spin

I'm impressed, freigeister, with the way you have totally backed out of your responsibilities into froth and "arcanery".

All western logic as we know it ultimately derive from Aristotle, yet logic has come a long way since then. Instead of defending your stated use of Spinoza, why not defend your claim?

You make a statement about history and run to obfuscation. Well done.

It's exactly the same situation.

Who wrote them?
When were they written?
Where were they written?
What is their genre?
Who exactly were they written for?
What were the writers' intentions?

You can answer hardly any of these, if any at all, with regard to the biblical literature, so "everything we know of the documents" basically comes from within the documents. This makes you subject to the documents, not them to you.

As you know so little of the historical background of the bible, your unequivocal statement is vacuous.

It's not me you need to prove it to, it's anyone who doesn't accept your presuppostions. There are two poles of communication: particularistic and generalistic. The former allows you to preach to the converted, people who share your world framework. The latter allows you to reach people outside your world framework, people who don't hold many of your presuppositions. You confine your communication to your particularistic pole. Closed systems have no quality control.

I see little hope of you reading the documents accurately. You have no way of demonstrating an accurate reading, not even to yourself.


spin

freigeister

Indeed? How so? How have the fundamentals of Aristotle's logic been superceded?

I defend my claim by citing Spinoza as my authority.

These questions have been answered to my satisfaction here and here.

Just so. To read a document accurately is to subject oneself to it. This is basically just "suspension of disbelief".

What I know and believe of the Bible derives almost exclusively from the works I cited above. I find myself in complete agreement with their presentation of the Bible, and I encourage others to read these works. I also find that other presentations of the Bible are deficient in comparison, and hence I have no reluctance in debating against them on the basis of the works I do subscribe to. I have no delusions of being an innovator. I am just a cheerleader. I am grateful to Spinoza and Brunner for teaching me how to read and understand the Bible.

I hardly expect you, my debating opponent, to subscribe to my view. Perhaps, though, there are others who read this and see that there is a rational alternative to your "skeptical empiricism".

spin

I'm impressed with the vacuousness of this type of response. "I'm not going to risk expressing myself and leaving my methodology open to inspection. I'm going to pass the buck onto someone else and give no indications of my own application of the other person's methodology or even outline the relevant parts you choose to apply."

As you have dug your hole and pulled the dirt in tightly over top of you, freigeister, I guess there is no chance of communicating with you.


spin

freigeister

Think of it as a slit trench. :devil3: