The Vanity of Knowledge

[Estrid]

So, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

My poor judgement, responding to you
Wont happen again.

 

[public hermit]

The vanity of knowledge: Wittgenstein writes a second ground-breaking philosophical work to Bertrand Russell's great dismay. How could he do that to Berty?

 

[Pommer]

My poor judgement, responding to you
Wont happen again.

Fare thee well

 

[FireDragon76]

That's a very broad, speculative viewpoint though. Ancient people did lots of things, including simply reporting the truth. It's not as if we have to question Tacitus's or Pliny's or Josephus's or Herodotus's honesty or writing style just because they were of the ancient world.

In Josephus' case, we know what he wrote was occasionally glossed by over-enthusiastic Christians and isn't his own words.

 

[fhansen]

In Josephus' case, we know what he wrote was occasionally glossed by over-enthusiastic Christians and isn't his own words.

History can be messy-but that doesn't mean we stop seeking to understand and interpret it. In the case of the ECFs, for example, there's a preponderance of consensus on may areas which lends great credence to their veracity. Either way nothing written about the past can be proven with perfect certainty, and we can't prove conclusively that the bible isn't made up of whole cloth. But we also have a continuous testimony to the truth of the gospel, from the churches that were established and trace their roots to the beginning. But, even there, of course, were dealing with historical claims.

 

[Estrid]

History can be messy-but that doesn't mean we stop seeking to understand and interpret it. In the case of the ECFs, for example, there's a preponderance of consensus on may areas which lends great credence to their veracity. Either way nothing written about the past can be proven with perfect certainty, and we can't prove conclusively that the bible isn't made up of whole cloth. But we also have a continuous testimony to the truth of the gospel, from the churches that were established and trace their roots to the beginning. But, even there, of course, were dealing with historical claims.

IFthere were physical evidence of the " flood ",
and IF there were not such an abundance of
clear physical disproof, I'd lean more to your opinion.

 

[fhansen]

IFthere were physical evidence of the " flood ",
and IF there were not such an abundance of
clear physical disproof, I'd lean more to your opinion.

We were discussing new testament events, which I'm more interested in- in what those writers intended IOW. And it can still be messy but we definitely have more testimony from more sources about that time and the events that were involved.

 

[Estrid]

We were discussing new testament events, which I'm more interested in- in what those writers intended IOW. And it can still be messy but we definitely have more testimony from more sources about that time and the events that were involved.

So no interest in parts of the bible that
are clearly not true, con entrate on what might be?

 

[fhansen]

So no interest in parts of the bible that
are clearly not true, con entrate on what might be?

Some parts of the bible are more clear, and with a clearer purpose. It doesn't much matter to me if there was a flood or not-but perhaps someday they'll prove there was one anyway.

 

[Estrid]

Some parts of the bible are more clear, and with a clearer purpose. It doesn't much matter to me if there was a flood or not-but perhaps someday they'll prove there was one anyway.

So-
It does not matter whether the god you
worship really is a psycho, or if he isn't or
you bear false witness sayig that he is.

All same same.

Concentrate on what might be true. Ignore the rest?

But maybe there was a flood you say!

Of course-
IF there was such a flood as described it would
require, besides suspension of all laws of physics,
a rather weird god who the fakes up the
evidence on a fantastically wide and minutrly detailed level so as to make it appear there was no flood.

If you find that an entirely reasonable possibility,
then there's no reasonable discussion to be had here.

 

[fhansen]

So-
It does not matter whether the god you
worship really is a psycho, or if he isn't or
you bear false witness sayig that he is.

All same same.

Concentrate on what might be true. Ignore the rest?

But maybe there was a flood you say!

Of course-
IF there was such a flood as described it would
require, besides suspension of all laws of physics,
a rather weird god who the fakes up the
evidence on a fantastically wide and minutrly detailed level so as to make it appear there was no flood.

If you find that an entirely reasonable possibility,
then there's no reasonable discussion to be had here.

Those would be valid enough concerns-especially if God were to fake some evidence-which He wouldn't do. The bible was written by multiple authors over multiple centuries. I don't believe that every part of it necessarily reflects those things that pertain to man's salvation, and that's the criteria the church uses for defining inerrancy. And I find God's nature and will-His voice-to be most clearly and exhaustively revealed in the new testament, which then sheds clearer light on the old. If that's not reasonable enough to you, then syonara.

 

[Estrid]

Those would be valid enough concerns-especially if God were to fake some evidence-which He wouldn't do. The bible was written by multiple authors over multiple centuries. I don't believe that every part of it necessarily reflects those things that pertain to man's salvation, and that's the criteria the church uses for defining inerrancy. And I find God's nature and will-His voice-to be most clearly and exhaustively revealed in the new testament, which then sheds clearer light on the old. If that's not reasonable enough to you, then syonara.

Reasonable?

I don't know that I'd say " reasonable"
applies to much of anything in
Bible / christianity.

I do though think that starting with
any conclusion, concentrancing on the
data set that supports the conclusion while
disregarding what does not or directly
contradicts it, presents an issue for
intellectual integrity.

Which is why I asked. I'm curious how you
finesse that.

 

[partinobodycular]

The bible was written by multiple authors over multiple centuries. I don't believe that every part of it necessarily reflects those things that pertain to man's salvation,

I wonder however, just how much of the bible could we do away with and still have enough left over to find salvation?

Personally, I find the required texts to be very few indeed. If I may paraphrase Micah 6:8 "He has shown you, my son, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you... to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."

If someone inquires as to where He has shown me such things... it's then that I point to the cross.

For me the rest of the bible is but a clanging cymbal, a lot of noise that gets men nowhere.

 

[fhansen]

I wonder however, just how much of the bible could we do away with and still have enough left over to find salvation?

Personally, I find the required texts to be very few indeed. If I may paraphrase Micah 6:8 "He has shown you, my son, what is good, and what does the Lord require of you... to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God."

If someone inquires as to where He has shown me such things... it's then that I point to the cross.

For me the rest of the bible is but a clanging cymbal, a lot of noise that gets men nowhere.

I love that verse. And many have rejected the directive given in it, replacing it all with faith. But that's never been the purpose of faith, of the new covenant, of the gospel, to excuse us from the requirement to be just. The opposite is true, in fact, because the gospel equips us to finally be able do that very thing: "to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." Righteousness comes from God, alone, not from man. And faith puts us in fellowship with Him where He can then do His work in us.

 

[Miles]

The dangers of knowledge aren't so much the knowledge itself but the often unwarranted assumption that everything we know is accurate and the assumption that we know all that there is to know.

It isn't and we don't. Just think about how far our technology has advanced. This wasn't through being self-satisfied or "puffed up" in our knowledge but by humbly asking questions and putting our assumptions and intuitions to the test.

Unfortunately, history is full of people who let what knowledge they possess go to their heads. That's where the problem lies. More akin to the notion that pride comes before a fall than an indictment of reason or data.

 

[Estrid]

Why are you opposed to people receiving and living in eternal life ?

Live mushrooms are better than bg or than dead lions, right ? Useful at least.

Why do you feel so free to make things up?

" opposed...eternal life"

What outlandish garbage!

You might like to check your book where
it's quite soecific that bearing false witness
is a very serious matter. Try James 2 10.

Be sure to get back to me with an apology and
info on how you plan to actually honour the rules
of the. " god " you nominally worship.

 

[Aaron112]

biblehub.com › 1_corinthians › 2-14.htm

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come ...​

1 Corinthians 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
=============================

But maybe there was a flood you say!

Of course-
IF there was such a flood as described it would

require, besides suspension of all laws of physics,
a rather weird god who the fakes up the

evidence on a fantastically wide and minutrly detailed level so as to make it appear there was no flood.

If you find that an entirely reasonable possibility,
then there's no reasonable discussion to be had here.

God Who Alone Gives Life,
and Who Alone Gives Eternal Life,
Says What is True; Truth Only -
so
Eternal Life ? for or against it ?


It is only available thru Jesus, in God, always as He Says.

 

[WilliamK76]

Knowledge is especially futile when no clear idea can objectively be agreed upon as to what the definition and meaning of the things thus being considered to know truly are.

Such as the absolute insanity of the identity crises currently happening in the world. That thought and reasoning capacity in the minds of people could degenerate to such a level is mind boggling. It suggests to my mind that fallen humanity has ran it’s course, is in the process of breaking down at a rapid pace, and being brought to it’s end by God. The nature of mankind outside of Christ is being transformed into the image of the beast who’s course has been marked out as the ultimate self destruction that goeth into perdition. “Iron doesn’t mix with clay”

 

[Estrid]

Knowledge is especially futile when no clear idea can objectively be agreed upon as to what the definition and meaning of the things thus being considered to know truly are.

Such as the absolute insanity of the identity crises currently happening in the world. That thought and reasoning capacity in the minds of people could degenerate to such a level is mind boggling. It suggests to my mind that fallen humanity has ran it’s course, is in the process of breaking down at a rapid pace, and being brought to it’s end by God. The nature of mankind outside of Christ is being transformed into the image of the beast who’s course has been marked out as the ultimate self destruction that goeth into perdition. “Iron doesn’t mix with clay”

You're sure you are the one thiking right
while all about you people are breaking down?


Do you think evidence, like hard data should be
a part of this?


Like of someone says horses don't exist, you
show them horses and they change not their view?



I'd say the horse denier is off his rocker. You agree?

 

[WilliamK76]

You're sure you are the one thiking right
while all about you people are breaking down?


Do you think evidence, like hard data should be
a part of this?


Like of someone says horses don't exist, you
show them horses and they change not their view?



I'd say the horse denier is off his rocker. You agree?

1. In the sense that you are asking the first question, my thinking is a lot closer to a Biblical world view which I believe to be true than somebody that hates the biological gender that they were born with and wants to change it. In their minds relative to whatever they believe to be true, my thinking must be just as insane to them, as theirs is to me lmbo.

2. What can be more obvious than the extreme polarization of peoples beliefs we see unfolding in the reality of the world today? Depends on the source that the data/ the mind and intent so to speak behind what the data is coming from. Is it possible to even have data that doesn’t have some kind of biased leaning or agenda attached to it?

3. Yes

4. Yes, such a one is obviously off their rocker. Such as a biological woman being absolutely convinced that she is a man, and then demanding that everyone else except such insanity and agree that it is true.