is Christ and not the Bible, how could you possibly know about Christ without the Bible? Where did this "foundation" come from? What is the source of this evidence that gives you "faith"? If "faith" to you is "knowing", there is very little to know with certainty about what you belive.
The bible is not one source. It simply holds the accounts from many sources. So... more than one reference. But again, it is a finger... pointing... to Christ.
It is not the fact that something is written in the bible that matters to me.
It is the truth of what is written. (not as a whole, because the bible is not written as a whole; it is not an all or nothing book)
Truths can be tested.
One such truth is that Christ is here and is alive and speaks... as the Spirit. Since I know that is true (because He has spoken to me, via the spirit)... then what was written on this was reliable.
Other truths are things that He taught... things about love, and mercy, and forgiveness, about faith... these are true, proven true in my life, and so reliable.
Do you understand what i am trying to explain? It is not the authority of the bible that matters... it is the actual truth and/or validity in something written.
I think I had a brain fart when I wrote the sentence "You can't state that you use the written word of Christ when there's so much evidence to show that Christ not his disciples wrote anything." It should have read: "You can't state that you use the written word of Christ when there's so much evidence to show that neither Christ nor his disciples wrote anything."
Okay, that makes more sense, lol. But I understood this already, and that is why I mentioned that Luke investigated what he wrote... from others. That does not mean that he was eyewitness to anything. Means the opposite, at least in the Gospel attributed to him.
There is no evidence that what was written in the canon (with perhaps a tiny exception) was written by any apostle or the author ascribed to the writing, especially the Gospels.
Other than the ones that specifically state who they were written by, in the form of their introduction or conclusion. Such as the book of Luke; the letters from Paul. We also have written at the end of the book of John that one of the disciples DID write things down.
Most of the Gospels' origins can only be traced to well over 100 years after Christ's supposed death.
I think opinions on this differ, but even so... word of mouth; then a recording of that... for some or most.
The apostles were uneducated while the Gospel writings seem well versed.
Do you know this? That all the apostles were uneducated? If so, how?
The style is that of Greek writers and the apostles were illiterate (by the Bible's own admission).
Please point out where this is written, that the apostles were illiterate. Again, at the end of the book of John, the disciple whom Christ loves is given credit for having written his testimony.
There are many more problems associated with that I can't mention now. It just seems that this is the evidence which you are not considering which affects the bottom line of your foundation. I think that by refining what your "foundation" is (not the Bible) you've shown an even shakier source of evidence.
I do appreciate you taking the time to try and help me to see this evidence, Etude, but I have seen and examined and considered such.
The writings and testimonies in the bible and elsewhere might help to provide evidence to consider Christ... but the knowing comes from knowing/hearing/listening to Christ, Himself... through the spirit.
Peace to you,
tammy
I am also off for a few hours... catch ya's later.
Peace,
tammy
