- Oct 28, 2006
- 21,222
- 9,981
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Au contraire! One probably would be wiser to not apply any epistemic heuristic until he/she has become thoroughly familiar with the structural matrix of the theoretical construct of measurement being applied. You don't imbibe just any drink or eat just any donut without first looking at its contents, do you? [Gee, I sure hope you don't!] Of course, I've know people who just down a Mountain Dew or a Red Bull , or chow down on a Transfat filled meal without considering the consequences of the "application" to their thirst or hunger ...........and it's the same in this case, epistemologically speaking. What I tend to see, more often than not, are people who----due to being generally "Pee Oh'd" at Christianity----get so Gung Ho to see Christian Faith set sail and sink over the horizon [or just sink, period] that they just grab any two-cent concept and run with it. So, I'd say that the OTF needs to be qualified first through deconstruction before someone just blatantly presumes too much about the 'benefits' of its use, particularly where religion is concerned.Of course, I'd be quite interested to see how you applied the outsider's test of faith, because I can't see how any religion is able to stick out over any other when rigorously applied...
Yep, particulrly interested to hear how you applied that outsider's test of faith to your own...
Don't worry; I already tend to do all of this kind of thing. And I do so love science and history, not to mention the Philosophy of Science and the Philosophy of History. There's just so much there that one could almost *choke* on when attempting to justify so many things, don't you think?Agreed. It also helps to read up on the histories of each of these religions, when they started, where they come from, etc. There's a huge amount of support for the Egyptian religion being the foundation for pretty much every religion from the polytheism of the Roman, Greek pantheons, which gave rise to the Norse and Hindu religions, to even the monotheistic religions starting with Zoroastrians which preceded the Abrahamic religions by about the same time as Hinduism does - which is somewhere between 600 and 1500 years. I understand that this history is as contentious as evolution is to the fundamentalists, and this is why ancient egyptian history is barely touched on in history classes in american schools. The rest of us have no problem with science and history.
Don't ask 'which Pharoah.' Don't switch tracks here, going from the moral question and instead over to the historical question---you know good and well that I'm only talking about the supposed contexts surrounding the literary figure that we find in the Book of Exodus. That is what I'm referring to. IF you want to talk about 'which Pharoah' in historical terms, then that is a different topic altogether.Which Pharaoh? There's several thousand years worth of Pharaohs, and funny how neither recorded history, nor the Bible seem to identify the Pharaoh in question...
And I'm not going to pander to the "Take the Christian into a thousand different tangents of qualification so that the main discussion gets bogged down in too many deliberations........and just jump from one lilly-pad to another whenever the Christian attempts to make a point!" Yeah, homie don't play that game. So, pick your poison and stick to it. I'm only going to juggle one or two topics at a time.....
Yessiree, indeed! Context is King, that's why I apply this little thing called Philosophical Hermeneutics to everything I do [...or I attempt to, anyway. But y'know, no one is perfect].Indeed.
Last edited:
Upvote
0