Intellectual Honesty from a Christian

Originally posted by RJHinds
How could all of them be wrong? That's illogical. You need to learn to think logically. 😏

All of whom? All those that agree with you? What about all the ones that came to a different conclusion? How could all of them be wrong?
If we put it to a vote, the number that disagree with your conclusion would win.

Originally posted by jaywill

In rationalism the point of having as accurate a world view as possible and holding as few false beliefs as possible is so as to make sure that as many premises that you use as possible are factually verified and not just assumed.

You are using the label Rationalism in a way in which I would like to ask you a few questions. Tell me if ...[text shortened]... or necessary Being."

Do you find merit to that paragraph in the history of philisophy ?

Some philosophers have said that all knowledge can be deduced rationally and the existence of God can be rationally deduced 'through the use of reason alone' (wikipedia: Rationalism). It is reasonable to say (🙂) that early rationalism has this coloration, since it grew up in an overwhelmingly theistic society. That was the mileau in which the ontological argument was born.

But since Kant, Rationalism has not had this intrinsically theistic tinge.

'Kant named his branch of epistemology Transcendental Idealism, and he first laid out these views in his famous work The Critique of Pure Reason. In it he argued that there were fundamental problems with both rationalist and empiricist dogma. To the rationalists he argued, broadly, that pure reason is flawed when it goes beyond its limits and claims to know those things that are necessarily beyond the realm of all possible experience: the existence of God, free will, and the immortality of the human soul. Kant referred to these objects as "The Thing in Itself" and goes on to argue that their status as objects beyond all possible experience by definition means we cannot know them. To the empiricist he argued that while it is correct that experience is fundamentally necessary for human knowledge, reason is necessary for processing that experience into coherent thought. He therefore concludes that both reason and experience are necessary for human knowledge.' (ibid.)

I am not saying that Kant was right, just that Rationalism as a philosophical school was changed by him.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
First, the Q document is purported to be the source for Christ's sayings - just the quotations - specifically for Matthew and Luke, not the entire New Testament. Second, declaring the existence of a Q source "nonsense" without providing good reason to believe it is nonsense, is mere opinion. Opinions aren't arguments and carry no weight unless you are ...[text shortened]... d some attention. My daughter does the same thing when I'm trying to talk on the phone...

Q - is there any evidence for its being a written document rather than a label attached to 'the oral history of Jesus'?

Whatever the correct answer, the selection and framing of Q-tations in the Gospels reflects Pauline editorial practice. Think of the misrepresentation of Nietzsche effected by his proto-Nazi sister: she didn't change the words, he really wrote them, but the text she produced (Will To Power) somehow produced an impression greatly at variance with his intentions ...

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
[b]If all Christians followed the Boy Scout code, the world would be a better place.

I can only hope that you didn't put much thought into this and only wrote it as a throw away response meant to be "cute".

Without the mythos, Jesus is little more than a bag of platitudes leavened with a scattering of cryptic allusions to things not of this w ...[text shortened]... words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist.

Of what value do you find Jesus?

I value the mythos of Jesus.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Lets see: You went off on the guy without cause, you chose to "pile on" in an effort to try to "save face" and even now you can't bring yourself to admit the truth.

You're really something. But then, looking at your track record, its' not unexpected.

The only truth that I am willing to admit is the one staring you in the face without response.
What was your intention of the OP, if not as I stated?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only truth that I am willing to admit is the one staring you in the face without response.
What was your intention of the OP, if not as I stated?

Keep up the good work, brother. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by jaywill

In rationalism the point of having as accurate a world view as possible and holding as few false beliefs as possible is so as to make sure that as many premises that you use as possible are factually verified and not just assumed.

You are using the label Rationalism in a way in which I would like to ask you a few questions. Tell me if ...[text shortened]... or necessary Being."

Do you find merit to that paragraph in the history of philisophy ?

I am talking about the modern meaning of rationality as I have defined it and not claiming to
be a follower of any particular classical philosophical schools.

For example I am a skeptic but I don't agree with Pyrrhonism.


I use rationality as it is described here...
YouTube&feature=plcp&context=C4ad5793VDvjVQa1PpcFMsH-3duiHWMi7X2aQ_Sy57B081t40UFqo=

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I value the mythos of Jesus.

What parts of the mythos of Jesus do you find particularly valuable? What specific value do you find in those parts?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only truth that I am willing to admit is the one staring you in the face without response.
What was your intention of the OP, if not as I stated?

You're too funny. The intention of the OP is stated in the OP.

The truth is that you went off on the guy without cause. Why don't you stop embarrassing yourself and just admit it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
For a little while, I've had a series of short discussions with a retired pastor regarding the teachings of Jesus. Recently he acknowledged that he reads the words of Jesus through the lens of the writings of Paul and others whereby essentially making the New Testament/Bible his "Lord" rather than Jesus. It was refreshing that he had the intellectual hone ...[text shortened]... lsewhere should take heart in knowing it is possible to get some measure of it.

Comments?

I challenged him to read the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist.

To take a fresh look at this, I ask: What would Jesus say about this approach? This is a non-biased, non-rhetorical question. Is there evidence in Jesus' words that supports an answer? (This would mesh with the thread on who is to explain.)

Originally posted by JS357

I challenged him to read the words of Jesus as if the rest of the NT did not exist.

To take a fresh look at this, I ask: What would Jesus say about this approach? This is a non-biased, non-rhetorical question. Is there evidence in Jesus' words that supports an answer? (This would mesh with the thread on who is to explain.)

In the "Who is to explain?" thread, read my response to menace71.

If you don't find that sufficient, then ask followup questions either here or there.

What I will add now is that while Jesus walked the Earth, He repeatedly emphasized the importance of following HIS word and that following His word was not only sufficient, but required for "eternal life"/"heaven"/"salvation". So far as I know, He did not say that His followers should wait for Paul and others to create a mythology about Him and to follow that instead.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In the "Who is to explain?" thread, read my response to menace71.

If you don't find that sufficient, then ask followup questions either here or there.

What I will add now is that while Jesus walked the Earth, He repeatedly emphasized the importance of following HIS word and that following His word was not only sufficient, but required for "eternal l ...[text shortened]... ld wait for Paul and others to create a mythology about Him and to follow that instead.

So far as I know, He did not say that His followers should wait for Paul and others to create a mythology about Him and to follow that instead.

-------------ToOne----------------------

Actually there were quite a few things that Jesus said about the Holy Spirit that strongly implied more was to come. I presume you think that the work of the Holy Spirit is part of the "mythology" - if so , Jesus talked clearly about it.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
What parts of the mythos of Jesus do you find particularly valuable? What specific value do you find in those parts?

Oh, all the stories can be effective. Any detail can work. It all depends on the theatre, the stage setting, the script. Analysis here is out of place.

Originally posted by knightmeister
So far as I know, He did not say that His followers should wait for Paul and others to create a mythology about Him and to follow that instead.

-------------ToOne----------------------

Actually there were quite a few things that Jesus said about the Holy Spirit that strongly implied more was to come. I presume you think that the work of the Holy Spirit is part of the "mythology" - if so , Jesus talked clearly about it.

Unless you are implying that what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit "strongly implied" that His followers "should wait for Paul and others to create a mythology about Him and to follow that instead", your post has nothing to do with my post. If you are implying that, then cite passages that support your position and show how they do so.

I presume you think that the work of the Holy Spirit is part of the "mythology" - if so , Jesus talked clearly about it.
I've never stated nor even remotely implied such a thing. Can't fathom why anyone would "presume" such a thing.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Oh, all the stories can be effective. Any detail can work. It all depends on the theatre, the stage setting, the script. Analysis here is out of place.

Okay. I'll take this as you just like to hear yourself talk.