quote:

---

...Before I found this site, I had been without any exposure to the thinking end of Christianity (to the thinking end of much of anything, to be exact). It was horribly disconcerting and frightening for me to find this site without having any preperation--some formal education, some exposure to the academic world, etc. It was tough. Both my inability to think and my presuppositions were clearly brought to the forefront: that I couldn't think was bad enough; that I was in desperate need to learn to know the "whats" and "whys" of where I stood rather than rely on my presupps (which I had no idea I was doing) was devistating...

Well, it's been a year now, and it's been absolutely the most wonderful experience to have had my theologically presupps seen for what they are. I am now able to think through things, not as well as I'd like, but I'm getting there. (I'm just so glad I found out about "thinking"!) I'm also humbled in regard my presupps and in how to approach a theological view (or any view, for that matter) and know now how to consider it from broader angles, different perspectives, people's positions, and, of course, the Word of God. I'm able to round-out, to utilize a fuller hermeneutic, if you will, toward what I believe. Thanks . . . to this board!

Keith

---

Keith,

Thanks for sharing that. Lately, I have been wondering if there is, indeed, ANY need to dig deep into the "issues" of Christianity. For about a year, I've been convinced that the centrality of Love is the all in all--of all-- we need to say and do. I still believe that. Everything else is negotiable. Due to this realization, I lost much of my desire to learn (this can cause problems when one has just entered seminary!) Reading your post helped me understand that (as you put it) "the thinking end" of Christianity is important and transformational too!

peace and love,
selah

CalvinnHobbes,

GOOD!




Then He showed me the river whose waters give life, sparkling like crystal, flowing out from the throne of God and of the Lamb. Rev. 22:1

quote:

---

Anyway, Shane, I'm a little fuzzy on what you are talking 'bout here concerning symbols and definitions...could you shed some further thoughts for MY clarity. Thanks.

---

quote:

---

I can't help but wonder how much the nature of our symbolic medium limits our understanding or perhaps dictates some of these presuppositions we've been referring to. Symbols make up the fabric of our entire thought and communication and they're far more fluid than definitively standardized. We don't see many of our common symbols given set DEFINITIONS in our communication, even in the divine communication of Scripture. We really just see USES or INSTANCES of the symbols in the author's attempt to get the term/idea "across" to the mind of the other person(s). Without set definitions, we all tend to pick the instances of usage which support our own theories and leave the rest. It's a bummer.

---

You're right Brandon. I was incredibly unclear here. I don't even know if I knew exactly what I was trying to get at. I think I thought I was addressing one issue when I was really addressing at least a couple (and quite vaguely at that). Let me see if I can clarify myself and confuse us all a little more.

Basically, I was considering how the very nature of LANGUAGE as a fluid SYMBOLIC MEDIUM affects interpretation and plays a part in the formation of our presuppositions. And since today's interpretation is tomorrow's presupposition, the effects on the one impact the other.

The "fluidity" of language lies in the fact that a given idea can be represented by a number of different words, and a given word can represent a number of different ideas. The symbolism is conventional. Meaning isn't, but it's representation is. This accounts for why it's even possible for us to say that some word means "this" while someone else can say it means "that".

Words are symbols, and our experience of symbolism can be a complex thing. When we see a word, we don't necessarily think of the denotative dictionary definition. Our minds reach deep into that well of the various associations which have, over time, become tied up in our conceptualization of what that word "means". We've made these associations in the past and carried them with us, and they can seriously affect what comes to mind when we read or hear a given word.

With the biblical authors, we don't have them here to clarify themselves, we just have the symbols/words they left us. (I'm intentionally leaving out the Spirit's assistance in interpreting scripture here). And because they typically didn't explicitly define what they meant (and DIDN'T mean) by most of the particular words they used (foreknowledge, omniscience, whatever), we have to try to figure it out.

We often try to import the term's meaning from a different context, thinking the author is using the term in the same way. This is what I was getting at when I referred to how we pick the instances of usage that favor our opinions. Sometimes the immediate context makes the meaning clear enough.

But context often isn't enough, and what we typically end up doing is projecting, out of our own individual well of associations, what we think the author means by this or that.

We all have different histories and, therefore, different wells to draw from. Language baggage like this might be the biggest reason behind all of these theological disagreements. It might even be the biggest problem behind disagreements in all disciplines, since all of our thinking--our encoding, decoding, imagination, MEMORY(!), etc. are at the mercy of this very imperfect medium. Our experience of the world is very much an experience of the power of language. And she can be as fickle as a 15-year-old cheerleader.

How often do we find ourselves needing to ask someone, "Well, what do you mean by that?" It's potentially the best question you can ever ask someone. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, depending on the context, I might have a little fun with them and say, "Am I what you mean by the word 'Christian'? I don't know. I suppose I'm some of the things you associate with that label and not others. What comes to mind when you think of that term?" It might be annoying, but it's more accurate, and it can allow me to separate myself from some of the negative baggage.

Anyway. . .I hope I've connected my ramblings sufficiently enough to make this readable. If not, I can just say I'm tired (like you're supposed to say when you're incoherent) and come to my final point--Don't use crack.

"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams

Edited by - CalvinnHobbes on 01/18/2003 4:34:53 PM

quote:

---

"Well, what do you mean by that?" It's potentially the best question you can ever ask someone. When someone asks me if I'm a Christian, depending on the context, I might have a little fun with them and say, "Am I what you mean by the word 'Christian'? I don't know. I suppose I'm some of the things you associate with that label and not others. What comes to mind when you think of that term?" It might be annoying, but it's more accurate, and it can allow me to separate myself from some of the negative baggage.

---

It is a good defence against getting caught up in the presuppositional stereotypes that come along (freely?) with the word Christianity, so I would say it is good to ask the question, "Am I what you mean by the word 'Christian'?"

You are in a Christian band, right? I saw a christian band that SUCKED once; therefore, you must be a sucky band...LOL. Am I rambling? I was looking to make some kind of profound impact using humor, now I feel I am ready to go back and delete that...nah!

quote:

---

Don't use crack.

---

Oh great, we got a drugged up rockstar on our hands! SHANE, how many fingers am I holding up? Can someone get this man some "anit-crack" to alleviate the "crack" in his system? Lay off of the ball, dawg!

BTW: Thanks for liking my username! It is my brainchild, and I loves him or her.

Peace Dawg,
Paul

p.s.38th Parallel R0x0rz!!!

Just thout you would like to know that.

p.p.s. How long have you studied theology and/or philosophy?

p.p.p.s Do you have an email address I can personally talk to you at, or do I have to use your bands addy (the38th@aol.com) as a medium of communication?

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught





Edited by - A_Theist on 01/18/2003 6:40:41 PM

quote:

---

I noticed you deliberatley discarded using the idea of holy-spirit-interpretation. Is this because, like me, you don't know how well this method of interpretation works, and you are a tid bit skeptical of using it? I am personally not familiar with the texts that tell me if I have problem understanding something, pray and the holy spirit will guide me; I am more familiar with the pragmatic approach: Go read up on a biblical commentary on the passage and see what comes from that. It is strange, because I don't believe that the authors of these works had to have some sort of interpetation device in order to understand what the heck they were writing in their present context; so why do we need spiritual inspiration when we have excavation? Would you agree with that? I, personally, have found the notion of having
faith and waiting on the spirit to tell me what something means when I was fully capable of doing superflous.

---

I discarded the appeal to the Spirit's direction in biblical interpretation not because I don't believe in it (I do) but because I don't know how you could ever DEMONSTRATE it.

How do you prove to someone that the Spirit planted in you the proper understanding of Romans 9 or of various prophecies in the book of Revelation? For that matter, how do you demonstrate it to yourself beyond pointing to some intuitive internal sentiment? Asserting it is not demonstrating it. Feeling it is not demonstrating it. I alluded to the distinction between arguments and assertions in one of my first two posts.

Anyone can claim that the Spirit gave him or her the "real truth". Cults have always been notorious for this kind of claim. I imagine the "Judiazers", Gnostics, Marcionites, Docetists, Donatists, Arians, and every other group of Christians deemed heretical in the first few centuries was whipping out this trump card.

The only way to adjudicate between two people's interpretations, both supposedly directed by the Holy Spirit, is to use some other method of assessment. Most Protestants would say a proper hermeneutic of "Scripture alone" should lead us to a proper interpretation (where it's possible). Catholics, of course, would look to interpretive Tradition and to the Magisterium of the Church for proper interpretation, trusting that Christ has given them "the keys to the Kingdom." Either way, you don't have the special pleading that you have when someone says that the Holy Spirit is pulling for their team and not yours.

quote:

---

You are in a Christian band, right? I saw a christian band that SUCKED once; therefore, you must be a sucky band

---

1)This Christian band sucked, therefore all Christian bands suck.
2)Christian bands generally suck, therefore this Christian band will suck.
--fallacy of secundum quid: the informal fallacy of neglecting qualifications when arguing from a general rule to a particular case or vice versa.

quote:

---

p.p.s. How long have you studied theology and/or philosophy?
p.p.p.s Do you have an email address I can personally talk to you at, or do I have to use your bands addy (the38th@aol.com) as a medium of communication?

---

I've been into this stuff for somewhere between three and five years. I don't have personal email actually. I use the band account for business and fanmail once in awhile though. You can drop me a line there if you want. Just make sure you make it clear who you are in the subject, otherwise you might get mistaken for spam or something.

"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams

quote:

---

2)Christian bands generally suck, therefore this Christian band will suck.
--fallacy of secundum quid: the informal fallacy of neglecting qualifications when arguing from a general rule to a particular case or vice versa.

---

I've never heard of this fallacy before, where did you get it? Does it have an alternative name?

You do realize I was kidding around when i mentioned...

quote:

---

I use the band account for business and fanmail once in awhile though. You can drop me a line there if you want. Just make sure you make it clear who you are in the subject, otherwise you might get mistaken for spam or something.

---

What will I be, fanmail or business? Should I type in the subject: "Paul: flaming groupie"?

quote:

---

I've been into this stuff for somewhere between three and five years

---

Tree or five years, eh? That is cool beanz, yo!

I know you didn't ask, but I have been into theology and philosophy for about 2 years--and I still know nothin.

I noticed on the bio on your website that you recommended a book called "Finding the love of your life"; does that book presuppose you can actually get a member of the opposite sex to consider talking to you, let alone go on a date with you?

If that is the case, I personally don't see any value in a book that won't help you unless you have someone too share the vision with. Maybe it is a good preperatory work, but that still presupposes you will find someone some day.

Outtie,
Paul



"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

Edited by - A_Theist on 01/19/2003 08:26:31 AM

quote:

---

I've never heard of this fallacy before, where did you get it? Does it have an alternative name?

---

There are two versions of the informal logical fallacy of secundum quid:

The fallacy of accident is this idea of arguing from a general rule while overlooking or suppressing legitimate exceptions.

The fallacy of converse accident (often called the fallacy of hasty generalization) involves the error of trying to argue from a particular case to a general rule that does not properly apply.

. . .and I know you were kidding around. I'm just playing with ya.

"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams

quote:

---

Language baggage like this might be the biggest reason behind all of these theological disagreements. It might even be the biggest problem behind disagreements in all disciplines...

---

quote:

---

The “concordance” method tends to not only inadequately account for the social context of theological task and historicity of all theological reflection, it also tends to promote a repetition of traditional formulations of biblical doctrine rather than appropriate recontextualizations of the doctrines in response to changing cultural and historical conditions and again, is part of the reason for the fragmentation of evangelical theology.

---

Amen! I come from a theologically-sheltered Southern Baptist upbringing and am still very much surrounded by it. I've come, only in recent years, to clearly see this prevalent lack of respect for historical and socio-cultural influences on doctrine. I'm currently studying the history of the Church and am amazed at how few of my contemporaries have any clue how any of us "got here" theologically. Studying this history CERTAINLY draws attention to this phenomena of influence. (Heck, the study of history basically IS the study of this influence.) There's some degree of truth in any view, and with due respect to conservatism, it's good to keep in mind that our "recontextualization" CAN be a dangerous thing. Not MUST be. But CAN be.

quote:

---

Now, while modernism spawned both of these different responses from liberals and conservatives, they both have to face the “change in rules” that postmodernism confronts them with.

---

I'm obviously very interested in semantics, as anyone can tell from my posts. While taking a semantics course in college, I feel like I came face to face with what lies at (or at least near) the root of the relativism so interwoven with contemporary postmodernism. (I'm addressing the more philosophical side to postmodernism here.)

The professor devoted an entire lecture, complete with handout, to (supposedly) demonstrating how Aristotelian logic does not hold by virtue of semantic complexity in language. [[She was giving examples like "Apple A is not Apple B, therefore an apple is not an apple" to debunk the law of identity (A is A) and lier's paradoxes like "I'm lying to you right now" to debunk the law of excluded middle (either A/true or not-A/false)]] I began to think, "Huh, they're trying to rewrite logic now." Of course, she misunderstood that "Aristotelian" logic actually factors semantics into its principles (". . .at the same time and in the same sense"), but, none the less, most of the class was sold on her "pedagogical enlightenment." One girl said, in absolute awe, "Why didn't they teach us this growing up?!" I was just sitting there shaking my head thinking, "Arrrgh, why do we have to be sheep?!!!" I attempted to raise my objections, but the prof wouldn't let me have the floor.

I began thinking about the content of her lecture and little packet some more in the following days. I began to wonder, "Was it just an attempt to create some new sophisticated justification for relativism, or was it, more importantly, an insightful reflection of how people's minds actually tend to work (and, consequently, why they ARE relativistic)?" I suspect a large degree of both. Logic needs some conceptual content to be applied to, so in a manner of speaking, our logic is as good as our concepts (which are unavoidably tied up in our symbols as far as our minds are concerned).

quote:

---

Ok. I agree with what you are saying about the "fluidity of language" and the "baggage" associated with it. Here's my thing, my "addition."

Overemphasis maybe? The way I see it, all one would have to do is ask for clarification. Get to the presupps. I still don't have to agree with them, but I will come away with a better understanding.

---

Becoming too consumed with semantic difficulties can lead to skepticism if one doesn't keep one's hyper-analyticism at bay. (This is important for someone like me to remember .) But I do think the issue could use some more attention than we typically give it. I guess I just have a suspicion that we're not as precise in our conceptualizations as we'd typically like to think we are. The average person certainly doesn't seek clarification from others often enough, and I have to wonder how many of us are exceptionally good at precisely clarifying our concepts (especially in instances when they're evolving, which can certainly happen over history). In my earlier post, I was essentially contending that we simply aren't aware of much of the baggage that our minds have come insert into whatever you could call our "full cognitive concept" of a certain thing. This lack of awareness would contribute to our inability to form precisely clarified concepts.

[[Regarding the biblical authors themselves, no person-to-person clarification is possible, and many Christians do not believe that a proper hermeneutic is enough (Catholics, etc.)]].

I intentionally threw the qualification "might be" in with my comment about language difficulties (more specifically conceptualization difficulties) being the biggest problem in these seemingly unresolvable debates. Maybe it would make more sense for me to say that semantic complexity is so diffused throughout all rational thought (to one degree or another) that it has seemed to me to be foundational to all of our different understandings of reality. Everything in Doc Boyd's points (i-vi) is at the mercy of conceptual thought.

How often do people possess different conceptualizations of their terms at the outset of a debate and, therefore, get nowhere because they have no common ground to start from? We try to define our terms but have different concepts of the terms we use to define them, and sometimes this phenomenon keeps backing up to definition within definition within definition.

I've seen my Catholic and Protestant friends at the mercy of semantics as they try to debate with different conceptualizations of "grace," "justification," "revelation," etc. Heck the brilliant Jesuit scholar, Frederick Copleston, and the genius logician, Bertrand Russell, talked right past each other in their debate over the existence of God because of this very kind of thing. They conceptualized certain terms differently from the go. Each of these guys wrote histories of western philosophy(Copleston's is amazing!!!.) If minds of this caliber are at the mercy of linguistic complexity, how much more are we???

I guess all of this to say, most importantly, we need to try to be very conscientious of our terminology and of all of the things that our minds associate with any particular term. Of course, some terms are more complex than others, but anyway. . .

So to make a short story boring . . .maybe I just want to bring a revolutionary focus to a very obvious human phenomenon.

"The longer I live, the more I read, the more patiently I think, and the more anxiously I inquire, the less I seem to know." ~President John Adams

Edited by - CalvinnHobbes on 01/20/2003 5:02:03 PM

Edited by - CalvinnHobbes on 01/20/2003 5:06:36 PM