Epistemology. I Wonder 2... (page 6)

zound

Do you acknowledge evolution Tec? If not, why not?

tec

Does that help clear up my stance?

Yes, and THANK YOU for answering my question. Often, the questions that I ask go unanswered or ignored. You were very articulate also.

Question; are you aware of your subjective sensitivity?

Yes, which is why I must be very careful as well. So that I do not add my own spin to what Christ teaches me, due to something that I may WANT to believe instead.

And yes, He has taught me things that were not what I wanted to believe. He has also told me not to do something (when I asked Him what I should do)... that I wanted to do.

You knowing from Christ does not address the validity of this source.

This is true, and I am also glad that you said it so succinctly.

Because... knowing that Christ speaks... and so IS alive... does tend to add validity to the truth of what He said about who HE was and who He came from... and the witness testimony of those who also saw and heard Him after He rose again... in person and in spirit.

I sure don't know anyone else who has died, risen again, and having risen is alive and still speaks. Tends to allow one to put faith in Him who is the Spirit... about the realm He came from, about His Father, about ALL that he taught and teaches.

Seeing promises kept... adds to the trustworthiness of Christ.

Having never once been lied to or led wrong by Christ... adds also to the Truth of his words.

So if you are seeking truth (and truth does not change)... there really is no one better to go to than the Truth, the one who does know. Not what others tell you the truth is... or their interpretations of the truth... man has been misled plenty by those who lure people to them, instead of pointing toward the One who DOES know.

I hope my candid argument is understood for what it is.

I think so. You are believing things based on hard 'visible' evidence. Your knowledge (and conclusions, therefore) may change as the science changes, and as more info or evidence is presented. Mostly in a scientific manner.

(I accept evolution also for similar reasons... though there are certainly questions/details that may change some of the inferences made about it in general)

It is somewhat limited... as you, yourself, admit... to what tools and evidence are available at any given time. I am not knocking this method at all, please understand that. Our sources, from whom we learn, are different... though each source is availabe to either of us... and Christ is not limited to current tools or evidences (though our capability of understanding may be limited, including my own). Scientific discoveries and hypothesis and theories have certainly helped me to hear/see/understand things that my Lord has taught... and/or understand what HE taught someone else, that they tried to describe via terminology of 2000 years ago.

Thank you for the honest and respectful discussion, braincleaned.

Peace to you!

tammy

tec

Tec, I take it from context is that you want my interpretation on this verse?

No, I just wanted to add that verse for consideration to the context of Hebrews 11:1, as well as the examples of people hearing Chrsit speak to them after Chrsit IS the Spirit. Thank you though.

The question I hoped you would answer was in regard to what you thought of those verses/examples... of those who DID hear Christ in the Spirit?

Because it seems to me that you dismiss this as being possible, and place it in the realm of things such as the video that you linked.

I could be wrong. That is why I am asking.

Peace,

tammy

tec

Do you acknowledge evolution Tec? If not, why not?

I answered that in my post just above, but just in case you do not look there:

(I accept evolution also for similar reasons... though there are certainly questions/details that may change some of the inferences made about it in general)

Peace to you,

tammy

cofty

Tammy - You can't have evolution and Adam and Eve. You are prevaricating.

tec

According to your understanding of the spiritual... which is nil, according to your own words. I am not making a judgment against you. And according to your interpretation of the creation account and the story of Adam/Eve. And according to the current understanding of evolution... which is not complete.

That is a lot of variables under which to make that statement.

(but I don't want to change this thread into one about evolution... we have plenty of those, and so I do not intend to continue with you on that here, Cofty)

Peace,

tammy

braincleaned

Well I must say this discussion was interesting and thank you tec for your honest answers.
I can more easily understand your process, and although of course I have a different one, I can respect your sincerety in using it. I agree about the limitations of our tools. I will admit that the scientific method is not perfect — I just think it's the best we have to date for generating empirical data.

As for these limits not being a problem for Christ, of course, this is a statement of Faith that I cannot dispute.
I can only dispute the validity of Faith itself — which is subject deserving another thread altogether! :D

Once again, thank you. Nice to go thru a discussion without sarcasm nor childish fightiing.

tec

Nice to go thru a discussion without sarcasm nor childish fightiing

Agreed!!

Peace,

tammy

jgnat

I'm not going to hop, skip and jump scriptures together. I've given my interpretation of both.

The Christians of Acts, their faith came from hearing...the testimony of Peter.

I do not tie that video to your experience.

I do think it is possible that the Christ persona could be an element of your own mind. Shooting for the divine, a beautiful thing.

braincleaned

Cofty, I agree. But I admit that that Tec's method of reasoning is not rooted in traditional creationism.
I may be wrong, but I don't think she believes in Adam & Eve in a literal sense.
I admit that I find myself unable to dispute her beliefs at this point — which have surprised me in their peculiarity.

As I have said, at this point the focus of discussion may need to be on Faith itself.

Paul defines Faith as a matter of 'trust in hope based on unseen evidence'.
I don't believe like some say that Faith is a word interchangeable with Trust. It is more complex than that.

From my perspective, I do think that Faith is an unreasonable quality, as it excludes the search or need for any form of empirical evidence.
I also think that Faith is more deeply rooted in emotional need than any other thought processes.
Although not a synonym of hope, hope is an intrinsic part of Faith.

Very heavy stuff that usually delves into the philosophical tentacles of infinite propositions.

Epistemology. I Wonder 2...

Share this