Post Reply
Page 1 of 14  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Do You Want to Know?
5 years ago  ::  Dec 03, 2009 - 6:25PM #1
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

No, really ...


 


It ISN'T a smart-aleck or trivial Question ...


 


The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth


AND The Lord Jesus Christ ( of Faith )


continue-to-continue to attract INTENSE Attention and Scrutiny


 -- Century after Century --


not only from The Pious Faithful


but EVEN also from the most ZEALOUS "Materialist"-Skeptics and Nay-Sayers ...


 


Why IS that ... ???


 


Idle Curiosity ... ???


Simply Antiquarian Casual Intellectual Browsing ... ???


DEEPLY-held Desire to UNDERSTAND ... ???


Desire to CONVINCE others of one's own Ideas and Claims ... ???


 


???


 


Why DO you want to know ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 08, 2009 - 12:01PM #2
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

We DO -- everyone of us --


approach and enter these Questions and "Conversations"


with an active Set of Expectations,


perhaps Hopes,


possibly an Agenda ( hidden or open ),


CERTAINLY a Personal-Spiritual-Intellectual "History" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 08, 2009 - 10:10PM #3
koala972
Posts: 865

Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:01PM, teilhard wrote:


We DO -- everyone of us --


approach and enter these Questions and "Conversations"


with an active Set of Expectations,


perhaps Hopes,


possibly an Agenda ( hidden or open ),


CERTAINLY a Personal-Spiritual-Intellectual "History" ...




i'll bite.


educating myself about exactly how untenable and hopeless my POV is...  trying not to be such a horrible person.


but you didn't introduce yourself when you asked for introductions from others?  Is this a trap of some sort I've fallen into?


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 09, 2009 - 12:42PM #4
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

Dec 8, 2009 -- 10:10PM, koala972 wrote:


Dec 8, 2009 -- 12:01PM, teilhard wrote:


We DO -- everyone of us --


approach and enter these Questions and "Conversations"


with an active Set of Expectations,


perhaps Hopes,


possibly an Agenda ( hidden or open ),


CERTAINLY a Personal-Spiritual-Intellectual "History" ...




i'll bite.


educating myself about exactly how untenable and hopeless my POV is...  trying not to be such a horrible person.


but you didn't introduce yourself when you asked for introductions from others?  Is this a trap of some sort I've fallen into?


 




 


Nope ... no "Trap" ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Dec 16, 2009 - 6:38PM #5
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

Dec 3, 2009 -- 6:25PM, teilhard wrote:


No, really ...


 


It ISN'T a smart-aleck or trivial Question ...


 


The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth


AND The Lord Jesus Christ ( of Faith )


continue-to-continue to attract INTENSE Attention and Scrutiny


 -- Century after Century --


not only from The Pious Faithful


but EVEN also from the most ZEALOUS "Materialist"-Skeptics and Nay-Sayers ...


 


Why IS that ... ???


 


Idle Curiosity ... ???


Simply Antiquarian Casual Intellectual Browsing ... ???


DEEPLY-held Desire to UNDERSTAND ... ???


Desire to CONVINCE others of one's own Ideas and Claims ... ???


 


???


 


Why DO you want to know ... ???




 


( For "Reasons" of their own ) SOME of our Belief-Net Siblings


of The Sect of Skeptics-and-Scoffers


keep-on-keeping-on attending these such "Discussions"


in Order to ( what ... ??? ) perhaps maybe possibly


win at least a FEW Converts to THEIR "Atheist"-"Materialist" World-View ... ???


 


Is that it ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 29, 2010 - 1:07PM #6
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

Dec 3, 2009 -- 6:25PM, teilhard wrote:


No, really ...


 


It ISN'T a smart-aleck or trivial Question ...


 


The Historical Lord Jesus of Nazareth


AND The Lord Jesus Christ ( of Faith )


continue-to-continue to attract INTENSE Attention and Scrutiny


 -- Century after Century -- not only from The Pious Faithful


but EVEN also from the most ZEALOUS "Materialist"-Skeptics and Nay-Sayers ...


 


Why IS that ... ???


(1) Idle Curiosity ... ???


(2) Simply Antiquarian Casual Intellectual Browsing ... ???


(3) DEEPLY-held Desire to UNDERSTAND ... ???


(4) Desire to CONVINCE others of one's own Ideas and Claims ... ???


(5) ???


 Why DO you want to know ... ???



re-up for further Discussion ...


In my Experience, The REAL Questions are the Meta-Questions that quietly invisibly haunt -- and therefore FORM and fiercely FUEL -- the smaller ones ...


In these ( "Historical Jesus" ) ( suppoded ) "Discussions," The Ideological Axe-Grinding is SOOOO often SOOOO Apparent ...


Where DID you get your "Axe" ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2010 - 1:15PM #7
Kodiacman
Posts: 2,541

I do agree that much of what is called inquiry is nothing more than a veiled attempt to descredit a position rather than a desire to actually look at the evidence presented and try to make sense of it.


I have been looking into rationalism and empiricism and how each method attempts to gain knowledge and ideas. There is no perfect method due to the limits of each method. It is interesting to me how various persons will lean towards rationalism when the demand for empiricism is needed and vice versa in an attempt to maintain the solvency of thier own viewpoints.


Because evidence is dynamic in how the various peices are interconnected and how each peice affects the whole the methodology becomes critical. Individual biases are soon exposed when views remain static despite additions in evidence or other evidences are summarily weakened. When each piece of evidence affects the whole a persons views must be modifed to address these issues. This is due to the interconnectedness of the peices. Views should be relatively flexible enough to address the dynamics of evidentiary gains and losses. I am rambling a bit here, but the point is that all the theories and how they are addressed will sooner or later demonstrate ones bias and why one really wants to know more.


IMO the question of why one wants to know is far more revealing than ones methodology in how they handle evidence as it exposes bias.


Biblical documents were written from faith to person of faith. If one has no desire to have faith the documents will not be understood in the same manner as those who have faith. It is no different than a man trying to understand a woman and what she feels when she is pregnant...I as a man will have no commonality with the woman due to the gender difference. I can read about what she feels I can imagine all i want and so on and so forth, but the reality is I will still fail to understand her postion as I do not have the ability to share expereinces. In the same manner that I as a man will fail to understand a woman a person who is not of faith will not be able to understand the Bible as it was written to persons of faith from faith.


Why do you want to know? It is a question of faith and a question whose answer will reveal an ability to understand the Bible in the manner it was written for.


blessings

If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism.~Editor fourth R
Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2010 - 1:32PM #8
teilhard
Posts: 50,157

Mar 30, 2010 -- 1:15PM, Kodiacman wrote:


I do agree that much of what is called inquiry is nothing more than a veiled attempt to descredit a position rather than a desire to actually look at the evidence presented and try to make sense of it.


I have been looking into rationalism and empiricism and how each method attempts to gain knowledge and ideas. There is no perfect method due to the limits of each method. It is interesting to me how various persons will lean towards rationalism when the demand for empiricism is needed and vice versa in an attempt to maintain the solvency of thier own viewpoints.


Because evidence is dynamic in how the various peices are interconnected and how each peice affects the whole the methodology becomes critical. Individual biases are soon exposed when views remain static despite additions in evidence or other evidences are summarily weakened. When each piece of evidence affects the whole a persons views must be modifed to address these issues. This is due to the interconnectedness of the peices. Views should be relatively flexible enough to address the dynamics of evidentiary gains and losses. I am rambling a bit here, but the point is that all the theories and how they are addressed will sooner or later demonstrate ones bias and why one really wants to know more.


IMO the question of why one wants to know is far more revealing than ones methodology in how they handle evidence as it exposes bias.


Biblical documents were written from faith to person of faith. If one has no desire to have faith the documents will not be understood in the same manner as those who have faith. It is no different than a man trying to understand a woman and what she feels when she is pregnant...I as a man will have no commonality with the woman due to the gender difference. I can read about what she feels I can imagine all i want and so on and so forth, but the reality is I will still fail to understand her postion as I do not have the ability to share expereinces. In the same manner that I as a man will fail to understand a woman a person who is not of faith will not be able to understand the Bible as it was written to persons of faith from faith.


Why do you want to know? It is a question of faith and a question whose answer will reveal an ability to understand the Bible in the manner it was written for.


blessings



I envy your Pastor ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2010 - 7:26PM #9
Blü
Posts: 24,701

Mark


I do agree that much of what is called inquiry is nothing more than a  veiled attempt to descredit a position rather than a desire to actually  look at the evidence presented and try to make sense of it


That statement tells us that you, like teilhard, fear reasoned enquiry and regard its methods as inimical to your faith.


Yet all reasoned enquiry sets out to do is to discover, as far as possible, what's true in reality.


If what you believe on faith is true in reality then you have nothing to fear, and you should welcome reasoned enquiry. 


If it isn't, then that's a useful thing to know, so you should equally welcome reasoned enquiry.


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
4 years ago  ::  Mar 30, 2010 - 8:21PM #10
Kodiacman
Posts: 2,541

Mar 30, 2010 -- 7:26PM, Blü wrote:


Mark


I do agree that much of what is called inquiry is nothing more than a veiled attempt to descredit a position rather than a desire to actually look at the evidence presented and try to make sense of it


That statement tells us that you, like teilhard, fear reasoned enquiry and regard its methods as inimical to your faith.


Yet all reasoned enquiry sets out to do is to discover, as far as possible, what's true in reality.


If what you believe on faith is true in reality then you have nothing to fear, and you should welcome reasoned enquiry. 


If it isn't, then that's a useful thing to know, so you should equally welcome reasoned enquiry.


 




Blu,


You must have me confuse with somebody else. I never stated that I was against reasoned inquiry in my post.


I have no problem with testing the evidence and arriving at conclusions. I advocate reasoned inquiries, empirical inquiries, and the like. The issue is not the methodology per se, but whether the individual is willing to be flexible in thier approach.


I welcome all inquiries. This is not a fearful thing to me.


blessings

If someone wants to doubt the existence of Jesus, my experience is that no evidence or argument will change his mind. Such is the nature of skepticism.~Editor fourth R
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 14  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 14 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook