MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

[OldRegular]

I’d like to see you intelligently argue that point without using principles of reason (Critical Thinking Skills) to support it! :smilewinkgrin:

Sit down, be quite, and pay attention John; Ben has the floor. All give heed!

Let me say, and I realize you may find me pointing to your “ignorance” (Oh! That dreaded word!) in this area offensive, but I have noted on this thread that you demonstrate having a poor understanding of the purpose, goals, and influence of philosophy, its use and especially the true meaning of philosophical terms such as “philosophical argument, logic, validity, rhetoric, credibility, etc.” Throughout this thread I have noted you using ambiguous semantics with these terms that demonstrate your ignorance of true philosophical science, which is a scientific method that is “supposed” to be used to draw out the truth in a “philosophical argument” using our God given abilities of reason.

Are You LISTENING John?

Just one example, (when you “argue” and I use the term “argue” lightly because it would, I believe, no doubt take a whole thread or more to straighten you out on the philosophical meaning of presenting a valid “philosophical argument” and the cardinal rules of argument identification): But when Cypress came back and said he thought the premise was true, (now admittedly he didn’t present an “argument” as to why, although he did ask wisely how that negated the premise, post #63), but you came back, once again, and presented an invalid non-philosophical fallacious “argument” directed “towards the man”, and tried to make a claim against credibility based on YOUR judgment of the source being doubtful based “merely” on his age …and this after I ribbed you for these very same tactics (fallacy of Ad Hominem, poising the well, credibility, rhetoric) while discussing philosophy!!!…and you once again demonstrated that you do NOT understand philosophical principles and their “correct” “ethical” purposes in “philosophical argument”. You simply rephrased the same fallacious tactics! Post #65.

Take that John and take notes! You are sitting at the feet of Ben!

And Ben is it OK if you are called Ben?

NOT without God given reasoning abilities which you use to determine the truth you don’t! (unless maybe you don't believe in free will/volition, which is WHY that point has been brought up,BTW) If you are any good at this you are using the science of reason, philosophical logic, whether you believe you are using these principles or not; and that BTW, is the premise of that “mere” young college student’s argument and as I already explained those principles are taught in Basic Logic /Critical Thinking Skills 101 at the beginning of class, so you missing this point and steering around it gives yet more evidence to your “misunderstandings”.

John you must pay attention if you are to learn!

So have I and I use right along with God’s Word, there is no separation between the two for me when it comes to reasoning for the truth (or as I like to put it, "Truth") as (I make a claim according to God’s Word and know God’s Word to be True by reason, then I support it (that reasoning of why I believe, have hope 1Pet 3:15) in an argument using Critical Thinking Skills of providing that reason), …it seems you just want to stop at saying “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!!!) …that SIR, is not a “valid” argument (i.e. philosophical terms)! ..God gives the increase and that comes through the seeds you plant so why seriously weaken your witness during evangelism to an unbeliever?!? You discount an “argument” meant to draw out the truth by using your own God given abilities to reason more intelligently! A philosophical argument “attempts” to support a conclusion involving claims and issues by using deductive reasoning.

So we have God, philosophy, and Ben; Does it get any better than this. Once more; pay attention John of Japan!

I really don’t have time to properly explain all this and the format here makes it even more difficult to get the point across, but I suggest you pick you pick of a copy of, Critical Thinking, Moore/Parker, and read and study chapter 1 which addresses the basic principles of a “philosophical argument”. Ahh, Here:

Now you understand John don't you just why it is difficult for those of us who believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture to commune with those who don't believe, the Bible that is!

 

[Benjamin]

Sit down, be quite, and pay attention John; Ben has the floor. All give heed!



Are You LISTENING John?



Take that John and take notes! You are sitting at the feet of Ben!

And Ben is it OK if you are called Ben?




John you must pay attention if you are to learn!




So we have God, philosophy, and Ben; Does it get any better than this. Once more; pay attention John of Japan!



Now you understand John don't you just why it is difficult for those of us who believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture to commune with those who don't believe, the Bible that is!

Another great example of the type of argument best left for the street fighting people who do so in ignorance and without ethical goals rather than even attempting to engage in purposeful argument (“philosophical argument”) meant to draw out the truth in claims and issues. Sad, that I often get more humble and respectful arguments from professed non-believers than I do on this so called “debate” board and that it is soo painfully obvious that many here such as yourself do not even understand the very basics of cardinal rules of identifying arguments in the debates…err, I mean “street arguments” that they would prefer to ignorantly engage in!

Funny, that I am currently working on listening to the argument presented on Humblesmith’s thread on the detriments of “anti-intellectualism” coming from the church (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82490 ) while you, OldRegular, are expressing the quite the opposite. Well, I guess by your view the future of all has already been pre-determined through your supposed “non-philosophical view” of the “Doctrine of Pre-selected Grace” so why should you care to argue for the existence of God intelligently while using those “insignificant” God given reasoning abilities in doing so? Eh?

 

[OldRegular]

[

Another great example of the type of argument best left for the street fighting people who do so in ignorance and without ethical goals rather than even attempting to engage in purposeful argument (“philosophical argument”) meant to draw out the truth in claims and issues. Sad, that I often get more humble and respectful arguments from professed non-believers than I do on this so called “debate” board and that it is soo painfully obvious that many here such as yourself do not even understand the very basics of cardinal rules of identifying arguments in the debates…err, I mean “street arguments” that they would prefer to ignorantly engage in!

Your response to John was nothing but sheer arrogance and deserving of contempt!

Funny, that I am currently working on listening to the argument presented on Humblesmith’s thread on the detriments of “anti-intellectualism” coming from the church (http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=82490 ) while you, OldRegular, are expressing the quite the opposite. Well, I guess by your view the future of all has already been pre-determined through your supposed “non-philosophical view” of the “Doctrine of Pre-selected Grace” so why should you care to argue for the existence of God intelligently while using those “insignificant” God given reasoning abilities in doing so? Eh?

The fool has said in his heart: "There is no God"!

 

[Benjamin]

[

Your response to John was nothing but sheer arrogance and deserving of contempt!

I hopefully, articulated my opposition to John’s view of philosophy with valid reasoning and I think he knows I love and respect him so I doubt he would think of it as just a personal attack, as a matter of fact that is why I made light of the “dreaded” word “ignorance” while going about to raise claims and issues to support my premise and that of the college boy so that he “wouldn’t” take it personal since it was about to address some of what I have noted as obvious misunderstandings about philosophy on his part. You on the other hand look mainly to fallacious personal attacks to engage in try to win in debate, that is your typical MO, so it is of no surprise that you would view my disagreement with John that way, you obviously being much more ill-equipped to deal with the issues logically than him and why you would add nothing to the conversation concerning my claims but to center on that premise of bringing the attack directly to me (engaging only in rhetorical fallacy) while avoiding all other issues while defending your actions saying I “deserved it”… Yet another great example of your pride in your “perceived” superior type of debate skills and why I rarely bother to address your posts here.

The fool has said in his heart: "There is no God"!

Nice typical dodge, (guess that's all you got) but is anoyher example of being void of reasoning which address the issues raised, displays a lack of ethical debate skills and thereby is simply a lame reply, hardly worth my time. From now on concerning you I think I’ll try to stick to the Biblical wisdom and guidance about continuing to address you in "debate" by allowing myself to be sucked in to returning your kind of rhetorical argument through focusing on using fallacies and personal attacks since it is obvious you would cut off your own feet to win an “argument” and just leave you with a little scripture about fools back at you:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. He that sendeth a message by the hand of a fool cutteth off the feet, and drinketh damage. The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.
(Pro 26:4-7)

 

[OldRegular]

And even the sharpest tack has a flat head! {OR 10:1}

 

[John of Japan]

It is usually difficult for those of us who believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of Scripture to discuss issues with those who do not; believe the Bible that is!

I'll be interested to find out what humblethinker actually believes about inspiration.

 

[Iconoclast]

Let me say it clearly. I reject philosophy in general and I reject the way it discusses God. I accept the Biblical description of God, concerning the essence of God, the moral attributes of God and the non-moral attributes of God. (These terms are from Theissen, not philosophy.) I have used philosophical arguments for the existence of God and in a couple of other ways, so some philosophical points pre-1900 as filtered through the systematic theologies are useful in apologetics. But that's it.

Well said! Bible based persons learn quickly this is a watershed issue early on .

 

[Iconoclast]

Benjamin.

You said this to John;

it seems you just want to stop at saying “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!!!) …that SIR, is not a “valid” argument (i.e. philosophical terms)! ..God gives the increase and that comes through the seeds you plant so why seriously weaken your witness during evangelism to an unbeliever?!? You discount an “argument” meant to draw out the truth by using your own God given abilities to reason more intelligently! A philosophical argument “attempts” to support a conclusion involving claims and issues by using deductive reasoning.

What you miss consistently is.....

God said it!.....that settles it! No matter if you believe it or not!

 

[Benjamin]

Benjamin.

You said this to John;


What you miss consistently is.....

God said it!.....that settles it! No matter if you believe it or not!

What you miss is the context and the whole point made in that argument...but that is very understandable.

 

[Benjamin]

The Calvinists love you in this thread John...:laugh:

 

[Iconoclast]

The Calvinists love you in this thread John...:

Calvinists love the scripture....John likes to use it:thumbs:

Benjamin....your fixation on your"philosophical principles"...is not healthy.It keeps you from scripture...it does not enhance your understanding at all.Most of your lamenting and whining about all of us who discuss scripture has the same root objection with you offering verbose lectures on your debate and philosphy rules.
Do you not see how you never get to the word of God which is the basis of our sanctification Jn 17:17:thumbs:
here you are doing it in this thread;

and you once again demonstrated that you do NOT understand philosophical principles and their “correct” “ethical” purposes in “philosophical argument”. You simply rephrased the same fallacious tactics! Post #65.

Originally Posted by Ben
Just one example, (when you “argue” and I use the term “argue” lightly because it would, I believe, no doubt take a whole thread or more to straighten you out on the philosophical meaning of presenting a valid “philosophical argument” and the cardinal rules of argument identification

I hopefully, articulated my opposition to John’s view of philosophy with valid reasoning

No one ...{well maybe you have 2-3 devotees} cares about these "concepts" that you keep identifying as so crucial.

This is consuming you to a point that an objective observer would not identify you as a christian as you rarely post scripture in many of your posts.[there have been an occasional cluster of verses when a poster presses you on it].
Benjamin....try to leave these attempted philosophical debate rules, and offer more ......can I say....biblically reasoned ....views:thumbs::wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Calvinists love the scripture....John likes to use it

Benjamin....your fixation on your"philosophical principles"...is not healthy.It keeps you from scripture...it does not enhance your understanding at all.Most of your lamenting and whining about all of us who discuss scripture has the same root objection with you offering verbose lectures on your debate and philosphy rules.
Do you not see how you never get to the word of God which is the basis of our sanctification Jn 17:17
here you are doing it in this thread;





No one ...{well maybe you have 2-3 devotees} cares about these "concepts" that you keep identifying as so crucial.

This is consuming you to a point that an objective observer would not identify you as a christian as you rarely post scripture in many of your posts.[there have been an occasional cluster of verses when a poster presses you on it].
Benjamin....try to leave these attempted philosophical debate rules, and offer more ......can I say....biblically reasoned ....views

You're funny dude! When I do post scripture then all you want to do is pull some of that Archie Bunker “Phikosophy” :laugh: out of your hat and/or post some of your twisted interpretations of the 1689 LBC philosophy as if it were prophetically inspired.

I even started a thread because of you repeating this nonsense about non-Calvinist not posting scriptures and how none support my view just for the sole purpose to post you scriptures supporting my view and you Calvinist couldn’t stand it and the hissy fits you guys put up got the thread close by an unnamed administrator in a stealth like flyby. :sleeping_2:

 

[Iconoclast]

You're funny dude! When I do post scripture then all you want to do is pull some of that Archie Bunker “Phikosophy” : out of your hat and/or post some of your twisted interpretations of the 1689 LBC philosophy as if it were prophetically inspired.

I even started a thread because of you repeating this nonsense about non-Calvinist not posting scriptures and how none support my view just for the sole purpose to post you scriptures supporting my view and you Calvinist couldn’t stand it and the hissy fits you guys put up got the thread close by an unnamed administrator in a stealth like flyby. :sleeping_2:

I was not trying to be funny in any way. I think you need to address this issue honestly. Is it possible that it is unmortified pride on your part that you retreat to this kind of condescending type of lecture on rules of phikosophy...as if that by attempting to demean those you claim..."you love"...you are actually not really communicating with the person who has a view that you do not share.

In this thread for example... you say to me that I have not understood your interaction with John.....lets say you are correct.....it would then be on you to communicate with me in a way i could understand...correct???

You claim that you use your phikosophy to:

Just one example, (when you “argue” and I use the term “argue” lightly because it would, I believe, no doubt take a whole thread or more to straighten you out on the philosophical meaning of presenting a valid “philosophical argument” and the cardinal rules of argument identification): But when Cypress came back and said he thought the premise was true, (now admittedly he didn’t present an “argument” as to why, although he did ask wisely how that negated the premise, post #63), but you came back, once again, and presented an invalid non-philosophical fallacious “argument” directed “towards the man”, and tried to make a claim against credibility based on YOUR judgment of the source being doubtful based “merely” on his age …and this after I ribbed you for these very same tactics (fallacy of Ad Hominem, poising the well, credibility, rhetoric) while discussing philosophy!!!…and you once again demonstrated that you do NOT understand philosophical principles and their “correct” “ethical” purposes in “philosophical argument”. You simply rephrased the same fallacious tactics! [/QUOTE]

Why not park it for awhile. Your caricature of my responses to you;

You're funny dude! When I do post scripture then all you want to do is pull some of that Archie Bunker “Phikosophy” out of your hat and/or post some of your twisted interpretations of the 1689 LBC philosophy as if it were prophetically inspir

Does not really address the issue ..sincerely.

You might not believe it.....but more people actually read and learn the 1689 confession of faith....then your posts:thumbs::laugh:

Your failure to engage in scriptural discussion is perhaps a lack of scriptural understanding on your part..rather then all of the calvinists...not following your philosophical reasonings , debate rules, and tactics.

Some people...[very , very , few] might like to follow you in this maze of rules and carnal reasoning that is not biblically informed[ for the most part].
I will admit that I work among working class people. Just simple people...the kind that Jesus came to save.

25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

Your rules, tactics and reasoning, are not in evidence among those I see.

Your posts do not address the sin question, the blood of Jesus, and kingdom issues. You seem like an intellegent person....but to my view there is a disconnect with you and those spoken of in 1 cor 1.....

Believing the DoG....many of us have to prayerfully proceed to leave out some of the theological terms that we hold to, in order to communicate those saving truths to those we speak to in the workplace or we will fail to communicate saving truth to those we contact.
This is what I am saying to you even if you do not accept it from me.
Others say the same to you....more tactfully. We can speak clearly to each other at this point my friend...Benjamin.

 

[saturneptune]

God is ONLY perfect Being, as He existed ALONE from Eternity, created ALL other things, time/space/energy/matter etc, and he has Infinite virtues/attributes of power/wisdom/Holiness, etc!

Could not have said it better myself. The only thing I would add about the totality of God's attributes and character, is that our minds cannot take in or understand in this life the depths of His knowledge, love, grace, and many other attributes. We talk about omnipresent, omniscient, onmipitent (sp, sorry), but we really cannot wrap our minds around these concepts. We can only describe God vaguely limited by our minds.

To be honest, man cannot even fully understand the concept of infinity. We can put cute phrases in hymns like "when we been there ten thousand years, birght shining as the sun....." but we really do not take in the full meaning of infinite. We cannot understand being in a state of existence without time or space. We cannot know what is like to see Jesus face to face. We throw around that phrase all the time, but really, have no real idea how wonderful it will be. That doesnot even to speak of our level of knowledge then compared to now.

All I know is I can hardly wait.

 

[John of Japan]

I’d like to see you intelligently argue that point without using principles of reason (Critical Thinking Skills) to support it!

I don't agree that reason and thinking skills and logic come from philosophy. They come from us being made in the image of God. Aristotle may have been the first in the Western world to systematize logic (kind of unkind to forget Asian logicians), but God gave it. As I said to humblethinker (and he never answered) I've known Japanese which no education in philosophy to make perfectly logical points.

Let me say, and I realize you may find me pointing to your “ignorance” (Oh! That dreaded word!) in this area offensive, but I have noted on this thread that you demonstrate having a poor understanding of the purpose, goals, and influence of philosophy, its use and especially the true meaning of philosophical terms such as “philosophical argument, logic, validity, rhetoric, credibility, etc.” Throughout this thread I have noted you using ambiguous semantics with these terms that demonstrate your ignorance of true philosophical science, which is a scientific method that is “supposed” to be used to draw out the truth in a “philosophical argument” using our God given abilities of reason.

I would like at this point for you or humblethinker or somebody to tell me what you mean by "philosophy." As far as I can tell, when you guys use the term it refers to pre-1900 Western philosophy, and even then in only a general way. In your term "philosophy" do you include dialectical materialism? Existentialism? Confucianism? Taoism? If not, why not?

Where is the epistemology of philosophy in general? Who wrote it up? How can we know it is true? How is it that to you guys Asian and 20th century philosophies don't seem to count? I consider Confucius to be every bit as brilliant as Aristotle or Plato, and then some, not the least because he believed in a monotheistic God very close to the God of Israel, and those idolaters did not. (Forgive me for pointing out your ignorance of Asian philosophy. )

Most of all, you have not yet mentioned Col. 2:8, nor has humblethinker after I showed him his error in exegesis. Can you exegete this verse for your position? Can you explain to me why, though he quoted men known as philosophers, Paul never called them such? He referred in Acts 17:28 to Aratus of Soli and/or Cleanthus, but called them poets, speaking to Greek philosophers. He referred to Epimenedes in Titus 1:12 as a prophet, not a philosopher.

Just one example, (when you “argue” and I use the term “argue” lightly because it would, I believe, no doubt take a whole thread or more to straighten you out on the philosophical meaning of presenting a valid “philosophical argument” and the cardinal rules of argument identification): But when Cypress came back and said he thought the premise was true, (now admittedly he didn’t present an “argument” as to why, although he did ask wisely how that negated the premise, post #63), but you came back, once again, and presented an invalid non-philosophical fallacious “argument” directed “towards the man”, and tried to make a claim against credibility based on YOUR judgment of the source being doubtful based “merely” on his age …and this after I ribbed you for these very same tactics (fallacy of Ad Hominem, poising the well, credibility, rhetoric) while discussing philosophy!!!…and you once again demonstrated that you do NOT understand philosophical principles and their “correct” “ethical” purposes in “philosophical argument”. You simply rephrased the same fallacious tactics! Post #65.

Sorry to hear that I'm so ignorant it would take so much time to correct me.

I think you missed what I was doing in my second post about this, my mea culpa, perhaps due to my poor wording, I don't know. I was comparing two sources, the young man and his prof, and saying the prof was the preferred source for the idea. That is not the same as the ad hominen error I made in my first objection. If you had a choice of someone explaining the space shuttle to you, would you choose a junior engineering student, or my friend Tom T. who was the project engineer of the space shuttle orbital maneuvering engine? And why would it be an ad hominen argument to reject the college junior for the experienced professional?

But humblethinker has been cheering for the college junior in theology proper. I'll not get into Descartes, but he threw Plato and Leibnitz up at me in post 29, saying, "Perhaps you can better explain what Decartes, Plato, Liebnitz (spelling--JoJ), et al are really trying to say?" Plato was an idolater and Leibnitz was a pantheist. Do you agree with humblethinker that we should learn our theology proper from an idolater and a pantheist? I'd far rather study Confucius, who at least was a monotheist. And I think after 31 years of explaining God from the Bible to Buddhists, Shintoists, atheists and others, perhaps I know more than an idolater and a pantheist about Him. And my knowledge to discuss God with such people comes from the Bible.

NOT without God given reasoning abilities which you use to determine the truth you don’t! (unless maybe you don't believe in free will/volition, which is WHY that point has been brought up,BTW) If you are any good at this you are using the science of reason, philosophical logic, whether you believe you are using these principles or not; and that BTW, is the premise of that “mere” young college student’s argument and as I already explained those principles are taught in Basic Logic /Critical Thinking Skills 101 at the beginning of class, so you missing this point and steering around it gives yet more evidence to your “misunderstandings”.

Sorry, you keep referring to philosophy as a science. Where do you get that? How does philosophy use the scientific method? And which philosophy? There are so many.

So have I and I use right along with God’s Word, there is no separation between the two for me when it comes to reasoning for the truth (or as I like to put it, "Truth") as (I make a claim according to God’s Word and know God’s Word to be True by reason, then I support it (that reasoning of why I believe, have hope 1Pet 3:15) in an argument using Critical Thinking Skills of providing that reason), …it seems you just want to stop at saying “God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!!!) …that SIR, is not a “valid” argument (i.e. philosophical terms)! ..God gives the increase and that comes through the seeds you plant so why seriously weaken your witness during evangelism to an unbeliever?!? You discount an “argument” meant to draw out the truth by using your own God given abilities to reason more intelligently! A philosophical argument “attempts” to support a conclusion involving claims and issues by using deductive reasoning.

We certainly disagree here. In no way am I going to line up any philosophy (possibly general revelation) with the Word of God (special revelation), “with no separation.” My epistemology says God gave the Word, and man digs for knowledge from general revelation.

And you know, there are Christian scholars in the field of philosophy who agree with me. "The job of philosophy of religion was to look around for objective proof, for non-Christian reasons for Christian faith. This was not really satisfactory. For one thing, it does not really work. For another, it neglects the real grounds of Christian belief. The Christian faith has to stand on its own feet, and vindicate itself by itself, or not at all" (Philosophy and the Christian Faith, by Colin Brown, p. 46).

I really don’t have time to properly explain all this and the format here makes it even more difficult to get the point across, but I suggest you pick you pick of a copy of, Critical Thinking, Moore/Parker, and read and study chapter 1 which addresses the basic principles of a “philosophical argument”.
Ahh, Here:
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0073386677/information_center_view0/sample_chapter.html
http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0073386677/610543/Moore9e_ch01.pdf

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

 

[Benjamin]

Most of all, you have not yet mentioned Col. 2:8...,

Glad you asked John, in short, as I often use Col 2:8 when I’m witnessing – When I first turned to God one of the first things out my mouth along with that my wisdom in this world wasn’t working, never would and only He could guide me toward the right paths in my life was that I needed to know how to communicate with Him, to hear Him, to know the truth of who He is and in despair I told Him that there were so many people saying so many things about Him that how was I supposed to know what church to go to get help and who to listen to and believe? Again, to keep a long story short, the very next day I pick up a Bible and not knowing anything about it I began to search in it and that very same day God showed me both: that He would communicate with me through those words and that His Words were True. Needless to say “truth” became all-important to me as God was “Truth” as well as Wise and my faith, love and respect for Him quickly grew in that Light. SO anyway, while God was speaking to me through His Word and answering my questions and concerns, which He was doing to my amazement because it so happened that I would open that Book that I knew nothing about up right to a place that would answer the questions that I would ask Him and often this brought me to tears of joy because I knew He was talking to me through those Words and answering my prayer to be able to hear Him. Well, after-all He was Truth and His Word said, Mathew 7:7, ask, seek, knock and the door will be opened unto you!!! Man! This is hard to keep to short, and you wonder why it would take so long to explain the difference in types of “argument” when it comes to using Critical Thinking Skills (philosophical “science”; a redundant term actually being the study of values and reason in language) which are designed to draw out the truth in claims and issues in debate. So anyway, regarding my concerns about who to listen to in the world and what church theology to follow God once again answered my prayer in the first few weeks of my new relationship with Him when I opened my Bible right to Col 2:8 and word for word that scripture became branded on my heart to guard me and later served to teach me the importance of knowing good philosophy from bad. How can you “beware” if you don’t know the differences between good and bad philosophy??? Yes, first one compares the interpretation to the Word of God by the knowledge and understanding He gives us and one way I determine the truth of what a man says is through the Critical Thinking Skills (Philosophical Skills) (The science of logic) that God has blessed me with learning.


Got to go…

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out.

Your welcome, my hope is they edify you on the value of philosophical critical thinking skills to help you discern the truth from within the interpretations men put on the Word of God as they "argue" to support their theological standings.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

John.... I appreciate your responses on this thread...but there is a confusion here. You are correct that you are using the term "Philosophy" differently than others here are. You are speaking past Ht and Ben, and myself and others and vice versa.

I don't agree that reason and thinking skills and logic come from philosophy. They come from us being made in the image of God.

Correct. In the same sense that Numbers and Values don't "come from" the discipline of Mathematics, Nor does a "Good Ear" come from the discipline of "Music". An un-trained savant might make beautiful music, and it comes from God. But it would never hurt them to learn to sight-read.

I would like at this point for you or humblethinker or somebody to tell me what you mean by "philosophy." As far as I can tell, when you guys use the term it refers to pre-1900 Western philosophy, and even then in only a general way. In your term "philosophy" do you include dialectical materialism? Existentialism? Confucianism? Taoism? If not, why not?[/FONT]

We aren't really speaking of Schools of thought as you are. When we are speaking of "Philosophy" we do not mean to say:
1.) Read "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre
2.) Read "Critique of Pure Reason"
3.) Read Plato's Republic or "Meditations" [<----Great book btw]
4.) We most assuredly do not mean pay any homage to that great fool Friedrich Nietsche

I think, when you are speaking of Philosophy you mean to say to take heed to these "schools of thought"....We don't, we are speaking of it in a sense of studying basic first principles, logic, Epistemology et. al.

Where is the epistemology of philosophy in general? Who wrote it up? How can we know it is true?

These are precisely the kinds of questions we answer when we mean "Philosophy".

How is it that to you guys Asian and 20th century philosophies don't seem to count?

At no point, has anyone suggested to you that "Asian Philosophies" do not "count". We simply have yet to mention any. You will probably note that we have not mentioned "Existentiallism" "Materialism" "Taoism" or any "School of thought". That is where we speak past one another.....As far as 20th Century Philosophy goes...C.S. Lewis anyone? I would argue that many of us Philosophiles actually admire 20th Century Philosophers as much if not more than any in the past 250 years or so. Alvin Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, (Ravi Zacharias would qualify [an Easterner if I ever saw one]) et. al.

I consider Confucius to be every bit as brilliant as Aristotle or Plato,

Of course you do, but no one is indicting his "brilliance". I also would consider George Friedrich Handel to be as equally "brilliant" as all of them, but he wasn't a great Philosopher. (that would be to make a category mistake)

and then some, not the least because he believed in a monotheistic God very close to the God of Israel, and those idolaters did not. (Forgive me for pointing out your ignorance of Asian philosophy. ) ]

We aren't "ignorant" of Kung fu Tze....but his very "existential" ends are not the kinds of ends we are speaking of....He isn't really germaine to most of the discussions we have when we are speaking of modal logics etc... If you are aware of some way in which he might have answered what a "Most Perfect" being is, then please, let us know. Similarly, you will rarely find most of us bringing up Jean Jacques Rousseau, because even as he was a "Philosopher" (in some sense) he simply would have had little or nothing to add to a conversation like this one.

Most of all, you have not yet mentioned Col. 2:8, nor has humblethinker after I showed him his error in exegesis. Can you exegete this verse for your position? Can you explain to me why, though he quoted men known as philosophers, Paul never called them such? He referred in Acts 17:28 to Aratus of Soli and/or Cleanthus, but called them poets, speaking to Greek philosophers. He referred to Epimenedes in Titus 1:12 as a prophet, not a philosopher. [/FONT]]

You are perfectly reasonable to expect an engagement on the Biblical Principles surrounding Philosophy and the use of Philosophy....Clearing up areas wherein we are speaking past each other is step one.

Sorry to hear that I'm so ignorant it would take so much time to correct me.[/FONT]

I hope I have not offended you in any way. You are within your rights to have gotten a little miffed....You have received some rather insulting posts. I hope I have in no way been insulting. I find debating you to be fruitful and informative. :wavey:

I think you missed what I was doing in my second post about this, my mea culpa, perhaps due to my poor wording, I don't know. I was comparing two sources, the young man and his prof, and saying the prof was the preferred source for the idea. That is not the same as the ad hominen error I made in my first objection. If you had a choice of someone explaining the space shuttle to you, would you choose a junior engineering student, or my friend Tom T. who was the project engineer of the space shuttle orbital maneuvering engine? And why would it be an ad hominen argument to reject the college junior for the experienced professional?

The college Junior might be a better teacher than your friend, and not being any level of expert on the topic, the knowledge of a Junior Engineer is perfectly sufficient to explain (to my level of understanding) any question I would even know TO ask....<---but of course I am being a little snarky.:smilewinkgrin:
Truth is...the "Source" of an argument is simply completely immaterial to the merits of the argument itself. It wouldn't matter if it was posed by a ten-year-old atheist. The merits of any argument stand on their own. The "Source" is completely immaterial. Wasn't the Indian Mathematical savant Srinivasa Ramanujan less formally qualified than many others?

But humblethinker has been cheering for the college junior in theology proper. I'll not get into Descartes, but he threw Plato and Leibnitz up at me in post 29, saying, "Perhaps you can better explain what Decartes, Plato, Liebnitz (spelling--JoJ), et al are really trying to say?" Plato was an idolater and Leibnitz was a pantheist. Do you agree with humblethinker that we should learn our theology proper from an idolater and a pantheist?

I think Liebniz was a deist. We aren't quoting Philosophers as Theologians though...we are only quoting them as Philosophers. You are suggesting that we are deriving our Theology from Philosophy. No one is. A study of Philosophy can only be used to augment what has been revealed of God in the Scripture. It is a tool, and a supplementary one.

I'd far rather study Confucius, who at least was a monotheist. And I think after 31 years of explaining God from the Bible to Buddhists, Shintoists, atheists and others, perhaps I know more than an idolater and a pantheist about Him. And my knowledge to discuss God with such people comes from the Bible.

This is fantastic for you...also it is somewhat meaningless to most of US. We aren't missionaries in the far East. That is why Baptists have sent YOU to them. Do you really expect your compatriots here to be as enthused about Confuscianism as you are? We are most of us incurrably Western. This doesn't bother us either. If we didn't know better, we might think that you were throwing out "red-herrings" If Confuscious has anything to add about a Maximally Great or Most perfect being then, by all means, please add to our understanding.

Sorry, you keep referring to philosophy as a science. Where do you get that?

Philosophy is the "referree" of the Sciences. It is Epistemology, logic and categories

How does philosophy use the scientific method?

It doesn't. It is Philosophers (not Scientists) who CREATED the "Scientific Method". It was Philosophers of Science who set those parameters as being those sets of Principles by which the be-spectacled, chalk-covered beaker-observers might declare a set of their observations repeated in experimentation to be a "Law". They don't "USE" the "Scientific Method" the create it. Philosophers know that the "Scientific Method" does not exist Prima-facie.

And which philosophy? There are so many.

No, there are not. Not, at least, in the sense that we are using the term.

In no way am I going to line up any philosophy (possibly general revelation) with the Word of God (special revelation), “with no separation.”

I don't think anyone would ask you to. We still speak past one another.

My epistemology says God gave the Word, and man digs for knowledge from general revelation.[/FONT][/COLOR]

So does ours.

And you know, there are Christian scholars in the field of philosophy who agree with me.

Let's not get into any "appeals to authority" shall we

 

[HeirofSalvation]

JoJ....
Your fixation on Confucius as a true "mono-theist" may be reaching somewhat. I am decidedly not prepared to "Debate" you (in a point/counter-point kind of way) on the topic as I have read little of him. But, as an amateur Historian....I don't know too many people who would classify Confuscius as a true "mono-theist" (as we think of the term). As far as a Western-educated person is concerned...I see Confuscious as the penultimate "Existentiallist" as it were....I don't know that "Theologically" Confucius gave a hoot about whether one were mono-or poly, or any kind of "theistic"...I think he cared about the smooth and ordered running of a society.....You may be able to shed more light on this...but this:

"Confucius was a worshipper of the God of Abraham/ monotheist....thingy.." Well, it's decidedly news to us Westerners.

 

[John of Japan]

Glad you asked John, in short, as I often use Col 2:8 when I’m witnessing – When I first turned to God one of the first things out my mouth along with that my wisdom in this world wasn’t working, never would and only He could guide me toward the right paths in my life was that I needed to know how to communicate with Him, to hear Him, to know the truth of who He is and in despair I told Him that there were so many people saying so many things about Him that how was I supposed to know what church to go to get help and who to listen to and believe? Again, to keep a long story short, the very next day I pick up a Bible and not knowing anything about it I began to search in it and that very same day God showed me both: that He would communicate with me through those words and that His Words were True. Needless to say “truth” became all-important to me as God was “Truth” as well as Wise and my faith, love and respect for Him quickly grew in that Light. SO anyway, while God was speaking to me through His Word and answering my questions and concerns, which He was doing to my amazement because it so happened that I would open that Book that I knew nothing about up right to a place that would answer the questions that I would ask Him and often this brought me to tears of joy because I knew He was talking to me through those Words and answering my prayer to be able to hear Him. Well, after-all He was Truth and His Word said, Mathew 7:7, ask, seek, knock and the door will be opened unto you!!! Man! This is hard to keep to short, and you wonder why it would take so long to explain the difference in types of “argument” when it comes to using Critical Thinking Skills (philosophical “science”; a redundant term actually being the study of values and reason in language) which are designed to draw out the truth in claims and issues in debate. So anyway, regarding my concerns about who to listen to in the world and what church theology to follow God once again answered my prayer in the first few weeks of my new relationship with Him when I opened my Bible right to Col 2:8 and word for word that scripture became branded on my heart to guard me and later served to teach me the importance of knowing good philosophy from bad. How can you “beware” if you don’t know the differences between good and bad philosophy??? Yes, first one compares the interpretation to the Word of God by the knowledge and understanding He gives us and one way I determine the truth of what a man says is through the Critical Thinking Skills (Philosophical Skills) (The science of logic) that God has blessed me with learning.

This is a good testimony. Thank you. But it is not exegesis. How do you exegete the verse?

 

[John of Japan]

John.... I appreciate your responses on this thread...but there is a confusion here. You are correct that you are using the term "Philosophy" differently than others here are. You are speaking past Ht and Ben, and myself and others and vice versa.

We aren't really speaking of Schools of thought as you are. When we are speaking of "Philosophy" we do not mean to say:
1.) Read "Being and Nothingness" by Sartre
2.) Read "Critique of Pure Reason"
3.) Read Plato's Republic or "Meditations" [<----Great book btw]
4.) We most assuredly do not mean pay any homage to that great fool Friedrich Nietsche

The thing is, you guys appear to be using the term "philosophy" as a generic term--something all agree on equals philosophy. By mentioning Asian philosophy and 20th century philosophies I've been trying to show there is no such thing as generic philosophy. There are philosophers and philosophies, each very different (allowing for students following their teachers). The things you guys are referring to (critical thinking, rules of logic, etc.) are the result of individual philosophers developing the ideas, not some big meeting where all the philosophers decided on them.

I think, when you are speaking of Philosophy you mean to say to take heed to these "schools of thought"....We don't, we are speaking of it in a sense of studying basic first principles, logic, Epistemology et. al.

So to clarify, yes, I think the Bible in Col. is saying, "Take no philosophy as your world view." I don't think it is saying, "Philosophers are all wrong."

At no point, has anyone suggested to you that "Asian Philosophies" do not "count". We simply have yet to mention any. You will probably note that we have not mentioned "Existentiallism" "Materialism" "Taoism" or any "School of thought". That is where we speak past one another.....As far as 20th Century Philosophy goes...C.S. Lewis anyone? I would argue that many of us Philosophiles actually admire 20th Century Philosophers as much if not more than any in the past 250 years or so. Alvin Plantinga, C.S. Lewis, (Ravi Zacharias would qualify [an Easterner if I ever saw one]) et. al.

But to me it is narrow minded to simply refer to "philosophy" as a certain set of principles common to only certain philosophers from the West during a certain era.

Concerning C. S. Lewis, I read all of his stuff, fiction, non-fiction and bio (A Grief Observed) when I was young. But I never thought of him as a philosopher and never heard him referred to as that.:smilewinkgrin:

You are perfectly reasonable to expect an engagement on the Biblical Principles surrounding Philosophy and the use of Philosophy....Clearing up areas wherein we are speaking past each other is step one.

I hope I have not offended you in any way. You are within your rights to have gotten a little miffed....You have received some rather insulting posts. I hope I have in no way been insulting. I find debating you to be fruitful and informative. :wavey:

Thank you for the kind words. I've not felt insulted by you. But I've been regretting joining this discussion.

The college Junior might be a better teacher than your friend, and not being any level of expert on the topic, the knowledge of a Junior Engineer is perfectly sufficient to explain (to my level of understanding) any question I would even know TO ask....<---but of course I am being a little snarky.

Truth is...the "Source" of an argument is simply completely immaterial to the merits of the argument itself. It wouldn't matter if it was posed by a ten-year-old atheist. The merits of any argument stand on their own. The "Source" is completely immaterial. Wasn't the Indian Mathematical savant Srinivasa Ramanujan less formally qualified than many others?

This is where philosophy differs from where I live and have my being. In my world, ask 100 people whether they would rather hear about the space shuttle from Tom, who helped design and build and launch it, or Joe Blow, the college junior just studying it, and at least 99 will say, "Tom, of course!" Same truth, no experience versus vast experience, I'll listen to vast experience every time.

I think Liebniz was a deist. We aren't quoting Philosophers as Theologians though...we are only quoting them as Philosophers. You are suggesting that we are deriving our Theology from Philosophy. No one is. A study of Philosophy can only be used to augment what has been revealed of God in the Scripture. It is a tool, and a supplementary one.

I've not read Leibniz, but the sources I've consulted all say he was a pantheist. I'd give some quotes, but then would that be "appealing to authority"?

I'm sure you're not getting your theology from philosophy. I'm still not sure about the other guys.

This is fantastic for you...also it is somewhat meaningless to most of US. We aren't missionaries in the far East. That is why Baptists have sent YOU to them. Do you really expect your compatriots here to be as enthused about Confuscianism as you are? We are most of us incurrably Western. This doesn't bother us either. If we didn't know better, we might think that you were throwing out "red-herrings" If Confuscious has anything to add about a Maximally Great or Most perfect being then, by all means, please add to our understanding.

Once again, my point in mentioning Asian philosophies is to say--someone please give me a definition of what you mean by philosophy! I can't see it as something generic. No one on this whole thread has given a single quote from a single philosopher about a "more perfect" God! No one has given a definition of philosophy.

No, there are not. Not, at least, in the sense that we are using the term.

Then for crying out loud, define it!

Let's not get into any "appeals to authority" shall we

I wasn't debating there. That was self defense from someone apparently so ignorant as to put his faith first.