Exorcism

well, whether you like them or not, they make a good example.....they LIVE it.....its not just something to do, you know?

Indeed...
but so did the Nazis. And Stalin.
Of course, born agains aren't that bad.... but living by something isn't necessarily a good thing

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Oh, man, it's the born agains that I hate.
Faith becomes a problem when it blinds you to everything else. Not that all are like that.

I guess I can respect them... but I won't go any further on this one. Might offend some.

OK I'm offended !

The difference you mention is between living out of conviction or living by rules without experience. (He who has an experience is never at the mercy of he that has an argument).

Once I was blind and now I see!

Thomas was a total unbeliever until he put his fingers in the holes. Years later instead of hiding in shadows he moved on based on his experience.

i didnt say it was....i was just saying that people with faith might be inclined to say that they LIVE by faith, and not by TRUTH


i love philosophy

So... what's the problem, wineanddine?
Thomas was a good man. That's my point. I'd do the same thing (checking the holes).
But I'm not Thomas... and don't believe. I turn to Hume rather than the Bible... which is still a bit risky in this world.
Blind faith, I don't think, helps you see anything--thus, blinding; examined faith does.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricTheViking

i didnt say it was....i was just saying that people with faith might be inclined to say that they LIVE by faith, and not by TRUTH


i love philosophy

So do I... I almost majored in it.

The problem comes, though, when they define Truth by their Faith alone. That's my problem with most modern Christian thinkers... just go into a bookstore and read some of that stuff.
Rather than a logical analysis of faith, or a philosophical reasoning for God, one finds lots of talk on blind belief and solving all problems with a leap of faith.
It's hard to find C.S. Lewis these days...

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

So... what's the problem, wineanddine?
Thomas was a good man. That's my point. I'd do the same thing (checking the holes).
But I'm not Thomas... and don't believe. I turn to Hume rather than the Bible... which is still a bit risky in this world.
Blind faith, I don't think, helps you see anything--thus, blinding; examined faith does.

No problem I did majour in phylosophy, until I discovered one fact.....In philosophy there are no absolutes. No boundaries and no answers, just opinions from someone like me. I was hooked on Satre, and Watchman Nee. When I learned to drive, I wanted some absolutes not opinions. I passed cause I got the facts right. Just like living that way.

Quote:

Originally posted by wineanddine

[reply=Bank]
So... what's the problem, wineanddine?
Thomas was a good man. That's my point. I'd do the same thing (checking the holes).
But I'm not Thomas... and don't believe. I turn to Hume rather than the Bible... which is still a bit risky in this world.
Blind faith, I don't think, helps you see anything--thus, blinding; examined faith does.

No problem I did majour in phylosophy, until I discovered one fact.....In philosophy there are no absolutes. No boundaries and no answers, just opinions from someone like me. I was hooked on Satre, and Watchman Nee. When I learned to drive, I wanted some absolutes not opinions. I passed cause I got the facts right. Just like living that way.
[/reply]
Well, philosophy's built on the ground that there are no absolutes... just man's own interpretations of the world. It doesn't claim to be anything else but guys bitching about stuff. It's why I like it.
When I first started studying it, I loved Satre, Kierkegaard, and the rest.... but latley been brushing up on Hume and whatnot. Makes much more sense than Existentialism...
"If a man has accustomed himself to sceptical considerations on the uncertainty and narrow limits of reason, he will not entirely forget them when he turns his reflection on other subjects".... applicable?

Sure! "The hardest thing to open is a closed mind". Having an open ming is taking the risk that something may drop in it. But Thats where truth becomes grey rather than black or white. In the case of someone going in to life threatening surgery, what they dont want is someone who philosophises what could and couldnt be the right procedure. Science is based on precision and fact. And thankfully there are people who are in the relentless persuit of this. I love the freedom to philosophies my beliefs, but where I need absolutes, I dont engage a philosopher

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

Kierkegaard, and the rest.... but latley been brushing up on Hume and whatnot. Makes much more sense than Existentialism...
"If a man has accustomed himself to sceptical considerations on the uncertainty and narrow limits of reason, he will not entirely forget them when he turns his reflection on other subjects".... applicable?

norwegian philosophers

Danish...


He had some pretty interesting ideas, too.

REALLY? i coulda sworn norwegian.....

meh....it still makes me

Quote:

Originally posted by Suckrates

Danish...


He had some pretty interesting ideas, too.

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard
(1813-1855)
Born and educated in Copenhagen

Quote:

Originally posted by EricTheViking

REALLY? i coulda sworn norwegian.....

meh....it still makes me

Kierkegaard's influence on twentieth-century thought has been rich and varied. Most obviously, existentialist thinkers like Jaspers and Heidegger drew extensively on his analysis of despair and freedom. Although he directly addressed few of the social concerns that most interested his contemporary, Karl Marx, Kierkegaard has received ample attention from more recent Marxists, including Marcuse and Lukacs. Philosophers from Adorno to Wittgenstein have expressed great respect for the Danish master's thought.

Quote:

Originally posted by wineanddine

Sure! "The hardest thing to open is a closed mind". Having an open ming is taking the risk that something may drop in it. But Thats where truth becomes grey rather than black or white. In the case of someone going in to life threatening surgery, what they dont want is someone who philosophises what could and couldnt be the right procedure. Science is based on precision and fact. And thankfully there are people who are in the relentless persuit of this. I love the freedom to philosophies my beliefs, but where I need absolutes, I dont engage a philosopher

Well, yes, I wouldn't go to a philosopher for medical advice. Unless he was a doctor as well.
However, regarding the questions which we are discussing (faith, truth, God, etc) there is no such thing as precision or fact. Mostly, a matter of opinion. Some claim to deal with precision and fact in this realm; philosophers don't. It's why I respect Kant more than, say, Billy Graham.
In theological matters, there are no absolutes... only proposed ideas you make true to yourself alone by your own faith. No one is 'shown the light'... despite what they may say... it's a step they take alone.

And, yeah, Kierkergaard was from Copenhagen.

[In theological matters, there are no absolutes... only proposed ideas you make true to yourself alone by your own faith. No one is 'shown the light'... despite what they may say... it's a step they take alone.

And, yeah, Kierkergaard was from Copenhagen.
[/reply]

Actually, that is not the case in Theology. Theology is all about the "logos" or written word, as opposed to "rhema" the spoken word. Theologians only compare the word objectively against itself. Theologians dont neccesarily have or operate faith. "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God" However to live by it without faith is called rleigion (form and tradition).

Reading the word without adding ones faith to it, is as you say "the believers personal experience", but Theology alone does not make for a believer.

Heb 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. {[2] Many manuscripts because they did not share in the faith of those who obeyed}

My personal observation is, many individuals would approach theology as if it were a book. It is a collection of testimonies relating to real people's lives, histories and moral and civil codes, and is no less relevent in history as are books on the medo persian empire (none of us has personal experience of this age, but treat the history of it as a fact) or philosophy or creational theory.

“Man is a credulous animal, and must believe something; in the absence of good grounds for belief, he will be satisfied with bad ones” — Bertrand Russell

bank that is the longest post i have ever seen here.

You are right in saying that this is what Theology is supposed to be.....
I should have clarified.
Reading Lewis or even Kant (who, in many regards, was a Theologan opposed to a philosopher), rings true of what you write. With only two ideas-- Kant's Second Catagorical Imperitive and Lewis' thought that Christ was either insane, or truthful, but nothing in between-- the modern Christian intellectual movement (in my opinion) was shaped. What is the first image brought to my mind when thinking of modern theology? Rick Warren, the Da Vinci Code, Left Behind, and other nonesense (the second one is taken as fact by some!). They have nothing to do with theology.
So, the question of beleliving in God should be inserted when I put Theological matters.
I have qualms with you saying that those religion is defined as 'people without faith'. You're correct, somewhat..... but it's a bit like saying all black people steal.

And as for Bertrand Russell... I fucking hated logic. But, in regards to the quote in the context of our discussion, I agree. The question, is, of course, where does that good come from?


And one final thing.... fuck Marx. The guy could have at least been interesting..... you need a fucking chainsaw to get through the bullshit. Give me Locke or give me death. Or, better yet, Nozick.

ah loki what's going on.

not much. holy shit every reply in this thread is a jeff post. wtf did you start here?