Exegesis?

Weird, I responded to this a while ago, but it seems it didn't show up. Nevertheless, I shall try again.

i think you are predisposed to your position, and no amount of debate will shift anything.

I see, so by assuming I am close-minded you can dismiss whatever I say as irrelevant. Weak ad hominem, but ok.

debate never does.

Not true at all, debate only fails when the people debating don't realize the point of debating in the first place. Conflict makes progress. We all are seeking truth, you wouldn't be here if you weren't. Only by rising above conflict can we truly say we know who we are.

besides, this is not a topic for debate, since it's not a topic which can be approached mentally. (my original post in this thread)

Thats a choice, not a fact. Choosing not to think about something critically is what happens when we willingly forfeit our free will. (I see later you claim Election, which is Calvinistic, which tells me you did willingly forfeit your free will, pity)

(and 1 corinthians 14-15 ..."But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man."

I see your Corinthians quote and I raise you a Corinthians quote.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall be know fully, even as I am fully known.

i am an educator so am familiar with tacit, explicit knowledge, etc. i was on 'the other side' (somewhere on the line between agnostic/atheistic) for years, and spent a long time seeking enlightenment via philosophy, study, etc. Things changed for me, and i am glad they did. i knew when they did change that it would alienate me from all my philosophy buddies, but i couldnt't deny what had happened.

Odd that you admit understanding the difference in knowledge, and then choose to ignore the difference. Even more interesting is how this paragraph implies a deeply personal experience that "proved" God to you, yet claiming to understand tacit knowledge and be learned in philosophy you should know better then most that the answers most people "find" in their experiences are the answers they intended to find from the beginning. You wanted proof and you found it, thats hardly a divine revelation. Which makes me wonder what experience could be so intrinsically profound to cause such a deviation from your education. Perhaps someones death, maybe you even witnessed it. That would explain your symptoms.

i would love to haggle all these points with you, but neither of us would be AT ALL the better for it. it would be like me trying to prove that i indeed do love my mother. it's just something i know, beyond the realm of human language and understanding.

Nice try with the Contact reference. However, in reality you could prove you love your mother. Do an MRI while thinking of your mother, and we can see the part of your brain responsible for love light up. Or did you forget that love is a tangible measurable phenomenon in the brain consisting of an increase in neurotransmitter levels and synapse activity?

i will tell you this, though. the answers are there. if you are sincere in pursuing them, you will see. if you aren't, then you are guilty of the same thing you asserted about me (and my kind) in your first lengthy response: fulfillment of a self fulfilling prophesy.

"the answers" implies specific answers, i.e. your answers. Once again you are claiming spiritual superiority, implying that you have answers that other people are incapable of receiving. How arrogant and condescending. For someone claiming to have some formal education with respect to philosophy you sure are committing a lot of the pitfalls that professors talk about, particularly about people placing absolute authority in their own personal experiences, and applying those perceptions to others.

as i just ran down that verse in order to paste it here, i had to scan thru the passages to find the line i was hunting, and it struck me again how awesome paul was in his breadth and depth of doctrine. again, it's all there if you want to see. all claims we can make, right down to the 20th century and the existentialists or any other brand or flavor of viewpoint, were present in the day of paul, and were addressed by him. there's nothing new which wasn't addressed. they had very advanced and sophisticated challenges to faith then, which are only echoed today. in other words, no challenge we can dream up is outside the bounds of what has already been answered by paul. (and others)

Honestly, I disagree with you on Paul. He pretty much wrote half the New Testament and never even met Jesus. He is like the national inquirer of the Bible, saying things that make no sense in context of the rest of the New Testament, or what Jesus said. For example, Jesus never speaks against homosexuality in the New Testament, however, Paul does (in Romans). Seriously, everything written by Paul should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Study the history of Paul, you would be shocked.

i have taken pause, many years ago, and for a dedicated portion of time. i hope you understand that real philosophy is not about searching for truth at all, but rather is only interested in tearing down [percieved] untruths and [percieved] contradictions in an attempt to [allegedly] uncover what is left, assuming what is left should logically be known as the truth, since all other has been stripped away.

Odd, my professor taught us that philosophy is the study of how people understand the relationship between themselves and reality. In fact, a major component in our study of philosophy was objectivism, which your post does not exhibit any understanding of. Your position almost touts solipsism.

moreover, we Christians do not expect everyone to come on board. they won't.

If that were true, then there would be no commands to propagate the faith in the Bible, and just to point out some irony, it was Paul who started people upon the concept of missionizing, not Jesus.

we know that going in to this. so did God. it's called Election. so..... that's why there is no arguing these points, with a non believer in particular, since it likely won't happen anyway. witness, yes. argue and debate, no. even Jesus walked away from people who rejected him. God is a gentleman and will never coerce or beg or plead. he offers, that is all.

I didn't realize you were a Calvinist. Odd that a person who claims to have studied philosophy would ever choose predestination over free will. Did you fail your philosophy classes or something?

i can tell you one more thing. happiness on this earth is viable, real, and attainable.

So, now you assume that people who do not think like you cannot attain happiness. Is there no end to your ignorant arrogance?

i have no interest in seeking something i cant find. what i have found is happiness in the here and now, which i am certain of, concretely, and a prelude to an eternally happiness in the hereafter, not concrete yet, but accepted on faith by me.

At this point I am having severe difficulty in believing you have actually even read the Bible.

i wish you all the best, my friend. sincerely.

And to you, though to be honest your "kindhearted sincere goodbye" feels more like your sticking your tongue out screaming "I get heaven and you don't! neener neener neener!".

Too bad you didn't read the fine print, and by fine print, I mean the Bible.
http://jofchurch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/biblegod.jpg

reply share

add reply

formatting help