Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

[Antlerman]

He goes on to say that cite a verse from the New Testament, Hebrews 11:1, albeit, with a faulty understanding of that verse. His argument is based upon the word faith, which he/she equates to a blind leap of reasonless hope. That is completely contrary to the meaning of the Greek word "pistis" which here is translated "faith."

 

The proper understanding of the word is conviction or assurance and flows from the evidence that gives that conviction or assurance. It is no different than anything else for which we would have a conviction, belief, or assurance.

You know what LNC, I just sat and read all of Hebrews chapter 1 with your interpretation in mind. Setting aside all of the Greek word justifications you're trying to use which Oddbird already address very well to my satisfaction, setting aside all that, just reading the chapter with your spin about faith based on evidence I will say it simply flies in the face of it.

 

With what set of eyes do read this??

 

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. This is what the ancients were commended for. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

 

By faith Enoch was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

 

By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

 

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going. 9By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

 

By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he[a]considered him faithful who had made the promise. And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

 

All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

 

By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned." Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

 

By faith Isaac blessed Jacob and Esau in regard to their future.

 

By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed each of Joseph's sons, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

 

By faith Joseph, when his end was near, spoke about the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.

 

By faith Moses' parents hid him for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

 

By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. By faith he left Egypt, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. By faith he kept the Passover and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

 

By faith the people passed through the Red Sea as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

 

By faith the walls of Jericho fell, after the people had marched around them for seven days.

 

By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

 

And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33who through faith conquered kingdoms, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. They were stoned; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

 

These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

 

I will grant that a "blind faith" is not what this is talking about, but it certainly is not a faith that is build upon an objective evaluation of the evidence, as you would like us to believe! No. Simply no. This is speaking of an evidence of the heart, not of the tools of reason. But you don't get that, I can see.

 

None of these have anything to do with a conviction of the mind based upon a careful weighing of objective evidence. I've tried to point this out to you before that you are forcing our modern mindset of the importance of objective evidences in determining epistemological truths back onto these people of the first century. That is an error on your part. They were not thinking like us.

 

And I understand your motives. You are an apologist who is trying to use the tools of deductive reason that the atheist does in challenging the modern mindset of the literalness of the Bible in objective scientific terms. You are trying to make it about reason, and evidence. And in so doing, in my opinion, you gut it from being about something that is by definition, different than just reason.

 

I understand what the Bible is getting at, I understand it's language. And it is not the language of an objective evidence evaluation sort of act of 'confidence' which you call faith. You are not reading it for what it is, nor seeing it IMO.

 

I notice that thrice I've asked you to engage in a discussion of your faith with me beyond all your external evidences arguments which you seem to build your 'confidence' (which you call faith), on. Not once have you stepped beyond your tirelessly constructed tower of reason and exposed what is on the inside, hidden behind that 'confidence' built on 'evidences'.

 

Is this what your faith is for you? This sort of belief is no different in nature than that of the materialist you attempt to compete with and appeal to. It is to put a point on it, a materialistic faith. Not one that begins from the inside.

[NotBlinded]

LNC,

 

You seem to think that an objective reason would be what the bible states. All beliefs come from the same place...the mind of people. Is it really objective then if a person claims that there is an objective grounding for beliefs? No. It's an illusion, LNC, that you bought into.

 

 

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

Are laws and rules really objective though? They don't exist without the minds of humanity. If humanity was gone, the laws and rules would also disappear. This is what I was trying to get at about the bible. It's a book of laws and rules that only exist because humans made them. What is true objectivity then? Wouldn't it be something like gravity that needs no interpretation and does the same thing over and over...in other words, mind-independent (if that's possible)?

[Antlerman]

LNC,

 

You seem to think that an objective reason would be what the bible states. All beliefs come from the same place...the mind of people. Is it really objective then if a person claims that there is an objective grounding for beliefs? No. It's an illusion, LNC, that you bought into.

 

 

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

Are laws and rules really objective though? They don't exist without the minds of humanity. If humanity was gone, the laws and rules would also disappear. This is what I was trying to get at about the bible. It's a book of laws and rules that only exist because humans made them. What is true objectivity then? Wouldn't it be something like gravity that needs no interpretation and does the same thing over and over...in other words, mind-independent (if that's possible)?

You can look at it as objective reality, in that individuals interact with it and it acts as an influence upon its participants. In other words, it has objectively measurable effects. Culture has an objective reality, even though it is entirely created by thoughts. It is not measurable as a physical property of the universe, but it can objectively be pointed to as existing. But here, because it's not physical, it has to be understood through interpretation only, not through measuring its effects like gravity.

 

You can point objectively to the effects of culture (language, style, custom), but none of those are culture itself. The only way to understand culture is to participate in culture and subjectively experience and interpret it. It is an inter-subjective reality, and it can only be understood subjectively, as a participant with others. I can hear the language of another culture, but the meaning of those words can only be understood participating in that culture and interpreting it through that experience.

 

So to the apologist's argument that "God's Word" provides an external and independent witness to the moral laws of the Universe, I can only say without human participants, these laws have no meaning to anything else. They have no context, like gravity interacting with the physical properties of matter. Morals are part of human culture. Rules that we use could not exist without us. They are a product of being human in the world. Someone could argue that they are expressions of an evolved moral conscious in tune with the universe, but that is not how the Christian intends it. They see it as dictated rules from a god with a book.

[NotBlinded]

LNC,

 

You seem to think that an objective reason would be what the bible states. All beliefs come from the same place...the mind of people. Is it really objective then if a person claims that there is an objective grounding for beliefs? No. It's an illusion, LNC, that you bought into.

 

 

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

Are laws and rules really objective though? They don't exist without the minds of humanity. If humanity was gone, the laws and rules would also disappear. This is what I was trying to get at about the bible. It's a book of laws and rules that only exist because humans made them. What is true objectivity then? Wouldn't it be something like gravity that needs no interpretation and does the same thing over and over...in other words, mind-independent (if that's possible)?

You can look at it as objective reality, in that individuals interact with it and it acts as an influence upon its participants. In other words, it has objectively measurable effects. Culture has an objective reality, even though it is entirely created by thoughts. It is not measurable as a physical property of the universe, but it can objectively be pointed to as existing. But here, because it's not physical, it has to be understood through interpretation only, not through measuring its effects like gravity.

 

You can point objectively to the effects of culture (language, style, custom), but none of those are culture itself. The only way to understand culture is to participate in culture and subjectively experience and interpret it. It is an inter-subjective reality, and it can only be understood subjectively, as a participant with others. I can hear the language of another culture, but the meaning of those words can only be understood participating in that culture and interpreting it through that experience.

 

So to the apologist's argument that "God's Word" provides an external and independent witness to the moral laws of the Universe, I can only say without human participants, these laws have no meaning to anything else. They have no context, like gravity interacting with the physical properties of matter. Morals are part of human culture. Rules that we use could not exist without us. They are a product of being human in the world. Someone could argue that they are expressions of an evolved moral conscious in tune with the universe, but that is not how the Christian intends it. They see it as dictated rules from a god with a book.

Ok, so that is what ag meant when he said, "objective to humanity".

 

It seems that the term "objective" is in question because of the subjective nature of interpretation of anything deemed objective. It seems it is now called "collective subjectivity" due to the understanding that anything in reality that is measured is done so by subjective means. Reductionism is usually the means.

 

I've always understood objectivity to relate to the things as they are (Kant), not what we perceive or interpret them to be.

[Antlerman]

LNC,

 

You seem to think that an objective reason would be what the bible states. All beliefs come from the same place...the mind of people. Is it really objective then if a person claims that there is an objective grounding for beliefs? No. It's an illusion, LNC, that you bought into.

 

 

LNC thinks he knows God and the Mind of God. Since God can't be proven or disproven, he doesn't really know the Guy In The Sky, or what The Guy thinks. So, you are right NotBlinded!

 

He can't see that the effects of ethical thought and human experience have created morals the are objective to humanity. Laws and rules exist and we follow them (for a simple example of objectivity). It takes feelings of empathy and compassion with reason and human experience to create morals. DOH! LNC can't admit it without crushing his dream.

 

Are laws and rules really objective though? They don't exist without the minds of humanity. If humanity was gone, the laws and rules would also disappear. This is what I was trying to get at about the bible. It's a book of laws and rules that only exist because humans made them. What is true objectivity then? Wouldn't it be something like gravity that needs no interpretation and does the same thing over and over...in other words, mind-independent (if that's possible)?

You can look at it as objective reality, in that individuals interact with it and it acts as an influence upon its participants. In other words, it has objectively measurable effects. Culture has an objective reality, even though it is entirely created by thoughts. It is not measurable as a physical property of the universe, but it can objectively be pointed to as existing. But here, because it's not physical, it has to be understood through interpretation only, not through measuring its effects like gravity.

 

You can point objectively to the effects of culture (language, style, custom), but none of those are culture itself. The only way to understand culture is to participate in culture and subjectively experience and interpret it. It is an inter-subjective reality, and it can only be understood subjectively, as a participant with others. I can hear the language of another culture, but the meaning of those words can only be understood participating in that culture and interpreting it through that experience.

 

So to the apologist's argument that "God's Word" provides an external and independent witness to the moral laws of the Universe, I can only say without human participants, these laws have no meaning to anything else. They have no context, like gravity interacting with the physical properties of matter. Morals are part of human culture. Rules that we use could not exist without us. They are a product of being human in the world. Someone could argue that they are expressions of an evolved moral conscious in tune with the universe, but that is not how the Christian intends it. They see it as dictated rules from a god with a book.

Ok, so that is what ag meant when he said, "objective to humanity".

 

It seems that the term "objective" is in question because of the subjective nature of interpretation of anything deemed objective. It seems it is now called "collective subjectivity" due to the understanding that anything in reality that is measured is done so by subjective means. Reductionism is usually the means.

 

I've always understood objectivity to relate to the things as they are (Kant), not what we perceive or interpret them to be.

Collective subjectivity is a good way to put it. What is 'objectively true' is what we can mostly agree on using whatever means is appropriate to the task. Is there a fully independent objective reality beyond our perceptions? Yes, but to know it is literally to know the mind of God. It would only be objectively true freed from our means of perception, beyond reason. Which to me, defines the transcendent experience, where truth is beyond anything conceived or understood. It is the Incomprehensible.

 

The words in the Bible ain't that.

[NotBlinded]

Collective subjectivity is a good way to put it. What is 'objectively true' is what we can mostly agree on using whatever means is appropriate to the task. Is there a fully independent objective reality beyond our perceptions? Yes, but to know it is literally to know the mind of God. It would only be objectively true freed from our means of perception, beyond reason. Which to me, defines the transcendent experience, where truth is beyond anything conceived or understood. It is the Incomprehensible.

 

The words in the Bible ain't that.

[agnosticator]

Ok, so that is what ag meant when he said, "objective to humanity".

 

Right. Instead of rehashing what was said between you and A-man, I'll just say I agree with the thoughts of the conversation.

 

It seems that the term "objective" is in question because of the subjective nature of interpretation of anything deemed objective. It seems it is now called "collective subjectivity" due to the understanding that anything in reality that is measured is done so by subjective means. Reductionism is usually the means.

 

I've always understood objectivity to relate to the things as they are (Kant), not what we perceive or interpret them to be.

 

 

I was speaking to the "3a" definition, while you are speaking to "b" below (Merriam-Webster):

 

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>

 

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

 

Morals in this sense, are beyond the individual, and wholly about relationships. The effects of "collective subjectivity" are seen through our actions, which follow from our moral decisions. Additionally, moral thought becomes objective action. So I think morals are "objective" or factual and useful to anyone. It's not just opinion when the rubber meets the road. There are objective consequences stemming from our morality. But I get and agree with what you're saying...

[NotBlinded]

I was speaking to the "3a" definition, while you are speaking to "b" below (Merriam-Webster):

 

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>

 

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

 

Morals in this sense, are beyond the individual, and wholly about relationships. The effects of "collective subjectivity" are seen through our actions, which follow from our moral decisions. Additionally, moral thought becomes objective action. So I think morals are "objective" or factual and useful to anyone. It's not just opinion when the rubber meets the road. There are objective consequences stemming from our morality. But I get and agree with what you're saying...

I just have doubts that 3a actually exists.

 

I think what LNC is doing, in claiming to know the mind of God like you stated, is in the realm of b not 3a. If this is so, it isn't objective at all if he has knowledge and perceptions of it as you and AM stated. So, why is he claiming knowledge of what these morals are if he is claiming they are objective in the b sense? How does one claim knowledge that is free of individual thought? Dictation?

 

If it's perceptible by all viewers (I'll use an analogy that I used in another thread), then two dogs smelling bacon would recognize what it is. We wouldn't have one smelling bacon and one smelling dirty socks as is true with so-called objective morality because it has nothing to do with individual thought and perceptions. But, we all know that people and morals are just like the dogs and bacon when it comes down to it. For one it's bacon and for the other it's dirty socks (which would mean the bacon isn't objective in the B sense. Ok, not a good analogy, but go with it anyway!)

[Antlerman]

I was speaking to the "3a" definition, while you are speaking to "b" below (Merriam-Webster):

 

b : of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>

 

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment>

 

Morals in this sense, are beyond the individual, and wholly about relationships. The effects of "collective subjectivity" are seen through our actions, which follow from our moral decisions. Additionally, moral thought becomes objective action. So I think morals are "objective" or factual and useful to anyone. It's not just opinion when the rubber meets the road. There are objective consequences stemming from our morality. But I get and agree with what you're saying...

I just have doubts that 3a actually exists.

 

I think what LNC is doing, in claiming to know the mind of God like you stated, is in the realm of b not 3a. If this is so, it isn't objective at all if he has knowledge and perceptions of it as you and AM stated. So, why is he claiming knowledge of what these morals are if he is claiming they are objective in the b sense? How does one claim knowledge that is free of individual thought? Dictation?

He is claiming an Objective Authority, in this case the Bible (or God). And in that case, yes it is via dictation. But again, unless that information can be injected into the consciousness of the believer bypassing any of the individual's interpretation of an outside instructor entering that person's mind through all those faculties which affect how something is understood, then his point is utterly moot.

 

At the best he could say God directly instructs the individual, bypassing the normal means of learning, but then that pretty much makes the Bible non-authoritative, or really any sort of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," claim meaningless. It makes his argument about an objective truth to be had through proper interpretation of scripture null.

 

The only kind of truth that would be truly objective, would be direct intuition within God. But then, is that understanding reality objectively? Not really. Because there is really is no longer object nor subject. It simply is all. It simply is what IS.

 

This whole arguing that a book can decide truth for you, is extraordinarily limited in range and depth. It's a frustrated substitute for genuine apprehension.

 

 

If it's perceptible by all viewers (I'll use an analogy that I used in another thread), then two dogs smelling bacon would recognize what it is. We wouldn't have one smelling bacon and one smelling dirty socks as is true with so-called objective morality because it has nothing to do with individual thought and perceptions. But, we all know that people and morals are just like the dogs and bacon when it comes down to it. For one it's bacon and for the other it's dirty socks (which would mean the bacon isn't objective in the B sense. Ok, not a good analogy, but go with it anyway!)

I've been struggling with this analogy. I think the problem is that you are talking about dogs who reason on a very rudimentary level. Close enough to bacon is effective enough to communicate content to the dog. But to the human, that smell of bacon has an unbelievable swath of meaning that comes flooding in: Memories of childhood; relationships of life circumstances; pains and joys; value systems, taste preferences, economic concerns, health considerations, and on, and on, and on, and on. We function in incredibly subtle ways, impacting a myriad of thoughts and feelings and memories in an instant. Much, much beyond the dog simply smelling meat and processing the thought "food".

 

When it comes to things like values, well that's hardy a food/non-food variable. It's tied with notions of truth, social values, personal values, philosophical considerations, etc. Looking at that one thing, brings tremendous subjective realities with it in processing what it is. Even a simple rock, which doesn't have a tremendous amount of abstractions associated with its existence, will be interpreted in many ways to the individual human. "It speaks of the age of the earth". "It is useful for a decoration". "It can be skipped across water". "It reminds me of my trip to Arizona". "It's just a dumb rock". And so on. To the dog, it is likely interpreted as "Mark territory" or "Ignore".

 

The complexity, the depth of our consciousness opens our minds to the vastness, the infinity of possibilities, and hence why question of meaning, of value, or truth, are incredibly less, and less, and less so easily answered in linear terms. To me, the religious dogmatist is about making us 'dogs' in our thinking. "Right/Wrong". "Food/Ignore". That is not freedom. That is not depth. That is not Spirit.

[agnosticator]

I just have doubts that 3a actually exists.

 

It may not exist totally for the individual, but I think some moral principles are based upon the human makeup (which are the facts morals should be based upon). We (collectively) know what unnecessary harm to a human is, so we say "do no harm". To a certain extent, we can use reason objectively in assessing what is to be done or not done in some situations. Take dashing babies on rocks...

 

I think what LNC is doing, in claiming to know the mind of God like you stated, is in the realm of b not 3a. If this is so, it isn't objective at all if he has knowledge and perceptions of it as you and AM stated. So, why is he claiming knowledge of what these morals are if he is claiming they are objective in the b sense? How does one claim knowledge that is free of individual thought? Dictation?

 

Yep, that's what LNC is doing. He has no knowledge but the scriptures...A-man answered this better than I could.

 

 

For one it's bacon and for the other it's dirty socks (which would mean the bacon isn't objective in the B sense.

 

But dogs don't know it's not bacon!

[LNC]

What's the point in stating what Brown and A&G say? You want me to quote places where they DON'T use the word 'evidence?' I've already noted that they use the sense of conviction or assurance. You agree with that part. What I do point out is that they DON'T bring out the word evidence. What's the point of quoting anything? Do you want me to reproduce the spaces between paragraphs or something?

 

You are being equivocal with your use of the word evidence.

 

Yes. People believe for a reason. But the vast witness of history as well as the witness of the new testament is that people believe because the speaker or preacher sounds convincing and because it lines up with what they have been dogmatically preconditioned to accept. Faith is an internal phenomenon whereby one becomes convinced that something is true or "of God."

 

The reasons people believe are rarely well-thought out, thoroughly investigated, critically evaluated and compared to what is established scientifically. They believe because of the enthusiasm of the preacher, his deep voice, his emotional appeal and the reaction of the crowd around them.

 

If by "evidence" you meant "a reason someone believes something," I would have no argument. But you want people to think faith means something that is well-reasoned, thoroughly investigated, critically evaluated and compared to what is established scientifically. And the greek words for faith as used in the New Testament do not support that. You are majoring on minors and distorting what the New Testament concepts of faith really meant.

 

You must be a very good poker player. You attempt to pull off a pretty impressive bluff. However, I am too much of a skeptic to be taken in by such maneuvers, so since you wouldn't quote Brown or BAG, let me do so and show why you have misrepresented them.

 

Here is what Brown says about the word pistis (faith)

 

---Faith and knowledge (Jn. 6:69), knowledge and faith (Jn. 17:8; 1 Jn. 4:6), are not two processes distinct from each other, but instructive co-ordinates which speak of the reception of testimony from different standpoints. Faith alone which receives the testimony possesses knowledge; he who knows the truth is pointed to faith. The co-ordination of knowledge and faith is anti-gnostic and anti-speculative. The hearer should understand that both are involved in salvation: acceptance of the testimony as well as personal response and reformation that conforms to the testimony. The distinction in Jn. 4:42 is important.(603)---

 

Maybe you missed that part of his definition. So, when we think of knowledge, it is commonly defined as justified true belief. In other words, it is belief in the sense that no one can have 100% epistemological certainty, yet it is justified belief as it is backed up by evidence and logic (standard to the definition). So, what Brown is saying is that knowledge (justified true belief) and faith go hand in hand which sounds an awful lot like what I was saying and you were denying in prior posts. But let's not stop with Brown, let's look at BAG as well (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich). They define pistis as "that which causes trust and faith." (668) What would that be? Well, one has to look at the prior chapters in Hebrews to know what that would be in this case, and the author lays out a compelling case.

 

How about Robinson, "to have faith, to believe, to trust, to have firm persuasion, a confiding belief in the truth, veracity, reality of any person or thing." (659-660) Louw and Nida, "“what can be believed, or that which is worthy of belief” (31.43) “to believe to the extent of complete reliance” (31.85) and even “the state of being someone in whom complete confidence can be placed.” (31.88)

 

What you were saying just didn't make sense with what I understood and this should make it clear that you were misrepresenting the usage of the word.

 

Wait a minute. So you cherry pick an article that uses the word evidence, just like you cherry picked Easton's dictionary? Let's go to an authoratative source!

 

Brown's New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology and Arndt, Gingrinch and Dankers "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament" are standard's in evangelical scholarly circles for New Testament word studies. When you made your fishy assertions about "flows from evidence" I went to the standards to check out what you said. Your peculiar emphasis on "flows from evidence" is not warranted. It's that simple.

 

And, if you're such an objective, serious student of the New Testament, I am baffled as to why those are not in your library.

 

I think your approach to word study is flawed. You don't "tie" together words that stem from the same historical root and apply the meaning of one word in one context to a different word in the family in a different context. It's tempting when you want to force words to mean things like "flows from evidence. . ." But it's really not responsible word study.

 

Your feigned protests here don't impress me. You didn't even bother to try to back up your case with actual citations from Brown or BAG regarding pistis, you just asserted your case and expected me to take your word for it. Now you are claiming that I cherry-picked this article without giving any citations that would prove your assertion. Why don't you find the article and show me how I have cherry-picked it if you believe that is a true assertion. It doesn't sound like you have read the article if that is what you believe.

 

No, I don't have these works in my personal library, but I live near one of the top Christian colleges in the country, so I have access to them when needed. Also many of my friends are either doing graduate level studies in Greek exegesis or have recently received their Masters degrees in the field, so not only do I have the library nearby, I also have friends who have a firm grasp on the subject with whom I can check (and did so in this case).

 

You actually think I've not read and studied Hebrews? The "reasons" you refer to are the narrative recounts of previous chapters in Hebrews. That is not evidence in the modern sense. That is dogma. The reader is told to have faith because of what the dogma says.

 

And you are trying to imply that faith flows from evidence in the modern legal, historical or scientific sense, not in the weaker sense of "any ol' reason that makes you believe."

 

Now, about that word enchos. Let's look at the words of a scholar from Colin Brown,

 

I do wonder how closely you have studied Hebrews if all you think the author is referring to is a narrative recounting and dogma. These people weren't holed up in a corner when all of these events were occurring. Many of them had first-hand knowledge of these events. You act like they were complete imbeciles, when, in fact, many were highly educated people. As I have mentioned before, Paul would have been educated at the level of a lawyer (he was a pharisee) and would have known Jewish law and history inside out. He would not have been easily duped by some wives tales that had been floating around. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, educated and also not easily fooled.

 

I never said anything about evidence in the modern sense (if there is such a designation); however, it was evidence that would have been of the nature of being historical, legal (in the Jewish sense), although, I'm not sure in what sense it could be scientific. However, you are simply using a form of an ad hominem to treat them as rubes for which "any ol" reason will do. On what evidence do you base such conclusions? Or are you simply assuming these ideas to fit your pre-defined worldview? I hope that is not what you are not doing. So, I look forward to hearing your reasoning for reading your definitions into the text.

 

So, once again, it is a mistake to sieze upon one specific denotation (evidence), wrest it from its context and make it mean something that you want it to mean (evidence in the modern sense).

 

Remember, you need to pay attention to context in order to get to the intended meaning of a text.

 

OK, so here you quote part of the text to make your case and it sounds like you might have made it based upon that quote; however, I also looked at other sources beyond Brown and here is what I came up with.

 

Robinson - convincing argument, proof, conviction, certain persuasion (Heb. 11:1) (259)

 

BAG - proof, proving (248)

 

Colin Brown says, on p. 713, in parentheses, (because he is using it in conjunction with “hypostasis” (the assurance) also says, “a proving of, or conviction about.”

 

So again, you see that it is used as proof or evidence and that is the idea that most of the lexicons convey. Yes, context is important, which is why this understanding of the word fits so much better with what the author of Hebrews is trying to convey.

 

Remember, LNC, your own bible tells you "do not go beyond what is written." Your evidential form of apologetic is very involved, but you cannot gain some sort of aura of biblical support by sticking your favorite word in there and declaring that "the greek word pistis means . . ."

 

Please quote chapter and verse on this and interpret it in context, please.

I think you would benefit the most from such an exercise.

 

I guess you couldn't find a biblical reference to back up your assertion here. I understand.

 

Wrong again. You see, one must not only quote people. One has to think about what is said. A reader shouldn't sieze on any ol' denotation that fits what they want a word to mean. That's where apologists often fail because of a deep need to have faith mean the same thing as evidence in the modern sense of the word. Their entire world seems to be colored by an extreme need for apologetics. The real meaning of texts gets distorted and skewed.

 

Right, that is why I am using the more widely understood meaning of the words as I have shown and you are simply making assertions that you can't back up. I will give you credit for at least reading some Greek lexicons, that is more than most skeptics will do. However, you also have to represent them correctly if you really want to make your case and that was your mistake. When you do treat the texts as you have, as you said, "The real meaning of texts gets distorted and skewed."

 

My point was that the definition of pistis/faith/conviction whatever doesn't carry the connotation that you want to force it to carry. I said nothing about faith being in vain. That's your straw man. That's a tangent I will not pursue with you.

 

And your tired old airline safety analogy does not illustrate theological faith. It reduces your faith to the mundane realm of rivets, and torque and risk factors and observed phenomena.

 

If you want to live in the basement while your own NT soars into the skies, then more power to you. I won't go off on that tangent with you either.

 

And you are wrong about your understanding of these two words as I have shown, so I won't belabor that point. You misrepresent my point regarding the illustration. My point is not about rivets and torque, it is about putting faith in something or someone even when one hasn't done all of the first-hand investigation. It doesn't matter if it is an airline or another person, we all live by faith to one degree or another - even atheists.

 

Fine and dandy, but you went off on a tangent about Materialistic worldviews, totally off topic. Why? What relevance did it have? What was your point, other than verbage?

 

And I don't paint anything with a broad brush. I'm just saying the point you want to make so much of is misguided and unwarranted. The biblical cluster of words for faith does not require evidence in the sense that you would have people think.

 

"Some reason by which they believe" is not "evidence" in the modern sense of the word.

 

You are trying to back port your modern notions into a word and a biblical theology that plainly does not need it.

 

Sorry that I lost you on that point. I was making a point about the article that is the basis of this thread and the author of said article. He may not be a materialist, but he certainly doesn't believe in a realm of beings that is immaterial, so maybe I made the leap that he was a materialist prematurely. However, with that said, his logic is still filled with all sorts of logical holes. He lumps in all religions with the 9/11 terrorists, which is the composition fallacy. He calls all religious belief mythology, which is clearly wrong and shows that he has no concept of either mythology, religion or literature in general to confuse the two. He is confused about the concept of faith, as you seem to be as well. He commits ad hominems. In the end, I would say that this article is more of a rant than an argument as he does little to nothing to actually prove his assertions.

 

LNC

[LNC]

Scientific theories can be tested, but that's another discussion.

 

I don't know what your pet doctrines are, but let's look at speaking in tongues. You may show me how the Bible clearly states that tongues are a crucial sign that the Holy Spirit indwells. Someone else could show me that clearly the Bible says that tongues served there purpose and are no longer necessary. One will insist that tongues were/are "spirit language" while another demonstrates through verse that a tongue is a human language.

 

Rapture? Pre-trib, mid-trib or post-trib? All have their evidences in Scripture. Is water baptism a requirement? Does calling a priest "Father" go against Scripture or not?

 

We also have rules for interpretation/exegesis that are well established and agreed upon. The same rules are used with other forms of literature. Otherwise, we would end up with relativism no matter what the document or genre - literary relativism. Just because people come out with different understandings doesn't mean that there is not a correct understanding and that we can't get to that understanding. Someone once said, "It's not the parts of the Bible I can't understand that trouble me, it's the parts that I can that do."

 

LNC

[Antlerman]

me-senses desperation to keep the tower in tact.

[Mriana]

As I have mentioned before, Paul would have been educated at the level of a lawyer (he was a pharisee) and would have known Jewish law and history inside out. He would not have been easily duped by some wives tales that had been floating around. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, educated and also not easily fooled.

 

I'm going to go for the very heart of the matter. IF Paul knew Jewish law and history inside out, he would have known that JC did not meet the requirements to be the messiah. "He was not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy." Seems to me he fell for some "wives tale" or being a lawyer, he was very good at his job. If he knew his stuff then he should have known that whoever was telling him about a man named JC they were off the mark. Remember, Paul never met JC personally, so someone told him a story about a man they called JC. The thing is, none of the stories fulfill any of the requirements for JC to be a messiah, much less JC being anything special. They weren't duped at all. They did know what they were doing. They duped everyone else. Let's just start with the idea that JC is the messiah. Right? Wrong.

 

I am not even going to go back to animism to show what Paul was saying was not quite right and was actually a myth. I don't have to go back that far, but rather you discuss the Book of Hebrew or the Hebrew language, Paul screwed up. Well, he didn't screw up, he deceived people and then Matthew and Luke come along and rewrites an old myth to fit "Hebrew culture", further messing up the Hebrew language of Isaiah 7:14. That's just for starters, but since the NT is based on the Jewish mythology (which both were based on Egyptian mythology, but I won't go that far back) I'll just stick with the Bible and Hebrew texts to establish the Paul and the Bible is full of crap and going straight for one of the basic tenets of Xianity- the idea that JC was the messiah, God incarnate, etc etc, not just the Book/Epistle of Hebrews alone.

 

http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html

http://www.26reasons.com/index.html

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html

Quote from Messiah truth:

 

One should be aware of the fact that Paul, a founding father of the early church, and the most successful missionary that ever lived, confessed to using deception and lies to make converts:

 

* 1 Corinthians 9:20-22: To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews; to those under the law I became as one under the law -- though not being myself under the law -- that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law -- not being without law toward God but under the law of Christ -- that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak.

 

* Romans 3:7: If through my lies God’s truth abounds to His glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner?

 

* Philippians 1:18: In every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Jesus is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

 

Paul was such a good attorney that he freaking lied about a lot of things. Not only that, the Tanach was misinterpreted and mistranslated. Nah, they weren't duped. They duped everyone else who bought it.

 

http://www.messiahtruth.com/wanted.html

 

He doesn't meet all the requirements. So...

 

Right, that is why I am using the more widely understood meaning of the words as I have shown and you are simply making assertions that you can't back up. I will give you credit for at least reading some Greek lexicons, that is more than most skeptics will do. However, you also have to represent them correctly if you really want to make your case and that was your mistake. When you do treat the texts as you have, as you said, "The real meaning of texts gets distorted and skewed."

 

The Greek is mistranslated in places too, but one really should go back to the Hebrew too, because the NT is so messed up it isn't funny. The whole thing is bogus. Because there were some words in Hebrew that Greek did not have, they used words that did not quite fit the meaning of the original Hebrew text. Alma means young maiden, not virgin, but, at least back then, Greek did not have a word for young maiden, so they used the Greek word for virgin. Even then when the Greek was translated into English there were some mess up along the way.

 

Which takes me right back to the beginning of this thread- Why atheist care about religion. We care so that we know what is really happening and well, it's all bogus and Paul was full of crap, no matter which book you read that is attributed to him.

[oddbird1963]

LNC,

 

Since your post was large and this is the middle of a work week for me, I shall have to respond in bits and pieces.

 

It is so amusing to watch you try to wiggle around that fact that you are unusually obsessed with the idea of "evidence." It colors everything you read.

 

Here is the statement from the post where this conversation started.

The proper understanding of the word is conviction or assurance and flows from the evidence that gives that conviction or assurance.

 

And I agreed with you about the concept of conviction or assurance. I believe I added the term "sense of certainty," and I do not think you would object to that. All three of these terms describe the concept of faith as contained in the greek word "pistis." In other words, we both agree on that point.

 

My reading of Brown and Arndt, Gingrich and Danker supported that part of the definition. So, what did you want me to cite from these passages? Really. What could I have possibly cited? And to what end? We were in agreement about that part.

 

Then there was the quaint requirement on your part that pistis "flow from the evidence." Once again, how do you expect someone to quote something that is not there? The word evidence did not appear in that article, at least not in a significant way that I could tell.

 

Maybe I am remiss in not providing citations. But I am not as skilled as you, obviously, in making texts say things that they do not say. I can only go with what IS said (conviction, assurance, certainty) and cannot produce words which are not there (flow from evidence, evidence).

 

I did provide a quote from Brown's New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Vol. 2 where the very word YOU said meant 'evidence' was directly said to NOT mean evidence in the context of the Heb. 11:1, the very verse you were focusing on. The funny thing is, you didn't even address that citation. It's as if you don't WANT it to exist, therefore <poof!> it does not!

 

Next, you provide a citation from Brown, Vol. 1, page 603:

 

This is a section under the specialized category of John's theology and not immediately relevant to Heb. 11: 1.

 

---Faith and knowledge (Jn. 6:69), knowledge and faith (Jn. 17:8; 1 Jn. 4:6), are not two processes distinct from each other, but instructive co-ordinates which speak of the reception of testimony from different standpoints. Faith alone which receives the testimony possesses knowledge; he who knows the truth is pointed to faith. The co-ordination of knowledge and faith is anti-gnostic and anti-speculative. The hearer should understand that both are involved in salvation: acceptance of the testimony as well as personal response and reformation that conforms to the testimony. The distinction in Jn. 4:42 is important.(603)---

 

There are words in here - faith, knowledge. Reception of testimony. Nowhere do we see the word "evidence" or the phrase "flow from evidence." Nor do you see any common synonyms that are associated with evidence.

 

However, for some reason, you leave out the first part of that paragraph where it says, "Faith arises out of testimony, authenticated by God, in which signs also play a part."

 

So, instead of Faith "flows from evidence," as you say, "Faith arises out of testimony. . ." In other words , as I said, an unbeliever hears the narrative (dogma) and then believes. You know, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God." God authenticates it (not a reasoned investigation of facts). And SIGNS play a part. You know, miracle claims. None of these items carry the denotation or connotation of evidence along with them.

 

Then, you do an amazing thing. You try to convince us that Knowledge means evidence!!

 

Maybe you missed that part of his definition. So, when we think of knowledge, it is commonly defined as justified true belief. In other words, it is belief in the sense that no one can have 100% epistemological certainty, yet it is justified belief as it is backed up by evidence and logic (standard to the definition). So, what Brown is saying is that knowledge (justified true belief) and faith go hand in hand which sounds an awful lot like what I was saying and you were denying in prior posts. But let's not stop with Brown, let's look at BAG as well (Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich). They define pistis as "that which causes trust and faith." (668) What would that be? Well, one has to look at the prior chapters in Hebrews to know what that would be in this case, and the author lays out a compelling case.

 

So, the word evidence doesn't appear in the section of Brown you quote (or in the Robinson citation, for that matter). So, you go on to say that since faith and knowledge go together and knowledge is justified true beliefe, then voila!! Faith comes from evidence.

 

As a matter of fact, "Justified true belief" is a specialized philosophical and technical definition for knowledge. There are other technical and philosophical definitions besides "justified true belief." There is a much wider constellation of meanings for the word. And there is no justification for trying to limit the word "knowledge" in the article being cited to your specialized, philosophical definition.

 

Dictionary dot com provides a host of definitions of knowledge that do not conform to your use of the word knowledge:

1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.

2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.

3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.

4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.

5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.

6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.

7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.

8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.

 

Knowledge does not have to be justified by reason or evidence. One can still have knowledge yet that knowledge be unsubstantiated by a process of reasoning and weighing evidence. One merely has to have a grasp of the facts and narratives that go with a particular topic.

 

Faith goes with knowledge because once you have a grasp of a narrative (the gospel story) you can then, under the influence of a preacher/teacher, gain confidence that the narrative is true. That's all. That's it. That's the association between faith and knowlege. Instead of "knowledge = justified true belief" you can easily claim "knowledge = the perception of fact or truth." The former use of the word knowledge is less common in usage than the latter use of the word.

 

There is no need to inject the idea of "evidence" or "flows from evidence" into the mix.

 

The unbeliever hears the narrative and then they come to have confidence in that narrative as a source of salvation.

 

No evidence required. Any notion of evidence is so far in the background and so insignificant that one wonders why you have this overarching almost compulsive need to place that emphasis on it.

 

You are beating and torturing texts to try to make them say what you want them to say. And you are failing.

[oddbird1963]

I only have time for a quick reply.

 

 

 

Remember, LNC, your own bible tells you "do not go beyond what is written." Your evidential form of apologetic is very involved, but you cannot gain some sort of aura of biblical support by sticking your favorite word in there and declaring that "the greek word pistis means . . ."

 

Please quote chapter and verse on this and interpret it in context, please.

I think you would benefit the most from such an exercise.

 

I guess you couldn't find a biblical reference to back up your assertion here. I understand.

 

 

 

I wonder if you are toying with me, playing some kind of spaghetti Western "Fist full of Dollars" stare-down about this passage.

 

No matter. It's not that important.

 

However, if you REALLY don't think that passage is in the New Testament and that it is easy to locate, then I really do wonder at the true nature of your bible exegesis skills.

[Antlerman]

Rev. 22:18

 

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

 

Now as far as the context and proper interpretation, it really depends on which set of eyes you're reading it through. "Whatever best suits your theology", seems the most common approach to Biblical hermeneutics, particularly with the conservative who reads it a priori as infallible, and typically and ironically matching their branch's set of beliefs.

[NotBlinded]

He is claiming an Objective Authority, in this case the Bible (or God). And in that case, yes it is via dictation. But again, unless that information can be injected into the consciousness of the believer bypassing any of the individual's interpretation of an outside instructor entering that person's mind through all those faculties which affect how something is understood, then his point is utterly moot.

 

At the best he could say God directly instructs the individual, bypassing the normal means of learning, but then that pretty much makes the Bible non-authoritative, or really any sort of "God said it, I believe it, that settles it," claim meaningless. It makes his argument about an objective truth to be had through proper interpretation of scripture null.

 

The only kind of truth that would be truly objective, would be direct intuition within God. But then, is that understanding reality objectively? Not really. Because there is really is no longer object nor subject. It simply is all. It simply is what IS.

 

This whole arguing that a book can decide truth for you, is extraordinarily limited in range and depth. It's a frustrated substitute for genuine apprehension.

Amen. When you say there is no longer object or subject, I agree and this is why I have difficulty claiming there is actually anything that is truly objective.

 

I've been struggling with this analogy. I think the problem is that you are talking about dogs who reason on a very rudimentary level. Close enough to bacon is effective enough to communicate content to the dog. But to the human, that smell of bacon has an unbelievable swath of meaning that comes flooding in: Memories of childhood; relationships of life circumstances; pains and joys; value systems, taste preferences, economic concerns, health considerations, and on, and on, and on, and on. We function in incredibly subtle ways, impacting a myriad of thoughts and feelings and memories in an instant. Much, much beyond the dog simply smelling meat and processing the thought "food".

I did say the analogy wasn't a very good one!

 

And what you are talking about above is why I doubt the validity of definition 3a. I don't think there is anyone that can be truly objective.

 

When it comes to things like values, well that's hardy a food/non-food variable. It's tied with notions of truth, social values, personal values, philosophical considerations, etc. Looking at that one thing, brings tremendous subjective realities with it in processing what it is. Even a simple rock, which doesn't have a tremendous amount of abstractions associated with its existence, will be interpreted in many ways to the individual human. "It speaks of the age of the earth". "It is useful for a decoration". "It can be skipped across water". "It reminds me of my trip to Arizona". "It's just a dumb rock". And so on. To the dog, it is likely interpreted as "Mark territory" or "Ignore".

 

The complexity, the depth of our consciousness opens our minds to the vastness, the infinity of possibilities, and hence why question of meaning, of value, or truth, are incredibly less, and less, and less so easily answered in linear terms. To me, the religious dogmatist is about making us 'dogs' in our thinking. "Right/Wrong". "Food/Ignore". That is not freedom. That is not depth. That is not Spirit.

What I was trying to get at was there would be no mistaking what was understood by the bacon if objectivity (in the b sense) actually exists. It would be directly understood by the exact same things you said above about direct communication with God. In this anology, the reality of the bacon, and its purpose, would be directly understood by the dog without thought, perception or interpretation. This, IMO, doesn't exist and I see you saying the same thing. I think we agree AM...again. Imagine that!

[NotBlinded]

I just have doubts that 3a actually exists.

 

It may not exist totally for the individual, but I think some moral principles are based upon the human makeup (which are the facts morals should be based upon). We (collectively) know what unnecessary harm to a human is, so we say "do no harm". To a certain extent, we can use reason objectively in assessing what is to be done or not done in some situations. Take dashing babies on rocks...

Yes, I want to agree, I really do, but there might be a band of cannibals that think otherwise. I know that is a horrible thought, but this it what stops me from thinking that there can be anyone truly objective without any outside influence in the decision of what is right and what is wrong. Could we condem them? It is our own values, an outside influence, in our judgment of their actions.

 

Of course I would scream it loud and stong that it is horribly wrong, but that is based on where I was raised and the influences I had and still have. I don't know...

 

I think what LNC is doing, in claiming to know the mind of God like you stated, is in the realm of b not 3a. If this is so, it isn't objective at all if he has knowledge and perceptions of it as you and AM stated. So, why is he claiming knowledge of what these morals are if he is claiming they are objective in the b sense? How does one claim knowledge that is free of individual thought? Dictation?

 

Yep, that's what LNC is doing. He has no knowledge but the scriptures...A-man answered this better than I could.

I think we are all pretty much on the same wavelength ag.

 

For one it's bacon and for the other it's dirty socks (which would mean the bacon isn't objective in the B sense.

 

But dogs don't know it's not bacon!

Exactly! They would know if bacon was objective morality!

[NotBlinded]

You must be a very good poker player. You attempt to pull off a pretty impressive bluff. However, I am too much of a skeptic to be taken in by such maneuvers, so since you wouldn't quote Brown or BAG, let me do so and show why you have misrepresented them.

 

I will give you credit for at least reading some Greek lexicons, that is more than most skeptics will do.

I just thought that was funny.

 

Anyway, where are your mythology friends? Are they hangin' with your Greek exegesis friends in your top Christian college? Sitting around learnin' the self-righteous game? Nothin' like a bunch of yungins' thinkin' they know it all before encountering the world.

[NotBlinded]

me-senses desperation to keep the tower in tact.

The foundational brick is crumbling and scotch tape is being used.

[NotBlinded]

Rev. 22:18

 

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book."

 

Now as far as the context and proper interpretation, it really depends on which set of eyes you're reading it through. "Whatever best suits your theology", seems the most common approach to Biblical hermeneutics, particularly with the conservative who reads it a priori as infallible, and typically and ironically matching their branch's set of beliefs.

Where is the objectivity in that? The holy ghost is a dirty sock.

[Antlerman]

me-senses desperation to keep the tower in tact.

The foundational brick is crumbling and scotch tape is being used.

Seriously, I had this parable come to mind after posting that about the seed on stony ground, how when the sun beat down upon it it burned up and died. It's like this whole approach of 'evidence' as the foundation of truth, is such a illusion of security, solid and firm as it all may seem, but it cannot allow for any depth. Knowledge changes, understandings change with new information and evidences give way to a new way of understanding. If you make your stand claiming you've "got the Truth", then you'd better hope the rains and winds don't come, that no new data comes along to beat the hot sun down on your soil-less foundation.

 

A living plant has roots sunk deeply into an organic, living soil full of nutrients. Our 'evidence truths" are like stones on the surface that we may find some protection to grow around, but if that stone is moved, what is growing up from inside us will naturally find some new stone to grow against. In other words, we don't live on these "rocks", we live in living soil, that is not a world of 'hard facts' that lay on the surface. To me this is all one major conundrum that the foundation of LNC's faith, and what he says faith "flows from" is evidence. You had better hope no new evidence ever comes along then, which it has, and which is why we see the strain to keep the perch on it.

 

Living, vital, changing, organic, natural soil. These are the foundations of the living, growing human. Not "evidence". Life comes from within.

[agnosticator]

Yes, I want to agree, I really do, but there might be a band of cannibals that think otherwise. I know that is a horrible thought, but this it what stops me from thinking that there can be anyone truly objective without any outside influence in the decision of what is right and what is wrong. Could we condem them? It is our own values, an outside influence, in our judgment of their actions.

 

I should have said this before, because this is the underlying reason I used definition 3a.(expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations). Excluding those who are not born with empathy, wouldn't any other human have negative feelings witnessing another human being stabbed or tortured to death? It seems to me that most would feel some disgust and empathy for the victim, if they weren't already callous through being conditioned to accept this sort of behavior. What I mean by "fact as perceived without distortion" would be the raw feeling evoked by the extreme suffering of a person like ourselves. And the fact of our human physical makeup that suffers and dies. I think (I may be wrong?) that we naturally react, apart from our social conditioning, with empathy and revulsion.

 

You said:"I don't think there is anyone that can be truly objective." I agree that we can't be in the strictest sense. I'm saying that humans being harmed and our reaction of empathy, constitutes what I mean by objective facts. It isn't the same as the person being objective. So, human makeup is objective and it evokes a natural (objective) reaction to being harmed. I think of this as the basis for human morality. Does that make sense?

 

 

 

Exactly! They would know if bacon was objective morality!

 

I got it! Woo Hoo!

[oddbird1963]

I do wonder how closely you have studied Hebrews if all you think the author is referring to is a narrative recounting and dogma. These people weren't holed up in a corner when all of these events were occurring. Many of them had first-hand knowledge of these events. You act like they were complete imbeciles, when, in fact, many were highly educated people. As I have mentioned before, Paul would have been educated at the level of a lawyer (he was a pharisee) and would have known Jewish law and history inside out. He would not have been easily duped by some wives tales that had been floating around. Nicodemus was a member of the Sanhedrin, educated and also not easily fooled.

 

I never said anything about evidence in the modern sense (if there is such a designation); however, it was evidence that would have been of the nature of being historical, legal (in the Jewish sense), although, I'm not sure in what sense it could be scientific. However, you are simply using a form of an ad hominem to treat them as rubes for which "any ol" reason will do. On what evidence do you base such conclusions? Or are you simply assuming these ideas to fit your pre-defined worldview? I hope that is not what you are not doing. So, I look forward to hearing your reasoning for reading your definitions into the text.

In Heb 1 - 10 there are at least 60 citations of old testament passages.

 

Then, moving forward from Heb. 11:1, over the remaining three chapters there are around 20 citations and allusions to Old Testament passages.

 

So Hebrews is drenched with dogma and narrative. The writer is trying to strengthen the faith of his readers by appealing to the Old Testament (dogma) for doctrinal support and the heroes of the Old Testament (narrative) for inspirational support.

 

Of course this is the pattern in the New Testament. 1) the "word" (narrative of faith) is preached 2) the word is heard 3) some hearers respond in faith . That's the biblical model of faith. Your conception of "faith flows from evidence" is an extra-biblical requirement that just does not exist in the new testament.

 

There you go with the word "ad hominem" again. You don't know the biblical meaning of faith and you don't know the meaning of the phrase ad homimem. Ouroboros has tried to clarify that issue with you. I see it has not set in with you yet.

 

I did not engage in an ad hominem attack on those poor Christians of days gone by. I made no evaluations of pre-modern, non-critical epistemologies. I certainly did not call them imbeciles. I used scripture and some highly reputable lexical sources to show that your definition of the biblical words for faith contains extraneous and unnecessary baggage.

 

I think the willy-nilly tossing about of a word like ad hominem shows just how desperate you are to remain entrenched in a flawed hermeneutic and apologetic approach.