Irony

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Christianity deals in the authentic or it is a mask to dress ones self in some religious garb of self-righteousness nothing more.

Yep. And I think this is true for all the major religions, just as I think that all of them (at their best) find and express “the authentic,” despite their different “religious garb” and despite their disagreements ove ...[text shortened]... ’s okay.

Okay, I still don’t think I’m expressing well what I want to say, so I’ll just quit…[/b]

Very generic question - do you believe that all religions are just human efforts to describe the Divine? Do you hold that it is impossible that the Divine might itself draw a "map" (to return to our analogy) for humans to use?

Originally posted by vistesd
But it does mean that I never try to dissuade anyone from pursuing that authenticity within their particular religious expression. I never tell anyone they ought not to be a Christian (Protestant or Catholic or Orthodox)—or a Buddhist or a Jew or a Muslim or whatever. I may argue about particular “articles of faith”—that’s what we do on here—but I always k ...[text shortened]... ’s okay.

Okay, I still don’t think I’m expressing well what I want to say, so I’ll just quit…

I think you express yourself far more clearly than some...

Anyway, I agree with you pretty much entirely. I would never criticise someone for their religion. If someone claims direct experience of god, or a god, or simply has faith, I would not and could not "argue" against them.

What is plainly nonsense, however, is saying that without a specifically Christian God then our knowledge has no foundation, to the point where me saying "Dogs have teeth" could actually mean "I want a pepperoni pizza".

Claiming to simply choose a Christian viewpoint from a position of complete scepticism, then using that viewpoint as a guarantee of the truth of your beliefs, is plainly circular. To say it is the most rational system is not only false but gets you no further, since if you start from the position that you cannot know anything then rationality cannot be seen as a means of obtaining truth. Rationality loses all value.

So called "presuppositionalism" is not a well-founded mainstream philosophical theory, whatever Coletti et al would have you believe.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Very generic question - do you believe that all religions are just human efforts to describe the Divine? Do you hold that it is impossible that the Divine might itself draw a "map" (to return to our analogy) for humans to use?

This is really a tough question for me. On the one hand, I take the natural cosmos, including humanity as part of it, as itself a “map.” I also think that maps come out of bona fide mystical experiences, although I believe that all such maps are in a sense “provisional,” since I do not think that such experiences are one-way experiences of “revelation,” but are immediately subject to “translation” by the human brain/mind into terms and content that it/we can deal with. I think that a great part of the religious maps (including scriptural ones) come out of that. In both cases, I have to say that the “divine” for me is not supernatural (“extra-natural”?), but natural—the ineffable ground of being; whether that entails the pronoun “it” or can be subject to (or, more precisely, the subject of) more personal terms, I am uncertain. If you will recall our brief discussion of Advaita Vedanta versus Kashmiri Shaivism, that seemed to be one of the differences between them.

Originally posted by dottewell
So called "presuppositionalism" is not a well-founded mainstream philosophical theory, whatever Coletti et al would have you believe.

Not only did I not make any claims that presuppositionalism is a "well-founded mainstream philosophical theory", but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

However, if it will make you feel better about it, presuppositionalism is a kind of foundationalism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

And you keep asserting that I have claimed my world-view is proof of God or truth or a "guarantee of truth". I make no such claim. Rather I claim that no other world-view is better than Christianity based reasonable criteria such as it being fully rational and coherent.

It may be that the state of the world is irrational. But if that is the case, then "truth" looses meaning on all levels, both epistemological, and metaphysical. Such a position is self-refuting. And rationalism itself has no a priori content so it can not lead to any truth.

My argument regarding "all dogs have teeth" illustrates the futility of claiming the proposition has any meaning in an irrational world. The fact that you understand the proposition indicates that the world is both rational and there are axioms to base knowledge on. That is, there is "authentic" truth and not just truths that are a relative to the domains of discourse. So the question keeps returning to what are your axioms, and how do you account for knowing what "all dogs have teeth" means?

Originally posted by Coletti
Not only did I not make any claims that presuppositionalism is a "well-founded mainstream philosophical theory", but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

However, if it will make you feel better about it, presuppositionalism is a kind of foundationalism. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundationalism

And you keep asserting that I have claimed my w ...[text shortened]... to what are your axioms, and how do you account for knowing what "all dogs have teeth" means?

I don't need to get my philosophy from Wikipedia, thanks.

Let me ask you this: do you think it possible we could have language without a Christian God? Do you think that without a Christian God, it would not be true that "If A then B, if B then C, so if A then C"?

Could you explain your distinction between "authentic truth" and "truth relative to discourse". What exactly is the latter?

And again, why do I have to be able to account for knowing what "all dogs have teeth" means? Why is it not enough that I do know what it means, and can use it appropriately?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Christianity deals in the authentic or it is a mask to dress ones self in some religious garb of self-righteousness nothing more.

Yep. And I think this is true for all the major religions, just as I think that all of them (at their best) find and express “the authentic,” despite their different “religious garb” and despite their disagreements ove ...[text shortened]... ’s okay.

Okay, I still don’t think I’m expressing well what I want to say, so I’ll just quit…[/b]

I believe we all have our own views of what is true, what is authentic,
and so on. We basically look at the world with these views of ours,
some are doing so with a conservative slant, others a liberal one,
some with this religion, others with that. Reality presses upon us all,
we deal with it, we live in it, we call something just, others evil, some
good, others bad. The trouble comes when what is true, doesn't fit
our little world views, we react to protect our views I believe more so
than attempt to face the reality of universe before us. Which is as
it should be too I guess, who would want to question reality at every
turn.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we all have our own views of what is true, what is authentic,
and so on. We basically look at the world with these views of ours,
some are doing so with a conservative slant, others a liberal one,
some with this religion, others with that. Reality presses upon us all,
we deal with it, we live in it, we call something just, others evil, some
g ...[text shortened]... Which is as
it should be too I guess, who would want to question reality at every
turn.
Kelly

The trouble comes when what is true, doesn't fit our little world views, we react to protect our views I believe more so than attempt to face the reality of universe before us. Which is as it should be too I guess, who would want to question reality at every turn.

So maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on ourselves when we realize that’s what we’ve been doing—or too embarrassed when we’re found out!

Also, I think sometimes when we’re exploring new viewpoints, we might tend to “cradle” them a bit at least until we think we understand them, even if later we move away from them. And then maybe we shouldn’t be too embarrassed if it appears that we’ve been inconsistent…

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]The trouble comes when what is true, doesn't fit our little world views, we react to protect our views I believe more so than attempt to face the reality of universe before us. Which is as it should be too I guess, who would want to question reality at every turn.

So maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on ourselves when we realize that’s what we’ve bee ...[text shortened]... hem. And then maybe we shouldn’t be too embarrassed if it appears that we’ve been inconsistent…[/b]

Yea, pride can hide a lot of things from us. If we are proud to the
point of not accepting error on our own part, truth I image will not
find its way into our hearts and minds. I guess that is why the
scripture is down on pride, and tells us to walk humbly before God
and man.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe we all have our own views of what is true, what is authentic,
and so on. We basically look at the world with these views of ours,
some are doing so with a conservative slant, others a liberal one,
some with this religion, others with that. Reality presses upon us all,
we deal with it, we live in it, we call something just, others evil, some
g ...[text shortened]... Which is as
it should be too I guess, who would want to question reality at every
turn.
Kelly

So God is what we make of it?

Originally posted by abejnood
So God is what we make of it?

No, God is truth, the reality/universe He made is what it is. Our beliefs
such as they are do not change God or the reality/universe He made.
Our issues arise when we don't see things for the way they really are
and because of that hurt both ourselves and those around us by the
choices we make. Some times it is worse, we make choices knowing
full well what the outcome will be, and we don't care, or don't care
enough to make other choices.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, God is truth, the reality/universe He made is what it is. Our beliefs
such as they are do not change God or the reality/universe He made.
Our issues arise when we don't see things for the way they really are
and because of that hurt both ourselves and those around us by the
choices we make. Some times it is worse, we make choices knowing
full well ...[text shortened]... at the outcome will be, and we don't care, or don't care
enough to make other choices.
Kelly

So you mean that God is the gap between what we know and understand, and what we do not yet know but believe is the truth?

Originally posted by abejnood
So you mean that God is the gap between what we know and understand, and what we do not yet know but believe is the truth?

I think that 'gap' could be a good word to use. Jesus bridged the
gap between God, the universe God created, and man through
Jesus' death and being raised from the dead. The problem is that
that like any gift it must be recieved and more people than not,
refuse it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think that 'gap' could be a good word to use. Jesus bridged the
gap between God, the universe God created, and man through
Jesus' death and being raised from the dead. The problem is that
that like any gift it must be recieved and more people than not,
refuse it.
Kelly

I understand that Jesus can be a pathway for some, but why can't different people have different "pathways", if you will, to heaven? Are all those who do not believe in Jesus being the son of God or those who are still waiting for a messiah or those who don't believe at all doomed to hell? Can an athiest not believe in your God but still love knowledge, love love itself, and in itself is that not a God? Everyone has a God, except that religious peoplehave an almightly God that is All, and seclular people.believe in something else. Are those who believe in something else "wrong", then?

Originally posted by abejnood
I understand that Jesus can be a pathway for some, but why can't different people have different "pathways", if you will, to heaven? Are all those who do not believe in Jesus being the son of God or those who are still waiting for a messiah or those who don't believe at all doomed to hell? Can an athiest not believe in your God but still love knowledge, ...[text shortened]... lular people.believe in something else. Are those who believe in something else "wrong", then?

Well if the reality of heaven allows for that, why sure it is what it is.
If the reality of heaven doesn't, then it doesn't matter either now
does it? Jesus made some claims that basically told everyone that
only through him, could anyone reach God and enter into God's
Kingdom. Others made claims as you have said, there are many
paths to God. How many are the paths that actually get us there is
another subject altogether.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well if the reality of heaven allows for that, why sure it is what it is.
If the reality of heaven doesn't, then it doesn't matter either now
does it? Jesus made some claims that basically told everyone that
only through him, could anyone reach God and enter into God's
Kingdom. Others made claims as you have said, there are many
paths to God. How many are the paths that actually get us there is
another subject altogether.
Kelly

Yes there are many, but do you believe that they do not work? What I mean is, do you believe that there are other paths to God besides Jesus that succeed?