Salvation

Originally posted by no1marauder
It seems to me belief does entail a lack of knowledge; we "believeth" something if we're not sure - if we are sure we "know". Thus, the word "belief" also entails doubt, at least in common usage.

Would you say that you do or do not believe that you have two arms?

As I use the terms, knowledge is a special sort of belief, and not something complementary to belief. I believe that 2+2=4 because I know that 2+2=4. I do not trust that 2+2=4; I don't have to because I know it.


If I have my calculator compute 12!, I will trust the answer and believe the answer, but I will not know that it is true, until and unless I derive it from things that I know to be true, such as computing it by hand according to the definition of factorial. Thus, trust is another special sort of belief.

Bbarr can settle the matter if he ever shows up here. I believe that he will say that to believe a proposition is just to hold that it is true. You might know that it is true, or trust that it is true, but in any case, you believe that it is true.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Would you say that you do or do not believe that you have two arms?

As I use the terms, knowledge is a special sort of belief, and not something complementary to belief. I believe that 2+2=4 because I know that 2+2=4. I do not trust that 2+2=4; I don't have to because I know it.


If I have my calculator compute 12!, I will trust the answer ...[text shortened]... rust is another special sort of belief.

Bbarr can settle the matter if he ever shows up here.

I would say I know I have two arms using the term "know" in its common usage. I'm not terribly interested in a definition of "know" that would deny the use of the word under such circumstances as it would lead to the word being meaningless (a sort of "super-skepticism" that Coletti used to use at times).

Originally posted by no1marauder
I would say I know I have two arms using the term "know" in its common usage. I'm not terribly interested in a definition of "know" that would deny the use of the word under such circumstances as it would lead to the word being meaningless (a sort of "super-skepticism" that Coletti used to use at times).

You're under cross-examination, allowed Yes or No responses. You are asked, Do you believe you have two arms? What do you answer? (The question is identical to, "Do you hold the proposition 'You have two arms' to be true?" )

If you'll reread my post, I'm not denying that you also know that you have two arms. Knowledge is a variety of belief. Belief and knowledge are not exclusive; knowledge implies belief. I am not suggesting any sort of skepticism.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Doesn't trust entail doubt unless you really trust?

Point is, some people wear belief like a badge, but maybe that's another topic.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
You're under cross-examination, allowed Yes or No responses. You are asked, Do you believe you have two arms? What do you answer?

If you'll reread my post, I'm not denying that you also know that you have two arms. Knowledge is a variety of belief. Belief and knowledge are not exclusive; knowledge implies belief. I am not suggesting any sort of skepticism.

If I was to go into long boring discussions of this sort, I would say that the concepts of "belief" and "knowledge" are not seperate pigeonholes nor are they the same thing but that they are related as blue is to red on a prism. At some point we have sufficient, convincing evidence to "know" something and we no longer use the term "believe" as that connotates doubt. At some point a wavelength is no longer blue but red; at some point the evidence no longer leaves sufficient doubt to say we simply believe.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If I was to go into long boring discussions of this sort, I would say that the concepts of "belief" and "knowledge" are not seperate pigeonholes nor are they the same thing but that they are related as blue is to red on a prism. At some point we have sufficient, convincing evidence to "know" something and we no longer use the term "believe" as th ...[text shortened]... but red; at some point the evidence no longer leaves sufficient doubt to say we simply believe.

Your Honor, the witness is refusing to answer the Yes or No question. I request that the court hold him in contempt and have the bailiff sic the nearest fundamentalist on him.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Your Honor, the witness is refusing to answer the Yes or No question. I request that the court hold him in contempt and have the bailiff sic the nearest fundamentalist on him.

It is, of course, a myth that witnesses on cross-examination are only allowed "yes or no" answers though skillful phrasing of the questions will limit the possible responses. I believe my answer would be acceptable in any court of law. Now I must leave you to the Fundamentalists as I need to play a G/60 on another site to prepare for an OTB tourney this weekend. Tootles.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It is, of course, a myth that witnesses on cross-examination are only allowed "yes or no" answers though skillful phrasing of the questions will limit the possible responses. I believe my answer would be acceptable in any court of law.

Fair enough. I suppose it's also just a myth that bailiffs have a corral of fundamentalists at their disposal.

I'm actually up for jury duty next month. I can't wait. Hopefully the deliberations will hinge on some of the finer points of epistemology, but with my luck, it will probably be some sorry bastard up on another obvious DUI charge.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Fair enough. I suppose it's also just a myth that bailiffs have a corral of fundamentalists at their disposal.

I'm actually up for jury duty next month. I can't wait. Hopefully the deliberations will hinge on some of the finer points of epistemology, but with my luck, it will probably be some sorry bastard up on another obvious DUI charge.

You have to get past the initial phase of questioning which makes me wonder if you will be selected. They usually prefer to pick the uninformed and easily manipulated. Seriously though, I hope you get something interesting like a fundamentalist preacher who refuses to let the fire marshal inspect their church on grounds of separation of church and state. Or maybe a preacher who won't pay his taxes because Jesus is coming soon and it won't matter.

Please keep us informed.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The Born-Agains here don't like Matthew 25; I'm sure you'll be exposed to about a 100 quotes from Paul and maybe a few out of context ones from Jesus. They don't seem to like the Book of James, either.

we like it, Jesus is talking about the saved and the unsaved in Matthew 25.

Originally posted by RBHILL
we like it, Jesus is talking about the saved and the unsaved in Matthew 25.

No he isn't; he makes no such distinction in Matthew 25. You're saved if you act with compassion and generousity towards your fellow Man and you're doomed if you don't. All the screeching you do that "I'M SAVED!" won't help you one bit on Judgment Day according to Jesus.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No he isn't; he makes no such distinction in Matthew 25. You're saved if you act with compassion and generousity towards your fellow Man and you're doomed if you don't. All the screeching you do that "I'M SAVED!" won't help you one bit on Judgment Day according to Jesus.

I will let you believe what you want, I am not forcing you to accept Jesus as your personnal savior.

I know where I stand in rightousness with God, it is Jesus's rightousness that is in me. I have see lives changed and even my own life was chaanged when I aacepted Jesus.

I know that you only accept the four Gospels and that is ok.

Pual is writing what God(Jesus) told him to. Jesus said He was the way. John 14:1-6 and so that goes also with Puals saying in Romans 10:9-13

Originally posted by RBHILL
I will let you believe what you want, I am not forcing you to accept Jesus as your personnal savior.

I know where I stand in rightousness with God, it is Jesus's rightousness that is in me. I have see lives changed and even my own life was chaanged when I aacepted Jesus.

I know that you only accept the four Gospels and that is ok.

Pual is writing wh ...[text shortened]... Jesus said He was the way. John 14:1-6 and so that goes also with Puals saying in Romans 10:9-13

It's ironic that you don't accept Jesus' explicit words preferring an interpretation by someone else, but then claim Jesus is "your personal savior". 🙄

If you're going to rely on other people's words in the Bible, did you ever consider reading and quoting the Book of James?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you're going to rely on other people's words in the Bible, did you ever consider reading and quoting the Book of James?

Why James? Forgive my ignorance in these Biblical matters.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why James? Forgive my ignorance in these Biblical matters.

The underlying doctrinal difference we are discussing is whether "good works" as defined by Jesus in Matthew 25 is essential for salvation or not. The fundamental "Christians" of RBHILL's stripe believe that your mere assertion of belief in Jesus is sufficient basing this on various quotes from the Pauline chapters of the New Testament. Whether that is actual Pauline doctrine is disputed, but that is RB's take.

The Book of James is explicit in stating that "faith without works is dead"; thus it is a Scriptural refutation of RB's position. The Book of James was supposedly written by Jesus' brother according to many Christians (not the RCC of course) but Martin Luther for one wasn't tooooooo fond of it because of this doctrinal difference. I have read that ML wanted to exclude it from the Bible. At any rate, it is NEVER quoted by the fundies like RB and I doubt they ever read it as I believe they rely on crib notes from their "leaders" rather than actual comprehensive Bible Study (look at RB's "Bible Study" threads for clear confirmation of this).