Freethought & Rationalism Archive

rhutchin · 12-22-2009, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

OK. Let me help you out here. Based on the above, it seems that we can define your "beliefs" as those things that you can see, feel, and hear as in your example of rain. I don't think that is the normal dictionary meaning, but so what. So, if you think that something is true (or somewhat true) when you cannot see it and feel it and hear it, what term would you use for what you think. It is not a belief that you hold; it is a(n) XXXX. What term would you use for XXXX? Your term, XXXX, is what I would call belief and that is the way in which I used it in my original comment. So, to accommodate you, I will revise what I said earlier and say that faith undergirds all those things that people cannot see and hear and feel and all people exercise faith to some degree because no one can see and feel and hear everything.

This is all simplistic theoretical gobbledegook that might satisfy some people, but it is simply not the case that experience can be so neatly divided between what one can see/hear/feel on one side, and faith on the other. You will have to do better than talk in terms of XXXX. You will have to be specific and put upfront exactly what sorts of situations you are meaning to address.

You seem to be trying to lay down prior ground rules that will undercut the only ground rule I am interested in, and that is that reason and evidence are the rules of the discussion. If you want to deploy postmodernist airyfairyness to deny the normal scientific foundations of my ground rule then sorry, not interested.

I am just trying to figure out your belief system. I maintain that you may "believe" such things as you can see, feel and hear as well as things that you cannot see, feel, and hear. If I am correct that you do believe things that you cannot see, feel, and hear, then such belief is based on faith. If that is not the case, then maybe you can take a stab at explaining how you think about things that you cannot see, feel, and hear (or see, feel, or hear - take it the way that works for you). I think you are making this more complicated than it is, or needs to be. I don't see a point that you are trying to make.

rhutchin · 12-22-2009, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Who do you mean by "we"?

Mark 4
11 And [Jesus] said unto [His disciples], Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:
12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

So the entire bible is one big parable?

The Bible certainly can be viewed as a series of parables. The OT nation of Israel can be a picture of the NT church and we can call it an historical parable. David can be a picture of Christ. The garden of Eden can be a physical garden, but in a world where God has pronounced everything very good, there is the possibility that the garden has a greater significance than the casual reader might suspect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Is Noah's Flood a parable?

Most people see Noah's food as a picture of the judgment at the end of the world. Peter even referred to it in this way. So, it could be an historical parable. I have no problem with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Don't you think you're taking this quote just a biiiiiit out of context?

Don't see how. It's pretty explicit. What context would you surround a statement like, "unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables."

neilgodfrey · 12-22-2009, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

This is all simplistic theoretical gobbledegook that might satisfy some people, but it is simply not the case that experience can be so neatly divided between what one can see/hear/feel on one side, and faith on the other. You will have to do better than talk in terms of XXXX. You will have to be specific and put upfront exactly what sorts of situations you are meaning to address.

You seem to be trying to lay down prior ground rules that will undercut the only ground rule I am interested in, and that is that reason and evidence are the rules of the discussion. If you want to deploy postmodernist airyfairyness to deny the normal scientific foundations of my ground rule then sorry, not interested.

I am just trying to figure out your belief system. I maintain that you may "believe" such things as you can see, feel and hear as well as things that you cannot see, feel, and hear. If I am correct that you do believe things that you cannot see, feel, and hear, then such belief is based on faith. If that is not the case, then maybe you can take a stab at explaining how you think about things that you cannot see, feel, and hear (or see, feel, or hear - take it the way that works for you). I think you are making this more complicated than it is, or needs to be. I don't see a point that you are trying to make.

Why do you care about my "belief system"? I was simply challenging your statement that individuals speaking about the same system should say the same things. You have responded to my critique of that statement by defining terms in your own ("biblical"?) way. You appear convinced that anything I discuss about the topic must come from a faith position. This is simply not the case, but it gives you an out from grappling with the issue strictly in terms of evidence.

Julio · 12-23-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

I don't think you can fight on two fronts at the same time!
"We" refers to honest, collected and unbiased Bible students. But the verses you [mis]quoted do NOT refer to you or any other Calvinist [TULIP or less virulent fashions]. "Unto you" [plural] is pointing only at the twelve superstitious disciples.
It is dishonest exegesis to throw unrelated verses at your friends.

Honest, collected and unbiased Bible students can include everyone in the world potentially. Those who are confused would be those not addressed by Christ in the cited verses.

It is a fallacious and discriminatory approach, to teach that some obscure Jewish christ of 2000 years ago was talking about staunch Calvinists in the 21st century!
The ridiculous of this exegetical misdemeanour is to cry to high heavens for help, for Pete's sake!
And then you have already 20 centuries of hermeneutics for nothing, since the "Grand Parable" of the entire text is still to be given birth to!
Please!!
Religion is an inoffensive pastime between meals if nobody gets hurt.

rhutchin · 12-23-2009, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Honest, collected and unbiased Bible students can include everyone in the world potentially. Those who are confused would be those not addressed by Christ in the cited verses.

It is a fallacious and discriminatory approach, to teach that some obscure Jewish christ of 2000 years ago was talking about staunch Calvinists in the 21st century!
The ridiculous of this exegetical misdemeanour is to cry to high heavens for help, for Pete's sake!
And then you have already 20 centuries of hermeneutics for nothing, since the "Grand Parable" of the entire text is still to be given birth to!
Please!!
Religion is an inoffensive pastime between meals if nobody gets hurt.

He was talking about the elect among which Calvinists would be numbered. Nothing fallacious and discriminatory here.

rhutchin · 12-23-2009, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I am just trying to figure out your belief system. I maintain that you may "believe" such things as you can see, feel and hear as well as things that you cannot see, feel, and hear. If I am correct that you do believe things that you cannot see, feel, and hear, then such belief is based on faith. If that is not the case, then maybe you can take a stab at explaining how you think about things that you cannot see, feel, and hear (or see, feel, or hear - take it the way that works for you). I think you are making this more complicated than it is, or needs to be. I don't see a point that you are trying to make.

Why do you care about my "belief system"? I was simply challenging your statement that individuals speaking about the same system should say the same things. You have responded to my critique of that statement by defining terms in your own ("biblical"?) way. You appear convinced that anything I discuss about the topic must come from a faith position. This is simply not the case, but it gives you an out from grappling with the issue strictly in terms of evidence.

Evidently, you are a man of faith given that you cannot explain how you are not a man of faith or much of anything else.

neilgodfrey · 12-25-2009, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Why do you care about my "belief system"? I was simply challenging your statement that individuals speaking about the same system should say the same things. You have responded to my critique of that statement by defining terms in your own ("biblical"?) way. You appear convinced that anything I discuss about the topic must come from a faith position. This is simply not the case, but it gives you an out from grappling with the issue strictly in terms of evidence.

Evidently, you are a man of faith given that you cannot explain how you are not a man of faith or much of anything else.

Is this how you normally talk to people who do not share your religious faith? It sounds like you are here simply to find opportunities to preach and accuse.

How about considering discussions such as Appealing to Faith in a Search for Truth, Playing Tennis without a Net, and Why Science is Not a Faith

Julio · 12-26-2009, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

So the entire bible is one big parable?

The Bible certainly can be viewed as a series of parables. The OT nation of Israel can be a picture of the NT church and we can call it an historical parable. David can be a picture of Christ. The garden of Eden can be a physical garden, but in a world where God has pronounced everything very good, there is the possibility that the garden has a greater significance than the casual reader might suspect.

Most people see Noah's food as a picture of the judgment at the end of the world. Peter even referred to it in this way. So, it could be an historical parable. I have no problem with that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Don't you think you're taking this quote just a biiiiiit out of context?

Don't see how. It's pretty explicit. What context would you surround a statement like, "unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables."

Can I see your God as a parable?
Can I for sometime believe in that "Big Parable In The Sky" to try to get some logic from it?
...
"... things are done in parables..."
Can you define "things", and "done", in this weird statement?

rhutchin · 12-26-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Evidently, you are a man of faith given that you cannot explain how you are not a man of faith or much of anything else.

Is this how you normally talk to people who do not share your religious faith? It sounds like you are here simply to find opportunities to preach and accuse.

How about considering discussions such as Appealing to Faith in a Search for Truth, Playing Tennis without a Net, and Why Science is Not a Faith

You have your own faith; you do not have to subscribe to that which I believe.

Everyone knows that faith encompasses that which is scientifically unverifiable. So? Still leaves plenty of room for each of us to exercise faith in many things.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-05-2010, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Most people see Noah's food as a picture of the judgment at the end of the world. Peter even referred to it in this way. So, it could be an historical parable. I have no problem with that.

And the global flood can also be a historical parable, right?

You are a Calvinist. Since Calvinism teaches that God has already chosen who he will save, and that the elect cannot resist God, from a Calvinist perspective, what difference does it make what skeptics choose to believe?

You are a fan of Pascal's Wager. If God has already chosen who he will save, and if the elect cannot resist God, obviously, Calvinism is not compatible with Pascal's Wager. In addition, you are also not compatible with Pascal since he said that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven, and you are not a Roman Catholic.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.