- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,605
- 52,510
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Thanks for the QED.LOL! Great point!
If I have one thing a person could rightly call me a bigot over, it would be New Age junk.
I'm thinking that there's a highly intense and focused quality in the act of giving ones body, mind and soul to Christ that is out of your reach. Which I'm guessing is why your not understanding the mind of the mystics and so all your left with is to call it New Age junk.
Jesus, of course, would constitute AD 1, but since academians began questioning this passage:
Luke 2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)
... they, as usual, got themselves all confused and are now trying to make it look like it's the Bible's fault.
Academians: can't even tell time right.
I'm not going to get into this with you, since there are no contradictions.Don't have to be a scholar to see this, anybody who can read can clearly see this problem.
I may be mistaken, but I only know this humorous tale from the work of stand-up Emo Phillips. To avoid accusations of plagiarism we should acknowledge his authorship, unless you know of an earlier source.This really shows an ignorance of other Christian traditions and a seeming disregard for their beliefs. Perhaps that is why some forms of Baptists are so notorious for disunity and splits amongst themselves. I heard this from a Baptist Minister years ago - "Two Baptists meet at a conference for religious people (not all are Christian), trying to get to know whether they agree with each other but not knowing anything about the other they agree to ask each other some questions:"
First - Are you a Christian?
Second - Yes!
First - Good! I don't like hanging out with anyone who isn't a Christian.
Second - Are you a Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian?
First - Trinitarian! You're not a Christian if you are not a Trinitarian.
Second - Yes I know, but I was just checking!
First - Are You Protestant or Catholic?
Second - Protestant of-course, I'm surprised you even asked me this if you are a Christian
First - Good, you seem my type of person already!
Second - Originally from a Reformed tradition?
First - Yes, Reformed originally!
Second - Wow, I'm beginning to think your okay! We may be able to talk to each other.
First - You don't happen to be a Baptist?
Second - Well, yes, as a matter of fact I am!
First - That is fantastic so am I?
Second - Particular or General Baptist?
First - General
Second - Me too!
First - So your church policy must be congregational?
Second - Can you be Baptist without being congregational in polity, of course!
First - I'm feeling like we are brothers already!
Second - My ancestors go all the way back to the Rhode Island Baptists in the 1600's
First - So do mine!
Second - Wow, I've never actually met someone who could say that!
First - First Church of RI at Providence
Second - Yup!
First - Wow, me too!
Second - My ancestors migrated to the territory bordering the Mason-Dixon line in south central Pennsylvania
First - So did mine, North or South synod of Central Pennsylvania - Maryland?
Second - South Synod!
First - Unbelievable, mine as well.
Second - First District or Second District?
First - Second
Second - Brother, I embrace you!
First - Then you must be part of the first Baptist Church on the Lower Susquehanna
Second - Pause.... No I'm actually from the second Baptist Church, that split from the First.
First - Traitor!!!!!!!
There are different forms of that drivel. It can be used to mock Lutherans, Methodists, and Catholics.I may be mistaken, but I only know this humorous tale from the work of stand-up Emo Phillips. To avoid accusations of plagiarism we should acknowledge his authorship, unless you know of an earlier source.
That's what happens when different people take to pin the differing oral stories that were in circulation at the time.I'm afraid it was Christians right from the start who noticed the problem. No, it isn't the Bible's fault since the Bible is just a book like any other. It is the fault of the people that wrote the book and didn't notice that their accounts contradicted themselves (two people referred to by tradition as Matthew and Luke) - if a person insists the two accounts are fully historical. These two accounts contradict each other quite a bit on the early story of Jesus' life if you take them to be a record of something historical.
This problem is either a gross mistake by the two authors or perhaps them trying to say two different things to two different audiences as much of Matthew and Luke seems to do. I'm not coming down on either side here. If the second answer is correct, the writing may never have been intended to be historical in the first place, and would explain how two writers might so badly miss the contradictions in the two accounts. Which ever possibility is correct (or some other explanation) the accounts being completely historical is impossible because the two accounts don't agree. Anyone reading these two accounts in parallel can see this.
Don't have to be a scholar to see this, anybody who can read can clearly see this problem.
Strawman argument and a red herring. Irrelevant. Avoidance of the questions I posed.You seem very touchy about these subjects. Do you treat science the same way some fundamentalists tread their religion? I hope not. It has to be in this very strict way and "don't bother me with the details with how it might be changing and evolving itself" type of mindset? This my friend would be more like some form of scientism which has more in common with inflexible ideas like you find in fundamentalist religion than science.
No predicates. Math is math, logic is logic, and science grabs any concept it can where it can be made useful in objective testing. (Eg: science uses Math descriptions for its models and to track consistencies).Bertrand Russell White said:I notice you don't seem to discuss mathematics in your polemics. Do you believe mathematics is also not part of science as well? (Mathematics is its own subject like Science but still like science sits upon pillars of logic and is dependent on logic which is part of philosophy)? What about logic (in say developing hypothesis, testing methodologies, statistical testing methods etc. within the scientific method structure)? The Scientific Method is predicated on logic (part of philosophy) and assumes it.
Its not surprising at all ..Bertrand Russell White said:BTW - There is no one scientific method (as you seem to assume), Scientific American did a very good article on this several years ago. If I had the edition, I would send you the link so you could learn something, if you are up to learning. People who become Scientists learn their craft by being part of a community with certain standards, and ideas on how to conduct science. People are brought into this brotherhood/sisterhood by learning a certain corpus of knowledge to a certain standard, how to effectively operationalize this knowledge to generate new knowledge using their science's particular version of the scientific method, writing papers to a certain standard in a certain way and generally satisfying a group of experts that they have met certain standards of best practice in the particular field - very much like Priest had to do in the past. Not surprising because this whole process evolved in universities originally dominated by religion and Priests. When we are young and naïve, we learn simple idealized forms of what is called the scientific method in elementary and secondary school. However, when we get older we learn that this is an idealization of something more complex as SciAm pointed out in their excellent article. There is of-course many similarities to what we originally learned, but things become more sophisticated and developed to meet the needs of the particular area of study. This should not be surprising.
You seem to continually fail to recognise that reading articles is not the sole basis of where I'm, (and others), are coming from in the way we take responsibility for our own learning. Many folk around these parts are seeking objective evidence, are highly educated, and thus far in most of your posts, you have not presented anything other than the regurgitated historical views of philosophers merely taken by you, as 'being true'. This is insufficient for criticising well-educated, theologically focussed, (perhaps even religious), folk, I'm afraid.Bertrand Russell White said:I seriously recommend you find the article in SciAm and other such articles in publications and learn more about these things. They are quite fascinating. Science is not some unchanging thing like a set of unchangeable religious standards or statements - this is why it works so well. It also evolves and changes like life itself to meet the needs of community it serves.
I'm not going to get into this with you, since there are no contradictions.
You believe what you want, but just be prepared to accept that you're wrong.
I may be mistaken, but I only know this humorous tale from the work of stand-up Emo Phillips. To avoid accusations of plagiarism we should acknowledge his authorship, unless you know of an earlier source.
VPI dealt with the autographs; VPP dealt with the translation sequence.VPI or VPP?
There are different forms of that drivel. It can be used to mock Lutherans, Methodists, and Catholics.
And while it has a good point embedded in it, he (conveniently?) overlooks the fact that I'm an Independent Baptist.
VPI dealt with the autographs; VPP dealt with the translation sequence.
QV please:Independent from what? Aren't all denominations independent from something - although hopefully not god?
Independent Baptist churches (some also called Independent Fundamental Baptist, Independent Fundamentalist Baptist or IFB) are Christian congregations, generally holding to conservative (primarily fundamentalist) Baptist beliefs. The term independent refers to the doctrinal position of church autonomy and a refusal to join any affiliated Baptist denomination, convention or hierarchical structure.
No.So both??
Strawman argument and a red herring. Irrelevant. Avoidance of the questions I posed.
Now, now your being touchy again!
No predicates. Math is math, logic is logic, and science grabs any concept it can where it can be made useful in objective testing. (Eg: science uses Math descriptions for its models and to track consistencies).
Useful and necessary. Without Math and Logic Science wouldn't be Science. Science is dependent on both.
A reasoning mind is all it takes to distinguish what reality means (and to do science).
Is a reasoning mind not following math and/or logic or is it somehow doing this without both or either? Can science function without logic, I think not. The scientific method (I notice you didn't address my comments on this) however it is conceived within different branches of science is dependent on logic completely throughout its structure both in shaping its initial hypothesis, testing theories, setting up statistical tests etc. I'm not familiar with any science that doesn't use either math or logic when conducting their version of the scientific method and their particular science in real life.
My focus is on preserving science's high levels of consistency. Consistency, just another word that is a part of logic. Should also talk about coherence as well, fit, deduction, induction and...
Philosophical Realism introduces inconsistency because it assumes the existence of fundamental truths and this assumption is not objectively testable. Now you are putting words in my mouth, I never said anything about Philosophical Realism - check the posts. However, I would say you would be hard pressed to do Science without some aspects of Philosophical Realism.
It is in fact, a miraculous assumption of the same type as the religious arguments you vehemently oppose. Where do you get this from?? Miraculous assumption?? Not ever heard this tagged to philosophical realism before - what is your source(s) for this? A pop book on different types of philosophy? You own personal views???
(This is, of course, pure hypocrisy on your part). Can't be hypocrisy if I never said it.
Its not surprising at all ..
That does not change the fact that there is no recognised science which states: Step #1: Assume the existence of some mind independent reality.
None of mainstream science's results are in any way dependent on such an assumption.
At best, its an untestable model, or a belief people like to hold, perhaps for simplicity's sake, but it still takes a mind to conceive of that particular concept/model and therefore its not mind independent in any way, is it? Things that are mind dependent are still not outside logic and/or mathematical reasoning which is foundational to science. In fact, they are often very much dependent of them, especially to be effective. I think you are suffering a category mistake here.
You seem to continually fail to recognise that reading articles is not the sole basis of where I'm, (and others), are coming from in the way we take responsibility for our own learning. So you don't learn from reading, synthesizing and evaluating what you come to understand based on applying your experience, knowledge, practice etc in the empirical world? Is your knowledge pure experience and pure empiricism without anything rational, is that what you are saying without written knowledge, even within the field you are talking about? I'm really not sure what you are trying to say. Many folk around these parts are seeking objective evidence - purely empirical considerations only??, are highly educated, and thus far in most of your posts, you have not presented anything other than the regurgitated historical views of philosophers merely taken by you, as 'being true'. Not sure where you are coming up with me saying this or that is "being true". If I engage with say a Christian in discussing their WV, I may appear to be talking about "truth" this does not mean I'm saying I believe that it is or in the way they might be. It may be for a number of reasons, including pointing out the problems with what they are saying or what their WV claims. Similarly for a non-Christian related to some area that they seem to be implying or directly saying something is true. Whether we want to admit it or not, none of us are totally free from biases in our thinking. This is insufficient for criticising well-educated, theologically focussed, (perhaps even religious), folk, I'm afraid. You have just created a great strawman to knock over, good job!
I'll give you another challenge for your next homework assignment (you failed all the rest of them):
The philosophically held notion of knowledge as being 'justified true belief' is pure gobbledygook from a scientific thinker's perspective. Where do you come up with this stuff?? "Where do you get this thing about me saying that knowledge is "justified true belief"? You seem to be caught up, as I said before, in some type of scientism projecting back on me things I didn't say - because of misconceived ideas of what I think. Just because knowledge is gained by observational means in some way that involves logic, mathematics and other things in the acquisition process doesn't mean it would be justified true belief - this is not science. The observations need to be structured in some way to make sense of them in what science tends to call models or explanatory frameworks that are expected to increase in their utility and explanatory power over time. Talk about things being true or not true wrt to the way the world operates is generally at best problematic. Science tends to provide a conservative provisional map or outline/framework for explaining a large body of related information/knowledge in a consistent and coherent manner. It is flexible to adapt and enlarge when sufficient evidence accumulates to alter the framework or model according to influential people who are expert practitioners of that particular branch of science within a general consensus. If that's at the basis of your recommendations to folk around here for gaining knowledge, you are sadly mistaken. Do you see why that is so?
Abraham Maslow can take a hike.So basically any hierarchy. Okay.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?