RobertLW

AAHHHH, the ultimate evasion. "You guys aren't playing nice so I'm taking my ball and going home." Your comments to me were personal from the word "go" and now you quit because the comments are too personal? You set the tone and rules of engagement and now you don't like the tone and rules of engagement? You questioned my honesty, integrity, argumentation and data in one sentence and now you don't like the fact I defended my honesty, integrity, argumentation and data? Okeee dokeeee.

Robert

RobertLW

No he gave a set of instructions and then gave clarifying instructions. My boss called me and said "I need you to come to my office and bring two of each sort of colored pens that we have, but bring seven pairs of the blue kind" I said, "I can't because you contradicted yourself and I am now confused. I can't bring one pair of each of the other kind AND seven pairs of the blue"






Your reaching. Read any history book. Almost all give an overview of what happened and then the detailed description of what happened. I am kinda getting tired of the term "Biblical scholars". Care to be a bit more specific?







Go back and read my arguments in their entirety. I have already answered all this.





Go back and read my arguments in their entirety. This is not even close to my argument.



I would find someone else to quote.





It is as He wanted it, He is soveriegn over his creation.




We are not talking about the benefits of reason. We are talking about justification of reason. The benefits of reason do not justify reason. How is your reason grounded? In the benefits? So what you are saying is the benefits of reason is the argument for reason? Are you saying that without the benefits of reason, reason could not exist and if reason does not exist then we can't have the benefit of reason? We have the benefit of reason therefore reason exists? Is this not circular?





Christianity did not give us those things you say. The perversion of Christianity gave us those things you say. The arbitrary forms of Christianity gave us those things you say. Therefore shouldn't you be a little more concerned with the perversion of Christianity and arbitrary forms of Christianity rather than Christianity itself?





Again, go back and read my actual arguments.





No, I believe that it is gaseous.





No, but there is water in it.





No, the earth "floats" in space




So what are you saying? Photos of the earth taken from space taken 6,000 years ago exist and from them we can determine the authors were incorrect? Geology books from 6,000 years ago exist and from them we can determine the authors were incorrect? If so, I would like to see them. Where are they? Furthermore why are you willing to presume the verity of the astronaut that took the space picture and the verity of the guy that writes the geology book but not the verity of the Biblical authors? Is this not inconsistent?




AWWW MAN!!!!!!!!! He's leaving and is not even going to tell me where the space pictures and geology books are. Talk about cliffhangers......

Robert

jdlongmire

Can one of you guys recontextualize this and start a new thread? Or start a formal debate? I think this could be a very powerful discussion, it just has gotten derailed a bit.

Please keep the rule of no ad hominum in mind, please.

If not, just ignore me, thanks...

Cross Examiner

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW I do not ground my knowledge in men or the world I ground it in God.

Truth is immutable and so must be grounded ontologically in He who is immutable. Man (and the world that he observes) is far from immutable. Man, unlike the absolute truth, is subject to change at any moment and so cannot ground truth and morality. Only God makes sense of truth and morality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW Point one: The only way epistemology can exist is if God exists and knows all things. I have not seen any sound contrary argument, only your arbitrary opinion to the contrary. I have demonstrated that my epistemology is self-authenticating and it will take a lot more than your opinion to refute it.

My sentiments exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW To even approach the subject of how we know you must admit the existence of universals. If universals exist, see our arguments. If universals do not exist then stop using reason.

If no universals then no knowledge. If no ground for universals then no justification for appealing to them. See the unpleasant dilemma the unbeliever faces?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW Man does not create truth; he discovers it.

True. If man did create truth then truth would be no truth at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW The only way someone would answer “no� is if they presuppose errancy, and then they must do some cleaver footwork to make that “no� stick and at the same time preserve true knowledge.

I say the skeptic puts on the faith-brakes at his core presuppositions. Why question further? Why take skepticism to its logical end? Can't you see how unlivable that would be to be consistently skeptical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW Good point BGic, too bad all we heard was.... <cue cricket noise>

Indeed. The crickets are more responsive than are our opponents.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobertLW The benefits of reason do not justify reason. How is your reason grounded? In the benefits? So what you are saying is the benefits of reason is the argument for reason? Are you saying that without the benefits of reason, reason could not exist and if reason does not exist then we can't have the benefit of reason? We have the benefit of reason therefore reason exists? Is this not circular?

An additional problem with hypothesizing that skeptical epistemological method E (e.g. empiricism) is justified because it simply provides benefits to men is that if E is irrational or arbitrary then E is justified nonetheless; but this is patently absurd. Anyway, good remarks all-around, RobertLW. In closing I will say that the unbeliever from within (e.g. the 'post-liberal/neo-orthodox Christian') is far more insidious than the unbeliever from without (e.g. the strident atheist). I agree with your insinuation that these ambitious, plotting stealth 'Christians' infiltrate the fold with ulterior motives in mind and perpetrate the crimes that sully the name of Christ in the world (I’m sure you can rattle off the names of a few Popes who fit this bill). These are they who lead away from simple devotion to Christ. This is a valuable realization and so I do not think this thread unproductive in the slightest.

Regards,
BGic

jbernier

As Jesus said at Capernaum: A prophet is never respected in his own country.

Thus I consider myself in good stead when I am reviled for proclaiming Christian faith.

Cross Examiner

How do you say you proclaim the Christian faith when you deny the full divinity of Christ? Don't you also deny the physical resurrection of Christ?

Regards,
BGic

RobertLW

Thank you and you have had some very good comments as well.

Good point on the "non-believers from within" This is why I felt 2pet 3:15-16 was particurlarly relevant to our discussion.

2Pet 3:15 And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,

2Pet 3:16 as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.

Thanks.

Robert

RobertLW

I can't speak for anyone else but if my fellow Christians reviled me for proclaiming my Christian faith, I would take a good hard look at why.

Robert

Dean Anderson

Moderator Warning.

This thread is about whether or not the Bible is inerrant.

It is not a place to discuss TAG, and it is CERTAINLY NOT a place to discuss whether members are "True Christians" or not.

If this continues, the thread will be locked.

Cross Examiner

Respectfully, this thread is about why one believes in Biblical inerrancy in which case a transcendental approach is warranted.

Regards,
BGic