Post Reply
Page 20 of 23  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Switch to Forum Live View A "trinity" of scoundrels: Basil, Greg & Greg
4 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2010 - 9:14AM #191
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

I see it, dear...


I intend to address it...


Forgive me for having a sense of humor and MAYBE (just maybe...) appreciating one in you and your ability to make me laugh (both however unintentional they may be)...


Wink


 

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 11, 2010 - 11:20AM #192
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,639

Nov 6, 2010 -- 4:25AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


NCG


Nov 5, 2010 -- 12:57PM, newchurchguy wrote:

You ignore the obvious, [such as?] and grind against my background in Philosophy of Science.  In fact Reason has USEFUL allies - empirical facts and mathematical patterns that inhere in them. [useful for ... science, that is ...]


Ontology can be grounded in the latter and what was metaphysical can become a candidate for a invariant or relationally variant structure in received science. [wow ... what a mouthful!]


I would point to conservation of matter/energy and the 2nd law of thermodynamics as examples. [of what? of ... ontology? sure you are joking, Mr. Feynman Newchurch Guy ...] Revelation of Divine Truth is from God.  However, to reason with logic as to its nature and expression - in natural reality - is human. [so what? I deny that natural reason can affirm anything positive about God]


Mario




So Mario,


Where are we?  I assert that the Lord God - is one person.  You have written that god has a literal son.


I assert that the Lord calls us to reason - and you respond, snidely, that reason only works for science.  What about the moral reasoning of Kant?  This is how Kant frames his religious beliefs. and we have seen how you "worship Kant".


I comment on the modern view of Philosophy of Science - as to the structuralism inspired by Boolean logic and quantum physics - and you ignore the point and say "wow".  OK  Kind sir, let me offer another example of a metaphysical theory that has become science - that the world has a structural nature whereby logic "works".  The fact that information processing is a science with laws and functional rules that output true facts, from data analysis, makes it empirical science and not a metaphysical idea.


Then you make the fracking outrageous claim: --> that God the Creator is not to be strongly inferred through logical induction from natural events. (I deny that natural reason can affirm anything positive about God)


 You are so lost in details -- that the "big picture" escapes you.  Every loving, caring and compassion deed of livings things escapes your purvey.  As does the physical natural beauty of creation, the beauty of the structures of math and logic in the informational domain and the wonder of synchronicity, in that life appears to teach exactly the moral lessons we need to learn.


It is only by shutting the Lord out - do we persist with our lack of communication reception of His Truth.  (I know - because I am a master at shutting Him out)


www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connec...



Logic is fundamental to Peirce's general philosophy, that is, his theory of knowledge and metaphysics, in so far as he supposed that fundamental categories and principles can be derived from it. (And indeed in his final period [from the 1890s until his death] he presented his pragmatism and his metaphysics in terms of abductive inference and heuristic hypotheses [see 'Pragmatism as the Logic of Abduction', Harvard lecture VII].) These fundamental categories originated in the Kantian triad of ontological categories, cosmology (matter), psychology (mind), and theology (God). And in the light of his new classification of logic he sought to show that they are derived by a process of abstraction from the three referential aspects of signs, and thereby grounded in the basic logical relation of 'signhood' [see 'On a New List of Categories']...........


 To the extent that Peirce believed in a God, It is regarded both as a personal creator (the 'Absolute First') and as the end ('Absolute Second') of the cosmos, fully revealed to the mind as a philosophical concept through reason.



In fact, C. S. Peirce, through his contributions to logic, is having a modern day following of practictoners, larger than Kant - because of the usefulness and applicability of his work. 




Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2010 - 8:14AM #193
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

Nov 8, 2010 -- 1:39PM, newchurchguy wrote:


As to Kant - well frack - he was an unbelievably structured thinker and insightful analysist!!!!  His focus was amazing - both good and bad (maybe over-worked the life outta some things).



Mornin' ncg--


And his insights that you find useful?


As a detailed philosopher he was in another class to Swedenborg and Leibniz/Wolff.  However, as a scientist and mathematician - he made no physical discoveries like Swedenborg - or left lasting math models of reality like Leibniz.



In his "detailed philosophy", yes, he created an entire "system"--a system that (for the Christian anyway) doesn't reflect reality (his, er, prodigious...effort, which to the Christian is rather (truly) pitiful...)



(Informational Realism is true for someone like Kant) who emphasizes the participation of the mind itself in the formation of the structures of which we are aware. - K. Sayre, 1976 Page 153


Kenneth's webpage - www.nd.edu/~philinst/




Curious as to how you would address the objections to Structural Realism (for example found here) upon which IR is based.


 


ETA:  Re your post to MdS,


Nov 11, 2010 -- 11:20AM, newchurchguy wrote:


Then you make the fracking outrageous claim: --> that God the Creator is not to be strongly inferred through logical induction from natural events. (I deny that natural reason can affirm anything positive about God)



LOL!  Indeed it IS outrageous!




 You are so lost in details -- that the "big picture" escapes you.



[:-O  Why, I assure you he's heard this before... ;-) ]


Every loving, caring and compassion deed of livings things escapes your purvey.  As does the physical natural beauty of creation, the beauty of the structures of math and logic in the informational domain and the wonder of synchronicity, in that life appears to teach exactly the moral lessons we need to learn.



Like the way you phrased this, ncg!  I agree.


It is only by shutting the Lord out - do we persist with our lack of communication reception of His Truth.



Agreed.


  (I know - because I am a master at shutting Him out)



Indeed, we all are on occasion... Frown

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2010 - 10:54AM #194
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

Nov 11, 2010 -- 9:11AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

The controversy is between the several "ontologies", all "legitimate", unless they are manifestly self-contradictory.



MdS,


Well there is certainly nothing contradictory about Cappadocian ontology.  In any event, the Christian has a warrant that others simply don't have to measure the (true) worth of the various ontologies as adequate descriptions of reality--all philosophies, in fact.


Further, with this unique knowledge and insight, they can (and do) make enormous contributions in the pursuit of truth to and for everyone.


[Adelphe] Again, the Cappadocian ontology did just that. [LOL! guffaw! puleeze!] The fact that their ontology is uncontroversial is supported by 2000 years, billions of Christian adherents, and orthodox Christianity. [it is manifestly an ad hoc construction]



For the Christian notion of the being of God.  As I said, within its domain (its use of existing concepts which, btw, were (and are) not foreign.) Oustide of that, few care about God for one and the being of God even less.


I don't care if you subscribe to it or find it "controversial." [arbitrary and "political"]



On the contrary.  The very opposite of "arbitrary" which is why it prevailed.  And while I am thoroughly aware of the situation, factions, and history of the time, please  articulate the specific (for once) "politics" (I take you to mean by that in a "devious" sense) you have in mind rather than your mere...rhetoric.


In that respect it is NO different from other ontological systems within domains--a fundamental example being ontological systems developed in Information Technology. [uh? WTF?] You follow it?  You can play.  You don't?  You can't--of your own choosing. [sheer idiocy ...]



Then you don't understand their purpose...



You disagree with it (without, I would add, really understanding it OR being able to articulate why.) [LOL! you are so preposterously pompous and pathetic ...]



I have yet to see otherwise.


[interesting ... er... "panorama" ... so what, now?]



So...nothing new.  You have voluntarily, intentionally, chosen to be outside of orthodoxy, neither taking advantage of greater intellects and minds than yours, the witness of the Church, the gift, presence, and guidance of the Holy Spirit within her, its protection by God, etc.


[LOL! how about an African white guy who's been dead for much longer?]



Ah, but it's not just one dead (or otherwise) African (or otherwise) white (or otherwise) guy (or otherwise.)  It is--again--the entire church.


The ONLY thing incompatible with Christianity of Kant's philosophy is his rejection of Supernatural Revelation and of the Supernatural in general: no real reason, he only followed un-critically in the steps of David Hume.



His rejection of supernatural revelation is the ANTITHESIS of Christianity, not a mere "incompatibility."  And his rejection of same could hardly result in much of his morose  musings reflecting the reality he purports to describe, could it?


btw, claiming to have been awakened from his "dogmatic slumber" in reading Hume, he promptly fell right back to sleep in it....


Sure! Through faith, though, NOT philosophy/metaphysics/ontology ...



Faith (and revelation) informs (should inform...) ALL of those things.


Even through supernatural revelation, God does NOT reveal to us "reality as it is" : definitely God's revelation is NOT a "course in metaphysics" (or physics). The purpose of revelation is to ... reveal to humans His plan and how we can partake in it: by repenting and converting, and following Christ.



No, it is NOT limited to that alone.


I will expose your abusive spin on Abraham's Trial eevery time I meet it.



yeah, yeah, whatever King Picknchoose...


I never blabber: you do.



You do.


Look ye here, bebbe schnebbes:


... IF it was legitimate to say that Plotinus "would have had access to the NT teaching", and THEREFORE that he had "special revelation" ...


... THEN it would also be legitimate to say that, as Plato and Aristotle "would have had access to the NT teaching", and  THEREFORE that they had "special revelation" ...


... but, of course, this would be a ludicrous argument, that not even Adelphe would resort to.



Um...again you are blabbering.


You (might...) recall Plato and Aristotle were long DEAD before "NT teaching"...



Don't pretend [unlike other people here, I NEVER do]



Um...


We have discussed it and agreed on the distinction, btw, many times before. [where? when?]



Many times over the years and mostly on Catholicism Debate. 


Why affirm "special revelation" if there isn't ALSO some other kind?


The difference is perfecly clear, and I DENY that s.c. "general revelation" is revelation in the proper sense of the word.



Well no suprise that you deny the rich tradition and study of Natural Theology in both the Catholic church (where, btw, it's at the level of Dogma) and the Christian church proper.  However, YOU are the only one limiting God's ability to disclose Himself and His nature via special revelation only.


"The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims His handiwork."


Kant's gnoseology/epistemology is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy:



Yeah, like a malignant tumor is "an irreversible acquisition."


everything that has been said after him, in this respect, is a mere footnote.



LOL!!!  Your God YHWH KANT.


This is Kant's "reasonable argument" that you "agreed with":


[For] If God should really speak to man, man could still never know that it was God speaking. It is quite impossible for man to apprehend the infinite by his senses, distinguish it from sensible beings, and recognize it as such. But in some cases man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s. For if the voice commands him to do something contrary to moral law, then no matter how majestic the apparition may be, and no matter how it may seem to surpass the whole of nature, he must consider it an illusion.[*]
* We can use,as an example, the myth of the sacrifice that Abraham was going to make by butchering and burning his only son at God's command (the poor child, without knowing it, even brought the wood for the fire). Abraham should have replied to this supposedly divine voice: “That I ought not to kill my son is quite certain. But that you, this apparition, are God - of that I am not certain, and never can be, not even i[f] this voice rings down to me from (visible) heaven.” 
-- Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, p. 115 [as quoted by Adelphe, with added bold and underlining, at the OP, thread "God the Sinner Lies to Abraham"]


Kant, in this passage, and the relative footnote, makes three points of general value:


i. The moral law, that is the expression of the "universal good" (e.g. "for no reason shall a father kill his child") is absolute, and always takes precedence on specific commands that may be (or seem ...) in contrast with it.



YHWH personally affirms that murder is law-breaking, that child-sacrifice isn't desired, yes...


ii. We can never be sure of the "voice of God", "not even if this voice rings down ... from heaven".



Not if its contrary to Him and His nature, right...


(You'll also recall perhaps all those parents now imprisoned who murdered their children claiming they heard from God...)


iii. If the command that we (seem to ...) receive from "heaven" is contrary to the the moral law "man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s" [Adelphe's bold and underlining]


Now, this is quite a mothful. In fact it is, in essence (in nuce, "in a nutshell") the whole  question of the conflict between secular ethics and religious ethics.


No cherrypicking allowed, here.



While I agree there is definitely a conflict between secular and religious ethics, my objection isn't based in that conflict.  It is rooted ONLY in God's immutability in His law and His (general and) special revelation in Scripture elsewhere.


First, I am not "hung up" on Kant. He got many things wrong, in particular, from a theoretical POV, his un-critical a priori rejection of the supernatural and, from a practical POV, his un-critical a priori rejection of revelation and revealed law.



And given that would have informed and corrected his errors, that's quite a BIT wrong.


BUT, once again his gnoseology/epistemology is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy.



Right, like a contagious disease.  And anyone who comes in close contact is also infected...


If your link intended to demonstrate the use of "Kantian" terms as "irreversible acquisitions", they and the concepts were present long before this cranky cadaver entered the scene.


Also, his radical criticism of the "dreams of metaphysics" (any metaphysics) is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy



Except he created his own, didn't he?  What a sophistic dork!


whatever neo-thomists or other amusing theo-philosophical buffoons may say.



They and MANY others--religious AND secular--haven't been (and refuse to be) infected.


Second,  you obviously quoted from your (newfound?) friend, paul Gerard Horrigan, your phrase in quotes, "transcendental idealist gnoseological immanentism" (see his Philosophy of Knowledge, 3. Modern Philosophy of Knowledge: Descartes to Kant, Kant, The Transcendental Dialectic).


I have already criticized Your New God Horrigan before. Here I can add that not even the reference to Kant as "idealist" is correct, unless it is clearly distingushed both from the "subjective idealism" of Berkeley and the "absolute idealism" of Hegel.



All in the school.  So what?  Idealism is idealism and stands in contradistinction to--for one--realism (which it could be (and is) argued successfully is the only valid position for a Christian to hold.)


As for Kant's "immanentism", "[i]n the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience", and, specularly "the 'transcendent', as opposed to the 'transcendental', is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know".



Which is everything, in his view.



Third, your parenthetical (bwa ha ha ha ha!!!) seems to be the "argument" you are most at ease with ...



C'mon!  "Transcendental idealist gnoseological immanentism"--LOL!!!  What a pile of...paralogical pseudo-"knowledge." His "system" is mere philosophese.


Don't "yuck" to me about "three hypostases in one ousia" and then turn around and say with a straight face anything even remotely akin to "transcendental idealist gnoseological immanentism."


[Adelphe]


The only constraints that Christians (should) put on any philosophy/metaphysics/ontology is that it should NOT be incompatible with God's revelation. This is (should be) ALL.

EXACTLY. [really? even a philosophy which, like Kant's, affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality "as is"?]



In his, the only thing we can affirm is that we can't affirm anything.


Because Kant's assertions may be wrong (like on religion, revelation, the supernatural) but nobody (except for Dr. Paul Gerard Horrigan ...) in his right mind can dismiss his gnoseology/epistemology, and anybody with a modicum of philosophical savvy (except for Dr. Paul Gerard Horrigan ...) would consider you an ignorant fool for trying to dismiss Kant in general.



First, your Emperor has no clothes and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.


Second, I do not deny he had an impact but it was a negative impact--not toward truth.  On the contary it was away from it.


You are (moderately) amusing ...



As are you...


I do not think a detailed exam of Horrigan's ruminations



[LOL!!!]


on metaphysics would add anything relevant to my knowledge of the subject, which is at least 10 times what is needed for interacting in these forums. ...



Sure...


Then you have changed your position on this. [bollocks!] That you don't see any of God's revelation in the natural world, in reason, in morality, in conscience, etc., is seriously...un-Christian. None of these "revelations" is objective, o



(Was there supposed to be something more there?)


I have no idea how you would define "objective"...


Of course I keep forgetting the constant contact with the godhead that you apparently enjoy ...



It's available to any Christian...


[Adelphe]


... and [Kant] rejected the Bible as a genuine repository for God's revelation, because of its disturbing implications ...

No, I don't think that was the (only) reason. [I didn't say "only": certainly one of the most relevant, though] Revelation as such--and any purported real knowledge gained by it--is simply incompatible with his "system" of thought. [this is true, but (see above analysis) you inavvertently subscribed to one of its strongest affirmations ...]



Assuming you are affirming "affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality as it is", that is not specifically Kant's, that is squarely within Christian thought.


Add something like that which goes gainst his own moral grain, [what? like the above quotation from The Conflict of the Faculties ...?]



Yes.


Thanks for the semonette, but it's got nothing to do with philosophy, which, as shuch, must stand on its own feet, however limited its scope may be.



And that is the problem.  It should "have something to do with philosophy"--for you.  


Not only that, the truths that inform the Christian faith would be the same truths that inform philosophy done by Christians and doesn't require (nor does it frequently have) any specific "religious" slant but DOES stand on its own feet.  You would be utterly foolish to deny the impact Christian philosophers and Christian thinking informed by revelation has had in the field of Philosophy (and within a vast number of other domains and pursuits--including science.)


And on this conclusion, whioch underlines the limits of human reason and the need to overcome them with faith (for Christians), the faith in the God of the Bible, His Written Word, His Incarnatied Word, we can, perhaps find again some agreement ...


MdS



Well that is refreshing.  ;-)


btw, why do you use the words "need to" and "overcoming"?  Interesting choice of words. 


In contrast, I see it more as a gift and an extension of reason.



Just received ...



[Not sure how you just received when it was posted a couple hours before this.]


The sense of humor is a saving grace, especially if it puts a smile on your face ...




Well no one has EVER said I lack a sense of humor, that is for sure.  On the contrary. 


Heck, I assure you that 95% of the time even here I'm laughing as I hit the "submit post" button.  Wink


 

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 13, 2010 - 6:52PM #195
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Adelphe


Nov 13, 2010 -- 10:54AM, Adelphe wrote:

Nov 11, 2010 -- 9:11AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

The controversy is between the several "ontologies", all "legitimate", unless they are manifestly self-contradictory.


Well there is certainly nothing contradictory about Cappadocian ontology. [no, not contradictory: just a ... verbal contraption] In any event, the Christian has a warrant that others simply don't have to measure the (true) worth of the various ontologies as adequate descriptions of reality--all philosophies, in fact. [Christians have faith in Revelation ...]


Further, with this unique knowledge and insight, they can (and do) make enormous contributions [LOL!] in the pursuit of truth to and for everyone.


The point is that Mr. everyone does NOT give a danm about "Christian philosophy", until he has accepted the Christian faith (which, BTW, is more or less what Blaise Pascal says in his Pensées)


[Adelphe]

Again, the Cappadocian ontology did just that. [LOL! guffaw! puleeze!] The fact that their ontology is uncontroversial is supported by 2000 years, billions of Christian adherents, and orthodox Christianity. [it is manifestly an ad hoc construction]

For the Christian notion of the being of God.  As I said, within its domain (its use of existing concepts which, btw, were (and are) not foreign.) Oustide of that, few care about God for one and the being of God even less.


No, the infamous ...


“... one ousia in three hypostases


... is an ad hoc construction, because it is born of a mere play on words, so as to settle a theologico-political dispute between the homoousian Nicene and the homoiousian semi-Arians.


[Adelphe]

I don't care if you subscribe to it or find it "controversial." [arbitrary and "political"]

On the contrary.  The very opposite of "arbitrary" which is why it prevailed. [LOL! c'mon! what crass non sequitur! as though truth always prevailed ... didn't Protestants abandon the Catholic Church for a question of ... truth?] And while I am thoroughly aware of the situation, factions, and history of the time, please articulate the specific (for once) "politics" (I take you to mean by that in a "devious" sense) you have in mind rather than your mere ... rhetoric.


Sorry, but I have already done it, and quite in detail, many times before, to bother doing it again: you go and look up your notes ...


[Adelphe]

In that respect it is NO different from other ontological systems within domains--a fundamental example being ontological systems developed in Information Technology. [uh? WTF?] You follow it?  You can play.  You don't?  You can't--of your own choosing. [sheer idiocy ...]

Then you don't understand their purpose...


Why don't you make an effort to explain what you are trying to say?


[Adelphe]... You have voluntarily, intentionally, chosen to be outside of orthodoxy, neither taking advantage of greater intellects and minds than yours, the witness of the Church, the gift, presence, and guidance of the Holy Spirit within her, its protection by God, etc.


Are you claiming that the "holy spirit" upholds the certitude of the truthfulness of the ... er ... "Cappadocian formula"? Seriously?


[Adelphe]

The ONLY thing incompatible with Christianity of Kant's philosophy is his rejection of Supernatural Revelation and of the Supernatural in general: no real reason, he only followed un-critically in the steps of David Hume.

His rejection of supernatural revelation is the ANTITHESIS of Christianity, not a mere "incompatibility." [no, that is an exhorbitant charge]  And his rejection of same could hardly result in much of his morose  musings reflecting the reality he purports to describe, could it?


Kant is not a pessimist ...


[Adelphe] btw, claiming to have been awakened from his "dogmatic slumber" in reading Hume, he promptly fell right back to sleep in it....?


This is the most stupid thing that I have heard for quite some time ...


[Adelphe]

[Christians can.] Sure! Through faith, though, NOT philosophy/metaphysics/ontology ...

Faith (and revelation) informs (should inform...) ALL of those things.


That is your peculiar delusion ...


[Adelphe]

Even through supernatural revelation, God does NOT reveal to us "reality as it is" : definitely God's revelation is NOT a "course in metaphysics" (or physics). The purpose of revelation is to ... reveal to humans His plan and how we can partake in it: by repenting and converting, and following Christ.

No, it is NOT limited to that alone.


What else? Philosophy? Metaphysics? Ontology?


“What has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?”


[Adelphe]


Look ye here, bebbe schnebbes:

... IF it was legitimate to say that Plotinus "would have had access to the NT teaching", and THEREFORE that he had "special revelation" ...


... THEN it would also be legitimate to say that, as Plato and Aristotle "would have had access to the NT OT teaching", and  THEREFORE that they had "special revelation" ...


... but, of course, this would be a ludicrous argument, that not even Adelphe would resort to.



You (might...) recall Plato and Aristotle were long DEAD before "NT teaching"...


Do not make yourself more obtuse than is decent. It is quite obvious, from my previous post, that I meant “Plato and Aristotle "would have had access to the OT teaching"”, which they obviously had. Just as much as Plotinus "would have had access to the NT teaching".


Botched.


[Adelphe]

We have discussed it and agreed on the distinction [between special revelation and general revelation], btw, many times before. [where? when?]

Many times over the years and mostly on Catholicism Debate. 


Why affirm "special revelation" if there isn't ALSO some other kind? [LOL! why indeed?]


This is simply false: the only distinction that I accept (with the Catholic Chuch, and J. Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI) is the one between Public Revelation and private revelations (see Public Revelation and private revelations – their theological status, "The message of Fatima", June 2000, @ vatican.va)


[Adelphe]

The difference is perfecly clear, and I DENY that s.c. "general revelation" is revelation in the proper sense of the word.

Well no suprise that you deny the rich tradition and study of Natural Theology in both the Catholic church (where, btw, it's at the level of Dogma) and the Christian church proper.  However, YOU are the only one limiting God's ability to disclose Himself and His nature via special revelation only.?]


Nobody in the Catholic Church would seriously peddle such belated Thomism ...


... and nobody would take seriously the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Dogmatic Theology (see @ newadvent.org)


[Adelphe]"The heavens declare the glory of God and the sky above proclaims His handiwork."? []


But that is NOT compelling for reason. I thought it was you that, with Pascal, affirmed that ... “The essential is invisible to the eyes” ... oops ... in the end Reason must submit itself to Revelation.


[Adelphe]

Kant's gnoseology/epistemology is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy: everything that has been said after him, in this respect, is a mere footnote.

Yeah, like a malignant tumor is "an irreversible acquisition."


If you truly believe what you said, you haven't got a clue about what is relevant. Your "philosophy" is NOT philosophy, but mere heavily biased apologetics.


[Adelphe]


This is Kant's "reasonable argument" that you "agreed with":


[Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, p. 115 , as quoted by Adelphe, with added bold and underlining, at the OP, thread "God the Sinner Lies to Abraham"]


Kant, in this passage, and the relative footnote, makes three points of general value:


i. The moral law, that is the expression of the "universal good" (e.g. "for no reason shall a father kill his child") is absolute, and always takes precedence on specific commands that may be (or seem ...) in contrast with it.


ii. We can never be sure of the "voice of God", "not even if this voice rings down ... from heaven".


iii. If the command that we (seem to ...) receive from "heaven" is contrary to the the moral law "man can be sure the voice he hears is not God’s" [Adelphe's bold and underlining]


Now, this is quite a mothful. In fact it is, in essence (in nuce, "in a nutshell") the whole  question of the conflict between secular ethics and religious ethics.


No cherrypicking allowed, here.



[i.] YHWH personally affirms that murder is law-breaking, that child-sacrifice isn't desired, yes...


[ii.] Not if its contrary to Him and His nature, right...


[ii.A] (You'll also recall perhaps all those parents now imprisoned who murdered their children claiming they heard from God...)


[iii.] While I agree there is definitely a conflict between secular and religious ethics, my objection isn't based in that conflict.  It is rooted ONLY in God's immutability in His law and His (general and) special revelation in Scripture elsewhere.


[i.] You are cheating: you know perfectly well that BOTH those affirmations come in the Bible, after Genesis 22, so there is no reason to assume that Abraham was ... er ... informed. More, Abraham's Trial would become totally meaningless if he had known God's "general rule", because, as even Kant suggests Abraham would have been fully entitled to rebuke God Himself, according to God's words ("Abraham should have replied to this supposedly divine voice: “That I ought not to kill my son is quite certain. But that you, this apparition, are God - of that I am not certain, and never can be, not even i[f] this voice rings down to me from (visible) heaven”").


[ii.] Nope! Again, Kant does not distinguish, and Abraham was not in a position to know enough about God's "nature", other than what He had promised to Abraham ("... in Isaac you will be blessed")


[ii.A] I certainly do, and that is precisely why Abraham' Trial is such a challenge for reason (ONLY Kierkegaard unlocked it ... and MdS "fine-tuned" it ...), not to be dismissed with idiotic, unscriptural comments ...


[iii.] [... patiently ...] ... BUT Abraham did NOT know (see above) and your reference to "(general and) special revelation in Scripture elsewhere" is simply preposterous, if used to deal with Abraham's Trial.


Totally botched.


[Adelphe]

I am not "hung up" on Kant. He got many things wrong, in particular, from a theoretical POV, his un-critical a priori rejection of the supernatural and, from a practical POV, his un-critical a priori rejection of revelation and revealed law.

And given that would have informed and corrected his errors, that's quite a BIT wrong.


I have no idea what you mean with "given that would have informed and corrected his errors".


[Adelphe]

... once again his gnoseology/epistemology is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy.

Right, like a contagious disease.  And anyone who comes in close contact is also infected...[Gasp! another mortiferous mataphor ...]


If your link intended to demonstrate the use of "Kantian" terms as "irreversible acquisitions", they and the concepts were present long before this cranky cadaver entered the scene.


First, you are confusing Kant's gnoseology/epistemology with his ethical philosophy.


Second, provide evidence, before Kant, of such frontal challenge to the moral implications of the Bible (of course, taking into account Kant's botched treatment of Abraham's Trial).


[Adelphe]

Also, his radical criticism of the "dreams of metaphysics" (any metaphysics) is an irreversible acquisition of philosophy

Except he created his own, didn't he?  What a sophistic dork!.


You obviously do not understand that his "metaphysics" was ONLY conjectural, and ONLY based on the axioms of Practical Reason.


[Adelphe]

... whatever neo-thomists or other amusing theo-philosophical buffoons may say.

They and MANY others--religious AND secular--haven't been (and refuse to be) infected.


LOL! From where have you received your infection ... er ... sound philosophy? 


[Adelphe]

I have already criticized Your New God Horrigan before. Here I can add that not even the reference to Kant as "idealist" is correct, unless it is clearly distingushed both from the "subjective idealism" of Berkeley and the "absolute idealism" of Hegel.

All in the school. [LOL!] So what? Idealism is idealism [LOL!] and stands in contradistinction to--for one--realism (which it could be (and is) argued successfully is the only valid position for a Christian to hold.)


Kant does NOT deny the reality of the noumenon, but its cognizability.


[Adelphe]

As for Kant's "immanentism", "[i]n the context of Kant's theory of knowledge Immanence means to remain in the boundaries of possible experience", and, specularly "the 'transcendent', as opposed to the 'transcendental', is that which lies beyond what our faculty of knowledge can legitimately know".

Which is everything, in his view.


Then you know nothing of Kant.


[Adelphe]C'mon!  "Transcendental idealist gnoseological immanentism"--LOL!!!  What a pile of...paralogical pseudo-"knowledge." His "system" is mere philosophese.


If you are referring to  Paul Gerard Horrigan (who manufactured the daring expression), I fully agree ...


[Adelphe]Don't "yuck" to me about "three hypostases in one ousia" and then turn around and say with a straight face anything even remotely akin to "transcendental idealist gnoseological immanentism."


I most certainly won't: I leave ludicrous pseudo-philosophical strings like that to their "inventor" (Paul Gerard Horrigan) and his friends ...


[Adelphe]

The only constraints that Christians (should) put on any philosophy/metaphysics/ontology is that it should NOT be incompatible with God's revelation. This is (should be) ALL.

EXACTLY. [really? even a philosophy which, like Kant's, affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality "as is"?]In his, the only thing we can affirm is that we can't affirm anything. [#1]


You know nothing about Kant, do you, other than what you have pieced together from some ... Paul Gerard Horrigan ...


[Adelphe]First, your Emperor has no clothes and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.


Second, I do not deny he had an impact but it was a negative impact--not toward truth.  On the contary it was away from it.


Sure sure, there is a good girl ...


[Adelphe]


That you don't see any of God's revelation in the natural world, in reason, in morality, in conscience, etc., is seriously...un-Christian.

None of these "revelations" is objective [see below]

(Was there supposed to be something more there?)


I have no idea how you would define "objective"...


By objective I mean objectively veriifiable, that is inter-subjective, viz. that independent subjects can and, in fact, must agree about,  because it is either rationally self evident (analytical propositions like those of logic or mathematics) or empirically evident (like the empirical statements of natural science).


[Adelphe]

Of course I keep forgetting the constant contact with the godhead that you apparently enjoy ...

It's available to any Christian...


Sure! Through conscience ... faith ... prayer ...



[Adelphe] Assuming you are affirming "affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality as it is", that is not specifically Kant's, that is squarely within Christian thought. [#2]


First, you have changed your version. Lo and behold ...



[Adelphe #1] “In his [Kant's philosophy], the only thing we can affirm is that we can't affirm anything.”


[Adelphe #2] “... "affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality as it is", that is not specifically Kant's, that is squarely within Christian thought.”



... which confirms, not only that you haven't got a clue about kant, BUT ALSO that  you are severely confused about "Christian thought".



Second, with "you inavvertently subscribed to one of its strongest affirmations ..." I was referring to your endorsement of your quotation from Kant (Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, p. 115 , as quoted by Adelphe, with added bold and underlining, at the OP, thread "God the Sinner Lies to Abraham"), where you obviously did not realize the implications of general validity, for religion and ethics, that you were implicity subscribing to.


[Adelphe]

Add something like that which goes gainst his own moral grain, [what? like the above quotation from The Conflict of the Faculties ...?]

Yes.


Then, explain what you mean by "something like that which goes gainst his own moral grain"


[Adelphe] ... the truths that inform the Christian faith would be the same truths that inform philosophy done by Christians and doesn't require (nor does it frequently have) any specific "religious" slant but DOES stand on its own feet.  You would be utterly foolish to deny the impact Christian philosophers and Christian thinking informed by revelation has had in the field of Philosophy (and within a vast number of other domains and pursuits--including science.)


Once again, that there is something as "Christian philosophy" is mere delusion. Once again ...


“The only constraints that Christians (should) put on any philosophy / metaphysics / ontology is that it should NOT be incompatible with God's revelation.

This is (should be) ALL.”


[Adelphe]

And on this conclusion ["Renew your mind"--agree with God...], which underlines the limits of human reason and the need to overcome them with faith (for Christians), the faith in the God of the Bible, His Written Word, His Incarnatied Word, we can, perhaps find again some agreement ...

Well that is refreshing.  ;-)


btw, why do you use the words "need to" and "overcoming"?  Interesting choice of words. 



In contrast, I see it more as a gift and an extension of reason.


I have already explained clearly enough. Anyway:



• We "need" to "overcome" the limits of human (theoretical) reason, unless we want to remain stuck with a merely phenomenal apprehension of reality.


• We "need" to "overcome" the limits of human (practical) reason, unless we want to remain stuck with a merely conjectural foundation of morality.


[Adelphe] ... no one has EVER said I lack a sense of humor, that is for sure.  On the contrary. 


Heck, I assure you that 95% of the time even here I'm laughing as I hit the "submit post" button. [:Wink:]


That is what I call "saving grace" [Smile] ... the very opposite oif fanaticism [Yell] ...


MdS


Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2010 - 12:07PM #196
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

Nov 13, 2010 -- 6:52PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

ontology. [no, not contradictory: just a ... verbal contraption]



MdS,


A verbal representation as are all classic ontologies.


In any event, the Christian has a warrant that others simply don't have to measure the (true) worth of the various ontologies as adequate descriptions of reality--all philosophies, in fact. [Christians have faith in Revelation ...]



And they put it into practice (that's what Christian faith is, you know?) and let it inform their thinking and actions.  Their worldview should be informed by faith.


Further, with this unique knowledge and insight, they can (and do) make enormous contributions [LOL!]



There's nothing funny about bigotry...


The point is that Mr. everyone does NOT give a danm about "Christian philosophy", until he has accepted the Christian faith (which, BTW, is more or less what Blaise Pascal says in his Pensées)



First, unbigoted "Mr. Everyones" do.


Second, I was referring to philosophy done by Christians not Christian philosophy.


No, the infamous ...


“... one ousia in three hypostases


... is an ad hoc construction,



Ad hoc - "for this purpose"--the purpose being to articulate the being of God against error.


because it is born of a mere play on words, so as to settle a theologico-political dispute between the homoousian Nicene and the homoiousian semi-Arians.



I have no interest in your "political" paranoia and most especially when it is unsupported with a reasoned argument to examine.



On the contrary.  The very opposite of "arbitrary" which is why it prevailed. [LOL! c'mon! what crass non sequitur! as though truth always prevailed ... didn't Protestants abandon the Catholic Church for a question of ... truth?]



arbitrary - "based on individual discretion or judgment, not based on any objective distinction, perhaps even made at random; Determined by impulse rather than reason"  Precisely the opposite of what both were.


Sorry, but I have already done it, and quite in detail, many times before, to bother doing it again: you go and look up your notes ...



Again, I have no interest in your unargued for "political" paranoia and pathetic polemic.


Why don't you make an effort to explain what you are trying to say?



I already have.  Ontologies facilitate the exchange of information, among the other things I already mentioned (and many more.)


Are you claiming that the "holy spirit" upholds the certitude of the truthfulness of the ... er ... "Cappadocian formula"? Seriously?



The Holy Spirit guides into all truth and that the diversity of time, place, and culture of billions of Christians over 2000 years affirms the formula is evidence within the church that it is the truth.


His rejection of supernatural revelation is the ANTITHESIS of Christianity, not a mere "incompatibility." [no, that is an exhorbitant charge]



On the contrary.  Especially by one who purports to explain that reality without acknowledging revelation.


That is your peculiar delusion ...



You are disobedient.  What else is new.


What else? Philosophy? Metaphysics? Ontology?



All of it.


“What has Athens got to do with Jerusalem?”



Athens serves Jerusalem.


Do not make yourself more obtuse than is decent. It is quite obvious, from my previous post, that I meant “Plato and Aristotle "would have had access to the OT teaching"”, which they obviously had. Just as much as Plotinus "would have had access to the NT teaching".



What a ridiculous remark.  The NT is the fullness and finality of God's revelation.  You are totally losing track of the argument.


This is simply false: the only distinction that I accept (with the Catholic Chuch, and J. Ratzinger, aka Benedict XVI) is the one between Public Revelation and private revelations (see Public Revelation and private revelations – their theological status, "The message of Fatima", June 2000, @ vatican.va)



"With the Catholic church", LOL!!!


I'm afraid the Catholic church--including Benedict--accepts the distinction.


Nobody in the Catholic Church would seriously peddle such belated Thomism ...


... and nobody would take seriously the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Dogmatic Theology (see @ newadvent.org)



Only you are "nobody."


Aquinas is held in the Catholic Church to be the model teacher for those studying for the priesthood.[2] The works for which he is best-known are the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles. One of the 33 Doctors of the Church, he is considered the Church's greatest theologian and philosopher. Pope Benedict XV declared: "The Church has declared Thomas' doctrine to be her own."[3]


But that is NOT compelling for reason. I thought it was you that, with Pascal, affirmed that ... “The essential is invisible to the eyes



Huh?


... oops ... in the end Reason must submit itself to Revelation.



The "argument from design" is perfectly reasonable.  Further, design is revelation of God just as Scripture affirms. 


If you truly believe what you said, you haven't got a clue about what is relevant. Your "philosophy" is NOT philosophy, but mere heavily biased apologetics.



Your obtuse inability to trace cause and effect in philosophical movements and--as I've remarked on before--history itself is a (disturbing) wonder to behold. 


[i.] You are cheating: you know perfectly well that BOTH those affirmations come in the Bible, after Genesis 22, so there is no reason to assume that Abraham was ... er ... informed.



You aren't reading.  I said "God's immutability in His law."


More, Abraham's Trial would become totally meaningless if he had known God's "general rule", because, as even Kant suggests Abraham would have been fully entitled to rebuke God Himself, according to God's words ("Abraham should have replied to this supposedly divine voice: “That I ought not to kill my son is quite certain. But that you, this apparition, are God - of that I am not certain, and never can be, not even i[f] this voice rings down to me from (visible) heaven”").



No, it's not meaningless.  It's a large part of what MAKES it a trial.



[ii.] Nope! Again, Kant does not distinguish, and Abraham was not in a position to know enough about God's "nature", other than what He had promised to Abraham ("... in Isaac you will be blessed")



Again, "God's immutability in His law."


[ii.A] I certainly do, and that is precisely why Abraham' Trial is such a challenge for reason (ONLY Kierkegaard unlocked it ... and MdS "fine-tuned" it ...), not to be dismissed with idiotic, unscriptural comments ...



Kierkegaard's "key" would support those criminals.


[iii.] [... patiently ...] ... BUT Abraham did NOT know (see above) and your reference to "(general and) special revelation in Scripture elsewhere" is simply preposterous, if used to deal with Abraham's Trial.



Again, "God's immutability in His law."


I have no idea what you mean with "given that would have informed and corrected his errors".



Acknowledgment and agreement with revelation would have resulted in his philosophy looking much different, had it even been able to exist at all.


First, you are confusing Kant's gnoseology/epistemology with his ethical philosophy.



No, I'm not.


Second, provide evidence, before Kant, of such frontal challenge to the moral implications of the Bible (of course, taking into account Kant's botched treatment of Abraham's Trial).



Were I to go to this trouble, what would this "prove"?


You obviously do not understand that his "metaphysics" was ONLY conjectural, and ONLY based on the axioms of Practical Reason.



That must be--and his entire philosophical system MUST be--conjectural on his very own terms.


LOL! From where have you received your infection ... er ... sound philosophy?



Revelation and whatever is compatible with it.


Kant does NOT deny the reality of the noumenon, but its cognizability.



And therefore cognizability of the reality of the noumenon of cognizability.


You fail to see (rather, your obtuseness doesn't permit you to see) the infinite regress and that the system is a defeater of itself.


Then you know nothing of Kant.



See above.


If you are referring to  Paul Gerard Horrigan (who manufactured the daring expression), I fully agree ...



Go ahead and argue with the Doctor of Philosophy that something there isn't accurate, er, "Dr." of "Philosophy."


You know nothing about Kant, do you, other than what you have pieced together from some ... Paul Gerard Horrigan ...



I reject his thesis.  I know that his is a system of regress.  I know that he shot himself in his own foot.  I know he has many critics.  I know he rejected revelation.  I know his system is incompatible with Christianity.  Given all of that, what more do I need to know?


btw, why don't you fill in the following blank:


"Why, without Kant, we never would have had __________________________."


Sure sure, there is a good girl ...



Again, a manifestation of your remarkable inability to see where ideas led, that ideas have consequences, the concept of evolution in seminal work, and where ideas are likely to, will, or have lead.


By objective I mean objectively veriifiable, that is inter-subjective, viz. that independent subjects can and, in fact, must agree about,  because it is either rationally self evident (analytical propositions like those of logic or mathematics) or empirically evident (like the empirical statements of natural science).



Er, okay--and what is the magic number of "independent subjects who can and in fact must agree about" before it "counts" as objective?


Are you a closet subjectivist and relativist?


First, you have changed your version. Lo and behold ...


[Adelphe #1] “In his [Kant's philosophy], the only thing we can affirm is that we can't affirm anything.”


[Adelphe #2] “... "affirms the limits of reason in apprehending reality as it is", that is not specifically Kant's, that is squarely within Christian thought.”


... which confirms, not only that you haven't got a clue about kant, BUT ALSO that  you are severely confused about "Christian thought".



Of course the second option is you (as usual) didn't understand it.


Of COURSE Christian thought is that revelation is required to apprehend reality as it is.


Second, with "you inavvertently subscribed to one of its strongest affirmations ..." I was referring to your endorsement of your quotation from Kant (Immanuel Kant, The Conflict of the Faculties, p. 115 , as quoted by Adelphe, with added bold and underlining, at the OP, thread "God the Sinner Lies to Abraham"), where you obviously did not realize the implications of general validity, for religion and ethics, that you were implicity subscribing to.



I have already argued why you are wrong here.  One passage which is incompatible with God's immutability in His law.


Then, explain what you mean by "something like that which goes gainst his own moral grain"



[patiently...]


This goes back to our discussion on part of the reason why Kant rejected revelation.


Once again, that there is something as "Christian philosophy" is mere delusion. Once again ...


“The only constraints that Christians (should) put on any philosophy / metaphysics / ontology is that it should NOT be incompatible with God's revelation.

This is (should be) ALL.”




And, once again, you confuse philosophers who are Christian with "Christian Philosophy."


I have already explained clearly enough.



LOL!


Anyway:


• We "need" to "overcome" the limits of human (theoretical) reason, unless we want to remain stuck with a merely phenomenal apprehension of reality.



Theoretical reason includes the rules of logic.  You are suggesting we need to "overcome" those, er, "limits"?



• We "need" to "overcome" the limits of human (practical) reason, unless we want to remain stuck with a merely conjectural foundation of morality.



What makes you think that revelation and practical reason are incompatible?


[btw, I'm fully aware this is an exchange that really isn't leading anywhere.  Take what you like to respond to and leave the rest if you even bother to respond at all.  I almost didn't...]


 

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 14, 2010 - 7:01PM #197
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

Adelphe


Nov 14, 2010 -- 12:07PM, Adelphe wrote:

I'm fully aware this is an exchange that really isn't leading anywhere.  Take what you like to respond to and leave the rest if you even bother to respond at all.  I almost didn't...


You are quite right: you must have realized that your post did not warrant a reply ...


So I won't.


Besides, Kant would have been horrified at the thought of being associated for so long with the Cappadocian scoundrels ...  SurprisedCool


MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2010 - 12:45AM #198
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

Nov 14, 2010 -- 7:01PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:


Besides, Kant would have been horrified at the thought of being associated for so long with the Cappadocian scoundrels ...  

MdS




MdS,


And we certainly wouldn't want to incur the wrath of Your God Kant, would we?


Cool

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2010 - 3:04AM #199
Miguel_de_servet
Posts: 17,084

ccc


Nov 15, 2010 -- 12:45AM, Adelphe wrote:

Nov 14, 2010 -- 7:01PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Besides, Kant would have been horrified at the thought of being associated for so long with the Cappadocian scoundrels ...


And we certainly wouldn't want to incur the wrath of Your God Kant, would we?


Is this your new ploy? Your latest toy?


Kant was neither obtusely indoctrinated, nor a hysterical fanatic, nor a dishonest counterfeiter ... Embarassed

MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)

“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Nov 15, 2010 - 7:11AM #200
Adelphe
Posts: 28,727

Nov 15, 2010 -- 3:04AM, Miguel_de_servet wrote:

Is this your new ploy? Your latest toy?



MdS,


What are you blabbering about now?


Kant was neither obtusely indoctrinated, nor a hysterical fanatic, nor a dishonest counterfeiter ...

MdS




The latter is arguable. 


Neither were the Cappadocians.


btw, I assume YOU are responsible for this in an encyclopedia for goshsakes for no one else would DO such a thing:


Cappadocian scoundrels


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect page

Jump to: navigation,                     search

Cappadocian Fathers


 


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  (Redirected from Cappadocian scoundrels)





Therefore, you have lost ANY claims to being a "scholar", ALL credibility, and not only that, what that is is the very definition of "obtusely indoctrinated, hysterical fanatic, and dishonest counterfeiter."

EmbarassedEmbarassedEmbarassed


Disgusting.


 








Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 20 of 23  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook