Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
The Forum - Debate Religion
>
What is a FACT?
date
newest »
newest »
Lee wrote: "Facts require human understanding and agreement? Given the existence of the Flat Earth Society, that means it is not a fact that the earth orbits the sun."Lee, I have never met anyone who actually believes that geographical and cosmological data supports a flat earth. Unless there is actually a member of our group to argue for it, why bring it up? Isn't this one of those points where we have unanimity?
I'm not entirely sure why we're obsessed with facts. A fact is only a fact until it's not. The earth can rotate each day until it's time for morning some spot, and there's the sun. But all it takes is one time that this doesn't happen and there goes the fact that day follows night and civilization with it.
I personally am not so obsessed with fact, it is the point of this thread. And based on the input from everyone, it would seem that there is contention even amongst ostensibly like-minded brothers as to what a 'fact' is. It is evidence supporting my personal belief in the inherent fallacy of the scholastic shift in the majority of Christendom after Constantine's co-opting the Way - and that scholastic shift was purposefully instituted to engender dabate, confusion, and enmity. The experiential wing, as I understand it, moved to the desert and continued with what became a more mystical, and when codified, monastic Christianity. It is this legacy, the desert Mothers and Fathers, that personally interests me the most. And that's a fact.Descartes came close; I think, therefore I am.
Closer still would have been; I am, therefore I think.
And even closer; I am.
Very fine post, Antipodes. I don't think any field can survive debate, confusion, and enmity for long, scholastically or otherwise. The resulting product is key. Christians, of course, know the Word and accept it's Truth, but what will emerge from academia? At present, it is antithetical to a divinity, but history is cyclical. Who knows - your monastic Christianity may yet prevail as the regnant viewpoint and prevailing wisdom.
Antipodes wrote: "I personally am not so obsessed with fact, it is the point of this thread. And based on the input from everyone, it would seem that there is contention even amongst ostensibly like-minded brothers ..."Hello Antipodes,
I am interested in your comment: It is evidence supporting my personal belief in the inherent fallacy of the scholastic shift in the majority of Christendom after Constantine's co-opting the Way - and that scholastic shift was purposefully instituted to engender [debate], confusion, and enmity.
Could you elaborate on this and explain the origin of the fallacy? I have been reading G. K. Chesterton's THE EVERLASTING MAN, and he has argued quite convincingly (to my mind) about the value and importance to Christianity of reason as a complement to personal mystical experience. I'd welcome your thoughts.
I agree, Robert, and all who post contribute to the thread's direction, foci, and ultimate understanding gleaned by each individual. The Apostles and those who joined them were not the learned men of their time and did not obtain nor share the gospel through gathering theological or divinity degrees from an accredited institution, nor, I believe, was that ever the Lord's focus. Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with doing so, in and of itself. Whatever happened to those first believer's (the resurrection, I believe) had such an impact on them that they all had some kind of radical shift in consciousness or worldview, to the extent that they would and did gladly walk to their deaths rather than renounce that worldview. Their belief was experiential, not intellectual. In my understanding the experiential, in the sense we speak here, supersedes but does not preclude the intellectual investigation of reality, provided we do not confuse one for the other, as is entirely too easy to do and would seem to be prevalent in many quarters today.
Peter, I was actually writing my previous post while you posted your question. I think it answers you as well, concerning my personal belief on the difference between experiential and intellectual inquiry and belief. They are not mutually exclusive, and actually I would argue that a valid intellectual pursuit would not disagree substantively with a valid experiential one. But the experiential takes precedence.
I would like to amend my last sentence in my previous post. It should be; But, for the individual, the experiential takes precedence.
One of the books I have recently read, am now rereading, and expect to continue rereading for awhile is Man is not Alone by Abraham Eschel. I cannot recommend it highly enough. I have spent upwards of 10 to 15 minutes reading and rereading single paragraphs, not because they are obtuse, but due to the depth of meaning contained therein.I also highly recommend The Wisdom Jesus by Cynthia Bourgeault and Immortal Diamond by Richard Rohr.
The point of this thread all comes down to how we read the Bible and how we value man's contributions to/against the somewhat clear points made in Genesis.If non-Christians everywhere state that there are FACTS that undo the Word of God do we not seriously and critically attempt to prove the scriptures above all else? Until clearly proven otherwise?
I say that many Christians cower in fear anytime an atheist/Muslim/Pagan uses the scientific declaration of FACT against the Bible.
I, however, DO NOT COWER in fear. I smile and look for lies... Often I easily find them.
Peter, from #52, am I to understand you think of facts as subjective? So because none of us on this board believe in a flat earth, it is therefore a fact? That isn't what Rod was saying at all.Rod, only a fundamentalist nut would cower in fear of science, ha. I'm convinced most Christians have no problem with scientific discovery.
Since the Bible describes a flat earth several places, I loved your rant against fundamentalist Biblical teaching in #49! Hopefully you're ready to take the next step, and drop some of your other fundy biases! Aw, heck, it really isn't important what a fellow Christian believes about that stuff, it's just funny when someone is so vocal against some fundy views (flat earth) and swears by other fundy views (young earth). btw, there are probably as many flat-earth sailors as there are young-earth geologists.
Antipodes wrote: "Whatever happened to those first believer's (the resurrection, I believe) had such an impact on them that they all had some kind of radical shift in consciousness or worldview, to the extent that they would and did gladly walk to their deaths rather than renounce that worldview. "As sort of the self-appointed devil's advocate (gotta keep you guys honest), who exactly are you talking about? Peter? I think he's your only example that has any reasonable historical backing, but there's no reason to think he was a willing martyr. Do you mean Paul? But Paul's understanding of the resurrection was very different from most Christians today, so I wouldn't think you mean him. Maybe you're talking about second- or third-generation Christians?
I have yet to meet these IMAGINARY Fundy Flat Earthers you keep referring to. And I meet religious morons daily...I'll say this one more time: Science is great! Good science is all around us.
Apparently you have a difficulty reading the Bible Lee. Be sure to read the entire paragraphs whenever you come across a flat earth type verse. You might be surprised!This would explain your (very similar) difficulties with assumed contradictions. Be sure to read the WHOLE Bible.
Wait a minute. Are you denying that the Bible describes a flat earth?http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublo...
@Lee - try Acts 7 and 12:1-2 for starters. I would ask you to consider that all an early Christian, and all any present-day Christian need do to prevent martyrdom is to stop being Christian. It's kind of in the definition of the thing, you know? Maybe you could convince them that they were unwilling. Since you are not interested enough in the validity of your own skeptical argument to even bother to research biblical refutations of them, I am not going to take the time to help you with extra-biblical references. I don't believe you are really interested. I'm just saying...
Been there, done that, Antipodes. So you're correct, I'm not really interested in going over the myths again.Do please show me in Acts 12:1-2 where James "gladly went to his death rather than renouncing his world view."
My bad overlooking Stephen, though, I'll give you that one. I somehow had it in my head you were talking about the Twelve.
The Bible describes many things Lee. Be sure to read things properly. Do you know WHY I do not believe in a multi-headed Dragon???
I think I'm reading this verse right, Rod ... let me know if I'm mistaken:In the mouth of the foolish is a Rod of pride: but the lips of the wise shall preserve them.
haha just kidding.
Personally I love looking for stupidity and flaws from both sides of any argument. That's why I chat with you so much LEE.