Christians, and Teaching About Reality

[Aaron112]

By the way, if we had been using the hours that we spend online, in inane
conversations about conspiracy theories, or trivial subjects, reading books
about the great ideas that historical christians have thought, how different
do you think our life would be?

What someone reads may often guide them to become what they read about. Usually not good.

3.5K views · 893 reactions | Noone who has ever heard the true gospel and read their entire Bible.... Only to become a Catholic, a Mormon or Jehovah witness. They justify their beliefs through their feelings and by examining what other men have sai

Noone who has ever heard the true gospel and read their entire Bible.... Only to become a Catholic, a Mormon or Jehovah witness. They justify their beliefs through their feelings and by examining...

www.facebook.com

 

[com7fy8]

a different mode of using
different "senses".

Well, Hebrews 5:14 does not say having our "different" senses exercised. I understand that God means sense which we have in His love. I do not mean senses that are different than the senses of God's love.

a theology that asserts
that DIFFERENT senses are needed.

The Bible simply says "having their senses exercised". There is nothing in God's word about senses that are "different". And I have offered what God's word says.

This text does not mention vocabulary dealing with "spiritual" vocabulary, but
does mention vocabulary dealing with mental action about basic teachings.

So, in Hebrews 5:14 > let me look up what the Greek manuscript word is, for "senses" >

It seems this can mean organs of perception and figuratively it can mean judgment.

In any case, what I am offering is you need to be able to sense spiritually so you can tell the difference between God's Spirit and "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience." (in Ephesians 2:2)

We are told to submit to God >

"Therefore submit to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you." (James 4:7)

In order to submit to God, I need to sense Him so I know to whom I am being submissive. I need spiritual sense to detect how He is ruling me in His peace >

"And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Colossians 3:15)

 

[Stephen3141]

When Christians talk about "our shared reality" (as they should),
they sometimes don't put together the existence of a shared reality,
with the moral-ethical (ME) OUGHT to teach about our shared reality,
and the grounding of the concept of a shared reality in the ME commands
of Scripture. (There is a lot of religious RHETORIC about these phrases,
but there remains a noticeable lack of real Christian teaching about reality.
(This is why, I assert, that conspiracy theories are so common among
anti-intellectual Christian groups.

So, I will lay out some more thoughts about how Christians ought to think
about aspects of our shared reality...
---------- ----------

"We see Paul using this spirit-body division throughout his theology. This even includes basic considerations of virtues, such as self-control. (This would be our mind, on our spiritual side, choosing to enforce righteous acts on our physical body.)

This core language of Paul, and how he sorts our “mind” (consciousness, choosing ability, loyalties, loves, priorities, logic, evaluation, etc.), has huge ramifications on how Christians should view “the mind.” Unfortunately, many Christians remain very anti-intellectual, and do not see training the mind, as having any part of spiritual growth.

This anti-intellectual approach to spiritual growth wages war against the basic reality that the divine Word/Logos/Reason of God became flesh, lived among us, and revealed God to us.

It is true that Christian mysticism is experiencing the presence of God, in some way. But Christian mysticism is not antithetical to using sound logic to reason about all sorts of topics (including, Christian mysticism). When we affirm the goodness of sound thinking, we are not somehow negating the ability to experience God. We need both.

The wisdom literature in the Old Testament presents a very clear picture of knowledge and wisdom, and how one may gain them. One needs to start while young, put great effort into the search, and embrace the moral/ethical law of God.

16 Why should a fool have a price in his hand to buy wisdom, when he has no mind? (Pro 17:16 RSV)

The “fool” in the wisdom literature is someone who does not have a redeemed (and functional) mind. He is also a moral/ethical fool, because he does not accept the basic truths that God exists, God’s moral/ethical law is true, and God is the judge of all.

Being foolish or wise, in a Christian definition, includes the moral/ethical realm, as well as training of the mind. (Paul recognizes that elders who rule well and especially those who labor in preaching and teaching, should be shown double honor.)

17 Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching; (1Ti 5:17 RSV)
Getting renewed in our mind, includes being freed from the slavery of sin. But it also includes using a developing mind to search for knowledge and wisdom.

And so, in a number of ways, Christians need to develop their “mind” in ways that a secular education would never address." [Christian Logic, 72-73]


When was the last time when you heard a Christian pastor/teacher warn an
audience that they needed to develop their mind? The anti-intellectual
Christian groups often try to make the "mind/heart" in Scripture into direct
revelation from God. But this avoiding of the topic of the mind, abuses so much
language in the text of Scripture.

 

[Aaron112]

What someone reads may often guide them to become what they read about. Usually not good.

Two mindsets:

web summary:

Mind Set vs Flesh​

According to Romans 8:5-8, the mindset of the flesh is characterized by:

• Setting one’s mind on earthly things, leading to death (Romans 8:5)
• Being hostile to God, refusing to submit to His law (Romans 8:7)
• Being unable to please God (Romans 8:8)
• Being controlled by the desires and passions of the body (Romans 8:6)

In contrast, those who set their minds on the flesh are:

• Dead in their sins (Romans 8:6)
• Unable to experience true life, either now or in the age to come (Romans 8:6-8)
• Opposed to God’s plan and direction (Romans 8:7)

The mindset of the flesh is a natural tendency, rooted in humanity’s fallen nature. It seeks to satisfy its own desires and interests, often at the expense of God’s will and purposes. This mindset can manifest in various ways, such as:

• Pride and self-reliance
• Selfish ambition and competition
• Lust and sensual indulgence
• Anger and bitterness
• Rebellion against authority and God’s laws
• =================================================

====================================================

In contrast, the mindset of the Spirit (Romans 8:6) is characterized by:

• Setting one’s mind on things above, leading to life and peace (Romans 8:6)
• Being controlled by the Holy Spirit, guided by God’s law and will (Romans 8:9)
• Being able to please God and experience His peace and joy (Romans 8:6-8)

The mindset of the Spirit is a supernatural transformation, made possible through faith in Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. It seeks to align one’s thoughts, words, and actions with God’s will and purposes, leading to a life of obedience, worship, and service to God.

 

[Stephen3141]

Comments on what we perceive, and then what generates what we perceive.

This is an important opic for Christians to be discussing, as it explains a lot
of the (false) rejections of modern scientific study.

For example, in physics we can contemplate DIFFERENT LEVELS of reality.
There are super-atomic objects (such as people).
There are atomic objects.
There are subatomic particles.

God's moral-ethical laws apply to super-atomic objects, as human beings
observe them (and not to other lower levels of reality).
---------- ----------

"Two Worlds:
In the history of philosophy, it is common to find concepts about reality, that involve “two worlds.” That is, a reality that is a base of things, and a reality that is perceived by us (and other living organisms).

The reality that projects characteristics that can be perceived, is not quite the same as the reality that we perceive. Thus, the discussion of “two worlds.”

Whether it is the ancient Greek philosopher speaking of the thinker as a man inside a cave watching the dancing images on the wall of the cave that come from “the real world,” or the German phenomenologists who speak about what we perceive, as a reflection of what is real, this does not negate the assertion that we live in a shared reality.

And the Bible consistently promotes the idea that we can reliably perceive things in our shared reality, with enough precision that we are morally/ethically responsible for what we perceive." [Christian Logic, 74]

 

[Stephen3141]

Note that there is a DIRECT link between the Jewish and Christian
moral-ethical code, and what God presents to us as "our shared reality".


"Even though I bypass the detailed discussion of how we perceive our shared reality, I agree with the two worlds concept of the ancient philosophers. And I agree with the Bible that we are morally/ethically responsible for what we perceive. And, the biblical assertion that we can reliably perceive our shared reality.

Note that if we are accurate in our thinking about our shared reality, then we are applying valid methods of reasoning, to reason about some aspect of our shared reality.

Note that the Bible regularly presents misrepresenting our shared reality, as “lying”. And it regularly presents our shared reality as including the presence of God, and his moral/ ethical law. (James chapter 2, is a good example.)

When we reason about some personal fantasy (not about our shared reality), then the result is not something that is shared by all people (potentially). Reasoning about conspiracy theories, is an example. (Most of these are not grounded in objective facts, and are not part of our shared reality.)

It is the same situation when we live out some “fantasy life” that has little contact with reality. Are we living out a life, other than the one God gave to us? Are we constantly denying reality? Are we constantly spending time on social media, living in some fantasy world?

Note that we can use formal logic to reason about someone’s fantasy world. Formal logic is expressive enough to handle this.
But, a Christian has got to deal with the shared reality that God put us in. God will hold us responsible, at the final judgment, for how we lived in this shared reality." [Christian Logic, 75]

(Sorry about problems with missing words. I think that the snowflakes
projected on the screen, are screwing up data input.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Reality is, we are being lied to. Here's some evidence.
View attachment 358006

Do we have a real photo of the entire Planet Earth? Is NASA concerned of its shape?

This is not a topic I'm particularly interested in, yet it is still very strange, and telling. I think everything is tied in together. There could be some common denominator connecting all the bizarre events, and objects mentioned on this website with our space exploration controversy. At some...

www.stolenhistory.org

(I'm not quite sure what photos released by NASA, have to do with the topic
of "our shared reality".

If NASA if withholding truth, or doctoring photos, what we perceive of this
and reason about this, IS part of our shared reality.

As I have said, what Christians and Jews call "lying" is misrepresenting
our shared reality. And lying, is as much part of our shared reality, as
telling the truth is.

Whether or not there are instances of lying, or telling the truth, I do not
question.)

 

[Stephen3141]

Was it not the person's personal outlook that mattered. Were they thinking with a mind focused on the ways and logic of this world of man, or that of the Kingdom, a polarizing experience? Two differing logics based on opposing wills. One idea of spiritualism can see no further than our place in the universe while the other establishes a base in God and ways contrary to our natural self interest.

I was simply referring to the vocabulary of the New Testament, that Paul
uses.

But I think that you are on the right track, with Paul's usage of "spiritual"
and "carnal". I think that these NT concepts deal with the final "conclusions"
of a person, rather than completely different modes of sensing.

 

[timothyu]

Paul's usage of "spiritual"
and "carnal". I think that these NT concepts deal with the final "conclusions"
of a person, rather than completely different modes of sensing.

They each will comprehend in a different light

 

[Stephen3141]

They each will comprehend in a different light

(You need to define what you mean by "comprehend", and "a different light".

I am talking about aspects of reality that are shared among all human beings,
and potentially accessible to all human beings, so that God holds us morally-ethically
responsible at the final judgment, for what we did with that shared reality.)

 

[Stephen3141]

A few more comments about our shared reality...
---------- ----------

"Claiming that a Terminator ate your homework, is a fallacy. Because, terminators are not part of our shared physical reality. (Movies about Terminators, are part of our shared reality. But these are fantasies about unreal worlds.)

Although the hard sciences may endlessly argue over which models should be used to describe this physical universe, all of these sciences agree that it is the same physical universe that they are trying to model.

The writers of the Bible also agree that we live in the same physical universe. And as the Apostle John says (above), those who were witnesses of the life of Jesus, are writing down what they personally saw, and touched, and heard. They are passing on the teaching of Jesus, as they themselves experienced it. And this is so we (who read the Scriptures) may also know about this part of our shared reality, which was the life and teaching of Jesus.

Part of our shared physical universe is the way that air carries human languages, so that we can communicate. The human languages that Jesus used when he was teaching (Hebrew, Aramaic, and common Greek), are part of this shared reality. The Apostle John is writing in common Greek. Jesus probably taught mostly in Aramaic. But John is passing on the teaching of Jesus, as if it is part of our shared reality (“what we heard”). And so accurate historical writing is also part of our shared reality. All the Scriptures, are part of our shared reality."
[Christian Logic, 77-78]


"Immanuel Kant said that a man could walk around a house, and see the 4 walls, and that they connected to the roof. He could then know how all the pieces of the house fit together, even though he could not see the entire house, at the same time. This ability follows from the predictable ways in which the natural world is constructed. Even though we cannot see all of this physical universe at the same time, that does not mean that the physical universe is not part of our shared reality.

When Jesus and his disciples looked up at the stars at night, they saw the same constellations and stars that we see. They saw light from them that left the stars at a different time than the light from them that we see at night now.

The truths that Jesus taught, are part of our shared reality. The God that Jesus’ followers experienced, is the same God that we can experience.

The physical universe that God kept in existence during the life of Jesus, is the same physical universe that God keeps in existence, now."[Christian Logic, 78]
---------- ----------

Kant's "thought experiment" with the house, is VERY interesting.

He makes the point that we do not have to be omnipresent in this physical
reality, to reason about what the entire physical reality is. ALSO, it takes TIME
for a human being to walk around a house, so we do not have to assert that
a human being must be experiencing ALL TIME at once, to reason about the
entirety of what he has perceived, over time.

We intuitively know this, as in our fair rule of law, probably none of the people
in a jury were present at the committing of the crime, that is the focus of the
trial. We (almost) ALL accept that there can be faithful witnesses that can
describe what happened, at a different place, at a different time. But carefully
testing the assertions of witnesses, is also part of the fair rule of law. Merely
personal opinions, or speculations, are NOT allowed to be entered into testimony,
in a fair rule of law trial. ANYONE who shouts for "justice!", must accept that
we live in a shared physical universe, and that human perceptions of this universe
are "good enough" to be reliable, in a fair court of law, to produce an outcome that
we call "justice".

Just as Kant, in his thought experiment, asserts that we can reason about the
relationship of the parts of our shared physical reality, based on the relationships
of a subset of the parts that we observe, SO TOO those who accept formal logic
can reason about the LOGICAL relationships of parts of our shared reality,
based on a subset of what we can logically demonstrate to be TRUE.

By the way, those who object that Kant's thought experiment was "direct evidence"
to Kant, but "indirect evidence" to everyone else, this misses the point that we ALL
can experience a thought experiment directly, and use logic directly, and so this
type of thought experiment (even when reasoning about theologies) is a form
of direct evidence. (Albert Einstein knew this, in all his thought experiments about
space and time.)

 

[Stephen3141]

I assert that part of "our shared reality" is valid reasoning methods.

I do not mean "valid reasoning methods" as defined however any one person
imagines that they should be defined (in THAT case, they would not be
part of our SHARED reality), but as the best human discussions about sound
logic have concluded.
---------- ----------

"** Our Shared Reality of Valid Reasoning Methods

In Christianity, there is a moral/ethical OUGHT to recognize valid reasoning, and respond to it. This appears in many places in the Bible. We sometimes do not notice this basic truth.

For centuries philosophers have discussed what valid methods of reasoning are. This is not a new topic, or something we discovered yesterday. These recognized valid methods of reasoning are not limited to one culture or another. They are not different, according to what culture you were born into, or were raised in.

What we call formal logic (or modern symbolic logic), is an accumulation of methods of reasoning that have been proven valid, over centuries. What valid reasoning methods are, do not change, generation by generation.

Formal logic has the 20 Rules of Inference at its core. See “20 Rules of Inference” below. (Note that different complete logic notations have different numbers of rules of inference, but they cover the same material. There are many incomplete methods of reasoning, that do not include full logical functionality.)

Formal logic also has rules for reasoning about groups of objects, and groups of operations. (These are First Order Quantified Logic, and Second Order Quantified Logic.) Quantified logics are extensions of basic formal logic.

There are many types of applied logics, that are built on formal logic. Examples of these are: types of mathematics, chemistry, physics, electrical engineering, etc.

If we reason about our shared reality, but do not use valid methods of reasoning, then our conclusions are not guaranteed to be valid/true.

If we reason about some “reality” that is not our shared reality, and use methods of reasoning that are valid, then our conclusions cannot be verified by other people. Note that the ancient law that God gave to the Jews required that 2-3 witnesses would verify every piece of evidence. This was to guarantee that the evidence was not just a story that one person made up.

When we “reason” about our shared reality, but do not use valid methods of reasoning, then we arrive at conclusions that may be fallacies (they are not guaranteed to be true)." [Christian Logic, 80-81]
---------- ----------

It is very important for Christians to carefully study formal logic, and methods
of valid deductive reasoning, and also to think about methods of "reasoning"
that do NOT meet the rigor of deductive inference.

Following the 20 Rules of Inference and the Quantification rules (for reasoning about
groups of things), will result in a demonstration/proof/argument that is VALID.

BUT, if a person uses basic concept definitions that are not CHRISTIAN, then
although their demonstration/proof/argument may be logically VALID, is will
be (in relationship to Christian beliefs) logically UNSOUND.

Logical validity, and logical soundness, are 2 VERY DIFFERENT characteristics.
Logical validity is what is taught in modern university courses in symbolic logic.
But these courses do not substantively address the big question of how we
should test our Assumptions/Definitions part of our proof, to be assured that
our initial definitions are SOUND.


The same problem holds, when Christians know nothing of the original biblical
languages, and use concept definitions that are not what the biblical authors
are using. The resulting arguments may be logical valid, but they are also
logically UNSOUND.

THIS IS WHY in the book Christian Logic, I deal with the importance of
creating a FUSION between sound Christian concept definitions, and valid
logical operations, to result in CHRISTIAN LOGIC. (This is one of the needed
fusions that modern Christians need to think about.)
---------- ----------

For Christian apologists, they need to be very concerned with arguments/
demonstration/proofs that are BOTH logically valid, and logically sound.

For anti-intellectual Christian groups, they should be concerned that
they are not recognizing all that is in our shared reality (such as formal
logic principles), AND that if their quality of critical Bible study skills is
poor, they will be using concepts in their arguments that are not SOUND,
in that they do not match the concept definitions that the biblical authors
are using.

 

[timothyu]

I am talking about aspects of reality that are shared among all human beings,

Self determination of what is good and evil to suit our personal needs.

 

[Stephen3141]

Abstract Concepts, are part of what Christians should consider to be
our shared reality.

A lot of Christians have difficulty, with this assertion.
But to illustrate why it is TRUE...
---------- ----------

"* Our Shared Reality of Abstract Ideas

“For example, we see that physics, and biology, and chemistry, and mathematics, cannot accurately describe the common concept of ‘ownership’.

“These narrow fields of reasoning cannot describe the difference between a toothpick owned by me, and one owned by you. For that reason, they are incompetent (read, poorly determined, or incompetently determined) to reason about social justice (as it involves ownership).”

“For example, we do not see physics, chemistry, biology, or mathematics offering relevant arguments why building gas chambers for Hitler was immoral/unethical, or why slavery is wrong. Because these narrow technical fields do not include variables that describe accurately the difference between moral/ethical right and wrong. So, these narrow technical fields are incompetent to declare what “optimal” designs are in each of these fields.”

“If you think that genocide is wrong, then you had better embrace the idea that the narrow scientific fields need to include variables in their reasoning that can express moral/ethical right and wrong. Otherwise, you will end up with optimal gas chambers for Hitler to use to commit optimal, efficient genocide.” [Historically, the hard sciences imported moral/ethical ideas from philosophical moral theory (or more specifically, from Judeo-Christian morality.]

“This suggests that the narrow technical fields should embrace the superset of logical causality, instead of falling into the moral/ethical blindness of dealing with only the variables that their technical fields like to deal with.” [Making Bible Study Formal, 78-79]

Example of an Abstract Idea:

15 "You shall not steal. (Exo 20:15 NET)

The hard sciences cannot detect, with their methods of applied logic, who “owns” a single toothpick. Ownership, is an abstract concept.

And yet, abstract concepts are affirmed by Scripture, as we see in the Ten Commandments, and the command that “stealing” is morally/ethically wrong.

Many of the moral/ethical commands that God gives us involve abstract concepts that are very, very real. (They are a part of our shared reality.)

Note that God will judge our behavior by his moral/ethical code. And this code includes many abstract concepts.

For example, 1 Corinthians 6.10 states that thieves will not inherit the kingdom of God. “Ownership” is an abstract idea. But God will condemn those who live as thieves." [Christian Logic, 82-83]
---------- ----------

ADDED SOURCE:

[NET]. NET Bible, Compact Edition, (c) 1996-2007, Biblical studies press, LLC.

---------- ----------

Note that the concept of "ownership" is an abstract concept, that cannot be
determined by the analysis abilities of biology, chemistry, astronomy, electrical
engineering, etc. That is, the hard sciences and the applied sciences do not contain
laws that can be decision algorithms to determine who owns what.

Also, the typical listing of moral-ethical "rules" in the Judea-Christian ME system
often include abstract concepts. These statements of ME law, DO NOT INCLUDE
ALL THE POSSIBLE INSTANCES THAT FALL WITHIN THE ABSTRACT RULE.

Although we have in the Bible, some EXAMPLES of stealing, or covetting, or
murder (of a human being), of idolatry, etc., these are never complete listings of all
the possible instances of these crimes. In that sense, the Bible often does not
include precise "decision algorithms" (a list of operations that can be followed,
that will clearly determine whether some instance/action falls within some
abstract category of behavior).

This situation is the same with every fair rule of law. Judges make decisions
that determine "precedents", and these become examples of an abstract
concept, that are accepted as part of the fair rule of law.

Christians MUST start to consider how God's ME law contains abstract concepts,
and some decision algorithms to decide whether an action falls within the
authority of God's ME law.
---------- ----------

Christians should consider why the inability to list ALL instances of behavior,
relevant to an ME rule from God, leads to the need for ongoing authority in the
People of God, to rule on precedents in new areas of behavior.

Also, the People of God need to carefully consider that the ME law of God,
and more generally, the Scriptures as a whole, ARE NOT A COMPLETE LISTING
OF TRUTH FROM GOD. Most historical Christian groups would describe their
concept of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, as including that "the
Scriptures are infallible, as to what they address." This is a more limited and
prudent assertion (than that the Scriptures contain all truth), as it is clear
in the context of this discussion, that the Scriptures do not contain decision
algorithms to clearly define ALL instances of evil behavior. Nor do the
Scriptures contain definitions of ALL instances of righteous behavior.

It is possible that the ME law of God does not address certain instances of
behavior (such as the color of cars that Christians should drive). BUT, a
decision of WHAT THE SCRIPTURES DO NOT ADDRESS, should also have
a clear decicion algorithm!!!

Christians need to think much more about abstract concepts presented in the
Bible, AND how to apply them to specific instances of behavior or events, in
our current time and situation.

 

[Stephen3141]

By the way, these thoughts on abstract concepts, decision algorithms,
and precedents, underline why a "due process of law" is needed for every
fair rule of law.

Without qualified, objective judges, there can be no correct ajudication of
what abstract concepts in a fair rule of law apply to, or do not apply to.

In Christianity, there are objective critical Bible study skills, that quite
clearly address how to get a correct meaning out of the original text of
the Bible. Christians who bypass these critical Bible study skills, are an
analogy to American citizens who bypass the due process of the fair
rule of law in America, and start to declare who is guilty and who is innocent,
based on their personal beliefs. This is a clear example of lawlessness,
not of patriotism or righteousness.

 

[timothyu]

In Christianity, there are objective critical Bible study skills, that quite
clearly address how to get a correct meaning out of the original text of
the Bible.

Yes people like to seek ways to have scripture suit their own ideas, in effect redefining good and evil to suit their own purposes and opinions. It says what it says and needs no middlemen or interpretation. Jesus' two commandments summed up what has been going on since the Garden and the cure, telling us plainly to put God's will ahead of our own, thus loving all as self instead of being perpetually selfish. This whole idea of interpretive theology is the result of self interest trying to make God over in our own image, just as we have made the world into our image. Even the religion self justified abandoning the Kingdom to re-join the world of man, equivalent to the sin of Eve. Trust what the words actually say, but not the interpretations of man, no matter how glorious they present themselves.

 

[Stephen3141]

There are repeated questions on Christian apologetics sites, about whether or
not there is an accessible moral-ethical (ME) code, that all human beings
OUGHT TO adhere to.

From the viewpoint of the Scriptures, as they present what the biblical
authors consider to be "our shared reality", there IS a universal ME code,
and IT IS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL HUMAN BEINGS. This is a controversial
topic with some theologies, but Christians need to struggle with the
Bible's viewpoint of ME accessibility.
---------- ----------

"* Our Shared Moral/Ethical Reality

Valid reasoning must include God’s moral/ethical laws. These laws are part of our shared moral/ethical reality.

The Apostle Paul states that God revealed to each of us personally, the difference between basic good and evil (we call this the “conscience”, or “moral consciousness”). Therefore, God’s definition of morality/ethics is part of our shared reality. As Paul states, when we sin, “we have no excuse”.)

14 When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them (Rom 2:14-15 RSV)

“We go through baptism as an appeal to God to heal our conscience.” [Formal, 116]

RSV 1 Peter 3:21: Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ…

“In the Greek of the New Testament,“sunhdeisis”has multiple possible meanings:

• “awareness of information, consciousness” [Danker, 967]
• “the inward faculty of distinguishing right and wrong, moral consciousness, conscience” [Danker 967]
• “attentiveness to obligation, conscientiousness” [Danker 968] [Formal, 222-223]

In the Old Testament, we are called to love God, as the command of first importance. Note how this language in the Jewish Scriptures intersects with the Greek language of the New Testament, and includes both moral/ethical perception, and what we would call “the mind”.

“Loving God with all our being is the most important command for God’s people. “All our being” includes our mind/heart.

The word for “heart” in Hebrew is the base for the word “to love” (lv, lvv). Note all the possible meanings of this Hebrew word:
• physical organ (the heart)
• seat of vitality
• inner self, seat of feelings and impulses
• mind, character, disposition, inclination, loyalty, concern
• determination, courage, morale
• mind, attention, consideration, understanding
• conscience
• interior, middle [Holladay, 171-172]

(Think of how Paul uses these words in his letters. To do this, you must be biblically literate.)

The ancient Hebrew sense is that the heart is where we think, discern, choose, and develop our loyalties. We would probably call this the “mind.” This is where our moral “conscience” resides. This is where we know the difference between right and wrong.” [Formal, 40]

When we do logical proofs, but do not include God’s moral/ethical laws as part of the basic assumptions (inputs to the proof), then we are not reasoning about our shared reality!" [Christian Logic, 84-86]

Sources...

[Formal]. Making Bible Study Formal, Stephen Wuest, [above]
[Danker]. (BDAG) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature,
ed Danker, et alia. [above]
[Holladay]. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Holladay, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,
1971
---------- ----------

Note that when the Apostle Paul uses the language of "conscience" or "moral
consciousness", he is talking about the conscience that resides in all human
beings (whether or not they respond properly to its urgings). And, this
conscience exists in "Gentiles" also, and this concept correlates with language
in the Old Testament (which is sometimes translated as "heart", which is
misleading, sometimes, for English speakers).

For some reason, it seems unpopular for Christian apologists to argue FOR
the existence of a universal concept of what is right and wrong, that a Christian
would call the "conscience". But, historic philosophical discussions often fix
on ME values that heavily intersect with the Judea-Christian virtues/vices.

Notice, as Timmons mentions (Moral Theory: An Introduction, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002,
p. 50) that anthropologists who deny a shared ME basis maong cultures, focus on the DIFFERENCES
between different cultures, and not on the similarities in ME beliefs. The large number of
SIMILARITIES between the ME beliefs of different cultures, promps Timmons to assert
"I think we must conclude that the moral diversity thesis has not been established."
[Timmons, p. 51]

This also means that INDIVIDUALS do not have the "right" to assert their own ME
system, and EXPECT that everyone else must respect it as "TRUE". This Christian
concept is very unpopular with the younger generations in America. But then, so
are all sorts of other biblical truths.

I use Timmons as a reference for historic ME models (in Christian Logic). Although
Timmons is a difficult read, he brings up all sorts of problems that non-Christian
ME models have, that Christian apologists (currently) are never mentioning.

 

[Stephen3141]

So... I have presented a lot of material on the concept of
"our shared reality." And, I have referenced a number of books,
that you can get your hands on, and read, if you are interested
in the topic.

Also, I have tried to tie the subject to specific references from
Scripture, so that readers can understand why I assert that the
Bible teaches that ...

1 there is a shared reality

2 we all can (potentially) reference parts of it

3 our individual perceptions of our shared reality are SUFFICIENT
for us to know certain things about a universal moral-ethical (ME)
reality (in our conscience)

4 the Bible presents that God will hold us responsible for properly
perceiving this shared reality, including God's presence, and God's
ME code (basically). Lying, is misrepresenting this shared reality.

There is MUCH more that Christians can say about our shared reality.
But, I think that this is enough information, for a thread.
---------- ----------

A lot of people seem to have read at least some of the entries.
But, not all that many people have left comments. (You can register,
if you want to comment on the Christian parts of the forum.)

I welcome continuing discussion of the topic.