Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks you're nuts. Maybe I am.
I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks you're nuts. Maybe I am.
Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?
No, Doctor, you are not alone.
Originally posted by vistesdWhat does redemption mean in the Jewish context?
[b]However, there is nothing in Judaism per se that prevents a Jew from acknowledging Jesus as Messiah.
Except, (1) in the Jewish view, when the Messiah comes (and not all of Judaism holds to a view of a single personal Messiah) the world will be redeemed—and they don’t see a redeemed world out there; (2) the Jews do not accept the notion of a world that is somehow “spiritually” redeemed, while continuing on as it has in the past.[/b]
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdAxioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.
I’m confused about “epistemic status” here. If my view of the truth rests on a system which depends on certain premises (axioms?) that cannot be proven from within the system that they support, then even an internally consistent system stands or falls on those premises, does it not? Now, I don’t take the premise that the Bible is the divinely-inspired, ine ...[text shortened]... , the resurrection of Jesus. So, what do such premises require in terms of “epistemic status?”
At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with competing axioms cannot demonstrate to the other his own to be true. The best he can do is to show that the other's are collectively inconsistent, or that they do not actually reflect a standard of what that other person actually believes to be true by showing that they entail something that the other believes to be false.
Epistemic criteria are essentially a set of axioms that dictate how to evaluate the truth of claims. LH axiomatically accepts Revelation and Apostolic Tradition as his ultimate axioms. Others, such as scientists operating under the scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWould you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?
I have to wonder if I'm the only one who thinks you're nuts. Maybe I am.
Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?
Knowledge is, after all, true justified belief. In most cases, we cannot determine with complete certainty that a particular proposition is true; i.e. corresponds to objective reality. This is certainly the case with religious beliefs - so all I can say is whether my belief is justified or not. Again, with justification, individual standards differ - so all I can say is whether my belief is internally justified or not.
Originally posted by vistesdNow, I don’t take the premise that the Bible is the divinely-inspired, inerrant “word of God” (as opposed to human attempts at understanding the divine, whether inspired or not) as an objectively valid premise for arguing, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
I’m confused about “epistemic status” here. If my view of the truth rests on a system which depends on certain premises (axioms?) that cannot be proven from within the system that they support, then even an internally consistent system stands or falls on those premises, does it not? Now, I don’t take the premise that the Bible is the divinely-inspired, ine ...[text shortened]... , the resurrection of Jesus. So, what do such premises require in terms of “epistemic status?”
Neither does (if you look at Church history) the Catholic Church. 🙂
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou might modify this, or qualify it a bit, though.
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.
If a person holds axioms A and B, which assert that x and y are True (respectively),
but x and y entail a logical contradiction, one can disprove the validity of the
axiom from within the system they allegedly support.
Right?
Nemesio
Originally posted by lucifershammerI’m still researching that—since, as usual, there seem to be some various understandings. Minimally, however, it appears to be a world in which justice and compassion reign. Maximally, a return to an earthly paradisiacal state, but without relinquishing our knowledge of good and evil. For many, our job (the human vocation, if you will) is to move as far as possible toward redemption of the world. For some, the Messiah is not one person, but an aspect of all persons.
What does redemption mean in the Jewish context?
That’s the best I can do at the moment; will try to work on it some more. As a side note, messiah can mean anyone who is anointed by God to carry out any particular task. For example, in Isaiah 45:1, Cyrus is referred to as YHVH’s lo mashiach. Eschatological messianism seems to have come late as a stream in Judaism, with different understandings.
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThank you.
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.
At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with com ...[text shortened]... he scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo then you inform me that your belief is internally justified. Meanwhile, a man of competing faith informs me that his competing belief is internally justified. All I gather is that it may well be the case that neither of you possess any knowledge on the subject.
[b]Would you say that you have faith, or does your set of religious beliefs consist strictly of knowledge?
Knowledge is, after all, true justified belief. In most cases, we cannot determine with complete certainty that a particular proposition is true; i.e. corresponds to objective reality. This is certainly the case with religious beliefs - so ...[text shortened]... ividual standards differ - so all I can say is whether my belief is internally justified or not.[/b]
I am just wondering how you reason from your perception of your own internal justification to the conclusion that the man of competing faith is objectively wrong. I am not sure how that works. I think you might be able to conclude that in your estimation, the man is very likely wrong. At which time, the other man is concluding that in his estimation, you are very likely wrong.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI was afraid that I was articulating a particularly Protestant perspective.😳
[b]Now, I don’t take the premise that the Bible is the divinely-inspired, inerrant “word of God” (as opposed to human attempts at understanding the divine, whether inspired or not) as an objectively valid premise for arguing, say, the resurrection of Jesus.
Neither does (if you look at Church history) the Catholic Church. 🙂[/b]
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesLH axiomatically accepts Revelation and Apostolic Tradition as his ultimate axioms.
Axioms are not intended to be proven from within the system they support. They are intended to be the standard of truth by which all other claims in the system are judged. They are those things that one accepts, asserts, or relies on as being true without proof.
At the end of the day, they are subjective claims, since each of two people with com ...[text shortened]... he scientific method, typically accept some combination of rationality and empiricism as theirs.
Actually - no.