 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Truth, Knowledge, God, History, and Christianity | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 3/22/2004 10:04 AM (GMT -6) |   | Hey there fellas, its been a while since I last posted here. I was wondering, Ross, if you were planning on posting pack to me at some point. You said you would but I have not seen anything pop up with your name on it the last month or so.
Anyway, Alan:
I agree with most of what you wrote in your letter. I feel confident that my claim stands, that we don't have Knowledge (or at least, no one has demonstrated such knowledge) and that if knowledge ever did obtain, it would probably have to be by accident. Of course, I'm taliking about "higher grade knowledge" rather than some "lower class knowledge". I am assuming that if Christianity is Truth, than it would require Knowledge in order to be truly known.
Tim, I find your posts somewhat disturbing. Be assured that I probably disagree with much of what you believe. But what you said here was quite rediculous:
quote:
Aaron when you said, "It is my understanding that the arguments for the existence of God at best prove inconclusive, at worst prove unsound."
It was only my point not to say more until your response to the posted verse was made, to see where you clearly stand. I might appear uncaring, but it is just the opposite.
Luk 7:35But wisdom is justified of all her children. - AV
And,
"If the message is unwelcome, nothing that the messenger can say or do will be right" - Maclaren
Therefore, I will say it is 'wisdom' you are seeking, through comprehending the available or evident KNOWLEDGE! Truth will never be found if there is no fact or evidence that it exist . . . and I do exist, therefore the truth of it does, which is 'wisdom' based upon KNOWLEDGE!
I think your point was that we all start the game with our own presuppositions. So what. So do you, but you don't hear me complaining. You claim that your beliefs are true. If they are, they should be clearly demonstratable, assuming that your truth is rational (and if its not rational, I see it being a stretch to call it truth)
I want to dialogue some more :)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 3/24/2004 5:34 PM (GMT -6) | | You This post, has been totally reworked, because I really felt that my first answer was not in keeping with the spirit of Christ.
Quote: 1. I don't think that Christians have knowledge (although I don't claim to know this) and, thus, have no place what so ever to tell others that they know truth.
I see the problem arising from the fact that truthwas not something Jesus said a person just knew, but primarily something a person did. Jesus did not just know the truth, he DID THE TRUTH. And his message, called "the gospel", was a manner of life, and not just a bunch of "head knowledge". That manner of life, was to discipline one's self according to "godliness", meaning to be more like God. In that a person chooses to study and become more merciful, forgiving, giving, kind, at peace with others, loving their enemies, doing good to others et. And the rewards of such behavior would be evident even in this life. Therefore, the Bible is a book designed for this one purpose, of which it states is it's whole reason for existence.
2 Timothy 3:16
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS, that THE MAN OF GOD, may be perfect, THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS.
The WHOLE PURPOSE of Scripture, is to teach people how do do GOOD. However this seems to be sorely lacking in most Christian commentary. In fact the Scripture has been used to actually DO EVIL to others, many, many times. But this is not God's fault and those who have done do will answer for it.
For those who wish to learn it and follow it, scripture is for the purpose of teaching people how to exhibit love, joy, peace, gentleness, goodness, kindness, self control, patience, mercy, humbleness, strength and hope in advercity, and moral excellence in all things in word, thought and deed.
The purpose of scripture is not just so that one can simply believe on Jesus and be "saved". For scripture says that outside of developing these qualities of character in ones life, that same individual will in fact NOT be saved. And the problem within Christianity is that in doting about questions and strifes of words, man have gone to great lengths to reinterpret the purpose of scripture, so as to AVOID the necessary changes of heart.
But the individual who gains a true knowledge of what the scriptures are trying to convey, endeavors to live and act accordingly on a day by day basis. And that individual sees literal concrete results, manifested in his life. And it is at that point that the abstract noun “faith”, becomes a concrete noun, in that something REAL and tangible is evidenced.
You stated: I don't think faith can be rational, faith is always a non-rational (irrational) inference.
The problem with that statement is that what is "rational" to one person, because of their personal experience and knowledge, might not be rational to another persons experience and knowledge. Rationality is never UNIVERSAL.
For example let's take two cowboys. They both have a wild horse to tame. One cowboy knows by his "experience", that the horse wants to run away from him, and thus it must be caught and contained. By his experience he knows he must rope it, tie it up and forcefully put a saddle on it. Then as he proceeds there is much commotion, and the danger or both horse and man being injured.
Now let's take the other cowboy. He had experience the same sort of knowledge the first cowboy has, but he has also experienced living, where there were many wild horses and for nothing better to do, let's says he observed them closely. He being of free will to think for himself, gets the idea, that maybe a horse can be tamed down and controlled in the same manner in which horses communicate with one another, through body language. He embarks upon an experiment and through the process of trial and error, eventually learns that he doesn't even need to rope a horse to get one to follow him around. He learns he can get any horse that's never had a rope on him, never a man on his back, to stand still, without being tied and allow a saddle to be placed on his back. And he learns he can mount the horse and there is no battle between them. Thus through his beliefs, he now produces different results than the first cowboy.
Now BOTH cowboys look at the way they deal with a horse as RATIONAL. If the first cowboy were to run into the second cowboy and converse on the art of taming a horse, due to the experience of the first cowboy, the second cowboy’s methods would seem HIGHLY IRRATIONAL. After all from his vantage point, if you do not use a rope, how could you ever catch the animal, because they RUN away from you. How would a wild animal just stand there and let you put a saddle on him?
Because he has never seen or experienced what the second cowboy has, all the second cowboy tells him seems IRRATIONAL. Yet for the second cowboy, all that the first cowboy says he dose to tame a horse seems highly IRRATIONAL, even though the second cowboy use to do the very same thing.
The moral here is that experience produces knowledge and knowledge produces faith. And what may be irrational faith to one individual, may not be irrational faith to another that has EXPERIENCED it.
In the long run the first cowboy would much rather be able to tame his horse without getting his head kicked off, or killing one or the other of them. But he has only "experienced" one way of doing things. He's never even heard of the second cowboy’s methods. But now that he has heard, he has a decision to make. He can either try and apply the information, to see if it gets results, or remain unbelieving and steadfast in his own faith on the subject.
My faith might seem irrational to you, because you have no knowledge of it. However it can be very rational to me, because I've experienced it.
You stated: Christians claim to have the truth (Jesus even called himself the truth), but how do they know? How do YOU know?
You cannot put all Christians into the same religious profile. Especially since all Christians, just like the two cowboys come from different backgrounds and experiences. I cannot speak for other Christians to tell you how I KNOW what I believe is the truth. But I can say that whenever I have leaned something and then applied it to my life I have gotten the desired results.
I cannot convince you that what I know is the truth. What is rational to me, may not be rational to you, because you have not experienced it. All I can say, is that if you learn it and do it, then you can see the results for yourself, and decide if it’s rational or not. And in the end it all depends on what a person wants out of this life and what they believe about the next life.
In Christ,
larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
a2rutled
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 4/1/2004 2:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Larris,
I appreciate your response a great deal. In light of your response I think I have only one question:
(1) Is Christianity true?
Most Christians will want to answer "yes". They want to claim more than for their beliefs than that they are simply "pragmatic". For instance, you yourself stated that:
quote:
That manner of life, was to discipline one's self according to "godliness", meaning to be more like God.
Of course, in your quote you are presupposing a definition and a knowledge of the objective property of "godliness". You want to exclude some things from "having the property of being godly". For instance, rape is, presumably, not something you would take as the subject of the subject predicate sentence
x exemplifies godliness.
Putting "rape" in in place of the x in the above statement leaves a little something to be desired, right? I think you DO believe you have knowledge about a great many things (godliness being just one example). And while I agree with you that rationality is contenxtual, I don't think it helps your case any. After all, Christians generally want to claim that there experiences are based in more than just "emotion" and context. They want to say that their experiences give them knowledge about the nature of reality, about the "way things really are". And while others may scoff at them as irrational, Christians want to say that they, nevertheless, are the beholders of truth. Look, I have no problem if you want to speak about your experiences with the divine and your "irrational" faith that it corresponds with the way reality actually is (I'm just as guilty as you are in this "faithfulness") Nevertheless, I think it is blatantly obvious that, unless Christian belief is true, then it "really" makes no difference as to whether or not it is believed. Of course, according to the structure of your beliefs, we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
I think I'm losing sight of my orignal concern: Christains claim that they are "right". Christians hold many beliefs about the nature of reality (i.e about God and our relation to "him") and they claim that those beliefs are true (i.e. correspond to a factual reality). Yet, they are notoriously wishy-washy when it comes to criticism. Unlike the advocates of other philosophical positions (say realism or idealism) Christians will not put their beliefs on the table for rational disection. Instead they retreat to faith and experience and ask that they not be "attacked", after all, how is it ever fair to "critique" someone's experience? Of course, though, Christians want to critique the experiences of those in other religions. They tell the atheist that his experience of a godless reality is sacrosanct, "wrong" and false, they tell the Muslim that their experience of God is either "inspired by the devil" or else inaccurate and thus , false. It seems a bit pretentious to me. If Christians want hold to their beliefs, fine. However, if they want to claim that their beliefs are true, they should not back away from the razor of reason. It is simply uncharitable to do so.
After all, if experience is the ultimate standard to which beliefs are made true or false, or rational or irrational, then anyone's beliefs truly are as good as anyone elses (I just KNOW that I KNOW that Santa Clause exists).
| | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:58 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|