cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
It's not goading if it's true......... :cool:

Right. So....................the antecedent consideration would be for the person who is actually engaging the OP to address the WHOLE of the OP and NOT just the last phrase that he/she happens to decide to focus on most. :cool:

Did you even read post #36? It says quite a lot. I even asked if you could identify what 'truth assignment function' I am employing.

Furthermore, Apologetics ISN'T and SHOULDN'T be seen as being simply on the defensive and having to only offer answers. A defense can also incorporate bilateral questioning........................or didn't you know that?

Did you even read post #36? It says quite a lot. I even asked if you could identify what 'truth assignment function' I am employing.

MOREOVER, just like there is more than one conception of "the Truth" or more than one type of Logic, there is also more than one approach to Christian Apologetics. People should learn this fact.*

Sure, but like I stated in post #36, let's cut to the 'meat and potatoes'. I laid my cards upon the table, to demonstrate why I have concluded that I do not think Jesus rose from the dead. I trust [you] would agree that the answer is either He did or He did not rise, right???? When you reference 'the truth', such a claim is either fact or fiction.

Thus, I'm asking you again.... (i.e.) from post #36.... And please remember, you seem concerned about 'which' truth assignment mechanism one is using....

a. Which/what methodology am I using to analyze the claim of a resurrection?
b. Is this identified methodology flawed?
c. If so, why?



To prove I watched your 4 minute video:

1. interpretation
2. activity / branch of philosophy
3. perception
4. knowledge
5. fusion
etc etc etc..........

Okay, so?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't respond to a lot of OP's. I'm not obligated, to my knowledge.

And neither am I "obligated" to play your games.

Get OFF of my thread then !!!!!!!!
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
And neither am I "obligated" to play your games.

Get OFF of my thread then !!!!!!!!

This topic received very little activity, do you really want me to 'get off'? :) If you want even less activity, I'll certainly leave the thread. But I'll leave you with this take-away @2PhiloVoid ...

The 'truth' of the matter is that Jesus either rose from the grave, or He did not. I've given you my synopsis as to why I doubt He did. I then asked you if this methodology, or approach in discerning 'truth', is a sound one? And if not, why not? The fact you haven't been willing to touch this, speaks volumes, quite frankly.

I also asked if you care about what specific applications for 'truth' people use to discern many other truth claims, or do you instead just look or ask for the evidence itself to discern for yourself? You really want none of it apparently.

And furthermore, the end of your OP asks specifically about the Bible.

In the future, if you want a very narrow and scripted sort of response, just say so. But this is probably why this thread is getting very little play :)

Peace
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Does it? I personally don't conceptualize 'truth' as a synonym for Reality ... No, more often than not, and sometimes not, what we think is truth is really either a partial, fragmented half-story, or a misunderstanding. This is one reason why some folks like better the idea of "provisional truth." ;)

Now maybe you understand why I find Mahayana Buddhism intriguing, and much more interesting than listening to Christians throw around notions like "objective truth" so casually.

Anyways, here's a bit of something to ponder:

"A is A, because A is not A" - Keiji Nishitani

I do wonder if the idea of truth would even arise if it were not for our experience of what is false (e.g. mistakes, lies, illusions, etc.). I don't see why it would.

Of course, they are interdependent.

As Thitch Nhat Hanh said "No mud, no lotus".
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,126,163.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Now maybe you understand why I find Mahayana Buddhism intriguing, and much more interesting than listening to Christians throw around notions like "objective truth" so casually.

Anyways, here's a bit of something to ponder:

"A is A, because A is not A" - Keiji Nishitani
I like this little bit from Nishitani, FireDragon76, assuming I understand it right. It seems to bring out one of the nuances of the several problems inferred in the OP and the main OP article. More specifically, the fact that whichever meta-epistemology is at play within our respective speech acts needs to be recognized when any of us attempts to discuss what "A" really is and what it means in relation to our overall concept(s) of Truth.
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I like this little bit from Nishitani, FireDragon76, assuming I understand it right. It seems to bring out one of the nuances of the several problems inferred in the OP and the main OP article. More specifically, the fact that whichever meta-epistemology is at play within our respective speech acts needs to be recognized when any of us attempts to discuss what "A" really is and what it means in relation to our overall concept(s) of Truth.

Could be. I am trying to follow the conversation, and the analytic style that Tarski uses is unfamiliar to me.

Nishitani's statement does have to do with paradox and mystery at the heart of reality, a reality that cannot be pinned down in discursive logic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,475
18,455
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,423.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
In various ways, yes it is, because all humanly created statements are open to further hermeneutical study in an ongoing, cyclic way (which is why the field of hermeneutics is considered an art AND a science).

That's cool.

I think the real difference between Fundamentalists and the rest of us is they are unwilling to take that step and entertain that notion. Fundamentalism itself in Protestantism was, after all, about shutting down conversations about the meaning and significance of religious texts, and not, as popularly imagined, about a reflexive response to science (Fundamentalists were not originally uneducated backwoods yokels). It was really about a response to the entire unfolding of modernity.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0